| 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 | ||
| 450715 | 2006-05-01 23:49:00 | Bit on that here.... www.darvill.clara.net |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450716 | 2006-05-02 01:08:00 | More FACTS......... dmoz.org www-wds.worldbank.org |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450717 | 2006-05-02 13:27:00 | Posted in error, sorry. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450718 | 2006-05-02 20:48:00 | Posted in error, sorry. In all things there are always doubters. www.nytimes.com |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450719 | 2006-05-02 20:53:00 | The problem is that NZ is a small country. Russia is huge, so when Chernobyl happened and they evacuated the area there was still masses of room. How much of NZ do we lose in the same scenario? Plus what do we offer the world? Sheep and tourism. Clean, Green NZ. However true that may be now, it will be 100% dead if such a thing as Chernobyl happened here. Instant economic death for NZ. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 450720 | 2006-05-02 21:08:00 | The Russians knew that things weren't right and did nothing. The system they used is long gone. We are now up to generation 4 and they are getting safer each time. You will have noted the difference in cars since 1920. I wouldn't be surprised to see China take the lead in this technology,not being constrained by uninformed alarmists. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450721 | 2006-05-02 21:24:00 | Nuclear technology is opening Pandora's Box in the classic sense of the meaning, another good analogy is the Sorceror's Apprentice. Folly in the true sense of the word. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450722 | 2006-05-02 21:31:00 | Nuclear technology is opening Pandora's Box in the classic sense of the meaning, another good analogy is the Sorceror's Apprentice. Folly in the true sense of the word. To get the answer we must avoid fantasy. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450723 | 2006-05-02 21:39:00 | Three points to keep in mind: Electricity by nuclear generation is not cheap, especially if the *total* costs are calculated which include disposal of the radioactive waste, clean-up after shut-down, etc . Changing to nuclear will not help global warming, at least not significantly . New Scientist magazine gives a report about the UK doubling their nuclear power, with the result of only 8% reduction in 'greenhouse gas' emissions . Environmentalists use scare tactics that close people off to even considering nuclear power . This happened to me last year, with a good friend who is normally a peaceful, agreeable sort of person - I mentioned that NZ should at least discuss / consider the nuclear option, and my friend went ballistic, a real Dr Jekyll - Mr Hyde transformation! |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 450724 | 2006-05-02 22:05:00 | " I wouldn't be surprised to see China take the lead in this technology,not being constrained by uninformed alarmists. " Unfortunately China is one of those countries where coverups and corruption are incredibly common. Chemical dumping, factory explosions, virus infections (eg. SARS) are covered up by the government. If another Chenobyl is to happen somewhere, it will probably happen in China. " Electricity by nuclear generation is not cheap, especially if the *total* costs are calculated which include disposal of the radioactive waste, clean-up after shut-down, etc. " While some aspects of running costs are high, in relative terms due to the sheer amount of power that these things can produce (ie. 3-4x the current NZ level of electricity use) the cost isn't as high as you'd think. Especially considering the huge savings in environmental costs in terms of reduced CO2 emissions, and the costs involved in running the other power stations which won't be necessary, the initial $2bill cost to build the station in the first place, plus the millions of dollars to maintain it are easily offset (in fact, with the Govt. surplus as it is, they can afford to build TWO power stations). " Changing to nuclear will not help global warming, at least not significantly. New Scientist magazine gives a report about the UK doubling their nuclear power, with the result of only 8% reduction in 'greenhouse gas' emissions. " The UK is more like NZ in the sense that the vast majority of greenhouse emissions comes from vehicles (and in their case, also industry). In the USA, 38% of all greenhouse emissions come from coal fired power stations - if you can eliminate at least MOST of those (or keep them just as backups), - and considering the USA is the biggest CO2 producer (China is following closely) it will significantly decrease the global production of greenhouse gases. In NZ, most of our greenhouse emissions come from cars. However, there is still a fair chunk coming from coal fired power stations like those in Huntly. It is also important to look into the future - with oil running out, if we want a viable alternative to petroleum for cars which doesn't produce greenhouse gasses, Hydrogen is the way to go. And what do you need to produce hydrogen (via electrolysis)? Lots and lots of electricity. This will be able to use up the " over-generation " of power produced by a nuclear power station in NZ in the future. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||