Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri May 10, 2019 9:37 am

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2019/0510.shtml

How do we weigh up which is the lesser of two evils?

Damage a delicate ecosystem by mining for lithium -- and thereby reduce the risk of a global meltdown?

Build more nuclear power stations so as to reduce the need to burn coal?

Fill the mouths of harbours, estuaries and straights with turbines at the risk of disrupting fish breeding areas?

Are we too indiscisive about this? Might it be that lawyers are the ones who will inherit the charred remains of planet earth?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3600
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby phill » Fri May 10, 2019 10:57 am

How do we weigh up which is the lesser of two evils?


the closer we get to 2deg increase and have still done nothing to mitigate it the harder it becomes to avoid it
if we had started 20 years ago when it started becoming obvious the changes would have been gradual and easy

Damage a delicate ecosystem by mining for lithium -- and thereby reduce the risk of a global meltdown?


how many times have the mining industry shown artistic pictures of how they will protect and then rehabilitate the area when they have finished .. and strangely that company selling out or going bankrupt just as the mine is functionally finished and all they leave is a pile of dross on a mountain of tailings .. trust in the honesty of corporates only goes so far

Build more nuclear power stations so as to reduce the need to burn coal?


done to death here .. ok thorium if they can get it online .. you can only store so much for 10k plus years

Fill the mouths of harbours, estuaries and straights with turbines at the risk of disrupting fish breeding areas?


marine turbines of the types i have seen rotate slowly and avoid this problem

Are we too indiscisive about this? Might it be that lawyers are the ones who will inherit the charred remains of planet earth?


first you have to have a decision in mind before you can be indecisive
lawyers have no interest in solving things .. only protracting them
the solution is simple ... change ... but try to sell that one
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiney things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby decibel » Fri May 10, 2019 11:13 am

Damage a delicate ecosystem by mining for lithium -- and thereby reduce the risk of a global meltdown?


We mustn't assume that future batteries will always need lithium.
decibel
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:08 pm

Re: Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby Perry » Fri May 10, 2019 9:06 pm

The stark reality is that only in times of national conflict (aka War) do humans raise collective benefit above personal benefit.

Even then, some don't.
Perry
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby roygbiv » Sat May 11, 2019 9:03 am

Quite a dilemma for the greenies, use renewable energy sources and scour the country side with related contraptions to generate electricity, or build a nuke.
Or use existing fossil fuels which contribute to the climate change. Building a nuke is just not economic in this country due to the size, population distribution and economy, plus the sheer investment of billions of dollars over a number of years before it even begins to generate.
In NZ there are only two options which we presently use, the renewable energy accounts for a very high proportion of our electricity production (70%+ ??) - to the envy of many other countries. But you may apply the 80/20 rule to get to the magical 100% target an phase out fossil fuels in terms of cost - again, it is just not economic presently.
So it is not really a matter of weighing up the lesser of two evils, it is a matter of understanding the economics. My money is on developing the technology so as to inch towards the 100% renewable but it may involve an increase of a few eyesores across our beautiful countryside.
User avatar
roygbiv
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Green versus green (10 May, 2019)

Postby phill » Sat May 11, 2019 11:17 am

roygbiv wrote:Quite a dilemma for the greenies, use renewable energy sources and scour the country side with related contraptions to generate electricity, or build a nuke.
Or use existing fossil fuels which contribute to the climate change.


not really ...
so ok nukes and fossil fuels are out totally
that leaves transforming all our rivers into a succession of lakes .. which has been seen as unacceptable since manapouri ( 1970s )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nkPI6BDZsE

so we need to search for another way .. not to difficult when there are 2 perfectly acceptable ( in nz ) available already ( solar and wind )
with promising ( wave, tidal ) ones also nearing fruition

the biggest has yet to be taken up
the very simple .... use less
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiney things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests