> > 2) there are many cleaner alternatives available
>
> By which I meant the perceived "cleanliness" of current fission
> technology, including accidents, waste management etc. Even
> if you don't say "it's just like a little H-Bomb" and tried as hard
> as you could to distinguish fission from fusion, people would
> probably still associate any "nuclear power" with Chernobyl,
> terrorists and Hiroshima. The anti- rallies would be many and
> often
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

I didn't want to argue over it- fusion doesn't leave the nasty
by products of fission, nor have the potential for huge meltdowns
that contaminate large land areas, but it still has a hard time
competing for cleanliness with solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.

Of course, NZ is unlikely to ever have a huge population
density demanding massive power generation facilities.  OTOH,
as a first world nation, your power demands will only go up, and
I'd hate to see NZ's environment ruined (not likely, though).

Mike H.

PS- How's the paddlesports community down there?  Lots of
good canoeing?

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist