3427 of 62461 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
RobW said:
I bet you'd find more volunteers to live near them than anywhere near a nuclear plant though.

R


too right

I once had the joys of tavelling in and around the area where Sellafield is located in the UK

never have I seen such unevolved life forms as I saw there - the people around that area were in a word grotesque*

do we want the same?

*please note what I was witness to might just have been typical english people
[quote]
RobW said:

As far as wind power being ugly - I've seen some pictures of them overseas and they don't look that bad really. I bet you'd find more volunteers to live near them than anywhere near a nuclear plant though.

R


Sorry, somehow I missed this line.

Were they ones built on ridgelines that dominate the view for potentially hundreds of kms? Because that is what would happen here.

I would happily live next to a modern nuclear plant over a windfarm any day.

If people can get past the bad information about nuclear and the few issolated examples of where it has gone bad then they would see the reality that it is quite safe.
[quote]
In Europe There is generally a lot of farm land nearby the nuclear power stations but there are still towns and villages nearby. They dont seem to mind particularly and they werent exactly disfigured Razz Different attitudes perhaps.

Wind farms tend to be very noisy so people dont like living near them either and it is a fairly unhelpful comparison to ask "which would you rather have to live by?"

The general question has to be how to we provide power for our country.
[quote]
bob said:
bobthebuilder5 said:
Build a series of small nuclear plants in areas that aren't intrusive on human activity. Apart from initial set up costs, have cheap and reliable electricity for a long time. Zero harmfull emissions. Constant electricity and the ability to increase production depending on load at the push of a button (instead of having to pray for wind).


In CA you should be a bit less obvious in your biases or youll lose all credibility.

Less intrusive (unless they leak)

Zero harmful emissions? = Zero carbon emissions.

Cheap = more expensive than fossil currently but less than alternatives.

I could go on.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to be a bit more careful how you word things.


Touche. Guess I could have worded it a bit more carefully. But I stand by what I said in general. Nothing I wrote in that post is incorrect.
[quote]
bobthebuilder5 said:
You're making out as though it is dumped in a big pile out in the open. This is not the case and you know it.


Um.. Actually, it was dumped in a big pile in the ocean until they discovered the containers were leaking. Now they do the same, but in mines. It will come back to bite us one day.

bobthebuilder5 said:
Lots is being spent on developing new methods of permanintly dealing with the waste.


Got anything to support this? The current storage methods are all that are on the horizon in the most part. See last comment above.

bobthebuilder5 said:
Rob you dont even know me so who are you to say I know nothing about the subject. Wind power is unreliable. Turbines break down all the time.


Nor you I. Reliability is overcome by having lots of them. That's why having all of your eggs in one basket - such as a key supply nuclear powerplant isn't as ideal as you imagine. If they have to have downtime and they're the overwhelming source of power - then you're really fucked aren't you?

bobthebuilder5 said:
You still fail to address the issue of the visual pollution of wind farms. I see this as part of their environmental impact and a key issue in NZ.


Scroll to the top of the thread and see what I said initially. In the first line of text I said "Surely we could build some large wind-farms out at sea..."

bobthebuilder5 said:
As you said in your earlier post, China's pollution is so high that it negates anything we do in NZ to attempt to be 'green'. Why then should we even bother with wind farms. If we simply want the most effective method of electricity generation then nuclear is the answer.


We should be avoiding polluting methods for the reason of development - whether or not NZs emission make a difference globally is sort of short-term thinking. Everything about nuclear energy is a disincentive for the world to develop truly cleaner methods of power generation.

It has been proven that a ready supply of electricity achieves almost nothing in terms of security (supply security) so you can concentrate on other things. Having ample power doesn't alleviate the pressure. Do you know why? I'd like to know.

R
[quote]
Not really 'dumped' in mines. It is stored in sealed containers in specially designed and sealed bunkers.

As for disposal, read this: http://www.nea.fr/html/brief/brief-03.html

So reliability is overcome by having lots of them? We're right back to my key issue with wind farms, the visual environmental impact.

I never said we should have one big nuclear plant. That would just be silly. As I said, A SERIES OF SMALL NUCLEAR PLANTS. That way if one goes offline you are only losing a small % of your total production.

As for wind farms being at sea, I addressed the problem with this in my first post in this topic.

Current nuclear technology has brought it to a point where it is a trully clean method of energy production.

I dont fully understand your last question. Care to rephrase please.
[quote]
NZ electricity production = ~40 billion KWh
So per head = ~10000 kWh
1GW = 8,760,000,000 kWh

10000 / 8,760,000,000 = 0.00000118

Coal: 0.00000118 * 36000000 = 4.3 tonnes of coal per person per year
Nuclear: 0.00000118 * 2.5 = 0.000003 cubic meters of high level waste per person per year

Over 70 years…
Coal: 300 tonnes - and all the contaminates within - pumped straight into our atmosphere
Nuclear: one fifth of a cubic centimetre carefully stored away

The nuclear waste ‘issue’ is hysteria.
[quote]
trapper said:
Nuclear: one fifth of a cubic centimetre carefully stored away

The nuclear waste ‘issue’ is hysteria.


You sure? How come there is so much waste in the US? Hundreds of thousands of tonnes - which at the rate you mentioned would be impossible?

In any case, there are all of the other radioactive things which you also need to get rid of, like the water used in the reactors, the protective clothing worn, air filters etc etc.

R
[quote]
Yeah I am sure, the maths really ain’t that hard.

The US has around 100GW installed nuclear capacity (and they have outlawed reprocessing of the spent fuel) so we could expect around 100 * 10 = 1000 cubic meters per year of high level waste from these reactors.

Since it is un-reprocessed this ‘waste’ is mostly uranium-dioxide so we can use its density (~11,000 kg/m^3) to roughly guesstimate that the 1000 cubic meters would weigh in at close to 11,000 tonnes.

Multiply that by a few decades and you got yourself a couple of hundred thousand tonnes.


And finally let’s not forget that power generation is not the only nuclear industry in the US, I’m sure the production of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons will have had some impact on their high level waste totals. lol
[quote]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4342184a13.html

quote:
There is a significant risk of power shortages from the Government's aim for 90 per cent renewable power and prices will rise, according to former Electricity Commission chairman Roy Hemmingway.

The Government's Energy Strategy, announced in December, will also impose a 10-year ban on building new fossil fuel power stations in an effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Hemmingway left the job as Electricity Commission chairman at the end of 2006, at the end of an often turbulent three years. At that time, he openly criticised Energy Minister David Parker as an "interventionist" who appeared to think he was nearly always right.
[quote]
quote:
It was possible to predict the amount of wind energy available over the course of a whole year, but it was "very difficult" to predict how much wind power might be possible at the exact time it was needed to meet demand, he said.

...

RobW you still here?
[quote]
yea but if you team it up with hydro, then when the winds blowing you get wind power, then when it stops you let water out of the dams to compensate, perfect!
[quote]
More hydro would be fine by me, it’s a great source of electricity - if we have the rivers left then let’s build em.

I think you might be missing the point slightly about the ‘backup’ issue though.
If you want to backup wind with hydro then that’s cool, but remember that you are going to be building (and paying for) all this excess hydro capacity. And many of these dams will hardly ever be used, some only a couple of days a year, some even less! Seems like a bit of a waste.

Greater than 20% reliance on unreliable power sources (the point above which we need to have backup) just isn’t practical.
[quote]
trapper said:
Greater than 20% reliance on unreliable power sources (the point above which we need to have backup) just isn’t practical.


Somewhere the wind is always blowing...

Mulitple windfarms, multiple locations = no need for massive backup plans or infrastructure, only thing to consider then I imagine is tranmission distances
[quote]
'somewhere' doesn't cut it unless somewhere is enough to provide everything the grid needs at that exact moment.

If you think about your post a bit you will understand that all you are proposing is that the wind farms be backed up with more wind farms - which themselves must be backed up with even more wind farms!

If one wind farm alone must be capable of meeting our peak load, then across multiple wind farms we will be installing 5, 10, or more times more capacity than our peak demand! This is an even more massive backup plan than anything I could have dreamt up!
[quote]
one wind farm doesn't need meet peak demand - we already have power stations (hydro et al) so the wind farms are built for either the increasing demand or to offset current generators that have reached their use by date

All I am suggesting is the needed wind farms are scattered about - some posts read like their would be one farm and that would meet all demand
[quote]
bob daktari said:
trapper said:
Greater than 20% reliance on unreliable power sources (the point above which we need to have backup) just isn’t practical.


Somewhere the wind is always blowing...

Mulitple windfarms, multiple locations = no need for massive backup plans or infrastructure, only thing to consider then I imagine is tranmission distances


Your post is the one that seems to be in fairy land.

It is not ALWAYS blowing enough SOMEWHERE in NZ to meet our power requirements. And even if it was we vouldnt use enough prime land without upsetting a large proportion of the country.

No one with half a brain would rely on one or even many wind farms to provide the majority of power in NZ without full instant backup so god knows where you get that people are suggesting one wind farm.
[quote]
perhaps I am in fairy land

goes and stands with all the power companies pushing for nuclear energy
[quote]
Which ones would they be? Not in NZ.
[quote]
none of them, thus rendering nuclear at this point a redundant option

therefore one thiinks aloud about the potential for wind whilst some throw stones

Smile
[quote]
bob daktari said:
none of them, thus rendering nuclear at this point a redundant option

therefore one thiinks aloud about the potential for wind whilst some throw stones

Smile


As I said earlier, Government subsidies for wind farms and the current lack of understanding by most NZers of the reality of the nuclear option mean no power company is going to come out and say they want to build a nuclear plant. But I guarantee you that if tomorrow the Government changed their stance on nuclear and sent out a request for tender there would be 20 companies all vying for the contract to build one.

I really cant see how you can justify building thousands of hideous wind turbines in prominant places all over our beautiful landscape.
[quote]
to be honest I'm all for reducing the amount of energy we consume so we need less not more power generation or at least the status quo should suffice
[quote]
bob daktari said:
to be honest I'm all for reducing the amount of energy we consume so we need less not more power generation or at least the status quo should suffice


Why? Its one thing we can easily have lots of. Our impact on a global scale is insignificant so I say fuck it, lets use as much as we like.
[quote]
act locally think globally

we can't always be selfish just cause we is small thus have a tiny impact on our planet
[quote]
bob daktari said:
act locally think globally

we can't always be selfish just cause we is small thus have a tiny impact on our planet


Ok but why should we have to make sacrifices while the likes of China and India do all the poluting?
[quote]
those coal fired Chinese power stations are the worst polluters
[quote]
with electric cars and the like we are likely to be using larger and larger amounts of power.
[quote]
bob daktari said:
one wind farm doesn't need meet peak demand - we already have power stations (hydro et al)

Sorry I worded my reply badly, although it doesn’t really matter for the purposes of the point.

Whatever proportion of the total load that we expect wind farms meet must be reliable – and if we do this by building multiple redundancies into the wind farm network, as you suggested, then it would be massively oversized.
[quote]
a business report today said:

Macquarie Group will partner German renewable energy group Conergy AG in building a $2bn wind farm in outback Australia.
...a joint venture development to build up to 500 wind turbines northwest of Broken Hill in New South Wales state, aiming to generate up to 1,000 MW electricity.


I wouldnt have thought it very windy in the desert.
[quote]
no doubt being built as a backup to their nuclear generation and another reason kiwis are flocking over there

...opps wrong meeting
[quote]
trapper said:
..and if we do this by building multiple redundancies into the wind farm network, as you suggested, then it would be massively oversized.


Point is, in reality, thousands of wind turbines could be built in NZ and could still be would be visible in only 0.01% of the country. We have space - that's what we've got lots of. There are areas up north where you could put hundreds of turbines and, with no sealed road access, few people would ever see them.

Nay-sayers paint if as if every nice Lord Of The Rings-type scene would be marred by turbines. Germany has over 20,000 wind turbines and I know people who've traveled there who can't remember seeing one. I'm sure the people who live near them do though.. chop chop chop chop chop...

Another thing I've read about recently is how closely aligned wind power generation is to the demand cycle throughout the year. Given our known reliable wind there isn't any reason why we shouldn't aim for 10% wind-sourced power in the near future. The rest of the power need is the real problem. More hydro? Cleaner coal/gas plants?

R
[quote]
round and round we go.

20% is fine, more = tenuous.

Power useage will rise in Summer as more places use aircon, this is kinda irrelevant however if electric cars take off and draw power from the grid (tho that might be slightly higher at night if people dont plug them in when they get home).

Turbines need to be in exposed areas, not hidden somewhere in a valley. Wind also suffers the same problem with every big project in NZ - "not in my back yard".

It is not a significant solution to our power problems. It is not as easy as the proponents seem to make out and it certainly isnt a solution in itself to our problems.

Free up land for hydro by shutting up the hippies and whiners and just building them despite the RMA.
[quote]
bob said:
Power useage will rise in Summer as more places use aircon..


Just a point. Our winter power demand massively exceeds our summer one despite this. We use air-con stuff all actually compared to countries which really need it..

R
[quote]
bob said:
turbines need to be in exposed areas, not hidden somewhere in a valley. Wind also suffers the same problem with every big project in NZ - "not in my back yard"


Didn't I just say that there are places remote enough that they're not a back-yard? Have you been up north? There are stretches of land dozens of km long facing the sea with little access or intensive farming? I'm sure there are tons more down south.

Moreso, I'd guess than no-one at all would ever want to be within 10/20+ km of a nuclear power plant.

R
[quote]
Im not arguing for nuclear power in NZ (based on acceptance). But just to spell it out again 20% wind power = probably fine for NZ from both a power backup and acceptance pov.

You still run into RMA problems. I would like to see a major effort put into resource consent for all available hyrdo and wind catchment areas so we can stop them being built on or at least notify people that it is planned in the future.

The RMA is a fucking dog when it comes to major projects and this govt is lacking in balls and heaping the blame on privatisation/ deregulation as a convenient scape goat.
[quote]
RobW said:
bob said:
Power useage will rise in Summer as more places use aircon..


Just a point. Our winter power demand massively exceeds our summer one despite this. We use air-con stuff all actually compared to countries which really need it..

R

but remember when AKL CBD had its power supply crisis coz the demand fried the lines. This was in summer iirc.
[quote]
Just on the power supply topic... It's the beginning of goodbye for Energy Minister David Parker I'd say.

...for interfering with an independent regulatory body decision, after he said he did not, is now likely to have to repeat his denials in court. (two witnesses heard him do it - makes it pretty hard to deny)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10486542

R
[quote]
Having just got back from London, where the government OK’d the rebuilding of their nuclear power capabilities, I found some interesting talking points, both pro and con:
- All arguments for it are around security of supply and low carbon emissions (although there was talk that once full lifecycle was taken into consideration – construction through resource extraction through decommissioning – the carbon footprint wasn’t dramatically lower. I believe it was going to cause a 4% drop in carbon emissions from energy in 20 years?)
- Anyone building a plant has to put aside a fund to cover full decommissioning costs etc – as such most models are showing an increase in consumer electricity prices (i.e. once full life costs are taken into account, it wasn’t cheaper)
- The last round of nuclear plants in the UK cost them $15billion in bailing out the industry, and $250billion in decommissioning and handling all the waste from them!
- There was still no plan for what to do with the waste besides store it in a bunker and hope something comes up in the future.
[quote]
looks like South Africa has a generating problem

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10488413
[quote]
was talking to some people in SA for the last month y'day and they said rolling power outages are happening all the time.
supposedly due to a skill shortage to operate them.
[quote]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10490030

quote:
North Island faces power cut
New 7:26AM Friday February 01, 2008

The North Island is facing the prospect of blackouts today if its aging electricity system fails to cope with a major power station shutting down.

Contact Energy's 380 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle power station in Taranaki was due to be shutdown for 60 days this morning.

A breakdown at the plant last Friday, combined with a lack of wind for wind-generation, high water temperatures in the Waikato River and an inter-island link constrained to only 400MW pushed up power prices and caused concern about power cuts.

Auckland electricity consultant Bryan Leyland said yesterday the shutdown raised real concerns about how the system would cope without the Contact plant.

"If the weather and conditions are the same as today, it is difficult to see how we will get through (Friday) without load shedding and the possibility of blackouts," he told The Press.

"It won't affect the South Island. There's only one thing they can do - if it gets too bad, they might run the link up to 700MW, which will give them another 300MW, which is more or less equivalent to what they have lost.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"But in that case we're at risk of losing the DC link, which would for sure cause blackouts."

Contact spokesman Jonathan Hill told the paper the maintenance at the Taranaki power station could not be delayed, having been scheduled for more than a year and involving 50 engineers from Sweden.

"It's critical we get this plant up and running for winter."


I guess the wind doesnt always blow eh.
[quote]
you've got to learn to delete the

Advertisement
Advertisement

bob
[quote]
You could learn to read around it and not clutter the thread with meaningless posts.
[quote]
it's called wind power generation Smile
[quote]
prospect of winter power cuts, cook strait cable at threat of failure, low levels of southern hydro lakes....and no mention here until now
[quote]
Forget about wind power in the air its wind power underwater thats going to save us

Fibre optic cable connected to these tidal turbines down 200m in the Cook Strait potentially generating gigabytes er i mean watts of power.




Herald article here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10506544

but I found more detail here where they highlight the shortfall between planned projects and future demand requirements
http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/47260/205.pdf


I wonder how machinery will stand up to the rigours of such an environment but these two plucky Mainland engineers are about to undergo a lengthy trial. Good luck to them.
[quote]
peat said:
Forget about wind power in the air its wind power underwater thats going to save us


Cool that they're at prototype stage already. Didn't think it'd be this quick.

R
[quote]
peat said:
potentially generating gigabytes er i mean watts of power.


"will have a maximum generation capacity of 1MW"

So they will need at least 2000 of these bad boys down there before entering the 'gigawatts' catagory...
[quote]
well I guess once you've got one working its just a matter or replication... there wont be aesthetic objections , maybe some issues around intrusion on shipping lanes tho (the transmission cables)
[quote]
matter of...
[quote]
i have a feeling the prototype might be a small one in comparision to the prototype wind turbine on the brooklyn hill.
[quote]
trapper said:
peat said:
potentially generating gigabytes er i mean watts of power.


"will have a maximum generation capacity of 1MW"

So they will need at least 2000 of these bad boys down there before entering the 'gigawatts' catagory...

which is exactly their long-term plan if you read those links...
[quote]
Actually, nowhere do they say anything of the sort - the reader is left to figure out how many turbines would need to be installed.

Not saying it’s a no-goer, but at $8.5 million a pop the dollars are going to add up fast when we are talking about installing thousands of these things.