I am not convinced that having ONE big 'water battery' for the entire country is a very smart idea.
Printable View
I am not convinced that having ONE big 'water battery' for the entire country is a very smart idea.
In the history of New Zealand’s Hydroelectric power infrastructure, is there an example of a generation facility that was built and in TIME it proved to be an uneconomic lemon?
Regarding where such a facility is built, context is important.
Yes transmission of electricity over distance does decrease efficiency but the % loss on the distances in New Zealand would be at a guess much less than many other countries. (Can an expert give me a % loss from Onslow to Sky tower?)
If the residents of Auckland want a nuclear reactor built in Mt Eden and the Homer Simpson of Onehunga operating it, yes that will bring transmission losses down and reduce your risk of a dry summer, Korean Fishing trawler fowl hooking the cable and any other statically low risk event.
I am sure the NZ government can go to Bunnings with credit card and purchase another cable to run across, people do swim across this stretch of water so it’s not that far. I would guess the money everyone willing consented coughing up for Covid slush funds could buy 100 cables and 10 Onslow’s.
China has been building these pumped hydro stations at scale and for some time. China has a proven history of making long term smart infrastructure decisions, I would suggest if China has crunched the numbers and they are building these on scale paying consultants in New Zealand to run every possible economic outcome is wasting time and money.
Chinese Engineers are not creative but once they learn how to do something they can make it extremely efficient and are methodical.
Instead of getting Dad & Dave and NZ engineers with zero experience in pumped hydro to build Onslow with a 1.8 Ton excavator, I would suggest find the best Company in China with all the gear to build Onslow.
Then do what China did to the Germans with high speed rail, Kiwi engineers to “learn” (Steal/Copy) from the them.
New Zealand has done this before successfully with what many call Kiwifruit (Chinese Gooseberry).
When everyone works out it was a good idea and more should be built NZ companies then know how to do it properly and the tax payer won’t have to suffer an uneconomic learning curve, then we can get jobs for the boys going.
Milton has a ready supply of cheap labour conveniently close to provide.
If New Zealand gets to a Mexican standoff with a 21 year old ecological graduate sporting an ethically sourced iPhone and Nissan Leaf taking the life of a bio diverse worm over the long term benefit of New Zealand.
There is a Cobalt mine in the Congo that would have a vacancy for such a clear thinker.
As a share investor if you split your invested funds between all generation and retail companies evenly who cares how this change to the landscape alters money flow. If you’re smarter than 50% of the market by picking who will benefit most well happy days. Building Onslow will be good for NEW ZEALAND
Earthquakes don't really affect undersea cables, so your comment doesn't really add anything. The existing HVDC has survived just fine for many years, as have other HVDC undersea cables around the world
Just like me saying "what if a super-volcano erupted under Lake Taupo", or "what if a pandemic wiped out 50% of NZ population "
Both scenarios are hypothetically possible and would dramatically affect NZ power usage, generation and energy storage system. But once the probability of such an event occurring is taken into consideration, it becomes a non-event. Just like your earthquake
If NZ does nothing, it will cause problems for consumers as the price of power goes up and up. So something must be done. And right now, pumped hydro is the best option by a country mile
If Lake Onslow is built, it will replace existing thermal generation (coal 750MW, gas 1250MW, total 2GW). Thermal generation is located in North Island (primarily Huntly and Taranaki). Thermal generation works 24/7, so can't be substituted by intermittent (solar and wind)
Lake Onslow power would be used in Auckland without a doubt in winter when the wind isn't blowing
I would also expect some extra battery storage to be added to demand centres in the North Island, to cope with demand peaks
Transferred from Black Monday thread.
That is one way of looking at things. The other side of the card is that there have been no pre-advertised and planned rolling power cuts since the privatization process, and there has been:
i/ a widespread wind power infrastructure, AND
ii/ a thoroughly updated geothermal power generating infrastructure built over the geothermal fields in the centre of the North Island, AND
iii/ a significant refurbishment expenditure of the existing hydro-assets,
with not a single cent of new investment incremental dollars required to be extracted from the taxpayer.
SNOOPY
*Partial privatisation process with the govt retaining 51% control with the influence over the operations that brings.
I suppose Contact Energy provides a case study of a fully private company, although one that is over 51% is owned by overseas shareholders.
See ownership stats for contact:
https://imgur.com/CDCZejn
Although in theory the government retain control of MEL, MCY and GNE, in practice it has been pretty much an 'arms length' control exercise. The only thing I can think of that is a mark of government ownership is that the government has NOT put any new capital into these three businesses, only taken money out (via dividends) . By contrast privately owned Contact have been back to their shareholders both in March 2021 and June 2011 although whether they really needed to do that was to an extent a policy decision rather than a need. Both MEL and MCY have used, rather than debt - or equity, so called 'thin air capital' to fund their expansion plans. I was actually disappointed that when Origin Energy wanted to quit as a cornerstone shareholder of Contact, that the government did not step in and repurchase Origin's controlling stake. That way, all of the big four gentailers would have been back on an 'even playing paddock'. If the government had done that, then the taxpayer would be ahead by billions today. And some of the subsequent tensions between the private and public sector, like the funding of Onslow, would be less of an issue.
As for Genesis Energy taking control of the Kupe gas field, I was in two minds about that. But I guess we taxpayers might as well harvest the last gasp of natural gas upside, before the Kupe field closes. The alternative scenario being keep the field in private hands, let the operator declare bankruptcy, which then leaves the government the costs of cleaning up the remnants of Kupe without any of the historical upside benefits.
SNOOPY