Time for nuclear power in NZ?

Forums › Off topic › Time for nuclear power in NZ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805670 23-Jun-2017 14:03

Jonski:

Perhaps we can use solar in the day to pump water uphill?

That would be an effective way of storing energy. The energy taken to raise it how ever would outweight the power generated by it falling. Would work well with solar/wind technology as when it isnt sunny or windy the rapids are on!
Seems like 1 step back 2 steps forward.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1805678 23-Jun-2017 14:15

Jonski:

I definitely think that we need to install more geothermal. It's great for base load systems (same as nuclear). We recently discovered a source on the West Coast which was followed a few weeks later by concerns that the West Coast would be electrically isolated in event of an Alpine Fault rupture. 2 plus 2, guys!

How clean is geothermal? Some geothermal plants emit as much C02 as a combined cycle gas plant. At least the energy doesn't have to be transported though.

See: http://nzgeothermal.org.nz/emissions/

Mike

spronkey

117 posts

Master Geek

#1805690 23-Jun-2017 14:35

Nuclear shouldn't even be on the radar for New Zealand. We're not big enough, and fission has far too many downsides. It might have been a good technology for cleanish power generation 30 years ago, but the fact we still haven't figured out how to deal with nuclear waste is a massive problem that we're basically leaving to future generations.

The obvious way forward is solar. Not only has it improved super-linearly over the past 30 years, it's now at the point where the best of solar is cheaper per kWh than almost all other power generation. And it's still improving at a rapid pace.

"Where to put solar?" as seen above is a stupid question, because the answer is obvious. On the top of every building. Plenty of space, and very easy to access and integrate.

"Doesn't provide power overnight" is a solved problem already. Use wind and hydroelectric generation to provide infill power at night. Use batteries to store power generated during the daytime. Replace lighting with high efficiency LED. Reduce overnight lighting. Minimise heating requirements by improving building standards.

A more interesting question is whether we should be trying to introduce LVDC infrastructure for electrical appliances and lighting instead of AC. The main benefits of AC are in transmission losses vs LVDC, but solar generation on-premises massively reduces transmission length and thus minimises transmission loss.

Basically every electrical appliance these days is running some sort of AC-DC converter, whether it's a transformer or a switch mode power supply. Despite big gains in the last 15 years, we're still losing upwards of 10% in conversion losses on average. DC-DC conversion would see losses move to half that figure. Even datacentres overseas are starting to use DC power, and the latest research have shown that DC datacentres are upwards of 5% more efficient than AC ones.

Nuclear. What a laugh.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1805696 23-Jun-2017 14:50

spronkey:

"Doesn't provide power overnight" is a solved problem already. Use wind and hydroelectric generation to provide infill power at night. Use batteries to store power generated during the daytime. Replace lighting with high efficiency LED. Reduce overnight lighting. Minimise heating requirements by improving building standards.

Will this happen in the current market? It's in generators' interests to sell when demand (i.e. price) is highest.

Hydro generators and geothermal generators have the most choice of when to generate.

Mike

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805697 23-Jun-2017 14:55

spronkey:

fission has far too many downsides. It might have been a good technology for cleanish power generation 30 years ago, but the fact we still haven't figured out how to deal with nuclear waste is a massive problem that we're basically leaving to future generations.

Nuclear. What a laugh.

Coal and gas are far more harmful. Continuing to burn coal/gas at the current rate will cause a far bigger problem for future generations long before nuclear waste (if stored correctly) could ever become a real problem.

Its just a matter of time until a permanent, safe solution is found.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1805703 23-Jun-2017 15:24

TimA:

Jonski:

Perhaps we can use solar in the day to pump water uphill?

That would be an effective way of storing energy. The energy taken to raise it how ever would outweight the power generated by it falling. Would work well with solar/wind technology as when it isnt sunny or windy the rapids are on!
Seems like 1 step back 2 steps forward.

You could try that cistern tank technique the Romans used to get water across hills...!

KrazyKid

1238 posts

Uber Geek

#1805712 23-Jun-2017 15:36

TimA:

Jonski:

Perhaps we can use solar in the day to pump water uphill?

That would be an effective way of storing energy. The energy taken to raise it how ever would outweight the power generated by it falling. Would work well with solar/wind technology as when it isnt sunny or windy the rapids are on!
Seems like 1 step back 2 steps forward.

This is done in the UK now

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electric_mountain/

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805719 23-Jun-2017 15:46

Wiggum:

Its just a matter of time until a permanent, safe solution is found.

How could anyone ever guarantee that the solution is either permanent or safe? Eg, "we guarantee this super new safe container made of wonder material for 100,000 years."

You couldn't know that it will last for the claimed period (no matter what the time span might be) without waiting for that time to elapse to prove the claim. If it fails after 50,000 years, it's not like the company or people who invented it will be around to make it right.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805724 23-Jun-2017 16:03

DarthKermit:

Wiggum:

Its just a matter of time until a permanent, safe solution is found.

How could anyone ever guarantee that the solution is either permanent or safe? Eg, "we guarantee this super new safe container made of wonder material for 100,000 years."

You couldn't know that it will last for the claimed period (no matter what the time span might be) without waiting for that time to elapse to prove the claim. If it fails after 50,000 years, it's not like the company or people who invented it will be around to make it right.

I think you misunderstood my post. The earth won't last another 50 000 years at the rate we burning coal/gas anyway.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805752 23-Jun-2017 16:46

We're a shaky nation so Nuclear is not a good idea for us but I would say we've a heck of a lot of active volcanoes why aren't we tapping them for more geothermal energy we could put micro geothermal power stations all over the place

As for getting rid of Nuclear waste I don't see why we don't just drop it into a volcano

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1805782 23-Jun-2017 17:11

MikeAqua:

spronkey:

"Doesn't provide power overnight" is a solved problem already. Use wind and hydroelectric generation to provide infill power at night. Use batteries to store power generated during the daytime. Replace lighting with high efficiency LED. Reduce overnight lighting. Minimise heating requirements by improving building standards.

Will this happen in the current market? It's in generators' interests to sell when demand (i.e. price) is highest.

Hydro generators and geothermal generators have the most choice of when to generate.

Govt subsiding solar should go a long way. I assume we have about 1.25 million residential homes. Thats a lot of generation on sunny days. Even if it just helped HW. Have Solar HW too, so solar PV, even with no batteries, covers more if HW popup reduces. It gives a lower cost and simple solution. If there was big push, advertising everywhere about the 3 year subsidy period, bulk panels would being the cost down?

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1805935 24-Jun-2017 00:30

Is it true that electricity consumption will be steady or only grow slowly?

A few points have been made in this thread:

Domestic consumption is being reduced by the switch to more efficient lighting systems, domestic appliances that consume less energy than their forebears and the switch from desktop PCs to laptops, tablets and phones.

Switching to electric vehicles will only add about 17% to electricity consumption and the change will take 30-40 years to come about.

The first of those appears to be true and even with population growth, domestic energy consumption seems to be on a flat path.

A projected 30-40 year time-frame for the replacement of the internal combustion engine with an all electric vehicle fleet appears to be excessive. In this area, gut instinct is not even close to predicting what will happen. There have been studies that attempt to foresee how this change will happen. If they are right, the switch to an effectively all electric fleet in New Zealand will be all over within ten years. So we have a ten year time-frame for a 17% increase in consumption from that one change. That is a big change for such a timescale.

There is another sector which has a huge energy demand. That is the big data centre. We do not actually have any of those here in NZ but as local demand increases, we will eventually reach a stage at which major IT businesses want to establish such centres. You can contend that, as our international network connectivity improves, we will be able to rely more on overseas data centres but in fact, an opposite effect may very well come into play. The most expensive part of running a large data centre is keeping everything cool. We all know that in Europe, Ireland has attracted a disproportionately large share of mega scale hi-tech multinationals. Low corporation taxes play a big part in that but there is a second factor that is just as important. Ireland never gets very cold and it also never gets very hot. Amazon, Microsoft etc have huge data centres around Dublin and they are located there because they have little, or in some cases, no need for air conditioning in the data centres. That saves more than half of the power requirement when compared to a data centre in Californina. If we had good international data connections and enough power, we could be the main site for data centres in the Asia Pacific area.

So, the potential demand for electric power generation in New Zealand has a large upside.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1805940 24-Jun-2017 01:47

tdgeek:

Govt subsiding solar should go a long way. I assume we have about 1.25 million residential homes. Thats a lot of generation on sunny days. Even if it just helped HW. Have Solar HW too, so solar PV, even with no batteries, covers more if HW popup reduces. It gives a lower cost and simple solution. If there was big push, advertising everywhere about the 3 year subsidy period, bulk panels would being the cost down?

Unfortunately Solar systems (both hot water and PV) don't stack up with an efficient market in place for electricity.

In reality, the low user regulations are actually acting as a subsidy for solar systems. Because those regulations increase the price of electricity, they also increase the savings you get from having solar installed. Which sounds good on the surface until you look at who is paying for those savings. The answer - low income households. As low income people are more likely to live in rentals - can't get solar installed. Are more likely to live in overcrowded or large households to save on accommodation costs. But this means that it is likely that their household power use is over the limit to qualify for low user rate savings. And low income people are unlikely to have easy access to enough money to install a solar system even if they could. Or would have to borrow that money at high interest rates, which would negate any power cost savings. While rich people are likely to own their own home and have enough money in the bank to easily fund installation costs without needing a loan.

Environmental considerations - Solar generation will only reduce carbon emissions if it displaces fossil fuels. Sure that sounds like just stating the obvious, But since NZ electricity generation averaged out to 85% of total generation over the previous 12 months. It is a very important point. How to ensure that solar production only displaces fossil fuel generation, and not renewable generation? Problem is that peak demand is morning and evening, and peak solar production is midday. Peak seasonal demand is winter, and peak solar production is summer. Carbon emissions from power generation roughly follow demand. So allowing for existing fossil generation, solar generation, and demand. A "Safe" fossil generation offset figure for grid connected solar (no batteries or other storage) will be for every 10KW/Hr of solar generation, 1KW/Hr of fossil generation will be avoided. Problem is that Huntly generation is often available for less than 10c per KW/Hr wholesale. Which in turn means that solar has to have a generation cost of less than 1c per KW/Hr to compete against Huntly generation.

In short - electric cars give far greater emissions reductions than what solar ever will in NZ. Solar only starts to become economical for end consumers when you start adding the lines fees onto generation costs. Which in addition to the indirect subsidies from poor people, also means that changes in lines company pricing policies can destroy the value and returns from having solar. All subsidies for solar, both direct and indirect, should be removed. And extra subsidies for electric cars should be considered. Although electricity market reform will still be needed - All day fixed rate price plans need to be scrapped or made the most expensive plans. Instead replaced by a mixture of: time of use, capacity priced, and wholesale market priced plan types. Otherwise electric cars will add to peak demand.

Far better overall is to simply ignore carbon emissions from electricity generation as a standalone item. And instead look at carbon emissions from the tasks that electricity is used for or can be used for. So you can then consider if electricity is the best energy source for carrying out a given task.

Example - driving a car - electricity is the clear winner for lowest carbon emissions.

Residential hot water heating - large hot water cylinder that can go on night rate power - electricity wins again, as lots of late night hydro generation available. And using hot water cylinders for energy storage is far cheaper than batteries.

Cooking - gas wins - As cooking cant be transferred outside of peak times. And you burn more than double the gas in a power station to generate electricity, account for efficiency and network losses, just to turn the electricity back into heat for cooking. And you still need to allow for peak capacity costs on top of that.

Residential hot water heating - small hot water cylinder that needs power connected all the time or califont type water heaters - gas wins - same reasons as for cooking. Although large hot water cylinders should still be installed instead if able to.

Room heating - most situations - electricity wins. As heatpumps can be used, as well as energy storage via nightstore heaters and underfloor heating.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1805979 24-Jun-2017 09:47

Unfortunately Solar systems (both hot water and PV) don't stack up with an efficient market in place for electricity.

Great points as always.

What I was thinking, was if more solar is used, that reduces the demand on the other renewable, Hydro. Which would allow for more users or use from the current hydro output. Could we subsidise EV? And solar? EV is good for the environment, and solar reduces hydro demand, which EV would use. Could solar that goes back to the grid be at a higher credit than now, to add benefit to using solar?

From what you say, the billing seems to drive demand the wrong way. I think thats what you mean.

From my uninformed view, it seems a pity that a small population such as ours, where it should be easier and quicker to reform electricity renewable use, (re your billing comments and also solar/EV support) is actually hard and long. Then on the next news article its about clean and green NZ...

1.25 million homes and cars, so much potential.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1805999 24-Jun-2017 10:46

I don't know how relevant this is, or if it is relevant at all, but two items that so far have not been discussed: 1) Vampire loads. We must have at least 10 or more of these around the media stuff feeding things like STBs and HDMI switches. Every electronic device, big or small, needs one of these and the idiot manufacturers still don't make it possible to turn them off. Fortunately, we are able to supply all of this from a single power point, which we do switch off every night. We do this for reasons of safety, not economy, but it has the same effect.

2) Wood burners with wetbacks. We live in an old farmhouse in the country and have no heating bill at all since our fuel comes from the surrounding countryside. The wetback also heats most of our hot water so we don't use much power for that. The question, of course, is what our carbon footprint is from burning all that wood all winter.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8