U R the Australian Govt - $15.5b is about 2 b handed 2 u - what do u do with it?

[see_change]

My outlook ain't good.

My almost 80yo father has just recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and my Mum appears to be developing dementia.

Dad at least has adjusted his lifestyle and lost weight- there's not a lot Mum can do.

Geoff

There are medications that can be quite effective for Dementia now. On Authority listings . They do help .

http://www.alzheimers.org.au/content.cfm?infopageid=2018

( That's a good link - Must admit the standard of medical sites has improved a lot since I first started looking a couple of years ago )

Biggest problem is getting the person who's affected to accept there's a problem.

See Change

 

[geoffw]

Thanks Seech.

My mum does admit there's a problem. She has been getting traatment.

I'm not sure if she knows of some of the things which have been mentioned.

I could ask her but I'm not sure if she would remember. (Sorry- I didn't measn that in any bad way).

 

[stretchy]

I'd spend most of the money on infrastructure to both open up the country and encourage private industry to open up the interior of this country more and make it far more productive.

A great big pipeline irrigation system coming down from the Ord River (one of the Charlie Court ideas that unfortunately didn't eventuate). His iron ore mining and oil and gas initiatives are holding country together at the moment.

Open up the entire interior of the country for further mining and oil exploration to really get this country on it's feet, and commence a proper industrial base, instead of all of these useless paper shuffling and image central tertiary industries.

I'm not sure why you view tertiary (which I assume is the same as the services sector) as useless. Manufacturing isnt exactly a growth industry these days - driven by razor-thin profit margins and countries that have a huge wage advantage compared to Australia. That money could be used to create a real entrepreneurial spirit and give R&D a huge push - the kind of advantage this country could milk for years to come.

I wish this country spend more time developing useful service industries (IT, finance, bio-tech...) rather than being content with 'best sporting nation' as our only worldwide claim to fame. Our values seem to be a little misplaced..

(yes I am biased, working in that most paper-shuffling and image central industry, IT )

 

[Dazz]

Manufacturing isnt exactly a growth industry these days - driven by razor-thin profit margins and countries that have a huge wage advantage compared to Australia.

Hi Stretchy,

Oh, I dunno. The Japanese and German steel mills seem to do OK, and I gather both nations have pretty decent standard of living.

I tell ya, when you are standing on the Burrup Peninsula and see the massive iron ore carriers, along with the massive LNG carriers, all lined up and ready to go on their very long voyage up to Japan, you sometimes scratch you head and think, now why don't we as a nation just plonk a whopping great steel mill right here (steel being in quite some demand around the world) and do all of the value adding right here, rather than exporting raw product and purchasing it all back at highly inflated prices.

I asked this question to several people, including the Mine Manager's at Mt Whaleback, Tom Price and Robe River, along with the Woodside head knob up there at their processing facilities on a School of Mines tour back in '91.

All four of them simply said "good question - we don't know either, I think that's up to the chaps in Canberra."

I know Charlie Court had the iron ore back in the 50's, and tried to get together with Joe over in Queensland who had the coal supplies, and build a great big railroad across the nation to fuel the steelworks....(this was before the oil and gas reserves were discovered right at the doorstep of the iron ore deposits). Would've opened up western Qld, the entire NT and the interior of WA just nicely.

Political disagreements over "control" at the Federal level killed the deal stone dead.....fantastic. Two industrial visionaries literally stopped dead in their tracks by higher intellectuals placing a dead hand on the deal who knew better....remembering of course this was only 10 or 15 years after WW2.

Anyway....far too many IT folk on this site to convince anyone otherwise. You have the weight of numbers as they say in Parliament.

 

[stretchy]

Dazzling,

I used to think like that as well - however my newfound interest in economics has changed my mind recently. Put it simply, if it were such a good idea to base the steel mills here, someone would have already done it. I dont know the full history but BHP's iron-brick plant was an absolute disaster for the company.

Of course, you can say the government should encourage the companies to invest, but if a concept is so uneconomical that it needs government subsidies to be profitable, then its really not worth doing..?

I'm a firm believer in the power of free markets, and unless something is artifically restricting the possiblity of heavy industry in Australia (and its not my area of expertise so there very well could be) its probably simple economics that is preventing that kind of development.

 

[Dazz]

Put it simply, if it were such a good idea to base the steel mills here, someone would have already done it.

I agree, that is putting it way too simply.

Could very well see a flat broke economics lecturer thinking that way though.

 

[Meisterin]

Good Question, Tough Answers.


However they need to get the right advice and not some pie in the sky scheme that simply does not work.

Simple solutions are the best.


As washing machine water should be sent to the toilet cistern for reuse and save again a massive amount.

But the above willonly work when user pays comes into being.

Firstly, no connection fee. Thats a rip off.
2nd, Allow everyone based on thier family X litres at a base rate very low
3rd past that rate the cost per litre goes up significantly and then again past a very high level of use.


Peter 14.7

I totally agree Peter.

My mother uses rinse water from Kitchen to water her garden.

In Japan, where user pay system is in place, most people use their bath water(note that they only soak in tubs and not wash in the tub- I used to wash my big stuff like blankets with them as well in summer) to flush toilets and and for prewash in washing machine, and in shops they sell little motors that suck water from tubs into washing machine. Their houses are designed so that the tub very close to where you put washing machines.

Also design of the bathrooms/toilet/laundry/pipeline connection can be done better, so that we can actually recycle water.

For example, when I was in Japan, I used to use my bathwater to pour over my toilet with a bucket (nearly everday) and then use hot water from my shower over them so they dry very quickly. NO fuss, just quick clean without needinng to use all the detergents that I use here.

When I look at Australia, after having lived in cramped housing Japan, there is so many aspects, including lay out of house, design of utencils, electric power line lay out, that can be improved to save water & energy.

 

[Andrew_A]

I agree, that is putting it way too simply.

Could very well see a flat broke economics lecturer thinking that way though.

Lol! Exactly.

Why don't have more value add factories here is a very interesting question and would like to know more about why that isn't the case.

 

[topcropper]

Lol! Exactly.

Why don't have more value add factories here is a very interesting question and would like to know more about why that isn't the case.

I know why!

It's because we have been too lucky. You know, 'The lucky country'. We just dig out of the ground or grow stuff and that's all we have ever needed to do for our exports.

Korea had nothing so they developed ship building. Japan had nothing, so they developed electronic industries, and so on. They really had no choice. We never needed anything else so we have no competitive industries now.

Some of the stuff being made in China now, like $100 DVD players, I doubt we could make the packaging cardboard boxes competitively here, let alone the DVD player.

Even the Yanks have a massive manufacturing industry. Global companies. Companies as diverse as the auto manufacturers, Boeing, Dell, Microsoft, Caterpillar, John Deere, Kellogs, Monsanto, Apple, Hewlett Pachard, Pfizer, General Electric.

And I'm not blameing anyone. This is just how the world works. It's globalisation. Everyone is doing what they are good at. There are some very simple and easy to understand reasons why we can grow food and dig minerals and energy out of the ground more efficiently than anywhere else in the world. Big wide open spaces and cheap land.

Lets hope we can continue doing it.

See ya's.

 

[MarkB]

You care about water (72%) and sustainable energy (65%) yet only 30% want a Nuclear Power Plant, and fewer still want to see Kyoto ratified (20%).

How does that work?

M

ps. I'm deliberately poking this ants nest with a stick.

pps. I know Nuclear isn't sustainable because uranium is a non-renewable resource, but it is a clean form of energy. Has it not occured to anyone that the increasing lack of water in Australia might be related to climate change? And that Kyoto is an agreement to counter that?

 

[Timmy]

A question for you all to ponder...

1kg of uranium can be used to produce the same amount of electricity as:

a) 2.5kg of coal
b) 25kg of coal
c) 250kg of coal
d) 2,500kg of coal
e) 25,000kg of coal
f) 250,000kg of coal
g) 2,500,000kg of coal

 

[Springtime]

My answer

h) 3,700,000 kg

 

[lizzie]

pps. I know Nuclear isn't sustainable because uranium is a non-renewable resource, but it is a clean form of energy.

and solar and wind are even cleaner ... no leftovers at all.

 

[Timmy]

Very clever Springtime. My answer was from an old chemistry textbook, so I knew it wouldn't be perfect. But I just wanted to demonstrate the concept.

 

[dave99]

Nuclear produces spent uranium and other radioactive byproducts which must then be buried. Also, the coolant water becomes hot and must be pumped out to a river or lake, and the hot water damages the existing plant and animal life.

Not saying that coal is any better, but nuclear is not really clean like solar or wind as mentioned above.

- Dave99

 

[stretchy]

I agree, that is putting it way too simply.

Could very well see a flat broke economics lecturer thinking that way though.

Then explain why you think it is too simple. Those flat-broke economic lecturers most probably taught the very people making decisons like 'should we build a steel mill in Australia'. Whether they were right or wrong is another discussion entirely, but if you think Australia can support a large manufacturing base and be competitive on a global scale without massive government subsidies, then at least try to justify your reasons.

 

[topcropper]

and solar and wind are even cleaner ... no leftovers at all.

Ahrmm,... Lizzie,....

What do we do when the sun aint shining and the wind aint blown?????

They certainly are clean!

We all got to get serious here. You only need half a brain to realise that wind and solar isn't no solution to our energy problem. They are only ever going to help, that's all.

See ya's.

 

[units4me]

We will always need coal or nuclear for base load power. Wind and solar are really only supplimentary. Wind turbines only work 30-40% of the time and solar on a cloudy day??
I think that we will end up with clean coal technology improving efficiency of our power stations.
Kyoto- should include all nations if it is to be taken seriously.

 

[Nicholas H]

My understanding (which is very limited) is that you could generate enougth power with solar, but lack the ability to store it (of course not counting the economically cost). The lack of being able to store large amount of power is a big stumbling block, so you need to have plants that can generate power 24/7. It would be good if they could try to fund more methods of handling this. The only way I understand that you can currently store power is with a chemical process (eg batteries) and pumping water to a higher level to run through a turbine (hydro).

I think I would prefer the govenment to fund more business with the ideas out of csiro.

 

[Andrew_A]

My understanding (which is very limited) is that you could generate enougth power with solar, but lack the ability to store it (of course not counting the economically cost). The lack of being able to store large amount of power is a big stumbling block, so you need to have plants that can generate power 24/7. It would be good if they could try to fund more methods of handling this. The only way I understand that you can currently store power is with a chemical process (eg batteries) and pumping water to a higher level to run through a turbine (hydro).

I think I would prefer the govenment to fund more business with the ideas out of csiro.

My understanding is there is no alternative to oil presently. Which is really an amazing thought when you ponder it. It's a given with the Gen Y's and people in general actually I mention this topic to that technology will save us energy wise. Indeed it might but if you carve through the rhetoric and examine the reality then I find it quite disconcerting that there isn't a credible plan B yet; according to people who should know what they are talking about such as Samsam Bakhtiari when he spoke to the Aus senate recently.

Nuclear appears to be the best solution presently to buy us some time to develop some better solutions. Heres hoping.

Some books that I have recently read about PO.

'The Long Emergency' A well written look at what might be a 'bad case' if not 'worst case' scenario for the future. Also a comprehensive summary of all alternate energy sources at the moment, and why they all fall well short unfortunately.
'1000 Barrels a second' An easy to read summary of the facts followed by what I thought was a very strange forecast for the future, sort of like the author did his research for the first part of the book excellently and then wrote about what he wishes will happen with the world to finish, strange.
'Twilight In The Desert' Techical summary's of Saudi wells and oil production in general, yes they do appear to be lying to the world about meeting global demand through 2050, the cads.
'How to Grow Your Own Vegetables' Actually this is a book I might get out soon

Half left is still an awful lot of oil. Even if you are totally ignorant of this problem I can see at least 5-10 years and possibly longer in the future where there might be few visible signs of the iceberg looming in our cruise ships path. I think the main points will be how steep the declines of supply will be, falling off a cliff will be presumably much worse than a long and gradual decline. There will inevitably be massive dislocation and pain caused, just a question of how bad it will be I think. If you have a look at the transition from coal to oil (which was a vastly superior alternative) and the amount of time that took then you begin to understand the scale of problem we are facing with the decline of fossil fuels.