Time for nuclear power in NZ?

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

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

5385 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805269 22-Jun-2017 15:21

One person supports this post

SaltyNZ:

One nuclear accident would result in global perceptions that would collapse our food exports and drastically reduce tourism.

Would it? I wonder how those industries have held up in Japan after Fukushima. According to these figures, although there was a dip in 2011 - the year of the earthquake itself - visitor numbers recovered again the following year and is still increasing. My Google-fu has not turned up any charts for beef exports, but I don't see Kobe beef going for a $4/kg at the Mad Butcher yet.

I think it would.

Put it this way: How any people would buy milk or beef from from Chernobyl?

The world sees NZ as a village. I suspect people won't get that it's a regional problem and the rest of the country is safe.

Mike

SaltyNZ

5089 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1805273 22-Jun-2017 15:24

One person supports this post

MikeAqua:

Put it this way: How any people would buy milk or beef from from Chernobyl?

I don't know, but I don't recall buying any before Chernobyl either.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

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

Geektastic

13423 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1805291 22-Jun-2017 15:44

coffeebaron: Yes!
Happy to stick it in my backyard too, along with a few mobile phone towers.
Thanks

Very happy to sell my land for, say, $20 million for the purpose.

Geektastic

13423 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1805292 22-Jun-2017 15:46

2 people support this post

MikeAqua:
SaltyNZ:

One nuclear accident would result in global perceptions that would collapse our food exports and drastically reduce tourism.

Would it? I wonder how those industries have held up in Japan after Fukushima. According to these figures, although there was a dip in 2011 - the year of the earthquake itself - visitor numbers recovered again the following year and is still increasing. My Google-fu has not turned up any charts for beef exports, but I don't see Kobe beef going for a $4/kg at the Mad Butcher yet.

I think it would.

Put it this way: How any people would buy milk or beef from from Chernobyl?

The world sees NZ as a village. I suspect people won't get that it's a regional problem and the rest of the country is safe.

However once the reality of NZs poor environmental practices overcomes the rose tinted spectacle view and people realise you can get very sick by swimming and so on it might not be an issue!

Coil

6615 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1805298 22-Jun-2017 16:08

Geektastic:
MikeAqua:

SaltyNZ:

One nuclear accident would result in global perceptions that would collapse our food exports and drastically reduce tourism.

Would it? I wonder how those industries have held up in Japan after Fukushima. According to these figures, although there was a dip in 2011 - the year of the earthquake itself - visitor numbers recovered again the following year and is still increasing. My Google-fu has not turned up any charts for beef exports, but I don't see Kobe beef going for a $4/kg at the Mad Butcher yet.

I think it would.

Put it this way: How any people would buy milk or beef from from Chernobyl?

The world sees NZ as a village. I suspect people won't get that it's a regional problem and the rest of the country is safe.

However once the reality of NZs poor environmental practices overcomes the rose tinted spectacle view and people realise you can get very sick by swimming and so on it might not be an issue!

This land is a little sugar coated. Bar a few nice places around the place.

Fred99

8793 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805299 22-Jun-2017 16:09

The cost per MWh for nuclear power is quite high relative to hydro, coal, gas - even in countries with an established large-scale nuclear industry.

For NZ, then only small-scale production would be needed to satisfy demand, infrastructure costs to deal with fuel, waste, safety/security would be relatively much higher, so it would presumably be very expensive indeed.

Long term though it may be an option, but then there may be other options - fusion, cheap solar etc.

Apart from the political "fallout", it's not really the time to discuss nuclear seriously as an option for NZ.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 1805300 22-Jun-2017 16:12

6 people support this post

Nuclear power is no good for peaking generation. And is way too expensive to be used for dry year only generation. Yet late night power demand outside of winter is really low. This means that even if you ignore the risks of a nuclear accident, and problems with getting rid of nuclear waste. Nuclear power in NZ still not economic.

All the government needs to do is some simple rule changes to allow power companies to bill for peak capacity. Then electricity costs will come down. Also reform the resource management act. So that lake Manapouri can get raised, Project Aqua can get built. And so tidal power can be constructed by linking the Waitemata and Manaukau harbours.

There are plenty of theoretically possible renewable generation schemes possible in NZ. All that is needed is some law changes to make them economically possible. The government doesn't need to spend any money. Just change the law.

old3eyes

8209 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 1805303 22-Jun-2017 16:16

Here's an interesting PBS Nova program Shows where nuclear power is going.

The Nuclear Option

Regards,

Old3eyes

gzt

10943 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805307 22-Jun-2017 16:25

Jonski: Nuclear-weapons-free is absolutely a good thing but are we denying ourselves zero-carbon power for idealogical reasons only?

No.

surfisup1000

4401 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805310 22-Jun-2017 16:33

Jonski:

I'm not an expert but it seems the days of any new Think Big hydro schemes are over, and Wind is too intermittent without storage technologies. Geothermal has lots of potential but Tidal power is still a work in progress (although Cook Strait and Manukau/Kaipara Harbours are promising locations). Large-scale Solar? Yeah but where?

However Thorium reactors, molten salt and other modern technologies seem to be a way forward. How about putting one near Hamilton where it is at low risk from earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes? It could provide convenient power to both Hamilton and Auckland without needing to ship electrons all the way from Otago.

Although NZ is proudly nuclear-free, that's not quite true. I understand we have a small thermopile reactor at Canterbury Uni and of course we use radioisotopes all the time in various industries. Coal power kills more people globally than nuclear, even taking into account the different installed capacities and it sends more radioactivity into the environment too. Nuclear-weapons-free is absolutely a good thing but are we denying ourselves zero-carbon power for idealogical reasons only?

Noooo..... governments always underestimate the cost of nuclear waste. . .

eg,

"Britain is storing an "extraordinary accumulation of hazardous nuclear waste" in "outdated facilities" which will cost nearly £70bn to clean up, MPs have warned the Government.

Almost all of the major nuclear-decommissioning projects at the Sellafield complex in Cumbria are behind schedule and many of them are over-budget according to a Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s “failing” nuclear-reprocessing industry."

But, I am not just kicking the can further down the road just yet. I read somewhere the demand for electricity is decreasing as house become more efficient , and if Tiwai closes then we get further breathing space. And, there are potentially disruptive technologies being worked on now.

So, lets wait a bit longer....Nuclear is too dirty and costly to run for a country of New Zealands size.

Jonski

254 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1805311 22-Jun-2017 16:40

One person supports this post

Fred99:

The cost per MWh for nuclear power is quite high relative to hydro, coal, gas - even in countries with an established large-scale nuclear industry.

For NZ, then only small-scale production would be needed to satisfy demand, infrastructure costs to deal with fuel, waste, safety/security would be relatively much higher, so it would presumably be very expensive indeed.

Long term though it may be an option, but then there may be other options - fusion, cheap solar etc.

Apart from the political "fallout", it's not really the time to discuss nuclear seriously as an option for NZ.

Sydney has a nuclear power reactor. Would not these arguments be against that installation as well?

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
- Adam Savage, Mythbuster

MikeAqua

5385 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805312 22-Jun-2017 16:46

Geektastic:

However once the reality of NZs poor environmental practices overcomes the rose tinted spectacle view and people realise you can get very sick by swimming and so on it might not be an issue!

Sustainability is much less of an issue for consumers than food safety. Some people will pay more or preferentially choose low impact food.

All consumers want food that is safe to eat and most prioritise freshness/quality etc.

Try telling someone in Beijing that NZ is polluted ...

Mike

mattwnz

15214 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805330 22-Jun-2017 17:19

surfisup1000:

Jonski:

I'm not an expert but it seems the days of any new Think Big hydro schemes are over, and Wind is too intermittent without storage technologies. Geothermal has lots of potential but Tidal power is still a work in progress (although Cook Strait and Manukau/Kaipara Harbours are promising locations). Large-scale Solar? Yeah but where?

However Thorium reactors, molten salt and other modern technologies seem to be a way forward. How about putting one near Hamilton where it is at low risk from earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes? It could provide convenient power to both Hamilton and Auckland without needing to ship electrons all the way from Otago.

Although NZ is proudly nuclear-free, that's not quite true. I understand we have a small thermopile reactor at Canterbury Uni and of course we use radioisotopes all the time in various industries. Coal power kills more people globally than nuclear, even taking into account the different installed capacities and it sends more radioactivity into the environment too. Nuclear-weapons-free is absolutely a good thing but are we denying ourselves zero-carbon power for idealogical reasons only?

Noooo..... governments always underestimate the cost of nuclear waste. . .

eg,

"Britain is storing an "extraordinary accumulation of hazardous nuclear waste" in "outdated facilities" which will cost nearly £70bn to clean up, MPs have warned the Government.

Almost all of the major nuclear-decommissioning projects at the Sellafield complex in Cumbria are behind schedule and many of them are over-budget according to a Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s “failing” nuclear-reprocessing industry."

But, I am not just kicking the can further down the road just yet. I read somewhere the demand for electricity is decreasing as house become more efficient , and if Tiwai closes then we get further breathing space. And, there are potentially disruptive technologies being worked on now.

So, lets wait a bit longer....Nuclear is too dirty and costly to run for a country of New Zealands size.

This is the big problem,, people don't think of the future and the mess future generations will have to clean up in the future. Nucleur pretty much destories land, because the waste or accidents, prevent the land ever being able to be used for anything else in the future (in terms of human life spans). Whereas wind and solar, and tidal, are all removable without damaging the land. Hydro potentially causes damage, but it is reversible if done properly. IMO Nuclear comes with a huge future potential cost on the earth. But NZ is really too small for nucelar, when we already have good renewable options. I can however seen the benefit of nuclear in countries without these options that also have large energy needs such as china, instead of coal . The earth already has several nuclear power sites that have caused human deaths, defects, illnesses etcs, and the effects will continue for years to come.

mattwnz

15214 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805331 22-Jun-2017 17:22

davidcole:

DarthKermit:

Yeah, because at least we have ways of cleaning up chemical waste and making it inert. No such technology exists with nuclear.

I think superman had the right idea and chuck it at the sun. I'd propose rocket labs make small rockets to do this, if they couldn't be so easily turned into an ICBM

That is certainly a potential solution....until a rocket explodes on launch, scattering nuclear waste all over the earth.

Fred99

8793 posts

Uber Geek

# 1805332 22-Jun-2017 17:25

One person supports this post

Jonski:

Fred99:

The cost per MWh for nuclear power is quite high relative to hydro, coal, gas - even in countries with an established large-scale nuclear industry.

For NZ, then only small-scale production would be needed to satisfy demand, infrastructure costs to deal with fuel, waste, safety/security would be relatively much higher, so it would presumably be very expensive indeed.

Long term though it may be an option, but then there may be other options - fusion, cheap solar etc.

Apart from the political "fallout", it's not really the time to discuss nuclear seriously as an option for NZ.

Sydney has a nuclear power reactor. Would not these arguments be against that installation as well?

No it doesn't - they have a reactor at Lucas Heights, but purpose apart from research is production of radioisotopes for medical and industrial use, and doping silicon ingots (for use as semiconductor material).

I had dealings with them wrt methods for encapsulation and long-term storage of high-level waste from their old reactor when it was in operation. Despite their mining of uranium ore, and abundance of apparently ideal disposal sites, most Aussies are every bit as titchy about nuclear waste as NZers are.

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