The remnants of Jacindastan remain in NZ. After years of left wing climate policy that saw domestic fuel production shut down, coal and gas prospecting and production halted, and a bureaucracy of environmental planning that became too difficult for new hydro electric plants too be built.All the while pushing for wind generation, solar, and more electric heating, cars etc. We have hit the first cold day of winter and the entire nation is suffering from rolling power blackouts.
The National power grid company has said it is going to have to import more coal to keep the country running through the next 2 years.
And who suffers most? The low income , urban poor who don't have alternatives and can't afford the higher cost imported coal fired power generation.
The same people the left claims to represent.

The quality of their forward planning and forecasting coming home to roost. At the time it seemed to me very rash to so abruptly shut down the coal and gas when the wonderful system of "green energies" meant to replace it all wasn't even built. If they had any sense surely it was better to phase out one while phasing in the alternative. But no, all they could see was their crusade to save the planet.
Unfortunately, along with Covid, the legacy, as you say Shanks, leaves us poorer both socially and financially as a country. Likely we will be on our knees for a while.

Ban coal and limit gas…and watch the forest fall.

I work in the power generation industry and it comes down to this. It's midnight and cold out, the wind is not blowing. There is no solar or wind generation happening and demand is up because it cold. Where is the power going to come from? Discounting all the very small minor generation like geothermal etc. there are only two sources of power available 1. Thermal fired planes (coal or NG) and 2. nuclear.

No matter how much solar or wind you generate during the day there is no effective way to store enough power to make it threw more than a few hours of load. Energy generation needs to be stable and reliable. Solar and wind are neither of those. Modern nuclear plants are reliable, stable, save and green. The problem is most people hear the work nuclear and immediately shut off because they think the plants are the worst thing ever. Fear and misinformation have crippled the nuclear power industry.

Fission power makes a lot of sense in the abscence of fusion technology.

If the feds put in a bunch of nuclear plants and brought electricity prices down to a fraction of what they are, along with upgrading the grid, you wouldn’t need to pass all these green energy required regulations- simple economics would push things, and those of us with a need (or want) for petroleum powered vehicles would have to pay for them.

I am under no illusion that just putting up the plants and building up the grid would wholly solve costs as they do have ongoing maintenance costs, but it makes more sense than what Biden and company are doing, and avoids trying to bully consumers into doing “what’s right!”

That the whole carbon issue goes on like it has shows that the “scientific community” pushing solar and wind isn’t really worried about carbon emissions… it’s about something else.

Yep, thats part of the disease.
We have over half our nations population in one city mass. Our power generation mostly comes from the far end of the country too that mass, and from a seperate island. We could build a nuclear plant that would mean no need for more dams, no windfarms, no coal or gas. It would be slightly north of the city in an area with plenty of space and low employment and make that city, and then the whole nation energy rich.
But we are not even allowed to discuss such an option.

For people who like to fancy themselves as geniuses and forward-thinkers (greenies) — they sure are a dumb lot.

Even one the cofounders of Greenpeace abandoned them.

Yeah thats a really interesting topic. The founders are very disillusioned with where the org has ended up.

As I lit my fire at 6 am this morning, in the dark with a torch. And then waited for the power to resume so we could milk our cows to feed people. I did wonder at what is considered forward thinking and progressive these days.

For the record Im happy to live in an electric world where we dont need coal, gas, oil. Will happily adapt too that world. I just think you need a horse before you sit in the cart.

It's always the rich, never the poor that come up with this kind of crap.

Its not the rich in my experience. Its the middle class urban elite. Often public sector. Almost always a degree of some sort. More likely to have a degree in arts or philosophy or some other useless credential.
They have spare money because their services are overvalued and they feel everyone else should contribute to thier idea of the world, because they can afford it without risking anything themselves.

quote:

happy to live in an electric world

Electricity must be “generated.” That requires energy.

Thank you Jane Fonda!

quote:

Modern nuclear plants are reliable, stable, sa(f)e and green. The problem is most people hear the wor(d) nuclear and immediately shut off because they think the plants are the worst thing ever. Fear and misinformation have crippled the nuclear power industry.

I guess they just forget about nuclear powered subs and carriers.

I wonder what Al Gore thinks about the new facility (Plant Vogtle)in Georgia, the first in the U.S. in years.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Thank you Jane Fonda!

quote:

Modern nuclear plants are reliable, stable, sa(f)e and green. The problem is most people hear the wor(d) nuclear and immediately shut off because they think the plants are the worst thing ever. Fear and misinformation have crippled the nuclear power industry.

I guess they just forget about nuclear powered subs and carriers.

Actually, they did not. Nuclear Subs and carriers are not welcome in New Zealand. I am not saying that I agree with the policy, just clarifying what the policy is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...~:text=New%20Zealand's%20four%2Ddecade%20anti,support%20in%20building%20nuclear%20submarines.

Sorry, I was being provincial, just thinking about U.S. Greenies and not New Zealand (or anywhere else protected by those nuclear vessels.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Thank you Jane Fonda!

quote:

Modern nuclear plants are reliable, stable, sa(f)e and green. The problem is most people hear the wor(d) nuclear and immediately shut off because they think the plants are the worst thing ever. Fear and misinformation have crippled the nuclear power industry.

I guess they just forget about nuclear powered subs and carriers.

Actually, they did not. Nuclear Subs and carriers are not welcome in New Zealand. I am not saying that I agree with the policy, just clarifying what the policy is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...~:text=New%20Zealand's%20four%2Ddecade%20anti,support%20in%20building%20nuclear%20submarines.

Nuclear subs and carriers are the post child for nuclear power. If the navy can safely operate nuclear power plants in one of the most hostile Environment (subs and carriers) that travel all over the world in all weather conditions, rough seas etc. then surely a plant can be operated safely on land.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Thank you Jane Fonda!

quote:

Modern nuclear plants are reliable, stable, sa(f)e and green. The problem is most people hear the wor(d) nuclear and immediately shut off because they think the plants are the worst thing ever. Fear and misinformation have crippled the nuclear power industry.

I guess they just forget about nuclear powered subs and carriers.

Actually, they did not. Nuclear Subs and carriers are not welcome in New Zealand. I am not saying that I agree with the policy, just clarifying what the policy is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...~:text=New%20Zealand's%20four%2Ddecade%20anti,support%20in%20building%20nuclear%20submarines.

Its a dumb policy! It had its formation in the French nuclear testing in our region that was from memory, causing high rates of thyroid cancer in pacific islanders. Plus a very intense campaign by Greenpeace. What rounded it off was an extraordinary speech at Oxford university by our Prime minister and then an effective set of punitive/retalitory sanctions from the States, which made it into an anti American warship, rather than anti french testing. Which has seemingly been forgotten.
Unilateral policies from small nations like ours dont work. They just create weakness that the dickhead nations of the world can use to thier advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Nuclear subs and carriers are the post child for nuclear power. If the navy can safely operate nuclear power plants in one of the most hostile Environment (subs and carriers) that travel all over the world in all weather conditions, rough seas etc. then surely a plant can be operated safely on land.

Fukushima should be told that. And thats part of our nations reluctance. We are much the same as Japan, with massive earthquake risk.
I think that there are types of nuclear power plant that mitigate such risk, but most people dont know and just see the risk.

If NZ wants US ships to stay away, fine. Leave them to their own defenses then, if attacked.

Nuclear power is the answer, but the voting population here in the US is too stupid to realize it.

The Fukushima disaster was a people/design problem. The engineers compromised the design of the plant to accommodate the people of the area. The people of the area did not want the plant to take up to much space so the design engineers consolidated the to minimize the footprint. There were 3 backup generators to power the cooling pumps. The old saying in high availability situations is " one is none, two is one and three is two" applied here. The problem is to keep space as small as they could they situated all three generators together all in the flood plain. When the tsunami hit all three generators were flooded and they had no power to run the cooling pumps. Having all three together basically nullified the idea of having backups for natural disasters like a flood. It was fine for breakdowns but not for floods. They should have had those generators in physically different areas within proximity of the plant. If they would have had one generator up on the hill a quarter mile away it would have prevented the whole issue.

Most issues with plants can be attributed to human error either in design or in operation. Like I have said before the military has proven that with good design and rigid operating criteria nuclear plants are safe.

Yeah I agree with you. Im just saying try convince a population who has the greens and the left yelling how bad and risky they are. In reality it will take alot of power cut outs over a very bad winter, and probably some deaths, to change an opinion that has become ingrained and is constantly reinforced in a way that prevents a real discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If NZ wants US ships to stay away, fine. Leave them to their own defenses then, if attacked.

Nuclear power is the answer, but the voting population here in the US is too stupid to realize it.

Ad threats of trade sanctions too that statement, and you pretty much have US policy.

Its worth noting that on the NZ side, we have supported and sent military to I think, every single US military action From Korea, too the latest Gulf/yemen action. Including Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US stance is probably the biggest reason the NZ population have a FU attitude too allowing The US navy into NZ.

Its kind of pathetic on both sides given our histories.

This is a good summary from the US side up too the Clinton administration.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA395217.pdf

Like several of you, the first thing that struck me was the soothsayer's lack of forward thinking.

I'm a complete neophyte when it comes to this subject, but have been spurred to interest by a few posts made over the years by forum member TomP about thorium and molten salt.

To MtElkHunters point regarding the governments safe testing, I found a Wiki article that states that the U.S. government successfully operated a thorium-based reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for about 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969.

When I first read the OP yesterday and started poking around out of curiosity I serendipitously ended up reading about France and their, arguably, rather successful implementation of several forms of "green" energy.

Of course the first couple articles didn't even make the slightest mention that approximately 70% of electricity in France is generated from Nuclear!

https://world-nuclear.org/info...countries-a-f/france

And, that in polling, most citizens support both nuclear and renewable sources.


https://www.euractiv.com/secti...nuclear-development/

Which in my opinion makes Shankspony's point about having a horse before you sit in the cart...


.


....Jane Fonda

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If NZ wants US ships to stay away, fine. Leave them to their own defenses then, if attacked.

Nuclear power is the answer, but the voting population here in the US is too stupid to realize it.

Ad threats of trade sanctions too that statement, and you pretty much have US policy.

Its worth noting that on the NZ side, we have supported and sent military to I think, every single US military action From Korea, too the latest Gulf/yemen action. Including Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US stance is probably the biggest reason the NZ population have a FU attitude too allowing The US navy into NZ.

Its kind of pathetic on both sides given our histories.

This is a good summary from the US side up too the Clinton administration.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA395217.pdf

How hypocritical and self-absorbed for a country to expect to be included in the US defense umbrella, while refusing dockage to US military nuclear ships.

NZers want others to shoulder the risk of a nuclear accident. The US Navy has to have places to dock and station in the Pacific. Let AU, NK, Japan, and other (real) ANZUS allies carry the burden.

This American voter agrees with suspending our treaty obligations and defense cooperation with NZ.

I don't support trade sanctions, but there's a direct relationship between NZ hostility toward the very ships they look to defend them, and our response.

I read your paper and am not persuaded by the author's agenda, though his factual history is interesting.

And yet every time you start a conflict, you ask us to participate. And far more kiwis have died defending american interests, than have Americans defending ours. While not once have we asked you to defend us. And as far as the US defence umbrella go's, You have military personnel at Waihopai for electronic spying purposes. At Christchurch to enable your base in the antarctic. Which is situated in the NZ protectorate. You have a staff and a facility here for disabling/destroying enemy satellites should you need too. Your airforce is welcomed when they need access too our airports. There is no barrier too your army except those you have created.

As I said its pathetic on both sides. But I wont accept you claiming a high ground that doesn't exist.

As an American taxpayer, I don't want my ships hanging around in hostile waters, absent existing war. NZ has made its ports and waters hostile. Don't complain if US ships are elsewhere if your navy needs help against China or someone else bigger than NZ.

It was NZ's policy that initiated the dispute. I will claim the high ground on behalf of my country. I don't see what NZ really expects us to do, other than go on defending them with ships they don't want around.

Well if I was a betting man. then id say this is what will happen. Long long before we ever need help defending ourselves. Because we never have. The US will engage in conflict and ask us for support again. The worst case scenario is a conflict with China in or around the area of the south china sea. Taiwan or the phillipines or both. We will be asked to help, and we will. For whatever good we can do. But it wont be us that starts a conflict with China.
If such does happen, and the result is we are attacked because we agree too your request for support. I guess we will find out how petulant you are.

quote:

Because we never have.

Really? You mean your people weren't concerned at all about the Japanese in WW II? If not for the US, you'd be speaking, reading, and writing Japanese.

Petulant? I would say your people are being irrational and stubborn. The fear that a nuclear boogyman will crawl out of our ships and wreck havoc is a childish fantasy.

This is silly. The japanese never attacked us in ww2. They did attack Australia, and Australia pulled its troops from the western front to face that threat. And it was the Australians who stopped the Japanese advance in thier and our direction. Not america, who was having a torrid time themselves further north. It was deemed low risk for NZ at the time and instead of bringing our troops back home into the pacific, a deal was done where we stayed in Africa and Europe while American troops set up bases in NZ. A compromise that probably saved American lives, as they would have had to replace us , and probably caused more kiwi deaths. As it was we fought in conjunction with American troops in both theatres.

And yes petulant. I can find no other term to describe Your reaction. I mean read that.

quote:

The fear that a nuclear boogyman will crawl out of our ships and wreck havoc is a childish fantasy.

You think Australia could have saved you if the US wasn't tying up most Japanese forces?

You stand by "petulant." I don't think you know what that word means. I stand by childish, irrational, and stubborn. Where does that leave us?

You're defending the NZ policy so strenuously that I assume you support that policy. A shame. You had presented yourself earlier as a guy who could reason.

Thats because you have your back up and are not actually reading what I have written. Ive clearly spelt out my opinion of both countrys attitudes, and explained why. Your reaction is quite ironic given that.

Also, there was actually no plan from the japanese too invade nz or australia. Sure that might have come later.
Countries involved against japan in the pacific theatre.
Phillipines, British, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Burma, Fiji, Tonga, Dutch,
at least Resistance groups from Thailand,
Canadian, Mexcian, Free French.
The Dutch submarines I beleive were more successful than the US Navy.

Your attitude is ignorant. Do you think The US would have achieved what it did alone? Whether Pacific or Europe it took a whole heap of nations helping each other.

wow...

I can only wonder what my Grandfather and namesake would think about this discussion.

He would likely be confounded and disappointed by the isolationist bullshit between allies.

He might say finger pointing and arguing minutae is a luxury reserved for peacetime armchair quarterbacks

He would probably point out our father's and grandfather's may very well have fought and even died alongside each other.

How quibbling amongst one another dishonors the sacrifices our forefathers made.

And he would have said all that without once mentioning he was a Major in the U.S. Army stationed in New Caledonia during WWII.

Carry on gentlemen...

.

NZ made the first hostile move by saying US Navy ships are unwelcome. If they're unwelcome in peacetime, let them be unwelcome in war.

The history of the two nations fighting together is interesting, but not relevant to what NZ is doing NOW. NZ caved-in to the greenies. Made an irrational choice, and now you feel obligated to defend it for some reason.

Go back and read Roland. I havnt defended it. I have replied correcting your petulant forays into history and also pointed out that too this day we are still very supportive of American action. In fact probably more so over the last 30 years than your european allies excluding the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
wow...

I can only wonder what my Grandfather and namesake would think about this discussion.

He would likely be confounded and disappointed by the isolationist bullshit between allies.

He might say finger pointing and arguing minutae is a luxury reserved for peacetime armchair quarterbacks

He would probably point out our father's and grandfather's may very well have fought and even died alongside each other.

How quibbling amongst one another dishonors the sacrifices our forefathers made.

And he would have said all that without once mentioning he was a Major in the U.S. Army stationed in New Caledonia during WWII.

Carry on gentlemen...

.

That hasnt been my intent.
My Grandfather definitely fought alongside americans.
however I dont beleive Ive said anything that dishonours any of our ancestors contributions. Not once have I made a disparaging remark about US war efforts today or in the past.
Ive simply said we have an impasse, I think it is stupid from both sides and that we still get involved in supporting as much as we are allowed.

My apologies Shankspony I was clear about your position from the opening post.

I should have made clearer that I was taking umbrage with something my fellow countryman felt compelled and entitled to say on my behalf, apparently because he took umbrage with the position a few cunts in your government have made policy.

Why he took the personal route, I may have missed.


.

Hey, I got a solution! All NZ has to do is open its ports to US ships, and the stupid dispute can be settled.

I don't buy that both sides are at fault. Was the US not supposed to respond?

Open your damned ports, and we can play nice again.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
My apologies Shankspony I was clear about your position from the opening post.

I should have made clearer that I was taking umbrage with something my fellow countryman felt compelled and entitled to say on my behalf.

.

I said nothing on your behalf. Get over yourself.

au contraire

When you claim the highground on behalf of "your" country, you are speaking on my behalf.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

I will claim the high ground on behalf of my country.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
My apologies Shankspony I was clear about your position from the opening post.

I should have made clearer that I was taking umbrage with something my fellow countryman felt compelled and entitled to say on my behalf, apparently because he took umbrage with the position a few cunts in your government have made policy.

Why he took the personal route, I may have missed.


.

Thanks for clearing that up. Ive been going back over my posts in case I inadvertently said something I didnt mean too.

No, I'm not. I'm expressing a personal opinion as a US citizen and taxpayer.

You're free to differ, if you think we should conduct defense operations and exercises with a nation that says we're unwelcome.