Transmission line rejected

**Colapop** · 28th April 2006, 08:38

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

story

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

**Streetwise** · 28th April 2006, 08:41

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

**SimJen** · 28th April 2006, 08:50

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

**Finn** · 28th April 2006, 08:59

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

Besides, it makes perfect sense.

**SimJen** · 28th April 2006, 09:02

Originally Posted by Finn

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

Besides, it makes perfect sense.

Exactly

**Colapop** · 28th April 2006, 09:03

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

:edit: sorry slow fat fniggers typing ---

**Swoop** · 28th April 2006, 09:05

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

**Finn** · 28th April 2006, 09:07

Originally Posted by Swoop

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

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

**Swoop** · 28th April 2006, 09:10

Originally Posted by Finn

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

I was thinking Howick.....

**Finn** · 28th April 2006, 09:11

Originally Posted by Swoop

I was thinking Howick.....

Too close, but I like the way you think.

**SimJen** · 28th April 2006, 09:11

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

**Colapop** · 28th April 2006, 09:11

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

**Hitcher** · 28th April 2006, 09:16

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

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

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

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

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

**Finn** · 28th April 2006, 09:19

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

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

Name and Address withheld.