Yes, it's coal & gas keeping our electricity going this winter. As I
write this, coal is running at 90% of capacity and gas is at 65% of
capacity. Wind is 10% of capacity, its same dismal performance of the
past week. Solar & battery are irrelevant. Hydro is running at 71%
of capacity, more than they want to do, but Wind just isn't a team
player. Stop building the damn wind turbines, they're useless and
only increase our electric bills!
https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >lights on.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry
contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps
churning away at 90% of its capacity: >https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>>>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite >>correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for
high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for >>generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect
some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill,
just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a >>government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get
away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite
correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for
high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect
some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill,
just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get
away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite
correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for
high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect
some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill,
just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get
away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you were not. That is a lie. You posted sarcastic and completely inappropriate off-topic abuse.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >>content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>>>>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>>>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>>>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>>>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite >>>correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for >>>high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating >>>Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for >>>generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect >>>some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill, >>>just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a >>>government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get >>>away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating >electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >>content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the >>>>>lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>>>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>>>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>>>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite >>>correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for >>>high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating >>>Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for >>>generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect >>>some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill, >>>just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a >>>government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get >>>away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
On 2024-08-06, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >>content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry >>>>contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >>>>churning away at 90% of its capacity: >>>>https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite >>>correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for >>>high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was >>>designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating >>>Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have >>>Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments >>>not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity >>>to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for >>>generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect >>>some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill, >>>just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was >>>also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a >>>government that puts profits before people, this is really, really >>>good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get >>>away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
How about we how a discussion on building a nuclear power plant.
After all there are 60 underconstruction world wide with a capacity of
62.637 GW
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx
A good starting page for most things nuclear power plant wise. (Above Link)
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
World nuclear power production.
Capacity 364.480 GW
Generated 2.55206711 PWh (2552067.11 GWh)
Aplogies for straying slightly off topic.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
On 2024-08-06, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >> >>content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry
contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps
churning away at 90% of its capacity:
https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite
correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for
high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect
some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill,
just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get
away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating
electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
How about we how a discussion on building a nuclear power plant.
After all there are 60 underconstruction world wide with a capacity of
62.637 GW
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx >>
A good starting page for most things nuclear power plant wise. (Above Link) >>
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
World nuclear power production.
Capacity 364.480 GW
Generated 2.55206711 PWh (2552067.11 GWh)
Aplogies for straying slightly off topic.
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
Also there is the cost - they're extraordinarily expensive and time
consuming to build even in countries that have a nuclear industry. I
doubt any company here could afford to build one - it would have to be a >government project from start to finish.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]We might feel different when fusion technology is readily available. It is no longer a theory, there are small fusion plants in operation today.
says...
On 2024-08-06, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep >> >>>>>the
lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry
contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps
churning away at 90% of its capacity:
You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I wasMore abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the >> >>content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite
correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for
high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments
not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity
to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect
some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill,
just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get
away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating
electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
How about we how a discussion on building a nuclear power plant.
After all there are 60 underconstruction world wide with a capacity of
62.637 GW
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx >>
A good starting page for most things nuclear power plant wise. (Above Link) >>
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
World nuclear power production.
Capacity 364.480 GW
Generated 2.55206711 PWh (2552067.11 GWh)
Aplogies for straying slightly off topic.
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
Also there is the cost - they're extraordinarily expensive and time
consuming to build even in countries that have a nuclear industry. I
doubt any company here could afford to build one - it would have to be a >government project from start to finish.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
On 2024-08-06, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep >> >>>>>the
lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry
contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps
churning away at 90% of its capacity:
You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I wasMore abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address thehttps://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite
correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for >> >>>high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments >> >>>not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity >> >>>to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect >> >>>some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill, >> >>>just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get >> >>>away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating
electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
How about we how a discussion on building a nuclear power plant.
After all there are 60 underconstruction world wide with a capacity of
62.637 GW
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx
A good starting page for most things nuclear power plant wise. (Above Link)
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
World nuclear power production.
Capacity 364.480 GW
Generated 2.55206711 PWh (2552067.11 GWh)
Aplogies for straying slightly off topic.
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >the better part of a month every few years.
Also there is the cost - they're extraordinarily expensive and time >consuming to build even in countries that have a nuclear industry. IWe might feel different when fusion technology is readily available. It is no longer a theory, there are small fusion plants in operation today.
doubt any company here could afford to build one - it would have to be a >government project from start to finish.
They remove the concern over earthquakes and waste and cannot melt down.
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]I doubt that fission power will ever happen here. Too many people cannot distinguish between it and our anti-nuclear stance, and too many believe that our geology precludes it.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]We might feel different when fusion technology is readily available. It is >>no
says...
On 2024-08-06, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 23:58:05 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >> >> >>>
On 5 Aug 2024 22:36:33 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and
keep
the
lights on.
Wind contributes nothing to keeping the lights on -- its paltry
contribution is trivially replaced by hydro & gas, while coal keeps >> >> >>>>churning away at 90% of its capacity:
You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I wasMore abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address >> >> >>thehttps://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-data/consolidated-live-data
Well done on spotting the problem early, Willy Nilly. You are quite >> >> >>>correct that Coal is being used today - and yes it is still needed for >> >> >>>high demand situations. The system is working exactly as it was
designed to work - enabling all generators to enjoy a higher spot
price - expect to see a rise in electricity bills. The Generating
Companies all benefit of course which some of those that do have
Resource Consent for more Wind and Solar have left those developments >> >> >>>not started - too much wind generation just restricts the opportunity >> >> >>>to profit from times when Coal is needed. It is a good system for
generating profit, and National must be very pleased as I would expect >> >> >>>some of their political donors will have held shares in those
companies for a long time, and seen really good yields.
So if you get a bit startled by the increase in your electricity bill, >> >> >>>just say a small thanks to Bradford, who set up the system that was
also helped by a cheap sell off of Gen company shares. I you are a
government that puts profits before people, this is really, really
good! Well done Luxon, - but how many times do you think he can get >> >> >>>away with such handouts at your expense before even National
supporters get a bit upset?
Do you have a connection with the industry, Willy Nilly?
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.
responding to a post about the value of Coal and Gas in generating
electricity in New Zealand - and pointing out the value inherent in
the design of the system all those years ago. What so you think (if
anything) should be done about our system of delivering electricity,
Tony?
How about we how a discussion on building a nuclear power plant.
After all there are 60 underconstruction world wide with a capacity of
62.637 GW
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx
A good starting page for most things nuclear power plant wise. (Above
Link)
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
World nuclear power production.
Capacity 364.480 GW
Generated 2.55206711 PWh (2552067.11 GWh)
Aplogies for straying slightly off topic.
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
Also there is the cost - they're extraordinarily expensive and time
consuming to build even in countries that have a nuclear industry. I
doubt any company here could afford to build one - it would have to be a
government project from start to finish.
longer a theory, there are small fusion plants in operation today.
They remove the concern over earthquakes and waste and cannot melt down.
Running is perhaps a bit of a stretch - I don't think any fusion reactor
has run for more than two minutes yet, and its only quite recently that
one produced more power than it consumed for the brief time it was
running. Commercialisation is probably still a few decades away.
But progress is progress and fusion may become a viable option one day.
When that day comes I assume we'll build it if it makes economic sense.
I expect we'd do the same with Fission power too if it ever made
economic sense here.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
I see.
No, you do not see, at all.
So we build two reactors and one of those reactors sits idle for
two years until refueling time when we swap over? Seems rather
expensive...
No, they both run except when one is taken down for maintenance, duh.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
I see.
So we build two reactors and one of those reactors sits idle for
two years until refueling time when we swap over? Seems rather
expensive...
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >>>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >>>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >>>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >>>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free statusNuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
Making your comment nonsense.
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >> >>>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >> >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >> >>>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a
defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the
money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking,
standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember
it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could
put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that
effect.
Ok, and when you take one of the 500MW reactors out of operation for >maintenance, where do we magic up that 500MW of baseload generation
from?
On the power grid supply and demand must always match exactly. If you
take a 500MW reactor off the grid for maintenance then either total
demand on the grid must be reduced by 500MW, or we have to turn on
another 500MW of generation somewhere else to fill the gap.
That means having 500MW of generation *spare*. Generation that we know
for certain wouldn't otherwise be required to meet demand during the
nuclear reactors nearly month long maintenance and refuelling window. A
500MW power plant that normally isn't making any money.
On top of that 500MW of spare generation to fill in for the offline
nuclear reactor, we'd also need additional spare generation ready to
step in at a moments notice if the next largest generator - probably the >other 500MW reactor - unexpected went offline.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
I see.
No, you do not see, at all.
So we build two reactors and one of those reactors sits idle for
two years until refueling time when we swap over? Seems rather
expensive...
No, they both run except when one is taken down for maintenance, duh.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David GoodwinWell done, you finally got it.
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >>> >>>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >>> >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >>> >>>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the
money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking,
standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember
it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could
put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made
the understandable decision not to make such a statement
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >> >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the
money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking,
standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember
it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could
put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made
the understandable decision not to make such a statement
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, and when you take one of the 500MW reactors out of operation for >maintenance, where do we magic up that 500MW of baseload generation
from?
On the power grid supply and demand must always match exactly. If you
take a 500MW reactor off the grid for maintenance then either total
demand on the grid must be reduced by 500MW, or we have to turn on
another 500MW of generation somewhere else to fill the gap.
That means having 500MW of generation *spare*. Generation that we know
for certain wouldn't otherwise be required to meet demand during the >nuclear reactors nearly month long maintenance and refuelling window. A >500MW power plant that normally isn't making any money.
On top of that 500MW of spare generation to fill in for the offline
nuclear reactor, we'd also need additional spare generation ready to
step in at a moments notice if the next largest generator - probably the >other 500MW reactor - unexpected went offline.
Geez, what drivel. Hasn't been a problem for all the countries that
do use nuclear.
Also, the new breed of nuclear reactors -- the kind
that re-use nuclear fuel until that fuel is almost inert -- are
entirely scaleable to produce more or less output as needed, and can
be custom-built to whatever maximum output is desired. Do try to keep
up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David GoodwinWell done, you finally got it.
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >>>> >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking,
standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made
the understandable decision not to make such a statement
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK so you didn't get it after all.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David GoodwinWell done, you finally got it.
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>> >Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces >>>>> >>>it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or >>>>> >>>more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go >>>>> >>>for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>>>> >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>>>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking, >>>>standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made
the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Happy to have educated you, Tony.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I am sorry you remain uneducated then Tony.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK so you didn't get it after all.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Well done, you finally got it.
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>> >Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces >>>>>> >>>it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or >>>>>> >>>more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go >>>>>> >>>for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>>>>> >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>>>>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a >>>>>> >>time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking, >>>>>standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>>>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made >>>>the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Happy to have educated you, Tony.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:22:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyMy education standards and achievements surpass yours by a massive amount. You are quite simply dumb and you show it here every day.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I am sorry you remain uneducated then Tony.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK so you didn't get it after all.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Well done, you finally got it.
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>> >Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what
replaces
it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or >>>>>>> >>>more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go >>>>>>> >>>for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>>>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>>>>>> >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a
defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has >>>>>>> >>multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a >>>>>>> >>time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>>>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>>>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking, >>>>>>standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>>>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>>>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>>>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>>>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If >>>>>the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>>>>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made >>>>>the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Happy to have educated you, Tony.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, and when you take one of the 500MW reactors out of operation for >>maintenance, where do we magic up that 500MW of baseload generation
from?
On the power grid supply and demand must always match exactly. If you
take a 500MW reactor off the grid for maintenance then either total
demand on the grid must be reduced by 500MW, or we have to turn on
another 500MW of generation somewhere else to fill the gap.
That means having 500MW of generation *spare*. Generation that we know
for certain wouldn't otherwise be required to meet demand during the >>nuclear reactors nearly month long maintenance and refuelling window. A >>500MW power plant that normally isn't making any money.
On top of that 500MW of spare generation to fill in for the offline
nuclear reactor, we'd also need additional spare generation ready to
step in at a moments notice if the next largest generator - probably the >>other 500MW reactor - unexpected went offline.
Geez, what drivel. Hasn't been a problem for all the countries that
do use nuclear. Also, the new breed of nuclear reactors -- the kind
that re-use nuclear fuel until that fuel is almost inert -- are
entirely scaleable to produce more or less output as needed, and can
be custom-built to whatever maximum output is desired. Do try to keep
up.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces it >>> >>>when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or more >>> >>>is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go for >>> >>>the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies
totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the
frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a
time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status
- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the
money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking,
standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember
it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could
put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made
the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK so you didn't get it after all.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Well done, you finally got it.
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>> >Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what replaces >>>>>> >>>it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or >>>>>> >>>more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go >>>>>> >>>for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>>>>> >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a >>>>>> >>defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has
multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a >>>>>> >>time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking, >>>>>standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If
the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>>>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made >>>>the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Happy to have educated you, Tony.
On 2024-08-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:I admire your confidence. Sadly mistaken I believe.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK so you didn't get it after all.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Well done, you finally got it.
In article <part1of1.1.Bto#[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>>says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:07:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>> >Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always >>>>>>>referred
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>The problem I've heard with Nuclear in New Zealand is - what
replaces
it
when it needs to go offline for maintenance or refueling? 500MW or >>>>>>> >>>more
is a lot of baseload generation to take out of service all in one go >>>>>>> >>>for
the better part of a month every few years.
i.e., anything worth doing should not be done. Your "point" applies >>>>>>> >>totally to wind generation as equivalent backup is required for the >>>>>>> >>frequent times of no-wind. So your "logic" is to apply this
requirement to the *reliable* generators whilst ignoring this
requirement for the *unreliable* generators. Your policy is that of a
defective or sabotaged AI, you make no actual sense.
So what have you got against Lake Onslow?
Anyway, your "point" is crap because a nuclear site usually has >>>>>>> >>multiple generators of which only one needs to be maintained at a >>>>>>> >>time.
Peters and Luxon appear to prefer us retaining our nuclear free status >>>>>>> >- and avoid the cost of a new nuclear power station . . .
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.
Indeed, AFAIK nuclear power is totally legal here. If you've got the >>>>>>money and a resource consent there is nothing, legally speaking, >>>>>>standing in your way.
What *is* illegal, curiously, is nuclear powered ships. I don't remember >>>>>>it was ships specifically, or transport in general, but IIRC you could >>>>>>put a nuclear power plant on a barge, but it would be illegal to use the >>>>>>generated electricity to propel the barge or something silly to that >>>>>>effect.
The ban was on vessels (ships or subs) carrying nuclear weapons. If >>>>>the USA had declared that a particular vessel was not carrying nuclear >>>>>weapons then it would have been allowed into our ports. The USA made >>>>>the understandable decision not to make such a statement
Happy to have educated you, Tony.
We live in hope.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:07:21 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,554 |