SA Footy

$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?

Mediocre Mike has sat on his hands for so long, at least something is happening at last

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

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?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

nah its ok just a bit of an information overload tonight

Psyber, do you have any links for the Fission stories? (Nuclear/Hydrogen?Helium etc.)

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.

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.

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