With only about 300 people, the community on Stewart Island can't justify an undersea cable. But a microwave power beaming system could be built for much less, and supply energy much cheaper (and greener) than burning diesel.
With only about 300 people, the community on Stewart Island can't justify an undersea cable. But a microwave power beaming system could be built for much less, and supply energy much cheaper (and greener) than burning diesel.
> The Provincial Growth Fund is putting $3.16 million towards building two wind turbines on Rakiura / Stewart Island
> Mr Parker said building an initial two wind turbines as part of the island's power generation network was the most economic and environmentally acceptable option.
> "It provides a renewable energy source. It is estimated to reduce diesel use on the island by half, which will enable the price of electricity to be stabilised."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/403869/renewable-energy...
This smelter is also about to shut down in August 2021. So now there's going to be a huge surplus of electricity way down south (the smelter uses ~13% of the country's total electricity!), with the big city way up north.
There are a lot of ideas circulating about what to do with the Tiwai plant, including setting up a Tesla factory (it has a deep water port handy). There just happens to be a source of the purest silicon sand in the world nearby, so one intriguing option is to set up solar panel production, which given the hydro power supply would have very high sustainability credentials.
Electricity -> Hydrogen by electrolysis -> Hydrogen at pressure -> Electricity by fuel cell
even if the input electricity is almost free, everything hydrogen seems very expensive.
> However, a key drawback of this “power-to-gas-to-power” route, if electrolysis is used for hydrogen production, is the round-trip efficiency, which is “around 45%,” it says. The report provides an example to illustrate the cost penalty per MWh associated with the power-to-gas-to-power route: “Hydrogen generation from low-cost renewables at $25/MWh with a capacity factor of 50% yields a cost of $1.70/kg of hydrogen produced. Storing this hydrogen underground will add about another $0.30/kg, thus the hydrogen costs $2/kg. If this hydrogen is used to generate power, the resulting cost is $100 to $200/MWh. In ideal conditions (e.g. a CCGT turbine at 60% utilisation), the cost is $100/MWh, while simple-cycle turbines at 25% utilisation would deliver power at $200/MWh.”
> Still, the report is optimistic. Because hydrogen production costs will drive up to 80% of total power generation costs (Figure 3), if the technical feasibility of a 100% hydrogen turbine is proven, the capital expense of hydrogen turbines could “rival that of natural gas turbines by 2030,” it says. For now, however, “companies should use hydrogen-based power for high-value flexible generation first, and two, hydrogen baseload power generation for deep decarbonisation in situations with constrained renewables potential will require strong policy support.”