sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

NZ Super Fund says it plans a development that would power over 650,000 homes and be much the biggest of its type in the country

Business / news
NZ Super Fund says it plans a development that would power over 650,000 homes and be much the biggest of its type in the country
windfarm1

The fund charged with helping out with our future pension requirements is teaming with a large Danish renewable energy infrastructure firm to look at creating a massive wind energy development offshore in the South Taranaki Bight.

NZ Super Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) have formed a jointly held company to manage the feasibility study and development of the project. The feasibility work is expected to take about 24 months.

Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods has said that Government would begin work on a new regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy in 2022.

A jointly issued statement from NZ Super/CIP said that subject to feasibility, an initial planned 1GW development would be created.

This would represent over 11% of New Zealand’s current electricity demand capacity and could power over 650,000 homes.

"The partners believe the project could later expand to 2GW, helping to meet strong projected growth in demand for electricity in New Zealand," the statement said.

As some means of comparison, Mercury's Turitea wind development near Palmerston North is slated to be the biggest in the country when finished - at 222MW. So, any NZ Super/CIP development would dwarf this.

CIP and NZ Super Fund are said to be in the early stages of project feasibility evaluation, which includes wind resource measurement, designing detailed environmental impact assessments with the support of local communities and experts, and examining industry potential and training needs for the Taranaki region.

"The partners will also focus on measures to ensure any project can coexist with other uses of the marine area," the statement says.

Should the project proceed, and subject to relevant regulatory approvals, CIP and NZ Super Fund could deliver power by the end of the decade, making a significant contribution to New Zealand’s ambitions for 100% renewable energy by 2030, the statement says.

There's no potential costings given of the project. 

NZ Super Fund chief executive Matt Whineray says offshore wind energy has the potential to be an attractive commercial opportunity "that aligns with the NZ Super Fund’s climate change investment strategy and focus on sustainable finance, as well as its desire to invest in large-scale New Zealand infrastructure".

“We are in the unique position of being able to attract best-in-class global partners on infrastructure developments that create positive environmental and social outcomes while delivering financial returns for New Zealanders through the Fund. We are delighted to be working with CIP, a global leader in green energy transition.

"The climate crisis is driving a global shift in how countries produce energy. We are focused on opportunities that allow us to apply our long-term investment capital to support this shift and the Fund’s own public commitment to being net zero by 2050.  While this proposal is still at a very early, exploratory stage, we are confident it could help New Zealand’s transition away from fossil fuels and towards home-grown clean energy."

CIP has about NZ$25 billion of current assets under management. It is the global leader in greenfield renewable energy and offshore wind including approximately 30GW of offshore wind projects under development, construction and operation across North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania. CIP’s investment in the South Taranaki project is part of a broader project development pipeline for CIP’s upcoming flagship fund ‘CI V’.

This project will be CIP’s first investment in this country and follows the Super Fund’s NZ$208 million commitment to CIP’s new Energy Transition Fund (CI ETF I) last year.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

59 Comments

Excellent move just what nz needs, hopefully an experienced partner can steer this to a successful conclusion,  I just hope nz beauracracy doesn't kill it .

Up
8

No way Cindy and Co. sits this one out. So much potential here to take credit and grab greenie votes. Time to dust off those hard hats!

Up
2

Time to dust off those hard hats!

Life jackets?

Up
1

This is great news and very exciting.

The main issue will be ensuring we have enough reserve frequency generation on land so this investment could not be made unless there were collaborative investments in storage or other on-demand generation on land.

Really good to see our retirement savings being used to invest in the future of this country.

Up
2

Maybe the government could get onboard directly and create a 3-powers committee with the appropriate board level structure.

Up
5

Ran by Iwi?  The only Obi-wan factor here is that it is a NZ Super project, not only are they our only hope but I suspect if our Frowner in chief stumbles on board they could use the old Jedi Mind trick "these are not the real projects you are looking for..."

Up
1

Great news for nz consumers. 

Regarding reserve frequency generation JAO our current large hydro fleet with fast instantaneous reserves and frequency keeping should be able to manage this no problem.  Wind is the perfect mix for our hydro portfolio.  Water in lakes are the best storage system you can have

Up
3

Good point, we are lucky to have that resource for sure. 

However one thing to keep in mind is that on a dry year in the middle of winter we still need Huntly for frequency support, don't forget that frequency is affected by grid draw not just rotating mass.

The size of the Grid is set to double over the next 20 years or so, the existing luxury of an out-sized hydro capability will become less impactful given the additional draw from transport and process heat.  We won't be building new hyro so that increased capacity will be that much more variable green tech.

Up
2

This is a great project. How can we make it go faster?

It needs to be paired with a nice big battery. 

Up
6

The best place for that big battery is already there, at the aluminium smelter

Up
0

Why would you put it there? Send the power down south to charge the battery, only to send it back up north where most of the demand is? The smelter is already well served by the hydro down south.

Batteries should be close to load centres for efficiency, may as well have transmission losses before storing the power so the battery has higher effective capacity.

Up
4

Suspect they meant a green hydrogen facility...

Up
0

People are still harping on about green hydrogen? Really inefficient solution that's unlikely to happen without huge subsidies unless we end up with a massive surplus of generation that seems unlikely.

Up
5

Definitely unlikely without a restructure of the electricity market. The whole point of the investment is to make money, which means they won't build it if it doesn't earn. I'm not liking all the "must run" generation being built - it will cause huge spikes in power prices as the demand generators look to recover their ROI from plants that aren't getting run as often.

Up
0

Even if the price of C increases to $200/t?

Up
1

the high capacity lines already exist, there is ample industrial space at low cost becoming available in the same timeframe, and new storage technologies coming available

https://newatlas.com/energy/molten-salt-battery-grid-scale-storage-low-…

 

 

Up
1

There's really no way the bottom of the SI is a sensible spot for a battery. There's already too much generation down there. There are HVDC inter-island transmission constraints. And the transmission losses. 

Up
2
Up
0

I agree, it's plenty windy there, relatively shallow, and reasonably close to load centres. Hopefully being offshore means it won't get as bogged down in resource consent delays like the ones on land. It should reduce the reliance on Huntly, but I imagine we will still need it as a backup for when the wind's not blowing unless we can get a nice big battery in place.

Up
3

Very seldom is there no wind in coastal Sth Taranaki.

Up
0

Morepork. Our comprehensive hydro schemes provide all the storage we need.  I see no need for batteries in the nz grid personal.  Between wind, geothermal future development, smart grids etc our electricity security is safe.

 

Large scale projects of this size are a great news for energy security and prices 

 

Up
0

They provide very useful storage and buffering for intermittent supply in the short term, but not enough for long term storage to cope with a dry year like we had in 2021. Batteries probably wouldn't fix this either, of course. Currently our dry year backup is a big stack of coal at Huntly, Lake Onslow might be a more elegant solution which would dramatically increase our storage. 

Up
0

Yeah be nice if they could speed up Lake Onslow.

Up
1

Major new generation in the NI + big battery in the SI would almost certainly mean we need a major HVDC (inter-island) upgrade. Might be worth doing, but it's not a minor thing. 

Up
0

We could let the surplus energy go to a big Bitcoin mine on the Taranaki coast. Then use the profits to fund more renewable energy projects.

Up
0

Or, we could do something useful. 

Up
2

Haha I thought you might say that. It's worth having a look at. Looks like Bitcoin is here to stay and there are a lot of similar innovative projects happening worldwide where mining Bitcoin can drive construction of renewable energy projects that are distanced from their consumers.

Up
0

No lack of wind down there...great news let's get going before the oil crowd start coming up with negatives 

Up
1

Make New Plymouth the Houston of wind power engineering. Oh that title has already been taken?

Oh, I know - the Aarhus of the Southern Hemisphere.

Up
1

What happens when the wind doesn't blow? It's going to need a very, very, very big backup battery.

Up
2

Lake Taupo provides about 1 TWh of capacity with the 1.4m of fluctuation currently allowed, and Mercury is trying to increase the range it's allowed.

Up
0

They could (and should) back it with a large hydrogen production and power plant in the area.  Would be an excellent transition for the engineers in the waning oil and gas industry in there to re-skill to hydrogen production/storage and use in a large power plant.

Up
3

Hydrogen is a dead end.  That would be supremely stupid. 

Up
2

Not really, in heavy industry, it almost certainly will have it's place IMO for the advantages of quick refuelling (fast turn arounds) and efficient economies of scale in storage.  Energy losses will always be above direct to battery, but with this process hopefully coming online, it should hopefully come close to being viable.  A large scale hydrogen plant (like those being built around the world), could provide a Huntly like backup situated in the North Island and essentially make such a windfarm non-intermittent.  Additionally it could serve as NZs Hydrogen distribution point, if we end up with trucks/trains/planes running on hydrogen.

Certainly hydrogen doesn't work for consumer scale applications where batteries win, but that's not what I am talking about here.

Up
1

The energy inefficiency will kill it for all but very niche applications.  The extra cost will soon pay for a battery swap system. and from what I've seen of nz logistics operations fast turnaround isn't that common.

Up
0

Battery swap systems for trains/planes/boats... I haven't seen anything that's viable yet.  And with battery prices skyrocketing it starts to change the game quite a lot... the huge batteries required for heavy may make the use of batteries a significant barrier.  We would need to have a sizeable improvement to battery tech to overcome these two hurdles. And I doubt they will ever be viable for mass transit airplanes, energy density of hydrogen will likely win out.

Agree for the inefficiency, essentially we would have to overbuild our power systems to create a backup power supply. But hopefully we can have some good breakthroughs like the Aussies just came up with that change the game.

Up
1

Liquid (bio/synthetic) fuels will still be the winner for aviation and shipping.  They will be more compatible with the existing infrastructure and much higher energy density.   They use hydrogen locally in their production, but no need to compress it to stupid pressures, or refrigerate it to give it useful energy density.  No handling or distribution issues either.  

Up
0

Up
0

Lake Onslow will be a very big battery.

Up
1

Agreed but we need to start today or yesterday, we need this in 5-10 years not the 12+ years it will take to build.

Up
0

I expect the current govt to green light onslow. Not based on any inside info, just my gut feel for the politics of it. 

Up
0

Hi JohnTrz.

Hydro lakes are our battery backup.  It has both base load and peaking capabilities.  There is always a need for more base load generation which I think geothermal has great potential.  The use of intermittent generation such as Solar (roof tops not productive land), wind and smart grids we can flatten or generation usage and not drain the hydro system in dry years. Eg when the wind blows and sun shines the hydros just reduce to minimum run of river flows.  When the wind stops and no sun the hydro ramp up output and meet the needs.  We are in a privileged position in this country and we should continue to leverage it, and use technology to optimize it.

Up
3

Literally the most positive comments I have ever seen on an interest article!

It's a great idea obviously. More of these please.

Up
3

Fantastic! But it will likely be added to the long list of other wind farms that get consent, but never get built... because too hard (see almost every infrastructure idea in the country).

https://www.windenergy.org.nz/consented-wind-farms

Up
0

Just watch all the opposition come out of the wood work. At least there is already one wind farm on that coast, that might help.

Up
0

You would think an equally windy onshore site would be much cheaper to build and maintain.

I wonder if anyone will insert themselves to clip the ticket for the use of an offshore site?

Up
1

Yup. But it turns out that the people onshore always bitch and moan and slow things up endlessly. 

Up
1

Not an either/or - we are building onshore in the windy sites. I'm sure you're right that building and maintenance is higher at sea, but wind is also stronger and more reliable offshore. 

Up
1

If you been within cooee of said area you would know that there is already a large & visually stunning windfarm at Waipipi and it got off the ground in very quick time.

Up
0

Unfortunately every 10 years a pod of yet to be discovered whales may want to pass thru the bight and also there are yet to be discovered snails that may provide food for our local snapper, so based on that its a no go.

Up
3

And don't forget the Maui dolphins ...

Up
0

The shockingly (sorry...) short life of marine windmills in the North Sea is another factor, as is the maintenance, end-of-life disposal of blades etc, and the fact that wind is inherently intermittent....

Up
3

Hence "There's no potential costings given of the project." and not generation cost estimate given. What backrooms deals are being given so he project is profitable to the investor.

Let's follow Germany's lead - though we would struggle to get 50% of our gas from Russia and fund a war in Ukraine.

"Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:

    • Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-b…

 

Up
1

Where will they bury all the blades after 20 years, when they are scrap and can't be recycled?

Up
1

Probably the same place we bury all the pointless plastic tat we import. 

Honestly, you're concerned about landfill and wind turbine blades are your main problem? 

Up
5

Same place as your milk bottles bro

Up
1

In Taranaki we could bury them with the drilling mud.

Up
2

Seems like a great idea, especially in light of what's been going on in the world recently and as we push towards EVs etc. 

Up
0

The beauty of a coastal location, is that apart form a prevailing westerly, you always get the morning and evening winds, caused by the different cooling /  heating rates of land and sea. The wind will certainly vary , but the notion of no wind at all on the coast  would take some unusual circumstances. 

Up
0