New Zealand Engineering 1998 June

Genetic engineering - a serious risk for consumer health

risks associated with genetically engineered food. Biotechnology products introduced so far have not demonstrated increased yields or nutritional benefits, in fact problems have arisen with almost every commercial product released to date.

The Natural Food Commission has documented this. Therefore, there is no justification for introducing unproven biotechnology into the marketplace at this time. Howard Bezar works for Crop and Food who are committed to the biotechnology point of view. The Natural Food Commission has challenged Crop and Food to send a representative to a number of public debates with independent chairmen, but so far they haven't turned up to debate. Nor do they seem to want to label their products. If they are as good as Mr Bezar tries to suggest, why are they so afraid of labelling? In fact, labelling will ensure traceability in the food chain; without labelling no one will be able to trace problems as they arise. This is very important as biotechnology products have already caused new allergies, toxins, and fatalities.

Recently, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has called for a moratorium on the introduction of unlabelled, genetically engineered foods. We need to be cautious and sensible with new technology. More so with biotechnology, because genetically engineered organisms can reproduce themselves. Inevitable mistakes will be passed on to subsequent offspring causing genetic pollution that can never be recalled. The same companies that gave us DDT, thalidomide, agent orange, PCBs, etc, are now telling us that genetically engineered foods will be safe, so please accept them without labelling. The New Zealand public shouldn't swallow this shallow argument. Over 3000 New Zealanders made independent submissions to our government calling for labelling. Nearly 20,000 more signed petitions in a space of two weeks. Now the Canberra based Australia New Zealand Food Authority is trying to tell New Zealanders that they don't need to know about changes to their traditional foods. Public relations experts like Howard Bezar are trying to put a gloss on this picture.

Well, it doesn't ring true. If Europe is labelling genetically engineered food, why can't New Zealand? In May, Parliament will vote on Phillida Bunkle's bill calling for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods; let us hope sensible caution and the consumer's right to choose prevails. A `no' vote will expose New Zealand to unprecedented health and environmental risks that could jeopardise our agricultural economy and overwhelm the resources of our health services. (References available)

Guy Hatchard, Natural Food Commission, Red Beach

When logic takes a holiday

As someone who claims 14 years experience in the energy industry as a public relations consultant I guess it would be fair to assume a certain degree of bias on Burrell's behalf. However, I suggest he takes some of his own advice to "consider the bigger picture" before he condemns the actions of Makara residents in opposing ECNZ's Quartz Hill wind turbine project.

So what is the "bigger picture"? ECNZ's project will produce less than half of one percent of the country's energy needs. This at a time when the chairman of ECNZ's board, Selwyn Cushing, is on record as saying there

would be "excess (generating) capacity for at least six years" in a country that already leads the western world in renewable power generation (77 percent hydro, five percent geothermal).

The project will set a precedent by siting turbines up to 95 metres in height just 50 metres from people's property boundaries - documented cases of blade throw in Europe have parts of blades from significantly smaller turbines travelling up to 550 metres, coincidentally the exact distance ECNZ has proposed siting one of its turbines from the nearest residence. To add insult to injury the whole project is sited by the only recreational node on the southwest coast of the North Island. The area is used by tens of thousands of people recreationally each year. The property itself has DOC covenants on it set up to protect the "cultural, spiritual and intrinsic values of the area". Strange as this may seem to Ross, 70 to 80 mechanical structures up to 95 metres in height do not tend to enhance natural wilderness areas. Proponents of wind energy have suggested that 10 percent of New Zealand's power needs could be produced by wind. Using today's technology, that would result in about 5-6000 turbines presumably all located within close proximity of human habitat. It is scenarios such as this that has led to Professor David Bellamy stating, "Wind energy plants are a blot on the landscape, causing urbanization of rural and natural environments." (Chemistry & Industry UK, 16.3.98).

The "big picture", particularly in New Zealand which relies on outdoor pursuits as an integral part of its tourist industry, doesn't need to include desecrating skylines with towering man-made structures. Technology in the form of solar roofing tiles promises in the next six to 10 years to provide a cost effective, clean, green, renewable source of power that will enable the "layman" to take responsibility for his/her own power needs directly, hand in hand with "science and technology".

Peter Shearer

illustra@actrix.gen.nz

Splitting of ECNZ

While the splitting of the distribution sector into separate ownership of networks and electricity trading will have some long-term benefit for electricity end users in preventing cross-subsidy between lines and trading businesses and thereby encouraging competition among traders, the splitting up of ECNZ into three competing companies will not assist electricity users in the long term. History will relate that it was the price perceived by Government as having to be paid in return for the forcing of the distribution sector to split.

Without demonstrating its willingness to participate in the restructuring and suffer some substantial consequences, Government would have extreme difficulty in legislating for the compulsory splitting of the distribution sector. It was obviously not convinced that the distribution companies would ring fence their separate activities to a sufficient degree to prevent cross-subsidy and give unimpeded and equal access to all electricity traders.

There will inevitably be a drop in the price of electricity offered to the wholesale electricity market pool as each of the three new generators, together with Contact Energy and all the other non-government owned generators, fight among themselves for market share and revenue. With overcapacity in the wings, this price reduction would probably have happened anyway without the ECNZ split, especially if the Government as the shareholder, considerably relaxed ECNZ's and Contact's profit requirements in the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 financial years. However, would such a move have been regarded as treating the electors?

The drop in pool offered prices will be comparatively shortlived but, hopefully for Government, will arrive just prior to the next election; then it can use the comparative figures on the hustings in the event that lower retail prices have not then yet trickled down to end users. In the longer term, the need to assure acceptable returns on investment in the generating sector will mean that the offer prices must rise or else the values of generating companies will remain low and unattractive to investors in new generation capacity. Consequently, the country will have to live on its generating capacity fat for as long as it takes for offer prices to rise back to acceptable investment return levels.

In the meantime, of course, such marginal generation projects such as the new renewables of wind, biomass, photo-voltaics, and solar heat will be put on the back burner until their financial viability improves; although small potential energy contributors, their implementation would have resulted in some decrease on CO2 emissions, something the Government might have fostered in pursuance of its international obligations.

It must be ironical and depressing for the directors of ECNZ, who have steadfastly endeavoured to increase the value of the company for the shareholders - in effect, the citizens of New Zealand for whom the Ministers of the Crown sit as de facto trustees - to see Government willingly undermine these endeavours at a stroke. While ECNZ must accept the right of "the trustee shareholders" to make the decision to split and thereby devalue its worth, that action will do little to motivate the three successor companies; it appears that the Government has some apologies to make and some relationships to mend if it is to restore the will to rebuild shareholder value.

It is truly difficult to see how the New Zealand First caucus endorsed the view that ECNZ as it stands is more likely to be privatised than one or more of the resulting four smaller companies. One is left with the conclusion that if its members believe that, they will believe anything. It is easy to predict that the task of administering the ownership of four competing generating companies with different shareholders sitting around the Cabinet table will quickly pall, if only from the realisation of such a ridiculous situation.

Those companies will rightly be termed non-strategic assets and placed on the block for tender, if not in this triennium, then early in the next. The pity of it is that the value of those companies perceived by purchasers will then be much less because of the short-term drop in revenue to generators. However, they should not be difficult to sell at that stage and it is good bet that the sales will not wait for any recovery in value. That benefit will go to private investors; at least they will not be foolish enough to sanction in the future the devaluation of the value of their shares as has the Government.
P M R Browne, Wellington

Is the answer really `blowing in the wind' ?

It seems that the infant wind industry in New Zealand is all too ready to copy the tactics of its counterparts overseas. This consists of appealing to the green sentiments of the public by portraying themselves as environmental crusaders. Unfortunately some advocates of wind power adopt classical propaganda techniques including "name-calling". This is the labelling of opponents with terms like NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), thereby classifying and promoting such antagonists as self-interested above all else. These labels are generated to harm the reputation and hence effectiveness of opponents. The stigma carried by such a label is an effective technique for suppressing questions from many people. It is a shame that some engineering people in the energy industry are drawn into adopting this illogical method of argument.

All too often the euphoria of a new industry leads to claims that are optimistic, unsubstantiated and later found to be incorrect and detrimental. The wind energy industry is no exception. At the Sustainable Energy Forum Conference at Massey University, in February this year, it was announced that Tararua Wind Power Limited was to commence construction of "the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere", probably in October. Resource consent was obtained two years ago. It would appear that Tararua Wind Power, in hesitating before construction, has saved the project from certain disaster. The resource consent application was made in respect of Kenetech KVS-33 turbines. Kenetech was the largest wind turbine manufacturer in America at that time. Just after resource consent was obtained, Kenetech went into bankruptcy. The turbines, described in the resource consent application as, "one of the most advanced wind turbines commercially available", were the subject of an article in the international magazine Wind Power Monthly, September 1997, entitled, Litany of Design Failures. In addition to stress cracks, failure of pitch angle and hydraulic pump yaw controls, the turbines were also prone to power electronics system failures. They had apparently functioned for some time without any sign of these eventual and fatal failures. More wind turbine manufacturing company bankruptcies have followed, both in America and, more recently, in Europe.

The only wind farm in New Zealand, (seven 500 kW turbines), is found at Hau Nui in the Wairarapa. In recent literature Wairarapa Electricity indicates that the turbines have passed previous world records for power output. The turbines installed, Enercon E-40s, did not perform as indicated by the manufacturer's specifications in respect of noise output. A local farmer living 2.4 km away made the published comment to the news media that the turbines "sounded like a truck going uphill in low gear". This description is criticised in Paul Van Lieshout's article in New Zealand Engineering April 1998, entitled, New Zealand Wind Energy Association: The First Year. Surely someone who has been subjected to noise, and describes the effect in their own lay terms, is to be listened to and not dismissed so summarily?

Whilst the original Enercon specification espoused the low noise output, a tonal quality was later revealed as prevalent in that model. Although engineers were able to partially reduce the noise nuisance it still persists and seems to be incapable of remedy. Of course, the manufacturer will say that the latest models do not have such problems!

The draft New Zealand Standard for wind turbine noise is basically a cloning of foreign standards with virtually no regard for the different circumstances in this country. For example, the foreign standards incorporate weighting factors in favour of wind farms, primarily based on having very heavily populated countries with a scarcity of wide open spaces and with very small existing renewable energy sources (ie. almost diametrical circumstances to those in New Zealand). It is interesting to note that the committee for the New Zealand standard is totally dominated by representatives from the energy industry.

When wind energy is said to be "unreliable", this does not necessarily refer to the wind resource. Wind power projects require not only high capital set up cost, but also a dependence upon an industry a large part of which appears to comprise shifting and reforming entities. In addition, maintenance costs will be greater in the highest wind speed and coastal sites. Enercon has recently also encountered unexpected problems with its "new" E-40 turbines in salt wind sites, Wind Power Monthly, November 1997, at page 23.

The visual impact of turbines is unquestionable and this poses a major problem for developers. Their answer to this is again "labelling" but this time in a positive sense. They attempt to curry favour on an environmental and sentimental basis by using such terms as "farm" and "mill".

One of the latest turbines arising from a European proposal could be well over 150 metres in height. A massive structure. Such turbines cannot be compared with the traditional Dutch windmill and this association is extremely misleading. Also misleading is the practice of referring to hub heights of turbines, rather than actual "full reach" visible height. For instance, when reference is made to a 60 metre turbine, the blades actually reach a height of 95 metres to 100 metres.

Wind energy projects are not as environmental friendly as we have been led to believe. Overseas, wind turbine manufacturers' promises have consistently been found unreliable, and are regularly broken. It is now officially recognised by many important authorities that turbines are industrial installations, and should be treated accordingly. The public of New Zealand should be fairly and honestly told of the effects turbines will have on the environment, so informed choices can be made.

The wind energy business is relying on promoting its turbines as "green" progress. But, to replace one type of environmental damage with yet another, is neither "green" nor surely the sort of "progress" we should endorse without rigorous questioning and debate.

Doesn't energy conservation provide the nation's most green pathway to the future? A pathway surely strewn with truly exciting engineering challenges?

Gordon Mason, Makara Guardians Incorporated

Correction.
The chief executive's article in the May edition incorrectly referred to Hong Kong as having become a "Special Economic Zone" since July last year. The status of Hong Kong since 1 July 1997 is that of a Special Administrative Region (S. A. R.) of the People's Republic of China. We regret the mistake.