Climate Change: Sh*t is getting real....and fast.

Forums › Off topic › Climate Change: Sh*t is getting real....and fast.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616512 23-Aug-2016 19:49

Fred99:

nunz:

We are still fed BS about how bad radiation is for us when it obviously isn't as bad as made out when considering the high number of survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, near the epicenter, that lived well into their 80's and 90's. The cancer rates from them is way too low for what majority science tells us.

You need to take great care not to read too much into that. That's one example which seems to contradict the LNT model, others support it, some suggest it's not conservative enough.
Mostly though, never use it to argue in a way to suggest that nuclear weapons are ok. They aren't.

Agree. Nuclear weapons are bad. Nuclear can be bad as we cannot manage it. Fusion is great, but we also cannot manage it. How bout being retro? Using renewables that we can manage? Solar, wind, water. Its a start.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616525 23-Aug-2016 20:28

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/83489704/antarctica-ice-shelf-at-risk-from-huge-spreading-crack

No Stuff posters were lost in the production of this post.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1616527 23-Aug-2016 20:39

Fred99:

You need to take great care not to read too much into that. That's one example which seems to contradict the LNT model, others support it, some suggest it's not conservative enough.
Mostly though, never use it to argue in a way to suggest that nuclear weapons are ok. They aren't.

That depends on what you mean by "OK". They make a great deterrent against other nations who might otherwise use WMDs against you. Arguably, they were responsible for the breakup of the Soviet Bloc and the downfall of the Berlin Wall. Arguably, the world is a more stable place when relatively "sane" countries (eg UK, France) have them.

So on balance, I'd argue that they are "ok". Perhaps not "great", but OK. I think if they hadn't existed, USSR and Warsaw Pact would have had a go against NATO in the Cold War, with massive death and destruction in Europe.

ClipIt

50 posts

Geek

#1616563 23-Aug-2016 22:38

Wish 'Global Warming' would hurry up. I'm getting cold.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1616573 24-Aug-2016 00:20

On 12 th August the Arabian Sea reached 35 degrees which is getting close to Spa temperatures and warmer than most public swimming pools. Eastern Black Sea was around 30 degrees. Around Turkey it was under 30 degrees but not by much. I'm talking water temperatures!

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1616578 24-Aug-2016 00:38

seatemperature.org

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1616621 24-Aug-2016 08:33

shk292:

Fred99:

You need to take great care not to read too much into that. That's one example which seems to contradict the LNT model, others support it, some suggest it's not conservative enough.
Mostly though, never use it to argue in a way to suggest that nuclear weapons are ok. They aren't.

That depends on what you mean by "OK". They make a great deterrent against other nations who might otherwise use WMDs against you. Arguably, they were responsible for the breakup of the Soviet Bloc and the downfall of the Berlin Wall. Arguably, the world is a more stable place when relatively "sane" countries (eg UK, France) have them.

So on balance, I'd argue that they are "ok". Perhaps not "great", but OK. I think if they hadn't existed, USSR and Warsaw Pact would have had a go against NATO in the Cold War, with massive death and destruction in Europe.

I don't accept your argument - it's based on an unprovable hypothesis that the world is "better" as a result.

Proxy wars fought by cold-war nuclear powers killed millions, even the "relatively sane" nations haven't been spared, terrorism and the "need" for continued military action in places destabilised by 1/2 century (or more) of dabbling for political/military gain.

If nuclear weapons truly acted as a deterrent / effective for defence of your nation, then the US wouldn't be needing to spend about a trillion dollars a year on their military.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616732 24-Aug-2016 11:01

jpoc:

Aredwood:

...

About the only thing that could ever provide enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels - Nuclear Fusion. So better hope that practical nuclear fusion gets perfected soon.

...

Agreed.

I put actual money behind that concept and invested in Lockheed-Martin. Let's hope that their compact high-beta fusion project plays out according to the projected timescales.

The managers there are putting big money - shareholder funds - my money - behind the concept. They seem to be confident.

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1616738 24-Aug-2016 11:07

Geektastic:

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

You see a version of that already - the best renewable power we could have is more hydro, but you can't build more lakes because it would flood the only habitat of a specfic type of snail etc, etc. Ditto the proposed tidal generation scheme in the mouth of the Kaipara is opposed by various environmental and cultural groups.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1616743 24-Aug-2016 11:21

shk292:

Geektastic:

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

You see a version of that already - the best renewable power we could have is more hydro, but you can't build more lakes because it would flood the only habitat of a specfic type of snail etc, etc. Ditto the proposed tidal generation scheme in the mouth of the Kaipara is opposed by various environmental and cultural groups.

The environment is wrecked one step at a time.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1616744 24-Aug-2016 11:21

Geektastic:

jpoc:

Aredwood:

...

About the only thing that could ever provide enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels - Nuclear Fusion. So better hope that practical nuclear fusion gets perfected soon.

...

Agreed.

I put actual money behind that concept and invested in Lockheed-Martin. Let's hope that their compact high-beta fusion project plays out according to the projected timescales.

The managers there are putting big money - shareholder funds - my money - behind the concept. They seem to be confident.

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

Our anti nuke laws are not pointless they are enlightened

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616746 24-Aug-2016 11:25

shk292:

Geektastic:

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

You see a version of that already - the best renewable power we could have is more hydro, but you can't build more lakes because it would flood the only habitat of a specfic type of snail etc, etc. Ditto the proposed tidal generation scheme in the mouth of the Kaipara is opposed by various environmental and cultural groups.

Why do we need to build hydro dams when rip currents try to kill people every day in the surf .. can't we harness/use rip currents?

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1616752 24-Aug-2016 11:45

joker97:

shk292:

Geektastic:

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

You see a version of that already - the best renewable power we could have is more hydro, but you can't build more lakes because it would flood the only habitat of a specfic type of snail etc, etc. Ditto the proposed tidal generation scheme in the mouth of the Kaipara is opposed by various environmental and cultural groups.

Why do we need to build hydro dams when rip currents try to kill people every day in the surf .. can't we harness/use rip currents?

I'm not an expert but I think it has to do with energy density and reliability. Using tidal stream at a harbour mouth or certain other places like the Cook Strait ensures you get reliable, useful amounts of power generated. Rips wouldn't do this

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616757 24-Aug-2016 12:10

There has to be a lot we can do. Have a house roof with two tunnels for the prevailing and storm winds. Light turbine inside, suspended by small magnetic current to be frictionless, free wind power. Another one or two free standing on the property. Those who live next to a stream can get turbine power there. Must be many small and economic things we can do to reduce the grid demands

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1616796 24-Aug-2016 12:28

Geektastic:

jpoc:

Aredwood:

...

About the only thing that could ever provide enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels - Nuclear Fusion. So better hope that practical nuclear fusion gets perfected soon.

...

Agreed.

I put actual money behind that concept and invested in Lockheed-Martin. Let's hope that their compact high-beta fusion project plays out according to the projected timescales.

The managers there are putting big money - shareholder funds - my money - behind the concept. They seem to be confident.

Of course, even if they invent pocket fusion reactors, we won't get them because we'd have to give up our (somewhat pointless) nuclear free laws. You can imagine the Greens imploding as they try to rationalise the fact that having the reactors will help their climate concerns on the one hand and break their sainted no nuclear rule on the other hand. Would be fun to watch, actually.

The anti-nuclear legislation refers to nuclear waste, nuclear weapons testing, nuclear weapons and nuclear propelled ships.

There is no blanket ban on reactors in New Zealand.

Of course, if you wanted to build one, you would have to satisfy health and safety etc. under the RMA.

Also, New Zealand must currently manufacture and/or import nuclear materials.

Where else would hospitals, research etc. get nuclear material?

The Green party must be well aware of this. So, I don't see you have any valid points there.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11