| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 80061 | 2007-06-10 04:40:00 | Nuclear Power | Twelvevolts (5457) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 557845 | 2007-06-10 10:25:00 | Let's build a nuclear power station in Invercargill and be done with it. how about just outside of wellington? maybe J'vill?? every one who thinks its safe wont want one in there town. its all fine and safe as long as its more than 200KM away. |
robsonde (120) | ||
| 557846 | 2007-06-10 10:48:00 | how about just outside of wellington? maybe J'vill?? every one who thinks its safe wont want one in there town. its all fine and safe as long as its more than 200KM away. Yeah - Palmy would be perfect. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 557847 | 2007-06-10 11:04:00 | This subject has been done to death on the forum before. Until technology allows smaller reactors, the presently available smallest one is too large for NZ. It would mean severe blackouts when maintenance was needed if we were reliant on it. We would be unable to transfer the power to needed parts of NZ, without huge grid upgrades. But eventually, it's likely to be the cleanest option when technology permits. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 557848 | 2007-06-10 13:01:00 | This subject has been done to death on the forum before. Until technology allows smaller reactors, the presently available smallest one is too large for NZ. It would mean severe blackouts when maintenance was needed if we were reliant on it. We would be unable to transfer the power to needed parts of NZ, without huge grid upgrades. But eventually, it's likely to be the cleanest option when technology permits. At the moment we appear to have a power shortage in Auckland. So we make another dam elsewhere and transmit the resultant energy by using lines which just happen to be close to your home. As I enjoy living in the South Waikato I am used to seeing things like Arapuni, Whakamara and also high voltage on pylons. In my opinion we are not totally reliant on Nuclear power. It may be a useful option though. Nuclear free we are not. Take hospitals for example. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 557849 | 2007-06-10 21:03:00 | This subject has been done to death on the forum before. Until technology allows smaller reactors, the presently available smallest one is too large for NZ. It would mean severe blackouts when maintenance was needed if we were reliant on it. We would be unable to transfer the power to needed parts of NZ, without huge grid upgrades. But eventually, it's likely to be the cleanest option when technology permits. Current pebble-bed technology is scalable so you can have stations anywhere from 600MW upwards (there is a station in South Africa which was built a few years ago which does precisely this). The wind farm Oliver is opposing is capable of generating c.600MW. Most of the older-style nuclear power stations generate approximately 1.2GW of power, which would only be enough to cover 3-4 years of increases in power consumption. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 557850 | 2007-06-10 21:14:00 | Just some documentation to back up the assertions I'm making: www.eskom.co.za www.pbmr.com And more general reading here: en.wikipedia.org |
somebody (208) | ||
| 557851 | 2007-06-10 22:08:00 | The new Huntly e3p plant just being commissioned is 385 MW capacity, this is giving many headaches as it is almost "too much in one place", if it trips, the resultant loss can cause blackouts in the area if planning is less than optimum. Fortunately we have some short run-up generation that can take over quite quickly in the top half of the NI. However even a 600 MW nuclear plant could be "far too much in one place" unless it was backed by a different technology fast recovery plant, Nuclear has a comparatively long time to run up to full output compared to hydro or geothermal. You have to look at the entire picture of the national grid, we are a small country with a wide spread of load centres. Wind farms have to rely on other generation also being available, if the wind slows the power output falls. They are more a saving in storage in hydro than a primary power source. You cannot guarantee the output in any one location 24/7. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 557852 | 2007-06-11 00:18:00 | That's fair enough re: dependency on a single point of failure. However, if there is sufficient diversity in the system, through a combination of the hydro, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power stations (plus controlling when Comalco can operate), then it will be possible to shut one down and still be able to have sufficient power to supply the grid. Other countries have been doing this successfully for years. | somebody (208) | ||
| 557853 | 2007-06-11 00:52:00 | Me too! Because its far away from me :) I prefer building one in Northland - closer to Auckland, so less transmission losses to the main energy consumer - not to mention the anti-pylon debate. Also, see my thread: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 557854 | 2007-06-11 01:29:00 | Just watched the Penn and Teller show Bullsh*t on the supposed energy crisis . Good to see a pro nuclear power view presented and one can only wonder why New Zealand maintains this anti-nuclear position . Let's build a nuclear power station in Invercargill and be done with it . Love that show . If you believe everything you see on that show, you must be either very young or naive . Are you sure you are a real NZer, as I can smell the plutonium on your breath . What we need is something that is renewable, such as wind and hydro . Nuclear creates a waste product which pollutes the earth . 'Out of Sight, Out of mind' doesn't actually get rid of the waste . I don't understand why we don't build more hydro . It is the NIMBYs that are the problem, and can you see anywhere in NZ that would actually consent to a nucleur powerplant . A leak at a nucleur power plant in NZ would also affect the entire country, and is a huge target for terrorists . |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||