Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Squawk » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:01 am

$2.5 billion announced for water infrastructure
$160 million needed for road upgrades
no commitment to building new power assets

Do Rann and Foley have their priorities right?
Steve Bradbury and Michael Milton. Aussie Legends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnztSjUB2U
User avatar
Squawk
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4665
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Coopers Stadium
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby mick » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:53 pm

Mediocre Mike has sat on his hands for so long, at least something is happening at last :?
User avatar
mick
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:34 am
Location: On the banks of the Murray
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby stan » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:49 pm

Squawk wrote:$2.5 billion announced for water infrastructure
$160 million needed for road upgrades
no commitment to building new power assets

Do Rann and Foley have their priorities right?


Power assests are the key along with water infrastructure. The current power infrastructure is really aged and alot funds are needed to imroved.

Roads well that is needed, but I would have to say we need some assisstance in the health care area as well. I would like to see a big increase in funds there. I
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15462
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1315 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Squawk » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:26 pm

I think it is all needed. I just get sick of them crying poor and then suddenly coming out with a new hospital at $1.5 billion and new water initiatives at $2.5 billion. Poor before but on reflection, have they been telling porkys?
Steve Bradbury and Michael Milton. Aussie Legends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnztSjUB2U
User avatar
Squawk
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4665
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Coopers Stadium
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby JK » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:46 pm

I think roads are important ... We need someone with the vision to spread the state, unfortunately though the result of that is likely to be more appreciated down the track and so few have the courage to act outside of the here and now ... JMO of course.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37457
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4480 times
Been liked: 3022 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Grahaml » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:24 pm

I don't like Rann, but I must say unless you want to pay more in tax (and I mean a lot more) you can't expect $100M+ to be spent on too many new things. We've got a new hospital o the way (even if I don't like the name) so a desal plant and power plants would mean extra tax dollars. I'd happily pay more tax for a desal plant/Nuclear power station joint project because I think both would help solve our major issues. I'd also investigate whether we could find somewhere out in the middle of nowhere that would be a good place for the world's nuclear dump because given our vast stretches of land and new technology and understanding I thin we could very easily find somewhere to safely store the stuff and make a bunch of money that way. However, if there were safety issues that would change this.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby stan » Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:49 pm

Grahaml wrote:I don't like Rann, but I must say unless you want to pay more in tax (and I mean a lot more) you can't expect $100M+ to be spent on too many new things. We've got a new hospital o the way (even if I don't like the name) so a desal plant and power plants would mean extra tax dollars. I'd happily pay more tax for a desal plant/Nuclear power station joint project because I think both would help solve our major issues. I'd also investigate whether we could find somewhere out in the middle of nowhere that would be a good place for the world's nuclear dump because given our vast stretches of land and new technology and understanding I thin we could very easily find somewhere to safely store the stuff and make a bunch of money that way. However, if there were safety issues that would change this.


These always safey issues with that last point.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15462
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1315 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Grahaml » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:52 am

Not many people actually understand the safety issues. Everyone seems to hear the word Nuclear and think Bogeyman. I'd like some money spent on actually finding out the facts about how safely things can be done now because I think it's worth it and I hope the government then has the balls to tell the people that it's the best thing no matter what the general opinion might be.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby stan » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:21 am

Grahaml wrote:Not many people actually understand the safety issues. Everyone seems to hear the word Nuclear and think Bogeyman. I'd like some money spent on actually finding out the facts about how safely things can be done now because I think it's worth it and I hope the government then has the balls to tell the people that it's the best thing no matter what the general opinion might be.


The first and second sentence pretty much say why the government would not even consider looking at it. Public perception is the key and that is the problem. Its all about the politics and not about whats best for the people.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15462
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1315 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Psyber » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:07 am

Grahaml wrote:Not many people actually understand the safety issues. Everyone seems to hear the word Nuclear and think Bogeyman. I'd like some money spent on actually finding out the facts about how safely things can be done now because I think it's worth it and I hope the government then has the balls to tell the people that it's the best thing no matter what the general opinion might be.

Thorium fission seems to have some advantages over Uranium - shorter radioactive half-life of the waste and its not being suitable for making bombs.

However, have you noticed the USA's recent renewed interest in the moon, and the Russian rearming and bomb testing. It turns out that confidence is being lost in hydrogen fusion because the large neutron output slowly disintegrates the metal casing of the magnetic containment field. However, a new and easier fusion process has been discovered using Helium 3 as the fuel, and the neutron output is much less, so the casing can be expected to last. The moon is the handiest source of abundant Helium 3. Hence the new arms race developing over ownership of the moon.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby heater31 » Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:19 pm

Psyber wrote:
Grahaml wrote:Not many people actually understand the safety issues. Everyone seems to hear the word Nuclear and think Bogeyman. I'd like some money spent on actually finding out the facts about how safely things can be done now because I think it's worth it and I hope the government then has the balls to tell the people that it's the best thing no matter what the general opinion might be.

Thorium fission seems to have some advantages over Uranium - shorter radioactive half-life of the waste and its not being suitable for making bombs.

However, have you noticed the USA's recent renewed interest in the moon, and the Russian rearming and bomb testing. It turns out that confidence is being lost in hydrogen fusion because the large neutron output slowly disintegrates the metal casing of the magnetic containment field. However, a new and easier fusion process has been discovered using Helium 3 as the fuel, and the neutron output is much less, so the casing can be expected to last. The moon is the handiest source of abundant Helium 3. Hence the new arms race developing over ownership of the moon.



er...............simple english please.


Thorium fission is 60 years behind the knowledge of the Uranium fission whilst it shows early signs of being better the technology is still in its infancy. I agree we need to look at all options and given the stringent guidelines that we operate in other fields to minimise damage with the same caution we can make this technology work safely.
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16662
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 532 times
Been liked: 1288 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Psyber » Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:11 am

heater31 wrote:
Psyber wrote:
Grahaml wrote:Not many people actually understand the safety issues. Everyone seems to hear the word Nuclear and think Bogeyman. I'd like some money spent on actually finding out the facts about how safely things can be done now because I think it's worth it and I hope the government then has the balls to tell the people that it's the best thing no matter what the general opinion might be.

Thorium fission seems to have some advantages over Uranium - shorter radioactive half-life of the waste and its not being suitable for making bombs.

However, have you noticed the USA's recent renewed interest in the moon, and the Russian rearming and bomb testing. It turns out that confidence is being lost in hydrogen fusion because the large neutron output slowly disintegrates the metal casing of the magnetic containment field. However, a new and easier fusion process has been discovered using Helium 3 as the fuel, and the neutron output is much less, so the casing can be expected to last. The moon is the handiest source of abundant Helium 3. Hence the new arms race developing over ownership of the moon.



er...............simple english please.


Thorium fission is 60 years behind the knowledge of the Uranium fission whilst it shows early signs of being better the technology is still in its infancy. I agree we need to look at all options and given the stringent guidelines that we operate in other fields to minimise damage with the same caution we can make this technology work safely.

Sorry - which bit isn't simple or needs clarifying? :oops:
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby heater31 » Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:34 am

nah its ok just a bit of an information overload tonight
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16662
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 532 times
Been liked: 1288 times

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby therisingblues » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:14 pm

Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Psyber » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:42 pm

therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
Actually mine was in print in a technical journal, but there are a lot of listings if you search "Helium 3" or " Thorium Fission" in Yahoo or Google.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby therisingblues » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:44 am

Psyber wrote:
therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
Actually mine was in print in a technical journal, but there are a lot of listings if you search "Helium 3" or " Thorium Fission" in Yahoo or Google.


Cheers Psyber. I think I should have enquired about fusion though, and not fission.
The subject (fusion) caught my interest when I read "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock a few months ago, but I didn't remember the correct terminology. Lovelock recounts an experience at the Culham Science Center in February 2005, where he viewed the "Tokomak Reactor" burn hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) for 2 seconds at temperatures around the 150 million degrees celsius mark. He was amazed that scientists could create such conditions on Earth, as the sun itself burns at 100 million degrees at its core. He also explains that these conditions are essential to nuclear fusion, which in basic terms is the burning of the two aforementioned hydrogen isotopes to generate electricity in the form of a helium atom and a neutron (*Revenge of Gaia pages 112-115)
This is the extent of my knowledge concerning nuclear fusion, but it sounded like a wonderful answer to our energy needs, if we could ever get it working. Your information is obviously updated on my news from early 2005, was it at all related to Culham Science Center or Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith? Just interested to hear how (if) it ties in with the stuff I have already read.
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Water vs Roads vs Power - $, $/ and ?$

Postby Psyber » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:16 pm

therisingblues wrote:
Psyber wrote:
therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
Actually mine was in print in a technical journal, but there are a lot of listings if you search "Helium 3" or " Thorium Fission" in Yahoo or Google.


Cheers Psyber. I think I should have enquired about fusion though, and not fission.
The subject (fusion) caught my interest when I read "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock a few months ago, but I didn't remember the correct terminology. Lovelock recounts an experience at the Culham Science Center in February 2005, where he viewed the "Tokomak Reactor" burn hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) for 2 seconds at temperatures around the 150 million degrees celsius mark. He was amazed that scientists could create such conditions on Earth, as the sun itself burns at 100 million degrees at its core. He also explains that these conditions are essential to nuclear fusion, which in basic terms is the burning of the two aforementioned hydrogen isotopes to generate electricity in the form of a helium atom and a neutron (*Revenge of Gaia pages 112-115)
This is the extent of my knowledge concerning nuclear fusion, but it sounded like a wonderful answer to our energy needs, if we could ever get it working. Your information is obviously updated on my news from early 2005, was it at all related to Culham Science Center or Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith? Just interested to hear how (if) it ties in with the stuff I have already read.

I took you as interested in both, but yes the fusion option is exciting. The article I read was basically an economic and strategic treatise.

A lot has happened since the work you refer to in 2005 and there are many labs around the world at work on various aspects of fusion, some public, and some not. [I think including still the guys who thought they had cracked low temperature Lithium fusion a few years ago.]

There has been divergance from the original work based on "heavy hydrogen" you refer to as people try to find other ways around the sustained containment issue. What has happened now is that economics has caught up with pure science as oil supplies dwindle and rise in price and it becomes apparent that so-called "clean" coal will get pretty expensive too. Suddenly, control of the source of [potentially useful in the near future] Helium 3 is on the minds of the two major powers of the late 20th century, and the posturing has begun again. Russia can afford to compete with the US again on the income from its gas boom, but it knows the gas will not last either.

Here are a few starting points:

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 00630.html
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=201211
http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/submission ... umpner.pdf
http://www.uic.com.au/nip69.htm
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf


Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |