https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468

Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
becoming more common in the world

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>
>Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>becoming more common in the world
The planet is continuing to evolve as it has for millennia.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>becoming more common in the world

A troll is all you are.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 21:44:06 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>>Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>>becoming more common in the world
>
>A troll is all you are.
>

We are getting more extremes of weather here in New Zealand - the Port
Hills fires out of Christchurch are concerning, but larger countries
are getting even larger fires - Australia and the US being examples,
but the USA is also getting more tornadoes. As we know from the
tornado and flooding here in New Zealand, it can be very expensive to
restore even infrastructure, let alone all the private property
damage. Insurance costs have risen markedly in New Zealand, but it
seems we can expect more increases in the next few years.

In article <part1of1.1.WB5m52vmAA5KPA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
>
> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
> >
> >Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
> >becoming more common in the world
> The planet is continuing to evolve as it has for millennia.

Though it has never evolved at quite this rate before. At least not
outside of catastrophic events like large asteroid impacts. And we and
our civilisation weren't around for that so there is no guarantee we'll
survive that kind of rapid change on conditions.

But the problem is fixable and the fixes do come with significant
benefits outside of reducing climate change. In fact we'd probably want
to be doing most of these things even if climate change weren't real.
For example...

Burning coal/gas/oil produces air pollution which has measurable effects
on peoples health and lifespan. Having to import large amounts of oil
(and in the future gas) also has an undesirable effect on our balance of
payments. The money we spend importing oil from countries with
questionable human rights could be spent on more productive things that
grow our economy and create jobs giving people an incentive to stay here
rather than leave for Australia.

Reducing the number of trips people take in personal cars is the only
proven way of reducing congestion and it would also reduce the amount of
money households spend on transport freeing up money for other things.
Money that could be spent at local businesses that aren't petrol
stations. More people walking or cycling for short trips also increases
health and well-being.

Coal and Gas is no longer the cheapest way to generate electricity - it
was surpassed from various renewables some time ago. From a purely
economic sense, Coal and Gas make no sense - the only reason we keep it
around at all is because renewables are intermittent and we've not
invested in adding any real storage to our grid to account for that.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:04:16 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <part1of1.1.WB5m52vmAA5KPA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>> >
>> >Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>> >becoming more common in the world
>> The planet is continuing to evolve as it has for millennia.
>
>
>Though it has never evolved at quite this rate before. At least not
>outside of catastrophic events like large asteroid impacts. And we and
>our civilisation weren't around for that so there is no guarantee we'll
>survive that kind of rapid change on conditions.
>
>But the problem is fixable and the fixes do come with significant
>benefits outside of reducing climate change. In fact we'd probably want
>to be doing most of these things even if climate change weren't real.
>For example...
>
>Burning coal/gas/oil produces air pollution which has measurable effects
>on peoples health and lifespan. Having to import large amounts of oil
>(and in the future gas) also has an undesirable effect on our balance of
>payments. The money we spend importing oil from countries with
>questionable human rights could be spent on more productive things that
>grow our economy and create jobs giving people an incentive to stay here
>rather than leave for Australia.
>
>Reducing the number of trips people take in personal cars is the only
>proven way of reducing congestion and it would also reduce the amount of
>money households spend on transport freeing up money for other things.
>Money that could be spent at local businesses that aren't petrol
>stations. More people walking or cycling for short trips also increases
>health and well-being.
>
>Coal and Gas is no longer the cheapest way to generate electricity - it
>was surpassed from various renewables some time ago. From a purely
>economic sense, Coal and Gas make no sense - the only reason we keep it
>around at all is because renewables are intermittent and we've not
>invested in adding any real storage to our grid to account for that.

There is little incentive to cease using coal as backup generator for
the grid - the companies know that if they need Huntly they are in
trouble, but only as far as meeting demand is concerned - the formula
for setting the spot price for electricity makes sure that profits are
preserved. Thus our electricity generation companies are only building
new capacity to keep up with demand, not get ahead of it; too much
supply would unnecessarily lower prices. Many with sufficient capital
are finding it reduces total costs slightly - that could be improved
if electricity generators were required to pay the spot price for
electricity uploaded by private generators, but that would probably
trigger a claim against the government for loss of profit . . . that
would need to be covered in legislation.

In article <pv0aui1v7bkcj0nlgtrkss2mib9elr1pao@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
> There is little incentive to cease using coal as backup generator for
> the grid - the companies know that if they need Huntly they are in
> trouble, but only as far as meeting demand is concerned - the formula
> for setting the spot price for electricity makes sure that profits are
> preserved. Thus our electricity generation companies are only building
> new capacity to keep up with demand, not get ahead of it; too much
> supply would unnecessarily lower prices. Many with sufficient capital
> are finding it reduces total costs slightly - that could be improved
> if electricity generators were required to pay the spot price for
> electricity uploaded by private generators, but that would probably
> trigger a claim against the government for loss of profit . . . that
> would need to be covered in legislation.
>

I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
bring one back out of retirement). Costs don't really make running it
worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc, plus the effect
running it has on their repuation. I think the issue has mostly been
what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.

David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <part1of1.1.WB5m52vmAA5KPA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>> >
>> >Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>> >becoming more common in the world
>> The planet is continuing to evolve as it has for millennia.
>
>
>Though it has never evolved at quite this rate before. At least not
>outside of catastrophic events like large asteroid impacts. And we and
>our civilisation weren't around for that so there is no guarantee we'll
>survive that kind of rapid change on conditions.
>
>But the problem is fixable and the fixes do come with significant
>benefits outside of reducing climate change. In fact we'd probably want
>to be doing most of these things even if climate change weren't real.
>For example...
Sorry, I totally disagree. There is no empirical scientific proof that the
changes are predominantly man made.
I am all for improving our environment but it is a balance - the changes some
wish to make will provide more downside than upside. EVs are an example of that
- an embryo technology that arguably does not provide overall improvement to
the environment. Most supporters of the headlong rush to EVs do not take into
account all the environmental damage due to their construction, running and
management of old batteries. Some manufacturers are realising that as are some
countries.
>
>Burning coal/gas/oil produces air pollution which has measurable effects
>on peoples health and lifespan. Having to import large amounts of oil
>(and in the future gas) also has an undesirable effect on our balance of
>payments. The money we spend importing oil from countries with
>questionable human rights could be spent on more productive things that
>grow our economy and create jobs giving people an incentive to stay here
>rather than leave for Australia.
>
>Reducing the number of trips people take in personal cars is the only
>proven way of reducing congestion and it would also reduce the amount of
>money households spend on transport freeing up money for other things.
>Money that could be spent at local businesses that aren't petrol
>stations. More people walking or cycling for short trips also increases
>health and well-being.
>
>Coal and Gas is no longer the cheapest way to generate electricity - it
>was surpassed from various renewables some time ago. From a purely
>economic sense, Coal and Gas make no sense - the only reason we keep it
>around at all is because renewables are intermittent and we've not
>invested in adding any real storage to our grid to account for that.
Please see above, much of what you have said is correct, however the impact is
tiny in comparison to what nature is doing regardless of our actions.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 21:44:06 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Mar 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>>>Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>>>becoming more common in the world
>>
>>A troll is all you are.
>>
>
>We are getting more extremes of weather here in New Zealand - the Port
>Hills fires out of Christchurch are concerning, but larger countries
>are getting even larger fires - Australia and the US being examples,
>but the USA is also getting more tornadoes. As we know from the
>tornado and flooding here in New Zealand, it can be very expensive to
>restore even infrastructure, let alone all the private property
>damage. Insurance costs have risen markedly in New Zealand, but it
>seems we can expect more increases in the next few years.
Please provide evidence that they are caused more than a small amount by human
activity.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:38:33 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <pv0aui1v7bkcj0nlgtrkss2mib9elr1pao@4ax.com>, Rich80105
>@hotmail.com says...
>> There is little incentive to cease using coal as backup generator for
>> the grid - the companies know that if they need Huntly they are in
>> trouble, but only as far as meeting demand is concerned - the formula
>> for setting the spot price for electricity makes sure that profits are
>> preserved. Thus our electricity generation companies are only building
>> new capacity to keep up with demand, not get ahead of it; too much
>> supply would unnecessarily lower prices. Many with sufficient capital
>> are finding it reduces total costs slightly - that could be improved
>> if electricity generators were required to pay the spot price for
>> electricity uploaded by private generators, but that would probably
>> trigger a claim against the government for loss of profit . . . that
>> would need to be covered in legislation.
>>
>
>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>bring one back out of retirement). Costs don't really make running it
>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc, plus the effect
>running it has on their repuation. I think the issue has mostly been
>what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.

It has been a remarkably slow process however - and reputation has
little effect on overall demand - there is a limited choice and those
choosing a "Green" generator do not know where the electricity they
actually use was generated.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>bring one back out of retirement).

Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?

>Costs don't really make running it
>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,

It wasn't costs...

>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.

You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .

> I think the issue has mostly been
> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.

The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".

wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>bring one back out of retirement).
>
>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>
>>Costs don't really make running it
>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>
>It wasn't costs...
>
>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>
>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>
>> I think the issue has mostly been
>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>
>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
Yes indeed. The term renewable is applied to solar etc but is a misnomer really.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:04:16 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <part1of1.1.WB5m52vmAA5KPA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1763973421585883468
>> >
>> >Quite a long thread here - scroll down for stories of events now
>> >becoming more common in the world
>> The planet is continuing to evolve as it has for millennia.
>
>
>Though it has never evolved at quite this rate before.

Yeah, that's what the media, the politicians and the bureaucrats keep
telling everyone. However there isn't a scintilla of evidence to back
up these claims. Every climate disaster prediction in the last 50
years has failed. The whole thing is a fraud.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article <65e543f9.259038062@news.mixmin.net>, wn@qwert.com says...
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
> >I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
> >Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
> >dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
> >bring one back out of retirement).
>
> Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?

To deal with drought and gas shortages.

> >Costs don't really make running it
> >worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>
> It wasn't costs...

Funny, because Geneisis says it was:
"In 2009, Genesis Energy indicated that a crucial issue facing the
Company was how to derive a commercial return from the older coal or
gas-fuelled Units 1 to 4 in the face of construction of ?must run?
renewable generation. It was clearly indicated that, unless commercial
arrangements were made to underpin the continued availability of these
units, a retirement programme would be developed. In December 2012,
after little progress from the wholesale electricity market on this
issue, the Company placed the 250MW Unit 3 into long-term storage."

> >plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>
> You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>
> > I think the issue has mostly been
> > what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>
> The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
> thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
> *blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
> The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
> time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
> fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
> you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".

There are certainly ways to avoid blackouts without relying on coal. In
fact, as a backup power source coal is quite a bad option as it can't
just be turned on at a moments notice as we found out in 2021: Genesis
wasn't planning to need the coal units so they weren't on standby ready
to provide power when they were needed.

Usually gas is used as a fast backup solution as it *can* be turned on
at a moments notice. Hydro is also good for that and we have plenty of
it which wouldn't necessarily have to be running at full power on a
sunny and/or windy day if we had a significant amount of wind or solar
generation.

And of course there are batteries. A number of countries use these
including soon New Zealand and they have the benefit of actually making
the owner money: charge the battery up when power is cheap, sell the
power again when its expensive. A successful trial was completed here to
see whether home solar+battery setups could be used to supply the grid
and EVs are also being looked at for this purpose in other countries.

So if blackouts are your concern, coal is a bad solution and there are
reasonable options that don't produce any emissions while running.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:54:28 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>bring one back out of retirement).
>
>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>
>>Costs don't really make running it
>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>
>It wasn't costs...
>
>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>
>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>
>> I think the issue has mostly been
>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>
>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
>
While geothermal has been expanded a lot on recent years, there are
said to be further opportunities there (although possibly not at
Wairakei). Some farms use water storage for electricity generation
as well as water direct farming needs.

More water storage in dams could be assisted by significant increase
in solar power, but again the priority of maximising profit is not
necessarily consistent with most efficient power generation . . . As
a country we will continue to pay for the "Bradford Reforms" which led
to a sell off of power companies on very favourable terms to
shareholders.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:44:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>>bring one back out of retirement).
>>
>>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>>
>>>Costs don't really make running it
>>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>>
>>It wasn't costs...
>>
>>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>>
>>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>>
>>> I think the issue has mostly been
>>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>>
>>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
>Yes indeed. The term renewable is applied to solar etc but is a misnomer really.

If there is enough of it then we would not need to run water
generation lakes as low - in that sense they make the whole system
more robust , and they are renewable in the sense that unlike coal,
the sun rises most days . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:44:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>>>bring one back out of retirement).
>>>
>>>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>>>
>>>>Costs don't really make running it
>>>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>>>
>>>It wasn't costs...
>>>
>>>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>>>
>>>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>>>
>>>> I think the issue has mostly been
>>>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>>>
>>>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>>>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>>>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>>>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>>>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>>>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>>>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
>>Yes indeed. The term renewable is applied to solar etc but is a misnomer
>>really.
>
>If there is enough of it then we would not need to run water
>generation lakes as low - in that sense they make the whole system
>more robust , and they are renewable in the sense that unlike coal,
>the sun rises most days . . .
That is not the definition of renewable that you and others typically use.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:44:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>>>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>>>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>>>>bring one back out of retirement).
>>>>
>>>>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>>>>
>>>>>Costs don't really make running it
>>>>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't costs...
>>>>
>>>>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>>>>
>>>>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>>>>
>>>>> I think the issue has mostly been
>>>>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>>>>
>>>>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>>>>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>>>>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>>>>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>>>>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>>>>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>>>>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
>>>Yes indeed. The term renewable is applied to solar etc but is a misnomer
>>>really.
>>
>>If there is enough of it then we would not need to run water
>>generation lakes as low - in that sense they make the whole system
>>more robust , and they are renewable in the sense that unlike coal,
>>the sun rises most days . . .
>That is not the definition of renewable that you and others typically use.
What definition do you use, Tony?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:44:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>I believe Genesis does actually want to shutdown the coal units at
>>>>>>Huntly and they've tried to so in the past - both setting retirement
>>>>>>dates, and actually retiring two units (though they've since had to
>>>>>>bring one back out of retirement).
>>>>>
>>>>>Any chance you'll figure out why they had to un-retire it?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Costs don't really make running it
>>>>>>worthwhile given the need to stockpile coal, etc,
>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't costs...
>>>>>
>>>>>>plus the effect running it has on their repuation.
>>>>>
>>>>>You think using coal harms their "reputation"?!? .
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the issue has mostly been
>>>>>> what to replace its 1GW of capacity with.
>>>>>
>>>>>The operative words there are "I think". If you actually were a
>>>>>thinking person, you would realise that the problem is to avoid
>>>>>*blackouts*. It is blackouts which would harm their "reputation".
>>>>>The problem is that wind power & solar power totally suck. At any
>>>>>time, both can go to zero. You always have to have backup ready to
>>>>>fill in. Coal power is essential, and cannot be discarded -- unless
>>>>>you like blackouts. Try that on your "reputation".
>>>>Yes indeed. The term renewable is applied to solar etc but is a misnomer
>>>>really.
>>>
>>>If there is enough of it then we would not need to run water
>>>generation lakes as low - in that sense they make the whole system
>>>more robust , and they are renewable in the sense that unlike coal,
>>>the sun rises most days . . .
>>That is not the definition of renewable that you and others typically use.
>What definition do you use, Tony?
None of your business quite frankly - until you get on subject again.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <65e543f9.259038062@news.mixmin.net>, wn@qwert.com says...
>> It wasn't costs...
>
>Funny, because Geneisis says it was:
>"In 2009, Genesis Energy indicated that a crucial issue facing the
>Company was how to derive a commercial return from the older coal or
>gas-fuelled Units 1 to 4 in the face of construction of ?must run?
>renewable generation. It was clearly indicated that, unless commercial
>arrangements were made to underpin the continued availability of these
>units, a retirement programme would be developed.

For "commercial arrangements", read "government subsidies".

>In December 2012,
>after little progress from the wholesale electricity market on this
>issue, the Company placed the 250MW Unit 3 into long-term storage."

IOW, no subsidies, so Unit 3 was mothballed, i.e., ready for
re-activation when government produces some subsidies.

>Usually gas is used as a fast backup solution as it *can* be turned on
>at a moments notice.

Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?

>And of course there are batteries.

You mean of course *NOT*. Relevant-scale power grid batteries are
pie-in-the-sky. There is no such commercial product.

>So if blackouts are your concern, coal is a bad solution and there are
>reasonable options that don't produce any emissions while running.

A bad solution is far, far better than no solution = blackouts. They
are keeping the coal plants because they are needed as emergency
backups. Good on them. In the absence of the obscene government
subsidies of the absurd wind turbines, coal would still be profitable.

In article <65e6aad8.350908718@paganini.bofh.team>, wn@nosuch.com
says...
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
> >In article <65e543f9.259038062@news.mixmin.net>, wn@qwert.com says...
> >> It wasn't costs...
> >
> >Funny, because Geneisis says it was:
> >"In 2009, Genesis Energy indicated that a crucial issue facing the
> >Company was how to derive a commercial return from the older coal or
> >gas-fuelled Units 1 to 4 in the face of construction of ?must run?
> >renewable generation. It was clearly indicated that, unless commercial
> >arrangements were made to underpin the continued availability of these
> >units, a retirement programme would be developed.
>
> For "commercial arrangements", read "government subsidies".

Does not change the fact that two of the coal units were taken out of
service for cost reasons, with one of them being permanently retired.
Age is likely a factor as well; the moment they're planning to get rid
of them by 2030 by which time the remaining units will be 49 years old.

> >In December 2012,
> >after little progress from the wholesale electricity market on this
> >issue, the Company placed the 250MW Unit 3 into long-term storage."
>
> IOW, no subsidies, so Unit 3 was mothballed, i.e., ready for
> re-activation when government produces some subsidies.

Unit 3 was returned to service not due to subsidies but because market
conditions made it profitable to run again on occasion despite its high
operating costs.

> >Usually gas is used as a fast backup solution as it *can* be turned
on
> >at a moments notice.
>
> Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?

No, it isn't. Which is why its not an ideal solution here either, though
we do have 1.2GW of installed capacity. These numbers are available from
Transpower along with information on what generation is online at the
moment if you're interested.

> >And of course there are batteries.
>
> You mean of course *NOT*. Relevant-scale power grid batteries are
> pie-in-the-sky. There is no such commercial product.

The largest power grid battery is 3GWh - equivalent to all three
remaining coal units running at maximum power for 4 hours. I'd call that
relevant-scale, and plenty to handle evening peak demand. A 500MWh
battery would have been sufficient to completely avoid the rolling
blackouts of winter 2021.

And building bigger batteries doesn't require some yet-to-be-invented
technology; its just a case of spending more money to buy more
batteries. Lithium-ion batteries will continue to come down in price
over time as they have done for years and there are other battery
technologies that may turn out to be cheaper and better suited in the
near future such as nickel-hydrogen:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

> >So if blackouts are your concern, coal is a bad solution and there
are
> >reasonable options that don't produce any emissions while running.
>
> A bad solution is far, far better than no solution = blackouts. They
> are keeping the coal plants because they are needed as emergency
> backups. Good on them.

How well did coal prevent the blackouts in 2021? It didn't because it
was expensive to run, Genesis didn't think it would be needed, and so it
wasn't running. It couldn't start up fast enough when it was needed and
by the time it could be generating power peak demand had already passed
and the blackouts finished. In the case of Winter 2021, coal wasn't
better than no solution - it was exactly as good as no solution.

On our grid, coal is not an emergency backup - thats gas and hydro. Coal
is expensive baseload generation that runs when demand is predicted to
push power prices high enough to pay the cost of running it.

> In the absence of the obscene government subsidies of the absurd wind
> turbines, coal would still be profitable.

Wind is not subsidised here. Power companies choose to build it at their
own cost because its profitable to do so. You build the turbine and then
whenever the wind blows you make money - zero fuel costs.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:23:35 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <65e6aad8.350908718@paganini.bofh.team>, wn@nosuch.com
>says...
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>> >In article <65e543f9.259038062@news.mixmin.net>, wn@qwert.com says...
>> >> It wasn't costs...
>> >
>> >Funny, because Geneisis says it was:
>> >"In 2009, Genesis Energy indicated that a crucial issue facing the
>> >Company was how to derive a commercial return from the older coal or
>> >gas-fuelled Units 1 to 4 in the face of construction of ?must run?
>> >renewable generation. It was clearly indicated that, unless commercial
>> >arrangements were made to underpin the continued availability of these
>> >units, a retirement programme would be developed.
>>
>> For "commercial arrangements", read "government subsidies".
>
>Does not change the fact that two of the coal units were taken out of
>service for cost reasons, with one of them being permanently retired.
>Age is likely a factor as well; the moment they're planning to get rid
>of them by 2030 by which time the remaining units will be 49 years old.
>
>> >In December 2012,
>> >after little progress from the wholesale electricity market on this
>> >issue, the Company placed the 250MW Unit 3 into long-term storage."
>>
>> IOW, no subsidies, so Unit 3 was mothballed, i.e., ready for
>> re-activation when government produces some subsidies.
>
>Unit 3 was returned to service not due to subsidies but because market
>conditions made it profitable to run again on occasion despite its high
>operating costs.
>
>> >Usually gas is used as a fast backup solution as it *can* be turned
>on
>> >at a moments notice.
>>
>> Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?
>
>No, it isn't. Which is why its not an ideal solution here either, though
>we do have 1.2GW of installed capacity. These numbers are available from
>Transpower along with information on what generation is online at the
>moment if you're interested.
>
>> >And of course there are batteries.
>>
>> You mean of course *NOT*. Relevant-scale power grid batteries are
>> pie-in-the-sky. There is no such commercial product.
>
>The largest power grid battery is 3GWh - equivalent to all three
>remaining coal units running at maximum power for 4 hours. I'd call that
>relevant-scale, and plenty to handle evening peak demand. A 500MWh
>battery would have been sufficient to completely avoid the rolling
>blackouts of winter 2021.
>
>And building bigger batteries doesn't require some yet-to-be-invented
>technology; its just a case of spending more money to buy more
>batteries. Lithium-ion batteries will continue to come down in price
>over time as they have done for years and there are other battery
>technologies that may turn out to be cheaper and better suited in the
>near future such as nickel-hydrogen:
>https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen
>
>> >So if blackouts are your concern, coal is a bad solution and there
>are
>> >reasonable options that don't produce any emissions while running.
>>
>> A bad solution is far, far better than no solution = blackouts. They
>> are keeping the coal plants because they are needed as emergency
>> backups. Good on them.
>
>How well did coal prevent the blackouts in 2021? It didn't because it
>was expensive to run, Genesis didn't think it would be needed, and so it
>wasn't running. It couldn't start up fast enough when it was needed and
>by the time it could be generating power peak demand had already passed
>and the blackouts finished. In the case of Winter 2021, coal wasn't
>better than no solution - it was exactly as good as no solution.
>
>On our grid, coal is not an emergency backup - thats gas and hydro. Coal
>is expensive baseload generation that runs when demand is predicted to
>push power prices high enough to pay the cost of running it.
>
>> In the absence of the obscene government subsidies of the absurd wind
>> turbines, coal would still be profitable.
>
>Wind is not subsidised here. Power companies choose to build it at their
>own cost because its profitable to do so. You build the turbine and then
>whenever the wind blows you make money - zero fuel costs.

David, thank you for your informative posts. My understanding of the
ways in which the companies are able to manage the systems to ensure
maximisation of profits has been assisted by the detail you have
given. I do not believe we have the best system for the country -
there appears to be little real competition, an incentive to keep
demand close to supply, a lack of incentive to minimise cost to
consumers, and the ability to give a pretence of competition while
delivering consistent and excessive profit to shareholders. I cannot
see much change in the near future; hopefully some thinking can go
into how to improve the system so we send less of what we pay for
electricity overseas, and get some real competition between providers.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>Unit 3 was returned to service not due to subsidies but because market
>conditions made it profitable to run again on occasion despite its high
>operating costs.

Well that kinda cancels your point about it being too expensive to
run, right? Also worth mentioning is that coal plants run best in
"overdrive", so they really should be either off or fully on --
running at half-steam is very inefficient. This agrees with your
point that gas is a better backup than coal, except that fully-on coal
is almost as good as gas.

WN said:
>> Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?
>
>No, it isn't. Which is why its not an ideal solution here either, though
>we do have 1.2GW of installed capacity. These numbers are available from
>Transpower along with information on what generation is online at the
>moment if you're interested.

Thanks but I already regularly visit that page.

>The largest power grid battery is 3GWh - equivalent to all three
>remaining coal units running at maximum power for 4 hours. I'd call that
>relevant-scale, and plenty to handle evening peak demand. A 500MWh
>battery would have been sufficient to completely avoid the rolling
>blackouts of winter 2021.

We don't have that, just as we don't have nuclear power. And if I
could choose, I'd go with nuclear over a battery, thanks.

> Lithium-ion batteries will continue to come down in price
>over time as they have done for years

But they still explode just the same as they have done for years. Try
to insure a 3GWh battery, see what you're quoted. Is it too high?
Accept it quick because the rates are only going up.

>How well did coal prevent the blackouts in 2021? It didn't because it
>was expensive to run, Genesis didn't think it would be needed, and so it
>wasn't running. It couldn't start up fast enough when it was needed

So it was Genesis' poor management, not because coal wasn't capable.

>> In the absence of the obscene government subsidies of the absurd wind
>> turbines, coal would still be profitable.
>
>Wind is not subsidised here. Power companies choose to build it at their
>own cost because its profitable to do so. You build the turbine and then
>whenever the wind blows you make money - zero fuel costs.

Thanks for that correction, we seem to be the only country that
doesn't subsidise wind turbines -- officially, anyway. They still get
a free ride on our electric grid, sort of like petrol cars getting a
free ride on the roadway system. It amazes me that they are building
these monsters, with costs rising so rapidly. I understand the
turbine blades have a 20-25 year life expectancy. When they expire,
they won't be replaced. Wind turbines are a bubble industry, here
today, gone tommorow -- and leave a dreadful environmental legacy.

In article <65e970d8.532668656@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
>
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
> >Unit 3 was returned to service not due to subsidies but because market
> >conditions made it profitable to run again on occasion despite its high
> >operating costs.
>
> Well that kinda cancels your point about it being too expensive to
> run, right? Also worth mentioning is that coal plants run best in
> "overdrive", so they really should be either off or fully on --
> running at half-steam is very inefficient. This agrees with your
> point that gas is a better backup than coal, except that fully-on coal
> is almost as good as gas.

Problem is it seems Huntly isn't usually running at anywhere near full
power. Every time I've looked at it recently its been doing somewhere
around 80MW. I can't imagine they're making much money off of that.

> WN said:
> >> Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?
> >
> >No, it isn't. Which is why its not an ideal solution here either, though
> >we do have 1.2GW of installed capacity. These numbers are available from
> >Transpower along with information on what generation is online at the
> >moment if you're interested.
>
> Thanks but I already regularly visit that page.
>
> >The largest power grid battery is 3GWh - equivalent to all three
> >remaining coal units running at maximum power for 4 hours. I'd call that
> >relevant-scale, and plenty to handle evening peak demand. A 500MWh
> >battery would have been sufficient to completely avoid the rolling
> >blackouts of winter 2021.
>
> We don't have that, just as we don't have nuclear power. And if I
> could choose, I'd go with nuclear over a battery, thanks.

Problem with nuclear power here, aside from the cost, is its size. What
could fill in for a >1GW generator on the rare occasion that it needs to
go down for maintenance or refueling? What could fire up and supply >1GW
of power at a moments notice and without warning should the nuclear
plant unexpectedly drop off the grid for some reason?

If supply on the grid ever fails to match demand you run the risk of the
grid collapsing, so being able to handle the largest generator on the
grid disappearing unexpectedly is critical.

> > Lithium-ion batteries will continue to come down in price
> >over time as they have done for years
>
> But they still explode just the same as they have done for years. Try
> to insure a 3GWh battery, see what you're quoted. Is it too high?
> Accept it quick because the rates are only going up.

I'm surrounded by Li-Ion batteries every day. In fact, everyone I know
is surrounded by them. I don't know anyone who has had their phone or
laptop explode.

Just because it happens occasionally somewhere around the world doesn't
mean its a regular occurrence or likely to happen. Usually its a result
of faulty design or improper care and handling.

But at our glacial pace chances are by the time someone makes the
decision to deploy large amounts of storage nickel-hydrogen batteries
may be being manufactured in large enough quantities to be an option.

> >How well did coal prevent the blackouts in 2021? It didn't because it
> >was expensive to run, Genesis didn't think it would be needed, and so it
> >wasn't running. It couldn't start up fast enough when it was needed
>
> So it was Genesis' poor management, not because coal wasn't capable.

I never said it wasn't *capable* of doing the job, just that it is very
expensive to use in that way. It takes a while to start up so if it is
going to respond to emergencies it has to be running at all times.

But the power it generates is expensive. The grid always buys the
cheapest power first so if demand can be met without Coal, then Coal
makes zero dollars. If the plant spends a lot of time idling and only
occasionally sells power to the grid that may significantly impact its
profitability.

Hydro, Gas and batteries don't have this problem because they are always
ready to respond and they're not consuming fuel in that ready to respond
state. They can very rapidly go from completely off to completely on.

> >> In the absence of the obscene government subsidies of the absurd wind
> >> turbines, coal would still be profitable.
> >
> >Wind is not subsidised here. Power companies choose to build it at their
> >own cost because its profitable to do so. You build the turbine and then
> >whenever the wind blows you make money - zero fuel costs.
>
> Thanks for that correction, we seem to be the only country that
> doesn't subsidise wind turbines -- officially, anyway. They still get
> a free ride on our electric grid, sort of like petrol cars getting a
> free ride on the roadway system. It amazes me that they are building
> these monsters, with costs rising so rapidly. I understand the
> turbine blades have a 20-25 year life expectancy. When they expire,
> they won't be replaced. Wind turbines are a bubble industry, here
> today, gone tommorow -- and leave a dreadful environmental legacy.

If they couldn't make a profit on them, they wouldn't build and run
them. I don't see demand dropping, operating costs rising, or a new even
cheaper generating method turning up any time soon so I see no reason to
believe they will just be a bubble industry.

Recycling of wind turbine blades *is* a problem, but only a very minor
one. Compared to the emissions produced by gas and coal generation, a
few fibreglass blades buried in the ground is pretty benign. If we're
worried about burying things, we'd be better off starting with our own
household waste.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:03:11 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <65e970d8.532668656@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>> >Unit 3 was returned to service not due to subsidies but because market
>> >conditions made it profitable to run again on occasion despite its high
>> >operating costs.
>>
>> Well that kinda cancels your point about it being too expensive to
>> run, right? Also worth mentioning is that coal plants run best in
>> "overdrive", so they really should be either off or fully on --
>> running at half-steam is very inefficient. This agrees with your
>> point that gas is a better backup than coal, except that fully-on coal
>> is almost as good as gas.
>
>Problem is it seems Huntly isn't usually running at anywhere near full
>power. Every time I've looked at it recently its been doing somewhere
>around 80MW. I can't imagine they're making much money off of that.

That depends on the pricing mechanism. As I understand it, there is a
complex process that involved the generating companies setting a price
- presumably based on cost plus a profit margin. Somehow all those
prices are combined into a single price for the system as a whole - or
at least part of the system. The South Island probably doesn't often
need to rely on Huntly for example, but perhaps it is affected if a
whole system price is used. On average at least spot prices have to
cover costs plus profits, and using the Gattung motto for Telecom, if
it is too complex for users to understand, the price can be set
higher. The retail price has to cover generation, transmission and
retail distribution - far too complex for any individual to assess
which retailer to use, and they make sure that their charges are not
comparable anyway. The system was well designed by Bradford - it
ensures continuity of supply, generous profits that encourage further
investment as needed (and if that comes from overseas so be it), and
government gets taxes and the assurance that the profit incentive will
be sufficient to ensure that supply can be assured to the New Zealand
consumers delivering all that profit and tax revenue. We can pretend
that consumers keep the system honest by choosing the cheapest
supplier . . .

Have I missed or mis-interpreted anything?

>> WN said:
>> >> Great, but our gas supply isn't very secure, is it?
>> >
>> >No, it isn't. Which is why its not an ideal solution here either, though
>> >we do have 1.2GW of installed capacity. These numbers are available from
>> >Transpower along with information on what generation is online at the
>> >moment if you're interested.
>>
>> Thanks but I already regularly visit that page.
>>
>> >The largest power grid battery is 3GWh - equivalent to all three
>> >remaining coal units running at maximum power for 4 hours. I'd call that
>> >relevant-scale, and plenty to handle evening peak demand. A 500MWh
>> >battery would have been sufficient to completely avoid the rolling
>> >blackouts of winter 2021.
>>
>> We don't have that, just as we don't have nuclear power. And if I
>> could choose, I'd go with nuclear over a battery, thanks.
>
>Problem with nuclear power here, aside from the cost, is its size. What
>could fill in for a >1GW generator on the rare occasion that it needs to
>go down for maintenance or refueling? What could fire up and supply >1GW
>of power at a moments notice and without warning should the nuclear
>plant unexpectedly drop off the grid for some reason?

If it went down due to tsunami or earthquake or volcanic eruption
perhaps there would be other issues of concern to us . . .. Where
would be the optimum location for a nuclear power plant?

>
>If supply on the grid ever fails to match demand you run the risk of the
>grid collapsing, so being able to handle the largest generator on the
>grid disappearing unexpectedly is critical.
>
>> > Lithium-ion batteries will continue to come down in price
>> >over time as they have done for years
>>
>> But they still explode just the same as they have done for years. Try
>> to insure a 3GWh battery, see what you're quoted. Is it too high?
>> Accept it quick because the rates are only going up.
>
>I'm surrounded by Li-Ion batteries every day. In fact, everyone I know
>is surrounded by them. I don't know anyone who has had their phone or
>laptop explode.
>
>Just because it happens occasionally somewhere around the world doesn't
>mean its a regular occurrence or likely to happen. Usually its a result
>of faulty design or improper care and handling.
>
>But at our glacial pace chances are by the time someone makes the
>decision to deploy large amounts of storage nickel-hydrogen batteries
>may be being manufactured in large enough quantities to be an option.
>
>> >How well did coal prevent the blackouts in 2021? It didn't because it
>> >was expensive to run, Genesis didn't think it would be needed, and so it
>> >wasn't running. It couldn't start up fast enough when it was needed
>>
>> So it was Genesis' poor management, not because coal wasn't capable.
>
>I never said it wasn't *capable* of doing the job, just that it is very
>expensive to use in that way. It takes a while to start up so if it is
>going to respond to emergencies it has to be running at all times.
>
>But the power it generates is expensive. The grid always buys the
>cheapest power first so if demand can be met without Coal, then Coal
>makes zero dollars. If the plant spends a lot of time idling and only
>occasionally sells power to the grid that may significantly impact its
>profitability.
>
>Hydro, Gas and batteries don't have this problem because they are always
>ready to respond and they're not consuming fuel in that ready to respond
>state. They can very rapidly go from completely off to completely on.
>
>> >> In the absence of the obscene government subsidies of the absurd wind
>> >> turbines, coal would still be profitable.
>> >
>> >Wind is not subsidised here. Power companies choose to build it at their
>> >own cost because its profitable to do so. You build the turbine and then
>> >whenever the wind blows you make money - zero fuel costs.
>>
>> Thanks for that correction, we seem to be the only country that
>> doesn't subsidise wind turbines -- officially, anyway. They still get
>> a free ride on our electric grid, sort of like petrol cars getting a
>> free ride on the roadway system. It amazes me that they are building
>> these monsters, with costs rising so rapidly. I understand the
>> turbine blades have a 20-25 year life expectancy. When they expire,
>> they won't be replaced. Wind turbines are a bubble industry, here
>> today, gone tommorow -- and leave a dreadful environmental legacy.
>
>If they couldn't make a profit on them, they wouldn't build and run
>them. I don't see demand dropping, operating costs rising, or a new even
>cheaper generating method turning up any time soon so I see no reason to
>believe they will just be a bubble industry.
>
>Recycling of wind turbine blades *is* a problem, but only a very minor
>one. Compared to the emissions produced by gas and coal generation, a
>few fibreglass blades buried in the ground is pretty benign. If we're
>worried about burying things, we'd be better off starting with our own
>household waste.