| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 80909 | 2007-07-09 03:49:00 | Forget Nuclear Power | Morpheus1 (186) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 567219 | 2007-07-09 03:49:00 | One of these will suit NZ nicely: www.darkroastedblend.com |
Morpheus1 (186) | ||
| 567220 | 2007-07-09 09:03:00 | I note the Dinard Tidal Power Station in France did not get a mention - 13 Metre spring Tides at Dinard. Unfortunately, NZ's tidal ranges don't give the water movement to make it all that practical. Wind farms by all means but the MIMBY attitude makes finding suitable locations difficult - also Wind farms don't generate all that much power on a calm day. Solar is great - but at what cost. Thermal great- if they mean geothermal - but thermal alone is your polluting coal burners. Forget the Nuclear Bogeyman, join the 21st century and take the logical option. 2 plants 1 north of Auckland on the east coast, and the other also on the east coat north of Wellington. Why East coast - Prevailing westerly winds. |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 567221 | 2007-07-09 09:10:00 | Go nuclear I say :thumbs: | radium (8645) | ||
| 567222 | 2007-07-09 12:02:00 | Nuclear- best way to supply electricity cheaply and cost efficiently while reducing NZ's carbon footprint. Too bad it won't happen. | beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 567223 | 2007-07-09 12:56:00 | Forget the Nuclear Bogeyman, join the 21st century and take the logical option. 2 plants 1 north of Auckland on the east coast, and the other also on the east coat north of Wellington. Why East coast - Prevailing westerly winds. actually we'd only need one, and the curent hydro and wind would only be used while performing maintenance on the nuclear plant. that said, i'd rather not swap an oil dependancy/crisis with an uranium one. (well i would, but not if there's better options) stupid people and their nimby syndrome:annoyed: |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 567224 | 2007-07-09 19:27:00 | If it wasn't for the fact that Auckland was less than 12 hours away, Id say build a nuclear plant in the central city. | Myth (110) | ||
| 567225 | 2007-07-09 20:16:00 | actually we'd only need one, and the curent hydro and wind would only be used while performing maintenance on the nuclear plant. that said, i'd rather not swap an oil dependancy/crisis with an uranium one. (well i would, but not if there's better options) stupid people and their nimby syndrome:annoyed: Nuclear plants range between 600MW-1.2GW each, with the more modern ones down towards the lower end of the scale. NZ's power needs grow by between 400-500MW per year, so by the time a nuclear plant is built, it will not be able to give the surplus you suggest - hence the need for 2-3. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 567226 | 2007-07-10 04:48:00 | ah, good point, especially considering it'll take a decade just to get resource consent and another to get past the greens | motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 567227 | 2007-07-10 05:00:00 | Most environmentalists would love nuclear power if a few simple things can be guaranteed. 1. Perfect hardware which will never ever fail. 2. Perfect operational staff who will always react in exactly the correct way when the perfect hardware fails. 3. Perfect management which will provide perfect staff training and always provide the money for necessary maintenance when it's needed. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 567228 | 2007-07-10 05:01:00 | For a country of our size isn't nuclear the only cost-effective soultion? (Comparing to Japan.) Sea and wind, sure.. but that's expencive and takes a long time to set up, and wouldn't produce nearly enough power in the long term. | wratterus (105) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||