Frequently Asked questions

1. Do people care about where their power comes from?
2. Will it cost more to switch to a clean, renewable energy supplier?
3. How does the ranking system work?
4. Isn't coal clean these days?
5. Isn't there a way to remove the carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants?
6. Isn't wind energy noisy and doesn't it take up huge amounts of land?
7. Why is Mercury Energy ranked as the worst company?
8. What about hydro - isn't that bad for the environment?
9. What about energy efficiency and conservation?
10. I can't change electricity companies - what else can I do?
11. Nuclear power doesn't produce greenhouse gases - why don't we invest in that?
12. But don't some people say climate change isn't happening?
13. Where can I get a printed guide from?
14. Will I loose my Vector dividend if I change power companies?
15. Isn't all the electricity in one big 'pool' though ?

Yes!

Consumers around the world are more aware than ever that the choices we make as consumers have lasting effects within our environment. The majority of New Zealanders would like to have a clean, renewable electricity supplier.

TNS conducted an independent survey on behalf of Greenpeace in October 2005 on public attitudes to electricity generation.

70% of people surveyed would prefer to purchase electricity that comes from clean, renewable generation sources such as wind or hydro.

This agrees with early studies, such as one by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which showed that the majority of New Zealanders prefer renewable energy. Download the UMR Research Report (PDF)

In some places you could save money by making the clean energy switch. In other areas it could cost as little as a cup of coffee a week to have a clean, renewable energy supplier . Check with the cleanest option in your area to check on their pricing plan as prices can differ depending on location.

The cost is small, and think of the contribution your household is making to cutting down on polluting, climate change-causing gases which would be released into our environment.

The TNS independent survey results showed clearly that people are willing to put their money where their principles are when it comes to choosing clean energy. 66% of people surveyed said they would be willing to pay more for clean, renewable electricity. Of these, almost three quarters (74%) were prepared to pay an extra $11 or more per month, while over 10% were prepared to pay an additional $90 or more per month!

Consumer Magazine has a useful comparative index of the different pricing plans available at www.powerswitch.org.nz

Electricity companies were put into the following three categories

Red Companies:
Currently burn coal, oil or gas for electricity - or plan to do so in the future.

Orange Companies:
Only use renewable energy sources for electricity, but have no policy to only invest in renewable sources in the future

Green Companies:
Only use renewable energy sources for electricity and have a policy to only invest in renewable sources in the future.

Companies are allocated scores on the basis of existing generation and proposed generation and their policy on future energy development.

A stronger weighting is placed on planned generation as these developments will determine our energy future. A greater penalty has been given to coal as this produces the most carbon dioxide of all the fossil fuels, therefore contributing the most to climate change. Positive emphasis is also placed on companies that have committed to only using renewable energy sources in the future.

The end result is a scale of ranking where a company that is higher up the thermometer is worse in terms of its contribution to climate change, than the company listed below it.

Why a thermometer?

Because the more carbon dioxide from the burning of oil, coal and gas that we produce, the hotter the world will get and the more the climate will change.

Click here for a more detailed explanation on the ranking system.

Yeah right. The coal industry misleadingly claims that it can now burn coal "cleanly". In fact, so-called "clean coal" methods just shift pollutants from one waste stream to another. Furthermore, ways to deal with climate-changing carbon dioxide pollution won't be viable for 50 years, according to leading world experts. (see question below).

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels and one of the most polluting sources of energy. When burned, it emits 72% more carbon dioxide (the main cause of climate change) than gas.

Coal is a toxic cocktail and burning it releases a wide range of heavy metals like mercury, cadmium and lead, cancer-causing chemicals like dioxin, smog-forming nitrogen oxides, acid-forming sulphur pollution and fine particulates which pose a threat to human health.

It also leaves a trail of environmental destruction right back to the source. Coal mining damages forests and impacts river ecosystems through acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination.

Again, this is one part research, ten parts wishful thinking and PR spin from the fossil fuel industry. Methods to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions (the main cause of climate change), have been under development for several years but are many decades away.

A recent report from the UN's scientific advisory body on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), showed just how limited this approach is in combating climate change.

The report showed that there are still far too many questions about environmental risk, safety and costs for it to be deployed on a scale that would make it economically viable.

It found that ways to capture and store carbon from the electricity sector would likely only be deployed at a large scale in the second half of this century, i.e. 50 years from now.

These methods will simply not be ready in time to provide us with the huge near term emissions cuts that we need in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Given that scientists have warned that we have approximately ten-years to act on climate change to avoid disaster, every dollar invested in carbon capture and storage research is a wasted dollar for action on climate change, if it diverts money away from renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Modern turbines are actually very quiet. Thanks to advances in wind turbine technology, well-designed, well-sited turbines can be acceptable for people living just a few hundred metres away.

At these distances, any noise they do make is usually drowned out by the natural noise of the wind itself in the trees and vegetation. To protect nearby residents from any undue disturbance, proposals to install wind turbines are required to meet strict noise standards.

Far from being a waste of land, only 3% of the land used in a wind farm is actually taken up by turbines and access roads. That leaves the remaining 97% of the land free for farming or grazing, as usual. Thus wind farms result in rural land being used more productively.

A report released by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in 2001 showed that New Zealand had enough wind energy potential to produce 3 times our current energy needs with wind, using only 1% of our land.

Check out www.yes2wind.co.nz for more information on wind energy.

In our ranking we have considered how electricity providers are currently sourcing their electricity. However we have also taken a forward-looking approach and given a stronger emphasis to future generation plans and company policies on future development. These are the things which will determine the direction of our energy system.

Mighty River Power (who own Mercury Energy) is now proposing the first major coal-fired power station in the country for over 25 years, at Marsden B near Whangarei.

This will lead us down the path of a fossil fuelled future of climate change. We need to be embracing clean energy, which will lead us down a clean, renewable energy future where we are tackling climate change.

Policy on energy development was also an important factor in how we ranked each company. Unfortunately Mighty River Power / Mercury has not committed to only developing renewable energy in the future. This together with their existing fossil fuel generation and Marsden B plans has put them in the red category.

Large-scale hydro developments can be very damaging to the environment, causing severe impacts to river systems and flooding forests and other ecosystems. Greenpeace does not support these kind of large scale, damaging hydro schemes. We opposed Project Aqua on that basis.

However, we believe that there is potential for small to medium scale developments, provided they have a minimal impact and are well managed with tight environmental controls. These proposals have to be considered on a case by case basis.

The Clean Energy Guide ranks companies according to their impact and contribution to climate change through their existing and planned generation and their policy on future development. It is not an assessment of full environmental sustainability for each company and therefore does not include other environmental impacts of each company's activities, such as hydro development or their business practices.

The guide is specifically about climate change, often described as the biggest environmental threat the world is facing.

Energy efficiency and conservation is absolutely vital in developing a sustainable electricity system for New Zealand. Energy consumption is growing every year, which means we need to build more and more power plants to meet our insatiable appetite for electricity. New Zealand is simply going to run out of space and resources if this continues unchecked.

We not only have to make sure our electricity comes from clean renewable sources, but we also need to make sure we use electricity smarter.

Kiwis are some of the most wasteful energy users on the planet and we've got a lot of catching up to do. New Zealand has one of the lowest energy efficiency ratings of any country in the OECD.

Energy efficiency and conservation isn't about lowering our standards of living.

It's about getting more out of the electricity we use, through efficient appliances and well insulated houses. It includes turning things off at the power point to shut off power-guzzling standby appliances, and many other simple steps and technologies that not only save electricity and our environment, but also save us money.

New Zealand urgently needs a long term, sustainable energy strategy that will see a phase out of fossil fuels and a transition to 100% renewable electricity system. Energy efficiency and conservation is a vital component of a sustainable energy future.

There are many things you can do to help the climate. Click here for a list of things you can do to help.

New Zealanders produce an average 8100kg of carbon dioxide emissions every year, over twice the global average. But by following some simple suggestions you can help save the climate and save yourself some money too.

• Switch off lights and appliances when you're not using them.
• Install energy efficient light globes and high energy efficiency rated appliances.
• Make sure your house is properly insulated - it will reduce your need for heaters and reduce your electricity consumption.
• Install a solar hot water system. Up to 45% of a household's electricity bill is spent on hot water. What a waste when it could be heated for free by the sun's rays.
• Ride your bike to work, walk or take public transport.
• Write to your local MP and ask them what they are doing to support renewable energy. Ask them to push for a renewable and sustainable energy strategy for New Zealand.
• Tell five friends about climate change and encourage them to take some of these simple steps too.
• Tell five friends about the clean energy guide

Nuclear energy is often cited as a solution to climate change, but it would just result in swapping one environmental nightmare for another. Nuclear is never safe. The deadly legacy of nuclear energy will be left for future generations to deal with in the form of radioactive waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

There is still no solution to the nuclear waste threat.

Every step of the nuclear cycle is dangerous and polluting. Everyone is all too familiar with the Chernobyl accident that affected thousands of people and continues to do so today. In 2005 there was an accident at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom and the area that the waste leaked into became so highly radioactive that no human could enter. It is so dangerous that new robots and remotely activated technologies have to be developed just to repair the damage.

Do New Zealanders really want to be taking risks like this with their country when there are clean viable alternatives like wind and other renewable energy sources?

Asides from these shocking threats, the costs of nuclear power alone are enough to turn anyone off. New Zealand does not have the infrastructure or expertise to deal with nuclear energy and the smallest commercially viable nuclear reactor is just too big to fit into our electricity system.

No private investors are seriously considering investing in nuclear power without the guarantee from a public financial institution - that means taxpayers money is needed to prop up the nuclear industry.

Of the world's 400 nuclear power plants and installations, only one or two have been decommissioned and the cost was four times what was projected. This is an extremely expensive process which, today, falls on Governments who are unlikely to pick up the tab.

Then there's the sticky question of liability. International treaties allow countries to limit company liability to as low as $10 million to $300 million in the case of a serious nuclear accident. But this would be a fraction of the $800 billion or more such an accident could cost. Would business in New Zealand expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab? The UK, France and Japan have spent years trying to get out of negotiating any liability regime for the South Pacific in the event of an accident with nuclear waste shipments.

Meanwhile, globally, the costs of renewable energy are falling while nuclear costs are rising. This difference would be even more marked if the global $1,400 billion spent on subsidising the nuclear industry had been spent on renewables research and development. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes - for the same investment, wind generates twice as much electricity and offers twice as many jobs.

Nuclear power also provides the ability to produce nuclear weapons - it can lead to nuclear proliferation and increases the global security threat.

New Zealand led the world in taking a nuclear free stand and we can lead the world again in embracing clean energy, to tackle climate change.

Climate change is happening now and the evidence is clear. One hundred and fifty governments agree on the latest and starkest evidence of global warming from world renowned scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the United Nations in 1988.

Further, a group of 11 national academies of science from around the world issued a statement endorsing the IPCC as the most reliable source of information on climate change and its latest conclusions.

In 2001 the IPCC released its third assessment report which shows stronger evidence that we do understand how the climate system works, and how human activity is changing it. That human activity is largely from the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas. This latest report provides a clear warning that the first signs of climate change impacts are occurring and that the scale of the risks posed by climate change are enormous.

There are a very small number of vocal, fringe "climate skeptics" who unfortunately get a lot of air time. But the scientific majority agrees that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it, mainly through how we meet our energy needs.

Scratch the surface of many of these "climate skeptics" and you'll find links and funding tracing back to the fossil fuel industry - the very cause of the climate change threat. Would you believe a tobacco industry funded scientists telling you that there's no evidence of cigarettes being bad for your health?

More info at E xxon Secrets www.exxonsecrets.org

It's Free! Contact Greenpeace at energyguide@greenpeace.org.nz or phone 0800 22 33 44 and order a hardcopy of the guide. If you have friends and family who maybe interested - order some for them.

The Clean Energy Guide is available in some hardware stores, libraries, cafes and other stores throughout New Zealand.

If you own a shop or a café and are interested in stocking the Clean Energy Guide we'll get some out to you along with a handy dispenser and posters advertising that you have the Guide available in-store.

14. Will I loose my Vector dividend if I change power companies?

No. According to the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust, if you currently receive a dividend through Vector you will continue to receive this whoever your energy company is. Eligibility for the dividend is determined by where you live. If you are in credit on your power bill when you change companies a last meter reading will be taken and your old power company will pay you any remaining credit by cheque or direct credit.

15. Isn't all the electricity in one big 'pool' though ?

Don't companies sell electricity into a general pool and then customers buy their electricity out of the pool - so there is no way you can tell if the electrons you use come from a fossil fuel or renewable resource?

All electricity generated goes into a central pool, or electricity market and customers then buy electricity through electricity retailers.

It works a bit like a swimming pool. Generators are all pumping water (electricity) into one big pool, and consumers are drawing out water (electricity) all around the pool edge. So there is no way of "tagging electrons" to say that this unit of electricity was generated from this particular source. It is all mixed in together.

The reason it is so important to change electricity companies is that this campaign is not about tagging individual electrons! It's a bigger picture campaign about where your money goes and what kind of energy future you want!

If you buy electricity from a company that currently uses or plans to use fossil fuels then your money is directly supporting dirty energy, leading to a dirty energy future that contributes to climate change. That company may also be sending messages to the Government that we need fossil fuels like coal in the future.

To use the swimming pool analogy again, some electricity companies are using the money you pay them to pump "dirty" water into the pool. By switching away from these companies, you are taking a step towards ensuring only clean water is pumped into the pool!

If you go with a company that uses only renewable energy sources now and into the future , you know you are investing your money in clean energy. You can be part of the transition to a 100% renewable, clean energy future which protects the climate.