Agreed...it was started at a time when politicians on both sides put in motion projects that would deliver benefits decades ahead...now politicians are only interested in projects that will deliver benefits within the next election cycle and nothing else!!!.❤️🇳🇿
I would support nuclear energy in New Zealand for sure. The technology exists to mitigate against earthquakes and maintaining cooling. Kiwi's need to smarten up...
Whatever the weather is doing, a country with cheap reliable base load energy generation can be a prosperous stable country that can adapt to any issues. Nuclear not windmills and five minute batteries would top off NZs needs in the energy sector.
The perfect place to put in a Nuclear Power plant would have to be downtown Wellington , the council is clearing the area for cyclists only so the is no environmental conflict and its central location to the rest of New Zealand makes it economically viable.
Well, if you supplied the North Island with nuclear then maybe the South Island would have enough generation to fill its requirements meaning you wouldnt have the cost and losses transmitting across the strait.
And California and Japan don't have Earthquakes? California has two operating reactors and multiple research reactors. Japan has 54 reactors, 9 are currently operating and by 2030 they will have restarted another 24 to reach their energy goals. New designs are safer in operation and in handling earthquakes. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was not caused by an issue with the reactor but with a faulty design that had back up coolant pumps below ground level which flooded due to the Tsunami inundation. No one died because of the reactor accident and all deaths were due to the Tsunami itself.
Since the last major Hydro project was completed the population of NZ has more than doubled, meaning the gap in supply has to be filled by Nuclear or Coal . using Gas to generate electricity is way too expensive Time for NZ to grow up and embrace Nuclear
There are Earthquakes happening all the time in Japan, the US and other countries. Only one has resulted in a meltdown, and was in part caused by bad corporate management and an old flawed design.
I would look at Russia's history with modular reactors before going and buying any. The large ones are what we need, to supply the bulk of our power. Solar works fine for these more remote places assuming you don't need huge amounts of power in the middle of nowhere, and we can use diesel generators and stuff, its not instantly going to destroy the environment to run a few generators where we actually need them.
Why? Take the proposed storage at lake Onslow, cost 30 billion or so after building including all infrastructure to support. In perspective All 2 million houses in nz could have solar and or small wind turbine + battery storage for that price………
Radiant USA - A company founded by ex Space X Engineers , have developed a Container-Sized Climate-friendly, cost effective Potable nuclear reactor sized around 1.2 MW producing enough power for 1,000 modern homes , these are known as "Micro Reactors"
Yeah nah... nuclear power is a dangerous and expensive way to BOIL WATER... we've got heaps of geothermal we can tap into in the future.. but regardless of how much renewables we have we will always need a few coal fired stations to cover all contingencies!!.❤️🇳🇿
Micro reactors can be built to withstand earthquakes and whose going to put one on a volcano bet you're green and love the climate change proper gander
Micro reactors don't solve the problem of nuclear waste, and as he said don't exist in reality in an industrial scale. Not to mention storage of said waste, why use nuclear to heat water and make steam to turn a turbine, when we have huge natural geothermal supply. Just more silly talk like dredging the manuka harbour for a port 🤦🏽♂️
Japan has earthquakes they still have nuclear energy Nz have their heads in the sand go geothermal time someone made a decision hopeless waiting for our useless Gov
NZ sold itself short when it continued it's resistance to nuclear power supply. Modern nuclear power production is the best way to go and the most green alternative.
Let's talk about it..
The N word is not that bad...
Let's throw it out there and have a robust honest discussion..!!
100% agree with you . The N word was a taboo subject 20 years ago, now, not so much.
Great to see Ben do a segment.
Yeah move over Sean 🙄
Hydro should never been stopped being developed.
Agreed...it was started at a time when politicians on both sides put in motion projects that would deliver benefits decades ahead...now politicians are only interested in projects that will deliver benefits within the next election cycle and nothing else!!!.❤️🇳🇿
Good discussion, though I'd add that if the person you were interviewing is from California, he will know earthquakes better than a Kiwi.
Nuclear free was labour virtue signaling as usual
I would support nuclear energy in New Zealand for sure. The technology exists to mitigate against earthquakes and maintaining cooling. Kiwi's need to smarten up...
FFS it is Nu clear. Not nukuleer
(Homer Simpson voice) "nook-u-lur"
It’s worth looking into Thorium reactors, probably not quite there yet but could be a very viable option.
Absolutely.
Whatever the weather is doing, a country with cheap reliable base load energy generation can be a prosperous stable country that can adapt to any issues. Nuclear not windmills and five minute batteries would top off NZs needs in the energy sector.
The perfect place to put in a Nuclear Power plant would have to be downtown Wellington , the council is clearing the area for cyclists only so the is no environmental conflict and its central location to the rest of New Zealand makes it economically viable.
The only concern I have is that with 'AUKUS' and the new Aussie submarines...this could lead to our ports being...'targeted'!! 🎯
No way there are far juicer targets that the military assets are reserved for
@@keyboardwarrior9199 I hope you're correct🤞
You are being targeted by immigrants already.
Well, if you supplied the North Island with nuclear then maybe the South Island would have enough generation to fill its requirements meaning you wouldnt have the cost and losses transmitting across the strait.
Zero Point Energy is the solution
And California and Japan don't have Earthquakes? California has two operating reactors and multiple research reactors. Japan has 54 reactors, 9 are currently operating and by 2030 they will have restarted another 24 to reach their energy goals. New designs are safer in operation and in handling earthquakes. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was not caused by an issue with the reactor but with a faulty design that had back up coolant pumps below ground level which flooded due to the Tsunami inundation. No one died because of the reactor accident and all deaths were due to the Tsunami itself.
Since the last major Hydro project was completed the population of NZ has more than doubled, meaning the gap in supply has to be filled by Nuclear or Coal . using Gas to generate electricity is way too expensive
Time for NZ to grow up and embrace Nuclear
Could still be covered by Hydro to many Greens stop our progress on this source of power .
Let's keep a high level of immigration. That will help. Right?
Only one word to say... " FUKUSHIMA "...no I'm not swearing in Japanese.. though it might be a good word to use when it goes to 💩!!!.🤣🤣🤣
nuclear not nucular :)
There are Earthquakes happening all the time in Japan, the US and other countries. Only one has resulted in a meltdown, and was in part caused by bad corporate management and an old flawed design.
Yes while that may be true, have you seen how poorly NZ manages roads, earthquake recovery, government etc. A giant recipe for disaster.
@@danieljessop7140 never heard of serious problems with our power stations tho
When NZ became nuclear free our population was too low to make nuclear power financially viable at the time. This has now changed.
I would look at Russia's history with modular reactors before going and buying any. The large ones are what we need, to supply the bulk of our power. Solar works fine for these more remote places assuming you don't need huge amounts of power in the middle of nowhere, and we can use diesel generators and stuff, its not instantly going to destroy the environment to run a few generators where we actually need them.
Why? Take the proposed storage at lake Onslow, cost 30 billion or so after building including all infrastructure to support. In perspective All 2 million houses in nz could have solar and or small wind turbine + battery storage for that price………
Radiant USA - A company founded by ex Space X Engineers , have developed a Container-Sized Climate-friendly, cost effective Potable nuclear reactor sized around 1.2 MW producing enough power for 1,000 modern homes , these are known as "Micro Reactors"
Release the technology. Less pollution less poverty. Z.P.T
Lets just wait till the power companies figer out how yo bolt down the pilons bruf. We couldn't clean up that mess. Don't we jave geothermal options
Yeah nah... nuclear power is a dangerous and expensive way to BOIL WATER... we've got heaps of geothermal we can tap into in the future.. but regardless of how much renewables we have we will always need a few coal fired stations to cover all contingencies!!.❤️🇳🇿
a couple of small molten salt thorium reactors would be perfect.
Not a great interview on the interviewers part. Could have had far better questions and drivne the conversation better.
NO! Our country is sitting on to massive plates that are priming to deliver 9+ magnitude earthquake. Additionally we are volcanic!
Micro reactors can be built to withstand earthquakes and whose going to put one on a volcano bet you're green and love the climate change proper gander
Nuclear reactors don't spontaneously combust if there is an earthquake
Micro reactors don't solve the problem of nuclear waste, and as he said don't exist in reality in an industrial scale. Not to mention storage of said waste, why use nuclear to heat water and make steam to turn a turbine, when we have huge natural geothermal supply. Just more silly talk like dredging the manuka harbour for a port 🤦🏽♂️
Earthquakes aren't really a danger for micro reactors nor molten salt reactors
Japan has earthquakes they still have nuclear energy Nz have their heads in the sand go geothermal time someone made a decision hopeless waiting for our useless Gov
With Nz being a volcanic and earthquake centre how can any sensible person think this is possible.
Nuclear reactors are built to withstand seismic events.
Because the micro reactors and molten salt reactors are not susceptible to earthquakes and as for volcanos, just don't put them in the volcanic field.
Oh and put them out of reach of tsunamis too so we don't get a fukishima situation.
NZ sold itself short when it continued it's resistance to nuclear power supply. Modern nuclear power production is the best way to go and the most green alternative.