I heard that they are considering revising the nuclear power policy in NZ- please tell me this isn't true!!?

Show all answers

Tania C

I'm with you on this one. It has been discussed from time to time - but hopefully will not happen, and not just for ideological reasons.

I've heard that there is only enough uranium to last for maybe 60 years, so it is not a long term solution. Also, there are still many problems like what to do with the waste (exporting it and making it another country's problem may be attractive to some - but I see that as immoral), and security and safety issues. Nuclear energy is not, in my opinion, the answer to NZ's energy needs in the long term.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power5.htm
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/TheGreatSustainabilityDebates-NuclearPower.aspx

I agree we can't keep putting more dams on our rivers. My work means I know quite a bit about the Manapouri Power Station and its impacts. For example, I am aware of Meridian's proposal to increase the amount of water they can take (which puts more freshwater into Doubtful Sound, and less water in the Waiau River) and I've read the report they commissioned on the effects of this. I have also spoken to people who have seen how much dams on the Waitaki and Clutha have changed our coastal ecosystems.

There are positive developments in the area of solar energy, wave and tidal energy, and wind energy. That's where I think NZ's focus should be. I know that there are issues with all options, but we can't keep doing what we're doing - and nuclear energy is not the answer either.

http://www.sustainability.govt.nz/energy/alternative.html
http://www.netpilot.ca/aes/

At the moment, I think that cost of nuclear means that our government won't be rushing into that option anytime soon. So, for now, I think you can breathe easy :)

Dangerous

It might happen and as conservationist it will be probably the first thing this Key government does that will get Dangerous' big thumbs up!

Sorry baby-boomers but it's absurd and all it does is make a laughing stock of NZ and show up the ignorance and pretentiousness of your generation.

It is far more environmentally conscious to stop Auckland sourcing electricity from Manapouri (with all its line losses) and stop ruining the environment and the lake levels there. Instead we build a CAN-DU fission reactor at the coal site at Huntley north Waikato. It will bring ample cheap electricity for decades to come and we have access to friendly Uranium supplies from Australia and failing that South Africa. And Japan can happily take the waste off our hands or we can arrange it with Aus to bury it in their wastelands. Nuclear fission is clean and efficient and while the waste is highly toxic it is only minute. It will give guaranteed employment in the Huntly area for generations and where ever they choose to build the enrichment facility.

And then there's the issue of being back in the loop foreign policy wise and allowing to equip our run-down military with discounted equipment again. I've always found it completely unrealistic to pretend that an isolated Island nation with no industrial base whose economy revolves around 2nd rate services, tourism and agricultural commodities exported to industrial giants can somehow hold its own in the world without support from the US superpower or another power (logically the traditional UK). We can't have a self-sufficient defence and a first world health and education system when you analyse our macroeconomy. And if you delude yourself into thinking NZ set a benchmark you need to get real and note the fact we are alone with this stance.

As far as I'm concerned the decision in 1984 and the steadfast refusal to bend upon it highlights the selfishness, pretentiousness and shallow thinking of the baby-boomer generation. I only hope the subsequent generations if NZ who suffer the legacy of their childish antics have the rational thinking to cease NZ's status as technological Luddites.

EDIT: By Tania c:
"I've heard that there is only enough uranium to last for maybe 60 years, so it is not a long term solution."

I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude but that is utterly ABSURD!!!
It's about as stupid as trying to say the world's iron ore resources are running thin.
I REALLY think you should actually do some research into Nuclear fission and Nuclear power. Find out exactly how the lump of Uranium eventually provides electrical energy and just how little Uranium they use. You'll realise how stupid that idea is.
Sorry.

Murphy

I hope it does, and I think that NZ should consider the cheaper and safer nuclear energy for our power supply. Neclear power plants are alot safer than the ones built during the Cold War.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: