Recent Correspondence and additional comments

A List of the Correspondence that follows

Letter to Dominion Post June 2004 re Makara wind generation

Letter to "Nine to Noon" May 2004

Letter to Vanessa Atkinson, Greenpeace, Aotearoa

Letter to New Zealand Herald

Letter to Nine to Noon March 2004

Reply to Pete Hodgson, January 2004

Letter to Dominion Post November 2003

Letter to Pete Hodgson, July 2003

Letter to Jeanette Fitzsimons, June 2003

Letter to Myself, May 2003

Letter to Pete Hodgson, July 2002

Reply from Pete Hodgson to letter of July 2002

My critique to Peter Hodgson's reply

Letter to Dominion Post (Published)

9 Jun 2004

Dear Sir

I am a strong proponent of windpower electrical generation as the obvious and only practical solution to our electricity generation needs. (We also need a much stricter regime of energy saving and efficiency).

Some people object, but I would ask Makara residents what other options would they prefer ­ global warming and a coal fired generation plant next door, a dam in the valley, or a nuclear facility? How does a visual disturbance by windmills compare with these options?

Would money help? Let's assume a wind farm of eight one megawatt generators . This is equivalent to about 30 GWh p.a. , with a conservative value of $4 million. If just 2.5% of this figure were to be offered to the local community as compensation for loss of amenity, this would amount to $100,000 p.a., in perpetuity. A small community like Makara could create some wonderful facilities with this amount of money.

The funny thing is this; give the windmills a few years and it will be the Makara residents themselves who will take the greatest pride in this contribution to the wealth of our nation and the saving of our planet.

Yours sincerely, etc


Letter to Nine to Noon in regard to the possible failures of supplies to the north of the South Island. The Mayor of Christchurch and Nelson were interviewed and they seem to be very concilliatory to the energy minister. Pete Hodgson.

Date: 27 May 2004 9:43:55 AM
To: ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz
Dear Linda Clark,

I think Pete Hodgson got off very lightly from the South Island mayors. Certainly Pete might not have been aware of this particular issue, but this issue is just part of a much wider picture of failures in our entire electricity industry which we are all well aware of. Pete just hasn't been able to get the disparate groups within the electricity industry to work together, he has needed to wave and use a very big legislative stick, not bat them with a handkerchief. I do blame Pete Hodgson for his total inertia, and not dealing more effectively with the continuing problems in the industry bequeathed by Max Bradford's reforms.

Yours sincerely, etc


The next letter was addressed to Vanessa Atkinson of Greenpeace , Aotearoa. Date: 15 April 2004 10:54:51 AM
To: vatkinso@nz.greenpeace.org
Dear Vanessa,

It is opportune that today's Dominion Post publishes an article by Heather Staley of EECA about the folly of using coal for electricity generation. Because of this I just can't help appending at the bottom of this mail a letter I intended to send to Peter Hodgson last October, though for some reason, perhaps because it was a bit pointed, I didn't actually send it, though I have sent many others. I find it particularly difficult to understand, knowing that EECA is a government funded organisation, why its advice and conclusions in regard to energy policy are so completely disregarded. It's perverse.

Date: 14 October 2003 10:56:58 PM
To: pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz
Cc: wnfb@paradise.net.nz

Dear Mr Hodgson,

I write to express my major concern, indeed horror, at the announcement of a large open cast coal mine near Raglan in the North Island, to provide coal for the Huntly power station. To be honest , I just cannot begin to understand the reasoning in your department that such a resource - dirty, polluting, globally warming - should be considered in any way necessary for electricity production in New Zealand. It is positively Victorian. I have already written to you several times about your continued and incomprehensible neglect of windpower generation, (and for that matter solar heating and higher insulation and electricity efficiency measures) that would make make such antedeluvian measures of mining coal completely unnecessary. There is no major shortfall in electricity production that can't be met much more sensibly and cheaply with renewable energy resources. You need some vision and commitment it is true, which I though your Labour administration might provide, but it looks as if vision and commitment are not part of this Labour governments agenda, at least in energy policy. If I had wanted to partake in the "great leap backwards" which your energy policies promote, I would have voted for Macgillicudies Serious Party instead. New Zealand's pathetically inadequate energy policy, or lack of any policy in fact, will mean this country will continue its inexorable decline as compared with other most other advanced nations. I despair.

Yours sincerely, etc


Letter to New Zealand Herald, not published, I think. Date: 2 April 2004 10:08:03 PM
To: letters@nzherald.co.nz
Subject: Coal and Wind, reply to de Freitas

Dear Sir / Madam

Chris de Freitas may be an associate professor of geography at Auckland, but his article extolling the virtues of coal and dismissing those of wind power is so badly wrong that were he to mark his own effort, it would be doubtful if it would achieve a C- . Coal is dirty, polluting and a major cause of global warming; to completely neglect this issue, the single most important issue facing humanity at the moment, is unforgivable. There is no such thing as clean coal technology and in promoting this he does the New Zealand people and the environment a grave disservice. Bird kill is not a problem in modern wind installations and they are hardly any noisier than the wind they make use of. He should check the Danish wind power web site for up to date information, as his is about 20 years out of date. The costing for backup generation is wrong by about 800% compared with the UK government's white paper, and anyway doesn't apply to New Zealand with its hydro dams. Sorry, professor, paper returned, please research and rewrite.

Yours faithfully, etc


Letter to Nine to Noon March 2004 following a round the table discussion on power issues On 30/03/2004, at 10:59 AM,

Dear Linda,

It is frustrating in the extreme to hear the debates about Project Aqua and the power crisis on your programme this morning. This "crisis" is the inevitable result of a lack of overall planning and wasteful use of resources for about 30 years, and unfortunately the energy ministry and other leaders in the generation industry seem to have learnt nothing. This also seems to apply to this morning's contributors to the debate, apart from Jeanette. I blame Peter Hodgson a good deal, I don't know the man, personally he may be a wonderful chap, but as an energy minister he is disaster, though in this he is possibly just emulating his predecessors , Max Bradford certainly comes to mind. Peter's hands off approach and utter lack of leadership is a abject failure of responsibility to the country both to us now living, and to our descendants. The main frustration for me is that New Zealand has incredible resources for renewable energy, and incredible opportunities for energy efficiency which have been completely neglected for years and the pass we now find ourselves in was completely avoidable. I just do not know what to do, I despair, I completely despair. I can't believe for instance that one of your contributors this morning was suggesting coal burning for the next thousand years as the solution to this matter. Has he not heard about global warming? Does he not know that the Pentagon has just released a very stern warning to the American administration about the likely severe consequences to the planet if we don't take this issue seriously. This contributor is an idiot, and a dangerous one, because he actually can promote his opinion on your programme. He is prepared to gamble our children's future for the sake of a momentary monetary convenience.

Your are just reading a letter from a member of the public promoting nuclear power. For God's sake, we don't need this here. Certainly some countries are dependent on this, but New Zealand doesn't need nuclear power. It doesn't need coal power. It doesn't even need gas power, probably, and in ten years time it won't have any gas anyway.

What New Zealand needs is a new minister of energy, reintegration of our power generators and distributors (this would include the repurchase of Contact Energy, which is up for sale, the reintegration of the electricity generators and the electricity grid, under government ownership - if we don't do this, if National were to return to power, the remaining government companies will undoubtedly be privatised), a law to state all new electricity generation by renewables, a proper conservation, insulation, building and planning codes strategy, solar hot water, passive solar heating, (yes Jeanette is correct) crash programme of wind power , cogeneration, much reduced or nil immigration (a moratorium for say ten years) , closure or mothballing of Tiwai Point, and other measures I would be quite happy to detail if you wish.

I could go on, I often do,

Yours sincerely, etc


Reply to Pete Hodgson

From: john.monro@paradise.net.nz
Subject: Renewable energy
Date: 25 January 2004 6:11:26 PM
To: pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz

Dear Mr Hogdson,

Thank you for your letter of the 16th December. Your reply is appreciated, as I know that your schedule is very busy. However I must reply to your assertion in your letter of the likely continued dominance of renewable energy and that the policy settings are pointing us in the right direction.

I just cannot agree that this is true. As you will be aware the proportion of our electricity generation that arises from renewable resources is actually decreasing; this is not a satisfactory state of affairs, and it is all very well to state that the bulk of new generating capacity will be renewable, as this has just not happened for some years, and makes your assertion open to question. In addition you will know the projections for electricity generation up to 2025 include continued increases in gas generation and also, particularly egregiously in the context of pollution and climate change, coal, which is projected to account for considerably more than windpower in 2025. I am aware that these figures are projections only, but they do illustrate the continued significant lack of commitment to renewables. I think without such firm direction from the government that makes all new generation by renewables mandatory, that the providers of our electricity will continue to take short term and environmentally destructive views. Simply stated I would like New Zealand to be the first country in the world to use entirely renewable energy resources. To be even considering using coal again in the 21st century is absurd, Victorian technology belongs to the Victorian age, next we'll be having steam trains. I simply don't accept your assertion that such a law is not a realistic option. For a country of four million people blessed with such a quantity of renewable options, not to make taking these options compulsory is really missing something vital and revolutionary. Once we have that in place, by 2020 (sixteen years, more than long enough) then it will be time to look at renewables for transport.

In regard to your comment about increasing population causing increasing demand, of course it does. Which is why many people, myself included, are questioning the need for such high and unsustainable levels of immigration. Perhaps we should be sorting out these important matters for the people who already live here, instead of inviting large numbers of immigrants first and then thinking about their and our infrastructural needs later. Perhaps you could have a word in the ear of the immigration minister that your work would be made much easier with a reduced level of immigration.

I don't expect a reply to this letter, but it is very evident to me, and many like minded people, that the burgeoning human population is not just using but abusing the world's resources. Something has to give, I think it is likely we will do better in the long term if it is the human population that gives, rather than the world. We all have to change, the time is now, not 2025. Global warming may or may not be the threat we imagine, but it is not something that we can afford to take a gamble on , particularly as in New Zealand we have an opportunity to take action at no or minimal cost to our country. In fact , as I consider my four daughters, to not take action now, and certainly much, much more than you are proposing , is a complete abrogation of our responsibilities to our future generations.

Thank you for your attention,

Yours sincerely,etc


Dr John K Monro. Letter to Dominion Post, Published, with photograph

Date: 16 November 2003 10:41:52 AM
To: letters@dompost.co.nz

16 Nov 2003

Two days ago I walked to the top of Mt Victoria, into the wall of wind that is so often experienced there. I met an American couple, on holiday. They liked Wellington, though they thought it was rather windy. As we gazed at the hills to the west, they asked "Where are the windmills?" I showed them, shamefacedly, the single iconic wind power generator, static and forlorn. They couldn't believe that this was the only wind power generator, they said "Why aren't you making better use of this fantastic resource?"
If an American couple on a short trip here can make such a profound, yet basically obvious remark, just why are we still wilfully ignoring the obvious? To be building a back up diesel generator, considering importing lpg, digging for coal and damaging South Island river environments is patently absurd. Wind power is the future and it is now. Mr Hodgson, get off your ministerial couch, pass a law stating all new power generation must be renewable energy resources, and support a crash programme of wind power installation.

Yours sincerely, etc.


Letter to Pete Hodgson, Minister of Energy, July 2003

From: john.monro@paradise.net.nz
Subject: Wind Power
Date: 15 July 2003 10:13:51 AM
To: Ministerial.Office.of.Hon.Pete.Hodgson@ministers.govt.nz

Dear Mr Hodgson

Last year (July) I sent you an e-mail concerning my disquiet about the lack of support for wind power electricity generation in New Zealand. You were kind enough to reply, thank you. However it did not seem to me that wind power featured in your vision for power generation in anything other than the longer term.

You suggested geothermal generation, but I would ask , where, how much?
You suggested biomass, but again where, how much?
You suggested gas. I am concerned that New Zealand will be continuing to rely on this valuable resource and use it in such an inefficient way. I am not sure exactly what the technology used in most of our gas generation, but certainly at Huntly this is just simple technology, with an efficiency of no more than 40%. Even combined cycle generation will only achieve a maximum efficiency of only 55% approximately. When gas for home heating and industrial process can be used at efficiencies of 90% then you are wasting a large part of this resource. I am very surprised, with your being aware of the imminent demise of the Maui gas field, and of the wasteful use of this resource over its lifetime, that you are persisting in using such a valuable resource in such a wasteful manner.
You are even considering using coal, and as you will know 500,000 tons of coal have recently been imported to help deal with the recent electricity "crisis". For a government who has just recently signed the Kyoto protocol, I find this attraction to a Victorian technology rather surprising.

I write this letter as I learn again from the UK about plans to increase investment in wind power there. You will be aware of a recent announcement in a second round of bidding for offshore wind sites, there being a commitment to supply a total of between 5-10% of UK power generation by wind power by the year 2010. This amount of power applied to the New Zealand situation would be more than sufficient for our needs for some years, even allowing for increase population.

I am pleased that Meridian has announced some wind power projects, but I am concerned that without government help and backing , wind power in New Zealand will continue to languish. You seem only to be concerned with price, and when gas prices are artificially low (almost certain to rise substantially) , and you don't allow for gas wastage, depreciation of assets, and environmental costs in comparing costs, then you are wrong to base energy policy on such simplistic assumptions.

I consider that your department's lack of concern in regard to renewables, and in particular wind power and solar power (and adding in your department's lack of concern for supporting energy efficiency measures in any meaningful or urgent way) is short sighted, not sufficiently concerned with global warming, and actually is perverse, considering that you have signed the Kyoto protocol, and yet, in regard to electricity generation, are allowing policies that will actually make global warming worse. Only wind power provides the necessary flexibility and speed in installation that is likely to alleviate our impending energy crisis. That New Zealand, with its world beating wind power resource, should so neglect this resource is very frustrating, no just for me, but thinking of my four daughters and my future grandchildren. Your department just seems to have no vision. New Zealand could be a world leader in being the world's first country to generate its entire electricity needs from renewables, and that in a very short time frame, within ten years with government backing. The recent announcement about the installation of reserve electricity generation is a prime example of the poverty of thought in New Zealand energy policy. New Zealand will continue to languish economically and socially if energy policy continues to be predicated by short term ad hoc decision making.

Yours sincerely etc


Letter to Jeanette Fitzsimons, June 2003

Date: 23 June 2003 11:01:45 PM
To: Jeanette.Fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz

Dear Jeanette

There were two matters I wanted to mention to you. First I think I sent you a copy of my letter to the EECA about home insulation, I think it says something about this matter when I received a very friendly reply from Rachel Dunn, who seemed to have some difficulty in sourcing the information I needed - and this is a government site that's supposed to be doing something about energy conservation and efficiency. I find this almost unbelievable, well, probably not. I have subsequently communicated with John Paterson of Insultech, a contact suggested by Rachel. Again I have received a very kind reply from him.

I copy below his reply to my e-mail which contains my original queries, and his replies.

Hi John, I've noted responses in italic print below:

Dear John,

I was given your name and e-mail address by Rachael Dunn, communications advisor, EECA. I had written a rather long and complaining e-mail to her about the lack of information in New Zealand about insulation and other energy saving matters, as compared with many overseas countries where these matters seem to be dealt with more satisfactorily.  Yep it's real annoying that things haven't improved much since I was first involved with this industry over 20 years ago.  EECA (& their predecessor MOE) are reluctant to publish facts, in case they upset someone & appear to have so much "staff churn" that their institutional memory is bad.  Insultech's origins were as a Government funded venture to address these issues, but the project was canned by bureaucrats concerned that their own funding would be affected.

I also brought to Rachael's  attention the lack of government initiatives in ensuring and promoting the installation of insulation into older properties, which is a topical subject with the "energy crisis".   We gave up doing it years ago, as the pain associated with beating one's head against a wall became unbearable.  There has been much grandstanding by Government in recent years (going to spend $16m p.a. to fix the problem, etc) but little action (<$1m available this year i think and you have to put up a politically correct scheme to access it).  funds are available via tender which is aimed at driving prices (& quality) down.  wrong thing to do with insulation, as installation quality is paramount if the claimed r value is to be reached in practice. I have always been surprised as to how cold so many  NZ properties become overnight, with poor insulation and no central heating.  We've built a business around this fact, but in most of the country very little heating is required - if the insulation is correct.  

  This lack of insulation in both owner occupied and rental properties cannot be helping the government's avowed aim of reducing electricity consumption. In addition I am a GP, and I can't help wondering if NZ's high asthma rates and other childhood ailments are related to the coldness and dampness of many NZ homes. tAll correct, but government departments still allow (& encourage) the use of sub standard insulation systems which don't address these problems.  We've specialised in solving cold and damp problems in houses on a "holistic" basis, rather than just applying a "band aid" to one area of the house.

I am sorry to bother you with this e-mail which is a bit longer than I intended when I started, but I do get frustrated by NZ's apparent inability to utilise its resources more efficiently.  Welcome to the club!  I don't mind assisting anyone who wants to see many of the problems you've mentioned solved and is prepared to stand up & be counted.  Let me know your address & I'll mail you some data sheets.

Thanks & regards,
John Patterson

Insultech Group Ltd, P O Box 97700, Auckland Ph (09) 2639770

The one other matter I would like to mention is the government's recently announced policy of providing emergency generating capacity as a back up capacity and a ceiling to prices in any future dry year. Frustratingly, but completely predictably, the government is going entirely the wrong way about this. We HAVE a back up supply and large amounts of energy storage - they are called dams and hydro lakes! The problem is that the present generating regime has been allowing lake levels to fall, to maximise profit, rather than providing extra generating capacity throughout the year, and entering winters with an adequate hydro capacity. If this extra generating capacity was provided by the wind, then this would work in real harmony with our hydro capacity. I see no need for NZ to generate its power needs other than by renewables. In fact, as you know , the wind is, on a yearly basis, a much more reliable and regular source of power than hydro. In connection with properly funded and resourced energy conservation initiatives, we would be lowering our greenhouse emissions, saving money and making better use of the remaining gas reserves than squandering them, yet again, in electricity generating. Surely the government have learned something from the Maui field débacle? But obviously not, and I must have been pretty stupid to think otherwise.

I think sometimes when I write about these matters, I must seem to you and other New Zealanders like a moaning pom. But I really like NZ. I want the best for NZ. I want the best for my children and grandchildren. What I don't like is the incredible, almost willful, conservatism in so much planning - in energy issues , but also town and city planning, subdivision and coastal amenity, transport etc. Great technological changes are just around the corner, which will require even more electricity generation, eg in car transport, (and continuing high levels of immigration, but that's another matter) and we will just not be placed to take advantage of them. Why is the ministry of energy so conservative and unfriendly to new technology and renewable energy sources? Why does one hand of the government sign the Kyoto protocol, for the other hand shortly afterwards sign an agreement for the burning of millions of tons of coal? Does one half of the government not communicate with the other half? Why are New Zealanders not asking these questions? Why are we putting up with being obliged to make ten per cent power savings just now, like some patriotic duty, and why isn't there an angry mob in Wellington collectively banging the heads together of the minister of energy and his crowd and the managers of our power generators until the resulting rearrangement of neurones produces some sense? How can a highly paid executive have the sheer insolence and stupidity to say "it's not my job to provide for continuity of supply"? He deserves to be laughed out of his office, and he is obviously paid too much for his own good. Yet he seems to have got away with this folly without any serious comment or come-back. For a country that abounds in sites for wind power (and can make really good use of solar power) to neglect these opportunities is just so frustrating. For the last 30 years at least, National or Labour, there just seems to be a lack of intellectual and spiritual rigor in looking at the BIG PICTURE. Am I wrong? Or am I just an alien in some strange new planetary realm? You don't have to answer this one!

And I would add, politely, that I would like the Green party to be taking a far stronger and more public stance on these issues - I am sure the sustainable economy is a very important part of the Green's philosophy, but I have to say that I don't think your party is taking a strong enough stand, and that surely you do have enough political clout still to get some sense into energy policies.

Regards and best wishes to you and Harry.


John Monro.


Letter to myself written in frustration

Date: 28 May 2003 8:52:13 AM
To: The editor, Dominion Post (not sent as too long, but I needed to vent my frustrations!!)

Dear Sir / Madam

How can one write sensibly in just 200 words about the depths of one's frustration as to the policies pursued by various governments in regard to energy. New Zealand has lacked any sort of sensible or far-sighted policy for the last 25 to 30 years. The costs, direct and indirect, of the sheer ineptitude of successive governments, particularly in regard to the Maui gas field, but also in planning, solar heating, energy efficiency and conservation measures are horrendous, tens of billions of dollars squandered. If New Zealanders ever worry or query why this country continues to fall behind so many other countries that we like to compare ourselves to, though apparently New Zealanders seldom do, then New Zealand's "energy policy" would be a text book example as to how not to run a country.

The latest folly is to install a back up generation capacity, fueled by gas or oil or coal or lignite or camel dung. For heaven's sake, we have already got back-up generation capacity, they are called dams. The problem has been the running down of hydro resources because it is cheaper for the electricity companies, and as we have already been told by one overpaid executive, it is not his job to ensure continuity of supply . How can anyone so highly paid say something so stupid? If it isn't his job, who the heck's is it.? Why aren't New Zealanders more angry? We are being assailed by adverts making out it is our patriotic duty to cut our consumption - our only patriotic duty is to go to Wellington and collectively bang the heads together of all the executives and politicians who have contributed to this mess, in the resulting rearrangement of brain cells we might actually get some sense from them.

Gas has been profligately wasted in the past to make up our electricity short-fall, and nothing has been learnt, gas will continue to be squandered. There is only one energy source that it makes sense to utilise now, it preserves our balance of payments, it preserves our climate, it is abundant, the raw material is free, the technology is available, and construction times are speedy. It is the wind. New Zealand's neglect of this abundant energy source is incomprehensible, as Greenpeace and other correspondents have already pointed out. Denmark has installed wind generating capacity in a country about the size of Canterbury, which in New Zealand would provide 28% of our electrical power needs. In the one year 2000 to 2001 the total world wide increase in wind generation capacity was 4,500 MW, Germany alone increasing by 2,600 MW, and even in the UK (the worst in Europe) the increase was 70 MW (twice the present total New Zealand capacity) . The increase in New Zealand over the same time was 0 (Zero) Yet this in a country which could, theoretically, supply its total energy needs three times over with the wind.

Meridian has at last got some proposals going, but it is all so slow. It won't be long either until our needs for electricity burgeon. Certainly immigration, if it continues at the present unsustainable rates, will be part of this, but electrical or hydrogen power for vehicles is the next major economic change, it will revolutionise transport. It should be coming our way, and sooner than one imagines. But it better not come here, because we won't know what to do with it when it does ­ we'll probably re-organise the health sector again.

But it's not just the wind, it's city planning, it's insulation of housing, it's the use of energy saving appliances, low wattage fluorescent lighting, solar power for water and space heating, it's applied architecture and planning for high efficiency housing, it's public transport, it's low fixed cost charges for electricity, it's honouring and bettering the Kyoto protocol, it's saving foreign exchange, it's investing in the future.

New Zealand is just so LUCKY, it has a small population with modest power needs for the size of country. We could, with vision and foresight, be the first nation in the world, except perhaps Iceland, who have actually embarked on this endeavour, to be self reliant in all our energy needs, all of which comes from renewable, non polluting sources. We will be wealthier and healthier. So what is stopping us? It's a lack of true vision as to the potentials of new technology, and the courage to put in place all the structures and incentives needed to realise this dream. Please New Zealand, wake yourself up from this stupefying torpor, welcome this new world of the sustainable economy, at least, if not for my sake, for the sake of my daughters and their children.

Yours sincerely etc.


Letter to Pete Hodgson following my visit to Europe, 2002

31st July 2002

Mr Peter Hodgson,
Minister for Energy
House of Representatives
Wellington

Dear Mr Hodgson,

I have recently returned from a holiday to the United Kingdom. I have not been there for thirteen years, and I was impressed in travelling around to see how many wind powered generators have been installed in the UK. I was reminded of this when I read recently in the New Zealand Herald (24/7/02) of planning permission being granted to Genesis Power to install a further 16 generators to increase capacity of the existing Hau Nui wind farm from the present 3.5 megawatts to nearer 10 megawatts.

I was pleased to read this, and encouraged to think that New Zealand might at last be taking wind power more seriously. I have subsequently investigated this matter further but I am appalled as to how little progress New Zealand has been making. Many people worry about New Zealand's continued relative economic deterioration as compared with most of our competitors. I think the neglect of our wind power resources is a prime example of how this country will continue to lag through the lack of sensible use of the resources that we possess, and the application of modern technology to make the best use of them. Simply put, our competitors continue to advance whilst we stagnate. Our energy policies have been characterised by blunders and wasted opportunities for the last 25 years, starting with Mr Muldoon and continuing ever since, including Mr Bradford's appalling electricity reforms.

New Zealand's present generating capacity is about 8,635 MW , generating 38,690 gWh per annum.(Ministerial enquiry into the electricity industry) 60 % is hydro, 36 % thermal and the rest geothermal and wind. In fact wind power production in New Zealand is 37 MW, which will rise to about 46 MW with the new capacity mentioned above. This represents less than half of one percent of our total generating capacity. This is an absolutely pathetic figure, which is on a par with the equally pathetic figure in the UK (the lowest percentage in Europe). However even the installed wind power capacity in the UK, some of which I saw on my holiday, is about 500 MW, in a land area somewhat smaller than New Zealand, and this would actually provide about 6% of our power needs. Denmark, with an area about the size of Canterbury, has an installed wind power of 2,417 MW - the highest per capita in the world - representing 18% of its generating needs and if installed here 28% of our needs. Germany, whose climatic wind power potential is much less than ours has already installed 9,500 MW of wind generating capacity, enough to supply our entire electricity energy needs. (These figures are at the end of 2001, and are provided on the internet site of Wind power Monthly magazine - similar figures are available from the site of the British Wind Energy Association). Obviously all these figures represent the maximal yield of power, which does not obtain all the time, but even hydro is susceptible to climatic variation , as we have found to our cost several times recently. But the point is these figures are the only way we have to compare how we are doing, and obviously we are doing very, very badly. In the year 2000 to 2001 the total world wide increase in wind generation capacity was 4,500 MW, Germany alone increasing by 2,600 MW, and even in the UK (remember, the worst in Europe) the increase was 70 MW (twice the present total New Zealand capacity) . The increase in New Zealand over the same time was 0 (Zero) For the last three years more wind power generation was added in the world than was nuclear power. The total world wind power capacity is now the equivalent of 10 million European households, saving some 24 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The cost of wind power generation has fallen four fold in the last ten years. It is now equivalent to the cost of thermal generation, without taking into account the environmental and depletion costs of thermal generation. Some 30,000 people in Germany are now employed directly or indirectly in the wind generation business. And what about New Zealand? We are an expanding country, with high levels of immigration. Each extra person is putting increasing demands on our power provision. As we have found out several times recently, our supply is sometimes inadequate even for our present needs. We have been side-tracked by the ridiculous Max Bradford reforms into thinking that mere competition will deal with all our energy problems. Nonsense. Presently, it makes more sense for electricity companies to keep the supply of electricity restricted, they can then charge more, make a larger profit, and not have the expense of bother of increasing capacity. The simple fact is the market in electricity bears almost no relationship to any other competitive market. People use electricity only for the services that electricity can be converted into (heat, light, motors, refrigeration etc etc) One electron is exactly the same as any other electron. It looks the same, behaves the same, cannot be made prettier, more appealing, more efficient, more luxurious, etc etc. Electricity on its own is of absolutely no use to anyone. The only way electricity companies can compete is by pricing. This is in complete contrast to almost every other product, which possess many different attributes and with which they can be competitively marketed. Worse, the reforms have been a red herring, taking up thousands, or more probably hundreds of thousands, of hours of government and industry and media and consumer time and money for absolutely no purpose. I believe your own ministry has been highjacked by these reforms, so that much of your energy and policy initiatives are sunk into the morass that these reforms have produced, to the detriment of long term planning. In other words you and all others concerned with the electricity industry are so caught up in the undergrowth of structure and legalistic and commercial minutiae, that you are no longer capable of seeing the woods for the trees. In the meantime New Zealand falls ever further behind our competitors in energy generation, renewable resources and energy efficiency measures.

New Zealand's energy policy, though I doubt that New Zealand has an energy policy as such, has meant an ever increasing dependance on thermal generation. I do not have the actual figures for this but I am sure this is true. This is in direct contradiction to what we should be doing, both for economic and environmental reasons. In addition even as Max Bradford was making his reforms, he would have known that the Maui gas field, which presently provides, I think, about 20% *of our total energy needs, is running down, and has maybe less than 5 years productive life. Our electricity generating and distributing capacity will then become even more important, and to see such a strategic asset sold off at such a time was unbelievably short sighted, or pig-headed, more likely. The electricity companies will have us by the proverbial short and curlies. It is not at all inconceivable that within about 10 years many of the problems associated with electrically powered vehicles will have been overcome, and the need for abundant electricity provided from sustainable and environmentally friendly sources will increase substantially. I think I am correct in stating that about 40% *of New Zealand's total energy usage is in the transport sector, which is higher than anywhere else in the world. If we do go over to using more electric power for transport this will place intolerable demands on our electricity generating capacity, which it won't be able to meet. Wind power may well be able to do this.

New Zealand's wind power resources are huge. A 1987 report from the New Zealand Energy and research Committee found New Zealand is one of the worlds most favourable sites for wind generation. In addition wind power complements hydro power very effectively; at times of high wind production, hydro power can be cut right back, conserving lake levels, at low wind power then there are sufficient hydro reserves. In addition wind power is most abundant in winter, when hydro levels are low, and electricity demands high.

Another report, from an American industry sector analysis of 1997 reported:- New Zealand has a world class wind resource. This country's considerable wind resource potential has been estimated at 100,000 GWh per year. (1 GWh = 1 million kilowatt hours) This is three times the country's present electricity production and 6,000 times greater than the present wind energy production. Mean wind speeds are around 8-10 m/s. The perceived high cost of converting wind power to electricity has in the past been a barrier when compared to traditional forms of generation. New power projects need to compete with an existing price of about 4.7 c/kWh.

* I have checked these figures in the recent NZ Year Book, they are correct JKM Industry sources are confident that local wind energy generation can be brought down in price to about 5 c/kWh on 10+ meters per second (m/s) sites that are being investigated at present.

Apparently in Germany there are few sites with an average wind speed of over 6 metres per second. There are many sites in New Zealand, some of which are close to major centres of population such as Wellington, with average wind speeds in excess of 10 metre per second, (which because the power of the wind increases exponentially with speed, could theoretically provide nearly three times as much power as at the lower average speed).

As you would be aware, New Zealand has no form of government support for the renewable energy sector. This is in contrast to most other countries that have recognised the need for renewable energy, and who will reap the benefits of the technology, and the expertise that it brings. This is how other economies work, the initial cost of any new technology is high, but it supported, and as it is refined, the costs reduce, the benefits appear, and the wealth is created. As long as New Zealand does not do this, and considers purely macroeconomic competitive reforms will do, we will continue our decline.

I write this rather long letter out of sheer frustration. I am an immigrant to New Zealand, and I think New Zealand is a wonderful place. But sometimes I think the world rotates at one speed here (dead slow) and in the rest of the world at a much faster place. It is frustrating to see how other countries can continue to advance and enrich themselves while New Zealand bumbles long, falling ever further and further behind. Wind power, along with solar power and energy efficiency, could provide incredible economic benefits. Imagine this country transformed into an efficient unit. No petrol or diesel needed for transport, high energy efficiency homes which are warm and comfortable in winter, with less asthma and diseases in the population, the provision of abundant electrical energy resources which derive from the sun, either directly as in solar energy, or indirectly through wind and hydro power. Planning legislation that ensures that no further sprawly or so-called "rural residential" developments take place, high standards of planning in urban area with a partnership between government, councils and developers to ensure a healthy and enjoyable and attractive and energy efficient urban environment, with good public transport (electric of course) and much less reliance on the polluting and inefficient motor car.

This I know is a long way from writing about wind power, but these matters are all connected. We can now build houses so energy efficient that the mere heat of the occupants can keep the place warm, even in the coldest winter, so why don't we? We can fit light bulbs that use one fifth of the energy of a filament lamp, so why don't we,? We can make electrical energy as cost effectively as coal, oil or gas, and avoiding all the enironmental degradation and import costs of these, so why don't we? Investing in this sort of society will repay itself many times over. We are concerned about our ageing population and pensions, and we are investing money overseas to make provisions for this ageing generation. I approve of the separate provision of funding for pensions, but do we need to do it this way, wouldn't we get more back by investing in ourselves and our own future? We have the brains, the people, the means to do this, we only lack the will.

I know the present government are taking some steps to rectify some of the mistakes of the past, but, I would respectfully submit, too little, and too slowly. This is truly urgent, we really don't have much time. It requires a leap of imagination and resolve and the courage of real leadership. You have a new mandate and hopefully three full years ahead of you. If you fail to provide this leadership then I see no real hope for economic and social prosperity in New Zealand in the foreseeable future.

Thank you for your attention,

Yours sincerely, etc


Reply from Pete Hodgson, 2002

Office of Hon Pete Hodgson

MP for Dunedin North

Dear Dr Monro

Thank you for your letter of 31 July 2002 regarding wind energy.

I am aware that New Zealand has significant potential for wind generation and I am also aware of the growth in wind power world-wide. However, producing energy from wind on a large scale is currently still not quite economic in New Zealand when compared to other conventional sources of energy like hydropower, geothermal, biomass and gas.

I would venture to suggest it is even less economic in many of the countries you refer to where subsidies for wind energy comes at the expense of other priorities for public spending. New Zealand enjoys some of the lowest energy prices in the world, and this comparative advantage is important for our economic success.

But of course it would be a false economy if our low energy prices were unsustainable and came at the expense of environmental damage or higher costs to future generations. That is why this government is committed to a sustainable energy future.

A key part of that commitment is our policy drive to make a progressive transition to renewable sources of energy as set out in the statutory National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NEECS), which I launched last year.

On 30 Apri I this year I announced the government's preferred target for Renewable Energy: an additional 30 Petajoules (PJ) of consumer energy from renewable sources by 2012. This is a 22 percent increase on the 132 PJ in use in 2000. The preferred mechanism for achieving this target is a projects mechanism in which companies and organisations can compete for government funding for renewable energy projects. Some of these projects may turn out to be wind energy. The detail of this preferred policy is set out on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) website: www.ceca.govt.nz.

The Strategy also contains a high level target on energy efficiency of at least 20 percent improvement in economy-wide energy efficiency by 2012. 1 would encourage you to have a look at the Strategy. You can also access this publication on EECA's website.

We recognise that there is no single solution to our future energy needs and as a result we are likely to use a range of sources in the transition from fossil ftiel dep endency to a sustainable low-carbon energy economy. Economies of scale will reduce the costs of renewables in the longer term. The use of 'cleaner' fossil fuels, such as gas, will be required in the short to medium tenri to ease this transition to a more sustainable future.

In addition to increases in renewable electricity generation, the generation of process heat will also make an important contribution towards the renewable energy target. In particular, from biomass using wood process residues and also heat from geothermal.

I am confident that government policies such as the NEECS and the target and mechanisms for renewable energy will help New Zealand make a progressive transition to renewable sources of energy and a sustainable low-carbon energy economy. Further, I believe that wind energy, as a 'new' renewable form of generation will in future be able to contribute a significant proportion of New Zealand's electricity generation.

Yours sincerely

Hen Pete Hodgson
MINISTER OF ENERGY

My Critique of this reply

The reasons for my criticisms are

1) There seems to be no sense of urgency

2) it doesn't say or admit anything about my criticisms of the electricity reforms

3) even an increase of 20% renewables by 2012 is not going to be sufficient to meet the shortfall caused by the depletion of Maui, and this takes no account of increased immigration of maybe up to 500,000 people at today's annual rate of immigration. I think it is perfectly possible using wind power to achieve this target much sooner than 2012, and comfortably exceed this several-fold by 2012. And actually, we will have to, not Mr Hodgson probably, but his successor will have grasp the nettle.

He specifically mentions alternative options - hydropower, geothermal, biomass and gas.

Hydropower
Certainly this is a climate neutral solution but not always environmentally friendly. The number of places left for hydro development are strictly limited and planning and building future large scale hydro projects is a two decade endeavour. The preservation of waterways has become to be seen as important, think of the Wanganui River court cases. There is a proposal for the Waitaki basin, but apart from this the options are limited, slow to fruition, often environmentally suspect.

Geothermal
He mentions geothermal resources, but my suspicion is that these are near to maximal development - and as most of these resources are Maori owned, there would like be long planning delays, if such were to be granted and in any case such resources would only amount to a few percent of our energy needs.(No figures supplied by the minister)

Gas
To suggest using gas as an environmentally friendly option is absurd. a) where is the gas going to come from - it doesn't seem to have registered that Maui will be gone. There will be a great shortage of gas,. It will become much more expensive, and soon. So the comments about wind power not being economic are unlikely to be true for very long. b) burning gas to fire electricity power generators is incredibly wasteful of this resource, much of the calorific value of the gas is wasted, gas should only be used at the place of need, ie in the home, for plant or machinery or industrial process. The real beauty of gas is that it can be reticulated, even more efficiently than electricity can.

Biomass
Not specified or any estimate of likely percentage contribution, again likely to be a minuscule amount of our projected energy needs for the future under current policies. Of course we could be planting forest for such a use, but this is at least 20 years away and we haven't got that time, but for long term it might be a feasible option for some of our generation needs, but a lot of basic research needs to be done to achieve anything worthwhile.

It is very frustrating that the four suggestions that the minister makes as to alternative environmentally friendly power generating options are all significantly and fatally flawed. In fact the only real alternative to wind power is fossil fuel - basically imported oil or gas and indigenous coal. That our Government should have signed the Kyoto protocol, knowing that New Zealand's present policies condemn us to failing to meet the agreed targets is Alice in Wonderland stuff. The whole point of my letter is that wind energy can now no longer be considered as a "new" form of energy. Peter Hodgson is wrong, it is a feasible and commercially viable option. We are lagging. Every day parliamentarians attending the beehive can look up in the hills and see the wind turbine installed in Polhil in Brooklyn. It was installed ten years ago. That generator is about 250 KW, but now in Europe 1.5 MW generators are becoming commonplace, and larger ones in planning. It has been on its own for too long, it desperately needs some company. The Brooklyn Wind Turbine is not the beacon of progress that it should be, but a monument to missed opportunity.