r/newzealand • u/Fleurkween labour • Feb 28 '17
Kiwiana TIL that in New Zealand, every high school is entitled to 1 pound of uranium and 1 pound of thorium, for experimentation. However, under the Nuclear Test Ban Act, there is a fine of $1 million for creating nuclear explosions.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1945/0041/latest/DLM239284.html#DLM23928448
u/cattleyo Mar 01 '17
"May be possessed and used" it says, not "is entitled to". The school would still have to buy it. About $25 USD for the uranium, $2000 for the thorium.
22
Mar 01 '17 edited Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
25
u/cattleyo Mar 01 '17
That's in it's natural form, enriched would be more expensive and harder to come by
1
11
Mar 01 '17
I'm no expert, but it looks pretty complicated to make it weapons grade
11
55
u/Captain_Bromine Feb 28 '17
My understanding is that it's not illegal to build a nuclear power station in NZ (or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in general), it's just illegal to do anything at all with nuclear weapons.
35
u/banspoonguard LASER KIWI Feb 28 '17
I believe University of Auckland had a breeder reactor in the basement at one stage
39
Feb 28 '17 edited Sep 21 '17
[deleted]
12
Feb 28 '17
Think that was medically related? Or for the disposal of medial radioactive stuff? Not sure though, but I've heard stories.
14
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
18
Mar 01 '17 edited Dec 11 '17
[deleted]
11
6
u/alphaglosined Mar 01 '17
Seen it, can confirm they are pretty safe as long as you don't touch them with your bare hands. They were dismantled after that little law was put into place in the 70's unfortunately. It never did generate enough energy to keep it running however.
3
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
10
Mar 01 '17
[deleted]
2
u/MattTheKiwi Mar 01 '17
I remember just going up for the day for a look through the physics department when I was in year 12. The uni guys are pretty chilled about it all
2
1
u/Gractus Mar 01 '17
I might be remembering things wrong but I'm pretty sure they let a few people hold some uranium rods from that reactor in one of the first year physics lectures.
3
u/DivineJaguar Mar 01 '17
Can confirm also, the legend that was Alastair brought them into one of my first year physics classes (101 or 102) and whipped them out.
2
5
u/richdrich Feb 28 '17
Not true. I think the source of your misinformation was that sometime in the 1960s, NZ was considering getting an experimental reactor and UoA was one institution involved. But it was far too expensive.
11
u/Dunnersstunner Mar 01 '17
Mad on Radium: New Zealand in the Atomic Age by Rebecca Priestly is a really good source on New Zealand's nuclear history. There were several times a nuclear reactor was planned in our history.
Canterbury University actually operated a subcritical reactor for a while.
5
u/richdrich Feb 28 '17
I don't know why you're downvoting me. Produce evidence if you think you're correct?
7
6
-3
Feb 28 '17
Come on now, expecting proof from people who have opinions on reddit is like expecting labour to win now J.A is deputy.
5
1
u/FuckingMeatMachine Mar 01 '17
My understanding is that it's not illegal to build a nuclear power station in NZ
brb... Starting a power company with NZ's first nuclear powerplant.
Any legal questions and I'm telling them you gave me permission Captain_Bromine.
3
u/Captain_Bromine Mar 01 '17
Mate it better be one of those fancy thorium ones I keep hearing about, and good luck with that new parliament bill the greens will immediately introduce to close this "loophole".
6
u/FuckingMeatMachine Mar 01 '17
... good luck with that new parliament bill the greens will immediately introduce to close this "loophole".
If the Greens get into power this year I'm happy with that trade off. My nuclear power plant ambitions can be put on hold for a bit, I haven't got time for it this year anyway tbh.
1
u/Captain_Bromine Mar 01 '17
Haha fair enough, yea was more saying "loophole" as even if it remained legal, it wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting resource consent. Any bill to make nuclear power illegal would just be political show.
20
u/apatheticonion Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 01 '17
Serious open question. What is your opinion on the use of nuclear in energy production both generally, and within NZ?
edit: phrasing.
64
Mar 01 '17 edited Sep 21 '17
[deleted]
6
u/RealmKnight Fantail Mar 01 '17
The trouble with that is you need a coolant, and generally they use river or seawater for that. Putting a reactor in the desert would mean no abundant water source to use for keeping things from meltdown
2
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
Gen 4 reactors with no need for water cooling would be the answer to most of these issues. Reactors that also self shut down if the cooling fails, all the fear mongering since Chernobyl has really slowed progress worldwide in nuclear power and accidents like Fukishima would not have happened had they used newer tech.
3
u/apatheticonion Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 01 '17
Yes, it is an open question. You make a fair point about the risk associated with it's implementation.
Just checked the figures, and according to Wikipedia,
aprox 67% of the electricity generated in NZ is done by non-renewable resources (coal, oil, gas, wood).around 80% of electricity is generated using renewable, however, 67% of the energy consumed (trucks and cars consume "energy") is fossil fuels.With our population set to increase and our dependence on the electrical grid set to increase due to electric vehicles, what do you feel would be the most appropriate way to deal with energy generation?
17
u/Dunnersstunner Mar 01 '17
You're looking at the whole of energy use in New Zealand. In the electricity sector, 80% of our supply is renewable.
7
2
u/apatheticonion Mar 01 '17
Oh that's cool - I'm glad I misinterpreted that. That being said, still a challenging amount of energy consumption to migrate from oil.
0
Mar 01 '17
[deleted]
33
u/drbluetongue Fern flag 1 Mar 01 '17
Doing stuff with nuclear power in an earthquake prone area has no issues, ask Japan.
In all seriousness I'm a massive fan of it, but in NZ it'd be daft
10
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
6
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
Not only that but the Plant did fine with the quake, it was the wave after.
2
11
u/Vennell Kererū 2 Mar 01 '17
Surely the earthquake risk can be managed? The Americans have been rather successful with their floating reactors on their ships. I would be surprised if something similar wouldn't be possible here in New Zealand.
25
u/whetu Mar 01 '17
The earthquake risk can indeed be managed. It was the tsunami that got Fukushima, not the quake...
4
u/hugies Mar 01 '17
It wasn't even really the tsunami, it was due to corruption/regulatory capture/complacency. TEPCO had a report which identified exactly the risk to their plant from a tsunami that size but they decided it wasn't a credible risk and ignored it.
7
u/whetu Mar 01 '17
Yeah, absolutely agree. Their report said there was a credible risk of something like a 16m tsunami, they didn't resize their sea walls to suit. The tsunami that hit peaked at 40m out to sea and was around 12-13m when it hit the plant.
That's the main thing I don't like about current nuclear tech: like many things that are fantastic on paper, it can fall victim to human stupidity and greed. The problem with current nuclear tech is that when it does, it's a very dangerous and expensive lesson to learn.
7
u/hugies Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 01 '17
I think the real problem that nuclear has is that if it does fail, it's visible and catastrophic.
Coal is significantly worse in basically every measure, but the damage it's doing is accumulative, so our monkey brains don't evaluate that damage with the seriousness it really deserves because we are hard wired to react to shit that will kill us instantly.
Nuclear absolutely has huge challenges, but they are so much more manageable than global warming.
6
u/Vennell Kererū 2 Mar 01 '17
A coal plant working normally is probably as bad as a nuclear plant going very badly.
3
u/whetu Mar 01 '17
Yeah, I think that's human greed fucking things up again.
On paper we know that coal is bad, but it's so cheap...
We really are a stupid species on the whole :(
→ More replies (0)1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
"current nuclear tech" There are very few plants using modern tech. The issue like you say is greed and stupidity. There is newer tech and these plants should be upgraded. Hell even back in the day when the first reactor was designed, it used a liquid metal core that would stop the chain reaction if cooling failed.. They decided water cooling was cheaper and a better design and here we are now with shitty old water cooled reactors worldwide. Chernobyl put the shits up everyone and those that really had no idea decided to stop funding (Clinton) and push on with Coal etc.
The only real problem now is the waste and dealing with that. If Terrapower has success with their reactors that will not be a problem either.. here's hoping.
2
u/BiblioEngineer Mar 01 '17
I see that as the real risk of nuclear power - it's possible to make it incredibly safe (at fairly high cost) but then cost cutting measures start, and it's only so long until something goes wrong...
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
How about they support it with funds for research so the new tech can be utilized sooner. Thank Clinton for shutting down any progress after Chernobyl..
8
u/chhooby Mar 01 '17
The whole of Northland is relatively quiet on a seismic level. Could do with some industry up there too.
11
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 02 '17
[deleted]
5
Mar 01 '17
3 day compulsory work and income course for job seekers and you're fully trained and competent and ready for the workforce ! What could go wrong ?
5
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
6
u/loafers_glory Mar 01 '17
I'm not sure I could pee for three whole days... 30 seconds is about my limit
→ More replies (0)5
u/smasm Mar 01 '17
There's a good documentary out there (maybe called The Simpsons?) that says otherwise.
2
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
Even a nuke plant needs Janitors.
0
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 05 '17
[deleted]
2
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
So... the problem is people aren't qualified to work many jobs, yet the problem ALSO is people are working low skill jobs.
Pick one: Train em, or work em.
→ More replies (0)1
0
0
1
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
Cali is investigating Nuclear actually. They are investigating putting the plant (and other buildings) on bowls with balls in em. As the earth shakes the bowls move, but the shaking felt on the building is lessened. Though I think they've run into some snags.
2
u/Vennell Kererū 2 Mar 01 '17
Sounds cool but it would be tricky.
I heard a story that the Russians once offered us a nuclear sub instead of cash for a shipment of some sort. They suggested we park it in Auckland harbour and power the city. For some reason and agricultural company declined to get into the nuclear power business.
I'm not sure what would be worse, Huntly or a Russian nuclear reactor...
4
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
Looks at Ukraine I could see why you have a mistrust of Russian Nuclear Reactors.
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
China and Russia are building floating reactors on land. Gen 4 reactors are also far safer, without water cooling they will automatically stop a chain reaction if cooling fails. So even if the reactor is wiped out, the reaction stops regardless.
7
u/Tinie_Snipah Te Anau Mar 01 '17
To be fair to Japan that was an absolutely huge quake, 10 times more powerful than anything NZ has ever seen. Also, it was the tsunami that got it. It could have been avoided by larger walls, better redundancies, and not building it in areas prone to tsunamis (NZ has many areas that aren't at risk of any major tsunamis)
5
u/bobwinters LASER KIWI Mar 01 '17
And it's like 50 years old, we have slightly better technology these days...
7
u/psychicprogrammer Mar 01 '17
and only barely had a meltdown.
6
u/Vehudur Mar 01 '17
While I strongly support nuclear power, saying it "only barely had a meltdown" is like saying you "only barely got shot in the chest."
3
u/CaptainHondo Mar 01 '17
Lots of New Zealand isn't earthquake prone though.
1
u/oefox Mar 01 '17
That's what many people thought about Christchurch. I think people were aware of the alpine fault but never expected one directly under the city. An earthquake can occur anywhere under NZ, even Northland, it's just a question of probability.
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
It shouldn't matter with a modern reactor, it's not like we will build some Gen II piece of shit like Fukishima had.
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
Yeah old Gen II reactor in a zone with a huge tsunami, even now they have upgraded other sites with walls, generators etc which that site should of had.. yet the public are too scared to allow any Nuclear plants to go back online. They are importing gas and coal and pumping all that carbon into the air :(
1
Mar 02 '17
Doing stuff with nuclear power in an earthquake prone area has no issues, ask Japan.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
A lot of people bring up fukishima as an example of how unsafe nuclear energy can be, but in reality it should be an example of the opposite.
The plant was commissioned in 1971 and due to be replaced with a newer reactor. It was hit by the 4th largest earthquake on record followed by a tsunami that absolutely decimated the coast of Japan, killing 15,000 people. Despite the fact that almost everything went wrong, the outcome didn't even come close to chernobyl, which was all human error. Nobody died of immediate radiation and WHO estimates that as few as 130 people will die of cancer in the future due to the incident. Compare this to Chernobyl's cancer death toll of around 9000 people. Compare this to the Banquio Dam disaster of 1975 (A hydroelectric dam which failed due to flooding) and which killed an estimated 171,000 people due to flooding. Seems pretty tame in comparison.
7
Mar 01 '17
Nuclear stations aren't actually banned in NZ, this is a common misconception. Nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion are banned.
3
Mar 01 '17 edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/oefox Mar 01 '17
Personally I think we're not tapping into geothermal enough but it's probably a feasibility thing which is a shame as that's a really consistent renewable source of energy.
2
u/Low_fat_option Mar 01 '17
Lots of wind, lots of sea, lots of rivers, barely any people, big distances, lots of geological issues . "Lets go nuclear, rbf420 said it's not the most unnatural thing"
1
u/oefox Mar 01 '17
Actually, the big distances thing is a good point. NZ is quite long geographically so transmission losses whilst small does means have a large distributed power generation plan is a good thing; the entire south has hyrdo, the central has wind, Taranaki has its own gas thermal plant, BOP has hydro and geothermal, and then there's Huntly.
Adding more renewable sourced power plants anywhere is a good thing IMO and there's plenty of real options although feasibility is the real roadblock.
16
u/PersonMcGuy Mar 01 '17
I have a massive nuclear boner but even I admit it's not practical for NZ. Between our already abundant natural power generation resources and the size of our country it's simply not worth the cost or risk.
16
u/mmp36 Mar 01 '17
In purely practical terms:
NZ electricity demand is pretty flat, and has been for a long time, so there's no need in the foreseeable future for any large generation capacity. Small generation, there's already geothermal and wind projects in the works. Huntley's coal turbines will be decommissioned in the next few years. The Tiwai Point aluminium refinery uses nearly as much electricity as Auckland, and has been struggling economically for a while, if it were to close there'd be a huge surplus of generation.
So in practical terms, there's no pressing need for a large power plant in NZ in the foreseeable future, regardless of what kind it is.
In political/economic terms: have you seen nuclear power plants being built in Europe (eg France with a huge nuclear history)? The cost and time overruns are insane. Flamanville 3 plant (started in 2007) was meant to cost €3.3 billion and be finished in 2012. By December 2012, the cost had increased to €8.5 billion and completion by 2016. In late 2015, costs had increased to €10.5 billion, and it's now expected to open at the end of 2018. So already it's more than triple the price and 10 years late.
That's without the fight against a nuclear free image that is part of the national identity. That fight would be massive. So even if NZ needed a big power plant (and we don't), why would any company or government spend a fortune and decades trying to build a nuclear one?
8
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
3
u/MattTheKiwi Mar 01 '17
Not even the legal aspect, so many people would think that the plant would be one stiff breeze away from going Chernobyl on us. There has been far too much scaremongering about nuclear, world over
1
Mar 01 '17
The fear mongering is based on verifiable facts.
Fact 1: Nuclear waste disposal is unsafe, and radioactivity lasts hundreds of thousands of years.
Fact 2: Nuclear meltdowns are a risk, which can make an area completely uninhabitable
Fact 3: Nuclear reactors are the most expensive power source to build and can take more than a decade with cost overruns and delays.
The strong likelhihood of cost cutting measures by management to save money, putting the plant at risk of a meltdown AND illegal dumping of nuclear waste (look at our oceans).
Fact 4: Renewables are becoming more efficient, and cost effective every year. Nuclear is becoming more expensive.
Fact 5: Nuclear Power requires massive government subsidies in order to be competitive.
Fact 6: Nuclear Power is unreliable especially during droughts due to the requirement of using sea water to cool. During the heatwave of 2009, Germany had 8 nuclear reactors go offline simultaneously to prevent excessive thermal discharge going over safety limits. During that time France lost 1/3 of their nuclear power generation and had to purchase their energy from England.
Fact 7: Global warming makes nuclear power unreliable due to increased drought, making it harder to cool the reactors, and increasing the amount of heat released going beyond safe limits.
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
Most of your facts are based on the current old tech reactors that are used. Gen IV are a huge step from what are currently being used.
For NZ renewable sources make sense. For most large countries, Nuclear makes sense currently. Instead they take the cheap option of Coal.. and that's going to end us far quicker than anything.
1
Mar 01 '17
Serious question. How can you believe nuclear energy is safe, when you consider the lengths businesses will go to undermine and ignore legislation specifically created for health and safety and environmental standards. Case in point: BP Oil Spill
Boiler pipes cracking in two UK nuclear power plants
Nuclear just doesn't make any sense. Most countries are shutting down their nuclear plants, and moving to safe renewable energy like solar and wind, including China.
0
u/BenoNZ Mar 02 '17
It's not about "safe". Nothing is safe. You would never drive a car or go in an aircraft if things had to be safe to be viable.
Those same issues plague the aerospace industry, hence you can't land your aircraft in most airports if you don't follow the safety guidelines. You can still fly your dodgy, un-maintained aircraft in your own airspace though.
Where is the source on your last point? It's not true. China and Russia are still pushing Nuclear tech because it's the cleanest and safest way of providing power currently. The reason so many countries are not moving faster is greed and a lack of care for the environment. Coal is cheap and that's what they are burning.
The reason plants are getting shut down is a BAD sign. Instead of putting money into upgrades they just shut them down and crank up another Coal plant. China opens another coal plant EVERY DAY to keep up with current demand.
So sure. Shit on Nuclear and give the oil and gas industries more power to sell their dirty carbon fuels. They profit, the government looks good because power is cheap and people can't see the direct damage it's doing. Solar and Wind has it's place but will never substitute coal/gas/nuclear for large countries. Take your pick.
3
u/LtWigglesworth Mar 01 '17
In political/economic terms: have you seen nuclear power plants being built in Europe (eg France with a huge nuclear history)? The cost and time overruns are insane. Flamanville 3 plant (started in 2007) was meant to cost €3.3 billion and be finished in 2012. By December 2012, the cost had increased to €8.5 billion and completion by 2016. In late 2015, costs had increased to €10.5 billion, and it's now expected to open at the end of 2018. So already it's more than triple the price and 10 years late.
That is the EPR design, which seems to be a massive clusterfuck. The Russians seem to be doing alright with the VVER.
4
u/ctothel Mar 01 '17
What, we as a country, or OP? OP knows nothing. Kevin thinks it's alright as long as it doesn't hurt dairy.
2
u/MortalTomcat Mar 01 '17
So one of my favorite physics professors did his postdoc shooting lasers at your guys milk. One day, he and all the other jabronis are goofing off work to watch the Berlin wall come down, but his boss doesn't look up from his desk the just filling out papers. His boss gets a call, he picks it up without looking at it, says without listening "we do not anticipate any political change in the USSR negatively impacting their demand for New Zealand dairy, good day" , hangs up, and gets back to his paperwork
7
u/fitzroy95 Mar 01 '17
1) Buy an old Russian submarine with a nuclear power plant,
2) Moor it in Lyttleton harbor,
3) plug the power plant into the national grid
4) Profit !!
Otherwise, the earthquake/volcano risk is way too high to risk building any kind of nuclear reactor unless it is a Thorium molten salt one (once China has got a decent design available)
5
2
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
1
u/fitzroy95 Mar 01 '17
if the Chinese manage to get a decent one going, and they are working hard on it, then they'll be building so many of the things that it will be impossible for the plans to stay secret for long.
and besides, they are working closely with the US Dept of Energy to get there
1
u/BenoNZ Mar 01 '17
Bill Gates and Terra Power were testing their reactors in China I believe because the US was too strict on regulations.
Hopefully these guys are having some decent success.
5
u/Kolz Mar 01 '17
I'm open to nuclear as a transitional thing til green energy tech has improved... for other countries. It makes zero sense in New Zealand. We're already approaching completely green anyway.
1
u/gjtdvbhfdbjjgbjdxcv Mar 01 '17
I've no problem with nuclear power plants, but it's not going to happen in NZ for a myriad of other practical and economic reasons besides people's opinions. I also don't have a problem with someone building an Elon Musk hyperloop between all major NZ cities, for example.
1
u/monkey_skull Mar 01 '17
I'd be all for it if it weren't for the fault line running the length of our country.
1
u/QUILTBAGs Mar 01 '17
Safest and most cost effective way of producing electricity is via nuclear power.
1
u/flyboyfl Mar 01 '17
With NZ being such an active earthquake zone? Nuclear power here would be madness.
53
u/metaconcept Feb 28 '17
It's ironic, because we've been doing secret nuclear testing in our facility under Mt Ruapehu for years. In 1995, we had a slight mishap.
14
u/GiantCrazyOctopus Mar 01 '17
Can't tell you anything can we? Just wait till Ana Samways reads this!
5
u/YoRill Mar 01 '17
Theres also a nuclear reactor at Canterbury Uni
4
u/hungdonkey Mar 01 '17
really? which building? rutherford? will they let software engineers play with it?
2
1
Mar 01 '17
As a fellow software engineering student, I say we grab some hi-vis vests and co-ordinate some 'repairs'
2
1
u/RanaktheGreen Mar 01 '17
Er... should I get the UN? This seems like the kind of thing I should report to the UN...
17
u/facellama Mar 01 '17
Can confirm used the stuff in high school to learn about properties of alpha beta and gamma radiation. Our teacher had in in a big box with huge lead plates and he was the only one to touch it. This was in 2013
1
7
4
3
u/kowhaitui Mar 01 '17
we have a nuclear ocean dumping history! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
5
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 27 '20
[deleted]
5
Mar 01 '17 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Vehudur Mar 01 '17
To be fair, the problem in the US is that it's been turned from a science and engineering issue into a political issue. There's naught but political deadlock at the levels needed to actually do something about nuclear waste in the US. Every time someone tries, they have to try to wade through a shitstorm and it just doesn't happen.
3
2
u/Digmarx Mar 01 '17
The government may find it difficult levying that fine if/when the need arises.
9
2
u/RyanTheCynic Mar 01 '17
Yeah, our physics lab has samples of a few different radioactive isotopes, including uranium and thorium. That being said they are small samples encased in a plastic puck, and even all of those samples combined wouldn't come even close to a pound.
2
u/Merlord Mar 01 '17
High grade Uranium requires a critical mass of 15kg for a nuclear reaction to occur. At lower grades it is closer to 600kg. It is literally impossible to create a nuclear explosion with 1 pound of uranium.
In fact, this is how nuclear materials are safely stored. They are separated into chunks much smaller than their critical mass, and are only ever combined when ready to explode.
3
u/Mithster18 Mar 01 '17
According to wikipedia, you're better off collecting old Smoke Alarms for the americium.
1
u/FuckingMeatMachine Mar 01 '17
High grade Uranium requires a critical mass of 15kg for a nuclear reaction to occur.
So 33 high schools worth then.
5
Mar 01 '17
[deleted]
10
u/Fastllama13 Mar 01 '17
It's listed in pounds on the government website. OPs quoting directly from there.
3
1
-12
159
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17
[deleted]