Base load power

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Marc I'm surprised this one stayed open so long are the mod's on holiday

Peter nice link on Thorium didn't know about this one but doesn't surprise me one bit that it has never been taken up as a viable energy source

maybe we should all go back to wood fires for cooking and warmth, candles or oil lamps for light, Coolgardie coolers for keeping our food cold, listen to the radio (pedal driven or course) or stand around a piano singing songs at night or a good game of scrabble, the kids can play outside after school until it gets dark, no TV, no video games, no computers, no dishwashers, no washing machines, no electric cooking ranges, no air con, cold showers and if they are hot in summer tell them to go under the sprinkler (water bans considering) or cold in winter to put on a jumper like we did as kids.

technology has only created all these marketable devices that make our life easier yet they all are powered by electricity

so we stop buying these items becasue we can't afford to run them

Trev we can't go back that far we would have to kill a whale for lamp oil.

Naughty, naughty.

[marki]

Originally Posted by iceman

I've deleted the trouble-making posts and re-opened the thread.

I'm as surprised as everyone that this has stayed as civil as it has

Pleasantly surprised!

If anyone comes in with an agenda of personal attacks and rubbish in an attempt to simply get the thread locked, will find themselves locked out.

First and last warning Richardda1st.

Thanks Mike the rest of us were having an amiable discussion and learning lots along the way.


Mark

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by marki

I did not lay claim to writing it if you read my post properly but yet it is still totally relevent.......wonder if that tells you something??? Oh and sobbing in public when the going gets tough thats another goody instituted by Sob Squawk, just wait till they try and pull that one........oops that was last night . Just to make it clear I do not support any political party they are all as corruptable as each other. No doubt if Abbot and Co was in power the same anouncement would be made only from a set of budgie smugglers competing in a triathlon at the beach. These thorium based reactors sound good though don't they.



Mark

I didn't say you tried to claim you wrote it, nor that you recycled it, just that it is recycled ad nausium. Frankly I can't see the relevance, it simply repeats the myth that one of the majors is a better manager than the other. I don't recall that at all. Apart from that, both of them bring in new taxes and both lie through their teeth in election campaigns.

[richardda1st (Richard)]

Well Mike, please remove me from Iceinspace. I’m sure that CRAP such as this (below) is not going to stop. This and plenty more do not comply with your TOS

FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

Julia is the shepherd I did not want.

She leadeth me beside the still factories.
She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.
She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.
She has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.
And I will live in a rented home forever.
I am glad I am Australian.
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog
And Julia a tree!

Cheers
Richard


PS I can give you my word that I will not return under a different name.
Maybe when it’s too cloudy I may visit as a guest.

[marki]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

it simply repeats the myth that one of the majors is a better manager than the other. I don't recall that at all.

Right now Labour is making bad decisions so I am dissing them more than the other mob, to me it is entirely relevent. When the winds change I will find something to have a crack at the other mob. As I said I have no great love of either party. Now how about those thorium reactors hey, could be the solution to a nagging problem


Mark

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Yes my tax is going up, after it went down with the libs. Everything is around the wrong way.

Same here. Tax up. Health care rebate down. Not old enough to retire tax free.

Just heard on ABC news that forests currently absorb 2/3rd of our emissions a year. This is more than was previously thought. I don't have a source I just saw the announcer on ABC tell me. Aunty is hardly ever wrong.

I think they said 1/3rd on AM.

[marki]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Well Mike, please remove me from Iceinspace. I’m sure that CRAP such as this (below) is not going to stop. This and plenty more do not comply with your TOS

FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

Cheers
Richard

There you go I removed it from the original post for you. It was posted tongue in cheek and i did not expect anyone to take it seriously.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by iceman

I've deleted the trouble-making posts and re-opened the thread.

Mike ! Bravo !

[Peter Ward]

Base load power has been a point of discussion around my dinner table tonight....and I should add my son works for a major media company....and is a cynic (don't know where he gets that from ) ...anyway he had a very interesting insight...

"Dad, if the Thorioum cycle is as good as you (or they) say it is, alot of groups lose relevance...the Greens can't say "no nukes" , it's cheaper than coal ($2.00 per kw vs $2.20 ) which will really annoy them, and a veiled taxation case is hard to justify..." Vested interest will lose!

From the mouths of babes....

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

There you go I removed it from the original post for you. It was posted tongue in cheek and i did not expect anyone to take it seriously.

Mark

I wouldn't have bothered, Mark.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter

"Dad, if the Thorioum cycle is as good as you (or they) say it is, alot of groups lose

I've started reading a bit on this and would ask another question.
If its so good, why isnt it being "actively" implemented/promoted
around the world, where the nuclear debate isnt as hot as here?
After all, the people who stand to make lots of money from it
wont care about the losers. ( Ain't capitalism great )

Also, when people talk nuclear energy "costs" in these debates
i can't tell whether or not the "true" decomissoning costs
are built into the supply charges.
Irrespective of "safety whilst running", what is the real lifecycle cost
of these units. Ie Imagine a private company running a reactor
then when its life is up, going broke and leaving the cleanup to others.
That sort of business plan never happens , does it?

Andrew

[gregbradley]

I have a degree in Business Studies. Believe me when I say economists know very very little. The proof is obvious. If economics were in fact a developed true subject then of course we would have abundance and we would all be flourishing in a prosperous society and money would not really be too much of an issue. Is that the case?

I remember a lecturer one day in Economics 11 doing this complicated graph on the blackboard with lots of lines on it and he snaps the chalk on one spot where some lines intersected and he says "and THERE is optimum growth".

The newspapers at the time were complaining all about how bad the economy was.

I decided then these guys actually know very little about the true subject at all and they are in the category of pretenders.

Very often subjects are taught as if it were fact and true and are in fact quite incorrect and based on false assumptions and incorrect basics.

Remember Keatings famous "J curve" and the "recession we had to have" - that's how bad it gets when people pretend knowledge on a subject which is not based on the true basics. He was the world's best Economist by his own admission!

We had a 5 year severe recession many times worse than the worlds average back in the early 90's when many people lost their businesses and homes due to an incorrect subject. There was no "J" curve (a dip followed by a bounce up), only a down.

Taxes are always inhibiting, they never enhance. I reject any argument that a tax is economically sound - that ignores basics where taxes only ever inhibit. Economics to be sound requires production and requires activity and exchange of products and money and that requires inniative and incentive. Taxes only ever inhibit that. Talk to anyone about why they don't work 2 jobs, because the tax system says no don't do that. Taxation is perhaps a necessary evil in Western worlds where people want hot and cold running governments to take responsibility for their own lives. A certain amount of Government is clearly needed - defence for one, but I am of the opinion that the smallest governement possible is the best scenario. Others may think otherwise but you only have to see some Govt programs to realise just how inefficient any government is in getting a job done. Private enterprise has always been more efficient in getting a job done for far less cost. But not everything can be run for money only, there has to be a social conscience. Whether taxation is based on income (production inhibiting) or sales (consumption inhibiting but not production inhibiting) is another issue.

You know in the very early 1900's there was no income tax.When it was introduced it was 1%. There's a measure of how much we "need" a large government and how it has grown over the years.

On a less controversial note, I have a question about the Carbon Tax. There hasn't been (at least that I have seen) talk about how much money it is expected to raise and the accounting for where that money goes. I know a substantial slice is used for compensation of low income earners but what about the other $25 billion or so? Also what is the cost of administering this? I imagine it will take possibly 10,000 government workers to administer and cost business millions in extra accounting costs. That will take a large bite out of its effectiveness - yes? Will it create a black carbon economy also for the cheaters?

One argument for the carbon tax is at least somebody is doing something about the environmental issue. Whether or not it is the best is the point of controversy as most Aussies are very environmentally in tune. Especially given the Aboriginal heritage of this nation who are by far and away the best environmentalists of all time.

Greg.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Many of you will have already read the report I am sure, so sorry all you anti carbon tax guys but the vast majority of economists think the currenly proposed Carbon Pricing system is sound economics and in fact good policy ...even more say the opositions direct action system is inferior and will not work ...so, if we change governments we would have a much worse system ...yet it is clear people would vote for them now because of the fears and inacuracies being pushed on them by those with little clue or who are missing the point. I think the whole confussion is a good example of how missguided adversarial politically biased opinions can make such a mess of what should be a very simple transition to good policy, that nobody will really notice as it is introduced but will be the start of a fantastic, over due, change in approach.

Bring on the Carbon Price

Was that too obvious?

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I have a degree in Business Studies. Believe me when I say economists know very very little. The proof is obvious. If economics were in fact a developed true subject then of course we would have abundance and we would all be flourishing in a prosperous society and money would not really be too much of an issue. Is that the case?

Greg.

Well said. Particularly as the governments chief "climate scientist" is an economist and probably of the same standard as mentioned in the quote.

Barry

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Gday Peter



I've started reading a bit on this and would ask another question.
If its so good, why isnt it being "actively" implemented/promoted
around the world,....

Andrew

The "traditional" nuclear industry (read: capitalist) has nothing to gain from using a Thorium cycle. They would lose significant revenue in charging for reactor cost, fuel supply and decomissioning costs.

There is a great web page here: http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/

As for it being actively promoted...well surprise surprise, China is implementing thorium based power as we fiddle about in Oz.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html

[Jeffkop (Jeff)]

Thanks for the continuation of this thread Mike ... I was really dissapointed when it was closed, especially with IceInSpace for some reason. I couldnt believe that someone would be THAT childishly selfish and then the rest of the people have to suffer. This topic IS HOT. Its what the entire country is talking about in some form or other and whilst to put it in Richard the Thirds voice, Im a right wing nutter, I am also not a closed book and was enjoying the reponses and opinions put forward by my lefty friends here as well. Maybe this is saying more about me then anything else, but until I read about Thorium in this thread I didnt know anything about it ... how valuable that information may or may not be is in the hands of time, but for now this instant, it enhances the knowledge I have.

Its very obvious we have people from either political persuasion here and this topic is difficult to have perhaps without ones bias coming to the front. So I commend the mods for allowing the thread to continue in light of this and also for restarting it. Most posters bring an intellegence and information,(something that the mods obviously noticed) Greg Bradleys last post about economists being a fine example of what Im talking about IMO.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

The only thing I truely wish is for everyone to be truely openminded I have seen evidence of stubborn unwillingness to consider any idea but what people believe if people are not willing to consider new idea's they may as well stay out of the debate because they are wasting their and anyone else's time. Some people can't or won't look past the surface. I understand that it is easier to be a cynic about what is being done but that just stunts debate and does not foward understanding of the complexities of the debate

[Peter Ward]

More of China's energy plans here

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/qu...rium-plan.html

and India (!)

http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Well Mike, please remove me from Iceinspace. I’m sure that CRAP such as this (below) is not going to stop. This and plenty more do not comply with your TOS

FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

Julia is the shepherd I did not want.

She leadeth me beside the still factories.
She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.
She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.
She has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.
And I will live in a rented home forever.
I am glad I am Australian.
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog
And Julia a tree!

Cheers
Richard


PS I can give you my word that I will not return under a different name.
Maybe when it’s too cloudy I may visit as a guest.

Good one Richard .... Love it .... well done

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Interesting assessment Greg, I like your thoughfull apraisals on things not just this one but camera's, filters, everything, you are a good bloke

I'm not going to argue with what you have said but just comment two things.

I have a degree in Business Studies. Believe me when I say economists know very very little.

Here in lies the proplem.. when one group comes out in support there is another group who claim the first group knows nothing simply becasue it contradicts their line. I mean regardless of what The Abbott says about this telling revelation, the Liberal Party utilise many economists, both amongs their ranks and to help design their policy, so economists are clearly not a useless tool...when the vast majority of them think the current carbon pricing scheme is a good idea and good policy and significantly better than the Liberal alternative - well, it does mean something.

taxes only ever inhibit.

And that's what the inention is here, to inibit the production of CO2

That's all

..great 6188 by the way

Mike

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter

The "traditional" nuclear industry (read: capitalist) has nothing to gain from using a Thorium cycle. They would lose significant revenue in charging for reactor cost, fuel supply and decomissioning costs.

Understood, ( but i still doubt if they have built in decomissioning costs ).
My point is that with "new" venture capitalists out to make a dollar,
setting up new gen reactors and "crowing" about how good they are
to get a return on investment is all thats needed,
so why aren't they doing it.

As for it being actively promoted...well surprise surprise, China is implementing thorium based power as we fiddle about in Oz.

Not a fair comparison. They appear to be building every type of power generation facility they can at the fastest rate they can go.
Perhaps they realised the geeks were no good making dams,
so got them onto thorium reactors to see what happens :-)

Andrew

PS Thks for the links.