Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

On 08/11/2018 at 10:47 AM, ComfortablyNumb said:

Sort of ironic isn't it how we stress about the risk of a nuclear accident, yet ride our bikes on the road, where we know there are rational people who suddenly become psychos when they see a cyclist in their way.  Even one of my most benign work colleagues says that when he sees cyclists riding 3-abreast, they become fair game!

Yep. Its kind of funny that the technology we have today and how safe a modern reactor could be...and people can only correlate to a 3rd world piece of sh!t communist soviet reactor in Chernobyl.

Its kind of like saying you don't want to fly/aircraft should be banned because a plane crashed in Russia in 1986.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, more said:

Yep. Its kind of funny that the technology we have today and how safe a modern reactor could be...and people can only correlate to a 3rd world piece of sh!t communist soviet reactor in Chernobyl.

Its kind of like saying you don't want to fly/aircraft should be banned because a plane crashed in Russia in 1986.

 

Perfect analogy

Chernobyl was out of date even by 1986 standards, and the meltdown was the result of a poorly conceived experiment gone wrong.  Anyone who thinks it is in any way relevant in 2018 is frankly lying to you

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, more said:

Plenty of water in the Artisan Basin...

We have current problems with adequate water to support our agricultural systems. These systems will need to be more productive in the future to feed growing populations. Australia is the driest continent in the world and predicted to become hotter and drier.

Now we're considering depleting a finite resource of fresh water for nuclear power? Artesian Basin pressures have been declining for over a century.

A nuclear power plant requiring enormous quantities of water to cool the system, and the solution is to locate it in the middle of a hot desert drawing enormous quantities of hot water in a high temperature/high evaporation environment?

Look where other nuclear plants are sited around the world. On coastlines or next to rivers or lakes fed annually by substantial snow melt.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

We have current problems with adequate water to support our agricultural systems. These systems will need to be more productive in the future to feed growing populations. Australia is the driest continent in the world and predicted to become hotter and drier.

Now we're considering depleting a finite resource of fresh water for nuclear power? Artesian Basin pressures have been declining for over a century.

A nuclear power plant requiring enormous quantities of water to cool the system, and the solution is to locate it in the middle of a hot desert drawing enormous quantities of hot water in a high temperature/high evaporation environment?

Look where other nuclear plants are sited around the world. On coastlines or next to rivers or lakes fed annually by substantial snow melt.

 

 

 

Its a misleading comment re Australia being the driest continent on earth simply because so much of it is desert. Thats where the whole immigration debate falls down-people look at the size of Aus and think there's plenty of room when actually a lot is inhabitable.

As for the 'enormous' quantities of water for a nuke plant-Id say it would make much more sense to put a Nuke plant in the desert than trying to do agriculture in the desert. Make agriculture more efficient.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrigation is a whole different topic.  The Ord river scheme is a great example of what we can do when we grow a set of spuds, stand up to idiot greenies and build dams

A Bradfield-style scheme diverting water inland could turn the Murray-Darling into our own MIssissippi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, more said:

Its a misleading comment re Australia being the driest continent on earth simply because so much of it is desert. Thats where the whole immigration debate falls down-people look at the size of Aus and think there's plenty of room when actually a lot is inhabitable.

As for the 'enormous' quantities of water for a nuke plant-Id say it would make much more sense to put a Nuke plant in the desert than trying to do agriculture in the desert. Make agriculture more efficient.

 

 

 

 

There is nothing misleading about Australia being the driest continent. We have a declining and finite supply of fresh water and how that is allocated to agriculture, industry, environment.....or even energy generation via nuclear power is a valid consideration.

Even the most habitable parts of Australia are vulnerable to drought. Look at the current situation in NSW. You can't simply dismiss these situations with a glib "make agriculture more efficient" comment.

Agricultural practices are continually becoming more efficient. However, those efficiencies don't foreseeably put us in a position where we can squander our limited water on impractical propositions.

It's not a "nukes in desert vs ag in desert" dichotomy. If you think it is, you're failing to grasp the issues.

So where is this technology to build a nuclear power plant in the middle of a desert? Reading down the IronmanFoz's list of around 50 plants currently in development around the world, I can't see any that would be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Irrigation is a whole different topic.  The Ord river scheme is a great example of what we can do when we grow a set of spuds, stand up to idiot greenies and build dams

A Bradfield-style scheme diverting water inland could turn the Murray-Darling into our own MIssissippi

Such simplistic "solutions" laced with hyperbole that don't account for reality.

Dam construction in Australia is limited by topography, rainfall, massive seasonal evaporation, water distribution over distance and other factors.

Our soils are the oldest, most degraded and nutritionally depauperate in the world, and that's not just fixed by throwing some fertiliser on them.

Turning river systems inland would be socially, economically, environmentally disastrous. What rivers do you propose to "turn inland" that do not already feed fertile and productive agricultural areas, are critical to population centres or you reduce without significant damage to environmental flows? Practically, how do we pipe water from downstream sections of these rivers to the upper reaches of the Murray Darling?

The Mississippi is fed by massive snowmelts from the Rockies in the west and Appalachians in the east, forming and feeding soils of a productivity unknown in Australia. The comparison is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of water from our own snow melt flows east into the ocean while the Murray is reduced to a trickle

I'm not saying it would be easy, but what worthwhile endeavour is?  It should be at least considered, not dismissed out of hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Plenty of water from our own snow melt flows east into the ocean while the Murray is reduced to a trickle

I'm not saying it would be easy, but what worthwhile endeavour is?  It should be at least considered, not dismissed out of hand

Seriously, the seasonal snowmelt we have in Australia is very small by any meaningful comparison. Those rivers are flowing through some of our more productive and fertile agricultural areas and already drawn on heavily for irrigation, supply water to cities and towns, and of course, also in some cases are tributaries of the Murray.

It's not a case of dismissing ideas out of hand, it's about not promoting ideas (turn the rivers inland, build massive dams, nuclear power plants in desert), without rational thought and consideration.

There's a big difference between "worthwhile idea" and pie-in-the-sky uninformed fantasy simple "solutions" to complex problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/10/2018 at 8:25 AM, IronJimbo said:

As with most issues, the first step is overcoming ideological opposition to even having an intelligent discussion about it

 

FTFY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

Seriously, the seasonal snowmelt we have in Australia is very small by any meaningful comparison. Those rivers are flowing through some of our more productive and fertile agricultural areas and already drawn on heavily for irrigation, supply water to cities and towns, and of course, also in some cases are tributaries of the Murray.

It's not a case of dismissing ideas out of hand, it's about not promoting ideas (turn the rivers inland, build massive dams, nuclear power plants in desert), without rational thought and consideration.

There's a big difference between "worthwhile idea" and pie-in-the-sky uninformed fantasy simple "solutions" to complex problems.

The snowmelt is but one example.  It's obviously Northern NSW and SE Queensland where the bigger need is

How are you not dismissing the idea out of hand when you use phrases like 'pie in the sky' and 'uninformed fantasy?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

FTFY

How about demonstrating your intellectual superiority by playing the ball and not the man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

How about demonstrating your intellectual superiority by playing the ball and not the man?

Bullshit!

I never criticised you, only the quality of the ideas.

Did you notice I liked one of your posts on this page? I did because it had merit.

Rather than deriding me for "intellectual superiority" (is that playing the man, Mr Pot?), how about contributing some reasoned discussion to what I've written?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The snowmelt is but one example.  It's obviously Northern NSW and SE Queensland where the bigger need is

How are you not dismissing the idea out of hand when you use phrases like 'pie in the sky' and 'uninformed fantasy?'

I have supplied explanations while these "solutions" aren't solutions at all. If I just said "won't work, dumb idea" that would be dismissing it.

If you reckon these ideas will work, I'm more than happy to read about it. Just flesh out your ideas with logic and decent info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 of minutes of google instead of answering off the top of my head.

Sorry, Jimbo, that it's from an ABC site, but I wasn't going to look at Bob Katter or Alan Jones' websites.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/23/2241914.htm

Excess river water

Could we divert excess river water to needy systems? This morning I heard Alan Jones talking about an idea to divert excess water from the Clarence River into the Murray-Darling system. This reminded me of the Bradfield proposal from the 1930's to do a similar thing in North Queensland. What are the technological and economic assessments of these proposals today?
—David Abercrombie and Raz

The idea of diverting coastal rivers inland has been around for a long time. It reached its ultimate expression with the building of the Snowy Mountain Scheme.

What this achievement indicates is that it is technically feasible to divert other comparable rivers. More important though are the economic, social and ecological effects of doing this. Ecologically we now know that diversion of water from one river system into another causes very significant changes in both the source river and the receiving river. Socially it can be argued that the water in the existing rivers is already being used for a host of production, recreation and aesthetic purposes. Economically, these schemes require huge public capital investment. We would need to be convinced that the net benefits from an increased water supply in the northern river systems of New South Wales would outweigh the social and ecological costs associated with reduced water in the Clarence system.

The evidence from the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which supplied about 10 per cent more water into the Murray system, is that it does not solve the problems of water demand. This requires ongoing social and political solutions in relation to the balance between our water supplies and our water demands.

—Dr Wayne Meyer, Chief Scientist, CRC for Irrigation Futures

Rivers are very dynamic, complex systems with ecosystems that depend on them, not to mention communities along their length. Although it's technically feasible to 'turn rivers around' or to trap most of the water, the ecological and social impacts can be profound. A proportion of water can be extracted from a river, but it has to be done judiciously and with due regard for potential impacts. Although it has been a recurring theme over the years, the idea of diverting or reversing rivers is now seen as unacceptable.

—Chris Davis, CEO, Australian Water Association

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:51 PM, Paul Every said:

I have supplied explanations while these "solutions" aren't solutions at all. If I just said "won't work, dumb idea" that would be dismissing it.

If you reckon these ideas will work, I'm more than happy to read about it. Just flesh out your ideas with logic and decent info.

I'm just raising a broad idea for discussion, is all.  It just seems to me rather wasteful to let gigalitres of water run down one side of the great dividing range into the sea while people on the other side are parched

I'm sure there are plenty of people much smarter than me who can figure it out what might be done about that if we bother to ask them

As the saying goes, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people

And then there's whatever it is that Parky's mind is trying to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoMo reverses yesterday's decision on the food bank funding.

Is anyone actually running the govt, or are we doing that ourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Of that, you have convinced me.

:thumbsup:

True wisdom is being able to admit that you don't actually know very much at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be the wisest ****er on the planet!  Cause I know shit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering why no-one but ole mate Jimbo had thought of diverting the Snowy River westward into the Murray before? If only someone had the political will to build such a grand scheme 70 years ago?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scheme was designed to collect and store water, including water that would otherwise flow east down the Snowy River to the coast, divert it through trans-mountain tunnels and power stations and then release it west of the Snowy Mountains into the catchments of the River Murray and the Murrumbidgee River.  There it can be used for town water supply, irrigation and environmental use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This century has delivered us Leaders with little to no understanding of our history, environment, place in the world or vision of a better future.

Ideas good, bad and in between are manufactured to appeal to narrow base that the respective leader feels will support them in an election or in a workplace.

History;

Facts;

Laws of Physics;

Are not relevant for many. The idea is right.

If you don't agree with me you need to change.

The fact you disagree shows me that my idea and case for change was right and I will pursue my position even more dogmatically until you accept my unilaterally developed position.

This discussion will be dressed up in the management consulting industry speak. The purpose of this is to make the above sound sensible and needed.

Social media and cheerleaders like Alan Jones and others from the "left" will offer up their assessment which will attack the person not the issue and repackage the original poorly formed idea as awesome and their favourite as the next messiah.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Victorian election could be cut down to 3 days and I don't think anyone would know the difference.  What a snoozefest bereft of any initiative or vision.  All the ads are "don't trust labor as they did this 10 years ago"... "Don't trust the libs as they did this 25 years ago".  It's getting so depressing I'm actually starting to miss the regional tv ads for furniture stores and car yards done on handycams

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Current Victorian election could be cut down to 3 days and I don't think anyone would know the difference.  What a snoozefest bereft of any initiative or vision.  All the ads are "don't trust labor as they did this 10 years ago"... "Don't trust the libs as they did this 25 years ago".  It's getting so depressing I'm actually starting to miss the regional tv ads for furniture stores and car yards done on handycams

 

Australia used to do excellent beer commercials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Australia used to do excellent beer commercials

Seems we just lost our mojo. 

 

 

 

 

*c’mon that is a good one. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been away for 12 months and this thread still has a life of its own...

I love the nuclear reactor in the middle of the desert idea, supported by diverting entire rivers westward across the Great Divide.

Maybe that could be Tony Abbots new policy position:

"We will provide cheap electricity by building a nuclear reactor at a cost of tens of billions of dollars supported by a diverted river system costing hundreds of billions of dollars ... "

Sounds like a genius way of keeping power prices down if you ask me ....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

First thought off in the 1880's

It worked in the snowies 70 years ago, but for some reason it can't work anywhere else now, so let's not bother discussing it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It worked in the snowies 70 years ago, but for some reason it can't work anywhere else now, so let's not bother discussing it 

People weren't worried 70 years ago if the killed the ecology of 1 river to irrigate another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has that happened because of the snowy scheme?

Obviously we'd be much more able to determine those impacts now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Has that happened because of the snowy scheme?

Obviously we'd be much more able to determine those impacts now

The Snowy River was changed from a healthy river to a stagnant sludge when they diverted 99% of it's upper flow. They now do Annual flush releases, and let a bit more flow than the 1% they used to, but it still has a very long way to go.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The Snowy River was changed from a healthy river to a stagnant sludge when they diverted 99% of it's upper flow. They now do Annual flush releases, and let a bit more flow than the 1% they used to, but it still has a very long way to go.

All of which would be considered in any future proposal, I'm sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

It worked in the snowies 70 years ago, but for some reason it can't work anywhere else now, so let's not bother discussing it 

which river are we diverting, thought you suggested we divert the snowy from the coast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

All of which would be considered in any future proposal, I'm sure

Exactly.

And that's why the proposal is consistently dismissed for multiple reasons; economic, environmental, hydrology, topography, evaporation rates, soil infertility, social factors, etc, etc.

But it doesn't prevent the uninformed or willfully ignorant from banging the drum of populist policy:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-12-19/qld-conservationists-criticise-one-nations-bradfield-plan/8132284

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just need to eat more onions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

which river are we diverting, thought you suggested we divert the snowy from the coast

such a forward thinker

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×