100% renewable energy is 'aspirational'

The Interim Climate Change Committee has delivered its draft report to the coalition government and the goal of obtaining 100% renewable electricity generation in NZ can be done but will prove to be too expensive.

Instead they see that a figure of 92% is feasible and the other 8% requiring gas generation. Well 92% is a ‘A’ in my book.

We are fortunate in New Zealand to have an abundance of water and that our hydro-dams were built before the 1991 Resource Management Act. (My guess is that it would be just too hard to build them now).

We currently have over 80% renewable energy generation, mostly from our hydro-dams.

Compare this to other countries around the world:

USA is at 17% renewable, (approximately 63.5% of their electricity is generated by fossil fuels (Natural gas 35%, coal 27%)

Australia – approximately 86% of their electricity is generated from fossil fuels (73% coal, 13% natural gas)

European Union, in 2016 had almost half the net electricity generated from combustible fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). More than 25% came from nuclear power stations.

Hamish Rutherford writing for Stuff (Experts warn 100pc renewable electricity target will hurt New Zealand’s wider climate goals) gives a good summary of the report and its practicalities.

Essentially the report says that in chasing 100% renewable energy will substantially increase household costs, while saving little on carbon. (It doesn’t say that politically you’re likely to lose votes!) It is estimated that households would face 14 per cent higher costs while the price to industrial users would be 39 per cent higher.

This morning’s Press (Wed 26 June 2019) is headed ‘Report restores sanity to debate‘ and states ‘The committee’s draft report is an important reminder that there is always plenty of detail to bedevil the most noble goals, and often unintended consequences in the endeavour.’

‘The ICCC report should be applauded for restoring some sanity to the discussion about how we might work towards these now “aspirational” goals without derailing the national economic machinery to pay for it.

Sometimes it seems as though that is lost on those who like to preach but expect others to take the greater burden of putting it into practice.

Essentially the report favours a recalibration: Rather than focus so heavily on getting to that 100 per cent target, the Government should take a more holistic view of the country’s suite of energy sources, encourage “accelerated electrification” to reduce carbon emissions, and, well, maybe just relax a little.‘

Yes, there is some practicality about this report and Rutherford notes that the government is now talking about an ‘aspirational’ goal of 100% renewable energy.