elmarco 56 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Seeing as the 23rd anniversary of Chernobyl is this week, and there is a big push globally to reduce carbon emissions I thought it would be a good time to see what everyone thinks about nuclear power (specifically in NZ, but an opinion on it generally or other country specific is valid). Nuclear has been a dirty word for a long time now - basically since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (although those aren't the only accidents). Having said that, there are many new designs that take safety to a whole other level by using natural phenomena as opposed to mechanical systems for emergency core cooling. I personally think that it will make big contribution to the future low carbon energy mix worldwide. Solar, wind, and hydro are all great, but are pretty reliant on the right conditions and not good candidates for base load generation (hydro might be an exception there in NZ anyway). Will it happen in NZ? I don't think it will in the short or even medium term, but I also think it shouldn't be ruled out, and we need to start talking about it. It will take a long time to get up to speed with the technology from where we are today and we will need to draw heavily on overseas engineering experience / expertise. The Americans are no longer the leader in this area (France and Japan are) and even they are having to play catch up - so imagine where little old NZ sits..... Your thoughts?? And for those that think NZ is nuclear free - think again. There are thousands of industrial and medical instruments out there that rely on radioactive sources to operate (not to mention domestic smoke detectors) - we just don't have nuclear power, uranium mining or heavy industrial nuclear research / manufacturing activities here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jamez 2147483647 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 nuclear power FTW! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cress 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Nuclear power is the way of the future, in either fission or fusion forms. Especialy with battery powerd cars, buses, trucks etctrying to make it mainstream. Its a nice idea making hybrid and full battery powerd vehicles, but where is that extra power demand going to come from. Not from our current sources, they can barely keep up. The north Island is so reliant on south island power, becuase the north cannot produce enough. Thats my two cents worth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DRTDVL 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 http://www.last.fm/music/Jello+Biafra+and+.../_/Atomic+Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLACK DORIS 9 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) I'm sure I saw somewhere that nuclear power generation is actually very safe. The problem was disposing of the radio active waste/by-products. Apparently Teslar had some crazy device that would pull electricity out of the stratosphere (???) and would have been available freely to everyone. Guess that idea didnt sit well with energy suppliers... and was never heard of again. Edited April 20, 2009 by BLACK DORIS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kerrynzl 3 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Comparing "Nuclear power with a Nuclear bomb" is like comparing an "open fire with dynamite" Yes we can all be fooled with fear an ignorance [ I hope I don't get burned at the stake for this ] The most dangerous common element on this planet is "People" [ the world is under threat while there is a breeding pair of humans ] check this out about a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_boy_scout Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DRTDVL 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) we had a professer at uni who did a study on the number of that died of natural power sources vs Nuclear power. he was commenting that roughly estimated on a high side 10,000 people have died directly and indirectly from Chernobyl and there was a single dam break in china that killed 400,000... Overall natural power generation was much deadlier to people and the local ecology than nuclear Edited April 20, 2009 by DRTDVL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ari Gold Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Hell yes to nuclear. Has anyone visited the site out at Kaipara where NZ's reactor was going to be? All the pipes for cooling etc are still in the ground and head out to sea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Simon* Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Hell yes to nuclear. Has anyone visited the site out at Kaipara where NZ's reactor was going to be? All the pipes for cooling etc are still in the ground and head out to sea. Ha we could heat the water on the West Coast to tropical temperatures as a nice biproduct Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*Glenn* 854 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Hell yes to nuclear. Has anyone visited the site out at Kaipara where NZ's reactor was going to be? All the pipes for cooling etc are still in the ground and head out to sea. Which Prime Minister was responsible for that "cock up" ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ari Gold Report post Posted April 20, 2009 He was once drunk in a television interview, if that's a clue Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kerrynzl 3 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 Which Prime Minister was responsible for that "cock up" ??? It isn't a cock-up! Most Steam-Turbine generators use a "Rankine" [closed] cycle where the water [ or in some cases ammonia ] is superheated [ it can be via nuclear / coal / oil etc ] then it goes through a turbine / generator then it is cooled again to be recirculated Most of the "smoke" you see from smoke-stacks is steam from the cooling cycle [ most power plants are located near a water supply for cooling ] Nuclear energy [ heat fission ] is very cheap but also very inefficient. Only about 3% of the BTU content is converted to Electricity. A gas turbine with a steam turbine [ powered of the exhaust heat ] is about 65% efficient Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*Glenn* 854 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 It isn't a cock-up! Most Steam-Turbine generators use a "Rankine" [closed] cycle where the water [ or in some cases ammonia ] is superheated [ it can be via nuclear / coal / oil etc ] then it goes through a turbine / generator then it is cooled again to be recirculated Most of the "smoke" you see from smoke-stacks is steam from the cooling cycle [ most power plants are located near a water supply for cooling ] Nuclear energy [ heat fission ] is very cheap but also very inefficient. Only about 3% of the BTU content is converted to Electricity. A gas turbine with a steam turbine [ powered of the exhaust heat ] is about 65% efficient What I meant was...who started a project that didnt get finished at our expense Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deane30 30 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 I'm a fan as soon as it becomes economically viable. I already work with radiation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucan 196 Report post Posted April 20, 2009 haha theres a bit of a difference between alpha or beta particles in a smoke detector and gamma rays from a nuclear "accident" But yeah im all for nuclear power...just put the plant wayy out in the wopz haha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*Glenn* 854 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Our wind is predominently from the South West... put it at Cape Rianga Edited April 21, 2009 by *Glenn* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westy 614 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 Hell yes to nuclear. Has anyone visited the site out at Kaipara where NZ's reactor was going to be? All the pipes for cooling etc are still in the ground and head out to sea. Dont know about that one but the gas plant they're planning is at the end of our road. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingkarl 136 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 We can blame the bad stigma Nuclear energy has on a couple of Russian noobs who cocked it up for the rest of us. It's perfectly safe as long as you don't have a couple of meatheads running the reactor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ari Gold Report post Posted April 21, 2009 Dont know about that one but the gas plant they're planning is at the end of our road. sh*t really? That's not cool, your place is mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westy 614 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 Meh its sweet. Its nearly 4k away. So long as they dont make it a nuke plant! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjac001 0 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 They should make a bio mass plant or convert meremere to burn our Rubbish we got plenty of that going to landfill Average Aucklander probably throws away enough rubbish annually to power their house for 6 months...lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kerrynzl 3 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 They should make a bio mass plant or convert meremere to burn our Rubbish we got plenty of that going to landfill Average Aucklander probably throws away enough rubbish annually to power their house for 6 months...lol Personally, I would like to built such a project. But you wouldn't want to use old technology as the Meremere plant. All I need now is to get my fingers into Govt funding and away I go One of the methods of cleaning up Coal [ for power generation ] is to run it through a gasifier to produce "syngas" [ H2CO ] When this Syngas burns with O2 you end up with H2O & CO2 [ very clean ] Texaco built a Gasification plant many years ago just to clean up landfills [ the by-product was electricity ] Read the front page of todays Herald about burning plastic bags ,A plastic Bag has about the same BTU content as Fuel Oil [ and can be cleaned up easily ] Hey Glenn, sorry about misreading your reply before. The real cock-up was when the Lange govt went nuclear free Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OLLIE 26 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 yeah I read that article about burning plastic bags, it seems a bit of a no brainer. Personally i like re-using them but as soon as they get a hole i'd love to be able to put them in my recycling bin, the sh*t people put in those big blue recycling bins anyway the sorters might as well separate the plastic bags too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M325is 0 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) They should make a bio mass plant or convert meremere to burn our Rubbish we got plenty of that going to landfill Average Aucklander probably throws away enough rubbish annually to power their house for 6 months...lol Doesn't Greenmount do this? It supplies a handful of businesses/residents in the area. Pretty cool. Cant wait till its a park though, lol. Mighty River power generates electricity at two Auckland landfill sites, Greenmount and Rosedale, and at Silverstream near Wellington. The methane gas produced by the landfills is combusted in turbo-charged gas engines to produce electricity. By using it to generate electricity, Mighty River Power last year produced 626 million kWh of electricity, representing 95 percent of New Zealand’s total landfill gas generation. Methane conversion at the three plants reduces atmospheric emissions equivalent to nearly 400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, providing a significant contribution to national greenhouse gas reduction targets. Edited April 21, 2009 by M325is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kerrynzl 3 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 Best solutions would be nuclear in fastest growing areas - Manukau is a prime candidate - big and growing population - fallout would go east due to prevailing ( missing the majority of the population ). First proposed site for nuclear was south head on the Manukau harbour - strategically located to wipe out the entire population of Auckland- just where do our politicians hang out?? Yeah! I agree, Nuke Manakau! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
