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 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 70

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2325022 26-Sep-2019 09:11

tdgeek:

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.

It really doesn't matter what you ascribe the failure to; the reality is that it failed. Let's put it down to "lack of foresight" or "stupidity" or "Act of God" if you like. If you can't exclude "lack of foresight"/"stupidity"/"Act of God" in the design, location, or running of a nuclear power plant, then some kind of accident will happen again. And the consequences of that accident will be bad, expensive, and long-lasting. And the cost of all of that needs to be considered in the decision to go nuclear. Just like the cost of fixing CC-caused problems needs to be included in the price of carbon-emitting technologies.

ShinyChrome

1603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 686

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325024 26-Sep-2019 09:13

I don't know if this has been posted before, or if you folks are already aware of it, but Transpower's Power System Dashboard provides an almost real-time view of our power grid generation, as well as breaking down exactly what types of generation we are using. We tend to vary between 80-90% renewable energy, depending on the system load.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2325027 26-Sep-2019 09:17

MikeB4:
insane: We struggle to build a 2km section of rail line, what hope do we have of building a state of the art complex Nuclear power station?

I actually agree that safe Nuclear is the way to go for the North Island - but no one will want it in their backyard so to speak.

A nuclear plant located in any of the main islands and of shore island are at great risk from earthquake. A quake on the subduction zone will affect in a big way the whole of NZ. The Transalpine fault and the Hikurangi fault are overdue for a major event in the magnitude greater than 8 on the Richter scale. It would be extreme stupidity to locate even Bill Gates "safe" plant in NZ.

We are close to 90% green power without placing our children and grandchildren at more risk than we have already.

Apparently there is currently about 1800MW of consented but unbuilt wind power generation in the country. We could push ahead with those projects before we look in to going all in on untested nuclear technology.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2325076 26-Sep-2019 09:24

Geektastic:

Surely you would simply put such a project out to international tender to countries with appropriate expertise?

The Chinese steel debacle. And the Hungarian trains. And the never-ending recalls of cars.

How can we be certain that the safeguards we expect are actually implemented? Someone who's not going to actually live next door to the reactor isn't incentivized enough.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325077 26-Sep-2019 09:25

frankv:

tdgeek:

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.

It really doesn't matter what you ascribe the failure to; the reality is that it failed. Let's put it down to "lack of foresight" or "stupidity" or "Act of God" if you like. If you can't exclude "lack of foresight"/"stupidity"/"Act of God" in the design, location, or running of a nuclear power plant, then some kind of accident will happen again. And the consequences of that accident will be bad, expensive, and long-lasting. And the cost of all of that needs to be considered in the decision to go nuclear. Just like the cost of fixing CC-caused problems needs to be included in the price of carbon-emitting technologies.

Exactly right, but if you are planning for the future and assessing safety, you can state that Japans safety was a design fault of non reactor machinery location, and that the facility maintained its 100% safety, despite 54 existing and Japan being the worst risk in the world. Just as you would not permanently ground an aircraft that had a 100% safety record when an unrelated design fault was there away from the aircraft

Add up the deaths from Nuclear accidents, and include Chernobyl which was a death trap waiting to happen as are all Russian installations. We have also released two in the air on 1945, others in White Sands NM, others in the Pacific. While all of these are BAD for the world and a testament to our stupidity, these mass exposures have not ruined the world

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2325094 26-Sep-2019 09:56

tdgeek:

Exactly right, but if you are planning for the future and assessing safety, you can state that Japans safety was a design fault of non reactor machinery location, and that the facility maintained its 100% safety, despite 54 existing and Japan being the worst risk in the world. Just as you would not permanently ground an aircraft that had a 100% safety record when an unrelated design fault was there away from the aircraft

If the design fault was part of the chain of events that eventually caused the reactor to fail, then it was NOT unrelated.

You are apparently arguing that the reactor itself was not at fault, which is absolutely true. But we don't really care about that. Because it's the overall package that needs to be failproof, not just the reactor.

This is like having a leak in your radiator. The engine of your car is perfectly fine, and doesn't fail, right up to the point that it runs out of water. But I as a motorist don't care whether it was the engine or the radiator (or the water pump, or the water) at fault; the end result is that I have a dead engine and an expensive repair bill.

Add up the deaths from Nuclear accidents, and include Chernobyl which was a death trap waiting to happen as are all Russian installations. We have also released two in the air on 1945, others in White Sands NM, others in the Pacific. While all of these are BAD for the world and a testament to our stupidity, these mass exposures have not ruined the world

Islands in the Pacific are uninhabitable because of the American nuclear tests. For the people that lived there, their world *was* ruined. Whilst the death toll directly attributable to Chernobyl is less than 100, there are 1.8 million people in Ukraine, including 377,589 children, who had the status of victims of the disaster. 150,000sq km of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are considered to be contaminated. For comparison, NZ's total land are is 267,710sq km. Imagine if all of Auckland's population and half of NZ was contaminated.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325096 26-Sep-2019 09:59

tdgeek:

Exactly right, but if you are planning for the future and assessing safety, you can state that Japans safety was a design fault of non reactor machinery location, and that the facility maintained its 100% safety, despite 54 existing and Japan being the worst risk in the world. Just as you would not permanently ground an aircraft that had a 100% safety record when an unrelated design fault was there away from the aircraft

Add up the deaths from Nuclear accidents, and include Chernobyl which was a death trap waiting to happen as are all Russian installations. We have also released two in the air on 1945, others in White Sands NM, others in the Pacific. While all of these are BAD for the world and a testament to our stupidity, these mass exposures have not ruined the world

Tell that to the families in the Ukraine giving birth to disabled and deformed children and will do for generations. Tell that to the families who lost someone(s) to cancer across Europe and Scandinavia as a result of Chernobyl. Tell that to the displaced peoples. How about the area of the Ukraine that will be off limits for centuries.

Your arguments are very flawed.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325108 26-Sep-2019 10:14

MikeB4:

tdgeek:

Exactly right, but if you are planning for the future and assessing safety, you can state that Japans safety was a design fault of non reactor machinery location, and that the facility maintained its 100% safety, despite 54 existing and Japan being the worst risk in the world. Just as you would not permanently ground an aircraft that had a 100% safety record when an unrelated design fault was there away from the aircraft

Add up the deaths from Nuclear accidents, and include Chernobyl which was a death trap waiting to happen as are all Russian installations. We have also released two in the air on 1945, others in White Sands NM, others in the Pacific. While all of these are BAD for the world and a testament to our stupidity, these mass exposures have not ruined the world

Tell that to the families in the Ukraine giving birth to disabled and deformed children and will do for generations. Tell that to the families who lost someone(s) to cancer across Europe and Scandinavia as a result of Chernobyl. Tell that to the displaced peoples. How about the area of the Ukraine that will be off limits for centuries.

Your arguments are very flawed.

How does these past events affect a 2018 reactor? How many reactors are there and how long have they been in service? Despite their age and poor designs.

How does emmisions affect us? 800,000 per year every year. Kiwis wont die from Ukraine cancer it will be NZ emissions

My arguments show that the risk is low, it is worth it. The risk of climate change is 100%. If we want to slowly remove emmisions that will take 100+ years, so we have already failed. Nuclear allows a chance of success. and on the way we can remove the nuclear waste that is already here. Its as thought we already have plenty of easy fixes for CC. All I see are votes to burn FF

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325110 26-Sep-2019 10:21

frankv:

tdgeek:

Exactly right, but if you are planning for the future and assessing safety, you can state that Japans safety was a design fault of non reactor machinery location, and that the facility maintained its 100% safety, despite 54 existing and Japan being the worst risk in the world. Just as you would not permanently ground an aircraft that had a 100% safety record when an unrelated design fault was there away from the aircraft

If the design fault was part of the chain of events that eventually caused the reactor to fail, then it was NOT unrelated.

You are apparently arguing that the reactor itself was not at fault, which is absolutely true. But we don't really care about that. Because it's the overall package that needs to be failproof, not just the reactor.

This is like having a leak in your radiator. The engine of your car is perfectly fine, and doesn't fail, right up to the point that it runs out of water. But I as a motorist don't care whether it was the engine or the radiator (or the water pump, or the water) at fault; the end result is that I have a dead engine and an expensive repair bill.

Add up the deaths from Nuclear accidents, and include Chernobyl which was a death trap waiting to happen as are all Russian installations. We have also released two in the air on 1945, others in White Sands NM, others in the Pacific. While all of these are BAD for the world and a testament to our stupidity, these mass exposures have not ruined the world

Islands in the Pacific are uninhabitable because of the American nuclear tests. For the people that lived there, their world *was* ruined. Whilst the death toll directly attributable to Chernobyl is less than 100, there are 1.8 million people in Ukraine, including 377,589 children, who had the status of victims of the disaster. 150,000sq km of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are considered to be contaminated. For comparison, NZ's total land are is 267,710sq km. Imagine if all of Auckland's population and half of NZ was contaminated.

Ok, we all agree to burn FF instead. You may say no I'm not saying that, but in fact you are. Its burn FF for energy or something else . So thats what we will do as there is no something else. Not every country is small, sparsely populated (so we use little energy) and can get away with hydro. As someone said lets burn FF to create power for EV's thats a better option, and it is. the only option.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325112 26-Sep-2019 10:22

MikeB4:

Your arguments are very flawed.

What is your argument for green clean energy for the globe?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325117 26-Sep-2019 10:37

tdgeek:

How does these past events affect a 2018 reactor? How many reactors are there and how long have they been in service? Despite their age and poor designs.

How does emmisions affect us? 800,000 per year every year. Kiwis wont die from Ukraine cancer it will be NZ emissions

My arguments show that the risk is low, it is worth it. The risk of climate change is 100%. If we want to slowly remove emmisions that will take 100+ years, so we have already failed. Nuclear allows a chance of success. and on the way we can remove the nuclear waste that is already here. Its as thought we already have plenty of easy fixes for CC. All I see are votes to burn FF

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"

We are already handing future generations a disaster we do not need to double down on it and hand them another nightmare because we feel our toys maybe taken away from us. Our stupid flirtation with nuclear should not be future generations mess to try and live with. There are alternatives that Europe and NZ and other thinking nations are using that don't have the potential to render large expanses of our shrinking home uninhabitable for centuries.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2325118 26-Sep-2019 10:39

tdgeek:

Ok, we all agree to burn FF instead. You may say no I'm not saying that, but in fact you are. Its burn FF for energy or something else . So thats what we will do as there is no something else. Not every country is small, sparsely populated (so we use little energy) and can get away with hydro. As someone said lets burn FF to create power for EV's thats a better option, and it is. the only option.

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that, in NZ, we burn FF in cars whilst we transition to EV, then we burn FF in turbines whilst we transition to solar or build more hydro or windfarms or geothermal or whatever. In other countries, they may choose other options, including nuclear. But, in NZ, nuclear is not a good option.

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2325132 26-Sep-2019 10:54

MikeB4:

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"

Edit: I withdraw this comment.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#2325138 26-Sep-2019 11:00

Dingbatt:

You mean like 1930s Germany when falsehoods and exaggeration was used to cause mass hysteria and overthrow of government?

You might want to re-read the FUG...

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325139 26-Sep-2019 11:02

frankv:

tdgeek:

Ok, we all agree to burn FF instead. You may say no I'm not saying that, but in fact you are. Its burn FF for energy or something else . So thats what we will do as there is no something else. Not every country is small, sparsely populated (so we use little energy) and can get away with hydro. As someone said lets burn FF to create power for EV's thats a better option, and it is. the only option.

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that, in NZ, we burn FF in cars whilst we transition to EV, then we burn FF in turbines whilst we transition to solar or build more hydro or windfarms or geothermal or whatever. In other countries, they may choose other options, including nuclear. But, in NZ, nuclear is not a good option.

Nuclear is not a needed option here as were are so small, our miniscule hydro is more than enough. The issue for Earth is everyone else not us. better nuclear is an option, or we can pretend that all nuclear is the same as Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Nuclear isnt a flirtation its in widespread use. FF is in vast use, and that will stay. Our future is already mapped out as we will continue with FF because that works for us. There are some other technologies that are being flirted with, they will endure but never amount to any volume, but it will make us humans feel we are working on it. Its alreday been decided here in NZ that 100% renewables isn't worth it. Cost too much. FF rules again, again we indirectly vote for it

1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 70