Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68471	2006-04-30 00:56:00	Nuclear power.	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
450685	2006-04-30 12:08:00	Look at Comalco, Australian company - Uses 30% of NZ's electricity (uses nearly all of the power coming out of the Manapouri hydro station) paying a fraction of the cost we pay for electricity - and why do they come to NZ? Because WE as taxpayers are artificially driving the power prices down, such that they can afford to ship tonnes of aluminium precursor over from Australia to process. I remember reading in the newspaper that they pay 1/1000th the cost per-unit of electricity compared to the average household, yet they only generate $300mill or so in revenue p/a, and employ about 25 people. Others sources have Comalco using 15% of NZ electricity and while cost is secret Google turns up lobbyists using around 2c per unit as their estimate. Comalco does pay for 10% of its power on the spot market, maybe that can be up to 1000 times the usual rate. Domestic users don't buy on spot market. PS: Comalco claim 800 staff at smelter +150 contractors	PaulD (232)
450686	2006-04-30 12:26:00	May I just bang on about anti-matter for a moment. This is even better than nuclear fusion. Existing reactors use fission. An anti-matter explosion when it contacts a piece of ordinary matter is a serious bang. Virtually total destruction of matter - no radioactive wastes to worry about. Lots of clean energy produced. Science fiction? Well no. CERN create antimatter daily, although it isn't easy. And it doesn't stick around long. :D But they've held antimatter in a torus for 3 minutes so far - it used to be microseconds. So this is a real and viable source of energy.	Winston001 (3612)
450687	2006-04-30 12:32:00	I was under the impression that to create antimatter it requires vast mounts of energy? And the energy from the reaction is incredibly hard to harness? But yes, it is very viable for the future. Like fusion.	roddy_boy (4115)
450688	2006-04-30 21:09:00	Others sources have Comalco using 15% of NZ electricity and while cost is secret Google turns up lobbyists using around 2c per unit as their estimate. Comalco does pay for 10% of its power on the spot market, maybe that can be up to 1000 times the usual rate. Domestic users don't buy on spot market. PS: Comalco claim 800 staff at smelter +150 contractors Oh right: sorry - I must have misread that information. www.minesandcommunities.org But it's still interesting to read: Comalco uses enough power for 700000 homes per day, most of the output of the Manapouri power station, where 90% of their power is through long-term CHEAP contracts with Meridian energy. "Their long-term contract at a fixed price was made in 1961 and still has 22 years to run!" from that site.	somebody (208)
450689	2006-04-30 21:42:00	Oh right: sorry - I must have misread that information. www.minesandcommunities.org But it's still interesting to read: Comalco uses enough power for 700000 homes per day, most of the output of the Manapouri power station, where 90% of their power is through long-term CHEAP contracts with Meridian energy. "Their long-term contract at a fixed price was made in 1961 and still has 22 years to run!" from that site. I seem to recollect the genius Muldoon got us into that situation?	Cicero (40)
450690	2006-05-01 01:06:00	Give me a break. Just build the Nuclear Power Station on one of the many deserted islands we have around NZ. Build a power cable from it and charge up NZ again. It will be secure because any approach would be recorded on radar or if underwater on sonar. Power options: COAL: Cheap, Plentiful Supply, Safe, CO2 emissions, continual impact on environment OIL & GAS: Expensive, Limited Supply, Safe, CO2 emissions, continual impact on environment WATER: Limited Options, Limited Supply, Safe, Clean, one-off impact on environment NUCLEAR: Costly to build, Plentiful Supply, Risky, accident risk to the environment WIND: Cheap, Unregular Supply, Safe, Unsightly, Noisy (get over it) SUN: Cheap, Unregular Supply, Safe, Best used as Water heating for all houses. THERMAL: Cheap, Plentiful Supply, safe, minimal environmental impact	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
450691	2006-05-01 01:13:00	Add thermal power to that list, there are plenty of thermal areas in NZ. There were materials problems at Wairaki, but nothing that couldn't be overcome. {Plenty of old volcanoes in Auckland that could be drilled out, and get down to some heat :) }	Terry Porritt (14)
450692	2006-05-01 01:36:00	Am I blind or something? Thermal power is on that list :waughh:	Terry Porritt (14)
450693	2006-05-01 01:43:00	" Last edited by KiwiTT_NZ : Today at 12:17 PM." Your Post 12:13 PM.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
450694	2006-05-01 01:44:00	... Let's not repeat this cycle of building hydro stations at taxpayers expense, only to do it again in 20 years time and fuel this cycle of energy wastage. Build a nuclear power station at cost to the power companies, with far too much capacity, such that it will last significantly longer and be able to cope with future population increases. That way, the cost will be passed onto the users of the power, encouraging power savings.Unfortunately, the reactor just creates heat. That is used to produce steam for a "conventional" thermal generation station. That has a limited lifetime. A fully "conventional" station can be rebuilt/repaired if necessary. It stops glowing when you turn out the fire. The most significant part of the cost of a nuclear station is the nuclear part and its life is limited, too. When it reaches its end of life, what do you do with it? That's the economic problem with nuclear stations. Barring accidents, they are cheap to run. But the disposal of a "used" one is so expensive that it seem to have been ignored. The taxpayers will cope with it, presumably. It would be a total failure of the capitalist/market ethos for the owners and their shareholders to be responsible for such expensive things.	Graham L (2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17