On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:53:13 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David Goodwinsays...
Post by BROn Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:31:07 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David Goodwinsays...
Post by Rich80105On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David GoodwinElectrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
IIRC our proven oil reserves are enough to meet our current demand for
around two years. And even when we had our own refinery, we were
incapable of refining our own oil - the Marsden Pt refinery wasn't built
for it probably because we didn't have enough to be worthwhile.
A) Use imported fuel with all the geopolitical and climate risk
What climate risk?
Storms which delay shipments or damage coastal infrastructure either
here or in the countries we source our fuel from.
Electricity is not immune to natural disasters. A prolonged drought
would take a hammer to electricity supplies, and this would carry
substantially more risk should EVs become fashionable. Not only that,
but a storm that can damage coastal infrastructure could also damage
electricity infrastructure too.
Post by David GoodwinPost by BRPost by David Goodwinthat
comes with it. It's a commodity so we'll always be subject to
global prices unless we're willing to use tax dollars to subsidise
it.
B) Use electricity we generate ourselves. When supply is limited we
can build more generation capacity or storage. Stuff happening in
the rest of the world is unlikely to significantly impact our
electricity generation or power cost unless we're physically
invaded.
From an energy security standpoint, electricity seems to be the least
likely to suffer supply disruptions and price swings due to events
outside our control.
I guess we could go down the synthetic fuel path, but the costs will be
higher than importing fuel and from a Total Cost of Ownership
perspective electric is already the cheapest option for many/most users
assuming proper selection of battery size, etc.
How about coal? NZ has plenty of the stuff which can be converted to
petrol and other fuels by pyrolysis and liquefaction.
We did do this with Gas at one point (the Motunui synthetic petrol
plant). And there is a reason we don't do it anymore: cost.
You argument has been that electrification is the only solution to
disruption of oil supplies. If oil supplies are disrupted, there is no
way electrification can take up the slack, and the current cost of
synthetic fuel would pale into insignificance if supplies were
disrupted. Let's put it this way: Diesel can back up electricity
better than electricity can back up diesel.
Post by David GoodwinImported fuel is cheaper. Given a choice, people will choose to buy
imported fuel over synthetic fuel. As a result, a synthetic fuel
industry will not survive here unless we are willing to subsidise it.
Additionally, most of the coal we're mining now is higher-grade stuff
typically sold to steel mills, etc. Using premium coal will raise the
cost of synthetic fuel further requiring an even larger subsidy.
Yes, but again, you have argued that electricity is less exposed to
natural disasters. Instead of trying to run everything on electricity
(an impossible task), a better insurance policy would be to make
synthetic fuel supplies available from whatever source is locally
available, and particularly from coal as it is cheap and plentiful.
Post by David GoodwinGiven unsubsidised petrol is already more expensive in most cases than
electric, subsidising synthetic fuel is likely to have a very poor ROI.
Post by BRDo you have any sort of engineering background?
It would seem that there are not many people who understand the
percentage of a country's energy requirements that come from
elecricity generation compared with the energy provided by hydrocarbon
fuels. The electricity percentage is miniscule. The grid can barely
cope now, and it's going to get worse if enough people are foolish
enough to abandon their petrol and diesel vehicles for battery powered
conveyances.
How much extra grid and generating capacity do you think would be
required to plug the hole left by petrol, diesel and natural gas
should these thing go missing? The amount of copper required just for
transmission would be staggering.
Not as much as you might think. A typical ICE car is only around 20-40%
efficient. Up to 80% of the fuel you put in is wasted as heat and noise.
EVs tend to be around 70-80% efficient. So, we don't need to replace
*all* of the chemical energy we're importing with electricity - we only
need to replace the 20-40% of it that's being used to do useful work.
Based on figures I could find for 2020 (a year that was impacted by
covid, so not ideal), transitioning the fleet to EVs would require about
82% of the electricity we generated that year. Quite a lot, but not an
unrealistic amount of additional generation to add over the space of a
decade or two.
"Quite a lot" is quite an understatement. Where is this extra 83%
going to come from? Wind? Solar? Don't tell me hydrogen. How long has
it taken to build the grid and generating plants to where they are
now, and have you any idea of the enormity of such a task? Who's going
to build the 83%? It's difficult to find people just to work in a
coffee shop these days. The authorities can barely maintain the grid
in it's current state as Northland has just found out, and what
purpose would it serve to replace petrol and diesel with electricity
anyway? Answer: To appease the climate zealots. That's what is really
driving all this.
Arguably the stupidest thing I've ever heard any NZ prime minister
announce in public is that "Climate change is my generation's nuclear
free moment". It certainly doesn't get much more idiotic than that,
and then in an act of economic sabotage, she acted on it, needlessly
pissing the oil exploration industry off in the process. How would
that have helped with the security of energy supplies? All the climate
conmen should be totally ignored in any serious discussion involving
energy supplies.
Post by David GoodwinIt's also worth remembering that the grid currently struggles with
yearly peak demand - a few hours in the evening on the coldest days of
the year. The rest of the time its fine. Encouraging people to charge
their vehicles outside the evening peak (which many already do due to
discounts provided by their power retailer) would reduce the amount of
investment required for transmission and generation a bit.
That only takes grid capacity into account whilst ignoring generating
capacity. In any case, in the hypothetical NZ where hydrocarbon fuels
no longer exist, an 83% increase would never run every application
that uses petrol and diesel. Maybe a nation of Nissan Leaf drivers.
I don't have a problem with EVs in principle. I can't see myself in
one, but my main objection to them is the government's putting it's
thumb on the scale and rewarding EV buyers with kickbacks and
sweeteners, while at the same time punishing petrol and diesel vehicle
owners. If these EVs are so damn marvellous none of that would be
necessary. EVs would replace petrol vehicles over time by natural
attrition in the same way that cars replaced the horse and buggy. The
government should just stay the hell out of it, mind it's own business
and let the market decide.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com