10. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
Does the security of electricity supply for the next 20 years rely on the use of unsustainable fossil fuels?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
We expect that the emissions from fossil fuels in the electricity sector will increase very significantly over the years to come as a consequence of the Government’s climate change policies.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did the Minister just say that he expects the emissions to increase, or did he mean decrease?
Does the Minister agree with Dr Keith Turner, the Chief Executive Officer of Meridian Energy, who says that to overcome considerable risk to the reliable power supply of the South Island a new coal-fired thermal plant producing 350 megawatts may be needed?
No, I do not. Indeed, I think the article in the Press that perhaps led to that question in the House is perhaps a misreport. I understand from contact my office had with Meridian Energy today—at Meridian Energy’s behest, not at my prompting—that it was misreported in the and that it has no plans for thermal generation.
So Keith Turner got the big call from the Prime Minister to tell him to get back in his box. Does the Minister agree with Mr Murray Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Energy, who says that natural gas is critical to New Zealand’s energy security, with 25 percent of New Zealand’s electrical energy being generated from natural gas?
It certainly is at present and it will be for some time to come. Indeed, as Jeannette Fitzsimons noted earlier in one of her questions, it is inevitable that we will have some reliance on thermal generation for some time into the future. It is, nonetheless, true that E3P will reduce greenhouse gas emissions this year because it will back off coal, and progressively over time we will see marked reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.
Charles ChauvelJust prior to Christmas, after Parliament rose, we announced a fund to support and bring forward marine power generation in New Zealand in a similar way to how we have brought forward wind power generation. In addition, the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy has proposed the consolidated call in of renewable geothermal and wind proposals to facilitate consents.
Why is the Minister so confident that coal use is going to reduce, when chapter 3 of his draft Energy Strategy under the title “Security of Electricity Supply” does not even mention coal, and when Huntly is now a baseload station producing 4,500 megawatts per year—without which this country would see the lights go out?
Because, as is recorded in the draft Energy Strategy, it is abundantly clear that coal is probably the most expensive form of new generation in New Zealand other than nuclear—it is certainly more expensive than gas and renewables.
Peter BrownWill the Minister put the whole issue in balance and acknowledge that about only 9 percent of New Zealand’s electricity is generated from coal, whilst in the USA it is 50 percent, in Australia it is 75 percent, and China is commissioning a new coal-fired power station every 10 days; and, if that is so, in the light of all this does he agree that it is imperative the world solves the clean-coal technologies?
I certainly agree that coal does not make up the majority of New Zealand’s electricity generation; nor should it, because it is a more expensive option. I agree with the member, though, that in terms of the world’s challenge for climate change, clean-coal technology is very important and deployment of it in countries in Europe, the United States, and China will be important. It is unlikely to be a solution for New Zealand because coal-fired power stations, even without the additional cost of carbon capture and storage, are more expensive.
If renewable energy from hydro, wind, and geothermal fuel sources is the way of the future, why does the Minister not come out and direct State-owned generators to stop using coal and produce a timetable for the exit of other thermal plants—or does he know that that suggestion would be as silly as the rest of his energy policy?
The reason we do not pick on State-owned enterprises, rather than have wise policy settings across the sector, is that if we banned State-owned enterprises from doing it but did not ban, for example, Contact Energy—not wanting to pick on them—TrustPower, or any other generator from pursuing coal, then if it was more cost-effective for those generators under those policy settings to develop coal they would, and, therefore, emissions would grow.