The world's most powerful dam roars into full operation

Guess it depends where you drive - I reckon we hit about a dozen birds on that trip, mostly sphinifex pigeons, and a budgie or two. That was towing a camper trailer as well, so usually travelling at 95-100kmh.
 
southerncross said:
Simple fact is that Coal is our cheapest source of electricity and provides a great deal of employment, not solely to do with mining either but everything that relies upon electricity in this country, even Solar manufacturers, installers along with Wind rely upon the backup of Coal powered electricity.

Just half of that 10 billion Labor aims to spend on namby pamby pie in the sky alternatives could make coal cleaner than a windmill when you take into account the rare earths mining and manufacture processes not to mention the lack of viable generation offered by any other source of power.
Click to expand...

Sure, coal is cheap, but there is a difference between "cheapest price" and "best value". Its the same as buying a "cheap" disposable plastic product over an "expensive" well-made product that will last much, much longer: if the cheap plastic thing needs to be replaced all the time, in the long term you're better off buying the more durable, high quality one.

Creating employment is obviously a plus, but if there are more efficient ways of creating the energy then employing large numbers of people in an inefficient system is silly. We could pay people to clean the streets with toothbrushes and create employment. It would be a poor use of money and labour but it would create employment.

As for "clean coal", the whole idea revolves around taking the smoke out of smoke. It's like trying to make solar work without sunlight or hydro work without water.
 
Big A.D. said:
southerncross said:
Simple fact is that Coal is our cheapest source of electricity and provides a great deal of employment, not solely to do with mining either but everything that relies upon electricity in this country, even Solar manufacturers, installers along with Wind rely upon the backup of Coal powered electricity.

Just half of that 10 billion Labor aims to spend on namby pamby pie in the sky alternatives could make coal cleaner than a windmill when you take into account the rare earths mining and manufacture processes not to mention the lack of viable generation offered by any other source of power.
Click to expand...

Sure, coal is cheap, but there is a difference between "cheapest price" and "best value". Its the same as buying a "cheap" disposable plastic product over an "expensive" well-made product that will last much, much longer: if the cheap plastic thing needs to be replaced all the time, in the long term you're better off buying the more durable, high quality one.

Creating employment is obviously a plus, but if there are more efficient ways of creating the energy then employing large numbers of people in an inefficient system is silly. We could pay people to clean the streets with toothbrushes and create employment. It would be a poor use of money and labour but it would create employment.

As for "clean coal", the whole idea revolves around taking the smoke out of smoke. It's like trying to make solar work without sunlight or hydro work without water.
Click to expand...


I agree. Best value all round is nuclear by far.
 
Just think what a co-ordinated approach could achieve with this Super money and "major" infrastructure projects in Oz?

If I was offered a 5% contributions Tax rate on any super I invested in say "the irrigation of the land beyond the great dividing range super project"

I would seriously look at it.
Click to expand...

That's one big white elephant.

If its worth doing its worth doing. A concessional tax rate is a subsidy.

Better than giving money to banks to play on the international finance casino but not better than not spending (taxing) at all.

B.
 
Big A.D. said:
GoldenEgg said:
Then you've got these ugly wind turbines that have piles of dead birds at the bottom of them , want to help a protected bird species? go destroy a wind turbine.
Click to expand...

The wind-turbines-kill-birds story started when some idiots in the U.S. built a wind farm smack bang in the middle of a major migratory path. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the turbines were the bigger, long, thin bladed ones that spin slowly like we have now but when it was built back in the 80s they used lots of small, short, flat bladed turbine that spun very fast (think old fashioned outback windmills). They were perfectly designed for shredding birds and they killed loads.

Obviously we use newer types of turbines now that the birds can actually dodge and we go to the trouble of actually finding out where the birds are to begin with to reduce the risk even further.

For every bird killed by a wind turbine, something like five or six thousand die flying into buildings anyway, so turbines aren't a massive problem.
Click to expand...
Never understood the animosity towards wind power, I associate with more greenies then I would like :P and the animosity towards wind power from them is perplexing to say the least
 
BullON said:
Just think what a co-ordinated approach could achieve with this Super money and "major" infrastructure projects in Oz?

If I was offered a 5% contributions Tax rate on any super I invested in say "the irrigation of the land beyond the great dividing range super project"

I would seriously look at it.
Click to expand...

That's one big white elephant.

If its worth doing its worth doing. A concessional tax rate is a subsidy.

Better than giving money to banks to play on the international finance casino but not better than not spending (taxing) at all.

B.
Click to expand...
The more we come to grips that Oz can't afford Total Free Trade the better off we will be.

Targeted subsidies for Nation Building Projects is exactly what we need rather than the free for all we currently have with International Investment in Oz.

My post was really to higlight the latent untapped power of the Oz Super Money.
 
JulieW said:
... the point is that disturbed nature is not necessarily 'lesser nature', and 'conservation' tends to be a futile undertaking anyway. Nature will move on, disregarding our arrogance that we can conserve which about equals our arrogance that we can destroy. For every red nosed wombat there's a domestic cat evolving into a 10kg predator. We've already destroyed Australia's ecology. In my view a responsible approach to ensuring the humans survive, prosper in balance with the environment and don't leave the place more of a desert than it is, is the best we can hope for.
Click to expand...

Yay! Someone else who understands evolution and what we should really be trying to conserve. Most environmentalists seem to think that the status quo is optimal and needs to be preserved at any cost. Tell that to the genes! They don't give a flying proverbial about the status quo.
 
nonrecourse said:
wrcmad said:
I agree. Best value all round is nuclear by far.
Click to expand...

Not so sure the Japs would agree with you:lol:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/f...-and-what-are-the-dangers-20110330-1cfmb.html

Kind Regards
non recourse
Click to expand...

One or two mishaps and the objectionist brigade swing into full gear.
Imagine they outlawed everything after a couple of f#%@ ups?

Given that it is apparently destroying the world, should not Julia be obliged to ban coal-fired power, instead of using it as fund raising?
Like all agenda pushing, it is based on creating a perception that will cause disapproval.

There are a heap of studies that show nuclear power to be much less risky and much less polluting than conventional coal-fired power.
 
wrcmad said:
I agree. Best value all round is nuclear by far.
Click to expand...

Bring on thorium!

More seriously, nuclear is SUPER-energy dense. I saw an estimate once that said that the Ranger uranium mine (when it was at higher production a few years ago) produced enough uranium to fuel the same amount of the world's electricity as around 60% of Australia's total thermal coal exports (in either 2007 or 2008, I think).

Think about it. One single (albeit higher risk) mine producing something like 5,000 tonnes of uranium has the energy equivalent of over 60,000,000 tonnes of export quality coal (i.e. 60+ million tonnes)! Talk about risk versus reward.
 
wrcmad said:
nonrecourse said:
wrcmad said:
I agree. Best value all round is nuclear by far.
Click to expand...

Not so sure the Japs would agree with you:lol:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/f...-and-what-are-the-dangers-20110330-1cfmb.html

Kind Regards
non recourse
Click to expand...

One or two mishaps and the objectionist brigade swing into full gear.
Imagine they outlawed everything after a couple of f#%@ ups?

Given that it is apparently destroying the world, should not Julia be obliged to ban coal-fired power, instead of using it as fund raising?
Like all agenda pushing, it is based on creating a perception that will cause disapproval.

There are a heap of studies that show nuclear power to be much less risky and much less polluting than conventional coal-fired power.
Click to expand...
Im sure you would think differently if the "mishap " was in your backyard
When the fkups kill & effect hundreds of thousands & render the land unusable for centuries yes it should be outlawed
 
renovator said:
wrcmad said:
nonrecourse said:
Not so sure the Japs would agree with you:lol:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/f...-and-what-are-the-dangers-20110330-1cfmb.html

Kind Regards
non recourse
Click to expand...

One or two mishaps and the objectionist brigade swing into full gear.
Imagine they outlawed everything after a couple of f#%@ ups?

Given that it is apparently destroying the world, should not Julia be obliged to ban coal-fired power, instead of using it as fund raising?
Like all agenda pushing, it is based on creating a perception that will cause disapproval.

There are a heap of studies that show nuclear power to be much less risky and much less polluting than conventional coal-fired power.
Click to expand...
Im sure you would think differently if the "mishap " was in your backyard
When the fkups kill & effect hundreds of thousands & render the land unusable for centuries yes it should be outlawed
Click to expand...

In Aus we have enough "spare" space to put enough to supply most of the power.
 
renovator said:
Im sure you would think differently if the "mishap " was in your backyard
When the fkups kill & effect hundreds of thousands & render the land unusable for centuries yes it should be outlawed
Click to expand...

We all think differently when it comes to NIMBY.

However, it is apparently conclusive that conventional fossil fuels are affecting 6 billion of us.

One of the worst stumbling blocks in gaining widespread public acceptance of nuclear power is that the great majority of people do not understand and quantify the risks we face....

The risks from having all electricity in the United States generated by nuclear power are equivalent to the following risks:
1.a regular smoker smoking one extra cigarette every 15 years (3 months);
2.an overweight person increasing his weight by 0.012 ounce (0.8 ounce);
3.raising the highway speed limit from 55 to 55.006 (55.6) miles per hour.

4088_lle-graph.jpg


Source: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html
Click to expand...
 
renovator said:
Im sure you would think differently if the "mishap " was in your backyard
When the fkups kill & effect hundreds of thousands & render the land unusable for centuries yes it should be outlawed
Click to expand...


Personally, I would be totally willing to work in a privately built and operated nuclear facility (and ~95% willing to work in most, but certainly not all, government built and operated facilities).

Consequently, I would be happy to have one in my backyard.
 
Holy <insert random god of your choice> wrmcad!

Based on those statistics we should ban peanut butter from our schools.. (oh wait...).
 
bordsilver said:
Holy <insert random god of your choice> wrmcad!

Based on those statistics we should ban peanut butter from our schools.. (oh wait...).
Click to expand...


Yes, peanut butter is more deadly than nuclear power! :P
 
I am on the fence about nuclear power plants, but I think that it is worth pointing out that there would be a big difference in safety between a NPP built in 2012 and one that was designed and constructed when the HQ Holden was in the new car show rooms. Fukushima no. 1 was commissioned 41 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top