why are power prices so high?

[veronica]

I can't understand with the amount of sun and wind that we get here there isn't more use of solar (both on an individualscale aswell as commercial) and wind turbine.

[James 1077]

Solar is extremely expensive for panels, and they require lots of maintenance to work efficiently. More reasonable would be solar water heating whereby the water is pumped through tubing on the roof and heats up; I've seen a few of these systems around.

We also have solar heating in our house through our HRV unit - although there is no storage to use when the sun is down!

Wind power just isn't worth it economically on a home basis - you need a reasonable section and to be allowed to stick a decent sized turbine up for it to work; and again need to work out the storage of it.

Given NZ's electricity is mostly renewable anyway (hydro and geotherm make up about 70% of electricity needs) they won't prevent much in the way of "emissions" by the time you take their end to end production costs into account. And they probably won't save you money if you do a calculation of their costs and maintenance throughout their life.

What is needed is more hydro dams but, for some reason, anti-development greenies are against these. For some reason the country is also anti nuclear - even though a relatively small plant would provide pretty much all of the electricity for the country at a very minimal cost.

[bluesky]

For some reason the country is also anti nuclear - even though a relatively small plant would provide pretty much all of the electricity for the country at a very minimal cost.

I have a pretty analytical / scientific background so can see the benefits of nuclear power.

The stumbling block for me is that while it is now perfectly possible to generate power very safely using nuclear power, it is inherently dangerous. Making it safe relies on lots of individuals and a variety of private, quasi - governmental and government organisations and agencies doing their job properly. Again, perfectly possible. But let's face it, someone will screw up.

Much better to have something that is inherently pretty safe to start with.

[newarrival]

I am very happy with the anti- nuclear position.....

[Ana&Steve]

I wonder if NZ could do something like Iceland, who's residents pay pennies and dollars a month for power. Some companies in Australia ship all the way to Iceland to smelt their aluminum then ship it back and still save money over other options because the power is so cheap. NZ has the same resources (thermal and hydro) but maybe electricity has been a profitable business too long to switch. Or that there are 3.6 million more people in NZ than Iceland. Or something else I can't fathom. But it would be cool anyway.

[James 1077]

I am very happy with the anti- nuclear position.....

Why?

I totally understand being anti-nuclear weaponry; but civilian nuclear power is very safe (especially the current generation of power stations).

Admittedly we do have lots of coal and some natural gas that we could burn to generate electricty but I would prefer it if the country was fully renewable and, where this wasn't possible, topped up with nuclear that is, effectively, not going to run out. It just seems like a far better option than using non-renewable resources that we can do other things with.

[petri]

What is needed is more hydro dams but, for some reason, anti-development greenies are against these. For some reason the country is also anti nuclear - even though a relatively small plant would provide pretty much all of the electricity for the country at a very minimal cost.

I agree about the hydro dams. The people against NZ building them should visit Norway and see how it works for the country.

I'm not sure about the "small nuclear plant", NZ has about 10,000 MW and the world's largest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan, has seven reactors and a total capacity of 8,212 MW. NZ uses about 42,000 GWh and the average annual generation in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has been 44,500 GWh -- so if NZ built world's largest nuclear power plant, they could cover all the electricity for the country ;-)

If Japan can build nuclear power plants on a earthquake prone island, why not NZ. But considering how much hydro potential NZ has, the country should invest in it -- and heavily. Norway has built an export business around the hydro energy plants, why couldn't NZ do the same?

[James 1077]

I'm not sure about the "small nuclear plant", NZ has about 10,000 MW and the world's largest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan, has seven reactors and a total capacity of 8,212 MW. NZ uses about 42,000 GWh and the average annual generation in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has been 44,500 GWh -- so if NZ built world's largest nuclear power plant, they could cover all the electricity for the country ;-)

I meant for the 30% non-hydro/geotherm - I'm not advocating shutting that down!

[Kiwi Mac]

I am very happy with the anti- nuclear position.....

So am I until they grow out of "she'll be right"!!!

[Super_BQ]

The perceived reliability of power from Manapouri played a major role in the choice of building the aluminium smelter in Southland, with both the power plant and the smelter having been constructed as a joint project. The facility is the largest electricity consumer in New Zealand, and uses approximately one third of the total power of the South Island and 15% of the total power countrywide.

Some companies in Australia ship all the way to Iceland to smelt their aluminum then ship it back and still save money over other options because the power is so cheap.

This is no different to how Australia exports boxite to Kitimat BC. The key difference between BC and the south island of NZ is that no body depends on the power generation from that Kitimat dam.

The problem is simple, BUILD MORE DAMS!

There is nothing wrong with NZ's current privatisation of the delivery of power. The problem is generation of more power which is ultimately controlled by the NZ gov't power authority. BC Hydro is a monopoly own and operated by the BC Gov't. It acts different to the typical NZ gov't organisation because they provide residents the cheapest power rate in all or N. America. The surplus power gets exported at a much higher price which subsidises BC residents. Next door to BC (Alberta) have privatised power and their rates are far higher than in BC. So there is NO problem with gov't owned organisation as long as the residents reap the benefits. NZ has never shown this as an example in history (from state own telcos, railroads, couriers, etc.).

By the way, BC Hydro ranks #1 in highest profit from state own organisation (either that or to ICBC - state owned auto insurance).