Speaker: Tim Taylor
When: 15 April 2010, 7.00 pm
Venue: University of Canterbury, School of Engineering
Lecture Room E1 (in the Mushroom).

We enter the second decade of the 21st Century accompanied by a range of
resource crises and continued rapid population increase. It is clear that to
become sustainable in this new world, our societies will need new modes of
operation. Continued dependence on the simplified economic models and
assumptions of the 20th century is likely to result in crises of increasing
regularity and severity – crises that are ecological, economic, social and
daunting mixtures of the three.

A key challenge is to shift how societies perceive and pursue progress. A
broader conceptualisation of development is necessary, one that represents
socially equitable and ecologically sustainable improvements in wellbeing.
Such a shift in our understanding of progress would provide the foundation
for a transition to societies that are ecologically, economically and socially
sustainable. Of course such a transition is an almighty challenge, but engineers have always relished solving problems that others perceive as
impossible.

Tim Taylor is studying at Lund University in Sweden for a Masters degree in
Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science with the financial
assistance of a Hume Fellowship. Tim’s passion is the daunting challenge
of transitioning to sustainable societies, and the blend of social change that
must support technological innovation to make this possible. He sees the
need for the engineering profession to make a significant contribution to
such a transition, and the course he is taking part in is leading the world in
the new trans-disciplinary field of Sustainability Science.

This lecture is a joint ESR/IPENZ event and will be open to anyone
interested. Members are encouraged to publicise it among friends and
colleagues.

Please note that entrance to the Engineering Building must be from the
biology/commerce car park entrance (South side of College of Engineering
building by Electrical Engineering). The Creyke Road entrance will be
locked.

Speaker Prof. Regan Potangaroa
Professional Engineer & Architect New Zealand
Date: Tuesday 23 February 2010,  5.30 – 6.00 pm Networking
6.00 – 7.00 pm Presentation and discussion led by Regan Potangaroa and/or Ross Copeland
Venue: Room MSB 101, Waikato University Management School,
Gate 7 Hillcrest Road Hamilton.

It is a rare opportunity to have the pleasure to hear first hand what has happened on the ground after a high profile disaster and gain a measure on how effective are the major players in aiding the disaster victims in regaining a sustainable life. Regan is such a person as is clearly shown on his UNITEC webpage.

Some brief related examples are:
- He has worked in many countries as an engineer and architect including West Timor, Pakistan and Syria; and therefore an ideal person to lead 3 RedR humanitarian assignments for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) planning, building and managing refugee camps in those countries.
- In addition in 2007 Regan carried out structural and technical reviews of post tsunami housing in Tamil Nadu India, Andaman Nicobar Islands. 2008 saw Regan measuring resilience of post disaster reconstruction in Banda Aceh, Indonesia plus Sichuan, China. Late 2009 following the Samoa tragedy saw Regan leading an Auckland University team to Samoa. His international development work is reflected in his many published papers.
- Another internationally recognised MIPENZ member Ross Copeland Sustainability Manager of Mainzeal and CEO of Engineers Without Borders NZ has kindly agreed to join Regan in addressing the topic from his assignments in disaster situations including the recent Samoan tragedy.

See URL http://www.waikato.ac.nz/contacts/map/?term=fm for a Waikato Campus map. The Staff Parking area at Gate 7 is available in the evenings. The MSB building is on the north side of the Staff Parking area. The conference rooms are at the bottom of the stairs to the left of the building.

Contact: Norm Stannard Secretary ESRNZ Waikato Branch ph: 07-8556579
Frank Scrimgeour Chairman ESRNZ Waikato Branch ph: 07-8562889

7.30pm, Thursday 15 April 2010
Room 3.407 of the School of Engineering,
University of Auckland, 20 Symonds St, Auckland.

Speaker: Dr Eric Jansseune is an environmental engineer and worked
for environmental technology companies in Europe, which are
concerned with renewable energies and clean water. In 1995 he
started his own company EWA – TEC (Energy, Water, Air -
Technology) for consulting and educational purposes and in 2005 he
immigrated to New Zealand.

Abstract: The Repower NZ coalition brings together all individuals, nonprofit organizations and companies that are concerned about the actual
Energy Mix of New Zealand. In particular the dependency on fossil fuels
is the biggest concern because it affects the quality of life and the
economic implications of increasing fuel prices can be very high.
The Repower NZ coalition is concerned about the actual energy use of
New Zealand and the actual energy mix to supply electricity, heat and
transport in New Zealand.

In the Repower NZ presentation we will discuss the energy situation in
New Zealand and demonstrate a realistic blueprint for a sustainable
energy mix. Based on advanced and state-of-the-art technologies the
future scenario for the NZ energy users could be much more renewable
and efficient without the loss of our daily comfort. Also the problem of
transport could be solved in an efficient and carbon free way. Many
countries have started to invest in a renewable energy mix, so New Zealand should follow or even set the trend.

Web www.esr.org.nz

Contact Avishek Kumar akum036@aucklanduni.ac.nz  for further information. No booking required.

Date and Time Thursday 18 March 2010 commencing at 7.00 pm

Venue

Room 3.407, School of Engineering, University of Auckland
20 Symonds Street Auckland

AGM Business

To receive annual reports from all ESR Branches and the Treasurer’s report
To elect the President, National Secretary and National Treasurer
To elect the Auckland Branch Chair Person, Secretary, Treasurer and Committee members.

Nominations for all elected positions are called for either prior to at or the meeting.

Please send nominations to John La Roche, ESR National Secretary johnlaroche@xtra.co.nz

Venue:                  Room 3.407 School of Engineering,
University of Auckland,

Speaker: Dr John Peet

Dr John Peet is a Life member of ESR and a retired Senior Lecturer, Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Canterbury.  His background experience was in the petroleum industry.  John’s main focus in recent years has been sustainable development.  He is the author of a book on Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability, and has presented many papers on systems, sustainability and the ethical requirements of stakeholder involvement.

Abstract :
Why do so many government policies – especially those related to energy or resource use or technology – almost always turn out to be a lot less successful than they should be?
John suggests it is because – as a generalisation – we actually don’t speak the same language!  Nor do we necessarily follow the same ethics. For these reasons, we badly need a means whereby the two professional groups seriously engage in some form of discussion, to build mutual understanding and a policy framework for genuine sustainability.  He will present some suggestions along those lines as a basis for discussion.

Web          www.esr.org.nz

Contact    John La Roche Ph 09 528 9759 johnlarioche@xtra.co.nz

Date and Time Thursday 19 November 2009 starting 7-30pm

Where Room 3.407 School of Engineering, University of Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland ,

Speaker Dr Elizabeth Fassman
Dr Elizabeth Fassman is a Senior Lecturer in Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Auckland.  She came to New Zealand five years ago by way of Duke University and the University of Virginia, where she obtained undergraduate, ME and PhD degrees in civil and environmental engineering followed by two years in engineering consulting. Elizabeth’s research focuses on field-scale evaluation of stormwater management devices, with particular emphasis on emerging “low impact” and green infrastructure technologies for receiving water protection.

Abstract
Green roofs are unique amongst environmental protection technologies for their ability to address multiple impacts of urban development. A rapidly growing body of evidence indicates that green roofs reduce stormwater runoff, insulate buildings to reduce heating and cooling demands, extend the life of rooftops, promote urban biodiversity, and can provide amenity space for building occupants. A brief overview of how green roofs are engineered to satisfied different design objectives is presented. Outcomes from a three-year research project to generate design guidelines for green roofs for stormwater management using locally-sourced materials are presented.

Web  www.esr.org.nz

Contact Avishek Kumar  akum036@aucklanduni.ac.nz

Introduction
There has been a global upsurge of interest in nuclear energy and there have been occasional recommendations for its use in NZ. Opposition to such a recommendation based on the key issues of cost, plant safety, emissions, resource availability, the treatment and disposal of nuclear wastes, decommissioning, and nuclear proliferation make its adoption unlikely. I have nonetheless reviewed here the various forms of nuclear reactor available for civil energy generation in the short and medium term, the trend in technologies, and their likely relevance to our local situation as some misleading claims have been made. I conclude that there is no reactor that could realistically be deployed here within the given time frame.

The New Zealand Electricity System
The nature, history and size of our electricity system have a bearing on the ease with which it could accommodate nuclear generation, and I will touch on what I see to be some important features.
Transpower has described the NZ system as “a small islanded network”, based on the small size of the total connected generation (9,000MW is small in international terms), the absence of interconnections to other networks, and the “long and skinny” configuration with load and generation centres of gravity in the north and the south respectively. The HVDC link has facilitated this development, and although the link’s capacity is currently constrained by ageing equipment, it seems certain that by 2012 its ability to transmit up to 1200MW in either direction will have been restored. This is but one shortcoming of a grid whose development has not kept pace with the growth of load and generation in terms of both magnitude and regional trends. Load transfers are constrained at a number of key points, notably with the transfer of power from the south into and across the Auckland isthmus, hence the ongoing controversy over a new 400/220 kV line from Whakamaru to Otahuhu. Strengthening of the grid is being approached as a matter of urgency; this will certainly be required for the satisfactory integration of dispersed sources of renewable energy, and proposed amendments to the governance requirement for the Electricity Commission would address this issue.
There is a limitation on the maximum size of individual generating unit that can be connected to the grid system. Currently the largest units on the system are gas turbines at Otahuhu, Huntly and Taranaki Power stations, all single shaft machines with output in the range 380 to 400 MW. Maximum size is affected by the need for spinning reserve to guard against sudden loss of a unit, as well as the economic need to match the incremental growth of generation with that of load. At least as much spinning reserve is needed (on the same side of any grid constraint) as the load on one spinning shaft. Thus a 1,000MW single shaft nuclear unit would need our three largest gas fired generators to be running unloaded on standby. The advent of larger wind generation facilities adds to the grid stability and reliability constraints in the event of an outage of such large units.
The Electricity Commission has just released Draft Generation Scenarios covering the period out to the year 2037. The five Scenarios involve assumptions ranging from the “Sustainable Path” with maximum exploitation of renewable resources and closure of existing major thermal stations and the Tiwai smelter, to the “High Gas Discovery” Scenario. The latter assumes major new indigenous gas discoveries and the construction of efficient gas-fired thermal plants, together with the development of the most cost-effective renewable sources. A feature of all Scenarios is the construction of diesel- or gas-fired peaking plants in parallel with renewable sources to enhance system security. The assumed average demand growth throughout the study period is of the order of 200MW/annum, and the maximum individual plant or generating unit size under any scenario is of the order of 400MW. Virtually all of the large thermal generating plants in the High Gas Discovery Scenario are assumed to be located in the upper North Island, although coal-fired plants with carbon capture, provisionally allowed-for in the latter part of the planning period, could conceivably be located in Southland.
In any likely scenario the role of nuclear generation would be to provide a base load capability to underpin the renewable generation base, supported by gas-fired peaking units.. It is suggested that in view of the above constraints on the New Zealand grid system, the maximum size of any nuclear reactor and associated single shaft generator would be of the order of 500 MW for at least the next couple of decades.

Requirement for a Nuclear Regulator
The electricity supply industry of New Zealand is regulated by the Electricity Commission, a Crown entity set up under the Electricity Act. Its principal objective is to ensure that electricity is produced and delivered to all classes of consumer in an efficient, fair, reliable and environmentally sustainable manner. To discharge this role it has a small, strong core team of high quality generalists, and engages the services of specialist contractors as appropriate. An additional independent regulatory authority would be required if nuclear generation were added to the mix. The importance attached to the role of the Nuclear Regulator can be gauged from the following:
The IAEA held a Conference of Nuclear Regulators from 60 countries in Moscow in March 2006. A statement released from the Conference included the following declaration: “… the complexity of a nuclear power plant makes it dependent on key factors such as location, management practices and human behaviour – all of which influence safety performance. How can members of the public and stakeholders be assured that a nuclear power plant or any enterprise that has to deal with radioactive material is run safely? This is a job for an independent oversight authority – the regulator.”
Similarly, in his introduction to the “Public Report on the Generic Design Assessment of New Nuclear Reactor Designs”, March 2008, the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations in the UK described his role thus: “Our job is about protecting people and society from the hazards presented by the nuclear industry. As new nuclear power stations are being considered for the UK, it is right for us as regulators to start our work to examine the safety and security aspects associated with these power stations’ design”.
Key differences between nuclear and conventional thermal power plants are the heat that must be removed following a full plant trip, and the inability to restart a reactor quickly shut down due to neutron capture by short half life Xenon isotopes. Even with the chain reaction completely shut down a nuclear reactor will generate significant heat from fission product decay for long periods. To prevent a “Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)” a long-term stable source of electric power is essential. This is a design requirement of concern to the nuclear regulator, and the type of system in which the nuclear plant is embedded is a significant factor.
The first step in the acceptance of a nuclear reactor design for construction in a particular country is its licensing by the nuclear regulator of that country after due study of all relevant aspects. Were that to become an issue in New Zealand it is likely that our regulator would take a lead from the NRC (USA) or the NII (UK). We would be unlikely to adopt a Chinese, Russian, Indian or even a Japanese design unless it had already received certification by one of the above.
Australia does have an independent nuclear regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority ARPANSA, created under legislation passed in 1998, whose responsibilities include those of our own National Radiation Laboratory, a specialist unit within the Ministry of Health. While it has no civil nuclear power plants, Australia does have many features of a nuclear industry with uranium mines, a research reactor and atomic test sites.

The “Nuclear Renaissance”
Recent developments have been described as a “nuclear renaissance”. In the words of one recent (July 2007) newspaper article2 “Asia is leading the world in the quest for atomic power. … there are at least 110 reactors operating …. Another 18 power reactors are under construction and a further 110 are planned. … China has 5 power reactors under construction, another 63 planned or proposed. India has 8 being built and 24 on the drawing boards.” The list is impressive, but the details are hard to check and the numbers are often inflated. A report3 from the UK, published in March 2006 and using 2005 figures from the IAEA gave the following global picture:
“Altogether 24 reactors are officially under current construction around the world. Nine of the 24 reactors were originally ordered before 1990, and are mostly of dated Russian design. China has ambitious plans (up to 30 reactors) for nuclear construction but currently only has 2 plants on order. India appears to have 8 plants being built (including 2 recent Russian-origin units) but there is some doubt about the commitment or capacity of India to complete these in a timely fashion.”
The Economist reported in September 2007 “Over the next few months America’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects to receive 12 applications to build nuclear power reactors at 7 different sites. It is preparing to see plans for another 15 at 11 more locations next year.”
In January 2008 the British Government declared its support for a new nuclear power programme that could increase its share of generation to 30% or more. No target was set for the number of reactors to be built, this being left to the market to decide.

Dominant Reactor Designs
Reactors under construction or planned in Asia include units developed locally (Japan, India and China) though based on  Western (generally Westinghouse or General Electric) designs. However in terms of recent or planned construction and out for the next decade at least, there are only three forms of reactor technology4 in serious contention in the UK, Europe or the US: two forms of Light Water Reactor (LWR), the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) and the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR); and the Heavy Water Reactor (HWR). All three are technologies that have been in existence since the beginning of the civil nuclear industry, but in their modern forms are categorised as Generation III or III+. Generation III designs are advanced reactors developed during the 1990s. Generation III+ are yet more recent developments intended for deployment by 2010. The latest designs share the following common features: improved safety systems; modular design to reduce costs and shorten construction times; increased fuel burn-up to improve efficiency and reduce nuclear waste volumes; larger unit size to improve economic competitiveness. A point worth making is that a terrific amount of effort and resources is involved in a particular reactor design and certification is particular to that design.
PWR technology was pioneered by Westinghouse, which was originally an American company but is now owned by Mitsubishi. The advanced passive series of reactors was developed in the US in the 1990s, resulting in the AP600 with an output of 600MW. However it was discovered that the AP600 would not be cost effective on the US market so attempts were made to increase capacity using the same technology.
The Westinghouse AP1000, with a rating close to 1200MW, was the first Generation III+ reactor to be approved by NRC in 2004 and an order has just (April 2008) been placed for a pair to be built in Georgia, USA.
The French have used PWR technology in their nuclear programme since the 1970s. The Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) is a Generation III+ form of PWR reactor designed in a joint venture by French firm Areva and German firm Siemens. During the course of development the reactor’s capacity has been increased to 1750MW to increase economic competitiveness. The first EPR reactor to be built is under construction in Finland, and is due for completion in 2010-11, two years behind schedule and massively over budget. Construction has started on a second EPR in France.
The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is General Electric’s evolutionary Generation III design of a standard BWR. Three plants are operating in Japan with others under construction in Taiwan. It is reportedly being developed in four different versions: 600MW, 900MW, 1350 MW and 1700MW. A Generation III+ 1390MW European version is the Economic and Simplified BWR (ESBWR). Large German utility Eon, Areva and Siemens are to cooperate in the development of an intermediate range 1,250 MW BWR. The BWR enjoys certain advantages over the PWR, but a consequence of using steam directly from the coolant to drive the turbine is the presence of radioactive water in all areas of the plant. This could limit its adoption in some regulatory regimes.
The Advanced CANDU reactor (ACR) was designed and built by Atomic Energy Canada Ltd (AECL), and is an evolution of HWR technology dating back to 1962. It uses an innovative light water cooled, heavy water moderated system. The CANDU 6 reactor (700MW) is operating in a number of countries, but work is proceeding on a larger Generation III+ unit, the ACR-1000, with an output of approximately 1200MW.

Other Reactor Types
A form of reactor that has on occasion been put forward as most suitable for New Zealand conditions is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), which is under development in a number of countries, particularly South Africa, China and Russia. It is a variant of the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), in which graphite is used as the moderator and Helium gas as the coolant. Several earlier versions of the HTGR have been built but none are still in operation. In the PBMR, low enriched uranium particles are compacted at the core of a large pebble covered in three layers of graphite cladding – hundreds of these are poured into the reactor, leaving space for Helium gas to circulate between the units. Unlike all the reactors described previously, which are large and can operate only as base load units, the South African PBMR is a 110MW module that can operate in load following mode. A larger plant could be made up by a collection of such modules. The PBMR has attracted criticism5 of features of its design, and would certainly be subjected to careful scrutiny by regulators in advance of any certification. The PBMR has been enthusiastically promoted by the nuclear industry, but a recent report6 on its suitability for use in the UK had this to say:
“It was originally hoped to complete a demonstration plant by 2003, … . However there have been delays to this timetable … . Such a plant is now unlikely to be complete before 2010 at the earliest. Given a need both to accumulate operating experience on the plant and to gain safety regulatory approval in the UK, PBMR technology is unlikely to be available in the UK until close to 2020.” The report went on to express concern about sevenfold escalation of cost estimates of the demonstration plant.
The IRIS (International Reactor Innovative and Secure) PWR is an international collaborative project engaged in the design of a 335MW reactor incorporating modular construction and enhanced safety features. It is currently in the preliminary design phases. Although publicity has suggested that deployment is expected around 2012-2015, the same reservations expressed in the case of the PBMR above clearly apply to IRIS. The very moderate term “Appraisal Optimism” has been used to describe forecasts for nuclear projects.
The Australian Uranium Association recently released a Briefing Paper “Small Nuclear Power Reactors”7, containing the introductory statement:
“ There is a move to develop smaller units. These may be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required.” The paper briefly describes a bewildering 32 designs of all types: LWRs, HTGRs, Liquid Metal Cooled Fast Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors, variously under development in the US(6) Russia(7), France(3), Japan(6), China(3), South Korea(1), South Africa(1), Argentina(1) and Internationally.(4). The PBMR and IRIS Reactors are included. It would require an excessive degree of Appraisal Optimism to anticipate that any of these designs could negotiate the hurdles of operational experience,
economic performance and safety analysis in time to be considered for utilisation in New Zealand before 2020 say.

Concluding Remarks
Whatever transpires, I suggest that New Zealand could only ever be a very minor player in the nuclear energy game. We would be totally dependent on major overseas corporations in a limited choice of reactor technologies, the availability of nuclear fuel, the offshore disposal of nuclear waste and the advanced expertise required for a multiplicity of complex tasks including eventual plant decommissioning. But right upfront we would have to face the issue of cost and the extent to which subsidies and state guarantees of one form or another would be required.
Arising from the decision by the UK Government to support a major new nuclear energy programme the cost issue has come under close observation there. As noted earlier, to make their equipment more economically competitive nuclear designers are looking for economies of scale, and the ratings of the reactors competing for consideration in the UK fall within the range 1200-1800MW. One published assessment8 nonetheless is that: “Attempts to estimate the cost of a new nuclear programme [in the UK] are unlikely to be accurate because there is not enough reliable, independent and up-to-date information available on the nuclear plant designs available for such calculations to be made. In addition, waste and decommissioning costs are at present not fully known.”
While committing the UK to a dramatic and rapid expansion of nuclear power, the Government insists that this will be up to the market and will not depend on taxpayer support. This position is viewed with scepticism in some quarters. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at New College, Oxford claims that
“The nuclear energy policy is fundamentally flawed because it relies on the “fiction” that a new generation of reactors can be built without state support.” The research director of the British Economic Research Council has been brutally explicit in discussing the problem of new nuclear build9: “The financing risks of planning delays, construction overruns and of a wilting long term commitment are simply too great for (any but a few of the largest international utilities) to take on their balance sheet. A failure of the government to seduce one of these large players will force the UK to forego a nuclear replacement programme or even fund it entirely from the public purse.”
The government has insisted that the utility companies that are successful in the forthcoming bidding round will bear their ‘full share’ of decommissioning and waste disposal costs. However a recently-published cost analysis of the storage and disposal of waste, based on rates already being charged to overseas utilities, concluded10 that
“unfortunately the fully commercial price would make disposal far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new nuclear build programme in Britain.” Such concern is heightened by the fact that the bill for the cleanup and decommissioning at 19 nuclear sites around the UK, including the last generation of Magnox reactors, is 73 billion pounds and still rising, and that it is uncertain how this will be paid11. The situation in the US is not greatly different. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the nuclear industry qualified for an estimated $12 billion in tax breaks and other support. The Price Anderson Act caps the industry’s liability at a fraction of the true cost of a major accident. A new Energy Bill that has been passed by Congress includes a provision that could make available tens of billions of dollars more in loan guarantees, and the Energy Dept. will provide up to $2 billion risk insurance against losses resulting from project delays for the first six new nuclear plant projects.
Nuclear industry representatives have stated that without these kinds of taxpayer subsidies they wouldn’t be building any new nuclear plants.
What is understood through many years of development and operation is that the overhead costs associated with smaller sized reactor units that would suit the New Zealand environment (including regulatory oversight, safety and back-up supply systems, and radiation monitoring processes) would make such units uncompetitive with other options in New Zealand. This is why overseas developments have seen units typically grouped into larger “nuclear islands” comprising two or more reactors.
For the smaller reactors discussed earlier, the nuclear industry is banking on economies resulting from a programme of mass production, but in view of all the uncertainties this appears to be wishful thinking. It is assumed that the competitive position of nuclear power as a relatively “carbon free” mode of generation would be improved by application of the cost of carbon through the Emission Trading Scheme.
This would however almost certainly be outweighed by the other compliance costs specific to the nuclear industry, and from the cost of bringing the technology into the country.
There is no reactor in view that could usefully be deployed in New Zealand in the foreseeable future.

1 Professor Emeritus, The University of Auckland; past-President, Engineers for Social Responsibility; Dist. FIPENZ
2 “Power Plant Advance Fuelling Nuclear Fears”, Michael Richardson, NZ Herald, 19/7/07
3 “The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy”, Paper No. 4, “Economics of Nuclear Power”, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006
4 “The Race is on”, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, February 2008, pp 54-57
5 http://www.ieer.org (search for PBMR)
6 “The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy”, Paper No. 4, “Economics of Nuclear Power”, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006
7 http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
8 “The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy”, A Position Paper of the Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006
9 “Nuclear Power – is the White Paper enough?”, Engineering Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 2, April/May 2008.
10 “Waste cost threat to UK nuclear plans”, Financial Times, March 26, 2008
11 “Clean-up cost fear in rush to nuclear”, Evening Standard, April 7, 2008

Joint ESR/IPENZ Event
Date: 4 August 2009, 7.00 pm
Venue: University of Canterbury, School of Engineering Lecture Room 1 (in the Mushroom).

It is becoming increasing clear that humans – and especially in the so-called “developed” nations – must drastically reduce their use of nonrenewable resources and emissions of pollutants, if genuine sustainability is to be achieved.  We need to go beyond policies that only result in things getting worse at a slower rate!  In this talk, John focuses on the severity of the challenge that faces us all, and puts out a challenge to the Engineering profession to become involved in not only the technical but also the ethical issues.

Dr John Peet is a chemical engineer with background experience in the petroleum industry, whose main focus in recent years has been sustainable development. Author of a book on Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability and papers on systems, sustainability and the ethical requirements of stakeholder involvement.
This lecture is open to anyone interested and members are encouraged to publicise it among friends and colleagues.

When: Wednesday 5 August

Time: 5.30 refreshments for 6.00 start

Where: Wellington City Council Committee Room 1, WCC Admin Building, Civic Square

ESR invites you to an informative, stimulating and provocative presentation on emerging technologies that could be harnessed to supply our energy, address our energy security, create jobs in a new industry and develop an export industry.
Statutory consents, environmental consequences, economic viability, political support and physical durability are live issues.
Dr Huckerby will talk about the size and distribution of our marine energy resources and developments in marine energy technologies. The status of marine energy projects in New Zealand will be described along with international initiatives.

Date and Time: 7.30pm, Thursday 20 August 2009.

Where: Room 3.407, School of Engineering, University of Auckland,
20 Symonds St, Auckland.

Speakers John Stansfield and Dorte Wray.
John Stansfield describes himself as having had a life sentence in the community and voluntary sector with no time off for good behaviour!  He is the executive director of Clean Stream Waiheke Ltd, an innovative community owned recycling and waste elimination company, a director of the Waste Resources Trust a community education and advocacy group and the founder of Orapiu grove farm organics partnership.  A passionate gardener and keen fisherman John is also a champion of community directed initiatives. In 2006 John was recognized as a fellow in social entrepreneurship as one of fifteen great NZ change-makers.  John lives on Waiheke Island where he is active in community affairs.
Dorte Wray is the Social Enterprise Intern with Clean Stream Waiheke Ltd, working on a variety of recycling and waste reduction projects.  She is Waiheke born and bred and loves having the opportunity to learn about, and take part in, community-run initiatives and innovations in her own island community.

Abstract:  John will talk about an age where environmental and social responsibility are recognized as market advantages, the risk of P.R. spin and greenwash poses a palpable threat to progressive change.  More than ever before we need our experts to be resolute, speak the truth and take the role of critic and conscience of society.  In this address John will explore the unique role engineers have in the contribution to public policy debate by drawing on his experience in sustainability.
Dorte will talk about simple answers to everyday problems.  While half the world starves wealthy nations are grappling with what to do about food waste. International research has shown that up to a third of food purchased ends up in the rubbish.  Once in the waste stream, most food waste is sent to landfill where it becomes a major source of the greenhouse gas methane.  There is a range of ways to deal with this, but Dorte will argue that, as a problem largely of human behaviour, large scale engineered solutions are not the best option.
Contact John La Roche johnlaroche@xtra.co.nz