IPENZ challenges energy strategy
IPENZ director of policy Tim Davin has called the government’s bluff on its commitment to renewable energy resources.
He told journalists at a Science Media Centre briefing that the government’s “aspirational but achievable” goal of 90% of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025 was an unlikely prospect.
IPENZ research shows that if all the electricity projects currently under construction or consented to are built, and any additional generation comes from wind, then about 68% of electricity will be from renewable sources in 2025.
The current level of electricity generated from renewables – wind, geothermal and hydro - is 73%.
Mr Davin described two scenarios proposed by the Electricity Commission to enable the 90% target to be met as “quite unrealistic”.
The first involves the closure of 70% of coal and gas-fired Huntly power station, operated by state-owned Genesis Energy, and about 500MW of current generation going offstream in response to prices.
The second requires the closure of 50% of Huntly and two major gas plants.
This scale of shift away from thermal generation is “probably unlikely”, Mr Davin said, and especially if the mode of new generation projects continues to be left up to the market.
He would like to see more direct intervention by government to promote renewable energy generation and regulate against energy inefficient products.
From a policy perspective, Mr Davin recommended that the draft Energy Strategy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy be collapsed into a single document with consistent objectives.
Submissions on both documents close today.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions10
Quite how someone having a different opinion is calling someone else's bluff eludes me.
That's like asserting, as you do, that the National Business Review is The Authority.
I'm sure you believe it, but the fact that I beg to differ doesn't mean I've just called your bluff.
Or have I? Perhaps that wasn't the best example to prove my point ;-)
Ha, stupid engineers haven't noticed that the new politiburo has taken over the western govt.'s ... and they supported the whole 'global warming' scam as ETS was rammed through.
Realistic reports, you must be kidding, lies and propaganda from NIWA and Nick Smith is all we can expect now the money stream is flowing from this golden goose.
It is not an opinion - IPENZ just crunched the available numbers.
That's engineers for you, numbers, not rhetoric.
If you think the IPENZ view isn't full of rhetoric then you haven't read it - it's full of rhetoric. They're about as emotional as Forest & Bird on this stuff.
This is yet another exmple ff IPENZ making public statements about stuff it doesn't understand. I work alongside IPENZ engieneers who actually work in the electrcity generation business, and they are shaking their heads in disbelief at this, and other recent stuff like the anti-wind garbage in The Listener.
IPENZ might have crunched numbers, but they have no idea about what is being planned behind the scenes, and no idea about the synergies that can be achived through the use of complimentary sustainable generation.
I agree with the IPENZ members I j know who who are in the know - this organisation has well and truly lost the plot, and its talking heads need to get away from their desks and calculators and back to the coal (sorry - wind/hydr/geothermal/tidal) face!
Lost the Plot, I'd like to know more about the synergies you mentioned - and any alternative number crunching / points of view on future renewable generation.
If your contacts would like to give me some background on this, my email is nfowler @ nbr.co.nz.
Cheers,
Nina
Assuming this NBR summary is correct, the basic problem with IPENZ's position is that new renewable generation will not all come from wind. There are still significant geothermal opportunities that have not got consent yet (eg Te Mihi in Taupo). Hydro and geothermal will continue to get consent and will be built.
IPENZ's policy team have made announcements like this in other sectors too in the past, presenting "IPENZ's view" as if all IPENZ know of and approve it. Their views on telecom's policy and broadband were rubbish and they annoyed a hell of a lot of members by publishing them as representative and it wouldn't surprise me to learn they've done it yet again.
I think Nina, the point is; it's not about the numbers but more about the dictorial shift from democracy to global Marxism. I.e. why has NO ONE in the media reported on what this is all truly about?
Were efficiencies part of the calculation, i.e. actually saving generation capacity? All this talk about new generation... It's cheaper to mine efficiencies than fossil fuels, dam rivers and stick up wind-farms. Come on NBR, think outside the square- unlike you're average engineer. If the Reserve Bank can save 22% of running costs on its building in the 1st year of mining efficiencies (http://www.rmi.org/rmi/DeliveringEnergySavingsDownUnder) you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that there is significant $$ to be saved by NZ Inc. following suit?
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below