The impact of 100% renewable electricity on hydropower generation in Aotearoa New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aotearoa New Zealand aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030, currently standing at over 85% from hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar resources. The country’s isolated geography currently necessitates dispatchable hydropower and fossil fuels to manage intermittency and maintain grid stability. A literature review of countries also with high renewable penetrations – Norway, Iceland, Austria, Canada, and Brazil – revealed challenges including price volatility, operational flexibility requirements, dry year risks, and increasing electricity demand from economic growth and electrification. The objective of this paper is to understand the potential consequences for Aotearoa New Zealand by comparing the projected 2030 electricity demand, based on scenarios developed by the government, against anticipated renewable generation capacity, using data on the current generation fleet and the near-term investment pipeline. The method assumed that added capacity of renewables would follow similar generation profiles to existing generators. It is concluded that the 100% renewable electricity target by 2030 is feasible, but only if the committed and actively pursued projects, including offshore wind, are commissioned. Then there would be sufficient generation for all scenarios, maintaining nearly full hydro storage year-round. Minor shortfalls occur during low wind/solar periods (0 to 1% of the year), but with significant excess generation (55 to 65% of the year) where 27 to 42% would be available for effective storage utilisation in the power system. To this end, the shortfalls can be addressed, to some extent, with committed and actively pursued battery storage, which was not included in the analysis due to the uncertainty of how they will be participating in the future electricity market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".