yep.
Electricity Commission Approves NI Grid Upgrade
Press Release by Electricity Commission at 2:10 pm, 05 Jul 2007The Electricity Commission today announced its approval of Transpower’s proposal for a new electricity transmission line between Whakamaru and Pakauranga, Auckland.
The project will include more than 190km of above ground pylons and lines, and underground cables. While the line will initially be run at 220 kilovolts, it will have the potential to be upgraded in the future to 400 kilovolts.
Commission Deputy Chair Peter Harris said the decision-making process had delivered a significant benefit to consumers. Transpower’s proposal had been considered against a range of other potential options, in particular a 220 kilovolt line, to ensure the project met the criteria for approval.
“We unanimously declined Transpower’s first application in 2006 because it did not meet the Grid Investment Test (GIT), which is designed to protect consumers from unnecessary costs,” said Commissioner Harris.
“The new proposal was substantially better in terms of providing reliable and cost-effective transmission to the upper North Island. It is in line with good electricity industry practice, particularly as it provides improved diversity of supply. That means consumers will be better off in the long term.”
The decision, which was made by a majority, confirms the notice of intention to approve the proposal that was issued on 31 January 2007. Since that notice the Commission received further submissions, held a public conference and carried out further analysis, including to address issues raised in submissions. Issues raised included the adequacy of Transpower’s costs, the impact of
electromagnetic fields, environmental and community impacts, and alternatives to the line. Commissioner Harris said the further analysis did not raise any significant new issues that could overturn the notice of intent to approve.Commissioner Graham Pinnell has issued a dissenting opinion. In his dissenting opinion, he said the proposal did not pass the GIT and that the 220kV option would be more economic. He said the savings to consumers by rejecting the proposal would far outweigh the costs of reviewing a new proposal, and there was adequate time for such a review.
Commissioner Harris said Commissioner Pinnell had disagreed on the assumptions used in the GIT, particularly regarding where new electricity generation sources for Auckland would be located and the level of electricity demand growth. Changes in these assumptions could result in a different conclusion. Commissioner Harris said the majority adopted a more conservative view than Commissioner Pinnell on demand uncertainties in reaching their decision.
Commissioner Harris thanked all those who had submitted on the project. He said the Commission recognised the upgrade will have an impact on some communities and the Commission anticipates that Transpower, as a matter of good practice, will actively seek to mitigate environmental impacts on small communities, and notes that (without prejudging what the RMA process may require) in some situations options such as route diversion, varying tower height, increasing easement width, the use of single circuit towers and/or monopole towers may be feasible and affordable within the contingency sums approved for the project.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Do we have any polling on energy issues , climate change etc? I’m energy aware, but some idiots think scientists will solve everything.
jh
July 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I have asked this question before, is it not time to re vist our silly No Nuke legislation?, we need a Nuclear power station.
The one good thing to come out of this is that the rural folk across the county (an incredibly selfish bunch I must admit) will never vote Labour again, if that means we have to put up with a few pylons then so be it.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
O/T but what affect will cutting the plantations on the Canterbury Plain have on firewood????
jh
July 5th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
>>we need a Nuclear power station
4th Gen pebble bed reactor.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“The pebble bed reactor is a nuclear reactor where the fuel is in the form of a sphere. And heat flows out of the fuel sphere, and there’s helium that comes through the reactor. And it’s heated helium that is used to generate electricity.
It’s completely safe because we’re talking about ceramic fuel elements. It contains no metal parts. And even if there was a loss of coolant in the reactor, the fuel cannot over heat to the point where you have a meltdown of the fuel sphere.
The pebble bed concept comes from Germany where experimental plants ran for several years. Now, after a decade of refinements, the South Africans are commercializing the design. They claim the technology is ready for worldwide distribution. The big question is whether the world is ready for a nuclear resurgence.”
Might soon be time to ditch the antiquated Nuke Free stance…
July 5th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
A couple of large thermal stations near Auckland would mean there would be no need for these pylons surely? What’s the problem with doing that, aside from the CO2 emissions I suppose.
I’m all for improving the grid, as without electricity modern civilization ends pretty quickly. But this does seem to be a crazy way of doing it- spend a fortune sending power thousands of kilometres, losing 5-10% on the way, just to service Auckland? The cynic in me says that there is a cozy cartel with no interest in building new stations, keeps the unit price sky-high…
One thing is for sure- with current growth rates of 2%, we will need DOUBLE our current electric generation within 30 years. That’s quite a challenge…
July 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
# uk_kiwi Says:
> I’m all for improving the grid, as without electricity modern civilization ends pretty quickly. But this does seem to be a crazy way of doing it- spend a fortune sending power thousands of kilometres, losing 5-10% on the way, just to service Auckland? The cynic in me says that there is a cozy cartel with no interest in building new stations, keeps the unit price sky-high…
There is no cosy cartel with no interest in building new power stations. The power companies are proposing lots of new stations. A new large windfarm just opened in Southland. The windfarm for Makara, west of Wellington, has finally been given the green light after years of discussion. Two that are even bigger than those are planned for Central Otago, and are currently going through a resource management act process that may or may not lead to them being approved. There was a heavy-oil power station planned for Whangarei, that has recently been declined planning permission because of toxic pollutants (heavy oil is much dirtier than petrol) and greenhouse gas emissions. Praject Aqua (a six-dam hydro-power scheme on the lower Waitaki) was recently cancelled. Some say it was cancelled because of local opposition, but I suspect it was cancelled because of geology (it was cancelled soon after a confidential geology report was presented to Meridian Energy). Meridian are now developing proposals for a new power scheme for the Lower Waitaki.
Power stations are being held up because of the planning process, but in comparison with the length of time the power stations and their effects will be with us, the planning processes suddenly don’t seem that long at all.
Electricity demand is rising faster than people predicted, because the dairy farming boom is exceeding expectations (it’s the irrigation systems that use most of the electricity).
July 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
# uk_kiwi Says:
> A couple of large thermal stations near Auckland would mean there would be no need for these pylons surely?
That presumably would do it, but do you think that coal-fired power stations with big chimneys visible on the Auckland skyline would be less unpopular than the pylons?
The tidal flows at the mouth of manukau harbour are huge (due to a combination of a big harbour surface area, narrow harbour mouth and big tidal range). Damming that would be a good way of generating electricity near Auckland.
But all of the solutions, even wind and coal (which are the cheapest) work out more expensive than saving the equivalent amount of power through energy-efficiency improvements.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
the only thing i realy like about the anti-nuke stance is that ts one of the only ways we get to say F%&k You to the american government. nuke is safe now, the only problem is the waste (maybe we should dump it in a subduction zone? after all nuke materials are what heats the core for the most part), its much cleaner than having all the coal power plants, etc and less ecologicly damaging than dams and wind farms, yet i dont see the greens ever supporting pro-nuke, prehaps we could still say F%&k You to the americans by banning nuclear weapons
Sapient
July 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
All this renewable energy rubbish is just luring people into a false sense o security about future energy supplies.
Read
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html#anchor_83
Pebble bed reactors. I wonder what the EROEI (high energy return on energy invested) on those are particularly as it requires Silicon carbide, which is needs to be manufactured on an industrial scale. Not to mention the fact that the waste from the plant is greater in volume than from conventional reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Not to mention the fact that the South African project has been deemed economically unviable and the German experimental plant was shut down, because of an accident due to staff damaging the fuel cladding after a pebble got stuck in the pipe leading to the reactor. The accident caused radiation and helium to escape and get deposited in the surrounding area.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=248053&area=/breaking_n ews/breaking_news__national/
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm
We need to put steps in place so that we can reduce the energy we consume and to actually begin using the remaining cheap energy productivily rather than proflagately wasting it as we are.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
This talk of “renewable energy” merely lures people into a misplaced sense of security when we need to take action NOW to ensure that we’re prepared for Peak Oil by using the remaing oil productively rather than profligately wasting it like we currently are.
Read
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html#anchor_83
The pebble bed reactors have been deemed both uneconomical and unsafe by the previous world leaders in its development.
Read
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=14425
July 5th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Nuclear power is not the magic bullet which will save the world (or New Zealand). Here are some points to consider:
1) Uranium is a limited resource. In terms of providing energy, there is a much longer supply of coal than Uranium. What will happen in 100 years time when all the easily accessible Uranium has been used up?
2) Whilst it might be possible to build a safe nuclear reactor in Australia (for example), would you want to put a safe reactor anywhere in New Zealand, with the risk of earthquakes in most places?
3) How much CO2 is emitted in the mining and refining of Uranium?
Kahikatea is correct that energy-efficiency is the cheapest way to free up more electricity.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:12 am
SleepyTreehugger: Did you read any of the other articles (and especially the readers comments) on the South African website you posted a link to?
July 6th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Umm…. Yeah why?
Maybe you’re wondering why I was talking about nuclear pebble-bed reactors? Assuming I support nuclear power rather than renewable energy? I was merely responding to PEL’s suggestion that we may need to reconsider our stance on nuclear energy.
“The pebble bed reactor is a nuclear reactor where the fuel is in the form of a sphere. And heat flows out of the fuel sphere, and there’s helium that comes through the reactor. And it’s heated helium that is used to generate electricity.
It’s completely safe because we’re talking about ceramic fuel elements. It contains no metal parts. And even if there was a loss of coolant in the reactor, the fuel cannot over heat to the point where you have a meltdown of the fuel sphere.”
July 6th, 2007 at 2:03 am
SleepyTreehugger,
There is hope. The economic theory known as Jevon’s Paradox is also known to psychologists as Waste Homeostasis Theory. Psychologists derived their theory from the Risk Homeostasis Theory which argues that you can’t improve safety because people will just find other ways to be less safe in order to return to their target level of risk. The problem with these theories is the assumption that individuals know the real amount of change that has occured and therefore adjust their behaviour by precisely this amount. In the real world there is often a huge difference between the perceived change and the actual change. This is utilised by roading engineers in the perceptual countermeasures approach. Attitude surveys reveal what the general public perceive as safe or dangerous elements of the road environment. The laws of physics and crash studies reveal what really is safe or dangerous. Roads are then designed to reduce the real risky elements while appearing to include the perceived risky elements.
One of the reasons crumple zones were so successful is that a great many people believed that “solid” cars were safer hence they actually drove more carefully in these “recycled beer can” cars. Speeds often drop significantly when safety barriers are installed on hillside roads. Although the road has become safer the awareness of danger has also been increased. The absence of barriers has the opposite effect.
As far as energy conservation is concerned, this actually argues in favour of compulsion and/or automation rather than education. The argument that people are buying bigger cars or refridgerators simply because they can afford to now that these things have become more energy efficient is an argument that should be treated with scepticism. Does it explain why we are buying bigger TVs, or bigger beds, or bigger hard drives? Nope, we are buying bigger because of
a) improved manufacturing efficiency
b) fewer children = more “toys”
c) conspicuous consumption
etc, etc, etc.
The houses on Dubai’s Palm Island development don’t have air conditioning units. This job is done the way it has been done for millenia in the middle east. Each house has a cooling tower, essentially a very wide chimney, that creates a natural flow of air to cool the interior. Oil-rich Dubai is taking peak oil seriously even if their customer nations aren’t. That’s why renewable energy has been built into this prestige development, including building it offshore rather than inland where there would be extreme temperature variations between night and day to cope with. It is also a high-density “walking” community with the main access road easily capable of carrying light rail instead of cars.
It seems to me the best thing about talking up renewable energy is that most people DONT think it is the answer, just another get rich quick scheme for big business. So it can be developed without creating undue confidence. Whereas energy conservation and token investments in public transport is something people think will save the day, even if that day happens to be tomorrow. And thats where Jevon’s paradox has really frightening implications.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:49 am
As there is no mention of an upgrade to the Cook Strait cable I presume this new transmission line is to take advantage of new generating capacity in the central North Island geothermal fields. Are the geothermal areas at Parakai and Waiwera the wrong type for geothermal power or are we so locked into the 50s geothermal technology that no consideration has been given to using newer techniques?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Kevyn.
Perhaps as you say Jevon’s Paradox is not necessarily accurate when people are aware of a problem and so therefore will take steps to change their behaviour for the better, but what if people aren’t aware of a problem let alone the seriousness of it, because their government isn’t willing to tell them about it due to the fact that it may incite a panic?
Or numbnut politicians who choose to hear only what it wants to hear.
Quote from aftertheoilcrash.com
A. They can’t without creating a panic:
Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn’t actually peaked. For this reason, the mainstream media cannot discuss this issue without largely whitewashing the dire consequences for the average person. If they told the truth, people would panic and the markets would crash. Analyst Steven Laguvulin explains:
“Should the oil markets themselves begin to ‘connect these dots’, then all our lives are going to be impacted violently and immediately. The commodity traders for various interested firms live solely by anticipating conditions and events, not by debating them and verifying them.”
This is whats got me concerned, especially compounded by Peak Oil denialists who are constantly confidant that technology will magically solve all of our problems. Like these guys.
“Even people on the lower end of it increase their estimates over time, because technology and know-how improves. My own sense is that we won’t find a peak, and that there will probably be a demand peak that will probably come in 25 or 30 years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5305950.stm
Or numbnut politicians who choose to hear only what they want to hear, such as “guesstimates” from neoliberal thinktanks like the OECD.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25422
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 am
SleepyTreehugger, Labour did the same thing when they blamed the electricity crisis on the elctricity reforms of the 1990s. The alarming fact is we have run out of rivers to put really big dams on, in effect peak hydro has happened and they haven’t got a clue where the extra electricity is going to come from. But “don’t worry, new technology is just around the corner” and “we just have to use electricity more efficiently”. Which is true but as long as everybody wants a playstation and a big-screen plasma TV with home theatre sound it just wont happen. Which may be why they aren’t really trying to stop manufacturers moving offshore. They need the power savings too much. They’ve certainly succeeded with the company I work for, most of our machines are idle or have been shipped to Thailand.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
PEL
If it comes to a choice, I prefer the Thorium fueled accelerator driven systems.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/print/thoriumprint.html
http://www.uic.com.au/nip47.htm
The pebble beds are promising but require still, a great deal of work in producing the exact uniform “pebbles” that are required in the quantities required. I note too that the availability of Uranium is limited and it will not supply our energy needs for the long run. Thorium will go longer but is ALSO limited.
Greens are all about long-term SUSTAINABILITY… and neither cycle is long-term sustainable. Not at the burn rate the world is working towards.
There could be a short term ( 1-2 centuries ) benefit to NZ and to the planet as a whole if some of these were to be adopted, but I don’t think that I could enthusiastically embrace these “solutions” to a problem that is best thought of in terms of too many people breeding rather than too few breeder reactors.
Auckland has to have a decent power feed as well as local generation capacity… and there is fair scope on that isthmus for tidal power generation. The nation as a whole has to act in a coordinated way to shift some of the growth there to other regions (Canterbury would have been a good place for a certain Rugby match that got so much recent attention) and to keep the overall rate of growth down.
respectfully
BJ
July 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
SleepyTreeHugger: The reason I asked if you had read the articles on the South African website you posted a link to (the African Crisis site) was because if you spend even a few minutes reading it, it becomes apparent that many of the comments were critical of either the current political regime in South Africa, or the skin colour of the majority population. I’m sure this is a highly reliable source of information …
July 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Thanks BJ, I’ll take a look.
>>There could be a short term ( 1-2 centuries )
I think that’s good enough. Invention will continue…
July 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I thought right-wing types were supposed to be fiscally responsible and economically sensible - so how come they advocate nuclear power?
Leaving aside the safety issues, long term supply of fuel issues and long-term waste disposal issues, nuclear power just doesn’t make sense commercially - it loses money. Building a nuclear power station in NZ would be the most humongous waste of money ever.
Also BB, by advocating nuclear power aren’t you admitting that climate change is real and that we need to reduce our carbon emissions? If not, then why not advocate more coal plants? Much cheaper and we actually have some coal in our country.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I find the Greens relative silence on this issue surprising, given that last year they were quite vocal on it. I see Russel has put ‘out’ a release but it doesn’t even appear on Scoop…
Here we have a major environmental issue and they should be shouting from the rooftops yet seem reticent. Could that be because one of the main reasons pitched for the line is to take geothermal and wind power north - which leaves the greens in a bit of a quandry?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
>>nuclear power just doesn’t make sense commercially
If it doesn’t fine by me. We’ll do something else.
If these smaller reactors do become cost effective, then we’re all go.
Safety issues - no longer an issue
Long term supply of fuel - define long. Secondly, uranium deposits have barely been explored.
Waste Disposal Issues - no longer much of an issue.
Most of the first gen objections are now redundant. Time to stop taking these stupid, childish stances “X Free”, “Y Free” etc…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
BB isn’t here Stuey… PEL was on the Nuke issue… and it was I who answered with the Accelerator Driven linkage… dumb technocrat that I am.
I don’t necessarily agree that the economics can’t ever make sense. Never say never… and the accelerator driven stuff is inherently safer. A real “off” switch and a capability to burn off the worst of the waste… making it a less difficult problem.
Doesn’t mean I am advocating it though. I prefer to address the actual problem by limiting growth then try to cope with it by building yet another way to consume the planet. I just don’t have the built in “no nukes” ideal built into me and I know the tech a bit. I had the first Atomic Energy Merit Badge in the Eastern USA (circa 1963-64) when I was in Scouts. Also got into lots of arguments about population growth and resource depletion at the time… not many believed in it the same way… I haven’t changed my position all that much in that regard. I STILL get into lots of arguments
respectfully
BJ
July 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
samiuela.
Thats like saying Dave Farrar’s comments on kiwiblog are questionable, because of the more outrageous comments made by the more extremist rightwingers that frequent it. Heres more articles.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200705220257.html
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20060327085016580
PEL
If these smaller reactors do become cost effective, then we’re all go. Thats a big if. See above.
Safety issues - no longer an issue. Really? Despite the evidence to the contrary from acknowledged experts?
Waste Disposal Issues - no longer much of an issue. Really. Where are we going to store nuclear waste here safely? Or do you propose shipping it overseas to be stored in the U.S., France, or Japan. Do you think they would be willing to accept it? Its certainly wouldn’t be free, thats for sure.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
SleepyTreeHugger
Seems to me that any argument for this to be done HERE rests on the economics of shipping fuel across from Oz and shipping waste back. This is an earthquake prone place and storage, even for a thousand years, is problematical. Safety depends on how it is done… I have long maintained that you can have “safe nuclear power” or “cheap nuclear power”, but you can’t have both. Putting it another way… Nuclear Power for profit is a losing proposition in terms of safety.
Nobody is building accelerator based reactors yet, darned few Thorium based reactors either (India is working this issue).
…but if the issue is can we keep the lights on and we’re willing to pay the price, it’s feasible to to so and be safe enough. Even here.
It seems to me there are better ways for US to do it, given the renewable resources available to us, but I try not to burn bridges.
respectfully
BJ
July 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
>>Safety issues - no longer an issue. Really? Despite the evidence to the contrary from acknowledged experts?
Yes. Acknowledged experts have been impressed by the safety levels i.e. you can’t blow them up.
>>Waste Disposal Issues - no longer much of an issue. Really?
Really. Much smaller, much cheaper, and they produce much less waste.
There are many new technologies worth considering. No need to dismiss them just because of the “N” word.
uic.com.au/nip16.htm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Insider
I don’t know what the official Green Party Line on the pylons is. I know it’s annoying to have them running across your fields and devastating to have them running near your home… but if the consumption isn’t near the supply you need to do things so that the resource reaches the consumer.
If that costs something to do, and it ALWAYS costs something to do it, the 5% number isn’t a bad one. TANSTAAFL applies. Want to build capacity near Auckland? If it isn’t tidal I don’t know what you can do… maybe put a geothermal plant on one of those volcanic islands nearby. Either way it’s going to be a pretty big installation and tidal stations don’t easily maintain a constant flow of power.
Grid improvements are actually an essential part of a resource strategy that relies on renewables because not all places are going to be windy, or sunny, or experiencing a peak tide, or getting enough rain to generate electricity at once.
The electrical grid needs to be rather sophisticated if I am putting in microgeneration capacity and feeding electricity back into the grid at my home in Wellington, some of which winding up being used to charge someone’s electric toothbrush in an apartment in Auckland. Pylons may be a necessary part of our landscape, and I would not be surprised. Most developed countries do have them.
respectfully
BJ
July 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Any good reason they can’t bury the cables in the median strip on State Highway 1?
Surely the national interest should be put ahead of parochial regional interests. If Aucklanders choose to give energy conservation the one finger salute then they shouldn’t expect other regions to suffer physically and emotionally just to keep jafas in the extragavant style they have become accustomed to.
Since Auckland’s main industries are
a) providing head office corporate services
b) retail distribution of imported goods
the rest of the country would be financially better off if Auckland ceased to exist.
Afterall who else benefits from the plague of red sheds and yellow barns? They just drive mom and pop shops out of business and syphon off local profits so jafas can buy bigger yachts.
Yes, I admit it, I am a recovering Aucklander, does it show?
July 7th, 2007 at 12:40 am
New Zealand’s energy use would seem to be increasing at a faster rate than the population is increasing, hence the need for new transmission lines, power stations etc. Is this increasing our standard of living?
I completed one of those online “ecological footprint” calculators the other day. I entered values which would have been representative of how I was living in the mid 1990s, and then values which are representative of how I am living today. The result was that I now have an ecological footprint which is something like 2 or 3 times as great as 10 years ago. What are the main differences:
Ten years ago I was a broke student. I cycled everywhere, and only used public transport when it rained; I didn’t own a car; I only eat vegetarian food (for cost as much as anything else); I brought only the absolute minimum of other items.
Well, now that I am working, I can say that my standard of living has improved a lot, and I have a generally more comfortable lifestyle. But the cost has been a doubling or tripling in my ecological footprint (which is still only average for New Zealand). I can’t say that my well being or happiness has increased by a factor of two as a result of this extra consumption.
So what I am getting at is: if we wound back our energy consumption (and consumption in general) to 1980 or 1990 levels, and we coupled that with population control policies, would we really be that much worse off? Of course, we’ll have to do more than that in the long term, but the first steps shouldn’t be too difficult??? If we throw in energy efficiencies due to new technology which has been developed in the last 10-15 years, it will be even easier to reduce our energy consumption without giving up all those mod-cons we have become addicted to.
So why the hell are New Zealanders even entertaining thoughts of nuclear power, more thermal power stations etc. The world is going crazy!
July 7th, 2007 at 3:04 am
samiuela, The government could be using the land transport fund innovatively to get this message across to New Zealanders but it chooses not to. A program to improve the efficiency of road lighting might wake up business leaders to the magnitude of the savings in both energy and lamp replacement costs, unlike householders businesses actually have to pay someone to do the job of changing light bulbs or tubes.
Why haven’t our traffic lights been converted to LEDs? If New York State have changed all their traffic lights to LEDs because its cheaper than not making the change then why haven’t we?
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question178.htm
Street lighting could be up to 50% more efficient by using newer reflector designs and power factor controllers
http://www.energyideas.org/default.cfm?o=h,g,ds&c=z,z,1225
Or they could start using LED replacements for fluoro tubes
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/747/
$NZ200 per tube may seem a lot when they only save 20% on electricity but think how much it costs to change a tube at the top of power pole and you can get an idea of the amount councils and transit can save with lights that last 5 times longer.
There’s a good reason they are called State Highways. If the government wants to lead by example they can write these types of improvements into LTNZ and Transit’s performance agreements with the Minister of Transport. The fact that they haven’t suggests they are Kyoto hypocrites. These are the sort of inititaives the Greens should make non-negotiable conditions of supporting future governments.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:32 am
samiuela, By the way, you can buy LED replacements for incandescents and halogens from several reputable companies on the net. Then if you ever feel tempted to prick the ego of someone who thinks having all the latest gadgets and appliances is the ultimate mark of success you can just mention you’ve got a bit of state of the art high tech electronics that they don’t have. And if they ask how much they cost just use the Rolls-Royce answer “If you need to ask the price, you can’t afford it”. Then smile nicely and walk away.
With a bit of luck they’ll also buy these lights just to “keep up with the Joneses”. Might not be the most admirable way to get people to be more energy efficient but its not dishonest or deceitful so its an ethical method of persuasion as far as I’m concerned.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Would it be stupid to ask why not look at what nicola tesla was working on back in the early part of the last century, i get the feeling that he realised it would be too powerful a thing to control?
The wealth of knowledge here far out strips mine but what he was trying to do was give free energy to all and was stopped in his tracks by his sponsors who realised there was no profit in something that all recieved for nothing.
I don’t know the mechanics behind what he was doing but it had to do with orbital acceleration of a electrical charge that when fired into the ionosphere it could be directed to orbit the earth until it reached back to the starting point then somehow accelerated again, something like keeping a spiningtop going by constantly slaping it but in this case what you started with comes back a thousand times stronger each time you slap it then you redirect it back to the surface via a recieving station or in his case a huge wooden tower that would distribute the power.
That guy was a GOD! the true father of the modern age it was him that gave us AC generation, too bad he died a lonely old man in (i think) the forties, he was out of his time, i think the yanks are experimenting with it they say it’s called H.A.R.P i think.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Amon: you don’t get energy for free, ever. There is the inconvenient physical principle of conservation of energy. Sure, we might get energy for no money one day, but we will still be taking it from somewhere else (be it gravitational potential energy of water in hydroelectric systems, energy locked up in chemical bonds (e.g. burning oil), or energy locked up in the nucleus of atoms).
July 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Maybe zero-point energy even…
There IS energy out there. Check the tethered cables experiments done on the shuttle, but it isn’t “free”.
No… it isn’t EVER free.
respectfully
BJ
July 8th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Amon, could you post a link? sounds interesting but i think the point of that wooden tower (on rhodes or 3 mile or one of those american islands, lol
) which got destroyed was to transmit power over long distances and disperse it to households free of the need for lines, etc, not so much to generate it, from memory he had a similar tower somewhere around the canadian border that he managed to transfer power from though, been a long time since i studied his inventions in school so i may be wrong, definatly a guy ahead of his time though.
is anything free?
Sapient
July 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
BJ, I wasn’t saying that you are advocating nuclear. I suppose I was saying that PEL and BB were the right wingers who were advocating it, but really it was a comment on the wider world - that it tends to be right-wingers who support nuclear.
And BB was here. He made the second comment. I think it is a fair question. If he doesn’t believe in climate change and reducing carbon emissions then why advocate nuclear? is it an ego thing? same reason as having a hummer, “my power station is bigger than yours”.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
BB was here? Sorry Stuey, I missed that and I really thought you were replying to me… cause I didn’t see him anywhere nearby.
Is true… it is often the growth-is-good crowd who go for the nukes on the grounds of continuing growth in the face of rising oil prices. Same token some “greens” will oppose nukes on the grounds of tech=bad. Tech is tech, like the ocean it does not care how you use it… and how you use it is what makes it bad or good. In other words it is up to us to use it wisely.
The point about the power grid is important. We can’t have a flexible renewables based power system if the grid can’t efficiently shift power from one part of the country to the other.
respectfully
BJ
July 10th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
James Lovelock advocates nuclear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766831.stm
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/James_Lovelock
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,,1738 946,00.html
jh
July 10th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Smart guy. Power must come from somewhere.
>>growth-is-good
We could do with a lot less people, and a lot better tech.
Stop encouraging the high birth rates amongst the poor by way of the welfare state, for starters.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
The problem is that we don’t have smart growth. Take your average housing development assume energy shortage and see how it stacks up.
I’m inclined to agree with the second statement . That call will get stronger as there is a paradigm shift re resources are limited /limits to growth.
jh
July 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
# stuey Says:
> And BB was here. He made the second comment. I think it is a fair question. If he doesn’t believe in climate change and reducing carbon emissions then why advocate nuclear? is it an ego thing? same reason as having a hummer, “my power station is bigger than yours�.
I suspect some people assume that nuclear energy must be the energy source of the future, just because it looks so unlike the energy source of the past. There’s also the 1950s futuristic wow factor- it’s cool because it’s weird and mysteriously powerful.
However, I don’t know if these people consider nuclear energy to be so cool that they would actually be willing to pay twice the cost of wind power to get it.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am
>>they would actually be willing to pay twice the cost of wind power to get it
What about if it was cheaper and had less environmental impact?
Which will happen within the next ten years…
July 11th, 2007 at 11:34 am
PEL
Don’t be so sure, the predictions for the year 2000 included flying cars and houses, how many of those have you seen around lately? timelines and predictions aren’t always accurate, you know.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:56 am
# PeterExitsLeft Says:
July 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am
>>they would actually be willing to pay twice the cost of wind power to get it
> What about if it was cheaper and had less environmental impact?
>Which will happen within the next ten years…
In the 1950s they predicted that would happen within the next ten years…
In the 1960s they predicted that would happen within the next ten years…
In the 1970s they predicted that would happen within the next ten years…
(anyone starting to see a pattern here?)
July 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
2001: A Space Odyssey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/
jh
July 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I wonder what the return of energy investment for a thorium reactor is. I’d say that the particle accelerator would require a substantial amount of energy to power it, not to mention the mining , transport, and construction energy costs have to be taken into acoount. We have to take into account not just economic feasiblity, but energy feasibility as well.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
>>anyone starting to see a pattern here?
Yes, your evasion of the issue
The PBR is already here: “The pebble bed reactor (PBR) is an advanced nuclear reactor type. A number of prototypes have been built, and it is currently under active development in South Africa as the PBMR design, and in China whose HTR-10 is the only prototype currently operating.”
***IF**** safer, low cost power sources, which may well be nuclear, come about in the next few years as this technology ramps up, then we should use them, where appropriate.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
yes James Lovelock advocates nuclear; but it should be recognised that:
* he advocates nuclear in order to reduce carbon emissions because he believes in climate change
* he advocates nuclear for the UK,
the UK - NZ distinction is important because:
* in the UK there is a history of nuclear power and they have experienced staff
* the scale makes it more viable
So I don’t agree that Lovelocks pronouncements have any bearing on whether NZ should go nuclear.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
BB, here’s another question for you. You say we need a nuclear power station. So do you think we need just the one? If so, how will we power the country when the nuclear power station is down for maintenance?
July 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Another question, where would we put it? any proposed site will cause a horde of nimbys to rise up, same with any other power station
July 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
As Stuey says, if we were to have one, we would have to have two, as nuclear power stations are down for maintenance very frequently.
Safety and waste disposal issues aside, the expense of building two, and the cost impact of this on electricity prices, simply cannot be justified in New Zealand, especially given that demand doesn’t exist and is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future to justify having two running at the same time.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
If the cost comes down, they may well be justified, especially if certain groups insist on blocking new power generation initiatives.
How clean, green atomic energy can stop global warming: tinyurl.com/7yuk3
“We should be shooting to match France, which gets 77 percent of its electricity from nukes. It’s past time for a decisive leap out of the hydrocarbon era, time to send King Coal and, soon after, Big Oil shambling off to their well-deserved final resting places - maybe on a nostalgic old steam locomotive.
Besides, wouldn’t it be a blast to barrel down the freeway in a hydrogen Hummer with a clean conscience as your copilot? Or not to feel like a planet killer every time you flick on the A/C? That’s how the future could be, if only we would get over our fear of the nuclear bogeyman and forge ahead - for real this time - into the atomic age.”
July 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
“Electricity demand is rising faster than people predicted, because the dairy farming boom is exceeding expectations (it’s the irrigation systems that use most of the electricity).”
Yet another drain the dairy industry are placing on the environment.
It is ironic that having cut down all the lowland forests so the populace can have its daily fix of dead cow, the farmers are saying that the power pylons will spoil the rural character of the environment. What rural character? There is nothing there but continuous monoculture and belching cows, thanks to the legacy of our past slash and burn policies.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“Electricity demand is rising faster than people predicted…”
Is it?
NZ has historically overestimated demand. That’s one of the major platforms for the objections to these pylons - they are predicated on a 2005 demand forecast that is higher than the latest ones.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
PEL (and BB)
You are banking on all manner of tech advances and price advantages to tout a solution to a problem that NZ does not really have. Green policy is what it is… and while I am not in the “No - Nukes - is - Good - Nukes” brigade I cannot see ANY reason why NZ, with its resources of Tide, Wind, Geo, Hydro and Solar… its smallish population with respect to its land area… Why NZ NEEDS to invest in the nuclear industry. We don’t HAVE Thorium and Uranium… we have all those OTHER things that you keep turning your nose up at. Take it to Oz… let them dig up THEIR patch of the planet and store the waste under THEIR desert.
We should use them “where appropriate” but I cannot for the life of me, see how here would be an appropriate place, with all the other options we have.
The flip side of the argument goes against any resistance to building the grid infrastructure into something more efficient and robust. If that means pylons sprouting in farm paddocks, that is what it means, for it is FAR more expensive to bury a cable like that. We can take power from a wide variety of renewable supplies, but those are not in general going to be where our demands are. The grid is the infrastructure we MUST have to make renewables work for us. The ability to feed electricity from a wind turbine on my roof in Wellington to someone’s coffee maker in Auckland is a critical bit of engineering work and the estimates of demand are irrelevant to the requirement to make this as efficient as we can make it.
respectfully
BJ
July 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
>>We should use them “where appropriate�
I agree.
But the Greens appear to have painted themselves into a corner - “No Nukes!”
Nuclear is just a technology, not the anti-christ. We should consider, and keep considering, all solutions, because technologies can change and improve. I’m all for green energy technologies, so long as they are best suited to NZ. If that is sea power, fine by me.
I sense this argument, as with many arguments Green, is religious, as opposed to rational.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“If the cost comes down, they may well be justified, especially if certain groups insist on blocking new power generation initiatives.”
Thats unlikely to happen here PEL. Apparently the manufacturers in South Africa would need to construct 20 to 30 reactors to be economically viable and from what I hear theres no where near that much demand for the technology. Its to scale very well in New Zealand. Yeah would be nice to be able to drive a Tesla and even nicer to have a spare 100k to buy it with. lol
July 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
or heres a idea, we could let aussie build afew and then lay a undersea cable across to auckland, seperate the auckland grid from the rest of the country and make them pay the aussies for power
, or better yet we could seperate the provinces in the eletricity grid and make them sell it among themsleves, that way provinces with high useage but low generation will have to pay higher prices or build their own generation whilst the more sparse areas which generate most of the eletricity experiance a industry boom, fun fun, this started off as a semi humourous comment but might work 
cut the jafas off, always a good solution, nevermind the large volumes of capital we would loose
sapient
July 12th, 2007 at 1:43 am
BJ, I agree with your assessment of the need to improve the national grid. Frog’s previous post on this subject include an excellent link detailing the alternatives available to acheive that end without building these towers.
http://www.notowers.co.nz/index.htm
regards
kevyn
July 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
>>I hear theres no where near that much demand for the technology
What do you think will happen when countries get serious about global warming? China would probably take 30 on the first order. Nuclear power demand will ramp up again, as that article demonstrates.
Secondly, if cars do switch power systems from oil, then where is the power going to come from? We’ll need to generate a LOT more electricity.
The bonus is, of course, we’ll buy a lot less oil.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:58 am
BJ
The last thing we need to do is build a grid to power coffee machines 700km away using your windmill. that is a waste of money, given the current will likely not even power your own house.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Hi PEL, I’d be interested to know what evidence you used to come up with the statement “But the Greens appear to have painted themselves into a corner - No Nukes!”
Where is the evidence that our dismissal of nuclear for NZ is based on religion and not rationality? There has been nothing but reasoned debate and rational objections posted here, so presumably you have seen some Greens express opinions about nuclear elsewhere?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Insider
The AVERAGE current of a Wind Turbine over time may not power my own house (though in Wellington even that is unlikely to be true) and the entire point to a distributed renewables system is that any surplus gets shipped off to where there is a deficit. In truth I’d expect my excess to wind up in Masterton or Featherston which would then be drawing less from the geothermal plants leaving more of that for the coffeemaker in Auckland, but the point is that we have to have an efficient grid to make it happen.
That’s not negotiable. Nor is it “the last thing we need”. It is in fact, one of the first things if we are to avoid building a couple of big thermal or nuclear plants near Auckland.
As for the alternatives to the towers… I visited that site and saw only scant mention of any alternative, the only one being upgrades to the existing towers… thus not building the really tall ones. This isn’t just an “I’m an engineer and I like to build things bigger for the fun of it” issue. The taller the tower the higher the voltage can be supported on it/by it for a given em field at the surface. The higher the voltage the greater the transmission efficiency. The heights proposed indicate a desire to go to very high voltage. It also appears that the use of DC has been eschewed, which may not be a good idea in terms of “Green” efforts to combine multiple resources to meet demand. DC coupling is simple, but the conversion stations are more expensive. There is some reason to believe that the EMF from DC transmission is less of a problem.
respectfully
BJ
July 12th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
>>what evidence
Hard to know where to begin, really. How about this: greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9056.html
>>dismissal of nuclear for NZ is based on religion and not rationality
A few friends of mine who vote Green. They may not be typical Green voters, of course, but I suspect they are.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
PEL
“Hard to know where to begin, really. How about this: greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9056.html”
How is the comments regarding the dangers of nuclear power in that link religious in nature? I fail to see it.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
A reminder - I’m not advocating nuclear. I’m saying all power generation technologies should remain on the table, and be revised as technology improves.
Point-by-point:
1. “There is still no safe and long term way to dispose of the waste”.
There’s no safe way to live your life. It’s all about risk, and managing that risk. Low level risk, in most cases, is acceptable.
2. “All the high level waste produced so far is in storage, and has to be constantly monitored and cooled”.
Not so much of an issue with new generation technology.
3. Uranium mining, transport and processing is hazardous itself.
True. See #1. Requires risk assessment.
4. Uranium is a finite fuel which will not greatly outlast oil if it is used widely. Even at present rates of use economically accessible deposits are not expected to last beyond this century.
Do we know how big as-yet-undiscovered uranium deposits are?
5. Nuclear plants are very large and the NZ generation system is too small to provide sufficient backup for plants of this size.
Perhaps so with 1st gen, not an issue for 4th gen.
6. A huge investment would be required in safety, radiation monitoring, transport vehicles, armed guards and other infrastructure, which we do not currently have.
A small price to pay for reduced global warming, surely
Fair point.
7. Nuclear power stations are prime targets for terrorists.
PBR not weapons grade. Also, planes and trains are targets for terrorists. Should we ban these, too?
July 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
BJ are you saying you don’t agree with:
[Federated Famers]
“There are alternatives to the Transpower proposal including upgrading existing lines that the Electricity Commission hasn’t properly considered. These alternatives are much cheaper, would be quicker to implement and would mean considerably less disruption to communities and businesses. …”
jh
July 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I’ve got no objection to power pylons but I don’t think people should live near them. In Chch some people have one foot in their yard and the wires buzzing overhead… A limits to growth issue??? I’m a bit of a perfectionist.
jh
July 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m saying I haven’t seen any of the alternatives they’re going on about.
Upgrading existing lines is a very limited and limiting option.
Higher voltage = higher efficiency (up to the point where corona discharge becomes a problem).
Higher voltage means keeping lines further away from the earth and from each other… which in turn means (usually) bigger towers.
Conversion to DC SOMEWHAT reduces the problem, but provides other annoying problems and expenses. None are really cheaper. Certainly none I am aware of that are going to be “much cheaper”.
respectfully
BJ
July 12th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
People should NOT be living close enough to hear them buzzing.
Do their flourescent lights light up on their own?
respectfully
BJ
July 12th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
BJ
My point is that I think it would be highly inefficient to design the grid around sending microgeneration output long distances. It’s counter to the concept of distributed generation, which is designed to provide localised generation as an alternative to balance transmission losses from centralised systems.
Your personal generation excess is likely to be so small that any can be more effectively stored in batteries or for heating water or even fed to your near neighbours.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
BJ
The cheapest alternative to lines is probably a gas/coal power station in or north of Auckland.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“There’s no safe way to live your life. It’s all about risk, and managing that risk. Low level risk, in most cases, is acceptable. ”
We need to distinguish between voluntary risk and involuntary risk, and also consider who takes the risk and who gains the benefits. I indulge in SCUBA diving, I know it is a risky activity, but the same person taking the risks also benefits from the gains.
Nuclear power is a different issue. Here the beneficiaries are a select group of people who like to use large amounts of power, and those who consume their products. Those taking the risk on the other hand are everyone living on the planet at present (human and non-human) as well as everyone living on the planet for the next 10,000 or so years. It is a form of corporate welfare, where beneficiaries are robbing others in order to gain their benefits.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Insider
Yes the shorter the distance the better off you are… but -
If my microgeneration displaces consumption locally and allows the Makara windfarm to feed more into the grid, it is logically just the same as if I had put that little generator on the grid and sent the power to Auckland. Same thing if I am using Solar to generate it. It isn’t inefficient to do this. Not AS efficient as the portion I get to use myself locally, but better than a battery storage system.
Storing power in batteries is for people who cannot connect to the grid. It is in most other ways a reckless waste of energy and reduction in overall efficiency. Shifting it to my neighbours helps not a bit, as they’ll be running a surplus at exactly the same time.
The problem with “distributed generation” in the form you’re discussing is that the power isn’t always going to be available where and when you need it to be available. That makes energy storage an essential part of the system and energy storage is NOT generally as efficient as energy transmission. If you start adding the production and recycling of batteries or the conversions for other methods of storage, the waste goes through the roof.
respectfully
BJ
July 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Insider - Are you telling me that the Federated Farmers are discussing building a new Gas or Coal plant near Auckland when they are talking about alternatives? The devil himself would be banging on the pipes before I’d support that over transmission lines.
respectfully
BJ
July 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
here’s one part of the solution to the power crisis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu
http://store.yahoo.co.jp/kinositakagu/b2f3c5beb01.html
jh
July 12th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
$1.2b to be spent on oil exploration in Southland. Southland economy booms on back of dairy demand. Perhaps the time is on us to close the aluminium smelter and release to the grid the cheapest (to produce) 12% of the nations electrical generation. The elecricity supply contract is under negotiation and RTZ appears to be demanding a price low enough that they wont leave indicating their allegiance is solely to their bottom line.
This doesn’t solve long term supply or shorter term delivery issues but locking up such a significant amount of generation when we are due for a supply crunch seems shortsighted.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
This oil field is great news for the country, it seems that the field could be as big as North Sea oil.
I can only see good things coming from this, thank goodness that we are about to see a right wing govt, I shudder at how the Labour party would waste the riches that will come from this field.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4123321a6011.html
A secret ballot for the oil exploration tenders! Groan. Not again. You would have thought that the government would have learnt from the farce that was the sale of the electronic spectrum in the early 90s.
Good for the New Zealand, although because of difficulty in accessing any oil found there its unlikely to affect the its price to any marked degree so I wouldn’t get my hopes up on that account. At least we’ve got a substantial refining capacity unlike say Saudi Arabia. Maybe not all of “Think Big” was so bad after all.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
inkspot.
….close the aluminium smelter and release to the grid the cheapest (to produce) 12% of the nations electrical generation
I have to agree with you. I have thought that since I learnt that the retail consumer subsidises the industrial consumer to the tune of 300%, because the industrial consumer has a constant demand and thus able to get “bulk” deals on supply. 300% subsidy, because we pay 3 to 4 times what the industrial consumer does per unit of electricity.
How about we invest in this as a new form of personal transport? It won’t require the total replacement of all the personal vehicles currently on the road like replacing the method of propulsion of cars would.
http://www.advancedtransit.org/doc.aspx?id=1044
July 12th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
New Zealand’s self-sufficiency in oil had slumped from a high of 50 per cent in 1990 to its present level of 13 per cent.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/NZ-may-still-have-10b-barrels-o f-oil/2007/05/28/1180205155210.html#
jh
July 12th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Sleepy Saudi has huge and growing refining capacity. NZRC can only meet about 65% of NZ demand
Industrial customers are not subsidised. They get a better rate because of volume and cost to serve. They usually have direct connections to the grid whereas you are at the end of a whole lot of local networks so you are inherent;y more expensive to supply. They also often are cut off when demand peaks, like it would have tonight, to protect supply to residential and commercial customers. Just cos you pay more doesn’t imply a subsidy
July 12th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
insider.
I stand corrected in regards to those points.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Insider
Maybe I was thinking of Iran who is now not able to even satisfy its domestic demand.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/29/ebr18.htm
July 13th, 2007 at 3:06 am
How long before Stewart Island joins the Axis of Evil and has to be restored to democracy? But don’t worry, we’ve got a brand-new frigate. That’ll make George W. think twice.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Why would we want to shut down the Aluminium production here to get more electricity? Instead of building wind farms and tidal generation and taking advantage of all the other advantages we have.
A. Demand for Al is not going to go DOWN as the world tries to build lighter and more fuel efficient transportation.
B. Al will continue to be produced, but in the rest of the world that means it will be produced by burning Coal to produce the electricity required.
C. When you shut down OUR Al smelter, that just happens to be one of the best on the planet you cause the Coal-Burning plants to work harder.
respectfully
BJ
July 13th, 2007 at 7:27 am
yes..that all makes sense..bj..
the main issue..(aside from pollution)..is that they pay diddly-squat for it..
this a result of the blinding incompetence of past politicians..
(btw..bj..are you an insomniac..?..3.33 am..(!)..)
i mean..i get up really early to do whoar..
but i’m picking you’re coming in from the other end..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Kevyn.
Lol.
bjchip.
Fair point, but perhaps they need to be “encouraged” to recycle more aluminium rather than refining bauxite, which uses something like 80% more energy. Too true phil u.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Yeah… the money they pay for it might stand some harder nosed negotiation, but the limit there is the price of Al from a coal-fired-electric source. This will be going up eventually as CO2 charges start to make their way through the economic systems… but we have to cope with today.
respectfully
BJ
(( posting in my sleep was I ? Probably explains a lot
))
July 13th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Sleepy
The thing about recycling… you put a 10 cent deposit on the cans and set up stations to redeem the stuff and in a very short while it disappears from the waste stream and ends up in the recycling stream. You find all manner of people picking through the garbage in LA, but the Al mostly finds its way back to into the system.
respectfully
BJ
July 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
bjchip
Yeah they used to have an initiative here back during the 80s and early 90s called Comalco “Cash for cans”. It was very successful. I used to be involved along with my Scout Group to help us fundraise. I hear someone is trying to get it started up with limited success. It would be nice for that initiative to be introduced. I think people need an incentive to be “Green”. Maybe the the neolibs are correct that people are all self-interested prats.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Sleepy
It’s still around. Our scout group collects them and sells them to scrap metal merchants/
July 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
insider
Really? Don’t hear much about it these days. Sweet.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Guess what west auckland rubbish collection companies that also handle recycling of your used glass and plastiscs only make a return on green glass bottles the rest is smashed and shredded and sent to the land fills, got family in the business
August 15th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Nuclear power is not just unsafe and unsustainable – it’s entirely unnecessary. A combination of renewable, energy efficiency, decentralized energy and demand reduction could deliver emissions cuts and energy security much more safely and effectively. Even though the UK has some of the best renewable energy resources in the word Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power than the UK simply because German politicians, led by the Greens, have had the political will to lead the way.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Just a word of caution on aluminium recycling.
There are many grades of alloy. The lowest is 1000 used for alloy cans and 7000 the highest used in aircraft. In the marine industry we tend to use 5000 or 6000 series.
The smelter when recycling alloy has to make sure that the chemistry is correct for the grade they are manufacturing.
In my machine shop we often find soft alloy spots in plate alluminium (it glogs cutter flutes) where the smelter has not done as good enough job of sorting grades and making sure the composition of the melt is correct.
There is no way you would want to use a bit of recycled alloy from any but the most reputable smelter (with certification) in an aircraft.
Remember the alloy pots and pans that people donated to the WW2 war effort to make aircraft? Most ended up everywhere but in aircraft.