Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
more

Nukes and redirecting the rivers.

Recommended Posts

On 24/10/2018 at 1:39 PM, Tyno said:

If you can’t see the absolute nonsense in the “nuclear energy is green and safe” argument, you need help. 

You do realise pretty much all of Europe, America and Canada are  nuclear powered? The whole fear mongering of nuclear power is massively overplayed...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true about Canada. Nuclear makes up only 14% of there electricity generation (2011 numbers, but no new nuclear power plants in that  time).

  https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/www/pdf/publications/emmc/renewable_energy_e.pdf

 

Not true for US either. Nuclear: 20%. Renewable: 17%.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

And looks like not true for Europe either: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview#Electricity_generation

In fact, from 2006 - 2016, Europe went from 29.4 % to 25.7 % from Nuclear, so it's actually reducing.

Edited by asmithaxe

Share this post


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

Not true about Canada. Nuclear makes up only 14% of there electricity generation (2011 numbers, but no new nuclear power plants in that  time).

  https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/www/pdf/publications/emmc/renewable_energy_e.pdf

 

Not true for US either. Nuclear: 20%. Renewable: 17%.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

And looks like not true for Europe either: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview#Electricity_generation

In fact, from 2006 - 2016, Europe went from 29.4 % to 25.7 % from Nuclear, so it's actually reducing.

Thats nice. So if Australia built a plant would that mean we wouldn't be nuclear powered?

All those countries have nuclear plants and the world hasn't come to an end.

 

Share this post


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

Thats nice. So if Australia built a plant would that mean we wouldn't be nuclear powered?

All those countries have nuclear plants and the world hasn't come to an end.

 

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that those countries were majority nuclear power.

Share this post


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

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that those countries were majority nuclear power.

All good. I just think people are unnecessarily scared of nuke power. If there is anywhere in the world that should use it it's Australia-no risk of earth quakes, tons of uranium and plenty of desert to bury the waste

 

But that's just my dumbarse opinion-which is great until one melts down I guess...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

All good. I just think people are unnecessarily scared of nuke power. If there is anywhere in the world that should use it it's Australia-no risk of earth quakes, tons of uranium and plenty of desert to bury the waste

 

But that's just my dumbarse opinion-which is great until one melts down I guess...

SA would be perfect.

Stable geologically, the largest known Uranium deposit in the world, and plenty of desert to bury any waste in. You could even put the reactor out in the desert.

It'd solve any renewables reliability issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ex-Hasbeen said:

SA would be perfect.

Stable geologically, the largest known Uranium deposit in the world, and plenty of desert to bury any waste in. You could even put the reactor out in the desert.

It'd solve any renewables reliability issue?

Of course

But as long as people like the Greens are out there pandering to NIMBYism by saying shit like every reactor could be another Chernobyl, the debate will never get off the ground

Share this post


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

Of course

But as long as people like the Greens are out there pandering to NIMBYism by saying shit like every reactor could be another Chernobyl, the debate will never get off the ground

You have to look on the bright side of things. Apparently 600,000 people have been involved in the containment, clean-up and rehab of various areas after Chernobyl. Imagine what that would do to unemployment in SA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a number of nuclear accidents since Chernobyl. There was Japan, which not only polluted the local area, but involved a airborne material drifting toward Tokyo, and they have identified low level nuclear material in the water as far away as north america. Also a tunnel collapse at a reprocessing plant in the US which exposed a number of workers and discharged radioactive dust into the atmosphere. A French power plant discharged contaminated water into the local environment. And apparently ANSTO is a bit slack with the only nuclear facility we have here in Australia.

Not exactly risk free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of Fukoshima, wasn't the initial problem caused by the fact they underspeced the sea wall, probably to save money?  That's the one thing you can't do with nukes, try and cut costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with about 50 reactors under construction.

  • Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia.
  • Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
  • Plant lifetime extension programmes are maintaining capacity, particularly in the USA.

Today there are about 450 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In 2017 these provided 2506 billion kWh, about 11% of the world's electricity.

About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries (see Table below), notably China, India, UAE and Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Start †   Reactor Model Gross MWe
2018 China, China Huaneng Shidaowan HTR-PM 210
2018 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 1 APR1400 1400
         
2019 Belarus, BNPP Ostrovets 1 VVER-1200 1194
2019 China, CGN Fangchenggang 3 Hualong One 1180
2019 China, CGN Hongyanhe 5 ACPR-1000 1119
2019 China, CGN Yangjiang 6 ACPR-1000 1086
2019 China, CNNC Fuqing 5 Hualong One 1150
2019 China, CGN Taishan 2 EPR 1750
2019 Finland, TVO Olkiluoto 3 EPR 1720
2019 France, EDF Flamanville 3 EPR 1650
2019 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam PFBR FBR 500
2019 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 4 APR1400 1400
2019 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 2 APR1400 1400
2019 Russia, Rosenergoatom Pevek FNPP KLT40S x 2 70
2019 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 VVER-440 471
         
2020 Belarus, BNPP Ostrovets 2 VVER-1200 1194
2020 China, CGN Hongyanhe 6 ACPR-1000 1119
2020 China, CGN Fangchenggang 4 Hualong One 1180
2020 China, CNNC Tianwan 5 ACPR-1000 1118
2020 China, CNNC Fuqing 6 Hualong One 1150
2020 China, CGN Bohai shipyard ACPR50S 60
2020 Japan, Chugoku Shimane 3 ABWR 1373
2020 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-2 VVER-1200 1195
2020 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 VVER-440 471
2020 UAE, ENEC Barakah 1 APR1400 1400
2020 UAE, ENEC Barakah 2 APR1400 1400
         
2021 Argentina, CNEA Carem25 Carem 29
2021 China, CNNC Tianwan 6 ACPR-1000 1118
2021 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 2 ACP1000 1100
2021 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 AP1000 1250
2021 UAE, ENEC Barakah 3 APR1400 1400
2021 UAE, ENEC Barakah 4 APR1400 1400
         
2022 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 3 PHWR-700 700
2022 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR-700 700
2022 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR-700 700
2022 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR-700 700
2022 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 5 APR1400 1400
2022 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 3 ACP1000 1100
2022 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kursk II-1 VVER-TOI 1255
2022 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 VVER-1200 1199
2022 USA, Southern Vogtle 4 AP1000 1250
         
2023 Bangladesh Rooppur 1 VVER-1200 1200
2023 China, CNNC Xiapu 1 CFR600 600
2023 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 6 APR1400 1400
2023 Turkey Akkuyu 1 VVER-1200 1200
         
2024 Bangladesh Rooppur 2 VVER-1200 1200
         
2025 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 3 VVER-1000 1050
         
2026 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 4 VVER-1000 1050
2026 Japan, EPDC Ohma 1 ABWR 1383

Latest announced/estimated year of proposed commercial operation
Note: units where construction is currently suspended are omitted from the above Table.

Share this post


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

plenty of desert to bury the waste

This is my biggest issue with it.

The "safe" storage is anything but.

Just making it someone else's problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tyno said:

This is my biggest issue with it.

The "safe" storage is anything but.

Just making it someone else's problem.

Yeah, but it's B@W's problem. Not ours Tyno. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

There have been a number of nuclear accidents since Chernobyl. There was Japan, which not only polluted the local area, but involved a airborne material drifting toward Tokyo, and they have identified low level nuclear material in the water as far away as north america. Also a tunnel collapse at a reprocessing plant in the US which exposed a number of workers and discharged radioactive dust into the atmosphere. A French power plant discharged contaminated water into the local environment. And apparently ANSTO is a bit slack with the only nuclear facility we have here in Australia.

Not exactly risk free.

How many people have died from radiation induced illnesses from those accidents since chernobyl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2018 at 5:40 PM, asmithaxe said:

 And apparently ANSTO is a bit slack with the only nuclear facility we have here in Australia.

Not exactly risk free.

I would REALLY love to see the facts behind that opinion please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I would REALLY love to see the facts behind that opinion please

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!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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!

When likelihood and consequence are wildly overblown, you're naturally going to end up with a garbage risk assessment

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, asmithaxe said:

It was on a bunch of news outlets about 2 weeks ago:

https://news.google.com/search?q=lucas heights&hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

 

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) confirmed five workers reported receiving a dose of radiation, but it was not above allowable limits.

In a statement, the organisation said the equivalent dose of radiation was less than a chest X-ray.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2018 at 4:49 PM, Ex-Hasbeen said:

SA would be perfect.

Stable geologically, the largest known Uranium deposit in the world, and plenty of desert to bury any waste in. You could even put the reactor out in the desert.

It'd solve any renewables reliability issue?

 

Nuclear power plants have an enormous water requirement for effective cooling. It would have to be built near the coast, limiting potential locations.

Then we have the political problem of where to build it.

Which state? Which electorates?

You could put a line through any of the more populous states to accept the idea, NSW, Vic, most of Qld, eastern SA, eastern Tas, probably WA from north of Geraldton to Albany.

Also cross off areas which are environmentally or culturally significant, eg GBReef would preclude all the way to Cape York, Tasmania's southwest, Great Australian Bight, Ningaloo coast of WA, much of NT coast.

I can't imagine it receiving much political or public support in SA, with the state's commitment to renewable technology only likely to gain greater investment in the future. 

A lot of WA already feels it props up the rest of Aust in the natural resources area, and like SA, has enormous areas suitable for solar and wind technologies, leaving nuclear to run a distant last to other energy generation methods in gaining political and public support.

So for those advocating nuclear, seriously where would we build it?

Share this post


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

Nuclear power plants have an enormous water requirement for effective cooling. It would have to be built near the coast, limiting potential locations.

Then we have the political problem of where to build it.

Which state? Which electorates?

You could put a line through any of the more populous states to accept the idea, NSW, Vic, most of Qld, eastern SA, eastern Tas, probably WA from north of Geraldton to Albany.

Also cross off areas which are environmentally or culturally significant, eg GBReef would preclude all the way to Cape York, Tasmania's southwest, Great Australian Bight, Ningaloo coast of WA, much of NT coast.

I can't imagine it receiving much political or public support in SA, with the state's commitment to renewable technology only likely to gain greater investment in the future. 

A lot of WA already feels it props up the rest of Aust in the natural resources area, and like SA, has enormous areas suitable for solar and wind technologies, leaving nuclear to run a distant last to other energy generation methods in gaining political and public support.

So for those advocating nuclear, seriously where would we build it?

Plenty of water in the Artisan Basin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 2
  • 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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...