New Zealand Celsias

Personally I think that if the government subsidized solar panels, like they do in Australia and every new house was required to have one that would solve a hell of a lot of our energy problems. NZ is small country and yes we will need more power in the future but there is a way it can be done without nuclear and coal and gas. In fact I think you are wrong about land use with wind power as the land under wind turbines can still be used agriculturally - White Hill Wind Farm in Mossburn does just that. Also offshore wind farms are supposed to be very efficient and they don't use up any land.
Nuclear energy is all fine and good in this age but what happens millions of years from now when all that waste which never breaks down has covered the earth. It may only be a small amount every year but it is still something that is going to effect someone in the future and that takes up land disposing of it.

Written in April 2010

Here is a good answer from David Caygill:
http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/faqs/f... . Remember that Auckland rioted after Huntley tripped out. For a nuclear industry viewpoint: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf97.html . In my opinion Mr Caygill's arguments are sound and not adressed by the nuclear industry information.

Written in May 2010

That's Lange.
As I siad above, the best dollars are spent on reducing the loss of energy in the first place. "Saved energy has three times the return" [on new energy generated] (Listener, June 12-18). Given our options for renewable generation in NZ we have a huge amount of untapped potential to explore before Nuclear generation stacks up economically. The minimum scale of a nuclear power plant would be too large to safely fit into NZ's power generation matrix. If it were to drop offline for whatever reason it would leave a gap that would be out of proportion in our supply chain, we just don't have the demand to fit that type of plant. ...And NZ'ers don't much like nuclear.
Wind is still uncool in most circles. As stated by the Rory above that is a NIMBY option.
Solar is promising in that it has the potential to have a zero footprint sometime soon... Rooftop generation.
Medium/small hydro may look good too as a low impact alternative to large hydro.
What are the economic disadvantages to micro-hydro? anyone?
Has there been work done to look at the ROI on micro?

Written in June 2010

I've gone a bit cold on Nuclear power, I can't remember where I heard it but someone recently said "Nuclear Power is old technology", and when I think about it I agree.

We are in an age were we should be coming up with something (be it energy production or manufacture> that produces zero waste. Whether it be dilithium crystals or micro hydro, whatever we do needs to be sustainable!

As an aside looking for efficiencies in the current system is all very well, but it is NOT additional capacity, and considering the fragile nature of our current generation capacity VS the exponential growth in energy requirements we NEED additional capacity that will keep up with demand.

Written in July 2010

Good point Michael, generation at point of source is probably the ideal situation. You get rid of the inefficiencies surrounding the transportation of electricity and all the associated equipment.
Have you ever felt the temperature of the big green transformers sitting on the side of the road, they're generally 2-3 degrees above the ambient.
Imagine if every house in NZ could generate 1 kW hour per day, feed any excess back into the grid, and you'd never need a new generation source again!
We could make some rules around how much load a house could impose on the network, maybe make it a ratio of the energy they produce... it would provide a bit of incentive to increase home energy production.

I'm loving this idea!

Written in July 2010