New Zealand Commits to 90% Renewable Electricity by 2025

[tr333]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=50075

Why isn't New Zealand in charge of the latest talks on Green Energy? It seems a bit odd that NZ can aim for 90% renewable energy, but Australia under John Howard can only "aspire" to a possible target of 20%, which could include existing coal power.

[homer13j]

NZ's electrical consumption is a tiny, tiny fraction of what Australia uses.

Sheep don't use electricity. Australians do.

[tr333]

I would think Australia has more than enough space to set up a grid of solar panels in the large desert areas of Australia.

And btw, Australia has more sheep per person than NZ

[nemaroller]

Solar panels are expensive - not just because of their initial cost. They become quite ineffective as they deteriorate in less than 20 years thanks to their almost constant UV exposure. So a solar panel 15 years old actually has far less output than a new solar panel and will need to be replaced.

Wind turbines have an expected lifespan of 20 years, am

Aside from that, aiming for that goal is quite noble, you might as well set a high benchmark, but they obviously know they'll fail that goal.

Green energy is unfortunately still not cheap relative to the cost of mining and burning coal.

[Xanith]

Solar panels are expensive - not just because of their initial cost. They become quite ineffective as they deteriorate in less than 20 years thanks to their almost constant UV exposure. So a solar panel 15 years old actually has far less output than a new solar panel and will need to be replaced.

Wind turbines have an expected lifespan of 20 years, am

Aside from that, aiming for that goal is quite noble, you might as well set a high benchmark, but they obviously know they'll fail that goal.

Green energy is unfortunately still not cheap relative to the cost of mining and burning coal.

What’s wrong with nuclear energy? It has 0 emissions. Sounds pretty green to me

X

[bgmacaw]

Because it creates good publicity for politicians when they express their support for some unrealistic and probably unobtainable policy goal that's popular with the public.

[tr333]

NZ are already at 70% renewable energy, so I don't see 90% being too hard to get to. As for the nuclear option, you have to store the nuclear waste somewhere, so it's not totally 100% green.

[penagate]

What’s wrong with nuclear energy? It has 0 emissions.

Nothing has zero emissions. Besides, emissions aren't the only issue—byproducts count as well.

NZ are already at 70% renewable energy

Source?

[mendhak]

Top BBC scientists support nuclear power

[tr333]

Source?

From the article linked in the first post:

The country already uses 70% renewable electricity, primarily hydro- and geothermal power and will continue to increase its use of renewables over the next 20 years.

http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/wa/13-4/renewable:

New Zealand is fortunate in having large renewable energy resources for its population, supplying up to 70% of our electricity, and nearly a quarter of all our energy.

Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand:

About 70% of all electricity is generated by renewable energy.

[nemaroller]

Yea, but while 'burning wood' is technically a renewable resource energy, its not very good for air quality is it?

Jokes aside, NZ seems to have a unique potential for developing hydroelectric power thanks to its topography - which many areas do not. Throw in some Environmental lobbyists like here in the US, and you would never get the construction of a hydroelectric dam past the court stage.