A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 22

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1401969 7-Oct-2015 19:34

DizzyD:
mattwnz:
Although you don't generally visit Japan for it's clean green image. The thing about radiation is that you don't know how it affects you until years later. I read that apparently wildlife is doing well 30 years after Chernobyl, but there is no research as to how healthy the wildlife actually is, and whether there are mutations.

MikeB4: NZ has followed other mistakes of other countries, nuclear stupidity is one mistake we should never copy.

The world has moved on since the 1980's.

While NZ is still burning coal, other countries have worked out that its far cleaner/greener to go nuclear.

You are forgetting about the pollution it causes, that has to be shipped away to some poor country who ends up with it. It certainly isn't cleaner and greener than our other generation sources such as hydro, wind and solar. Coal is 3rd world generation, so should never be used in NZ, except in an emergency.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1401980 7-Oct-2015 19:57

mattwnz:

You are forgetting about the pollution it causes, that has to be shipped away to some poor country who ends up with it. It certainly isn't cleaner and greener than our other generation sources such as hydro, wind and solar. Coal is 3rd world generation, so should never be used in NZ, except in an emergency.

Its manageable. Many clean/green countries put theirs into a deep geological repository.

No it does not have to be shipped away.

NZ will be far cleaner if we got rid of the Coal Powered Huntly plant and replaced it with nuclear.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1401994 7-Oct-2015 20:10

DizzyD:
mattwnz:
Although you don't generally visit Japan for it's clean green image. The thing about radiation is that you don't know how it affects you until years later. I read that apparently wildlife is doing well 30 years after Chernobyl, but there is no research as to how healthy the wildlife actually is, and whether there are mutations.

MikeB4: NZ has followed other mistakes of other countries, nuclear stupidity is one mistake we should never copy.

The world has moved on since the 1980's.

Have a look at Pebble-bed, and Molten salt reactor designs.

While NZ is still burning coal, other countries have worked out that its far cleaner/greener to go nuclear. Maybe one day we will see some nuclear scientists positions being advertised on Seek.

I don't think a Wind Turbine renders land unusable for many life times if it falls over and we can breath it's used fuel.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1402009 7-Oct-2015 20:30

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
mattwnz:
Although you don't generally visit Japan for it's clean green image. The thing about radiation is that you don't know how it affects you until years later. I read that apparently wildlife is doing well 30 years after Chernobyl, but there is no research as to how healthy the wildlife actually is, and whether there are mutations.

MikeB4: NZ has followed other mistakes of other countries, nuclear stupidity is one mistake we should never copy.

The world has moved on since the 1980's.

Have a look at Pebble-bed, and Molten salt reactor designs.

While NZ is still burning coal, other countries have worked out that its far cleaner/greener to go nuclear. Maybe one day we will see some nuclear scientists positions being advertised on Seek.

I don't think a Wind Turbine renders land unusable for many life times if it falls over and we can breath it's used fuel.

And how many wind turbines will be required to replace Huntly (1000 MW)?

There is a reason Huntly coal power station is still there. Not much Wind! The only real green alternative is nuclear.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1402019 7-Oct-2015 20:46

DizzyD:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
mattwnz:
Although you don't generally visit Japan for it's clean green image. The thing about radiation is that you don't know how it affects you until years later. I read that apparently wildlife is doing well 30 years after Chernobyl, but there is no research as to how healthy the wildlife actually is, and whether there are mutations.

MikeB4: NZ has followed other mistakes of other countries, nuclear stupidity is one mistake we should never copy.

The world has moved on since the 1980's.

Have a look at Pebble-bed, and Molten salt reactor designs.

While NZ is still burning coal, other countries have worked out that its far cleaner/greener to go nuclear. Maybe one day we will see some nuclear scientists positions being advertised on Seek.

I don't think a Wind Turbine renders land unusable for many life times if it falls over and we can breath it's used fuel.

And how many wind turbines will be required to replace Huntly (1000 MW)?

There is a reason Huntly coal power station is still there. Not much Wind! The only real green alternative is nuclear.

When the consented and proposed wind farms are up and running the Huntly plant will be history without building mistakes

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1402026 7-Oct-2015 20:57

Geektastic:
mattwnz:
DizzyD:
sir1963:
joker97: I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

We managed quite well with going Nuke free.
That cost us quite a bit in trade with the US/UK, but it was the right thing to do, and you notice how no later government has tried to change it.

I recon we would have actually been far better off if we had a nuclear power station setup somewhere in the middle of the North island.

When compared to the rest of the developed world, our electricity costs are extremely high.
Given our electricity prices in NZ, the average person in the street is really the looser.

You can blame the RMA and compliance costs for that. Now it is very difficult and expensive to setup any power station, as noone wants them in their back yard. Nuclear will only damage NZs green clean image. Due to advances in techonolgy, renewable sources are far better and more affordable. Not to mention that NZ is in on the ring of fire, so is subject to EQs. You only need to see what happened in Japan, and that is a major problem still. You just need one disaster like that, and it kills our tourism market. It is far too high risk IMO. If they would building nuclear, it would make sense for them to build a nuclear power pant in Auckland , as that is where the population is, and makes it more efficient as, as it has less distance to travel.

Trust me, agriculture is busy damaging our clean green image as we speak...!

Fukushima or Long Island do not appear to have had any long term effect on visitors to Japan or the USA. Wildlife in Chernobyl was this week reported as doing extremely well. Something like a Pebble Bed reactor would be a good option.

The wildlife around chernobyl doing well is due to the lack of humans.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1402029 7-Oct-2015 21:10

DizzyD:
mattwnz:

You are forgetting about the pollution it causes, that has to be shipped away to some poor country who ends up with it. It certainly isn't cleaner and greener than our other generation sources such as hydro, wind and solar. Coal is 3rd world generation, so should never be used in NZ, except in an emergency.

Its manageable. Many clean/green countries put theirs into a deep geological repository.

No it does not have to be shipped away.

NZ will be far cleaner if we got rid of the Coal Powered Huntly plant and replaced it with nuclear.

NZ does not have enough stable geological areas to consider it being used for long term nuclear storage.

So yes, the waste would have to be shipped elsewhere.

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.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1402064 7-Oct-2015 22:41

DizzyD:
mattwnz:

You are forgetting about the pollution it causes, that has to be shipped away to some poor country who ends up with it. It certainly isn't cleaner and greener than our other generation sources such as hydro, wind and solar. Coal is 3rd world generation, so should never be used in NZ, except in an emergency.

Its manageable. Many clean/green countries put theirs into a deep geological repository.

No it does not have to be shipped away.

NZ will be far cleaner if we got rid of the Coal Powered Huntly plant and replaced it with nuclear.

In other words, they bury it. Out of sight, out of mind. At some stage though someone will have to deal with it, as containers will break down etc, but leave it to the future generation to deal with.
If there is a major earthquake, it could cause major problems. NZ isn't that great with underground mining. I guess if they were building one of these thing, and it was built in Auckland, it could be buried there too, as it isn't regarded as a high earthquake risk area.I think it is very naive for NZers to think that if we get a nuclear power plant, that it will mean cheaper power, because it won't. At the moment we don't have a lack of power, and if that Aluminum smelter eventually closes, there should be a lot more power available. Also more energy efficient lights and heating will help.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1402074 7-Oct-2015 23:19

mattwnz:

In other words, they bury it. Out of sight, out of mind. At some stage though someone will have to deal with it, as containers will break down etc, but leave it to the future generation to deal with.
If there is a major earthquake, it could cause major problems. NZ isn't that great with underground mining. I guess if they were building one of these thing, and it was built in Auckland, it could be buried there too, as it isn't regarded as a high earthquake risk area.

Out of sight, out of mind is a bit better than streaming burnt fossil fuels into the atmosphere.

Nuclear plants are normally designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earthquake shutdown automatically and safely. As for the waste, its normally protected by large amounts of concrete. Designed to withstand earthquakes too.

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people. A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. “It’s the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death,” says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

Pike river mine come to mind?

mattwnz:

I think it is very naive for NZers to think that if we get a nuclear power plant, that it will mean cheaper power, because it won't. At the moment we don't have a lack of power, and if that Aluminum smelter eventually closes, there should be a lot more power available. Also more energy efficient lights and heating will help.

Its the abundance of electricity that will drive prices down. Nuclear or not. If we had more electricity right now available prices would drop. Nuclear is one way to make a lot of extra power available to the grid. There are other ways too.

Why should we hope for the smelter to close down? It contributes $525 million to the Southland economy. Or are we not wishing to grow our economy?

Not sure what your comment about using more efficient lights and heating is suppose to mean? Its got nothing to do with the cost of power.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1402101 8-Oct-2015 07:22

DizzyD:
mattwnz:

In other words, they bury it. Out of sight, out of mind. At some stage though someone will have to deal with it, as containers will break down etc, but leave it to the future generation to deal with.
If there is a major earthquake, it could cause major problems. NZ isn't that great with underground mining. I guess if they were building one of these thing, and it was built in Auckland, it could be buried there too, as it isn't regarded as a high earthquake risk area.

Out of sight, out of mind is a bit better than streaming burnt fossil fuels into the atmosphere.

Nuclear plants are normally designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earthquake shutdown automatically and safely. As for the waste, its normally protected by large amounts of concrete. Designed to withstand earthquakes too.

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people. A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. “It’s the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death,” says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

Pike river mine come to mind?

mattwnz:

I think it is very naive for NZers to think that if we get a nuclear power plant, that it will mean cheaper power, because it won't. At the moment we don't have a lack of power, and if that Aluminum smelter eventually closes, there should be a lot more power available. Also more energy efficient lights and heating will help.

Its the abundance of electricity that will drive prices down. Nuclear or not. If we had more electricity right now available prices would drop. Nuclear is one way to make a lot of extra power available to the grid. There are other ways too.

Why should we hope for the smelter to close down? It contributes $525 million to the Southland economy. Or are we not wishing to grow our economy?

Not sure what your comment about using more efficient lights and heating is suppose to mean? Its got nothing to do with the cost of power.

It SHIFT money from the rest of NZ to southland.
While Tiwai pt paid something like 3c a unit we paid 20c, the rest of NZ subsidised southland.

More efficient appliances reduces demand.
Reduced demand lead to a surplus
A surplus leads to lower prices.

Or at least that what we keep being told about free competition.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1402102 8-Oct-2015 07:25

mattwnz:
DizzyD:
mattwnz:

You are forgetting about the pollution it causes, that has to be shipped away to some poor country who ends up with it. It certainly isn't cleaner and greener than our other generation sources such as hydro, wind and solar. Coal is 3rd world generation, so should never be used in NZ, except in an emergency.

Its manageable. Many clean/green countries put theirs into a deep geological repository.

No it does not have to be shipped away.

NZ will be far cleaner if we got rid of the Coal Powered Huntly plant and replaced it with nuclear.

In other words, they bury it. Out of sight, out of mind. At some stage though someone will have to deal with it, as containers will break down etc, but leave it to the future generation to deal with.
If there is a major earthquake, it could cause major problems. NZ isn't that great with underground mining. I guess if they were building one of these thing, and it was built in Auckland, it could be buried there too, as it isn't regarded as a high earthquake risk area.I think it is very naive for NZers to think that if we get a nuclear power plant, that it will mean cheaper power, because it won't. At the moment we don't have a lack of power, and if that Aluminum smelter eventually closes, there should be a lot more power available. Also more energy efficient lights and heating will help.

Auckland is a high volcanic risk.

And with nuclear waste we are taking tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1402103 8-Oct-2015 07:31

As for the electricity thing and needing Nuclear.

This is just in

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/10/07/1338233/wind-power-now-cheapest-energy-in-uk-and-germany-no-subsidies-needed

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1402130 8-Oct-2015 08:38

Geektastic:

Not sure why the location of a PM's holiday home is a relevant factor...

NZ has historically prided itself on being an egalitarian society where the average bloke could succeed. That is becoming less true every year.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1402132 8-Oct-2015 08:43

DizzyD:
I recon we would have actually been far better off if we had a nuclear power station setup somewhere in the middle of the North island.

The middle of the North Island? On top of a volcano? You've got to be kidding!

Why not Christchurch? Until a couple of years ago, Christchurch was thought to be a good place due to it's seismic stability.

The reality is that there's nowhere in NZ where it's a good idea to build a nuclear power station.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1402134 8-Oct-2015 08:46

Elpie: Smaller, family-owned farms (which is most of them) are not going to be viable, according to farmers. The disappearance of any of them puts rural economies at risk and has a significant flow-on effect.

Just like NZ, you mean?

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 22