phil(whoar.co.nz)

Couldn’t agree more. Unlimited growth only works with unlimited resources - something we don’t have. There is nothing wrong with a stable population size and a stable economy IMHO. And whether or not we like it - growth will *have to* cease at some point — its just a matter of whether we do it in an orderly fashion ourselves, or let it happen *to* us some time down the road. How do we sell this message though? If NZ does decide that we are quite happy with our current comfortable population density and all the simplicity that brings to our energy requirements, then how could we convince ordinary NZers of this? Especially given that the number of desperate refugees arising from other countries with poorer planning (like USA) will probably rise rapidly in the future.

you had better check out whoar.co.nz….sir humphrey..or sagenz..

the mainstream media haven’t got it yet..:)

it’s to do with saddam..oil..and the real nz connection…cor!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

NZ and Iceland are a valid comparison because both are richly endowed with renewable energy, i.e. geothermal, wind, hydro.

The basic fact is if you want to grow your population, your economy you need to grow your energy generation/consumption. The more complex and richer your economy is the more energy you need.

So, the real issue for New Zealanders is to stop looking at how we might progress without the assumption of perpetual economic growth. Once we ditch this phony idea (don’t ask me how, that’s the challenge) then we can get on with looking at how we can better use the energy generating resources we have.

Unfortunately the dogma of the day embedded into the craniums of all NZ’ers is that to be happy as a society we need economic growth, any suggestions to the contrary are met with bovine disbelief.

Which isn’t something I am expecting soon.

David - What the hell are you talking about with respect to Blair and Bush?

As for the rest of the world… it has to burn atoms or coal, or freeze in the dark. Which one is most likely to help with the CO2 emissions? There WOULD be alternatives if people could get their butts in orbit cheap, but we haven’t actually done the “learn to live and work in space” thing well enough, so the SSPS is still dream talk… though it should happen before the NZ Nuclear Industry gets off the ground.

respectfully
BJ

The head of the Electricity Commission also pointed out that nuclear fails in NZ for the very simple reason that any economical sized plant (ie > 1GW) would have too much generation concentrated into one “shaft”, and that we do not, could not, provide a sufficiently large viable backup in the case that the nuclear plant tripped.

Most generators in NZ are in the order of 20-200MW; by contrast a nuclear plant is too large to fit into the very complex control and scheduling schemes used to manage the entire system without gross commercial distortions and unacceptable supply risks.

I think the frog would be better off linking to someone such as Monbiot whose latest column lays out a convincing argument as to why nuclear fails at the first hurdle: namely each dollar invested into nuclear displaces less CO2 than other available options.

He also mentions the fact that these plants will not work without public subsidies - in fact insurance companies refuse to provide commercial cover - thuis the need for the Price-Anderson in the US.

The future is decentralised generation - this not only provides clean appropriate power but also breaks the economic strangle hold of the current power generating/transmission entities. No wonder the centralised generators are fighting.

I also recommend following up the quoted article from the RMI
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf
Enjoy !