EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

1 | ... | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | ... | 725

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2186809 25-Feb-2019 11:42

PhantomNVD: But V2G totally makes sense when coupled with an aging EV (likemy 2011 Leaf) which will be 7-8bars (50-60 kms) range limited in a year or so, and would then make more sense (being WAY cheaper) becoming a V2G parked up storage space (Think Tesla Powerwall) with the potential to be used as second car when occasionally needed...

Solar/off grid/rural or just ‘squeezed’ by the electric companies changing fortunes/dry years... any of these situations increase its value, and likelihood too?

There are plenty of companies who take tired EV batteries and turn them into powerwall's. It makes no sense having a vehicle cluttering up valuable parking spaces when all you need a big white box bolted to the wall in your cupboard. It makes no sense in NZ were the financial paybacks are so small. Off grid the financial situation is different of course, be then we're talking V2G not V2-not-G.

Dams and lakes are a grid level battery. If hypothetically many buildings in NZ had PV grid tied solar with no powerwalls, then in a dry year, when the sun naturally shines more, less water is taken from the dams to generate electricity which offsets the fact that it is dry.

All I'm explaining is why V2G (and also power walls to a lesser extent) aren't as financially attractive in NZ as other places, and how we can play up the environment strengths of our power system.

We need to do something soon because the Labour-Greens have ensured (by killing future gas exploration) that we will have no Gas-peaking plants in 10 years time which combined with a steeply rising population will cause electricity demand to outstrip supply. If we don't do anything, then yes, a powerwall or V2G may be a necessity in the future, but it isn't now.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2186825 25-Feb-2019 12:18

tripper1000:

We need to do something soon because the Labour-Greens have ensured (by killing future gas exploration) that we will have no Gas-peaking plants in 10 years time

I think you might exaggerating just a little there. For one thing, the deposits already mapped and permitted will last longer than that, and for another, even if they did run out in 10 years it doesn't mean we can't import gas. But the whole point is to discourage it, because it's killing the planet.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

PolicyGuy

1726 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2186837 25-Feb-2019 12:40

wellygary:

PolicyGuy:

tripper1000:

[snip]

Transpower wrote a report that the N.Z. power system can handle up 2000 Megawatts of solar generation before we need to make significant changes (such as battery storage & V2G) to support it. Currently we have about 70 Megawatts.

Can you provide a reference / link to that please?

They will be talking about this

"Some have interpreted the Green Grid analysis3 to suggest New Zealand electricity distribution networks could host at most 2GW of distributed solar before voltage constraints became a barrier. Our recent analysis has found new technology means this isn’t the case. By exploiting the natural partnership between solar and battery technology (and the utilisation of inverter capabilities), anticipated voltage constraints in electricity networks could be managed to enable networks to host 9-10GW of solar."

Page 8

https://www.transpower.co.nz/sites/default/files/plain-page/attachments/Te%20Mauri%20Hiko%20%E2%80%93%20the%20sun%20rises%20-%20published.pdf

https://www.transpower.co.nz/about-us/transmission-tomorrow/sun-rises-solar-energy-future

Thanks, very informative

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2186848 25-Feb-2019 12:51

Golly, were you guys overseas for the last year? In terms of commercial use, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12037465

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/357881/nz-s-gas-reserves-drop-renewal-unlikely-due-to-ban-on-exploration

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1807/S00234/natural-gas-shortage-forecast-for-2020-and-beyond.htm

An example of what happens when there is not Gas generated electricity under the present structure:

https://www.interest.co.nz/business/97731/make-nzs-future-energy-supply-called-question-unprecedented-gas-and-hydro-shortages

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/108121941/heat-goes-on-spotprice-power-customers-as-wholesale-prices-soar

Edit: Spelling.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2186866 25-Feb-2019 13:16

tripper1000:

Golly, were you guys overseas for the last year? In terms of commercial use, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12037465

From this article:

New Zealand households which rely on natural gas won't have to switch to another energy source despite the latest advice showing there may be as little as seven years' reserves left, the Government says.

Energy Minister Megan Woods said today she expected New Zealand's shift away from fossil fuels to take 30 or 40 years because existing exploration permits would allow further drilling for gas.

...

There have been no new gas finds in New Zealand in 12 years.

So to the extent that there is an issue with our future gas supply, it was already an issue, and has not been caused by a ban on future exploration.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/357881/nz-s-gas-reserves-drop-renewal-unlikely-due-to-ban-on-exploration

From this article:

The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimated the reserves had reduced by five percent. ... The diminished supply of gas is unlikely to affect households, who use just a tiny proportion of the country's gas output. It will likely affect the Methanex New Zealand plant in north Taranaki, which uses 41 percent of all of the country's natural gas output.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1807/S00234/natural-gas-shortage-forecast-for-2020-and-beyond.htm

And this article is a National Party (opposition, even) press release, so I'll take it with a bag of salt and simply say that it refers to the same MBIE study as the above two articles.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2186922 25-Feb-2019 13:51

SaltyNZ:
tripper1000:

We need to do something soon because the Labour-Greens have ensured (by killing future gas exploration) that we will have no Gas-peaking plants in 10 years time

I think you might exaggerating just a little there. For one thing, the deposits already mapped and permitted will last longer than that, and for another, even if they did run out in 10 years it doesn't mean we can't import gas. But the whole point is to discourage it, because it's killing the planet.

Actually NZ does not have the facilities to import Natural gas (methane gas). We can only import and export LPG (propane and butane gas). And because methane is shipped as LNG (cooled to cryogenic temperatures) Specialist equipment is required to handle and store it. Supposedly it would cost around 1 billion dollars to build what is required to import Natural gas. There is no way that anyone would ever agree to spending such money. So in effect, Natural gas will disappear from NZ.

Problem is, there are lots of applications where coal is the only realistic alternative to Natural gas. Think of things like large boilers in hospitals, ovens in bread factories, and numerous other large scale industrial heat applications. While smaller applications, electricity is the only alternative.

But we need to build over 1000MW of new renewable generation capacity, just to replace the existing gas generators, and to stop Huntly from running on 100% coal. And then you still need to build more generation to allow for the extra load from electricity replacing gas. And that is on top of the extra generation that you would have to build anyway, to support population growth and EVs.

Meanwhile, lots of overseas countries are investing big money and actively expanding their Natural gas networks. They are doing so to phase out coal. As apart from making steel. Any application that is done using coal, can be done better with Natural gas. Large coal boilers are actually surprisingly easy to convert to Natural gas. Just bolt a package burner (device that shoots out a large flame) to the door where coal is normally fed into the boiler. No more need to truck coal to site, store it, no more ash and soot to deal with, no more sulphur, particulate, heavy metal emissions, easier to use, as control is as simple as turning on a tap or flicking a switch. No need to pay in advance for coal or risk that your local store would run out. Natural gas is just better than coal in every way. And it also has lower carbon emissions than coal as well.

But those boilers will just get converted back to coal. As even a relatively small boiler (around say 500KW capacity). If you tried replacing that with electricity, try pricing up how much the lines company will charge you for 500KW of new capacity. Then you still need a new boiler, someone will need to build the generation capacity.

And all of the extra generation capacity has to be able to operate during peak demand. As often the decision to originally install Natural gas instead of electricity. Was done to avoid paying capacity charges on large electricity connections. So the only renewable generation options are Hydro from dams and Geothermal.

The total long term costs of getting rid of Natural gas are crazy, even if you ignore the loss of royalties from drilling.

And it begs the question. Why are we getting rid of Natural gas. While not doing anything to get rid of coal instead? When getting rid of coal will give a far better rate of return. on the basis of money spent VS emissions avoided?

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2186925 25-Feb-2019 13:58

Getting way off V2G here, but don't take the "won't affect NZ households" so literally and universally - it means the gas supply to NZ households. It doesn't encompass the electricity supply (to NZ households) that is generated commercially - commercial consumers of gas (such as power generators) will be significantly impacted. The impact of no gas generation was felt late last year with extreme spot pricing, (exacerbated by low lake inflows).

Edit: spelling.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2186927 25-Feb-2019 14:02

Yes, we should be sunsetting coal mines and banning new coal permits too. Or, if it had to be a choice, then sunset coal instead of gas. Your points are all good ones - gas is better than coal in every way, certainly, and it will take time and cost money to convert from fuel to electricity and to expand the renewable generation and distribution capacity to cope, but we have to start doing it. Doing it now is going to be a lot easier and cheaper than trying to cope with the worst effects of climate change.

But I would also reiterate what one of the articles pointed out which is there have been no new gas finds in NZ for 12 years, and only a 10-15% estimated chance of finding anything new. So it would seem prudent not to rely on gas in the long term regardless of whether there is a ban on new exploration or not.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2186929 25-Feb-2019 14:08

SaltyNZ:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12037465

From this article:

New Zealand households which rely on natural gas won't have to switch to another energy source despite the latest advice showing there may be as little as seven years' reserves left, the Government says.

Energy Minister Megan Woods said today she expected New Zealand's shift away from fossil fuels to take 30 or 40 years because existing exploration permits would allow further drilling for gas.

...

There have been no new gas finds in New Zealand in 12 years.

So to the extent that there is an issue with our future gas supply, it was already an issue, and has not been caused by a ban on future exploration.

https://www.omv.nz/en-nz/activities/exploration/great-south-basin

Potentially a very large amount of oil and gas there. But supposedly it has to be drilled within 3 years, otherwise it can never be drilled.

And if Fracking was allowed, it has been used with great Success to get more Natural gas out of existing known reserves. So actually we wouldn't be likely to run out of gas, if the government didn't get in the way though.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2186940 25-Feb-2019 14:30

Aredwood: https://www.omv.nz/en-nz/activities/exploration/great-south-basin

Potentially a very large amount of oil and gas there. But supposedly it has to be drilled within 3 years, otherwise it can never be drilled.

Any existing permits are still valid, yes, so if they already had one prior to the ban coming into force then they can still use it.

And if Fracking was allowed, it has been used with great Success to get more Natural gas out of existing known reserves. So actually we wouldn't be likely to run out of gas, if the government didn't get in the way though.

We'd have a lot more of a lot of things, if the government didn't get in the way. But most of the things the government gets in the way of are things we really don't want anyway because corporations are amoral and will externalise any cost they can, because they must. Unchecked capitalism would be a disaster. The government getting in the way is what keeps your air, water and food safe, and ensures there is at least some sort of safety net underneath us all.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2186947 25-Feb-2019 14:56

SaltyNZ:
Aredwood: https://www.omv.nz/en-nz/activities/exploration/great-south-basin

Potentially a very large amount of oil and gas there. But supposedly it has to be drilled within 3 years, otherwise it can never be drilled.

Any existing permits are still valid, yes, so if they already had one prior to the ban coming into force then they can still use it.

And if Fracking was allowed, it has been used with great Success to get more Natural gas out of existing known reserves. So actually we wouldn't be likely to run out of gas, if the government didn't get in the way though.

We'd have a lot more of a lot of things, if the government didn't get in the way. But most of the things the government gets in the way of are things we really don't want anyway because corporations are amoral and will externalise any cost they can, because they must. Unchecked capitalism would be a disaster. The government getting in the way is what keeps your air, water and food safe, and ensures there is at least some sort of safety net underneath us all.

Well assuming that they have to be used within 3 years. The economic case doesn't exist at the moment to use them due to the existing reserves. But by the time that existing reserves get low enough to make drilling the new reserves viable. The permits would have expired.

As for capitalism, what non capitalist countries have better environments and living standards than capiltist countries?

As for the government getting in the way, we would have far more renewable generation, lower house prices, and lower coal use in NZ. If the government stopped getting in the way of things.

But instead they have decided that Natural gas is bad. So More coal has to be burnt at Huntly, and I will have to pay more for power. That also spews out more CO2 and other pollution. But that's ok, as the government is causing the pollution. It seems like the government is wanting to emulate the Soviet Union, it must have been paradise living there. No annoying capitalism, the government made sure that everyone was looked after.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2186977 25-Feb-2019 15:58

I haven't been to Russia but according to some reports I have read, there was an initial rush of optimism after the Soviet Union fell and there was an abundance of choice in the supermarkets. But this was soon followed by a nostalgic yearning for the good old days when unbridled capitalism took over and everything was corrupted by the oligarchs and ordinary workers no longer had guaranteed jobs and State support.

It is not all one thing or the other. If capitalist countries have better environmental standards (and this may be questionable), it is more likely due to the government controls than to the capitalism. Our political and economic system encourages and rewards short-term thinking and short-term gains. Businesses and consumers are not made to pay the real costs of the goods that are produced and consumed. More production equals more money and let the next generation deal with the environmental mess.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2187007 25-Feb-2019 17:05

Rikkitic:
I haven't been to Russia but according to some reports I have read, there was an initial rush of optimism after the Soviet Union fell and there was an abundance of choice in the supermarkets. But this was soon followed by a nostalgic yearning for the good old days when unbridled capitalism took over and everything was corrupted by the oligarchs and ordinary workers no longer had guaranteed jobs and State support.

It is not all one thing or the other. If capitalist countries have better environmental standards (and this may be questionable), it is more likely due to the government controls than to the capitalism. Our political and economic system encourages and rewards short-term thinking and short-term gains. Businesses and consumers are not made to pay the real costs of the goods that are produced and consumed. More production equals more money and let the next generation deal with the environmental mess.

Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is far better than the alternatives.

The government just needs to implement min standards for the environment, health, safety, preventing monopolies from forming. Or otherwise regulating Natural monopolies (as for some cases, it is actually better to allow a monopoly company to have an exclusive market, and instead regulate its revenue and service standards).

For the Environment, since carbon emissions are a problem, carbon taxes are the best means to deal with it. But as usual, the Government manages to ruin most of their benefits. As they still allow imports without applying a carbon tax to account for the emissions that were used to produce the goods overseas. While they gave free emissions credits to the steel industry, did not include agriculture etc. When a system that gives you a refund on carbon taxes on exports would be far better. Then carbon taxes could be applied to everything equally. Companies would not be able to escape paying the carbon tax by shifting manufacturing offshore. The only way to pay less carbon tax would be to reduce your carbon emissions.

Governments are terrible at picking winners. The oil drilling ban is a good example of that. Killing off an entire industry. When it has a high chance of increasing carbon emissions by doing so. As well as the loss of tax income to the government.

Meanwhile, Bunnings, Mitre 10, petrol stations, even some supermarkets sell coal. So if I want to burn it in an outdoor barrel fire, while drinking beer (and polluting the whole neighborhood). That is perfectly fine. Let's have faith that the government has engaged in robust analysis of all possible social effects, environmental effects, economic effects.

Clearly they must rate my right to drink alcohol while standing around a coal barrel fire highly. As I'm still allowed to do so. They must have considered the implications of the oil drilling ban causing higher power prices. And still allowed easy access and use of coal. As lots more people are going to struggle to afford to pay for the power neccessary to run a heater.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2187014 25-Feb-2019 17:27

I can't imagine that any coal you burn in your barrel is going to make much difference to the environment. I feel sometimes that critics of government policy twist themselves into some very awkward positions. Like going on about a 'drilling ban' when there isn't one.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2187016 25-Feb-2019 17:38

Rikkitic:
I can't imagine that any coal you burn in your barrel is going to make much difference to the environment. I feel sometimes that critics of government policy twist themselves into some very awkward positions. Like going on about a 'drilling ban' when there isn't one.

So should I buy an old American V8, and “roll coal” everywhere? Hey, it is only 1. If it has a habit of “accidentally” blasting out a cloud of greasy black smoke every now and then. So what, I'm only 1 person, if I bought an EV instead. Would that solve global warming?

On a more serious note. If there isn't a drilling ban, then what exactly did the government ban in relation to oil drilling? And if it is not going to affect any drilling, then how is whatever they banned, going to benefit the environment now that it is banned?

1 | ... | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | ... | 725