Trustpower has gained resource consent for 31 of the proposed 40 turbines in its Tararua-3 windfarm. They'll be using 3 MW turbines, and expect to be generating by the end of 2006. It will also (of course) be the largest windfarm in New Zealand, briefly eclipsing Te Apiti before in turn being beaten by one of the larger developments currently going through the consents process.
So, why do we need coal again...?
7 comments:
who argues "in favour" of coal anyway?
Good on anyone who can add to the power generated by NZ through a wind farm or a hydro dam.
GNZ
Posted by Anonymous : 7/07/2005 06:31:00 AM
you need coal because the energy provided by acres of wind power is trivial compared to the energy that a decent sized coal station can provide - and we are not going to run out of coal for a long long time.
we can, however, make sure that the emissions from coal power stations are clean.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/07/2005 08:00:00 AM
Anon2: and we'll never run out of wind. As for "trivial" amounts of energy, this year alone we have almost 400 MW currently progressing through the consents process - not including the 93 MW that has just been granted. When Tararua 3 is complete, I'll be able to see just shy of 300 MW of clean generation from my letterbox. And the Wellingon Regional Council is looking at almost 600 MW of generation in their region alone (which is pretty small).
I think any of the above compares quite favourably with Marsden B's 320 MW output - and this is just the beginning.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/07/2005 08:26:00 AM
yeah, i'm with NRT on this one, you coal-burning types are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
there is no such thing as 'clean' coal burning. that is just a bunch of industrialist luddites wanting to stick with the past.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/07/2005 09:10:00 AM
Now if only we could convince the Franklin District Pony Club that windmills won't frighten the horses we could have a windfarm in Auckland too and lessen the need for those pylons that are frightening a few Waikato horses.
Posted by Hans Versluys : 7/07/2005 09:50:00 AM
Che: that's not quite true. Coal can be burned cleanly, in the sense that nasty combustion byproducts such as nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide and some particulates can be seperated or scrubbed out of the exhaust gases, and carbon dioxide can theoretically be sequestered (theoretically; it hasn't been done on an industrial scale yet, and we're not sure how long it lasts). But all of the above is expensive, and few energy companies show any interest in spending the money to do it properly when they can instead exernalise their costs and dump them on the rest of us as acid rain, lung cancer, and global warming.
Until they are willing to spend the money (and in particular solve their carbon problem), we should simply say "no" to coal. There are other alternatives - cheaper ones, even - which are far better for us and for the environment. We should use them instead.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/07/2005 02:12:00 PM
Who would have thought it? Palmerston North leading the way forward. I loved seeing those windmills on my way to work, it's a power station you can actually feel good about. My kids liked them too. All we need now is to pass a law that requires anyone who uses the term "visual pollution" to camouflage their house so that none of the rest of us have to look at it.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/07/2005 07:45:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).