All posts in the topic Canterbury Energy strategy (Short link)
Summary
- There are 9 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Rik Tindall at Jun 25 13:40 UTC
Considering the power went out in Heathcote this morning and with the inclement
weather reminding us of how our friends in South Canterbury went without power
for two weeks during the last winter storm, this is probably a timely
discussion.
The last time we nearly got into a proper discussion of this topic was when
former councillor, Richard Budd discussed the possibility of a new cable into
Canterbury being the most appropriate way to secure our energy needs. In recent
posts I noticed a comment that "wind farms" are for PR and the cost-benefit
analysis does not stack up as well as a comment about the high cost to import
Swedish wind machines.
We have a number of options to consider, firstly renewables: generation from
wind, river, solar, wave and geothermal (though there are those who would argue
that timber is renewable...????)
Then there's oil and coal fired power stations and some argue we can burn coal
more cleanly than China can, so we should retain our coal. Of course there is
nuclear (ooowww I hear you tremble) and perhaps in the future bio-fuel power
stations.
The security of supply is probably the most pressing issue - those living in
South Canterbury will agree with me on this. Having a cable from elsewhere is
both costly - you can loose up to 80% of generation through transmission and
obviously the longer the cable, the more points it is at risk of failure.
We do not generate electricity in Canterbury! (yes on the border at the Waitaki
and yes - one wind machine which powers HQ in Tuam St) but not within the
province!
I've just returned from Europe and there's a huge amount of PR going on up
there (Andrew) as there are wind machines everywhere - and of course they have
money to burn on the machines too - that was me being facetious - I think the
Europeans are better at cost-benefit analysis and they have worked out that a
combination of renewables works - the windfarm in the Baltic Sea between
Denmark and Sweden is breathtaking. There is no doubt Europe has embraced
windfarms and guess what - they know we have them all over New Zealand too as
they know we are one of the windiest places on earth - ask any pilot the
windiest sector to fly in (the Tasman) or any sailor the roughest seas (Cook
Strait) - unfortunately they haven't visited to find out that we are ever so
slightly behind everyone else....
Let's for the moment discount nuclear - I doubt anyone in New Zealand thinks we
will ever give up our ban - and having resided on the Irish seaboard I can tell
you of the utter devatation of fish stocks by Sellafield - Chernobyl was only
one of a multitude of issues with nuclear power in the Northern Hemisphere -
and don't think that we live far enough away from Australia if they go nuclear
- the prevailing wind from Chernobyl was westerly and that meant that most of
the Northern Scots sheepfarms were decimated - that's much further than Sydney
to the South Island.
So what's next - well Mainpower are putting in a windfarm in North Canterbury
on Mt Cass which should be quite efficient if you consider the norwesters and
the easterlies that the top of the Teviotdales experience. Most in the area are
pro the idea except those who live close enough to see the machines as visual
pollution or even closer to hear the machines (very limited number if you look
at Mainpower's noise shadow visuals). I'm sure we all agree that wind is not a
constant and that we need other sources in combination.
Canterbury has 26 rivers (soon to be 27 if CPW goes ahead - yes I know its a
canal) while some are small and do not flow all year, rivers like the Waimak
and Hurunui can take more generation and at least there is continued flow
unlike CPW which will take the water out of the system entirely
Canterbury also has an extensive coast line and wave power would be very easy
to generate. There are very few days when the sea is flat calm in the Pegasus
Bay.
Solar energy seems to be more successful in small scale generation i.e at the
household level and it strikes me that if ECAN were to subsidise installations
of solar energy into households rather than log burner conversions there might
be a longer term and greater impact on the air quality?????
Geothermal has its sources though I doubt there is anywhere in Canterbury it
would work (except perhaps in and around Hanmer). Its more likely to be rolled
out in the North Island around Taupo.
If we were to burn coal on the basis of the argument above (we burn it more
cleanly than the Chinese) and to save moving it great distances (carbon
footprint and all that) then Canterbury would be the ideal location -
population, short disance from the West Coast etc. Personally though I think we
should leave both coal and oil in the ground if the lastest climate change
figures are correct (watch for another post on climate change)
If we start to generate energy from bio-fuels then watch the change down on the
farm from dairy to bio-fuels! However the food shortages would be
substantive....
So who is driving Canterbury's energy strategy? I'm not really sure? Do you
know? One thing's for sure - if water levels don't rise and a couple of cables
get blown down (or hit by lightning or knocked over by snow or..or) can the
last one out turn off the lights, please.
In summary if Canterbury experiences another winter like the one that cut power
to South Canterbury for two weeks shouldn't we be looking to secure our supply
- locally?
Great post, Michael, thanks for that.
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 14:30 +1200, Michael Campbell wrote:
> If we were to burn coal on the basis of the argument above (we burn it
> more cleanly than the Chinese) and to save moving it great distances
> (carbon footprint and all that) then Canterbury would be the ideal
> location - population, short disance from the West Coast etc.
> Personally though I think we should leave both coal and oil in the
> ground if the lastest climate change figures are correct (watch for
> another post on climate change) If we start to generate energy from
> bio-fuels then watch the change down on the farm from dairy to
> bio-fuels! However the food shortages would be substantive....
When we talk about an energy strategy for Canterbury, we really also
need to factor in transport energy, since that's just as critical as
electrical energy. Even though I'm not a big fan of coal, perhaps we do
need to be investing in some emergency coal-fired infrastructure just to
keep the basic services going (telecomms, medical facilities, street
lights). Also, it might not be a bad idea to have a small-scale coal
gasification plant (didn't we used to have one ?) to power the
ambulances, police cars and trucks to bring food in from the country.
> So who is driving Canterbury's energy strategy? I'm not really sure? Do
> you know? One thing's for sure - if water levels don't rise and a
> couple of cables get blown down (or hit by lightning or knocked over
> by snow or..or) can the last one out turn off the lights, please.
I suspect noone is driving our energy strategy at a medium-term,
long-lasting emergency level. The local authorities are planning for
either long term, gradual shifts in supply and demand patterns or very
short-lived major supply disruptions (like a cable being cut). Noone is
planning for the oil tankers not coming any more.
> In summary if Canterbury experiences another winter like the one that
> cut power to South Canterbury for two weeks shouldn't we be looking to
> secure our supply - locally?
In general, we should be planning to do lots of things a hell of a lot
more locally than we are now, but having a more local electricity and
transport energy supply wouldn't be a bad idea. We should also have a
rationing plan for how to cope on greatly reduced power supply for maybe
a few months. Just in case ...
Sth Canterbury's snow event wasnt a failure of a feeder line, it was systemic
failure of the above ground network.
It wouldnt have mattered if we had a Nuclear "Fairlienobyl" or a thinkbig
"RaikiaClyde" the powerlines would have still fallen down and poles snapped.
SouthCanterbury was saved by the humble woodburner!
The sucurity issue relating to Canterbury Energy strategy remains weak because
we havent done anything on the required scale to make a difference. Its not
that we lack options, its that we havent moved forward to evaluate any of them.
Show me a low head hydro resource consent... or any analysis of high altitude
wind options that we have the WORLDS best resouce in. Indeed of all the options
in the MED 'emerging energy supply side' report, we have done nothing.
Having toured the Gebbies Windfarm (im still waiting to see a breeding pair)
and the other regional energy options, I now observe two years later that we
havent added ANY DE, no PV, no more Wind and we still punish people for
thinking about thermal solar (consent fees) while subsidising heat pumps. We
havent as much as engaged in waste to energy evaluation, Bromley is the same
ol'GenSet. What of lignocellulosic resources? Mayor BobP opens a composting
plant as if upping the game by keeping it out of the landfill was the best
option.
What we have done is left it up to a few good folk to do the best they can
empowered by the content of their own wallets.
Having delivered the earthday speech at ECAN back in May on relevent local
energy options - one can be a tad cynical as to where we need to take this
conversation.
There is a lot of posturing and not much production...
'Just Blair' Anderson wrote:
>
> What we have done is left it up to a few good folk to do the best they can
empowered by the content of their own wallets.
>
> Having delivered the earthday speech at ECAN back in May on relevent local
energy options - one can be a tad cynical as to where we need to take this
conversation.
>
> There is a lot of posturing and not much production...
>
>
>
Produce more, keep the price down and someone will go ahead and use
more, sort of a Tim's argument. We will be back where we were.
Say we increase production by 5%. But then I see there is application
for apartments in Marine Pde/Union St: "It is considered that the
requirement for areas to provide for washing lines and the like are not
practical for multi unit apartment living.." I think that will eat up 5%
of a power bill.
We need to be sure people can make use of natural heating wherever
possible, i.e. make sure clothes lines are available, and ration
electricity use in proportion. Quite often, for example, in the morning,
the outdoor air temperature may be greater than the indoor air
temperature, since insulation and lack of ventilation has stopped that
heat getting in.
Also ventilation outgoing air can have its heat exchanged to teh
incoming air. I saw such a unit advertised recently. They should be
madatory in new buildings.
Also we need to use the solid sorption process which I have written of
before, where low quality heat is changed to a higher temperature.
The power bill is not a great proportion of the average income. So
charging more will only help a little to have power more valued. People
will not think how valuing power values our environment. I believe it
needs building regs as for safety &c.
When we talk about "energy strategy" we are talking about community level decisions, not personal decisions There is a regional strategy. It's hidden here. http://www.creds.org.nz/Home The site hasn't ever been properly updated The "have your say" section isn't functioning. There are some PDF documents available. A 4 page document for a "Prosperous Christchurch City - Economic Development Strategy This read sa a PR exercise designed to attract new enterprise to Christchurch and NOT as a serious attempt to develop a regional plan It has some "nice ideas" very little of which is actually happening from what I can see. Nowhere is energy strategy addressed. *************** I found the "New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy" dated 2007. (88 pages http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/eeca-reports/neecs/report/nzeecs-07.pd No I have not read it. ***************** I think that there are several keys to a good strategy First, the strategy must be multi-faceted, it must range from the need to change our lifestyles to the need to close down some of our industries, while others grow including some new ones Second, we must ensure FULL COST pricing even when that hurts us. In the long run full cost pricing forces people to make the changes they need to make in their lives, or in the industrial or agricultural activities they are engaged in. In the LONG RUN that's much cheaper than trying to sustain sunset activities because of the pain of change Third, a great deal can be achieved if people are fully informed. Much of what we need to do is shrouded in mystery. For instance people are installing heat pumps, and the emphasis is on doing it cheaply and easily. But I suspect we're getting second best. Ground based sources for the heat are better than air, particularly in the the winter. Yes more expensive, but quite doable especially with a little DIY assistance Another example might be double glazing. I put in some aluminum double glazed windows, replacing wooden frames. I've got a second best result. The frames themselves don't have internal separation, inside to outside, so the metal frames undo most of the good done be the double glass layer. On reflection it was a mistake, but done with good intention. It's not a mistake I'll repeat. On the other hand what I could read told me not to try an double glaze existing wooden frames. So of two years, knowing how disappointed I was with the aluminum frames, I delayed action. This year I retro-fitted two wooden framed windows with an extra layer of glass. I'm very pleased. It was even easy to do. Much superior (so far) to replacing the window and much cheaper too. There is "community knowledge" about how to proceed. Sometimes that community knowledge is well informed and sometimes it's not. In these changing times it's quite likely the "standard information" the rule of thumb of the trade may not now be the best solution. The BEST way to use solar heating is to build solar gain into the fabric of your house. That means HEAVY construction inside the house that absorbs the sun's heat, much better insulation than even the new modern standards, and building natural air flows into the construction. Much easier in a newly designed home. How often is this being done? Hardly at all. Why? Mostly, lack of knowledge. Fourth, what we each choose to do, makes the market for suppliers. If more of us are using bikes, there will be more bike shops, and more facilities on the road for cyclists and cycling will get easier and safer. If enough of us ask our suppliers about ground based heat pumps, those pumps will become an option on the market. If we demand double glazing for our existing windows someone will offer it. What you choose to do does make a difference. All of the above is on the demand side Five, on the supply side, if suppliers are faced with informed customers they will find ways to meet the need. Small scale generation is possible on the premises of most businesses. Given right pricing, any firm with waste heat will find a way to capture that for reuse. Electricity meters run BOTH ways. If you can generate power it can be fed back to the grid. There are hundreds of small changes on the supply side, that added to wind generation and perhaps flow generators in rivers, and maybe tidal change generators we can become better able to ensure sustainable energy supplies. Six, DO LESS. So much of what we choose to call economic growth, is of doubtful quality and of poor or negative value. We do many things because they a supposed to "create jobs" when in fact the effect of that is almost certainly NEGATIVE on our way of life. Here I'm making value judgments, and it's easy to say "what right have you" to call my industry "black". I have none. Eventually, it's not my call. Where is the value? Wat is the cost? The gambling industry has a case to answer The liquor industry has a case to answer. Agriculture and fisheries have a case to answer. Universities and Tertiary Colleges have a case to answer Coal mining has a case to answer. The finance, insurance and banking industry has a case to answer. The property development industry has a case to answer Mineral mining has a case to answer. Some collective groups have a case to answer, the ones that wear patches and do obvious criminal acts are easy to spot, the ones who wear suits and go to church, but are still involved in "community rip-offs for personal gain" are the really dangerous ones. So much of what we do is based on our "history and tradition" and in changing times, the value of continuing that activity in the same way should be questioned. If here in Canterbury we are to move in the direction of sustainable development, some of the activities we take for granted will STOP. These activities will no longer be acceptable, and those industries will decline and close, or find new "justified" ways to continue. A development strategy for Canterbury, would not only identify what we want to have more of, it would also make plain what we need less of. An energy strategy for Canterbury would be part of that plan. None of us have a "solution". What we need to do is realise that the game of community development now has a new set of rules. Information is like water, it spreads. The environment makes us wealthy or poor, and we're actively engaged in it's destruction. The community is much more diverse, and we have to create legitimate ways for everyone to play a useful role. Putting 20,000 more people in prison won't make you safer, real community development might. We need new ways to define "economic development" and none of the ways we currently use are appropriate. We make wrong decisions, we add to the destruction, both community and environmental, because we focus on the wrong objectives. But, we also have to live today, to make a decision today SO Small steps. Put aside "think big" and think about where the real wealth is. How do you make that grow? Lots of talking. Lots ot trying to understand the big picture. Lots of willingness to learn new things.
Hello Michael, and forum, Sounds like an eye-opening excursion, thanks for sharing the insights. But is global jet-setting going to continue much longer, affordably and sustainably, we must ask? "Think local, act local" may be the revised mantra for solving the global resource crisis building daily into our lives. That's the starting point of the energy strategy we need, which brings us to 'how?'.. Michael Campbell wrote: > ..a timely discussion. > > We have a number of options to consider, firstly renewables: generation from wind, river, solar, wave and geothermal ..timber.. > Agreed. > Of course there is nuclear.. risk. Uranium will run out quite soon, along with oil & gas, so isn't a genuine fix either. > .. and perhaps in the future bio-fuel power stations. > - Our biggest hope, in that the stabilised human habitat and protected, biodiverse ecosystem should be possible under solar power (including photosynthesis, wind, hydro, wave) and tidal generation - if we are to forestall gross economic collapse and species endangerment. That is, we have to plan an inclusive 'living within our means', or the shocks of ecological bankruptcy will just keep growing more and more profound and tragic. - was thus also drafting comment towards "Food security for Canterbury" thread: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/26FPfYLIbEsKDMNapL6VMO But basically, we need to start viewing Food and Energy as one interrelated field of production - and match capacity to need with due precision - or see more and more lives ('consumptive prosperity') lost over time. This means facing up to the fundamental inequity overdrawing our environmental budget. > .. Personally though I think we should leave both coal and oil in the ground if the lastest climate change figures are correct.. Agreed. They are. Constituting the main business.. > If we start to generate energy from bio-fuels then watch the change down on the farm from dairy to bio-fuels! However the food shortages would be substantive.. > Step #1 is to dispel this pernicious, religious propaganda. India's grain shortages have proven once and for all that dairy is but a _luxury_ 'food' (or A1 toxin). We need to grow more resource-efficient vegetable proteins, grains, pulses, and seed crops etc - to really contribute to the energy (human fuel) crisis. Which means especially, now, overcoming the historical and market-manipulative obstacles to widespread hemp cropping. - Lignocellulose for abundant (m)ethanol, plastics and fibre, butter, oil, biodiesel, construction materials - added to more forestry, this is how we must start to prepare our economy for a predictable climate refugee shock, through food/fuel/housing independence. - Localised energy generation and self-sufficiency. From a regional basis - practical and decentralised - we must indicate to farmers how they can do better from this most necessary of transitions. But why the essential shift away from dairy? - Because the social ills, disrespect, drunkenness and murder plaguing our world comes as no surprise once we recognise its original source. A society sowing theft as its most propitious means of livelihood can only expect to reap it too. Based upon the Biblical justification, land for stock herding was extra-legally seized - creating the illusion that unlimited water for irrigation could just as easily be stolen too. But stolen from what / whom? - From our very selves, our Earth. 2,000 years ago the complete hypocrisy, unsustainability, and fallaciousness of this approach to economic life was pointed out, costing the life of a latterly revered martyr. That teacher's message now has science to explain it. The source of the message is anything but extraterrestial or supernatural, and always was so. - It is about humanity coming to terms with itself, and with our hitherto natural and semi-evolved limitations. Step #1 is to see beyond cattle herding - always performed at the unnecessary expense of human lives - to a true and shared future. - Alternative land use, with improved resource conservation, is where we must start. Viable energy solutions follow. Half of these derive from rejection of luxury patterns of consumption and production, as plainly empty and often poisonous (starting with alcohol - the Legions' curse). "Give unto Caesar.." taxation and GST - the moral questioning of 'legality'. Change, we must. > So who is driving Canterbury's energy strategy? ..shouldn't we be looking to secure our supply - locally? > That has got to be us: idea shapers, forum citizens, communicative problem-solvers; people of Canterbury, and democrats. Kind regards, Rik Tindall
Michael Campbell wrote:
>[clip]
>
>We do not generate electricity in Canterbury! (yes on the border at the
Waitaki and yes - one wind machine which powers HQ in Tuam St) but not within
the province!
>
>
Electricity is produced at Highbank, Canterbury.
Hi David I agree, power is generated at Highbank and will be at Mt Cass however Highbank produces about enough for 12,000 homes and Mt Cass will produce around 13,000 - both are deemed small scale - as I point out in the post, the issue is: if a cable is cut bringing power into the region we will be stuck, we do not generate sufficient in region to survive, not-withstanding Rik's belief that we should live like the dark ages. I'd like you to explain to a hospital patient that they can't have life-saving surgery because there is no power or tell year 13 students they can't do NCEA exams because of the power or an exporter that an order can't be fulfilled because there is no power - while we can strategise all we like - the impact of a blackout has far-reaching implications and as the residents of South Canterbury found out there is no civil defence response - no-one in Wellington came to see how they were doing just like the residents of New Orleans - in crises like these you are on your own! So where is our energy strategy now? A favourite belief of mine is that if we can have self-sufficiency at a household level then we avoid paying government for energy delivery and reduce our tax burden (not something they like - they like us to be behoven to them - look at how many taxes we pay currently) although they would then have to look at other schemes to try and rob us. One of the largest uses in a household is water heating and solar power is very good for that and as my son pointed out we have a lot of sunshine here even in winter - while solar will not answer all our needs having a mix of gas, solar and renewably generated electricity makes us more self-sufficient and less dependent on imported energy. Obviously as already posted we need to do a better job of making our houses retain heat and even make use of latent heat which will come when building codes are updated (Sweden is the expert in this area - but we aren't allowed to know that as Rik doesn't want us to travel overseas...). While we need to do a better job at the amount of energy we use there are critical area that we haven't thought about and which having local generation leaves us less exposed. That's my greatest concern with our non-existent energy supply Further on Highbank - CPW may leave Highbank unable to generate.... - see Press story here: http://stuff.co.nz/thepress/4595612a19753.html Michael Campbell
Michael, Michael. Tsk. Michael Campbell wrote: > > ..if a cable is cut bringing power into the region we will be stuck, we do not generate sufficient in region to survive, not-withstanding Rik's belief that we should live like the dark ages. No, a world of light in fact beckons - once we shed the vestiges of feudalism (irrationality, stock enclosures, barbaric behaviours, etc), and gear production to human need harmonised with our environment. Biomass power generation, and m/ethanol transport = progress via renewables. This is about sustainable local food/fuel energy production, primarily - power cables made largely redundant, along with the grid. Modular energy units, for a deurbanised repopulating of the land, and true resilience. It's just a matter of refocusing farming. > ..there is no civil defence response.. in crises.. you are on your own! Well done on reading the CDEM manual, Michael. > So where is our energy strategy now? Building; here. Through the court of public opinion and good sense. > A favourite belief of mine is that if we can have self-sufficiency at a household level.. Solar panels, windmills and microdigesters etc, for all, would ease the pain, but are unlikely to meet transport and industrial needs. So we're going to still need some socially organised production (once Michael has abolished the government, especially). > ..(Sweden is the expert in this area - but we aren't allowed to know that as Rik doesn't want us to travel overseas...). Computers and the internet deliver such knowledge excellently - a far better use of them than Michael is demonstrating :) Energy-efficient too! You can travel all you like, Mike, (on yer bike), so long as you've grown enough ethanol to run your plane! You can even grow biomass 'weed' between your grapevines to achieve that, if you choose. But then we'd be asking why and where you actually need to go - especially if it is just to peddle more plonk into Europe. "What production don't we need?" the world is asking. Very loudly. "..Superintendent Dave Cliff, is clear on what is driving crime in Christchurch: 'Alcohol, the abuse of alcohol is our biggest drug problem.'" 'Blight of the night' - http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4591188a27726.html - Do want any help getting out of town, Michael? Step #2 in moral land use change - after ditching dairy - is no more vineyards. We'll possibly still make some beer though - nutritive value. It's time to reach a decision, Michael - which do you want to choose - the old world, or the new? > While we need to do a better job at the amount of energy we use there are critical area that we haven't thought about and which having local generation leaves us less exposed. That's my greatest concern with our non-existent energy supply Instructions as above.