Using power wisely could make up for Project Aqua output

By SIMON COLLINS and LIAM DANN

Households and businesses could save almost as much energy as Project Aqua promised for less than a tenth of the cost.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) figures given to the Herald show that households alone could save two-thirds of Aqua's energy by installing energy-efficient lightbulbs and making other "realistic" changes.

And if businesses pulled out every fourth light in all commercial buildings as well, the country would be only slightly short of saving as much energy as the huge Otago power scheme would have generated.

Meridian Energy chief executive Keith Turner, who announced the axing of the scheme on Monday, told a national power conference in Auckland yesterday that New Zealand was now heading inevitably towards major coal development instead.

EECA chief executive Heather Staley said households, which use only a third of all electricity, could save two-thirds of Project Aqua's energy if each installed five energy-efficient lightbulbs, switched off half their appliances at the wall when not in use, insulated all pre-1986 hot water cylinders and had solar water heaters installed in every new house built.

The net cost, after allowing for lower power bills, would be $109 million - less than a tenth of the $1.2 billion that Aqua would have cost.

"There is more than half an Aqua just in that residential sector that is potentially available within 12 months, not five years," Ms Staley said.

"That's not counting the biggie, which is not about turning appliances off but, when they [householders] replace them, replacing them with energy-efficient appliances and not putting the old fridge in the garage as a beer fridge."

She said businesses could make even bigger savings.

Nelson's Arrow motel, which won an EECA energy award in 2002, cut its energy use by 70 per cent compared with other motels.

EECA pays half the cost of an energy audit for any company that implements all energy-saving recommendations that either cost nothing or can be paid for in lower power bills within two years.

The average saving is 5 to 10 per cent.

Solar Industries Association director Brian Cox said the average house could save 30 per cent of its power bill, or about $420 a year, by installing a rooftop solar water heater costing between $2500 and $6000.

EECA pays $450 towards this cost for anyone who has to borrow to buy the solar heater.

"If you look at the price of a solar system against other discretionary spending that people spend on the house, it's not out of line," Mr Cox said.

But Auckland energy consultant Bryan Leyland said solar power could only "do a tiny bit" to meet energy demand which was growing at 2.3 per cent a year, needing the equivalent of a new Aqua every three years.

He said wind power's role would also be limited because of the need for backup supplies on calm days, and new hydro schemes seemed to have been wiped out by Meridian's conclusion that the costs of resource management consents was too great.

"So coal is it," he said. "We are going to be burning lots of coal."

Answering the hard questions

KEITH TURNER, Meridian Energy, CEO

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "If we have a dry year again it won't be just savings, it will be blackouts. We've been living on borrowed time and we're lucky that it's wet this year."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "Aqua was never a total solution. It was only three or four years of electricity growth."

What is the solution? - "We are inevitably heading towards major coal development."

Who should pay? - "We can't just go to Government and say fix it ... We desperately need more private capital."

MARK FRANKLIN, Vector, chief executive

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "It's not a crisis."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "It leaves a hole. But it wasn't going to come online fully until 2012, so we have got some time to sort out shorter-term issues."

What is the solution? - "Investment in generation. Not just investment in certain types of generation. They've got to look seriously at coal ... gas, wind and geothermal."

Who should pay? - "The logical investor is the industry."

DON ELDER, Solid Energy, CEO

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "It's as serious as rain - or lack of it - allows. If we have normal or dry years ... then we have significant problems."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "It makes no difference to the next four to five years and it makes a little difference, but not a lot, to the situation out past 2012."

What is the solution? - "The answer is coal, unless there are huge new gas finds."

Who should pay? - "All the generators are now in a position to pay for and develop new coal-fired generation."

PETER GRIFFITHS, BP Oil NZ, managing director

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "The issue is very serious. Whether or not you call it a crisis is semantics."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "It's a great wake-up call to the industry and community that it isn't guaranteed that we have a secure energy future."

What is the solution? - "Security comes from diversity. We need more power generation of a variety of types."

Who should pay? - "Consumers and energy users always end up paying in the end."

ROY HEMMINGWAY, Electricity Commission chairman

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "It's not a crisis ... in the short term. There's time to develop other sources."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "New Zealand needs additional power sources. Without Aqua new electricity will have to come from somewhere else."

What is the solution? - "New Zealand is under-invested in energy efficiency. A great deal of energy could be saved at a cost cheaper than building new power plants."

Who should pay? - "Electricity should be paid for by the people that use it, not the Government."

CHRIS FREEAR, Windflow Technology, business development manager

How bad is New Zealand's energy outlook? - "I think it is a crisis."

How serious is the demise of Project Aqua? - "It doesn't change the situation. Project Aqua was always too little, too late."

What is the solution? - "There is enough wind easily available in New Zealand to take care of growth needs for the next 10 years. To do that you'd need about 8000 turbines scattered throughout the country."

Who should pay? - "The people who build generation plants will put the money in."