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 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 70

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2325340 26-Sep-2019 14:08

MikeB4:
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

Isn't Climate Change (or the response to) going to wreck both of those long before a 1 in a million meltdown?

And it was me positing NZ locations. I guess the emoji wasn’t enough to portray it was tongue in cheek, will have to start using the sarcasm bbcode instead.

The main thing that will stop NZ “going nuclear” is the immense cost. That is until we can fit a “Mr Fusion” to our cars.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325341 26-Sep-2019 14:11

WyleECoyoteNZ:

tdgeek:

MikeB4: 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.

For the umpteenth time no one suggested lets build one here, for reasons that are obvious. My point was todays nuclear is not Chernobyl so its the option the EARTH needs. I guess nuclear cannot go to Japan which is worse than NZ, or Europe as thats next to the war hotspots and so on

At least here we can build a few more hydros, get some new lakes going on, but that not where the problem exists. Agriculture that needs to stop, apparently. Tourism is a waste of carbon

There is little will here. Or anywhere else. And no solutions. The future is set

Maybe i've misread this, but Japan does have nuclear power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

From the wikipedia link above

"As of February 2019, there are 42 operable reactors in Japan. Of these, 9 reactors in 5 power plants are operating"

And if NZ were to go Nuclear, isn't it better to have that power produced closer to be biggest population mass? To my thinking, and not being a geologist or Nuclear scientist, that lends it to either Huntly way or South Auckland, maybe Thames.

Yes 54 reactors prior to the EQ I recall

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2325342 26-Sep-2019 14:11

networkn:

MikeB4: 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.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

Way back in the late 1970s, I did a couple of Earth Sciences papers at Massey. The lecturer, who was an expert on NZ geology and vulcanology, said then that there was nowhere in NZ suitable for a nuclear reactor. Generally speaking, the bits that aren't close to volcanic or faults are unstable river sediments.

Of course, things may have improved since then.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325343 26-Sep-2019 14:16

Japan is a poor example they are a country with few natural resources. At the the time they built there plants alternatives were in their infancy.

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325344 26-Sep-2019 14:18

frankv:

networkn:

MikeB4: 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.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

Way back in the late 1970s, I did a couple of Earth Sciences papers at Massey. The lecturer, who was an expert on NZ geology and vulcanology, said then that there was nowhere in NZ suitable for a nuclear reactor. Generally speaking, the bits that aren't close to volcanic or faults are unstable river sediments.

Of course, things may have improved since then.

I would go as far as to say that Hydro is barely safe in NZ. When the Trans alpine fault fires I would not want to be down stream of the major hydro dams in the South Island.

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325349 26-Sep-2019 14:33

Dingbatt:

MikeB4:
As well as the risk to life a nuclear accident would wreck our biggest sources of income, being agriculture and tourism.

Isn't Climate Change (or the response to) going to wreck both of those long before a 1 in a million meltdown?

And it was me positing NZ locations. I guess the emoji wasn’t enough to portray it was tongue in cheek, will have to start using the sarcasm bbcode instead.

The main thing that will stop NZ “going nuclear” is the immense cost. That is until we can fit a “Mr Fusion” to our cars.

Sorry I didn't pick up on the tongue in check, slow day for me today or maybe everyday.

I agree it is a rock and a hard place but replacing the rocks or planning to replace the rocks with more rocks is not the answer. At some time in the future we may find a safe way with nuclear and maybe the project that Bill Gates is involved with may well be the key but it's untested and going to be more than we can deal with, also the fuel for his plant would have to shipped to NZ a prospect I find horrifying.

In the medium NZ can do its bit by moving our energy requirements to such things as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. With each country doing steps the goal can be reached without making more of a mess of things.

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

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#2325351 26-Sep-2019 14:39

MikeB4:

frankv:

networkn:

MikeB4: 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.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

Way back in the late 1970s, I did a couple of Earth Sciences papers at Massey. The lecturer, who was an expert on NZ geology and vulcanology, said then that there was nowhere in NZ suitable for a nuclear reactor. Generally speaking, the bits that aren't close to volcanic or faults are unstable river sediments.

Of course, things may have improved since then.

I would go as far as to say that Hydro is barely safe in NZ. When the Trans alpine fault fires I would not want to be down stream of the major hydro dams in the South Island.

Aside from that fault going (which would then trigger the other faults) most of NZ would be stuffed.

As I see it, the biggest risk to the Hydro lakes is CC itself. As far as I'm aware, the hydro lakes rely on the spring snow thaw\melt. If we are getting warmer winters, then I assuming that could result in less snow thaw to the lakes.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325353 26-Sep-2019 14:41

WyleECoyoteNZ:

Aside from that fault going (which would then trigger the other faults) most of NZ would be stuffed.

As I see it, the biggest risk to the Hydro lakes is CC itself. As far as I'm aware, the hydro lakes rely on the spring snow thaw\melt. If we are getting warmer winters, then I assuming that could result in less snow thaw to the lakes.

That is mostly the case as most of the rainfall is west of the divide.

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

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325354 26-Sep-2019 14:42

frankv:

networkn:

MikeB4: 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.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

Way back in the late 1970s, I did a couple of Earth Sciences papers at Massey. The lecturer, who was an expert on NZ geology and vulcanology, said then that there was nowhere in NZ suitable for a nuclear reactor. Generally speaking, the bits that aren't close to volcanic or faults are unstable river sediments.

Of course, things may have improved since then.

40 Years, one would hope things have changed and improved. Easily enough found out. We have countless other working groups, what's one more?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325355 26-Sep-2019 14:44

MikeB4:

I agree it is a rock and a hard place but replacing the rocks or planning to replace the rocks with more rocks is not the answer. At some time in the future we may find a safe way with nuclear and maybe the project that Bill Gates is involved with may well be the key but it's untested and going to be more than we can deal with, also the fuel for his plant would have to shipped to NZ a prospect I find horrifying.

In the medium NZ can do its bit by moving our energy requirements to such things as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. With each country doing steps the goal can be reached without making more of a mess of things.

I don't disagree Mike. For NZ it doesnt matter. If we do well renewable wise or poorly it wont really affect CC globally. Off course we would like to do well though.

IMHO, we dont have "some time in the future" The tipping point may well have already been raced, in which case its all moot. I just feel Gates idea is a real option and I honestly dont see any others

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325356 26-Sep-2019 14:45

networkn:

frankv:

networkn:

MikeB4: 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.

Well, rather than us guessing, we could get some actual experts to determine that. The impact of wind and solar (and especially given their low effciency) on our environment, is just screwing us in a different way.

There is simply not good reason not to spend money seriously investigating some better long term solutions.

Way back in the late 1970s, I did a couple of Earth Sciences papers at Massey. The lecturer, who was an expert on NZ geology and vulcanology, said then that there was nowhere in NZ suitable for a nuclear reactor. Generally speaking, the bits that aren't close to volcanic or faults are unstable river sediments.

Of course, things may have improved since then.

40 Years, one would hope things have changed and improved. Easily enough found out. We have countless other working groups, what's one more?

Cullen is free I hear... :-)

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325358 26-Sep-2019 14:49

tdgeek:

Cullen is free I hear... :-)

Christ, Kill me now! :( LOL

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325359 26-Sep-2019 14:49

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

I agree it is a rock and a hard place but replacing the rocks or planning to replace the rocks with more rocks is not the answer. At some time in the future we may find a safe way with nuclear and maybe the project that Bill Gates is involved with may well be the key but it's untested and going to be more than we can deal with, also the fuel for his plant would have to shipped to NZ a prospect I find horrifying.

In the medium NZ can do its bit by moving our energy requirements to such things as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. With each country doing steps the goal can be reached without making more of a mess of things.

I don't disagree Mike. For NZ it doesnt matter. If we do well renewable wise or poorly it wont really affect CC globally. Off course we would like to do well though.

IMHO, we dont have "some time in the future" The tipping point may well have already been raced, in which case its all moot. I just feel Gates idea is a real option and I honestly dont see any others

Unfortunately the big players have their heads firmly inserted in the sand, they are USA, China, Russia and India. One only has to look here to see where the issue is. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-242.78,9.99,594

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2325384 26-Sep-2019 15:26

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2325411 26-Sep-2019 16:00

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet is in.

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

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 70