Should New Zealand invest in nuclear power plants?

Forums › Off topic › Should New Zealand invest in nuclear power plants?

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3230208 14-May-2024 11:29

Rikkitic:

johno1234:

So you say, but I asked previously for a citation as with all due respect, I don't accept you as an expert on the subject of seismology so unsubstantiated assertions count for little.

Oh yay, another 'my citation is bigger than yours' competition.

I disagree. Claims require evidence.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3230214 14-May-2024 11:38

freitasm:

I disagree. Claims require evidence.

Agree. They do. But any reference can be countered by other references and drilling down through all of them to figure out what is really likely to be most reliable can become a mammoth task, especially for those who aren't experts in the subject matter and have to rely on the opinions of others to form judgements.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3230215 14-May-2024 11:39

@johno1234 I have. question for you, have you ever experienced an earthquake?

During my many years at the Ministry of Social Development I was involved in a project to assess, plan and develop responses to major disasters. This was involved MSD, Civil Defence (as it was called), NZ Defence Force, Local Government, Niwa, GNS, MOH and others. The conclusions of the impact of a subduction zone slip is as illustrated in Stuff, which skims the impact and the conclusions of the project. From that what we see in our emergency management, social management, financial management, foreign aid (which will be needed in large amounts) was developed. The impact of such an event will be massive and effect ALL AREAS of Aotearoa. Buildings across the North Island would collapse or partially collapse. Liquefaction would impact large areas.

A temblor at level 9+ with shaking up to 10 minutes for the initial event would seriously compromise a nuclear power plant, knocking out the services supplying power to the cooling. Would also impact the generative processes and balances. Communications through out Aotearoa would down, power would be down, gas mains ruptured across the Motu, all major highways heavily impacted with most major bridges failing. Air traffic control would be down, airports unusable except for helicopters if the pilots can reach them and they are still serviceable. Tsunamis would inundate far inland including regions north of Auckland. Auckland city would be heavily impacted by inundation as would the entire eastern coastal regions of the North and South Islands. The outlying Island of the Gulf would be hit hard as would the Chatham Islands.

If you believe Northland would be safe you are fooling yourself.

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3230220 14-May-2024 11:46

MikeB4:

@johno1234 I have. question for you, have you ever experienced an earthquake?

During my many years at the Ministry of Social Development I was involved in a project to assess, plan and develop responses to major disasters. This was involved MSD, Civil Defence (as it was called), NZ Defence Force, Local Government, Niwa, GNS, MOH and others. The conclusions of the impact of a subduction zone slip is as illustrated in Stuff, which skims the impact and the conclusions of the project. From that what we see in our emergency management, social management, financial management, foreign aid (which will be needed in large amounts) was developed. The impact of such an event will be massive and effect ALL AREAS of Aotearoa. Buildings across the North Island would collapse or partially collapse. Liquefaction would impact large areas.

A temblor at level 9+ with shaking up to 10 minutes for the initial event would seriously compromise a nuclear power plant, knocking out the services supplying power to the cooling. Would also impact the generative processes and balances. Communications through out Aotearoa would down, power would be down, gas mains ruptured across the Motu, all major highways heavily impacted with most major bridges failing. Air traffic control would be down, airports unusable except for helicopters if the pilots can reach them and they are still serviceable. Tsunamis would inundate far inland including regions north of Auckland. Auckland city would be heavily impacted by inundation as would the entire eastern coastal regions of the North and South Islands. The outlying Island of the Gulf would be hit hard as would the Chatham Islands.

If you believe Northland would be safe you are fooling yourself.

Um working at MSD is still not a cite. But anyway, you are unwittingly reinforcing my point. If an earthquake devastates NZ a nuclear plant in Northland is the least of your worries. Fukushima is a prime example and that plant was built in a vulnerable location with design deficiencies.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3230228 14-May-2024 12:03

johno1234:

Um working at MSD is still not a cite. But anyway, you are unwittingly reinforcing my point. If an earthquake devastates NZ a nuclear plant in Northland is the least of your worries. Fukushima is a prime example and that plant was built in a vulnerable location with design deficiencies.

I was part of the project. Get it. What more do you want photos of the yet to occur event?

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3230242 14-May-2024 12:38

Sorry but I have a thing about this, as my degree is in science and there's this thing drummed into you in academia that assertions and claims without citation aren't worth a knob of goat poo. Without supporting evidence all you have is an opinion. I have no way of knowing whether you know what you are talking about or if you are just being powered by your own opinions and prejudices. At the end of the day you are not a seismologist and neither am I so there's no way I can take your assertions at face value. "I was part of the project" certainly counts for little.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3230248 14-May-2024 12:57

johno1234:

Sorry but I have a thing about this, as my degree is in science and there's this thing drummed into you in academia that assertions and claims without citation aren't worth a knob of goat poo. Without supporting evidence all you have is an opinion. I have no way of knowing whether you know what you are talking about or if you are just being powered by your own opinions and prejudices. At the end of the day you are not a seismologist and neither am I so there's no way I can take your assertions at face value. "I was part of the project" certainly counts for little.

You are correct but if you follow this all the way down you ultimately end at someone's opinion. Presumably that someone will be a highly regarded expert with tons of credibility and endless connections affirming that, but if you are arguing about anything other than hard fact supported by indisputable evidence (things fall down, not up), there will always be other experts with tons of credibility that have an opposing view. At some point you just have to make a choice who you believe.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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.

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3230257 14-May-2024 13:31

I think we all agree it won't be the 5G guy.

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#3230379 14-May-2024 15:35

It's certainly worth funding some research keeping up to date with Nuclear technology.
The odd Phd paper of state of developments.
Though we are in a mode of cutting spending in Government departments and Universities.
So critical Mathematics, Computing, Geology and Sciences skills we might need?

Considering the challenge that other generation technologies have consenting sites.
It's not just being a thin long country with a major active plate boundary
and faults running through a good part of it.

Go north, past active volcanic zone, and country just gets thinner.
Even the definition of what is an active zone and not in geological terms for our country is not easy.
For example,
https://topenergy.co.nz/tell-me-about/news/ng%C4%81wh%C4%81-geothermal-power-station-official-opening

So everything is close to where people live, farm, fish, holiday.
Approx. 1/2 our population is north of Hamilton.
Go too far north and swamp Kauri have a tale to tell.

You then need to find sites for low grade and the high grade waste storage.
Similarly meeting all the technical requirements and far from objectors etc.

If you are Norway you have stable geology for long term storage, plus economy to support its construction costs.
https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/finaldisposal/researchandfinaldisposalfacilitiesatonkalo.html

The lucky country Australia has perhaps orders of magnitude better chance of getting there first?
The chances of us going Nuclear before they have a mature Nuclear industry would seem to be low.

Nuclear is not the only option, we do have many others that have not been fully developed.
Funding even these is a problem.

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3230428 14-May-2024 16:33

Rikkitic:

You are correct but if you follow this all the way down you ultimately end at someone's opinion. Presumably that someone will be a highly regarded expert with tons of credibility and endless connections affirming that, but if you are arguing about anything other than hard fact supported by indisputable evidence (things fall down, not up), there will always be other experts with tons of credibility that have an opposing view. At some point you just have to make a choice who you believe.

not quite.

usually it comes down to research papers being published which then get peer reviewed ie picked apart by all the other experts to check that they didn't screw up, before being accepted. there is no veiw point, simply information.

however most people are never going to go as far as quoting research papers. its usually a case of take the professionals word for it. which often is fine for non-critical discussions, however as we see in the media quite a bit, its not uncommon for professionals to be wrong. in some cases you can even have an entire industry thats wrong. that is where you get "experts with opposing views".

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3230440 14-May-2024 17:05

tweake:

Rikkitic:

You are correct but if you follow this all the way down you ultimately end at someone's opinion. Presumably that someone will be a highly regarded expert with tons of credibility and endless connections affirming that, but if you are arguing about anything other than hard fact supported by indisputable evidence (things fall down, not up), there will always be other experts with tons of credibility that have an opposing view. At some point you just have to make a choice who you believe.

not quite.

usually it comes down to research papers being published which then get peer reviewed ie picked apart by all the other experts to check that they didn't screw up, before being accepted. there is no veiw point, simply information.

however most people are never going to go as far as quoting research papers. its usually a case of take the professionals word for it. which often is fine for non-critical discussions, however as we see in the media quite a bit, its not uncommon for professionals to be wrong. in some cases you can even have an entire industry thats wrong. that is where you get "experts with opposing views".

It should be in the small things that annoy you but... media reports that start off with "experts say ..." but the so-called experts are not identified and just as likely to be a snake oil salesman as an "expert".

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3230471 14-May-2024 18:11

johno1234:

It should be in the small things that annoy you but... media reports that start off with "experts say ..." but the so-called experts are not identified and just as likely to be a snake oil salesman as an "expert".

yeah, it ranges from loony tunes whacko to vested interest expert. typically without any balanced reporting.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3230473 14-May-2024 18:18

johno1234:
It says nothing about which regions are affected. I already cited research that Northland is at lower risk. Earthquakes diminish over distance which is why the Napier earthquake didn't damage Auckland and the Christchurch earthquakes didn't damage Dunedin.

Oyster Point on the Kaipara harbour near Kaukapakapa was somewhat considered for nuclear power in the 60s. They anticipated another two, one in Auckland somewhere and one somewhere between Auckland and Hamilton. All the Aucklanders in the house will agree Hamilton should be first.

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3230476 14-May-2024 18:27

Put the reactor from aliexpress in the ‘tron? Oh my!

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3230481 14-May-2024 18:35

I'll take a wild guess it had something to do with the Waikato river.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22