Transmission line rejected

[Colapop]

Having spent time working on this project (last year) I am amazed that the EC has decided to reject building infrastructure for the largest metropolitan area in NZ. There's a very strong NIMBY attitude toward this type of project throughout NZ and it's backed by the RMA. (Project Aqua, Westwind) The problem is that these things are needed to supply resources (in this case power) to the people and industries that need them.

story (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3650173a10,00.html)

Just another case of short sighted governmental agencies ensuring that we force industry to head overseas. That's the way lets become a third world country!!

[Streetwise]

Wait untill auckland runs out of pwer then they might rethink the idea,

[SimJen]

What AK needs is its own powerstation.
Trouble is AK'ers don't want it near them, and the rest of the country don't see why they should fuck up their beautiful landscapes for the sake of Aucklanders, which they already have to partly fund with taxes etc.
I live in the country near where they were wanting to put Pylons, its got perfect rolling hills and well kept farmland as far as the eye can see. No wonder it met with massive opposition.
Clean Green NZ we are Not!! Fossil fuel burning for power is Archaic, and we have nowhere near the capacity to be able to use hydro.
Labour is taking the easy way out, they'll leave it till the next government is forced to take action and the flack for it. Someone please kill that hideous woman :)

[Finn]

Exactly Colapop. No to transmission gully, don't know why but no. No to wind power, it scares the wildlife, no, no, no to everything. I say we should get a nuclear power station just to piss off off the majority of Kiwi's who sit on their arses and do nothing.

Besides, it makes perfect sense.

[SimJen]

Exactly Colapop. No to transmission gully, don't know why but no. No to wind power, it scares the wildlife, no, no, no to everything. I say we should get a nuclear power station just to piss off off the majority of Kiwi's who sit on their arses and do nothing.

Besides, it makes perfect sense.

Exactly :rockon:

[Colapop]

I'm not saying that up close the towers are exactly eye catching, but the guys in the design office have done as much as they can possibly do to ensure that hey are as unobtrusive as possible. Let's be realistic, the only sustainable power station that could be built in Auckland is a nuclear plant. And that would go down like a lead brick!
The major problem is that successive governments are "leaving it until the next". Transmission Gully is another example of skyrocketing project costs.

:edit: sorry slow fat fniggers typing ---

[Swoop]

Yup, I've been thinking the same...
Nuclear powerstation just for Auckland...
JUST for pissing off the greenies!!!!! :blip:

[Finn]

Yup, I've been thinking the same...
Nuclear powerstation just for Auckland...
JUST for pissing off the greenies!!!!! :blip:

Yip. The powerstation would be for Auckland only but we should situate it in the South Island, just to be on the safe side. After all, the SI is dispensible.

[Swoop]

Yip. The powerstation would be for Auckland only but we should situate it in the South Island, just to be on the safe side. After all, the SI is dispensible.
I was thinking Howick.....

[Finn]

I was thinking Howick.....

Too close, but I like the way you think.

[SimJen]

Modern Nuclear stations use such a small amount of nuclear material that they actually run cleaner than Huntly station. Surely thats gotta be a good thing......no telling the Greenies though, their heads are still in the clouds as far as technology is concerned. If it was up to Fitzsimmons, we'd all be on unicycles (to save rubber) and using candles for light.

[Colapop]

We've got to think of the snails we'd have to move before we did that.

[Hitcher]

A solution is a coal-fired power station at Marsden Point. I was involved in a feasibility study for this a few years ago. Part of Auckland's problem is that it is on an isthmus and there are few corridors available to route electricity across the city. A solution is to generate to the north of the city and pipe the power southwards.

A coal-fired station at Marsden Point works for several reasons. It's a deep-water port, allowing large coal vessels (Cape size) to unload. The electricity infrastructure already exists there from the now mothballed oil-fired Marsden B plant.

The coal would not be New Zealand coal. It makes better sense to backload either Australian or Indonesian coal in empty coal ships returning to New Zealand.

The greenies don't like coal-fired stations for a bunch of reasons, particularly relating to carbon dioxide emissions. However there are some deep ocean injection technologies that exist that could be used to mitigate these -- another plus for a Marsden Point location for the plant.

Will it ever happen? Doubt it. Or at eight-times the price in 10 years time when black-outs and brown-outs have become a fact of life for Auckland.

[Finn]

I've had to buy a 40kva generator for work because of the possible power crisis and line quality. I got them to chuck in a generator for home too. I've also got solar panels for a possible future motorhome project that I've rigged up at home.

So when the lights go out in NZ and you lot are eating dinner out of rubbish bins, I'll be at home with a home cooked meal, a cool beer and I'll be watching the MotoGP.

Name and Address withheld.

[SimJen]

The motogp rights will be owned by sky then Finn, and they would have lost their satellite again.......
At least you'll have power :)

[Colapop]

If the NZ public embraced 'alternative' power sources the reality is that if there was a solar panel on every roof and a wind farm in every viable location then only 20% of NZ's current energy needs would be met. Nuclear power gets laughed out of every debate because of high profile historical events. It is just as safe as hydroelectric power generation.

[SimJen]

Modern Nuclear plants can no longer melt down such as Chernobyl did. So little fission material is used and so many counter measures are in place that an event such as Chernobyl would never happen again.
Chernobyl was an old substandard plant (when it was built) run by morons with little to no skill in operating.
Has the NZ public ever thought what would happen if a Dam breached? Im pretty sure Cambridge would be wiped out in a flash if Karapiro let go.

[Squeak the Rat]

Has the NZ public ever thought what would happen if a Dam breached? Im pretty sure Cambridge would be wiped out in a flash if Karapiro let go.
Really? If anybodies got any dynamite for sale please PM me.....

[SimJen]

You don't need dynomite, some glucose and fertiliser pellets will do....
Amateur Rocketry 101 :)

[Qkkid]

Too close, but I like the way you think.
:blip: even i got that one:yes:

[Swoop]

Has the NZ public ever thought what would happen if a Dam breached? Im pretty sure Cambridge would be wiped out in a flash if Karapiro let go.
Like the one above wellytown..... up the valley from parliament.....:blip:

[k14]

What AK needs is its own powerstation.
You've already got 2 fairly big ones, Huntly and Otahuhu, around 1400MW of generation there. Then there's the new station genesis is building at the moment (think its supposed to be online late next year) and they are also in the planning stage of another one slightly north of Auckland in the rodney district. Although I wouldn't hold my breath for it going ahead.

Yep hitcher is right, coal is the only option for NZ. There is a few thousand MW's of untaped hydro in the south island but thats never going to happen, don't think many people would like it if we flooded queenstown for a new 400MW hydro dam.

NZ has so much fucking coal its not funny. It would last us for years. Yeah it does emit some CO2 but these days it isn't too bad. The very old and dated New Plymouth and Huntly power stations emit a hell of a lot more.

Nuclear isn't an option for NZ (and no I'm not some greenie who has nightmares about Chernobyl). Our power infrastructure isn't big enough to be able to handle a nuclear station. Also the cost of building one is way too big for NZ to stomach.

[Hitcher]

Nuclear power gets laughed out of every debate because of high profile historical events. It is just as safe as hydroelectric power generation.
The generation side maybe. But there is just a wee bit of a problem with disposing of the nuclear waste and all of that lovely hot water...

[Swoop]

The generation side maybe. But there is just a wee bit of a problem with disposing of the nuclear waste and all of that lovely hot water...
Chuck it in the Waikato river with all the other filth that is sent to us as "drinking water"...

[Paul in NZ]

The generation side maybe. But there is just a wee bit of a problem with disposing of the nuclear waste and all of that lovely hot water...

I still have 2 daughters at home! Pipe the hot water to my place for their 3 hour showers. It will save me a fortune!

[Str8 Jacket]

I still have 2 daughters at home! Pipe the hot water to my place for their 3 hour showers. It will save me a fortune!

Jeepers, you sound just like my old man! :p He used to run the hot tap in the kitchen really hard just to get me out of the shower!

[oldrider]

Yup, I've been thinking the same...
Nuclear powerstation just for Auckland...
JUST for pissing off the greenies!!!!! :blip:
While I agree with your sentiments about the greenies, that is not a reason for building a nuclear power station!

The reason for building a nuclear power station at Auckland is, that it just makes sense.

Nuclear is actually the "GREENEST" option.

They (the greenies) are just too bloody stupid to understand that!

I agree that the greenie type people should have the right to live as they like and to be heard but how many of you really want to share their views and live a life like that by compulsion?

They love to make rules for everyone else you know!

For gods sake people wake up, they are over represented in this countries decision making process and careless voting will give them even more power!

Is that what you really want?

[Colapop]

Jeepers, you sound just like my old man! :p He used to run the hot tap in the kitchen really hard just to get me out of the shower!
I can't do that (equal pressure water system) so I just turn the water off completely!

[idb]

The nuclear issue has gone beyond an environmental debate though.
It is now so tied up in our national identity and overseas image it will be hard to change.
I suggest that we declare Waiheke Is. a separate country and build a nuclear station there.
That way we can put our hands on our hearts and insist that NZ is still nuclear-free.

[Colapop]

If they can't find the dope in Northland then we can hide one up there....

[Finn]

The nuclear issue has gone beyond an environmental debate though.
It is now so tied up in our national identity and overseas image it will be hard to change.
I suggest that we declare Waiheke Is. a separate country and build a nuclear station there.
That way we can put our hands on our hearts and insist that NZ is still nuclear-free.

NZ doesn't have an identity. We're still deciding what / who the fuck we are. But yes, the developed world does laugh at our nuclear free "status" among other things.

[idb]

NZ doesn't have an identity. We're still deciding what / who the fuck we are. But yes, the developed world does laugh at our nuclear free "status" among other things.
Why is it so important to have an identity?
Leave your labels at home daddyo.......I've got f*ck all in common with the rest of you!!!

And they're laughing with us!!

[SPman]

....Name and Address withheld.

...soooooooo, a small fee here , for keeping schtung..........................

Nuclear is not a real option - whilst the technology and operating systems are far better and safer than they used to be, the set up and removal costs are horrendous, as is the pile of used fuel to dispose of. A modern coal station would be much better. Tidal power? Solar roof panels?
How about active promotion and encouragement to save power - effecient building design,solar hot water heaters,etc, instead of the constant promotion of using more and more power, which we apparently have not enough of!

[Finn]

...soooooooo, a small fee here , for keeping schtung..........................


Ah. One of the few KB's who know where I live. What's your price?

[The_Dover]

I think they should build a nuclear power station.

All of the spent fuel could be made into aircraft components, bolted to Air NZ planes and conveniently fall off somewhere over Australia like the rest of the usual bits do.

[Pixie]

The nimby hippy wankers are protesting the proposed gas plant at helensville too.

They want wind power and lentil power.
I wonder if they know that northern european states are decomissioning wind farms because they don't work?

[Pixie]

Modern Nuclear stations use such a small amount of nuclear material that they actually run cleaner than Huntly station. Surely thats gotta be a good thing......no telling the Greenies though, their heads are still in the clouds as far as technology is concerned. If it was up to Fitzsimmons, we'd all be on unicycles (to save rubber) and using candles for light.
The Greenies are religious fanatics as ignorant as any muslim or christian fundamentalist

[Pixie]

I agree that the greenie type people should have the right to live as they like and to be heard but how many of you really want to share their views and live a life like that by compulsion?

I would go further and suggest they should be forced to live as they desire:
A stone age lifestyle,toiling at manual labour,being malnourished,having 50% infant mortality and dying at age 25.

Oh and make them wear green triangles too.

[Winston001]

I wonder if they know that northern european states are decomissioning wind farms because they don't work?

Apparently the government of South Australia has been fighting environmentalist cries for wind power - on the basis it doesn't stack up. Now the government have "discovered" a local parrot which might fly into the windmill blades and shuffle off it's mortal coil. The greenies can't answer that.

[Lou Girardin]

Yip. The powerstation would be for Auckland only but we should situate it in the South Island, just to be on the safe side. After all, the SI is dispensible.

Bugger off Noddy, there's too many good riding roads down there. I'd like it in Herne bay so that I could navigate home by the green glow.
As a plus, some irradiated DNA on your part might result in you producing some good looking kids.

[Finn]

Bugger off Noddy, there's too many good riding roads down there. I'd like it in Herne bay so that I could navigate home by the green glow.
As a plus, some irradiated DNA on your part might result in you producing some good looking kids.

I was doing so much better when you weren't around. Welcome back.

[Winston001]

There is some pretty irrational hysteria surrounding radioactive fallout. According to theory, poisoned land is sterile and unihabitable for 100+ years. But in practise the bombed areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima recovered remarkably with plants and insects reestablishing relatively quickly.

Same with Chernobyl with people now living within the "death" zone.

Not that radiation fallout is any small thing but it seems that the earth and its organisms is more resistant than originally understood.

[Swoop]

They want wind power and lentil power.
I wonder if they know that northern european states are decomissioning wind farms because they don't work?
No they don't. It was the nutters who stopped the wind farm on the south manukau heads because it "might frighten the horses".

Also, that cunt jeanette fitsimmons from the green hippy party, has shareholdings in the company that sells the wind generators!
Can anyone else spell "conflict of interest?"

[slimjim]

Modern Nuclear stations use such a small amount of nuclear material that they actually run cleaner than Huntly station. Surely thats gotta be a good thing......no telling the Greenies though, their heads are still in the clouds as far as technology is concerned. If it was up to Fitzsimmons, we'd all be on unicycles (to save rubber) and using candles for light.

:rockon: yup reckon too, that Auckland Goes Nuke Power:zzzz: plentry of empty space down on the water front,,:whocares:

[Hitcher]

I still have 2 daughters at home! Pipe the hot water to my place for their 3 hour showers. It will save me a fortune!
If you got them irradiated, they wouldn't need to wash...

[Colapop]

Apparently the government of South Australia has been fighting environmentalist cries for wind power - on the basis it doesn't stack up. Now the government have "discovered" a local parrot which might fly into the windmill blades and shuffle off it's mortal coil. The greenies can't answer that.
The point to note in that is that there is an argument for and against. There's always gonna be some study to back both sides of the argument. The best one I heard was how the Makara wind farm will affect the local dolphin population!! Apparently the silt mitigation will not be sufficient to negate run-off causing a decline in Sandhopper numbers, affecting then, Mullet which feed on Sandhopper and then Kahawai which feed on the Mullet and ultimately the Dolphins. Sometimes there's even less than 6 degrees of separation! And here was me thinking it was coz all the japs would come and marvel at our wonderous windfarm and stop oof for a snack...

[Winston001]

The point to note in that is that there is an argument for and against.........

Agreed. Can't really understand why Meridian etc are building wind farms unless they are trying to build up brownie points with the government. The economics are thin.

Yes you get electricity from wind, no, it isn't constant or very much.

Water has many times the mass of air which is why hydro systems are so simple and effective. Tidal power surely has got to be a better bet but what do we ever hear about that?

[sAsLEX]

The very old and dated New Plymouth power stations emit a hell of a lot more.



pfft that was flash as last time I was there.

With the operators like coiled springs at their stations.


Went to go up the chimney but the elevator was broken, hey its got a big chimney wonder why its got that........oh coal......and a deep water port........hmmmmm

[2_SL0]

Vortec energy was testing a wind turbine that would of been most suitable to the NZ market, however they either got squashed by the big players or went broke. Not sure which. But certainly their early testing was showing great potential.

[kickingzebra]

I am with nuclear energy. We spend so much time and money bitching about how bad it is, I say nationalise greenpeace, or otherwise silence them... Sell their pilfered assets, and the brains of any of the faithful paid up members, and use this money to fund research on nuclear waste recycling/disposal in an economically beneficial manner (we could sell fissionable materials to Iran, and other non hostile countries.. wucken fankers...)

There will be an answer to the nuclear waste problem, problem is assholes driving the country have heads stuck firmly up their asses, in a feat of remarkable dexterity. What bullshite.

Construction costs go up because everything is privatised in my opinion. We work for profit, that would be fine if the government actually bothered auditing where our taxpayer dollars go. I work for a construction company involved in some of the Prisons for example. Can you say gravy train?

The going rate for an employed carpenter should be about 27 to 30 dollars. On the prisons the powers that be are paying 100 plus. do the maths. I pay taxes too. there is no accountability, and that is where this bunch of hippy retards fall over, so much beaurocracy, but they are burning books and killing intellectuals. dumb busstids.

Rant never really over, just tide out for now...

[Milky]

Apparently the government of South Australia has been fighting environmentalist cries for wind power - on the basis it doesn't stack up. Now the government have "discovered" a local parrot which might fly into the windmill blades and shuffle off it's mortal coil. The greenies can't answer that.

I read that too - an interesting little snippet, it seemed from the tone of the article that the writer was pro wind anti fossil fuel. It also said that the governement was being swayed by the local oil and coal power producers who wanted to keep wind generation out as much as possible. There is so much hysteria about wind it is amazing... it is even comparable to the bad mouthing nuclear power gets.


How about active promotion and encouragement to save power - effecient building design,solar hot water heaters,etc, instead of the constant promotion of using more and more power, which we apparently have not enough of!

That is the most important thing methinks. How many of us still use incandescent bulbs at home? They cost 4-5 times as much in energy for the same light output. Most homes aren't made with passive solar in mind, or even insulated properly. I know mine isn't for one. I walked home from town one night - 2am or so - and went past a large number of places with aircon still on. It is crazy how inefficient and un-green, un-environmentally friendly we are as a country.

[Colapop]

Agreed. Can't really understand why Meridian etc are building wind farms unless they are trying to build up brownie points with the government. The economics are thin.

Yes you get electricity from wind, no, it isn't constant or very much.

Water has many times the mass of air which is why hydro systems are so simple and effective. Tidal power surely has got to be a better bet but what do we ever hear about that?
Tidal power studies have been done in NZ. Tidal flow has to be constant and strong enough to warrant installation of a tidal generator. The only place in NZ that one could be installed is in Cook Straight but the channel is not narrow enough to concentrate the flow required for generation.

The reality is that coal powered generation is the way to go. Unfortunately the gubermint has tied it's own hands with crap legislation such as the RMA. Yes the environment does need to be conserved but it has to be done in such a way that it is not so restrictive that nothing gets done. At the moment if you can prove an equitable case of hardship under the current legislation then you can appeal the consent. Abraham Lincoln said "You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" that is what this legislation trys to do.

[Pixie]

Agreed. Can't really understand why Meridian etc are building wind farms unless they are trying to build up brownie points with the government. The economics are thin.

Yes you get electricity from wind, no, it isn't constant or very much.

Water has many times the mass of air which is why hydro systems are so simple and effective. Tidal power surely has got to be a better bet but what do we ever hear about that?
I wonder how much power is generated by the tidal flows at the manukau and kaipara harbour mouths?

[Pixie]

I am with nuclear energy. We spend so much time and money bitching about how bad it is, I say nationalise greenpeace, or otherwise silence them... Sell their pilfered assets, and the brains of any of the faithful paid up members, and use this money to fund research on nuclear waste recycling/disposal in an economically beneficial manner (we could sell fissionable materials to Iran, and other non hostile countries.. wucken fankers...)

There will be an answer to the nuclear waste problem, problem is assholes driving the country have heads stuck firmly up their asses, in a feat of remarkable dexterity. What bullshite.

Construction costs go up because everything is privatised in my opinion. We work for profit, that would be fine if the government actually bothered auditing where our taxpayer dollars go. I work for a construction company involved in some of the Prisons for example. Can you say gravy train?

The going rate for an employed carpenter should be about 27 to 30 dollars. On the prisons the powers that be are paying 100 plus. do the maths. I pay taxes too. there is no accountability, and that is where this bunch of hippy retards fall over, so much beaurocracy, but they are burning books and killing intellectuals. dumb busstids.

Rant never really over, just tide out for now...
What few people realise is the small volume the worldwide yearly nuclear waste production takes up.
I may be wrong ,but I think I heard that it was equal to the volume of a three bedroom house

[TwoSeven]

Tidal power studies have been done in NZ. Tidal flow has to be constant and strong enough to warrant installation of a tidal generator. The only place in NZ that one could be installed is in Cook Straight but the channel is not narrow enough to concentrate the flow required for generation.


I dont believe that is actually true. One can generate enough power generate electricity off of a small creek to power a house, so what your saying is technically, there are no ocean currents around New Zealand.

Also, it would be ignoring wave generation which is incredibly cheap and anyone who has been to the west coast of new zealand would realise is incredibly viable. Many countries, not only use wave generation for power creation, but also fresh water generation as well.

Nuclear power is way to expensive. By the time one has trained up the experts, modified all the saftey laws, learned how to run a plant, figured out how to build the things, employed and trained staff, worked out how to dispose of the material - saved up enough money to be actually able to dispose of the waste material, figured out how to refine uranium, or even save up enough money to buy it, fork out for building an 'earthquake proof' plant, sorted out where to put the thing. Half the country would be bankrupt. Your talking about a country that cant afford $500 million for new roads, let alone a couple of billion for electricity. Heck, for that kind of money, you could almost build 10,000 wave generation plants. :)

[Lou Girardin]

What few people realise is the small volume the worldwide yearly nuclear waste production takes up.
I may be wrong ,but I think I heard that it was equal to the volume of a three bedroom house

But the nuclear question has always been beyond rational debate in NZ. It's now an article of faith as a NZ'er. They'd no more agree to newkiller power than the Catholics would decide that abortion is God's work.

[TwoSeven]

What few people realise is the small volume the worldwide yearly nuclear waste production takes up.
I may be wrong ,but I think I heard that it was equal to the volume of a three bedroom house
Not even in the ball park I think :). The encasement block they put the drums in for storage is about 5metres square. I think you may be just thinking of the raw material after its been processed, not how its packaged and stored.

In the US the liquid waste is stored in tanks that can be as big as one million gallon capacity that are then buried. What is called TLU waste is stored in special 40 gallon drums (its anything such as equipment that comes in contact with radioactivity), and the other various types of waste are often buried in huge concrete containers.

[k14]

Nuclear power is way to expensive. By the time one has trained up the experts, modified all the saftey laws, learned how to run a plant, figured out how to build the things, employed and trained staff, worked out how to dispose of the material - saved up enough money to be actually able to dispose of the waste material, figured out how to refine uranium, or even save up enough money to buy it, fork out for building an 'earthquake proof' plant, sorted out where to put the thing. Half the country would be bankrupt. Your talking about a country that cant afford $500 million for new roads, let alone a couple of billion for electricity. Heck, for that kind of money, you could almost build 10,000 wave generation plants. :)
But there's also another factor that you're forgetting. Say we did manage to scrounge up the expertise, money and other factors available to build a nuke plant.

The smallest nuclear power unit available is around the 1500-1800MW size. Thats a massive chunk of the total NZ generation (about 20%). Way way too much for NZ to support with its small infrastructure. The current biggest single generator in NZ is Otahuhu (380MW). The reason this is important is a little thing called reserve. The power market in NZ is setup so that it can handle the largest single sorce of power (currently Otahuhu) tripping off the system and the lights not going out (ie there is 380+MW of reserve generation available so that the instant a station drops off the grid it is there to take up the slack). If the nuclear plant was made then there would have to be enough reserve energy available to stop the lights going out, which NZ is no where near capable of with the current size of our generation capacity. Yeah maybe in 20 years when the power consumption is about 15000MW or so but not as it stands with max demand around the 7500MW mark.

So with these facts in mind NZ is restricted to either hydro or thermal. Gas is not available, hydro is basically tapped out so that just leaves coal. :rockon:

[Ixion]

,,

The smallest nuclear power unit available is around the 1500-1800MW size. Thats a massive chunk of the total NZ generation (about 20%). ,,

You are much mistaken. The great majority of reactors are far smaller than this. In fact 1300MW is the LARGEST common commercial size.

Techniatome in France supply "off the shelf" (not quite) modular reactors for power and heat in 100MW to 300MW sizes.

The Chinese NHR200 is a simple robust 200MW unit extensively used.

Russia has the VK300 (250MW) and a small version , the OKBM PWR (45 MW) designed to be mounted on a barge.

Chinergy is building now 195MW HTR-PM units in China.


Nuclear power plants are now available as modular standard units. You don't have to design them, just buy and install. The suppliers will provide training for operators. And of course you don't need to refine uranium, you just buy fuel rods from your friendly (not quite local) supplier.

"Nuclear waste" has become a bogeyman word, largely devoid of meaning. It is used to cover anything related to the nuclear industry, from the tailings at the uranium mine sites, through to (literally) the dust vacuumed from the power house floors. At one site in the USA , great play was made of the volume of daily waste produced. Shock. Horror. Until it was discovered that the WHOLE of the "waste" was in fact the waste from the staff cafeteria, and the waste paper bins in the offices .

The only "nuclear waste" that we need worry about is the spent fuel. Assuming this IS waste, because of course modern reactors can recycle it (MOX reactors). Send back the spent fuel rods, and they are "recharged".

If you use a "throw away" design (most US reactors are throw away, and most of the hysteria comes from the US. Go figure), then waste fuel production will be about 20 cubic metres per 1000MW per year. It varies of course. This is around 150 tonnes. As Mr Pixie said, about the size of a small house. This is the figure for the fuel itself. Containment will make that much larger, depending on what you contain it in.

[k14]

You are much mistaken. The great majority of reactors are far smaller than this. In fact 1300MW is the LARGEST common commercial size.

Techniatome in France supply "off the shelf" (not quite) modular reactors for power and heat in 100MW to 300MW sizes.

The Chinese NHR200 is a simple robust 200MW unit extensively used.

Russia has the VK300 (250MW) and a small version , the OKBM PWR (45 MW) designed to be mounted on a barge.

Chinergy is building now 195MW HTR-PM units in China.
Shit well is that a fact. What happens when you just go on what other people tell you.

[Ixion]

I think your information may be USA-centric. Most of the work in small reactors is coming from Europe and China (Russia being taken here as part of Europe).

In general they are leveraging naval technology.

The attraction of small reactors to Russia and China is obvious - they have vast distances and remote settlements. Supplying electricity is difficult. Fuel for conventional powerstations must be transported across great distance , or else cables run for equal distances in a most inhospitable climate.

Nuclear power design in the US has largely stagnated because of the political climate.

[k14]

I think your information may be USA-centric. Most of the work in small reactors is coming from Europe and China (Russia being taken here as part of Europe).

In general they are leveraging naval technology.

The attraction of small reactors to Russia and China is obvious - they have vast distances and remote settlements. Supplying electricity is difficult. Fuel for conventional powerstations must be transported across great distance , or else cables run for equal distances in a most inhospitable climate.

Nuclear power design in the US has largely stagnated because of the political climate.
Yeah from looking on wikipedia it seems that most around are in the 600-1200MW bracket but as you say there are smaller units coming along which disprove my theory.

But then it does indeed get back to the cost factor. I doubt any private company would put that much money into building one due to the inflexibility in starting and stopping them depending on market conditions. The repayment time would be very very long. That only leaves the government to build one and I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

[Jantar]

You are much mistaken. The great majority of reactors are far smaller than this. In fact 1300MW is the LARGEST common commercial size.

Techniatome in France supply "off the shelf" (not quite) modular reactors for power and heat in 100MW to 300MW sizes.

The Chinese NHR200 is a simple robust 200MW unit extensively used.

Russia has the VK300 (250MW) and a small version , the OKBM PWR (45 MW) designed to be mounted on a barge.

Chinergy is building now 195MW HTR-PM units in China.


Yes, Ixion, there are smaller modular units available, but you also need to look at the uses that they have. The Techniatome units are designed for maritime use (read nuclear submarines), as are most of the other smaller units. There is progress being made on a smaller sized commercial unit of around 250 MW which is designed as a throw away unit. The idea being that it would be built undeerground, and at the nd of its useful life, instead of a massively expensive decommissioning process, the unit would be de-fueled, de-watered, then simply buried.

Most modern commercial units are around the 1000 MW size, which as K14 pointed out, is too large for NZ. The Russian 250 MW are currently the smallest commercial units that potentially could be suitable for NZ.

There is however another issue with nuclear power in NZ that has nothing to do with radiation or economics, and little to do with reserve requirements. Nuclear power units, once they go critical, are only pratical when at 100% load. This is fine in large robust countries and continents where even a 1000 MW reactor is less than 1% of the total demand and the supply area is spread over a number of time zones. Here in New Zealand we only have one time zone. Most of the country get up at around the same time time each day, there is a morning peak demand, followed by an afternoon trough, then a large evening peak demand, and a very low overnight demand. Hydro plant, fast start gas turbines and older style thermal units can cope with this changing load pattern quite easily. More modern combined cycle plant struggles, and nuclear plant is totally unsuitable.

Even in today's situation it is difficult to manage load patterns with Otahuhu and Stratford combined cycle plant having minimum load setpoints that are difficult for the country's electricity supply to handle. Until our consumption grows and flattens, Nuclear is not a viable option. (more Calmocos anyone?).

[sAsLEX]

NP and Huntly used to be alot bigger didnt they K14/Jantar?

Cough . The station (450 megawatts) is designed to use either fuel oil or natural gas, which comes from your own bloody website in fact! cough

But I do relise the like of otahu have required the decom of half the units at NP

and your: The power station is capable of producing 432 megawatts of power from its four turbine generator units.
Again according to your website

And also wouldn't a supply contract for NUclear fuel be complete, ie I will buy three tonnes of fuel per year and you take the waste back with you.

[Jantar]

NP and Huntly used to be alot bigger didnt they K14/Jantar?

Cough . The station (450 megawatts) is designed to use either fuel oil or natural gas, which comes from your own bloody website in fact! cough

But I do relise the like of otahu have required the decom of half the units at NP

and your: The power station is capable of producing 432 megawatts of power from its four turbine generator units.
Again according to your website

And also wouldn't a supply contract for NUclear fuel be complete, ie I will buy three tonnes of fuel per year and you take the waste back with you.


NP (New Plymouth) has 3 units each capable of just over 100 MW and each of these can go down to a minimumof 45 MW. There is a 4th unit incapable of running and never likely to run again, and the 5th unit has already been de-commissioned. Huntly has 4 units, each of 250 MW, and each unit is capable of going down to a minimum of 80 MW.

As you correctly note Clyde is listed as being capable of 432 MW. It is actually capable of more than this, but is limited by resource consent conditions. But that is from 4 units, each one capable of only 116 MW.

The largest single unit in New Zealand is the Otahuhu station at around 370 MW, but even then it can reduce its load to 240 MW.

With Nukes, we are talking of a single unit that stays at full load all the time it is generating. And 240 MW is pretty small for a commercial nuke. I would hope that any contract for nuclear material would be complete, but I still maintain that New Zealand's physical electricity system is too small for nukes . It may change in the future, and I hope I live long enough to see it. I would love to watch the commissioning of a nuke station.

[Winston001]

Understand your point Jantar, but why can't we have a nuclear plant at say 600MW and Clyde, Roxburgh and Benmore just idling? Spill or hold the water, only run a couple of generators, and if the nuc drops off the grid spin up the idle hydro generators.

It might mean the nuc needs to be in Picton but its got to be somewhere.

[sAsLEX]

NP (New Plymouth) has 3 units each capable of just over 100 MW and each of these can go down to a minimumof 45 MW. There is a 4th unit incapable of running and never likely to run again, and the 5th unit has already been de-commissioned. Huntly has 4 units, each of 250 MW, and each unit is capable of going down to a minimum of 80 MW.


Yeah have watched the death of NP, mum and dad built it, dad stil goes in for his evening and day time naps and trademe.....

[k14]

Understand your point Jantar, but why can't we have a nuclear plant at say 600MW and Clyde, Roxburgh and Benmore just idling? Spill or hold the water, only run a couple of generators, and if the nuc drops off the grid spin up the idle hydro generators.

It might mean the nuc needs to be in Picton but its got to be somewhere.
Not quite as simple as that, apart from that fact that clyde and roxburgh are privately owned and (i doubt contact are ever going to build a nuke plant) you just can't justify spilling water willy nilly cause thats money straight down the drain as far as they are concerned. If you have 600MW idle right next to a nuke plant then how are you better off from before you built the plant?

If you want me to explain the way the reserve works a little more indepth then I don't mind but it will take me a while. It basically runs off each plants overload that it can put out for a short amount of time. Every plant has it but its only used in the event of a generator dropping off, so just having a complete idle plant isn't the sort of reserve we are talking about. It could make a small amount of sense if the fuel it uses costs alot of money but then there's other problems that arise.

[Jantar]

Understand your point Jantar, but why can't we have a nuclear plant at say 600MW and Clyde, Roxburgh and Benmore just idling? Spill or hold the water, only run a couple of generators, and if the nuc drops off the grid spin up the idle hydro generators.

It might mean the nuc needs to be in Picton but its got to be somewhere.

The reserve that we are talking about is what is known as PLSR (Partly Loaded Spinning Reserve). This is the difference between what a plant is actually geneerating, and what it is capable of generating. It also must be in the island at risk because the two islands are coupled by a DC link, not AC. All plant has a minimum load that it can run at. Below this minimum hydro turbines are likely to suffer cavitation damage, and thermal stations can have flame instability and HP drum issues. Most hydro plant has an operating minimum of 50% load. (ie a 100 MW generator has a minimum of 50 MW). Some stations can go lower like Maraetai, but others have a higher minimum.

However in general terms to have a 600 MW nuke on the system, we would also have to have 1200 MW of other connected plant generating at 600 MW, plus other plant that doesn't have any reserve capability, but cannot be shutdown due to technical or resource consent issues. At present if a 600 MW nuke was in the North Island, the minimum generation would be around 2300 MW, but this is higher than the overnight demand, so something has to give.

[thehollowmen]

Nuclear isn't an option for NZ (and no I'm not some greenie who has nightmares about Chernobyl). Our power infrastructure isn't big enough to be able to handle a nuclear station. Also the cost of building one is way too big for NZ to stomach.

I think a pebble pile reactor would work just fine here.

[Motu]

They are building a new 300 and something generator at Huntly at the moment.The problem at Huntly is what they can put back into the river,they can't get the temps over 25C,so in summer they have to cut back to one generator running at minimum,close to shutting down the whole plant.So with the new plan comes a cooling tower,what I take to be the cooling tower has been buiilt and tested - it's not a tower but the long low building you see out front with 11 big chimneys.There could be some issues when it gets going - on the test runs in the early morning it's a fog producer,you can't see the rest of the power station for the mist it puts out.

[sAsLEX]

They are building a new 300 and something generator at Huntly at the moment.The problem at Huntly is what they can put back into the river,they can't get the temps over 25C

Similar problems for all thermal stations pretty much. NP has the same problems. Dont understand why they cant though, New Zealand has hundreds of isolated hot spots due to thermal activity, heck you can cook your trout in the sand at certain points round Lak Taupo so whats wrong with a little warm water produced by man rather than nature?!

[TwoSeven]

You are much mistaken. The great majority of reactors are far smaller than this. In fact 1300MW is the LARGEST common commercial size.


You might find that smaller reactors are one off use models. There is a ratio between required size and output of a reactor.

Reactors only produce heat, not electricity - they require another plant to do the latter. To produce a certain amount of heat required to produce the steam used to generate lekky, takes a core of a certain size which requires a certain amount of fuel and area to handle the heavy water.



Nuclear power plants are now available as modular standard units. You don't have to design them, just buy and install. The suppliers will provide training for operators. And of course you don't need to refine uranium, you just buy fuel rods from your friendly (not quite local) supplier.


There is a big difference in calling in bob the builder to make a new barn and a specialist reactor building firm to commission a new reactor.

I doubt that 'training operators' is as easy as you make it sound. Its not like training people to work in a garment factory.



"Nuclear waste" has become a bogeyman word, largely devoid of meaning. It is used to cover anything related to the nuclear industry, from the tailings at the uranium mine sites, through to (literally) the dust vacuumed from the power house floors. At one site in the USA , great play was made of the volume of daily waste produced. Shock. Horror. Until it was discovered that the WHOLE of the "waste" was in fact the waste from the staff cafeteria, and the waste paper bins in the offices .

The only "nuclear waste" that we need worry about is the spent fuel. Assuming this IS waste, because of course modern reactors can recycle it (MOX reactors). Send back the spent fuel rods, and they are "recharged".

If you use a "throw away" design (most US reactors are throw away, and most of the hysteria comes from the US. Go figure), then waste fuel production will be about 20 cubic metres per 1000MW per year. It varies of course. This is around 150 tonnes. As Mr Pixie said, about the size of a small house. This is the figure for the fuel itself. Containment will make that much larger, depending on what you contain it in.

I suspect you may be a bit limited in your understanding of what 20 cubic meters of waste uranium actually is. Its not like disposing of 150 tonnes of sheep shyte. Also, you seem to be completely unaware exactly the range of items that do need to be disposed of. Ever wonder what happens to the radiation tags people wear ?

You may want to have a read thru this (http://www.ierp.bham.ac.uk/events/Hesketh%20-%20Reactor_economics_Daresbury_1.pdf) document to see whats invovled. Its about Sizewell B, the last reactor built in the UK.

Roughly speaking it costs about NZ$7b to build and took 13 years to be completed. Its operating costs are about nz$340m per year.