GNE - Genesis Energy

[Snoopy]

Unit 5 is the large baseload combined cycle gas turbine that is today the core power generating unit at Genesis's Huntly Power Station. Sharing the Huntly site are the much older Rankine units (3 still commissioned) that used to be the anchor power generating units at Huntly. In more recent years the Rankine units have found use as 'peaker units' during extended low lake level periods. The Rankine units have an additional adaptability that allows them to run on natural gas or coal.

AFAIK Genesis does not disclose the break down in thermal power produced between Unit 5 and the Rankine units. However, over the last 18 months, the supply of gas to all North Island thermal stations has been patchy. I am going to make the assumption that over FY2020 gas would first have been directed to run Unit 5 and the Rankine Units ran entirely on coal. Given this assumption, we can use the thermal generation information on Slide 11 of the FY2020 Result Presentation to figure out the Capacity Utilisation of Unit 5.

Thermal Generation Gas = 3122GWh = 3,122,000 MWh {A}

Unit 5 Rated Generation Capacity 403MW {B}

=> Equivalent Full Power hours run by Unit 5 {A}/{B} = 7747 hours

No. Hours in a year = 365 x 24 = 8760 hours

So Capacity Utilisation of Unit 5 = 7747/8760 = 88.4%

This may be an overestimate if it turns out that those Rankine Units were running on gas for extended periods. Nevertheless 88.4% represents a maximum upper bound on the utilisation of Unit 5.

I was going to use this result to correct for actual power generated in post 2990. However this utilisation is very close to the geothermal power generation utilisation averaged over the Geothermal stations operated by Contact and Mercury. So to keep the comparisons I made in post 2990 simple, I will leave things as they are.

SNOOPY

[Norwest]

Hi Snoopy,

Genesis Energy has declared the long-term availability of Huntly Unit 5 (e3p) to be 90 – 95% depending on the type of maintenance outage in a particular year. For MBIE's generation expansion model it is recorded at 93%.

I think where the small discrepancy may come from when we compare the above % vs. what the % you have calculated is the fact that:

A) Unit 5 can only generate at 403MW in cool weather conditions, in hot weather conditions it has a normal output of 385MW and/or;

B) In recent times Unit 5 has operated in a 2-shifting operational mode (meaning the unit may ramp up output in the morning peak electricity demand period, reduce output and then ramp up output during the peak evening demand period, before reducing output overnight to meet electricity market demands).

Thus I believe your deduction that the Rankine Units ran entirely on coal is therefore likely correct.

[Tomtom]

I pondered the future of Huntley last year when the Prime Minister gave her "climate emergency" speech. Given, as I understand it, the date for cut-off will be 2030 for internal combustion and domestic gas the additional demand will surely ramp up far more rapidly than it's possible to build renewable generation in New Zealand? For end users electrification is fast and easy but infrastructure projects take time.

On that basis surely Huntley could be very valuable but the risk is that the government may just be fishing for votes instead and unwilling to sink the money required for decarbonisation.

[mcdongle]

Dont know if this has been posted here before.....Gov may be getting worried about gas supply..

https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/o...o-gas-security

[Zaphod]

Dont know if this has been posted here before.....Gov may be getting worried about gas supply..

https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/o...o-gas-security

There is certainly an element of self fulling prophesy in this.

I have a couple of clients in the O&G industry. Most big players have left, or are in the process of leaving as there is no future in NZ. Service companies are consolidating and engineering firms are scaling back. Unfortunately the consensus amongst my industry contacts is that we're at a point of no return now, even if government policy on exploration changed.

The much hyped replacement of a hydrogen economy is viewed with great skepticism, and won't result in much employment for engineering anyway given the parts will be imported and merely assembled here, assuming it gains critical mass anyway.

[Beagle]

I pondered the future of Huntley last year when the Prime Minister gave her "climate emergency" speech. Given, as I understand it, the date for cut-off will be 2030 for internal combustion and domestic gas the additional demand will surely ramp up far more rapidly than it's possible to build renewable generation in New Zealand? For end users electrification is fast and easy but infrastructure projects take time.

On that basis surely Huntley could be very valuable but the risk is that the government may just be fishing for votes instead and unwilling to sink the money required for decarbonisation.

I believe in GNE's investor presentation they talked about the ramp up in electricity demand from EV's. I foresee this gaining serious momentum towards the end of this decade which is when I estimate the economics of EV's will make a lot more sense for a lot more people than at present.

I think the other hound is seriously underestimating the value of Kupe in terms of its gas and LPG and separately, the value of Huntly.

[Snoopy]

I believe in GNE's investor presentation they talked about the ramp up in electricity demand from EV's. I foresee this gaining serious momentum towards the end of this decade which is when I estimate the economics of EV's will make a lot more sense for a lot more people than at present.

I think the other hound is seriously underestimating the value of Kupe in terms of its gas and LPG and separately, the value of Huntly.

Continuing to keep Huntly as a core of the North Island power generating capacity, with the excuse that it is needed to supply the power to fuel a mass uptake of EVs sounds like a self defeating greening of the energy spectrum strategy to me. Notwithstanding the fact that for a given amount of power needed, Unit 5 would be more energy and carbon efficient in supplying that energy than a whole series of internal combustion engines, it would IMO be a misdirection of energy policy to use Huntly to power EVs.

Using gas directly for cooking I think has some merit in a low carbon New Zealand future. I don't have reticulated gas available where I live. But after cooking a few meals myself on a gas stove while visiting out of town, I can see the merits of how quickly a stove top comes up to temperature. It allows the more rapid preparation of meals, while avoiding a wasteful warm up phase. A case of how running something less efficiently for a shorter time might trump running something more efficient for a longer time to accomplish the same task.

Using gas for space heating OTOH is a marginal use of the gas resource. Sure, it would be more energy efficient to run a gas powered space heater, than to use Huntly supplied electric power to power an electric resistance heater. But it would be more efficient again to use electric power to run a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of 3 (that means 3kw of heat output for every 1kW of electric energy input). This means using a sophisticated multi-stage gas powered electricity generator (ballpark 50% efficient) to run an electric heat pump (ballpark 300% efficient) is more efficient that running an electrical resistance heater run from renewable resources. But running an electric heat pump from renewable energy sources is twice as efficient as trying to run the same equipment with power from Huntly.

Ironically the variability of weather that is attributable to climate change is lending weight to the argument for keeping climate change fuelling Huntly going longer, (to compensate for unseasonably low level hydro system supply reservoirs). The unknown in all of this, in my view, is how efficiently NZ will be able to utilise its wind generation resources. Once the cost of industrial scale chemical batteries (as opposed to lakes) comes down, to enable wind power utilisation to be more reliable of a short term basis at least, (by storing up to a days generation from wind driven power stations) I would say it is 'game over' for Huntly Unit 5. The Rankine units have done well. But the fact that they use coal and the boilers that supply the turbines cannot be replaced without demolishing the buildings that house them means they are already on the last puff of the cigar butt in terms of operating life.

SNOOPY

[Jerry]

Thank you, Snoopy for your detailed and informative posts here. Great to get all the figures in the same place. Personally, I can see gas in bottles would be hard to live without for campers, and for the BBQ. Reticulated gas I think is a disaster waiting to happen given our propensity for quakes. Happy to do without coal entirely.

[peat]

Reticulated gas I think is a disaster waiting to happen given our propensity for quakes.

Do you have any knowledge in this area?

Surely all the engineers in the world have considered earthquakes and piped gas. I mean the whole of Europe depends on it. So I am calling you on this as to whether there is an actual danger here.
Even a broken pipe giving rise to a gas leak isnt a disaster unless it ignites under pressure so please explain what the risks are more clearly.

[iceman]

A bit of a good news story https://ecotricity.co.nz/ecotricity-...energy-future/