New Zealand Pledges An End to Coal by 2018

[SeaBreeze]

New Zealand plans to dump its domestic coal habit by 2018..., full story here.

It appears that New Zealand is finally ready to throw their domestic coal habit into Mount Doom — by 2018, the country will cease to use coal as a source of domestic energy production.

“Historically coal has played an important role in ensuring the security of New Zealand’s electricity supply, particularly in dry years where our hydro-lake levels are low,” Simon Bridges, New Zealand’s Energy and Resources Minister, said in a statement. “But significant market investment in other forms of renewable energy in recent years, particularly in geothermal, means that a coal backstop is becoming less of a requirement.”

Bridges’ statement comes on the heels of the country’s largest electricity and gas retailer, Genesis Energy, announcing its intentions to shut down the last of their two coal-fired boilers at the Huntly Power Station, located south of Auckland, by December of 2018.

“Its closure marks the end of coal-fired power generation in New Zealand,” Bridges said, noting that the closure of the plants would also help New Zealand significantly reduce its carbon emissions. Energy is New Zealand’s second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (behind agriculture), accounting for 39 percent of the country’s emissions in 2013. Of the 81 million tons of greenhouse gases emitted by New Zealand in 2013, the Huntly site released 2.3 million tons. At its peak, the site accounted for five percent of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to Radio News New Zealand.

New Zealand has more than 15 billion tons of known coal reserves in the ground, and says that more than half of those resources are probably recoverable. In 2013, New Zealand extracted 4.6 million tons of coal, exporting a little less than half of it — mostly to Asia, where it’s used to power steel manufacturing. Nearly two-thirds of New Zealand’s coal comes from just two mines — Rotowaro in the Waikato (about 63 miles from Auckland) and Stockton on the West Coast.

But coal use in New Zealand has been on the decline in recent years, accounting for just five percent of consumer energy demand in 2013 (oil made up the largest share, accounting for 46 percent of demand). 2013 also saw a six percent drop in coal production, largely due to Solid Energy — the country’s leading coal producer — scaling back its mining operations in two mines in the Waikato region of the country. Increasingly, coal in that region is becoming more difficult to locate and more expensive to mine, limiting the nation’s ability to rely on the resource for its energy supply.

Instead, New Zealand has turned to renewable energy in recent years, particularly geothermal energy, which has more than doubled in the past decade. In 2014, for the first time in the country’s history, geothermal generation provided more electricity than gas — 16.3 percent of New Zealand’s total electricity versus 15.8 percent.

According to a statement by Bridges in March of this year, electricity generated from renewables is at a 20-year high in New Zealand, accounting for 79.9 percent of all electricity generated. Bridgestold the New Zealand Herald that “New Zealand’s share of renewable electricity generation is the fourth largest in the world,” and that the country aims to have 90 percent of its electricity produced by renewable resources in 2025.


In Thursday’s statement, Bridges painted Genesis Energy’s decision to shutter the coal-fired power plants as an opportunity, noting that with the advance notice, the country would have ample time to deploy more geothermal and renewable resources to avoid energy shortages.

“New Zealand’s abundant energy resources give us a renewable energy advantage that we need to make to the most of,” Bridges said. “This decision creates further opportunities to do that.”
The government has not said whether the shuttering of the coal-fired power plants will impact the amount of coal extracted and exported from the country, however. Genesis Energy has announced that it intends to end its contract with Solid Energy, which supplied the coal for the Huntly power plants, in the middle of next year. Half of Solid Energy’s annual coal production, historically, has been used for domestic energy, while the other half is exported.

 

[imp]

How is geothermal energy tapped to reliably produce Electric power? Note the malarkey in the wording: "geothermal provided more electricity than gas-- 16.3% vs. 15.8%"; the difference between the two is 16.3 - 15.8 / 16.3 = 0.03, a difference between the two of 3%, thus they are virtually neck and neck.

Renewable energy sources now account for 79.9% of all electricity generated. How is the remaining 20% produced? If not renewable, and not fossil-fuel (coal, natural gas), then only Nuclear remains likely. Are they 20% nuclear?

Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but with enormous coal reserves, meager population density which means far less electric consumption overall than, say, one of the larger developed countries, dialing-out the use of coal GUARANTEES higher power bills for the users.

Is this guy's position an elected one? imp

 

[Debby]

I think what New Zealand has pledged to do is remarkable and wonderful. I also think that President Obama's recent declaration to move in that same direction is fabulous even though it means that my country will have to rethink our reliance on the tar sands for our economy. I only wish that my own Federal government was making any effort at all to protect the environment. The Conservatives have actually moved in the opposite direction with one example being the removal of protection from almost all lakes and rivers in favour of the oil and gas producers in Canada.

As far as their use of geothermal being not much different than the coal generated energy imp, all I can say is in the grand scheme of things, it's early days and as technology continues to develop and improve, the gap will widen. It must for the sake of our grandchildren and every other creature on the planet. In a choice between higher bills and health (of all of us and wildlife and the planet in general) how can you choose anything but working towards complete use of renewables. Cash in your pocket won't feel all that wonderful if you can't breathe or drink the water.

Seems like anyone who gets upset about 'higher bills' really shouldn't ever say anything about the terrible air in Beijing. I don't know if you are one of those folks imp, maybe you're not, but whenever any country says they're moving in that direction, we should be cheering for them.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I agree Debby, it would be really bad if air pollution in other countries became as bad as China, more pics here.


In Beijing particle pollution is 40x the International Safety Standard.

Photo Credit: Kyodo News​

China is trying to do something about the problem in terms of creating long-term sustainable commitments to the environment. For instance, in 2010 China was ranked as the leading investor in low-carbon energy technology.
Even though Chinese leaders are vowing to change and look after the planet’s interests, it’s going to be difficult with such rapid expansion, especially considering how bad China’s pollution problems remain.


Pollution pours out of a factory in Yutian, located 100km east of Beijing

 

[Debby]

Not only that SeaBreeze, China has apparently cancelled approval for $17.6 billion dollars worth of building projects due to environmental concerns and within five years, their plan is to slash coal use by 160 million tonnes. They've also ordered all environmental impact assessment agencies cut their links to government at all levels by the end of 2016 with the intention of cutting corruption that over rides environmental concerns and decisions.

If the West isn't careful, maybe soon China will be able to point at us as an example of what not to do. It's not good enough anymore to say, 'well until (the other country) does something, we don't have to'.

 

[WhatInThe]

How is geothermal energy tapped to reliably produce Electric power? Note the malarkey in the wording: "geothermal provided more electricity than gas-- 16.3% vs. 15.8%"; the difference between the two is 16.3 - 15.8 / 16.3 = 0.03, a difference between the two of 3%, thus they are virtually neck and neck.

Renewable energy sources now account for 79.9% of all electricity generated. How is the remaining 20% produced? If not renewable, and not fossil-fuel (coal, natural gas), then only Nuclear remains likely. Are they 20% nuclear?

Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but with enormous coal reserves, meager population density which means far less electric consumption overall than, say, one of the larger developed countries, dialing-out the use of coal GUARANTEES higher power bills for the users.

Is this guy's position an elected one? imp

Seems like a negligible drop in the bucket and New Zealand's coal plants were probably already cleaner than others.

 

[Josiah]

Good for NZ that's an ambitious goal. Let's hope their neighbor to the east (Oz) feel shamed into following suit.

 

[imp]

Electricity: Best Bang for yer Buck

Seems like anyone who gets upset about 'higher bills' really shouldn't ever say anything about the terrible air in Beijing. I don't know if you are one of those folks imp, maybe you're not, but whenever any country says they're moving in that direction, we should be cheering for them.

Actually, Debby, I have always maintained that electric power is one of the greatest boons to mankind (if I'm allowed that outdated noun, if not then, "humanity") that Science has provided us. I have never once complained about it's cost, personally, because of that belief. I mentioned increased cost primarily because of my contention it is not necessary. The "dent" in global pollution reduction resulting from New Zealand's efforts will be so trivial, as to be unnoticeable. Yes, attacking environmental destruction is tantamount to our species' survival, ultimately. No, picking away at the problem in miniscule amounts will solve nothing.

It is the biggest users and abusers who would have to take the needed steps. One look at the picture above of an example of China's air pollution graphically portrays the sad fact that China has "talked big and failed miserably". Not a single member of this board will be alive to see China become a shining example of environmental clean-up, but as you say, we must think of the future generations. Hopefully, they will see it. imp

 

[Debby]

And like I said imp, it's early days for countries to become proactive about reduction of atmospheric carbon even though we've been hearing about it from activists for decades and as each country moves towards greater implementation of better standards and outright changes, that 'dent' will grow. But if we all sit on our hands (because doing a little at a time isn't enough) and do nothing except moan about the worsening weather patterns, we are doomed.

And China is involved in changes. In my previous post, I pointed to their cancellation of some major projects because of their potential harm, their efforts to separate government offices from those of environmental assessment agencies and their work towards slashing coal use in the next five years by 160 million tonnes. They've also introduced tougher standards for polluting industries, begun to develop other energy sources such as nuclear, hydro and compressed natural gas and are apparently working to fix industrial sectors like iron, steel and cement production so that they don't produce as much pollution as they have til now. And they've pledged, in conjunction with the USA, to cut their emission levels significantly (based on the Copenhagen agreement I think) by 2030. My own government doesn't even want to commit to much of anything these days so we've been beat out by the USA and by China in that regard.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...important-new-actions-reduce-carbon-pollution

Every little bit helps and it all adds up to the greater good. But shearing at even the small efforts does no good at all. Encourage better behaviour whenever it appears is my motto. And then build on that.

 

[SeaBreeze]

Carbon Pollution from US Power Plants Hit 27 Year Low

Full article here.


The government says heat-trapping pollution from U.S. power plants hit a 27-year low in April. U.S. Energy Information Administration economist Allen McFarland said a big factor was the long-term shift from coal to cleaner and cheaper natural gas. Outside experts also credit more renewable fuel use and energy efficiency.

According to figures released Wednesday, electric power plants spewed 141 million tons of carbon dioxide in April, the lowest for any month since April 1988. The power plants are responsible for about one-third of the country's heat-trapping emissions. Federal analysts predict that this year the amount of electricity from natural gas will increase 3 percent compared to last year while the power from coal will go down 10 percent.

The government says heat-trapping pollution from U.S. power plants hit a 27-year low in April. U.S. Energy Information Administration economist Allen McFarland said a big factor was the long-term shift from coal to cleaner and cheaper natural gas.

Outside experts also credit more renewable fuel use and energy efficiency.

According to figures released Wednesday, electric power plants spewed 141 million tons of carbon dioxide in April, the lowest for any month since April 1988. The power plants are responsible for about one-third of the country's heat-trapping emissions. Federal analysts predict that this year the amount of electricity from natural gas will increase 3 percent compared to last year while the power from coal will go down 10 percent.

Carbon dioxide — from the burning of coal, oil and gas — is the chief greenhouse gas responsible for man-made global warming. "While good news for the environment, we certainly would not want to assume that this trend will continue and that we can simply relax," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The news comes as President Barack Obama seeks to clamp down on power plant emissions. On Monday, Obama introduced sweeping new regulations requiring states to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030. He said the world may not be able to reverse global warming unless aggressive action is taken to stop it.
Related: Rising Number of Local Governments Pledge to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On Wednesday, 16 states banded together to ask the administration to put its greenhouse gas limits for power plants on hold while they sue to stop them. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and 15 other attorneys general submitted their request in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency. They're asking the EPA to respond by Friday. "These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy, and that is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt," Morrisey said in a statement.

Republicans in Congress are also working on legislation to block implementation of the new emissions standards.

 

[Fern]

New Zealand promotes a 'clean green' image, that successive governments are very aware of consequently 'they' must be being seen to be protecting that image, (great for tourism).
In 2014 the NZ dairy farmers milked 4.9 million cows, cows that emit methane gas in abundance, according to the pundits,(the mind boggles as to how it was measured!)

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year. Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year).
World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector). Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

So the govt. is closing down coal fired power stations, creating more unemployment,the next thing will be the closing of the coal mines. While it's necessary to help protect the environment, our contribution to global warming is minimal. It does stick in ones craw to see the likes of China,India,the US,UK 'promising' to cut down on emissions in the foreseeable future, !! which really is all hot air.
Our foot print is so small it will not make one iota of difference.
The agriculture sector world wide transmitting green house gases, the warming of the atmosphere that jet airliners create, etc.etc, so where do we go from here, we are an agricultural producing country, will govt. ban agriculture to protect our clean,green image,? not likely.

The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[SUP] [1] [/SUP]
Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming.[SUP] [1] [/SUP]

 

[Debby]

New Zealand promotes a 'clean green' image, that successive governments are very aware of consequently 'they' must be being seen to be protecting that image, (great for tourism).
In 2014 the NZ dairy farmers milked 4.9 million cows, cows that emit methane gas in abundance, according to the pundits,(the mind boggles as to how it was measured!)

So the govt. is closing down coal fired power stations, creating more unemployment,the next thing will be the closing of the coal mines. While it's necessary to help protect the environment, our contribution to global warming is minimal. It does stick in ones craw to see the likes of China,India,the US,UK 'promising' to cut down on emissions in the foreseeable future, !! which really is all hot air.
Our foot print is so small it will not make one iota of difference.
The agriculture sector world wide transmitting green house gases, the warming of the atmosphere that jet airliners create, etc.etc, so where do we go from here, we are an agricultural producing country, will govt. ban agriculture to protect our clean,green image,? not likely.

You may be small Fern, but you are to be applauded. My country is one of the big emitters and our Federal governments attitude seems to be, 'until everyone else does something, we're not going to bother'. But when one of our provinces ended use of a coal plant which did make a noticeable difference in our levels all of a sudden the Federal guys are cheering for themselves because 'look what we did, we did help the environment'. What a toad!