NZ should remain Nuclear Weapon Free, but consider the viability of Nuclear Energy?

On average, everyone agrees with significant nonconsensus between 85 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

We don't want another chernobyl

My problem with Nuclear energy is what do we do with the Waste?

i dont't think we should ever touch nuclear weapons because it wil effect our environment. It doesn't really fit in with New Zealands clean green image.

we dont wont any i mean wind and hydro have no wast and dont fuck up da enviroment 2 bad

The cost in putting the infrastructure in place would far outweigh investment in clean, safe energy sources.

nuclear energy is the dirtest energy with highly radioactive waste that no one has managed to dispose of safely - therefore its cost far out ways its benefits - its mindless

Nuclear weapon free absolutely yes, but I also think that there is enough evidence to doubt that nuclear energy is necessary or viable for NZ

Would sooner see US ships visiting our harbours than Nuclear power stations permanently in NZ, IF we have other options - which I think we do.

That is two completely seperate questions and so cannot be answered by an agree or disagree - however - NZ should recognise the inevitability of using nuke energy - And the possibility in the future of a need for nuke weaponry - but we probably couldn't afford the weapon - especially since we'd first have to buy an Air Force to deliver it..

There should be nothing nuclear in New Zealand it will destroy the country

No Nuclear what-so-ever

Reasons To Agree

I think so. There have been huge advances in technology since the early nuclear reactors, which is all anyone ever seem to cite in terms of safety and waste management. For example, Toshiba developed a 10 megawatt reactor that is sealed below ground and runs for 30 years. There's no waste to deal with (the core is recycled) and no maintenance of the reactor itself (just the steam turbine). See http://hyvin.nukku.net/no/toshiba.html

It is highly improbable that NZ could ever afford nuclear weapons, so this is a purely academic problem.

We don't need nuclear weapons but we do need energy, so we might as well look at all the options.

Some countries recycle nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not nuclear weapons. Then the waste from the second useage (which makes it less radioactive) can be put down the hole it was mined from, where the area is naturally highly radioactive. Also hydro dams, and coal (which we rely on) produce carbon dioxide. While nuclear power is slightly cheaper than coal, and half as expensive as wind power.

With our population increase of 25% and no new infrastructure we nedd power, We will never be able to save enough. Unless Kyoto is scrapped we will not be able to generate affordable power. Given the choice of Nuclear, or Pensioners freezing to death we will need to lok at everything. I doubt we will ever use nuclear as the smallest Nuclear station would produce too much power for NZ, but we need to do something and our options are very few thanks to Kyoto

We need to be realistic: non-carbon generation will probably not be possible with other technologies i nthe near future.

Late last year WNN reported the news that Sir Bob Geldof had come out strongly in support of new nuclear build, saying that we have to 'go nuclear, fast' to save the planet. Also, popular author and presenter Jeremy Clarkson has expressed his support for nuclear energy in The Times newspaper.

Nuclear Free, No Nuclear Weapon, No Nuclear Power

This is a good choice, but even though it will be EXTREMELY costly, it would be very important to furnish the Nuclear plants with all sorts of protection so that in the event of any full scale natural disaster, bombing, or anything like that, it won't even place a scratch on the plant.