PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Power stations in NZ - Yes or No?



jareemon
15-11-2010, 08:08 PM
and why?

SP8's
15-11-2010, 08:12 PM
As long as it's located in either Wellington or Auckland I see no problems .... if the bloody thing melts down it wont cause that much damage.

gary67
15-11-2010, 08:23 PM
As long as it's located in either Wellington or Auckland I see no problems .... if the bloody thing melts down it wont cause that much damage.

X2

why no poll? I grew up in the shadow of at least 5 or 6 of the damn things and there's nothing wrong with me apart from I glow in the dark :punk

Gobe1
15-11-2010, 08:25 PM
Yeah why not, place it in northland to supply orcs
unfortunately it will give the greenies another thing to moan about

Erayd
15-11-2010, 08:28 PM
Yes, absolutely

Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of power (and despite the constant panics over it, it's also extremely environmentally friendly), and compared to many other options has a pretty reasonable cost. It's also great for providing reliable base load coverage, thus freeing up some hydro capacity to handle the ripples caused by unreliable power sources (e.g. wind), and times of peak grid usage.

Modern nuclear plants are also extremely safe - they're guaranteed to never have a Chernobyl-type disaster due to the way they are designed - runaway reactions are for most purposes impossible.

Edit: Ideal location: Huntly.

Snorkbox
15-11-2010, 08:28 PM
Why not? They have improved over the years and we can put them where the power is needed.

SP8's
15-11-2010, 08:41 PM
Edit: Ideal location: Huntly.

Or Tokaroa :D

jareemon
15-11-2010, 08:50 PM
Or Tokaroa :D
Why Tokoroa? because no one would care if it blew up and destroyed us? :rolleyes:

jareemon
15-11-2010, 08:53 PM
X2

why no poll? I grew up in the shadow of at least 5 or 6 of the damn things and there's nothing wrong with me apart from I glow in the dark :punk
I dont know how to make a poll :blush: do i just tick the option to make a poll and then what? will it ask me for the options once i click post..?

SP8's
15-11-2010, 08:59 PM
Why Tokoroa? because no one would care if it blew up and destroyed us? :rolleyes:

Well there's only 13 of you there ... isn't there ?? :D

jareemon
15-11-2010, 09:01 PM
Well there's only 13 of you there ... isn't there ?? :D
:lol:

somebody
15-11-2010, 09:14 PM
Yes - put it in my back yard if you want.

jareemon
15-11-2010, 09:20 PM
Someone mentioned there is nowhere to put the waste from these nuclear stations... is this the case? do they have waste like that? i dont really know how it all works

Poppa John
15-11-2010, 09:22 PM
Yes. Auckland would be the logical place. However wouldn't you need two. Maintenance shutdowns? PJ

somebody
15-11-2010, 09:33 PM
Yes. Auckland would be the logical place. However wouldn't you need two. Maintenance shutdowns? PJ

They're not "big" enough to cause those sort of problems. Modern nuclear plants are about the same scale as Huntly, and that gets shut down for maintenance without causing any major problems.

MushHead
15-11-2010, 09:43 PM
Someone mentioned there is nowhere to put the waste from these nuclear stations... is this the case? do they have waste like that? i dont really know how it all works

Nuclear is the way to go - until you have to find a place to store the spent fuel. You just need somewhere geologically stable (good luck finding that in NZ), that will remain undisturbed for at least 10000 years.

somebody
15-11-2010, 09:47 PM
Nuclear is the way to go - until you have to find a place to store the spent fuel. You just need somewhere geologically stable (good luck finding that in NZ), that will remain undisturbed for at least 10000 years.

Send it overseas. Japan and France, among other countries, have facilities to reprocess spent fuel into something usable.

Greven
15-11-2010, 10:09 PM
Send it overseas. Japan and France, among other countries, have facilities to reprocess spent fuel into something usable.

That would make it an expensive option. I think Auckland are at the stage now that they need a new hydro dam or nuclear plant if they want to avoid more blackouts. Good luck getting the greenies onboard for either of those options.

wainuitech
15-11-2010, 10:24 PM
Yeah why not, place it in northland to supply orcs
unfortunately it will give the greenies another thing to moan about They need a reason ??? :p

ubergeek85
15-11-2010, 11:30 PM
I am pro-nuclear.

Those greenie protesters need to **** and read some facts. I know what you're thinking, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc etc.

Chernobyl; the big one, yeah, it was one massive fkup, right from the get-go, the reactor had design flaws, and there were shoddy management practices.

Three Mile Island; the radiation released from this accident was - get this - the same as 1/6th of a chest x-ray. Major disaster? I think not.

It's been a long, long time since those incidents (and most any other ones), reactor designs have improved a lot since then, and we're able to get even more energy from less fuel, and also other sorts of fuel that once would've been considered unusable.

Waste; the actual physical dimensions of nuclear waste aren't all that large. Why don't you just bury it in the middle of the Australian Outback, plenty of space there.

SoniKalien
15-11-2010, 11:55 PM
Why not just pour all that money into r&d into getting energy from our biggest all time supply - the sun! Its safe, no by-products... its madness to me why that isnt tapped yet. (And yes I know about solar panels :p)

ubergeek85
16-11-2010, 12:10 AM
Put as many Billions into solar research as you want, but until they make batteries big enough to store 12 hours worth of national supply, your lights are going to stay off when the sun goes down.

But yes, things like steam-solar (just a whole lotta moving mirrors aimed at a tower, heating water and driving turbines) are great for day load - so long as you have a desert to put it in.

Snorkbox
16-11-2010, 12:30 AM
Nuclear is still the best option as you can put the Plant near to where you want the power thus saving transmission costs. I'd put one at Tiwai Point for a start for the Aluminium smelter. They use heaps of power and it's at a subsidised cost as well.

B.M.
16-11-2010, 06:29 AM
I still have Hydro 1st choice and Nuclear 2nd choice.

With Hydro the fuel is free and you get all the fringe benefits of the associated lakes.

As far as Iím concerned, in NZ, there is no need to look at other alternatives.

prefect
16-11-2010, 06:37 AM
Yes

somebody
16-11-2010, 07:22 AM
That would make it an expensive option. I think Auckland are at the stage now that they need a new hydro dam or nuclear plant if they want to avoid more blackouts. Good luck getting the greenies onboard for either of those options.

Nuclear isn't cheap, full stop. For the price of one nuclear plant you could build quite a few coal fired plants which each put out the same amount of electricity.

Cicero
16-11-2010, 07:38 AM
With time nuclear improves,I see it as the power supplier of the future.

I am sure the Star ship Enterprise is powered by similar,!

coldfront
16-11-2010, 07:52 AM
This whole Nuclear debate and the need for more energy makes me laugh.

When New Zealand has so many other options available to it for renewable energys for the population it has. Simple fact is their is enough energy produced in New Zealand it is just the distribution networks that can not cope.

I used to live near one of the largest navel dockyards in the UK and refitting base of the British Nuclear Fleet of submarines. Jost one of those subs would power the city yet how would it do that? Yep distribution problem.

You guys should google the name "The Lines Company" yes a cunning name for a company you would not associate with being a company aye! TLC are the distributors of electricity in the King Country and the only company in NZ that splits your bill from supplier to the sole owned Lines supply. They have in place a system called Demand Metering which means the more load on a power line you put on it the more you pay. Controversial system that many people simply can not understand.

Sure build a Nuke power station which will solve all the power needs but also make sure there is a good enough distribution network of powerlines from it or else you have the same problems as now! To many people plugged in at the same time and cable melt down!

SP8's
16-11-2010, 08:11 AM
I'd put one at Tiwai Point for a start for the Aluminium smelter. They use heaps of power and it's at a subsidised cost as well.

Oh no you wont ... unless you want to start another civil war.

All reactors must be located on the island that uses the most power ... closer the better. :D

The Error Guy
16-11-2010, 08:17 AM
In theory, the only problem with fissioning nuclear reactors is if they fail. other than that they are pretty efficient compared to back in the day.

Only problem with NZ is the waste from the reactor. NZ does not have many good places to store it, we are highly geothermal with plenty for earthquakes, also very coastal so I don't think its viable for NZ to enter the Nuclear power stage, Nuclear powered ships would be OK though, once every 20 years for the US A/C carriers, I think we could afford to send it off to someone else to deal with.

Nuclear over the past years has improved significantly from the days of Chernobyl and the likes. it the next 50 years i'd like to see someone get cold fusion going. that would be a Saviour.

gary67
16-11-2010, 08:35 AM
I dont know how to make a poll :blush: do i just tick the option to make a poll and then what? will it ask me for the options once i click post..?

yes it will

DeSade
16-11-2010, 08:40 AM
I say yes to nuclear power, its about time we dragged our sorry asses into the present and stopped our power issues for good.

SP8's
16-11-2010, 08:48 AM
On a more serious note ... I'd rather see us use Nuclear power generation than ruining more of our pristine rivers for hydro. Having said that, there should be alternate ways of using bi products to generate power. Think of the quantity of effluent that comes off the dairy farms and how much methane it could produce if a method "recycling" were to be developed. They can transport the milk from farms ... why not the effluent for processing ?? .... would save a lot of rivers being polluted and unfishable / unswimable as well.

They can already produce bio-deisel from algae that forms on ponds where stock effluent and nitrates are present ... take that a step further into deliberate processing rather than scumming up my favourite duckshooting pond and I'd be a happy man.

There are alternatives to Hydro and Nuclear .... we just haven't been thinking outside the square enough to find the solution.

user
16-11-2010, 09:35 AM
Perhaps more accurate info is needed for some people to be able to make an informed decision...

If nuclear power is so safe nowadays, why has America not gone ahead with their nuclear program again after stalling it about 30 years ago?

Nuclear power stations cost billions and last only 30 or so years, after which they must be decommissioned (also costing lots to do). We're taking multi billions to build one of these.

Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed overseas but still produces huge amounts of high level and low level radioactive waste which must be stored safely for thousands of years in a stable environment. Where in NZ could this be done?

Where could a station be sited that is geologically stable? NZ is on a faultline in case anyone forgot.

We have plenty of wind sites that could potentially produce a lot of our needs, if only we didn't have so many NIMBY types.

Unless fast breeder reactors are built, uranium resources will be consumed by the world needs and no fuel will be left. It is a limited resource. Fast breeder reactors pose a larger safety threat than ordinary nuclear reactors. Just ask Detroit about theirs. And why are there not a multitude of French fast breeder reactors? They did start to go along this path decades ago...

Just some thoughts...

jareemon
16-11-2010, 10:04 AM
I am sure the Star ship Enterprise is powered by similar,!
According to all of the Star Trek and Enterprise tech manuals, the starships of Star Trek are powered by matter/anti-matter reactor cores. They function almost similar to an aircraft carrier's reactor, the matter/anti-matter reactors super heat plasma, then send the plasma through conduits. These conduits then send the plasma into the warp coils to generate the warp field or bubble.

Paul.Cov
16-11-2010, 10:04 AM
The push towards carbon neutrality is slowly tipping the tables towards 'clean' technologies... the science behind solar is getting a lot more momentum, and there's interesting potential for flexible plastic film type solar cells which you can line your home with.
The beauty of this is reduced need for transmission line capacity.
Also, there's some interesting chemical storage options (batteries) as well, which would help to balance out the night time consumption.

With our ample lakes, rivers, winds and coastlines (tides) we should be able to be 100% carbon and nuclear free.
Yes, the greenies will have to shut the **** **. They need to rationalise the options of Hydro Dam vs Coal vs Nuclear. Sure Hydro dams produce a lot of methane initially when grounds get flooded - however they also provide a whole bunch of other resources in the process and help to ensure year-round water for irrigation.

A river with regulated hydro flow should suffer less erosion and fewer drought issues than an un-damed river, and if properly managed will be a benefit for the aquatic wildlife.
Better to have a dam providing flow all year round than to have an undamed river dry up completly over summer.

Cicero
16-11-2010, 10:09 AM
According to all of the Star Trek and Enterprise tech manuals, the starships of Star Trek are powered by matter/anti-matter reactor cores. They function almost similar to an aircraft carrier's reactor, the matter/anti-matter reactors super heat plasma, then send the plasma through conduits. These conduits then send the plasma into the warp coils to generate the warp field or bubble.

I say lets use those then!

shermo
16-11-2010, 11:03 AM
In order to make an cost competitive Nuclear plant it needs to be big. Realistically you're looking at 600MW for the smallest model, which is 200MW bigger than New Zealand's current largest plant. This means you need to carry an extra 200MW of reserves whenever it's running.

Also, nuclear plants run baseload, they don't like being ramped up and down. Overnight load in the North Island is as low as 1300MW, so a 600MW plant is an enormous proportion of this. That might be manageable if things were designed from the ground up, but it's too much of a step change.

Basically this means it's not going to happen. I suppose a larger HVDC (cook straight cable) in a few years that might go some way to helping, but it's still not likely.

Nuclear's a great option for large power systems, not our tiny one.

jareemon
16-11-2010, 11:20 AM
When I was living in nelson, one day our how water went cold. We called the power company and they said "um yeah we've turned your hot water off so we can send more power to auckland"

ubergeek85
16-11-2010, 11:24 AM
How the hell did they turn off your hot water remotely?

user
16-11-2010, 11:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_control#Ripple_control_for_many_years_in_New_ Zealand

SoniKalien
16-11-2010, 12:18 PM
Put as many Billions into solar research as you want, but until they make batteries big enough to store 12 hours worth of national supply, your lights are going to stay off when the sun goes down

The sun never goes down - the earth rotates :p Besides, I would guess that electricity consumption is a lot less at night than it is during the day, so batteries is just really a minor problem.

Cicero
16-11-2010, 12:55 PM
In order to make an cost competitive Nuclear plant it needs to be big. Realistically you're looking at 600MW for the smallest model, which is 200MW bigger than New Zealand's current largest plant. This means you need to carry an extra 200MW of reserves whenever it's running.

Also, nuclear plants run baseload, they don't like being ramped up and down. Overnight load in the North Island is as low as 1300MW, so a 600MW plant is an enormous proportion of this. That might be manageable if things were designed from the ground up, but it's too much of a step change.

Basically this means it's not going to happen. I suppose a larger HVDC (cook straight cable) in a few years that might go some way to helping, but it's still not likely.

Nuclear's a great option for large power systems, not our tiny one.

Having sorted that question out,perhaps you could tell what system to use to sort out our present position.

Then implement,and all will be well.

prefect
16-11-2010, 01:11 PM
I am all for nuclear power we are luckiest people in the world we can dump the nuclear waste at the Auckland or Campbell Islands

SolMiester
16-11-2010, 01:32 PM
Yes, absolutely

Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of power (and despite the constant panics over it, it's also extremely environmentally friendly), and compared to many other options has a pretty reasonable cost. It's also great for providing reliable base load coverage, thus freeing up some hydro capacity to handle the ripples caused by unreliable power sources (e.g. wind), and times of peak grid usage.

Modern nuclear plants are also extremely safe - they're guaranteed to never have a Chernobyl-type disaster due to the way they are designed - runaway reactions are for most purposes impossible.

Edit: Ideal location: Huntly.
+1

pctek
16-11-2010, 01:39 PM
Turn your appliances off and leav the reactors in Chernobyl.

Cicero
16-11-2010, 02:43 PM
I am all for nuclear power, we are the luckiest people in the world we can dump the nuclear waste at the Auckland or Campbell Islands

Why can't they see that simple truth?

So that's that problem solved,what's next.

shermo
16-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Having sorted that question out,perhaps you could tell what system to use to sort out our present position.

Then implement,and all will be well.

Sorry for being knowledgeable about a topic. Would uninformed ranting be better received?

Edit: Actually it's quite funny because I avoided the urge of correcting all the misinformation in this thread, and tried to contribute something instead. Oh well.

Cicero
16-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Sorry for being knowledgeable about a topic. Would uninformed ranting be better received?

Edit: Actually it's quite funny because I avoided the urge of correcting all the misinformation in this thread, and tried to contribute something instead. Oh well.

Yes but you see we are left knowing what we can't do,not what we can do.

In any case,what is going on here,is what we would like,if we want the details we have google.

Gobe1
16-11-2010, 03:17 PM
uninformed ranting is what keeps these forums going, without it they would die

Cicero
16-11-2010, 03:23 PM
uninformed ranting is what keeps these forums going, without it they would die

Quite right Gobel

1101
16-11-2010, 03:42 PM
This was seriously discussed 20-30 years back. They even had a possible site lined up.

Bottom line is we could NEVER afford it.

US /UK/ France etc have MANY Nuke Power sites , so the costs of the
supporting industries is spread out over the many sites.
One Nuke Powerplant would require the same supporting infrastructure as several, adding to the cost to us.

It would seriously effect hippy tourism :punk , tourism being our no1 earner(??)

SoniKalien
16-11-2010, 03:45 PM
Yep, if it wasn't for the "clean green NZ" image we, as a country, would be royally screwed.

Netsukeninja
16-11-2010, 03:49 PM
By the time NZ could set up a fully functional nuclear power station we could have already finished a network of off-shore wind farms to supply true clean energy.

SP8's
16-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Yep, if it wasn't for the "clean green NZ" image we, as a country, would be royally screwed.

We could always be a "Clean Glowing Green NZ" :D

Gobe1
16-11-2010, 04:06 PM
"Clean Glowing Green NZ"
I read that as "Clean Growing Green NZ" first and wondered if you mean we would need power.....

1101
16-11-2010, 04:12 PM
some history, interesting.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf97.html
Nuclear-related policy

In 1968, the national power plan first identified the likely need for nuclear power in New Zealand a decade or more ahead, since readily-developed hydro-electric sites had been utilized. Plans were made and a site at Oyster Point on the Kaipara harbour near Auckland was reserved for the first plant. Four 250 MWe reactors were envisaged, to supply 80% of Auckland's needs by 1990. But then the Maui gas field was discovered, along with coal reserves near Huntly, and the project was abandoned by 1972.

In 1976, the Royal Commission on Nuclear Power Generation in New Zealand was set up to inquire further into the question. Its 1978 report said that there was no immediate need for New Zealand to embark upon a nuclear power program, but suggested that early in the 21st Century "a significant nuclear programme should be economically possible."

In 1987, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act was passede. This was largely a symbolic statement of opposition to nuclear war and weapons testing, and it prevented the visits by nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed vessels (primarily US ones). The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone established under the Act does not ban land-based nuclear power plants.

Terry Porritt
16-11-2010, 04:52 PM
There has been no new development information released, AFAIK, about the "SSTAR, a small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor", 10-100MW

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2004-07/dlnl-net071204.php

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

Billy T
16-11-2010, 05:10 PM
How the hell did they turn off your hot water remotely?

The method was known as 'ripple control' though they don't use that system any more, they are a bit more advanced. There is a switching system on your meter board that can turn your HW off during periods of peak demand. It is called "load shedding" and was (still is in many areas) controlled by a pilot wire. More modern systems are controlled by digital signals over your power wiring to activate a microprocessor controlled switch on your HW power supply.

You used to be able to hear the signal on the old controllers and it was a bugger if you were recording audio when it tripped because it got onto you recording via the power connection..

The pilot system in our area failed a few years back and nobody had HW for several days, exept for those who knew how to bypass the system, but that is more than a little dangerous for amateurs.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

R2x1
16-11-2010, 06:51 PM
Well there's only 13 of you there ... isn't there ?? :D
Not usually, but they all come back on Thursdays to give the full Baker's Dozen. ;)

R2x1
16-11-2010, 06:55 PM
The sun never goes down - the earth rotates :p Besides, I would guess that electricity consumption is a lot less at night than it is during the day, so batteries is just really a minor problem.
Quite right. They could use watch batteries, since they are proven to last two or three years each. Night would hold no terrors with this sort of thinking. ;)

ubergeek85
16-11-2010, 10:56 PM
Quite right. They could use watch batteries, since they are proven to last two or three years each. Night would hold no terrors with this sort of thinking. ;)

R2, I think I've found you a car...

jareemon
16-11-2010, 11:08 PM
R2, I think I've found you a car...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (damn theres a limit to emoticons in each message?)

Cicero
17-11-2010, 06:44 AM
R2, I think I've found you a car...

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that thought up by Terry when he was on one of his walks in the Tarraruas?

jareemon
17-11-2010, 09:08 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that thought up by Terry when he was on one of his walks in the Tarraruas?
You're both incorrect, sorry, I invented it when I was 5.

ubergeek85
17-11-2010, 02:05 PM
The lot of you are wrong; 4chan spawned this particular pic, which founded the 'troll science' meme not too long ago.

jareemon
17-11-2010, 03:54 PM
i found a 4 leaf clover once when i was 8.
wait what's this thread about again?

Terry Porritt
17-11-2010, 04:51 PM
When I was with DSIR, we were always getting 'brilliant' backyard NZ inventors submitting perpetual motion designs, usually old boys in their 60s - 70s.

At one time if the inventor knew the PM of the day or the minister of science, and many did, it being a small country and having been to school together etc, then we used to get threatened by them when they were told to go away.

Eventually, there was an official edict that said we were to summarily dismiss such ideas.

There was one disgruntled inventor who bore a grudge against DSIR for not taking his water powered engine seriously, and kept bleating on for years about it on various forums. Haven't seen him lately :rolleyes:

KenESmith
18-11-2010, 10:56 AM
In Australia wew have seen the greatest example of nuclear hypocracy on record.

The F/witted green tinged Luddite Labour Government will not have a bar of Nuclear Power generation in Australia because of fear of the Nuclear Bogeyman, in spite of Australia having one of the highest per capita carbon emmissions in the world because of coal fired power generation.

This same F/Witted green tinged Luddite Labour Government, has agreed to sell uranium to Russia with no strings attached, to assist them in cutting carbon emmissions by building more nuclear power stations and reduce their dependency on coal fired electricty generation.

A nice exercise in enviromental logic I agree with the sale, I disagree with continuing to burn coal to generate electricity - use coal to make synthetic liquid fuels - the Germans waged WW2 on synthetic fuel from coal, until allied bombing destroed all the manufacturing plants. ( Mind you they used unpaid labour to mine the coal)

prefect
18-11-2010, 02:15 PM
The worlds biggest single point polluter is a coal to petrol plant in South Africa.

KarameaDave
18-11-2010, 05:08 PM
As a dyed in the wool lefty, pinko greenie, I am 100% in favour of nuclear power
IT ROCKS!!! :D

Mind you I don't know about Atomic Airbuses! :D

Cicero
19-11-2010, 07:45 AM
It is hard to find out the truth due to pressure groups distorting the facts.

For all that I am a nuclear man and I am sure time will prove me right,say 50 years.

R2x1
19-11-2010, 08:08 AM
R2, I think I've found you a car...
Nah, I want one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc). :banana I'm a fan already.
In Wellington, they could power the house while parked at night (if you left the garage door open just a smidgin).

ubergeek85
19-11-2010, 04:34 PM
You want perpetual motion? You got it! (http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/12280a46-2a98-4906-9d3f-bff20465f9eb.jpg)

coldfront
19-11-2010, 05:05 PM
Heres and Idea!

With our new found "friendship" with the USA how about we borrow three Nuke Subs and dock one in Auckland , Wellington and out at Lytleton Harbour! Then run an extension cord for the life time of the uranium reactor onboard and when that time comes just send the subs back for new ones.

Power problem solved no risk of Earthquake (other than Tsunami dumping in the central city) and no waste problem :)

CyberHubHost
19-11-2010, 06:15 PM
According to all of the Star Trek and Enterprise tech manuals, the starships of Star Trek are powered by matter/anti-matter reactor cores. They function almost similar to an aircraft carrier's reactor, the matter/anti-matter reactors super heat plasma, then send the plasma through conduits. These conduits then send the plasma into the warp coils to generate the warp field or bubble.

This is interesting here is an article about the scientists creating antimatter
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/11/17/1935255/LHC-Scientists-Create-and-Capture-Antimatter?from=rss

So we can make a star ship now - awesome :)