A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 22

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1402634 8-Oct-2015 19:20

sir1963:
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.

No problem. Get rid of the problem to someone else - there'll be no shortage of willing takers for a price.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1402637 8-Oct-2015 19:23

frankv:
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.

Key word (sorry!) there is 'historically'. EG Britain 'historically' prided itself on being the largest land empire in history. Germany 'historically' had an empire in Africa.

NZ is just catching up with the rest of the world. Average is just that - average. The world has a lot of average..

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1402638 8-Oct-2015 19:25

Elpie:
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.

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 do realise that massive decommissioning of nuclear power plants is underway around the world? Europe is predicted to be down to three within the decade. The US is phasing them out. It's happening everywhere.

It's not nuclear that keeps prices low in some other countries - it's government priorities. NZ power prices could be more affordable IF government needed them to be.

Britain is building a new one - just announced. France lives off them and even supplies spare electricity to Britain under the Channel...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1402872 9-Oct-2015 09:26

Geektastic:
Elpie:
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.

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 do realise that massive decommissioning of nuclear power plants is underway around the world? Europe is predicted to be down to three within the decade. The US is phasing them out. It's happening everywhere.

It's not nuclear that keeps prices low in some other countries - it's government priorities. NZ power prices could be more affordable IF government needed them to be.

Britain is building a new one - just announced. France lives off them and even supplies spare electricity to Britain under the Channel...

This isn't very good news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-finds-higher-cancer-rates-in-kids-near-fukushima/

Something isn't right. Either the epidemiological data hasn't been collected properly, the exposure levels have been understated, or the dose equivalent calculation for Iodine 131 exposure is wrong.

The Fukushima plant was designed in the early '60s. Apart from containment, seismic design was based on withstanding 0.18g pga (less than the building code for a house in NZ and less than 10% of pga recorded in Chch quakes). Tsunami protection ignored historical records. Sure they can make them much safer these days, but...

I doubt there will ever be nuclear power plants in NZ. "middle of the North Island" - on top of or right beside an unpredictable supervolcano - would be completely nuts. Auckland itself is out as it's an active monogenetic volcanic field, also unpredictable, more or less due for an eruption of unknown size and location and unknown if there will be any warning period. The south of the NI is out for obvious reasons, there's no point building one in the SI when there's already surplus hydro. That leaves Northland, geologically stable but as somebody mentioned the Kermadec Trench as a nuclear waste disposal site brings to mind that it's a subduction zone capable of unleashing a megathrust quake and Tsunami just like the Tohoku quake - and there's evidence of past >20m elevation tsunami on the coast.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1402899 9-Oct-2015 10:23

Fred99:
Geektastic:
Elpie:
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.

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 do realise that massive decommissioning of nuclear power plants is underway around the world? Europe is predicted to be down to three within the decade. The US is phasing them out. It's happening everywhere.

It's not nuclear that keeps prices low in some other countries - it's government priorities. NZ power prices could be more affordable IF government needed them to be.

Britain is building a new one - just announced. France lives off them and even supplies spare electricity to Britain under the Channel...

This isn't very good news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-finds-higher-cancer-rates-in-kids-near-fukushima/

Something isn't right. Either the epidemiological data hasn't been collected properly, the exposure levels have been understated, or the dose equivalent calculation for Iodine 131 exposure is wrong.

The Fukushima plant was designed in the early '60s. Apart from containment, seismic design was based on withstanding 0.18g pga (less than the building code for a house in NZ and less than 10% of pga recorded in Chch quakes). Tsunami protection ignored historical records. Sure they can make them much safer these days, but...

I doubt there will ever be nuclear power plants in NZ. "middle of the North Island" - on top of or right beside an unpredictable supervolcano - would be completely nuts. Auckland itself is out as it's an active monogenetic volcanic field, also unpredictable, more or less due for an eruption of unknown size and location and unknown if there will be any warning period. The south of the NI is out for obvious reasons, there's no point building one in the SI when there's already surplus hydro. That leaves Northland, geologically stable but as somebody mentioned the Kermadec Trench as a nuclear waste disposal site brings to mind that it's a subduction zone capable of unleashing a megathrust quake and Tsunami just like the Tohoku quake - and there's evidence of past >20m elevation tsunami on the coast.

Forgetting for a moment the Volcanic fields of the North Island, New Zealand is bisected by a tectonic subduction zone, it would be monumentally stupid to build Nuclear power plants here.

Any how to my knowledge the TPP really does not require us to do anything like this.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1402909 9-Oct-2015 10:47

Geektastic:
Elpie:
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.

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 do realise that massive decommissioning of nuclear power plants is underway around the world? Europe is predicted to be down to three within the decade. The US is phasing them out. It's happening everywhere.

It's not nuclear that keeps prices low in some other countries - it's government priorities. NZ power prices could be more affordable IF government needed them to be.

Britain is building a new one - just announced. France lives off them and even supplies spare electricity to Britain under the Channel...

These two datapoints don't invalidate the trend to getting rid of nuclear.

Britain has a Conservative government and they are demonstrably *shocking* where the environment and welfare of people in the long term is concerned. If you want to see the climate change-denying list, it's virtually a one-for-one with conservative governments.

These governments will change in time...when the consequences of their stupidity become apparent even to the dimmest among us.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1402912 9-Oct-2015 10:55

MikeB4:

Forgetting for a moment the Volcanic fields of the North Island, New Zealand is bisected by a tectonic subduction zone, it would be monumentally stupid to build Nuclear power plants here.

Lets leave that up to the engineers.
We not living in the 1980's anymore. Nowadays we can engineer our way out of nearly anything. "Monumentally stupid" and "completely nuts" are just opinions, easy to use these terms for something you really don't understand. Today we live in a world where we engineer/construct the impossible.

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.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1402915 9-Oct-2015 11:00

That new plant has a region of £17-£100 billion subsidy attached. The baseline £17B subsidy (for just this one plant) being twice the retail price power price for the entire operating life. That is actually the agreement. Ok if that is what you want. Most people know this stuff.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1402928 9-Oct-2015 11:04

DizzyD:
MikeB4:

Forgetting for a moment the Volcanic fields of the North Island, New Zealand is bisected by a tectonic subduction zone, it would be monumentally stupid to build Nuclear power plants here.

Lets leave that up to the engineers.
We not living in the 1980's anymore. Nowadays we can engineer our way out of nearly anything. "Monumentally stupid" and "completely nuts" are just opinions, easy to use these terms for something you really don't understand. Today we live in a world where we engineer/construct the impossible.

We can engineer ways around the tectonic forces ? I'm sorry but that is just nonsense.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1402930 9-Oct-2015 11:06

Wrong topic for nuclear discussion anyway.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1402934 9-Oct-2015 11:13

DizzyD:
MikeB4:

Forgetting for a moment the Volcanic fields of the North Island, New Zealand is bisected by a tectonic subduction zone, it would be monumentally stupid to build Nuclear power plants here.

Lets leave that up to the engineers.
We not living in the 1980's anymore. Nowadays we can engineer our way out of nearly anything. "Monumentally stupid" and "completely nuts" are just opinions, easy to use these terms for something you really don't understand. Today we live in a world where we engineer/construct the impossible.

The Alpine Fault is strike slip fault, not a subduction zone.
You won't "engineer your way" out of either a central north island major volcanic event, nor a Rangitoto sized small event if/when it decides to pop up in an inconvenient location.
Return periods might seem long in human life terms, but they're very short in geological time scale. It could happen tomorrow.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1402987 9-Oct-2015 12:17

MikeB4:

We can engineer ways around the tectonic forces ? I'm sorry but that is just nonsense.

Fred99:

The Alpine Fault is strike slip fault, not a subduction zone.
You won't "engineer your way" out of either a central north island major volcanic event, nor a Rangitoto sized small event if/when it decides to pop up in an inconvenient location.
Return periods might seem long in human life terms, but they're very short in geological time scale. It could happen tomorrow.

Once of the reasons NZ is still living in the 80's is because of our "we can't" attitude.
THE PC/Health and safety brigade keeps us in the dark ages. The Nanny state dictates what can/can't be done, and its based mostly on peoples opinions, rather than facts.

Here is a hint: Its not about engineering our way around the forces. Its all about making sure the reactor is stopped when/before these forces take place. Its not actually about creating something that can physically withstand Armageddon.

As somebody else mentioned, parts of NZ are built on a volcano. There is no safety/quick shutdown method for a volcano.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1402993 9-Oct-2015 12:31

DizzyD:
MikeB4:

We can engineer ways around the tectonic forces ? I'm sorry but that is just nonsense.

Fred99:

The Alpine Fault is strike slip fault, not a subduction zone.
You won't "engineer your way" out of either a central north island major volcanic event, nor a Rangitoto sized small event if/when it decides to pop up in an inconvenient location.
Return periods might seem long in human life terms, but they're very short in geological time scale. It could happen tomorrow.

Once of the reasons NZ is still living in the 80's is because of our "we can't" attitude.
THE PC/Health and safety brigade keeps us in the dark ages. The Nanny state dictates what can/can't be done, and its based mostly on peoples opinions, rather than facts.

Here is a hint: Its not about engineering our way around the forces. Its all about making sure the reactor is stopped when/before these forces take place. Its not actually about creating something that can physically withstand Armageddon.

As somebody else mentioned, parts of NZ are built on a volcano. There is no safety/quick shutdown method for a volcano.

Wait we can predict earthquakes accurately and in time to safely shut down Nuclear plants...WOW that's awesome.

Shall we return to the TPP now .

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1403001 9-Oct-2015 12:44

MikeB4:

Wait we can predict earthquakes accurately and in time to safely shut down Nuclear plants...WOW that's awesome.

Shall we return to the TPP now .

Go do some research on different reactor types, and how to shut them down.

Plenty of reactors around the world in far more hostile places than little NZ.

So back to topic then.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1403011 9-Oct-2015 12:54

DizzyD:
MikeB4:

We can engineer ways around the tectonic forces ? I'm sorry but that is just nonsense.

Fred99:

The Alpine Fault is strike slip fault, not a subduction zone.
You won't "engineer your way" out of either a central north island major volcanic event, nor a Rangitoto sized small event if/when it decides to pop up in an inconvenient location.
Return periods might seem long in human life terms, but they're very short in geological time scale. It could happen tomorrow.

Once of the reasons NZ is still living in the 80's is because of our "we can't" attitude.
THE PC/Health and safety brigade keeps us in the dark ages. The Nanny state dictates what can/can't be done, and its based mostly on peoples opinions, rather than facts.

Here is a hint: Its not about engineering our way around the forces. Its all about making sure the reactor is stopped when/before these forces take place. Its not actually about creating something that can physically withstand Armageddon.

As somebody else mentioned, parts of NZ are built on a volcano. There is no safety/quick shutdown method for a volcano.

I don't know why you keep saying that NZ is "living in the '80s". If you're referring to NZ anti-nuclear stance, then it's as relevant today as it was then - more possibly, now that N Korea, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, have "joined the club", the concept of having nuclear weapons "on site" wouldn't make us "safer" - quite the reverse probably. I don't see NZ's moral and official stance opposing nuclear test and weapon proliferation as a bad thing. We should be proud of the '80s - if that's what you're referring to.

A nuclear power plant with adequate safeguards (seismic design, secondary containment etc) might be possible. It doesn't stop there though, fuel has to be transported to site, waste has to be stored, encapsulated, transported from site for disposal. I expect there'd be considerable infrastructure costs and it just wouldn't work out to be economically viable - unless compromises were made.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 22