Should New Zealand invest in nuclear power plants?

Forums › Off topic › Should New Zealand invest in nuclear power plants?

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3249719 16-Jun-2024 21:44

New Zealand just isn’t a good place for a nuclear power station, and here's why. First off, there's nowhere safe to store the nuclear waste. We’re a country full of earthquakes and volcanoes, which makes it really risky. A big quake or eruption could easily mess up a storage site and cause a huge problem.

On top of that, New Zealand is small and doesn’t have the large, empty spaces needed for safe long-term storage of radioactive waste. Australia, on the other hand, has a huge desert in the middle of the continent where waste could be stored much more securely.

Plus, New Zealand has a strong anti-nuclear policy. The country is very protective of its clean, green image and prefers to focus on renewable energy. So, the idea of New Zealand going nuclear is about as likely as pigs flying. It’s just not going to happen, and the discussion isn’t really worth continuing.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3249735 17-Jun-2024 06:17

Wombat1:

New Zealand just isn’t a good place for a nuclear power station, and here's why. First off, there's nowhere safe to store the nuclear waste. We’re a country full of earthquakes and volcanoes, which makes it really risky. A big quake or eruption could easily mess up a storage site and cause a huge problem.

On top of that, New Zealand is small and doesn’t have the large, empty spaces needed for safe long-term storage of radioactive waste. Australia, on the other hand, has a huge desert in the middle of the continent where waste could be stored much more securely.

Plus, New Zealand has a strong anti-nuclear policy. The country is very protective of its clean, green image and prefers to focus on renewable energy. So, the idea of New Zealand going nuclear is about as likely as pigs flying. It’s just not going to happen, and the discussion isn’t really worth continuing.

The earthquake risk is less of an issue. The Japanese power plants were OK in the quakes, the problem was the tsunami that hit Fukushima. There's a long-dormant volcanic centre in the noth of the North Island region but it does seem to have frequent weather events. Location is the least of our worries. Modern reactors use waste as fuel, so produce very little compared to the mid-century reactors of the 21st century.

Nuclear energy is, realistically, about as clean as it gets. The objections to it as an energy type are linked to nuclear testing in our backyard by European imperial interests, not on any real merit when it comes to environmentalism. We still pump tourism as one of our big export earners despite the absurd notion of people having to fly around the globe and smash out huge amounts of carbon emissions to do it. The reality of what is 'clean' and what is not doesn't really come into it, just our perception - which again, is driven by nuclear weapons, not modern nuclear energy.

The real obstacles here aren't political or geological, they're geographic and economic. Like with the South Island, transmission networks are our Achilles heel. You have to get the power from where ever you put a powerplant to the place where the power gets used. By the time you upgrade the grid to handle it, you'd have barely enough left over to build anything else. That's made worse by the actual, insurmountable obstacle: the cost. Nuclear plants cost massive amounts of money and are just far too expensive in an NZ context compared with hydro options, etc. They're a good option in some political contexts where you want to lessen dependency/bargaining power when it comes to oil etc, or in places where other options aren't there, but once you take into account how much potential we have in geothermal, plus what we can still do with hydro, nuclear is just way too expensive.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3249738 17-Jun-2024 07:22

Jase2985:

tdgeek:

Wind is a 24 hour phenomenon.

no its not

My point was we get sun only when its up, and its less "up" when we need it in the cooler months. Wind can blow at any time, day and night. Unlike solar its gettable all year

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3249739 17-Jun-2024 07:32

Running costs.

Solar and wind would have low running costs. Once they are up they just stand there gathering energy. Routine maintenance would be low, and transmission wise, you can locate as many as you can near the users

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3249744 17-Jun-2024 08:26

decibel:

Nuclear is getting cheaper all the time.

Is it really?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3249746 17-Jun-2024 08:33

Wombat1:

The country is very protective of its clean, green image

Goodbye Freddy!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3249798 17-Jun-2024 08:53

tdgeek:

My point was we get sun only when its up, and its less "up" when we need it in the cooler months. Wind can blow at any time, day and night. Unlike solar its gettable all year

Heat pumps have ensured that we have high demand during summer too. We need our hydro lates to recover during summer, refill and be ready for winter.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8855 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3249799 17-Jun-2024 08:55

Wombat1:

[snip]

New Zealand ... is very protective of its clean, green image ...

Image is one thing - reality is something else.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3249863 17-Jun-2024 09:48

GV27:

Wombat1:

New Zealand just isn’t a good place for a nuclear power station, and here's why. First off, there's nowhere safe to store the nuclear waste. We’re a country full of earthquakes and volcanoes, which makes it really risky. A big quake or eruption could easily mess up a storage site and cause a huge problem.

On top of that, New Zealand is small and doesn’t have the large, empty spaces needed for safe long-term storage of radioactive waste. Australia, on the other hand, has a huge desert in the middle of the continent where waste could be stored much more securely.

Plus, New Zealand has a strong anti-nuclear policy. The country is very protective of its clean, green image and prefers to focus on renewable energy. So, the idea of New Zealand going nuclear is about as likely as pigs flying. It’s just not going to happen, and the discussion isn’t really worth continuing.

The earthquake risk is less of an issue. The Japanese power plants were OK in the quakes, the problem was the tsunami that hit Fukushima. There's a long-dormant volcanic centre in the noth of the North Island region but it does seem to have frequent weather events. Location is the least of our worries. Modern reactors use waste as fuel, so produce very little compared to the mid-century reactors of the 21st century.

Nuclear energy is, realistically, about as clean as it gets. The objections to it as an energy type are linked to nuclear testing in our backyard by European imperial interests, not on any real merit when it comes to environmentalism. We still pump tourism as one of our big export earners despite the absurd notion of people having to fly around the globe and smash out huge amounts of carbon emissions to do it. The reality of what is 'clean' and what is not doesn't really come into it, just our perception - which again, is driven by nuclear weapons, not modern nuclear energy.

The real obstacles here aren't political or geological, they're geographic and economic. Like with the South Island, transmission networks are our Achilles heel. You have to get the power from where ever you put a powerplant to the place where the power gets used. By the time you upgrade the grid to handle it, you'd have barely enough left over to build anything else. That's made worse by the actual, insurmountable obstacle: the cost. Nuclear plants cost massive amounts of money and are just far too expensive in an NZ context compared with hydro options, etc. They're a good option in some political contexts where you want to lessen dependency/bargaining power when it comes to oil etc, or in places where other options aren't there, but once you take into account how much potential we have in geothermal, plus what we can still do with hydro, nuclear is just way too expensive.

I'm not arguing with you about the benefits of clean nuclear energy, in fact I fully support the move to nuclear in places like Aus.

Building a nuclear reactor in NZ is just not a very good idea. Also New Zealand has abundant renewable energy resources already, particularly hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, and solar power as others here have already mentioned. Agreed New Zealand has other options, it has a very small population, why do people even want to entertain the idea in NZ?

wellygary

8323 posts

Uber Geek

#3249867 17-Jun-2024 10:08

sir1963:

Heat pumps have ensured that we have high demand during summer too. We need our hydro lates to recover during summer, refill and be ready for winter.

Not that much,

Also summer load is pretty even across the day, in winter is has two distinct peaks, both at poor times for solar,

Graph from the NZ Electricity Authority

https://www.ea.govt.nz/news/eye-on-electricity/the-changing-nature-of-electricity-demand-in-aotearoa/

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3249869 17-Jun-2024 10:13

And fortunately summer days are long, so the sun can be both the cause of and solution to high electricity demand from heat pumps.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3249874 17-Jun-2024 10:18

Wombat: Agreed New Zealand has other options, it has a very small population, why do people even want to entertain the idea in NZ?

Because they want reliable non hydrocarbon fuelled baseload capability. The only source of that we have is geothermal.

Our other renewables could just as easily be called unreliables.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3249877 17-Jun-2024 10:31

Dingbatt:

Because they want reliable non hydrocarbon fuelled baseload capability. The only source of that we have is geothermal.

Our other renewables could just as easily be called unreliables.

What about wave energy? There are currently projects underway exploring this.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3249897 17-Jun-2024 11:54

Rikkitic:

Dingbatt:

Because they want reliable non hydrocarbon fuelled baseload capability. The only source of that we have is geothermal.

Our other renewables could just as easily be called unreliables.

What about wave energy? There are currently projects underway exploring this.

Yes, good point, but not part of our make up at the moment. And similar to wind and solar, wave action is weather dependant. Tidal, on the other hand, while cyclical, is predictable. All these still don’t provide constant baseload though.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

decibel

315 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3249902 17-Jun-2024 12:18

SaltyNZ:

decibel:

Nuclear is getting cheaper all the time.

Is it really?

Supposedly -

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22