mainpower blog

Climate Change

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +1200

The owner of the Naseby Hotel is taking his objection to this windfarm to a new level by bringing in a team of prominent climate “sceptics” to argue that man-made global warming is not happening and therefore all the carbon emissions benefits shouldn't be counted and the windfarm should be rejected by the court.

This is interesting in a number of ways....

Trying to overturn the mountain of climate physics that backs up the case for man-made global warming has got to be a major gamble for the hotelier. What will the environment court make of it? Is it even within their remit to consider it?

And then, even if they (the skeptics) do make their case, that hardly undermines the entire project. After all we do build windfarms primarily to make electricity, not just to be seen to be combating global warming. And wind farms do make electricity using free fuel that will never run out!

Submissions

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +1200

Submissions are the formal way in which people can have their say on a development which affects them. Anybody can submit and submissions can support or oppose a development, or conditionally support or oppose (eg we support you if you do this – or, we oppose you unless you do that).

Often the only people that feel motivated enough to submit are those that are adversely affected, so in many cases the submissions are in opposition. These are still valuable points of view as it can help us shape our proposal to address some valid concerns but it can all seem a very negative process.

But, what if you are positively affected? What if you want the project to go ahead? We also want to hear your view and it will really help us know what the community, as a whole, is feeling. Certainly in our discussions around the area we have found a lot of support out there and we would really like to see that support shown to the hearing commissioners.

After all, wind power is the generation option of choice for most New Zealanders as shown in two recent surveys commissioned by NZBCSD with 77% support and EECA with 88% support (note that you have to download the PDF and read the through the results in the EECA survey because the press release talks mostly about marine energy)

So this is about hearing from the 'silent majority' we think many of you are on our side, so please get a submission in before 1 August.

We have submission forms available here, some ideas on what you might say here, and a prefilled form here.

Ecology

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +1200

The important values are (in brief):

The site is reputed to be the most extensive forest on limestone in Canterbury
It is home to two endangered plants (from the latest classifications); Nationally Endangered Maccaskill's hebe and Nationally Vulnerable Limestone Wheatgrass.
There are another 8 plant species with ‘rare’ classifications
It is home to a strong population of the threatened Canterbury Gecko

The site meets the criteria for a priority for protection in the national biodiversity strategy and this is reflected in Ecan's regional biodiversity strategy released earlier this year. However, the site needed for the wind farm has no particular legal status (eg district plan designation) giving it any protection. It is a working farm and it has been since 1850 and it will continue to be if this windfarm does not go ahead.

We have spent a great deal of time and effort carefully designing the windfarm to minimise any impact. But we do need a road to get the turbines to the top of and along the ridge. The result is that out of a 21 ha construction footprint around 16 ha is on pasture grass. There are a few difficult areas where we can't avoid the vegetation hence we need to clear about 2.2 ha of forest and 3 ha of shrubland. On the hillside in general there is 180 ha of forest and a similar amount of shrubland – which means the total foot print in percentage terms is 1.2% of forest and 1.6% of shrubland. If it helps to visualise things you could say that there more than 500 rugby fields worth of forest and shrub in the area but only 7 rugby fields will be removed.

Of the rare species many are located entirely on the steep northern escarpment and we have avoided this entirely with our design. The limestone wheatgrass is mostly to the south of the windfarm and more than 95% of it will be left completely alone. There are estimated to be about 20 plants within the immediate construction zone but it may be possible to avoid some of these during detailed design. Many of the other rarities are scattered throughout the bush so we will miss most of them.

Earthworks will necessarily impact on some of the rock outcrops that provide gecko habitat and it is unlikely that this can be replaced (and certainly not in the exact form and location from which they came).

So, what will we do about the impacts that we can't avoid?

Firstly we will replant shrubland and some forest species using local seed sources. Some plants will be propagated off-site and brought back to site when needed, others may be planted by direct seeding.

We will also allow some areas to regenerate by reducing or eliminating grazing. Regeneration potential is huge with an observed 100% increase in shrubland and a 30% increase in forest since 1950. On site it is easy to see places where young vegetation is waiting to take off but is being regularly trimmed by browsing animals.

We will target some of our planting to improve connectivity between existing forest patches.

Of course, we will be fencing off our planting areas and initiating pest control programmes.

For the lizards we will set up trapping programmes for the likely predators. Our survey noted a lot of potential habitat but relatively few lizards suggesting the numbers are being kept in check by either carnivorous predators or clumsy stock. With both stock and predators under control we expect the lizard population to expand into the new habitat.

Best of all we will create covenants over key parts of the ridge so that the biodiversity values are protected in perpetuity, thus meeting the primary goals of the national and regional biodiversity strategies.

Overall we believe the local impacts of the windfarm can easily be compensated for on site and with long term good management of the ecology we will end up with a much improved site, more extensive forest and shrubland vegetation and a valuable asset for the people of Canterbury. Furthermore there is a wider environmental argument that is also important and that relates to the green-house gas offsetting benefits of the windfarm. This site can truly be a win-win for the local and global environments as well as for local generation.

Notification Coming Soon

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +1200

We are on the brink of our Mt Cass project going public as a Notified Resource Consent Application. We expect that this will result in more interest in the development and more questions in people’s minds. So, we have this site as another avenue for people to ask questions.

Some might be wondering why this is all taking so long – and occasionally I ask the same thing. Last September I was busy compiling our resource consent application. By the end of November we had lodged our application with Hurunui District Council, hoping to get publicly notified by Christmas but Council asked for a bit more information.

Gathering that information and updating reports took a couple of months (with Christmas thrown in). At the same time we launched into a more comprehensive survey of the site ecology. Consultation and site visits with Forest and Bird, Department of Conservation, the Conservation Board and others made it apparent to us that ecology was going to be a big issue for this site. My next post will go into this in more detail.

We had thought this detailed ecology review would be made public during the submissions period, and could be discussed during hearings. But, in the last few weeks we realised that it made more sense to incorporate the new information into the application that will be publicly notified. That way we should all be talking about the same thing during the submissions period and hearings.

We were able to make some substantial changes to the proposed road alignment and turbine locations which reduced the impact on native vegetation and cut back on earthworks volumes too. This all resulted in another round of updates to drawings and key reports but the outcome is very positive overall.

So that brings us pretty much up to date. There has been a lot more work than I expected and my thanks are due to all those that have helped make it happen.

Submissions on our proposal are open until 1 August and we’re encouraging people to have their say.

Library afternoons

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +1200

We can't claim to have been rushed off our feet but have had a few visitors each day. Some who came along especially to meet us, some who just happened to be in the library at the time, some who like the idea of a windfarm and some who have concerns. We hope everyone has gone away with a bit more knowledge than they arrived with and want to thank everyone who has left a feedback form (whether when we were there or not).

We are located in the History Room so that we can have a discussion without disturbing the rest of the library and the History Room is certainly a fascinating place to be for when we haven't got visitors. For example, I was surprised to find that we aren't proposing the first commercial windmills in North Canterbury and we were beaten to the mark by more than a century with a 24m high and 24m rotor diameter grain mill in Leithfield. Mill Road (Leithfield) could be a clue as to their pioneering past.

Next week there is an art exhibition on at the library which many people will come along and enjoy. We will still be there on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and may bring along a bit of our windfarm art too. We will also try to stay later on Thursday in case anyone wants to drop in after work.

Which turbine is the most efficient?

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +1200

Occasionally the question is asked more from the point of view that any turbine is inefficient therefore we shouldn't build them, this is essentially a windfarm myth and is a topic for another day. Today's post will be recommended reading for that discussion.

So - a question about efficiency can only be answered by considering how you are going to measure efficiency. I can think of at least three ways to do this:

1. Efficiency of land use

2. Efficiency of energy capture

3. Economic efficiency

Land use

By this I mean, how much energy you can collect from the area of land available. Energy collection is mostly about rotor area (ie how much swept area of rotor can be fitted on the site). On Mt Cass we can only fit a single row of turbines and so, the bigger the turbine the more swept area we can install. If efficiency of land use was our main objective then the choice of turbine would be clear. The bigger, the better.

Energy Capture

Efficiency of energy capture is often expressed by the 'capacity factor' of a particular turbine or group of turbines, for example we hear the the Manawatu windfarms are among the best in the world with capacity factors of around 50%. (capacity factor is the total energy output of a wind farm as a proportion of the theoretical maximum output if a windfarm ran at full production all the time). But, 'capacity factor' really just measures how much the generator is used and to some extent is a choice of the turbine designer (ie a small generator with a big rotor will always have a higher capacity factor than a big generator with a small rotor). This would be fine if all turbines had the same ratio of rotor diameter to generator size, or, if the generator was the main cost driver of a wind turbine, but, they don't, and, it isn't.

The main driver of turbine cost is rotor diameter. The rotor size tends to dominate all the loads throughout the turbine mechanism and structure and therefore drives the weight and the cost of the machine. There is another measure of turbine efficiency called 'specific energy' which is arguably a more useful measure of turbine efficiency because it relates to the amount of energy captured by the rotor.

If we were choosing based on 'capacity factor' the big turbines would again be a clear choice. But, if we base our assessment on 'specific energy' then the small Windflow turbine becomes a contender.

Economics

What we are most interested in is economic efficiency of our windfarm (assuming any turbine we choose is technically appropriate for the site). Why? because, for a start it will mean the project has the best chance of getting up and running, Then, when running, it means the windfarm will give a payback to MainPower and our shareholders, the community.

To determine economic efficiency we have to look at the cost of the turbines and the windfarm as a whole. Not just the initial build cost but the long term expectations of operating and maintenance too.

That sort of information can only be gathered through a formal tender process, after we have a resource consent.

Why should we choose a turbine now?

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +1200

In many ways it would make my life a whole lot easier - keeping our options open means visiting a whole lot of environmental assessments a number of times and trying to work out the worst case, which is what we will need to present to a hearings panel.

One of the hardest assessments we are faced with is visual where it seems there is no clear view on what ‘looks’ better – more smaller turbines, or less larger turbines.

We will present a range of options for all our visual simulations of the windfarm. We will show big turbines (R90, or 90m rotor) small turbines (R33 – Windflow turbines) and something in between (R60).

We believe that the biggest visual change to think about is the change from 'no windfarm' to 'windfarm' and that, once that change is accepted, the size and number of the turbines won’t be a significant issue.

I was pleased to see some support for this in the recent environment court decision on the Makara Windfarm. Here the judge said that ……. “This significant visual effect will be apparent even with fewer turbines and would not be significantly aggravated by a greater number of turbines.”

We are very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Is number of turbines more of a consideration than size of turbines, or vice versa?

We have been running an unofficial poll whenever we have shown our photo simulations to date. So far, opinion is running fairly even between preference for large or small turbines.

Announcements!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +1200

With Dovedale Farm agreeing to join the project we now have the full scale of the windfarm that we originally conceived and the benefits are effectively doubled. The Mt Cass ridge has nearly the same topographic profile along its entire length and it would seem a shame to capture only half the wind that flows across it.

Reaching agreement with Tiromoana Station Ltd to buy the original portion of the ridge gives us much more certainty about how we can shape the project as we go ahead, including giving us scope to mitigate any local ecological effects. We will be talking to the local community soon about some ideas we have for doing this.

You can see the full media release here.

A busy week on site (last week)

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +1200

Monday: The weather was fine but we were still waiting for the tracks to dry out.

Tuesday: I took a geological consultant up for a preview of the site - we carried chains for the Hilux (just in case) but didn't need them.

Wednesday: With the tracks and the weather looking good our contractors were able to start hauling in and installing the foundation blocks for our new 80m monitoring mast which will go up near the middle of the ridge. We are hoping to get this up next week but may be delayed by the wait for anemometers from Europe.

Meanwhile, Canterbury University Meteorological Researchers came and retrieved their SODAR (sonic wind measuring device). They took it up there several months ago to test it out alongside our 50m mast and it has quietly been pinging away ever since. I was sure it would be there until spring - (because it doesn't look like an easy thing to move) but the dry conditions allowed a safe extraction.

Thursday: Our contractors are still at work, I took a drive up to check on the days progress, following our presentation to the Waipara Valley Winegrowers group.

Friday: Another chance to visit the hill – this time with an architect who is helping us to locate and design the few buildings that we will need. The winds are reasonably strong but there are some good flat sites, sheltered by the bush and rock outcrops.

Saturday: By now the forecast is taking a turn for the worst, most of the tower foundations are installed (but not quite all) and I was back up for a more thorough site visit with our geologist. A full walkover inspection of the ridge can be quite an undertaking in winter, but it is an enjoyable trip in good conditions with stunning views over to the snow-covered Alps and out over Pegasus Bay. The winds had strengthened though and my wide-brimmed hat was a poor choice!

Why we won't choose a turbine (yet)

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +1200

This is a good question and it has a good answer. Simply, we don’t expect to get a good response from turbine suppliers until we have a resource consent and limiting the size of the turbine, at this stage, may limit the number of suppliers who will bid in future.

Read on for a bit more info…

The international wind turbine market these days can only be described as a “sellers market”. Most manufacturers have order books full for the next two years and there are critical shortages of key components (gearboxes and blades spring to mind).

Bidding for projects is a substantial task for the manufacturers and they are more inclined to put their effort into the big subsidised markets (eg Europe, USA and China), where the orders are for hundreds of turbines. The manufacturers know that there are a lot of risks in the NZ market, resource consenting being a major one, it is very hard to predict in advance when, or whether, a project will go ahead.

Under these conditions it will be very hard for us, as a new project developer with a small project, to get a competitive tender price for turbines. We can't change who we are, or the scale of the project, but we can remove the resource consent factor by getting consent first and then running a tender for turbines later.

Keeping the lights on

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +1200

There’s no question the energy sector is a dynamic industry to be working in.
Just over a week ago global oil giants announced plans to delve for oil and gas in the deep south after a 23 year hiatus. Around the country, energy companies’ plans to “keep the lights on” have generated controversy and acclaim, depending on your perspective. So, what role does a relatively small lines company in North Canterbury have to play in all of this?

For some time we’ve been quietly going about our business, driving local energy efficiency and running some small, but not insignificant, generation activity with the anticipation of one day making an even greater contribution to the energy needs of our region. In March this year we took a big step in our ‘local generation strategy’ announcing a proposal to build a wind farm at Mt Cass near Waipara.

Monitoring the wind at Mt Cass

While there’s currently no immediate threat to supply in North Canterbury and Kaikoura, there’s certainly no time to rest on our laurels. Our local generation strategy is simply about securing the future supply of our regions’ energy needs by developing small to medium scale generation activities that use the abundant renewable energy resources we have on offer.

By generating electricity locally we reduce the region’s vulnerability at times of national shortage. And by generating energy close to where it will be used, the loss of energy in transmission is significantly reduced. It’s a simple but effective approach, and it’s one we are doing very much in consultation with our community.