While the government subsidised early development with carbon credits, and is about to impose a carbon tax on gas and coal, the real driving force is lack of gas. As you point out above, New Zealand's gas supply is tenuous; a stupid decision 30 years ago has meant we've burned our major supply too quickly (or rather, exported it as fertiliser), and the cheap prices have discouraged further exploration. But there's also the fact that in NZ, capacity factors are high. I've been told that European wind farms generate around 25% of their maximum capacity. The ones I can see from my letterbox generate at around 48% (and due to crap storage and fluctuating demand, our hydro dams do a shockingly low 56%). This makes wind extremely competitive. It also has wide public support, meaning it is easier to get through the consents process. However, as gas supplies have grown short, exploration has picked up, and a significant discovery may change the equation again (though more likely it will simply mean our gas generators get to stay in business, without having to import LNG).
Because of this, wind generation grew by 365% last year. It probably won't do the same this year, but it will at least double. And it looks set to do so for a few years to come.
Idiot/Savant No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog
48%!!! That's more than what is expected at far-from-shore offshore parks in Germany! Is that not just a seasonal maximum?
Anyway, even with 25% for wind and assuming 100% for the 2500 MW of conventional plants to be replaced by wind, you'd need 10 GW - which is entirely realistic even within the timeframe of the first period of Kyoto (until 2012). Spain is already close to 10 GW, Germany is edging closer to the double of that.
(and due to crap storage and fluctuating demand, our hydro dams do a shockingly low 56%).
Actually, hydro dams whose output can be varied are the perfect regulating counterpart for weather-dependent wind power. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In terms of Kyoto, we have a rather unique problem there: too many cows. And we already generate close to 70% of our power from renewable sources (mostly hydro, with a dash of geothermal), so there's not much scope for emission reductions through replacing generation capacity. Instead, we have to focus on transport and agricultural emissions - both of which are more difficult to solve.
Given our large amount of hydro, there's obviously a lot of potential for synergy with wind. And strangely, it seems to be the companies who own dams who are building wind turbines...
Regarding Kyoto and NZ transport, I heard ocassionally of the continuing voes of Tranzrail and its reincarnations, maybe some government programme here would make sense. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I looked up - Horn Rev, the best, was slated to deliver 0.6 TWh per year with 160 MW, that would have been 42.8%. However, calculating from this gigantic Excel table, I see it didn't yet realise that: 0.46 TWh in 2003 (i.e. 32.8%) and 0.367 TWh in 2004 (i.e. 26.2%). Tough, bad wind years and the replacement of faulty generators might have played a role - this year, it already produced 0.291 TWh in the first five months.
(both images: Horns Rev offshore park, Denmark)
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
While Nysted, the other large farm (72 turbines, 165.6 MW) achieved 39.7%, the small Samsø park (10 turbines, 23 MW) managed 40.2%, and the even smaller Thyborøn-Harboøre park (8 turbines, 18.4 MW) holds the record with 42.76%. (Older off-shore parks are all much lower.) As all of them were finished in 2003, all the above records were achieved in their first and so far only full year, 2004 - which was a rather weak year, so I'd expect new records this year. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The Horns Rev windfarm has been beset by a number of problems and Vestas indeed ended up changing the whole gearboxes for the full wind farm. It cost them in the order of 40m$ (some ot if was paid by ABB, which provided some flawed subsystem).
They've had much better number since the changes, but I'm not sure it's been a full year yet. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Just a correction - the total worldwide installed capacity at the end of 2004 was 48,000 MW In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
