Should New Zealand invest in nuclear power plants?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22

Smpl Mnmlst
9334 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3228580 10-May-2024 10:55

@freitasm Are you able to run polls on GZ? It would be interesting to see the results of a poll on this. I think most people would have a yes/no opinion but would not necessarily post in this thread.

However it would remain to be seen whether the GZ population is representative of NZ as a whole - so maybe it wouldn’t contribute much in general.

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

t0ny

414 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 84

Lifetime subscriber

#3228582 10-May-2024 10:56

The government should subsidise installation of solar panels in houses and encourage that new builds should have solar panels. This will take pressure out of the system and would probably cost them less over time. Yes, Banks are trying to give out low interest rates to make it happen but you need a much bigger push to actually get it to happen.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228583 10-May-2024 10:57

freitasm:

So why anti-nuclear? Is it anti-nuclear power or anti-nuclear weapons?

We have nuclear material being used in medicine (imaging and treatment) around the country. How do you reconcile that with "anti-nuclear feelings"?

I suppose there are a range of views: for some people, anything with the word "nuclear" or "radiation" in it is a terrifying thought because it guarantees you'll grow a second head or whatever. These people likely also believe that 5G causes COVID and the vaccine makes you so magnetic that a brass key will stick to your forehead. Others are worried about nuclear power because the consequences of a failure are so severe - what would happen if we had a Chernobyl or Fukushima in Auckland, for example? Others are only worried about nuclear weapons, and no doubt there are even a few people who think New Zealand should develop our own independent nuclear deterrent.

We are also fortunate that there is a nuclear reactor in Sydney capable of creating the short-lived isotopes necessary for medicine and industry; I don't think we have the budget to run our own. (As an aside, I went to see the old HIFAR reactor when I was in high school, it was awesome).

So the question is: how many people are in the middle ground where they are not worried about nuclear power (drawing the line at weapons)? Despite being a Green Party member, I don't actually agree with their stance on everything - shock/horror - and I think nuclear power has a place in some countries. Given our lack of heavy industry, I don't think it is required in New Zealand. With storage, we could get by on renewables. The caveat to that is if climate change makes it drier in New Zealand - but last time I looked into forecasting it was predicted we would get a little bit wetter on average with global warming.

Furthermore, nuclear power would not give us energy independence even if we found our own uranium deposits. The Australian CSIRO independently developed a high efficiency, low power enrichment process (SILEX) but despite being a major uranium exporter they buy their reactor fuel. The Americans get very twitchy about anyone but the established Big Five running enrichment. All of which is to say: if we build a nuclear power plant we are even more reliant on imports than we are right now where in theory we can burn our own coal and refine our own oil (not that we ever did for fuel use anyway).

So to summarise, my view is: no, it is not required for New Zealand. We should build storage and expand renewables.

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

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

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228584 10-May-2024 10:59

Jase2985:

When i looked yesterday the estimate for Lake Onslow was $15 Billion, but by the time they go to build it, and over the build timeframe, 7-9 years, it would likely double.

About $30 billion USD would get you 2 reactors generating about, 2100MW of power. That is about 50% of our current hydro capacity.

If only someone had thought to do a full engineering feasibility study we might know for sure.

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

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

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228585 10-May-2024 11:01

ockel:

Could nuclear also act as peaking, cos thats the generation we're absent at present?

No, nuclear is thermal - it's just a fancy kettle for boiling water. Thermal plants take on the order of tens of minutes if not hours to ramp up and down. Nuclear is base load.

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

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

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3228587 10-May-2024 11:03

Jase2985:

When i looked yesterday the estimate for Lake Onslow was $15 Billion, but by the time they go to build it, and over the build timeframe, 7-9 years, it would likely double.

About $30 billion USD would get you 2 reactors generating about, 2100MW of power. That is about 50% of our current hydro capacity.

keep in mind that NZ doesn't have any nuclear tech or ability to build to nuclear standards, so everything would be imported at extra cost. i would expect at least double the price.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3228588 10-May-2024 11:05

t0ny:

The government should subsidise installation of solar panels in houses and encourage that new builds should have solar panels. This will take pressure out of the system and would probably cost them less over time. Yes, Banks are trying to give out low interest rates to make it happen but you need a much bigger push to actually get it to happen.

That's a good point. We have recently put some money into our family home, including a full external paint job (down to the wood) and a new roof.

We did not consider solar panels on our new roof, simply because of costs. It was already in the high-end five figures for the roof and paint job. There is no way we would make it harder in our lives for the next logical step.

Hopefully, having a new roof means we could look at this in a couple of years.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3228589 10-May-2024 11:06

SaltyNZ:

Furthermore, nuclear power would not give us energy independence even if we found our own uranium deposits. The Australian CSIRO independently developed a high efficiency, low power enrichment process (SILEX) but despite being a major uranium exporter they buy their reactor fuel. The Americans get very twitchy about anyone but the established Big Five running enrichment. All of which is to say: if we build a nuclear power plant we are even more reliant on imports than we are right now where in theory we can burn our own coal and refine our own oil (not that we ever did for fuel use anyway).

they didn't find any uranium deposits when they looked many many many decades ago. on the plus side we also do not have radon issues. but it means we would have to import all the fuel and be highly reliant on the supplier.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228590 10-May-2024 11:10

freitasm:

Hopefully, having a new roof means we could look at this in a couple of years.

True that. We only installed solar about a year after rebuilding our house for the same reason. It was just that bit too much at the time.

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

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

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3228592 10-May-2024 11:11

SaltyNZ:

Anti-nuclear feelings aside, the NAFT government cancelled Lake Onslow (before the engineering feasibility study was complete) nominally because they were concerned about the cost. I can't see a nuclear power plant being cheaper than Lake Onslow, even were we willing to risk building any of the unproven 4th generation designs for immediate commercial service.

Well, to be fair that plan was for storage not generation. With the hydro plan you also need to add massive amounts of wind/solar to make it of any use.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3228594 10-May-2024 11:13

In principle, nothing against it. In practice, it shouldn't be necessary. Agree re subsidies for solar heating / power and subsidies for heat pumps. UK has a 7500 pound subsidy for heat pumps, why not us. We could generate a lot more ourselves (per household) and with other new national power sources, like more geothermal, for countrywide generation / distribution.

Personally I'd nationalize all the power companies, then maybe we'd actually get some joined up thinking.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228595 10-May-2024 11:13

noroad:

Well, to be fair that plan was for storage not generation. With the hydro plan you also need to add massive amounts of wind/solar to make it of any use.

Yes, the storage was for wind & solar generation support.

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

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

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3228596 10-May-2024 11:15

t0ny:

The government should subsidise installation of solar panels in houses and encourage that new builds should have solar panels. This will take pressure out of the system and would probably cost them less over time. Yes, Banks are trying to give out low interest rates to make it happen but you need a much bigger push to actually get it to happen.

Solar pannels are useless without storage and storage is expensive, short lifed and produces a huge amount of polution to produce. Not to mention solar pannels themselves don't actually last very long. Solar hot water can be useful in some situations though.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9552

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3228597 10-May-2024 11:18

noroad:

Not to mention solar pannels themselves don't actually last very long.

Is that so? Ours - which are simple domestic grade panels, not the presumably higher quality ones you would put in a grid scale plant - are designed to "last" for 25 years. And by "last" they mean "are only generating 80% of their original output".

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

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

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3228598 10-May-2024 11:18

SaltyNZ:

noroad:

Well, to be fair that plan was for storage not generation. With the hydro plan you also need to add massive amounts of wind/solar to make it of any use.

Yes, the storage was for wind & solar generation support.

Yes, but you need to factor in storage + the solar/wind + having enough hydro generation to make use the storage. Technically I like the idea, but in reality its not a great return on investment.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22