| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 80061 | 2007-06-10 04:40:00 | Nuclear Power | Twelvevolts (5457) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 557865 | 2007-06-11 11:56:00 | Read this, the past thread on Nuclear Power in NZ and elsewhere: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 557866 | 2007-06-11 12:05:00 | Its not rocket science; figure it out Maybe that Russians couldn't run a piss up in a vodka warehouse - not sure what that has to do with anything as Penn and Teller so admirably point out in the show. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 557867 | 2007-06-11 12:06:00 | Well maybe not Teller as he never speaks!! | Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 557868 | 2007-06-11 12:08:00 | Updated link to "Destiny" nz.neopages.org Big version: static.flickr.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 557869 | 2007-06-11 12:16:00 | Explanation of Destiny graphic: Only the end, the nuclear blast is not reality, and the beginning, which is meant to show lifeforms appearing out of the mud after a lightning strike. The middle bits are mankinds' achievements, limited and dated; the failure of art, love and science to satisfy one; the eco-system going down a black hole because of our abuse; and the ape/man trying to escape the disaster by fantasizing and turning into a butterfly, but being sucked into the vortex because we are inextricably linked. This is set in the correct background, space and the Universe, with the stars all around. The green platform is to show the time limit of dominance of any species on Earth, eg dinosaurs for instance. Legacy of Chernobyl: www.angelfire.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 557870 | 2007-06-12 09:34:00 | Chernobyl was a series of disasters. The RBMK reactor design was faulty, only 13 were ever built, and only in the USSR. There is only one surviving RBMK reactor, located in Lithuania, and is to be cloed down by 2010. There were two reactors of that type at said power station, one is already closed. Additionally, the three other reactors in Chernobyl, Ukraine have been closed down. If a nuclear power station were to be built here, it would unlikely be one considering the drawbacks (insp.pnl.gov). More likely it'd be something like the smaller, safer, pebble bed reactor. Saying all nuclear power is bad because of chernobyl is really quite strange. The fault was caused because of dumb decisions by the plant manager, limited safety measures and sub standard chemistry going into it. It really is like saying we shouldn't fly in planes because of the Erebus disaster. At any rate, name one type of power plant that is suitable (as renewable as practical, scalable, reliable), and accepted by everyone. I can't think of any |
V1sta (6614) | ||
| 557871 | 2007-06-12 10:11:00 | The point is that humans make mistakes, and where Nuclear Reactors are concerned the consequences are disastrous, sooner or later something will go wrong, do you want to take that chance in NZ? We are the ones in control of our future, nothing else, no supernatural entities, in the end all that you can rely on is luck and one day it will run out. "The Sorcerers Apprentice" is a story which has a lesson worth learning. How can you be so sure that nothing will go wrong considering all the evidence presented in the older thread. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 557872 | 2007-06-12 10:44:00 | At any rate, name one type of power plant that is suitable (as renewable as practical, scalable, reliable), and accepted by everyone. I can't think of anyNew Zealand is not really a wide country and therefore we catch a lot of wind. We also have many areas where wind farms can be (and in some cases, are being) set up. Saying all nuclear power is bad because of chernobyl is really quite strange. The fault was caused because of dumb decisions by the plant manager, limited safety measures and sub standard chemistry going into it. It really is like saying we shouldn't fly in planes because of the Erebus disaster. I never once said nuclear power was bad. I implied it is not 100% safe. Your Chernobyl vs Erebus comparison is at best pathetic. Sure Erebus cost 257 lives, a lot of people lost fathers/mothers/sons/daughters... but its legacy is what? The site where the accident happened is usable, the local people aren't still dying, and future generations will not be affected by anything more than memories of lost ones. The legacy of Chernobyl on the other hand is radioactive land that cannot be used, millions of people (mainly in the Ukraine, Belarus; but also extending across most of Europe and even the north east opf America) exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation that will either kill them prematurely or leave future generations with who knows what health issues/defects. Now... compare Erebus and Chernobyl again |
Myth (110) | ||
| 557873 | 2007-06-12 10:55:00 | New Zealand is not really a wide country and therefore we catch a lot of wind. We also have many areas where wind farms can be (and in some cases, are being) set up. Shame about the celebs protesting about the audio/visual pollution. In case you haven't realised, wind farms take up an enormous amount of space for the little, unreliable amounts of power they create. Plus out economy is dependant on tourists being able to take pictures of the scenery, we'd be creating a conflict of interest. I never once said nuclear power was bad. I implied it is not 100% safe. Your Chernobyl vs Erebus comparison is at best pathetic. Sure Erebus cost 257 lives, a lot of people lost fathers/mothers/sons/daughters... but its legacy is what? The site where the accident happened is usable, the local people aren't still dying, and future generations will not be affected by anything more than memories of lost ones. The legacy of Chernobyl on the other hand is radioactive land that cannot be used, millions of people (mainly in the Ukraine, Belarus; but also extending across most of Europe and even the north east opf America) exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation that will either kill them prematurely or leave future generations with who knows what health issues/defects. Now... compare Erebus and Chernobyl again They were both disasters caused by human error that had terrible consequences. They're not dissimilar in that regard. The point is that humans make mistakes, and where Nuclear Reactors are concerned the consequences are disastrous, sooner or later something will go wrong, do you want to take that chance in NZ? There is a difference in being cautious, and paranoid. There are risks yes, but there are also risks in driving a car (what if I get killed in an accident????), eating (what if my food contains shards of metal that????) and breathing (what if I'm breathing in carbon monoxide????). We are the ones in control of our future, nothing else, no supernatural entities, in the end all that you can rely on is luck and one day it will run out. Why thank you for that. Not that it's at all relevant, however I hold no belief in any gods, and I know we are in control of our future. How can you be so sure that nothing will go wrong considering all the evidence presented in the older thread. Did I say that? Nuclear reactors these days are highly safe, clean and efficient. You've still not provided a suitable alternative energy source |
V1sta (6614) | ||
| 557874 | 2007-06-12 11:00:00 | Burning Coal and Oil to generate electricity is an inefficient energy conversion. Fossil Fuels are a finite diminishing resource and should be used to best effect. Coal and Oil fired power Stations equal Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases equal climate change - Hydro Electricity involves a very high capital involvement. When one considers these simple facts, Nuclear Energy, is the logical answer in the long term. Australia burns coal to generate electricity, and surprisingly, I have found my quarterly electricity bill here in Brisbane running about the same as my Auckland monthly Winter electricity bill from Mercury energy over 2 years ago. The Howard Government states that Nuclear Power is the way to go, although in fairness the ALP is shunning nuclear power and pushing for the invention of clean coal technology, when there is no guarantee that it is actually possible let alone economically feasible. NZ to date has been blessed both with a relatively small population and with good Hydro resources, but how many more hydro dams can be developed, at an acceptable cost both in terms of the economy and the environment is a moot point. In the long term NZers may well be forced to bury the Nuclear Bogyman that the Lange Government invented and embrace Nuclear Energy as the most economical and efficient, and also the least environmentally damaging. |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||