https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current "plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan an
escape from a carport.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current >"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan an >escape from a carport.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current "plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan an escape from a carport.
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar so the same issues arise.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion >>yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current >>"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan an >>escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut like a trap.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar so >the same issues arise.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion >>>yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current >>>"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut like a
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
trap.
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyClose.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar >>so
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion >>>>yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current >>>>"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan >>>>an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or
steady.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . .They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectivelyThey are irregular.
continuous.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is notSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of storage. Well done.
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example >https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut like >>a
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
trap.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyClose.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar >>>so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not plan >>>>>an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or
steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . .
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectivelyThey are irregular.
continuous.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of >storage. Well done.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example >>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most
Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut like
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
a trap.
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, why do you do that?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyClose.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar >>>>so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . .
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectivelyThey are irregular.
continuous.
That would make a change.Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of >>storage. Well done.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example >>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the
world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most
unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make aABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports such rubbish. Quite the opposite.
significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to
develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so one more win for your education.Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut >>>>like
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation
shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to
waste they are still better off in the short term:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, why >do you do that?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>continuous.
That would make a change.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of >>>storage. Well done.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the
world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession >is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most
unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports such >rubbish. Quite the opposite.
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a
significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to
develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so >one more win for your education.
a trap.
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut >>>>>like
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation
shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to
waste they are still better off in the short term:
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no plan >to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>why
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
That would make a change.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of >>>>storage. Well done.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the
world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession >>is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most
unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to
develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so >>one more win for your education.
a trap.
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut >>>>>>like
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation
shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial
subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through windNot yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industryPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them
top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we
retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>>why
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>That would make a change.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to
develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
a trap.
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut >>>>>>>like
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation
shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry
lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them
top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. The total amount of wind and solar generation is aboiut 20% of our generation.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>>>why
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>>solar
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort >>>>>>of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree >>>>-so
like
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is >>>>>>>>shut
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell. >It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >generate more wind generation.
Proof please! You say they are not interested in maximising efficiencies and yet you provide no evidence. If you were right it would be one of the few industries that behaves that badly - I don't believe you.Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>>>why
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>>solar
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
like
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell. >It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >generate more wind generation.
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>>>why
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not >>>>>>>>>>plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation >>>>>>>>>using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>>solar
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
like
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the >>>>>>>>similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that generate more wind generation.
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyCan you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich, >>>>>why
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>>>solar
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>continuous.
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell. >>It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>is storage.
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>generate more wind generation.
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in
tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be
changed in the foreseeable future.
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
Yes you are correct, I had meant to include geothermal.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You're being overly generous there Tony. It's actually 7.1% for wind and solar >doesn't even get a mention... >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand#Generation
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. The total amount of wind and solar generation is aboiut >>20%
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesneBut not intermittent . . .Close.Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like windReality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation,
nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in
the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could >> >>>>>>>>>>not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >> >>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for
micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators.
and
solar
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or
steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >> >>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively
continuous.
Rich,
why
do you do that?
That would make a change.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and mediumSo you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from
relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers:
https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation
from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
sort
of
storage. Well done.
sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the
world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most
unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
obsession
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a
significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to
develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >> >>>>>our road to zero emissions.
supports
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is >> >>>>>>>>shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >> >>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see >> >>>>>>>>the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation
shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >> >>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
agree
-so
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is >> >>>>no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions.
It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced throughIt has everything to do with it.https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial
subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
tell.
other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that
generate more wind generation.
of our generation.
There is no plan to provide storage without which our direction is going to >> fail. Read the article more carefully.He's just spouting the Marxist government bullshit! I'd bet even Rich isn't >stupid enought actually believe it...
Proof please! You say they are not interested in maximising efficiencies and >> yet you provide no evidence. If you were right it would be one of the few
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry
lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them
top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we
retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
industries that behaves that badly - I don't believe you.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You're being overly generous there Tony. It's actually 7.1% for wind and solar doesn't even get a mention...
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Absolute nonsense. The total amount of wind and solar generation is aboiut 20%Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt has everything to do with it.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>continuous.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
of
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is >>>>>>>>shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
-so
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>is storage.
things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >generate more wind generation.
of our generation.
There is no plan to provide storage without which our direction is going to fail. Read the article more carefully.He's just spouting the Marxist government bullshit! I'd bet even Rich isn't stupid enought actually believe it...
Proof please! You say they are not interested in maximising efficiencies and yet you provide no evidence. If you were right it would be one of the few industries that behaves that badly - I don't believe you.Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximisingPolitical rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>top spend money before problems make that absoutley necessary - so we >>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyCan you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>generate more wind generation.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:so
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the >>>>>>>>>>>>current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and >>>>>>>>>>solar
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>continuous.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively >>>>>>>>>small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from >>>>>>>>>relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports >>>>>>such
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>>>our road to zero emissions.
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no >>>>>>plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell. >>>It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in
tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be
changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway >to filling the lake(s).
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps >to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated (GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728 20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786 20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805 21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805 22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826 22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839 22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922 24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931 26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971 27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051 30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047 30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126 31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165 32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141 32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660 36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056 36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781 38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254 38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941 39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229 39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845 41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097 41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916 42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058 42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092 42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476 42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684 43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496 43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678 43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561 42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519 42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488 43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094 42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207 43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057 43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160 43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101 2,073 43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136 2,133 43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8% 0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyCan you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following >>>hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>generate more wind generation.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . .
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>continuous.They are irregular.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would agree -so
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in
tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be
changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway >to filling the lake(s).The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum
water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly
higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively
storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps
to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated (GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728 20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786 20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805 21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805 22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826 22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839 22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922 24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931 26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971 27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051 30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047 30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126 31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165 32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141 32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660 36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056 36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781 38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254 38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941 39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229 39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845 41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097 41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916 42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058 42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092 42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476 42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684 43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496 43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678 43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561 42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519 42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488 43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094 42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207 43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057 43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160 43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101 2,073 43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136 2,133 43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8% 0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand increases to use up other generating sources.
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by
spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of
coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating
power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed
- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other
problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system
needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional
generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to
maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would
only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging,
within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as
they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy
prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market'
working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity
generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times
the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a
generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what
effect could that have on profits for the current electricity
generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are
other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:"slightly" exactly. But nowhere near where we need to be.
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Can you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne >>>>>>>Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle.
Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could >>>>>>>>>>>>>not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for >>>>>>>>>>>>micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind >>>>>>>>>>>and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>>steady.
They are irregular.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . . >>>>>>>>>They are not continuous.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>>continuous.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some >>>>>>>>>sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science >>>>>>>supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>>>>our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would >>>>>>>agree -so
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is >>>>>>>>>>>shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see >>>>>>>>>>>the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is >>>>>>>no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>>generate more wind generation.
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in
tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be
changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >>storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway >>to filling the lake(s).
water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar >generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly
higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively
storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps >>to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >>policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated >>(GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728
20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786 20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805
21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805 22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826 22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839 22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922 24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931 26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971 27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051 30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047 30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126 31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165 32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141 32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660
36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056 36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781 38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254
38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941
39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229
39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845
41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097
41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916
42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058 42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092
42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476
42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684
43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496
43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678
43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561
42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519
42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488
43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094
42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207
43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057
43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160
43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101 2,073
43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136 2,133
43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8% 0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new >generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand >increases to use up other generating sources.
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by
spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of
coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating
power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed
- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other
problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system
needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional
generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the >commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to
maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would
only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging,
within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as
they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy
prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market'
working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity
generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower >electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times
the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a
generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what
effect could that have on profits for the current electricity
generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are
other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
On Sat, 20 May 2023 04:45:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat a silly thing you are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:"slightly" exactly. But nowhere near where we need to be.
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Can you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>>>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>>>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following >>>>>>hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>>>>generate more wind generation.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne >>>>>>>>>Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind >>>>>>>>>>>>>and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>>>>steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . >>>>>>>>>>>>.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>continuous.They are irregular.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some >>>>>>>>>>>sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from >>>>>>>>>>>>relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation >>>>>>>>>>>>from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>>>>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>>Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science >>>>>>>>>supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would >>>>>>>>>agree -so
the
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>see
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>is
shut
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is >>>>>>>>>no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do >>>>>>>tell.
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in >>>>> tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be >>>>> changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >>>>storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway >>>>to filling the lake(s).
water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar >>>generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly >>>higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively
storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient
So back to the original topic before you distoted it.
We need a storage plan and we need to understand that solar and wind will >>never
be enough without the storage (which we absolutely do not have now, no >>adequets
storage and no plan).
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any
planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just
in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use
of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry -
the cost is paid by all electricity users!
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has >>>fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new >>>generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand >>>increases to use up other generating sources.
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps
to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >>>>policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed. >>>> >>>>https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated >>>>(GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728
20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786
20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805
21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805
22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826
22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839
22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922
24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931
26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971
27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051
30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047
30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126
31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165
32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141
32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660
36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056
36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781
38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254
38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941
39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229
39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845
41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097
41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916
42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058
42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092
42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476
42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684
43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496
43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678
43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561
42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519
42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488
43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094
42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207
43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057
43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160
43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101
2,073
43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136
2,133
43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8%
0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by
spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of
coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating >>>power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed
- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other
problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system
needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional
generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the >>>commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to
maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would
only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging, >>>within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as
they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy
prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market' >>>working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity >>>generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower >>>electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times >>>the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a >>>generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what
effect could that have on profits for the current electricity
generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are
other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>>>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should. >>>>>>>Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:"slightly" exactly. But nowhere near where we need to be.
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Can you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following >>>>>hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>>>generate more wind generation.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne >>>>>>>>Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using >>>>>>>>>>>>>wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for >>>>>>>>>>>>>micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind >>>>>>>>>>>>and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>>>steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular . .
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>>>continuous.They are irregular.
why
do you do that?
I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true >>>>>>>>That would make a change.So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some >>>>>>>>>>sort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/
https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . -
storage. Well done.
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>>>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis.Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science >>>>>>>>supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along >>>>>>>>>our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would >>>>>>>>agree -so
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind is >>>>>>>>>>>>shut
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot see >>>>>>>>>>>>the
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to >>>>>>>>>waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is >>>>>>>>no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce.
Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do tell.
and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in >>>> tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to
conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be
changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >>>storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway >>>to filling the lake(s).
water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar >>generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly
higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively
storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient
So back to the original topic before you distoted it.
We need a storage plan and we need to understand that solar and wind will never
be enough without the storage (which we absolutely do not have now, no adequets
storage and no plan).
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has >>fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new >>generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand >>increases to use up other generating sources.
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps >>>to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >>>policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated >>>(GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728
20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786 20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805
21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805 22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826 22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839 22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922 24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931 26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971 27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051 30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047 30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126 31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165 32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141 32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660
36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056 36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781 38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254
38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941
39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229
39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845
41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097
41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916
42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058 42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092
42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476
42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684
43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496
43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678
43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561
42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519
42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488
43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094
42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207
43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057
43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160
43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101 2,073
43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136 2,133
43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8% 0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by
spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of
coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating >>power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed
- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other
problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system
needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional
generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the >>commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to
maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would
only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging, >>within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as
they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy
prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market'
working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity
generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower >>electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times
the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a
generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what
effect could that have on profits for the current electricity
generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are
other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2023 04:45:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat a silly thing you are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:"slightly" exactly. But nowhere near where we need to be.
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum >>>>water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar >>>>generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly >>>>higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively >>>>storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Can you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%) >>>>>> and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in >>>>>> tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to >>>>>> conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be >>>>>> changed in the foreseeable future.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through >>>>>>>other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>>>>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following >>>>>>>hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>>>>>generate more wind generation.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne >>>>>>>>>>Rich,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:solar
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or >>>>>>>>>>>>>steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular .
.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>continuous.They are irregular.
why
do you do that?
That would make a change.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around the >>>>>>>>>>>world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was truestorage. Well done.
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal >>>>>>>>>>>>>power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from >>>>>>>>>>>>>relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation >>>>>>>>>>>>>from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . - >>>>>>>>>>>>So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some >>>>>>>>>>>>sort of
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up.
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - an >>>>>>>>>>obsession
Back to the topic. But with science not hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science >>>>>>>>>>supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would >>>>>>>>>>agree -so
Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>see
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
the
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
shut
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to
waste they are still better off in the short term:
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is
no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce. >>>>>>>>>>Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial >>>>>>>>>subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing >>>>>>>>>as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan. >>>>>>>>>
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind >>>>>>>>>or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that >>>>>>>>>is storage.Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do >>>>>>>>tell.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >>>>>storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway
to filling the lake(s).
So back to the original topic before you distoted it.
We need a storage plan and we need to understand that solar and wind will >>>never
be enough without the storage (which we absolutely do not have now, no >>>adequets
storage and no plan).
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just
in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use
of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry -
the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks.
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has >>>>fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new >>>>generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand >>>>increases to use up other generating sources.
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps
to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of >>>>>policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed. >>>>> >>>>>https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated >>>>>(GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728
20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786
20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805
21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805
22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826
22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839
22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922
24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931
26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971
27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051
30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047
30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126
31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165
32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141
32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660
36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056
36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781
38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254
38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941
39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229
39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845
41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097
41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916
42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058
42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092
42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476
42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684
43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496
43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678
43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561
42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519
42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488
43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094
42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207
43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057
43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160
43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101
2,073
43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136
2,133
43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8%
0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%.
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by >>>>spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of >>>>coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating >>>>power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed
- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other
problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system
needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional >>>>generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the >>>>commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to >>>>maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would >>>>only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging, >>>>within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as >>>>they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy
prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market' >>>>working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity >>>>generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower >>>>electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times >>>>the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a >>>>generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what >>>>effect could that have on profits for the current electricity >>>>generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are >>>>other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>>>>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry >>>>>>>>>lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them >>>>>>>>>to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we >>>>>>>>>retain higher cost generation for longer than we should. >>>>>>>>Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right
On Sat, 20 May 2023 04:45:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat a silly thing you are.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19 May 2023 23:58:29 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So back to the original topic before you distoted it.
On 2023-05-19, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:The lake levels will need to be managed to meet maximum and minimum >>>>water flows downstream, but within those constraints if wind or solar >>>>generation reduces demand, lake levels can be managed to a slightly >>>>higher average level within those contraints. That is effecively >>>>storage - it makes the system overall slightly more resilient >>>"slightly" exactly. But nowhere near where we need to be.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 23:03:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 05:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Can you cite this? My recollection is that the load from wind (5%) >>>>>> and geothermal (15%) sources is small and while it is growing it is in
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It is already happening, Tony - as demand for hydro is reduced through
On Fri, 19 May 2023 04:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It has everything to do with it.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 05:32:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The effect is the same, what a silly bit of inconsequential nonsesne
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But not intermittent . . .
On Thu, 18 May 2023 04:06:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Close.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:and
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nuclear
fusion
yes.
But the real message in this paper is the hypocrisy and lies in
the
current
"plans" that this and other governments peddle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Road to zero is a scam perpetrated by incompetent fools who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
not
plan
an
escape from a carport.
It is surprising that he does not mention the possibility of using
wave or tidal power. There is also a lot of scope for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>micro-generation
using smaller water flows than the larger hydro generators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising in the least. Both are intermittent just like wind
solar
so
the same issues arise.
Intermittent - occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or
steady.
They are not continuous.
Now tides are complex, but certainly don't appear to be irregular .
.
Waves are also complex, but in many locations are effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>continuous.They are irregular.
Rich,
why
do you do that?
That would make a change.
Of course I agree that there are developments in small and medium >>>>>>>>>>>sized power generation from relatively small water flows around thesort of
Now I understand that generation from wave or tidal power is not
simple - they would be more widely used if it was easy, but tidal
power is starting to be used - see for example >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of examples of small power generation from >>>>>>>>>>>>>relatively
small water flows - see for example these commercial providers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://harrismicrohydro.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.powerspout.com/
There are developments in small and medium sized power generation
from
relatively small water flows around the world . . . - >>>>>>>>>>>>So you agree. Neither of those possibilites make sense without some
storage. Well done.
world . . . - I would not have made the statement unless it was true
- but I am glad that you now feel you agree with me.I posted that data mopnths ago - you finally caugfht up. >>>>>>>>>>>
I only bash incompetent governments and it is not an obsession - anBack to the topic. But with science not hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, your obsession with government-bashing has been most >>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate - follow the science, Tony!
obsession
is your hatred of Nationa, that is a real obsession.
ABsolute nonsense. You cannot prove one word of that, no science >>>>>>>>>>supports
As as a recent example shows, Wind and solar are able to make a >>>>>>>>>>>significant difference as the recent announcement of a grant to >>>>>>>>>>>develop Solar and Wind power in the Chatham Islands - heading us along
our road to zero emissions.
such
rubbish. Quite the opposite.
agree -so
Only to those with truly closed minds like yours. If you cannot
Posting to that website does suggest a bit of a closed mind . . .
see
the
similarity between solar and tidal storage issues then your mind
is
shut
like
a trap.
Generation comes before storage, as the Chatham Islands situation >>>>>>>>>>>shows - they will have some storage, but if excess generation goes to
waste they are still better off in the short term: >>>>>>>>>>Anothe obvious fact, not doubted by anyone - most 5 year olds would
one more win for your education.
But the bootom line is we have a serious shortafe of storage, there is
no
plan
to solve that, and the road to zero is therefore a farce. >>>>>>>>>>Now stick to the science and stop the diversions. >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018890884/funding-for-renewable-energy-on-the-chatham-islands
That has nothing to do with the "road to Zero" which was the initial
subject you introduced - the Chatham Island developments are bringing
as closer to that ideal.
It generates electricity that we cannot store.
Until that is resolved we don't have a plan. Lots of hope and no plan.
Not yet implemented or costed - perhaps you have designed a plan - do
We do have plenty of hydro storage - when there is supply through wind
or solar or other sources, we can keep lakes at a higher level - that
is storage.
tell.
other sources of generation, water retention is affected - so other >>>>>>>things being equal, we can hold higher levels behind dams following >>>>>>>hot summers that generate a lot of lolar power, or windy periods that >>>>>>>generate more wind generation.
tiny increments. This sort of capacity is no-where near enough to >>>>>> conserve hydro generation water use at any time, and this will not be >>>>>> changed in the foreseeable future.
While it is not clear whether Rich is talking about there being enough >>>>>storage in the lakes to or whether it that the excess solar will go someway
to filling the lake(s).
We need a storage plan and we need to understand that solar and wind will >>>never
be enough without the storage (which we absolutely do not have now, no >>>adequets
storage and no plan).
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry -
the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks.
extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand
does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend
nuclear power . . .
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms -
see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to
argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal
generation . . .
Thanks for that table, Gordon. It is not clear why use of coal has >>>>fluctuated to the extent shown, but we can expect it to reduce as new >>>>generation from other sources is introduced or to increase as demand >>>>increases to use up other generating sources.
Remember that the hydro lakes are filled by the spring thaw and having heaps
to excess solar might mean more spillway time.
Something to be kept in mind is that there is no silver bullet. A range of
policies and technology will be needed to get the change over completed.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
Under Data Tables for Electricty
(Fill your boots on these figures)
Table 6: Net Electricity Generation by Fuel Type - Cogeneration Separated
(GWh)
Calendar Year Electricity Only Plants Cogeneration2 Total
Hydro Geo- thermal Biogas Wind Solar PV Oil1 Coal Gas Sub- total
1974 15,037 1,304 - - - 1,943 1,281 186 19,751 728
20,479
1975 16,497 1,296 - - - 787 1,030 28 19,638 786
20,424
1976 15,344 1,236 - - - 1,280 1,081 1,778 20,719 805
21,524
1977 14,573 1,163 - - - 729 894 3,932 21,291 805
22,096
1978 15,503 1,185 - - - 199 705 3,740 21,332 826
22,158
1979 18,259 1,064 - - - 48 345 1,923 21,639 839
22,478
1980 19,171 1,152 - - - 3 378 1,471 22,175 841 23,016
1981 19,483 1,087 - - - 3 342 1,790 22,705 890 23,595
1982 18,121 1,104 - - - 15 374 4,343 23,957 922
24,879
1983 19,554 1,119 - - - 146 603 4,092 25,514 931
26,445
1984 20,173 1,240 - - - 5 681 4,508 26,607 950 27,557
1985 19,511 1,111 - - - 48 653 5,698 27,021 971
27,992
1986 21,877 1,180 - - - 6 492 4,430 27,984 971 28,955
1987 21,709 1,174 - - - 9 765 4,677 28,335 990 29,324
1988 22,733 1,183 - - - 7 582 5,071 29,576 1,051
30,627
1989 22,333 1,652 - - - 1 307 5,510 29,803 1,047
30,849
1990 22,953 1,957 25 - - 9 436 5,280 30,660 1,126
31,787
1991 22,666 2,104 46 - - 24 227 6,499 31,565 1,165
32,730
1992 20,882 2,077 50 1 - 192 947 6,940 31,088 1,141
32,229
1993 23,258 2,193 50 1 - 59 454 6,474 32,489 1,188 33,676
1994 25,579 2,047 50 1 - 20 397 4,942 33,035 1,312 34,347
1995 27,259 1,985 58 1 - 48 592 4,172 34,115 1,461 35,575
1996 25,921 1,984 67 8 - 15 631 5,556 34,181 1,689 35,870
1997 23,026 2,077 79 13 - - 1,226 7,225 33,646 2,660
36,306
1998 25,066 2,331 66 22 - 1 781 5,328 33,595 3,139 36,734
1999 22,690 2,583 72 39 - 0 1,123 7,213 33,720 3,056
36,776
2000 24,191 2,717 71 119 - 0 889 7,432 35,419 2,781
38,200
2001 21,464 2,627 67 138 - - 1,373 9,421 35,090 3,254
38,344
2002 24,624 2,606 76 154 - 0 1,362 7,718 36,539 2,941
39,481
2003 23,387 2,550 101 145 - 19 3,035 7,060 36,297 3,229
39,526
2004 26,968 2,584 120 358 - 23 3,816 4,814 38,682 2,845
41,527
2005 23,094 2,922 126 608 - 4 4,867 6,808 38,429 3,097
41,526
2006 23,337 3,125 146 616 - 23 4,536 7,364 39,147 2,916
42,063
2007 23,404 3,305 144 921 3 1 2,354 9,230 39,362 3,058
42,421
2008 22,124 3,917 140 1,048 3 124 3,943 8,002 39,300 3,092
42,392
2009 23,975 4,539 147 1,462 4 9 2,528 7,031 39,694 2,476
42,170
2010 24,479 5,507 152 1,620 4 2 1,300 7,821 40,885 2,684
43,569
2011 24,860 5,831 159 1,936 4 2 1,477 6,504 40,773 2,496
43,268
2012 22,668 6,030 153 2,057 5 3 2,720 6,834 40,471 2,678
43,149
2013 22,799 6,385 142 2,000 7 3 1,619 6,842 39,797 2,561
42,358
2014 24,075 7,128 165 2,189 19 3 1,228 5,327 40,133 2,519
42,651
2015 24,285 7,682 176 2,340 36 1 1,134 5,192 40,846 2,488
43,333
2016 25,676 7,671 186 2,317 56 3 404 4,512 40,825 2,094
42,919
2017 24,924 7,712 196 2,070 76 5 517 5,604 41,105 2,207
43,311
2018 25,992 7,675 196 2,047 100 11 891 4,450 41,362 2,057
43,419
2019 25,343 7,737 203 2,233 127 4 1,463 4,545 41,654 2,160
43,815
2020 24,024 7,778 210 2,282 159 13 1,576 5,059 41,101
2,073
43,174
2021 23,992 7,918 203 2,616 205 26 2,377 3,799 41,136
2,133
43,270
?2017/2021 p.a. -0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 6.0% 28.1% 48.4% 46.4% -9.3% 0.0% -0.8% >>>>>0.0%
?2020/2021 -0.1% 1.8% -3.2% 14.6% 29.0% 99.8% 50.9% -24.9% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%
So we have for 2021 Solar 0.47% and wind 6.0% and geothermal 18.2%. >>>>>
Coal is last resort generation, but the practical impact is felt by >>>>spot prices increasing - presumably sufficient to cover the cost of >>>>coal generated power. At some point if demand exceeds total generating >>>>power then 'brown-outs' or temporary supply disruptions may be needed >>>>- the generating companies probably hope that weather or other >>>>problems cause a reduction in demand, but either way the system >>>>needing to use coal should be used to indicate that additional >>>>generation is needed. The Generating companies presumably assess the >>>>commissioning of new wind / solar / other generation capacity to >>>>maximise profit - increasing power supply before it is needed would >>>>only reduce prices; that is why I referred to the system encouraging, >>>>within limits, a 'tight' market with as little excess generation as >>>>they can safely arrange.
If that conflicts with the competitive advantage of lower energy >>>>prices for other NZ businesses, then that it just the "free market' >>>>working as it should to maximise returns . . . ; the electricity >>>>generators do have to maximise shareholder returns . . .
The wind project in the Chathams may provide that island with lower >>>>electricity costs than apply in the mainland - down from about 4 times >>>>the cost! Consider what would happen if the government set up a >>>>generating company using only new solar and wind generation - what >>>>effect could that have on profits for the current electricity >>>>generators. Perhaps the current companies are happy that there are >>>>other demands on government capital at this time . . .
Totally on topic - the industry is not looking for maximising >>>>>>>efficiencies - they are looking to maximise profit . . .
Part of our problem is that the structure of our electricity industry
lends itself to short term profit motives; it is difficult to get them
to spend money before problems make that absolutely necessary - so we
retain higher cost generation for longer than we should. >>>>>>>>Political rhetoric and entirely off topic.
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote: https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
What a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just
in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use
of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry -
the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks.
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right
extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand
does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend
nuclear power . . .
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that ourPerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and refresh your very poor understanding of science.
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms -
see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to
argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal
generation . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
What a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks.
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand
does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend
nuclear power . . .
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.
You are a pathetic poseur.
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two areBasset Brash and Hide are string supporters of the ACT Party - which
not far right.
The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimate >option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought.It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a
Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and >refresh your very poor understanding of science.
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms -
see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to
argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal
generation . . .
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't need to. I didn't write it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have >considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New ZealandWhat a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks. >>>
does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend >>>nuclear power . . .
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >>suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.
You are a pathetic poseur.
up existing wind farms."
ACT are not far right - you are lying. Your only source is the political compass, many times proven to be useless and bisaed.Basset Brash and Hide are string supporters of the ACT Party - which
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two >>are
not far right.
is the furthest right of all political parties in New Zealand - see >https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
Since the leadership of Brash, ACT have moved away from theThey are not far right and you cannot show otherwise.
authoritarianism of National, but retained far right economic
policies.
I didn't write it, if you want justification take it up with the author.The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
I didn't say we should - do learn English. I said that some dismiss it without rational thought - an easy thing for you to do.I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimate >>option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought.It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a
number of projects to assess it for New Zealand over the past 50
years; all of them have resulted in decisions not to introduce it.
Perhaps you could give some rational thoughts as to why we should
spend any further money considering it at this time . . .
I didn't write that either.Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and >>refresh your very poor understanding of science.
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms - >>>see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to >>>argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal
generation . . .
New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually
fully committed propping up existing wind farms."
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand >>does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend >>nuclear power . . .What a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks. >>
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping
You are a pathetic poseur.
up existing wind farms."
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two areBasset Brash and Hide are string supporters of the ACT Party - which
not far right.
is the furthest right of all political parties in New Zealand - see https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
Since the leadership of Brash, ACT have moved away from the
authoritarianism of National, but retained far right economic
policies.
The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimate >option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought.It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a
number of projects to assess it for New Zealand over the past 50
years; all of them have resulted in decisions not to introduce it.
Perhaps you could give some rational thoughts as to why we should
spend any further money considering it at this time . . .
So what you need to do Rich is get off your fat arse for once in your useless life and prove Tony is wrong. Your word isn't worth a bitcoin or a nob of shit in this ng because of these stupid tactics from a compulsory liar!Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and >refresh your very poor understanding of science.
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms - >>see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to >>argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal
generation . . .
New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually
fully committed propping up existing wind farms."
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer [sic] not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion yes.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I acknowledge your acceptance that neither you nor the author
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't need to. I didn't write it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have >>considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storageOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>>>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New ZealandWhat a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks. >>>>
does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>>>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend >>>>nuclear power . . .
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >>>suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.
You are a pathetic poseur.
up existing wind farms."
You have not provided any evidence that they are not far right - IACT are not far right - you are lying. Your only source is the political >compass, many times proven to be useless and bisaed.Basset Brash and Hide are strong supporters of the ACT Party - which
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two >>>are
not far right.
is the furthest right of all political parties in New Zealand - see >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
You have provided no evidence to support your assertion . . . do youThey are not far right and you cannot show otherwise.
Since the leadership of Brash, ACT have moved away from the >>authoritarianism of National, but retained far right economic
policies.
So you accept that one of the major conclusions indicates that theI didn't write it, if you want justification take it up with the author.
The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
I did not discmiss nuclear fisson without rational thought - theI didn't say we should - do learn English. I said that some dismiss it without >rational thought - an easy thing for you to do.
I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimate >>>option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought.It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a >>number of projects to assess it for New Zealand over the past 50
years; all of them have resulted in decisions not to introduce it.
Perhaps you could give some rational thoughts as to why we should
spend any further money considering it at this time . . .
I didn't write that either.
Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and >>>refresh your very poor understanding of science.
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our
hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms - >>>>see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to >>>>argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal >>>>generation . . .
New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually
fully committed propping up existing wind farms."
Are you really that stupid? Apparently yes!
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 12:17:58?PM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
Reality in a nutshell.
I would porefer [sic] not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion yes.
You want to see nuclear fusion in this country?
On Sun, 21 May 2023 01:12:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are a fool. When you have had your remedial English course you might understand the language, but I doubt it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I acknowledge your acceptance that neither you nor the author
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't need to. I didn't write it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have >>>considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storageOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>>>>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand >>>>>does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>>>>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend >>>>>nuclear power . . .What a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks. >>>>>
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >>>>suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.
You are a pathetic poseur.
up existing wind farms."
justified that assertion - perhaps you could outline which parts of
the article you do believe . . .
No you have not and I don't need to disprove what you say - that fact that you wrote it is sufficient to question its validity of course.You have not provided any evidence that they are not far right - IACT are not far right - you are lying. Your only source is the political >>compass, many times proven to be useless and bisaed.Basset Brash and Hide are strong supporters of the ACT Party - which
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two >>>>are
not far right.
is the furthest right of all political parties in New Zealand - see >>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
have provided a widely used link (supported by for example David
Farrar), which asserts that they are . . .
I don't need to - you have to prove that they are.You have provided no evidence to support your assertion . . . do youThey are not far right and you cannot show otherwise.
Since the leadership of Brash, ACT have moved away from the >>>authoritarianism of National, but retained far right economic
policies.
have any evidence at all to support that assertion, Tony?
As above - your English comprehension is abysmal.So you accept that one of the major conclusions indicates that theI didn't write it, if you want justification take it up with the author.
The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
author may well not be an expert . . .
That is a lie. Nuclear fission has not been dismissed by experts in this country as an option.I did not discmiss nuclear fisson without rational thought - theI didn't say we should - do learn English. I said that some dismiss it >>without
I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimate >>>>option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought. >>>It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a >>>number of projects to assess it for New Zealand over the past 50years; all of them have resulted in decisions not to introduce it. >>>Perhaps you could give some rational thoughts as to why we should
spend any further money considering it at this time . . .
rational thought - an easy thing for you to do.
drawbacks for use of nuclear poweer (whether jusion or fission) have
been investigated and rejected by real experts on more than one
occasion - and in any event both National and Labour Parties have
rejected it on the basis of those investigations.
Nope - you are just stupid, plain for all to see.I didn't write that either.
Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and >>>>refresh your very poor understanding of science.
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our >>>>>hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms - >>>>>see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to >>>>>argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal >>>>>generation . . .
New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually
fully committed propping up existing wind farms."
Are you really that stupid? Apparently yes!
Are you stupid enough to believe that a bald assertion from yourself
is in any way persuasive - especially since some of your unsupported >assertions are conttrary to evidence posted in this thread, and your >proposals have been are rejected by successive governments . . .
On Sun, 21 May 2023 00:27:13 -0700 (PDT), "morriss...@gmail.com" ><morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:Careful Bill, you are asking him to think. God forbid, he might even do some research.
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 12:17:58?PM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Reality in a nutshell.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storage
I would porefer not to see nuclear fission power generation, nuclear fusion >>>yes.
You want to see nuclear fusion in this country?
Why would you not want to see nuclear fusion?
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
On Sun, 21 May 2023 01:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I acknowledge your acceptance that neither you nor the author
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't need to. I didn't write it.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Yet you cannot justify the statement "While New Zealand does have >>considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed propping
On Sat, 20 May 2023 06:59:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/bryan-leyland-the-wind-and-solar-power-need-storageOriginal article re-posted so you may refresh your tired old memory.
What a silly thing you are.
And if you read my other comments below you will understand why any >>>>>>planning is handicapped by the current structure that encourages 'just >>>>>>in time but not before' for any capital expenditure - and reducing use >>>>>>of expensive coal is not a priority for the profit-driven industry - >>>>>>the cost is paid by all electricity users!
How about sticking to the subject?
This thread is about electricity storage not idiotic little side tracks.
The thread started with a typically silly article from a far right >>>>extremist group — and included this little gem: "While New Zealand >>>>does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually fully committed >>>>propping up existing wind farms." - and then goes on to recommend >>>>nuclear power . . .
You cannot help it - straight away you start to get wayy off th point and >>>suddenly sarcasm. abuse and political rhetoric.
You are a pathetic poseur.
up existing wind farms."
justified that assertion - perhaps you could outline which parts of
the article you do believe . . .
Only widely used by you Rich. Farrar has used it ONCE to my knowledge! Besides you've never provided proof that any more than two people have supported it! Looks very much like another lie from a serial liar...You have not provided any evidence that they are not far right - IACT are not far right - you are lying. Your only source is the political >compass, many times proven to be useless and bisaed.Basset Brash and Hide are strong supporters of the ACT Party - which
They are not far right, they include a an ex-labour minister. The other two
are
not far right.
is the furthest right of all political parties in New Zealand - see >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
have provided a widely used link (supported by for example David
Farrar), which asserts that they are . . .
You have provided no evidence to support your assertion . . . do youThey are not far right and you cannot show otherwise.
Since the leadership of Brash, ACT have moved away from the >>authoritarianism of National, but retained far right economic
policies.
have any evidence at all to support that assertion, Tony?
So you accept that one of the major conclusions indicates that theI didn't write it, if you want justification take it up with the author.
The author is an expert unlike you.So justify the statement above . . .
author may well not be an expert . . .
I did not discmiss nuclear fisson without rational thought - theI didn't say we should - do learn English. I said that some dismiss it without
I don't like nuclear fission power either but it is a perfectly legitimateyears; all of them have resulted in decisions not to introduce it. >>Perhaps you could give some rational thoughts as to why we should
option and only political dimwits dismiss it without rational thought. >>It has not been dismissed without rational thought; there have been a >>number of projects to assess it for New Zealand over the past 50
spend any further money considering it at this time . . .
rational thought - an easy thing for you to do.
drawbacks for use of nuclear poweer (whether jusion or fission) have
been investigated and rejected by real experts on more than one
occasion - and in any event both National and Labour Parties have
rejected it on the basis of those investigations.
Are you stupid enough to believe that a bald assertion from yourselfI didn't write that either.
Again you have no rational argument to support the statement ""WhilePerhaps you would actually take time to go to an educational institute and
My comments - see particularly those below - demonstrate that our >>>>hydro are clearly not just being used to prop up existing wind farms - >>>>see also the statistics posted by Gordon. Perhaps you would prefer to >>>>argue the John Bowes solution - a huge increase in geothermal >>>>generation . . .
refresh your very poor understanding of science.
New Zealand does have considerable hydropower it is now virtually
fully committed propping up existing wind farms."
Are you really that stupid? Apparently yes!
is in any way persuasive - especially since some of your unsupported assertions are conttrary to evidence posted in this thread, and your proposals have been are rejected by successive governments . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:26:41 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,602 |