New Zealand Power (from Don't Vote Labour)

[sAsLEX]

they will change the coal fired power stations to Kitten and Puppy fired,

Might need to soon
http://stuff.co.nz/4342184a13.html
Greenies have fucked our power supply

[Mully]

Might need to soon
http://stuff.co.nz/4342184a13.html
Greenies have fucked our power supply

Fuck.

They wont be happy until we are the laughing stock of the developed world, will they?

What annoys me more, is that this country can't even have an open debate about the pros and cons surrounding nuclear power. As soon as someone uses the "N" word (nuclear), they get screamed down.

[smoky]

Fuck.

They wont be happy until we are the laughing stock of the developed world, will they?

What annoys me more, is that this country can't even have an open debate about the pros and cons surrounding nuclear power. As soon as someone uses the "N" word (nuclear), they get screamed down.

What - you f......n retard, don't start that bullshyt around here. Keep your Nuclear holocaust ideas to your self you imbecile, don’t you know anything – you want to kill our environment, destroy our clean green image, where do we put the waste? Huh – come on!

Something like that :banana:

[sAsLEX]

where do we put the waste?



Thats too fuckin easy..... Australia..... along with Russel Crowe and whoever else they decide to steal

[RiderInBlack]

Thats too fuckin easy..... Australia..... along with Russel Crowe and whoever else they decide to steal
Why not. The US have. Part of their dessert is radioactive due US nuke testing years ago.

[Mully]

Something like that :banana:

Yup, that's it. Almost exactly like that.

[rainman]

Perhaps you would Bryan Leyland a bit more believable: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0712/S00060.htm

Don't know him but I think his organisation may be inclined to downplay the climate change angle informing the energy policy in question.

Besides, I don't disagree with the broad premise that unless we keep burning fossil fuels our energy supply will be less reliable. That was the "well duh!" bit of my first post. I just think this is a necessary but unfortunate consequence - continuing to burn fossil fuels as we have done is no longer a defensible, moral, or acceptable option. I'd welcome someone finding a magic technology solution that allows business as usual (recent advances in solar look promising) but don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that life should be the same tomorrow as it is today.

[cowpoos]

What - you f......n retard, don't start that bullshyt around here. Keep your Nuclear holocaust ideas to your self you imbecile, don’t you know anything – you want to kill our environment, destroy our clean green image, where do we put the waste? Huh – come on!

Something like that :banana:
this a pisstake?? nuc power is the esaiest/cheapest/eviromentally way forward...its redculass that NZders can't see this...but then it makes to much sence!!

[Mully]

this a pisstake?? nuc power is the esaiest/cheapest/eviromentally way forward...its redculass that NZders can't see this...but then it makes to much sence!!

Fuck, I hope it was a pisstake. I green blinged him for it for helping make my point.

[smoky]

this a pisstake??

Of course - don't take me seriously (ever)

[smoky]

Fuck, I hope it was a pisstake. I green blinged him for it for helping make my point.

I hope Hitcher doesn’t chuck this in PD

I agree with your comments to a degree, but I don’t think NZ needs to head down the ‘N’ track – despite the ignorance around it’s benefits, I think the benefits that come from being Nuclear free are greater.
And I think we have a country that lends it’s self to efficient production of non fossil fuelled power with out it.
The future is having far more efficient homes with less reliance on the national grid, alternative power supplies like personal fuel cells running on sea water – just need to invent it.

[Jantar]

Yes, it was a pisstake. :shifty:

The idea of nuke power has been debated on here a number of times, eg http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=594742#post594742
Nuclear power is not suitable for New Zealand, and it has nothing to do with waste, risk, cost or anything similar. The reason it isn't suitable is because Nuke stations are Base load only, and New Zealand is a variable consumer.

Not one of the major political parties understand that, and they continue to debate the waste, risk, and cost.

[k14]

Yep exactly right Jantar :msn-wink:! The whole history of us going nuke free was a cock up from the beginning. All it was supposed to do was ban nuclear weapons (quite rightly) from our shores. Banning nuke powered ships (which are as clean if not cleaner than the hundreds of diesel powered ones that arrive here every week) and power generation was short sighted by the gvnmt. But I digress.

Even though its regarded as pretty dirty, coal is probably the most viable short term solution. There is a bit of gas around but nothing of significance. There's still plenty of scope for hydro but the RMA quickly puts a stop to that.

You north islanders better pray for a windy winter next year or you're gonna have 1 night a week in the dark :eek:

[sAsLEX]

You north islanders better pray for a windy winter next year or you're gonna have 1 night a week in the dark :eek:

No way


http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Caravans-motorhomes/Accessories/auction-134773130.htm

[Mully]

The reason it isn't suitable is because Nuke stations are Base load only, and New Zealand is a variable consumer.

Thanks Jantar, please feel free to chuck this is a new thread if you like.

I'm just trying to understand "Base Load" for my own understanding.

I assume Base Load means that you can't vary the output quickly? How does this vary from the Coal/Hydro etc that we have now? Can they instantly adjust for demand? And how could wind or solar adjust? Would we need enormous batteries to store power that was surplus when it was generated?

Personally, if nuclear wasn't a valid option, I'd favour tidal power, combined with solar at a household level.

[k14]

Thanks Jantar, please feel free to chuck this is a new thread if you like.

I'm just trying to understand "Base Load" for my own understanding.

I assume Base Load means that you can't vary the output quickly? How does this vary from the Coal/Hydro etc that we have now? Can they instantly adjust for demand? And how could wind or solar adjust? Would we need enormous batteries to store power that was surplus when it was generated?

Personally, if nuclear wasn't a valid option, I'd favour tidal power, combined with solar at a household level.
Yes base load is exactly that, a quantity of energy that is always going to be consumed no matter what the situation. Since NZ has such a small industry base the power demand is very peaky, thus there is little or no room for genuine base load stations (eg nuclear). There is current some semi-base load generators but they get turned off from time to time. For instance the coal Huntly and gas Otahuhu and Stratford. They can't just go down to 10MW at the min period of demand (around 5am) and then up to max load (250 to 400MW) by 8am. They have a min load of around 100-200MW where they cannot go lower unless turned off. Once they're off they can take anywhere from 12 to 48 hours to be up to full load again.

There is a small amount of NZ hydro that is also base generation, eg the clutha scheme (Clyde and Roxburgh) because they have no capacity to store water over longer than approx 24 hours. The big schemes (Taupo and Waitaki) are able to store water for years if they choose, but its normally for 6-9 months.

You cannot store wind energy. Whereas all other forms of generation has to be forecasted and bidded into the market, wind can come and go as it pleases. Thus as soon as a wind farm gets a puff it can go from say 1MW to 100MW in 5 minutes. So in usual scenarios a nearby station (can be gas, hydro etc) will get backed off. So this is essentially storing the potential energy generation (gas or water) and all works fine and dandy so long as the gas pipeline of the thermal station or the head lake of the hydro station isn't already at its capacity. If it is then you are no better off from where you started. This is probable scenario of many of the proposed wind farms atm.

I think that the solar idea has its merits. Along with better power conservation techniques (we waste a boat load of power in poorly insulated homes etc) and we will be better off. That alone won't fix the problem though. Some major investment is required to do that.

[Ixion]

What about the aluminium smelter? That should be a decent base load ?

[k14]

What about the aluminium smelter? That should be a decent base load ?
Yeah its pretty much base load of 630MW 24/7 but it has virtually all its power supplied by Manapouri. At times they are slightly different but it is rare for Manapouri to be doing less than 400MW. Both Manapouri and Tiwai can nearly be taken out of the NZ system all together.

[sAsLEX]

I think that the solar idea has its merits. Along with better power conservation techniques (we waste a boat load of power in poorly insulated homes etc) and we will be better off. That alone won't fix the problem though. Some major investment is required to do that.

Better monitoring of power will also help maintain frequencies in times of high load.

AU is looking at each house having a little black box that allows an advanced form of ripple control so that the supplies/somone can turn off certain things such as appliance circuits but leave lighting etc to avoid blackouts

[Swoop]

Nuclear power is not suitable for New Zealand,
Disagree! Nuke is perfect because it will make the greenies apoplectic!!!:devil2:

You north islanders better pray for a windy winter next year or you're gonna have 1 night a week in the dark
Every night of the week it is dark...
Are you that far south that daylight is 24hrs per day???:whistle:

[Ixion]

Yeah its pretty much base load of 630MW 24/7 but it has virtually all its power supplied by Manapouri. At times they are slightly different but it is rare for Manapouri to be doing less than 400MW. Both Manapouri and Tiwai can nearly be taken out of the NZ system all together.

So, why could not the smelter be supplied from a nuke, and Manapouri (which is hydro and thus variable ? I think) be used for domestic demand?

[k14]

So, why could not the smelter be supplied from a nuke, and Manapouri (which is hydro and thus variable ? I think) be used for domestic demand?
Yeah thats a perfectly good idea but then you come to the NZ transmission system. To be honest, its a complete joke. We can't even get all the generation into the north island at the moment, let alone another up to 700MW of it.

The great majority of NZ generation is in the south island. The great majority of load is in the north island. Apart from being hugely inefficient, the NZ grid can't handle that. The power stations need to be built near the main load (Auckland) and not in the south island. You've probably seen how hard it is just to build a tiny transmission line from Whakamaru to Auckland so can probably see how hard it would be to build one all the way from the bottom of the SI.

[Mully]

Yes base load is exactly that, a quantity of energy that is always going to be consumed no matter what the situation.

Thanks for this. I can't bling you though.

[RiderInBlack]

The great majority of NZ generation is in the south island. The great majority of load is in the north island. Apart from being hugely inefficient, the NZ grid can't handle that. The power stations need to be built near the main load (Auckland) and not in the south island.
Sweet, I vote fa shifting Dorkland down ta SI ta be closer ta the power Stations then. Would solve the Habour Bridge trafic problem too:bleh::dodge:

[skidMark]

this a pisstake?? nuc power is the esaiest/cheapest/eviromentally way forward...its redculass that NZders can't see this...but then it makes to much sence!!


are you critisizing uncle helens common sense....????

her logic is undeniable

hand my sum nanities


(iRobot n00bs)

[jtzzr]

Every night of the week it is dark...
Are you that far south that daylight is 24hrs per day???:whistle:[/QUOTE]

:laugh::rofl::rofl:

[Grahameeboy]

Sweet, I vote fa shifting Dorkland down ta SI ta be closer ta the power Stations then. Would solve the Habour Bridge trafic problem too:bleh::dodge:

What traffic problem?

[Colapop]

From what I've been told (by a person in Transpower) if all the areas in NZ that had enough wind (of the right speed, consistency etc) had wind turbines on them, then they would only generate enough power at full capacity to supply 10% of NZ's needs. There are currently two geothermal power plants being built with a 3rd to be built shortly thereafter. This is part of a proposal to build up to 10.

I understand that if only the smallest nuclear plant was built it would too big for NZ's needs. Is that correct Jantar or K14?

[Usarka]

Most countries on the planet have been experiencing extreme unpredicted weather patterns over the last couple of years.

Hey, lets put all our money on the fact that NZ is a windy place.....

[AllanB]

2020 - the government announce a new tax relief package:

All tax payers consuming more than 1kg of onions and facing west towards their local wind warm at 6pm each evening will be able to claim a 'wind allowance' on their tax return.

[RiderInBlack]

2020 - the government announce a new tax relief package:

All tax payers consuming more than 1kg of onions and facing west towards their local wind warm at 6pm each evening will be able to claim a 'wind allowance' on their tax return.Will it help if we get all the sheep and cows ta face the same way:rolleyes:

[Jantar]

From what I've been told (by a person in Transpower) if all the areas in NZ that had enough wind (of the right speed, consistency etc) had wind turbines on them, then they would only generate enough power at full capacity to supply 10% of NZ's needs.

This is correct in terms of energy (average power), but the peak potential is around 2000 MW which is 33% of our peak winter demand. The problem is that the wind may not be blowing during the period of high demand, or it may be blowing during a summer trough when the demand is only 3000 MW, so what do we do with the extra? I suspect what he was actually saying is that greatest installed capacity that the country can cope with is 10%, or around 600 MW. Any more than this will cause serious problems with scheduling, dispatch, and transmission.



There are currently two geothermal power plants being built with a 3rd to be built shortly thereafter. This is part of a proposal to build up to 10.

Only two have so far been consented, and the Minister has called in consents on a third one. There are a further possible seven steam fields that could be utilised if they can get consent. Most of these are unlikely. (Whakawera in Rotorua for example). Even if all were built the output would be less than Clyde Dam.



I understand that if only the smallest nuclear plant was built it would too big for NZ's needs. Is that correct Jantar or K14?

The smallest commercial reactors are far too big for New Zealand. There are small specialist reactors like those designed for nuclear submarines that are small enough for NZ, if you want to pay $0.40 per unit running costs. The current research into pebble bed reactors may produce plant small enough at a reasonable cost. Just don't hold your breath.

[McJim]

So where are the plans for a greenie fired power station?

Geothermal power is the way to go. Drill 2 bore holes that join at the bottom, pour water down one and stick a turbine over the other one. Repeat as required until power problem solved - easy.:rofl:

[davereid]

As Jantar points out, wind power can't be easily stored.

But its also very expensive - were it not for "carbon credits" it would be un-economic.

The machines are pretty horrible too - massive structures which take a lot of building, a lot of maintaining, and only manage to produce about 0.6Mw each under perfect conditions.

With just a tiny bit of nitrous, I can get that out of my car !

The reality is, all these wind generators could be replaced with a single diesel engine, that could fit in my barn !

[sAsLEX]

The smallest commercial reactors are far too big for New Zealand. There are small specialist reactors like those designed for nuclear submarines that are small enough for NZ, if you want to pay $0.40 per unit running costs. The current research into pebble bed reactors may produce plant small enough at a reasonable cost. Just don't hold your breath.

How large are they, MW?

[RiderInBlack]

The smallest commercial reactors are far too big for New Zealand. There are small specialist reactors like those designed for nuclear submarines that are small enough for NZ, if you want to pay $0.40 per unit running costs. The current research into pebble bed reactors may produce plant small enough at a reasonable cost. Just don't hold your breath.So no "Mr Fusion" for the Dalorian yet:dodge:

[Jantar]

The reactors for naval use are around 190 - 250 MW, but very expensive to operate. For a list of commercial reactors currently certified or undergoing trials see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

There are a couple listed that may be suitable for NZ in the future at 180 - 360 MW range.

[sAsLEX]

The reactors for naval use are around 190 - 250 MW, but very expensive to operate. For a list of commercial reactors currently certified or undergoing trials see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

There are a couple listed that may be suitable for NZ in the future at 180 - 360 MW range.

Surely something around 360MW would be sustainable?
IRIS Westinghouse et al 360 PWR Pre-certification 2010

I mean what is the minimum NI load?

[Bikernereid]

Look to the frogs as they have got their power supllies sorted out and I would say that one of their nuclear power plants could sort you guys (and girls before I offend someone) nicely.




From what I've been told (by a person in Transpower) if all the areas in NZ that had enough wind (of the right speed, consistency etc) had wind turbines on them, then they would only generate enough power at full capacity to supply 10% of NZ's needs. There are currently two geothermal power plants being built with a 3rd to be built shortly thereafter. This is part of a proposal to build up to 10.

I understand that if only the smallest nuclear plant was built it would too big for NZ's needs. Is that correct Jantar or K14?

[Jantar]

Yes, the IRIS would be a suitable size. Not yet certified, but it does show promise. It is also in the same size range as Otahuhu, Huntly E3P and Stratford which are our current largest units.

[sAsLEX]

Yes, the IRIS would be a suitable size. Not yet certified, but it does show promise. It is also in the same size range as Otahuhu, Huntly E3P and Stratford which are our current largest units.

Yeah misread your post a little sorry!


But would would the min load be?

Those are all combined cycle single units are they?

[rainman]

As Jantar points out, wind power can't be easily stored.

But its also very expensive - were it not for "carbon credits" it would be un-economic.

The machines are pretty horrible too - massive structures which take a lot of building, a lot of maintaining, and only manage to produce about 0.6Mw each under perfect conditions.

With just a tiny bit of nitrous, I can get that out of my car !

The reality is, all these wind generators could be replaced with a single diesel engine, that could fit in my barn !

What about using the excess generated wind power to pump water back up the dam systems? I expect that would have poor efficiency at this stage but would be better than just throwing it away.

I actually like the look of a line of turbines on a hillside, but I take your point that they take a bit of building..

As to the un-economic argument, I don't think it's reasonable to call this when all of the externalities aren't priced in to the current set of generation options. Sure, from an engineering perspective, the diesel generator is easier, but if climate change is as real a problem as it seems (sounds like a safe bet, the howls of denial are now only coming from the fringes) then it isn't better. We do need to adjust our value systems in response to a changing planet.

We seem to have lost our ability to execute large-scale planned change, what with the recent-ish shift to more libertarian ideals in the west. Unfortunately some problems do require more intelligence than a simple market mechanism can bring to bear. More unfortunately we don't have any suitably states-person like government options to deal with the problem either!

[sAsLEX]

the diesel generator is easier

a diesel engine can be made to run on basically anything, say biofuel........

[Jantar]

Yeah misread your post a little sorry!


But would would the min load be?

Those are all combined cycle single units are they?

Minimum North Island load would be around 1800 MW.

And yes, those 3 listed are all combined cycle plant.

[Bikernereid]

Can be efficiently made from Sugar beets, wood chips etc etc and requires no adaption for cars upto a a certain % so whay the hell can't some spoddy little engineer (sAsLEX, not you!!) make it work for energy supplies. Oh shit oil and petrolium industry lobbying politicicans!!


a diesel engine can be made to run on basically anything, say biofuel........

[Jantar]

What about using the excess generated wind power to pump water back up the dam systems? I expect that would have poor efficiency at this stage but would be better than just throwing it away.

This is called Pump Storage, and it is very efficient. It only works though when the hydro station has a lake both above and below it. If it has a river below then it would quickly empty the river, like in a few seconds, unless the river is one that flows uphill. The only place in New Zealand where there is a lake both above and below a hydro station is at Tokaanu, and this could be used for a small amount of pumped storage. Lake Rotoaira at the top is very small, so it would still only be effective for a few hours, like overnight.

Another potential site is the neck between Hawea and Wanaka, if we could ever get the conservation order removed from Wanaka.


...but if climate change is as real a problem as it seems (sounds like a safe bet, the howls of denial are now only coming from the fringes) then it isn't better.
A seperate debate, but the howls of denial are now coming from most of the scientific community. Its the political and greeny community who keep trying to tell us the debate is over.


We seem to have lost our ability to execute large-scale planned change, what with the recent-ish shift to more libertarian ideals in the west. Unfortunately some problems do require more intelligence than a simple market mechanism can bring to bear. More unfortunately we don't have any suitably states-person like government options to deal with the problem either!

Oh, so true. As any engineer or scientist will tell you, "The laws of physics and the laws of economics are incompatible with each other."

[Pixie]

Why not. The US have. Part of their dessert is radioactive due US nuke testing years ago.

Trifle or instant pudding?

[davereid]

Can be efficiently made from Sugar beets, wood chips etc etc and requires no adaption for cars upto a a certain % so whay the hell can't some spoddy little engineer (sAsLEX, not you!!) make it work for energy supplies. Oh shit oil and petrolium industry lobbying politicicans!!

So true. In fact the petrol engine was developed from Mr. Ottos original engine which was designed to run on ethanol.

Mr. Diesels engine was also developed to run on biofuel - the original design used peanut oil.

And ethanol has a "big brother", brewed using a process very similar to making Gin, called N-Butanol.

N-Butanol will go straight in your V8, without modification to the car. It can also be shipped and distributed via existing fuel pumps. Its just not economic while petrol is so cheap and plentiful as it is now.

Diesels are popular for power generation, simply because they are very good at it. Relatively easy to start and stop. Easy to run over a wide load range while still keeping to 50hz, and still very cheap to run.

Good diesels will make a kw/hr of energy using about 1/2 cup of diesel/peanut oil/tallow. And when you don't need it any more, turn it off and go home.

I was involved with the installation of a (30Mw?) diesel generator at Henderson Field in the Solomon Is. years ago. I was very impressed by just how simple it was, and how efficient.

[Pixie]

Better monitoring of power will also help maintain frequencies in times of high load.

AU is looking at each house having a little black box that allows an advanced form of ripple control so that the supplies/somone can turn off certain things such as appliance circuits but leave lighting etc to avoid blackouts

Turn off everything in every household that described themselves as environmentalists at the last census.That should save some power:bye:

[Pixie]

I understand that if only the smallest nuclear plant was built it would too big for NZ's needs. Is that correct Jantar or K14?

The ones in submarines were pretty compact

[Pixie]

Can be efficiently made from Sugar beets, wood chips etc etc and requires no adaption for cars upto a a certain % so whay the hell can't some spoddy little engineer (sAsLEX, not you!!) make it work for energy supplies. Oh shit oil and petrolium industry lobbying politicicans!!

I'm a convert to biofuels.Apart from the relative carbon neutrality myth that keeps the hippies quiet,you also get an added benefit that the conversion of food crops to fuel crops and the associated global starvation,will reduce the earth's human population and that will reduce the world's power needs.
A win win situation.

[k14]

Diesels are popular for power generation, simply because they are very good at it. Relatively easy to start and stop. Easy to run over a wide load range while still keeping to 50hz, and still very cheap to run.

Good diesels will make a kw/hr of energy using about 1/2 cup of diesel/peanut oil/tallow. And when you don't need it any more, turn it off and go home.

We do have a diesel power station, Whirinaki. It is owned by the crown and installed for peaking. It is however very expensive compared to other forms of generation per MW. In the vacinity of $200 per Mwhr as opposed to say thermal around $40 to $50.

Surely something around 360MW would be sustainable?
IRIS Westinghouse et al 360 PWR Pre-certification 2010

I mean what is the minimum NI load?
Even 360MW would be pushing it. As we speak, the 2nd largest generator in NZ (Otahuhu-395MW) is turned off cause the load is not sufficient to support such a big unit. It is quite common for one of the big CCGT's in the north island to be off around the christmas new year period and even some long weekends (easter, labour weekend) because the demand isn't big enough.

Maybe in 10 years time when the base demand has increased, then NZ could support a 300ish MW nuke. But no chance now. Although in saying that, it would probably take 10 to 20 years to develop and build one.

[sAsLEX]

The ones in submarines were pretty compact

Yeah not really designed for power generation though, they ramp them up and down fairly regularly which leads to poisoning of the reactor and stuff like that so they only have a shortish life span

[Jantar]

And contributing to the very high running costs.

[sAsLEX]

And contributing to the very high running costs.

In general aren't Nukes cheap to "run" but its the construction and de-construction that ramps up the cost? Like the UK at the moment decommissioning all its old Nuke plants and buying Nuke power from France ......

[davereid]

We do have a diesel power station, Whirinaki. It is owned by the crown and installed for peaking. It is however very expensive compared to other forms of generation per MW. In the vacinity of $200 per Mwhr as opposed to say thermal around $40 to $50.


Yes, I was comparing diesels to wind generators, not to thermal stations. Whirinaki is a open cycle gas turbine, so its not really particularly efficient.

In fact, although I am sure your costs for Whirinaki are correct, it possibly tells us more about the cost of the fuel than anything else.

A conventional steam turbine power plant struggles to be 35% efficient. But it is an external combustion engine, so it will burn any old rubbish you can find, or you can use a bit of uranium to heat up the steam. ie low cost power, just a bit tricky to turn on and off.

A gas turbine is a little more efficient, but not much. And it needs to be fed a better class of fuel. But its easy to start and stop.

A combined cycle plant can reach about 60% efficiency. Thats is good as it gets really, but it needs good fuel, and it has a steam component as well, so you can't just tur the key and go hoe at the end of the day.

But diesels (reciprocating piston type) are second in efficiency to the combined cycle plant, and are better than the standard gas turbine. Plus, you can turn em on and off, with a minumum of fuss, and as long as you are happy to starve the third world, they are happy to run on home made fuel.

The other great thing about diesels, is you can just build em where you want the power. Put one under the Skytower, and Aucklands got 80Mw on tap, without a single powerline.

IMHO ...

#1 = Hydro. A great way to make power, but often needs a lot of infrastructure to transport the energy, not a limitless amount of rivers to be used, and currently seen as bad for the birds and native trout.

#2 = Thermal. Really good if the fuel is plentiful and cheap, ie geothermal or cheap coal/oil/gas. But getting harder to find cheap anything. And if fossil fuel powered seen as the enemy.

#3 = Nuclear. But not popular here due to twitter and tweet, and as prviously pointed out, what do you do with all the waste heat when all the load is turned off. Not easy to keep turning 'em on and off!

#4 = Solar. Not really a way of generating electricity at all. But can make a useful contribution by way of water heating at site, etc. Photovoltaics are crap and should be banned.

#5 = Wind. Not really very good at making power 24/7. Not cheap. Possibly very pollutant if visual effect counts for anything and lifecycle cost correctly accounted for.

#6 = Tidal etc. Experimental.. do we want the beach cluttered up with this shit ? If we stop water flowing through Cook Strait will we slow the rotation of the earth down, squash fish and scare dolphins ?

[Bullitt]

Maybe this is a stupid question but what happens if too much electricity is generated. Does it just get wasted or does it start blowing things up or what?

Maybe its because all the powerlines are full :msn-wink:

[RiderInBlack]

Could not something be done using the Cowshed Poo Ponds? Got ta be a fair bit of energy tied up in those. Surely the methane from those would at least power the milking shed and the farm?

[k14]

Maybe this is a stupid question but what happens if too much electricity is generated. Does it just get wasted or does it start blowing things up or what?

Maybe its because all the powerlines are full :msn-wink:
Nope not a silly question at all.

The overall body that sees all of NZ has power 24/7 is transpower. Now they have 2 control rooms (one in Hamilton and one in Wgtn) that are manned 24/7. The guys there are constantly monitoring the power demand and sending out instructions every 5 minutes to power stations (known as a dispatch instruction) telling them to increase or decrease their output as the demand does the same.

Now in between these five minute periods there is what's known as a frequency keeper in each of the islands. They are just following the frequency on a clock or graph to ensure that 50hz is maintained. At the moment its very unlikely that the frequency is bang on 50hz. Quite possibly 49.98 or 50.02hz. This is natural and the frequency is always oscillating from anywhere between 50.1 and 49.9 hz quite happily. When you turn on a light in your house, the generator closest to your house isn't able to instantly supply the power. So the stored energy in the power lines will drop its frequency ever so slightly for say 1/100th of a second, to cover the added load of your light. Then in that 1/100th of a second the generator can sense that the frequency has dropped slightly so increases its output to compensate and everyone is all happy :mobile:

Now we could go to the extreme case scenario of either a big chunk of generation or a big chunk of load tripping off. So if a big power station (ie Otahuhu 395MW) tripped off all of a sudden there would be a ~400MW shortfall of generation. The frequency would rapidly deplete to as low as 49hz and then other power stations would respond and try build the frequency slowly back up to its nominal 50hz. If the opposite happened and a large load tripped then the frequency goes high and generators have special protection to trip and try get back to 50hz.

So in essence, it is very hard to generate too much electricity. It can only be done when a large load source trips off. While this is a possibility it is pretty much never going to happen to a level where the end user will notice. I hope this is sufficient?

[sAsLEX]

Does that answer your question?

What he meant to say that too much generation will increase the frequency, was it not K14?.... nice edit......



So say we were down one station from New Plymouth closing and this winter the cook straight cable shits itself....... and say Stratford trips...... how long would I be without KB for? After all the other power stations trip in a cascade....

[davereid]

Maybe this is a stupid question but what happens if too much electricity is generated. Does it just get wasted or does it start blowing things up or what?

Maybe its because all the powerlines are full :msn-wink:

Not a stupid question, and it depends very much on how you are generating your power.

As silly as it seems, when you turn on a light, the energy to make the light go comes from the rotational inertia of a rotating machine somewhere on the power grid. It slows a little to provide the power you need, then the system feeds in more fuel to speed it back up.

In a hydro plant, that fuel is water. So they can "open the taps" and make a pretty good job of matching demand and supply.

Same in a gas turbine, or diesel. Just put the pedal on the gas, problem self corrects.

But a nuke or steam thermal plant is different. You heat water, and blast it through a steam turbine. By controlling the amount of steam you use, you control the amount of electricity you produce. But, if you arent using much steam, you have a problem - The heat you are producing is not being used. So your power station starts to get a bit warm. So you turn down the wick a bit, and gradually thing cool down. No instant response like a diesel, its a slow process.

With a nuke, its harder still. They have to be doing a certain amount of work, or they have to be off. They don't really have an "idle" setting.

Hence, I understand the problem at Chernobal (data may be a bit flaky here,) .. Techs lowered the station power output to 250Mw.. but she was designed to go down to 600Mw no lower.. too much heat going no-where, cooling system gave up, and the rest as they say is history

[Jantar]

...So say we were down one station from New Plymouth closing and this winter the cook straight cable shits itself....... and say Stratford trips...... how long would I be without KB for? After all the other power stations trip in a cascade....

We are already down one power station - New Plymouth has closed.
The Cook Straight cable is down to a single pole - half transfer.
and "Say Stratford trips" - No real problem as that won't cause a cascade. The frequency and voltage will fall, and there will be insufficient PLSR to make up the difference, so the AUFLS (Automatic Under Frequency Load Shedding) will trip and black out around 25% of the North Island. There is a 75% chance that you will still be able to acess KB.

Manual load restoration will commence as soon as enough people turn off their heaters, lights etc and go to bed. Worst case would be around 5 - 15 hours without KB.

[Ixion]

The reactors for naval use are around 190 - 250 MW, but very expensive to operate. For a list of commercial reactors currently certified or undergoing trials see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

There are a couple listed that may be suitable for NZ in the future at 180 - 360 MW range.

Stick a nuke on top of a geothermal field. Excess output steam can just be piped down into the field , which will store it, and a standard geothermal plant beside the nuke draws on the stored thermal energy as required.

Or use the nukes excess output to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be used as a greenie alternative fuel source. And the oxygen has a ready sale , could be a big export money maker.

And the beauty of it is, if the hydrogen-oxygen plant blew it would a really cool explosion - the hydrogen going up first, taking out the nuke, and the result opening up the geothermal field into a volcanic eruption. A REALLY big bang.

Just *think* of the scale of the popcorn sales !

[Jantar]

Just *think* of the scale of the popcorn sales !
:eek::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Fooman]

We do have a diesel power station, Whirinaki. It is owned by the crown and installed for peaking. It is however very expensive compared to other forms of generation per MW. In the vacinity of $200 per Mwhr as opposed to say thermal around $40 to $50.

Whirinaki uses diesel, but is is not a diesel (cycle) station - it is a couple of Pratt and Whitney FT8 twinpak gas turbines, burning diesel as the fuel, rather than natural gas. If the station was been run on a commercial basis (it is not), generation costs would be approximately 50% higher than natural gas (at approximately 7-10c/kWh rather than 5-7c/kWh). The $200/MWh figure is the spot price at which the station is turned on.

NP power station, before it shut down, also had the ability to run on diesel, to fire the boilers, rather than natural gas.

As a general rule of thumb, the cheapest (>5 MW) generation option are gas turbines, running on natural gas. Coal is next (higher capital cost). At my work, we've been doing some work on GT's that have been running on wellhead crude - it rots out the components something chronic, but because it is so cheap (no processing) it's economic to spend a few hundred thousand dollars replacing parts each year.

Cheers,
FM

[sAsLEX]

NP power station, before it shut down, also had the ability to run on diesel, to fire the boilers, rather than natural gas.


New Plymouth could run on Oil, have seen the components there myself!


The reason we got the chimney was it was originally going to be coal!

[rainman]

As any engineer or scientist will tell you, "The laws of physics and the laws of economics are incompatible with each other."

Nicely put!

[Swoop]

I vote that we put the nuke plant in the old Meremere power station. Far easier to get consent "we want to put a power plant where we have a powerplant"...
Two big cities nearby and some can even be piped up to Norfland.

Solved!


I'm a convert to biofuels.Apart from the relative carbon neutrality myth that keeps the hippies quiet,you also get an added benefit that the conversion of food crops to fuel crops and the associated global starvation,will reduce the earth's human population and that will reduce the world's power needs.
A win win situation.
I like this school of thought! Get all of those pesky, starving bastards off of the handout list, after all, they have destroyed their own countries agricultural capacity.

[davereid]

Of course a cynic would argue that Labour KNOW they have come up with a policy that is in conflict with reality !

So, what will happen ?

The market will adapt. Prices will go up, and the G'mint will reap a good profit.

We won't be spending anymore MAKING the power. But as we artificially constrained production, profit margins will be wonderfull.

But little old ladies wont be able to afford their heaters, and they can't light the fire 'cos we banned those LAST term.

So, they wil sit their with blankets on their knees, looking like starving labradors in the paper.

So here's the good bit.

Labour blame market forces, capitilisim, and japanese whalers.

And then, offer a subsidy, for the electricity, for the poor and defenceless.

Who then become helpless enslaved Labour voters, because we all KNOW the other team would switch off the subsidy. (They claim they will lower power prices too - phooey !)

But, because its a CRISIS Labour can quickly build a new coal fired power station as an emergency stop gap measure so the hospitals can keep running, and we can abandon normal planning procedures 'cos its a crisis !

Lucky I'm not a cynic.

[Ocean1]

Can be efficiently made from Sugar beets, wood chips etc etc and requires no adaption for cars upto a a certain % so whay the hell can't some spoddy little engineer (sAsLEX, not you!!) make it work for energy supplies. Oh shit oil and petrolium industry lobbying politicicans!!

So most of the third world cuts down all of their rainforrest to grow Sugar beet... Not only a bad idea, it's already epidemic.

We can turn almost any waste oil into bio-fuel, and it's easy to do in small batches, but the compliance costs make it hugely uneconomic to do it on a large scale. So we're sending lots of our raw materials to Aus, where they make it into biofuel, add it to diesel and sell it back to us at a tidy profit. They can do this because we've recently made 5% biofuel content mainstream diesel supply a formal strategic goal, (which attracts a wide range of incentives) and near impossible to do here.


This is called Pump Storage, and it is very efficient. It only works though when the hydro station has a lake both above and below it.

Pump water back up from Dusky sound to Manapouri? Massive head, so comparatively small quantities, and the water’s fresh(ish).

Got to get some serious extension cords to the coast though…


A seperate debate, but the howls of denial are now coming from most of the scientific community. Its the political and greeny community who keep trying to tell us the debate is over.

Yes, I wonder how history will see this wee experiment in political science...


Oh, so true. As any engineer or scientist will tell you, "The laws of physics and the laws of economics are incompatible with each other."

Perhaps. I wonder who wrote the second set though, and what payback time-scales they consider economicly prudent.

[Ocean1]

Of course a cynic would argue that Labour KNOW they have come up with a policy that is in conflict with reality !

Yes, if there was ever a time when NZ governments developed policy with strategic long-term national development in mind the time is long gone.

Someone eventually worked out that you can buy votes with other peoples money, and the chickens are well and truly home and roosting.

Trouble is they're right, to acquire political control you have to pander to the lowest comon denominator. How do you change the focus back to a best-practice economic model? I think it will take a major depression before big enough changes become possible.

[sAsLEX]

How do you change the focus back to a best-practice economic model?

You remove democracy.

[Ocean1]

You remove democracy.

Did we not have democracy during the post-war infrastructure building boom?

[Jantar]

Did we not have democracy during the post-war infrastructure building boom?
We certainly did. We also had a ready labour force and a government that was NOT going to put that labour force on the welfare dependency track.

[Bullitt]

Thanks for answering my question.

Just to expand on it abit as a hypothetical situation...Imagine we build a 360Mw nuke and all the other stations are scaled back to bring it back to 50Hz....then at 5am one morning when the nuke is still putting out 360Mw and nothing else is operating demand is only at 200Mw. The nuke cant be scaled back so continues to put out 360Mw which ups the frequency to (say) 70Hz at which point something explodes(power plant im thinking not, substation? individual houses?). Am I on the right track?

[davereid]

Thanks for answering my question.

Just to expand on it abit as a hypothetical situation...Imagine we build a 360Mw nuke and all the other stations are scaled back to bring it back to 50Hz....then at 5am one morning when the nuke is still putting out 360Mw and nothing else is operating demand is only at 200Mw. The nuke cant be scaled back so continues to put out 360Mw which ups the frequency to (say) 70Hz at which point something explodes(power plant im thinking not, substation? individual houses?). Am I on the right track?

Not really. Nukes are not special. They are just good old-fashioned steam plants which rely on a lump of decaying ore for heat. So if there is insufficient demand for the electricity, you have waste heat. The electricity network doesn't care, its just that the reactor does. You just have to find somewhere to get rid of 360Mw of heat generation, less 200 Mw of electricity. You could dump the excess power in the waikato river. Or in the sea. Nuclear power is just a heat engine... How hot would you like to be ?

[Jantar]

Not quite. The turbines have under/over frequency protection which would trip the generator and scram the reactor.

[davereid]

Not quite. The turbines have under/over frequency protection which would trip the generator and scram the reactor.

Of course. The entire network has that ! Not just nuclear reactors !

Its actually a network problem, not a reactor problem.

We like to control TWO things... voltage AND frequency.

You can't go scramming a nuke, just because NZ steel blows a fuse.

And you can;t leave it running either, unless you want pre-fryed trout.

[sAsLEX]

Of course. The entire network has that ! Not just nuclear reactors !

Its actually a network problem, not a reactor problem.

We like to control TWO things... voltage AND frequency.

You can't go scramming a nuke, just because NZ steel blows a fuse.

And you can;t leave it running either, unless you want pre-fryed trout.

Pretty sure Jantar and even K14 should have a pretty good grip on the situation huh Jantar?

[davereid]

Pretty sure Jantar and even K14 should have a pretty good grip on the situation huh Jantar?

Its an engineering issue, not an energy trading issue.

With due respect to K14 and Jantar who ABSOLUTELY know what they are talking about, the entire picture is a bit bigger...

Its like this..

In the dark old days when it was discovered that swinging a wire in a magnetic field produced electricity, two schools of thought developed. Mr. Westinghouse & Mr. Edison picked a fight.

School "A" said - Use DC electricity. Low losses, only have to worry about resistance, pick me.

School "B" said - use AC - fuck the losses due to AC (reactive losses), electricity will be cheap. We will cope with the reactive power loss, because AC lets us use transformers to adjust voltage. We will lose heaps, but fuck, we just use a transformer to fix it later.

School "B" won the day, but with a catch.

If you design a transformer, you have to know what frequency it will work at. As it relies on inductance and reluctance to control its current consumption. ie, if you stuff 0hz into a 50 hz transformer, it wont transform anything, its just a resistor, and will get hot and blow up.

So..

We now need to control frequency as well as volage. Cos if there is to much demand, and frequency gets low, the transformers and network components get very unhappy. Same the other way. Transformers don't like going over frequency, nor do transmisson lines, and the rest of the network.

[Ixion]

,,

You can't go scramming a nuke, just because NZ steel blows a fuse.

And you can;t leave it running either, unless you want pre-fryed trout.

Why not ? You do realise the negative effects that this sort of irresponsible attitude has on popcorn sales, don't you.

[sAsLEX]

Its an engineering issue, not an energy trading issue.

With due respect to K14 and Jantar who ABSOLUTELY know what they are talking about, the entire picture is a bit bigger...



Well I hope your degree in physics is coping with this K14......... :laugh:

[davereid]

Its actually why the Cook Strait cable is DC. Losses on 50hz AC systems are quite high. So when the Cook Strait cable was designed, it was decided to convert the power to DC at source, and then build a special power line all the way to Fighting Bay, just for the cable. Its "shipped" across Cook Straight as DC, then re-converted back to AC at Haywards. Maybe "School A" won a good percentage of NZs power network !

[sAsLEX]

Its actually why the Cook Strait cable is DC. Losses on 50hz AC systems are quite high. So when the Cook Strait cable was designed, it was decided to convert the power to DC at source, and then build a special power line all the way to Fighting Bay, just for the cable. Its "shipped" across Cook Straight as DC, then re-converted back to AC at Haywards. Maybe "School A" won a good percentage of NZs power network !

But how big is the DC switching gear?

Imagine that in every house? And which voltage would you pick for households? I mean AC can be easily converted around....

[davereid]

But how big is the DC switching gear?

Imagine that in every house? And which voltage would you pick for households? I mean AC can be easily converted around....

When the DC link was put in, conversion of DC to AC was tricky stuff. Red Hot Mercury Arc valves that scared the be-jusus out of young engineers like me ! And plenty of ka-pow f-ups to remind you the wires were made of metal and you were made of a much softer material !

Can't remember the capacity. 500,000 volts and 250Mw maybe.. (The clouds of time...)

But now, with solid state electronics, cheap inverters etc... what would we pick ?

Well, I guess, high voltage DC distribution. A 500,000 volt AC could deal with about 700,000 DC volts with a bit of luck. No reactive losses.

In your house ? Shit low voltage ie 50v would virtually eliminate electrocution deaths, although still plenty of respect for the wires. But that big heater in the lounge would need lots of Amps, and a big extension cord !

[sAsLEX]

In your house ? Shit low voltage ie 50v would virtually eliminate electrocution deaths, although still plenty of respect for the wires. But that big heater in the lounge would need lots of Amps, and a big extension cord !

Why volts dont kill!


I have had plenty of ten thousand volts hits before!

[Jantar]

Can't remember the capacity. 500,000 volts and 250Mw maybe.. (The clouds of time...)
Very close. The original HVDC was 250kv per pole with neutral earth return giving 500 kv between poles. and 300 MW per pole giving a total of 600 MW.

Maybe you have got a slightly incorrect view of what K14 and I do. Yes, we are Traders, but Dispatch/Traders, not financial traders. That means we come from a science/engineering background rather than an economics background. when it comes to turbine/generator and protection performance I believe we do have a good idea of what is involved.

[k14]

When the DC link was put in, conversion of DC to AC was tricky stuff. Red Hot Mercury Arc valves that scared the be-jusus out of young engineers like me ! And plenty of ka-pow f-ups to remind you the wires were made of metal and you were made of a much softer material !

Can't remember the capacity. 500,000 volts and 250Mw maybe.. (The clouds of time...)

But now, with solid state electronics, cheap inverters etc... what would we pick ?

Well, I guess, high voltage DC distribution. A 500,000 volt AC could deal with about 700,000 DC volts with a bit of luck. No reactive losses.

In your house ? Shit low voltage ie 50v would virtually eliminate electrocution deaths, although still plenty of respect for the wires. But that big heater in the lounge would need lots of Amps, and a big extension cord !
Yeah good old Pole 1 was taken permanently out of service in sept last year. Too many arc backs (I don't really know they work, just what i've been told) and since its so old they are running out of spares.

Now the HVDC is limited to just 700MW north and 500MW (iirc) south. Although those numbers are just that, it will never see over 500MW north and probably not more than 250ish south. So the days of the mercury arc valves are gone.

There are plenty of installations of HVDC lines thoroughout the world. The line to Tasmania was commissioned in 2001 or so and I was reading a quite interesting article in a magazine a few months ago about a new one connecting a few countries up in western africa. The main reason that you can't use HVAC underwater is the capacative effect, the losses are big enough when you have dry air surrounding the conductor but water just increase that by an order of magnitude or so.