Is it time we went nuclear?

[Matt Bleck]

Well there's talk of power shortages this winter..:cold:

http://stuff.co.nz/4409916a10.html

and it seems that no matter what options are put forward someone is always against it, we don't want dam's cause they wreck blah blah, we don't want wind farm's cause they look blah blah, you can't burn coal cause....

So what is really wrong with nuclear power generation?

[Dargor]

People are scared of the waste and dont know how to shoot it into the sun.

[YellowDog]

Wind Power = Good but can't provide enough.
Hydro = Great if you have loads of water.
Coal = Polution & environmental damage.
Nuclear = Cheap, Clean, Safe, Most economical.

Only problem, if we try and go nuclear, George Bush may bomb us to buggery and then behead Helen Clark!

[Zuki Bandit]

Nuclear energy is pure energy. IMO, its the little we know about it and the way we store it which makes it so bloody dangerous. I reckon the more we learn how to handle the stuff, all of our energy and fuel problems will be a thing of the past. I guess im opening myself up to a good old ear bashing for this but the whole clean green nuclear free thing is a bit stick your head in the sand like. There is this awesome power out there in unlimited amounts and all around us, why cant we use it?:sunny:

[James Deuce]

How many times does this have to come up?

We don't use enough electricity to operate even one of the smallest Nuclear power plants you can buy.

It has nothing to do with danger, economy of operation or waste disposal (though this is glossed over rather too readily). Our lowest draw is at about 5:30am. We're pulling about 10kW. What the hell do you do with the rest of the electricity the smallest commercial reactor available at present, a 600MW Russian built device (that'll be safe)produces? They AREN"T economical if you have to shut them down and start them back up all the time, which I believe takes substantial amounts of time, more like days than seconds.

Plus our grid is a hideous hodge podge that bleeds energy and can only have certain high output stations on at a particular time. You can graduate the output of fossil fuel and hydro plants relatively easily. A 600MW nuclear generated output is just that. There's no rheostat to ramp it down to 10kW.

[skelstar]

I agree with Zuki ... looking forward to someone coming along that has knowledge in this area.

[James Deuce]

Wind Power = Good but can't provide enough.
Hydro = Great if you have loads of water.
Coal = Polution & environmental damage.
Nuclear = Cheap, Clean, Safe, Most economical.

Only problem, if we try and go nuclear, George Bush may bomb us to buggery and then behead Helen Clark!

Wind is NOT good. Wind turbines are hideous eyesores that generate visual and noise pollution and sometimes the wind stops blowing people.

[James Deuce]

I agree with Zuki ... looking forward to someone coming along that has knowledge in this area.
Jantar and K14 have blown this to bits repeatedly. You can't fit more energy into our grid than you can use.

NZ doesn't draw enough energy all the time to warrant a NUclear plant. We need a minimum of 30 million people and big manufacturing base to make use of a 2GW Nuclear plant, the smallest safe generator you would be realistically thinking about installing. The Russian made example I quoted above gets stuck in a concrete bunker and steam cooled, so if you have a water issue it digs a bigger hole. It isn't serviceable either so when the fuel runs out it is done.

[ZK-Awesome]

Wind is NOT good. Wind turbines are hideous eyesores that generate visual and noise pollution and sometimes the wind stops blowing people.

I don't get what's so ugly about wind farms, this looks nice to me:

As long as you don't get ones like these:

[The Pastor]

Wind Power = Good but can't provide enough.
Hydro = Great if you have loads of water.
Coal = Polution & environmental damage.
Nuclear = Cheap, Clean, Safe, Most economical.

Only problem, if we try and go nuclear, George Bush may bomb us to buggery and then behead Helen Clark!

modern coal plants are just as clean as nuclear. They treat the emmissons on site.

Coal = nuclear when you factor in cost/power out puts over the life span of the nuclear power plant.

[James Deuce]

Nuclear energy is pure energy. IMO, its the little we know about it and the way we store it which makes it so bloody dangerous. I reckon the more we learn how to handle the stuff, all of our energy and fuel problems will be a thing of the past. I guess im opening myself up to a good old ear bashing for this but the whole clean green nuclear free thing is a bit stick your head in the sand like. There is this awesome power out there in unlimited amounts and all around us, why cant we use it?:sunny:

You know the difference between fission, fusion, and cold fusion? Fissile material is always unstable in a way that is chemically and radioactively damaging to living tissue. Fission is a chemical reaction created by assembling enough fissile material that its density increases causing the components (electrons and neutrons) of its atoms to release their energy violently. We're good at controlling this chemical reaction.

Fusion uses fissile materials to generate enough energy to fuse hydrogen and helium nuclei, but fusion reactions we are capable of generating require a deuterium-tritium fuel combination and aren't self sustaining like the Sun's hydrogen-helium fusion reaction is. The energy release by fusing these nuclei is an order of magnitude in the millions of times greater than banging lumps of Uranium or Plutonium together. It is an exothermic (releases more energy than went into it) reaction and releases the spare neutrons. If you want to make a hydrogen bomb really nasty you stick strontium 89 into it's make up. It becomes Strontium 90 by hoovering up spare neutrons and that stuff sticks around for a very long time, pumping out gamma rays and destroying tissue. Similarly Cobalt 59 will become Cobalt 60. Doesn't last as long but is more energetic.

Fission breaks the bonds of the components of an atom and release the energy contained therein. This reaction can be controlled by maintaining specific temperatures and providing certain quantities of fuel. Fusion releases the binding energy of the atomic nuclei. Controlling that force takes a shitload of doing. Beyond anything we're willing to try. There are theories and plans around using multiple hydrogen bombs to generate electricity. But they will remain plans until we have something better than concrete and metal to contain the force contained therein.

Cold fusion is magic.

[Jantar]

Nuclear power was discussed on this site as recently as 5 weeks ago, so I'm NOT going to repeat the reasons why nuclear isn't yet suitable for New Zealand. See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=64316 .

As for wind: 10 days ago the Power Syatem in New Zealand faced its first Grid emergency of the year. Every available power station was generating to capacity, and even the Standby Whirinaki Station was on full load. Mid summer and there was nothing left. But the wind farms were generating zilch. There was simply no wind. The Waikato river was so hot that Huntly was on reduced output because of its Resource Consent Limits. Cook Straight Cable was at its limit because of insuffient North Island reserve. The Taranaki Combined Cycle station was shut down for planned maintenence.

The downside of wind generation is that can help supplement energy, but does not help with producing power. And I'm sure that motorcyclists Know the difference between energy and power. <_<

[P38]

Well there's talk of power shortages this winter..:cold:

http://stuff.co.nz/4409916a10.html

and it seems that no matter what options are put forward someone is always against it, we don't want dam's cause they wreck blah blah, we don't want wind farm's cause they look blah blah, you can't burn coal cause....

So what is really wrong with nuclear power generation?

I'm lookin forward to Suzuki bringing out a Nuclear powered Cruiser:yeah:

That way I can frag those Thieving Bastard Oil Companies too. :finger:

[skelstar]

Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned ;)

[Zuki Bandit]

Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned ;)
Yes indeedy!!!

[Coyote]

I'm lookin forward to Suzuki bringing out a Nuclear powered Cruiser:yeah:

That way I can frag those Thieving Bastard Oil Companies too. :finger:
Wouldn't want the engine to go bang...

I'm sure the people selling plutonium rods are pillocks too.

[The Lone Rider]

I'm lookin forward to Suzuki bringing out a Nuclear powered Cruiser:yeah:

That way I can frag those Thieving Bastard Oil Companies too. :finger:

But I bet they still put an ugly front light on it. :wari:

[Edbear]

Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned ;)


Yes indeedy!!!


LOL!!! But he's actually pretty much right on the money, here. It's completely uneconomic for little NZ. We'd need a backup reserve of "conventionally" produced electricity as well, which means maintaining a huge power plant, or several, probably coal-fired, "at the ready". If the Nuclear plant shut down for any reason, it being by then pretty much the sole energy source for the country, we'd be right up the creek!

Personally, I'm seriously considering solar for much of our power needs. Each household could be almost completely independent for power using a combination of solar and wind generators. Every new home built should be required to install solar water-heating systems. Would be cost effective, and if the Govt was serious about it they'd make a proper subsidy available.

[steveb64]

How many times does this have to come up?

We don't use enough electricity to operate even one of the smallest Nuclear power plants you can buy.

It has nothing to do with danger, economy of operation or waste disposal (though this is glossed over rather too readily). Our lowest draw is at about 5:30am. We're pulling about 10kW. What the hell do you do with the rest of the electricity the smallest commercial reactor available at present, a 600MW Russian built device (that'll be safe)produces? They AREN"T economical if you have to shut them down and start them back up all the time, which I believe takes substantial amounts of time, more like days than seconds.

Plus our grid is a hideous hodge podge that bleeds energy and can only have certain high output stations on at a particular time. You can graduate the output of fossil fuel and hydro plants relatively easily. A 600MW nuclear generated output is just that. There's no rheostat to ramp it down to 10kW.

What are you on about? Are you trying to tell us that the WHOLE of NZ is only using the equivalent of 5 2kW heaters at 5:30 in the morning? Where did you get THAT bit of info? Sounds like bollocks to me.

And what makes you think that nuclear plants can't control their power output? Haven't you ever heard of control rods? You know - insert rods, reaction damps down, less heat generated, so less steam. Turn off steam feed to some turbines, get less power output. Want more power? Pull the control rods, reaction speeds up, more heat, more steam, open up lines to extra turbines. Simple.
Geez - a nuke reactor is just a thermal generation plant. In fact - IIRC, the geothermal plant just out of Taupo was designed so that it could be switched over to nuke should the need ever arise...


Jantar and K14 have blown this to bits repeatedly. You can't fit more energy into our grid than you can use.

NZ doesn't draw enough energy all the time to warrant a nuclear plant. We need a minimum of 30 million people and big manufacturing base to make use of a 2GW Nuclear plant, the smallest safe generator you would be realistically thinking about installing. The Russian made example I quoted above gets stuck in a concrete bunker and steam cooled, so if you have a water issue it digs a bigger hole. It isn't serviceable either so when the fuel runs out it is done.

Jantar and K14 are right. You don't appear to be.

2GW = 2000MW. Total NZ draw at 6:20 pm today was 5000MW (=5GW). This link gives current draw: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5969
This link gives the loading by area: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5970

Where do you get a 2GW reactor from? From what I've been able to find - most reactors are <1GW, with an occasional one that runs to ~1.5GW - this link lists the UK reactors, and generation capacities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Power_station_reactors_16 - and a bunch of others. This link will get you to all available lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

AND - just for fun - this link takes you to a downloadable nuke power plant simulation: http://www.ae4rv.com/games/nuke.htm

Base power - Ok - so most nuke plants in the world are 'Base Power' systems - as the difference in fuel consumption between high output and low output is negligible - making them more efficient to run at a high output. BUT there are 'Load Following' plants available also - mainly in France, due to a high percentage of their electricity being produced by nuclear generation - see following from Wiki, from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Nuclear power representing such a large percentage of the electrical production is unique to France, and as such, there are some technical differences from the nuclear power programs of other countries. For instance, in order to meet changing demand throughout the day, some plants must work as load following plants, whereas most nuclear plants in the world operate as base load plants, and allow other fossil or hydro units adjust to demand. Nuclear power in France has a total capacity factor of around 77%, which is considerably low due to load following, but availability is around 84%, indicating excellent overall performance of the plants.

[Mikkel]

Wind Power = Good but can't provide enough.
Hydro = Great if you have loads of water.
Coal = Polution & environmental damage.
Nuclear = Cheap, Clean, Safe, Most economical.

Only problem, if we try and go nuclear, George Bush may bomb us to buggery and then behead Helen Clark!

There's a lot opposition towards wind power which is actually the main problem. There's always going to be wind somewhere in NZ - so the trick is to have substantial wind farms spread out all over the country. (Unfortunately off-shore is tricky down here).


Wind is NOT good. Wind turbines are hideous eyesores that generate visual and noise pollution and sometimes the wind stops blowing people.

That's the misconceptions that needs changing! True that big wind turbines make substantial noise - but NZ has such a low population density that it shouldn't be a problem. As for the visual bit - HTFU or stop using as much electricity NZ! (There's this clever thing called insulation that can be integrated in house building - that should help a bit. Double glazing was invented at least 25 years ago too).


You know the difference between fission, fusion, and cold fusion? Fissile material is always unstable in a way that is chemically and radioactively damaging to living tissue. Fission is a chemical reaction created by assembling enough fissile material that its density increases causing the components (electrons and neutrons) of its atoms to release their energy violently. We're good at controlling this chemical reaction.

No, fission is a physical reaction - a neuclear reaction (nuclear coming from nucleus meaning the core of the atom). Chemical reactions rely on changes in the electron configuration of atoms and the reactions associated with that.

Fission occurs when an unstable nucleus collides with a neutron with a certain kinetic energy. This strikes an oscillation in the now heavier nucleus which eventually (we're talking very small timespans - less than a microsecond) tears the oscillating compound nucleus into two fission products (about 50/50 mass share) and releases an amount of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that zooms away with some kinetic energy.
These neutrons, if their kinetic energy is right, can start a new fission process in another nucleus.

Packing fissible material together is done to achieve either a controlled (reactor) or uncontrolled (bomb) chain reaction where enough of the new neutrons react with other nuclei to keep the reaction running.
One of the issues here is the kinetic energy of the neutrons - if it's too high it won't strike a resonance in the nucleus and therefore just bounce off. For uranium you use two different isotopes: U-238 and U-235. U-238 is pretty common in natural uranium 99.27% compared to U-235 0.7204%. Thing is - U-238 only interact with slow to medium speed neutrons and as such you need a moderator (often heavy water) to slow the fast new neutrons down before they can cause fission in U-238.
U-235 on the other hand are not so picky and will interact with both fast and very fast neutrons. This is desirable if you don't want to wait for the neutrons to slow down (giving a higher rate of energy release - BOOM!). Enriched uranium contains a higher percentage of U-235 compared to U-238 and can be produced by mass spectrometry in large centrifuges.
The higher level of enrichment the less uranium you need to bunch together to get critical mass - the point where the chain reaction accelerates.
In a reactor you use neutron absorbers (control rods) to adjust the level of activity in the reactor. In a bomb you just let go of the reins.

Anyway, I got carried away... But it's not a chemical reaction, that's all I wanted to say.


Fusion uses fissile materials to generate enough energy to fuse hydrogen and helium nuclei, but fusion reactions we are capable of generating require a deuterium-tritium fuel combination and aren't self sustaining like the Sun's hydrogen-helium fusion reaction is. The energy release by fusing these nuclei is an order of magnitude in the millions of times greater than banging lumps of Uranium or Plutonium together. It is an exothermic (releases more energy than went into it) reaction and releases the spare neutrons. If you want to make a hydrogen bomb really nasty you stick strontium 89 into it's make up. It becomes Strontium 90 by hoovering up spare neutrons and that stuff sticks around for a very long time, pumping out gamma rays and destroying tissue. Similarly Cobalt 59 will become Cobalt 60. Doesn't last as long but is more energetic.

Fission breaks the bonds of the components of an atom and release the energy contained therein. This reaction can be controlled by maintaining specific temperatures and providing certain quantities of fuel. Fusion releases the binding energy of the atomic nuclei. Controlling that force takes a shitload of doing. Beyond anything we're willing to try. There are theories and plans around using multiple hydrogen bombs to generate electricity. But they will remain plans until we have something better than concrete and metal to contain the force contained therein.

Your focus seems to have been nuclear weapons. And sure enough you can start fusion with the energy (heat) from a small fission warhead.

However, most research into using fusion as an energy source rather than a weapon does not use fission (other as in electricity from a nuclear power plant perhaps) to start the process. Some use highly focused pulse lasers, others electric fields to create a very dense and very energetic plasma. Problem is that in order to cause fusion (merge two nuclei into on nucleus) you need to force two electrically charged particles close enough together for the nucleatic forces to overcome the coulomb repulsion. The nucleatic forces are proportional to 1/r^(4-6) where as the coulomb repulsion is proportional to 1/r^2. That means that you have to overcome a HUGE resistance know as the coulomb barrier. In order to do that the atoms needs to travel at huge speed - which equals huge temperature (millions of degrees celsius!). As you say, we haven't got any material that can withstand these temperatures - however we can use strong magnetic fields to levitate the plasma so it doesn't touch any material and reflective surfaces to direct the thermal radiation back into the plasma... Tricky though - and takes a lot of power unless you have a super conductor...


Cold fusion is magic.

It's a dream - not magic. The idea is to somehow alter the hydrogen (deuterium or tritium) to decrease the coulomb barrier so you don't need as much energy to jam them together. (Bringing the temperature down from perhaps 50 million degrees to a mere 50 thousand degrees - I know it's not our idea of cold, but relatively speaking it's a lot).

I'm a geek and I'm proud ;)

[Mikkel]

Oh, and Nuclear waste in NZ wouldn't be too much of a problem. There are heaps of old and deep coal mines you could chuck it into!

[Swampdonkey]

You cannot build a nuclear power plant on or anywhere near a fault line.We would be better off to invest in a plant in Australia,lay a cable,and import power across the ditch. All for nuclear energy myself....

[mikey62]

Saw an article in the paper about 6-8 months ago where they were talking about putting turbines in the Manukau Harbour. Worked on the same principle as wind turbines but operated on the tide.

[Dargor]

You cannot build a nuclear power plant on or anywhere near a fault line.

Or you could have a Floating nuclear power station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_nuclear_power_station).
Edit: hang on that station says it has an output of "70MW electric or 300MW heat power".
What do you have to say about that mr NZ is too small.

[Matt Bleck]

How many times does this have to come up?

We don't use enough electricity to operate even one of the smallest Nuclear power plants you can buy.

It has nothing to do with danger, economy of operation or waste disposal (though this is glossed over rather too readily). Our lowest draw is at about 5:30am. We're pulling about 10kW. What the hell do you do with the rest of the electricity the smallest commercial reactor available at present, a 600MW Russian built device (that'll be safe)produces? They AREN"T economical if you have to shut them down and start them back up all the time, which I believe takes substantial amounts of time, more like days than seconds.

Plus our grid is a hideous hodge podge that bleeds energy and can only have certain high output stations on at a particular time. You can graduate the output of fossil fuel and hydro plants relatively easily. A 600MW nuclear generated output is just that. There's no rheostat to ramp it down to 10kW.

Maybe I shoulda used the search button?


Nuclear power was discussed on this site as recently as 5 weeks ago, so I'm NOT going to repeat the reasons why nuclear isn't yet suitable for New Zealand. See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=64316 .

As for wind: 10 days ago the Power Syatem in New Zealand faced its first Grid emergency of the year. Every available power station was generating to capacity, and even the Standby Whirinaki Station was on full load. Mid summer and there was nothing left. But the wind farms were generating zilch. There was simply no wind. The Waikato river was so hot that Huntly was on reduced output because of its Resource Consent Limits. Cook Straight Cable was at its limit because of insuffient North Island reserve. The Taranaki Combined Cycle station was shut down for planned maintenence.

The downside of wind generation is that can help supplement energy, but does not help with producing power. And I'm sure that motorcyclists Know the difference between energy and power. <_<

Yup I should used the search button! :yes:


Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned ;)

Ain't that the truth!


What are you on about? Are you trying to tell us that the WHOLE of NZ is only using the equivalent of 5 2kW heaters at 5:30 in the morning? Where did you get THAT bit of info? Sounds like bollocks to me.

And what makes you think that nuclear plants can't control their power output? Haven't you ever heard of control rods? You know - insert rods, reaction damps down, less heat generated, so less steam. Turn off steam feed to some turbines, get less power output. Want more power? Pull the control rods, reaction speeds up, more heat, more steam, open up lines to extra turbines. Simple.
Geez - a nuke reactor is just a thermal generation plant. In fact - IIRC, the geothermal plant just out of Taupo was designed so that it could be switched over to nuke should the need ever arise...



Jantar and K14 are right. You don't appear to be.

2GW = 2000MW. Total NZ draw at 6:20 pm today was 5000MW (=5GW). This link gives current draw: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5969
This link gives the loading by area: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5970

Where do you get a 2GW reactor from? From what I've been able to find - most reactors are <1GW, with an occasional one that runs to ~1.5GW - this link lists the UK reactors, and generation capacities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Power_station_reactors_16 - and a bunch of others. This link will get you to all available lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

AND - just for fun - this link takes you to a downloadable nuke power plant simulation: http://www.ae4rv.com/games/nuke.htm

:jerry:


There's a lot opposition towards wind power which is actually the main problem. There's always going to be wind somewhere in NZ - so the trick is to have substantial wind farms spread out all over the country. (Unfortunately off-shore is tricky down here).



That's the misconceptions that needs changing! True that big wind turbines make substantial noise - but NZ has such a low population density that it shouldn't be a problem. As for the visual bit - HTFU or stop using as much electricity NZ! (There's this clever thing called insulation that can be integrated in house building - that should help a bit. Double glazing was invented at least 25 years ago too).



No, fission is a physical reaction - a neuclear reaction (nuclear coming from nucleus meaning the core of the atom). Chemical reactions rely on changes in the electron configuration of atoms and the reactions associated with that.

Fission occurs when an unstable nucleus collides with a neutron with a certain kinetic energy. This strikes an oscillation in the now heavier nucleus which eventually (we're talking very small timespans - less than a microsecond) tears the oscillating compound nucleus into two fission products (about 50/50 mass share) and releases an amount of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that zooms away with some kinetic energy.
These neutrons, if their kinetic energy is right, can start a new fission process in another nucleus.

Packing fissible material together is done to achieve either a controlled (reactor) or uncontrolled (bomb) chain reaction where enough of the new neutrons react with other nuclei to keep the reaction running.
One of the issues here is the kinetic energy of the neutrons - if it's too high it won't strike a resonance in the nucleus and therefore just bounce off. For uranium you use two different isotopes: U-238 and U-235. U-238 is pretty common in natural uranium 99.27% compared to U-235 0.7204%. Thing is - U-238 only interact with slow to medium speed neutrons and as such you need a moderator (often heavy water) to slow the fast new neutrons down before they can cause fission in U-238.
U-235 on the other hand are not so picky and will interact with both fast and very fast neutrons. This is desirable if you don't want to wait for the neutrons to slow down (giving a higher rate of energy release - BOOM!). Enriched uranium contains a higher percentage of U-235 compared to U-238 and can be produced by mass spectrometry in large centrifuges.
The higher level of enrichment the less uranium you need to bunch together to get critical mass - the point where the chain reaction accelerates.
In a reactor you use neutron absorbers (control rods) to adjust the level of activity in the reactor. In a bomb you just let go of the reins.

Anyway, I got carried away... But it's not a chemical reaction, that's all I wanted to say.



Your focus seems to have been nuclear weapons. And sure enough you can start fusion with the energy (heat) from a small fission warhead.

However, most research into using fusion as an energy source rather than a weapon does not use fission (other as in electricity from a nuclear power plant perhaps) to start the process. Some use highly focused pulse lasers, others electric fields to create a very dense and very energetic plasma. Problem is that in order to cause fusion (merge two nuclei into on nucleus) you need to force two electrically charged particles close enough together for the nucleatic forces to overcome the coulomb repulsion. The nucleatic forces are proportional to 1/r^(4-6) where as the coulomb repulsion is proportional to 1/r^2. That means that you have to overcome a HUGE resistance know as the coulomb barrier. In order to do that the atoms needs to travel at huge speed - which equals huge temperature (millions of degrees celsius!). As you say, we haven't got any material that can withstand these temperatures - however we can use strong magnetic fields to levitate the plasma so it doesn't touch any material and reflective surfaces to direct the thermal radiation back into the plasma... Tricky though - and takes a lot of power unless you have a super conductor...



It's a dream - not magic. The idea is to somehow alter the hydrogen (deuterium or tritium) to decrease the coulomb barrier so you don't need as much energy to jam them together. (Bringing the temperature down from perhaps 50 million degrees to a mere 50 thousand degrees - I know it's not our idea of cold, but relatively speaking it's a lot).

I'm a geek and I'm proud ;)

Sorry dude I couldn't be bothered reading all that!


You cannot build a nuclear power plant on or anywhere near a fault line.We would be better off to invest in a plant in Australia,lay a cable,and import power across the ditch. All for nuclear energy myself....


So thats a no to Nuclear then?! :laugh:

[James Deuce]

I'm a geek and I'm proud ;)

Fission is a chemical reaction compared to a Fusion reaction, but we're arguing semantics.

The problem with being a geek is that you have to come up with an argument where the non-geeks don't just give up and walk away.

Blowing up shit most people get.

Coulumb barrier is guaranteed to make people snore, as are a series of equations.

[Hitcher]

Funny that nobody has mentioned nimbys. They are the single largest threat to New Zealand's energy future.

[James Deuce]

What are you on about? Are you trying to tell us that the WHOLE of NZ is only using the equivalent of 5 2kW heaters at 5:30 in the morning? Where did you get THAT bit of info? Sounds like bollocks to me.


It is. I even used small "k" just to make it doubly wrong.

[Jantar]

Or you could have a Floating nuclear power station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_nuclear_power_station).
Edit: hang on that station says it has an output of "70MW electric or 300MW heat power".
What do you have to say about that mr NZ is too small.
Construction has just started on a prototype. Completion is due in 2010, and no mention of certification or costs.

So far all naval types are far too costly for domestic use. The closest to having a suitable reactor for New Zealand is the 360 MW Westinghouse unit due for certification in 2010.

[onearmedbandit]

Westinghouse you say? So Fisher and Paykel will service it here in NZ? Could I pick one up from Smiths City?

[Finn]

and then behead Helen Clark!

So what's the downside?

[Jantar]

Westinghouse you say? So Fisher and Paykel will service it here in NZ? Could I pick one up from Smiths City?
Probably. And they may even send some 17 year old straight from High School to install it for you. :clap:

[Jantar]

There's a lot opposition towards wind power which is actually the main problem. There's always going to be wind somewhere in NZ - so the trick is to have substantial wind farms spread out all over the country. (Unfortunately off-shore is tricky down here)....


Really? Right now every wind farm that we can monitor from Te Apiti in Waiarapa to White Hills in southland is showing 0 MW. :lol:

[rainman]

What the hell do you do with the rest of the electricity the smallest commercial reactor available at present, a 600MW Russian built device (that'll be safe)produces?

Heat up some of the cold bits? Invercargill?
:laugh:

[NighthawkNZ]

You are all wrong... Fussion, fission, Nuclear, thermal, fossile, solar, atom, photon, Tachyon, radion, triton, proton, pinton, and on and on and on

the answer to endless energy is baked beans... :D

[Zuki Bandit]

You are all wrong... Fussion, fission, Nuclear, thermal, fossile, solar, atom, photon, Tachyon, radion, triton, proton, pinton, and on and on and on

the answer to endless energy is baked beans... :D
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Mom]

I have not read the thread, I liked the question but I see that another thread has sucummed (sp?) to the KB BS.

I am staunchly ANTI Nuclear weapons, and the threat of the use of them. I was lucky enough to nurse a survivor of the Hiroshima bomb who really gave me a good look at life after such an event. I support the No NUKES policy that is NZ!

BUT...

We have to be realistic here. Nuclear energy is the way of the future! We are very lucky here in NZ, we have thermal/wind and hydro generation that have been our mainstay of electricity generation. I read today we are facing a dark winter because our lake levels are low due to Mother Nature giving us a fantastic summer.:sunny:

Our delivery systems are failing, peace to the man that died yesterday falling from a pole because it broke, and yahoo for the flaming street in Welly today! Seems we may need some assistance if we want to be able to continue the way we want.

Bring on the Greenies...(I mean bling of course ;) )

[homer]

How many times does this have to come up?

We don't use enough electricity to operate even one of the smallest Nuclear power plants you can buy.

It has nothing to do with danger, economy of operation or waste disposal (though this is glossed over rather too readily). Our lowest draw is at about 5:30am. We're pulling about 10kW. What the hell do you do with the rest of the electricity the smallest commercial reactor available at present, a 600MW Russian built device (that'll be safe)produces? They AREN"T economical if you have to shut them down and start them back up all the time, which I believe takes substantial amounts of time, more like days than seconds.

Plus our grid is a hideous hodge podge that bleeds energy and can only have certain high output stations on at a particular time. You can graduate the output of fossil fuel and hydro plants relatively easily. A 600MW nuclear generated output is just that. There's no rheostat to ramp it down to 10kW.

um ...the whole point would be to use the nuke station and not the hydro ....shut them down

[Skyryder]

We have enough coal to power our needs more centuries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215135731.htm


Skyryder

[Jantar]

um ...the whole point would be to use the nuke station and not the hydro ....shut them down
Then what are you going to use for spinning reserve?

[Mikkel]

Fission is a chemical reaction compared to a Fusion reaction, but we're arguing semantics.

I'd like to know how a nuclear process could be considered a chemical reaction regardless of semantics. Could you enlighten me?


The problem with being a geek is that you have to come up with an argument where the non-geeks don't just give up and walk away.

Blowing up shit most people get.

Coulumb barrier is guaranteed to make people snore, as are a series of equations.

True, blowing shit up gets peoples attention.

However, you're assuming that my target audience are people who don't give a shit about how stuff actually works as long as it looks pretty doing it. (E.g. blowing up).

I enjoy Mythbusters and that kind of stuff as much as the next guy - but I never pretend that it's anything but pseudo-science.

If you don't want to make people snore when you enlighten me on how to define fission as a chemical reaction then do feel free to send me a PM. I am actually rather curious about it and you usually seem to be able to back your statements up. :yes:


Really? Right now every wind farm that we can monitor from Te Apiti in Waiarapa to White Hills in southland is showing 0 MW. :lol:

That is impressive. How many wind farms are there in between those two locations? How many acres are covered with wind farms? Personally I live in Chch and I think there's a grand total of ONE wind mill on the entire banks peninsula... Given that this is a place where there's a lot of wind quite often it seems a bit weird...

Or let me reformulate that: Are you of the honest professional opinion that NZs current energy infrastructure explores the potential of wind energy adequately?
I doubt it.

[Jantar]

That is impressive. How many wind farms are there in between those two locations? How many acres are covered with wind farms? Personally I live in Chch and I think there's a grand total of ONE wind mill on the entire banks peninsula... Given that this is a place where there's a lot of wind quite often it seems a bit weird...

One farm, just over the hill from Te Apiti, the wind turbine at Wellington, and the one on Bank's Peninsular. so not a lot so far.


Or let me reformulate that: Are you of the honest professional opinion that NZs current energy infrastructure explores the potential of wind energy adequately?
I doubt it.

No, our current infrastructure does not lend itself to wind generation. That doesn't mean it couldn't nor that it shouldn't.

The main barriers to wind generation are: that wind supplies energy, but not controllable power; and the sites most suited to wind generation are also the poorest ones for transmission.

Because wind is neither fully predictable, nor controllable, wind cannot be counted in assessing peak generation capability. That means that for every MW of wind generation installed a matching MW of fast start / fast ramp generation must also be built. Thus the actual cost of building wind generation is 2 - 3 times the build cost. We are currently facing a possible crisis simply because wind farms have been built without a matching fast start backup.

The planned wind farms in the South Island are inside an already constrained area. If they go ahead then when they generate water will have to be spilled past the Clutha hydro stations.

The solutions are quite simple:
Companies building wind plant should be compelled to match them with fast start plant. Either they could build new plant, buy existing plant, or contract existing plant. Our current market rules do not allow such matching to occur.
Wind generation should be tied to transmission capability. Companies building wind gfarms in areas where there is a transmission constraint should be permitted to build transmission lines to carry the energy. Again, our current laws do not allow that to happen.

[homer]

We have enough coal to power our needs more centuries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215135731.htm


Skyryder

We also have more than enough oil to do so to but youd think not ...A

[homer]

what is coming one day ..is fision

instead of nuclear blowing parts apart
fision implodes .you still get the power and near no waste at all

itll be what we have ,just a matter of time

all the tossers with the wind "thing" more water "thing" thermal "thing"

are just doing what the petrol oil companys are doing

milking you for more money all the time

[Jantar]

Fission is what we have now. I believe you mean Fusion.

[homer]

:niceone: Year probably that one to

lol
i knew its one or the other

The point is that itll be to little to late in this country

[Mikkel]

One farm, just over the hill from Te Apiti, the wind turbine at Wellington, and the one on Bank's Peninsular. so not a lot so far.


:lol:


No, our current infrastructure does not lend itself to wind generation. That doesn't mean it couldn't nor that it shouldn't.

The main barriers to wind generation are: that wind supplies energy, but not controllable power; and the sites most suited to wind generation are also the poorest ones for transmission.

Because wind is neither fully predictable, nor controllable, wind cannot be counted in assessing peak generation capability. That means that for every MW of wind generation installed a matching MW of fast start / fast ramp generation must also be built. Thus the actual cost of building wind generation is 2 - 3 times the build cost. We are currently facing a possible crisis simply because wind farms have been built without a matching fast start backup.

The planned wind farms in the South Island are inside an already constrained area. If they go ahead then when they generate water will have to be spilled past the Clutha hydro stations.

The solutions are quite simple:
Companies building wind plant should be compelled to match them with fast start plant. Either they could build new plant, buy existing plant, or contract existing plant. Our current market rules do not allow such matching to occur.
Wind generation should be tied to transmission capability. Companies building wind gfarms in areas where there is a transmission constraint should be permitted to build transmission lines to carry the energy. Again, our current laws do not allow that to happen.

I do realise that there's more to introducing wind energy than just chucking up some mills all over the place. And I know that it's not a cheap investment either.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Would you agree that by spreading out wind farms over a large part of the country you would go some way to reducing the likelyhood of "no wind"?

2. Has anyone considered using wind mills to e.g. pump water from the west coast to the east coast side of the main divide seeing as there's usually heaps of rain on the west coast and not so much on the east and that this can cause problems. (Benefit of course being that it doesn't matter too much when the mills operate since they are adding their work to a reservoir that can be tapped into in a controlled manner (hydro))?

I understand the high need for predictable and controlable power generation. But windmills could be used in other applications - some of them actually not even relying on being hooked up to the power grid.
E.g. in a hydrogen based society an off-shore windfarm could be used for producing hydrogen fuel through local electrolysis...

[Robbo]

Mmmmm!!! Amazing the knowledge i have learnt from reading this thread, i could now probably apply for a job as a nuclear scientist.
Still not so sure about the :baked bean" theory but i can see definate posabilities in it.
:motu:

[steveb64]

Then what are you going to use for spinning reserve?

Simple - use a load following nuke design, rather than base power only. But don't shut down the hydro's - just don't build any more either (though quite where they would/could have been built eludes me). The French seem to have a workable system, where nuke plants are supplying >75% of their energy requirements.

Then there's the Toshiba 4S "nuclear batteries", with a 10MW output for 30 years - no refuelling, using liquid sodium as a coolant. They're being touted as suitable for installation in remote sites - so they must have some form of load control?

[Jantar]

...A couple of thoughts:

1. Would you agree that by spreading out wind farms over a large part of the country you would go some way to reducing the likelyhood of "no wind"?

Yes, I would agree. I would also agree that a geographical spread wouldn't assure us of wind energy, so we would still need matching fast start plant.



2. Has anyone considered using wind mills to e.g. pump water from the west coast to the east coast side of the main divide seeing as there's usually heaps of rain on the west coast and not so much on the east and that this can cause problems. (Benefit of course being that it doesn't matter too much when the mills operate since they are adding their work to a reservoir that can be tapped into in a controlled manner (hydro))?...

Not that I'm aware of. However That would be an interesting one to try and get through the RMA process. The engineering would also be spectacular.

[Jantar]

Simple - use a load following nuke design, rather than base power only. But don't shut down the hydro's - just don't build any more either (though quite where they would/could have been built eludes me). The French seem to have a workable system, where nuke plants are supplying >75% of their energy requirements.

Not as simple as you would believe. Most hydro turbines have a minimum load (usually around 50%) below which they suffer cavitation damage.

The french do have a problem, but not the same one we have. They are tied into the UTCE http://www.ucte.org/ which ties all of Europe together. They only require a miniscule amount of Spinning Reserve of 0.16% of demand. We are in an isolated system and require around 10% of demand depending on the size of the largest unit on the system.

[Mikkel]

Yes, I would agree. I would also agree that a geographical spread wouldn't assure us of wind energy, so we would still need matching fast start plant.

Would it be entirely idiotic to get the windfarms up and running and then use the power generated, when it is generated, to reduce the load on fossil and hydro powerplants?
In that case you could reduce the amount of fast start plants necessary to maintain adequate power.


Not that I'm aware of. However That would be an interesting one to try and get through the RMA process. The engineering would also be spectacular.

Well being an engineer - that's what it's all about isn't it ;) It's no fun if you have to think inside the box all the time!

[Jantar]

Would it be entirely idiotic to get the windfarms up and running and then use the power generated, when it is generated, to reduce the load on fossil and hydro powerplants?
In that case you could reduce the amount of fast start plants necessary to maintain adequate power...

That is what happens now. But when the amount of wind generation exceeds the swing on connected plant then something must shutdown. If its hydro that shuts down we lose spinning reserve. If its thermal that shuts down it can take hours or even days to bring the plant back on line when the wind stops.

[Mikkel]

Not as simple as you would believe. Most hydro turbines have a minimum load (usually around 50%) below which they suffer cavitation damage.

The french do have a problem, but not the same one we have. They are tied into the UTCE http://www.ucte.org/ which ties all of Europe together. They only require a miniscule amount of Spinning Reserve of 0.16% of demand. We are in an isolated system and require around 10% of demand depending on the size of the largest unit on the system.

Comparing NZ to Europe in this matter is pretty redundant. A lot of power is transferred across borders from company to company which means that both the market place and the supply is huge!

There was a very interesting article in one of the recent papers published by the danish engineers labour union (they send them down here free of charge :niceone:) about how there's been some controversy lately.

Denmark is trying to establish an image as a forerunner in the environmental debate - low carbon foot print, use of renewable energy sources, state of the art fossil fuel plants with low emission, use of super conductors in the high current segment of the grid, etc. Anyway, we buy a lot of power from Sweden produced by nuclear and hydro plants - which of course have low carbon footprints - especially when it's cheap. Same goes for trading with Germany and Norway...

Anyway, the controversy is that Denmark, like NZ, is an idiot hippie country with a big NO THANKS TO NUCLEAR POWER banner that has been flying since some socialistic politicians in the early 70s got carried away by the mood. And apparently there's noone who's willing to rock that boat. However, our dear neighbour Sweden rightfully yell hypocrisy - which is understandable since Denmark for decades have applied diplomatic pressure to have a perfectly well functioning nuclear power plant closed down because it was a bit to close to our border. Oh, the amount of propaganda that has been circled around about this :rolleyes:

So yeah, it's a bigger market - but there are other issues that might factor in as well.

[Mikkel]

That is what happens now. But when the amount of wind generation exceeds the swing on connected plant then something must shutdown. If its hydro that shuts down we lose spinning reserve. If its thermal that shuts down it can take hours or even days to bring the plant back on line when the wind stops.

Hmmm, I can't help thinking that a power plant that can not graduate their output better than that must be designed pretty poorly. Or is the swing the amount of power graduation available in a given part of the grid?

What do you mean by spinning reserve?

[Jantar]

Hmmm, I can't help thinking that a power plant that can not graduate their output better than that must be designed pretty poorly. Or is the swing the amount of power graduation available in a given part of the grid?

What do you mean by spinning reserve?

Second question first:

Spinning reserve is the amount of standby power that is avaible almost instantly. It is obtained usually from hydro plant as hydro can change its load very rapidly. At the moment I have a single generator running at Clyde Power Station on 95MW. It is capable of 116 MW, and can ramp up there in 6 seconds. So at the moment it is providing 21 MW of spinning reserve.

In each island the amount of spinning reserve available must be equal to or greater than the single largest plant connected to the system. This is to cover any unplanned event without the lights going out. Right now the largest plant connected is the combined cycle plant at Huntly generating 383 MW. So in the north Island we need to have 383 MW of spinning reserve, and to cover that we need at least 766 MW of other fast ramp plant connected. Thermal stations are slow ramping, Geothermal cannot ramp at all, so it is almost all hydro.

[Jantar]

Your other point: I'm not sure just what you mean about "a power plant that can not graduate their output better than that must be designed pretty poorly". All power turbines, whether hydro Gas Turbine, or thermal have different operating characteristics. Generally the more efficient a turbine is then the narrower will be its operating band.

[steveb64]

Not as simple as you would believe. Most hydro turbines have a minimum load (usually around 50%) below which they suffer cavitation damage.

The french do have a problem, but not the same one we have. They are tied into the UTCE http://www.ucte.org/ which ties all of Europe together. They only require a miniscule amount of Spinning Reserve of 0.16% of demand. We are in an isolated system and require around 10% of demand depending on the size of the largest unit on the system.

Hmm - but I know that turbines can be simply shut down by closing the headstock(?) gates, cutting the water flow - I was under the impression that startup from this point is still quite rapid?

I think miniscule is a relative term - the French grid is producing in excess of 500TWh - so 0.16% of that is still going to be a hell of a lot of power... But I can also see that the huge grid formed by the UTCE has got to be of benefit too.

Err - I don't quite understand the "size of the largest unit on the system."? Is that generating unit or load unit? (My head is starting to hurt...)

[Jantar]

Hmm - but I know that turbines can be simply shut down by closing the headstock(?) gates, cutting the water flow - I was under the impression that startup from this point is still quite rapid?

That is correct for hydro plant, but not for thermal plant. I can get a hydro machine from complete shutdown to on load in around 2 minutes. Thermal plant has to warm through to get correct temperatures and pressures and to maintain correct blade clearances. That can take many hours, and if the shaft vibration levels, blade clearances etc aren't correct it can take days.


I think miniscule is a relative term - the French grid is producing in excess of 500TWh - so 0.16% of that is still going to be a hell of a lot of power... But I can also see that the huge grid formed by the UTCE has got to be of benefit too.
You are confusing Power and Energy. The French do not have to supply all of their own reserve as they can sure a proportion with the rest of UTCE. The total amount required from France is less than we need in the South Island, and only a quarter of what we need in the North Island.


Err - I don't quite understand the "size of the largest unit on the system."? Is that generating unit or load unit? (My head is starting to hurt...)
That is the largest generation unit, or the load on the largest single transmission component like the HVDC.

[steveb64]

Hmm - answered the question while I was still working out how to ask it... :Oops:

[YellowDog]

"Coal Plants are just as clean as nuclear! "

Mining for coal is dirty work and destroys the the earth. Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the atmosphere and we ain't got much left around NZ.

Nuclear is 'high tech', 'highly efficient', 'clean', and waste is safely contained.

Just don't build one close to earthquake zones!

[NighthawkNZ]

Just don't build one close to earthquake zones!

NZ is one big EQ zone :blink:

[Hitcher]

Mining for coal is dirty work and destroys the the earth. Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the atmosphere and we ain't got much left around NZ.

Perception rather than reality.

[Swoop]

One of our power stations is already plumbed up for the cooling system.
It was designed for nuke capacity ("in the future") from the outset. One of the few times that NZ has planned ahead.

[merv]

You cannot build a nuclear power plant on or anywhere near a fault line.We would be better off to invest in a plant in Australia,lay a cable,and import power across the ditch. All for nuclear energy myself....

That'd be the way, a decent cable. The Aussies really need nuke power too, with one idea I have of them collecting rain water at the coast and then pumping it uphill with all this power to the inland reservoirs so they can then use the water. The reason I say this is they keep saying "nah dams aren't filling, the rain aint falling in the catchment areas".

[Mikkel]

Second question first:

...

Thanks! I found that interesting and informative. :yes:


Your other point: I'm not sure just what you mean about "a power plant that can not graduate their output better than that must be designed pretty poorly". All power turbines, whether hydro Gas Turbine, or thermal have different operating characteristics. Generally the more efficient a turbine is then the narrower will be its operating band.

True, it is about compromise when it comes to turbines. I know the basics but not the details on how to make a thermal power plant.
I was just thinking that it should be possible to make a plant where you could graduate the output in one way or the other while keeping the whole system at operating temperature. E.g. a bank of turbines of different sizes (2, 4, 8, 16, 32... MW each) with the option of running any combination of turbines at once while keeping the inoperational turbines heated to operating temperature.


NZ is one big EQ zone :blink:

You should still be able to make a safe nuclear plant. As long as you don't put it right on top of or very close to the fault line itself. The plains of Canterbury, Taranaki, Southland or Northland I guess could fit the bill.

I do believe Japan and California have a couple of nuclear power plants - so NZ should be able to as well then.

[Jantar]

One of our power stations is already plumbed up for the cooling system.
It was designed for nuke capacity ("in the future") from the outset. One of the few times that NZ has planned ahead.

Really? Which one?

[Hitcher]

One of our power stations is already plumbed up for the cooling system.
It was designed for nuke capacity ("in the future") from the outset. One of the few times that NZ has planned ahead.

Fascinating! It's not Huntly, that's for sure. It must be Manapouri!

[Finn]

I'm surprised that Resource Consent hasn't been bought up yet.

[devnull]

Some useful info:
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/waste_home.htm

[Jantar]

This article in the TIMES is rellevent. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3176456.ece

[Swoop]

Really? Which one?
Downstream from Taupo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohakuri).

I'm surprised that Resource Consent hasn't been bought up yet.
I have already solved that one. Put it in a disused power station like Meremere. "We want to put a power station where we have a power station..."
Done. Next!

[Finn]

This article in the TIMES is rellevent. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3176456.ece

Excellent article! If I was gay, Clarkson would be the man.

[Jantar]

Downstream from Taupo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohakuri).!

That wikipedia article refers to Ohakuri. I worked in Ohakuri as an operator from 1979 to 1982 and controlled it as a North Island System Controller from 1986 to 1992. While operating there I wrote the training manuals and standing safety procedures, so I think I know the plant quite well. The cooling water is taken directly off the machine penstocks. Each offtake has a capacity of 100 l/s, giving a combined offtake of 400 l/s or 0.4 cumecs.

A 1000 MW nuclear station has a cooling water requirement of 25 cumecs, so Ohakuri is short by 98.4%.

Ohakuri was commissioned in 1961, but it is a 1953 design. When did the worlds first commercial Nuclear Power station begin operating? June 27th 1954. So New Zealand must have been world leaders. :msn-wink:

[Mikkel]

This article in the TIMES is rellevent. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3176456.ece

Mr. Clarkson is a very funny man! Thanks for that - loved it, this bit had me laughing hard:

Not only is the energy clean but there are other advantages too. The new power plants will be privately run, which means you can buy shares in them and you won’t lose a penny. Because when things are going well you’ll get a dividend, and when they’re not going well you won’t care because you’ll be covered in sulphurous sores and blood will be spurting from where your eyes used to be.

[Mikkel]

That wikipedia article refers to Ohakuri. I worked in Ohakuri as an operator from 1979 to 1982 and controlled it as a North Island System Controller from 1986 to 1992. While operating there I wrote the training manuals and standing safety procedures, so I think I know the plant quite well. The cooling water is taken directly off the machine penstocks. Each offtake has a capacity of 100 l/s, giving a combined offtake of 400 l/s or 0.4 cumecs.

A 1000 MW nuclear station has a cooling water requirement of 25 cumecs, so Ohakuri is short by 98.4%.

Ohakuri was commissioned in 1961, but it is a 1953 design. When did the worlds first commercial Nuclear Power station begin operating? June 27th 1954. So New Zealand must have been world leaders. :msn-wink:

Sounds like you should consider adding a bit to that wiki page :yes:

Anyway, it would be very weird to prepare a hydro plant for nuclear expansion! Could make some sort of sense for a thermal though.

You sure you got the right one Swoop?

[Swoop]

That wikipedia article refers to Ohakuri. I worked in Ohakuri as an operator from 1979 to 1982 and controlled it as a North Island System Controller from 1986 to 1992.
I was informed "downstream from Taupo" and "has all of the plumbing".

[Jantar]

New Zealand's Ministry of Energy did start investigating a nuclear option for New Zealand in the mid to late 1970s, and concluded that Kaipara would be an ideal location. The only large powers stations in New Zealand designed during and after this investigation were Clyde, Rangipo and Huntly. Of these Huntly is the closest in meeting the requirements, and co-incidentally it was designed as a 1000 MW thermal station, so does have the cooling water capability, but not the actual plumbing. Unfortunately, the Waikato river gets too hot during summer, so even now Huntly can't run to capacity this time of year.

[Skyryder]

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Skyryder

[steveb64]

The urban rumour that I'd heard (years ago) reckoned the geothermal plant at Wairaki was setup to run nuke if needed - but looking at the construction dates (1958 startup) definitely makes it a myth! Oh well - another bubble popped. :(

[Skyryder]

The urban rumour that I'd heard (years ago) reckoned the geothermal plant at Wairaki was setup to run nuke if needed - but looking at the construction dates (1958 startup) definitely makes it a myth! Oh well - another bubble popped. :(

I worked on the drilling rigs on this. Never heard any talk of nuke energy.

Skyryder