| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 57195 | 2005-04-26 03:03:00 | Nuclear Power in NZ | Strommer (42) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 348996 | 2005-04-26 03:03:00 | Some of you may recall awhile back a thread that I posted titled "Crazy Power Hungry Aucklanders", which was about the protesters (Waikato farmers, et. al.) against the proposed power pylons. This thread evolved into a debate about nuclear power... The "Insight" program last night on National Radio had a superb coverage of nuclear power in NZ. All sides were covered. It was one of the best radio items I have heard, and I wish I had a button on the radio that could have recorded it as an MP3. ;) Anyhow, one comment stood out from the rest: the actual cost of generating electricity by a nuc plant will be high - perhaps as much as 20cents per KWH, and I don't think the cost of disassembling/cleaning up the plant at the end of its 30 - 40 year life was included. Another item was the size of the nuc plant may be too big for our small national grid to handle. That is, when the plant has a glitch and power is reduced or stopped, brownouts or blackouts will occur. However, if a small plant is built, I think around 500 MW or so, then it would be OK. One disappointment with the program was when they interviewed Jeanette Fitz... of the Greens, who said that there were in fact options other than a nuclear plant, but then these options were not explained. (E.g. solar water heating on houses, or more wind plants, or ???) Did anyone else listen to the Insight programme? |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 348997 | 2005-04-26 03:41:00 | I remember Fitzsimmons once denounced NZ agricultural exports because they "depleted" the topsoil from NZ. I laughed and laughed until the Greens got voted in. I once got into a debate with Nandor about the freedom to use drugs. I asked him about the freedom for taxpayers not to pay to medically treat the effects of drug use and abuse and the conversation suddenly ended. Nuclear power will never be accepted in NZ due to the cost and perceived dangers. As such the next best alternative is to make energy consumption as efficient and least-polluting as possible technologically and cost-effectively. I think this means a system which addresses individual consumers, and not all of them as a one big lump. Although I find Greenies antagonistic most of the time, their mantra "Act locally, think globally" is very apt. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 348998 | 2005-04-26 03:45:00 | By the way, anyone have any idea as to what activities consume the most energy? Hot water heating? |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 348999 | 2005-04-26 03:52:00 | I always thought "Hydro-electric Power" generation is the best. So what if it causes, some environmental or historical damage. Once built they can generate power forever (allowing for regular maintenance and upgrades), based on the natural fall of water by gravity. And it is really clean. The reservoirs can be used for managing water supply problems during droughts as well. Nuclear would be OK if we can ensure safe disposal and operation Wind turbines have visual polution (What a lame excuse is that) is dependent on wind Solar Power is dependent on the sun Hydro-Electric Power is dependent on rain Coal is dirty and dependent on finite fossil fuels (albeit NZ has 100+ years supply) While new power generation is bad by environmentalists, and everyone should use less they say, the truth is the world needs power and Hydro-Electric Power is the cleanest by far. |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 349000 | 2005-04-26 04:10:00 | Hydro-electric power does involve the flooding of large areas of land, and there are not many suitable sites left in New Zealand. The Think Big scheme in the South Island took an enormous amount of money and time to finish. | vinref (6194) | ||
| 349001 | 2005-04-26 04:31:00 | By the way, anyone have any idea as to what activities consume the most energy? Hot water heating? Hot Water accounts for 40% of the average domestic energy use. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 349002 | 2005-04-26 04:40:00 | Hot Water accounts for 40% of the average domestic energy use. Yeah, but I believe that domestic consumption overall is only about 30%-40% (or there abouts) of total consumption. Someone else may have more specific data. |
Cptn Hotshot (3904) | ||
| 349003 | 2005-04-26 04:41:00 | enormous amount of money and time to finish. True, but once built we have power aplenty. It's a little bit like a mortgage, you are paying your rent in advance, but once you have paid it off, your home running costs are significantly reduced. The payback for a Hydro-Scheme should be in a 30-50 year time frame. After that the power is almost free. Think big was only fininshed a little under 10-20 years ago, well outside this timetable. You need to think longer term. The Hoover Dam in the US is once of the biggest generators of power and it must be really cheap to run now. |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 349004 | 2005-04-26 04:47:00 | In the early days of electric reticulation, the only load was lighting, and there were big incentives to use electricity during the day. Lighting still consumes a large proportion. In a lot of commercial buildings lighting (and air conditioning to get rid of the heat from lighting) will dominate everything else. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 349005 | 2005-04-26 05:28:00 | It wouldn't be so bad if bloody big franchises turned half their lights off | Edward (31) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||