Time for nuclear power in NZ?

Forums › Off topic › Time for nuclear power in NZ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805196 22-Jun-2017 14:06

Put it in Huntly!
Waikato river for cooling, port waikato for uranium!
Replaces existing structure.
Connects to existing infrastructure.

Heaps of cheap labor..

davidcole

6041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805199 22-Jun-2017 14:11

Isn't there a difference between the types that a currently used, and that output plutonium as a waste product, and another type of reactor that doesn't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor is about the closest description I could find.)

I'm trying to remember the names - from the documentary Pandora's Promise http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992193/

Previously known as psycik

Home Assistant: Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix, Home Assistant with Aeotech ZWave Controller, Raspberry PI, Wemos D1 Mini, Zwave, Shelly Humidity and Temperature sensors
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4 4k, ATV4, HDHomeRun Dual
Server Host Plex Server 3x3TB, 4x4TB using MergerFS, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Proxmox Server with 1xW10, 2xUbuntu 22.04 LTS, Backblaze Backups, usenetprime.com fastmail.com Sharesies Trakt.TV Sharesight

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805201 22-Jun-2017 14:15

I'm opposed to nuclear power mostly because all that nuclear waste is simply dumped on future generations to sort out WTF to do with it.

SaltyNZ

8239 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1805202 22-Jun-2017 14:17

DarthKermit:

I'm opposed to nuclear power mostly because all that nuclear waste is simply dumped on future generations to sort out WTF to do with it.

As opposed to CO2 and every other form of pollution? The facts are that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than every other form of energy we have, even with Fukushima and Chernobyl factored in.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805203 22-Jun-2017 14:20

Yeah, because at least we have ways of cleaning up chemical waste and making it inert. No such technology exists with nuclear.

davidcole

6041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805204 22-Jun-2017 14:24

DarthKermit:

Yeah, because at least we have ways of cleaning up chemical waste and making it inert. No such technology exists with nuclear.

I think superman had the right idea and chuck it at the sun. I'd propose rocket labs make small rockets to do this, if they couldn't be so easily turned into an ICBM

Hiamie

354 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1805205 22-Jun-2017 14:24

SaltyNZ:

Green milk is revolting.

I agree! Mind you, it takes a few weeks left out in the sun to turn really green! Gets lumpy too.

I much prefer my milk to be white :)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1805207 22-Jun-2017 14:25

SaltyNZ:

DarthKermit:

I'm opposed to nuclear power mostly because all that nuclear waste is simply dumped on future generations to sort out WTF to do with it.

As opposed to CO2 and every other form of pollution? The facts are that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than every other form of energy we have, even with Fukushima and Chernobyl factored in.

Wind?? seems safe unless you are a bird or Sky Diver

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1805211 22-Jun-2017 14:34

MikeB4:

SaltyNZ:

DarthKermit:

I'm opposed to nuclear power mostly because all that nuclear waste is simply dumped on future generations to sort out WTF to do with it.

As opposed to CO2 and every other form of pollution? The facts are that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than every other form of energy we have, even with Fukushima and Chernobyl factored in.

Wind?? seems safe unless you are a bird or Sky Diver

Nuclear waste is something that we can contain, It doesnt matter if we can't deal with it now or in 50 years. we can contain it at least. We cant contain the C02 and emissions of a coal or gas power plant can we. Now you tell me what one is short sighted. If it means we get down the path and have all this nuclear waste contained its not going to be the end of the world. But if we continue on and turn this earth toxic as we are we will get down the road and go. Well F*&K what do we do now, its too far gone.

srkiNZ

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

#1805217 22-Jun-2017 14:37

One of the problems with power production is "transmission". Nuclear solves this because you can put the plant close to where the power is going to be used, reducing transmission loss. Therefore, the main argument of nuclear over hydro is efficiency of transmission/operation as I see it.

I think that the original question should have been "with the recent improvements in the safety and waste design of modern nuclear power plants, are they now 'safe enough' to put in earthquake prone NZ, next to a major centre?"

The arguments for are:

* The failing Japanese etc... plants were all products of the 1950's and 1960's and designed to "best practice" at the time. Newer plants are orders of magnitude safer.

* Solar and wind, while potentially overcoming the "transmission" problem, suffer from the "storage" problem (solar only works during daytime, wind when the wind is blowing etc...). Nuclear does not have this issue.

* The "danger" of nuclear from waste/accidents is highly visible and therefore usually overestimated by people compared to the "invisible" CO2 waste generated by coal plants, cars etc...

The arguments against are:

* We don't need any more power generating capacity in NZ and may be in oversupply (or headed that way, Tiwai Point)

* It's not safe enough even with modern advancements, the risks still outweigh any benefits considering our primary industries

* Even if we did need more capacity, hydro dams, wind farms and solar panels are better (safer? more distributed?) alternatives

It would be good to get an actual comparison as to "how much safer" modern designs are and also "how much less waste" they actually produce.

xor

73 posts

Master Geek

#1805246 22-Jun-2017 14:49

Why? We are close to fully shutting down the last big fossil plant (Huntly).

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1805250 22-Jun-2017 14:55

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

I have never quiet understood the kiwi obsession with being anti-nuclear.

1. Our GDP is mostly on the back of our Primary industries, a nuclear accident would wreck that.

2. We are a geologically unstable land, it would be very risky to build Nuke plants here.

3. An accident with a Wind Farm or a Hydro station is not going to render a large chunk of the country unusable for a very long time

^^^This.

One nuclear accident would result in global perceptions that would collapse our food exports and drastically reduce tourism.

Without revenue from the real economy, the wheels would fall off the domestic service and finance sectors quite fast.

Mike

darylblake

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1805257 22-Jun-2017 15:04

So for a long time energy requirements have increased. I believe this is starting to level off a LOT. But we are starting to see a lot more energy efficient products.

For example my LED TV now uses about 90watt. Before my Plasma was 350 watt. 10 years ago Desktop computers used about 300~400 watt. But most people are using laptops now, which use about 90watt. Yes some PC's use 700watts but they are few and further between.

More people are getting gas for heating, or more energy efficient heating like heat pumps.

And of course we cant forget the LED bulbs that reduce consumption from conventional bulbs by about 300%.

So yes the population is increasing, however usage is leveling out.

Also solar is almost at a 5 year payback period. So I suspect the uptake will increase.

SaltyNZ

8239 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1805258 22-Jun-2017 15:06

One nuclear accident would result in global perceptions that would collapse our food exports and drastically reduce tourism.

Would it? I wonder how those industries have held up in Japan after Fukushima. According to these figures, although there was a dip in 2011 - the year of the earthquake itself - visitor numbers recovered again the following year and is still increasing. My Google-fu has not turned up any charts for beef exports, but I don't see Kobe beef going for a $4/kg at the Mad Butcher yet.

EDIT: a word

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1805260 22-Jun-2017 15:10

Pumpedd:

darylblake:

One of the biggest problems with it is waste processing. It still has not been solved properly.

Agreed, nuclear energy would need a lot of work before it was considered. The costs alone may rule it out for NZ, but it does make a lot of environmental sense.

The other issue NZ has at the moment and in the near future is over capacity...the huge uptake of LED's and heat pump type technologies are reducing our needs for electricity. Also Tiwai Smelter is fast outliving its use by date which would create a conundrum as to what to do with Manapouri.

We are about 80% renewable now. Your points would help that. EV would not help that, but that has its own good story. If every new home was fitted with solar PV, even without battery, that's a low cost, and that adds to the renewable effort. With our small size, and our renewable figures, surely we can get to 100%? And before 2050 as JK stated a while back

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8