Nuclear Power in NZ...?

[pois0n]

Sorry to double post

If the government did legalise nuclear power tomorrow, not one power company would start building a plant anyway. They haven't built many nuclear plants in the US in the last 15 years because of the expense.

[ZK-KAG]

Zoltuger...Couldnt agree more!

@ Waste, Im sure we can find some place to put it.
@ Ulterior motive...At least we have uranium nice and close
@ Nuclear ships. There has never been an accident with a nuclear ship from what I can tell... NZ is islolating itself in that we have bad relations with the US.
@ Situation. As long as its out of site (bar a few people) then I dont see the problem. There have been 2 accidents, both avoidable.

But as we all agree it will never happen in NZ, and if it does not for a very very very long time...

[pois0n]

QUOTE(ZK-KAG @ Sep 6 2007, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zoltuger...Couldnt agree more!

@ Waste, Im sure we can find some place to put it.
@ Ulterior motive...At least we have uranium nice and close
@ Nuclear ships. There has never been an accident with a nuclear ship from what I can tell... NZ is islolating itself in that we have bad relations with the US.
@ Situation. As long as its out of site (bar a few people) then I dont see the problem. There have been 2 accidents, both avoidable.

But as we all agree it will never happen in NZ, and if it does not for a very very very long time...

Nuclear ships: Is it such a bad thing not wanting a big fat US bullseye in the middle of Auckland? Anywhere the US goes, the terrorism target follows.

Waste: Yeah we find somewhere to put it, but while it is there it's a big fat target. What happends if there's an accident at a storage facility? Awesome, nuclear kangaroos.

Yeah the situations were avoidable, but they happen. It's not relevant that they are avoidable. The relevancy is that accidents happen and the effects such an accident would have on the country. Does it matter if Chernobyl type disasters happen every 100 years or 1000? No, it just matters that it did happen.

[chopper_nut]

Just build the bloody thing out in the middle of nowhere where nobody would see it, or know about it. Notice how the nuclear accidents have been down to poor managment not poor equipment. Where there is a will, there is a way. We just need to get off our arses and get into it. I miss the US warships comming here with the helicopters on the back!

[pois0n]

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Sep 6 2007, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice how the nuclear accidents have been down to poor managment not poor equipment.

Ahh, no they haven't.

[chopper_nut]

Yeah well Russian equipment never has been that trustworthy has it?

[pois0n]

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Sep 6 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah well Russian equipment never has been that trustworthy has it?

There's been a few instances of poor equipment in north america too. Although equipment has improved over the years and is significantly safer than it was in previous decades, human error can't be avoided (past a certain extent) and that's what caused most of the accidents.

[creator2003]

Yeah and could you trust the power company now they let auckland go down from one u bolt or the other stupid things they do, yeah id rather no power than acouple of idiots sitting there like homer simpson gggggrrrrrrr drible drible at the controls of a time bomb ..
NZ i would think is not so far up the USA @ssses like many other countrys ,and they know that we stand together and dont need to brown tounge there polices or ships ,they treat us the way they do because we as such a little island stood up to them .
oh and if i ever want to see big battle ships you can just go to oz and see them there when they visit "thats safer than them coming here "

[chopper_nut]

Nah, your all a bunch of pussies blah blah blah!!

[h290master]

Hey look on the bright side if any thing goes haywire we will all get to glow in the dark and i agree with you chopper nut

[HardCorePawn]

So you want to put a nuclear reactor or two right on top of one of the worlds most active volcanic/seismic regions? are you mental?

3 mile island and Chernobyl may have been 'man-made' problems... but last time I checked, we have no real control over earthquakes and the like...

[jastheace]

QUOTE(Naki @ Sep 11 2007, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean they are building Hamton Downs right now - as for nuclear power - doubt it will happen here there are enough resource consent issues getting a wind farm, hydro power approved let alone nuclear.

yeah but look how long it has taken, at least 3 years of resource consent issues, and then i can guarantee that there will be someone complaining about the noise when they get it built

[Grumble]

QUOTE(jastheace @ Sep 10 2007, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah but look how long it has taken, at least 3 years of resource consent issues, and then i can guarantee that there will be someone complaining about the noise when they get it built

Absolutely we should go nuclear.

With the oil production peak approaching, increasing energy requirements, and a lack of easily accessible fossil fuels within reach, we are going to be in the crapper if we don't find an energy source that doesn't need to be shipped from a shrinking resource base in the middle east. For the record, bio-fuel is just a stupid idea- environmental loads are high for the yield returned.

Oh, but it should be located close to where the energy is being consumed. Save on power lines and all that stuff.

Stick it in central Auckland.

[Airwolf]

Normally I stay out of political debates but this one has quite a few loop holes to it and consequances that most on this forum have never experianced or for that matter were not alive to witness.

Chernobyl 1986, Radiation spread over most of Northern Europe even deteched in sheep in Wales. Now its doubtful that you could prove a increase in lukemia or cancer in those areas because of all the other potential sources.
Just think about what would happen with a Earthquake or Volcanic eruption in New Zealand, dont say they wont happen Edgecumbe 1987, Napier 1931, even more recently in Te Anau thats just the larger ones. Volcanoes got several sitting in the middle of the North Island and one out in Taranaki along with a active thermal area in Rotorua/Taupo. 1886 Tarawera, 1995/96 Ruapehu heck anyone of them has erupted sometime in the last 100-200 years and the European settlers have only been here for a couple of seconds in geological time.
You only have to look at the Ash spread from the Ruapehu eruptions of 95/96 to see how a Nuclear Accident would spread or even where the Taupo pumice lies.
I laugh when someone says it was a once in 100 or 1000 year event, they said that about the Northland floods this year and Last along with several other events. Once in 100years ok sweet we are safe now for another 100 years.....oops sorry we got that wrong.

Then there is the waste where do we put that? I know perfect location just dump it in a volcanoe to be incinerated, just hope the volcano dont cough or better still bury it in the ground until a Earthquake brings it back up again.

I quite agree that maybe it will be safer to stick it in Auckalnd since thats where most of the power sucking goes and its also got the lowest risk of Earthquake in New Zealand. Couple of dormant volcanos no worries you wont need a Nuke power station once Auckland gets leveled by a volcanoe. And then there is the increased Terror threat having a nuke do we really want to become that paranoid?

Just takes one accident and New Zealand becomes history.

But then again look at the cr@p NZ has pumped into the waterways and the amount of wastful rubbish produced at the attitude of some people quite happy to say no yet are the biggest wasters on the planet. So quick to jump on the bandwagon yet so slow to realise it may be a dangerous wagon with a loose wheel. And guess who is promoting Nuclear Power? Mr Invader we use the most oil in the world for our lifestyle.

[ardypilot]

Normally I stay out of political debates

I was waiting for you to post here, although this time you have some quite valid points. I agree with you, it seems mindless to build a nuke station with the potential of creating a massive diaster in unstable ole' New Zealand.

However, with regards to comments about Auckland, it does sound like you are suffering from tall poppy syndrome a bit

[SUBS17]

There is better alternatives in development at the moment that are far better than nuclear energy.

[pois0n]

QUOTE(Trolly @ Sep 7 2007, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However, with regards to comments about Auckland, it does sound like you are suffering from tall poppy syndrome a bit

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

[Airwolf]

QUOTE(pois0n @ Sep 12 2007, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

Yes I was wondering about that comment too?

Do you remebr the power cut in the Auckland CBD back in 1998 or some of the power shortages of the early 1990s? Guess you dont realis that most of the power for Auckland comes from the South Island Hydro Lakes via a cable under the cook straight. Auckland is the biggest power hungry city in New Zealand.
Of course if a power station was built it would be down here in the south island jst so some Wellington politician could wonder why things glow in the dark during a southerly blow after a big earthquake. Makes more sense to build it near the biggest demand and save on the transmission lines and then we can all live safe in the knowledge our power hungery lifestyle carries on. Leaving us in the South with the cleaner Hydro lakes and keeps the risk to a minimum. Not in my backyard though.

My father served on Nuclear Submarines for the british navy and died of a rare bone cancer they say was not a result of radiation do your really think that Nuclear power is safe?

[Alex]

QUOTE(Trolly @ Sep 7 2007, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However, with regards to comments about Auckland, it does sound like you are suffering from tall poppy syndrome a bit

Hahahahah, thats a bit rich. You think we'd (or me at least) honestly think that way about Auckland?

Alex

[ardypilot]

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

I quite agree that maybe it will be safer to stick it in Auckalnd since thats where most of the power sucking goes and its also got the lowest risk of Earthquake in New Zealand. Couple of dormant volcanos no worries you wont need a Nuke power station once Auckland gets leveled by a volcanoe.

Lowest risk of earth quake in NZ- sarcasm? Auckland getting levelled by a volcano... sounds like TPS to me, but what do I know.

To be honest, what do I care either? If someone decides to build a nuclear power plant in Auckland, nothing I say is going to affect it. It seems pointless discussing it, lol