More nuclear support
The Herald on Sunday editorial slams opposition to nuclear power:
The nuclear threat to the planet pales into insignificance beside the threat posed by climate change.
Among the Kiwi contingent, the suggestion was as appetising as a plutonium milkshake. Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters muttered darkly that we were not going to “abrogate our sovereignty”; Trade and Disarmament Minister Phil Goff cited “other concerns”, including waste disposal, safety issues and the creation of terrorist targets; and PM Helen Clark, who sees no role for nuclear power in the climate-change debate, dismissed it as “not something we are going to endorse”.
Such an unequivocal attitude flies in the face of shifting international and scientific opinion. Barely a year ago, Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (which now derides him as an apostate), wrote that “nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power”. James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, pronounced that “only nuclear power can now halt global warming” and wrote “I entreat my friends in the [Green] movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy”.
Most people think countless thousands, even millions, of people died as a result of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. The World Health Organisation’s count is 75 – and all of those were people involved in fighting the fire and the cleanup. What is more, Chernobyl was a shoddily built, poorly maintained Soviet-era station belonging to a collapsing oligarchy: more than 20 years later, with all the technical development that has occurred, it is a poor example of the supposed risk.
It may well be that nuclear power is not viable here on practical or political grounds, though the likelihood is that we will fail to meet our emissions-reduction targets without a change in energy strategy. But we do ourselves and the world no favours by refusing out of hand to endorse or explore the nuclear option. When the biosphere collapses, it won’t spare this country just because we remained philosophically pure.
It would be good to have a response from the Greens to this. Or from Labour.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Roger Nome said in DPF’s first post on this topic:
“I’m afraid that I’m forced into the same conclusion as sonic. David’s post is a piece of propaganda aimed changing the NZ’s public’s perception of nuclear power so as to prime us for the eventuality of National reversing our ban on visits by US nuclear powered vessels”
I guess it’s a joint piece of propaganda between dpf, the nats, fran o’sullivan AND the herald then?
What a moron.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Greens should cheer up, the Aussies have enough Uranium for everyone.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Of of the most curious arguments against nucelar power is that it will take too long to save the planet from global warming.
I’ve always been puzzled by this pieced of logic chopping. Global warming is going to be a problem for the next 1000 years at least. We need to put in place strategies that will work for hundreds of years, not just the next 50 years.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
If we find that we can live and grow without nuclear power we should feel lucky, not smug.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Why do we countenance such closed minds to run our Country?
Their attitude of: “We’re alright Jack b….. you” is unacceptable at this time. Other expanding economies, for their very survival, need to adopt all available interim measures, until some renewable energy resouurces reach commercial production.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I seem to recall reading that the Mt Pinatubo eruption released more radioactive waste than all the nuclear bombs and tests combined.
Radiation is part of our environment.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
My only slight concern is whether the editor truly believed that bosh about AGW, or whether he was just tweaking the Greens and the pretentious Labour Covt twits. But whatever, you take support where you can.
The fun part of this debate is the enormous protests that arose over the Manapouri Scheme, the Clyde Dam and the various other proposals that have arisen over the years. The protesters have been enormously successful in killing or modifying all efforts to increase hydro-electricity supplies, and did so with great public support for “saving” the environment.
Few people remember that from WW2 till 1958, NZ had power restrictions, and conveniently forgotten are exhortations from the 60s to today to “switch off” to save power because the dams were low on water. Few people would remember the battles with Comalco as it sought more power and the Govt of the day grimly tried to deny it so that ordinary NZers wouldn’t have to go without.. and the battles over pulpmills!
In short, we have always been somewhat short on power and have to suffer it’s unreliabilty when the weather determines when the turbines turn. For instance, we have a handful of pulp mills in NZ, and they were built when the wood supply was a million tonnes a year. Today we produce 22 million going up to 40 million tonnes annually. How can we process this without much more power?
NZ has established in no uncertain terms that building new hydro-electric dams is a colossal affront to the environment and that there shall be no more such desecration of our environment, we also hate coal fired plants and shrivel at the thought of depleting our steam resources… but we also despise, detest and thoroughly don’t like the idea of nuclear power, yet our population continues to grow and so does the need for more industrial capacity using electricity.
How countries keep a straight face when we bang our little conservation and no nukes drum I don’t know.
JC
September 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Jeanette Fitzsimmons proudly took credit for canning project Aqua, the best Hydro project in a generation. It we are short of power in New Zealand, it is due to those luddites. I mean “Greens”.
Actaully, they are watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Milo, I think the point was even with all regulatory and financial obstacles removed, that nuclear plants simply could not be built fast enough to dent global warming, because of the growth in demand for energy. So it has to be coupled with reduced demand. I agree that an objection to nuclear because it’s not the whole solution it therefore can’t be part of the solution is not logical. No less logical than digging up coal as fast as we can to be sent to China while it’s not OK to burn coal to generate electricity here in NZ.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Fred – right, I agree with you. But others are saying we there is no point using nuclaear power at all, which shows they don’t really give a shit about global warming, and just see it as a convenient excuse to pursue their own particvular shibboleths.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
The end game for the radical environmental movement is no or negative growth. They have always been viciously anti-capitalism and deeply Marxist at their core (eg our only two resident Trostskyite MPs Locke and Bradford happily at home in the Green Party) and the whole Global Warming orthodoxy is aimed ultimately at providig the justification for a massive tax on wealthy nations and corporations who are portrayed as evil polluters.
This schizophrenic view on nuclear power by the left and its obeisance to the environmental movement by virtually banning new HEP or coal fired stations is a recipe for future brown/black outs and economic stagnation. The saviours of wind and solar power cannot effeciently deliver nearly enough power and likely for many many years to come.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
There are 435 reactors in 31 countries with nearly 200 proposed or under construction. The reactor at Bruce Peninsula in Ont., Canada has been operating since 1962 and is going through a $5 billion upgrade. Japan produces 60% of their power through nuclear power.
It is safe, pollution free, CO2 free and can be built close to the user thereby being more efficient rather than losing 20% of the capacity through line loss sending it 1000 kms to the market. Not to mention the land loss for dams, potential danger of dam failure (over 200 in the last 75 years) and being a natural and easy terrorist target.
The nuclear deniers just don’t seem to have understood this science and the 100 years of research behind it and yet are on the band wagon for the new science behind global warming. Go figure.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Except that nuclear power is not sustainable. You haven’t heard of ‘peak uranium’? Look at nomes blog, and just substitute ‘uranium’ for ‘oil’, and you’re done.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Peak uranium is about as likely as peak stupidity. My pick is that it will keep going on forever …
Seriously, though, this “peak” stuff is about limitations is our forecasting, not limitation in the resources. To the extent that “peak” theory is falsifiable, it was falsifiable across a whole range of precious metals in the 1970s and 1980s.
Basic economics tells us that supply always matches demand, if the price mechanism is allowed to freely operated. If the price rises, substitutes increasingly come into play.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Spam, taking that agument to the extreme, then solar power is not sustainable either. We are said to be at a peak solar event as well. It will run out, eventually.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Radiation is part of our environment.
Yes Mike S, but that doesn’t mean it good for you. Cianide is also part of our environemt, but I woudn’t recommend iyou have it on your weetbix for breakfast.
potential danger of dam failure (over 200 in the last 75 years)
How many of those happened in the last 30 years and with the loss of how many lives?
and being a natural and easy terrorist target.
Right, and nuclear power plants aren’t?
It is safe, pollution free
It isn’t polution free.
If we find that we can live and grow without nuclear power we should feel lucky
I agree.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The source of renewable energy is the sun with it’s inexhaustible supply. Only a minute fraction reaches the earth’s surface. The utilisation of this energy, although at present small, is never the less helpful.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Continuation:
Time is the big enemy. Present research trends indicate a new approach.
Term it a booster, in that it is an approach to at least double or even treble the power generated from present sources. Principle of the heat pump I guess. However even these boosters will require replacing after 20 years use. However again technology will probably assist in lengthening their life span. It all helps
September 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Reported dam breach fatalities over the a 30 years is about 1500.
Never said nuclear power plants were not targets, just stating a remote power station would have much less security than a nuclear facility. Anyone could drive a bomb on almost any dam in NZ as there is no security on any of them.
What does a nuclear plant emit…hot water and spent uranium. The uranium is put back under ground where it came from and the hot water is cooled and reused emitting water vapor and heat.
There are several types of nuclear power technology from using unrefined uranium to highly refined plutonium. They all have issues and benefits depending on the use such as a satellites using plutonium and the Candu reactor that uses raw unprocessed uranium. The more processing the less often the fuel needs to be replenished. The Canadian uranium is put back into the mine it came from but with half its energy lost.
The American system was developed for producing weapons grade material so their system (and Russian) uses processed uranium so the refinement process is expensive and the spent fuel is used as feed stock for plutonium production. That is why they are not happy with Iran.
Fusion is still along way off with a fusion plant just being constructed in Japan.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
To paraphrase an old saying:
“Dpf, the nats, fran o’sullivan AND the herald then” – lean forward.”
I can almost smell the uranium on their collective breath.”
September 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Ooops, I mean cyanide.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
PP
Excellent, a very original line, not over used at all.
I’m surprised you can smell anything through the thick coal smoke that surrounds the Labour policies on global warming. Simply because we are selling it to other countries is not hiding the fact it’s being burned for our profit.
We are responsible for the pollution it causes because we profit from it’s sale. Shall we just move on ?
September 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
The NZ representation to APEC resembled a local canine obedience club.
Grand Pooh barr Helsatian– I don’t think myself, my consort or my party would want to explore the option of Nuclear Power-pardon did you say what about the people, oh of course thy do what ever I think is best !!!
Show Poodle Winnie Retriever—Yes mam, noo that’s Goffs dept I’m only here for obedience trials—why are we losing the next election,don’t ask me again you know the answer!!!!
Goff Russel Terrier—I wish I were bigger I could be the leader, No I definitely don’t have any leadership aspirations and what did mother say on this issue –of course no we definitely don’t want nuclear power it was a big enough job for mummy and her girl friends to ban nuclear ships let alone nuclear power—sigh-I wish I was bigger I could make my own mind up.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
“Spam, taking that agument to the extreme, then solar power is not sustainable either. We are said to be at a peak solar event as well. It will run out, eventually.”
The OECD’s official energy market watch-dog, the international energy agency (IEA), is very worried about the world’s ability to keep on growing its energy supply past 2010. It heartily endorses energy conservation/efficiency as a way of preparing for the eventual market crunch. The obvious problem with gobbling up non-renewable resource after non-renewable resource is that it’s not a long term answer
I believe that this video/lecture nicely illustrates my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&mode=related&search=
DPF and other market liberals suggestion is to “let the market take care of things” – unfortunately if we take this attitude the effect of this crunch on our economy will be lot more severe than it has to be. Having regulations that ensure efficient energy use costs little, on the other hand, the price of not implementing them now will be very high in the coming years.
Helmet, do I need to answer that piece of stupidity? of well why not
“I guess it’s a joint piece of propaganda between dpf, the nats, fran o’sullivan AND the herald then? What a moron.
Dear Helmie – It seems like you haven’t quite figured out that DPF = Nats. Bit slow on the up-take I see …. poor boy.
Also – o’sullivan and the herald’s peices came out days after I posted that comment …. silly Helmie.
[DPF: No DPF does not equal Nats. That's just what you say to avoid debating an issue.]
September 9th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
We can wait for now maybe 10 years. Clark and Peters will be long gone when we may have to decide on this one. Meanwhile the technology gets better and better. But it is way too expensive compared with other options available to NZ. The Aussies if they are to get rid of coal will probably go nuclear quite soon. I hope they get the bomb as well and stuff that down the Labour Party’s throat.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Re the regular recent references to New Zealand exporting coal to China … I’m thinking someone’s got their wires crossed there a bit. Sure, we export coal to China. But it’s not burnt in power stations, it’s high-quality coking coal that’s burnt in steel mills. And China isn’t our largest export market for that coking coal by a long stretch, most of it goes to Japan, Korea and India.
Now sure, I totally agree that burning coal isn’t great in greenhouse gas terms. But regardless of how China chooses to generate electricity that same coal is going to be burnt in the same steel mills.
So it’s a misdirection to link our coal exports to China with electricity generation.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I am a centre left voter in favour of nuclear
energy.
Both Clarke and Key are wrong in their reasons
for not having it.
Key mentioned our network will not handle the
output, well upgrade the bloody network.
Remember, all we need is three dry years and we will be lighting candles as the hydro lakes
run out of water.
New zealand too small in population, bollocks,
we are only a million less than Finland, who
are building a nuclear power station.
And remember, the Finns are a bunch of screaming lefties.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Nome-
FFS you’re a moron. Dpf’s post was no more a piece of propaganda than either the herald’s editorial or fran’s piece. You’re a paranoid twit who has to smear people smarter than you, which appears to be most everything.
“Also – o’sullivan and the herald’s peices came out days after I posted that comment …. silly Helmie.”
The subsequent publications illustrate that dpf’s post was something of public interest, making your propaganda accusations ( which you were ‘forced’ to conclude, as there was absolutely NO other reason to post on this non-issue, ay rog?) look rather daft.
You’re only making yourself look dumber by failing to recognise this, quite a feat really.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Virtual: I for one was aware of that and made sure that I didn’t refer to the Chinese (or whoever we sell it to) using our coal in power stations. We also have coal that is suitable for use in power stations. To my way of thinking it’s irrelevant whether the coal we sell is used for electricity or steelmaking (we dig it up and because we don’t use it ourselves it’s not adding to the CO2 problem??). If you are saying that there’s excusable uses and non-excusable uses, then how do we control that. If you are also saying that if we didn’t sell them the coal then someone else would so we may as well be the ones selling to them (since we are far more deserving of the money right). Still the same thing – the blood is on our hands.
The issue is created by the Kyoto cap and trade system which won’t work unless everyone signs up to it (or if we were true to our principles we would refuse to export to a country that hadn’t signed up). This is the point that was actually being made.
Roger: Wasn’t spam being sarcastic? Yes I think using market signals would be a far better mechanism than anything a command and control system could put in place eg. carless days.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
To clarify, yes, I was being sarcastic. I have actually seen people posting on “peak uranium” already.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
You don’t have as much space by a long shot as we in Australia can use on solar thermal power but nevertheless you should read below and think about it. You may be able to have solar thermal power as an alternative to nuclear if your hydroelectric stations can’t produce enough but of course on a much smaller scale or you may be able to have wind generators with vanadium redox battery storage as we are doing in King Island. So you certainly should not have to have nuclear power!
There has been a breakthrough in renewable energy base power production! I refer to solar thermal power using a cheap flat mirror system and storage by the disassociation of ammonia in an endothermic reactor then stored at ambient temperature and used at any later time even during wintertime the sun’s energy is not lost being chemically locked up. Then reapplied to an exothermic reactor heat is produced at about 500 degrees to provide steam for power generation. This closed loop system enables 24/7 base power production for industry and it also is able to provide medium or peak power on demand. Not only that the storage system is easy to do and cheap and is based on mature technology and enables the sun’s energy to be stored any length of time without loss so that the energy can be extracted in the wintertime if necessary or any time in the future! No other storage system can do this and it is a real breakthrough. A gigawatt plant is right now being built in America financed by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla who says that solar thermal power is poised for explosive growth because of it’s low costs together with Australian scientist Dr David Mills. In Europe a TRANS-CSP report commissioned by the German government calculates that solar thermal power is likely to become one of the cheapest sources of power including the cost of transmission. Not producing any carbon and it does not have safety issues it’s easy to see why. This is the power that needs to be, and can be sent to third world counties and the rest of Europe via High Voltage Direct Current Transmission lines from solar thermal plants in North African deserts or the Middle East with only 3% loss in transmission. In fact the whole world could use this as a major power source as there are many deserts around. The potential for it to power the world cleanly and safely and reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time is a real bonus. And it is being done now. Lets get on with it and continue! A general understanding and awareness of solar thermal power (CSP) can be seen on http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm and (http://www.trecers.net/index.html and http://www.trec.net.au/ and understanding of the storage system in schematic form can be seen at
http://engnet.anu.edu.au/DEresearch/solarthermal/high_temp/thermochem/index.php and to see where CSP plants are operating or being built or planned see http://www.earth.google.com and go to CSP plants on Google Earth.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Great to see this issue raised and now being debated rationally (by most).
Compulsory reading on the subject:
1.”Nuclear New Zealand- sorting Fact from Fiction” By Andrew McEwan.
McEwan is recognized as an international expert on radiation protection, and his book systematically demolishes the falsehoods and paranoia the left has injected into the debate on the Nuclear issue.
2.Somers Report on Nuclear Propulsion.
This report produced in 1992 by retired judge Sir Edmund Somers,and a team of experts considered mainly the safety of Nuclear propelled ships, but demonstrated in one table that the risk of death in living on the boundary of a nuclear power station for 5 years was equivalent to:Smoking 1.4 cigarettes,or Traveling 480km in a car,or living 2 months in a stone or brick building,or eating 500g of peanut butter.
The good news is we are actually discussing it, and we have a window of opportunity to do so before the great socialist propaganda machine soughts out how to reconcile Carbon Neutrality with a Non Nuclear world and begins character assassinations on those that disagree.
And lets hurry up because if the EFB passes we certainly wont be able to debate it freely next year.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Let’s not debate it next year eh?
September 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Peak oil?
Peak uranium?
Can anyone tell me a single resource that has ever run out (extinct species don’t count – I can still get meat, fish and veggies)?
The point is, as stuff gets more rare its price rises and we look harder or shift to an alternative and cheaper/more available resource.
The Greens are fast becoming the greatest threat to the planet. Oh the irony!
September 10th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Helen Clark is an irrational dinosaur. All emotionalism and zero facts. What a stupid out-of-date idiot.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Pebble bed reactors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Much less cooling required, self controlling in event of loss of coolant. Easier to build and run.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I am opposed to the building of nuclear reactors on an emotional level. But I suppose it is always possible to rationalise our emotions so here goes:
1) nuclear reactors are a strategic risk
2) the waste is practicvally impossible to destroy, unless we aim it at the sun.
3) We should be reorganising our power use and reducing our capacity first.
4) Just as it was a kiwi that discovered nuclear power, wouldn’t it be great if kiwi ingenuity devised new ways to use solar and water and wind?
5) France’s reactors nearly went into melt-down only last year as a result of a lack of river-water caused by drought. The heated water they dumped back into rivers caused large-scale fish deaths. If Global Warming is a fact, then are we not likely to experience similar near-catastrophes?
5) Who would we sell our depleted uranium to (let me guess – North Korea?!)
6) Is it possible future generations will look at those big, unapproachable reactors and wonder what the hell we were thinking?
7) radioactive waste mutates genes.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Lee C: “wouldn’t it be great if kiwi ingenuity devised new ways to use solar and water and wind?”
Kiwi ingenuity is closer than you think, but not necessarily in the directions you mentioned.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Hello I’m a intermediate school kid called Hee Chan Kim that would like to fight against bringing nuclear energy in, because when we are recycling nuclear energy the uranium may leak and could be lit making a huge explosion near the nuclear plant making the nuclear plant explode which may cause a chain reaction to neighbouring nuclear power plants causing billions and billions of dollars worth of damage and also think of the long term consequences like Mr Lee C said we’ll probly be transporting uranium to North Korea which isn’t a very smart idea and also it can cause death of many many people nuclear energy will probly be a huge problem for cancer. But I do believe there are also good points about nuclear energy it doesn’t use as much power as elctricity, it will cost us much less money and lastly it can make less pollution but still I strongly disagree that god damn nuclear bull should be brought to NZ and mess up it’s clean reputation.