The Labour Party has pledged to bring forward its 100% renewable electricity target by five years to 2030.
In addition, it says it will accelerate the electrification of the transport and industrial sectors and invest in emerging technologies such as green hydrogen.
Labour's also promising to continue to "make energy affordable for New Zealanders".
In releasing Labour's 'clean energy' policy on Thursday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Labour was "planning properly" for New Zealand’s future energy needs. See here for more details. And see here for questions and answers.
"We need to take steps right now and also plan 30 years ahead to ensure New Zealand has stable, sustainable and affordable energy while also protecting jobs and industries. This policy does that,” she said.
Labour’s clean energy plan is a critical element of the party's wider Covid-19 recovery plan "that will both prepare New Zealand for the future while boosting jobs and the economy now" Ardern said.
Labour Energy spokesperson Megan Woods said New Zealand produces 84% of its electricity from renewable sources now, "but we can do better".
"We will stop activities that increase our emissions by, for example, banning new thermal baseload generation; and promote clean energy development.
“We are committed to taking the next steps to get to 100% renewable with support for projects like pumped hydro at Lake Onslow, removing the barriers to development of new renewable electricity projects, advancing green hydrogen and other green technologies and supporting businesses to decarbonise.
“Our plan for clean energy and lower carbon emissions will help us seize the economic opportunities of being the clean, green country that New Zealanders see ourselves as being and that we can market ourselves as.
“The initiatives we are announcing today build on work we have done already, including the establishment of a $70 million fund to help major industrial users decarbonise; a $20 million Renewable Energy Research Platform; putting $27 million towards the establishment of Are Ake - the New Energy Development Centre; and supporting the roll-out of a nationwide hydrogen refuelling network.
“Investing in cleaning up our energy use is good for our economy because we will reduce our reliance on imported energy from overseas while expanding innovation in new clean energy technologies. We also support new jobs in new industries like green hydrogen, and prevent further pollution and costs to the community.”
Woods said key steps to transforming the energy sector included:
-
Committing to accelerating the second stage of a pumped hydro storage solution at Lake Onslow with an additional $70 million allocated upfront (subject to the business case for which $30 million has already been announced); and other smaller schemes that could help achieve 100% renewable electricity
-
Developing a new National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation; removing regulatory barriers to renewable electricity generation; and restoring a ban on new thermal baseload generation
-
Supporting businesses to shift away from fossil fuels and improve energy management
-
Accelerating the uptake of low emissions vehicles
-
Continuing work on electricity and fuel pricing fairness.
“A great example of work we can do to become a world leader is the development of a green hydrogen industry. We can produce some of the cleanest green hydrogen in the world, and potentially receive a premium for it in international markets. We are already working with other countries including Japan and have invested in a nationwide fuelling network and will invest $10 million in a roadmap and further opportunities,” Woods said.
107 Comments
and they now have stability issues and negative spot prices ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables…
"But McKinsey issues its strongest warning when it comes to Germany's increasingly insecure energy supply due to its heavy reliance on intermittent solar and wind. For three days in June 2019, the electricity grid came close to black-outs."
There are some very good batteries out there that can be bolted to the house. They retain a few days of power.
I'm talking about keeping the water in dams that would have been used if solar hadn't been installed on houses.
Our hydro dams are struggling at present due to less rain, so retaining that water as an energy source.
These batteries are the bizo. https://www.tesla.com/en_nz/powerwall
Most residential and commercial solar systems are Grid Tie type with no local storage, just feeding the on-premises consumption as it occurs on a sunny day. On that basis there is a break even time on current retail electricity costs around 10 years. Installing battery systems increases the costs dramatically and in order for it to function in any way appropriately when you have battery storage you also need substantially larger solar panel field in order to both run the daytime load and to store additional power, the break even period is extended out and there is a replacement cost at year 10 for the battery component which adds another capital lump cost and pushes the break even time out even longer, it is not really a viable solution in NZ and only becomes workable for the consumer if the govt props it up with subsidies (paid for by all taxpayers to the benefit of the few who can afford to do it anyway)
For good storage they need to be deep cycle. Car batteries are a fast output, deep cycle slow and prolonged.
These are the bussiness.
https://www.tesla.com/en_nz/powerwall
$5k I think but if NZ grabbed a hundred thousand of them and supposed at cost, we could drop that price.
$5K for a Powerwall? Dreaming. They run over $10K. Bulk discount - maybe? You wouldn't want to run V2G off your car battery as you say - extra cycles = extra wear on the batteries. Perhaps less of an issue in for chemistry of the future but it would mutilate the current non-cooled Nissan Leafs (which are set up for a kind of V2G, but it costs moonbeams to set up the domestic side of things at the moment).
10/10 for features and driving experience. The immediacy of electric torque is amazing. Too early to say about reliability. Range is not as good as petrol to be sure, but not an issue with a little bit of planning -- the fast charger network is surprisingly well developed. With small kids you can't do 500k without stopping anyhow.
Ute aero profiles are more challenging, but it's coming.
More click bait, feel good policies. And where will this extra production come from? Geothermal is tapped out, wind dosnt produce bugger all, solar is still bloody inefficient and the greens, DOC and Forest & Bird wont let anyone build new hydro dams...
SI is all good (almost all renewable) but what about the elephant in the room that is Auckland?
Im all for getting rid of coal, the dirtiest fuel out there, but natural gas shouldnt have such a bad rap, esp since we are producing it in Taranaki.
The problem as already pointed out, is base load, times when sun or wind isnt producing. Or then you get the other end of the problem with too much solar and the grid cant handle it so you are literally trying to give it away.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/english/companies/grid-crisis-getting-paid…
More subsidies and free government money incoming, Brrrrr....
We are talking about electricity generation here, not energy consumption overall (ie not including transportation)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/New_Zealand_electri…
the point though is more than valid
The masses hear 100% renewable energy in general (conveniently ignoring the squazillion barrels of Oil they personally consume..) and many a politician talks of NZ using 100% renewable energy ... which is all about as far fetched as our 100% pure tourism
Yes. Even when Wellington CBD employers are following a somewhat staggered approach of bringing employees into the workplace since end of June, public transport is packed with people; worse with social distancing rules.
Meanwhile, the council has been pushing to implement congestion charges to fund transport investment and reduce road traffic: a classic NZ move of putting the cart before the horse.
It's a bit mixed up and a tad oxymoronic, but it leaves National in the dust. Makes them look like the dinosaurs they are.
The mixed up bit is that it is energy which underwrites economic activity, 100%. And renewables will never replace fossil energy in energy-availability, but will replace fossil energy because it's finite. The knock-on question is whether an economy (as we understand one) will exist post FF - it looks like the answer is 'No'.
And hydrogen is both a loss in energy terms, and colourless. Just sayin'. Possibly worth taking the energy-hit for special purposes (going to the moon qualified) but a loss it is.
Still, heading in the right direction aspirationally. Makes 'clean coal' Brownlee look a tad dinosaurish.
Thorium nuclear. Practically limitless, can't melt down like Chernobyl and Fukushima and doesn't produce large amounts of fissile waste material. True Greenies should want molten salt nuclear.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/
PDK. There is still the implementation... A massive sticking point with Labour.
Are we going to measure the effectiveness of the money this time or are we just going to get the warm fuzzys.
Electric cars are that eco as well by the time you take in manufacturing, battery manufacture and recycling.
Jacinda 2017 "My goal is to eradicate child poverty in New Zealand"
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/jacinda-arden-s-goal-en…
Just another failed policy from this lot.
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO_4_4_Teenage-Suicide.pdf
Page 2, a stain on all of us - we should be shouting from the rooftops about this.
Te Kooti - you forgot the 7th highest child homicide rate in the OECD. This Labour government is so busy virtue signalling to the global audience about alleged issues that aren't going to happen for a generation or so, that it is 'absolutely' failing the here and now generations.
Pumped Storage does NOT generate electricity. It only stores what has already been generated and gives 80% back. Thermal stations generated about 8000GWh last year. That means an extra 10,000GWh of renewables need to be built. That is 24 of the Waitara sized wind farms. No sign of those costs in the package. And for the 1200MW pumped storage station, they need to build 1000MW of new transmission lines from Roxburgh to Whakamaru as all the thermals are in the North Island. What will that cost?
It is a Teeshirt feel good slogan to bankrupt the country. Look out energy poverty, here we come.
Chris Morris - you are correct re the grid, no argument. The question is what we look like in the future, and that's a systems problem. Again, I'll put up this link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919310067
This is what I try and point out; the way we will be living bears no resemblance to the way we live now. Will the grid be our lifeline? Or will even one trans-NZ link be too much to maintain? So few folk seem to be able to envisage anything except 'now', and presume it's 'normal'. The transient period post WW2 was what was abnormal. Can 'being on the bike' work in a post-collapse slash triage scenario? As I recall, you baulk at contemplating such a scenario - I guess a few Titanic passengers baulked too....
Sans battery manufacturing (global collapse or global war-over-what's-left) would Onslow be worth a shot? Or would we be better with local pumped storage (given that water-at-height is do-able low-tech and is the most benign battery known?
I think we're going to be demanding, using and affording, a shitload less power, not sure about fossil displacement though; I suspect forests will be eyed-up for firewood pretty fast.
That article is a buzzword salad. It makes some valid points but they are lost in the tripe.
New Zealand can reduce its fossil fuel dependency, but people have to make hard choices. Accept the drop in your income - don't have overseas holidays - regard a trip in the car as a special event - don't live so far from work that you can't bike or ride there. Unless people are prepared to make those sort of sacrifices, then it is just virtue signalling. And it will do nothing to the earth's climate as no country that really matters will make the sacrifice.
It says this among other things about climate change "There is a recent trend in environmental media asserting climate change is the primary systemic risk faced by civilization. One of the points of this paper is to suggest that climate change is one symptom of a much larger dysfunction. Multiple interrelated risks all point to an impending, imposed reduction in energy/material throughput in coming decades. There are 2 primary implications of this:"
and I have read it before
Thank you. Are you of the opinion we are going to continue 'growing' and if so, on what energy-source? And if not, how?
I regard you as perhaps ideologically slanted (private vs public, as per below?) and from previous interchanges, a technocopian. But I also reckon you're the type we'll need in a future (which I see as a global re-enactment of Apollo 13).
Fossil fuels like coal and gas over time are on an increasing cost curve. While renewables such as wind and solar costs are decreasing. Pumped hydro allows those renewables to be used even when the rain doesn't fall or when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Once the fixed costs of grid upgrades and pumped hydro are made then NZ has almost unlimited supply of low cost renewable electricity into perpetuity. Investing in those fixed costs is probably the best Covid recovery expenditure NZ could make.
Brendon - you don't know what you are talking about. What is the cost per GWh for the energy sources (pre tax or subsidy) in NZ conditions? Include the cost of consents and grid compliance. Why do some of the windfarms shut off when spot prices go low because they are uneconomic to run?
I beg to differ. Chris you are the one who has the wrong end of the stick. Fossil fuel peaking plants are only economic at extremely high wholesale spot prices. Wind + pumped hydro will be cheaper than this. Add in the benefits of removing CO2 producing generation and being able to bring on cheap renewable generation for the ramp of demand coming from electrifying transport and electricfying industrial users and it is definitely a winner.
The facts I have said in these comments are true. Feel free to disprove them Chris. It seems that the Onslow pumped hydro scheme is going to happen. Although it is possible the business case finds some unconsidered factors which puts a stop to it. If that doesn't happen the funding has already been allocated to take pumped hydro onwards to the design and engineering stage. Best get used to it...
If you are so big on facts Brendon, show how pumped storage can be economic. What will be the capital cost of the dam and transmission lines (you need to build 10000MW capacity from Roxburgh to Whakamaru to replace thermal) What price do you need to buy and sell the power? And what will be the capital costs of the generation needed to give the cheap power to allow the pumped storage to work?
Chris and Nymad are you too lazy to do your own homework? You have made the claim that pumped hydro is uneconomic and yet you have given no evidence supporting that.
There is a $30m business case that will be an in depth examination of its economic veracity.
But in the meantime how about this statement.
Dr Keith Turner, the former chief executive of Meridian Energy from 1999 to 2008, has given his professional opinion that if the cost of the Onslow pumped hydro scheme was spread across all electricity consumption, like an insurance premium, it would be only 0.5 to 0.75 cents per kilowatt hour. That is about $50 a year for an average household. Whereas wholesale electricity prices would likely drop by twice this much once the scheme begins operating.
https://businessdesk-co-nz.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/businessdesk.co.nz/am…
Brendon.
Where is the Onslow basin?
Where is the majority of baseload and peak demand?
What sits in between them?
You are always going on about optimising for efficiency but seem to have no idea that you have a constrained optimisation problem here. And you are ignoring the constraints.
Then you have all the nodal pricing to worry about and the gaming of generators and forwarding contracts.
Wheres your homework Nymad that proves your contention that pumped hydro is uneconomic. Something with actual numbers? It shouldn't be hard to disprove pumped hydro. It is known technology. The Norwegians built pumped hydro decades ago. There is a nice video about it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxgf5V_unA
But in all fairness, those proposing the solution haven't actually shown it economic either. Hence the whole ongoing business case thing.
The norwegian case is not hugely economic. Any new investment in pumped storage would need huge upgrades in transmission for it to become economic. The same issue we have in New Zealand, but without a market the size of northern europe.
Sure it is still an open question whether investing in further pumped storage in Norway for other European countries would be worthwhile. But the existing Saurdal scheme has been very successful for the Norwegian electricity market at smoothing supply and price fluctuations. Along with Canada they have some of cheapest electricity in the world...
You are saying pumped storage is economic. It is up to you to make your case against status quo. The Investigation that Labour commissioned three years ago dismissed it out of hand as back of fag packet maths shows it can't be economic. 5000GWh per year buying at $50/MWh and selling at $100 gives $200M a year gross income before taking off O&M.. Now, how do you repay capital on that?
The transmission situation is covered by the Transpower reports which you obviously haven't read.
As has been pointed out before, you have no understanding of either the engineering or the economics. Rather than show where my figures underestimate the benefits, you drop back into a stupid mantra. The Productivity Commission matched my summation. That is why they dismissed it without even doing more than a cursory analysis.
Since the Productivity Commission non-report, because as you say they did not consider pumped hydro, the Interim Climate Commission has examined pumped hydro. As has Transpower and as has independent electricity and economic experts such as Dr Turner the former CEO of Meridan. They all advised pumped hydro was worthy of further investigation.
Now a full $30m business case is being undertaken. This will give a far more detailed description of pumped hydro's economic benefits. If this business case is successful there is $70m funding for further detailed design and engineering analysis.
I have read many documents supporting pumped hydro for NZ. Such as,
The Interim Climate Change Committee (ICCC), a ministerial advisory committee created by the New Zealand Government, that took an interest in the pumped hydro proposal because it helps New Zealand transition to 100% renewable electricity supply. The committee recommended in its 2019 report a more in-depth study be done on pumped hydro from a technical, economic, cultural, environmental and social perspective.
After the business case announcement in July
Vector, New Zealand’s largest distributor of electricity welcomed the government’s announcement. They state, “as fossil fuelled generation plants retire, pumped hydro would provide a smooth and reliable transition to a 100% renewable system alongside customer investments in solar and other technologies.”
Chris playing the man not the ball just shows you lack a cohesive argument. All you have is misinformation...
I have read Transpower report Whakamana i Te Mauri Hiko — Empowering our Energy Future on P.23 it shows that of the options to cope with NZs dry year risk, the only real choice is sticking with the status quo of using gas peaking plants which emits carbon or building pumped hydro. All other options are more expensive.
Transpower predicts NZ will experience an electrification ‘ramp’ of increased electricity demand and supply, especially from 2025. Transpower commented that managing dry year risk (P.75) is the energy industry’s biggest challenge which could jeopardise the electrification process.
Transpower clearly describes that New Zealand needs to make a decisive decision on how to manage the dry year risk.
"The dry year risk is a unique and significant challenge that has the potential to disrupt our journey towards a decarbonised economy and materially set it back. This is the biggest challenge we face. It requires clear and decisive ownership of the decision around what New Zealand must do to address it" (P.76).
It doesn't matter a rodent's behind whether something is 'economic' or not.
What matters is whether it is required to address the future, or not.
All 'economic' talk, this late in the growth era, this far into unrepayable debt (and what is money worth if debt is unrepayable?), it's a ridiculous measure. Witch Doctor territory.
PDK I understand where you are coming from wrt to your view about the futility of the current economic paradigm. Your views are well recorded on this site.
Yet even in an era of declining fossil fuel supply it is still important to assess what if any energy alternatives are possible. Even if economic growth is not possible or desirable some sort of economic analysis will still be required when comparing different energy projects.
Read the Transmission Planning Report all 400 pages of it. And I play the man because you haven't got the ability to tell me what your buy and sell price is and the load factor. Anyone who had the slightest understanding of how the system went would know that, but you obviously don't.
We will not know pumped hydro's buying and selling price points until the funding model is determined by the business case.
I can see three funding model possibilities. There may be more.
1. The government pays for the construction of Onslow, for the first fill and for the transmission line upgrades out of the consolidated fund. At a very rough estimate because the business case is not completed let's call this $5bn in 2020 money. The government could consider this a good investment on the grounds of Covid recovery or on climate change grounds. In this case pumped hydro's buying and selling electricity spot price points would just need to cover operating costs. Mainly the round cycle 75% energy efficiency of pumping and generating. That means the selling price would need to be about 33% higher than its buying price. Wholesale electricity prices would fall because the 'dry year' risk is no longer a factor.
2. Instead of the government paying the upfront capital costs a fixed line charge is used instead. A new line charge is added to all electricity users to reflect the benefits of more secure electricity supply. About $60 annually for households. Dr Turner estimates the fall in wholesale prices is likely to be double this cost so households are still better off.
3. The scheme is entirely paid for from its arbitrage operations of buying electricity at low prices and selling high. In this case the gap between its buying and selling price points will be wider than 33%.
You are a very selective reader with confirmation bias Brendon. You could try reading this report from the same source which basically rubbishes most of what you have written. https://www.iccc.mfe.govt.nz/assets/PDF_Library/c6cdf7a395/Switched-on-….
If you use the costs in Pete Hodgson's comments about Whirinaki in 2005, the capital cost of Onslow will be about $500 pa per family. On the published Waitara figures, generation there will cost about $85/MWh. That is more expensive than current prices, so no-one will build more generation without a higher price. That means Turner is wrong. You need an overbuild of generation to give you power to fill the lake so prices will drop so no-one will build without subsidies. Where is your costs for overbuild. 33% arbitrage only covers direct running costs. Where is O&M costs and capital repayment? And you still haven't got the electricity to the North Island as existing lines can't even carry current load.
As I have repeatedly stated, you do not understand the subject and think repeating your mantra gives you credibility. It doesn't. In NZEs day, they used to have a nutters file for regular correspondents to the Minister pushing harebrained schemes. . That is where you would be placed. . .
Here is the sum total of analysis that Chris's recommended 'Switch On' report has about pumped hydro.
"Additional hydrogeneration: Potential geographic areas are available (Transpower points to a basin in the South Island) but constrained by planning and likely local opposition." P. 29
I think the government's $30m business case will be a tad more detailed than that....
The report is though interesting -as are most NZ Initiative reports. It is let down by being overly focused on the lessons (mistakes) coming from Germany. Which isn't surprising as the head of the NZ Initiative -Oliver Hartwich is from Germany. It is a shame he isn't from Norway because then he might better explain how they have a similar electricity market structure to NZ. How Norway made large investments into pumped hydro to ensure security of supply. And how Norway achieved 99% renewable electricity supply (effectively 100%), yet they have much lower electricity prices than NZ.
NZ needs to get these basics right before it can do the higher profile environmental stuff -like Norway is starting to do in a big way, such as, electrifying its light vehicle fleet.
As per usual Brendan, you are a very selective reader with your confirmation bias - accusing me of it just shows your projection. I included that report because it gave a reasonably simple explanation of how the system works - something you don't understand. I could have referenced Schipper but that may as well have been written in Urdu as it would be totally beyond your comprehension.
But just going on your beloved report. This is what it says "The Committee’s analysis updated available 2006 engineering calculations of the cost of the Lake Onslow proposal. The analysis used the latest information available on a comparable scheme about to be built; Snowy Hydro 2.0 in Australia. This analysis showed that the marginal emissions abatement cost for a pumped hydro storage solution at Lake Onslow was around $250/t CO2e." So they just used Bardsley's thumbsuck of a price; showed it isn't economic, just better than all the other really bad options. And they didn't include either transmission costs or overbuild in the price. Go through their numbers. And then tell us how they will get the power to Auckland without a totally new transmission line.
The opposite of making energy affordable for all New Zealanders will happen with this policy. The last 5% was always going to be a huge challenge. If the solution is an horrendously expensive pumped hydro scheme our costs will go up - someone has to pay for it, and it won't be the generators (If it was a sure thing it would have been consented already).
The solution isn't to ban things, it's to emphasise energy efficiency. (Ban and tax and spend)
If I recall correctly, the Onslow appraisal originated out of Waikato Uni a few years ago. Whether it was anticipating storing Hayes windpower locally, or separate, I'd be interested to know. Yes, it would cost; anything does.
But I have a small problem with efficiencies; if it's a passive solar house, the efficiency is free and forever, no repair required. But if it's clever-tech and you're relying on it with knock-on dependent stuff happening, it tends to be less resilient. More fragile, less robust. That though has to be in the mix. Cuba went where the planet will inevitably go (as Japan has gone where we will financially): https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-su…
While it may be doable - at what cost? Until a government addresses NZ's rapid rate of population growth and aims for a stable population we are running a Red Queen's race. How much more of our remote landscapes be industrialised with wind-turbines? How many more of our rivers be dammed (damned)?
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.