Nuclear New Zealand

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Martin KAVANAGH on June 7, 2009 at 13:37

PLUTONIUM is so named after the "god" of Hell - 'PLUTO' - because of the extreme poisonous nature of this element.

Nuclear waste is & will be an ongoing problem for future generations to attempt to control - virtually for ever. - Realy, if you dont think this is a problem .. why dont you consider going to live near Chernobyl as I'm sure that you might buy some land there very cheaply ?

ALL radioactive materials & reactions are 'natural' in that they occur in nature, as does mankind and all we do. That of itself does not mean that it is harmless. - Check-out the raised cancer levels in areas of exposed ancient radio-active rocks, such as the Highlands of Scotland where there is a slightly higher background level of radiation. Cheers, Marty

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by barf on June 8, 2009 at 15:26

Thanks for your reply Martin.

Nuclear waste can be recycled. In fact, some Canadian Nuclear reactors source their fuel from French waste exports, which they reprocess. Modern reactor designs feature reprocessing systems within the containment area, this means the waste created is managed easier and handled more safely. Do you assume that since it is radioactive, it is problematic? Burning Coal emits more radiation than an operating Nuclear plant. Nuclear waste is also better managed than CO2 emissions. Compared with "green" technologies like photovoltaic solar cells and doubly-fed electric machines in wind turbines, Nuclear is not the evil demon Greenpeace would have you believe it is. The power yield versus deleterious outcomes for the environment and generations to come makes for a balance too good to ignore. Nuclear power conversion generates waste, I'm not saying it doesn't; but that waste is better than burning coal, praying for wind or cleaning solar panels with glass cleaner to get that extra 10mV.

Like many, you have assumed the Nuclear "problem" to be larger than it is. Did you know that Chernobyl has turned into a flourishing wildlife reserve? The exclusion zone, which was thought to be impossible for anything to inhabit for decades, is now home to some previously thought extinct species which have repatriated the area since humans moved out. Actually, I would like some cheap land with native species and a wildlife park, thank you. The soil around Chernobyl is only dangerous in a 1mm layer a few centimeters down and it is easy to test for radioactivity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin KAVANAGH on June 9, 2009 at 19:22

Hmmm, Hi barf,

- This could be very interesting eh?? Q. Do I assume that since it is radioactive, it is problematic? .. Answer: YES

Perhaps Mdm Marie Curea might agree with your postulation , - but, oops, she died of radiation induced cancers didn't she? (As did John Wayne , a well known pro-nuclear 'Hawk' in USA - something to do with making cowboy movies in the desert location of the A Bomb testing Zone ?).

"Burning coal emits more radiation than an operating Nuclear plant" .. hmmm again - Selafield nuclear power station in UK - now 'closed' - (that means locked-up behind barbed wire and patrolled by armed security 24/7/ 365 per year into infinity !) managed to pollute the British coastline from Scotland to Dorset with easily traceable radioactive contaminents into marine plants before it "closed" and ceased to yield power. Perhaps a questionable degree of 'success' ?

- One interesting waste product of nuclear energy production is, of course , as you know, weapons grade plutonium.

I don't think that you can realy claim that I "assume the Nuclear "problem" to be larger than it is" , - I mean, the fact that agricultural production throughout the whole of NorWestern Europe had to be scrapped & banned from human consumption following Chernoble and the surrounding area of the sealed facility is now off-limits to human habitation permanently and that thousands of previous human inhabitants ( those that haven't died that is.)and their offspring are being helped by western nations with their medical problems is surely no SMALL problem ???

Realy, Old Chap (or Chappess), - I haven't "assumed" anything .. what I have done, many years since, is RESEARCH as much as I can read about the topic & try to assess the reality of all aspects relating to things nuclear. - In fact, I would suggest that I was investigating the available infomation even before GREENPEACE came to be ( I'll have to check just when that was !!) :-) :-)

And, - a small peace offering to you, - I do believe that the HUGE windgenerators ("municipal" or not) are an eyesore & blot on the skyline , and like most 'CLEVER' things mechanical will no doubt suffer their share of mechanical problems .. not least being that the windy areas where they are located are usually distant from the customer base & suffer resultant power loss in transmission. .. Have you seen the SIZE of those things ??

Think locally perhaps ?

- Mind you, it is a blessing that some endangered wild creatures now have a little more room to continue their endangered lives within a now radioactive contaminated landscape surrounding Chernoble.

- Further that cheap land etc.. would you consider a joint purchase somewhere in "Nuclear Free" NZ . - I'm looking ! Marty K

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by barf on June 9, 2009 at 20:20

Kia ora Martin,
I certainly take on-board what you say. Nuclear waste is hazardous and I'm not saying it isn't. What I am trying to point out is that while it is hazardous, in 2009 it is manageable waste. CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions will never be manageable to the point of satisfying climate change concerns. I think society's best chance at reducing pollution comes from Nuclear energy conversion. Allow me to elaborate:

Electrical energy in abundance would reduce reliance on oil-based systems such as transport, production and other facets of infrastructure relying on oil. Electrical energy is already the cheapest form of energy we can buy, but the cost has been damming rivers and flooding valleys, burning coal and exploiting nature. I think managing relatively small amounts of Nuclear waste is more attractive than destroying ecosystems. Nuclear power is actually a green technology; if you ask me :-)

But I digress, the points you make are barely relevant to a modern Nuclear power implementation. If we decided for some reason to leap back 15 or 20 years, your points are valid, but not in 2009. Actually, I am glad New Zealand took it's Nuclear-free stance at the time it did; the technology was relatively new then. Today, saying the radioactive fallout from historical mistakes is a reason to ignore advances in Nuclear power does not marry with logic. You're talking about an incident in 1983 in one of the world's first commercial reactors when this is the dawn of a new era.

The waste plutonium is not used for weapons, as you suggest. In fact the opposite has occurred; weapons, RTGs and et cetera are destroyed to salvage what is turned into Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. Other peaceful advances from Nuclear science are not uncommon, like with smoke alarms in every house for under $10 each.

I think peoples attitudes towards Nuclear energy need to get inline with the science of today. Pointing finger to historical mistakes is typically an emotive response and I credit you for doing research, thats cool. Check out some modern reactor designs if you are savvy with the physics involved; it is physically impossible for most modern reactors to "melt-down" and emit radiation ala Chernobyl. If your education is from old 1980s or 1990s texts then you are right to believe a huge danger exists in using the technology, but glance over Wikipedia and the wealth of information available and one can determine that Greenpeace's kool-aid tastes funny.

Cheers for keeping the debate above the belt ;-)

-barf

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion