Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 
13097 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1617175 25-Aug-2016 08:55
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

Sure....you keep telling yourself that and it might become true.

 

 

 

 

So, are you saying it would be more enlightened for a geologically unstable country who's main source of income is primary industry and tourism to have Nuclear Power Plants and to store Nuclear waste etc?





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


7352 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 1617196 25-Aug-2016 09:57
Send private message

Is the Green Party going to get behind to promote new technology capable of completely transforming the NZ dairy industry?

 

to use up to 98% less water, 91% less land, 84% less greenhouse gas emissions, and 65% less energy than typical industrial dairy production (source)

 

 

 

Oh - and the meat industry:

 

 

 


11889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3855

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1617243 25-Aug-2016 11:00
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

Sure....you keep telling yourself that and it might become true.

 

 

 

 

So, are you saying it would be more enlightened for a geologically unstable country who's main source of income is primary industry and tourism to have Nuclear Power Plants and to store Nuclear waste etc?

 

 

 

 

No. I am saying that it can be done - especially if you can get fusion, as the waste would be significantly less and can be transported elsewhere for storage if need be. It's foolish to close off things based on what seemed like a super political idea at the time but which may or may not have relevance today. Technology advances etc.

 

The more foolish aspect of the law is to prevent even a vessel powered by nuclear reactors from visiting NZ. If someone wanted to sail a submerged nuclear sub into Wellington harbour and out again, they are in reality free to do so since we have no means of knowing that they were even there unless they tell us, much less the means to stop them other than asking nicely.






11889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3855

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1617247 25-Aug-2016 11:03
Send private message

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

Being cultured and being a "cultural group" in this context are highly unlikely to be the same thing. One enjoys Handel's Messiah and the other usually wants to use some flakey argument about how they used to live 150 years ago to prevent society doing something useful today.

 

 

So in some way harping back to European culture of 1740 is better than harping back to Maori culture of 1866?

 

I suggest closing down the Concert Program and Symphony Orchestra and Army/Air Force/Navy/Police brass bands and pipe bands and NZ Ballet and anything to do with Shakespearean theatre and give the money to RocketLabs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No complaints from me. Go ahead.






13097 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1617251 25-Aug-2016 11:07
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

Sure....you keep telling yourself that and it might become true.

 

 

 

 

So, are you saying it would be more enlightened for a geologically unstable country who's main source of income is primary industry and tourism to have Nuclear Power Plants and to store Nuclear waste etc?

 

 

 

 

No. I am saying that it can be done - especially if you can get fusion, as the waste would be significantly less and can be transported elsewhere for storage if need be. It's foolish to close off things based on what seemed like a super political idea at the time but which may or may not have relevance today. Technology advances etc.

 

The more foolish aspect of the law is to prevent even a vessel powered by nuclear reactors from visiting NZ. If someone wanted to sail a submerged nuclear sub into Wellington harbour and out again, they are in reality free to do so since we have no means of knowing that they were even there unless they tell us, much less the means to stop them other than asking nicely.

 

 

 

 

Given how shallow most of Wellington Habour is it would be detected.

 

A nuclear powered ship can have and accident the same as any reactor thus wrecking our economy for decades, the risk is not worth. As for nuclear waste where do you propose we send it? to some poor pacific island? The World already has enough idiot nations doing that, New Zealand does not need join it.

 

There are alternatives to joining the nuclear idiocy.

 

 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


2451 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1617295 25-Aug-2016 12:20
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Is the Green Party going to get behind to promote new technology capable of completely transforming the NZ dairy industry?

 

to use up to 98% less water, 91% less land, 84% less greenhouse gas emissions, and 65% less energy than typical industrial dairy production (source)

 

 

 

That's not going to transform the NZ dairy industry... it will kill it stone dead.

 

Why would you bother to transport milk powder from NZ if you can make the stuff yourself in a brewery?

 

 


5091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2068


  Reply # 1617369 25-Aug-2016 13:52
One person supports this post
Send private message

I think its' fair to say that there is high degree of overlap between sympathy for sustainability objectives and opposition to new technologies that would contribute to attainment of those.  Observations of that kind ff behaviour have given me the impression that the green lobby is simply anti-business (with the exception of shortlist of business activities they approve of).

 

Example of developments that would contribute in some way to widely espoused sustainability objectives but have been publicly opposed by the green lobby, including in most cases the Green party: -

 

Gamma irradiation of food and beverages- reduced spoilage, spread of pests and food borne illnesses.

 

BioTech - selected opportunities for more sustainable and safer food production.

 

Hydro dams - low carbon energy.

 

Wind farms - ditto.

 

Barn raised cattle - cattle voluntarily use shelter and barns reduce nutrient, sediment and microbial run off from cattle farms and enables all effluent be captured.  Meanwhile dairy goats are farmed in barns and cut and carry fed grass and no-one bats an eyelid.

 

Shellfish farms - low carbon, low input, healthy (iron, omega 3) animal protein.

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1631359 15-Sep-2016 22:00
3 people support this post
Send private message

Xkcd does climate change:

"When people say 'the climate has changed before,' these are the kinds of changes they're talking about."




2451 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1631443 16-Sep-2016 07:10
Send private message

That seems clear enough.

 

One point though... if the edge of the ice at 14000BC was at NY, and at 8500BC the ice sheet still extended to the Canadian border, then surely the land bridge from Asia to the Americas was always underneath a solid ice sheet. So when humans went from Asia to America they would have had to travel for hundreds (thousands?) of miles across nothing but ice? Which doesn't seem like a very probable scenario.

 

 


269 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 24


  Reply # 1632302 17-Sep-2016 18:55
Send private message

frankv:

 

That seems clear enough.

 

One point though... if the edge of the ice at 14000BC was at NY, and at 8500BC the ice sheet still extended to the Canadian border, then surely the land bridge from Asia to the Americas was always underneath a solid ice sheet. So when humans went from Asia to America they would have had to travel for hundreds (thousands?) of miles across nothing but ice? Which doesn't seem like a very probable scenario.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7618/full/nature19085.html ?


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.