Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already been spent on the idea!!!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six weeks!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:!
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already been spent on the idea!!
It was an indication of the amunt of power generation capacity, not a suggestion that once generation started it would continue until no
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six weeks!
The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off
the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 >weeks.
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for >the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be >"Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.That is effectively what the coal fired plant in Huntly does - why not
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up >and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.That is key to any proposals to increase generation capacity; the
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get >us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor >to say the least.I agree that successive governments have done little to change the
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:!!
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already been spent on the idea!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six weeks!The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 weeks.
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be "Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor to say the least.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
On 12 Mar 2023 06:41:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most of the profit from electricity goes to the government as the major shareholder.
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:It was an indication of the amunt of power generation capacity, not a >suggestion that once generation started it would continue until no
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on >>>cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the >>>rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already
been spent on the idea!!!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six >>>weeks!
The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off >>the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 >>weeks.
water was left!
That is effectively what the coal fired plant in Huntly does - why not
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for >>the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be >>"Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.
for this lake?
That is key to any proposals to increase generation capacity; the
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up >>and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.
government will be aware of projections
I agree that successive governments have done little to change the
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get >>us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor >>to say the least.
appalling structure of the electricity industry that is designed to
maximise profits to shareholders rather than to guarantee supply at
minimum cost to users. There have been suggestions that the government
should buy-back shares - all that is likely to do is capitalise a lot
of future profit for shareholders at little benefit to electricity
users. A pumped hydro station owned by the government would give
further competition to the exiting companies, and the government culd
use it a bit like Huntly - as a high cost emergency source of
electricity that would only be available at very hig cost to the other >companies. There is no record oany government planning anything before
this to reign in the value given away to its friends by National; it
appears to be excellent planning to be able to contemplate an action
that may at least limit that rorting of ordinary New Zealanders.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 19:34:43 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be obtuse, I didn't say that and in so saying you show your ignorance of business.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2023 06:41:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most of the profit from electricity goes to the government as the major >>shareholder.
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:It was an indication of the amunt of power generation capacity, not a >>>suggestion that once generation started it would continue until no
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on >>>>>cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan >>>>>the
rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has >>>>>already
been spent on the idea!!!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six >>>>>weeks!
The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off >>>>the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 >>>>weeks.
water was left!
That is effectively what the coal fired plant in Huntly does - why not >>>for this lake?
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for >>>>the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be >>>>"Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.
That is key to any proposals to increase generation capacity; the >>>government will be aware of projections
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up
and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.
I agree that successive governments have done little to change the >>>appalling structure of the electricity industry that is designed to >>>maximise profits to shareholders rather than to guarantee supply at >>>minimum cost to users. There have been suggestions that the government >>>should buy-back shares - all that is likely to do is capitalise a lot
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get >>>>us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor >>>>to say the least.
of future profit for shareholders at little benefit to electricity
users. A pumped hydro station owned by the government would give
further competition to the exiting companies, and the government could >>>use it a bit like Huntly - as a high cost emergency source of
electricity that would only be available at very hig cost to the other >>>companies. There is no record of any government planning anything before >>>this to reign in the value given away to its friends by National; it >>>appears to be excellent planning to be able to contemplate an action
that may at least limit that rorting of ordinary New Zealanders.
So why does the government not fix it? They have had 5 years to do it.
So you want a 51% shareholder to operate the companies against the
best financial interests of the other 49%! Clearly you are not familar
with commercial law . . .
And most people would regard 51% as a bit less than they would expect51% is most of a given amount - simple maths.
from your description of "most profit," Tony.
I am applauding the possibility, small though it may be, that theI suggested the use of lakes as batteries here some years ago and you became your usual dismissive self. No don't ask me to look it up - it is a fact.
government use a new vehicle to actively compete on equal terms with
the other generating companies. As has been pointed out the location
of this lake is not close to the greatest need for new generation, so
it may not stack up, but the same principle may be able to be used
elsewhere.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 19:34:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you want a 51% shareholder to operate the companies against the
On 12 Mar 2023 06:41:55 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most of the profit from electricity goes to the government as the major >shareholder.
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:It was an indication of the amunt of power generation capacity, not a >>suggestion that once generation started it would continue until no
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on >>>>cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the
rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already
been spent on the idea!!!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six >>>>weeks!
The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off >>>the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 >>>weeks.
water was left!
That is effectively what the coal fired plant in Huntly does - why not >>for this lake?
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for
the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be
"Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.
That is key to any proposals to increase generation capacity; the >>government will be aware of projections
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up
and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.
I agree that successive governments have done little to change the >>appalling structure of the electricity industry that is designed to >>maximise profits to shareholders rather than to guarantee supply at >>minimum cost to users. There have been suggestions that the government >>should buy-back shares - all that is likely to do is capitalise a lot
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get
us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor
to say the least.
of future profit for shareholders at little benefit to electricity >>users. A pumped hydro station owned by the government would give
further competition to the exiting companies, and the government could >>use it a bit like Huntly - as a high cost emergency source of >>electricity that would only be available at very hig cost to the other >>companies. There is no record of any government planning anything before >>this to reign in the value given away to its friends by National; it >>appears to be excellent planning to be able to contemplate an action >>that may at least limit that rorting of ordinary New Zealanders.
So why does the government not fix it? They have had 5 years to do it.
best financial interests of the other 49%! Clearly you are not familar
with commercial law . . .
And most people would regard 51% as a bit less than they would expect
from your description of "most profit," Tony.
I am applauding the possibility, small though it may be, that the
government use a new vehicle to actively compete on equal terms with
the other generating companies. As has been pointed out the location
of this lake is not close to the greatest need for new generation, so
it may not stack up, but the same principle may be able to be used elsewhere.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2023 06:41:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most of the profit from electricity goes to the government as the major >shareholder.
On 2023-03-12, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:It was an indication of the amunt of power generation capacity, not a >>suggestion that once generation started it would continue until no
Wouldn't the $70 million on a detailed business case be better spent on >>>>cyclone recovery or geothermal power? That's just for the business plan the >>>>rest is liable to cost Several $billion to complete and $30 million has already
been spent on the idea!!!
Oh and the plan will only provide enough water to supply energy for six >>>>weeks!
The article says it will supply all on NZ power needs, which is a bit off >>>the point. All the power generation capacity is not going to dry up for 6 >>>weeks.
water was left!
That is effectively what the coal fired plant in Huntly does - why not
Secondly, this battery requires charging. Are we going to keep it just for >>>the dry day/month? What is the caost of doing so? More likely there will be >>>"Market forces" which result in a flat battery when required.
for this lake?
That is key to any proposals to increase generation capacity; the >>government will be aware of projections
What is the forcast of supply and demand with the solar and wind powering up >>>and the EV sucking it out, plus national growth.
I agree that successive governments have done little to change the >>appalling structure of the electricity industry that is designed to >>maximise profits to shareholders rather than to guarantee supply at
We are at a point of many paths ahead and some thinking will be need to get >>>us on the right path. The Government's record in such areas to date is poor >>>to say the least.
minimum cost to users. There have been suggestions that the government >>should buy-back shares - all that is likely to do is capitalise a lot
of future profit for shareholders at little benefit to electricity
users. A pumped hydro station owned by the government would give
further competition to the exiting companies, and the government could
use it a bit like Huntly - as a high cost emergency source of
electricity that would only be available at very hig cost to the other >>companies. There is no record of any government planning anything before >>this to reign in the value given away to its friends by National; it >>appears to be excellent planning to be able to contemplate an action
that may at least limit that rorting of ordinary New Zealanders.
So why does the government not fix it? They have had 5 years to do it.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131433446/ministers-about-to-decide-which-way-to-flick-the-switch-on-lake-onslow
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:03:15 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,164 |