| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 114026 | 2010-11-15 07:08:00 | Nuclear Power stations in NZ - Yes or No? | jareemon (5207) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1153121 | 2010-11-15 19:35:00 | I dont know how to make a poll :blush: do i just tick the option to make a poll and then what? will it ask me for the options once i click post..? yes it will |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1153122 | 2010-11-15 19:40:00 | I say yes to nuclear power, its about time we dragged our sorry asses into the present and stopped our power issues for good. | DeSade (984) | ||
| 1153123 | 2010-11-15 19:48:00 | On a more serious note ... I'd rather see us use Nuclear power generation than ruining more of our pristine rivers for hydro. Having said that, there should be alternate ways of using bi products to generate power. Think of the quantity of effluent that comes off the dairy farms and how much methane it could produce if a method "recycling" were to be developed. They can transport the milk from farms ... why not the effluent for processing ?? .... would save a lot of rivers being polluted and unfishable / unswimable as well. They can already produce bio-deisel from algae that forms on ponds where stock effluent and nitrates are present ... take that a step further into deliberate processing rather than scumming up my favourite duckshooting pond and I'd be a happy man. There are alternatives to Hydro and Nuclear .... we just haven't been thinking outside the square enough to find the solution. |
SP8's (9836) | ||
| 1153124 | 2010-11-15 20:35:00 | Perhaps more accurate info is needed for some people to be able to make an informed decision... If nuclear power is so safe nowadays, why has America not gone ahead with their nuclear program again after stalling it about 30 years ago? Nuclear power stations cost billions and last only 30 or so years, after which they must be decommissioned (also costing lots to do). We're taking multi billions to build one of these. Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed overseas but still produces huge amounts of high level and low level radioactive waste which must be stored safely for thousands of years in a stable environment. Where in NZ could this be done? Where could a station be sited that is geologically stable? NZ is on a faultline in case anyone forgot. We have plenty of wind sites that could potentially produce a lot of our needs, if only we didn't have so many NIMBY types. Unless fast breeder reactors are built, uranium resources will be consumed by the world needs and no fuel will be left. It is a limited resource. Fast breeder reactors pose a larger safety threat than ordinary nuclear reactors. Just ask Detroit about theirs. And why are there not a multitude of French fast breeder reactors? They did start to go along this path decades ago... Just some thoughts... |
user (1404) | ||
| 1153125 | 2010-11-15 21:04:00 | I am sure the Star ship Enterprise is powered by similar,! According to all of the Star Trek and Enterprise tech manuals, the starships of Star Trek are powered by matter/anti-matter reactor cores. They function almost similar to an aircraft carrier's reactor, the matter/anti-matter reactors super heat plasma, then send the plasma through conduits. These conduits then send the plasma into the warp coils to generate the warp field or bubble. |
jareemon (5207) | ||
| 1153126 | 2010-11-15 21:04:00 | The push towards carbon neutrality is slowly tipping the tables towards 'clean' technologies... the science behind solar is getting a lot more momentum, and there's interesting potential for flexible plastic film type solar cells which you can line your home with. The beauty of this is reduced need for transmission line capacity. Also, there's some interesting chemical storage options (batteries) as well, which would help to balance out the night time consumption. With our ample lakes, rivers, winds and coastlines (tides) we should be able to be 100% carbon and nuclear free. Yes, the greenies will have to shut the **** **. They need to rationalise the options of Hydro Dam vs Coal vs Nuclear. Sure Hydro dams produce a lot of methane initially when grounds get flooded - however they also provide a whole bunch of other resources in the process and help to ensure year-round water for irrigation. A river with regulated hydro flow should suffer less erosion and fewer drought issues than an un-damed river, and if properly managed will be a benefit for the aquatic wildlife. Better to have a dam providing flow all year round than to have an undamed river dry up completly over summer. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1153127 | 2010-11-15 21:09:00 | According to all of the Star Trek and Enterprise tech manuals, the starships of Star Trek are powered by matter/anti-matter reactor cores. They function almost similar to an aircraft carrier's reactor, the matter/anti-matter reactors super heat plasma, then send the plasma through conduits. These conduits then send the plasma into the warp coils to generate the warp field or bubble. I say lets use those then! |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1153128 | 2010-11-15 22:03:00 | In order to make an cost competitive Nuclear plant it needs to be big . Realistically you're looking at 600MW for the smallest model, which is 200MW bigger than New Zealand's current largest plant . This means you need to carry an extra 200MW of reserves whenever it's running . Also, nuclear plants run baseload, they don't like being ramped up and down . Overnight load in the North Island is as low as 1300MW, so a 600MW plant is an enormous proportion of this . That might be manageable if things were designed from the ground up, but it's too much of a step change . Basically this means it's not going to happen . I suppose a larger HVDC (cook straight cable) in a few years that might go some way to helping, but it's still not likely . Nuclear's a great option for large power systems, not our tiny one . |
shermo (12739) | ||
| 1153129 | 2010-11-15 22:20:00 | When I was living in nelson, one day our how water went cold. We called the power company and they said "um yeah we've turned your hot water off so we can send more power to auckland" | jareemon (5207) | ||
| 1153130 | 2010-11-15 22:24:00 | How the hell did they turn off your hot water remotely? | ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||