top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

BRYAN LEYLAND: Storage: the Achilles heel of wind and solar power

The Government’s “Net Zero New Zealand by 2050” ambition foresees 12,000 MW of new wind and solar power – 1.5 times the entire existing installed generating capacity – to meet the 50% increase in energy and peak demand expected from electrifying transport and heating. The disproportionate increase in installed capacity results from the low average output of wind and solar farms. Installing this much new capacity is a major challenge in terms of technology, cost and resources. According to Professor Kelly, an eminent New Zealand engineer now residing in the UK, it will cost more than $500 billion.


At times, this 12000 MW of wind and solar power will be producing virtually nothing because the wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Our existing hydro and geothermal power can’t fill the resultant 4000 MW shortfall because there is not enough spare power available. As coal and gas are being killed off, the only option is to store the large amount of surplus energy available whenever the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. This can be as much as 4000 MW – something like 50% more than current demand.


We need a technology that can store all this energy when it is available and use it as necessary to cover the hourly, daily, weekly and seasonal fluctuations. Although many people believe that the 1200 MW Onslow pumped storage scheme could provide this backup, it cannot do so because it is too small, in the wrong place and it would need to have a very large lower storage lake.


In the words of Apollo 13, "Houston, we have a problem"!


To back up wind and solar, we need a large scale low-cost technology that can store and deliver up to half the existing power demand with time scales varying from a few hours to several weeks or even months. There is no suitable technology available or on the horizon. Without low cost storage, large scale wind and solar power cannot provide an economic and reliable supply.


4000 MW of hydro pumped storage in the North Island might work. But there is no chance of finding even one site with two large storage lakes close together with something like 500 metres difference in level that is capable of storing and providing more than 1000 MW for days on end.


The Government’s dreams of developing wind and solar power to eliminate the need for fossil fuels while providing a low cost and reliable supply are doomed.


A separate problem is the need for extra generation during dry years when hydropower generation drops substantially. Traditionally, this has been achieved by storing as much water as possible in our relatively small storage lakes, supplemented by gas and the coal stockpile at Huntly.


In 2019 the interim Committee on Climate Change produced an excellent report that told the government that it was a waste of money to aim for a “carbon zero” power system. The Government shelved this report and, in 2020, the Government set up the "NZ Battery Project” to look at ways of eliminating CO2 from power generation.


The prime objective of the NZ Battery Project is to investigate the 1200 MW Onslow hydro pumped storage scheme that has a large lake in a valley north of the Clutha river forming an upper basin that can provide all the extra energy needed in a dry year. According to the latest estimate from the Battery Project, it would take at least 11 years to build and cost $15 billion – about $12,000/kW, twice the cost of a geothermal station that generates day and night.

The scheme has many serious problems.


25% of the pumping energy would be absorbed by losses. Extra pumping would be needed to make up for evaporation losses from the lake. Pumping power would cost at least 5¢/kWh and maybe much more because, unless the electricity market is reformed, generators that have surplus power available for pumping would jack up their price the moment pumping starts.


The scheme’s major source of income would be from generating during a shortage. During the four months duration of a shortage, it would have to earn enough money to cover the capital charges and operating costs of $5 billion accumulated over the previous five years or so. This means that it would need to charge $1.6/kWh while generating. 10 times the current spot price!


But it gets worse: the way the market works, all generators would get $1.6/kWh so the extra cost of as much as $20 billion over the four month period would eventually be passed on to consumers. Every tonne of CO2 saved would cost about $7000. The current CO2 market price is only $85/tonne!

The common-sense alternative to Onslow is 1 million tons of coal on the stockpile at Huntly. Say $200 million to buy the coal plus about $40 million a year for capital charges and the like. Every time there is a dry year, the coal stockpile would need to be replaced and there would be a CO2 cost of $25 million. It should be easy to choose between $400 million or $20 billion every five years?


There are far better and cheaper options for reducing emissions of CO2 from power generation. More hydropower, more geothermal, substituting gas for coal and the most effective of all – clean, safe and reliable nuclear power.


Other options like hydrogen storage, batteries, compressed air storage, etc are all substantially more expensive than pumped storage hydropower. For instance, sufficient batteries to solve the dry year problem would cost $5 trillion.


The sooner the Government realises that a system dominated by wind and solar power cannot provide a reliable and economic supply and starts looking at cheaper and better options, the better.



Bryan Leyland is an electrical and mechanical engineer with 60 years experience in the power industry in New Zealand and overseas.



3,887 views148 comments

148 Comments


Robert Mann
Robert Mann
May 12, 2023

Leyland has the nerve to revive the old 'safe, clean & economical' sloganeering to plug nuclear power. It became clear 4 decades ago that this is a pack of lies. Will Leyland declare whether he has any actual or prospective reward from Westinghouse, or Bechtel, or etc – suppliers of nuclear power technology? He has long been suspected of some such arrangement. Be that as it may, what he says in promotion of nuclear power is rubbish.


Like

John Caldwell
John Caldwell
Apr 04, 2023

The comments to Brian’s piece make for excellent reading. My favorite is “NZ produces such a tiny part of the world’s CO2 that we …..bla bla bla.” Using that kind of logic, I could go out and shoot someone I dislike and claim that since my killing is such a small portion of the total number of world murders that it shouldn’t matter. As for Leyland’s claim that nuclear power is clean, he should visit Fukushima and ask those folks how clean they think nuclear power is. I do agree with Brian on one point however. The government’s plan to build pumped-hydro storage is crazy. There is a solution to the storage problem, however. Iron-air batteries. Iron-air batteries cost less…



Like
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
Apr 08, 2023
Replying to

I suggest you read "Radiation and Reason" by Professor Wade Allison. He is one of the world experts on the medical effects of radiation and he believes that nuclear radiation is quite safe at levels 100 times more than is currently allowed.

Like

winder44
winder44
Apr 02, 2023

Weather forecasters are predicting a colder and drier winter for 2023..

What does that mean?

Higher electricity usage for businesses.

A higher domestic electricity usage.

lake levels will fall quicker.

Huntly thermal station will be in demand more often.

Power restrictions will be enforced.

Blackouts may occur.

All of those new, all-electric homes will feel the bite.

We will most likely get our winter of discontent.


Like
Replying to

Yet, that fails to account for eh Honga-Tonga eruption and impact (hence the excess rain/storms for the last 12 months... i.e. not climate change at all), predicted to be some 6-8 even 10 years....

Like

How can one comment on such a ridiculous situation, these people pushing this rubbish are either seriously mental, or just brain dead.

Like
Replying to

Actually I think you have understated it by a HUGE margin.


The magnitude of stupid is off the scale.

Like

What is all this trouble and expanse to taxpayers and consumers going to achieve? We are told that it is going to combat "climate change" and "global warming" by reducing the CO2 emmissions that New Zealand people create from driving their cars and heating their homes. We are not told that the New Zealand CO2 emmissions are a tiny fraction of the global total that is believed to be a factor (but not necessarily the cause) of "climate change". When unbiased people do the math, they find out that achiving the "net zero" ambition will have NO EFFECT of any significance on the global climate or local New Zealand weather. All the trouble and expense is going to achieve NOTHING but financial hardship, debt…

Like
Replying to

CO2 is essential plant food, about 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, about 3-4% of that is human created and a VERY VERY small part of that is from NZ.


The ZERO emissions NZ Policy will achieve an immeasurably small amount of nothing.

Like
bottom of page