• Doing more with less

    From Gordon@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 16 23:01:05 2024
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350379419/how-getting-gas-will-give-new-zealand-brighter-future

    It is always good to read/listen to others view point.

    There are some good points made in the article but some how as a call to action, or what needs to be done is somewhat lacking.

    "The Government, with a majority stake in three of the four “gentailers”, also profits from the high price. It is unfair and unwise.

    What we need is an overhaul of the electricity market, so that power is affordable, sustainable and resilient."

    Which recent other articles ahve not mentioned.

    Then we have:-

    " Our current electricity market incentivises the continual burning of
    fossil fuels because that keeps the price high for all generators."

    I am at a loss to reason the logic of this statement. I thought NZ was
    burning coal to supply power to the market demand. NZ is short of gas and
    water in the hydro lakes which is causing the shortage of electricty
    generation which is causing the whole prise rise. (among other factors)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to Gordon on Sat Aug 17 11:32:47 2024
    On 16 Aug 2024 23:01:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350379419/how-getting-gas-will-give-new-zealand-brighter-future

    It is always good to read/listen to others view point.

    There are some good points made in the article but some how as a call to >action, or what needs to be done is somewhat lacking.

    "The Government, with a majority stake in three of the four “gentailers”, >also profits from the high price. It is unfair and unwise.

    What we need is an overhaul of the electricity market, so that power is >affordable, sustainable and resilient."

    Which recent other articles ahve not mentioned.

    Then we have:-

    " Our current electricity market incentivises the continual burning of
    fossil fuels because that keeps the price high for all generators."

    I am at a loss to reason the logic of this statement. I thought NZ was >burning coal to supply power to the market demand. NZ is short of gas and >water in the hydro lakes which is causing the shortage of electricty >generation which is causing the whole prise rise. (among other factors)

    Later the article concludes:
    "The solar panels on school buildings will generate surplus power
    through the holidays and share it with nearby homes and grocery stores
    through smart microgrids.

    School lunches will be free and largely plant-based, grown mostly in
    nearby farms and orchards that once were cow paddocks.

    More in tune with nature and as close-knit communities, Aotearoa will
    thrive with little desire to grow energy or material consumption.

    That is a much brighter prognosis."

    So to go back to your query, yes the Generating companies are burning
    coal to supply power to the market demand. Coal is expensive, both in
    terms of actual cost per unit of electricity, but also in the
    additional cost for emission targets. The problem is that as has been demonstrated, the use of coal raises the cost of electricity, and
    raises profits for all the generating companies. In other words we do
    not have the structural linkages to create a disincentive - in reality
    the companies incentive to increase profits trumps the requirement to
    make sure we have enough generation to not have power shortages. That
    is why at least one of the companies has had resource consents for a
    lot of solar and wind generation but has not been prepared to reduce
    profit to actually spend the money to bring those projects into
    production.

    Changing incentives is effectively changing the nature of the contract
    between the government and other shareholders, and that is unlikely to
    be readily agreed by shareholders if it reduces profit. Both National
    and Labour have been well aware of the danger of unilaterally breaking
    a contract, but this is now getting ridiculous - the governments need
    to understand that the Bradford "reforms" have been a disaster and
    they have to act in the interests of the country, even though that may
    be expensive.

    One way of partially fixing the problem would be to de-link Huntly
    coal generation from the price mechanism, and penalise all companies
    for any power outages due to insufficient generation. Yes still
    expensive, and not nice for shareholders, but something needs to be
    done.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mutley@21:1/5 to Gordon on Mon Aug 19 08:44:18 2024
    Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350379419/how-getting-gas-will-give-new-zealand-brighter-future

    It is always good to read/listen to others view point.

    There are some good points made in the article but some how as a call to >action, or what needs to be done is somewhat lacking.

    "The Government, with a majority stake in three of the four “gentailers”, >also profits from the high price. It is unfair and unwise.

    What we need is an overhaul of the electricity market, so that power is >affordable, sustainable and resilient."

    Which recent other articles ahve not mentioned.

    Then we have:-

    " Our current electricity market incentivises the continual burning of
    fossil fuels because that keeps the price high for all generators."

    I am at a loss to reason the logic of this statement. I thought NZ was >burning coal to supply power to the market demand. NZ is short of gas and >water in the hydro lakes which is causing the shortage of electricty >generation which is causing the whole prise rise. (among other factors)

    You're correct but this article comes from the Labor Parties voice,
    Stuff so I wouldn't expect any thing else.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 17:15:10 2024
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:44:18 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350379419/how-getting-gas-will-give-new-zealand-brighter-future

    It is always good to read/listen to others view point.

    There are some good points made in the article but some how as a call to >>action, or what needs to be done is somewhat lacking.

    "The Government, with a majority stake in three of the four “gentailers”, >>also profits from the high price. It is unfair and unwise.

    What we need is an overhaul of the electricity market, so that power is >>affordable, sustainable and resilient."

    Which recent other articles ahve not mentioned.

    Then we have:-

    " Our current electricity market incentivises the continual burning of >>fossil fuels because that keeps the price high for all generators."

    I am at a loss to reason the logic of this statement. I thought NZ was >>burning coal to supply power to the market demand. NZ is short of gas and >>water in the hydro lakes which is causing the shortage of electricty >>generation which is causing the whole prise rise. (among other factors)

    You're correct but this article comes from the Labor Parties voice,
    Stuff so I wouldn't expect any thing else.

    What difference does the media source make, Mutley? Are there any
    statements in the article that you believe are wrong?

    I have responded to Gordons post already, but perhaps I can put it in
    simpler terms for you, Mulley.

    First New Zealand is not burning coal to supply power - power is being generated by companies that are owned by their shareholders, including
    the NZ Government. One of their aims may be to supply power to meet
    demand, but individual companies cannot do that by themselves - and
    for each company a primary aim for their directors will be, as
    required by law, to act in the best interests of all shareholders.
    Whether Directors were appointed by the Government or by other
    shareholders, they cannot ignore that legal requirement.

    Now it is also a matter of fact that the use of Huntly coal-fired
    power does significantly increase the price of electricity for all
    generators. That would still be the case if the government sold all
    its shares to private owners, but if that happened the government may
    be more prepared to set rules that forced companies to provide a
    greater margin so that high prices can be avoided.

    The companies will also claim with some justification that the
    government skewed the market by agreeing to allow cheap prices to the
    smelter to continue - although the generating companies should not
    have been relying on more power from Manapouri. Government could also
    encourage companies to ensure they have adequate capacity by charging
    for unused consents for new generating capacity, or other regulatory
    measures.

    Making power affordable, sustainable and resilient are not uncommon
    desired attributes of our generation system; and have been expressed
    in different ways by both domestic and commercial / industrial
    electricity users for many years.

    Are you happy to see further shut downs in future, Mutley, or do you
    think the government should seek to revise regulatory requirements to
    avoid such problems?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Mon Aug 19 06:59:43 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:44:18 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350379419/how-getting-gas-will-give-new-zealand-brighter-future

    It is always good to read/listen to others view point.

    There are some good points made in the article but some how as a call to >>>action, or what needs to be done is somewhat lacking.

    "The Government, with a majority stake in three of the four “gentailers”, >>>also profits from the high price. It is unfair and unwise.

    What we need is an overhaul of the electricity market, so that power is >>>affordable, sustainable and resilient."

    Which recent other articles ahve not mentioned.

    Then we have:-

    " Our current electricity market incentivises the continual burning of >>>fossil fuels because that keeps the price high for all generators."

    I am at a loss to reason the logic of this statement. I thought NZ was >>>burning coal to supply power to the market demand. NZ is short of gas and >>>water in the hydro lakes which is causing the shortage of electricty >>>generation which is causing the whole prise rise. (among other factors)

    You're correct but this article comes from the Labor Parties voice,
    Stuff so I wouldn't expect any thing else.

    What difference does the media source make, Mutley? Are there any
    statements in the article that you believe are wrong?
    You are alkways the first to complain when others quote sources that follow different political bents to yours.

    I have responded to Gordons post already, but perhaps I can put it in
    simpler terms for you, Mulley.
    Lovely, sarcasm! A great start to what has to be a worthless post driven by poltitical dogma.

    First New Zealand is not burning coal to supply power - power is being >generated by companies that are owned by their shareholders, including
    the NZ Government. One of their aims may be to supply power to meet
    demand, but individual companies cannot do that by themselves - and
    for each company a primary aim for their directors will be, as
    required by law, to act in the best interests of all shareholders.
    Whether Directors were appointed by the Government or by other
    shareholders, they cannot ignore that legal requirement.

    Now it is also a matter of fact that the use of Huntly coal-fired
    power does significantly increase the price of electricity for all >generators. That would still be the case if the government sold all
    its shares to private owners, but if that happened the government may
    be more prepared to set rules that forced companies to provide a
    greater margin so that high prices can be avoided.

    The companies will also claim with some justification that the
    government skewed the market by agreeing to allow cheap prices to the
    smelter to continue - although the generating companies should not
    have been relying on more power from Manapouri. Government could also >encourage companies to ensure they have adequate capacity by charging
    for unused consents for new generating capacity, or other regulatory >measures.

    Making power affordable, sustainable and resilient are not uncommon
    desired attributes of our generation system; and have been expressed
    in different ways by both domestic and commercial / industrial
    electricity users for many years.

    Are you happy to see further shut downs in future, Mutley, or do you
    think the government should seek to revise regulatory requirements to
    avoid such problems?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)