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 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 70

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325166 26-Sep-2019 11:47

Dingbatt:
MikeB4:

The wind turbines can be located offshore e.g Denmark

And what provides the base load on a cold mid-winter night when there is a high pressure area sitting over the country and there is no wind?
Not sure how shallow the North Sea and Baltic are around Denmark but the drop-off to the abyssal plain isn't that far off the NZ coast. Fact of life when you live/were formed on a plate boundary and not the result of sediment washed down from melting glaciers.

They don't need to be embedded into the sea floor.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325173 26-Sep-2019 11:57

MikeB4:

Chernobyl started producing power circa 1978 and constructed in the early 70s

According to the doco it used 1940's tech. Cold War Russian, so not surprising. Other reactors globally use 1960's tech, again as per the doco. There hasnt been any meaningful innovation as they just work, and since Chernobyl and nuclear war potential its a tarnished name. So no real desire to innovate I assume.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325175 26-Sep-2019 12:00

How many wind turbines would power all of the USA? Or Europe? Japan? Etc?

Not being facetious, it would be interesting to see what this one alternative would require. Same with hydro, solar. Yes we would use more then one source, but I don't see that these alternative will make much of a dent

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325178 26-Sep-2019 12:06

I watched a TedX talk about a guy who spent his whole career championing Solar and Wind power, but upon examining the evidence collected, says Nuclear is the best way forward. The issues traditionally causing instability in Nuclear plants is much much less of an issue due to better and less ecologically impactful cooling. A very small plant could power NZ entirely it would seem. I would support investigating urgently, the practicality of it.

Solar and Wind have massive wildlife impacts with birds and insects (especially concerning bees) getting fried flying over or near them. Same with Wind.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325193 26-Sep-2019 12:21

networkn:

I watched a TedX talk about a guy who spent his whole career championing Solar and Wind power, but upon examining the evidence collected, says Nuclear is the best way forward. The issues traditionally causing instability in Nuclear plants is much much less of an issue due to better and less ecologically impactful cooling. A very small plant could power NZ entirely it would seem. I would support investigating urgently, the practicality of it.

Solar and Wind have massive wildlife impacts with birds and insects (especially concerning bees) getting fried flying over or near them. Same with Wind.

May I ask you the same question I asked earlier, where in NZ do you believe a nuclear power plant could be located?

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2325197 26-Sep-2019 12:27

MikeB4:
networkn:

I watched a TedX talk about a guy who spent his whole career championing Solar and Wind power, but upon examining the evidence collected, says Nuclear is the best way forward. The issues traditionally causing instability in Nuclear plants is much much less of an issue due to better and less ecologically impactful cooling. A very small plant could power NZ entirely it would seem. I would support investigating urgently, the practicality of it.

Solar and Wind have massive wildlife impacts with birds and insects (especially concerning bees) getting fried flying over or near them. Same with Wind.

May I ask you the same question I asked earlier, where in NZ do you believe a nuclear power plant could be located?

Huntly?

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

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325199 26-Sep-2019 12:34

MikeB4:

networkn:

I watched a TedX talk about a guy who spent his whole career championing Solar and Wind power, but upon examining the evidence collected, says Nuclear is the best way forward. The issues traditionally causing instability in Nuclear plants is much much less of an issue due to better and less ecologically impactful cooling. A very small plant could power NZ entirely it would seem. I would support investigating urgently, the practicality of it.

Solar and Wind have massive wildlife impacts with birds and insects (especially concerning bees) getting fried flying over or near them. Same with Wind.

May I ask you the same question I asked earlier, where in NZ do you believe a nuclear power plant could be located?

Well, there is a huge amount of hot air being generated in central Wellington, without any energy being harnessed, so there maybe?

Seriously? I am not sure, a study would determine this, but somewhere semi central and not too highly populated. Given our people to land mass ratio, shouldn't be too hard.

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.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325216 26-Sep-2019 12:45

Dingbatt:
MikeB4:

networkn:

I watched a TedX talk about a guy who spent his whole career championing Solar and Wind power, but upon examining the evidence collected, says Nuclear is the best way forward. The issues traditionally causing instability in Nuclear plants is much much less of an issue due to better and less ecologically impactful cooling. A very small plant could power NZ entirely it would seem. I would support investigating urgently, the practicality of it.

Solar and Wind have massive wildlife impacts with birds and insects (especially concerning bees) getting fried flying over or near them. Same with Wind.

May I ask you the same question I asked earlier, where in NZ do you believe a nuclear power plant could be located?

Huntly?

Not a bad option. Tokoroa potentially as well.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2325224 26-Sep-2019 12:54

Even if the "Go" button was pressed for construction of a nuclear power station today, by the time all the planning, resource, environment, Waitangi, etc hearings and meetings were held then all the challenges, injunctions and stalling tactics are factored in, and then the nature of political football it would become, would mean that the first sod of dirt turned for construction would be 25-30 years away. Just look at some of the relatively low impact hydro schemes that have been abandoned, or remain unstarted for an indication of how difficult this would be to achieve. In quarter of a century Fusion reactors may be viable.

As for where to put the Nuke. I'm sure any regional authority that has declared a 'Climate Emergency' would be only to happy to do their bit by having the facility in their jurisdiction.

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325230 26-Sep-2019 12:57

Tokoroa? Seriously? It's in a volcanic zone that extends well into the Pacific.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2325231 26-Sep-2019 12:59

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Chernobyl started producing power circa 1978 and constructed in the early 70s

According to the doco it used 1940's tech.

Perhaps the doco wasn't being completely honest. Whilst the design no doubt has its origins in atomic research dating back to the 1940s, the same applies to any reactor, including Bill's design. The first reactor of this design was built in 1954. So you could perhaps say it was 1950s tech, although I'm sure that there would have been numerous improvements made between 1954 and 1978.

Cold War Russian, so not surprising. Other reactors globally use 1960's tech, again as per the doco. There hasnt been any meaningful innovation as they just work, and since Chernobyl and nuclear war potential its a tarnished name. So no real desire to innovate I assume.

I doubt that they "just work". After all, the Chernobyl accident was in part *caused* by experimenting. I'm sure that there is a great deal of effort that goes into keeping the existing reactors running. Otherwise, they would just be left running instead of shutting them down.

Perhaps there hasn't been any recent innovation because (a) the industry perceives that there's no money in it, and/or (b) the industry perceives that it can't be done safely, and/or (c) the technology is already at the top of the J curve, and/or (d) innovation in nuclear energy has gone into fusion reactors.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325234 26-Sep-2019 13:04

frankv:
tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Chernobyl started producing power circa 1978 and constructed in the early 70s

According to the doco it used 1940's tech.

Perhaps the doco wasn't being completely honest. Whilst the design no doubt has its origins in atomic research dating back to the 1940s, the same applies to any reactor, including Bill's design. The first reactor of this design was built in 1954. So you could perhaps say it was 1950s tech, although I'm sure that there would have been numerous improvements made between 1954 and 1978.

Cold War Russian, so not surprising. Other reactors globally use 1960's tech, again as per the doco. There hasnt been any meaningful innovation as they just work, and since Chernobyl and nuclear war potential its a tarnished name. So no real desire to innovate I assume.

I doubt that they "just work". After all, the Chernobyl accident was in part *caused* by experimenting. I'm sure that there is a great deal of effort that goes into keeping the existing reactors running. Otherwise, they would just be left running instead of shutting them down.

Perhaps there hasn't been any recent innovation because (a) the industry perceives that there's no money in it, and/or (b) the industry perceives that it can't be done safely, and/or (c) the technology is already at the top of the J curve, and/or (d) innovation in nuclear energy has gone into fusion reactors.

Hmmmm Bill's design. A reactor from the man who brought us the blue screen of death. Yikes

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325235 26-Sep-2019 13:09

MikeB4: Tokoroa? Seriously? It's in a volcanic zone that extends well into the Pacific.

OK, well as I clearly stated Mike, that's why we would get a study done. I am not a geologist or a specialist in Nuclear power. Surely, somewhere in NZ we could put one. I mean we get a study done for everything else under the sun, so this seems a worthwhile spend of resources.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325248 26-Sep-2019 13:15

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.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325251 26-Sep-2019 13:17

MikeB4:Hmmmm Bill's design. A reactor from the man who brought us the blue screen of death. Yikes

Yes yikes. So much for a serious topic. Roll on FF you are safe

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 70