Climate change and global cities

There are 265 comments on the The New Zealand Herald story from Oct 8, 2013, titled Climate change and global cities. In it, The New Zealand Herald reports that:

Element takes a look at what authorities in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are expecting, how they are trying to minimise the damage, and how their plans shape up against those elsewhere.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The New Zealand Herald.

litesong

Monroe, WA

#129 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
For a religious Muslim, you sure do sound like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un.
//////////
lowdownprophet pooped:
Open your eyes moron, HE'S(mom had a sex change operation?) posting from australia
//////////
litesong wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I have a hard time telling euros & transplanted euros from each other.

"For a religious Muslim, posting from Australia, you sure do sound like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un."
litesong

Monroe, WA

#130 Oct 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="lowdown, but propped up"] Give us another pearl of wisdom about green energy.[/QUOTE]

If the people with leadfeet complaining about the their sub-30mpg for the Hyundai Elantra, would carefully drive the car, they could average 39.5mpg, like I do.
lowprofile

Adelaide, Australia

#131 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
For a religious Muslim, you sure do sound like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un.
//////////
lowdownprophet pooped:
Open your eyes moron, HE'S(mom had a sex change operation?) posting from australia
//////////
litesong wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I have a hard time telling euros & transplanted euros from each other.
"For a religious Muslim, posting from Australia, you sure do sound like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un."
Yes, I dis say 'HE'S' because MM is a HE, and the other thing is you seem to have trouble coming to grips with the fact that your stupid US political parties [and what a great job they are doing at the moment] finish at your borders.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#132 Oct 11, 2013
"lowdown, but propped up" pooped:
you seem to have trouble with the fact that your stupid US political parties...... finish at your borders.
////////
litesong wrote:
I said "muslim mom" SOUNDED like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un. I do agree with you, tho. toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-uns should be banned from a lot of countries......the U.S. included.
Micky

Adelaide, Australia

#133 Oct 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The waste is a very small volume and the 'hot' fission fragments that produce most of the radioactivity are also short lived.
Frankly, I have looked into the issue quite a bit. The problem has also been 'Not in my Back Yard' rather than any technical challenge.
The most logical thing to do is separating the fissile elements from the fission fragment and creating new fuel. This should NOT be done by the 'PUREX' process which is optimized to extract bomb grade PU238 (the reason it was developed) but the much simpler and less hazardous pyroprocessing. This would produce new fuel as well as the radioisotopes to run thermogenerators for remote locations.
It is YOU that is ignorant of the issue. As shown by your post.
<quoted text>
I rest my case.
Well on scale are we talking here, The "waste" I am referring to and how long is short lived. O'h and teach me what to do in the case of a disaster occurring like the one in Japan. As they would have to be just about everywhere. What is the safe radius to one before I will NOT be affected in any way. You garble the technical aspects and as a lay person I look at the devastation and draw the conclusion that I am not happy with the alternative solution that you say were should adopt. Very basic, but based on the PRACTICAL COMMON SENCE THEORY. This I don't believe you are aware of. O'h you have also confirmed one point that we can agree on. You describe it as less Hazardous than the Nuclear bomb. After one of those going off in the neighbourhood, nothing matters anymore. So only the radiation fallout of a little one then.
Micky

Adelaide, Australia

#134 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
If the people with leadfeet complaining about the their sub-30mpg for the Hyundai Elantra, would carefully drive the car, they could average 39.5mpg, like I do.
What does it run on?
lowprofile

Adelaide, Australia

#135 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
"lowdown, but propped up" pooped:
you seem to have trouble with the fact that your stupid US political parties...... finish at your borders.
////////
litesong wrote:
I said "muslim mom" SOUNDED like a toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-un. I do agree with you, tho. toxic topix AGW denier tea party re-pubic-lick-uns should be banned from a lot of countries......the U.S. included.
I think you'll find that us deniers [and we wear that badge proudly] are growing in numbers and will soon outnumber the global warmers. Re MM he is an unfortunate individual that is neither a 'mom' nor a muslim, just someone who has sadly run off the rails.
lowprofile

Adelaide, Australia

#136 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
If the people with leadfeet complaining about the their sub-30mpg for the Hyundai Elantra, would carefully drive the car, they could average 39.5mpg, like I do.
That is indeed a 'pearl of wisdom' good luck trying to tow something with it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#137 Oct 11, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
Hey,'No hope more crap'
If indeed you hold in your hands the holy grail of unlimited cheap green energy for all, why are you relentlessly beating a few posters on an internet forum over the head with it?
I responded to the post I read. What 'beating over the head' do you refer to? Note. The relevant material is easy to obtain. Just read the science mags. Your problem is not nuclear power but your ignorance. And I am not even an 'advocate' of renewed nuclear. I don't think the current shallow capital pools can handle the strain of too many 'front end loaded' megapower stations.
lowprofile wrote:
Instead you should be packing up all your 'science' journals and other associated bullshit and winging your way to China, once there you can try bludgeoning the Chinese government into submission with it all.
The optimal solution for China would be the Molten Fluride Thorium reactor. They have massive reserves of thorium, but little Uranium. China has done more than the US in terms of it's record. And the problem is global so 'pointing fingers' just points back at YOU.
lowprofile wrote:
Please let us know how you go with that once you are released from jail, which is where I'm starting to believe you belong. Either that or a mental institution.
I believe neither your 'advice' nor your 'diagnosis' Both seem more dependent on ignorance than reason.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#138 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
If the people with leadfeet complaining about the their sub-30mpg for the Hyundai Elantra, would carefully drive the car, they could average 39.5mpg, like I do.
//////////
Micky wrote:
What does it run on?
////////
litesong wrote:
At first glance, Elantra seems to have enough power. On second glace, tho, it only has 131 lbs-ft of torque. Anything without careful featherfooting & knowing how to take hills, mpg goes down the tubes. Also, use 100% gasoline. Get rid of the 10% ethanol blend.
Micky

Adelaide, Australia

#139 Oct 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
If the people with leadfeet complaining about the their sub-30mpg for the Hyundai Elantra, would carefully drive the car, they could average 39.5mpg, like I do.
So if I have to drive from Adelaide to Sydney, how long will it take?
You need to give me the speed at this sub-39.5mpg to work it out.And also I need to convert the Gallons to litres as I am in Austalia and we don't have gallons here anymore.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#140 Oct 11, 2013
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
Well on scale are we talking here, The "waste" I am referring to and how long is short lived.
"As of January 2009, the United States nuclear energy industry, with over 50 years of safe operation, has accumulated about 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from its 104 nuclear reactors operating within the U.S. To put this in perspective, if we were to take all the nuclear waste produced to date in the United States and stack it side-by-side, end-to-end, it would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about thirty feet. "

And each nuclear fragment has a different 'half life'. The most radioactive are the ones with the shortest life. It is like there is the same size engine but they have different settings of the accelerator pedal. Not to worry though. You only need to 'soak' the spent fuel for 10 to 20 years until it the hottest elements are burned out and the radioactivity is low enough to handle.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
O'h and teach me what to do in the case of a disaster occurring like the one in Japan.
I do not recommend the design from Fukishima. In fact I do not recommend any light water nuclear power. It has to use enriched uranium and that means that the power available to 'meltdown' is enormous. It can go beyond critical in a few minutes.

Two options for safe nuclear are the Molten Salt Thorium reactor and heavy water reactors like the CANDU 6 or ECR.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
You garble the technical aspects and as a lay person I look at the devastation and draw the conclusion
You speak from ignorance and from the fear it generates. Knowing how to handle fire is the key to using it safely. YOU would just throw it away and go back in the cave.
Micky

Adelaide, Australia

#141 Oct 12, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
"As of January 2009, the United States nuclear energy industry, with over 50 years of safe operation, has accumulated about 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from its 104 nuclear reactors operating within the U.S. To put this in perspective, if we were to take all the nuclear waste produced to date in the United States and stack it side-by-side, end-to-end, it would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about thirty feet. "
And each nuclear fragment has a different 'half life'. The most radioactive are the ones with the shortest life. It is like there is the same size engine but they have different settings of the accelerator pedal. Not to worry though. You only need to 'soak' the spent fuel for 10 to 20 years until it the hottest elements are burned out and the radioactivity is low enough to handle.
<quoted text>
I do not recommend the design from Fukishima. In fact I do not recommend any light water nuclear power. It has to use enriched uranium and that means that the power available to 'meltdown' is enormous. It can go beyond critical in a few minutes.
Two options for safe nuclear are the Molten Salt Thorium reactor and heavy water reactors like the CANDU 6 or ECR.
<quoted text>
You speak from ignorance and from the fear it generates. Knowing how to handle fire is the key to using it safely. YOU would just throw it away and go back in the cave.
What was the reactor that had a melt down in Russia? The damage that it caused was horrific and the effect s of the meltdown has now no coverage for the long term. If any type of Nuclear power has this ability then it is not deemed safe. If we are to build these things all over the planet what do we do with the waste, and you have informed me that there is waste. This will increase over time and create just another problem in years to come based on your information. To find an immediate solution to the Global warming it would have to be implemented on a global scale, and the long and short term effects to be clearly and honestly advised. All we get from the powers that be, is sorry when they lie or make a mistake. Also the protection of the plant from terrorist threat is a consideration, even if the technology was able to make it safe from melt down, how do we make it safe from this threat? Look I understand that your passion is great and the concern is greater, but at this point in time I (who live in a cave)are not prepared to accept that the threat of global warming can be or have a quick fix (paying money) or that a few developed countries making changes
is a logical solution. I am aware that several years ago, there was technology that allowed an engine that run on water. I know that the process of the conversion would create an emission(as I am not a scientist) i don't know comparison rates of this process to the use of petrol and other fuels. But it was buried. If it was possible and it reduced the carbon emissions, why has it not been implemented as every car on the planet could be produced with this and it would have an impact and bring a dramatic change to emissions. no more fossil fuel burning. I believe that the governments don't want this to happen as it would alter the economy of the world so greatly. so if the technology was available but the economy was more important to governments,They themselves have placed a priority on the two subjects. Not me.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#142 Oct 12, 2013
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the reactor that had a melt down in Russia? The damage that it caused was horrific and the effect s of the meltdown has now no coverage for the long term. If any type of Nuclear power has this ability then it is not deemed safe.
As far as I know, NOBODY recommends the graphite moderated design at Chernobyl. Even then, it had to be 'abused' enough to catch fire.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
If we are to build these things all over the planet what do we do with the waste, and you have informed me that there is waste. This will increase over time and create just another problem in years to come based on your information.
No. I said that there was such and such 'unprocessed fuel rods' waiting for extraction of the products. That we do not 'pyroprocess' the used rods into new fuel does not mean that they are by nature a problem. The 'once through' model is insane and THAT is the problem.

Note: A large amount of the wasted does NOT come from power generators. It is the fuel used to extract plutonium (after a short 'burn-up') for bomb making. Because you run the plant only a short time (to optimize Plutonium 249 production) that you need a lot of used rods that become high radiation. Not sure the exact value but it is probably 90% or so. Power generation burns up more of the radiation and uses fewer new fuel rods, so it produces significantly smaller levels of 'spent' reactor rods.

Even if you wanted to bury the waste, it does not take THAT large a 'repository', preferably in stable and dry rock. I do NOT require 'perfect safety for 10,000,000 years. I only require that the stored material be 'as safe as the original ore' by the time the site is filled in.

Future civilizations will have to watch out for themselves.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#143 Oct 12, 2013
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
To find an immediate solution to the Global warming it would have to be implemented on a global scale, and the long and short term effects to be clearly and honestly advised. All we get from the powers that be, is sorry when they lie or make a mistake.
Certainly. The solutions are in engineering. BUT the decisions are in the hands of the self serving. That is a characteristic of the 'democracy' and 'capitalist' model. For example, Fukishima design was more predicated on good terms with the US and the trade balance than with safe design. The light water reactors can melt down EVEN WHEN SHUT DOWN, if the cooling water supply is interrupted. And no current US design fixes this. Hence, none of them were in my recommendations.

One other thing. The Molten Fluoride Thorium Reactor has much lower waste level for the same operation. This is because the main 'fuel' is Thorium, which is 'fertile' but not 'fissile'. In other words, it generates the fuel as it runs so there is never a large abundance of fissile elements present.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
Also the protection of the plant from terrorist threat is a consideration, even if the technology was able to make it safe from melt down, how do we make it safe from this threat?
The 'Molten Fluoride Salt Thorium reactor creates the fuel as it burns it so there is never enough PU239 to be worth extracting. And Pyroprocessed fuel is NOT the 'PUREX' process which was designed to extract bomb grade PU239. The PyroProcessing refining will give you fuel, but NOT bomb grade as it is a mixture of too many isotopes. I am not unaware of the problem. CANDU can be used to produce bomb grade PU239. In fact it is the primary method of making bomb grade Plutonium. But it can ALSO be run on 'Mixed Oxide Fuel' to BURN UP the existing stockpiles and the operation destroys the purity of the original PU239 used so that it can no longer be used for bombs if stolen.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
Look I understand that your passion is great and the concern is greater, but at this point in time I (who live in a cave)are not prepared to accept that the threat of global warming can be or have a quick fix (paying money) or that a few developed countries making changes is a logical solution.
You miss the mark. I have no passion except for science and engineering. And I am NOT in favor of nuclear power. But your 'criticisms' are invalid and I respond to that. I prefer Wind, Solar and Geothermal, but feel that the primary action should be on 'efficiency'. How many badly insulated houses are wasting fuel right now? FAR too many. It is the 'standard' because the contractor doesn't want to add a small additional cost to construction even if it pays off. The consumer is more concerned with the 'up front cost' than the operational costs.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware that several years ago, there was technology that allowed an engine that run on water. I know that the process of the conversion would create an emission(as I am not a scientist) But it was buried.
Water cannot produce power. It is effectively an 'ash' from combustion of hydrogen(fuel) in oxygen(oxidizer). The chemical energy is gone in the process.
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was possible and it reduced the carbon emissions, why has it not been implemented as every car on the planet could be produced with this and it would have an impact and bring a dramatic change to emissions. no more fossil fuel burning.
Because it is like the 'perpetual motion machine' or 'free energy'. It doesn't exist.

“Pleasing Pakeha Women”

Since: May 13

Auckland, New Zealand

#144 Oct 12, 2013
I can't believe there are white people pretending to be Maori on here too smh...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#145 Oct 12, 2013
Micky wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that the governments don't want this to happen as it would alter the economy of the world so greatly. so if the technology was available but the economy was more important to governments,They themselves have placed a priority on the two subjects. Not me.
The primary block is with those that are heavily invested in fossil fuels already. They do not want 'change' as this would affect the value of the companies 'reserves'.

Ergo, we must make change anyway. And the only effective way to do that is with a 'carbon surcharge' on carbon based fuels implemented internationally. Each country could then decide how to 'return' the money collected to offset the impacts of higher FOSSIL fuel prices. And the artificial 'advantage' of polluting and highly subsidized fossil fuels would disappear spurring investment in cleaner energy.

If you want to debate my 'passion' though, you need to have a background in physics and space. The solar power satellite, with microwave transmission of power to the ground is the ultimate solution.
Micky

Adelaide, Australia

#146 Oct 12, 2013
Lesshypemoefact:
You miss the mark. I have no passion except for science and engineering. And I am NOT in favor of nuclear power. But your 'criticisms' are invalid and I respond to that. I prefer Wind, Solar and Geothermal, but feel that the primary action should be on 'efficiency'. How many badly insulated houses are wasting fuel right now? FAR too many. It is the 'standard' because the contractor doesn't want to add a small additional cost to construction even if it pays off. The consumer is more concerned with the 'up front cost' than the operational costs.

Yes the consumer is concerned with the up front cost. I can only answer you with a comparison. It is great on the engineering and technical front, that they have invented a space rocket that can take man to the outer space. But the cost to the people in wasted tax revenue, and I don't want to travel on it. I have a preference that they should spend the money on benefits to the people on this planet. If projects and spending were redirected to projects eg alternative energy,then the costs of the change over would be lessened and make it easier to implement. There is so much that can be done and as only a percentage of the planet are bearing the costs of the issue of "climate change" it is no wonder that people are up in arms on the costs of issue.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#147 Nov 30, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
The IPCC is the messenger of the science on man-made global warming. Without the IPCC assessment, the public would have no idea that our fossil-fuel usage is heating up the planet. That's our problem, not the IPCC.
Haha... Ya got that right!
Carl

Wellington, New Zealand

#148 Nov 30, 2013
To address global warming takes a greater initiative than household recycling - that's a pittance gesture. For an effective solution to be put into place there needs to be some political initiatives at the top who force businesses to adopt clean green practices. New Zealand has this clean green image worldwide, but it is a lie, you just need to see the number of plastic bags flying out to sea on a windy day to realise that...I can't see our movie star prime minister - John Key - having the balls to promote effective strategies to halt/slow global warming...he's only going to be in for a short time longer anyway...it seems to be like this worldwide - the dollar rules...as a species, homo sapiens deserve everything they get, which will ultimately be...extinction...
and some of you posters reckon global warming is a lie...well, you didn't feel the two days we had here in New Zealand last weekend...the heat was almost unbearable - global warming is here now

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Can't Other Plug-In Hybrids Copy Chevy Volt... 9 hr iluvmyVolt 20
News Flood of 1973 remembered by many as high water ... (Sep '11) 10 hr Doris Dwyer 15
News Warden fired at max-security western Md. prison (Feb '14) 11 hr Wetnet 18
News Here's Everything Leaving Netflix In May 18 hr starfire 09 1
News Storm renews flooding concerns near Colorado bu... Wed Jingle Clown 1
News New flood watch issued for South Platte Wed Jingle Clown 1
News Drought becomes focus of Earth Day in California Wed fiber one 27
More from around the web