Coal & Gas to NZ's Rescue!

Post by Willy Nilly
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

NZ gas supply is only 75% of what it was 5 years ago, so the gas is also not
playing its part and starting to fade.

Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

Willy Nilly

2024-08-05 23:58:05 UTC

Post by Gordon
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

2024-08-06 05:58:24 UTC

Post by Gordon
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
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?

Tony

2024-08-06 07:33:06 UTC

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

Rich80105

2024-08-06 08:08:27 UTC

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

You are off topic with your abuse of other posters, Tony. I was
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?

Tony

2024-08-06 21:17:08 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

No you were not. That is a lie. You posted sarcastic and completely
inappropriate off-topic abuse.

Gordon

2024-08-07 00:11:25 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

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.

David Goodwin

2024-08-07 11:30:17 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@leaf.net.nz
says...

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

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.

Rich80105

2024-08-07 19:45:48 UTC

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:30:17 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
Having built the wind capacity we might as well take the 10% and keep the
lights on.

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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

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.

I was aware of an investigation in the late 1960s - while technology
has changed significantly since then, the biggest problems were
Earthquakes, and disposal of waste. Later there were concerned about
inconsistency with our anti-nuclear weapon stance, even though that
had not technically referred to domestic power generation. Winston
Peters has not yet decided on our foreign policy regarding AUKUS; if
he decides to go that way our attitude to nuclear power may change,
but the danger relating to earthquakes would remain.

Tony

2024-08-07 20:07:17 UTC

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
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

Post by Willy Nilly
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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

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.

We might feel different when fusion technology is readily available. It is no
longer a theory, there are small fusion plants in operation today.
They remove the concern over earthquakes and waste and cannot melt down.

David Goodwin

2024-08-07 20:45:19 UTC

In article <***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Gordon
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

Post by Willy Nilly
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?

More abusive sarcasm from the poster that makes no attempt to address the
content at all. Yes Rich that is you, not Willy.

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.

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.

Willy Nilly

2024-08-07 22:07:28 UTC

Post by David Goodwin
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.

David Goodwin

2024-08-07 22:19:03 UTC

Its much easier to build backup for a 3MW wind turbine than a 500MW
nuclear reactor.

Post by Willy Nilly
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...

Willy Nilly

2024-08-08 02:16:43 UTC

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Willy Nilly
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.

Post by David Goodwin
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.

Rich80105

2024-08-08 02:39:51 UTC

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Willy Nilly
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.

Post by David Goodwin
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.

So what percentage of time does a generator need for maintenance,
Willy Nilly?

David Goodwin

2024-08-08 05:20:48 UTC

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Willy Nilly
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.

Post by David Goodwin
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.

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.

Willy Nilly

2024-08-08 05:44:36 UTC

Post by David Goodwin
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.

David Goodwin

2024-08-08 08:07:37 UTC

Geez, what drivel. Hasn't been a problem for all the countries that
do use nuclear.

The other countries that do nuclear have much larger populations and
much larger power grids than we do. They can often import power from
their neighbours if need be.

Supply on the grid must always match demand, no exceptions. If a 500MW
generator goes off suddenly then you have moments to either bring up
500MW of new generation or shed 500MW of load. If you cant do one of
these things fast enough you risk cascading failure and grid collapse.

Post by Willy Nilly
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.

Breeder reactors are not new technology, but they are also not common.
The few that are operating are all unique custom designs, mostly for
research purposes. They're not the sort of thing you can just buy from
Westinghose.

Gordon

2024-08-08 23:58:37 UTC

This is a issue in general. People's knowledge does not get updated. The
poulation of countries, new ways of building etc. for examples.

This leads to the cutting edge folks having to update the rest of the folks.

Think about it, it has been 79 years since the nuclear bombs were dropped on
Japan. In that time there has been development, both for destructive and
peaceful purposes.

Rich80105

2024-08-08 02:11:37 UTC

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Tony

2024-08-08 03:45:01 UTC

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
to nuclear weapons being kept away from this country.
Making your comment nonsense.

David Goodwin

2024-08-08 05:13:37 UTC

In article <part1of1.1.Bto#***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Rich80105

2024-08-08 05:26:33 UTC

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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

Tony

2024-08-08 07:50:49 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Rich80105

2024-08-08 08:50:42 UTC

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

Tony

2024-08-08 09:22:21 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

OK so you didn't get it after all.

Rich80105

2024-08-08 10:45:58 UTC

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:22:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

OK so you didn't get it after all.

I am sorry you remain uneducated then Tony.

Tony

2024-08-08 23:34:22 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:22:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by David Goodwin
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.

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

OK so you didn't get it after all.

I am sorry you remain uneducated then Tony.

My education standards and achievements surpass yours by a massive amount. You
are quite simply dumb and you show it here every day.

Gordon

2024-08-08 23:46:21 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

OK so you didn't get it after all.

We live in hope.

Tony

2024-08-09 00:31:14 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:50:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by David Goodwin
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.

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

Well done, you finally got it.

Happy to have educated you, Tony.

OK so you didn't get it after all.

We live in hope.

I admire your confidence. Sadly mistaken I believe.

David Goodwin

2024-08-08 08:08:27 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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 also includes nuclear *powered* ships at the very least, whether
they're capable of carrying nuclear weapons or not.

Gordon

2024-08-08 23:44:53 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:13:37 +1200, David Goodwin

Post by David Goodwin
says...

So what have you got against Lake Onslow?

Post by Willy Nilly
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 . . .

Nuclear free is not and never has been nuclear power free. It always referred
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.

At the "start", public opinion was around nuclear weapons. Public opinion
agreed with this then the debate shifted to nuclear powered war ships which
were banned.

The neither confirm no deny stance came from the question of whther or not a
non nuclear powered war ship carried nuclear weapons.

Crash

2024-08-06 19:56:26 UTC