Greenhouse Gases

It's bunkem.
AND solar panels use a huge amount of energy to make, which takes many many years to break even.
How do you think we'd cope then after a cloudy spell, at night and in winter. Total mythology.
Nuclear is our only hope, IF we don't want to return to the way we lived in the nineteenth century.... and to do that we'd need to reduce our population by 50% or more or we'd starve!

==Nuclear is our only hope,......==

It's bunkem.

Andrew

Flash, i still don't understand where people get these emotive comments like yours on living in the 19th century. Look at the facts from both sides and what we can do about the problem now and you'll see there's no need to get irrational. By the way coal is 19th century, renewables are 21st century.

Barnesy,
(Late reply...)
Not emotive.
Just realistic.
I'm all for renewables... and nuclear, as without them both we're history.
I'm an electrical engineer btw and have a pretty fair iea of what's possible versus impossible.
Lot's and lot's of stuff the greenies rave on about is so far out of the realms of possible and so far into fantasy that I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
I do have four children, AND grandchildren, and do want them to have a future.
However I am a realist and don't want to stuff their future because of "pie in the sky" plans made now which just won't work.
Simple really.
Cheers

Wim, I am with you on the geothermal. Not many here would know they actually may have travelled over the area where the Australian trials are being conducted. We had a trip up the Strz Track interrupted a couple of years back by the rig movement. Nearly got to investing too.

The current solar and wind technologies just can't handle base load power that geothermal, coal, and nuclear can. We have seen in the past that barnsey has an axe to grind on these issues and some governments.

All the talk in Victoria about the 'homes that will be powered' by new wind generators are average homes. No industry. I have asked so I have a reference how many farms or factories the wind towers would power. No knowledge, just standard homes. If the wind towers go up to supply 20,000 homes, they employ people during the construction phase but after........???

No wind here at the moment so I can't type here or run the welder at the shed. LOL Need to cover the machinery shed with solar panels and turn it to the sun in 10 minutes.

You are right Willem, too many are ready to bash John Howard without knowing the full facts. There is also a rebate in place for domestic solar power.

The same people forget that Paul Keating put us through, the "recession that we had to have"!

Have heard many stories about people unable to afford solar for their homes. It seems like the rebates need to be better or solar needs to be cheaper. And why isn't solar cheaper? There are measures that can be taken to make it more affordable that the current government have dismissed.

Willem, part of Barnsey's political activism line to mislead on factual information.

Barnsey says above "Have heard many stories about people unable to afford solar for their homes. It seems like the rebates need to be better or solar needs to be cheaper" which is really saying despite the subsidy, it doesn't pay, or people can't justify it. Solar is impractical in may situations and like other energy sources it should be sited where it will get value. Certainly NOT just because of a subsidy to make people afford it. People all have a differing priorities. Just like Barnsey, couldn't accept the subsidy to join last week and put his money where his mouth is.

>Barnsey, couldn't accept the subsidy to join last week and put his money where his mouth is. You know me well do you JohnR? This is not the first post where you have made assumptions about me personally.

The fact is in 1996 the new Lib government cut funding for research into alternative energy sources. That research would be very handy now don't you think?

Yet the PM comes out and says he doesn't want any 'kneejerk' policies made. It's been an issue for 15 years, 10 of which he's been in charge, but tries to convince us not to make kneejerk reactions! He must think we're stupid.

If people can't see the environmental benefits of renewable energy sources then they need to rethink their ideas. Everybody can do simple things like using less electricity, having energy efficient light globes etc.

The 6th largest economy in the world, California, are working towards the goal to have about 1 million solar hot water heaters in homes within about 6 years i think the time frame is. If Australia boosts it's solar industry we could be supplying state of the art systems to other countries who will be going solar. If that government can come to the party why can't ours?

Barnesy

Casual observation Barnsey. You aren't a member, you didn't like to pay despite the subsidy, just the same way others don't take up a subsidy to put in the solar HWS because they don't pay their way without a greater one. I haven't called you a name, but I could have, so I haven't made that personal.

The other observation I made "personally" as you put it, is that you like to argue to have the last word over everyone. All down this post it is easy to see, you have argued points with everyone. You are right on one point, about the size of the Californian economy scale. It's wealth is huge in comparison to ours too and many shouldn't need subsidies to put in solar gear. They make token gestures as Muddy observed elsewhere, and get a Prius car to drive to the airport to get into personal jets. Celebs in their culture of public and private face indeed!

In my part of the world, we have some wind towers, quite frankly I am happy with them as long as they can pay their way, I have seen them elsewhere too, but their efficiency in South Australia as I understand is in the order of 11%. They only turn part time - be full time today, but many times not. I actually introduced farmers to one of the wind power companies in my area, but they couldn't make it pay - even with the MRET subsidies, even 8km from the coast on hills! Solar would hardly make a dent here as you need clearer skies, but it is never quoted to supply industry. Funny that, your home may be, but no base load power!

We are going to have a range of different power sources, in 25 years, solar may be a component but it needs action now if it is to make any difference. Kyoto was decades too late, so it as outlived it's usefulness. Why, because such a small portion of the world population of energy users is even agreeing with it, let along complying with the agreements made.

I have seen your arguments on nuclear which is already a large portion of France's electricity output, they sell power to neighbours, yet I have never seen a nuclear power station there that I have known of, in thousands of kilometres. I think you have little appreciation apart from the scares you have read of in the nuclear argument.

I say elsewhere that technologies companies like Geodynamics hopefully will show the way to future baseload power, but nuclear should be a component that is discussed and not just jumped on as a baseload component supplier.

So you want to make Australia less competitive as so many unions have done in the past bargaining for wage increases and now want to exclude Asian block labour of imports. Yes Barnsey, I make my observations of your arguments, and I reckon I have a pretty good observation of them too. I don't make it personal though!

Just another observation Barnsey. Few politicise their posts anywhere near as much as you do! Doing that will get you offside with all the people who would rather discuss issues amicably.

I enjoy debates JohnR and like hearing other people's view points, it gets me thinking if people disagree with me. If I say something that's not 100% correct i find out about it early on.

Like it or not but these issues are incredibly politicised already. This nuclear task force whose report was released in the last few days was stacked with people from the industry. Why? Because nuclear is what the current PM wants. Are they going to say nuclear is the wrong way to go?

It affects everyone and to ignore the politics of an issue is ignoring the issue altogether. I'm thankful to live in a country where we can debate politics and not get arrested etc.

May discussion continue Barnsey, but to politicise issues in this forum will destroy it as will discussion of politics. It is important to be informed without being emotive.

This would seem to me to be a very significant claim by the CSIRO (if they actually made it) and not the sort of thing which is casually mentioned on a TV programme without a _very_ significant amount of prior research and a number of papers being peer reviewed and published upon the subject before such a specific claim is made.

Such a statement is not an easy thing to search for but I have searched the CSIRO website to no avail.

Mike Harding

Are they called batteries.....that technology has been around for a while IIRC.

Andrew

That was on TV this morning- A uni is developing it though, not CSIRO. Uses solar power (not electricity) to extract hydrogen from salt water, thus it can be transported easily, ingredients are immediately available in large quantities and its sustainable.

Quote from the website:
----------------
Narration: Given the right incentives, Australia’s solar scientists are confident that, in 25 years from now, the solar future will have arrived.

Dave Holland: In 25 years time it is our mission to have our technology as one of the key ingredients in electricity production worldwide.

Mr Wes Stein: I think in 25 years time that solar thermal is making a significant contribution to Australia’s energy mix. It would only require about 50 kilometre by 50 kilometre square, in the centre of Australia somewhere, to supply all of Australia’s electricity needs in 2020.

Dr Keith Lovegrove: I believe the technology is in place that we could have 100% renewable energy in just a very short number of decades if we set our minds to it.
----------------

This is not the CSIRO stating "Australia could be powered entirely by solar within 20 years". And it's, most certainly, not any kind of scientific analysis of the situation. If this is the only reference then the 20 year claim seems totally unsupported.

Mike Harding

This man works for the CSIRO and i think is a very credible claim. He is not the only one that makes that claim. It's a lot more credible than people who feel the need to knock alternative sources.

For example trapping co2 from coal stations and burying it underground has been an option put forward. From what i've seen it will be 25 years before we even know whether it works or not. Even if it does work the engineering involved will be enormous and extremely expensive.

Many complain about the cost of solar and other renewables, but what about the costs of the alternatives. Especially the alternative if we do nothing.

>This man works for the CSIRO

Lots of people work for the CSIRO but that does not entitle them to make unsubstantiated guesses about the future and call that CSIRO policy - which is, actually, not what he did, he was expressing a personal opinion - a guess.

To be able to state from a scientific basis and with proper supporting evidence that Oz could be totally renewable powered in 20 years would require _huge_ levels of analysis and would be headline news.

>and i think is a very credible claim.

You may think whatever you wish but you have no evidence to support such a wild thought process.

Making, frankly rather silly, claims and saying they are supported by the CSIRO does much more harm than good to your argument. Stick with supportable facts and people will give you more credibility.

Science is not guess work.

Mike Harding

Actually, Mike, science IS predominantly guess work (albeit usually fairly educated guesswork). One of the basic principles of scientific endeavour is (reductionist) analysis followed by (falsifyable) hypotheses (essentially guesses) which are then tested. One of the great misconceptions about science is that it is a search for the truth. In fact it is a search for understanding. Business and politics understands this well and constantly uses it to their advantage (as, of course, do others) with syllogistic nonesense which frequently passes as "scientific proof).

Course, I could be wrong, I'm just guessing :-).

Cheers,

Mark

Please excuse the poor grammar and spelling, I'm a keyboard dyslexic.

Cheers,

Mark

Guess work? These are scientists working for and are spokesmen for the CSIRO. What else do you want? They are confident that it will only be a couple of decades before the solar world has arrived. IF we set our minds to it. That's the big thing, IF.

I don't think that wanting Australia to use an energy source that is infinitely renewable, produces no pollution and will still be relevant in thousands of years, and then quoting a very credible source is a "wild thought process".

Barnesy

Barnsey, I was simply correcting a statement by Mike, hopefully in a light hearted non-confrontational manner. I am probably far more in agreement with your views (though not always your logic) than most others in this post. Thing is, you're wasting your time presenting views to prove a point on forums like this unless you just want an argument (though I think this is why such discussions are popular on the net), as is everyone else. Passes the time though, eh?!

Just to make sure you realise I wasn't kidding, science is based upon guesswork, you think they prove something then arrive at the answer? How the hell would that work?

Cheers,

Mark

The CSIRO isn't what it used to be. (funding cutbacks in recent years took care of that - anyone want to argue that the CSIRO Diet is cutting edge science?) However I don't think Lovegrove's credentials can be dismissed as easily as that Mike. Do your homework and have a further look at who he is. Additionally, he was only one of a group of scientists in the discussion. And they weren't just discussing theory, they have operating pilot plants backing them up.
No Mike H, despite your constant harking for scientific proof, do you really understand what this means? This isn't something that is dealt with through peer moderated publications. That type of publication/proof is used in pure science. We are looking at technology development.
And what you haven't made clear- do you accept the findings of the Stern Report? (not that there is anything really new in it that the various Green groups haven't been telling us for around 40 years. All that is new is that the evidence which was once suspected, is now becoming overwhelming. And maybe Blair etc needed as a diversion from Iraq?? ) This is not the sort of climate cycles we have had in the past. This one is man made and developing much faster than originally forecast. No, itr won't be the ned of the world, but is sure as hell might be the end of the kind of world/lifestyle we have all come to take for granted if we don't take it seriously. As the Stern Report says, it will be expensive and disruptive to take steps now, but it will be a hell of a lot more expensive if we don't.
I think it was UNESCO last week who estimated that we are in the last few years in which action is possible, after which a self sustaining ecosystem won't be able to be recovered.

Just because the news-hounds haven't made solar alternatives headline news is hardly surprising. Just one of the problems with a free market ratings driven news system in a democracy- the kind of reason many of us want to protect the independence of the ABC.

I also find it interesting when I go back to the bush to see how many bush people seem to think that "something" really is changing. They seem more concerned about the tendency of the cities to then grab the resources for city use. Cynicism about climate change seems much more common amongst city weekend bushies than it is outback.

Silkwood, i was replying to Mike's response saying these are unstantiated guesses. Your reply i agree with that they are educated predictions. But like any prediction cannot be 100% accurate, how could they be?

As for this forum, i am on night shift and if spending an hour or two on the internet after trying to sleep during the day, and initiating forum threads like this can open the eyes of only one person than it's worth it. "The smallest good deed is better than the grandest intentions".

Barnesy

Barnsey, my apologies, I read you wrong. I am happy to be the first to point out my mistakes (though it's usually a hard task with Mike around!!) :-)

Cheers,

Mark

Does nuclear solve the problem? What about the other problems it causes when other sources are as good without problems. What about the cost of handling waste for 500 000 years?

James Lovelock thinks it will - and he knows a a damn site more about the ecology of this planet than most people:

Site Link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

Mike Harding

I live a metaphoric 'stones throw' from both coal fired power stations & logging areas.

My support would be 100% for nuclear power & to stop ripping the heart out of our forests.

BTW, I'm not even a greenie!

You don't have to "handle" the waste for 500,000 years, you just do what the French do and sweep it under the carpet into a massive shed, dunk it in some led water containers and keep pestering some other sucker (like Australia) to take it off your hands. :-) France have to be one of the largest per captia users of Nuclear power and they still only have "temporary" storage for the waste.

So ok, Nuclear absolutally could be a good bridging technology until we come up with something better, but we need to have real waste solutions, not pretend ones. Do you want the dump down the road from your place, or near your favourite camping spot? No body does, that's the problem, and until somebody creates real solutions for the safe permanant disposal of such waste that can operate on a gloval scale, I think it's a bad way to go. Hell read up on Russian nuclear subarines on the net, it'll scare the pants off you! ;-)

Give credit where credit is due. Also criticise where criticism is due. There is a lot more criticism than credit unfortunately.

But we need air conditioning, lots of street lighting, huge shopping malls, wide screen TVs, hair dryers, home cinema systems etc etc etc - not to mention factories using stacks of power to make much of this crap.

The people of New York use more energy simply commuting to and from work in one week than the whole of Africa uses in one year.

We get all moral over greenhouse gas (sexy name eh?) but how many of these moralisers (and we’ve seen a few on this forum recently) actually make significant changes to their own lives? Seems like we want to do away with pollution as long as it's easy or someone else is doing away with it for us.

Do those Africans _really_ need so many cooking fires I wonder...?

Mike Harding

Our 4wd club recently toured the power station at Port Augusta. It is fueled with coal that is brought from Leigh Creek by train.

The train does the trip once a day and brings 12,000 tonnes of coal each go. We were told that this train also uses 12,000 litres of diesel for each return trip. 1 litre of fuel for 1 tonne of coal. Imagine if it were transported by truck!!!

Big Bikkies when you talk power generation.

Cheers
Muddy

Is that the one which feeds the aluminium smelter? Smelting ally takes _huge_ amounts of power.

Thank you Muddy for pointing that out. That's just one station on one day.

Mike, aluminium has to save energy some time. It uses a tonne of black coal, more brown of course, to make a tonne of aluminium. Imagine trying to smelt it with solar, you would leave it in the ground.

It's a steel works, not aluminium smelter. The steelworks in Whyalla supplied all of the tracks for the Alice-Darwin railway. Yes they use coal. These are issues that need to be tackled and are no reason to abandon renewables for the rest of the country.

Why are you so scared about Johnny Losing? Kim wont be nearly as bad (for the whole nation) as Johnny. Look at what he has done, or not done in some cases...

Not signed Kyoto
Not looking forward for future generations
Not recognising global warming and refusing to do anything about it

Restructured industrial relations to screw workers and benefit employers
Widened the gap between workers and the rich

What has Kim done? Nothing. He has not had the chance!

TIME FOR A CHANGE, not only in politics but in the way people think and act.

NOT JUST SOME OF US BUT ALL OF US.

OK! So sign Kyoto (while India amd China don't) and expect YOUR standard of living to drop dramatically. YOUR income to reduce. YOUR costs for food through to your mortgage to rise. Energy (petrol, electricity, gas etc) will all cost much more. Thousands of jobs will go. Meanwhile China and India continue to expand their economies rapidly.....
That's why John Howard won't sign. It has to be everybody- Australia is really just a drop in the bucket, and destroying our economy to curb our greenhouse emissions just a little while other countries do the total opposite makes little sense.
I'm NOT saying there isn't a problem, I am saying there are better ways to fix it.

Without a healthy economy, nobody will have the money to become better enviromentally!!!!

Some seem to think Kim would be good for a change, but he has been a member in past governments that have had a poor history. Bomber Beasley was one past name as Defence Minister where he was not particularlyy well distinguished.

Kyoto was a flawed agreement that many Euro countries have failed to keep to any agreed maxima anyway. Keeping to a past level of consumption without significant change was a do nothing. As Flash said above, China, India, and many other developing countries were excluded and we were lumped with maximum user countries as we had supplied fossil fuel abroad to China and Japan.

As Willem said in another post, some people are running round with their dying chooks with heads off. This year in Australia is one like many previous but I have no doubt we need change.

sdr00y .... you have answered your own question. LMAO

What had Kim done ... nothing!

I might add, including not putting forward any viable policies.

That's an unfair sarcastic comment equinox.

Would you vote yourself out of a job?

sarcastic-yes, unfair-probably, as it is only 1 part of the problem.

Hard question Shaker. Guess it comes down to how much money I had in the bank, number of kids etc. Vote for yourself or vote for the environment. The way Jonny was pandering the coal workers last election makes me think that they all vote for themselves hence my comment about selfishness.

And coal workers are not the only selfish people either. Look at all the single mums etc pumping out babies for the money (just another example) or better still people who would vote for daylight saving because it suits them, not because it may be for the better or worse for the community.

As usual my opinion only.

bleep ing Liberals!

If the cost of solar hot water system is nearly 3 times as expensive as a normal one than how good are these government incentives?

Also the cost of the average house to buy now is about 29% of average weekly earnings even when rates were 17% it was only about 25% of wages. But thats irrelevant here.

I'm interested where you get my name calling from. I don't see anywhere in my post that isn't relevant and constructive. For example sea temperature are rising which will damage the barrier reef. I think thats very relevant to this site.

Maybe they cost 5 times as much to manufacture, did you think about that?

They do cost more to manufacture Shaker but how do you bring costs down for the companies? Increase sales. The current government has stubbornly refused to increase the mandatory renewables target or put in place a carbon tax.

Both of these proposals have been recommended by the governments own advisors but they have been dismissed as uneconomical, sorry unvotewinning. Both of these measures would have the effect of making solar more viable.

Barnesy

Hmmm ...... a carbon tax, maybe they could add it to fuel taxes, that would be a real vote winner!

I wonder how many advocates for solar power here drive inefficient vehicles, have wood heating at home & happily burn campfires?

As has been mentioned in this thread, the government (or "Little Johnny", as the lefties like to call him) has just announced that the largest solar power facility in the world will be built near Mildura.
Why do we expect them to subsidise our lives, if you want solar hot water ... pay for it, if you want a gas conversion ... pay for it, if you want a baby ... pay for it, if you haven't got a job ... get one!

A fact is Shaker that the average bloke on the street has little power in the direction his country takes when his country is driven by market forces. The big companies rule what happens. Each has their own plans and agendas to make profit.

When nation wide issues arise then it becomes the job of the sitting government to bring them all together to initiate change. With this cause the PM is very slow and reluctant to do this. Many business groups are coming together to work out what they can do to reduce their co2 emissions before the PM has!

This solar power farm is a good start but that's all it is, a start. The PM needs to get off of his bum and initiate something. Something as easy as following the advice he gets from his own advisors would be a good second step.

Self Centered, Arrogant, Blind, Inconsiderate, Short sighted (Liberals)

Beazley may not be your first choice as a political leader however he is not a George Bush puppet nor do I believe he is an ideological evil liar, like John Howard.

“People Don’t Be Coned

Interest rates

Children Overboard

Weapons of mass destruction

War on terror

The wheat board

Attack on workers rights”

Lets look at these one by one,
Interest Rates,
I was a person that had two mortgages when interest rates where 17% this was certainly hard at the time but I would be much better paying 17% on a mortgage of $50k then what the Howard government has created being a con that interest rates are low at 8% I would rather pay 17% on $50k then 8% on $300k this is what our kids will have to pay. So the interest rate debate that was run by Howard was a con and preyed on the venerable.

Children Overboard,
This was one of the greatest cons and lies that this country has ever seen where a political party blatantly lied and used this issue to be re-elected as the investigation showed. Howard had been advised that there had been no such incident, but did not reveal this until after the election because it did not suit the political climate at the time.

Weapons of mass destruction,
this is the reason we so called needed to invade Iraq to liberate them with our so called democracy despite all the hype and panic created around the world these weapons did not exist. We have since found out that our political leaders including John Howard where advised as this prior so the invasion this is once again a con, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terror has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it is all about the US Oil supply of which John Howard has been a political puppet of George Bush.

War on Terror,
although I do not support terrism or wars in any way shape or form when you have the US manipulating and supply weapons to middle eastern countries in the world is anyone surprised that some of these countries or organizations may want to fight back? What happened with 9/11 and was linked to Alkida has nothing to do with Iraq they are two separate identities but despite this John Howard has once again prostituted our countries values to satisfy George Bush’s agenda.

The wheat board,
It is clear that this government was involved in the wheat board scandal and must take responsibility for this.

Attack on workers rights,
The worst choices legislations are the most openly unbalanced legislation this country has ever seen and takes away from current workers and our kids the very foundations that we have built our wealth and lifestyle on in this country which has always been about a far go for all. This legislation gives the capital in our country all of the power.

So we can go back on history as much as we like and we can call politicians all the names under the sun but from my assessment Australia has changed dramatically and the person that is responsible for that is John Howard.

His government has been proven time and time again to be ruthless and will do whatever they have to do to stay in power including hipping up the terror argument, manipulate oil prices change media laws so he can control what is in the media, so I will repeat my initial advice.

Think About It People Don’t Be Coned Vote This Howard Government Out

For Our Kids Sake

Thanks

BBB

That's exactly what I was thinking BBB but didn't want to get too political. Just a couple of points. I don't think the government was involved in the AWB scandal but they definitely covered it up after they found out about it. They first knew about it 6 months or so before an election. Sound convenient? Sound like a pattern in behaviour just before elections?

You also forgot to mention the 50 million dollars they spent on advertising for the new IR laws. About 90% of those pamphlets are still sitting in storage. What a blatant waste of money that was spent before the legislation even got to parliament. Seemed like a political stunt, using tax payers money, again just before an election.

You also forgot telstra. Once Australia'a biggest and best company, now it's a rabble and a joke because of what they've done. And they were warned too.

They are not as good a government as they say they are, but they are excellent salesman, can talk their way out of most tricky situations and know how to influence people's thinking.

Barnesy

Interest rates - 8% is still lower than 17% no matter how you look at it. It is not the Federal Governments fault that mortgages have gone up so you cannot blame this one on them.

Children Overboard - who cares? I'll vouch that the media did not tell the truth either...gee who'd have thought?

Some of the other stuff is correct but really who wants Bumbling Beasley and his Union puppets in control?

Dont be conned.

Off Track

Very Sad

It's easy to state the mistakes or policies you dont like of the government in power because you will never know what the opposition would have done wrong if they were in power. How would Labour have done any better?

BTW dont say it's sad because it is just your political opinion, and one that most of Aust disagrees with (on the whole).

Just one small point Off track. The GST has increased house prices by 10%. If the cost of a building a house is $300 000, that's $30k in tax, simply gone. That would add about 2-4 years onto the mortgage. Add that onto the 8% interest rate and then say they don't have anything to do with housing prices.

You take the WA mining boom out of the economy and all of a sudden their economics wouldn't look as good.

Barnesy

I think you are wasting your time.

“Interest rates - 8% is still lower than 17% no matter how you look at it." (Off Track)

Incredibly Naive statement.

"Children Overboard - who cares? I'll vouch that the media did not tell the truth either...gee who'd have thought?"(Off Track)

Inhumane

Who do the media own and control The Liberal Party. The goverment (JH) payed them back with the new Media laws last Month.

"Some of the other stuff is correct but really who wants Bumbling Beasley and his Union puppets in control?"
(Off Track)

Dome down the population and a government can do what they like. I wonder what society would look like today if we did not have Unions.

Save Your Energy

BBB

Barnesy, you seem to forget that sales tax has always been there so no the GST did not raise the cost of housing by 10%.

BBB, please explain why a mathematically correct statement about interests rates is naive? Housing costs have gone up for a great number of reasons but not the least of which is because State Governments and councils have not released enough land to build houses. This has resulted in demand outstripping supply which means it has driven prices up. Skilled workforce shortage has also done its damage to the hip pocket.

"Dome down the population..." ROFL. But anyway yes unions have certainly been the workers friend in history but they arent always about the workers. There had to be some reform and only time will tell if AWA's are the balanced solution. Not everyone was a winner before and not everyone will be now. Labour fans will espouse the negatives and Liberal fans will do the opposite.

I'm not in the Liberal or Labour fanclub but I vote for who I think will do a better job, at least on the whole (none are perfect). It appears that BBB and Barnesy are long time Lib haters and will never say anything good about them.

You forgot to mention the biggest scam of all, GST.

I was earning $50k at the time, I received an aditional $22 or somthing per week when the GST came into play. You don't think your paying $22 a week in GST each week?? I know I'm not better off.

Oo, oh, the other good one, there will be NO taxes on taxes........... Unless it's the state government or fuel or smokes or alcohol, stamp duty, rates, levis... Oh hang on, is that somthing sliding up my ass crack, oh it' s Johny again!

Barnsey, that is ludicrous staement to say that GST has increased house prices by 10%, have you forgotten the old "wholesale sales tax" that Paul Keating was referring to, when he famously said "we will not touch wholesale taxes", then promptly increased then from 12.5% to 15% as soonas he was re-elected.
If my memory serves me correctly, that tax was dropped when the GST was introduced.

How soon some forget!

I used to calculate sales tax everyday (ran a retail store) and yes it was 22% on computer goods, but that was 22% on WHOLESALE price, not on retail. ie say you make 100% markup on a computer cable instead of paying 22% on $5 you pay 10% on $10, not a lot of difference there, but most things were far less than 22% and other things had no tax at all. Removing the sales tax and replacing it with 10% GST was not any advantage, we were still paying more, way more at the end of the day. But it's done now, can't change it....

The estimate of New Zealand’s obligation at 30 June 2006 is $NZ656 million.
www.treasury.govt.nz/kyotoliability/

Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, tonga, iraq, hardly seem like world powers do they. The US would probaly produce far more pollution than all of these countries put together.

So you don't think that solar will be a major aspect of oz's electricity production in the long term? I'm sorry Kiwi but you need to provide a better example than an outback town of only a few people before i'm convinced otherwise.

The French had a huge solar heating station in the Sahara - not used any more
The Americans have had several large scale solar heating experiments - nothing comercial. There are also many others.

Birdsville was a good place to try solar as the premium fuel it was competing against was not cheap as compared to hydro, natural gas etc.

Barnsey, if you want to push your argument then DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST. Solar heat plants in many differnt forms have been tried with HUGE state funding and have not been successful for many reasons when competing with our present generating systems. If the state doubles the present cost of electricity just to force people to use some form of solar then it may just become viable. As for global warming there is no firm evidence that this is being caused by man, it has happened many times in the past due to natural cyclic causes. The mid-1940's were long known as the long summer years. And by the way, I have been very close to a couple of nuclear generators (1 comercial and one shipboard) and I do not glow in the dark

I think you have provided your own answer Kia. We certainly will have to spend more on our power now to get it clean. It is undoubtedly true, coal power is cheaper for the consumer at the moment. So what? That isn't what the debate is about. That is why carbon trading is on the agenda so that the long term costs of coal power can be factored in. As the Stern Report points out, the extra costs we are going to have to spend now are going to be peanuts compared to the cost of trying to clean this up a couple of decades further down the track.
Your statements about Birdsville ?? Hydro? Birdsville? You have to be joking? Birdsville went geothermal when that became available because it is on the artesian basin which is the cheapest option given where it is. I was in Birdsville a few weeks ago and discussing the geothermal plant with locals and they say that plant is having problems as well and is about to need a lot of $ spent on it.
"As for global warming there is no firm evidence that this is being caused by man, it has happened many times in the past due to natural cyclic causes." Again, you have to be joking. It is difficult to know what you would accept as evidence in this case, unless you the sort of person who claims there is no firm evidence for evolution, in which case I think we are conducting this discussion in the wrong forum.

Kiwi,

>"No firm evidence that global warming is being caused by man".

And you say that I need to do my research first.

You are obviously not a person who has studied any science or geology so I will not be continueing this 'debate'

That's true motherhen, most of those who disagree argue about short term financial costs in terms of dollars. They should really be looking at wider views and the big, long term picture.

With a poorer environment means poorer everything. Think of the financial loss involved with no barrier reef as only one example. There are many other examples that make having to change a few things seem like pittance.

Barnesy

Motherhen
people already are whingin about the towers and large fans on their skyline ruining the veiws,people are like that, do a controlled burn so the bush fires don't come and burn their house down and they complain about the smoke.

It won't be on DVD yet Bilbo. Is in an excellent film. He was vice Pres to Clinton, lost the 2000 election under dodgy circumstances to Bush. I sometimes think about how different the world would be if he'd won that election rather than Bush.

Gore had been fighting for reduction in greenhouse gases within the US government for decades. He had a Professor at uni back 35 years ago who was talking about climate change relating to co2 and how it will be a major issue in decades to come, seems like he was right. Only now since Gore has left politics does his message go international.

Barnesy

Thanks but I didn't learn anything new that I didn't already know with those links Doug. It seems you agree that co2 causes global warming. Do you also agree that man releases huge amounts of co2 into the atmosphere? When ice melts it will release this methane, whether we like it or not. We also can't stop volcanoes.

But one thing we can do is to reduce the mount of co2 we release, it is possible to acheive this.

And yes I really think that solar can power all of Australia's needs if a concerted effort is made to develop it. Finally, my brain is working fine and want to keep it I'm afraid.

Barnesy

If you feel so strongly about it, you could always walk to work, you don't even need our tax money for that!

There is always resistance to change Shaker. Keep your ears open as this issue won't go away. When you say 'our' tax money, i pay tax too and would rather it be spent on this issue rather than other wasted projects the PM has.

How much does he waste on advertising for example? Take all of the money he's wasted on this and the Iraq war and put it towards solar development. There wouldn't be a debate at all because it would be well on it's way to being reality.

I suppose all that would make a big change, maybe the Americans should have stayed home & developed solar power in 1942, that would certainly have made the world a different place, in fact you may have been Barnesy San with a solar hot water service!!

Shaker
Yeh that would have been a good idea if the Americans stayed home . what a load of BS that dribble is, So who do you thonk was going to Help our poor bloodied Aussie soldiers Kododa Track , Our boys would not have stopped the Japs there or any where in the Pacific had it not been for the help and massive loss of life by the US Marines, I had 2 Uncles who fought in the Islands and my Farther was due to go as well if the War had not stopped when it did, Yeh Shaker we would be under Jap rule if we were lucky to have lived, .
Now Barnesy
your going on with a lot of crap too,all these protesters and greenies and do gooders all screaming for the sake of climate change, the governments using the Issue for political point scoring , well let me tell you Humans might be contributing to a teenie weenie little bit of polution but what we do is so minute compared to what can happen and is happening and will happen by natural causes , You and many others are getting swept up into believing this BS , Now I'm not saying the climate is changing ,yes it is and has been for 1000s of years ,Damn it you should have seen the program on the ABC Sunday night about about the many climate changes for Europe over the last 300 million years and it will continue to do so long after all human life has gone, and as sure as the sun rises in the East thats going to occur,Have a look on the web about Idonesian Volcanoes,South American Volcanoes, North American Volcanoes, Russian Volcanoes,Mexican Volcanoes, etc and etc and that should amount to over 1000 and they're all spewing out Co2 ,Sulphur,
then check out what these ancient Impacts caused look up on the web . Chicxulub,Eltanin event , one of those named caused world wide fires, QUOTE:
[ it has been estimated that ten trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), one-hundred billion tons of methane (CH4), and one trillion tons of carbon monoxide (CO) were pumped into the atmosphere. These pollutants contributed to the environmental catastrophe of the Chicxulub impact event and may have been partly reponsible for the mass extinction event. ]
Forget about Barnesy and enjoy your short life while you can, Now go to my new web site about Meteor Impacts and have a look at the Stats, but remember one thing Earth will survive as it has in the past,
You will find enough in that to keep you quiet for the month

members.westnet.com.au/dtilley/impacts.htm

Doug

Doug. unfortunately my sarcasm must have been too subtle for you!

Of course I don't think the US should have sat on their hands, I was making a point as to why we should assist them in Iraq!

Shaker
We assist the USA because they are an Ally , Supposing Korea or Indonesia , or ....tongue in cheek NZ were to attack Australia , you can be sure the Mighty USA will be there to help..because how many military personel do we have , not enough, Now seems you and hundreds of 1000s of people think there were no WMDs because there were none found, well of course there were none found because that Mongrel that's going to have his neck stretched stalled and haggled UN inspectors and USA for so long while he organised the removal of the WMDs to Syria and or Iran and now he's sitting back in prison smirking because the world has attacked Bush over the issue, Now I'll bet you London to a Brick that's what happened, Now I have to close because I am going on a job tomorrow but will read your reply when I return if it don't turn up tonight, Also because this Forum is for 4X4 issues I think this discussion should be closed ,

Doug

Doug, I'll put this simply ..... I agree with you!

No I didn't read every page of the sites you suggested.

Regarding biblebelievers, anybody can post a website on the internet claiming whatever they want. I could set one up and claim that the earth is flat and may get quoted on a forum somewhere as fact. Myself I prefer to stick to credible sources of information, the CSIRO for example.

Their marine and atmospheric research division state after conducting numerous studies over many years that the earth is warming faster and hotter than at any time over the last 1500 years (that's as far back as they could prove). And man's releasing of co2 is a primary cause of warming since 1950 (again that's only as far back as they could prove).

You have tried to put forward other arguments for what's happening but have you read about the CSIRO?

Einstein was once quoted along the lines of "It takes years of hard work to create something, anybody can use examples to disprove it in 5 minutes".

The CSIRO (and many others) are the ones spending years of hard work and some people try their best to disprove it without actually doing much research themselves. It's always easier to do that.

Barnesy