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

If NZ wants to decarbonise energy, we need to know which renewables deliver the best payback, Alan Brent & Isabella Pimentel Pincelli say

Public Policy / opinion
If NZ wants to decarbonise energy, we need to know which renewables deliver the best payback, Alan Brent & Isabella Pimentel Pincelli say
energy
Getty Images.

By Alan Brent & Isabella Pimentel Pincelli*

A national energy strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand was meant to be ready at the end of last year. As it stands, we’re still waiting for a cohesive, all-encompassing plan to meet the country’s energy demand today and in the future.

One would expect such a plan to first focus on reducing energy demand through improved energy efficiency across all sectors.

The next step should be greater renewable electrification of all sectors. However, questions remain about the cradle-to-grave implications of investments in these renewable resources.

We have conducted life-cycle assessments of several renewable electricity generation technologies, including wind and solar, that the country is investing in now. We found the carbon and energy footprints are quite small and favourably complement our current portfolio of renewable electricity generation assets.

Meeting future demand

The latest assessments provided by the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation echo earlier work by the grid operator Transpower. Both indicate that overall demand for electricity could nearly double by 2050.

Many researchers believe these scenarios are an underestimate. One study suggests the power generation capacity will potentially need to increase threefold over this period. Other modelling efforts project current capacity will need to increase 13 times, especially if we want to decarbonise all sectors and export energy carriers such as hydrogen.

This is, of course, because we want all new generation to come from renewable resources, with much lower capacity factors (the percentage of the year they deliver power) associated with their variability.

Additional storage requirements will also be enormous. Following the termination of work on a proposed pumped hydro project, other options need investigating.

Wind turbines at the Te Apiti Wind Farm, New Zealand
Wind and solar are becoming the primary renewable technologies. Shutterstock/Kyohei Miyazaki.

Building renewable generation

The latest World Energy Outlook published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that wind and solar, primarily photovoltaic panels, are quickly taking over as the primary renewable technologies.

This is also true in Aotearoa New Zealand. An updated version of the generation investment survey, commissioned by the Electricity Authority, shows most of the committed and actively pursued projects (to be commissioned by 2030) are solar photovoltaic and onshore wind farms.

Offshore wind projects are on the horizon, too, but have been facing challenges such as proposed seabed mining in the same area and a lack of price stabilisation measures typical in other jurisdictions. New legislation aims to address some of these challenges.

Distributed solar power (small-scale systems to power homes, buildings and communities) has seen near-exponential growth. Our analysis indicates wind (onshore and offshore) and distributed solar will make an almost equal contribution to power generation by 2050, with a slightly larger share by utility-scale solar.

Cradle-to-grave analyses

The main goal is to maintain a stable grid with secure and affordable electricity supply. But there are other sustainability considerations associated with what happens at the end of renewable technologies’ use and where their components come from.

The IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook shows the fast-growing global demand for a suite of materials with complex supply chains. We have also investigated the materials intensity of taking up these technologies in Aotearoa New Zealand, and discussed the greater dependence on those supply chains.

The challenges in securing these metals in a sustainable manner include environmental and social impacts associated with the mining and processing of the materials and the manufacturing of different components that need to be transported for implementation here. There are also operating and maintenance requirements, including the replacement of components, and the dismantling of the assets in a responsible manner.

We have undertaken comprehensive life-cycle assessments, based on international standards, of the recently commissioned onshore Harapaki wind farm, a proposed offshore wind farm in the South Taranaki Bight, a utility-scale solar farm in Waikato and distributed solar photovoltaic systems, with and without batteries, across the country.

The usual metrics are energy inputs and carbon emissions because they describe the efficiency of these technologies. They are considered a first proxy of whether a technology is appropriate for a given context.

Beyond that, we used the following specific metrics, as summarised in the table below:

  • GWP: global warming potential (carbon emissions during a technology’s life cycle per energy unit delivered).

  • CPBT: carbon payback time (how long a technology needs to be operational before its life cycle emissions equal the avoided emissions, either using the grid and its associated emissions or conventional natural gas turbines).

  • CED: cumulative energy demand over the life cycle of a technology.

  • EPBT: energy payback time (how long a technology needs to be operational before the electricity it generates equals the CED).

  • EROI: energy return on investment (the amount of usable energy delivered from an energy source compared to the energy required to extract, process and distribute that source, essentially quantifying the “profit” from energy production).

There is much debate about the minimum energy return on investment that makes an energy source acceptable. A value of more than ten is generally viewed as positive.

A table showing the payback metrics for wind and solar power in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Life cycle assessment metrics of wind and solar power in Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, CC BY-SA.

For all technologies we assessed, the overall greenhouse gas emissions are lower than the grid emissions factor. Because of New Zealand’s already low-emissions grid, the carbon payback time is around three to seven years for utility-scale generation. But for small-scale, distributed generation it can be up to 13 years. If the displacement of gas turbines is considered, the payback is halved.

Energy return on investment is above ten for all technologies, but utility-scale generation is better than distributed solar, with values of between 30 and 75.

To put this into perspective, the energy return on investment for hydropower, if operated for 100 years, is reported to be 110. Utility-scale wind and solar being commissioned now have an operational life of 30 years but are typically expected to be refurbished.

This means their energy return on investment is becoming comparable to hydropower.The Conversation


*Alan Brent, Professor and Chair in Sustainable Energy Systems, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Isabella Pimentel Pincelli, PhD candidate in Sustainable Energy Systems, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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.

21 Comments

We have conducted life-cycle assessments of several renewable electricity generation technologies, including wind and solar, that the country is investing in now. We found the carbon and energy footprints are quite small and favourably complement our current portfolio of renewable electricity generation assets.

I don't know how many studies we need to tell us this, I guess a local one is good too.  We just need political willpower to make these things happen, seems we never get it, so are constantly stuck with high electricity prices and huge dry year risk that saps businesses away who are reliant on electricity price stability and low cost.

Up
8

I love how the article just brushed over 'termination of work on a proposed pumped hydro project' - nothing to see here. That project would have transformed energy generation capacity in NZ for generations and no other renewable or fossil fuel projects come close.

So why was it stopped? The primary objection came from existing generators in the market who were concerned that such a large increase in capacity would lower energy prices too much. This would have damaged the income and investments of existing asset holders in the energy sector. In a free market economy protection of existing asset holders always beats overall economic benefits to the rest of the economy. Which is why multiple manufacturing sectors were allowed to collapse and disappear last year when there was a capacity shortage.

This is not that much different from OPEC - which operates on the basis of constraining oil supply to ensure a profitable price. 

It won't matter how much available renewables we have in NZ and how good the tech gets this abundance can only be realized up to the point that profits and profit growth in the energy sector are protected. I like to call it 'artificial scarcity'.

 

 

Up
11

That project would have transformed energy generation capacity in NZ for generations and no other renewable or fossil fuel projects come close.

Yes for sure. Better to use the current fossil resources available to at least buffer the future electricity needs before it becomes too expensive to justify building a large scale project of that magnitude. If the cost of diesel was double what it is today then we wouldn.t be able to afford the fuel to deliver such a project.

Up
4

The far better idea were the ones about to be recommended by the NZ battery project:

  • Change Huntly to be a pellet fuel burner (tested already) using the central NI plantation forests as a fuel source
  • Build 1-3 more geo-thermal stations that run under capacity until a dry year hits

Both of these would have been far likelier to succeed without massive cost over-runs and would solve the dry year problem for the foreseeable future. If only National hadn't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and painted the NZ Battery Project as only focussing on Onslow. It was like 3 or 4 on their list of things we should do, but basically they were advising against it.  Too big, too many unknowns, too long to complete, too hard.

Up
4

The Huntly idea is much more feasible, doesn't require the massive over build of Onslow and is the right end of the country. Though, historically, Huntly were never willing to pay for biomass or biomass transport.

"With an annual production capacity of 180,000 tonnes per annum of torrefied biomass, the facility will play a crucial role in helping New Zealand achieve its climate commitments, including net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Discussions are underway with Genesis Energy to assess the commercial viability of supplying biomass for Huntly Power Station as an alternative to coal."

https://fridayoffcuts.com/index.cfm#4

Up
1

I'd love to see some numbers on that, both capital and running costs. Huntly generators are getting old very old bar one or two. The calorific value of the pellets is going to be low so my initial thoughts are a big drop in generator capacity. A thumbsuck not more than 75% of existing MW rating.

Up
0

Geothermal has been the absolute hero this last year. It has reliably and consistently been running at >80% capacity the entire time. Meanwhile Wind is often running at <20% of capacity, and quite rarely gets over 50%.

Onslow might sound great, but if we had 2 dry years in a row, then Onslow would be a parched pit of zero benefit. Geothermal however wouldn't suffer this limitation

Up
5

To sort of echo the first comment, the will to develop our country, in the face of the endless deployment of the RMA's conditions, needs to come from somewhere.

We've been stuck in a development hell-loop of reworked plans that don't ever go anywhere becasue of politicisation overwhelming data, and the elephantine processes involved - an exemplar being this week's rejection of a billion dollar windfarm in Southland, apparently based in what might be the effects. 

In what direction should the burden of proof be? Malign until proven not reads as guilty until proven innocent  -which may not be possible to know without actually trying something!

May a sane replacement for the RMA come along sooner rather than later.

Up
10

Firstly, great to see EROI mentioned other than by me, here, but I suggest EROEI is the more accurate term. 

Also great to see materials - resources - mentioned/appraised 

I didn't see mention of the energy required to recycle said metals. and I do hope they aren't silly enough to think that turning electricity into hydrogen, then exporting it, is a go. 

Great piece though; thank you Interest.co

I notice they missed Yvill's input - does optimism not add energy? Maybe he should set them straight...

 

Up
9

Another selective Life Cycle Analysis that leaves out the cost of intermittent back up generation and balancing costs to keep the grid stable and reliable - from people who believe the weather is going to get worse but want us to build solar panels and windmills.

"...To conclude, we note that although the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) has been an influential metric in assessing the economic viability of renewable energy sources, its limitations have become increasingly apparent. By disregarding the externalities and balancing costs directly correlated with the penetration of renewables in the generation stack, LCOE underestimates the true expenses of renewable energy. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the costs involved, policymakers, investors, and energy experts must adopt a more holistic approach that considers the entire real delivered cost to consumers."

https://enodatech.com/news-insight/the-hidden-costs-of-delivered-renewa…

"...Yet Broken Hill’s experience shows how crucial baseload generation is to the grid’s stability. Without it, balancing supply and demand becomes impossible.

Some $650m worth of renewable energy investment within a 25km radius of Broken Hill has proved to be dysfunctional. The technical challenges of operating a grid on renewable energy alone appear insurmountable using the current technology."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/even-with-a-price-tag-our-r…

Up
6

Conspicuous by its absence is interest not doing a short article or even a mention of the EPA turning down a $1bill wind farm in Southland and also Waiuku. I suspect that Waiuku is the same wind farm Maori tried to palm off  to supply Glenbroook steel mill.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/14/dissecting-a-wind-project-an-int…

The Southland wind farm was put under fast track by Labour.

Not that turning down a wind farms concerns me. A shortage of much much more reliable generation is what concerns me and you don't conjure that up even in a year or two.

 

Up
0

Largest Existing Pumped Hydro Projects in the world:

Project | Country | Storage Capacity (TWh ) | Power Output (GW) | Notes

Bath County, USA, ~0.024 TWh, 3 GW,  Largest in the USA.

Guangzhou, China ~0.03 TWh, 2.4 GW, Near Hong Kong.

Goldisthal, Germany ~0.008 TWh, 1.1 GW, Largest in Germany.

Okutataragi, Japan ~0.06 TWh, 1.9 GW, One of the largest in Asia.

Dinorwig, UK ~0.01 TWh, 1.7 GW, Electric Mountain in Wales.

Raccoon Mountain, USA, ~0.036 TWh, 1.6 GW, One of the largest in North America.

...... wait for it .....

Lake Onslow (proposed), New Zealand, 3-5 TWh (3,000-5,000 GWh), 1.5 GW (estimated)

Would be 100x bigger than most existing pumped hydro in the world today.

Up
6

The Limits to Growth (global) peak is happening NOW.

Onslow should have been begun in about 1990 (Bardsley is a good tecchy, but stays silent re future societal abilities). Modernity - grid included - is looking like a pulse; it's what come after is the question. 

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/07/metastatic-modernity-launch/#more-77…

Up
2

Interesting to see how New Zealand politics has morphed from 'Think Big' to 'Don't Get Ideas Above Your Station'.

Up
4

Do it, learn from it and export the knowledge 

Yes it will cost money, but companies leaving NZ to manufacture will gut us.....

This is possibly a visionary project that could provide the power security  for a move to EVs... 

thus fixing a huge piece of balance of payments - petrol and diesel

 

 

Up
3

EVs are the right answer to the wrong question. 

:)

Read the link I put up, above. 

Up
1

Visionary? It had more storage than all our hydro schemes combined and it's price has quadrupled to $16 billion before it even got off the drawing board. The 1.5 km long earth dam would be the second longest dam in the world after the Three Gorges concrete dam in China.

Australia "Do it, learn from it". Cheaper to just send someone to Snowy River 2.0 on a junket and report back.

"The pumped hydro project, trumpeted as a grand "nation-building" scheme, was first estimated to cost just $2 billion. It's blown out to $12 billion.

It was expected to produce its first power next year — now, it won't be keeping any lights on for at least another four years."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-23/snowy-hydro-sinkhole-toxic-gas-t…

 

Up
1

Who cares what it 'costs' in keystroked debt proxy? 

They will have energy. 

Thise fools who stay with fossil sources... won't. 

And those who think that money is a 'store of wealth' I include in the 'fools' category. 

Up
6

Was that 16 billion figure (pretty sure i had read 20 billion at one stage) anything more than a political death knell?. There was no hard and fast proposal that had been subject to tender and any possibility of such appears to have been well and truly buried...mores the pity.

As PDK said it would have been better to cost and start it decades ago but even so it would have been worth finding out a tender price and time frame for delivery a few years ago when it was re-proposed.

Up
2

We would have had more detail on this, and other related projects, if the Coalition hadn't canned the NZ Battery project a few months before the final report was delivered. 

What a waste. 

Up
7

Indeed....akin to the ferry fiasco

Up
4