IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 23

8237 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2109966 17-Oct-2018 18:15

Dingbatt:

But he lives by you, not me. I am at least 30m above sea level at the moment, so don't need to move anywhere.

Pffff, that's practically beachfront. Got another 120m between you and me!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2109968 17-Oct-2018 18:25

SaltyNZ:

Dingbatt:

But he lives by you, not me. I am at least 30m above sea level at the moment, so don't need to move anywhere.

Pffff, that's practically beachfront. Got another 120m between you and me!

I'm at 99m above sea level in Chch. Trying to figure out how I'm going to get the pineapples I'm going to grow - from Banks Island to the underwater market in the city.

SaltyNZ

8237 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2110010 17-Oct-2018 19:50

Some sort of diving bell apparatus perhaps?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2110091 17-Oct-2018 22:19

Rikkitic:

Do we not have an environmental thread here? Maybe we should have.

This IPCC report makes interesting reading. Apparently those who keep chirping that we are a small country and can make no meaningful difference to the planet by imposing environmental controls on ourselves, are simply wrong. We have a big impact after all, in spite of our small size.

Every single one of us is "too small", yet collectively are doing some major harm.

The only answer that's worth anything is for each of us to own our role in the problem and address it.

We don't have time for shirkers and cheaters. This sh*t is getting real.

Yes, there will be cheaters....and shirkers.....so the rest of us have to try even harder to make up for their irresponsibility.

There isn't much time left.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2110148 18-Oct-2018 02:22

A very big problem with global warming. Is that it is practically impossible to connect the problems caused by global warming to a single source of carbon emissions.

For example. A power company wants to build some more generation capacity. They submit Resource consent applications to build a 500MW Hydro power station with a large dam. And a second resource consent application to build a 100MW gas turbine power station. The council receives submissions which oppose the construction of both power stations. The hydro station opposition is due to the dam flooding a valley, which will destroy a Forrest, and fish will no longer be able to migrate up the river. The gas power station opposition is due to it emitting lots of carbon dioxide. Which will cause global warming, which will also cause more storms and make them more severe.

The council considers the hydro dam application. They can see exactly how much land will be flooded, how many fish will be blocked from migrating, And also that it will completely change the landscape in the area. Can the electricity it will generate be generated by other means? Yes. OK so why do we need to harm the environment by building this power station?
Hydro power station consent is denied.

The council then ask: How much extra will word temps increase if the gas power station is approved? How many extra storms will happen? How much extra $$$ of damage will those storms cause? The answers are too small to calculate, because that power station will only be emitting an extremely tiny amount of total world emissions. OK so the negative effects are assessed as being equivalent to zero.
Fossil fueled power station is approved for construction.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2110149 18-Oct-2018 02:58

And here it is in real life.

100MW gas turbine power station under construction and due to begin emitting carbon dioxide in 2020.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/105362914/taranakis-new-100-million-natural-gasfired-plant-set-to-open-in-2020

And then there is (or was) Project Aqua.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3558633

Project Aqua had a design capacity of just over 500MW. And probably would have been in operation for over a decade by now if it had been built. It probably would have forced the Huntly coal power station out of business. As I can't see how you could run an ageing coal fired power station, and be able to generate electricity for less than 3.5c per unit while doing so.

And then there is the issue of 10 years and counting of unnecessary carbon emissions from Huntly. The demands that the government spend lots of money on reducing carbon emissions. Yet when a private company tried to spend their own money to reduce carbon emissions. Even one of the leaders of the Green party (at the time) Was happy when it got cancelled.

How many extra trees are needed to offset those emissions? How many EVs would be required to offset those emissions as an alternative? And how long will that take just to get back to nett 0 emissions compared to when Project Aqua was cancelled?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110151 18-Oct-2018 07:04

How much co2 does nuclear power plant cost

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2110178 18-Oct-2018 07:24

The key is to make the dollar price of things equal to what they actually cost... if there's an implicit cost of a power station in producing CO2 and the downside of that, then tax the power station to pay for the remediation/mitigation of its effects. Tax an ICE car based on the expected CO2 emissions of that car over its lifetime, either in registration fees or petrol tax or in the purchase price of the car.

Dingbatt

6758 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2110202 18-Oct-2018 08:16

Why tax an ICE on expected emissions? Just tax the fuel going into it, like they are doing at the moment. Less fuel = less emmissions.
Unless it is more about forcing people to bend to your will. Yet again.
And as usual, the 'rich' will be least affected because they can afford to adjust.

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

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2110206 18-Oct-2018 08:25

Linuxluver:

Every single one of us is "too small", yet collectively are doing some major harm.

The only answer that's worth anything is for each of us to own our role in the problem and address it.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's all pointless if the five biggest total (not per capita) emitting nations in the world do nothing. And nothing is more or less what they are currently doing.

Mike

SaltyNZ

8237 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2110220 18-Oct-2018 08:59

Dingbatt: Why tax an ICE on expected emissions? Just tax the fuel going into it, like they are doing at the moment. Less fuel = less emmissions.

Because over in the other thread, people are whining about how fuel is too expensive because of taxes. On which point, the fuel taxes are used to subsidise and improve public transport amongst other things, which does help the poor who can't afford to drive their cars.

There is no perfect solution, there is no solution that doesn't hurt everyone. The bottom line is that not doing anything is going to hurt everyone even more, and

as usual, the 'rich' will be least affected because they can afford to adjust.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2110953 19-Oct-2018 13:17

Fuel tax is an inefficient way of funding public transport and things to deal with traffic congestion. If someone replaces an old V8 car with a hybrid car. They won't be doing anything whatsoever to reduce traffic congestion.

And it also opens up a revenue hazard. As people buy cars that use less fuel (or zero if they buy an EV). So the amount of petrol tax that is collected goes down. Then the government is forced to increase the tax rate, even though no service improvements will be provided.

With any "sin" tax, always consider the scenario of if the thing that you are taxing disappears completely. If everyone who smokes suddenly quit, meaning no more tobacco sales and no more tobacco tax collected. Everyone would be happy. As the savings to the health system would offset the loss of tax income.

Now imagine if every petrol car suddenly became an EV. No more petrol sales and no more petrol tax. The government would have to urgently introduce new taxes to make up the shortfall due to no more petrol tax.

Dingbatt

6758 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2110956 19-Oct-2018 13:25

Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting. Unless there is an element of a 'cars are evil' mentality.

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

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2110959 19-Oct-2018 13:32

Batman: How much co2 does nuclear power plant cost

Nuclear power is unsuitable for NZ even when you ignore the risk of a radiation leak or meltdown. As there is lots of peaks and dips in NZ electricity demand. Which is why power stations like the above linked one are being built. They are designed mainly for quick starting. Rather than lower running costs.

Nuclear power stations are only suitable for baseload generation. (same output 24/7) As it is extremely dangerous to try and rapidly ramp up the power output from a nuclear reactor.

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2110960 19-Oct-2018 13:36

Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.

You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 23