Project Hayes decision a bad idea: councillor

Let me get this right. Mr Eckhoff's argument, in a nutshell, is that the Environment Court (a body of, gasp, un-elected people, therefore not to be trusted to make nationally important decisions) was bamboozled and swayed by a bunch of highly articulate personalities, while the supporters of the project (the vast majority of average people ... oh, and a multi-billion dollar corporation, Meridian) were simply too daunted to present a winning case. Meanwhile, Central Otago's future effectively requires un-elected corporations (whose majority of shareholders have probably never heard of Central Otago, let alone set foot in the region) to make locally-important decisions from their comfortable offices elsewhere. If only Lewis Carroll were alive to hear it,

A quick look at my power bills over the last 10 years reveals they have more than doubled in that time despite numerous new power schemes having come on line in that time. So Mr Eckhoff's claims are scare-mongering. His despair at "personality endorsements" also strikes me as sour grapes. Obviously he is pining for the days when faceless men in suits decided such matters. Without locals with some profile voicing their objections, the steamrollers would simply roll over all protests. Oddly, he doesn't seem to have any complaints against the highly-paid and enormously articulate teams of lawyers and PR firms hired by companies such as Meridian to argue the pro case while their cheerleaders on local councils sing from the sidelines. Fortunately, the world has moved on from the "good old days" when local ouncils decided our futures with little consultation, just as power generation technology has moved on from the dark days of Think Big. Maybe it's time Mr Eckhof moved on as well. And, by the way, the architects of Think Big were voted out - but their costly projects still went ahead.

Bill, To seek that which is better is not a sin, it is what makes man as a species by far the most likely to prevail.

CSP is well past the experimental stage in the US and Europe. CSP is constantly improving with innovative design changes, given some Kiwi ingenuity I would wager that it might improve a lot faster.

CSP must be considered with caution in our lower latitudes due to sun positioning year round. It needs to be looked at due to its, Lower cost of ownership, its ability to produce power during calm days as well as windy ones. It is but one way to improve generation capability.

As I have posted in the past, the most important change we can make is to take ownership of the problem, and that is that we as a species have become energy ravenous. If this is so then perhaps as individuals we need to set up small home based generation capacity to reduce our energy needs.

It is easy to find any manner of opinion and quotes to suit an argument, using google.

However, if you place windfarms close to hydro generation you can simply reduce the output of hydro station and let the lake fill slightly when the windfarms are producing and ramp it up and drain it a little when they are not. That results in more water available at peak times - and allows the two types of generation to share the same transmission lines. In many ways wind is a great way to supplement hydro and save us from those who would make us dam more rivers.

What we may have to do is to add more generation capability to existing dams (more penstocks/generators) to meet the peak demand.

Wind is a mature generating technology perfectly suited to the New Zealand electricity system. We have one of the best wind resources in the world, and up to about 30% of system capacity, wind would work to balance the water constrained nature of our hydro system. When the wind is blowing, water would be held in storage, and during calmer periods the hydro system would be run harder. Over longer runs, wind is very predictable, and gives less annual variation than hydro. A lot of misinformation and misconceptions have been established by the campaign against large scale wind farms (they are not 'factories'), and it is New Zealand that will miss out if we don't get over them.

The Hayes decision was a huge victory for the consumers of New Zealand who will be spared the huge costs of building a windfarm that adds little value and would make practically no difference to the need for new generation. (Because during periods of peak demand, the windfarm output would often be close to zero.) The wind blows strongest in the springtime and least in the autumn when we need all we can get. It was not well matched to the New Zealand power system. The commissioners released their decision after nine months of serious contemplation. The commission also indicated they were not satisfied that the national economics were sound given that the consumer would have to pay for transmission, backup generation and other costs that the windfarm imposes on the electricity system. This is a problem for the proponents of wind energy to solve.

It is a common human reaction to want to look over the fence for greener grass.

The following quote concerning concentrating solar power (CSP)comes from the US Department of Energy (DOE) website: "DOE's goals include increasing the use of CSP in the United States, making CSP competitive in the intermediate power market by 2015, and developing advanced technologies that will reduce systems and storage costs, enabling CSP to be competitive in the baseload power market by 2020."

The reality is that CSP is promising research, large scale wind is already competitive.

From the American Wind Association website: 'In 2007, 35% of all new generation capacity added to the electric grid in the U.S. was from wind power projects. Electric utilities are increasingly adding wind power to their power supply portfolios, as a clean, inexhaustible, and domestic source of electric generation."

Does anyone seriously consider that at the end of the economic life of these towers, (and it will come), the perpetrators will be summoned on-site to spend many millions of dollars restoring the landscape to its former pristine state? Of course not, it will become a graveyard of rusting hulks and a further monument, (as if one were needed), to mankind's greed and stupidity.

Gerry whilst I enjoy your advocacy for common sense can I ask that you endeavour to do some research on what is happening elsewhere in the world. In the US a 345MW Concentrating Solar Power project cost $US200 million to build. It takes up no more land than a large vineyard, costs less, and does not blot the skyline with wind towers. CSP stations produce power during non sun light hours. The technology for new, cheaper, and better alternatives has advanced in the last few years to the point where the expense of wind power both monetary and geographically is hard to justify. The new alternatives are better.