Nuke power for NZ?

[Timber020]

What say you?

NZ needs more and more power all the time and the fact is that we cant keep damming rivers forever. (beisides, rivers are great.)
Coal and oil in my opinion is a no go, its expensive to keep going and does more damage than a kx500 on a golf green.
Geothermal is good but there is only so much we can harness.
Solar.......kinda like using a harley powerplant to break the sound barrier.
Wind. Great, windmills are pretty if theres one on a hill. But when you have a few thousand of them all over the countryside and coastline like you see in some places overseas, the appeal is lost very quickly. Not to mention how lovely they become when theres no wind.

Now according to some guys on here you could put 3 4stroke 250's together on a generator and make more power than the national grid could handle.

Which leaves Nuke power......okay we dont like it but its safer and environmentally less harmful that the others (as long as its serviced by people a little more skilled than 3rd world dollar a day technicians). Even some of the big international environmentalists are saying its the best choice.

What do you guys think?

[Ms Piggy]

I say...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Timber020]

Knee jerk reactions aside. why? Or what alternative would you suggest? We could get rid of auckland, but then where would all the people who hate motorsport (speedway, v8s etc) live?

[Joni]

I have to agree with CSL!
:sunny:

[Indiana_Jones]

I say we should let nuke ships to visit, but I don't really know about nuke power.

-Indy

[Ms Piggy]

Knee jerk reactions aside. why? Or what alternative would you suggest? We could get rid of auckland, but then where would all the people who hate motorsport (speedway, v8s etc) live?
To be honest I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it but I assure you that was no knee jerk reaction...my knees don't jerk anyway. There are just too many negatives to nukes anyway - pollution being the most obvious.

[Grumpy]

Nuke power might be "green" as they say, but I remain unconvinced of that, but the waste sure as hell isn't.

[avgas]

Actually, about the polution thing - its actually quite good. But i still say no about it.
Why? well the smallest power plant would oversupply NZ 6 times over - which is actually complete overkill. I went to a seminar on Nuclear Power last year, the conclusion was, that nuclear power in NZ was like making a 2000hp motorcycle - a awespiring thing, that has heaps of power.......but no real use.
I good point i brought up with one of the lecturers who was for the nuclear power scheme, was that suppy wasnt much of a problem :confused: he looked at me......then i pointed out that most of our usage was on antique technology.
Like how many people still use; ennificient lighting? old motors? hell most electrical wiring in NZ is over 50 years old now.
I mean you wouldnt turbo and NOS a BSA so you could ride with all the GSXRs. So why do people still use 100w bulbs? Why are lights left on all the time? Why do offices/schools/workplaces leave devices on 'standby' when they clearly wont be used in a 2hr period?

[Holy Roller]

Actually, about the polution thing - its actually quite good. But i still say no about it.
Why? well the smallest power plant would oversupply NZ 6 times over -

May be why they want to build the new pylons for the power that is not there

[Wonko]

Problems with Nuke's in NZ

Nuke's need cooling ponds to cool the water down. This produces waste heat into the ground and atmospher around the plant.

Fuel supply. Reliant on overseas for material to keep it going.

Waste removal. Do we want nuclear waste stored in NZ. Ruining our clean green image?

Site placement. Site must be earthquake prone free. Most of NZ is on a fault line so limit's the placement.

Maori would protest agains use. Poisioning of the mother land or something likewise. Also finding the land for one would be a pain in the arse as local maori would call part/all the land under the planned area sacred.

Powerstations generally have a 20- 25 year working life, afterwards the site is shut down and locked down until it is eather dismantled and radioactive parts are moved away and stored, or it has "cooled down" in 1000 years or so. So in 25 years time you need another one.

In regards to power overkill, you can get nuclear powerplants from 50 megawatts up to 2400+ megawatts

[Blakamin]

I reckon why not.... better than using all the fossil fuels... we aint gunna live forever without it.... and no-one has cold fusion yet....

ahh stuff it... lets just keep up with the rest of the 3rd world, burn coal and have power shortages....
what other "great" nation can't power a heart-lung machine without a diesel generator coz someone turned on a microwave....

[Blakamin]

So why do people still use 100w bulbs? Why are lights left on all the time? Why do offices/schools/workplaces leave devices on 'standby' when they clearly wont be used in a 2hr period?
why do companies make printers that cost less than the ink??? coz technology has come that far that we can... we are a throw away society.... we can bullshit on all we like but thats the way it is and thats the way it will stay... it's not the coldwar any more, peoples... we aint a russian target... everyone is a target.. whether they like it or not.. its a new enemy, why should we continue to spend billions on fossils when we could be a lot more friendly with not digging miles of shit up and burning it for a way to power what we got....
If we all want to live in the past, give up your phones, TVs, videos, dvd players, microwaves, stereos, stoves, radios, fridges....
not me...

how many nuclear powerplants are there in the world?
how many have had a meltdown...
how many coal burning powerplants?
how many have had fires?.... I could tell you of at least 3 in the morwell power region of victoria in the last 20 years... coal is pretty hard to put out...

[sedge]

Jeez guys, hasn't anyone ever heard of pebble bed reactors etc... You don't need some humongous 1950s water cooled monstrosity... Like everything else reactors have come along aways since 3 mile island you know (and you can't count places like Chernobyl which were ripped off from early American designs).

I'm not saying I'm pro-nuke, but for fecks sake, you can't make a decision until you've done some research for yourself and not relied on force-fed outdated propaganda.

Sedge.

[MrMelon]

Pebble bed reactors are where it's at. It's pretty fricken safe and efficient and doesn't pollute the environment.

Don't just take my word for it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

[Storm]

Jeez guys, hasn't anyone ever heard of pebble bed reactors etc... You don't need some humongous 1950s water cooled monstrosity... Like everything else reactors have come along aways since 3 mile island you know (and you can't count places like Chernobyl which were ripped off from early American designs).

I'm not saying I'm pro-nuke, but for fecks sake, you can't make a decision until you've done some research for yourself and not relied on force-fed outdated propaganda.

Sedge.

I agree. Its far better to have a logical discussion than just bringing your prejudices to the table. Not stabbing at anyone, just feel this is one of those issues that makes the knees a bit itchy

[cliffy]

yeeeaahh! we should be nuke powered, cos then we could use stewart island as the propeller and go tearin round the pacific on the south island wavin at the aussies as we go :spudwave: :moon: (and they'll never catch us!, have you seen the size of the place, it'd be faar to slow!) :shake:

[Skyryder]

Pebble bed reactors are where it's at. It's pretty fricken safe and efficient and doesn't pollute the environment.

Don't just take my word for it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor


So what happens with the Nuc. wast??

Skyryder

[moko]

We have nuke power and the scariest bit is the human factor.I used to work in the place that made the fuel-rods for Britain`s AGR reactors and there were several fuck-ups that would have been a major scandal if someone had tipped off the press.We were supplying them out of spec for months because some clown was cost-cutting(at our end)and changed the spec without informing the customer.Their quality control basically was turning up at work and reading books e.t.c.,the press caught that one but not the fact that it was our defective(though probably not dangerous)cock-up that caught them out.Someone found it and back-tracked,they had 3 months worth of our work laying about and it was all crap,how long it had been going into the reactors is anyone`s guess.all should have been checked by their Q.C when it entered the plants.
There`s a leukaemia cluster around the Sellafield re-processing plant despite the government refusing to acknowledge it while banning fishing in the area.They had a major nuke accident in 1958 and covered it up.
I live next to the Navy dockyard in Devonport and tritium is pumped directly into the river.This is at 500 times the previous legal limit(it`s banned in the U.S.) but the law was changed AFTER they started pumping the shit into it.There are 6 redundant nuke subs laying there rotting away and the Navy admit they havn`t got a clue where to put them or what to do with them.
Apart from anything else the cost of de-commissioning these things when they end their useful life is horrendous,France have admitted that they cant afford the cost of de-commissioning theres,interesting.A few years back there was a drought in France and the press latched on to the minor detail that most of their nuke stations are by the side of rivers for cooling............which were drying up fast.that time they got lucky.The fallout from Chernobyl may well have been years ago but we got hit by and quietly farmers got paid to destroy stock in certain areas.We get a lot of kids over here from Chernobyl,Brits pay for them to come over for holidays because they dont have much of a life.they visit local schools and get well-looked after and entertained,to put it bluntly they`re then sent back to die,nothing anyone can do but give them a good time for a while because they`re already dead,just a matter of time.
Something else the media failed to report,when the Pan Am 747 came down in Lockerbie it landed about 10 ks away from the nuclear power-station at Annan.Whether that was a fluke or the intention if it had hit(and it`s a massive place)then it would have claimed a whole lot moe victims than 9/11 over the years.

[TwoSeven]

Nuke power is clean and safe when its 'in operation' but not when it isnt. There is a problem with getting rid of the waste. Something they dont tell you about the nuke operating cost, is that getting rid of waste cost 10 times more than running the plant.

The other thing is that nuke plants only run for a small amount of time, about 25 years and after that you can never again (for the rest of time as far as we are concerned) use the ground it was built on.

Britain and France are removing all of their plance - for the UK I think the last two are not far from being commisioned. No more will be built in the UK after these two go.

The reason why is that the UK is now getting more and more of its power from renewable energy sources such as wind and sea (especially sea). NZ is just waking up to this, but still has a protected industry, so it will be a good 10 years before we re-invent the lightbulb so to speak (we are way behind the world in electrical generation capability).

If you want to upset a labour politician, ask them how much money the government spends developing wage generation capability - the answer is none, and next to none (in real terms) for wind generation - since most of it is privately funded.

I wouldnt even bother with asking why people are still prevented from generating their own power (you can, but you cannot also be connected into the grid), yet in the states, you can get credits for doing so.

[Timber020]

Modern Nuke stations have a lifespan of up to 40 years with current technology, will probably get better with time. One 2cm pellet of nuke fuel puts out the same power as 1.5 tonnes of coal. More radioactivity can be released burning coal. And the water can be cooled, you just have to process it and burn a bit of power to run coolers.

I dont think its a perfect solution but considering the alternatives I cant see NZ getting ahead with our current strategies of ruining our rivers and landscape and air with stop gap power solutions.

[Kickaha]

I wouldnt even bother with asking why people are still prevented from generating their own power (you can, but you cannot also be connected into the grid), yet in the states, you can get credits for doing so.


I don't think thats correct,just today there was an article in the press about a guy who powers his own place with a wind turbine he bought second hand out of Europe and the excess is fed back into the national grid

[Blakamin]

good to see not everyone here lives in the 80's and the "no nukes" bullshit that put NZ at least a coupla years behind the rest of the third world....\


another thing is coal mining machinery and the deaths it causes...
an ex-o -mines-father works at one of aussies biggest coal burning plants... they have some cool numbers on the people dying breathing the dust... and these steam generators (same as nuke) are water cooled... people swim all year round in a snowy pond called hazlewood
Victoria’s season kicks off on October 23 with the annual swim in the warm waters of Hazlewood Pondage at Morwell. If you haven’t swum in the cooling tank of a power station before, here is your chance. The pondage looks like any other lake, it can be calm or rough, and the courses are all a loop, larger loop for the longer distances. Take advantage of this rare opportunity in Victoria to swim without a wettie. The water should be reasonably warm, in the low twenties, or at least not as cold as the ocean at this time of year, but maybe not quite as warm as your local pool. The free soup afterwards is always welcome.

http://www.peoplesvoice.gov.au/stories/vic/morwell/images/th_opencut.jpg
or
http://www.peoplesvoice.gov.au/stories/vic/morwell/images/th_hazlewood.jpg

pretty huh... 1970's technology at its worst... should see it on a day its running...
http://www.peoplesvoice.gov.au/stories/vic/morwell/morwell_c.htm


and my mum was a teacher in a school here (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Yallourn%2C+Victoria&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) but read what happened to it...

[Skyryder]

We have nuke power and the scariest bit is the human factor.I used to work in the place that made the fuel-rods for Britain`s AGR reactors and there were several fuck-ups that would have been a major scandal if someone had tipped off the press.We were supplying them out of spec for months because some clown was cost-cutting(at our end)and changed the spec without informing the customer.Their quality control basically was turning up at work and reading books e.t.c.,the press caught that one but not the fact that it was our defective(though probably not dangerous)cock-up that caught them out.Someone found it and back-tracked,they had 3 months worth of our work laying about and it was all crap,how long it had been going into the reactors is anyone`s guess.all should have been checked by their Q.C when it entered the plants.
There`s a leukaemia cluster around the Sellafield re-processing plant despite the government refusing to acknowledge it while banning fishing in the area.They had a major nuke accident in 1958 and covered it up.
I live next to the Navy dockyard in Devonport and tritium is pumped directly into the river.This is at 500 times the previous legal limit(it`s banned in the U.S.) but the law was changed AFTER they started pumping the shit into it.There are 6 redundant nuke subs laying there rotting away and the Navy admit they havn`t got a clue where to put them or what to do with them.
Apart from anything else the cost of de-commissioning these things when they end their useful life is horrendous,France have admitted that they cant afford the cost of de-commissioning theres,interesting.A few years back there was a drought in France and the press latched on to the minor detail that most of their nuke stations are by the side of rivers for cooling............which were drying up fast.that time they got lucky.The fallout from Chernobyl may well have been years ago but we got hit by and quietly farmers got paid to destroy stock in certain areas.We get a lot of kids over here from Chernobyl,Brits pay for them to come over for holidays because they dont have much of a life.they visit local schools and get well-looked after and entertained,to put it bluntly they`re then sent back to die,nothing anyone can do but give them a good time for a while because they`re already dead,just a matter of time.
Something else the media failed to report,when the Pan Am 747 came down in Lockerbie it landed about 10 ks away from the nuclear power-station at Annan.Whether that was a fluke or the intention if it had hit(and it`s a massive place)then it would have claimed a whole lot moe victims than 9/11 over the years.

Good post Moko. Didn't know about the Lockerbie connection to Nuke Reactor. There is a slow movement here that is about to begin in the promotion of nuclea energy for New Zealand. Has not taken off yet but it's in the works. Next power crisis and you just wait and see the pro nuke lobby get into gear.

Skyryder

[Wonko]

And the water can be cooled, you just have to process it and burn a bit of power to run coolers.


Requires more energy to use power to cool the water than was generated by the plant.

[Blakamin]

how about http://www.loyyangpower.com.au/index.html
go to "what we do" "mining facts" (sorry, cant link).... guess what...coal burning plants need water too
pretty pictures huh???

used to live there...
check this....
Output - up to 3600 tonnes of coal per hour

or this is cool too
Age of coal seams - 15-30 million years...Life of coal seams with current mining - 50 years

all from their website....

http://www.loyyangpower.com.au/images/cooling-towers.jpg
mmmm...coal......



sux



ps... this is just Loy yang... there is also hazlewood, yallourn, yallourn w, and a couple I cant remember... and the other 3 open cut holes that are FARQIN huge

[sels1]

I dont feel its necessary for NZ to go down the nuclear path at this stage - it has lots of issues as mentioned in the previous posts. Non polluting renewable resources are the best long term aim. We are fortunate here to have strong sunlight, plently of wind, good rainfall and some great tidal movements all of which can be harnessed. Technology is only just explanding in this area and will accellerate as fossil fuels become scarcer and more expensive. Japan is already cranking up production of solar cells and they will get increasingly cheaper with mass production. Intelligent building design and an more efficient distribution network are other areas where plenty of gains can be made. Although the Govt supports the Kyoto protocol, they have been lax over R&D and investment in this area. A good question for your candidate come election time. If we do things properly we can retain our clean/green image and never need to have to consider the nuclear option.

[James Deuce]

Interesting to see that most of the people supporting Nuclear power (with the notable exception of Blakamin) don't have kids.

Fission is a "stupid" technology. Even the waste from fast breeder and pebble reactors still kills organic material if you touch it. Fission byproducts are lethal for thousands of years. As a military weapon it is the grossest, most inelegant form of overkill ever invented. It has NO military purpose at all. It is a political tool, both in the energy sense and the "military" sense. Sure, build a reactor. But don't whinge when no one will take the waste off your hands when you realise that there are NO safe storage sites in NZ anywhere for Nuclear waste. It will end up in the water table and the food chain. You can count on it. The North Island is a geologically active lump of scoria rattled by earthquakes and volcanoes regularly. It also has a couple of nice big flood plains. Chuck the waste in the ground and it gets hurled forth. The Sth Is. is a jutting fold at the intersection of the Australo/Indus and Pacific tectonic plates. It wobbles a bit too. and it has a big flood plain on one side. And the whole country sits at the confluence of both violent weather patterns and a couple of large oceans.

One common thread I have noticed in the energy generation sector over the last 20 years is over stating fossil fuel negatives and under stating nuclear power generation negatives.

How many of you are aware that the planet generates far more CO2 that we EVER could? That the crust, and particularly the Mid-Atlantic trench belches forth trillions of cubic tonnes of the stuf every year? How many of you have ever bothered to question anything presented as a case for a particular energy source in detail? Don't say you don't have the skill or knowledge, because unlike any other person, living in any other time, you have access to more information, both theoretical and practical, than ever before.

I'd love to see Nuclear power in NZ, so long as it's Cold Fusion. Otherwise, fuck off.

In the meantime we have 10,000 years of coal based energy languishing in the Sth Island. There's also a bunch of technology that has been applied to automobiles that has substantially reduced noxious outputs from vehicles, despite the vehicle fleet growing. It is merely a question of scale to tame the more noxious elements of Coal Power Station effluvium. Except you're not allowed to research it, thanks to the "Green" political elements.

[Skunk]

I'd love to see Nuclear power in NZ, so long as it's Cold Fusion.I thought that had been debunked. As in not ever possible except in theory? :spudwhat:

[Blakamin]

Interesting to see that most of the people supporting Nuclear power (with the notable exception of Blakamin) don't have kids.

.
:niceone:

I see what you're saying in the post, but after living in the morwell region for 6 months, with its 5 (?) coal burning plants and its 3-4 opencut mines, I dont want my children breathing shit that makes your "whites greyer" and your "colours greyer still!"

you shoulda seen the ex's parents pool.... (and it was indoors)

like I said... he worked (prolly still does) there and he knows it aint safe....


we could get the material from aussie, where they dig it out of a national park in NT... and send it back, where they bury it in the desert in SA... NZ dont need as much as the aussies are fuckin with everyday... and I'm an aussie...
makes me wanna move home... lol (insert radio-active teardrop here)


and still I prefer it to burning coal....


[edit] a funny bit from loy yang... cause all power stations need them....
Loy Yang Power welcomes enquiries into the use of its operator training simulator located in the power station.
It allows learner-operators to understand the complexities of the power station in a risk free environment, making it an extremely valuable tool

"Hi, I wanna open a powerplant... can I borrow ya simu.. simil... training bit??"

[Gen]

The first thing that sprung to mind was the chernobal disaster.
If (and that's a big if) NZ ever went down the nucleur path I would leave NZ.

[Blakamin]

The first thing that sprung to mind was the chernobal disaster.
If (and that's a big if) NZ ever went down the nucleur path I would leave NZ.
50's technology with a hell of a lot of human error...

my laptop could run 5 chernobyls with a "blue screen of death"!!!
my watch could probably run chernobyl... and its analogue....

would you let 20 year olds run a nightshift in a nuclear powerplant????


shit, they didnt even tell each other what they were doing!!!! (guy removing rods, another removing water)

sorry Gen, but I have a fascination with energy and the digging of big holes... if we were to rely on 1 disaster to stop people doing what they do, we'd have no brigdes, tunnels or coal and hydro power plants....

ps... I dunno where you'd move to??????

[Krusti]

I would much rather see NZ try to lead the world in clean power supply. Prob more expensive in the short term. I for one would be put up with paying a little extra for power if it were greener.

We need to protect, build on, our clean image. Money needs to be put aside for research etc into alternatives. Prob wont happen tho.

I like the idea of NZ being a little different to the rest of the world. Surely with our Kiwi know how we can think of something.

And here we are about to scar our landscape with huge 70m pylons!

We can be such dorks sometimes.

In the end we need to foster a clean image if not only to have an edge in marketing our products overseas.

My 5 cents anyway.

[James Deuce]

I thought that had been debunked. As in not ever possible except in theory? :spudwhat:

Nothing is impossible. A particular line of research has been debunked. You know what I mean! :)

[Timber020]

Maybe some sort of government sponsership of solar systems for house roofs would be a good place to start. Or getting houses better insulated. (our house is so badly insulated I reckon I could cool a nuke station using it)

[marty]

leave NZ and go where? Fiji?

auckland has 2 huge harbours on the west coast. what happened to the tidal generator push? i saw something on discovery a couple of years ago but nothing since. that HAS to be the cleanest, most perpetually renewable source of energy, even more reliable than a solar/wind combination.

[jazbug5]

Well: here's my tuppence.

Not being a boffin, I have no facts and figures to quote: but I do second what has been said about the expense and stupidity of creating radioactive waste products. It's very easy to come up with reassuring statistics about 'likelihoods' and 'small amounts involved', but the fact remains that we are (by definition) dealing with something very potent on the atomic level.
I am from the North East of Scotland. We had a plant further North we called 'DoomRay'. Now, I used to go to the Orthopaedic hospital for treatment on a regular basis, and very often my visits coincided with a visit from the 'special bus' from Dounray- with about twenty deformed kids, all about the same age. The bus was paid for by British Nuclear Power.
Hmmmmm.
Always been a bit sus of nuclear power since then, funnily enough...

On a different note, wouldn't it be nice if we all just learned to be a bit less bloody selfish in the way we use power? I've always thought it's be great if you could set up a pedal powered generator for stuff like TVs etc...!

[Blakamin]

I've always thought it's be great if you could set up a pedal powered generator for stuff like TVs etc...!
Mine would have to be motorcycle powered... I'm a lazy bar-stard

[moko]

The reason why is that the UK is now getting more and more of its power from renewable energy sources such as wind and sea (especially sea).

Still very,very little though.Wave-power is talked about but only a few experimental sites,though a new design is looking very promising.Wind turbines are a source of controversy.Many hate them as they tend to get placed on hill-sides in the country-side and once the novelty`s worn off they`re just an eye-sore.
We still have coal-fired power-stations here but since the civil-war,sorry Miner`s strike,almost all of our coal comes from Poland and Rumania.Luckily none of the expensive safety at work regs like there are in our few remaining mines and they`re on very low wages so it`s nice and cheap,financial imperialism.

[Biff]

No, no, no, no, no!!!!!

You have strong tides, strong currents, lots of waves, tall mountains for wind farms etc.

Contrary to common belief, nuclear energy is very dirty in addition to being dangerous. Mankind made the stupid mistake of heralding nuclear power as a great form of energy before they even thought about ways in which to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. So we bury it in the ground, store it above ground, dump it in the sea etc (seen the news lately? Hundreds of tons of nuclear waste being washed up on the shore lines of Somalia.). How bloody stupid is that?!

Man kind needs to grow a conscience and New Zealand needs to lead by example. Invest in renewable energy sources.

[Lou Girardin]

So it comes down to a choice between:
Damming all our rivers, burning all our coal and gas, covering what's left of the countryside, after Shania Twain and co had a spend up, with wind turbines,
tidal generators in our harbours.
Or nukiller power.
Gee, tough choice.
It just shows the power of political manipulation though. Lange and co made us nuclear free so as to distract us while they raped the working class. And we still think it's a great idea.

[BM-GS]

Lots of views being put forward, which is always good - full & frank debate, etc, etc.

Some good words on lightening the load in the first place, which is also good. Why the f*%k aren't solar water-heaters compulsory on all new buildings? Isn't domestic hot water one of the biggest power-drains in the country?

As for using tin sheet as a roofing material - it makes the rooms inside hot, and then people think "well, I'll have to install air-con cos it's so hot inside.".... How about a nice, light-coloured, insulating material for roofing? Then you don't need extra fibreglass insulation as well.

The trouble, I think, is that most people take a short-term view of expense, not a long term one; sticker price, rather than total cost. If we reduce our power requirements, everything gets easier.

This one will run & run, but some kind of objective presentation of the facts is always a better thing than the skewed, agenda-ridden stuff we seem to end up with.

Personally, I'm leaning away from nuke power, but I'm open to persuasion with facts rather than opinions. Telling the difference is the hard bit..

[TwoSeven]

One of the other things about nuke power, is that I really wouldnt have a problem with it if it only buggered things up for a short period of time, like a coal station or gas station would do.

But to be honest, I cant really justify messing up the country permanently, for what really is about allowing a couple of companies to make a profit for a short time - which is really what its all about at the end of the day.

[Blakamin]

But to be honest, I cant really justify messing up the country permanently, for what really is about allowing a couple of companies to make a profit for a short time - which is really what its all about at the end of the day.
but ya dont... any nuclear material bought from aussie has to go back to aussie... they made that rule years ago...

[pete376403]

(conspiracy rant mode on) I often think that the current "power crisis" talk in the media is the power companies laying the groundwork to ease us into accepting that there is no alternative left but to go nuke.
Contact recently admitted to screwing up billing for some 17,000 consumers. Is this the sort of company that should be trusted to run a nuke? (conspiracy rant mode off)

Cutting energy waste as mentioned by other would be far more efficient

[ktulu]

I am no expert at all on this (I'm a fencer for fucks sake) but whenever I drive over that little bridge on the motorway between takanini and papakura and see that water flowing under it hard out from the tidal basin on the east I am sure that we could harness that enegy.
I mentioned this to my girlfriend and my brother but the both laughed, does anyone know anything about this or maybe creating power from waves and stuff?

[TwoSeven]

but ya dont... any nuclear material bought from aussie has to go back to aussie... they made that rule years ago...

But ya do, because once they use the fuel, the containment and ground its housed on has to be perm. covered over with one huge slab of concrete. Radiation has this tendancy to leech into the surrounding materials.

Same with fusion as well. While the actually process doesnt generate much in the way of radiation, the containment device pretty much glows.

And since the containment device sits on the ground, all those worms start wondering how their new found legs work :)

[James Deuce]

I am no expert at all on this (I'm a fencer for fucks sake) but whenever I drive over that little bridge on the motorway between takanini and papakura and see that water flowing under it hard out from the tidal basin on the east I am sure that we could harness that enegy.
I mentioned this to my girlfriend and my brother but the both laughed, does anyone know anything about this or maybe creating power from waves and stuff?
You're on to it man.

This site has some good explanations and isn't too preachy:

http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/tidal.htm

[duckman]

Again, no expert here but, I would prefer that NZ took an innovative approach to the power supply issue.
Surely a combination of wind, Solar and wave energy could be harnessed to provide clean energy for as long as we have sun, wind and waves.

Also, I think with a little construction law change all NEW houses could be built with their own solar power roof tiles. (or such-like).
This could mean that each house bears part of the load for collecting power for NZ.
When we talk about not wanting big power plants or coal pits, why not consider using our exisiting environment. - Our roofs ....

The roof, the roof, the roof is for hire.... :wari:

[James Deuce]

The roof, the roof, the roof is for hire.... :wari:
There's even some good looking ones around now. No obvious geekiness until you get close :)

http://www.atlantisenergy.org/sunslates2.html

Bear in mind though, that there was a chap who recently pointed out that on a NET basis he contributed more to the national grid than he was drawing. Transpower's response was to remove the credit system so private individuals no longer get credits for providing power and you have to pay line rental for your cabling and a minimum "usage" charge, irrespective of whether the line company owes you money or not.

[duckman]

I would think that if even 10% of the NZ houses could take care of their own power supply it would be a great start!!

Is this feasible or am I talking crap ??.. (as usual)

[James Deuce]

I would think that if even 10% of the NZ houses could take care of their own power supply it would be a great start!!

Is this feasible or am I talking crap ??.. (as usual)
It's a brilliant idea, and under the Kyoto protocol the Govt is supposed to offer tax relief to people who retrofit this to their house or design it into a new build. With this and solar water heaters we could reduce both the total power production required and the amount lost in transmission. 50% of the electricity generated in the Sth Is. is lost in transmisssion. Bit wasteful, eh?

[bear]

What about making solar panels on the top of new houses compulsory - doesn't it only add $5k-$10k onto the cost?

[James Deuce]

What about making solar panels on the top of new houses compulsory - doesn't it only add $5k-$10k onto the cost?

Compulsion is a good way to ensure a less than adequate result.

Next you'll be suggesting 5 year plans ;)

[James Deuce]

Just having another think about this, if you boiled your hot water cylinder you could drive a steam turbine as well. Excellent for those wetback fireplaces, or for hot summer days where the solar water heater overdoes things. Hmmm so many sources of energy.

[Timber020]

It stinks that you can produce power put it into the national grid and at the end of the day they still hit you with a line charge.

There should be more support for people who work to save power or add things to there own house to be more self efficent. An architect I was talking to a couple of weeks back is building a house with solar cells in the walls as well.

Maybe the answer to the power problem isnt big stations, but every house and factory having its system which contributes to lessening the need for more large scale production.

[sAsLEX]

It has NO military purpose at all.

tend to disagree here, but I suppose the war ended itself really?


It stinks that you can produce power put it into the national grid and at the end of the day they still hit you with a line charge.

Disconnect the line and become totally self sufficient, they couldn't charge you then.

[sAsLEX]

http://www.marineturbines.com/mct_image_files/ref_G_a.jpg

http://www.marineturbines.com/mct_image_files/ref_H.jpg

now this shit is cool, http://www.marineturbines.com/technical.htm

[Coyote]

now this shit is cool, http://www.marineturbines.com/technical.htm
Wouldn't want to go swimming near by :crazy:

[sAsLEX]

Wouldn't want to go swimming near by :crazy:
well in the places they would be placed I wouldn't want to either!! They only spin at about 20rpm so slow enough not to damage fishes

[James Deuce]

tend to disagree here, but I suppose the war ended itself really?

That particular dual usage was Political in nature and outcome. There was no Military need to use it. From a Logistics perspective Japan had lost the war 12 months previously. The US and allies could have sat back and let the Japanese home islands starve, but the war in China would have continued, and the Soviet Union had huge forces gathering on the Sino-Soviet border. A Soviet victory in Northern China with an increasingly belligerent Stalin in charge of the USSR would have created an even bigger united Communist Bloc for the "Western" allies to deal with.

Plus any US government that let conscript troops invade a country with a fight to the death mentality, and the subsequent number of casualties, wouldn't be voted back into power. You'll note that Truman was voted back in to office, and the US/USSR standoff was mainly performed in Europe with "sideshows" in Asia.


Disconnect the line and become totally self sufficient, they couldn't charge you then.

You still get charged the basic fees.

[Jeremy]

New Zealand has Uranium supplies (around Nelson). But there's no need for a nuclear power plant here, plus the risk due to earth quakes is too high. However we do have one advantage over many other countries when commerical fusion reactors are running (which will be pretty soon, with the first medium scale viable reactor having allready been planned out, all that has to happen is that they decide where to build it). We have large areas of land which don't have people living anywhere near them. Thus in the event of a reactor malfunction the 30km wide crater wouldn't be a problem. And there's nothing wrong with having more power than your needs, asit helps out industry which love cheap power.

[sAsLEX]

You still get charged the basic fees.

even if your property has no connection to the main grid, ie subdivide off a corner of your farm and run a small house on renewable energy only and you will be charged a line fee even though the place has no electrical service? I know I wouldn't pay for something I wasn't recieving

[pete376403]

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/030305EC.shtml on more nuclear powerplants for Gt Britain.

[James Deuce]

even if your property has no connection to the main grid, ie subdivide off a corner of your farm and run a small house on renewable energy only and you will be charged a line fee even though the place has no electrical service? I know I wouldn't pay for something I wasn't recieving
I'll find out, though I think that it is unlikely that you'd get planning consent for section with no power feed.

[Hitcher]

Well, I hope all of the NIMBYs freeze to death.

New Zealand is about to pay the price for a decade of no national energy strategy and for failing to encourage sensible public debate on energy options.

Auckland will be the first to suffer. The new high-tension supply from Whakamaru to Auckland is unlikely to happen. Why? Resource Management Act (RMA), 1,000 individual land owners -- you do the math. Plan B? A coal-fired plant on the site of the Marsden B generator at Marsden Point. Economically feasible? You betcha. Environmentally "friendly"? Absolutely. Likely to happen? Possibly, but there's a big sales job required on modern coal-fired generation systems first. Other options for Auckland? Move now, while your latte's still warm...

As for the rest of New Zealand?

Renewables: geothermal? Possible, but could cause major subsidence issues. Hydro? No. Bugger-all damable rivers left, and then there's the RMA. Wind? Good for keeping the GM-free macrame weavers happy, but not able to cost-effectively produce the sorts of numbers we need. Tides and rivers? Possible, but the capital investment required is huge. Solar? 20 years away, at least.

Nuclear? The arguments have been well run earlier. Not a goer for a whole bunch of reasons.

Coal? Absolutely. Unfortunately New Zealand is not an industrialised nation and one outcome of this is that there is no "coal culture" here. When most kiwis hear the word "coal" they think of kids up chimneys, ponies and budgies down mines, palls of sooty smoke, etc. Modern coal combustion is significantly more sophisticated than that -- it has to be to pass muster in affluent and discerning economies like Europe. And New Zealand has squillions of tonnes of coal that can either be mined or "harvested" for its methane. And we only have to use it for the next 30 or so years until the "next generation" of electricity sources are proven and commercialised -- fuel cells, solar, fusion, etc.

And then there's the Kyoto Protocol. This is a tough ask for New Zealand that on one had pretends to be part of the developed world but has the energy consumption profile of a developing nation. This agreement will act as a dead hand on any form of combustion -- including motor vehicles.

Brown-outs will become pretty much a reality for New Zealand within the next five to 10 years, and worse for Aucklanders because of a combination of population growth and poor electricity distributing infrastructure (there are no remaining corridors to run pylons across the city).

And on that happy note, it's back to the cricket...

[Blakamin]

Well, I hope all of the NIMBYs freeze to death.
.......

And on that happy note, it's back to the cricket...
cool... time to move again.... if I can get the mrs to bundaberg..... :niceone:

[sedge]

Coal? Absolutely. Unfortunately New Zealand is not an industrialised nation and one outcome of this is that there is no "coal culture" here. When most kiwis hear the word "coal" they think of kids up chimneys, ponies and budgies down mines, palls of sooty smoke, etc. Modern coal combustion is significantly more sophisticated than that -- it has to be to pass muster in affluent and discerning economies like Europe. And New Zealand has squillions of tonnes of coal that can either be mined or "harvested" for its methane. And we only have to use it for the next 30 or so years until the "next generation" of electricity sources are proven and commercialised -- fuel cells, solar, fusion, etc.

This message bought to you by the NZ coal mining association - 'putting kids in chimneys since 1845'

Sedge.

[inlinefour]

What say you?

NZ needs more and more power all the time and the fact is that we cant keep damming rivers forever. (beisides, rivers are great.)
Coal and oil in my opinion is a no go, its expensive to keep going and does more damage than a kx500 on a golf green.
Geothermal is good but there is only so much we can harness.
Solar.......kinda like using a harley powerplant to break the sound barrier.
Wind. Great, windmills are pretty if theres one on a hill. But when you have a few thousand of them all over the countryside and coastline like you see in some places overseas, the appeal is lost very quickly. Not to mention how lovely they become when theres no wind.

Now according to some guys on here you could put 3 4stroke 250's together on a generator and make more power than the national grid could handle.

Which leaves Nuke power......okay we dont like it but its safer and environmentally less harmful that the others (as long as its serviced by people a little more skilled than 3rd world dollar a day technicians). Even some of the big international environmentalists are saying its the best choice.

What do you guys think?

No matter what they actually decide there is going to allways be people who are unhappy with whatever is decided. :brick:

[Timber020]

[QUOTE=Jim2]That particular dual usage was Political in nature and outcome. There was no Military need to use it. From a Logistics perspective Japan had lost the war 12 months previously. The US and allies could have sat back and let the Japanese home islands starve, but the war in China would have continued, and the Soviet Union had huge forces gathering on the Sino-Soviet border. A Soviet victory in Northern China with an increasingly belligerent Stalin in charge of the USSR would have created an even bigger united Communist Bloc for the "Western" allies to deal with.

Plus any US government that let conscript troops invade a country with a fight to the death mentality, and the subsequent number of casualties, wouldn't be voted back into power. You'll note that Truman was voted back in to office, and the US/USSR standoff was mainly performed in Europe with "sideshows" in Asia.



QUOTE]

Not using the atoms would have resulted in many more deaths than the use of them. If not in the starvation of japanese and deaths of chinese then an allied attempt at invasion would have been a massacre for both sides. (look what happened at IwoJima). The japanese were ready to fight to the very last, it was only the big two that convinced them otherwise.

[Skyryder]

I am no expert at all on this (I'm a fencer for fucks sake) but whenever I drive over that little bridge on the motorway between takanini and papakura and see that water flowing under it hard out from the tidal basin on the east I am sure that we could harness that enegy.
I mentioned this to my girlfriend and my brother but the both laughed, does anyone know anything about this or maybe creating power from waves and stuff?

If memory serves me correctly I think there is a tidal gernerator in Italy. Think I read about it some time ago.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

http://www.hie.co.uk/aie/tidal_power.html This is better than Nuke power.

Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Not using the atoms would have resulted in many more deaths than the use of them. If not in the starvation of japanese and deaths of chinese then an allied attempt at invasion would have been a massacre for both sides. (look what happened at IwoJima). The japanese were ready to fight to the very last, it was only the big two that convinced them otherwise.

You've heard how the victor gets to write history? You've popped out the standard argument that the victors have pushed as justification for using nukes against Japan for more than half a century. They were a political tool and the Japanese were a convenient target. The Cold War political climate began almost immediately after VE day, and the resolve of both sides was sealed by the Berlin airlift of 1949. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration to prevent Stalin from even thinking about invading Western Europe. The last thing the "Imperial" Western powers wanted was another fight in Europe. US casualty rates at Iwo Jima were down more to the terrain and the fact that it was a heavily defended, and defensible theatre. The Japanese had the high ground and were able to shelter from the prolonged preceding ship to shore bombardment. I think you'll find Okinawa was much, much worse than Iwo Jima.

The "Fire Bombing" of Tokyo was far worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. "Strategic" bombing, either conventional or Nuclear is entirely about removing a society's ability to function by killing workers and breaking logistics chains, as well as the nebulous stuff like reducing morale.

"A successful incendiary raid required ideal weather that included dry air and significant wind. Weather reports predicted these conditions over Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945. A force of 334 B-29s was unleashed - each plane stripped of ammunition for its machine guns to allow it to carry more fire-bombs. The lead attackers arrived over the city just after dark and were followed by a procession of death that lasted until dawn. The fires started by the initial raiders could be seen from 150 miles away. The results were devastating: almost 17 square miles of the city were reduced to ashes. Estimates of the number killed range between 80,000 and 200,000, a higher death toll than that produced by the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki six months later." (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm)

The Japanese government was in a state of turmoil when the Emperor, not the Japanese Military Government, surrendered.

The tone I always get from the "projected number of deaths" argument is how much more valuable a "Western" life is than an "Asian" one.

[Wonko]

Auckland will be the first to suffer. The new high-tension supply from Whakamaru to Auckland is unlikely to happen. Why? Resource Management Act (RMA), 1,000 individual land owners -- you do the math.


Not quite true. Transpower can aquire the land through the government as a buy out and the land owner gets compensation at the GV price(or there abouts) and the land owner has no say in the matter. This was a condition of the privitisation of power and safegaurded the power companies from being at the complette mercy of overzealious land owners. Transpower is going through with the consoltation phase now because it would be even worse PR for them if they applied directly to the government to purchase the required land.(image the headlines "Transpower stole my land" bet the article would not mention the compensation)

[Wonko]

Problem with tidal is that 4 times a day your power output drops off to zero when the tides change. If this is during peak useage time you need to have production available to supply peak power demands. Wave power wouldn't have this limitation, but I image that power supply would still change with the tides, not a great amount.

[Gen]

50's technology with a hell of a lot of human error...

my laptop could run 5 chernobyls with a "blue screen of death"!!!
my watch could probably run chernobyl... and its analogue....

would you let 20 year olds run a nightshift in a nuclear powerplant????


shit, they didnt even tell each other what they were doing!!!! (guy removing rods, another removing water)

sorry Gen, but I have a fascination with energy and the digging of big holes... if we were to rely on 1 disaster to stop people doing what they do, we'd have no brigdes, tunnels or coal and hydro power plants....

ps... I dunno where you'd move to??????

A remote island of course, well away from the immenant disasters of mankind.....sit back on the white sand with my ice cold drink, and let the rest of you debate this issue further :done:

[pete376403]

Canaries. They used canaries down coal mines, not budgies.

Also, a possible reason why conservation of power (efficiency, household solar, etc) hasn't been promoted much by Govt. is that anythig that reduces Govt revenue isn't really going to be a goer when the Govt own the two largest generators.

[MikeL]

A handy Latin phrase should be applied to all controversies of this sort:
Cui bono?
Who benefits?

If you start to see media stories revisiting the nuclear power question, do you think they have been spontaneously generated?

Do you think you will ever be presented with a viable alternative to writing out a monthly cheque to a power company?

I know that the technology exists to make my household largely self-sufficient in energy. Enough sunshine falls, enough wind blows...
Where are the companies competing to offer economical home electricity generation and storage systems??

[TwoSeven]

One of the other good things about wave/tidal generation is that you can also use it in the major irrigation races. What they do is put a series inline (in a similar way that a dam works, except there is no dam) to generate constant power.

[BugSplat]

Sounds like a good altinite use for the western springs site :shake:

Pardon my trolling.

[moko]

Someone mentioned Methane.I only recently heard of this in the U.K. I recently worked in a bakery and apparently all the waste was sent to a power-station and somehow was converted into Methane to run the thing.I also read that the ozone-layer in N.Z.,or rather over N.Z. is partly due to methane "being expelled" from sheep and going into the atmosphere.I know this`ll sound stupid but is running a power-station on sheep crap viable? In America they could us the waste-products from their vast cattle herds, imagine the slogan they could use, "America,run on bull-shit"

[James Deuce]

Someone mentioned Methane.I only recently heard of this in the U.K. I recently worked in a bakery and apparently all the waste was sent to a power-station and somehow was converted into Methane to run the thing.I also read that the ozone-layer in N.Z.,or rather over N.Z. is partly due to methane "being expelled" from sheep and going into the atmosphere.I know this`ll sound stupid but is running a power-station on sheep crap viable? In America they could us the waste-products from their vast cattle herds, imagine the slogan they could use, "America,run on bull-shit"

Ozone is generated by electrical activity in the upper atmosphere. The shortages of Ozone in the southern hemisphere are due to the two cycles of sunspot activity fromt he late '60s, which normally last 11 years each, not taking place, and solar storms not sweeping the upper atmosphere. CFCs do NOT reach the upper atmospshere intact (this HAS been proven btw), and it is debatable that methane produced by ruminants can move from the troposhere to the stratosphere in enough quantity to chemically bond with O3 (Ozone - it's a covalent bonding, meaning molecules share electron pairs.).

However just as the Mid-Atlantic trench is going through a CO2 "burp" phase, there is some work going on to see if a similar oceanic methane "burp" has caused climactic issues in the past. There is some proof to suggest that a food chain imbalance can upset the food chain enough that organic matter rots rather than being consumed and processed, and the subsequent methane burp has nasty effects on the upper atmosphere.

Processing Methane for power generation means you are transforming it by burning, thereby reducing the chance of the methane doing damage to the upper atmosphere.

[Jeremy]

There's a methane power station in Auckland (Otara) allready, it runs off the methane produced by the rubbish dump.

[avgas]

would you let 20 year olds run a nightshift in a nuclear powerplant????

we let them drink, drive, smoke, have sex, own fire arms, work in the armed forces, handle radioactive materials, fly aircraft......
what makes you think they wont let them work in power plants?

We still need to educate people to use power better in NZ, my lights dont go on till i cant see, my computer goes into standby mode in 10 mins, and turns monitor off in 1. i switch off power sockets before i leave the house.....
some places i see all the lights on, 24hours a day. Why burn coal indeed, when the same ammount of money can be invested in better solutions.
should be compulsory for all new houses to generate at least 0.5kW by own means - as it is not very expensive.

[Hitcher]

Methane can be extracted from coal seams that are uneconomic to mine in two ways. The first involves "fraccing" the seams with an underground explosion and then adding water, lots of it. Up bubbles methane. The second techniques involves setting fire to the underground seam, leaving it to smoulder and then extracting the methane and other partially-burned hydrocarbons that come up the flue. Both techniques have been trialled in New Zealand: fraccing at Ohai near Invercargill and smouldering at Huntly.

[Coldkiwi]

given the issues surrounding present Nuclear technologys and the fact that most of our major industries are run off Hydro, do we really need the sledgehammer approach of a nuclear plant and all its associated dramas?
'Save energy' is a great idea but its not a solution for a growing country. We're already saving 10% remember? How much more do you think is left?

Wind farms are a bit of a difficulty and are actually a real noise problem as well because people perceive the noise intrusion as much greater for the same loudness as a generator or other common sound.

For my taxpayer money, I'd like to see them make use of all the tidal currents on our coastline to make use of what we've got rather than a nuclear station that won't go away once started.

[TwoSeven]

I've always wanted to have a go at generating power of the chch city water supply. I mean if they maintain head pressure at 100psi (or whatever it is), shouldnt be too hard to leech off of it.

My parents have already done the self generation stuff using gas and a deisel generator (with inverter, battery bank and wind turbine), and being city-fied, I figured I could replace the deisel generator with a micro-turbine to charge the batteries.

[pete376403]

There's a methane power station in Auckland (Otara) allready, it runs off the methane produced by the rubbish dump.

Same thing is done at Silverstream (Hutt Valley) tip http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0305/S00047.htm

However this is not new - when I was doing my apprenticeship at GG&H back in 1970, they were marketing "total energy solutions" - gensets run off waste.

[Indiana_Jones]

Where's the saint with that receipe for cold fusion?

-Indy

[Blakamin]

we let them drink, drive, smoke, have sex, own fire arms, work in the armed forces, handle radioactive materials, fly aircraft......
what makes you think they wont let them work in power plants?


That was in reference to the reason chernobyl happened... considering they had no senior member of staff there on the nightshift.
I didnt say work there... I said RUN.... I wouldnt let a 20 year old RUN the army, RUN the LTSA, RUN the airforce.. (oh, wait... thats impossible to do worse already) shit... some of them shouldn't even run a till at McDonalds....

[ManDownUnder]

I think we need a change of focus...

Efficiency - not generation. The problem with efficiency is there is less money in it for the key players (generation and power distribution marketers) so what do they want to push it for?

If every house/factory had solar hot water heating, and all lights were efficient (not boring old incandescent) and all heat was kept in the house with insulation etc etc... we'd save a bloody fortune.

I personally think NZ has pleanty of power being generated now... we just pour a lot of it down the damned toilet (metaphorically speaking of course...)

Rant over...

[Lou Girardin]

Ask anyone who's lived in Europe, our houses are like fridges in winter compared to their well insulated homes. Are we kidding ourselves that we live in a tropical climate or something?
Some proper design would save billions in power costs and stick it to the power co's at the same time.

[TwoSeven]

I would agree with both of the last posts. We have plenty of power and the wooden/slab concrete sheds people live in are rather drafty and cold (except in the summer).

I have noticed that the power industry has been seeding the public with a lot of mis-information of late - just like the tobbaco and beer industry tries to do. Problem is, these days he who lobbies hardest gets to keep the in-efficencies.

[Wolf]

Don't worry, CSL, we'd put it well away from Wellington...

..we'd put it in Orcland and then we wouldn't need to have Transpower's super mega fugly pylons across the Waikato, either.

For extra safety sheilding we could cut off the Transpower peoples' heads and mount them around the core - way denser than lead.

*evil grin*

[Wolf]

I think we need a change of focus...

Efficiency - not generation. The problem with efficiency is there is less money in it for the key players (generation and power distribution marketers) so what do they want to push it for?

If every house/factory had solar hot water heating, and all lights were efficient (not boring old incandescent) and all heat was kept in the house with insulation etc etc... we'd save a bloody fortune.

I personally think NZ has pleanty of power being generated now... we just pour a lot of it down the damned toilet (metaphorically speaking of course...)

Rant over...

I agree, it is more in the power companies's interests for people to waste power than save it so they will always push for more generation (and pylons) rather than for more efficient management.

[Coldkiwi]

Ask anyone who's lived in Europe, our houses are like fridges in winter compared to their well insulated homes. Are we kidding ourselves that we live in a tropical climate or something?
Some proper design would save billions in power costs and stick it to the power co's at the same time.

This is true, but as a designer for the construction industry, I can tell you any changes to do with upping the thermal insulation of a building envelope and sealing drafts off willl need to come from a very high level of govt and be part of the building code and council requirements. There's too many cheap skate developers out there looking to build the nastiest residential buildings they can get away with and too many councils that don't know any better for 'good will' to make any head way into real efficiency.

Of course, you DO need to consider the additional energy and cost that goes into making buildings better insulated in the first place -not inconsequential I would imagine but I'll leave it to a QS to give you a pay back period on that!

[ManDownUnder]

So what happens with the Nuc. wast??

Skyryder

Something I've always wondered about... what if you got the waste and launched it into the sun? Nuke powered rocket (I assume you could ahve such a thing...) and put the thing up far enough so the sun's gravity did the rest...

The onlt problem I can see with that is the ol' problem - what if it goes bang on the launchpad...?

[ManDownUnder]

This is true, but as a designer for the construction industry, I can tell you any changes to do with upping the thermal insulation of a building envelope and sealing drafts off willl need to come from a very high level of govt and be part of the building code and council requirements. There's too many cheap skate developers out there looking to build the nastiest residential buildings they can get away with and too many councils that don't know any better for 'good will' to make any head way into real efficiency.

Of course, you DO need to consider the additional energy and cost that goes into making buildings better insulated in the first place -not inconsequential I would imagine but I'll leave it to a QS to give you a pay back period on that!

On a related note... do you guys all know the Govt has a subsidy scheme on at the mo for Solar Hot Water heating? They pay the interest on the purchase within defined criteria etc... but first steps are actually being taken...

I'll find more details and post them here if I rememeber...
MDU

[sAsLEX]

On a related note... do you guys all know the Govt has a subsidy scheme on at the mo for Solar Hot Water heating? They pay the interest on the purchase within defined criteria etc... but first steps are actually being taken...

I'll find more details and post them here if I rememeber...
MDU

there is also schemes to assist those that install rainwater and grey water tanks in their homes to ease burden on the mains water supply, which needs power to run(the mains that is), so they are starting to think sustainable, cause if they dont we are fu**ed

[inlinefour]

there is also schemes to assist those that install rainwater and grey water tanks in their homes to ease burden on the mains water supply, which needs power to run(the mains that is), so they are starting to think sustainable, cause if they dont we are fu**ed

But dont some local councils make it illegal to collect rain water?

[Jantar]

Nuke power is clean and safe when its 'in operation' but not when it isnt. There is a problem with getting rid of the waste. Something they dont tell you about the nuke operating cost, is that getting rid of waste cost 10 times more than running the plant.

The other thing is that nuke plants only run for a small amount of time, about 25 years and after that you can never again (for the rest of time as far as we are concerned) use the ground it was built on.

The reason why is that the UK is now getting more and more of its power from renewable energy sources such as wind and sea (especially sea). NZ is just waking up to this, but still has a protected industry, so it will be a good 10 years before we re-invent the lightbulb so to speak (we are way behind the world in electrical generation capability).

If you want to upset a labour politician, ask them how much money the government spends developing wage generation capability - the answer is none, and next to none (in real terms) for wind generation - since most of it is privately funded.

I wouldnt even bother with asking why people are still prevented from generating their own power (you can, but you cannot also be connected into the grid), yet in the states, you can get credits for doing so.

Wave power is a nice thought, but it has not yet been developed on an economical scale anywhere in the world. The sea water is just too corrosive, and the variations in tide and wave are just too harsh. That doesn't mean that these issues can't be overcome, just that its not yet cost effective to do so.

In New Zealand we have not been prevented from generating our own power since November 1992. It is quite legal to do so, and it has been legal to then sell that power back to the grid since February 1997. You can do it, and many already are.

[ManDownUnder]

In New Zealand we have not been prevented from generating our own power since November 1992. It is quite legal to do so, and it has been legal to then sell that power back to the grid since February 1997. You can do it, and many already are.

Yes but there is the small issue of your local supplier buying it back off you at the same price (more or less) as they sell it to you... maybe you make a small amount of money...(unless you are lucky enough to have a direct connection to Transpower's network)

Prior to giving them the power back you need
1) Generation
2) Inverter of suitable quality and
3) A separate meter, rented by the month of course.

Yup - no need to go making it easy for Joe public to do their bit in establishing some distributed generation despite the fact it'd solve a number of problems and be very economically viable (think Kyoto protocol, carbon credits for non polluting power sources..., think no more generating plant required by central Govt, no more power lines up and down the country)...

and that's just the generation side - now we could talk energy efficiency... aaaa maybe I should leave that rant for later...

[sAsLEX]

But dont some local councils make it illegal to collect rain water?

i highly doubt that piece of info somehow! How would they monitor it, and why would they make it illegal?

[ManDownUnder]

i highly doubt that piece of info somehow! How would they monitor it, and why would they make it illegal?

Yup - monitoring is harder... good 'ol "dob in a neighbour" seems to be the best way...

As for why? Any extra water collected = extra water going down the drains, which means in the bigger centres they need up upgrade drains. It also means they lose any money charged on Waste Water (charges are in Auckland for sure - and some other parts).