Skip to main content

New Zealanders Won't Be Talking About Nuclear Energy in 2007

Why? Because the Royal Society of New Zealand wants to talk about clean coal instead:
New Zealand's nuclear naysayers can rest easy this Christmas in the knowledge the nuclear power issue is off the agenda for next year.

Some of the country's top scientists at the Royal Society of New Zealand have been considering whether the society should promote a public debate on nuclear-generated electricity.

But the society's council has opted instead to endorse a discussion on clean-burning coals.

Chief executive Dr Steve Thompson said the change of mind was not a result of any political pressure.

"We thought another topic might grab the public more. They wanted to do something that was more immediately applicable to New Zealand. Nuclear power, if we did it, would still be a long way off," he said.
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

robert merkel said…
Hate to be a party pooper guys, but there are pretty valid reasons why New Zealand won't be using nuclear energy for a while.

New Zealand's total electricity needs amount to an average output of roughly 4500 megawatts, and they already get roughly two-thirds of their energy from renewables (hydro and geothermal), and much of the rest from natural gas. Coal makes up only about 3% of their electricity consumption.

Under those circumstances it's hard to see how large scale reactors could be competitive, even ignoring political factors.
Randal Leavitt said…
As the planet bakes dryer and dryer each year it will be interesting to watch different countries cling to their desperate hydro-electric systems. I wonder who will stubbornly hang on the longest?
Rod Adams said…
Robert:

I understand your point about the small size of New Zealand's grid, but that does not mean that they should avoid talk of nuclear power. The technology for smaller scale plants is well understood and there are a number of vendors with interesting projects underway or near deployability.

Of course, my favorite design is the Adams Engine (TM), but there are also the barge mounted designs based on Russian ice breaker engines, the CAREM plant being designed in Argentina, the Chinese HTR's, the South African PBMR, and the Toshiba 4S.

Some or all of those might be able to give natural gas some competition.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…