Energy demands
When the topic of nuclear power arises, “Middle-earth” takes on new meaning, aptly describing this country’s outdated outlook (“The future is nuclear”, October 2). Our strong stand against nuclear weapons, although admirable, has unfortunately tainted our views on nuclear power (NP). David Lange’s political stunt at the Oxford Union put paid to any useful discussion on this subject for decades.
The Climate Change Commission has carefully avoided any mention of nuclear as an option, deflecting effort towards a “band-aid” project called Lake Onslow pumped hydro, highly controversial among experts and not a solution. Prevailing conditions at any time dictate its use, hence limiting availability. The key to reliable and secure baseload power relies on distributed and diverse sources, not greater dependence on water.
Tiwai’s doubtful future serves only to frustrate decision makers, but it shouldn’t. Onslow compounds the problem of inefficient transmission of southern generation to serve northern North Island demand.
We could need to double our distributed energy capacity within the near future.
As writer Michael Fountaine explains, cargo-container-sized micro NP plants distributed close to demand centres will be unobtrusive, safe, reliable, cheap and relocatable. There’s no waste or radioactive-material-handling as these units are sealed for their lifespan, and at the end of their life (20 years-plus), they are returned to the manufacturer for reprocessing of materials.
Realistically, how are we going to emerge from this time warp and blinkered vision? If we believe our future lies in transition to cleaner energy, then we face truly major upgrades to our electricity-generation plant and distribution-grid capacity.
Take, for example, a gradual replacement of existing fossil-fuelled light passenger vehicles (LPV)
