Nuke power for NZ?

[Timber020]

What say you?

NZ needs more and more power all the time and the fact is that we cant keep damming rivers forever. (beisides, rivers are great.)
Coal and oil in my opinion is a no go, its expensive to keep going and does more damage than a kx500 on a golf green.
Geothermal is good but there is only so much we can harness.
Solar.......kinda like using a harley powerplant to break the sound barrier.
Wind. Great, windmills are pretty if theres one on a hill. But when you have a few thousand of them all over the countryside and coastline like you see in some places overseas, the appeal is lost very quickly. Not to mention how lovely they become when theres no wind.

Now according to some guys on here you could put 3 4stroke 250's together on a generator and make more power than the national grid could handle.

Which leaves Nuke power......okay we dont like it but its safer and environmentally less harmful that the others (as long as its serviced by people a little more skilled than 3rd world dollar a day technicians). Even some of the big international environmentalists are saying its the best choice.

What do you guys think?

[Ms Piggy]

I say...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Timber020]

Knee jerk reactions aside. why? Or what alternative would you suggest? We could get rid of auckland, but then where would all the people who hate motorsport (speedway, v8s etc) live?

[Joni]

I have to agree with CSL!

[Indiana_Jones]

I say we should let nuke ships to visit, but I don't really know about nuke power.

-Indy

[Ms Piggy]

Knee jerk reactions aside. why? Or what alternative would you suggest? We could get rid of auckland, but then where would all the people who hate motorsport (speedway, v8s etc) live?

To be honest I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it but I assure you that was no knee jerk reaction...my knees don't jerk anyway. There are just too many negatives to nukes anyway - pollution being the most obvious.

[Grumpy]

Nuke power might be "green" as they say, but I remain unconvinced of that, but the waste sure as hell isn't.

[avgas]

Actually, about the polution thing - its actually quite good. But i still say no about it.
Why? well the smallest power plant would oversupply NZ 6 times over - which is actually complete overkill. I went to a seminar on Nuclear Power last year, the conclusion was, that nuclear power in NZ was like making a 2000hp motorcycle - a awespiring thing, that has heaps of power.......but no real use.
I good point i brought up with one of the lecturers who was for the nuclear power scheme, was that suppy wasnt much of a problem he looked at me......then i pointed out that most of our usage was on antique technology.
Like how many people still use; ennificient lighting? old motors? hell most electrical wiring in NZ is over 50 years old now.
I mean you wouldnt turbo and NOS a BSA so you could ride with all the GSXRs. So why do people still use 100w bulbs? Why are lights left on all the time? Why do offices/schools/workplaces leave devices on 'standby' when they clearly wont be used in a 2hr period?

[Holy Roller]

Actually, about the polution thing - its actually quite good. But i still say no about it.
Why? well the smallest power plant would oversupply NZ 6 times over -

May be why they want to build the new pylons for the power that is not there

[Wonko]

Problems with Nuke's in NZ

Nuke's need cooling ponds to cool the water down. This produces waste heat into the ground and atmospher around the plant.

Fuel supply. Reliant on overseas for material to keep it going.

Waste removal. Do we want nuclear waste stored in NZ. Ruining our clean green image?

Site placement. Site must be earthquake prone free. Most of NZ is on a fault line so limit's the placement.

Maori would protest agains use. Poisioning of the mother land or something likewise. Also finding the land for one would be a pain in the arse as local maori would call part/all the land under the planned area sacred.

Powerstations generally have a 20- 25 year working life, afterwards the site is shut down and locked down until it is eather dismantled and radioactive parts are moved away and stored, or it has "cooled down" in 1000 years or so. So in 25 years time you need another one.

In regards to power overkill, you can get nuclear powerplants from 50 megawatts up to 2400+ megawatts

[Blakamin]

I reckon why not.... better than using all the fossil fuels... we aint gunna live forever without it.... and no-one has cold fusion yet....

ahh stuff it... lets just keep up with the rest of the 3rd world, burn coal and have power shortages....
what other "great" nation can't power a heart-lung machine without a diesel generator coz someone turned on a microwave....

[Blakamin]

So why do people still use 100w bulbs? Why are lights left on all the time? Why do offices/schools/workplaces leave devices on 'standby' when they clearly wont be used in a 2hr period?

why do companies make printers that cost less than the ink??? coz technology has come that far that we can... we are a throw away society.... we can bullshit on all we like but thats the way it is and thats the way it will stay... it's not the coldwar any more, peoples... we aint a russian target... everyone is a target.. whether they like it or not.. its a new enemy, why should we continue to spend billions on fossils when we could be a lot more friendly with not digging miles of shit up and burning it for a way to power what we got....
If we all want to live in the past, give up your phones, TVs, videos, dvd players, microwaves, stereos, stoves, radios, fridges....
not me...

how many nuclear powerplants are there in the world?
how many have had a meltdown...
how many coal burning powerplants?
how many have had fires?.... I could tell you of at least 3 in the morwell power region of victoria in the last 20 years... coal is pretty hard to put out...

[sedge]

Jeez guys, hasn't anyone ever heard of pebble bed reactors etc... You don't need some humongous 1950s water cooled monstrosity... Like everything else reactors have come along aways since 3 mile island you know (and you can't count places like Chernobyl which were ripped off from early American designs).

I'm not saying I'm pro-nuke, but for fecks sake, you can't make a decision until you've done some research for yourself and not relied on force-fed outdated propaganda.

Sedge.

[MrMelon]

Pebble bed reactors are where it's at. It's pretty fricken safe and efficient and doesn't pollute the environment.

Don't just take my word for it though.

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

[Storm]

Jeez guys, hasn't anyone ever heard of pebble bed reactors etc... You don't need some humongous 1950s water cooled monstrosity... Like everything else reactors have come along aways since 3 mile island you know (and you can't count places like Chernobyl which were ripped off from early American designs).

I'm not saying I'm pro-nuke, but for fecks sake, you can't make a decision until you've done some research for yourself and not relied on force-fed outdated propaganda.

Sedge.

I agree. Its far better to have a logical discussion than just bringing your prejudices to the table. Not stabbing at anyone, just feel this is one of those issues that makes the knees a bit itchy