Mixing non-nuclear policy and hicks

Remove all ads!

It might not be common knowledge but I hope this contributes a little to it. New Zealand has a no-nuclear policy. Nothing nuclear is allowed in New Zealand. Not a bit. Nadda. If it's green and glowing it better be a lava-lamp. The only deformities we want are to be caused by inbreeding. No, this isn't another 'Abomination Bashes His Own Country' threads. This time I'm targetting a small group of my country and hoping that you people hold the same view I do.

Due to our anti-nuclear policy, New Zealand doesn't have a nuclear power-plant (pretty damn obvious). To get our lovely electrons flowing, we use coal, gas, hydro and wind. Despite being the country that damn well INVENTED atomics, we don't actually use the stuff. Quite ironic really.

Fine, I accept that. Unlike Russia, if New Zealand had a nuclear power-plant and that plant happened to experience a meltdown... let's just say New Zealand would no longer be known as 'the land of the long white cloud' but rather 'land of the f*$king big mushroom cloud' - because that's all that'll be left. Who knows? we might take part of Australia down with us, at least we'd be happy knowing that our deaths weren't in vain.

Now, the problem with coal is that it uses a fossil fuel and creates a bit of nasty gas. So the supply is limited and it pollutes our beautiful sky. The problem with gas is that it's also a non-replenishing resource and we're actually running out of it. Hydroelectric plants need water, and if there's a drought then not only do we not have much water to drink, we also don't have electricity. Now wind isn't so dependant upon such resources. Sure, if it isn't windy then there isn't any power, but I tell you, New Zealand has enough wind in some places. You want some wind? You can have it. We've got heaps. Mothers have to tie their children down in some parts of the country, the wind is that bad.

Now that you know our situation, it's time to get to the point. Recently an application to create a 19 turbine wind farm south of Auckland in an area known as 'The Bombay Hills' - a fairly windy area - was rejected by local residents. I know, they're just big windmills. What's there to complain about? I think they look quite majestic actually and the Netherlands is famous for them. The reason why they don't want these beautiful power-producing towers is rather pathetic. An entire city, supporting at least one million residents, that needs all the electricity it can get is being denied a cheap, eco-friendly source of power because of... wait for it... a pony club. Didn't hear me the first time? Thought I made a typo? A pony club. The tiny pony-riding community believe that the turbines' "Sudden blade movement" (i.e. something spinning around and around and around... I find it hard to describe it as 'sudden' since it will be occuring all the time) and "shadow flicker" (when the sun is behind the windmill and the blades cut across the sun making a small amount of flicker - you shouldn't be looking at the sun anyway, you stupid pony! You'll go blind!) "could frighten the horses".

Now... it seems ludditism is the latest fad amongst the rural community, taking over from more traditional passtimes such as inbreeding and sheep worrying.

Due to the sheer stupidity and over-reacting of these few pony riding yokels an entire city, the economic hub of a country, is being denied one of its most important commodities. The entire country suffers because of some sheep-shagging bushmen.

Sure, they have their rights since the turbines will be built near their 'settlement'. They can prevent the construction of the windmills legally. But shouldn't they at least must have a F*$ING GOOD REASON?!

 

Ireland also has a non-nuclear policy and wind farms have been so great here that we are actually going to be an electricty exporter and its all green! Its also been discovered that solar power panels can function on cloudy days and do not need bright sun light.

We all know the advantages of wind power but here are some disadvantages:

There are concerns from some people who are worried about wind farms being positioned in their area. The main worries are that they ruin the landscape – because they generally have to be positioned on hills to get the maximum benefits of the wind.

Wind farms also take up much more space to produce the same amount of energy as other methods such coal-fire powered stations.

Wind farms can be costly to maintain and electricity produced by this method is more expensive than that produced by other means. There are arguments that the money would be better put into energy conservation.

The noise generated from wind turbines has been criticised by some people who live very close to the wind farms.

The turbines can cause some slight electromagnetic interference, which can cause interference with television signals and some communications equipment, although this is thought now to be negligible.

Nothing compared to the disadvantages of nuclear power I am sure everyone will agree.

 

This is a common problem in many places, on some level I can understand. Would you want your house torn down for the good of a bunch of people far away? This is in a generalized way what these arguements is about. I am all for running rough shod over the few in the interest of the many. Especially since it tends to be 10-20 peoples interests weighed against the interests of thousands if not millions. One problem is that the negativers tend to be loudmouthed enough for people ten times their number so if there are 50 people in a community against something and 5000 indifferent those 50 will make enough of a ruckus to make us outsiders believe that those 50 speak for the entire community. The nice media also tends to always side on the "little guys" who stand up to the "evil will of the unfeeling government/corporation". Here in Sweden there are for some reason a predator debate, a debate as to whether we should kill off all our wolves, bears, linx and wolverines despite a vast vast majorities of Swedes thinking we should do our best to get more predators in our nature but a few hundred perhaps up to a few thousand hillbillies, rednecks and hunters think we should kill all them nasty bloodthirsty predators because two-three hunting dogs get mauled each year and now and then a piece of livestock gets killed, note that the owner of the livestock is generously compensated by the government. Loudmouthed malcontents should be forcefully be run over. I am not advocating the repression of the minority of the majority but there have to be some limits in how far to go to appease a few boisterous naysayers.

 

" few hundred perhaps up to a few thousand hillbillies, rednecks and hunters think we should kill all them nasty bloodthirsty predators because two-three hunting dogs get mauled each year and now and then a piece of livestock gets killed"

Thats terrible. In Ireland we do not have these creatures since the Roman and Norman Invasion's. I am sure they would be greatly missed in Sweden.

 

Some other considerations:

Radar: A number of projects in England have been shelved by the MOD as it interferes with their radar coverage.

Birds: This supposedly has led to an increase in bird deaths. I think Bill Oddie of Goodies fame (A top "twitcher" is dead set against use of wind farms.

Lightning: Tall metal tower on a hill. Problem has been mostly solved through use of interesting composite materials on the blades.

Off-shore: Prefered location to stop (most) people complaining. A number of developments going on in the North Sea. Big issues are:
a.) Installing the things in the first place
b.) Protecting the installation from storms
b.) Transforming to a high-voltage off-shore to enable transmission. (Otherwise too many losses in transmitting Low voltage)

Personally I like them on the landscape, they look no worse than transmission line towers (similar out-cry's went up about them as well). It is more concerning with those close to dwellings as the low-frequency sound waves can cause headaches and nausea.

I don't know much about NZ's water supplies, but I'd have though quite a lot was from snow-melt and therefore less subject to seasonal changes.

PV is particularly efficient at high altitude where you have higher light levels and cooler temperatures.

 

Another big disadvantage of wind farms: for every megawatt in wind energy you need a megawatt of backup energy coming from a reliable source. Ask some of the north eastern Americans or southern Swedes what it feels like when hundreds of megawatts drop out of the net at the same time.

You would need to build some conventional powerplants as well - even if they would not run on full load all the time.

 

Nobody's house is going to be torn down. The Bombay Hills are wide, open spaces with next to nobody there. You could drop a cluster bomb and you'd probably only kill a few rabbits and maybe a sheep.

So a few birds die? Big damn deal. In New Zealand all of our endangered birds live in forest areas (i.e. places where you wouldn't put wind-turbines since forests have a habit of being natural wind-breakers).

New Zealand and lightning almost never happen in the same place. Besides, the problem has been solved.

We have water shortages almost every 5 years and these affect almost the entire country.

 

We have the same issue here in the people's republic of Massachusetts. A group wants to put up a windmill farm in the ocean between Boston, Cape Cod, and Martha's Vineyard. Considering the amount of energy our state uses you would think that the eco-warriors would be all in favor of it. Instead they are screaming about birds and the limousine liberals are worried it will ruin the views from the Cape and Islands. The hypocrisy kills me. If I was in charge I would build enough windmills and solar farms in isolated places to power the world.

 

Dude, b/c Rutherford was born in NZ, NZ invented atomic energy? Granted, the guy did some good work, and ran an important lab, but there were *lots* of people who made equally important contributions, and in an area that required not only physics, but also chemistry, mathematics, materials engineering, etc. In addition, Rutherford moved to the UK as soon as he possibly could; IIRC the story was, when he found out he had a fellowship to study in the UK, he threw his spade into the air (he was a farmboy, natch), and said "thank god, I'll never dig another potato as long as I live!"

 

Thanks Bion, that's one less thing in the original post I have to call "Bull$hit!" on.

Really? Then I feel quite sorry for any Kiwi who needs a diagnostic X-ray or radiation treatment for cancer.

Get a clue. Even if a power reactor were to meltdown - which is almost impossible, given the state of technology back when I was in the nuclear-power industry, let alone today - there would be no mushroom cloud. A steam explosion that carried some level of radioactive contamination, yes, but no actual mushroom cloud. Your country would not be laid waste. Whether you're parroting the other side's position or actually in agreement with this, get your facts straight before you make yourself sound dumb.

Being the squeaky wheel works. This is just another case in point.

 

Um... Can I assume you're deliberately exagerating or just downright joking? And even if you have a meltdown there is no "mushroom cloud". Meltdowns do not cause nuclear bomb-like explosions. Nuclear power plants are really pretty safe. [EDIT: Rally beat me to it - she posted while I was writing this.] The unsafe part comes in what to do about the spent fuel. You could always bury it under a mountain or some such until we figure out a better place to put the stuff, or treat the stuff.

Here's the problem. When you are talking about all-green power, be it hydro, solar, or wind based, it's not reliable. As Darkthrone wisely points out, especially in the case of solar and wind based energy sources, you still need a backup source for that power, which means either nuclear power plants, or fossil fuel operated power plants. You get in a "six of one or half a dozen of another" arguement. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming, whereas the waste from power plants is extremely deadly and has a half life of a few thousand years.

Perhaps more importantly, fossil fuels (even if you discount the global warming argument) are in finite supply. Thus, they do not lead to a long-term solution to the problem. Are we going to run out of fossil fuels in the next 10 years? Hell no. At the current rate in which coal is being used, we expect to have enough to last us over 100 years even if no new sources are discovered. But this is something that's going to happen eventually. (Although 10 years might be closer to the mark for oil, if it's consumption continues to increase at its current rate.) I don't know of any power plant that use oil as a fuel source. To my knowledge they all use either coal or gas.

So back to nuclear power. One argument that I don't buy is the meltdown theory. Three mile island was almost 30 years ago, and Chernobyl was 20 years ago. The fact that we haven't had any major problems in two decades with hundreds of nuclear power plants world wide suggests to me that we're doing a pretty good job. I agree that there's no way to make a nuclear power plant 100% idiot-proof, and that future accidents may happen, but I think it's still our best option. I'll take my chances with encasing nuclear waste in lead and concrete and burying it under a mountain where we can hopefully find a way to deal with it at some future point, than continuing to burn fossil fuels that we KNOW is in finite supply, that we KNOW leads to global warming and we KNOW will become ever more expensive as the supply becomes less and less.

 

They were all exxagerations. Maybe a smily face or two would have helped. Oh well. Frankly I'm FOR nuclear power but I can't see that policy being changed due to our MMP system of government, where the Greens hold so much power. The explosion is the primary argument against nuclear power, an argument that is misconcieved.

Rutherford is considered to be the 'father of atomics' and was knighted by the English Monarchy for his discovery. He found out how to split an atom. There were other people who contributed, like almost all modern discoveries, yet Rutherford deveoped the most important aspect of atomics. Sure, he didn't do it in New Zealand, but he WAS a New Zealander. Let us have some pride in this. Please? C'mon! He's on our highest denomination of currency!

We can't use nuclear power for whatever reason some paranoid government thought of in the past. Now we can't even have a clean and green alternative. New Zealand's got alot of coal, that's true, but some idiot called "Chris Carter" the Conservation Minister just allowed an Australian company to extract copious amounts of coal from our country. This coal, now in Australian hands, is going to be sold on overseas markets. Not only don't we get to use it, we don't even get the profits from it.

Electricity prices are still slowly on the rise and until we find an alternative this will continue. The local pony club has just prevented us from being clean and green. I can't wait till the next proposal and the horrible excuse local residents will have.

 

1. I support NZ's non-nuclear policy so I suppose that makes me part of the problem. I just want to know what we're going to do with all the waste.

2. I support the use of windpower to supplement our other sources of power (so long as the energy expended in building and maintaining the turbines does not exceed the energy generated).

3. There is truckloads of room in the Bombay Hills to stick those things up. The ponies can ride around the windmills.

4. All able-bodied people in prison should be hooked up to exercycles to generate extra electricity instead of lounging around all day at taxpayers expense.