| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68471 | 2006-04-30 00:56:00 | Nuclear power. | Cicero (40) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 450755 | 2006-05-06 02:30:00 | lol, back to bikes, dad just got back from a leisurly ride on his 400cc V4, he went from henderson valley to glen eden to repco on central park drive (lincon road) and back here. he forgot to turn the fuel on. he did all that only using the gas in the fuel lines and carbys (honda VFR400) |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 450756 | 2006-05-06 13:03:00 | I predict that Auckland is going to have a lot of "White Elephant" motorways within ten years as petrol continues to increase in price. The main trunk rail line should have been electrified years ago when we could afford it, we will regret we didn't do it when the trucking companies start to increase their charges very soon, another example of short sighted planning for the future by the incompetents in power at any given time. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450757 | 2006-05-06 22:14:00 | I agree zqwerty The Road Transport Association (lobby group of trucking firms) has had a lot to do with policy, particularly the ear of the last National Balls-up, has prospered by the 'roadification' and left.....oih..........I ............can't.......be bothered argusing about it. should be out in the garden. Anyway, yeah. |
mark c (247) | ||
| 450758 | 2006-05-06 23:19:00 | This is nothing to do with nuclear power but.... few will remember that goods had to be carried by rail unless the distance was less than 40 miles (60km), then roads could be used. That was why when we came to New Zealand we wondered why there were no trucks on the roads, ah happy days, (waits for right wing comment from Cicero) :) Quote: "In 1950 New Zealand had a railway network of about 5700km. In 1990 we had a network of about 3500km. We had lost 2200km of railways. The sole reason for this (with only one or two exceptions) was the competition with road transport. Rail simply could not compete with the efficiency of trucks and cars. The branch railways had been running at a loss all their lives. For a long time road transport was not allowed to compete with rail. In the 1940s this was replaced with a piece of legislation known as the 40 mile (60km) limit. This meant that goods carried by road could only be carried up to 60km if they could go by rail. This kept the railways open as most were over 60km long. The majority of branches was over 60km long so this did not affect them. The 40mile limit was slowly phased out over the 40 years from 1940 to 1980 when it was finally removed. At each change of protection level more branches closed. The final removal of all protection eventually closed the remaining lines , most were over 100km in length. The last significant line the Otago Central closed in April 1990." homepages.ihug.co.nz Since we have had no come back from Cicero regarding why ship size nuclear reactors aren't used for domestic generation, I'll write something up today when I can find the time. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 450759 | 2006-05-07 00:01:00 | This is nothing to do with nuclear power but.... few will remember that goods had to be carried by rail unless the distance was less than 40 miles (60km), then roads could be used. That was why when we came to New Zealand we wondered why there were no trucks on the roads, ah happy days, (waits for right wing comment from Cicero) :) Quote: "In 1950 New Zealand had a railway network of about 5700km. In 1990 we had a network of about 3500km. We had lost 2200km of railways. The sole reason for this (with only one or two exceptions) was the competition with road transport. Rail simply could not compete with the efficiency of trucks and cars. The branch railways had been running at a loss all their lives. For a long time road transport was not allowed to compete with rail. In the 1940s this was replaced with a piece of legislation known as the 40 mile (60km) limit. This meant that goods carried by road could only be carried up to 60km if they could go by rail. This kept the railways open as most were over 60km long. The majority of branches was over 60km long so this did not affect them. The 40mile limit was slowly phased out over the 40 years from 1940 to 1980 when it was finally removed. At each change of protection level more branches closed. The final removal of all protection eventually closed the remaining lines , most were over 100km in length. The last significant line the Otago Central closed in April 1990." homepages.ihug.co.nz Since we have had no come back from Cicero regarding why ship size nuclear reactors aren't used for domestic generation, I'll write something up today when I can find the time. I didn't mean to infer that ships systems were an alternative,just that you shouldn't write off alternatives to current situation. With regards the idea that the reactors are to large and need to shut down.All that needs to be done is to run the current power supply's around them. I agree T,what we need is more regulation from your pals in the hive. That will sort the road problems out. :thumbs: |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450760 | 2006-05-07 07:08:00 | Those who, with insufficient knowledge of physics to be able to have an informed opinion, are knee-jerk anti-nuclear should contemplate the consequences of a 100,000 tonne tanker going on the rocks off Marsden Point. I've spent 40 years as a ships' engineer. Engineers' training is less and less thorough with every passing year - skills are in free fall. More and more corners get cut. I know the odds. Burning of fossil fuels is more harmful by orders of magnitude than nuclear fission. Hope for fusion or buy a bike. |
Vallis (8886) | ||
| 450761 | 2006-05-07 07:55:00 | Hey good arguement for more regulation of the marine sector. I am dissapointed to believe that nuclear power will not have, though it would need, very good regulation. | mark c (247) | ||
| 450762 | 2006-05-07 08:02:00 | "skills are in free fall" Yes and sooner or later there will be a catastrophic error in any field, but in the Nuclear reactor case we really can't afford even one ergo don't build reactors here. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450763 | 2006-08-20 01:01:00 | And just to emphasize my previous posts: www.latimes.com "It's extremely hard to clean up water that's contaminated with tritium," he said. "There's this incredible illusion that you can dump radioactive waste in the ocean and it won't come back to you in the fish you eat. That's troubling. Dilution is irrelevant." |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450764 | 2006-08-20 02:38:00 | Makes me laugh, we all jump in our cars that is causing global warming that is likely to kill millions in the not to distant future. The Oil is we use in the cars is killing 10,000's each year in wars to control Oil. The cars alone kill over 300 Kiwis a year in accidents and OVER 40,000 in the United States. We are anti Nuclear Power hilarious, can you say "risk perception"? |
Battleneter (60) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||