Im not even going to read that right now. There is a person here who knows more about electricity than most of us put together. If you want the best EMISSION saving per dollar you invest in making us 100% renewable. Its not about EV or anything, what is the best bang for buck?
An EV like an ICE is made of many emissions. If EV took off we will burn ore coal. You could even argue we burn coal to supply EV, as we burn coal now in summer when lakes are low and in winter due to demand and when catchment is low (as its frozen) If someone came up with the ideal formula Im happy, but too many here want EV AS THEY WANT EV
Maybe you should have a read of the article before you commenting on it, eh? ;)
Also, at 7:35pm on a cold winters night and just 3% of the power being generated is coming from coal, as shown on Transpowers live data
There is actually a far more important point to note from that page right now. It says that there is only 6MW of wind generation currently, out of an installed capacity of 658MW of wind generation. So effectively Zero wind generation now. And Zero solar generation because it is night time at the moment. This is why you still need lots of Hydro and Geothermal generation. And claims by the Green party and others that we could go 100% renewable solely from solar and wind are a complete fantasy.
There is not much coal being used at the moment. As there is lots of water in the hydro lakes, we are over halfway through winter now. So it is very unlikely that we would have a power shortage in the next 6 months. Therefore the dam owners are offering lots of hydro generation into the wholesale market for very cheap prices. And the HVDC cable has over 800MW running North at the moment.
As a contrast, have a look at what happened earlier this year.
Low lake levels that were quickly dropping. Outages on the Natural gas network. There were very real fears that we might have an electricity shortage. And lots and lots of fossil fuels were being burnt, to help save water in the hydro lakes for the upcoming winter.
But then that big storm happened. The lakes got filled almost overnight. False alarm - We no longer have any risk of shortage anymore. Except we burnt lots of fossil fuels that we didn't need to (with the benefit of hindsight). As if we had known that that storm was going to happen, then the lakes could have been pretty much emptied beforehand. Instead of needing to burn lots of fossil fuels, just in case it doesn't rain.
If managed correctly, building lots more coal generation could actually reduce carbon emissions. As it would enable hydro to be used at max output. As you won't have to worry about low rainfall and saving water "just in case". As the coal generation would be your "just in case" backup instead.