elmarco 56 Report post Posted April 21, 2009 Wow - that's damn near 50% of respodents that are saying we are ready for it now! Small sample and obviously skewed, but I am more than a little surprised at the result so far. 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. There are around 400 commercial reactors running worldwide (and on the increase) and their safety record is actually pretty damn good. Accidents at nuclear plants are scrutinised in much more depth than any number of other industries (even non-nuclear accidents). I guess this is good (as the consequences of a serious f**kup are enormous), but bad in that some other industries can have worse individual accidents without the regulation and public condemnation. 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 Haha - I actually read that book! And damn it was scary how easily he did what he did.... Dead right though - nuclear energy gets compared alongside atomic weapons (and to a certain extent justifiably so) which does nothing but misinform the public. Ignorance is bliss? Maybe it is easier to say it is bad or dangerous without open debate, and put our collective heads in the sand over the issue. I also think it is one of those subject that tends to polarize people in one direction or the other. 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 Yes - and then consider that coal ash is also radioactive, and the particulates cause any number of respiratory diseases. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale, or any of the other accidents that are less well known were no walk in the park and do leave a long term impact, but how many miners die every year in Chinese coal mines? Lots.... 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 True - but only if the alpha and beta emitters are external. If you ingest an alpha emitter like Plutonium you are in some seriously deep sh*t.... Any radiation needs to be treated with extreme caution which is why they take so many precautions in plant design. 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. Also true - they switched off all the safety systems (for those that weren't aware - the test they were attempting was a good idea if planned and executed properly, but wasn't authorised or executed in any way sensibly and they didn't really understand the way the reactor design worked). But at least 50% of the issue should be attributed to the dodgy design in the first place. Positive void coefficient (means it produces more power when you actually want less - ie: when it is overheating) and no containment building was always a dunb idea. Guess the Soviet system is also partly responsible for permitting such a flawed mentality about safety - and this wasn't the only example. I don't think Chernobyl was the only reason for bad publicity though.... Just look up "Nuclear Accidents" in Wikipedia - there are loads of incidents that most have never heard of. The best wind density for power generation is in the south island and lower north island, problem is the population sucking the power is in AUCKLAND. The Uk is the same - wind in Scotland population in London New Zealand currently ranks pretty high in the world stakes for renewable energy due to all of our hydro and geothermal capacity. France has the highest nuclear capacity with 80% from nuclear and no accidents 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?? I think they generally accepted best location (although maybe not the first) was on the Kaipara - the current supply lines feeding Auckland are mainly from the south and this limits how much power can be fed in via the existing network and also creates higher risk of major failure. I didn't realise that we had actually laid pipework though! Yes, we do rank very highly in the renewable energy tables, but it can be a little sketchy on reliability for base load generation. I'm not saying that nuclear energy is THE answer, but one worthy of discussion at a higher level in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike.Gayner 0 Report post Posted April 22, 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. A Generation III reactor can be run safely by well trained monkeys - the fail-safe safety properties mean you'd have to be trying really damn hard to cause a meltdown. And even in the case of a meltdown (the worst-case scenario for a nuclear plant), there would be next to no leakage of waste products. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JBimmer 0 Report post Posted April 23, 2009 Its amazing that 29 of us have reactors in our garages =D They should just have them in australia and pipe the energy across to us. That way if something blows up. well its only the aussies... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
e30plz 1 Report post Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Good thinking, lolol. Or maybe just build one way, way way, way way out at sea. If Nuclear Power is as safe as you guys say it is, I say yes to Nuclear Power in NZ. Edited April 23, 2009 by E30ONP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westy 614 Report post Posted April 23, 2009 Do they build reactors small enough? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmarco 56 Report post Posted April 23, 2009 Do they build reactors small enough? Toshiba are actually planning to install one in the middle of bumf**k Alaska to power one town which currently uses diesel generators. So, yeah they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S The actual reactor would be located in a sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground, while the building above ground would be 22 x 16 x 11 m (72 × 52.5 x 36 ft) in size. This power plant is designed to provide 10 Megawatts of electrical power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Young Thrash Driver 1020 Report post Posted April 26, 2009 US Airforce fiddled around with nuclear power for aircraft for a while, theres some stuff floating around on wiki about it... The small Alaskan reactor is 3872m^3, I wonder how good its shielding is (even considering it'll be hidden underground) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DRTDVL 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2009 Now these things F@!King rock my socks: http://englishrussia.com/?p=2355 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
huff3r 347 Report post Posted April 30, 2009 Main problem with nuclear power is when the reactor starts getting old and requires maintenance. When this happens the decision must be made : 1. Close the reactor, cover with concrete and make a large area of land unusable for 1000s of years. 2. Spend millions, possibly even millions on development of robotic systems to renovate and repair the inside of the reactors... no way any human could ever do it, no-one could survive in there. This is what most the early generation reactors are going through at the moment, and the truth is it is cheaper to close the reactor and build a new one. And we all know what happens when one option is cheaper (i.e new over recycled)... expect wastelands surrounding concreted bunkers like chernobyl all over the place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DRTDVL 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2009 launch it into the sun! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ari Gold Report post Posted April 30, 2009 launch it into the sun! This Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driftit 2078 Report post Posted July 20, 2010 Haha who dredged this up then realised that it is over 1 year old? Then deleted their thread? Let it die. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[email protected] 0 Report post Posted July 20, 2010 How odd. Interesting question still, suppose it has more relevance with the ETS shite right now. Maybe if the new taxes were going on a nuclear power for NZ it would make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant 4 Report post Posted July 20, 2010 Haha who dredged this up then realised that it is over 1 year old? Then deleted their thread? Let it die. What I am guessing happened is that someone voted on this, and this bumped it back to the top, rather than someone posting and then deleting it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Simon* Report post Posted July 20, 2010 Hate old polls. Some noob voted Closed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
