We've agreed to ban petrol and diesel. But what do we replace them with? And how?

I think that the polluted water in Lake Ellesmere and others (high nitrates) could be used to grow oil producing algae.

inputs: sunlight and polluted water,

outputs: oil, nitrogenous fertilizer, and cleansed water.

life of project: until the water is too clean to support algae
co2 neutral.. win win

Solar is not viable for utility-scale generation in New Zealand. We are too far from the equator and too cold. There is not enough land area to build solar plants here. This is not even getting into the significant amounts of industrial waste produced in the manufacture of solar cells and batteries, but fake greenies never like to acknowledge that.

The most viable option to get our electricity generation completely divested from fossil fuels is nuclear. Thorium is a relatively unproven technology and I do not support it yet; but "traditional" reactor designs in small, modular configurations are well developed and being implemented across the world. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source in the world, both in terms of deaths per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. This is not just fake news pushed by the nuclear industry, these are the actual facts as found by the IPCC, a non-partisan international organization dedicated to opposing climate change.

Continuing to oppose nuclear on the basis of 80s-era cold war hysteria and propaganda betrays that you don't actually know the facts about the technology or climate change, and either care more about your fake environmentalist street cred, or are actively getting funding from fossil fuel interests (as it has been proven that much of the anti-nuclear smear campaign has come from coal and oil).

I am pro science but, have the same problem with nuclear that I have always had. You show me a country older than the amount of time it takes the nuclear waste to break down. Is there one?

No, there isn't. But what makes nuclear waste more frightening to you than "regular" industrial waste? The production process for photovoltaic cells produces hundreds of times more toxic waste than a nuclear plant for the amount of energy those cells will produce. Similar issue with mass production of lithium batteries - they're incredibly polluting, and not particularly efficient for storing energy.

And this is not even going into the fact that nuclear waste can be reprocessed into more fuel for the reactors (as is done in France), drastically reducing both the volume and radioactivity of the leftover waste. This is easily and safely disposed of in deep repositories, while the GHGs from coal and gas plants replaceable by nuclear are not.

Solar is not viable for utility-scale generation in New Zealand. We are too far from the equator and too cold.

[Citation Needed]

Although, there was that interesting article a few months back where a couple built an off-grid Passivehouse with lots of solar power who were generating enough to run their house and drive their 4x4 50 kilometres.

That would seem to put paid to assertion.

There is not enough land area to build solar plants here.

We have some of the highest roading per capita. If we converted those to solar roads we'd probably have more than enough.

This is not even getting into the significant amounts of industrial waste produced in the manufacture of solar cells and batteries,

That's a question of proper regulation and recycling.

The most viable option to get our electricity generation completely divested from fossil fuels is nuclear.

No it isn't. The nuclear cycle costs far more than it provides.

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source in the world

There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster.

But what makes nuclear waste more frightening to you than "regular" industrial waste?

The fact that there's nothing we can do with it afterwards. Normal 'industrial waste' can be recycled and put back into the production stream.

Solar Roadways is a flop. They're working model broke in a week and thats without stress testing.

Because solar works on a small scale doesn't mean it can work on a larger scale either.

There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster.

The modern plants have survived up to 7 and theoretically up to 10 earthquakes. Let alone areas in NZ which are not quake prone could be viable.

I'm not opposed to solar on off-grid style set ups. If people build their house to be totally self sufficient, more power (haha) to them.

"We have some of the highest roading per capita. If we converted those to solar roads we'd probably have more than enough."

solar roadways were a scam.

"That's a question of proper regulation and recycling."

You mean the proper regulation that only the nuclear industry is subjected to, out of all power generating technologies? As a reminder, solar produces 300 times the toxic waste of nuclear, and is only actually regulated in Europe because everyone else asusumes they run on unicorn farts.

"No it isn't. The nuclear cycle costs far more than it provides."

Then why are the electricity prices in France, which has about three quarters of its electricity generated by nuclear, one of the lowest in Europe, while Germany which has invested heavily in "green" solar for decades has some of the highest (and incidentally, regularly imports energy from France, and emits significantly more carbon dioxide).

"There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster."

I suppose this is a clever jab at Fukushima - the "disaster" that killed literally no one. What I find odd about the earthquakes argument is that Japan's fifty other operating reactors - including Fukushima Daini, only a couple kilometers south of Daiichi and subject to nearly identical earthquake and tsunami conditions - were shut down completely safely. Not to mention that Daiichi was a reactor designed in the 60s - modern designs have made significant improvements to safety, to the point of being passive, walk-away safe.

"The fact that there's nothing we can do with it afterwards. Normal 'industrial waste' can be recycled and put back into the production stream."

I addressed this before - nuclear waste IS recyclable. Only about 95% of the fissile material is burnt before being considered spent fuel - this is easily reprocessable and reburnable and is done in several countries. And again, radioactive waste decays in toxicity over time, unlike other toxic waste products. The amounts of waste produced by nuclear are dwarfed by everything else.

I still can't think of a country that has been around for thousands of years I am going to disagree with you on that point.

As for what makes nuclear waste more frightening to me than regular industrial waste. It isn't. It is a risk that has to be assessed and decided upon. I just don't find any of the arguments compelling (especially in New Zealand) and I believe that we can leap both petrol and nuclear and go a better way.

As for photo-voltaic cell manufacture causing more toxins than a nuclear power plant. A difference is that I can go and pick up my solar panel and take it to be recycled. Another would be that at the current increase in efficiency less and less of them will be needed per person further bringing down the toxicity per head of population. I can also decide that I don't want to use them anymore as something else has come along that is better.

Never been fond of lithium batteries myself but they are advancing as well. Half the problem with batteries is that we never really spend much time advancing them until the 1990's. Now a days there is a new better battery every week.

Finally? French nuclear reactors. They don't have earthquakes (or at least very rarely). We do, very often.

solar roadways were a scam.

Nope. Just need more development.

And having them would still be better than using standard non-performing road.

You mean the proper regulation that only the nuclear industry is subjected to, out of all power generating technologies?

No. Proper regulation that requires all resources used for any reason to be recycled.

What I find odd about the earthquakes argument is that Japan's fifty other operating reactors - including Fukushima Daini, only a couple kilometers south of Daiichi and subject to nearly identical earthquake and tsunami conditions - were shut down completely safely.

You obviously have no understanding of earthquakes and geology. Even my limited understanding tells me that the waves that earthquakes generate travel differently through different rocks. Living in Auckland I didn't feel the earthquakes in Christchurch but I did feel the one in Kaikoura. This difference means that structures will be affected differently based upon where they are.

Then why are the electricity prices in France, which has about three quarters of its electricity generated by nuclear, one of the lowest in Europe, while Germany which has invested heavily in "green" solar for decades has some of the highest (and incidentally, regularly imports energy from France, and emits significantly more carbon dioxide).

Perhaps it's economies of scale?
Germany also exports power. In fact, that may be why France has lower power prices - they don't export as much.

And again, radioactive waste decays in toxicity over time, unlike other toxic waste products.

/facepalm

All waste products decay over time. It's called entropy.

That said, nuclear waste takes thousands of years while most other waste products will only take a few decades. Properly recycled would probably take even less.

Actually, I'll qualify my "no there isn't" statement RE: you asking if there are countries older than the time for waste to decay. Roughly 3% of nuclear waste is "High Level Waste" that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, and this requires geological repositories. The vast majority will be safe on the time scale of decades, not millenia, so I would actually argue that yes, there are several countries older than the typical lifetime of dangerous nuclear waste. I'll reiterate that this cannot be said for the waste produced by many other non-nuclear processes, which remains toxic indefinitely.