GNE - Genesis Energy

[xafalcon]

Agree. We now have a contest that could go either way. Hopefully our new PM shelves it sooner than later.

"It" is the key to NZ Inc taking a large step change forward in energy management and development of green energy products and industries. Not to mention the transition from fossil fuels to electrical process heat and transport

While it now appears likely that "it" will be canned, this would/will be a very short-sighted decision. NZ consumers, from households to large industrial users will pay considerably more for energy with no end in sight, ultimately leading to more industry off-shoring and NZ's continued slide down the prosperity index

"It" will not divide the pie into smaller pieces, rather the pie is made much much larger and grows generation revenue. Average $/kWh will decrease, but kWh will increase significantly and more than offset this

Change will come to the NZ electricity market at some point. Industry can continue to emulate Kodak or make the change to a progressive "Apple/Tesla/Microsoft" model. I would prefer GNE to lead this rather than trying to hang on to the old-world model and slowly fade away

[Shareguy]

A lot spent on Onslow already. Won't look good if it's canned. 

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/more-spent-lake-onslow-option

[BlackPeter]

"It" is the key to NZ Inc taking a large step change forward in energy management and development of green energy products and industries. Not to mention the transition from fossil fuels to electrical process heat and transport

While it now appears likely that "it" will be canned, this would/will be a very short-sighted decision. NZ consumers, from households to large industrial users will pay considerably more for energy with no end in sight, ultimately leading to more industry off-shoring and NZ's continued slide down the prosperity index

"It" will not divide the pie into smaller pieces, rather the pie is made much much larger and grows generation revenue. Average $/kWh will decrease, but kWh will increase significantly and more than offset this

Change will come to the NZ electricity market at some point. Industry can continue to emulate Kodak or make the change to a progressive "Apple/Tesla/Microsoft" model. I would prefer GNE to lead this rather than trying to hang on to the old-world model and slowly fade away

It sounds like you made up your mind. It sounds to me however more like a religious statement rather than the outcome of a scientific analysis.

Do you have any hard data supporting your statement?

Which problems is Lake Onslow going to solve?

What other solutions could be used to solve these perceived problems?

What would be the costs and what the risks?

... and, given that this is a GNE thread - what would be the benefits and risks to GNE if this goes ahead? Are you suggesting that GNE should risk shareholder funds for the (by you) perceived greater good?

[Basil]

Aren't we already on track with existing projects for late 90% range renewable generation by 2030?

[Shareguy]

Aren't we already on track with existing projects for late 90% range renewable generation by 2030?

Yes we are Basil. As long as they go ahead.

[Shareguy]

Thought this was interesting.

Everybody knows there will need to be some over-build in order to get to the 100% renewable target.
Megan Woods, Sep. 2019
From ICCC report: overbuild would increase electricity
price for households by 14% and for industry by 39% Morphed into: "getting the last few % to 100%
renewable electricity would be expensive"

ICCC Original briefing: seek means to achieve 100% renewable electricity generation in a "normal hydrological year" by 2035
Later 100% renewable electricity downgraded to an "aspirational goal" because of supposed high cost to get the last few % renewable electricity.

https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/energy-centre/summerschool/2021presentations/day2-m-taylor.pdf

[Basil]

Off to a good start with Solar with a new site with 52MW capacity that will be up and running next year
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/406302
Kind of cool that in the summer months when it's generating the most it will be supplying to the load required for irrigation in Canterbury when it's needed the most.  Looks like a good fit to me.
Video here https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/genesis-energy-buys-canterbury-site-for-solar-power/P7P4PIVCKH4RJX2HJMMGQYPTTQ/

[xafalcon]

It sounds like you made up your mind. It sounds to me however more like a religious statement rather than the outcome of a scientific analysis.

Do you have any hard data supporting your statement?

Which problems is Lake Onslow going to solve?

What other solutions could be used to solve these perceived problems?

What would be the costs and what the risks?

... and, given that this is a GNE thread - what would be the benefits and risks to GNE if this goes ahead? Are you suggesting that GNE should risk shareholder funds for the (by you) perceived greater good?

You have clearly misunderstood what "scientific analysis" means. Burying your head in the ground is not scientific analysis!!!

Fact. The cheapest source of electricity is solar power
Fact. The second cheapest source of electricity is on-land wind power
Fact. Solar power does not work at night
Fact. Wind power does not work when the wind isn't blowing
Fact. Solar power plants can be built closer to demand centres (than existing large hydro assets)
Fact. Wind power plants can be built closer to demand centres (than existing large hydro assets)
Fact. Energy storage is needed to compliment Solar and wind generation to fill in the generation gaps
Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the absolute cheapest energy storage option available by orders of magnitude (battery is 100x more expensive per kWh)
Fact. Pump hydro storage works for short and long term energy storage (batteries are only good for short term storage)
Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the longest asset life time energy storage (similar to hydro = 50-100 years)

There are many more facts I could reel off, but these will do for now

Putting these facts together we get

Build wind and solar plants in the north island, the further north that relevant conditions of nature allow. This will significantly reduce average transmission losses.

Fill Lake Onslow during the periods where NI wind and/or solar is making good power. Generate from Lake Onslow when NI wind and/or solar is not making good power

Build any new energy hungry industry in the SI where it does not require a specific geo-location eg hydrogen generation, data centres, aluminium smelter etc

Lake Onslow provides dry-year protection as a secondary benefit

The major risk is that Lake Onslow does not get green lighted asap

The risk to GNE is not aligning with this (continuing to resist by putting up weak and irrelevant arguments as other generators are currently doing). GNE own the transition key = Huntly. GNE should be proposing to keep Huntly fully available during construction of Lake Onslow, in return for government buy-out (and retirement) when Lake Onslow is in operation. GNE could also angle for the right of operation of Lake Onslow as part of the deal, replacing returns generated by Huntly with $ from arbitrage on energy stored in Lake Onslow

[BlackPeter]

You have clearly misunderstood what "scientific analysis" means. Burying your head in the ground is not scientific analysis!!!

Fact. The cheapest source of electricity is solar power
Fact. The second cheapest source of electricity is on-land wind power
Fact. Solar power does not work at night
Fact. Wind power does not work when the wind isn't blowing
Fact. Solar power plants can be built closer to demand centres (than existing large hydro assets)
Fact. Wind power plants can be built closer to demand centres (than existing large hydro assets)
Fact. Energy storage is needed to compliment Solar and wind generation to fill in the generation gaps
Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the absolute cheapest energy storage option available by orders of magnitude (battery is 100x more expensive per kWh)
Fact. Pump hydro storage works for short and long term energy storage (batteries are only good for short term storage)
Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the longest asset life time energy storage (similar to hydro = 50-100 years)

There are many more facts I could reel off, but these will do for now

Putting these facts together we get

Build wind and solar plants in the north island, the further north that relevant conditions of nature allow. This will significantly reduce average transmission losses.

Fill Lake Onslow during the periods where NI wind and/or solar is making good power. Generate from Lake Onslow when NI wind and/or solar is not making good power

Build any new energy hungry industry in the SI where it does not require a specific geo-location eg hydrogen generation, data centres, aluminium smelter etc

Lake Onslow provides dry-year protection as a secondary benefit

The major risk is that Lake Onslow does not get green lighted asap

The risk to GNE is not aligning with this (continuing to resist by putting up weak and irrelevant arguments as other generators are currently doing). GNE own the transition key = Huntly. GNE should be proposing to keep Huntly fully available during construction of Lake Onslow, in return for government buy-out (and retirement) when Lake Onslow is in operation. GNE could also angle for the right of operation of Lake Onslow as part of the deal, replacing returns generated by Huntly with $ from arbitrage on energy stored in Lake Onslow

Quite Trumpesk post - very sad. You start with a collection of common places (which don't help to support your argument), forget to even mention any realistic alternative and continue with a number of unproven statements hiding under your first mentioned common places. Your "skills" might be useful for the GoP. I hear they have a vacancy ...

Just wondering what you mean with the four letters "F-a-c-t" you spread so liberally over you condescending post? Are you using alternative facts?

Clearly - you can't mean "a thing that is known or proved to be true.", given that some of the lines marked with "fact" are clearly wrong, while most of the others are irrelevant for your argument.

Fact. The cheapest source of electricity is solar power

As an absolute and unmodified statement this is not a fact, but plain wrong. Solar (as other renewables) got cheaper over time and in 2021 solar was called by somebody the cheapest renewable source of energy ... however - nobody (not even you) is able to predict how this looks next year or in a decade or two ... and yes, there are the non renewables as well.

At that stage wind, geothermal or generating electricity from waves and the tide might be cheaper.

The future price will depend on a lot of factors we can't control (like development of technology, sourcing of rare earths).

Fact. Solar power does not work at night
Fact. Wind power does not work when the wind isn't blowing

Lets face it ... while these (and many of your other) statements are highly condescending, they don't add anything to your argument (in case you have one). BTW - Ever head about power transmission? The sun shines always somewhere ...

But lets look at your last three facts:

Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the absolute cheapest energy storage option available by orders of magnitude (battery is 100x more expensive per kWh)

Quite non-sensical comparison. Show me a study where they looked at sensible alternatives (like e.g. hydrogen - storage) and compare investment, maintenance costs and environmental costs for say the next one hundred years (typical life for a storage lake).

Ever looked into hydrogen? Did you?

Fact. Pump hydro storage works for short and long term energy storage (batteries are only good for short term storage)
Fact. Pumped hydro at Lake Onslow is the longest asset life time energy storage (similar to hydro = 50-100 years)

As indicated - the comparison with batteries is non sense, and your claim (not fact) about the long term storage is plain untrue. If you don't use the water in your storage lake, it won't be there forever and it might disappear (leak) faster than from a battery. This is what water does - it disappears in the ground (leakage) and into the air (evaporation). Ask a scientist ;

Your last fact again is quite non sensical. Of course you need to compare comparable investment cycles, and some possible solutions will need a very high up front investment (like hydro storage or geothermal) and others (like hydrogen storage) will need less of that. We got your quasi religious statements for Lake Onslow without you providing any evidence at all.

Do you want to show us a comprehensive comparison including at least geothermal, including hydrogen technology, including decentralised power storage (like e.g. in EV batteries) .... ?

Did you ever look at a risk assessment and thought about what it means to put all your eggs into one hydro storage lake? Just tell us, what a nice little earth quake would do to your hundred year investment?

Quite funny that you want to teach me the scientific method. Allow me to give you at least one hint: It has nothing to do with blind faith ... but lots to do with thinking, considering alternatives, sharing relevant facts and getting them reviewed.

You want to show us that you can do better?

[Teitei]

I have GNE & MEL. 

Adding onto MEL as its sp has the potential to be double what it is today in 5 years' time due to industry and company specific dynamics.

GNE is ok as a yield play but it does not have MEL potential imo.

[winner (n)]

Genesis have wind turbines

Whatever I find this fascinating.

Giant Wind Turbines Keep Mysteriously Falling Over. This Shouldn't Be Happening.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a42622565/wind-turbines-falling-over/

[BlackPeter]

Genesis have wind turbines

Whatever I find this fascinating.

Giant Wind Turbines Keep Mysteriously Falling Over. This Shouldn't Be Happening.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a42622565/wind-turbines-falling-over/

Didn't read the link, but just picture giant wind turbines falling over. Clearly - this should not happen :worried: !

[winner (n)]

Didn't read the link, but just picture giant wind turbines falling over. Clearly - this should not happen :worried: !

The taller he turbine the more epic the tumble they say

[Onemootpoint]

It seems the tallest to topple was taller than the sky deck (upper observation deck: 220m) of the Auckland Sky Tower.

Our tallest at about 160m seem to be the Siemens Gamesa machines also mentioned in the article.

[Shareguy]

Just got this reply from National Party Energy spokesperson on Onslow.


Good afternoon ....

 

The National Party does not support a Government built pumped hydro scheme, but if the private sector wants to build it we would not stand in their way.

 

Regards,

 

Stuart Smith

cid1285506410*image001.jpg@01D8C6C2.BF3F6E70

MP for Kaikoura

Spokesperson for Energy & Resources, EQC and Viticulture