Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | ... | 268

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020559 22-May-2018 18:38

rjt123:
6FIEND:

Given that this was Ardern's nuclear moment... you'd think that she might have taken a modicum of advice or undertaken an ounce of research before she went off announcing policy with wide-reaching implications.

While nuclear is extremely carbon friendly, for largely political reasons , we established ourselves as nuclear free. In the name of all things 'progressive', illogical, backward and nonsensical decisions can be twisted under the aura of public goodwill and sentiment to be seen as virtuous and beneficial. A ridiculous paradox, bit true nonetheless.

Jacinda's nuclear free moment? Did we envisage something practical? Did we suppose that the absurdity we call 'societal progress' would actually be a step forward. Admittedly for a moment I was lulled into thinking just that. And then reality struck. The gas we thought was the way of the future was condemned, prices rise, the people struggle ..... And our carbon emissions stay the same.

Just like NZ's nuclear free stance was merely virtue signalling, and the nuclear powers around the globe blithley carried on their greener way, while we tried to find some cold comfort by assuming a nuclear meltdown in the Auckland harbour by some carbon-friendly American warship was imminent, so to will we try to find some colder comfort in the higher power prices, the ugly dams making a blot on some once pristine valley, or horrible windmills destroying our natural landscapes when we realise that cutting of our gas supplies was a horrible mistake.

The nuclear issue from the David Lange days is supported by National.

Its not about green its about danger. Chernobyl and Fukushima. Seems the 80's was correct

Is it Spain or France that is heavily nuclear powered are scaling it down, since Fukushima? Nuclear is awesome but the safety factor has a high cost.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2020580 22-May-2018 19:01

tdgeek:

The nuclear issue from the David Lange days is supported by National.

Its not about green its about danger. Chernobyl and Fukushima. Seems the 80's was correct

Is it Spain or France that is heavily nuclear powered are scaling it down, since Fukushima? Nuclear is awesome but the safety factor has a high cost.

The Lange government banned nuclear powered and nuclear weapon carrying vessels from entering NZ territory, but did not ban nuclear generation. This was enacted under the background of increasing tension between the nuclear capable nations of the USA and USSR. So your reference to "danger" within the context of the legislation, must be from a defence perspective not from the perspective of a nuclear incident.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020633 22-May-2018 19:19

wsnz:

tdgeek:

The nuclear issue from the David Lange days is supported by National.

Its not about green its about danger. Chernobyl and Fukushima. Seems the 80's was correct

Is it Spain or France that is heavily nuclear powered are scaling it down, since Fukushima? Nuclear is awesome but the safety factor has a high cost.

The Lange government banned nuclear powered and nuclear weapon carrying vessels from entering NZ territory, but did not ban nuclear generation. This was enacted under the background of increasing tension between the nuclear capable nations of the USA and USSR. So your reference to "danger" within the context of the legislation, must be from a defence perspective not from the perspective of a nuclear incident.

Nuclear testing in the South Pacific, our backyard, was the reason. It wasn't about the US and USSR, it was about our backyard. While Chernobyl and Fukushima had not happened, nuclear damage was known. Labour supported that as did National.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2020644 22-May-2018 19:31

We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2020673 22-May-2018 19:54

tdgeek:

Nuclear testing in the South Pacific, our backyard, was the reason. It wasn't about the US and USSR, it was about our backyard. While Chernobyl and Fukushima had not happened, nuclear damage was known. Labour supported that as did National.

No, testing in the south pacific was merely the backdrop of the wider issue of nuclear proliferation between the western democratic countries (led by the USA) and the eastern communist countries (particularly the USSR). That was the documented driving force behind the policy.

Nuclear power and subsequent incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are entirely separate issues, not related to the 1984/1987 policies but are often conflated.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2020678 22-May-2018 20:03

wsnz:
tdgeek:

Nuclear testing in the South Pacific, our backyard, was the reason. It wasn't about the US and USSR, it was about our backyard. While Chernobyl and Fukushima had not happened, nuclear damage was known. Labour supported that as did National.

No, testing in the south pacific was merely the backdrop of the wider issue of nuclear proliferation between the western democratic countries (led by the USA) and the eastern communist countries (particularly the USSR). That was the documented driving force behind the policy.

Nuclear power and subsequent incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are entirely separate issues, not related to the 1984/1987 policies but are often conflated.

This is correct. However not using nuclear power plants in NZ is common sense.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2020681 22-May-2018 20:09

MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

Stupidity? Then by extension so is building cities if u take chch for example. It's about engineering to mitigate the danger.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020689 22-May-2018 20:18

wsnz:

tdgeek:

Nuclear testing in the South Pacific, our backyard, was the reason. It wasn't about the US and USSR, it was about our backyard. While Chernobyl and Fukushima had not happened, nuclear damage was known. Labour supported that as did National.

No, testing in the south pacific was merely the backdrop of the wider issue of nuclear proliferation between the western democratic countries (led by the USA) and the eastern communist countries (particularly the USSR). That was the documented driving force behind the policy.

Nuclear power and subsequent incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are entirely separate issues, not related to the 1984/1987 policies but are often conflated.

So, nothing to do with testing at Mururoa and so on and so on, it was about chiefly USA vs USSR, and nothing to do with NZ and its location to tests and the danger that goes with it. Ok. What actions did we take against all other nuclear weaponed countries around the world?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2020690 22-May-2018 20:18

rjt123:
MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

Stupidity? Then by extension so is building cities if u take chch for example. It's about engineering to mitigate the danger.

Not intending to deminish what happened in Christchurch but the impact there will not be present for hundreds of years.

A slip of the tectonic plate will release energy that will make Christchurch and even Kaikoura look like minor tremors.

Then there is the volcanic fields that possible major risk to nuclear plants.

There are alternatives available meaning we don't need to flirt with the nuclear insanity.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2020691 22-May-2018 20:20

gzt:
rjt123: Just like NZ's nuclear free stance was merely virtue signalling, and the nuclear powers around the globe blithley carried on their greener way,

Actually no, NZ's nuclear free stance definitely created pressure to end testing in the region.

Also we have no coastal nuclear plants like Fukushima. Win.

I'm personally not against nuclear power in theory. But in practice there are so many problems and nz does not need it anyway.

The tests continued for almost another 10 years, so the pressure can't have been very intense...

Also, I don't think there has really been any likelihood of nuclear power plants in NZ, I don't think they'd be viable. So it's questionable why the government would need to ban them.

Which is what my point really was, that as was the nuclear ban was actually pretty ineffective in reality, so will an oil and gas exploration ban...

Reflects a certain segment of public sentiment, which is what politics is about, but doesn't really achieve much.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020696 22-May-2018 20:29

MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

They manage it in Japan.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020699 22-May-2018 20:31

tdgeek:
rjt123:
6FIEND:

Given that this was Ardern's nuclear moment... you'd think that she might have taken a modicum of advice or undertaken an ounce of research before she went off announcing policy with wide-reaching implications.

While nuclear is extremely carbon friendly, for largely political reasons , we established ourselves as nuclear free. In the name of all things 'progressive', illogical, backward and nonsensical decisions can be twisted under the aura of public goodwill and sentiment to be seen as virtuous and beneficial. A ridiculous paradox, bit true nonetheless.

Jacinda's nuclear free moment? Did we envisage something practical? Did we suppose that the absurdity we call 'societal progress' would actually be a step forward. Admittedly for a moment I was lulled into thinking just that. And then reality struck. The gas we thought was the way of the future was condemned, prices rise, the people struggle ..... And our carbon emissions stay the same.

Just like NZ's nuclear free stance was merely virtue signalling, and the nuclear powers around the globe blithley carried on their greener way, while we tried to find some cold comfort by assuming a nuclear meltdown in the Auckland harbour by some carbon-friendly American warship was imminent, so to will we try to find some colder comfort in the higher power prices, the ugly dams making a blot on some once pristine valley, or horrible windmills destroying our natural landscapes when we realise that cutting of our gas supplies was a horrible mistake.

The nuclear issue from the David Lange days is supported by National.

Its not about green its about danger. Chernobyl and Fukushima. Seems the 80's was correct

Is it Spain or France that is heavily nuclear powered are scaling it down, since Fukushima? Nuclear is awesome but the safety factor has a high cost.

The Germans are scaling down due to political whiners.

The French are building more, so they can sell power to the Germans...!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2020700 22-May-2018 20:32

Geektastic:
MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

They manage it in Japan.

Umm Fukashima?

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2020718 22-May-2018 20:52

Geektastic:
MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

They manage it in Japan.

Well sometimes...

But we comfortably build and live in 50 story skyscrapers in Wellington. A nuclear power plant isn't that fragile that they can't be built to withstand earthquakes.

But NZ was never considering building a nuclear power plant. The ban didn't prevent anything... Hence it can just be passed off as virtue signalling.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2020730 22-May-2018 20:58

rjt123:
Geektastic:
MikeB4: We have a tectonic plate subduction zone right through one island and right past another. Having nuclear power plants would be absolute stupidity.

They manage it in Japan.

Well sometimes...

But we comfortably build and live in 50 story skyscrapers in Wellington. A nuclear power plant isn't that fragile that they can't be built to withstand earthquakes.

But NZ was never considering building a nuclear power plant. The ban didn't prevent anything... Hence it can just be passed off as virtue signalling.

There are no 50 story buildings in Wellington. Virtue signally? no Tell me something what would happen to NZ primary source of income if we were to have a nuclear accident or incident? Doe you really believe overseas markets would slightly interested in our primary products ? no they would not.

1 | ... | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | ... | 268