Yeah, well you install name plate capacity, you don't install wind.
The fact that we've installed more per capita does show we are leading the way as we have no control over how much the wind blows.
Climate change: The Critical Decade
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Yeah, well you install name plate capacity, you don't install wind.
The fact that we've installed more per capita does show we are leading the way as we have no control over how much the wind blows.
I was talking about how people live.
And I found little difference in how Australians lived than how people in the US lived.
Houses, cars, clothes, commutes, food, play and entertainment etc were far more common than they were different.
That definition of urban is useless.
I'm not sure about in the US, but here in New Zealand, what would happen is that because of the scale of the potential adverse environmental effects, and because of the scale of the project, the decision would (probably) be made to process the consent as a notified consent (assuming consent is granted in the first case). This means that the power company would be required to advertise at the site, and in the local papers to some minimum standard (i'm not familiar with the standard, my job is at the other end of the process, making sure people stick to the resource consents they've been granted). Submissions would be accepted from affected parties, either in favour of, against, or neutral to the consent, these positions may be conditional, or unconditional (eg: "I'm opposed to the granting of this consent, period". Or "I'm opposed to the granting of the consent, unless they do this, this and that, at which point I might reconsider my position").
If the consent is unopposed, it moves onto the next step (as can happen, I think, if people wish to simply lodge a 'formal objection' but don't wish to be heard). The next step consists of the consent being written by the council. A draft is sent to the applicant, I think some negotiation is possible, and the consent is finalized.
Once the consent is finalized, (I think) if the applicant does not agree with the council imposed conditions, or (I think) if an agreement can't be reached, then the applicant has the right to appeal the consent decision to the environment court. However, the danger in that for the applicant is that the courts word is (usually) final, and the Environment court judge may see fit to impose stricter conditions than the council was seeking to impose, and precedents set in one part of the country by the environment court are not neccessarily applicable in another. If a point of law can be found, then the High Court is available. Here, precedents can be set, and these precdents can be raised in the enviroment court to try and sway the judge. Failing that, there's the Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court (our replacement for the recently abandoned privy council).
If the resource consent is opposed, and the submitters wish to be heard, then a council hearing will take place, which will consider the submissions heard, in combination with expert evidence/testimony, and from there, what amounts to a comprimise is saught (again, assuming the counsellors decide to grant the resource consent in the first place). From there, the legal pathways outlined above can also be followed.
So, in the case of Gustav, with his concerns about bats and birds, Gustav might put forward a submission opposed to the establishment of a wind farm in a particular place, choose to be heard, and may testify regarding the impact of wind farms on birds and bats, he may even produce expert evidence when he is heard. If Gustav considers the consents that are granted to be insufficient to protect the populations of bats and birds that he is concerned about, and a better agreement can not be reached, then he might decide to appeal the decision through the legal system (and so on).
The down side of all of this is that, for example, there have been retailers in NZ that have 'mis-used' the process through what amount to vexatious submissions ("We're concerned about the impact your supermarket will have on traffic flows, no, really, we don't think what you've considered is adequate") in an attempt to get resource consents declined or over turned, in what amounts to anti-competitive practice.
As I said though, I only have a general understanding of the process, because I work at the other end of it - I make sure, for example, that discharge volumes and effluent quality from municipal WWTPs meet the standards laid out in the resource consents for their discharges.
In terms of how much energy they consume. As directly quoted right above my provision of the data on exactly such.
Irrelevancies. The topic is not how similar you think Australian TV watching habits are to American ones.
It's exactly the one that you used, earlier - percentage of population living in urban areas.
If you got a better one, and numbers to go along with it, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, your whole tangent about urbanization as it relates to energy consumption is a useless distraction that you should drop immediately.
Perhaps, however, on a per capita basis, are you going to have ten times more name plate capacity for wind turbines than you do now, on a per capita basis, in the next 10 to 15 years?
Because that's what's happening.
Currently we're sitting at around 90-95% of what you are on a per capita basis (personally, not a difference I would credit with being hugely significant), and with what's in various stages of resource consenting at the moment that capacity is going to expand by a factor of 7 or 8 in the next 10-15 years, and that's if the resource consenting goes badly (we're in the process of setting up an agency that has what amounts to - among other things - the power to over ride regional councils on projects of national significance, in an effort to streamline the consenting process).
If it helps, according to Statistics New Zealand in 2006 approximately 3.4 million of 4 million people lived in Main urban, satellite urban, or independant urban areas (for a total of 85%).
With Main urban, satellite urban, and independant urban being defined as such:
I'm not sure what the equivalent US definitions would be, however, by Stats NZ definitions that (I think) encompases NZ's urban population.
No, that is not how much energy they consume, that's also the amount of energy the Country uses for it's industry and commercial enterprises and residential use divided by the total energy.
So it isn't a valid comparison of the energy based on HOW PEOPLE LIVE.
Nah, not worth the effort. You just want to argue. Trippy at least understands that the numbers you posted were worthless for comparison.
Yes, because we haven't begun to exploit off shore, but are about to, and that will really ramp up our installed base because they are close to population centers and transmission interconnects.
Not actually the point I was making.
According to Wikipedia, the US definition of an Urbanized area most closely matches the NZ definition of a main urban area.
According to the Federal Highway Administration 79% of the American population live in an urbanized area.
According to StatsNZ in 2006 72% of NZ's population lived in a main urban area. Which suggests that the US is more urbanized than NZ even though we use a lower population threshold.
(of course, this changes, some measures, even here in NZ set the threshold for an urban area at 1000 people in which case it's closer to 82 or 83%, which is only a very small difference).
Actually, I misread something - it's only 68% living in an urbanized area (in the US), the remainder live in Urban clusters, so the 'apples with apples' comparison would be the 83% that I mentioned in NZ versus the 79% of the US living in an urbanized area or an urban cluster (and it's still only a difefrenc eof <5% which I believe is the point that Quad was making).
I also provided the numbers for per-capita energy consumption - which, unlike the energy-intensity numbers, were not very similar between USA and NZ/Australia.
Do you even read my posts before responding? This isn't the first time you've done this, nor the first time I've called you on it.
That's rich.
I don't see where he's said anything like that.
Such attempts to stuff words into other people's mouths being another eyebrow-raising feature of your output.
Exactly - and the point adoucette is attempting to dodge.
Even while insisting, out of the other side of his mouth, that the lifestyles and economies are basically equivalent.
So: looks a lot like argumentation for argumentation's sake, and has for a lot of pages in this very thread now. I'm starting to wonder why we're indulging him?
BS
This is the comment I orginally made:
.
Where the fuck did I say ANYTHING about comparing our level of urbanization to that of NZ?
WHERE?
You are the one who wants to argue about trivialities and then post an irrelevent Wikipedia link as if it disproves something I said.
It didn't.
Arthur
Feel free to stop indulging me anytime you want to Quad, trust me I'll miss you just as much as the last cold sore I had.
Last edited:
In the context of the discussion (especially when considering on a per capita, or a normalized basis) it implies that you believe that the degree of urbanization in New Zealand, in conjunction with the small size of New Zealand makes implementing a large proportion of RE some how easier.
One counter point to this is to illustrate that the degree of urbanization in New Zealand is no more significant than the degree of urbanization than the degree of urbanization in the US. If the degree of urbanization in NZ is the same, or similar, to the degree of urbanization in the US, then we can rule out the degree of urbanization as being a factor making RE generation easier in NZ than the US.
That only leaves one other possible counterpoint - size, and it has already been illustrated that the opposite is true. It has been illustrated in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi, and it has been illustrated in NZ with winter power cuts. Small size is actually disadvantageous, because hat might in the US be a relatively minor weather pattern, or event, in a small country has the potential to affect the entirety of the power industry. As another specific example of this, I believe I have mentioned that NZ does, on a semi regular basis get high pressure systems that cover the entire country, meaning nowhere gets any wind. It's also disadvantageous in that most of our Hydro capacity is in the same part of the country, so if one of our hydro lakes is running low, then they probably will all be running low.
And so, with the "argu(ing) about trivialities" both aspects of your argument are addressed. The degree of urbanization has nothing to do with the amount of RE power generation in NZ compared to the US, because the amount of urbanization in the US is abbout the same as it is in NZ. NZ's small size is disadvantageous to RE power generation, because an event that in the states would have little impact on over all production, in NZ has the potential to cripple an entire sector.
Not at all what I wrote or implied.
I said: even so we won't be able to keep up with NZ in the percent of renewables, because we don't have your huge abundance of Hydro and Geothermal energy coupled with a small highly urban country
So you will always have a huge advantage in Hydro and Geo on a per Capita basis and we already discussed that your wind plants generate twice as much power per turbine, so they will always have a better ROI than ours does (not the typical huge distances that we have to deal with for much of our wind farms), and of course you have access to tidal and wave power as well, so what does the "coupled with" imply.
It means because you are a small highly urban country that your energy use per capita will likely continue to go down and thus not offering any room for us to CATCH UP.
If your country was undergoing a boom to the suburbs, then there might be.
Don't seem likely though.
Arthur
You mean, other than right there in the material you quoted at me, and then immediately again at Trippy?
Get a grip, man.
Post #322 (up on this very page), for one, in direct response to my pointing out that per-capita energy consumption was markedly different between the USA and A/NZ:
Does this whole blustering denial of things you just said work for you in real life or something? Maybe you're a physically aggressive person to where people will decline to argue it with you on that basis?
Because it's just preposterous here - it's all right there in black and white. You aren't going to 'win' by misconstruing what everyone has said, and I'm baffled at why you'd even try.
Last edited:
Don't need to.
"Coupled with" doesn't mean I'm comparing our levels of urbanization.
Try reading S L O W E R.
BS, I was pointing out that my original quote was not about per capita energy consumption but about how people lived
I'm sure you would find that Americans and NZ's use of energy is comparable.
I've never been to NZ but on my several trips downunder I found that Aussies and Yanks lived just about the same. Given the same climatic conditions we would of course be much closer.