Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

parliament.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#61

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

Another interesting paradox is Thatcher closing coal mines in the UK for not being profitable and left protesting and wanting the mines to continue saying there's always a need for it. "we want coal, not dole"

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#62

Post by Aperocky »

arcticbull wrote: post #59
yarg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today. Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cau…

> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima). Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 […

But what about perceptions! People’s perception are what counts in a democracy, not the objective fact.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#63

Post by crummy »

phs318u wrote: post #34
crummy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both; nuclear-anything is banned in NZ

Untrue. The nuclear-free zone act specifically does not preclude nuclear power generation. The fact that it hasn’t happened is no different from most other places where it hasn’t happened. A combination of fear, nimby, cost, regulation and easier options.

Oops, looks like you're right. Wikipedia says "The nuclear-free zone Act does not prohibit nuclear power plants, nuclear research facilities, the use of radioactive isotopes, or other land-based nuclear activities."

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#64

Post by roenxi »

lostlogin wrote: post #33
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

> If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would have been in much better shape with respect to CO2 than we are in now. How would New Zealand be better off with nuclear power? Keep in mind our environment. We have lots of water, plenty of sun and wind and some regions have earthquakes, including big ones in areas previously thought safe. Down here ‘we’ are doing just fine without it.

It doesn't matter what New Zealand does. There is not enough industrial production for their emissions rate and their climate is at the mercy of whatever happens in China.

I always like to refer to this chart [0] - but I also recall that nature only cares about absolute numbers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#65

Post by zip1234 »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #61
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

Another interesting paradox is Thatcher closing coal mines in the UK for not being profitable and left protesting and wanting the mines to continue saying there's always a need for it. "we want coal, not dole"

Unions? The United Auto Workers is totally supported by the left and yet they make gas guzzling cars and trucks for a living.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#66

Post by nstart »

arcticbull wrote: post #59
yarg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today. Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cau…

> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima). Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 […

Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around it due to structural errors.

That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for articulating those facts so clearly.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#67

Post by dzhiurgis »

mikedilger wrote: post #50
dzhiurgis wrote: post #36

I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost $75.9k or about 18% more in NZ? And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)? How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole NZ? How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or electric bikes themselves) cos…

I've been disappointed with all of that too. The only EV in any quantity here is the Nissan Leaf, used from Japan with reduced battery capacity/life. Where I live I can't ride my bicycle to work without taking a risk higher than I'm willing to take, riding on a road without shoulders alongside milk trucks. I looked into converting one hectare into native forest to get $4000 from the government. The cost is $20,000, a…

Oh don't get me started on how councils and Fletcher are manipulating entire NZ's real estate market.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#68

Post by yarg »

EGreg wrote: post #54
yarg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today. Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cau…

Not to mention that stuxnet proved that we can quickly go from “look at all this desalinated water and zero carbon footprint!” to “crap, we just built tons of honeypots for state level hackers to hold our entire population hostage to the threat of nuclear meltdown triggered by sabotaged software”

That's not actually what a honeypot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)) is.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#69

Post by arcticbull »

nstart wrote: post #66
arcticbull wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima). Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 […

Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas…

Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency, which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does get built is super safe -- and very expensive.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#70

Post by benmmurphy »

This bill seems completely aspirational and doesn’t actually change anything. It seems to codify some kind of goal but there is no way to make this goal actually happen. Am I missing something? In Westminster Democracy if you want to reduce emissions by X you need to actually introduce laws that will change people’s behaviour. This bill doesn’t do that.
Post reply on HN