by Squawk » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:01 am
by mick » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:53 pm
by 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?
by Squawk » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:26 pm
by JK » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:46 pm
by Grahaml » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:24 pm
by 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.
by Grahaml » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:52 am
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by heater31 » Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:34 am
by therisingblues » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:14 pm
by Psyber » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:42 pm
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.therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
by therisingblues » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:44 am
Psyber wrote: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.therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
by Psyber » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:16 pm
therisingblues wrote:Psyber wrote: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.therisingblues wrote:Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)
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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |