Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

Renewable energy – we can do better

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 31st, 2011

Yesterday the National government released their much anticipated Energy Strategy. The first draft that was released for consultation was pretty poor, and the final version is even worse.

While they claim they are still committed to the goal of having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources, most of their actual plan heads in the other direction.

We have an abundance of renewable energy sources in New Zealand. We could be world leaders in renewable energy. Instead the National government want to focus on extracting more fossil fuels like gas and oil.

It’s a short-sighted approach that does nothing to insulate us from the inevitable price increases that are on the way, not to mention the damage it will do to our environment.

National trumpets the fact that the amount of electricity we’ve generated in the last few years from renewable sources has increased, never mind the fact that it’s rained quite a bit. What happens when we get another dry year? We need more wind, more solar, more local generation, and more of a focus on energy efficiency.

It’s great that the National government have at least said they agree with the 90% renewable target put in place under the last Labour government, but we need to do a lot better if we’re going to meet it.


Let’s stay nuclear free

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 13th, 2011

From the “other” Red Alert:-

A March 12 explosion at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown.

The key piece of technology in a nuclear reactor is the control rods. Nuclear fuel generates neutrons; controlling the flow and production rate of these neutrons is what generates heat, and from the heat, electricity. Control rods absorb neutrons — the rods slide in and out of the fuel mass to regulate neutron emission, and with it, heat and electricity generation.

A meltdown occurs when the control rods fail to contain the neutron emission and the heat levels inside the reactor thus rise to a point that the fuel itself melts, generally temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing uncontrolled radiation-
(more…)


If the lights go out, blame Gerry

Posted by Chris Hipkins on January 13th, 2011

If New Zealanders are asked over the next few years to reduce power use or face blackouts, the responsibility will fall squarely on Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee. Just days before Christmas, while everyone was distracted by other things, he announced that the Whirinaki power plant will be sold and the reserve energy scheme put in place by the previous government will be abolished.

In other words, if we have a dry winter and the hydro lake levels fall too low, there won’t be a back up generator. Brownlee is placing his blind faith in the market, just as Max Bradford did before him. The market failed to deliver in the past, there is no reason to think it will behave any differently in the future.

An effectively functioning market will match supply and demand as closely as possible. That works OK when everything is operating normally, but it doesn’t leave much in the way of a ‘reserve’ should unforseen events happen, such as a dry winter. It wouldn’t make economic sense, what commercial operator looking for a profit would invest in a reserve generator that would only be needed in exceptional circumstances? That’s why the last government put a back-up system in place.

The announcement that the Whirinaki plant will be sold also amounts to another broken promise from the National government. Before the election they promised Kiwis they wouldn’t sell any state assets during their first term, yet now they’re putting a multi-million dollar power plant on the auction block.

National’s decision to sell Whirinaki and abolish the reserve energy scheme is short-sighted and foolish. It’s ordinary kiwis who will pay the price if things go wrong. If we have a dry winter and electricity generation can’t meet demand, prices will sky rocket.


Key wants to turn Northland rail into trail

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 20th, 2010

Later this week Kiwirail are likely to begin consultation on the closure of rail in the far north on behalf of the government.

I’ve got an opinion on this question which is not that popular with friends on both the right and left.

I think the rail link to Marsden Point should be completed. It is probably the key to a decent integrated transport system for New Zealand.

Marsden Point is the best port in the country. Deep water, natural and because it is so far north it saves sailing time for the massive ships that will be servicing NZ in the future.

The road industry hate the idea. Port of Auckland’s owner not impressed. Auckland colleagues don’t agree.

But worth talking about before the options are narrowed.


Government to push power prices up again ?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 19th, 2010

 

Interesting little press statement on Friday.

Genesis Power Limited, trading as Genesis Energy, is considering making an offer of up to $300 million unsecured, subordinated Capital Bonds to the New Zealand public.

The proceeds of the offer are intended to be used as part of the funding for the acquisition of the Tekapo power stations.

Whether it pushes prices up will depend on what happens to the cash that Meridian gets. If it is used to pay down their debt then it is all neutral and will make no difference to prices.

If Bill English is successful in his attempt to withdraw capital from Meridian then the overall indebtedness of the companies will increase and power prices will go up to cover the increase in interest costs.

We will be watching.


Do you waste food?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on October 5th, 2010

I was interested in a small story that came through on email yesterday regarding the potential for saving energy simply by not wasting food. The American Chemical Society estimates that the US alone could save the energy equivalent of 35o million barrels of oil per year without spending a penny, or reducing quality of life, just by not wasting food.

It takes the equivalent of about 1.4 billion barrels of oil to produce, package, prepare, preserve and distribute a year’s worth of food in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that people in the U.S. waste about 27 percent of their food. That’s a huge potential energy saving.

Percentage of Various Foods Wasted in the U.S.
Fats and oils 33%
Dairy 32%
Grains 32%
Eggs 31%
Sugar and other caloric sweeteners 31%
Vegetables 25%
Fruit 23%
Meat, poultry, fish 16%
Dry beans, peas, lentils 16%
Tree nuts and peanuts 16%

I wonder how New Zealand would compare? I have to confess that I’m a bit of a food waster. Veges often end up in the compost bin because they go bad before I get to them. I also have to admit that despite my best intentions, I’m pretty shocking when it comes to eating leftovers! I always cook too much and quite a bit of it ends up in the bin.

So how can we reduce the amount of food that we waste? For starters we could get the supermarkets to sell vegetables that don’t go off within 3 days of purchase…


“Kickstarting” the biofuels industry

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 29th, 2010

Yesterday Pansy Wong put out a press statement lauding the National government’s move to “kickstart New Zealand’s fledgling biodiesel industry”. Coincidentally, I’ve been visiting biofuel companies over the past few weeks and they’ve been telling me that the policies of the current National government are doing the opposite – they feel like the rug is being pulled from under them.

Before the last election the Labour government put in place a biofuels sales obligation. It would have required fuel retailers to mix a small amount of biofuels into their blends, thus guaranteeing a market for biofuel producers and ensuring the development of the fledgling industry, whilst at the same time also reducing our carbon emissions from transport.

For reasons known only to them, National repealed the sales obligation as soon as it took office and replaced it with a subsidy scheme for biodiesel. It was an odd move for a government that claims it wants to cut government spending – the sales obligation wouldn’t have cost the government anything, it would have put the cost back onto the oil industry, unlike their subsidy.

Biofuel producers I’ve spoken to have all said the same thing, as soon as the sales obligation was removed the oil companies walked away.Their slick marketing may try to convince us they care about sustainability and the environment, but in reality the mighty dollar rules.

The biofuel sales obligation wasn’t perfect, and I think companion legislation ensuring the sustainability of the feedstock (the material the biofuels are made from) was also needed. But recent history has shown that left to its own devices without any sort of government regulation, the oil industry has no intention of supporting biofuels. Gerry Brownlee’s biodiesel grants scheme has been a flop. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.


Electricity Industry Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 24th, 2010

Yesterday the National/ACT government pushed through the Electricity Industry Bill. It will do nothing to deal with rising power prices, fails to address issues around sustainability, and despite the rhetoric, doesn’t increase the security of supply. The evidential base for many of the changes the Bill imposes simply isn’t there.

The Treasury, the Ministry for Economic Development, and the Institute of Professional Engineers all raised concerns about the SOE ‘asset swap’ that will see the Tekapo A and B generators switched for Meridian to Genesis, thus breaking up the Waitaki hydro system. Treasury argued that the government hadn’t put together a business case to justify the swap, yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Given these are multi-million dollar state assets we’re talking about, that’s pretty concerning.

The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that splitting up the Waitaki hydro system could lead to water being used less efficiently given the competing generators would be encouraged to maximise their market position. They argued that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that the benefits of the (small) increase in competition the swap is designed to create will outweigh the risks.

The government has also dodged some of the real issues. National claims to be committed to the goal of having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025, but they’re doing nothing to achieve that. It’s just more hollow rhetoric. In fact, Gerry Brownlee’s obsession with mining and mineral prospecting suggests they actually want to see less of a focus on renewables.

Then of course we come back to the biggie – power prices. Brownlee’s advice to those concerned about the increased cost of electricity is to switch companies. Does he really expect everyone to jot down their meter reading everyday and work out which company they should switch to? Perhaps if they set a common standard for smart electricity meters that might help consumers keep track of their electricity use and make it easier to switch, but they’re not even willing to do that.

The Electricity Industry Bill fails to address the big issues. It’s another case of National reverting to their 1990s ‘the market knows best’ mantra. Not surprising, therefore, that the loudest interjector in the House during the Third Reading of the Bill was Maurice Williamson. It was Williamson and Max Bradford who hacked up and partially privatised the electricity network in the first place, promising us that competition would lead to lower power prices – how did that work out in the end?


Innovation in Alicetown

Posted by Trevor Mallard on September 1st, 2010

David Shearer is encouraging Labour MPs to focus on innovative businesses.

Dazza and I went to see a Green Diesel group in Alicetown. Great business with  chance of making it big. Good experience in international oil. Into recyling.

Most important is the ability to massively reduce pollution from diesel – and to use their fascinating testing system to prove the results.

The first bus company or owner of service station chain that gets into this will win big.


Silly idea number 9 – what do you think?

Posted by Pete Hodgson on August 25th, 2010

Remove the biofuels sale obligation on oil companies on the basis that it is nanny state!! At a stroke, destroy investor confidence among biofuel producers.

Rush to repair the damage by offering biofuel producers a fat taxpayer funded subsidy. Producers decline to uplift the subsidy, of course, because (competitively priced) biofuels are just too much bother for oil companies now that the legal obligation on them has been removed.

I think this idea is –

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Gerry built scheme

Posted by Brendon Burns on August 3rd, 2010

A good journo has exposed the Emperor being without clothes.  The Press today carried a story in which Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee is unable to rule out power prices increasing as a result of his daft idea  to split the Waikati River power generation system from Meredian ownership and give Tekapo A and B power stations to SOE competitor, Genesis. Reducing power price rise pressures was a core purpose of the bill Gerry steered through with opposition from Treasury and many in the power industry.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3983417/Power-price-rise-not-ruled-out-in-compulsory-asset-transfer

Filed under: Energy

Poll on electricity generation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 2nd, 2010

Which of the following statements best reflects your view on electricity generation in New Zealand?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Energy from waste

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 26th, 2010

I’ve posted several times about the fledgling New Zealand biofuels industry and how I think the current National government have pulled the rug out from under it. In comments people have often raised concern about the potential for biofuels to create other problems such as food shortages. That’s one of the reasons I’m so keen to see a lot more biofuel development that uses waste product as its feedstock.

But the use of waste to produce energy isn’t limited to biofuels. The Dominion Post had an interesting little story today on its Small Business page about Peter Yealands from Yealands Estate. He’s going to be using prunings from his vineyard to provide energy. This will save 22,000 tonnes of LPG and $80,000 during the vintage. EECA has backed the project with a 40 percent ($200k) subsidy.

The prunings will be burned in two boilers with modified doors that are being imported from the US. They burn clean, releasing no smoke and leaving only about 10kg of ash at the end of each bale. That ash will be mixed with mulch made from the rest of the prunings and put back on the land (only about 10% of the prunings will be burned).

This is the kind of energy innovation we should be encouraging a lot more of. Good to see EECA getting behind it. The question now should be – how do we get more of it?


Not a strategy or a plan

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 25th, 2010

On Thursday Gerry Brownlee finally released his over-promised revised New Zealand Energy Strategy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Basically he’s taken two heavyweight strategies put in place by the previous Labour government, both of which were well-informed by evidence and soundly argued, and replaced them with a single, lightweight missive that’s full of contradictions.

Brownlee’s revised strategy places a lot of emphasis on extracting more non-renewables such as coal and gas, whilst at the same time committing to Labour’s goal of 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025. In the case of gas, explorers will be looking for a viable domestic market before they go drilling wells, the most likely being gas-fired power plants. How that squares with a target for greater renewable electricity is a mystery to everyone but Mr Brownlee.

Questioned on the lightweight nature of the new document, Brownlee argues detailed plans become ‘quickly out of date’. I guess that’s a telling commentary on the National government’s modus operandi. I wonder whether the draft strategy had to be re-printed at the last minute to accommodate National’s humiliating about-face on mining in National Parks?

After reading through the new draft my question for Gerry Brownlee is pretty simple: Where’s the plan? Aspirational goals are all very well (and the plan is light even on those) but if you have no idea how you’re going to achieve them they’re pretty meaningless.


A future for biofuels?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 24th, 2010

In the House on Thursday I questioned Gerry Brownlee on his disastrous Biodiesel Grants Scheme. Only about $230,000 of the $36 million set aside for the scheme has been taken up. Five companies have signed up, but no new companies have joined since July last year. It’s a long way short of Brownlee’s promise to create 240 new jobs and ensure that biofuels play a big part in our ‘energy mix’ of the future.

Brownlee chose to blame the industry for the scheme’s lack of success, despite the fact that he was warned from the very beginning it wouldn’t work. One of his first actions as Minister was to remove the biofuel sales obligation that was put in place by the previous Labour government. That would have generated sufficient demand for the biofuels industry to develop sustainably without the need for government subsidies.

Brownlee’s approach as Minister appears to be to ignore all the evidence about what actually works, only listen to the advice of those he agrees with, and then find someone else to blame when things go wrong. But I guess that’s what we should expect from the guy who thinks New Zealand’s future prosperity depends on digging up our National Parks and exporting them.


A bit of a stretch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 17th, 2010

I sat through all of the hearings on Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill. A lot of submitters questioned his plan to take Tekapo A and B power stations off Meridian Energy and give them to Genesis Energy (both state-owned SOEs). The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that it could lead to less efficient use of water as competing generators tried to maximise their competitive positions against each other. The Treasury argued in a written submission to the Minister that there wasn’t a robust business case / analysis. Unfortunately the National MPs chose to block Treasury from appearing before the Select Committee to explain their concerns.

This morning Gerry Brownlee appeared before the Commerce Select Committee to discuss the estimates for Vote Energy. I took the opportunity to ask him what his basis was for concluding that the asset swap was a good idea. He claimed that because there had been several dry years in the past decade there was evidence that Meridian hadn’t been managing the Waitaki water catchment efficiently. Basically he tried to blame the lack of rain in the South Island on Meridian. I know they are the biggest generator, but I don’t think their market power extends to controlling the weather.

State Owned Enterprises aren’t toys. They’re multi-million dollar enterprises. Any changes the government makes need to be based on robust business cases and rigorous analysis. Gerry Brownlee hasn’t done that. Former National Party Minister Max Bradford made a real hash of his power sector reforms of the 1990s – which led to huge increases in prices. Sadly for price-wary Kiwis, Gerry Brownlee and National appear to have learned nothing from their past mistakes.


Don’t drill here

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 12th, 2010

As the world watches helplessly as BP furiously tries to stop oil gushing uncontrollably into the Gulf of Mexico it’s somewhat staggering to think that our government’s response is to wave their hands furiously in the air yelling “come and drill over here”.

It would only take one thing to go wrong, one disaster like the one they are facing right now in the Gulf, and the entire New Zealand economy would go down the drain. Tourism would be dead. Aquaculture and fisheries down the gurgler. Our agricultural and horticultural industries would struggle as our “100% pure” brand disappeared beneath the oil slick enveloping our coastline.

This week US President Barack Obama reversed a planned expansion of offshore drilling stating he’d been wrong to think oil companies knew how to deal with a catastrophic spill. “It just takes one to have a wake-up call” he was quoted as saying. Apparently not if you’re Gerry Brownlee…


Forget power plants, generate your own

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 10th, 2010

A few weeks ago I had a fascinating conversation with a local entrepreneur who visited me in my electorate office. He claims to have designed a ‘silent’ horizontal wind turbine that could be scaled in size to produce enough power for an individual household or a high-rise office block. It’s still early days, but having seen it in action and having seen some of the early reports, it’s certainly exciting stuff.

At the moment our electricity almost exclusively comes into our homes through hundreds of kilometres of cables, which in turn are connected to massive power plants, a number of which are in the South Island despite most of the demand being in the North. Imagine how fundamentally different the electricity market would be if we could generate our own electricity on a local scale and feed back any surplus we generated into the grid?

The technology is basically already there. The economics don’t quite add up in some cases yet and the market certainly isn’t ready for it. But it’s going to be the way of the future. The government of today should be asking how it can promote more localised generation. A good starting point would be a robust feed-in tariff (FIT) regime, allowing individual households to essentially sell any surplus they generate back into the system.

We then need to look at how we can encourage up-take. We’re providing incentives on the efficiency side through home insulation and heat pump subsidies, what more could we do to encourage greater uptake of solar panels and local wind turbines? I think these are far more important questions to ask than how can we get more gas out of the ground and turn it into electricity?


Aspiration needs more than lip service

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 9th, 2010

Gerry Brownlee is quoted in this week’s Listener saying that the government remains committed to an ‘aspirational goal’ of having 90% of New Zealand’s electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025. He states “What people don’t get is that this is a 15-year target and why would you be anything other than aspirational if you’re looking out 15 years?”

Unfortunately, this approach has become quite typical within the National government. Their approach seems to be: Identify a goal you think most people will agree with and then adopt an ‘aspirational’ target to be met at some very distant point in the future, by which time you’ll be long gone and nobody will be able to hold you to account for it. Then just continue on as you were before, or in Brownlee’s case, push policies that actually go in the other direction.

It’s hard to square Brownlee’s commitment to renewable energy with his passion for hydrocarbons. He seems to have made it his personal mission to find every ounce of coal, gas and oil in and around New Zealand and ensure that it’s extracted. In the case of gas at least, which is difficult to transport, that becomes economically more attractive to explorers when they know they have a growing domestic market – in other words, more gas-fired power plants.

I agree that we should be aiming for at least 90% of our electricity to come from renewable sources, but I think we need to do more than mumble ‘aspirational’ platitudes. My Electricity (Renewable Preference) Bill would prevent further non-renewable power plants unless they were essential for security of supply. That’s a firm step in the right direction. The next step is to look at how we promote the up-take of renewable, particularly on a more localised, smaller scale.


The energy efficiency challenge

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 8th, 2010

Do you really pay that much attention to how much electricity you are using at any point in time? I suspect most Kiwis think about their electricity use once a month – when the bill arrives! These days our electricity meters are tucked away discretely somewhere outside our homes. We don’t pay all that much attention to how much electricity we’re using, or when we are using it.

In the next few years technology is likely to change all of that. Smart meters and web-based technology is likely to give us much greater information, and through it much greater control, over our electricity use. We’ll be able to monitor the impact each additional appliance has on our power bill. We’ll also be able to spread our electricity demand, allowing us to save money by using cheaper electricity in times of lower demand. The retail pricing model will have to change for this to happen because at the moment we’re charged the same unit price for our electricity regardless of when we use it. That may be simple, but it doesn’t incentivise more even usage throughout the day.

Smart meters and smart appliances will also allow us to use less or cheaper electricity without even having to think about it. Our hot water cylinder and our deep freeze will be able to switch themselves on and off depending on other demands within the household and external factors such as price. I particularly liked the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright’s recent comment that we’ll soon be able to drive our electric cars home, plug them in, drain the remaining electricity they have in order to cook our dinner and heat our homes during ‘peak’ times, and then charge them up again off-peak when power could be cheaper.

Maximising the use of this kind of technology is going to require industry standards for two-way communication between consumers and the big power companies, something the current government are reluctant to impose. They argue it’s too early to regulate because we don’t know what the dominant technology will be. On the other hand, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation; appliance manufacturers won’t produce smart appliances until they know what the smart grid is going to look like.

To be fair to the government, they aren’t doing nothing to promote more efficient electricity use. While I have some concerns about the way it has been rushed, I do give the current government credit for the huge increase in the number of homes that are being properly insulated. Warmer, drier homes are more able to minimise unnecessary electricity use. Similarly, if they’re used effectively on timers, heat pumps can also lower power bills, so the government subsidies in this area are also welcome.

We need to change our mindset from thinking about how we can build more power stations to thinking about how we can use our existing electricity supply more efficiently and how we can encourage more localised electricity production. More on the latter shortly…