Nuclear-powered Electricity generation

Forums › Off topic › Nuclear-powered Electricity generation

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#289205 19-Aug-2021 15:17

Recent electricity supply problems in NZ have have resulted in suggestions that this meets the need for 'clean, green' electricity generation. The claims I have seen are that this is pollutant (i.e. carbon emissions)-free. However the elephant in the room that remains unaddressed is radio-active waste and this is ignored in the recent debates I have seen.

I found this article that appears to put nuclear-powered electricity generation in a more favourable light from a technical perspective:

Nuclear power can play a big role in the energy transition | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Note that towards the end of the article the comment is made that new-generation nuclear reactors produce less waste and with a reduced lifetime (500 years vs 300,000 years).

Our 'nuclear-free' mantra was a clear reference to nuclear weapons, with nuclear reactors caught up in this debate because they played a part in downstream production of nuclear weapons. With the advent of new technology as the WEF article mentions, is it time for NZ to reconsider using nuclear-powered electricity generation?

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

128 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 45
Inactive user

#2763113 19-Aug-2021 15:25

Yeah cant see that running into any opposition in NZ.

Might take the heat off 5G though :)

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763137 19-Aug-2021 16:07

I've always thought it supremely ironic that the country that birthed Rutherford became so vehemently anti Nuclear. It was looked as an option by the government / power board back in the 60's and 70's and was only really not progressed further because of the Taranaki oil/gas reserves and Huntly Coal. A 1978 Royal Commission identified that in the 2000's we'd need to start looking at it again as an option as those expired. Wind and Solar have negated that somewhat, but probably not enough in the long term. We've never been "truly" nuclear free, we still import a large amount of radioactive material for medical and industrial use, have nuclear medicine departments in our hospitals, the University of Canterbury had an experimental sub critical reactor, etc. The reality is the only reason NZ has the nuclear ban is because David Lange was a two faced lying politician.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2763154 19-Aug-2021 16:36

NZ's Nuclear Free Position doesn't exclude nuclear power generation. Wikipedia Article is worth a read. Or perhaps the law itself.

There's also an office of radiation safety in the Ministry of Health. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/ionising-radiation-safety

Operating nuclear power generation in seismicly active areas can be problematic - just ask Japan.

Also https://ecotricity.co.nz/why-nuclear-energy-isnt-an-option appears to carry some truth, including this:

Investment in building a single nuclear power plant could generate enough power for one seventh of the country. With hydroelectric already providing 80% of the country’s power, this is considered by some to be overkill. Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Maybe one day when small-scale stuff is viable we'll see it.

No signature to see here, move along...

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2763155 19-Aug-2021 16:38

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/new-zealand.aspx too.

No signature to see here, move along...

MadEngineer

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#2763156 19-Aug-2021 16:42

Pretty sure this has been raised before.

Ain’t happening.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

driller2000

936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 374

ID Verified

#2763157 19-Aug-2021 16:42

Yes emissions free once running - but several key barriers to overcome in NZ to getting one built and into service:

Govt / community acceptance unlikely if not impossible.
Resource consents difficult if not impossible.
Enormous capital cost - which has led to many being cancelled and only 2 currently under construction in the US:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States
Timelines always extend - by years if not decades, which also increased costs.
Cost blowouts seem to be a given on Nuke plants - which is often $100's M if not $BN's.
2nd Highest LCOE:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
NZ has lower cost alternatives in geothermal, wind (land and ocean based), utility scale solar and pumped hydro eg. Onslow.

TL:DR - Too hard + Too expensive + We have better lower cost alternative options = It will never happen in NZ.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2763159 19-Aug-2021 16:44

BlakJak:Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Like if the sun isn’t shining or the wind blowing you mean?

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

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2763171 19-Aug-2021 16:59

Dingbatt:
BlakJak:Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Like if the sun isn’t shining or the wind blowing you mean?

Like if you put all your eggs in a single basket and the basket fails, you have no eggs.

New builds would have to be proportionate to demand so that we don't wind up too dependent on a single generator, or, over-invest by building something too big.

Edit: Even a cluster of wind turbines or solar panels could have a SPOF that'd prevent distribution of their electricity, but they are at least made up of clusters of smaller generation devices where a loss of service won't take down a substantial percentage of the grid. Unlike certain elements of Nuclear generation.

No signature to see here, move along...

MadEngineer

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#2763183 19-Aug-2021 17:25

Dingbatt:
BlakJak:Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Like if the sun isn’t shining or the wind blowing you mean?

Put it this way. If we have nuclear power we’d also need an equal source of power and capacity (generation and distribution) at the ready for when it had to go offline.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#2763191 19-Aug-2021 17:42

MadEngineer:

Put it this way. If we have nuclear power we’d also need an equal source of power and capacity (generation and distribution) at the ready for when it had to go offline.

I seem to remember reading several years ago that for primarily this reason if we had one nuclear power station we in practical terms had to have two, which then made it uneconomic irrespective of the debates around being nuclear free or the impact of an accident causing radiation to escape.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763207 19-Aug-2021 18:12

BlakJak:

NZ's Nuclear Free Position doesn't exclude nuclear power generation. Wikipedia Article is worth a read. Or perhaps the law itself.

There's also an office of radiation safety in the Ministry of Health. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/ionising-radiation-safety

Operating nuclear power generation in seismicly active areas can be problematic - just ask Japan.

Also https://ecotricity.co.nz/why-nuclear-energy-isnt-an-option appears to carry some truth, including this:

Investment in building a single nuclear power plant could generate enough power for one seventh of the country. With hydroelectric already providing 80% of the country’s power, this is considered by some to be overkill. Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Maybe one day when small-scale stuff is viable we'll see it.

80% of our CURRENT requirement. Wait till we won't allow any more ICE and all our motor vehicles need to be charged. If you think the grid looks overloaded now........

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763209 19-Aug-2021 18:17

networkn:

BlakJak:

NZ's Nuclear Free Position doesn't exclude nuclear power generation. Wikipedia Article is worth a read. Or perhaps the law itself.

There's also an office of radiation safety in the Ministry of Health. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/ionising-radiation-safety

Operating nuclear power generation in seismicly active areas can be problematic - just ask Japan.

Also https://ecotricity.co.nz/why-nuclear-energy-isnt-an-option appears to carry some truth, including this:

Investment in building a single nuclear power plant could generate enough power for one seventh of the country. With hydroelectric already providing 80% of the country’s power, this is considered by some to be overkill. Furthermore, if this power source were introduced and there was a power failure, it would result in power loss for one seventh of the country.

Maybe one day when small-scale stuff is viable we'll see it.

80% of our CURRENT requirement. Wait till we won't allow any more ICE and all our motor vehicles need to be charged. If you think the grid looks overloaded now........

The grid isn't overloaded now.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2763230 19-Aug-2021 19:08

We don't want that garbage here. Nuclear plants in a very earthquake risk country who's primary earner is from primary industry. One accident and we are buggered.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18678 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2763244 19-Aug-2021 19:46

Lias: The reality is the only reason NZ has the nuclear ban is because David Lange was a two faced lying politician.

Du Fresne is entitled to his opinions and he has some very silly ones. I have too much respect for Lange to characterise the events depicted in that way. I disagree.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763246 19-Aug-2021 20:02

Is diesel or petrol more likely to be available in the long term? Say if I wanted to install a generator to charge my EV?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6