-
30-11-2017, 09:46 PM
#1461
-
16-12-2017, 08:50 AM
#1462
What put the rocket under the sp? Nearly 5% leap on the day. Genesis on the move too.
-
16-12-2017, 09:15 AM
#1463
Originally Posted by Hectorplains
What put the rocket under the sp? Nearly 5% leap on the day. Genesis on the move too.
These 2 do well in a dry year with high prices.
The situation we have now
Both can generate more than their needs from thermal so should be maximising profits as demand is up 3%
roughly thermal costs say $50 but market price $180+megaprofit plus rise in profits from future contracts.
I think craigs have cen as a buy at up to 630 so probably someway to go yet
-
16-12-2017, 09:52 AM
#1464
Member
As solar and batteries come in ,which they are doing, the spot prices get more volatile at least for a start. Contact is the big benificiary. To see it at work you only have to look at the AU markets.
-
17-12-2017, 09:25 PM
#1465
Originally Posted by horus1
As solar and batteries come in ,which they are doing, the spot prices get more volatile at least for a start. Contact is the big benificiary. To see it at work you only have to look at the AU markets.
It always seems a pity to me that there isnt more incentive to invest in solar alone without the need for expensive and inefficient batteries.
We are so lucky that we have hydro to store energy and solar generation would reduce the daily draw on hydro and reduce the need to burn carbon
-
18-12-2017, 06:50 AM
#1466
Originally Posted by fish
It always seems a pity to me that there isnt more incentive to invest in solar alone without the need for expensive and inefficient batteries.
We are so lucky that we have hydro to store energy and solar generation would reduce the daily draw on hydro and reduce the need to burn carbon
I heard somewhere that NZ's topography is not that efficient for solar. In that our land costs too much as it is used predominantly for agriculture. The vast deserts in China and Australia are more suitable habitats for solar and therefore you will never really see solar take off in NZ.
-
18-12-2017, 08:14 AM
#1467
Member
You are seeing solar starting to increase markedly. The power cos have spread a lot of disinformation about solar. There is plenty of land for it plus a large no of roofs.
-
18-12-2017, 08:21 AM
#1468
Originally Posted by horus1
You are seeing solar starting to increase markedly. The power cos have spread a lot of disinformation about solar. There is plenty of land for it plus a large no of roofs.
That maybe, but its not as efficient as solar in Australia or China where there are also more direct sun hours in comparison to NZ. NZ also has other alternate forms of generation that are comparable cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Huge 1000 hectare solar farms will never eventuate here.
-
18-12-2017, 08:38 AM
#1469
Member
It is not about cost it is about customers and PRICE to customers. The real deal is to leave the networks and not pay transmission,distribution or energy prices ever again. Those that have left , and there are many, are happy they left.
-
18-12-2017, 09:41 AM
#1470
As New Zealand does not have interconnection to other grids in different time zones our generation mix must take into account the daily demand profile and the intermittancy of solar and wind generation. We are already at the stage of wind generation causing our grid to reach load stability limits. Any additional solar without accompanying storage would only exacerbate that situation.
There is a solution, but one that none of the power companies are interested in. That is Pumped Storage Hydro. For every 1 MW of PSH the country can accept a further 2 MW of intermittant generation. PSH can pump water to storage when there is an excess of intermittant geneation, and generate withit when there is a deficit.
This thread is obviously the right place for this discussion as the two best sites for PSH are both in Contact's catchments. Lake Onslow could increase NZ's energy storage by 200% and provide 1200 MW, allowing up to a further 2400 MW of intermittant generation. This scheme would cost between $3.5 and $4 billion. The Neck between Hawea and Wanaka would only be 1/10 the size and cost around $400 million. Either of these would allow a huge increase in wind or solar and decrease the reliance on gas fired generation.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks