Good Article on Nuclear Power and Middle Eastern Oil

[FrostyBoy]

I think, secretly, Labour is fully aware they need to build a Nuclear Plant, regardless what the people think.

They need to make steps, as the Newspaper points out, to educate the population that we need to secure a longer term source of energy.
Educate the green people that Nuclear Plants are (and this is my opinion) more environmentally friendly than Hydrodams (considering the amount of damage it does to the wildlife).

Then if done correctly, and a prime spot is chosen (North Island Desert?), NZ can start building a Nuclear Plant.

If the education doesn't work, they have a back-up plan - Strangle us by the throats. 1. Blackouts and high power costs; eventually, people are going to get sick and tired of freezing to death during winter because they can't afford to pay the bills. The government won't allow Hydrodam's as an alternative because 1. it costs too much and 2. it damages the wildlife. While we have plenty of coal; they'll never consider that as an option.
We also have plenty of natural gas sources, but that is damn expensive; you might aswell go ahead and build a nuclear plant, which would provide a lot more energy for the same price.
Sure, wind power is an option, but not when the entire country is in need of power.

I heard last year, I can't remember exactly, but officials said that by the year 2015 or thereabouts, there will not be enough energy to supply all the needs in NZ; and mind you, it takes a long time to build a nuclear plant. Those new wind turbines being put up around the North Island are just to ease the stress for a few more years.

[Odin]

You Kiwi's need to get rid of your irrational fear of all things nuclear. Most of the anti-nuclear BS is a result of fearmongering by the eco-luudite types. It is a choice between energy from nuclear and energy from fossil fuel (untill we get fusion energy, which will be a while because it will never get government funding here as long as the Coal Lobby is around). Wind, solar, and geothermal energy will never be enough to power a modern society, and I am against dams because they do great harm to river ecosystems. The anti-nuclear people are shooting them selves in the foot because it will be a coal or oil power plant that is built instead. Morons.

[FrostyBoy]

I guess it all stemmed from the Bomb on Hiroshima and the radioactive effects it had on people in the early days.

People in NZ are afraid of two things when it comes to Nuclear Plants; 1. They don't want to see a repeat of the Russian Plant exploding and 2. Nuclear Waste. (Though South Island, West Coasters won't notice the difference with their children ).

I'm curious, where do they store nuclear waste? Underground incased in lead?

[RGBVideo]

I'm curious, where do they store nuclear waste? Underground incased in lead?

Big to-be-sealed underground halls.

more environmentally friendly than Hydrodams (considering the amount of damage it does to the wildlife).

Environment isn't hurt by dams. Invididual creatures are.

I heard last year, I can't remember exactly, but officials said that by the year 2015 or thereabouts, there will not be enough energy to supply all the needs in NZ; and mind you, it takes a long time to build a nuclear plant. Those new wind turbines being put up around the North Island are just to ease the stress for a few more years.

It could be worse. You could have, f.e., a land border with Russia. The hippies in Finland have been obstructing the construction of a fifth nuclear reactor for so long that we've run out of domestic energy production ways -- so, in order to protect our environment from high-tech, impossible-to-meltdown nuclear plants, we're importing power from Chernobyl-styled nuclear plants (and thus, keeping them up and running) like Sosnovyi Bor, located right next to our own border

you can use far more then just uranium to create nuclear power.

Like what? Any examples?

[Dis]

What you guys need to realize is nuclear energy is not a cure all. You'd think I would support it (being in the navy nuclear power industry), and I do to a certain extent. But it's just not feasible to go 100% nuclear power.

We still have no place to store this stuff. And I don't support Yucca mountain. I don't want nuclear waste next to my favourite brothels. My favourite ladies might grow an extra breast or something.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dis

We still have no place to store this stuff. And I don't support Yucca mountain. I don't want nuclear waste next to my favourite brothels. My favourite ladies might grow an extra breast or something.

If the stuff is burried it isn't going to grow legs and walk all over Nevada, this is solid stuff in containers, it stays put. It's not radioactive dust that blows everywhere. You would have to get right up by the waste containers to get harmful levels of radiation.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Odin


If the stuff is burried it isn't going to grow legs and walk all over Nevada, this is solid stuff in containers, it stays put. It's not radioactive dust that blows everywhere. You would have to get right up by the waste containers to get harmful levels of radiation.

Yucca Mountain is a seismically active region. It will eventually leak into the groundwater.

There are actually 2 states in the U.S. with no seismic activity. But you never hear about storing the waste there (yes I know they also get a lot more rainfall which poses many problems)

[Kuciwalker]

Why not just store the damn things in lead boxes in warehouses above ground, for chrissake?

[Dis]

because they eventually will leak.

The idea is to put them in the desert (because politicians act like no one lives out here), so when they leak, they don't affect anyone. Or at least not anyone important- like an important voter base.

[Kuciwalker]

Then if it starts to leak patch it.

[Dinner]

Dis, you recycle most of it and keep burning it in reactors. BTW this stuff is almost entirely solid in special containers, in special buildings. Solid state defusion just isn't going to happen in those conditions.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then if it starts to leak patch it.

Exactly. All this talk about designing nuclear waste storage that will last for 10,000 years, I'd be surprised if no better way is found in 100.

[Chemical Ollie]

A good business idea would be to aquire an old Russian sub cheap, install an electricity generator turbine and park it in the harbour of Gothenburg, then use its reactor to supply the city with electrity and remote heating.

Too bad it isn't politically and legally feasable.

[Sandman]

A lot of nuke supporters here.

Micro generation and clean carbon.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Odin
Wind, solar, and geothermal energy will never be enough to power a modern society,

Just because the proponents of the traditional power generation industry keep saying this, does not make it true. And you should not repeat their lies.

...and I am against dams because they do great harm to river ecosystems.

who said "fearmongering by the eco-luddite types"?

Canada gets 60% of its power from hydro-electric plants. Thats why we call electricity "hydro".

I am not rabidly anti-nuke. But my experience is that they are megaprojects where the real costs are hidden. I'd be very curious to see a private industry ante up with a design-build-operate-maintain nuclear power plant, where they had to supply the fuel, look after the tailings, store the spent fuel rods, on a 99-year contract; getting paid a CPI-adjusted rate for power.

The actual costs for nuclear power in Ontario, have been far higher than the revenue it generates. The nuclear plants are responsible for the huge debt Ontario Hydro racked up. Operating costs were much higher than projected, and the capital replacement of plant was required much faster than projected. Capital maintenance was much more expensive than projected. And so on.