GNE - Genesis Energy

[RTM]

Some informative and interesting posts on this thread, thank you in particular Jantar & Airwolf for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Cheers,
RTM

[Jantar]

So the government mandated Transpower grid upgrade was a key factor in the demise of Southdown and Otahuhu? The 'free market' in NZ for power received a political nudge to move power generation in a certain technological direction?

SNOOPY

Sorry, I have been travelling so not keeping up with this matter. Thankyou Airw0lf for keeping the information coming.

Airw0lf is quite correct with his description of how Transpower's capital investment decisions are made. The effect of the new transmission circuits into Auckland on the economics of existing generation facilities was one of the unintended consequences. If anything it does highlight the fallacy of the electricity reforms of 1995 - 96 that were supposed to make future power line upgrades unnecessary.

I would have hated to be in the position that Bob Thompson found himself in in the late 1990s, when as head of Transpower, he knew that new circuits were needed, but had to do nothing until the new electricity market had a chance to encourage generators to build new power stations instead.

[bull....]

nice posts thanks

see genesis doing some roadshows in nz with investors.

[bull....]

the potential of castle hill is huge this is how i see the potentially developing it , instead of explaining it this is how they did it in germany

This Unique Combo Of Wind And Hydro Power Could Revolutionize Renewable Energy

https://www.ge.com/reports/unique-co...ewable-energy/

[Snoopy]

the potential of castle hill is huge this is how i see the potentially developing it , instead of explaining it this is how they did it in germany

This Unique Combo Of Wind And Hydro Power Could Revolutionize Renewable Energy

https://www.ge.com/reports/unique-co...ewable-energy/

Interesting article bull. The idea of 'pumped hydro' being the cheapest kind of 'battery' currently available by dint of it being able to replenish a 'lake battery' is something that has been discussed on this forum before. And IIRC, those 'in the know' thought it was 'the way to go'. I can see merit in the idea, but I did find the article a little odd, notwithstanding the fact that it is a promotional release for use of GE branded windmills.

The first point is, you don't need windmills at all to have a pumped hydro system. You can use the hydro power itself in times of low load to pump the downstream water back above the dam so that it can be used in peak times.

The article said that 'wind' and 'hydro' will work 'in parallel with each other.' I take that to mean that they operate on separate energy producing pathways. The plant owner can produce wind power or hydro power or both at the same time. But why do the windmills have to sit above the hydro station? Would it not be cheaper to just build the elevated water storage tanks and forget about putting windmills on top of them? You could then build the windmills somewhere else where the daily wind loadings, and the associated electricity production, was the most important consideration.

Next there seems to be a mismatch of hydro and wind farm power:

"Built into the hills will be a hydroelectric plant capable of producing 16 megawatts of power, while the wind farm on its own will produce 13.6 megawatts."

Superficially, you might look at the above figures and see they are close. But in New Zealand conditions at least, I would expect the hydro unit would be able to operate at near peak capacity a lot longer than the wind farm. So why wasn't more wind generation capacity put into the overall design?

SNOOPY

[bull....]

England confirms there is "no commitment on the closure of any units at Huntly

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112...gests#comments

[bull....]

i see yesterday announcement on emissions bill has no legal requirement for companies to meet it , only targets. that good for genesis as gives them much longer to keep running coal if they so decide

[Airw0lf]

i see yesterday announcement on emissions bill has no legal requirement for companies to meet it , only targets. that good for genesis as gives them much longer to keep running coal if they so decide

Genesis already fall under and will continue to fall under the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme which essentially forces them to be carbon neutral already by either purchasing carbon offsets to match every tonne of carbon emitted out of Huntly, or paying the government a fixed amount to do so. The only question is how much these costs of compliance will rise - at the moment the carbon price is too low in NZ because of the government's $25 fixed price option.

[Beagle]

It worries me when companies come up with new key performance indicators as though being carbon neutral is just as important as any other KPI. I worry that in the process or creating this new yardstick by which they measure their performance they lose focus on what's really important in their business and most importantly of all what the shareholders really want them to laser focus on, the most relevant KPI of all, earnings per share. I think in this incredibly politically correct world its far to easy for company directors and senior management to think that by achieving some self contrived new yardstick they are somehow achieving the key objectives that shareholders really want.

I suspect if you took a poll the vast majority of shareholders for any given company would simply tell management to stick to their knitting and focus on more important issues. All their efforts (as one shareholder of Summerset put it to me at the annual meeting), won't save one single polar bear.

[macduffy]

I agree with that, Beagle. Set a KPI that can be achieved without too much sweat?