-{See The NZ Herald's "Christchurch services: What's working, what's not
2:28 PM Wednesday Sep 8, 2010

The rest of this is David MacClement's compilation of:
150 earthquakes in Canterbury New Zealand, to: Wednesday, 8/09/2010 2:49 pm NZST. Data from:

GNS SCIENCE GeoNet Data Centre Lower Hutt, New Zealand. Geonet.org.nz
Num.	Universal Time	NZ Standard Time	Reference number	S-Latit	E-Longit	Location	Focal depth, km	Richter magnit.	Web page
1	03/09/10 16:35	Saturday, 4/09/2010 4:35 am	3366146/G	43.55	172.18	40 km west of Christchurch	10	7.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366146g.html
2	03/09/10 16:56	Saturday, 4/09/2010 4:56 am	3366155/G	43.56	172.23	30 km west of Christchurch	8	5.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366155g.html
3	03/09/10 17:06	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:06 am	3366157/G	43.49	172.32	30 km west of Christchurch	15	4.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366157g.html
4	03/09/10 17:26	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:26 am	3366167/G	43.54	172.23	30 km west of Christchurch	5	4.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366167g.html
5	03/09/10 17:26	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:26 am	3366166/G	43.6	172.25	30 km west of Christchurch	5	4.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366166g.html
6	03/09/10 17:46	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:46 am	3366177/G	43.6	172.23	30 km west of Christchurch	20	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366177g.html
7	03/09/10 17:55	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:55 am	3366182/G	43.5	172.25	30 km west of Christchurch	5	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366182g.html
8	03/09/10 18:01	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:01 am	3366184/G	43.63	172.31	30 km west of Christchurch	11	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366184g.html
9	03/09/10 18:04	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:04 am	3366187/G	43.58	172.66	10 km south of Christchurch	60	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366187g.html
10	03/09/10 18:23	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:23 am	3366196/G	43.6	172.12	10 km south of Darfield	5	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366196g.html
11	03/09/10 18:33	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:33 am	3366198/G	43.79	172.57	30 km south of Christchurch	5	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366198g.html
12	03/09/10 19:07	Saturday, 4/09/2010 7:07 am	3366213/G	43.56	172.25	30 km west of Christchurch	25	4.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366213g.html
13	03/09/10 19:13	Saturday, 4/09/2010 7:13 am	3366215/G	43.7	172.57	20 km south of Christchurch	9	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366215g.html
14	03/09/10 19:52	Saturday, 4/09/2010 7:52 am	3366227/G	43.53	172.13	10 km south of Darfield	5	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366227g.html
15	03/09/10 19:56	Saturday, 4/09/2010 7:56 am	3366230/G	43.55	172.37	20 km west of Christchurch	7	5.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366230g.html
16	03/09/10 22:17	Saturday, 4/09/2010 10:17 am	3366288/G	43.64	172.29	30 km south-west of Christchurch	5	4.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366288g.html
17	03/09/10 22:58	Saturday, 4/09/2010 10:58 am	3366305/G	43.6	172.35	20 km west of Christchurch	5	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366305g.html
18	03/09/10 23:12	Saturday, 4/09/2010 11:12 am	3366310/G	43.53	172.27	10 km east of Darfield	12	5.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366310g.html
19	04/09/10 00:18	Saturday, 4/09/2010 12:18 pm	3366340/G	43.46	172.22	10 km east of Darfield	12	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366340g.html
20	04/09/10 01:49	Saturday, 4/09/2010 1:49 pm	3366375/G	43.57	172.35	20 km west of Christchurch	20	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366375g.html
21	04/09/10 04:33	Saturday, 4/09/2010 4:33 pm	3366445/G	43.59	172.05	10 km south-west of Darfield	2	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366445g.html
22	04/09/10 04:48	Saturday, 4/09/2010 4:48 pm	3366450/G	43.66	172.49	20 km south-west of Christchurch	15	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366450g.html
23	04/09/10 04:55	Saturday, 4/09/2010 4:55 pm	3366452/G	43.54	171.97	10 km south-west of Darfield	10	5.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366452g.html
24	04/09/10 05:07	Saturday, 4/09/2010 5:07 pm	3366457/G	43.49	172.41	20 km west of Christchurch	10	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366457g.html
25	04/09/10 06:35	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:35 pm	3366490/G	43.65	172.23	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366490g.html
26	04/09/10 06:38	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:38 pm	3366492/G	43.66	172.27	20 km south-east of Darfield	12	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366492g.html
27	04/09/10 06:54	Saturday, 4/09/2010 6:54 pm	3366499/G	43.61	172.5	10 km south-west of Christchurch	12	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366499g.html
28	04/09/10 07:03	Saturday, 4/09/2010 7:03 pm	3366503/G	43.56	172.48	10 km west of Christchurch	20	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366503g.html
29	04/09/10 08:46	Saturday, 4/09/2010 8:46 pm	3366542/G	43.69	172.31	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366542g.html
30	04/09/10 08:54	Saturday, 4/09/2010 8:54 pm	3366544/G	43.56	171.9	20 km south-west of Darfield	15	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366544g.html
31	04/09/10 10:34	Saturday, 4/09/2010 10:34 pm	3366585/G	43.61	172.46	30 km south-east of Darfield	20	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366585g.html
32	04/09/10 10:38	Saturday, 4/09/2010 10:38 pm	3366586/G	43.25	171.97	10 km north of Springfield	4	5.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366586g.html
33	04/09/10 10:38	Saturday, 4/09/2010 10:38 pm	3366593/G	43.26	171.99	30 km north-west of Darfield	8	4.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366593g.html
34	04/09/10 11:27	Saturday, 4/09/2010 11:27 pm	3366609/G	43.57	172.41	30 km east of Darfield	20	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366609g.html
35	04/09/10 11:43	Saturday, 4/09/2010 11:43 pm	3366615/G	43.57	171.87	20 km south-west of Darfield	10	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366615g.html
36	04/09/10 12:10	Sunday, 5/09/2010 12:10 am	3366624/G	43.57	172.3	20 km south-east of Darfield	6	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366624g.html
37	04/09/10 12:57	Sunday, 5/09/2010 12:57 am	3366644/G	43.48	172.14	Within 5 km of Darfield	8	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366644g.html
38	04/09/10 13:47	Sunday, 5/09/2010 1:47 am	3366664/G	43.65	172.37	20 km south-west of Christchurch	12	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366664g.html
39	04/09/10 13:58	Sunday, 5/09/2010 1:58 am	3366669/G	43.51	172.2	10 km east of Darfield	6	3.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366669g.html
40	04/09/10 14:35	Sunday, 5/09/2010 2:35 am	3366683/G	43.49	172.18	10 km east of Darfield	7	3.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366683g.html
41	04/09/10 14:42	Sunday, 5/09/2010 2:42 am	3366686/G	43.67	172.43	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366686g.html
42	04/09/10 16:08	Sunday, 5/09/2010 4:08 am	3366721/G	43.62	172.44	30 km south-east of Darfield	15	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366721g.html
43	04/09/10 16:23	Sunday, 5/09/2010 4:23 am	3366726/G	43.56	172.07	10 km south-west of Darfield	5	4.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366726g.html
44	04/09/10 16:31	Sunday, 5/09/2010 4:31 am	3366729/G	43.55	172.4	20 km east of Darfield	7	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366729g.html
45	04/09/10 17:17	Sunday, 5/09/2010 5:17 am	3366750/G	43.63	172.15	20 km south of Darfield	5	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366750g.html
46	04/09/10 17:20	Sunday, 5/09/2010 5:20 am	3366751/G	43.59	172.17	10 km south of Darfield	9	5.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366751g.html
47	04/09/10 17:28	Sunday, 5/09/2010 5:28 am	3366754/G	43.6	172.19	10 km south-east of Darfield	15	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366754g.html
48	04/09/10 17:53	Sunday, 5/09/2010 5:53 am	3366765/G	43.63	172.17	20 km south of Darfield	15	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366765g.html
49	04/09/10 18:59	Sunday, 5/09/2010 6:59 am	3366794/G	43.65	172.24	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366794g.html
50	04/09/10 19:11	Sunday, 5/09/2010 7:11 am	3366799/G	43.65	172.48	30 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366799g.html
51	04/09/10 19:30	Sunday, 5/09/2010 7:30 am	3366806/G	43.58	171.96	20 km south-west of Darfield	5	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366806g.html
52	04/09/10 19:41	Sunday, 5/09/2010 7:41 am	3366810/G	43.61	172.27	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366810g.html
53	04/09/10 19:51	Sunday, 5/09/2010 7:51 am	3366813/G	43.5	171.93	20 km west of Darfield	15	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366813g.html
54	04/09/10 20:13	Sunday, 5/09/2010 8:13 am	3366821/G	43.67	172.51	20 km south-west of Christchurch	20	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366821g.html
55	04/09/10 21:46	Sunday, 5/09/2010 9:46 am	3366858/G	43.57	172.41	20 km west of Christchurch	8	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366858g.html
56	04/09/10 21:49	Sunday, 5/09/2010 9:49 am	3366860/G	43.62	172.27	20 km south-east of Darfield	12	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366860g.html
57	04/09/10 22:03	Sunday, 5/09/2010 10:03 am	3366865/G	43.63	172.47	20 km south-west of Christchurch	7	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366865g.html
58	04/09/10 22:15	Sunday, 5/09/2010 10:15 am	3366870/G	43.61	172.44	20 km south-west of Christchurch	15	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366870g.html
59	04/09/10 22:23	Sunday, 5/09/2010 10:23 am	3366873/G	43.28	171.97	10 km north-east of Springfield	7	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366873g.html
60	05/09/10 00:19	Sunday, 5/09/2010 12:19 pm	3366916/G	43.61	172.37	20 km south-west of Christchurch	12	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366916g.html
61	05/09/10 00:27	Sunday, 5/09/2010 12:27 pm	3366920/G	43.59	172.02	10 km south-west of Darfield	5	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366920g.html
62	05/09/10 00:43	Sunday, 5/09/2010 12:43 pm	3366925/G	43.65	172.47	20 km south-west of Christchurch	12	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366925g.html
63	05/09/10 01:04	Sunday, 5/09/2010 1:04 pm	3366933/G	43.68	172.51	20 km south-west of Lyttelton	12	5.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366933g.html
64	05/09/10 01:55	Sunday, 5/09/2010 1:55 pm	3366951/G	43.53	172.24	10 km south-east of Darfield	12	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366951g.html
65	05/09/10 02:34	Sunday, 5/09/2010 2:34 pm	3366965/G	43.61	172.39	20 km north of Leeston	12	3.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366965g.html
66	05/09/10 02:53	Sunday, 5/09/2010 2:53 pm	3366973/G	43.65	172.55	10 km south-west of Christchurch	15	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366973g.html
67	05/09/10 05:15	Sunday, 5/09/2010 5:15 pm	3367026/G	43.59	172.46	20 km south-west of Christchurch	12	3.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367026g.html
68	05/09/10 07:10	Sunday, 5/09/2010 7:10 pm	3367071/G	43.27	172.02	10 km north-east of Springfield	8	3.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367071g.html
69	05/09/10 09:07	Sunday, 5/09/2010 9:07 pm	3367116/G	43.57	172.3	20 km south-east of Darfield	9	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367116g.html
70	05/09/10 09:44	Sunday, 5/09/2010 9:44 pm	3367131/G	43.53	172.42	20 km west of Christchurch	2	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367131g.html
71	05/09/10 10:18	Sunday, 5/09/2010 10:18 pm	3367147/G	43.63	172.26	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367147g.html
72	05/09/10 10:55	Sunday, 5/09/2010 10:55 pm	3367159/G	43.58	172.49	10 km south-west of Christchurch	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367159g.html
73	05/09/10 12:16	Monday, 6/09/2010 12:16 am	3367190/G	43.62	172.49	10 km south-west of Christchurch	7	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367190g.html
74	05/09/10 12:52	Monday, 6/09/2010 12:52 am	3367202/G	43.44	172.21	10 km north-east of Darfield	15	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367202g.html
75	05/09/10 12:52	Monday, 6/09/2010 12:52 am	3367203/G	43.48	172.21	10 km east of Darfield	5	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367203g.html
76	05/09/10 16:06	Monday, 6/09/2010 4:06 am	3367278/G	43.59	171.91	10 km south of Coalgate	10	4.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367278g.html
77	05/09/10 16:10	Monday, 6/09/2010 4:10 am	3367280/G	43.53	172.34	20 km east of Darfield	10	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367280g.html
78	05/09/10 17:07	Monday, 6/09/2010 5:07 am	3367302/G	43.61	172.38	20 km north of Leeston	5	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367302g.html
79	05/09/10 17:18	Monday, 6/09/2010 5:18 am	3367305/G	43.62	172.5	10 km south-west of Christchurch	15	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367305g.html
80	05/09/10 17:42	Monday, 6/09/2010 5:42 am	3367316/G	43.6	172.11	10 km south of Darfield	5	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367316g.html
81	05/09/10 19:18	Monday, 6/09/2010 7:18 am	3367355/G	43.63	172.46	20 km south-west of Christchurch	5	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367355g.html
82	05/09/10 21:31	Monday, 6/09/2010 9:31 am	3367407/G	43.62	172.4	20 km south-west of Christchurch	5	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367407g.html
83	05/09/10 21:46	Monday, 6/09/2010 9:46 am	3367413/G	43.59	172.42	20 km west of Christchurch	5	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367413g.html
84	06/09/10 00:18	Monday, 6/09/2010 12:18 pm	3367470/G	43.58	172.29	20 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367470g.html
85	06/09/10 00:35	Monday, 6/09/2010 12:35 pm	3367476/G	43.58	172.29	20 km south-east of Darfield	20	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367476g.html
86	06/09/10 02:06	Monday, 6/09/2010 2:06 pm	3367512/G	43.67	172.5	20 km south-west of Christchurch	12	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367512g.html
87	06/09/10 02:48	Monday, 6/09/2010 2:48 pm	3367527/G	43.67	172.43	20 km south-west of Christchurch	6	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367527g.html
88	06/09/10 03:07	Monday, 6/09/2010 3:07 pm	3367535/G	43.59	172.38	20 km west of Christchurch	8	4.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367535g.html
89	06/09/10 03:34	Monday, 6/09/2010 3:34 pm	3367543/G	43.47	172.17	Within 5 km of Darfield	7	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367543g.html
90	06/09/10 03:54	Monday, 6/09/2010 3:54 pm	3367552/G	43.59	172.46	20 km west of Christchurch	20	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367552g.html
91	06/09/10 04:31	Monday, 6/09/2010 4:31 pm	3367565/G	43.49	172.15	Within 5 km of Darfield	8	3.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367565g.html
92	06/09/10 06:01	Monday, 6/09/2010 6:01 pm	3367608/G	43.62	172.33	20 km south-east of Darfield	4	4.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367608g.html
93	06/09/10 06:13	Monday, 6/09/2010 6:13 pm	3367612/G	43.64	172.53	10 km south-west of Christchurch	5	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367612g.html
94	06/09/10 06:19	Monday, 6/09/2010 6:19 pm	3367613/G	43.62	172.31	20 km south-east of Darfield	6	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367613g.html
95	06/09/10 07:03	Monday, 6/09/2010 7:03 pm	3367629/G	43.45	172.19	10 km north-east of Darfield	6	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367629g.html
96	06/09/10 07:28	Monday, 6/09/2010 7:28 pm	3367638/G	43.51	172.2	10 km east of Darfield	7	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367638g.html
97	06/09/10 09:20	Monday, 6/09/2010 9:20 pm	3367681/G	43.61	172.37	20 km south-east of Darfield	9	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367681g.html
98	06/09/10 10:21	Monday, 6/09/2010 10:21 pm	3367703/G	43.66	172.47	20 km south-west of Christchurch	10	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367703g.html
99	06/09/10 11:14	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:14 pm	3367740/G	43.64	172.52	10 km south-west of Christchurch	5	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367740g.html
100	06/09/10 11:24	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:24 pm	3367742/G	43.57	172.39	20 km south-east of Darfield	9	5.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367742g.html
101	06/09/10 11:38	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:38 pm	3367748/G	43.57	172.42	20 km west of Christchurch	15	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367748g.html
102	06/09/10 11:40	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:40 pm	3367749/G	43.59	171.89	20 km south-west of Darfield	9	5.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367749g.html
103	06/09/10 11:47	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:47 pm	3367750/G	43.61	172.47	30 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367750g.html
104	06/09/10 11:54	Monday, 6/09/2010 11:54 pm	3367753/G	43.64	172.48	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367753g.html
105	06/09/10 12:21	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 12:21 am	3367765/G	43.54	171.92	20 km south-west of Darfield	15	4.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367765g.html
106	06/09/10 12:47	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 12:47 am	3367774/G	43.65	172.53	10 km south-west of Christchurch	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367774g.html
107	06/09/10 12:51	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 12:51 am	3367776/G	43.57	172.36	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367776g.html
108	06/09/10 13:39	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 1:39 am	3367795/G	43.62	172.49	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367795g.html
109	06/09/10 14:52	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 2:52 am	3367822/G	43.56	172.42	30 km east of Darfield	10	3.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367822g.html
110	06/09/10 15:14	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 3:14 am	3367830/G	43.43	172.17	10 km north-east of Darfield	9	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367830g.html
111	06/09/10 15:24	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 3:24 am	3367832/G	43.65	172.24	20 km south-east of Darfield	15	5.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367832g.html
112	06/09/10 16:17	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 4:17 am	3367853/G	43.6	172.49	10 km south-west of Christchurch	7	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367853g.html
113	06/09/10 17:14	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 5:14 am	3367872/G	43.48	172.16	Within 5 km of Darfield	15	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367872g.html
114	06/09/10 17:17	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 5:17 am	3367873/G	43.42	172.14	10 km north of Darfield	5	3.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367873g.html
115	06/09/10 18:22	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 6:22 am	3367897/G	43.59	172.27	20 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367897g.html
116	06/09/10 20:14	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 8:14 am	3367937/G	43.64	172.39	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367937g.html
117	06/09/10 20:24	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 8:24 am	3367940/G	43.65	172.46	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367940g.html
118	06/09/10 22:03	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 10:03 am	3367973/G	39.96	176.93	30 km east of Waipawa	40	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367973g.html
119	06/09/10 22:11	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 10:11 am	3367976/G	43.47	172.17	Within 5 km of Darfield	5	3.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367976g.html
120	06/09/10 22:48	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 10:48 am	3367989/G	40.44	176.8	20 km south-east of Porangahau	15	5.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3367989g.html
121	06/09/10 23:36	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 11:36 am	3368008/G	43.61	172	20 km south-west of Darfield	12	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368008g.html
122	07/09/10 01:04	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 1:04 pm	3368039/G	43.66	172.5	40 km south-east of Darfield	20	3.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368039g.html
123	07/09/10 01:07	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 1:07 pm	3368040/G	43.59	172.43	30 km south-east of Darfield	5	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368040g.html
124	07/09/10 03:04	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 3:04 pm	3368083/G	43.58	172.28	20 km south-east of Darfield	7	3.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368083g.html
125	07/09/10 03:48	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 3:48 pm	3368099/G	41.35	174.54	20 km west of Wellington	40	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368099g.html
126	07/09/10 04:18	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 4:18 pm	3368110/G	41.36	174.54	20 km south-west of Wellington	40	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368110g.html
127	07/09/10 04:56	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 4:56 pm	3368123/G	43.55	172.3	20 km south-east of Darfield	3	3.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368123g.html
128	07/09/10 06:04	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 6:04 pm	3368148/G	43.55	172.4	20 km east of Darfield	5	3.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368148g.html
129	07/09/10 06:36	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 6:36 pm	3368159/G	40.43	176.79	20 km south-east of Porangahau	12	4.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368159g.html
130	07/09/10 06:40	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 6:40 pm	3368160/G	43.59	171.74	30 km west of Darfield	5	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368160g.html
131	07/09/10 07:44	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 7:44 pm	3368182/G	43.56	172.4	20 km east of Darfield	8	3.2	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368182g.html
132	07/09/10 08:08	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 8:08 pm	3368191/G	43.43	172.16	10 km north-east of Darfield	5	3.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368191g.html
133	07/09/10 08:28	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 8:28 pm	3368198/G	43.45	172.19	10 km north-east of Darfield	5	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368198g.html
134	07/09/10 08:52	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 8:52 pm	3368207/G	43.6	172.17	10 km south of Darfield	7	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368207g.html
135	07/09/10 09:07	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 9:07 pm	3368217/G	43.58	172.39	20 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368217g.html
136	07/09/10 09:08	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 9:08 pm	3368211/G	43.55	172.5	30 km east of Darfield	20	3.9	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368211g.html
137	07/09/10 11:06	Tuesday, 7/09/2010 11:06 pm	3368251/G	43.65	172.46	30 km south-east of Darfield	7	3.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368251g.html
138	07/09/10 12:41	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 12:41 am	3368287/G	43.59	172.42	30 km south-east of Darfield	12	4.6	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368287g.html
139	07/09/10 15:47	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 3:47 am	3368356/G	43.57	172.43	30 km east of Darfield	15	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368356g.html
140	07/09/10 15:59	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 3:59 am	3368361/G	43.51	172.16	Within 5 km of Darfield	9	4.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368361g.html
141	07/09/10 18:09	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 6:09 am	3368409/G	43.61	172.32	20 km south-east of Darfield	8	3.7	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368409g.html
142	07/09/10 18:22	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 6:22 am	3368414/G	43.54	172.32	20 km east of Darfield	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368414g.html
143	07/09/10 19:42	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 7:42 am	3368443/G	43.59	172.39	20 km south-east of Darfield	5	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368443g.html
144	07/09/10 19:49	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 7:49 am	3368445/G	43.58	172.69	10 km south-east of Christchurch	6	5.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368445g.html
145	07/09/10 20:15	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 8:15 am	3368453/G	43.58	172.69	Within 5 km of Lyttelton	5	3.8	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368453g.html
146	07/09/10 21:01	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 9:01 am	3368471/G	43.56	172.4	20 km east of Darfield	9	4.4	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368471g.html
147	07/09/10 21:37	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 9:37 am	3368485/G	43.62	172.34	20 km south-east of Darfield	15	3.5	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368485g.html
148	07/09/10 21:39	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 9:39 am	3368486/G	43.62	172.7	10 km south-east of Christchurch	8	4.0	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368486g.html
149	08/09/10 01:41	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 1:41 pm	3368577/G	43.59	171.88	20 km south-west of Darfield	5	4.1	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368577g.html
150	08/09/10 02:49	Wednesday, 8/09/2010 2:49 pm	3368607/G	43.62	172.37	30 km south-east of Darfield	9	4.3	http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3368607g.html

Posted by davd at 17:10 NZD

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa

Christchurch quake cleanup begins

The mammoth task of assessing every building in Christchurch's earthquake-shattered central business district is underway. A state of emergency remains in place following the magnitude 7.1 earthquake on Saturday.

Earthquake fault located

Geologists have located where the magnitude 7.1 earthquake began in rural Canterbury. No-one knew the fault was there before the quake occurred at a depth of 10km at 4.35am on Saturday.

Cabinet to be briefed on Monday

Prime Minister John Key says Cabinet will be briefed on Monday on the Canterbury earthquake by Civil Defence Minister John Carter.

Aftershocks continue

Christchurch is still being shaken by aftershocks on Sunday.

Kaiapoi cleanup hindered by winds

Strong winds are making the earthquake cleanup in Kaiapoi, north of Christchurch, even more difficult.

Schools to remain closed for two days

All schools in Christchurch, Selwyn district and Kaiapoi are to be closed on Monday and Tuesday, following the major earthquake in the Canterbury region.

Power back for 95% of customers - Orion

Electricity lines company Orion says it has restored power to 95% of its customers after Saturday's earthquake. However, up to a third of residents of Christchurch were still without running water on Sunday.

Staff should not take risks on Monday say Chamber

The Canterbury Chamber of Commerce says employees should put personal safety first before travelling into work on Monday.

Railway repairs needed

KiwiRail says some train tracks running into Christchurch are damaged and it could be several days before they are repaired.

Injured man in critical condition

A man who sustained severe injuries in the earthquake is still in a critical condition in Christchurch hospital. However, several others are in a stable condition.

Supermarkets confident of supply lines

South Island supermarket operator Foodstuffs is confident it can maintain food supplies into Christchurch, following the earthquake on Saturday.

100,000 quake claims expected by EQC

The Earthquake Commission expects to receive at least 100,000 claims as a result of Saturday's earthquake.

Army on standby to assist

The Army remains on standby on Sunday, ready to assist with recovery work after the earthquake in Canterbury.

500+ buildings damaged in quake

Civil Defence estimates that more than 500 buildings in Christchurch sustained damage in Saturday's earthquake.

Prisons being inspected for damage

Structural engineers are to inspect the three prisons in Canterbury for signs of damage after Saturday's quake. Limited damage has been found so far.

Help from farmers

Federated Farmers says the rural community is extending a helping hand to those in need.

Water supplies brought into Christchurch by rail

KiwiRail shipped about 300,000 litres of drinking water into Christchurch overnight.

Port wharves structurally safe

An initial damage assessment of the Port of Lyttelton showed the wharves are structurally safe after Saturday's earthquake. Shipping will continue as usual.

Day of shocks leaves dozens homeless in Christchurch

Dozens of people were homeless in Christchurch on Saturday night and a curfew was in place downtown, after a day of shocks that began when the city was shaken awake by a major earthquake at 4.35am.

Look out for each other now, neighbours urged

Health authorities in Canterbury are calling on neighbours to look out for each other in the aftermath of Saturday's quake.

Railway line to Rangiora out till at least Monday

KiwiRail says it will be Monday at the earliest before the rail track between Christchurch and Rangiora will be open again, but the line south out of the city is now operating.

Cost of earthquake could be $2 billion, says Key

The Prime Minister says initial Treasury modelling has put the cost of the Canterbury earthquake at $2 billion, which is well within the Earthquake Commission's range.

Quake welfare centres ready for overnight influx

The welfare centres set up to support people displaced by Saturday morning's earthquake in Christchurch are preparing for an influx of homeless people on Saturday night.

A truly frightening experience, say Cantabrians

Residents have spoken of their fear as a 7.1 magnitude earthquake hit Canterbury on Saturday - many saying they had never before felt such a strong quake.

Landline phones working, some mobile disruption

Landline phones in the Christchurch area are working: Telecom says its fixed-line network has been largely unaffected and its lines maintenance company Chorus says backup power is in place.

Aftershocks may continue for weeks

A geologist is warning aftershocks may continue to rattle the Canterbury region for weeks following Saturday's major earthquake.

Quake felt throughout the country

The major quake that struck near Christchurch early on Saturday has been felt widely throughout New Zealand.

All services restored at three prisons

Electricity, water and sewerage services have been restored at Canterbury's three jails.

Both universities closed for a week

Canterbury and Lincoln university campuses and halls of residence will be closed for a week while quake damage is repaired.

Traumatised monkey dies at wildlife park

All dangerous animals are safely enclosed at Orana Wildlife Park but one monkey has died following a 7.1-magnitude earthquake in Canterbury on Saturday.

Minor damage to cathedrals

Christchurch's two historic cathedrals appear to have suffered only minor damage as a result of Saturday's earthquake.

Gas supply in working order - Contact

Contact Energy advises people to check that gas pipes are properly connected to their home and that gas bottles are standing upright.

Posted by davd at 17:23 NZD

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Toxic legacy of US Marines assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

-| The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer
-| in the Iraqi city raise new questions about the battle
By Patrick Cockburn

Getty Images Children in Fallujah who suffer from birth defects which are thought to be linked to weapons used in attacks on the city by US Marines

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.

Copyright 2010 Independent Print Limited

Posted by davd at 08:53 NZD

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

These two are from The Press, NZ: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4015232/Suicides-outnumber-road-deaths
and: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/our-hidden-tragedy/4013068/Suicides-by-method-age-and-district

EXCLUSIVE: Suicides should be more widely reported as the number of New Zealanders taking their own lives is 50 per cent higher than the road toll, the Chief Coroner says.

Judge Neil MacLean said New Zealand's suicide rate received little attention in comparison with the road toll, even though significantly more people died.

Media reporting was often seen as a cause of copycat suicides, but responsible reporting could potentially save lives, he said.

Suicide-prevention experts welcomed the call for more reporting on the suicide issue but cautioned against detailing individual cases because of the possibility of copycats.

Statistics released by the Chief Coroner to The Press show the number of deaths ruled as self-inflicted by coroners has stayed at about 540 for each of the past three financial years.

In comparison, the road toll has dropped from 435 in 2004 to 390 last year.

More than 2500 Kiwis are admitted to hospital every year after intentional self-harm.

South Australian coroner Mark Johns said last month that the media should stop worrying about copycat suicides and start reporting the truth about Australia's high rate of death by self-harm.

Suicide should be reported in the same way as the road toll, with tables of how people were taking their own lives, he said.

The Chief Coroner said parts of Australia restricted suicide reporting more stringently than New Zealand did, but he "tended to agree" with Johns.

"My personal view is that there's room for some gentle opening up of things ... but it probably requires legislative change to restore the balance, and that's a matter for a conscience vote in Parliament."

Rules on what coroners could release about suicides were tightened under the Coroners Act 2006, which barred the release of all information except name, age, occupation and finding of self-inflicted death unless releasing other information would "do no harm".

The Chief Coroner said coroners should ask themselves if releasing information could "do good".

When there was a spate of suicides it was easy to say media reports had a negative effect, but it was impossible to quantify how many people might have been saved by reading about it and asking for help, he said.

It was "probably OK" to print statistical information about methods of suicide.

"I'm sympathetic to the view that there's sufficient curiosity of the media on behalf of the public to say: `What's happening in New Zealand; what are our figures and what are the trends?"' he said.

The Press is today printing the detailed coronial statistics on suicide.
[ See below ]

Press editor Andrew Holden said the "imposed silence" on the issue did not appear to be reducing the problem.

"This paper understands the sensitivities around reporting specific cases and the worry that this can trigger copycat suicides," he said.

"But brushing the issue under the carpet clearly is not working either. As a community, we need to accept the scale of the problem and have an open and honest debate about it."

Newspaper Publishers' Association chief executive Tim Pankhurst said a recently released study on media reporting of suicide confirmed that the New Zealand media were generally responsible.

Personal stories were needed to illustrate the issue, he said, and that was where media hit legislative barriers.

"I would like to see quite a lot more media coverage of what leads people to such a desperate act and what intervention there could be to help them," Pankhurst said.

Peter Dunne, Associate Minister of Health responsible for suicide prevention, said he would discuss restrictions on reporting with the Chief Coroner at the next suicide-prevention committee meeting.
Greater awareness of suicide would be positive as suicide was "very hidden".

Posted by davd at 15:55 NZD

Updated: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 15:22 NZD

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

This is the text and images of: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6751 - 148 comments:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6751#comments_top

Possibilities for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

When Westinghouse, General Electric and their international competitors first learned that uranium was a incredible source of heat energy, they were huge, well established firms in the business of building equipment used for generating electrical power. Each had made a significant investment in the infrastructure necessary for producing central station electrical power on a massive scale.

Experience had taught them that larger power stations could produce cheaper electricity and that electricity from central power stations could be effectively distributed to a large number of customers whose varying needs allowed the capital investment in the power station to be most effectively shared between all customers.

Their experience was even codified by textbook authors with a rule of thumb that said that the cost of a piece of production machinery would vary by the throughput raised to the 0.6 power. (According to this thumb rule, a pump that could pump 10 times as much fluid as another pump of similar design and function should cost only four times as much as the smaller pump.) They, and their utility customers, understood that it was much cheaper to deliver bulk fuel by pipeline, ships, barges, or rail than to distribute smaller quantities of fuel in trucks to a network of small plants.

Just as individuals make judgments based on their experience of what has worked in the past, so do corporations. It was the collective judgment of the nuclear pioneers that the same rules of thumb that had worked so well for fossil plants would apply to nuclear plants.

Though accurate cost data is difficult to obtain, it is safe to say that there was no predictable relationship between the size of a nuclear power plant and its cost. Despite the graphs drawn in early nuclear engineering texts-which were based on scanty data from less than ten completed plants-there was not a steadily decreasing cost per kilowatt of capacity for larger plants.

It is possible for engineers to make incredibly complex calculations without a single math error that still come up with a wrong answer if they use a model based on incorrect assumptions. That appears to be the case with the "bigger is better" model used by nuclear plant designers and marketers.

Though the "economy of scale" did not work for the first nuclear age, there is some evidence that a different economic rule did apply. That rule is what is often referred to as the experience curve. According to several detailed studies, it appears that when similar plants were built by the same organization, the follow-on plants cost less to build. According to a RAND Corporation study, "a doubling in the number of reactors [built by an architect-engineer] results in a 5 percent reduction in both construction time and capital cost."

This idea is significant. It tells us that nuclear power is no different conceptually than hundreds of other new technologies.

The principle that Ford discovered is now known as the experience curve. . . It ordains that in any business, in any era, in any capitalist competition, unit costs tend to decline in predictable proportion to accumulated experience: the total number of units sold. Whatever the product (cars or computers, pounds of limestone, thousands of transistors, millions of pounds of nylon, or billions of phone calls) and whatever the performance of companies jumping on and off the curve, unit costs in the industry as a whole, adjusted for inflation, will tend to drop between 20 and 30 percent with every doubling in accumulated output.
George Guilder Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise Updated for the 1990s, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA. p. 195

These ideas are not new. I copied most of the above paragraphs from an article that I published on Atomic Insights in May 1996 titled Economy of Scale? Is Bigger Better?.

Apparently, the ideas that I pointed to fourteen years ago have also occurred to a number of nuclear plant designers and business decision makers who noticed that the estimates for the traditional sized nuclear plants kept expanding at much greater than the rate of inflation as they became more detailed and closer to reality. The complexities of putting together the very large systems and projects kept adding to the risk, which added to the cost and complexity of financing which added to the project complexity by requiring additional partners - including government agencies and public subsidies.

Some frustrated nuclear plant designers, inspired by talking with customers about their needs and remembering what was technically possible in terms of nuclear reactor sizing determined that they might be able to solve some of the cost and schedule complaints by a complete rethinking of the old economy of scale paradigm. For anyone who has been paying attention during the past five years or so, the names of Hyperion, NuScale and Toshiba 4S have been increasingly frequent terms of discussion as start-ups and some established vendors began designing nuclear fission based systems sized at 10, 25, or 45 MWe, which is a radical departure from the 1000 MWe (plus) sizes of the AP1000 (Westinghouse), ESBWR (GE-Hitachi), or EPR (Areva).

Initially, the project leaders for these new designs thought about using them in distributed remote locations where power is either not available or is being supplied by expensively delivered diesel fuel. John (Grizz) Deal and his sister, Deborah Deal Blackwell, the Hyperion Power Generation founders thought about the how a simple, infrequently fueled nuclear plant could supply power to a remote area for up to a decade without refueling. They recognized the value that such a system could provide to the previously powerless people living in that remote area.

The system could provide power for refrigeration, water treatment and distribution systems, communications systems, and reliable, flicker free lighting. Unfortunately, the specific technologies needed for the Hyperion design - liquid metal (Pb-Bi) cooling and uranium nitride fuel elements - are not in commercial use. They hve been used in several specialized reactors and proven to work reliably and safely, but starting up a new supply chain is just one of the many hurdles that Hyperion is diligently working to overcome. The Toshiba 4S sodium cooled power system faces similar challenges, but both concepts have their fans and both are moving forward.

A trio of project teams has recognized that the concept of small does not mean that you have to start from scratch with the supply chain, training programs, and safety analysis; it is possible to do a redesign of light water reactors from the ground up to produce an economical design that achieves economy by both simplification and increased unit volume. All three of the teams - NuScale, B&W and Westinghouse - have designed systems that put the entire primary plant into a single pressure vessel. This choice eliminates the potential for a large pipe break loss of coolant accident. They have all chosen to include a large volume of water - relative to the core power output - that provides operators with lengthy interval between any conceivable accident and required operator action. They also have chosen passive safety systems that do not require any outside power sources to operate, so they expect to be able to prove that they can meet existing safety criteria without redundant power sources. All of the iPWR systems envision using fuel assemblies that are essentially the same as commercial nuclear plant fuel elements - but they will be shorter and there will be fewer assemblies in each core. All of the systems have been designed for the post 911 security and safety considerations including the aircraft impact rule through the use of below grade installation.

NuScale Power Module

After those common traits, there are some differences in technical features that might be attractive to different kinds of customers. NuScale's module size is 45 MWe and it does not contain any coolant pumps; the system uses natural circulation both in operation and when shut down. The company expects that customers will want to plan for the eventual installation of 6 (270 MWe) or 12 (540 MWe) units on a single site.

NuScale has selected Kiewit as its Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. Together the two companies have completed a detailed, bottom up price estimate yielding an expected cost of between $4,000 and $4,400 per kilowatt of capacity, depending on whether the customer wants a 6 or 12 pack installation. NuScale has informed the NRC that it will be filing its license application in the first half of 2012. Much of its system and safety analysis work is backed up with actual data from the 1/3 scale integrated system loop (with electric heaters to simulate the nuclear core) installed at Oregon State University.

Westinghouse is a bit further out with its 335 MWe IRIS, but it plans to submit a license application by the end of 2014. Part of the delay is due to a company focus on completing the revised license application for the AP1000 and quickly resolving any of the inevitable engineering issues that pop up during plant construction.

mPower in underground containment

The integrated pressurized water reactor (iPWR) that is gaining the most buzz from the business community and political leaders, however, is the 125 MWe mPower™. Yesterday, Bechtel Corporation, one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, with 57,000 employees and $30.8 billion in 2009 revenue, announced that it was joining with B&W as a 20% partner in an exclusive alliance that they have branded as Generation mPower to build complete, turn-key power plants.

B&W has an already existing and ASME 'N-stamp' certified US manufacturing base and 50 years worth of experience in building nearly all of the components required for the small, modular light water reactors that power ships and submarines. Bechtel has either built or participated in major renovation projects at 64 of the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States.

The mPower™ modules will be about the same size as the NuScale modules, but each module will produce about 2.5 times as much power as a NuScale module because they include submerged reactor coolant pumps to provide forced flow through the core. The system is designed to supply a sufficient quantity of natural circulation to provide core cooling after shutdown without any pumps running, thus maintaining the passive safety characteristic. Like NuScale, Generation mPower expects that customers for its plants will probably want to plan to install multiple units on a single site, though they might start with just one or two and add additional units gradually over time. Generation mPower has informed the NRC that it will be submitted a design certification application by the end of 2012; that application might be filed at the same time as a construction and operating license for the first of a kind unit.

The iPWR projects are all positioning themselves to obtain licenses in the United States, to sell their first units to US customers, and to get the involvement of experienced nuclear utility companies. The project sponsors have determined that their smaller unit sizes will be attractive power sources for certain types of customers that would face an insurmountable barrier in trying to build one of the extra large plants. Modular power stations can be financed in phases with revenue generation increments that are more closely matched with demand growth. Several cooperative electric utility companies have joined in the user groups that have formed to help provide both mPower and NuScale with the customer point of view as the system designers complete their detailed work.

Both NuScale and Generation mPower have determined that the proposed unit sizes more closely match the capacity currently provided by aging coal plants and might be considered as appropriate replacements once those coal plants reach the end of their life. Both the Tennessee Valley Authority and FirstEnergy have expressed interest in finding out more about how the proposed modules might help them reuse existing sites that currently host obsolete coal power plants and are not even close to natural gas pipelines.

A growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size - extra large. Developing a broader range of system choices using nuclear fission energy could have a measurable impact on segments of the energy market that have been most often served by burning distillate fuel or natural gas. Small modular reactors offer a reason to be optimistic that human society will have access to all of the energy that it needs for increased prosperity for larger portion of the population.

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Posted by davd at 09:51 NZD

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink