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

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#71

Post by tekstar »

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 […

I don't have the time at the moment to source both points I want to make, but I read them both recently while reading about nuclear power.

1 - to your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar.

Nuclear power produces nuclear waste.

Nuclear power requires significant amounts of fresh water.

2 - one of the primary reasons to not build a nuclear power now is that wind and solar are actually cheaper per MWh compared to operating an existing nuclear power plant.

That being said in my opinion, highly influenced by the book Drawdown, is that we will need to build a lot of nuclear power plants in order to meet world electricity demands.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#73

Post by arcticbull »

tekstar wrote: post #71
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 […

I don't have the time at the moment to source both points I want to make, but I read them both recently while reading about nuclear power. 1 - to your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Nuclear power requires significant amounts of fresh water. 2 - one of the primary reasons to not build a nuclear…

> To your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar.

Pollution comes from e-waste as panels are replaced, mining/tailings and less-than-environmentally-friendly materials used to make PV panels. Most commercial PV panels are Cadmium Telluride. Cadmium is of course highly toxic and carcinogenic, and as panels get better, they're swapped out and that material has to go somewhere.

Wind, pollution comes from mining and refining rare-earth metals like neodymium that are required to make the magnets in the motors. While rare earths exist all over the world the majority are mined in China because China is willing do deal with the toxic war zone left behind [1]. E-waste is a problem in this industry too although I'd wager smaller.

> Nuclear power produces nuclear waste.

Very small amounts relative to the amount of power generated due to its sheer unparalleled energy density. A uranium fuel pellet (1/2 in. height and diameter) contains the energy equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, one ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil.

Yucca Mountain, had they opened it, would have solved this problem in perpetuity.

[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#75

Post by d1zzy »

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 […

I don't doubt there's a lot of FUD around the perils of nuclear power but as someone that had to take iodine pills in 1986 I have to ask if you accounted for the large number of people that were forcibly moved out of their home as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl power plant?

Have you normalized all those costs with the number of power plants of various types?

It may be that in absolute numbers nuclear power has been safer than anything else but it may also be that as a result of Chernobyl and other accidents they fell out of favor and didn't see as much use as other power generating methods which in absolute numbers have had a higher number of victims.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#76

Post by arcticbull »

d1zzy wrote: post #75
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 […

I don't doubt there's a lot of FUD around the perils of nuclear power but as someone that had to take iodine pills in 1986 I have to ask if you accounted for the large number of people that were forcibly moved out of their home as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl power plant? Have you normalized all those costs with the number of power plants of various types? It may be that in absolute numbers nuclear power…

The death count is per terawatt hour of electricity generated, and nuclear currently provides 6% of all the power generation capacity in the world. Relocations were not accounted for, however if we're talking scale, slightly more people were relocated (300,000) around Chernobyl as died in Bangqiao.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#77

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Aperocky wrote: post #62
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 […

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

Your perceptions change when you receive new facts, shouldn't they?

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#78

Post by nstart »

arcticbull wrote: post #69
nstart wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency

Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that. Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time, nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred investors" for a "commission")

Reality around political power is ugly af :(

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#79

Post by AmericanChopper »

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #32
AmericanChopper wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually a very controversial position, implemented by a left wing government.

It's not a controversial stance within NZ these days, nor seen as particularly partisan there. Other countries (especially the US given what it meant for ANZUS) might find it more so.

It was controversial at the time, resulting in the US kicking NZ out of their security alliance (something that was of no detriment to the US), and continues to be controversial every time the topic of a US ship coming to NZ is brought up. The fact that the only outcome this policy has ever achieved is the prevention of allied navy visiting NZ is a very consistent source of controversy in NZ. To claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#80

Post by Taniwha »

jngreenlee wrote: post #51
Taniwha wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ regularly tops out as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index I don't know what happens in your country, but we don't appoint our friends to public sinecures

Hi Kiwi! It is par for the course here in USA :) Glad to hear its better there...now let me immigrate without million dollar investments, heh!

You're welcome, there's lots of ways to immigrate - check out the on-line points calculator - sure you can get points for investment, but you can also get points for education, specialised skills, having a job ready etc etc

We do have a socialised health system (high marginal income tax rates are still roughly 10% lower than California) - so we do tend to want you to buy into that - generally we want you healthy and younger so that statistically you'll pay into it for a bunch of years before you draw on it heavily

Post reply on HN