I think you probably missed the point.

Rikkitic:

 

I think you probably missed the point.

 

 

 

unfortunately i've seen too many spoilt brats around. make no mistake, totally agree with the message. but a spoilt brat in CC crusade is still a spoilt brat. not saying she is one, but looks like one. hopefully she'll prove me wrong.

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/basics

Brief extract from the above:

To date Australia’s energy needs have been largely met by fossil fuels. Australia’s abundant and low-cost coal resources are used to generate three-quarters of domestic electricity and underpin some of the cheapest electricity in the world. Australia’s transport system is heavily dependent on oil, some of which is imported. At present renewable energy sources account for only modest proportions of Australia’s primary energy consumption (around 5 per cent) and electricity generation (7 per cent), although their use has been increasing strongly in recent years.

Not all countries are as fortunate as NZ with regard to electricity generation from renewable energy sources. So, although electric vehicles (EVs), for example, will help to reduce Australia's emissions, if the majority of Australian electricity continues to be generated using fossil fuels, the impact of using EVs will not be all that great.

So, people who research climate change and its effects, need to look carefully at how a particular country generates its electricity, because this is a key factor in the overall objective of reducing harmful emissions.

Interesting piece on Bill Gates nuclear reactor design in part 3 of Inside Bill's Brain. Netflix.

frednz:

 

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/basics

 

Brief extract from the above:

 

To date Australia’s energy needs have been largely met by fossil fuels. Australia’s abundant and low-cost coal resources are used to generate three-quarters of domestic electricity and underpin some of the cheapest electricity in the world. Australia’s transport system is heavily dependent on oil, some of which is imported. At present renewable energy sources account for only modest proportions of Australia’s primary energy consumption (around 5 per cent) and electricity generation (7 per cent), although their use has been increasing strongly in recent years.

 

Not all countries are as fortunate as NZ with regard to electricity generation from renewable energy sources. So, although electric vehicles (EVs), for example, will help to reduce Australia's emissions, if the majority of Australian electricity continues to be generated using fossil fuels, the impact of using EVs will not be all that great.

 

So, people who research climate change and its effects, need to look carefully at how a particular country generates its electricity, because this is a key factor in the overall objective of reducing harmful emissions.

 

Here's a further example, this time electricity generation in the USA:

About 80% of the nation’s energy comes from fossil fuels, 8.6% from nuclear, and 11% from renewable sources.1 Wind is the fastest growing renewable source but contributes only 2.4% of total energy used in the United States.1 The examples below illustrate the progress and potential of U.S. renewable energy.

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-renewable-energy-factsheet

So, the USA and many other countries have a huge task ahead of them in reducing the amount of energy that comes from fossil fuels. What's the point of converting a nation's vehicles to electric if most of the electricity that's generated in that nation comes from fossil fuels?

Agree. I say Nuclear is the answer. 3000 people have dories in nuclear accidents. 800,000 per year die from inhaling fumes. Check out part 3 as I suggested above, Fred. The design uses spent uranium, and there is a town in Kentucky that has acres off nuclear waste that his design can use, too power the USA for 100 odd years. Safer too. That is the ONLY option to depart from FF usage in the short term, and make EV's green burning. 

MikeB4: @tdgeek Nuclear maybe the answer in some countries for example Australia however it is not the solution for NewZealand. No part of our country geologically stable enough.

I was talking from a global perspective which I should have clarified

However, Japan is FAR more exposed to EQ than NZ, and it works for them. Fukushima didn't fail because of an EQ or a Tsunami, it failed because they stupidly located backup diesel generators at ground level and they flooded.

Globally Nuclear is the only answer and its safe if you look at the numbers and background. At 80% renewable NZ can avoid it.

tdgeek:

MikeB4: @tdgeek Nuclear maybe the answer in some countries for example Australia however it is not the solution for NewZealand. No part of our country geologically stable enough.

I was talking from a global perspective which I should have clarified

However, Japan is FAR more exposed to EQ than NZ, and it works for them. Fukushima didn't fail because of an EQ or a Tsunami, it failed because they stupidly located backup diesel generators at ground level and they flooded.

Globally Nuclear is the only answer and its safe if you look at the numbers and background. At 80% renewable NZ can avoid it.

MikeB4:

Putting a Nuclear plant on a foreshore that has in past been affected by Tsunamis is borderline criminal and definitely stupid.

NZ has EQ risk everywhere, volcanic risk in both the main islands and tsunami risk.

I agree, but it didnt fail because of the EQ or Tsunami. And its 1960's tech. NZ has risk everywhere as does Japan, Japan for more so, and to date, they haven't had a nuclear disaster caused by the reactor, its management, or EQ/tsunami.

Watch the last half of part 3 of the Bill Gates doco, what they have achieved there is worlds away from 1940's Chernobyl. And it can sweep up current nuclear waste. Its 2018 tech designed by the brains of this world, not Govts in a hurry, and its been canned by Trump's trade war.

Nuclear has a bad name, but its not that bad. There is no way the globe can get off FF any other way in a timely manner. We need nuclear now and in the future when we can go green another way, this will bridge that gap. If we ignore that then we have already given up

Putting a BWR in NZ would be a stupid idea, Putting a once-proven gen 4 in NZ wouldn't be silly, Short of running a superconducting power cable to AU we would have to drastically cut our consumption of some 9-10mwh per person down to simply rely on solar and wind, Hydro is an option but given it's dependency on rainfall in a CC impacted error counting on it to be there may be a problem

Beccara:

 

Putting a BWR in NZ would be a stupid idea, Putting a once-proven gen 4 in NZ wouldn't be silly, Short of running a superconducting power cable to AU we would have to drastically cut our consumption of some 9-10mwh per person down to simply rely on solar and wind, Hydro is an option but given it's dependency on rainfall in a CC impacted error counting on it to be there may be a problem

 

Its not even silly. Japan os far mroe prone than us

Though all of Japan's nuclear 54 reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake, flooding from the ensuing tsunami caused the failure of cooling systems at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011. Japan's first-ever nuclear emergency was declared

We cant add more hydro as we arent allowed to, some might prefer we set the current hydro back to native forests. We would need to go all out on wind and solar

Japan tends to place them quite far away from the fault lines tho, NZ makes it very tricky to get that far away from lines without bringing other natural risks into play. A BWR would also be north of $10bill to build and require either a reprocessing plant or shipping of waste overseas. BWR is NZ is silly not just from the risks, It's old and dangerous tech when compared to designs like the one you've pointed out