Nuclear power stations

[Blackbird]

Nothing to do with bikes whatever, but I've just been looking at a French physics website where they have posted an amazing time sequence of the spread of radioactivity from Chernobyl: http://www.irsn.org/va/05_int/05_inf_1dossiers/05_inf_17_tchernobyl/05_inf_17_0tchernobyl.shtm#. Virtually no-one in the Northern Hemisphere escaped. I've always been profoundly glad to be living Down Under but it was announced that the Aussies are looking at up to 25 nuclear stations on the eastern seaboard.:gob: :gob: And which way do the winds blow???:shutup:

[placidfemme]

what the hell do they need nucular power stations for?

[Whynot]

what the hell do they need nucular power stations for?

to generate electricity ... :innocent:

[LilSel]

what the hell do they need nucular power stations for?

To generate enough power to meet demand. Australia may not have the natural resources that we do in order to generate power (Geothermal, Hydro, gas).

[ajturbo]

what the hell do they need nucular power stations for?

well they don't seam to have any water..... and solar power seams tooooo clean

[placidfemme]

ok... so for power... fair enough reason I guess...

And just so I understand... they are only a problem when they blow up right?

[Whynot]

all you could ever want to know about it :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

[Hitcher]

And just so I understand... they are only a problem when they blow up right?

Melt down, rather than blow up. But the chances of that happening are remote. The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

The most significant issue for nuclear power stations is all of the hot water they produce. Ideally they should be located in the middle of large population centres so that this boiling water can be reticulated for homes and for heating. Otherwise vast cooling lakes and canals are required to get the temperatures low enough before the water can be recycled into lakes or river systems.

Not every country in the world is like New Zealand, where most of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, like hydro, geothermal and (gahh) wind. Most of the world gets its electricity from burning coal. Australia produces 75% of its electricity from coal, other countries are totally dependent. Our current fixation on "climate change" and the emissions from fossil fuels mean that energy planners are having to look elsewhere. Until somebody figures out how to cheaply manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells or cracks the dark art of cold fusion, all of the alternative ways of producing electricity are known. And nuclear is a credible option that should not be discarded or lampooned by the tree-hugging, SUV-driving soccer mums amongst us.

[LilSel]

And just so I understand... they are only a problem when they blow up right?

It is very very rare that that happens. The ones that they are talking about making would use minimal amounts of uranuim and would be nowhere near the same size as ones in the US for example.
It causes less damaging effects to the enviroment etc (unless they blow up) than generation by means of coal/oil/gas.

We discuss it a lot at work.
Our main form of generation is hydro

[LilSel]

Melt down, rather than blow up. But the chances of that happening are remote. The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

The most significant issue for nuclear power stations is all of the hot water they produce. Ideally they should be located in the middle of large population centres so that this boiling water can be reticulated for homes and for heating. Otherwise vast cooling lakes and canals are required to get the temperatures low enough before the water can be recycled into lakes or river systems.

Not every country in the world is like New Zealand, where most of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, like hydro, geothermal and (gahh) wind. Most of the world gets its electricity from burning coal. Australia produces 75% of its electricity from coal, other countries are totally dependent. Our current fixation on "climate change" and the emissions from fossil fuels mean that energy planners are having to look elsewhere. Until somebody figures out how to cheaply manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells or cracks the dark art of cold fusion, all of the alternative ways of producing electricity are known. And nuclear is a credible option that should not be discarded or lampooned by the tree-hugging, SUV-driving soccer mums amongst us.

Very very very well put Hitcher!!!! :D:rockon:

[Blackbird]

The most significant issue for nuclear power stations is all of the hot water they produce.

Umm... and the safe disposal of waste for a few aeons.

Hopefully, the Aussies will bury it in their own backyard and not ditch it on some third world country that needs the cash. Might be a while anyway, the environmentalists are successfully stalling a pulpmill from being built in Tassie and they could probably have a field day with nukes.

[Jamezo]

Meh, modern nuclear power stations are inherently fail-safe, the kind of reactor that the Australians would use has multiple negative feedback mechanisms as part of the design. These reactors are far removed from anything related to the inherently un-safe Chernobyl type.

The danger, especially in this age, is that of deliberate attack, something not to be taken lightly.

[Jeremy]

Nothing to do with bikes whatever, but I've just been looking at a French physics website where they have posted an amazing time sequence of the spread of radioactivity from Chernobyl: http://www.irsn.org/va/05_int/05_inf_1dossiers/05_inf_17_tchernobyl/05_inf_17_0tchernobyl.shtm#. Virtually no-one in the Northern Hemisphere escaped. I've always been profoundly glad to be living Down Under but it was announced that the Aussies are looking at up to 25 nuclear stations on the eastern seaboard.:gob: :gob: And which way do the winds blow???:shutup:

We didn't escape either. But coal is worse. We burn 6000 million tonnes of coal each year. Coal is between 1 and 10 ppm Uranium. Ergo we release at least 6000 tonnes of uranium into the atmosphere each year normally. Which is about 12 tonnes of U235. Which is about 2.5x what Chernobyl is missing from it's reactors. And that's how much we dump each year, with an exponential growth pattern. Personally I'd rather live closer to a nuclear reactor than a coal one.

[James Deuce]

I don't care how it's generated, so long as I can turn a light on at night.

About time we set up Tesla's wireless DC power transmission system I reckon.

[James Deuce]

Meh, modern nuclear power stations are inherently fail-safe, the kind of reactor that the Australians would use has multiple negative feedback mechanisms as part of the design. These reactors are far removed from anything related to the inherently un-safe Chernobyl type.

The danger, especially in this age, is that of deliberate attack, something not to be taken lightly.

Fast breeder and pebble bed reactors would be the go.

[robnz]

Nothing to do with bikes whatever, but I've just been looking at a French physics website where they have posted an amazing time sequence of the spread of radioactivity from Chernobyl: http://www.irsn.org/va/05_int/05_inf_1dossiers/05_inf_17_tchernobyl/05_inf_17_0tchernobyl.shtm#. Virtually no-one in the Northern Hemisphere escaped. I've always been profoundly glad to be living Down Under but it was announced that the Aussies are looking at up to 25 nuclear stations on the eastern seaboard.:gob: :gob: And which way do the winds blow???:shutup:

kind of glad i left europe a couple of monhts before it happened. Dont want that kind of unhealthy glow thanks

[The Stranger]

Melt down, rather than blow up. But the chances of that happening are remote. The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.



Wasn't there an incident at Sellafield too?

What do they do with the waste these days?
Like doesn't it have to be stored for a farken long time?
How is it stored?

[sanchez]

How is it stored?

In concrete cases at places nobody would really want to visit. Most of aussie would be a perfect waste dump :rockon:

[Finn]

Being a small country with little money, we can't really afford one of those safe fusion power stations. However, there are some second hand one's available ex-soviet union that are quite cheap and will do the job fine. Of course you only get what you pay for and the chances of meltdown are quite high so best we stick one in Wellington. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

[McJim]

The biggest pollutant from Nuclear power is paranoia - we can't be choosy - we don't have enough electricity...and Nuclear power is clean...really clean...even requires less oil based lubricants than wind power...destroys fewer natural habitats than hydro...etc.

And contrary to NZ belief - you can't actually smell it on people's breath.

[sAsLEX]

To generate enough power to meet demand. Australia may not have the natural resources that we do in order to generate power (Geothermal, Hydro, gas).

They have decent gas and oil supplies dont they?


well they don't seam to have any water..... and solar power seams tooooo clean

They are a coastal nation, lots of water there, just have to harness the energy in a different way.

And solar needs lots of money and space as its not that efficient. I find it funny that the greens suggest solar panels are the solution of all our problems yet their manufacture invovles lots of heavy metals etc and in the overall scheme of things they are a -ve impact on the environment...... but wouldn't let facts get in the way of the green party would we?

[LilSel]

They have decent gas and oil supplies dont they?


One's that will last forever?? lol...
Nuclear power would provide a reliable future means IF they were to start running out etc (maybe 10 years.. maybe 20 years.. or more.. *shrug*)

[Blackbird]

I'm fairly neutral about nuclear energy, especially if we run short of other sources. It is pretty safe but any engineer who has done a Hazops for new equipment will know about the risk/consequences matrix, i.e. risk might be low but consequences may be very high. Irrespective of safety, another thing which has been grossly underestimated is lifecycle cost of a nuke station. In particular, safely dismantling irradiated plant when it is has to be decommissioned. There are some interesting articles on this which are pretty appalling.

[LilSel]

Im also in the middle on the subject.
I work for generator/retailer of power... so depending on which generation company is building it... depends if I swing either way :innocent: lol...

[Swoop]

kind of glad i left europe a couple of monhts before it happened. Dont want that kind of unhealthy glow thanks
Having travelled through that area 2 years afterwards...
(might see if the testicles glow in the dark tonight...)

...one of those safe fusion power stations. However, there are some second hand one's available ex-soviet union that are quite cheap and will do the job fine.
Since fusion has not been invented yet.... Fission is the only current option.
There is a multi billion dollar multi-country research deal just been announced the other day. Led by....??? france (surprise surprise) ((deliberate non capitalisation of word)).
Ex Soviet submarine reactors seem to be the cheap option. Unfortunately K-19 would have been the best bet for Wellington (the widowmaker...) but a Russion billionaire has purchased it.

[Street Gerbil]

Guys, as far as I know the only reason for the Tchernobyl explosion was an outrageous break of safety protocol. The only problem with the reactor itself was that it allowed to turn safety features off. Long story short, the communist party management was desperate to report something to the government for the anniversary of the revolution and they ordered an experiment potentially promising significant rise in power output. Since safety mechanisms didn't allow execution of such a dangerous operation, the shift boss ordered to override them. He gambled and lost.
I am 99.9% sure that Aussies know better than this and if their reactors will have a big red button with big red marking "safety override - do not touch" they will not fiddle with it.

[sanchez]

Guys, as far as I know the only reason for the Tchernobyl explosion was an outrageous break of safety protocol. The only problem with the reactor itself was that it allowed to turn safety features off. Long story short, the communist party management was desperate to report something to the government for the anniversary of the revolution and they ordered an experiment potentially promising significant rise in power output. Since safety mechanisms didn't allow execution of such a dangerous operation, the shift boss ordered to override them. He gambled and lost.
I am 99.9% sure that Aussies know better than this and if their reactors will have a big red button with big red marking "safety override - do not touch" they will not fiddle with it.

That, and the design of the reactor itself was bad, which is why only the russians built them.

[Finn]

Since fusion has not been invented yet.... Fission is the only current option.
There is a multi billion dollar multi-country research deal just been announced the other day. Led by....??? france (surprise surprise) ((deliberate non capitalisation of word)).
Ex Soviet submarine reacors seem to be the cheap option. Unfortunately K-19 would have been the best bet for Wellington (the widowmaker...) but a Russion billionaire has purchased it.

Yes it has. Mr Fusion, a product by Black & Decker. $99.95 with a 12 minute warranty. Available from leading department stores.

Thank you for the correction Professor Swoop. Actually, Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

[jrandom]

fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

Aye, to be sure, given that the only reliable method of fusion power generation pretty much lets it all out at once...

[terbang]

I'm still in the middle on this one as well. Saw lots of them in Europe and they seem to be accepted there. Used to often go around the Ekron holding pattern stacking up for approaches into Zurich. Spent a bit of time staring down the steaming cooling tower at around 4000ft, contemplating what happened at Chernobyl.

[SixPackBack]

Thank you for the correction Professor Swoop. Actually, Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

At room temperature?

[sAsLEX]

Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

H Bomb??????

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Finn
fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.







Aye, to be sure, given that the only reliable method of fusion power generation pretty much lets it all out at once...


Uh, last time I looked up, the local fusion power plant seemed to be running pretty well, and has been for a long time now. And it shows every sign of producing energy at a steady sustained rate for a long time to come.

[SPman]

The longest sustained controlled fusion reaction, I think is currently measured in nano seconds......gotta long way to go to get to the "Mr Fusion" stage of Back to the Future....


Meh, modern nuclear power stations are inherently fail-safe,

Fail-safe.........them's brave words.............shall we hang it up on the long list of other disasters that have been confidently deemed thus?


The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

About 13 (unofficial), ranging from a total fuckup in the Urals to several in the UK and USA of 3 mile island level.
These were older designs, but, where there is money and profits involved, past experience has shown that corners are cut and risks taken. The Simpsons scenario is closer to reality in some places than is comfortable.

West Australia is non- nuclear, but, with the new powers of the federal government, we fear they may force WA to have 2 NP stations in the Perth area.....

[Jamezo]

Screw cold fusion, when the ITER comes online it's expected to achieve a well over unity Q factor for sustained periods!

Don't besmirch the name of Tesla Jim2, his wireless transmission system would by necessity be an AC system. DC, eww, go fellate Edison!

[sAsLEX]

[/I]

Uh, last time I looked up, the local fusion power plant seemed to be running pretty well, and has been for a long time now. And it shows every sign of producing energy at a steady sustained rate for a long time to come.

Where well fucked if that craps out though aint we!

[k14]

Well if there's going to be a nuke in NZ they need to invent one that is about 200MW and can be ramped down to approx 50MW fairly easily. NZ is too small for a 380MW CCGT with a min load of 240MW let alone a 500MW+ nuke plant.

Even if we weren't nuke free I doubt you'd find a company that would want to build one. Even the government wouldn't have the funds to pay for one. Would take such a long time to pay off being so restrained by its output. Not to mention the impact it would have on the whole NZ electricity market economics.

[Hitcher]

Not to mention the impact it would have on the whole NZ electricity market economics.

Huntly is 1,000MW, so what's the problem? Build a couple of nukes and give the Waikato River, minus the dams, back to Tainui...

[k14]

Huntly is 1,000MW, so what's the problem? Build a couple of nukes and give the Waikato River, minus the dams, back to Tainui...
Nah mate. Huntly is 4 250MW generators. Very very big difference when the dynamics of the NZ electricity market is taken into account.

[cowpoos]

Nah mate. Huntly is 4 250MW generators. Very very big difference when the dynamics of the NZ electricity market is taken into account.
ain't 4 x 250 = 1000

I'm guessing there is more to your point about that.....and I'm curious?

[k14]

ain't 4 x 250 = 1000

I'm guessing there is more to your point about that.....and I'm curious?
Yeah you're talking about a power station. I'm talking about the individual generator units. Thats the key issue. All to do with how much power would be lost in a trip of a single unit. The more power lost in one go the more reserve (backup) power required. NZ has bugger all and with the current state of play, Otahuhu B being the biggest generator, it is very easy to see that it is even too big at 395MW.

Simple fact is that NZ is just too small to sustain such a big station. NZ is perfect for hydro (max size generator being 120MW) subsidised with coal and gas units of up to around 300MW. Wind has its place but isn't the be all and end all that the greens would have you believe. Infact in some instances the wind turbines have meant other renewable power sources (hydro) have had to spill water when the wind was blowing. Meaning we were no better off at all.

[Jamezo]

Agreed with k14. Nuclear power is only economic when you are big enough to be able to support multiple stations along with all the (significant) nuclear infrastructure that they require. Significant economies of scale, but a single plant in NZ doesn't have a shit show of being viable.

[James Deuce]

Don't besmirch the name of Tesla Jim2, his wireless transmission system would by necessity be an AC system. DC, eww, go fellate Edison!

I'm struggling to see how a stream of ionised plasma in the stratosphere could be regarded as AC, but full marks for picking up on the inherent bad taste in mentioning DC and Tesla in the same sentence.

[Skyryder]

Melt down, rather than blow up. But the chances of that happening are remote. The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

The most significant issue for nuclear power stations is all of the hot water they produce. Ideally they should be located in the middle of large population centres so that this boiling water can be reticulated for homes and for heating. Otherwise vast cooling lakes and canals are required to get the temperatures low enough before the water can be recycled into lakes or river systems.

Not every country in the world is like New Zealand, where most of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, like hydro, geothermal and (gahh) wind. Most of the world gets its electricity from burning coal. Australia produces 75% of its electricity from coal, other countries are totally dependent. Our current fixation on "climate change" and the emissions from fossil fuels mean that energy planners are having to look elsewhere. Until somebody figures out how to cheaply manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells or cracks the dark art of cold fusion, all of the alternative ways of producing electricity are known. And nuclear is a credible option that should not be discarded or lampooned by the tree-hugging, SUV-driving soccer mums amongst us.

So Hitch if one gets built near you...........you've got no problems??

Skyyrder

[Mr. Peanut]

Why don't we just become less dependant on electricity? :dodge:

[ManDownUnder]

Why don't we just become less dependant on electricity? :dodge:

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

Get the cash cost of a power station (Nuke or otherwise), apply it to energy conserving measures and se what happens...

$200million (as a number from out of my arse) applied to providing solar hot water heating to the ations homes would go a long long way to easing NZ's base load generation requirements. The hydros can then be used for the variable load (more than they currently are) and the amount of spinning reserve NZ needs would drop through the floor...

Or is that just too sensible?

Step 1) Mandate all new houses need a solar HW system
Step 2) Rebate the hell out of retrofitted Solar HW systems
Step 3) Smile at the reduced requirements for power stations, line upgrades (HT Transmission as well as local distribution)
Step 4) Or possibly step one) tell the whinging lobby groups to shut the hell up, accept they're going to lose some money in a move that's good for the economy and environment.

*ding* - "NEXT!"

[MisterD]

Virtually no-one in the Northern Hemisphere escaped.

I don't think I wanted to see that...I can still remember sitting at home (in the East of England) and watching the news showing the predicted cloud heading our way.

[R6_kid]

To generate enough power to meet demand. Australia may not have the natural resources that we do in order to generate power (Geothermal, Hydro, gas).

lol but they have a big fuckoff desert that does nothing but catch the sun's rays... in saying that though solar power does give off quite a bit of heat which wouldnt be good for fixing their droughts.

You also have to remember that with a situation like this where radiation has been spread over such a large area that it is going to effect europe for years to come. Sure the Chernobly babies were deformed etc, but my physics teacher had an interesting idea... There are time periods in history (pre-history even) that show signs of accelerated 'evolution', which from memory coincided to with a few 100 years of the either the ozone layer opening or switched in the earths polarity (i.e polar shift when north becomes south) which means that radiation is allowed to enter the lower atmosphere much more so than usual.

I think it will be interesting to see in 100 years how people in that area differ physilogically(sp) to say people in the southern hemisphere or areas not subjected to the extra radiation. Ok so more them will die from cancers and the like but i'm sure there will be some places where the people become bigger/stronger or atleast 'different' to the rest of us.

[Ixion]

So Hitch if one gets built near you...........you've got no problems??

Skyyrder

If the transmission lines were underground I'd have no worries living next door to one.

[lb99]

you keep away I want all that cheap land for myself, I can finally have an estate ( or a soverign principality):yes: ,Build the bastard down here, next to the spybase, the drop in property prices will get rid of all the tree hugging suv driving soccar moms and make it far easier for me to become a slumlord :done:

[Swoop]

Being a small country with little money, we can't really afford one of those safe fusion power stations. However, there are some second hand one's available ex-soviet union that are quite cheap and will do the job fine.
Ex Soviet Fusion power stations?
The ones that haven't been invented yet? Or are you referring to fission?
You are quite correct on the fact we will not be able to afford a fusion reactor. Perhaps we could divert the funds from the rugby stadium to purchase one?

Since fusion has not been invented yet.... Fission is the only current option.

Thank you for the correction Professor Swoop. Actually, Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.
The thread is about nuclear power stations. All those currently in operation are fission and my post was referring to the economically viable production of electricity from a fusion reactor. Research continues with international involvement and funding to develop such a thing.
I apologise for any confusion that my post may have caused. My context was in that of the threads title (commercial power stations rather than scientific experiments).

Infact in some instances the wind turbines have meant other renewable power sources (hydro) have had to spill water when the wind was blowing.
Very interesting. This would surely help placate the environmentalists who say that rivers are dying because of the water being diverted for the hydro production method?

[xwhatsit]

Bah, fusion is horrible shit.

I'm a huge fan of Miles Davis, but he really really badly fucked up when he invented fusion. Should've stuck to Milestones and Kind of Blue.

[Pixie]

I'm struggling to see how a stream of ionised plasma in the stratosphere could be regarded as AC, but full marks for picking up on the inherent bad taste in mentioning DC and Tesla in the same sentence.

Tesla's design was for power transmission via RF.Plasma was not involved

[Pixie]

I don't think I wanted to see that...I can still remember sitting at home (in the East of England) and watching the news showing the predicted cloud heading our way.

But you're not worried about all the uranium from the coal used in the UK,that you were exposed to while you were there?

It's like talking to a brick wall

[Pixie]

lol but they have a big fuckoff desert that does nothing but catch the sun's rays... in saying that though solar power does give off quite a bit of heat which wouldnt be good for fixing their droughts.

You also have to remember that with a situation like this where radiation has been spread over such a large area that it is going to effect europe for years to come. Sure the Chernobly babies were deformed etc, but my physics teacher had an interesting idea... There are time periods in history (pre-history even) that show signs of accelerated 'evolution', which from memory coincided to with a few 100 years of the either the ozone layer opening or switched in the earths polarity (i.e polar shift when north becomes south) which means that radiation is allowed to enter the lower atmosphere much more so than usual.

I think it will be interesting to see in 100 years how people in that area differ physilogically(sp) to say people in the southern hemisphere or areas not subjected to the extra radiation. Ok so more them will die from cancers and the like but i'm sure there will be some places where the people become bigger/stronger or atleast 'different' to the rest of us.

Sounds like an idea your physics teacher pulled out of his arse,as teachers are wont to do when talking to naive students.
I have never encountered this theory in any of the scientific literature I have read in 40 years

[Pixie]

Bah, fusion is horrible shit.

I'm a huge fan of Miles Davis, but he really really badly fucked up when he invented fusion. Should've stuck to Milestones and Kind of Blue.

And all those asian veges and mediterranean sauces

[James Deuce]

Tesla's design was for power transmission via RF.Plasma was not involved

Yes it was. The RF was a localised experiment. Wardclyffe towers projecting an arc of plasma up through the stratosphere and pinging off the ionosphere. Inter-Continental power transmission. Man was a genius.

[Jamezo]

Ah yes, I was confusing it with radiative RF power transmission (which is woefully ineffective).

Has anybody successfully demonstrated ionospheric transmission?

[Lou Girardin]

It's interesting that a 'clean, green' country like NZ is using the dirtiest methods of power generation. Hydro power aside, but that is less than environmentally friendly too.
We should be using nuclear generation already, but when the NZ public cling to their anti-nuclear fetish at all costs, it'll never happen.
Still, if they realise that the whole anti-nuclear issue was just a ploy to divert attention from the New Right take-over in the 80's, then they'll have to admit to themselves that they were truly shafted by Lange, Clark and Co.And admitting the truth would never do in NZ.

[James Deuce]

Has anybody successfully demonstrated ionospheric transmission?


There's this problem with the amount of air traffic in the stratosphere now.

But, one of the side effects is ozone production.

[Ixion]

Sounds like an idea your physics teacher pulled out of his arse,as teachers are wont to do when talking to naive students.
I have never encountered this theory in any of the scientific literature I have read in 40 years

Prolly thinking of Stephen Jay Gould and the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Very clever man. Very clever indeed.

[Pixie]

Prolly thinking of Stephen Jay Gould and the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Very clever man. Very clever indeed.

Or maybe Larry Niven's Protector,where the Protectors crashed near the Oklo natural nuclear reactor,so their infants and breeders would mutate and eventually become the human race.

[Cajun]

Personally i think nuclear power station is a good idea long term.

I mean greenys whine about wind power etc, but then say not in my backyard, they cause to much noise, eye sore etc etc.

In theory one power station could power whole of the country. (alot of infustrion[lines etc etc] would need to be put in place. And people when want to build dams, people wine about wildlife and lost of land and trees. Its gotta be one of the other.

And the whole thing about nz being nuclear free is a lot of bullshit,

half the machines in your hostibals put out more radiaton than a nuclear power station would[unless it goes bang, which is very rare indeed, and if you put plans in to places to help if worse does happen] i have also heard storys of nuclear materal being transhiped thru nz to usa.

People hear the word nuclear and assume the worse.

back in the early 90's the dairy board were offered two nuke subs to pay the russians bill.

[SPman]

Tesla's design was for power transmission via RF.Plasma was not involved

Was Suzuki?

[jonbuoy]

I went on a guided tour of Winfrith Nuclear power station when they had open days. All the airlocks and security was pretty impressive, they gave us a giger counter and an old alarm clock with the luminous dials, the background radiation in the plant was less than the clock needles at about an inch away. People still have those sat by their bedside tables. I still wouldn't want to be around one when some nutcase decides to turn off the cooling system or drives a 747 into it for a laugh.

[Hitcher]

alot of infustrion [lines etc etc] would need to be put in place.

Infrastructure?

[Cajun]

Infrastructure?

Thanks Mr H thats word i was meaning

[Lias]

I'm all for having nuclear reactors in NZ, if for no other reason than to make that twat Lange spin in his grave.

[Jamezo]

I'm puzzled to see why people believe a nuclear reactor would be remotely economical here. When you add in all the fuel processing infrastructure it's a dead loss, it can only be cost-efficient if part of a large-scale centralised program, for which we do not have the demand.

[speedpro]

Why not build nuclear power stations next to race tracks?

[James Deuce]

I'm puzzled to see why people believe a nuclear reactor would be remotely economical here. When you add in all the fuel processing infrastructure it's a dead loss, it can only be cost-efficient if part of a large-scale centralised program, for which we do not have the demand.

K14's tried to point that out every time this issue comes up. We'd need lots of small reactors to manage our energy requirements, but we can't actually afford the infrastructure, and even the smallest reactors produce too much energy to fit our network.

But then he is only an energy trader, so what would he know? Eh? Eh?

We need to bring Tesla back from the dead. That Edison bloke ruined electricity. Ruined it.

[u4ea]

As you all know:gob: i am not a roket scientist and am going to wander off the track a bit as to me this is more of an environmental issue than one of efficiancy!
Why oppose nuclear power( personally dont like the idea)?As mentioned the government doesnt have a rebate scheme for solar users:sunny: and the like and we are encouraged to recycle....halo.... what is happening with the stockpile of glass in the south island that has no -where to go.......and the state of our rivers and water ways is shocking!!!!!:angry:
Oh what about and all the mums and dads that have no qualms in using disposable nappies but bleet about the state of the environment:shit: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So even though I am a bit of a tree hugger I alone cannot do a dam thing to improve the state of our country and its wellbeing.......................:sick:

[James Deuce]

So even though I am a bit of a tree hugger I alone cannot do a dam thing to improve the state of our country and its wellbeing.......................:sick:

That's the issue right there. Each and every person has to take responsibility for what they can do to "improve the state of our country and its wellbeing". One simple step we can all take is to crush every plastic container down to the smallest size we can to reduce the volume they take up in landfills. Every little thing helps.

Blaming the Govt for no solar rebate is a cop out too. We're saving for a solar eletricity generator to power our hot water cylinder. Not a solar water heater, they're a crap idea in a temperate zone that used to be rain forest. Too much cloud cover, and no mechanism for storing excess energy. My goal is to replace our roof tiles with solar cells. Yes they are expensive and contain long lasting pollutants, but that line of opposition stems from a mentality that uses stuff once. There is no reason why solar cells can't be made to last for many decades, and given the lines of research in organically and nanotech grown solar cells, it may be that in 50 years we'll be growing them in situ.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/science/40971.html

[James Deuce]

Oh what about and all the mums and dads that have no qualms in using disposable nappies but bleet about the state of the environment:shit: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Number 1 was exclusively cloth nappies, number 2 was 50/50 thanks to multiple hospital admissions. Hospitals won't let you use cloth nappies. But then he was potty trained at 2 years, 4 months. No 3 will be in nappies for years, and I'll be buggered if I'm staying up until 2 in the morning scrubbing nappies.