| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 102510 | 2009-08-21 10:24:00 | YES, let's get Nuclear Reactors in NZ | zqwerty (97) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 803305 | 2009-08-21 12:17:00 | Of course we can go on flooding valleys and destroying rivers to make Hydro Electricity until we run out of usable rivers, and at horrendous cost Or we can bury the nuclear bogeyman and do what the USA and Western Europe (excludes Chenobyl for those who geographically challenged) have being doing for over 40 years. France and Britain are far more densely populated than NZ and they are both major users of nuclear generated electricity. The nuclear power station at Dungerness on the Sussex Coast is nearer to London than Hamilton is to Auckland. Of course there is a minimal risk - significantly less than that of being killed as a fare paying passenger on a scheduled commercial flight - that risk doesn't stop most of us from buying an airline ticket,except perhaps zqwerty |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 803306 | 2009-08-21 12:20:00 | NZ is just about hydroed out. Fat chance thanks to rma to ever put a dam any where. What we have is coal, ****loads of it. coal is king |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 803307 | 2009-08-21 12:43:00 | yeah burn the coal until its all gone, west coast can have it so i dont have to deal with it, wait they're still using it arent they? Seriously what is wrong with nuclear power? Itd mean we could all leave our shavers going all day and not have to worry about being broke at the end of the month |
hueybot3000 (3646) | ||
| 803308 | 2009-08-21 21:09:00 | It all seems so simple really doesn't it, somebody, but it absolutely is NOT. I have made my case in many other threads on this forum, and don't feel the need to repeat myself. Nothing is without risk, but it's simply a matter of balancing risk versus reward and making the most sensible decision. By your standards, we should ban all aircraft because they can fall out of the sky, crash into buildings, and cause untold numbers of casualties - and long term health effects from the dust (i.e. 9/11). |
somebody (208) | ||
| 803309 | 2009-08-21 21:18:00 | Stone Age man was fitter, faster and leaner than his modern counterpart, and he lived a healthier and far more natural life, before dieing at the age of 19. :lol::lol: Although mainly because there was no medical care and lots of large animals to eat you. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 803310 | 2009-08-21 21:42:00 | So this very low risk of a nuclear reactor going faulty and the resulting thousands of years of useless land etc is the same or less than the also low risk of an aircraft falling out of the sky, killing all its occupants and those it falls on? I don't think so, thank goodness you are not making decisions for our long term future in this long narrow country. You can work out why I wrote that last bit, can't you? |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 803311 | 2009-08-21 22:09:00 | The nuclear power station at Dungerness on the Sussex Coast is nearer to London than Hamilton is to Auckland . I would just like to point out that unless Dungeness point has been moved it's still in Kent where it's always been . I grew up almost within spitting distance of Dungeness about 35 miles away and several of my friends had fathers who worked at either the A station which was a Magnox one or at the B station which was opened when I was about 12 . The A station was cooled using seawater from a large intake and the sea temperature was always a couple of degrees warmer around the outlet pipe attracting fish, we used to fish around the outlet pipe surfcasting for the big fish that got attracted in . I have heard of no ill effects to humans so far but have seen some weird looking fish come out of the sea in that area . Dungeness A staion was closed in the early 80's I think as Magnox plants were not deemed to be as safe . Link ( . wikipedia . org/wiki/Dungeness_nuclear_power_station" target="_blank">en . wikipedia . org) |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 803312 | 2009-08-22 01:10:00 | But what is wrong with generating the power where it is needed like in Auckland rather than transmitting the said power from where I live to where you live. Totally agree about 30% of power is wasted in transmission. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 803313 | 2009-08-22 02:16:00 | Lets stop sending the power North keep it in the mainland since they don't want generate it locally up there | gary67 (56) | ||
| 803314 | 2009-08-22 02:37:00 | I must asay that some of youse guys can out-spit Paul Bunyon. Why should youse guys not glow in the dark like I do? I live so close to San Onofre Nuclear Plant that the fish in the water when I catch them are all parboiled. At night you can just throw rocks at them as they glow in the water and are easy targets. Actually I am greatly in favor of nuclear power for gnerating electircity. They told us in the '30s that the abundance of electricity produced by the new nuclear generating stations would make electricity free since it was a self-sustaining system and require no further input of fuel or human intervention at least for 10,000 years (NZ= 10M-Years.) I wonder where it all went wrong 'cause I don't never get no free electrumsicity! |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||