Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 66

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325296 26-Sep-2019 13:24

MikeB4: I would say NZ is one of the least suitable locations for nuclear power plants. Given that there are other suitable lower risk solutions I don't believe the risks are worth it.
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

At least here we can build a few more hydros, get some new lakes going on, but that not where the problem exists. Agriculture that needs to stop, apparently. Tourism is a waste of carbon

There is little will here. Or anywhere else. And no solutions. The future is set

Life360

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Life360 protects each family member with advanced driving, digital, and location safety features. Choose the plan that fits your family’s size and life stage.

ShinyChrome

SNNAAAAAAKKKKEEEEE
1439 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325297 26-Sep-2019 13:24

Rikkitic:

Energy solutions are often spoken about in all or nothing terms. I like the suggestion above that different solutions may be appropriate in different places. Where you have a lot of sun, focus on solar. Where you have a lot of volcanic activity, look at geo-thermal. Where there are empty landscapes not suitable for solar, set up grids of microwave collectors to receive beamed energy from satellites. Where there is lush sub-tropical vegetation, use bio-fuel as Brazil already does. Where there is nothing else, go nuclear.

We tend to think in terms of large scale economies and worldwide mono-solutions. That seems short-sighted to me. Just because the whole world runs on fossil fuels today doesn't mean it has to look to nuclear or other one-trick ponies tomorrow. The answer will be lots of different solutions, each tweaked to local circumstances. We just have to get away from the global megaproject mindset.

Having spoken numerous times with a friend who works in a role overseeing power generation monitoring, this is my understanding of why we still have non-renewable solutions here.

We need multiple overlapping options to keep the grid running effectively and economically. Solar and wind are great PR projects, but if the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, they are doing SFA. And its not like FF solutions like Gas or Coal where we need more power, we can just turn the dial up. Hydro is probably the best solution in NZ, and not coincidentally where NZ gets most of its power, and Geothermal a close second. But they are massive undertakings to commission new plants. Gas and coal still need startup/shutdown time, but if they can predict that the load on the grid at 6pm tonight is going to require more than all our renewable sources, because its a cloudy, no-wind day, and there hasn't been rainfall near our Hydro plants lately, we can still call them up and say "burn, baby, burn". Until we can find a solution to that problem, FF is not going anywhere.

Nuclear power is a neat idea when there is nothing else as stated, but with the range of options we already have here and the state of nuclear tech today, there are many other routes that are more feasible/economical/environmentally friendly.

I think the greater win is more focus on using energy efficiently and micro options like home solar, overnight charging batteries etc, rather than trying to chase down the remaining 20% of FF at this time.

networkn

27705 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325303 26-Sep-2019 13:31

MikeB4: I would say NZ is one of the least suitable locations for nuclear power plants. Given that there are other suitable lower risk solutions I don't believe the risks are worth it.
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

MikeB4

17170 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325305 26-Sep-2019 13:31

tdgeek:
MikeB4: I would say NZ is one of the least suitable locations for nuclear power plants. Given that there are other suitable lower risk solutions I don't believe the risks are worth it.
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

At least here we can build a few more hydros, get some new lakes going on, but that not where the problem exists. Agriculture that needs to stop, apparently. Tourism is a waste of carbon

There is little will here. Or anywhere else. And no solutions. The future is set

Ummm Huntly and Tokoroa have been suggested and well as studying the idea of locating nuclear power plants in NZ . Read back a few posts.

E3xtc

724 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2325306 26-Sep-2019 13:32

I like the idea of nuclear energy BUT I still can't get my head around the whole question of what happens to the nuclear waste? IMO boxing it up and digging it deep into the ground is not a solution, its ignoring the problem. Until there is a sensible solution to that, I couldn't get behind it.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325307 26-Sep-2019 13:33

Its about Climate Change, not NZ. No one is chasing that last 20% its not worth it. The issue is the globe. Home solar, wind tidal, etc won't do that. These alternative are neat and they are PR and they do work, but there is no scale. Fossil Fuels made us, I cannot see any energy source that is green that can replace FF. There is no issue adding more hydro here, but here is not the issue. Can we make everywhere on Earth 80% renewable with hydro? We are quite lucky but fixing us isn't the CC problem

networkn

27705 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325310 26-Sep-2019 13:37

tdgeek:

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

Actually, I *am* suggesting we set up a proper well funded study, to determine the feasibilty of putting a nuclear plant here.

If it turns out it's not a suitable location, it can be eliminated, but given the huge advances in nuclear cooling technology (the number one issue with nuclear plant stability), it should at least be considered.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325311 26-Sep-2019 13:39

E3xtc:

I like the idea of nuclear energy BUT I still can't get my head around the whole question of what happens to the nuclear waste? IMO boxing it up and digging it deep into the ground is not a solution, its ignoring the problem. Until there is a sensible solution to that, I couldn't get behind it.

What has been designed uses spent uranium. It uses nuclear waste. In the doco, there is a beat up town in Kentucky, there is a few acres there, with nuclear waste storage in steel tanks, rusting at the joins. iIf that was all used, it will power the USA for 100 years. maybe it was NYC, USA sounds too good. Point is, it USES waste not creates it. But everyone is stuck in the old nuclear mindset. We will use FF for the lengthy future, Im fine with that, as we are all fine with that

E3xtc

724 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2325327 26-Sep-2019 13:46

tdgeek:

What has been designed uses spent uranium. It uses nuclear waste. In the doco, there is a beat up town in Kentucky, there is a few acres there, with nuclear waste storage in steel tanks, rusting at the joins. iIf that was all used, it will power the USA for 100 years. maybe it was NYC, USA sounds too good. Point is, it USES waste not creates it. But everyone is stuck in the old nuclear mindset. We will use FF for the lengthy future, Im fine with that, as we are all fine with that

Right - nice, okay, good to know. Thanks for clearing that up for me

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325328 26-Sep-2019 13:47

networkn:

tdgeek:

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

Actually, I *am* suggesting we set up a proper well funded study, to determine the feasibilty of putting a nuclear plant here.

If it turns out it's not a suitable location, it can be eliminated, but given the huge advances in nuclear cooling technology (the number one issue with nuclear plant stability), it should at least be considered.

I know. This started off with nuclear as an option as its better now, re Climate Change which is the globe, but its evolved into nuclear in NZ. Which we dont need but if we did, its fine too

networkn

27705 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325329 26-Sep-2019 13:51

I think we should put it in NZ. I am unsure what the actual cost would be, but having a very small plant (all that would be required for all current and future power needs for 200+ years) would mean power is cleaner, cheaper and unlimited.

If they cut the red tape (assuming willingness to do this) then it could be built relatively quickly.

The problem would be getting it past all the people who could object without good fact based reasons.

ShinyChrome

SNNAAAAAAKKKKEEEEE
1439 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325330 26-Sep-2019 13:51

tdgeek:

Its about Climate Change, not NZ. No one is chasing that last 20% its not worth it. The issue is the globe. Home solar, wind tidal, etc won't do that. These alternative are neat and they are PR and they do work, but there is no scale. Fossil Fuels made us, I cannot see any energy source that is green that can replace FF. There is no issue adding more hydro here, but here is not the issue. Can we make everywhere on Earth 80% renewable with hydro? We are quite lucky but fixing us isn't the CC problem

Well eventually we are going to have to add more, as the population grows and more electric infrastructure comes online, but I agree chasing down the last FF is diminishing returns. Unfortunately that's the best we can hope for, because trying to co-operate on a global scale doesn't seem to be working out too well at the moment.

Until China, India, Russia, the US etc start REAL action to replace FF, you are really shouting into the wind. And a good portion of those don't even believe in climate change. The best we can do here is lead by example with what we have and hope that our global neighbors come to their senses before it is too late. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. We are a rounding error compared to them, they don't give a sh!t what we think.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325335 26-Sep-2019 13:59

networkn:

I think we should put it in NZ. I am unsure what the actual cost would be, but having a very small plant (all that would be required for all current and future power needs for 200+ years) would mean power is cleaner, cheaper and unlimited.

If they cut the red tape (assuming willingness to do this) then it could be built relatively quickly.

The problem would be getting it past all the people who could object without good fact based reasons.

I agree. Nuclear has a bad name. Watch the last half of Pt 3 of Inside Bills Brain. In fact watch it all its an excellent doco. I don't favour a Chernobyl like reactor. (The perception) What has been designed by the brains of Earth looks awesome. Signed off, so China will build the test site, but the trade war scuppered that, the contract is now invalid, deal off. Thats how far this has got, its not just a cool idea on a white board (Which is where it started)

Oh well, off to Caltex, bye...

WyleECoyoteNZ

977 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2325336 26-Sep-2019 14:00

tdgeek:

MikeB4: I would say NZ is one of the least suitable locations for nuclear power plants. Given that there are other suitable lower risk solutions I don't believe the risks are worth it.
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

At least here we can build a few more hydros, get some new lakes going on, but that not where the problem exists. Agriculture that needs to stop, apparently. Tourism is a waste of carbon

There is little will here. Or anywhere else. And no solutions. The future is set

Maybe i've misread this, but Japan does have nuclear power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

From the wikipedia link above

"As of February 2019, there are 42 operable reactors in Japan. Of these, 9 reactors in 5 power plants are operating"

And if NZ were to go Nuclear, isn't it better to have that power produced closer to be biggest population mass? To my thinking, and not being a geologist or Nuclear scientist, that lends it to either Huntly way or South Auckland, maybe Thames.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325339 26-Sep-2019 14:03

ShinyChrome:

tdgeek:

Its about Climate Change, not NZ. No one is chasing that last 20% its not worth it. The issue is the globe. Home solar, wind tidal, etc won't do that. These alternative are neat and they are PR and they do work, but there is no scale. Fossil Fuels made us, I cannot see any energy source that is green that can replace FF. There is no issue adding more hydro here, but here is not the issue. Can we make everywhere on Earth 80% renewable with hydro? We are quite lucky but fixing us isn't the CC problem

Well eventually we are going to have to add more, as the population grows and more electric infrastructure comes online, but I agree chasing down the last FF is diminishing returns. Unfortunately that's the best we can hope for, because trying to co-operate on a global scale doesn't seem to be working out too well at the moment.

Until China, India, Russia, the US etc start REAL action to replace FF, you are really shouting into the wind. And a good portion of those don't even believe in climate change. The best we can do here is lead by example with what we have and hope that our global neighbors come to their senses before it is too late. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. We are a rounding error compared to them, they don't give a sh!t what we think.

Agree. From my end, the nuclear discussion is about the Globe, for the reasons you state, not NZ, although why not. Its actually quite safe, like a jet

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 66