Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘energy efficiency’

“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For reasons known only to them, National repealed the sales obligation as soon as it took office and replaced it with a subsidy scheme for biodiesel.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.


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.


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?


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…


Are you a nimby, a yimfy or a banana?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 7th, 2010

The latest Listener has a timely article about electricity generation. In it they quote Massey’s Ralph Sims who argues there are three types of response to the electricity generation challenge, the nimbys (not in my backyard), the yimfys (yes in my front yard) and the bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). Which are you?

Over the next few weeks the electricity generation challenge is going to get quite a bit of air time in Parliament. Next Wednesday my private members’ bill will be read for a first time. It would prevent electricity generators building new generation plants that use non-renewable energy sources like gas and coal, unless they were essential for security of supply. And soon Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill will be reported back from select committee.

There is no doubt working out how to deliver enough electricity to meet future demand is a major challenge. The Listener quotes Institute of Professional Engineers projections that show our electricity demand will grow from 42,000 GWh in 2009 (itself a 7% growth on 2002 figures) to 55,000 GWh in 2025. That’s a lot of new power plants. Or is it?

Over the next few days I’m going to do a series of posts canvassing alternatives to building a bunch of extra gas-fired power plants. First, we can do a lot more to increase energy efficiency, including a heap of stuff that will give consumers more control over how much power they produce. Second, we can spread new generation more evenly through a lot more localised production. Third, we can promote renewable generation much more than we have in recent decades.

I firmly believe New Zealand can be a world leader in this area. We used to produce a much greater proportion of our electricity from renewable sources. In the last 25 years or so we’ve allowed the non-renewables sector to absorb most of the growth. That has to change. We can show the world what a truly sustainable approach to electricity generation (and consumption) can look like.


Help with home insulation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 10th, 2010

I’ve been a pretty vocal critic of aspects of the National government’s home insulation programme, but I’m willing to give credit where it is due. The Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) have announced a new scheme that lets people spread their share of home insulation costs over 9 years as part of their rates. If the home owner sells up, the next owner picks up the extra rates bill. This is a good idea.

Under the government’s current deal, someone can get up to a third of the cost of home insulation paid for through a subsidy but they have to stump up the other two thirds (those on lower incomes can get up to 60% subsidy). If the GWRC scheme helps people to cover their part of the cost then that’s good.

I think there are huge benefits in having kiwi homes properly insulated. My critiscism of the Nats scheme isn’t because I think the goal is a bad one. I’m concerned they’ve cut too many corners and are jeopardising quality and fairness. There is more capacity in the market to insulate more homes, but because of the way the government have set up the existing scheme people are missing out unnecessarily, are getting a sub-standard job, or they’re missing out on the full value of the subsidy. If they fix those problems up, then the scheme would be well worth backing.


The shoddy home insulation scheme

Posted by Chris Hipkins on October 17th, 2009

In recent weeks I’ve been getting a constant stream of complaints about how shoddy the government’s Warm Up NZ home insulation scheme is becoming. To be clear from the outset, the Labour Party has been campaigning for better home insulation all year and we’d committed to a $1b investment before the last election. But it has to be done properly and all evidence suggests the National government are cutting corners.

One of the most common complaints I’ve been getting has centred on changes the Nat govt have made to the standards insulation providers have to meet to get the subsidy. For example, before October homes that had been previously fitted with foil insulation under the floor were having it replaced with cavity insulation (eg. polystyrene). The Nats have changed that so that now the foil will just be repaired, despite the fact that studies have shown foil to be a lot less effective.

Seems a waste to put heat pumps into homes that will lose a lot of that extra heat because they are poorly insulated (not to mention the huge power bills that could be racked up).

I’ve also had a lot of complaints from insulation and heating providers who have had their contracts abruptly ended. In some cases these firms had scaled up their business to meet increased demand, investing in capital and more staff, only to find the funding tap suddenly turned off. If they were getting the subsidy before the govt’s big push to warm up kiwi homes, why are they left out in the cold now?

I challenged Gerry Brownlee on some of this in the House this week. His response, as usual, was to attack me and deny everything. Gerry ‘Details Man’ Brownlee clearly has no idea what is going on in his own portfolio. It’s such a shame. What a waste to be insulating all these houses poorly rather than doing it right the first time.


Gerry’s Energy Spot Campaign

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 24th, 2009

I just attended the launch of a high profile campaign to help New Zealanders increase the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses. The new prime time campaign, called The Energy Spot, will screen three nights a week on four TV channels as well as at 13 random times throughout the week. The campaign is costing $4million to run over the next 12 months.

Here are a few details from Gerry Brownlee’s media release:

“The Energy Spot will cover a range of topics of interest to households and businesses, from insulating houses to efficient driving choices, renewable energy options, building design and more.

“This new campaign will give large numbers of people clear, practical information to help them make the most of the energy they use both at home and at work.

I actually support the idea that the government has a role to play in providing New Zealanders with information and practical advice on ways to reduce their energy use. However I can’t help but think that if this campaign had been launched 12 months ago it would have been greeted with howls of ‘nanny state’ and ‘telling us how to live our lives’ by the then National opposition. I can just hear Allan Peachy rallying against this ‘socialism by stealth’.

In the past few months I’ve come to the realisation that the National Party is actually a bit of a fan of the nanny state. They want to tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to do in their own cars, they’re telling everyone to stomach cuts they aren’t willing to make for themselves, and now we have this. Seems it’s not the idea of the nanny state that National was opposed to, just the idea that they weren’t doing the nannying.