Interesting blog - however, its still the same old prejudices that have been around for 30 years regarding nuclear waste. You need to read up on the current state of nuclear reactors instead of retreading the tired old rhetoric thats been around as long as Chernobyl hasn't.

Not sure about supporting an industry that does produce waste we can't dispose of,transport or manage efficiently or safely, even if we had no alternative. Technology has moved so much with renewables. Spain, Belgium,Germany, Sweden are all progressive nations phasing out nuclear in favour of clean alternatives

Please check this site http://www.sea-us.org.au/wastenot.html

First of all, good on you for the work you do!

Re nuclear power, it isn't just prejudice that makes it an unlikely saviour of our profligate way of life: we could never afford to build such a thing in the first place. If we did go ahead against all common sense, then, the power it generated would not be cheap - nuclear generators have a relatively short lifespan (unlike the waste they produce) and cost more to dismantle than they do to build. Windscale/Sellafield is being dismantled now after 30 or so years of generation - it will take ten years and cost billions. As far as I know, there are no plans to replace it. And that pesky waste issue just will not go away.

Nuclear might be an interim option for large-scale polluters like China and India to move away from coal-fired electricity - but it is not sensible for New Zealand. As Dan says, our first best option is using less. Next is good building design. Then, sustainable, clean generation of which we have a range of options.

Great blog but the website should be http://www.bethechange.org.nz

Hi Dan! Great blog. I come from country where more that 70% of the electricity is generated from nukes. But not only that! Over last years it generated corruption, sucked extra taxpayers money (it is common practice that they budget for 50% of the real costs and than after few years they say "ups we need more money for this project. It is better to invest more it than keep it unfinished"). It generated one crashed down reactor (A1 in Jaslovske Bohunice, the first one build in Czechoslovakia) and need of minions of $ for to decontamination of the site. Nobody really knows what to do with the waste (we will send it to Russia they say often) or with the NPPs after phasing out. The next generations will have to take care of all the nuclear waste we produced over last 30-40 years.

From my personal experience nuclear energy is not only dangerous but it is totally irresponsible and bloody expensive (if u honestly count all the costs from project till nuclear waste management).

And last but not least nuclear project sucks money form renewables. If only 1/2 of the possible proposed costs will be invested to decentralized local sources of electricity and energy efficiency NZ will happily exist not only without nuclear power plants but also without fossil fuel ones...

BTW, did you mean http://www.bethechange.org.nz/

hi dan-

thanks for all your hard work! love from the warmer parts of the world...

c*

What exactly is the "tired old rhetoric" Sean?

They still don't know what to do with the waste. The U.S. is still storing most of it's waste in temporary storage sites until it can figure out what the hell to do with it. That's not rhetoric, that's fact.

The "current state of nuclear reactors" is that they all are horrendously expensive and create on average 2-3 tonnes of nuclear waste a year. I just "read up on the state of nuclear reactors" on the internet. Here's what I found out:

Reactors cost between 3-5 billion US$ to build. Once the reactor is finished with it costs another 4 billion US$ to dismantle.

Waste that is highly reactive and dangerous to humans and the environment, is incredibly dangerous to transport and could be stolen and/or used as a dirty bomb.

No new reactors are being built that have negligible or no waste output. Simply because it can't be done using the current nuclear approach.

There are theoretical nuclear reactors being worked on that could change this, notably a thorium and particle accelerator powered reactors which produce negligible or little waste. No nuclear companies are footing the bill though as they are comfortable with the current technology.

If you can't provide any evidence that nuclear energy is "clean and safe" I suggest you don't make claims that it is.

Hi Dan! I think you do an awesome job challenging the way people think and inspiring them to prioritise the right of the environment in their daily lives. You're a great ambassador for the planet. Keep up the good work!

I've never seen green peace hanging out at any of my leisure spots. They tend to hang out in areas where you are racing to catch a bus/train, or on your way to work or maybe even going for lunch (who wants to spend that precious lunch time talking with strangers about giving money - and lets be honest I have never had a green peace representative saying would you like to volunteers some time? It's would you like to pay for a membership).

Perhaps that is why people say "I don't have time"!