Poll: Nuclear or Non-Nuclear power?

[Andrew Massie]

Hey Team!
Just a wee poll... As intelligent people, I'm quite interested in our opinions on a potential Nuclear power station near Auckland.

It would:
a) Meet power needs where the majority of consumption is
b) Negate the need for big pylons in the Waikato
c) Meet the country's need for a source that is constant (unlike lakes)
d) Be carbon neutral
e) Be a lot lot safer than Chernobyl

However, there are the obvious environmental considerations, and weapon-grade waste.

Try not to take the country's opinion into consideration, I want YOUR opinion!

Cheers

Andrew

[03Stormchaser]

Im very 'Pro' Nuclear if you can put it like that. Best place put the plant?? Probably the Waikato or Canterbury. New Zealand needs to start thinking big, becasue in 20 years or so I think we will be kicking ourselves as to why we didnt do some thing about power. Whether it be Nuclear or not I think we will have shortages if nothing is done.

[Michael]

Doesnt matter what we have whether it be all about emissions,views,enviroment,lack of funds whatever some birdbrain will find us an extra cost to pass on to us

[mkII_grande]

Definitely NOT nuclear power in NZ!!! Does the name Chernobyl ring any bells?

[Willoughby]

NZ doesn't have the funds for this...

[Andrew Massie]

Definitely NOT nuclear power in NZ!!! Does the name Chernobyl ring any bells?

You read the first post? Nuclear power stations use coolants such as helium which are far far safer than traditional coolants and prohibit catastrophic meltdown.

Chernobyl, Chernobyl! Hmmm.. Russian 60s technology with all safetys disconnected and experimenting WOULD lead to an accident. You cannot compare that incident to today's technology.

It's like saying "Don't go in airships, remember the Hindenburg!" Blimps nowadays are filled with Helium, which unlike the Hindenburg, was filled with explosive Hydrogen.

New Zealand has the blinders on with this one. The equivalent power using uranium rods compared to burning coal is a phenomenal difference. And carbon neutral.

New Zealand's willing to spend $100,000,000 on huge 400kV pylons through the Waikato when they wouldn't need to build them with a source of energy near Auckland. AND with a 200-2000MW output depending on what is built, would be a huge investment in NZ's future supply. Our largest generator, Manapouri, generates 850MW. The power has to come from somewhere. I'm all for energy efficiency, but I'm also all for being prepared to meet future needs.

[southernthrash]

The only real problem concerning nuclear power in NZ is tectonic activity... Then again, it's best the public don't know about the relationships between such activity and our hydro dams (amongst otehr things), for fear of widespread panic. Hydro dams definately are a **** way of generating power though.

[gllitz]

Here's an interesting site:

http://russp.org/nucpower.htm

Might be a wee bit old, but I feel a lot of the points the Professor makes are still valid....

Oh, and I think the whole "Chernobyl this, Chernobyl that" argument is a bit daught...come on, folks!! It would be like comparing a Model T Ford with a modern day Hybrid car....puuuuuhllleeease.....

[mkII_grande]

Definitely NOT nuclear power in NZ!!! Does the name Chernobyl ring any bells?

You read the first post? Nuclear power stations use coolants such as helium which are far far safer than traditional coolants and prohibit catastrophic meltdown.

Chernobyl, Chernobyl! Hmmm.. Russian 60s technology with all safetys disconnected and experimenting WOULD lead to an accident. You cannot compare that incident to today's technology.

It's like saying "Don't go in airships, remember the Hindenburg!" Blimps nowadays are filled with Helium, which unlike the Hindenburg, was filled with explosive Hydrogen.

New Zealand has the blinders on with this one. The equivalent power using uranium rods compared to burning coal is a phenomenal difference. And carbon neutral.

New Zealand's willing to spend $100,000,000 on huge 400kV pylons through the Waikato when they wouldn't need to build them with a source of energy near Auckland. AND with a 200-2000MW output depending on what is built, would be a huge investment in NZ's future supply. Our largest generator, Manapouri, generates 850MW. The power has to come from somewhere. I'm all for energy efficiency, but I'm also all for being prepared to meet future needs.

A nuclear power station in NZ would be a disaster in every way! Chernobyl and Three Mile Island should have demonstrated to everyone how inherently dangerous they are. NZ must explore all the other options.

[David]

We must remember that Chernobyl was in 1986, and power production in this field was not as advanced or as well understood as it would be today. Probably much safer today than it was 21 years ago, (I voted non-nuclear though )

Despite if there was a fair level of public support in the future when NZ has higher population and greater electricity demands I still think the government would either dismiss it straight away or be very reluctant to actually go ahead, with the minimal risk that there was a meltdown, the greens the protests and people against it, and not to mention the cost, probably billions

[GSVNoFixedAbode]

A nuclear reactor in Auckland? Combine that with the tectonic history of the place and you've got an extreme case of urban renewal ready and waiting, no matter what safety features are built in.

Accidents happen - people and nature are involved. With a Hydro dam built on a fault line, even with clever engineering to withstand serious earthquakes and water surges, when it fails a large number of people may drown. With a nuclear plant, the potential for catastrophic, longterm damage is huge. Do the sums of any %risk*potential damage, and the nuclear option is at the top. By definition, there's a hell of a lot of energy there ready to do damage. I'm not trying to be a doom-sayer, just looking at potential.

Personally, I hope the future of energy goes local: efficient insulation, solar+wind collection, with nanotech storage solutions (gotta love those little carbon nanotubes! ) Unfortunately with energy supply in the hands of large corporations who must make a profit, the most economic solution for the country cannot be reached...but that's another rant for another time.

[Andrew Massie]

Great feedback team, and all valid points!

The "global warming" debate is another arguement, but the possibility exists that our catchment areas could get a low rainfall, thus giving us less storage, and starving all 4,000,000 of us of electricity.

I TOTALLY agree about sustainablity at a domestic scale, however heat pumps, solar water heating, double glazing, extra insulation, solar panels with battery banks, inverters, air circulation units all cost money, quite a lot in some cases. And this doesn't cover commercial or industrial use!

Tidal generation is starting to be used, but if we start doing that, environmentalists will no doubt complain.

Other similar issues and NIMBY people prevent more generation being installed on rivers and lakes.

Anton Oliver and his friends don't like wind turbines "fouling the landscape".

Burning fossil fuels and coal creates CO2, and increases global warming.

Biofuels seem to be coming off, but they're still a fossil fuel.

Geothermal's carbon neutral, but has limited sources.

What I would like to see, is NZ get involved in research in Nuclear FUSION, in which the French are heavily involved.

Some great debates coming up, that's for certain! I'm quite pleased to be in an industry that HAS to see change, and soon!

[southernthrash]

the central otago wind turbines which anton oliver opposes are an interesting case. From my point of view, it's not the turbines themselves, but the foundations and associated infrastructure (eg roading) that go along with them.

I would like to see smaller decentralised generating units located closer to major cities, say a few turbines for every city or something? Decentralisation is saving the third world, no reason it can't work here.

[gllitz]

Great feedback team, and all valid points!

The "global warming" debate is another arguement, but the possibility exists that our catchment areas could get a low rainfall, thus giving us less storage, and starving all 4,000,000 of us of electricity.

I TOTALLY agree about sustainablity at a domestic scale, however heat pumps, solar water heating, double glazing, extra insulation, solar panels with battery banks, inverters, air circulation units all cost money, quite a lot in some cases. And this doesn't cover commercial or industrial use!

Tidal generation is starting to be used, but if we start doing that, environmentalists will no doubt complain.

Other similar issues and NIMBY people prevent more generation being installed on rivers and lakes.

Anton Oliver and his friends don't like wind turbines "fouling the landscape".

Burning fossil fuels and coal creates CO2, and increases global warming.

Biofuels seem to be coming off, but they're still a fossil fuel.

Geothermal's carbon neutral, but has limited sources.

What I would like to see, is NZ get involved in research in Nuclear FUSION, in which the French are heavily involved.

Some great debates coming up, that's for certain! I'm quite pleased to be in an industry that HAS to see change, and soon!

FUSION would indeed be the way to go...just hope nothing happens like it did on that one Star Trek Voyager episode....

[Lawrence]

NUCLEAR is the ONLY option for the sake of the future, they are safe, so safe that they can build one in Rolleston if they want and I would still live there. I would not even care about the impact on my property value if there was any, which there wouldn’t be any way. What I do care about is the environment and the economic future of New Zealand. Balance with co-operation is what is needed here. Not just for the average New Zealander but for the economic future of our children. This ELECTION VOTE FOR ME, FOR A NEW, NEW ZEALAND

[mkII_grande]

It's good to see that most people are intelligent enough to understand that nuclear is not even an option!

[NZ Thunderstorm Soc]

Why not harness lightning as a form of energy for power
Invent some way you can contain and store it?????

JohnGaul
NZTS

[David]

It's good to see that most people are intelligent enough to understand that nuclear is not even an option!

A bit harsh perhaps?
Many whose opinions are in favour of a nuclear power plant in NZ have generally given good reason and valid statements to support their opinion. For true accurate public opinion everyone needs to be fully informed about everything associated with how the nuclear production works, the risks, etc.

Why not harness lightning as a form of energy for power
Invent some way you can contain and store it?????

Too infrequent in NZ and not enough land area of the country to get a great deal of significant use. Also very powerful and would be hard to control. But I do agree if it were possible the potential energy production would be significant especially in stormy episodes - but not practical.
I think NZ's greatest economic options would be to adapt common use of solar generated electricity, wind turbines and hydro-electric. All these systems use renewable resources (ie sunshine, wind and running water)

[Andrew Massie]

It's good to see that most people are intelligent enough to understand that nuclear is not even an option!

That's not true. A closed mind to options is lack of intelligence and common sense. People with that attitude tend to scream the loudest when the power goes off!

[Andrew Massie]

Why not harness lightning as a form of energy for power
Invent some way you can contain and store it?????

JohnGaul
NZTS

A HUGE capacitor would do it.. however, insulation to contain 1,000,000,000 Volts hasn't been invented yet!

[southernthrash]

Hydro should well and truly be out of the question now, especially on a large scale. Wind generation close to cities is probably the best for now.

[Lawrence]

Weather we like it or not the future will be set not by the people of New Zealand but by global economic necessity, look at carbon trading. Every one fears change but the world is a very different place than it was when the Nuclear age began.

Some times a country must adopt things that go against the wishes of the people because it is the only economically viable way ahead, think of New Zealand like a business in a global market, what if the government did not adopt Computers and banned their use 30 years ago, the country would now be bankrupt, no one in the world would do business with us.

Same goes for free trade agreements, there has to be a compromise to settle the contract. We know what that is in Americas case, but the New Zealand government wont come to the party on the nuclear issue so the people of New Zealand suffer because of an ideology, other countries look at this and admire the stance but are too concerned about monetary gain and status in the eyes of the O.E.C.D, move on, and New Zealand then gets left behind while being economically raped.

No matter how much we whinge on about too many Migrants, global this and economic that and only buying our own produce, the world doesn’t work like that anymore and for a county to resist change for good or ill is tantamount to living in the dark ages.
What if we used the same analogy when cars were first produced, or ship or planes, cell phones etc, when looking at the nuclear option?
Everything over the centuries man has created has had have an inherent risk. Think of the amount of people killed world wide by say, cars, and THEN, Nuclear reactors?

Yes there is collateral damage for the advancement of mankind,we won a bloody world war on it. From building tunnels to exploration of space you can guarantee there will always be victims, and if I am a victim of our advancement, then so be it. I will follow millions of others who have died for mans relentless search for wherever we are going and be proud of my race and species.

I rest my case.

[spwill]

NewZealands anti Nuclear stand ( I'm not anti Nuclear) has probably served us very well as it fits in well with our Green image which we have cashed in on over recent years through Tourism and food export.

[Andrew Massie]

NewZealands anti Nuclear stand ( I'm not anti Nuclear) has probably served us very well as it fits in well with our Green image which we have cashed in on over recent years through Tourism and food export.

Uranium's green! Or is it kryptonite?

[RWood]

I don't think the issue is a simple one at all. But given human stupidity, I'm quite glad that non-nuclear still prevails.
Karshvardigah, I suggest you read Ronald Wright's "A short history of progress" and then see if you feel so confident of your position.