wind mills cost more to set up and maintain then the savings,...... notice power went up not down when wind mills came in...... another giant con job......as usual.
The largest offshore Wind Farm is in the UK and the cost of new construction has just jumped by 250%. And the output of existing offshore wind is 80% less than promised! Another boondoggle for consultants and foreign companies just like the ETS fiasco
@@jomassey4207 the technology and scale has moved a huge distance ahead. Vulnerability to seismic threats is only in the minds of doubters. Move ahead. Nukes provide potential solutions that some people don’t want to accept..
The dangers are overstated. The death toll from Chernobyl is higher amongst those displaced than amongst those who returned and live in the exclusion zone. Fukushima, safe as houses, once again people go to the beaches around the area to get some sand without others bothering them and they're hale and hearty. There's a good book you should read; The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, by Petr Beckman. It was written in the 70's, @@Luke-pb9oz
Apart from the fuzzy cost estimates and very long time scale of Onslow, it's in totally the wrong place. Any storage, if that's the best answer that anyone can come up with, needs to be close to the main load centre.
Hey I've got an idea lets run huntley power station on Huntly coal instead of importing a million tonnes of it from Indonesia, that would work, also scrap electric cars and develop our own petroleum and oil resources. Also is really necessary to have 60 tv and heated towel rails and crap like that.
Nuclear has the lowest carbon-footprint of any generation method, lower than wind and hydro. People get all in a panic about the waste whgen they don't get the context - this explains it all quite well ua-cam.com/video/Mw-S9UgrfNY/v-deo.html - basically a plant to power all of NZ would product like a 40 gallon drum of waste a year. Incidents like Chernobyl were because of massive failure in people and process.
If you can build a nuclear plant on base isolators and not have someone like Homer Simpson operate it then it should be ok. Probably best not to build it on top of a fault line. We need a steady and reliable source of energy like coal used to be and still is when more generation is required from Huntly.
I think there is unlimited potential for hydro, but not with dams. What I envisage are large floating catamarans each fitted with a series of large paddles (a bit like an old paddle steamer drive) between the floats moored on flowing rivers and tidal estuaries throughout the country. They wouldn't affect the water flow in any significant way but each would continuously generate thousands of watts. The Waikato river alone could accommodate hundreds. Water is so much more dense than air and the flow increases and decreases to match the seasons. I wonder why we in NZ can't find our own solutions to universal problems.
Meridian Energy proposed a scheme whereby the Clutha River's flow would be used to generate electricity. Down its course channels would be built that diverted a piece of the river at each point. No water would be stored doing this, the flow of the river itself would generate the power. The scheme was dropped due to the NIMBY effect and government hand-holding.
@@secondchance6603 no actually carbon zero will kill the planet. One of the planets great ironies is that the industrial revolution actually saved all life on the planet. Prior to 1830 atmospheric CO2 had reduced to the point that at 185 ppm it was alarmingly close to the point at roughly 150 ppm where all life on the planet dies. It's called photosynthesis which alarmists gleefully forget. In other words CO2 is NOT a pollutant but vital to all life on the planet. This is why I refer to all climate alarmists as mass extinctionists Reduce atmospheric CO2 at the planets peril
wind mills cost more to set up and maintain then the savings,......
notice power went up not down when wind mills came in......
another giant con job......as usual.
They are A Scam🥸
😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don't forget the environmental waist from solar and wind 😂🤣😂
The largest offshore Wind Farm is in the UK and the cost of new construction has just jumped by 250%. And the output of existing offshore wind is 80% less than promised! Another boondoggle for consultants and foreign companies just like the ETS fiasco
They have to be jump start them off the grid ! Terry Opines did a report on them plus the blades are not recyclable
Gary Taylor the biggest green washer in NZ
Nice to live in a dream world! Remember that nukes could definitely fill the needs without breaking the bank or destroying the environment.
Remember we are the "shakey isles".....earthquakes around the clock.
@@jomassey4207 the technology and scale has moved a huge distance ahead. Vulnerability to seismic threats is only in the minds of doubters. Move ahead. Nukes provide potential solutions that some people don’t want to accept..
Nuke is the way to go and we have uranium in Kahurangi National Park.
Remember cheynobyl, Fukushima, and what nearly happened at 3 mile island, what do you do with the radio active waste.
The dangers are overstated. The death toll from Chernobyl is higher amongst those displaced than amongst those who returned and live in the exclusion zone. Fukushima, safe as houses, once again people go to the beaches around the area to get some sand without others bothering them and they're hale and hearty. There's a good book you should read; The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, by Petr Beckman. It was written in the 70's,
@@Luke-pb9oz
Wind and solar - laughable!
its a piss take for ignorant greens imo🥸
I love my tractor.
That's nice.
Apart from the fuzzy cost estimates and very long time scale of Onslow, it's in totally the wrong place. Any storage, if that's the best answer that anyone can come up with, needs to be close to the main load centre.
Hey I've got an idea lets run huntley power station on Huntly coal instead of importing a million tonnes of it from Indonesia, that would work, also scrap electric cars and develop our own petroleum and oil resources. Also is really necessary to have 60 tv and heated towel rails and crap like that.
Nuclear has the lowest carbon-footprint of any generation method, lower than wind and hydro. People get all in a panic about the waste whgen they don't get the context - this explains it all quite well ua-cam.com/video/Mw-S9UgrfNY/v-deo.html - basically a plant to power all of NZ would product like a 40 gallon drum of waste a year. Incidents like Chernobyl were because of massive failure in people and process.
If you can build a nuclear plant on base isolators and not have someone like Homer Simpson operate it then it should be ok. Probably best not to build it on top of a fault line.
We need a steady and reliable source of energy like coal used to be and still is when more generation is required from Huntly.
We should utilize the huge geo thermal fields we have for power generation
I think there is unlimited potential for hydro, but not with dams. What I envisage are large floating catamarans each fitted with a series of large paddles (a bit like an old paddle steamer drive) between the floats moored on flowing rivers and tidal estuaries throughout the country. They wouldn't affect the water flow in any significant way but each would continuously generate thousands of watts. The Waikato river alone could accommodate hundreds. Water is so much more dense than air and the flow increases and decreases to match the seasons. I wonder why we in NZ can't find our own solutions to universal problems.
Meridian Energy proposed a scheme whereby the Clutha River's flow would be used to generate electricity. Down its course channels would be built that diverted a piece of the river at each point. No water would be stored doing this, the flow of the river itself would generate the power. The scheme was dropped due to the NIMBY effect and government hand-holding.
Is killing bitds, bats and creating toxic waste more amenable in to nz than trout fisheries?
Yes, yes but we'd be 'saving' the planet so...
@@secondchance6603 no actually carbon zero will kill the planet. One of the planets great ironies is that the industrial revolution actually saved all life on the planet. Prior to 1830 atmospheric CO2 had reduced to the point that at 185 ppm it was alarmingly close to the point at roughly 150 ppm where all life on the planet dies. It's called photosynthesis which alarmists gleefully forget. In other words CO2 is NOT a pollutant but vital to all life on the planet.
This is why I refer to all climate alarmists as mass extinctionists
Reduce atmospheric CO2 at the planets peril
The dark side of green energy will only get darker.
Do you know how much 1080 we use,i do because I used to truck it,that's what killing the birds...in fact every fkn thing...
@@Wilt8v92 agreed once again thank the psuedo environmental greens
Michael we should dam Rakia and the Rangitata!
And not Pipe it To the Tribal Warland !!!!🥸 The Iwi can NAFF OFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nuclear on a Barge moored up 😎