| GREEN SCORE | NEW ZEALAND ENERGY |
| Effort | B- |
| Results | A |
Most of New Zealand’s electricity generation is from renewable sources. New Zealand Council for Sustainable Business says
We are already a world leader in renewable energy use for electricity generation
The green bear definitely has many better targets for lunch. That alone deserves an “A” for results.
About two-thirds of New Zealand’s electricity is generated from hydro. The exact amount is weather dependent so in dry years like 2008 the proportion will be lower than normal years. Still, the world average is only about 20% of electricity from hydro.
Now, nobody likes a dam or a wind turbine or solar-panel farm in their back yard. It’s called the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. But renewables are much easier on our collective future than an alternative like nuclear which is quietly and perilously accumulating stockpiles of deadly radioactive nasties. Generations ahead will be stuck with fearing these.
A key concern of the Eco Dawn was the growing global stockpile of nasty nuclear waste from power generation. This stuff lasts for centuries. The mind boggles at the devastating opportunities it presents for terrorists. Even natural disasters such as earthquakes could let the deadly goo out.
Yet in recent times, the growing frenzy about climate change has all but silenced discussion on the nuclear waste threat. You may recall former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking strongly in support of more nuclear power generation as a key solution for global warming. But has the radioactive waste suddenly just gone away? Not likely.
at a time when its accumulation is accelerating and no plan for its permanent isolation has been developed anywhere in the world, nuclear waste is an unsolved problem
Sierra Club
Nuclear waste is a threat that the large Northern hemisphere economies are keeping very quiet about. The volume of noise about climate change is reaching a crescendo. But the sinister threat of nuclear contamination is swept under the carpet. It’s something that New Zealanders should not remain silent on. Our nuclear house, after all, is in order.
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development notes that
a significant transformation is required to the structure of the New Zealand economy
to enable growth that is not dependent on increased energy use. Put simply, we need to produce higher value products. A Green Brand New Zealand Strategy will be key to that. Read on.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
- Related posts on climate change
- Heated power play over climate change « Caribbean Update: Jamaica …
- In climate change consider, all eyes stroll to California «
- TalkingScience » Blog Archive » Climate Change and the New Decade
- Related posts on Energy
- Fact Sheet: $2.3 Billion in New Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax …
- Russia, China, Iran redraw energy map
- Analysing the Cost of Your Existing Energy Consumption | My …
- Related posts on global warming
- Global Warming Awareness Programme Held at The British School …
- UK Faces Another 20cm Of Exposing ‘Man Made Global Warming‘ As A …
- Global warming comes to Florida | Radio Vice Online
Tags: 100% Pure New Zealand, clean & green, clean & green NZ, Clean and Green, clean and green New Zealand, clean and green NZ, climate change, Energy, global warming, green building code, hydro power, Kaitiakitanga, nuclear power, radioactive waste, renewable energy, solar power, wnd power
[...] Read more: Energy [...]
[...] Read the original here: Energy [...]
[...] this new environment of Green negotiations may not be traditional to us. For example, as discussed Energy, countries like Switzerland and Norway share our interests in hydro-electricity remaining within [...]
[...] warming is becoming an excuse to bulldoze over other green priorities. Nuclear power for example is being promoted by many northern hemisphere countries as a global warming solution, [...]
the idea behind Climate Change is to revamp the economic system – this is the true climate that needs changing. because, pragmatically speaking, when change in mass consumer culture is the key aim of a project, the dominating factor remains constant – value for money – the cheaper something is the more likely it will change a culture of purchasing/consumption/use.
Definitely a change to the economic model is required. Lower volume/higher value production. Also vibrant economies despite declining populations – let’s see how pioneers Japan and Korea (and possibly also China soon) go with that one.
[...] this new environment of Green negotiations may not be traditional to us. For example, as discussed Energy, countries like Switzerland and Norway share our interests in hydro-electricity remaining within [...]
[...] that action is needed to prevent NIMBY (Not In My Backyard Syndrome) corrupting New Zealand’s energy supply. This in reaction to the Environment Court’s shock rejection of Project Hayes wind [...]
As a New Zealander who actually has direct experience with nuclear power production I take exception to many of your amateur and hysterical comments about nuclear technology and the nuclear industry. The spent nuclear fuel that you call “waste” contains vast amounts of untapped energy in rods that are only removed from their light water reactors because the reaction-sustaining neutron populations necessary for continued operation become inhibited by increasing concentrations of elements in the actinide group. These actinides can be removed from spent fuel through a carefully-controlled recycling process, as is done in prudent countries such as the UK, France and Japan. (Note that these countries do not have “nuclear waste” problems as the US does, and the direct reason for this is that their governments’ nuclear policies are more forward-looking than America’s.) In fact, fast breeder nuclear reactor designs with pyroprocessing capabilities that have existed since the 1960s have time and again proven that the US could provide ALL of its electric power needs for several hundred years using only its current inventory of “waste” as fuel, utilising thoroughly-understood processes that create more fuel even as the recycled fuel is fissioned. If you want a dream example of “renewable energy” THIS IS IT.
You’ve also been watching too much of The Simpsons: spent nuclear fuel is a metal, not a “goo” and it does not glow. It is also incredibly compact and easily contained. Nuclear fuel canisters are designed to withstand direct impacts from 100mph trains, so earthquakes are a trivial concern. Any terrorist attempting to steal spent nuclear fuel from a commercial reactor would find it far too difficult to handle and manipulate, and would be anyway disappointed to find that the uranium would be too weak and the plutonium too polluted by its own isotopes to be useful in a weapon. It is clear that you haven’t bothered to do any research on nuclear technology before pathetically bashing it.
No energy technology can account for its externalities as well as nuclear can; if you think solar is a perfect technology, then you might be shocked to learn how toxic the silicon refining process is, and especially how dangerous it is when performed in countries with few environmental controls such as China. You should also read up on the mandatory community evacuations that occur whenever a solar thermal plant’s heat transfer fluid catches fire. The highly variant and turbulent production of windpower frequently overloads finely balanced power grids and causes equipment-destroying power surges, a reason enough to minimize their presence before you even consider bird and bat destruction and 80m-long turbine blades flying loose in heavy storms (watch it on YouTube, it’s impressive).
It is fine to be proud of New Zealand’s large stores of hydropower, but it is reckless and condescending to assume that other countries are making inferior choices simply because they are not lucky enough to have the “perfect storm” of low population, light industry and advantageous weather and geography that permits NZ to have such a high portion of its grid powered by renewables (and only one significant source at that). If you are willing to consign the bulk of humanity to rolling blackouts and a much-reduced standard of living, by all means urge the rest of the world to throw all of its eggs in the renewable basket – just “keep very quiet” about California’s experience in the last decade with electricity shortages following two decades of a centralised power plant moratorium and renewables-only construction policy (a situation exacerbated by Enron and its ilk but not caused by them, and eventually only alleviated by a massive boom in natural gas plant construction). Solar and wind are fundamentally constrained by their poor reliability and dispatchability and the decades upon decades of research dollars thrown their way have not solved their basic flaws, nor will they ever do so to a point considered remotely economic. The only reason utilities spend any money on renewables is because politicians demand arbitrary capacity be installed and because feed-in-tariffs and other subsidies stolen from unwitting taxpayers send investors laughing all the way to the bank, even if not a single kWh is ever generated. Those of us who are actually responsible for providing electricity to the public cringe at the thought of using more renewables and laugh at the idea that they’ll ever provide any more than a token contribution to any significant grid.
Do your research before you next put finger to keyboard and maybe you’ll understand why over 40 nuclear plants are under construction around the world, and that the only “conspiracy” around nuclear power and spent fuel is the one in your head.
Thanks Atomikiwi. By definition, renewables have to be the future of energy because nothing is infinite on this planet, not even uranium for your nuclear power plants.
Intriguing post. I have been searching for some great resources for solar panels and found your blog. Planning to bookmark this one!