| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:47 am Post subject: A power of trouble (26 Jan 2010) |
 |
|
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0126.shtml
Were you inconvenienced by yesterday's power outage in Auckland?
Isn't it time we looked at alternatives to doing band-aid patches to a decades-old national grid and Cook-straight cable setup?
Might not it be far more sensible (and environmentally responsible) to shift away from reliance on power generated a thousand Kms away, to power generated right on Auckland's doorstep?
Perhaps, instead of just saying "we're green, tax the snot out of us" to the climate-change zealots of the world, we ought to start building a fist-full of renewable energy sources around Auckland.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spend the huge sums we might otherwise have to pay in carbon taxes on the creation of some clean, green energy generation?
I've heard many claim that hydro generation is far from "clean" or "green" and that it is a contributor to climate change. Is that true?
Just how many KJ are injected into the environment every day through resistive losses and other waste involved in the national grid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techy
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: Re: A power of trouble (26 Jan 2010) |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: |
Might not it be far more sensible (and environmentally responsible) to shift away from reliance on power generated a thousand Kms away, to power generated right on Auckland's doorstep?
|
Hah. The major problem with power generation of any kind is the NIMBYS. And the But It Ruins The View idiots too.
Shoot the farmer......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GSVNoFixedAbode
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 143
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Given the massive Urban Renewal mechanism that Auckland is sitting on (the Rangitoto hotspot is overdue to pop I believe), why not investigate a deep bore geothermal solution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keewee01
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Ashburton, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tidal / Wind / Geothermal - don't care what it is, just get it up and going!
Then maybe the power in the south might be a lot cheaper... YEAH RIGHT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tr3v
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There needs to be a real incentive for homes to utilise their own power generation schemes and conserve energy. This is beginning to happen (double glazing in the building code, and insulation subsidies) but this is only the beginning. We waste far too much energy. We should have solar panels and wind generators with reverse meters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
The renewable situation looks even better when you consider this:
A tidal plant (like this one)would likely cost around US$400 million (NZ$600m) which is just over two weeks worth of government-borrowing at the current rate.
When you consider the spin-off benefits to the economy (jobs, tax paid, etc) then the true cost would be less.
Why would we not spend less than 3-weeks of borrowing to fund such a useful energy resource right on Auckland's doorstep? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keewee01
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Ashburton, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tr3v wrote: | | There needs to be a real incentive for homes to utilise their own power generation schemes and conserve energy. This is beginning to happen (double glazing in the building code, and insulation subsidies) but this is only the beginning. We waste far too much energy. We should have solar panels and wind generators with reverse meters. |
Apparently in the colder parts of the country we should be using Triple Glazing. I'm told that it's very common in Europe (might even be compulsory in places). Triple glazing doesn't cost a lot more than double glazing, but comes with hugely superior benefits - insulates up to 60% better than standard double glazing and 80% less radiation heat transfer between glass and room!! I often get the feeling that those in charge of the country and in charge of various core industries let us down badly... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hagfish
Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
m'kay. Let's grab the back of an envelope, here:
An average shower uses about 10L/minute. Power required to heat water is 4.2KJ/L/degree C. If your water starts at 15 degrees, and comes out at 40 degrees (after mixing with cold) that's a 25 degree rise, or about 100KJ per litre, so 1megajoule per minute for your shower. In Auckland there are around 400,000 households, averaging 3.8 inhabitants per household. If the inhabitants have one shower each per day, that's about 1.5 million showers. If everyone showers for one minute less, that's 1500 gigajoules less power required. To generate that in a 24-hour time period requires a constant output of about 17MW. You can't profit from (or tax) a saving, so this is the last you'll hear of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyr
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | The renewable situation looks even better when you consider this:
A tidal plant (like this one)would likely cost around US$400 million (NZ$600m) which is just over two weeks worth of government-borrowing at the current rate.
When you consider the spin-off benefits to the economy (jobs, tax paid, etc) then the true cost would be less.
Why would we not spend less than 3-weeks of borrowing to fund such a useful energy resource right on Auckland's doorstep? |
At this moment Auckland is consuming 999 MW, with another 518 MW north of Auckland. The korean tidal plant would produce about 1/4 of Auckland's electricity needs, for the 6-8 hours a day it would operate at peak. Capital cost and maintenance would likely double or triple cost of electricity, relative to today's retail prices.
But a medium sized nuclear plant within Auckland's boundaries would be good, actually two would be needed to ensure continuity of supply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophocles
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 880
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce wrote: |
Why not just dump a small nuclear power station at Albany or in South Auckland?
|
It could be put in Tokoroa: the electricity it generates would then be more or less central between the two greatest consumers in NZ: Auckland and Wellington. Bruce could also benefit by offering to cool the the cooling water by using it to warm his refriger... ah... house. Multiple uses, better efficiency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting piece on NatRad just a few minutes ago...
Apparently, one of the issues facing farmers with pylons on their land is who becomes liable in the event of accident or injury while the Transpower people are performing maintenance/upgrade while on the farmer's land.
Apparently, it could well be the farmer (remember the collapsing bridge that killed the apiarist not so long ago).
I gather that nobody will give the farmers a waiver of responsibility should a bunch of half-drunk Transpower workers drive themselves over a bluff on the farmer's property while trying to gain access to their pylons.
To me, that sounds like good enough reason to prevent them from entering your land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barryl
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 254
Location: Canterbury
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct.
There's so much that could be done, even without having the nuclear argument:
Insulation
Double glazing
Solar hot water (and WITHOUT extortionate local body fees for permits!!)
Low flow shower heads.
Wind, solar, tidal and more hydro power on a local basis.
BUT, is there any votes in it? Is there any polly with the IQ higher than a fridge magnet????
No, even the queen-b**** of green, Jeanette Fitzsimons had a fire during a fire-ban season.
We are doomed to more of the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyr
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | An interesting piece on NatRad just a few minutes ago...
Apparently, one of the issues facing farmers with pylons on their land is who becomes liable in the event of accident or injury while the Transpower people are performing maintenance/upgrade while on the farmer's land.
Apparently, it could well be the farmer (remember the collapsing bridge that killed the apiarist not so long ago).
I gather that nobody will give the farmers a waiver of responsibility should a bunch of half-drunk Transpower workers drive themselves over a bluff on the farmer's property while trying to gain access to their pylons.
To me, that sounds like good enough reason to prevent them from entering your land. |
Transpower and similar organisations, have insurance to cover damage to their property and staff, should cover this.
And the farmers have no choice. The Electricity Act includes "23 Rights of entry in respect of existing works(1) Any person that owns any existing works may enter upon land for the purpose of gaining access to those works and may perform any act or operation necessary for the purpose of—
(a) Inspecting, maintaining, or operating the works:
"
So short of getting the legislation changed, the farmers cannot stop Transpower or the local lines company from entering the land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyr wrote: |
Transpower and similar organisations, have insurance to cover damage to their property and staff, should cover this. |
No, that's not the way insurance works.
Sure, the insurance company would pay the workers and/or Transpower for any losses, injury/damage -- but they would then sue the farmer if they thought he could be even remotely be liable under the provisions of the law.
It's just like if you are uninsured and hit an insured driver. That driver's insurance will pay for the repairs to his car but they'll then chase you for the money.
So, the fact that Transpower are insured won't help the farmer's position if he can't get written confirmation that he won't be held liable when (for instance) some idiot Transpower worker drives off a cliff in the dark while trying to gain access to the company's pylons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyr
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | tonyr wrote: |
Transpower and similar organisations, have insurance to cover damage to their property and staff, should cover this. |
No, that's not the way insurance works.
Sure, the insurance company would pay the workers and/or Transpower for any losses, injury/damage -- but they would then sue the farmer if they thought he could be even remotely be liable under the provisions of the law.
It's just like if you are uninsured and hit an insured driver. That driver's insurance will pay for the repairs to his car but they'll then chase you for the money.
So, the fact that Transpower are insured won't help the farmer's position if he can't get written confirmation that he won't be held liable when (for instance) some idiot Transpower worker drives off a cliff in the dark while trying to gain access to the company's pylons. |
Hmmm, we had a small farm property, the minimum insurance against our assets had a $250,000 third party cover. And if "some idiot (whatever) worker drives off a cliff in the dark" then no court is going to find the farmer liable unless he had a sign at the gate explicitly saying that ALL hazards, including cliffs, are clearly signposted and the signs are illuminated at night. Most farms have signs saying exactly the opposite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macdo
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="keewee01"] | tr3v wrote: | | I often get the feeling that those in charge of the country and in charge of various core industries let us down badly... |
Agree, weak regulation and deficient monitoring, but also an acceptance of low standards because it suits us for other reasons. We have become wedded building homes cheaply, then trading in them to drive the economy. If you build a home to proper energy standards you will struggle to recover the cost when you come to sell it in a market where people will be more influenced by how the home is presented (dressed up and furnished) than how it is built.
Watch a US programme like This Old House and be in awe of the US building codes and the products and technologies they have to meet them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
