I may be burned at the stake for this (being the most un-kiwi thing a New Zealand could EVER suggest) but I can see the future being dominated by electricity. One 1000MW NUCLEAR (yes, I said it) reactor in the south island, on in the north, would put our country well into the comfort zone for electricity demand vs supply. Transport? An electrified rail system for a start. Development of hydrogen-burning engines - hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors - how's that for a concept? And green too!
Anyways, let the flaming begin....
burn baby burn...
nuclear will not work in nz. the cost of the infrastructure alone would cripple us. then we have to be beholden to the nations that would sell us uranium, which would be just as bad if not worse than the situation we've already got with oil.
put your creative energies elsewhere, like Tidal generation, smaller scale hydro and wind, better more efficient use of the energy resources we already have. just stop wasting yours and everybody elses time with this fricking nuclear malarky.
Hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors??? do you have ANY idea how much energy is required to actually make Hydrogen?
perpetual motion machines need only apply...
I may be burned at the stake for this (being the most un-kiwi thing a New Zealand could EVER suggest) but I can see the future being dominated by electricity. One 1000MW NUCLEAR (yes, I said it) reactor in the south island, on in the north, would put our country well into the comfort zone for electricity demand vs supply. Transport? An electrified rail system for a start. Development of hydrogen-burning engines - hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors - how's that for a concept? And green too!
Anyways, let the flaming begin....
burn baby burn...
nuclear will not work in nz. the cost of the infrastructure alone would cripple us. then we have to be beholden to the nations that would sell us uranium, which would be just as bad if not worse than the situation we've already got with oil.
put your creative energies elsewhere, like Tidal generation, smaller scale hydro and wind, better more efficient use of the energy resources we already have. just stop wasting yours and everybody elses time with this fricking nuclear malarky.
Hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors??? do you have ANY idea how much energy is required to actually make Hydrogen?
perpetual motion machines need only apply...
Hydrogen is a by-product of several industrial processes, if only I could remember which ones!
But you are correct that is is expensive and energy intensive to make by itself!
Oh and you can run an ordinary petrol engine on hydrogen without to much modification, just the fuel storage in the vehicle is the issue, big bangs in crashes anyone?
Although I have heard of a cunning way of doing it that is well safer than a normal car petrol tank, I'll have a dig and see if I can find the info on it.
Joined: Mar 05, 2006 Posts: 1,593 Location: Auckland, Mt eden
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 2:48pm Post subject:
Percy Pig wrote:
Although I have heard of a cunning way of doing it that is well safer than a normal car petrol tank, I'll have a dig and see if I can find the info on it.
I think it is possible to store it intramolecularly in trick solids. it being so small and all, a bit like a sponge
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2,065 Location: Otumoetai
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 2:48pm Post subject:
swtchbckr wrote:
Barks wrote:
I may be burned at the stake for this (being the most un-kiwi thing a New Zealand could EVER suggest) but I can see the future being dominated by electricity. One 1000MW NUCLEAR (yes, I said it) reactor in the south island, on in the north, would put our country well into the comfort zone for electricity demand vs supply. Transport? An electrified rail system for a start. Development of hydrogen-burning engines - hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors - how's that for a concept? And green too!
Anyways, let the flaming begin....
burn baby burn...
nuclear will not work in nz. the cost of the infrastructure alone would cripple us. then we have to be beholden to the nations that would sell us uranium, which would be just as bad if not worse than the situation we've already got with oil.
put your creative energies elsewhere, like Tidal generation, smaller scale hydro and wind, better more efficient use of the energy resources we already have. just stop wasting yours and everybody elses time with this fricking nuclear malarky.
Hydrogen gas turbine generators powering electric motors??? do you have ANY idea how much energy is required to actually make Hydrogen?
perpetual motion machines need only apply...
Given that I agree with your points on the other sources of energy beside Nuke, and the perpetual motion machine ( ), whats the problem with just building a smaller reactor? I dont know jack about them, but why not just build one half the size (I.e. that we can afford)?
Joined: Mar 05, 2006 Posts: 1,593 Location: Auckland, Mt eden
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 2:57pm Post subject:
Flyboy wrote:
Given that I agree with your points on the other sources of energy beside Nuke, and the perpetual motion machine ( ), whats the problem with just building a smaller reactor? I dont know jack about them, but why not just build one half the size (I.e. that we can afford)?
cos the smallest one you can build is 1 critical mass of fuel (about 1GW). ( gets smaller the more enriched fuel you use). But if we build one, we should build a breeder reactor and run it on weapons grade plutonium. But the major problem is the backup generation if it goes down.
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2,065 Location: Otumoetai
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:01pm Post subject:
philstar wrote:
Flyboy wrote:
Given that I agree with your points on the other sources of energy beside Nuke, and the perpetual motion machine ( ), whats the problem with just building a smaller reactor? I dont know jack about them, but why not just build one half the size (I.e. that we can afford)?
cos the smallest one you can build is 1 critical mass of fuel (about 1GW). ( gets smaller the more enriched fuel you use). But if we build one, we should build a breeder reactor and run it on weapons grade plutonium. But the major problem is the backup generation if it goes down.
Ta
I remember reading something about tiny nuke generators that would last for 50 years or whatever that would suit indiviual small villages/towns, but i guess that they're still somewhat experimental.
Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 440 Location: Hiding under desk, Christchurch
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:03pm Post subject:
philstar wrote:
Flyboy wrote:
Given that I agree with your points on the other sources of energy beside Nuke, and the perpetual motion machine ( ), whats the problem with just building a smaller reactor? I dont know jack about them, but why not just build one half the size (I.e. that we can afford)?
cos the smallest one you can build is 1 critical mass of fuel (about 1GW). ( gets smaller the more enriched fuel you use). But if we build one, we should build a breeder reactor and run it on weapons grade plutonium. But the major problem is the backup generation if it goes down.
I think a bigger issue is if it 'goes up' not 'goes down'
Seeing as we have no magic dust to make the puppy work, it's bloody pointless. Might as well make a reactor that runs on dinosaur ssip, will be as effective.
From everything I have seen and heard, Chernobyl was a screwup, they ignored a fair number of their own safety systems...if they had followed procedure that would NEVER have happened. That said, I don't like the idea of a corner of the country being wasteland either, but it would be very very unlikely. I'd be more worried about what might happen if there was an earthquake or similar near the plant than something going wrong with the plant itself. Which should be considered if/when it is designed.
What are the alternatives-wind power? People get all NIMBY about that as well. Same goes for doing anything to rivers i.e. building any more dams. And there is opposition to more fossil fuel burning plants...
Whatever "we" do to get electricity will have negative consequences, at some point a decision will need to be made as to what consequences are acceptable if we want to have the lights on etc...personally I'm not convinced that nuclear power is the answer for NZ at least, but it probably should be considered.
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 1,427 Location: I used to have tourettes, now I'm rolf harris
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:27pm Post subject:
Percy Pig wrote:
oh and you can run an ordinary petrol engine on hydrogen without to much modification, just the fuel storage in the vehicle is the issue, big bangs in crashes anyone?
nah, leave the hydrogen tanks non-crash worthy, that'll lower the drain on the hospital infrastructure. no wrecks to clear away, no injured to treat, just fix the post crash crater in the road.
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2,065 Location: Otumoetai
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:37pm Post subject:
slidecontrol wrote:
Percy Pig wrote:
oh and you can run an ordinary petrol engine on hydrogen without to much modification, just the fuel storage in the vehicle is the issue, big bangs in crashes anyone?
nah, leave the hydrogen tanks non-crash worthy, that'll lower the drain on the hospital infrastructure. no wrecks to clear away, no injured to treat, just fix the post crash crater in the road.
Theres merit in this idea... itd lower the speeding problem too.
Joined: Jan 12, 2003 Posts: 32,882 Location: Derailled
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:48pm Post subject:
Percy Pig wrote:
Oh and you can run an ordinary petrol engine on hydrogen without to much modification, just the fuel storage in the vehicle is the issue, big bangs in crashes anyone?
Not for long tho', it burns so hot it kcufs the valves I've heard, hence why mazda were working on a hydrogen powered rotary
Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Posts: 9,464 Location: Hamilton
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 3:58pm Post subject:
duzall wrote:
I don't know if I want to get into this but...
From everything I have seen and heard, Chernobyl was a screwup, they ignored a fair number of their own safety systems...if they had followed procedure that would NEVER have happened. That said, I don't like the idea of a corner of the country being wasteland either, but it would be very very unlikely. I'd be more worried about what might happen if there was an earthquake or similar near the plant than something going wrong with the plant itself. Which should be considered if/when it is designed.
What are the alternatives-wind power? People get all NIMBY about that as well. Same goes for doing anything to rivers i.e. building any more dams. And there is opposition to more fossil fuel burning plants...
Whatever "we" do to get electricity will have negative consequences, at some point a decision will need to be made as to what consequences are acceptable if we want to have the lights on etc...personally I'm not convinced that nuclear power is the answer for NZ at least, but it probably should be considered.
Yep, Nuclear has gotten a tihsload more reliable and safe since back then. Our biggest issue would be natural disasters. Also, when you say 'A corner of the country being wasteland', I believe it would be more like THE COUNTRY. I could be wrong though.
I'm good at fence sitting, huh?
kcuf it lets go nuclear. that would be the NIMBY fight to end all NIMBY fights!
wind is unreliable, and only allowed to run the lakes down so far in dry years. Coal fired is not PC, same with GAS fired. tidal is a good option but problem would be overlap in slack tides i guess.
perpetual motion machine is looking pretty good, where is that design on the internet.? can't be that hard surely?!?
All times are GMT + 12 Hours Goto page <<1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10>>
Page 9 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest ℗ 2000-2008 by Tama Easton.
Extra design ℗ by Scotty Lane and Nathan Whitley. Photos and written work on this site are property of their owners, do not use them for commercial purposes.
Developed for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox 3.0
), whats the problem with just building a smaller reactor? I dont know jack about them, but why not just build one half the size (I.e. that we can afford)?
