Nuclear Power advocated
March 31st, 2007 at 10:06 am by David FarrarThe Herald has a profile of former British Labour MEP Terry Wynn who is an advocate of nuclear power. An otherwise good profile is somewhat spoiled by the use of the pejorative term zealot to describe him. Use of language like this does have influence. Just as some think tanks always get labelled right-wing by the media, but I’ve never heard them label one as left-wing.
Anyway Wynn points out that nuclear power is one of the best ways to combat global warming, as unlike coal, oil or gas it produce no carbon emissions. He is not alone in this view. Other environmentalists who agree are Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore and British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory.
NZ is a country where nuclear power is less suitable than most, because of our small population, and earthquake propensity. So this is not a debate about what NZ should do, but is a global challenge to the Green movement about their views on nuclear power. Remember 5,000 or so people die in coal mines every year.
Tags: Uncategorized
March 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
We should really get some of these.
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/09/09/floatingnuclearplant.shtml
FNPP’s are way cool. They cost $200k US. The unit, which is powered by two reactors and accommodates engineering and amenity services, is then towed out to a site by a tug. The unit should be supported by compact onshore infrastructure — transformers, pumps, heat supply units, etc. Then the plant is commissioned. It will have the capacity to supply energy to a town with a population of 200,000. If the entire capacity of the plant is switched over to desalinization of sea water, it will be able to produce 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water a day. When the plant is decommissioned and pulled out, it leaves absolutely no pollution.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
No, we should get some Pebble Bed Reactors.
Very, simple and very safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
But would they be too boring? I mean, there’s no lovely blue Cherenkov radiation to look at.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
It’ll be a sulphorous day in heaven when NZ adopts a world leading energy generation technology.
“When the plant is decommissioned and pulled out, it leaves absolutely no pollution.”
Don’t baffle me with your “facts” mon. What about all the stinking capitalism the FNPP encouraged over its lifetime? Reason enough to block it. Ha!
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
It simply does not make sense for New Zealand to adopt nuclear power in the medium term. We have absolutely no nuclear power generation expertise in this country. We would have to import absolutely everything, the plant, the materials, the people, everything, and it would cost us 100′s of millions of dollars. Whereas we have a wealth of expertise with hydro, wind and thermal generation. Common sense says nuclear power for New Zealand is a long, long way off.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
It simply does not make sense for New Zealand to adopt nuclear power in the medium term. We have absolutely no nuclear power generation expertise in this country. We would have to import absolutely everything, the plant, the materials, the people, everything, and it would cost us 100′s of millions of dollars. Whereas we have a wealth of expertise with hydro, wind and thermal generation. Common sense says nuclear power for New Zealand is a long, long way off.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 12:09 am
Hydro would be great except we’re never allowed to build any new dams because we might drown the local taniwha.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 3:46 am
Nice to see Michael that you are such a bigoted arsehole. Just because it’s not your belief, you show your ignorence about other peoples beliefs.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 6:43 am
Don’t forget that nuclear power was invented by a kiwi – Lord Rutherford of Nelson.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 6:44 am
John – Michael is presumably not belittling the belief, but the cynicism of those who falsely claim to hold that belief for pecuniary gain.
DPF – Nuclear may not be right for NZ for a variety of reasons, but if Japan can find locations for 53 of them then I suspect earthquake propensity isn’t an issue.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip20.htm
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Nice to see Michael that you are such a bigoted arsehole. Just because it’s not your belief, you show your ignorence about other peoples beliefs.”
Well for my part I’m sick of being held back by the beliefs of stone age savages that can be soothed with copious amounts of taxpayers money…
Fuck off JohnD you moral molester..
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 9:22 am
“I’m sick of being held back by the beliefs of stone age savages” – James, this is a truly vile (not to mention ridiculous) comment which does you no credit.
Back to the original point of the post – I am an environmentalist but I also consider that nuclear power has to be part of the global mix for generating electricity and fighting climate change. Use depends on a country’s circumstances: it’s not an option for NZ for a range of reasons, but for other countries it may be a sensible way to go.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 9:53 am
Well for my part I’m sick of being held back by the beliefs of stone age savages
Setting aside the ad-hominens for a moment, I’m struck by this repeated theme from the right that somehow the Greens are a bunch of beardie-weirdie fringe crazy Luddites that somehow want to propel us all backward to life of stone age savages.
In a way I should just let you keep on repeating this tosh unchallenged as anyone who knows anything at all about the Greens realises this is a grotesque caricature, and does more to discredit the one making it, than any harm it might accrue to it’s target.
Capitalism is just one a several economic models that the human race has evolved, but it has several well recognised limitations.
1. Its underlying engine of unlimited credit creation locks us into an pattern of endlessly intensifying our exploitation of natural resources.
The economic model of pre-industrial slave/serf societies was based on the premise that human labour and ingenuity was a renewable resource. Capitalism has the effect of making money an endlessly renewable resource, and industrialisation that came along at much the same time vastly multiplies the value of human labour. As a result we have seen 160 odd years of an unprecedented explosion in human prosperity.
All wealth is generated as a result three things, capital, organised, skilled labour and resources. By the middle of the 1800′s we had solved the problem of how to sustain the supply of the first two elements, and at that time the vast resources of the planet were barely scratched. It was then quite reasonable to imagine that unlimited growth was possible for the foreseeable future. This is no longer so. We have consumed a significant portion of the “natural capital” that will ever be available to us and no matter how rich or clever we are, our economic model and our very lives will collapse if we also collapse the “third leg” of our natural environment.
Historically such collapses are a commonplace. It only takes one of the these three wealth generating elements to fail, and entire civilisations collapse, sometimes of a slow strangulation, sometimes catastrophically.
2. Another limitation of our current economic model is that it routinely fails to properly allocate costs. This is the often called “externalities” problem. Private enterprise is most efficient at maximising short-term and local results. It usually far less effective at anything long-term or global.
This is why for instance, oil companies persisted in used lead as an octane-extender for decades after better lead-free alternatives where available. Lead was cheaper and thus maximised their immediate local short-term profit. Because the wider long-term impact of lead emmissions causing intellect damage in children did not appear on their balance sheets, there was no reason for them to discontinue using it. In most cases this sort of “economically rational”, but destructive behaviour continues until the wider community steps in and compels a change through regulation.
A wider “external cost” occurs because capitalism inevitably acts to concentrate wealth. Right now for instance about 50% of the worlds wealth is controlled by fewer than 100 individuals, at the same time many billions live in absolute poverty. Although it is quite true that the capitalist model has vastly increased total prosperity, it has no innate means to moderate the extremes of wealth and poverty.
The Green movement has it’s roots in these two questions; it’s environmental aspect from the first, and it’s social agenda arising from the later. Neither is seen as seperable from the other. The answers to achieving more sustainable environmental and social behaviours has nothing to do with leaping backwards to “stone age savagery”.
The Greens for instance rightly objected to the first generations of nuclear power technologies because of the unacceptable risks they posed. This was because all current reactor technologies are really just a replacement of coal-fired boilers with uranium powered ones. It’s not a good fit as it turns out. The Pebble-bed reactors are based on a quite different mode of thinking that reflect many decades of better understanding controlling nuclear reactions and advances in materials technology. It is not unthinkable that when proven, the Greens might well accept them.
In fact we already have technological answers to many of the environmental sustainablity questions we face; but mostly we lack the will to implement them because entrenched economic interests vigorously object to any change that threatens the status-quo dominance.
Which ultimately leads us to ask some hard questions about human nature, motivation and behaviour. If in a state of ignorance, we routinely resort to savage stone-age responses, then endless cycles of competitiveness, war and destruction will be our deserved fate. On the other hand know that we are capable of better.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Agreed. Nuclear does not make sense for NZ but does for other countries.
Vote:But the ecision should be based on straight market economics – not because of the half-baked myth that CO2 emissions are causing a global warming disaster. They are not.
AGW is a HOAX.
Temperatures are increasing very slightly and have been rising gradually ever since we emerged from the last ice age. The real danger is when will that end and we start the slide down to the next big freeze.
That’s what we should be spending billions researching and preparing for!
April 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Its absolute rubbish nuclear [power is the answer to GW …the mining of uranium alone causes more environmental problems than fossil fuels do to create energy. All the way with nuclear power is PR OVEN to be a disaster to the world,
Its time these blinded protagonists for NP open their distorted eyes and looked at other alternatives like solar power, Hydrogen fuel,wave power wind power nuclear fusion.
Yes there is a problem re volume produced and cost of production etc ….but with our very clever scientists we have these days if there is a will I believe they can find the answer to this problem.
After all if a small bit of plastic can be used to communicate a one to one conversation between Auckland and London then surely they can find the answer to productions of volume of use in these safe environmental energy commodities for most of the worlds energy needs
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
paulinem, your words truly show how ignorant you are.
nuclear power is base load ‘always on’ generation. Like thermal (oil, gas, coal), geothermal, and to a lesser extent Hydro (lake levels may dictate whether it can be relied on). Wind and solar fluctuate, and cannot be relied on to power cities. Thus you cannot compare the utility of nuclear power generation or other base load generation to ephemeral wind, and solar.
Other tech is still quite some years off -decent solar panels, hydrogen cells, nuclear fusion (if ever). And if the countries car fleet switched to hydrogen fuel cells, we will need much more power generation to create the fuel.
In terms of cost of $ to the economy (which is recouped through expending energy in order to produce more exports), and cost in terms of embodied energy to build, maintain, mine & transport raw fuel, transmission of power to major centres of demand & finally decommission. Its pretty hard to beat Coal.
Build a thermal plant or three next to Auckland and reduce the need to send the power from the South Island all the way up the country (terribly inefficient!). Transport the coal from the Waikato by rail, or south island by ship. In terms of efficiency of energy spent to gained, this has to be at the top, next to say geothermal and of course, energy efficient measures within industry and housing.
Worried about CO2 from coal? Pipe it into the Maui (and other) reservoirs.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Bull…t mavxp there is much evidence around the world nuclear power is NOT the answer to GW.
Why is it no credible INDEPENDENT scientist who is studying the GW problem recommends NP ??
The cost of course to set up a new plant and to maintain is horrific in the billions.
No export drive will recuperate this cost, that is pure fantasy
And of course the waste from the start of mining uranium which causes untold damage to the environment uses huge volumes of water in the mining,and the waste of nuclear is dangerous to the environment and humans from the beginning to the end …that in itself is enough of a problem to be dis encourage in the harm it can create to humans for possibly hundreds of years in the future.
Accidents have happened all over the world with NP over the years ..yes there is evidence ..it has just been played down in order not to causes adverse reaction to NP…
Did you know after Chernobyl the deaths could be ??? they know that the 100,000 soldiers alone who were sent to clean up have all been effected by the fallout.
I am aware there are problems with providing enough volume of the other energy sources I just say it time we need to urgently ask the scientists of the world to start looking seriously at how we can use these very cheap and available environmentally friendly sources of energy
The world needs use them to change from oil coal etc to fulfill our energy needs.
I suspect the real problem has been the will in the past to work this out in this challenge was not taken up by scientists.
Maybe the oil companies and NP companies dis-encourage this as it was not in their interest.
Coal ,… unfortunately the carbon waste in this form of production is still a BIG problem possibly as bad as nuclear. I welcome any solution to this problem that can be prov en to not to harm the environment.
I suggest if NZ started on a deliberate program to gradually put in all NZ homes solar panels …in time we would all enjoy and reap the benefit.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I have solar water heating in my home and have put it in every home I have designed for my park. But when the sun doesn’t shine it doesn’t heat the water and you need back up. This is true for all wind and solar power. At least geothermal power is reliable – but then, it’s nuclear.
Nuclear power has been a problem in NZ because of the size of plant and our small demand. But the new plants do not need to be so big and if decide to electrify our private vehicle fleet the increase in demand easily justifies a plant or two.
Nuclear reactors are base isolated against earthquake and the technology was developed here in NZ.
And have you ever considered that hydro dams are vulnerable to earthquake and eruption. It didn’t stop us building them.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Interesting piece RR, I have been mulling over the same ground. I don’t have time to respond fully but I will point out areas where I think Your ideology has won over your rationality.
“Capitalism is just one a several economic models that the human race has evolved, but it has several well recognised limitations”
But no other economic system has been shown not to share these limitations, or other more severe limitations, I had a long discussion on this sort of thing on the libertarian thread of about a week ago, I did put forward ideas that no one effectively refuted.
“oil companies persisted in used lead as an octane-extender for decades after better lead-free alternatives where available.”
But this practice did end, it ended as a result of the democratic process, in our society the two work together fairly effectively. In other centralised economic societies sickness and pollution due to industry tends to be worse.
“A wider “external cost” occurs because capitalism inevitably acts to concentrate wealth. Right now for instance about 50% of the worlds wealth is controlled by fewer than 100 individuals, at the same time many billions live in absolute poverty.”
Firstly, it’s only reasonable to consider the population within a country under the one system, should the relative poverty of the people living in the USSR be attributed to the Wests market economy? why should poverty in Africa? Africans are totally outside the protection and wealth creation offered to people in the West.
Secondly, I don’t see who “owns” the wealth as relevant so much as who has income, and the opportunity of people to increase that income to meet their “needs”
“The Pebble-bed reactors are based on a quite different mode of thinking that reflect many decades of better understanding controlling nuclear reactions and advances in materials technology. It is not unthinkable that when proven, the Greens might well accept them.”
I’m not nearly as confident as you about the greens putting practicality ahead of ideology.
“If in a state of ignorance, we routinely resort to savage stone-age responses, then endless cycles of competitiveness, war and destruction will be our deserved fate.”
Read an interesting preview of a book a few days ago, violence in the human world has been dropping steadily for centuries, the author, an historian (Pinkton, or something) wasn’t sure specifically why, I think the answer is easy to find if you look for it with socio-biology, if there is an abundance of resources the best chances of your DNA surviving to the next generation is by avoiding violence, if resources are tight and starvation a risk, being violent and being prepared to kill the competition increases the chances of your DNA.
Otherwise we are in total agreement, Cheers!
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Owen, given the questions over future supplies of fissile material, and I know there’s a lot of BS about how big reserves are, I would still plumb for geothermal. As you say this is nuclear, just as solar is thermonuclear.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Did you know after Chernobyl the deaths could be ???”
Yes 56!
Somewhat less then the 50000 a year who die of snakebite in India
Between 1980 and 2003, more than 1,150 humans have died from elephants in NW India.
“Why is it no credible INDEPENDENT scientist who is studying the GW problem recommends NP ??”
Hmm what is this statement then…
We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in July 2006, to:
- Articulate the reality and urgency of global energy security concerns;
- Plan for the massive infrastructure investments, and lead times required for a transition to clean, affordable and sustainable energy systems;
- Itensify cooperation with developing countries to build their domestic capacities to use existing and innovative energy systems and technologies, including transfer of technologies;
- Promote by appropriate policies and economic instruments the development and implementation of cost-competitive, environmentally beneficial, and market acceptable clean fossil, nuclear, and renewable technologies;
Eduardo Krieger – Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Brazil
Patricia Demers – Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Yongxiang Lu – Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Edouard Brezin – Academie des Sciences, France
Volker ter Muelen – Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, GermanyR.A. Mashelkar – Indian National Science Academy, India
Giovanni Conso – Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Kiyoshi Kurokawa – Science Council of Japan, Japan
Yuri Osipov – Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Robin Crewe – Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Martin Rees – Royal Society, United Kingdom
Ralph Cicerone – National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Kind of makes you look uninformed.I suggest a steak http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/soci-mat032207.php
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
In answer to those worried about the uranium shortage, price and/or mining problems:
Vote:Pebble-bed reactors can use the abundant, less radioactive Thorium. http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm
You can’t smell the uranium on my breath!!!
April 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Good point Ross, Thorium may well be the main nuclear fuel of the future, but I still suspect geothermal could be a better option in most instances, trouble is it doesn’t have the sex appeal of the sophisticated space age nuclear option.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
AndrewW
Useful and thoughful responses…thanks.
But no other economic system has been shown not to share these limitations, or other more severe limitations,
Agreed. I muffed my point there. I should have said “Capitalism is just one a several economic models that the human race has evolved, but it still has several well recognised limitations”.
But this practice did end, it ended as a result of the democratic process,
in our society the two work together fairly effectively.
It seems to me that it would have been better if the oil companies were working to a model that had prompted them to act voluntarily, decades earlier when the superior technical alternative was first available to them. Surely that would be more effective than the plethora of often clumsy laws and regulations we accumulate as the decades go by?
I’m not saying that the current arrangement is totally broken, but one could hope for a less confrontational and more efficient mechanism to deal with these problems.
In other centralised economic societies sickness and pollution due to industry tends to be worse.
True in some cases, not not always in others. Besides there is the case to be made that one of the underlying reasons why the Soviet’s failed (aside the moral deficiencies of their operatchiks) was that they attempted to do centralised economic planning before the IT era arrived with the vastly greater data gathering and modelling power now available to us. (I sometimes suspect that the CCP is doing some very powerful work of this nature behind the Bamboo Curtain at a level we in the West have little inkling of.)
Firstly, it’s only reasonable to consider the population within a country under the one system,
Again agreed. In a short comment it is hard to avoid gross generalisations. In every case there are specific factors that uniquely pertain to every nation. At the same time because captialism has no inherent mechanism to counteract the concentration of wealth, it the general case it tends to amplify the problem, not moderate it.
should the relative poverty of the people living in the USSR be attributed to the Wests market economy?
Actually Russian market is doing quite well at a macro-economic level. About 10% of the people are doing exceedingly well, far more so than most of us in the West usually imagine. Another 40% or so constitute a somewhat fragile middle-class, and the other 50% really struggle. The reasons for this disparity are rooted in a complex of corruption, the outright theft of national resource by wealthy business/gangsters and an ingrained habit of alcohol abuse.
I think the answer is easy to find if you look for it with socio-biology, if there is an abundance of resources the best chances of your DNA surviving to the next generation is by avoiding violence,
Again agreed. There is no question that socio-biology offers many powerful explanations for animal behaviours and strategies. There is still much for us the learn about these very powerful drives that we generically call “instinct”. And there is no question that humans retain a very large quantum of this stuff buried in our brains. At the same time I’m not happy to accept “instinct” as the sole rationale for all human behaviour; unlike animals we have the choice to access a wholly “post-biological” dimension of rational abstract thought that suggests to me that we are more than just “clever apes”. YMMV.
Cheers.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
RedRag, what’s with the book-length off-topic discussions? Maybe there should be a “form length restriction”?.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Ross,
Sorry I didn’t realise that you were the “Topic-Width Policeman”.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hmm… good idea! With Sue Badfraud’s help, I’m sure the government will have to create the job for me! After all, if it’s a silly idea, it’s a prime idea for governments to implement!
Vote:Oops, I’m off-topic, smack, smack! Oops, can’t smack myself, someone might report me to Labour’s gestapo (aka CYPS).
April 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
marksismovich
…. only 56 died in Chernobyl … this is what the Soviets SAID died …oh please !!!!
It is a well known fact the Soviet govt cover ups its mistakes. Take it as a fact a lot more died maybe not initially but longterm yes and as nuclear fallout does will have a huge effect on future generations f those involved
You remind me of the Govt denial to NZ sailors who watched a nuclear explosion from
Christmas Island. And we know now they did suffer and die as are their children now are at a young age!!!
Or that Agent Orange didn’t have a negative effect on Vietnam servicemen ..their moans was all a plot designed to get taxpayers money pure fluke their children were born with disabilities and cancerous problems etc.
With out spending time reading the article you mention I strongly suspect the nuclear they mention is nuclear FUSION a safe resource of energy and totally different form of energy than the traditional nuclear power plants.
Unfortunately nuclear fusion although believed to be an exciting and huge source of energy is only in its infancy in discovery.
That appears to be the problem ..not enough money and resources is been put in by Govts on research to make alternatives a viable and plentiful solution.
Some countries are like Brazil Iceland and yes even Japan are doing excellent work but it appears to me their needs to be a concentrated internationally united effort to this problem if it is going to be solved for all to benifit and enjoy.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
only 56 died in Chernobyl … this is what the Soviets SAID died …oh please !!!!
Umm actually it is the Chernobyl forum findings.
The epidiemiological findings of the Chernobyl forum involved the CES institutes of science as well as specialists from the WHO and. from the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)The CES research has involved 600 health researchers in a specialised institute for 20 years !The largest combined epidiemilogical study ever undertaken into radionucleides.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Owen McShane – a question as you appear to be knowledgeable about solar panels etc ..I understand batteries can be powered by these panels to be used by the residents homes when the sun is not shining ?
Also are you aware their is huge fields of solar panels used to generate large volumes of power in other countries such as US and Japan.
Why not NZ do something similar here such as areas in Central Otago or Mid Canterbury ‘near the likes’ of Twizel which is so barren and exposed to sun and which very little farming can take place?
Re hydro dam’s/earthquakes they build them earthquake proof with this possibility in mind. But even if this failed the survivors would not suffer long term generational damage just because they simply lived close to the path of the damage ..
Where as nuclear plants accidents the exposure to the air of those near bye will effect you and the area for years and yours as well as others future generations
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
How can we, in full knowledge of what we are doing, bequeath to future generations for thousands of years to come massive amounts of radioactive nuclear waste? What will be our excuse? What will they think of us?
And what about the spread of weapons grade plutonium? What will happen if two nations with nuclear power plants fight a war? The desire to use radioactivity as a weapon means we shouldn’t be looking at nuclear power as a global solution to anything.
Perhaps sub-critical reactors will eventually provide a naswer to some of the issues with numcealr energy production. But until then, I will oppose nuclear power proliferation.
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Here is a possible alternative to going nuclear , a plasma energy converter fueled by the cities waste, which generates enough electricity to not only sustain its self, but put some back into the grid, earning the operators some nice pocket money. It does produce some waste/by products itself. A glass sludge, which can be used in landfill and in road construction, and a syngas, which can be captured and used for further energy production.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Florida County are apparently constructing a US$425 million facility. Ouch.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-09-fla-county-trash_x.htm
Vote:April 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
Its a nice idea E’van, as it reduces the use of landfills, but it is not a solution to our growing energy demand. It is only part of that solution, which includes solar, wind, energy efficiency measures, increased use of public transportation etc.
As far as new ‘base load’ generation:
Vote:Geothermal is probably the best option (as pointed out), 2nd is thermal, third is nuclear (unless new nuclear tech makes it more affordable).
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Chernobyl was a rubbish design that no-one would build now. It’s not a valid point in an argument on nuclear safety for future plants.
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
qynu cwtmohufb vjfoyc hpyt pjyo renzdm ncfmqkgpe
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
qynu cwtmohufb vjfoyc hpyt pjyo renzdm ncfmqkgpe
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
qynu cwtmohufb vjfoyc hpyt pjyo renzdm ncfmqkgpe
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am
qynu cwtmohufb vjfoyc hpyt pjyo renzdm ncfmqkgpe
Vote: