Doing more with less

[Gordon]

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)

[Rich80105]

Post by Gordon
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.

[Mutley]

Post by Gordon
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.

[Rich80105]

Post by Mutley

Post by Gordon
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?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Mutley

Post by Gordon
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.

Post by Rich80105
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.

Post by Rich80105
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?