Litespeed

I am sure you meant 0.5 mm not 0.05mm. Will such thin 0.5 mm be string enough? Is their a inbetween you can get like .75mm?

We take our whole lives wrecking the planet. The least we can do is not make a toxic tomb for ourselves. Either feed me to the fish and make me protein or plant me under a tree and I can feed the future. No box. no fuss but have a drink and party well.

A issue with RAA doing the fee collection is a vested interest in more fees to collect and higher fees for airports rather than resisting the charges as they should on our behalf. I can see dollars in their eyes now.

If it involves google or Facebook, The precautionary thing would be to assume its not a innocent mistake. They even admitted to data manipulation and political influence are all fine for profit. If you believe they are innocent .... I have a bridge to sell you.

His money was well spent if the aim was to put the lnp back in power. It worked a charm.

Just in case someone wondered... I do not take overseas airtrips, never have. I have a frugal scooter for most travel or use public transport . I borrow a car if needed. I buy very little packaged food. I travel only if really needed. Have not been in a jet for 11 years at all. I do not buy much and use wisely My prop flying is rare and not as a just burn fuel exercise. So I accept and adapt to the reality. Each makes their own choices. My family are farming stock since the 1830's . Merinos, crops and even cotton. I think I have a reasonable take on things, I am not a latte sipping urbanite in nature nor training. I started the multidisciplinary team at UWS Richmond in agriculture/horticulture and social ecological systems in 1997 to develop industrial Hemp in Australia. We got a research licence to grow and trial. There was no pay in it. All money went to research costs. The government barriers were massive. Industry hated us. Farmers of cotton were very keen to get involved. The levels of cancer and other effects from the pesticides drove them to us. No amount of effort could overcome the political nunskulls for another 25 years. Then they saw a buck in it personally and changed. I also work in disabilities, always have. I am not talking out my arse. I have no vested interest other than concern for our blue orb and life on it. I don't earn a cent from any side. I do not begrudge a person their lifestyle or job but collectively we must change course. The sooner we do the easier it is.

Yes, Decentralised power systems are far more efficient and much easier to do with the users owning the grid. Ie homes, businesses , farms etc. From standalone to local networked new suburbs, townships - community non profit model is ideal. Maximise the benefits and lowest cost. No profit motive just fair payment for renewable power. The economic multiplier for a community is huge. All that power and its jobs is local, as is the billing money. Plus bills are a lot smaller overall. So more money can be available to spend on stuff we need for a good life. But big business, power companies and money men hate that idea. To them democratization of the power to the people kills their old business model.

Jetr, Would you prefer all water for upstream farmers to use at will and bugger anyone below? We know water is a flood and drought issue but hiving it off just destroys the system that would get those high flows in rain times. Look at Mexico, the USA has created a desert by taping all the flows of the Arizona river before it flows past the border. It has had massive effects and all so those up stream can grow anything they want, so Las vegas and Nevada can be spots of green in a desert. California gets to grow almonds. Wars will be fought over water access in the future. China is damning every source it can and stopping flows into border countries. Even our military accept this will cause war.

Growing fodder with desal at least feeds something but is a short term high expense stop gap of a very political nature. It is a very dumb way to get feed for stock and definately a case of government picking winners- those who get to grow with the water will get windfall profits I expect. This is costing hundreds of millions of public money.

So you are suggesting that all the water resources should be for farming only or what mining? You do know that nature needs water to exist? What right do some at the top of a system have over everyone further down? And the communities that use those lakes of potable water, what about the wetlands? Constantly flowing rivers are not the enemy of farmers, when they don't flow the environment and local economy collapse. How do you think SA would get water to drink, or should they desal so a farmer can plant cotton? Your attitude about water says a lot about your view. I have never promoted pumped hydro as a big solution but merely as a way to capture energy that would be a total loss.

Mate, I never said make it illegal, I said industry policy should aim to suit the best possible use of the limited water and resources we have. Governments, business bodies, farmers federation all pick winners and losers when they lobby. Governments all do it everytime a decision on anything is made. When policies are made, laws, regulations, political decisions and trade deals. All involve a opportunity cost. If x amount of water can only be used then it is governments responsibility to guide how that water is priced and used. IF the best bang per litre for the overall community, environment and economy is sought- then cotton is a poor use. Picking winners when doing our water policy and esp the Murray Darling system is a big cause of the problem we are seeing- they had a very big opportunity to guide the market and become more sustainable but choose a capitalist money grab version instead. Stupidity in making decisions does not mean make none but choose wisely. Agreed and as a policy we should not encourage nuts trees like almonds, the long term water use is extreme and drought can wipe them out for years. Look at California, huge amounts of water they can not afford is going to almonds and the rest of agriculture , the populace and environment suffer greatly. That is the long term experience. Tell that to other farmers who do not have access to water downstream and whole communities. If you are saying a export fibre crop is better than food crops consumed here, you need to think about carefully. The economic and flow of benefit is much better for the food side. More labour and output stays local and generates jobs. As a export crop cotton is reliant on mass imports of energy, machinery, chemicals, seed development (BT Cotton)- this inputs are mostly just imports and even when made here are from imported parts and capital. The more you import to run a export industry- you impoverish local opportunities over foreign ones. The benefits are felt by few and the real cost to others who farm or use the rivers is great.

As the report stated without substantial support and policy assistance they will not exist. A lot of the so called claimed starts are now been put on slow mode. Any new plant will still have massive support and not required to internalise all costs. That is the model they use. Allowing any nuclear is a pronuclear stance and picks it as the winner for 40-50 years, the level of support is fundamental. It can never be removed as economics change. Prices and support are baked in. That is picking a winner and providing huge amounts of real and potential treasure from the public.

And thats the bitch of it. A prick to remove but if you want unmarked sheets it is generally all that is available. Then you get to scratch it removing it. But storage is the bugger unwrapped as well. Have not had paper supplied ones. I bet a paper coated one would be best and easiest to remove. To have to resort to soaking, vingear etc is ridiculous in 2019. Its not like the bloody stuff is cheap or anything. Rant over.

See if we ever needed proof, the evil Thatcher had a small conscience and respect for facts, it is there. Come on fellas if she can do it, anyone can. Or at least see the oncoming bus blinking its lights, slamming its horns and get out of the bloody way. Even John Howard could do that.

Firstly, the UK, for example got there in a decade because incredible amounts were spent of public funds and it had the goal of making nuclear weapons materials as well. It had the massive military spending on bombs to back it. No country has developed a nuclear industry of a national scale in a decade, and no amount of public/private money and political will can afford to. Even in twenty years. The US never came close in 40 years of building them. And had a incredible need to build enough bombs to kill the planet a 1000 times. They had dreams of nuclear powered everything and were backing a massive % of gdp in the worlds biggest and powerful economy and military. All in a economy that was going gangbusters and a devil may care attitude and needing massive amounts of new power to grow for decades. Yes we have politically been all over the place but in this case, its a blessing. We did not go down the nuclear route. Even now it still does not stack up on dollars. That's tangential to leaving massive holes and waste heaps, polluted water etc of mining. If they did it and cleanly and then rehabilitated like they always promise, I would be amazed. Just because I use steel or power does not negate the needs of the environment and science in your argument. That depends on your idea of privately operated and profit. They are always, without exception globally a non private power system even if its a stand alone one. They are completely indemnified from any potential environmental liability beyond tiny amounts. Same for economic loss or death or ......in the community. They are in a guaranteed supply price that is rock solid for its life, it can only go up. They will always be given complete security from government and backup no matter what happens to the company running it. No costs of disposal and storage are fully paid by the operator, that ends up a government problem and still to be effectively solved and used properly. If it goes bang, the company is very limited in its ability to do anything but run to their jets. They are traditionally the cheapest possible finance against anything else- thats getting the money. Why? all completely gov covered, it is literally to big to fail in bankers terms, and will be milked for profit till the end. No matter what happens the bankers/ privateers get paid. Or the governments have just paid for it and get their state power to operate it. OR the massively subsidised version ala UK where you get to force a massive price and not only get the user to pay but the gov helps pay at every stage of building. A private run nuclear plant has never had to incorporate the actual expenses of finance, building, operation and disposal of waste, water use and decommissioning anywhere in the world. They also have always a captive market which every force of government protects them from competition. If they scream they cant make a buck and stay safe, they get given a higher price. The level of real subsidy they get is so great that a fully private one, with only private money and private risk and liability can not exist. No such unicorn has ever or likely will ever exist. It can by nature only exist in a special world of all the actual risk and cost goes to the public and any profit goes to the operator. It can not exist in a market economy on fair terms. In simple terms it always get to bring a machine gun to a knife fight. None of the above includes the non accounted for opportunity cost of alternative energy investment instead and its benefit in real terms to the end user and the environment. That is orders of magnitude different. The small and decreasing rapidly subsidy that renewables get is purely a financial incentive to get a industry going. It has had to have a small leg up to compete in a power sector that survives on inherent subsidy in its model economically for the fossil fuel sector. Why of all places Roxby Downs? It is far away from the type of power it generates is needed, huge amounts of power are the only type that make sense. It is a long way from its use, so that means a big power loss to get to market for most of it, plus huge powerline infrastructure at considerable expense. Desalination of seawater is a extremely wasteful energy system to gain water to cool a energy generation plant. The returns on energy expended for that gained as a system is very poor, then to have to pipe a huge distance to a far flung nuclear plant as well plus the cost of piping etc. It is generally only used to get water to drink not generate power. The costs are huge alone and all that piping costs the environment as well just to make. Desalination plants are damaging to the environment as well in the high concentrations of salt they produce as a huge plume that would make parts of the Spencer Gulf long term a low life zone certainly within the life of the nuclear plant. If the desal was for people dying of thirst sure but to make power never. Does not surprise me at all, a seed is full of goodness, some better than others. But it is a byproduct of low value compared to the crop of cotton it comes from. No one grows cotton for the seed. Cotton as a crop is a gross water user and produces very little in terms of nutrition per litre or megalitre of water irrigated for the food value. Not including its high use of chemicals and energy for harvesting, transport etc. If a mere fraction of the resources and water was spent on growing other types of food for humans or stock we would be way ahead. In a water restricted world on the driest continent to grow cotton does not make sense. This is just on economic terms forgetting the downstream effects. And what do we do with the cotton? send it overseas, process it into a shirt, wear it a few times and buy another. Every part consuming resources, energy and making greenhouse gases. A sensible government would see the cotton industry as a waste of precious resources for limited short term economic gain and long term pain on social, health, environmental and economic grounds. These are big picture themes and not considered criticism of a individual farmer but system wide issues. We only have so much capacity to use resources and must chose very wisely be it water, land, air, people or environmental resilience. Everything has resource limits, everything is connected and has a energy budget and environmental budget. I have always been a critical reader and don't swallow anyones political message as gospel. I am a Atheist. Be it religious or technology, I am not indoctrinated in anything, if you can make gold from lead show me. Nor do I believe a lot of the crap those with vested interest peddle. But I do declare my own vested interest that all sane lifeforms have- continued sustainable life on earth. Our ability to see beyond our next root also sees us with fundamental power over our environment and ability to destroy it. I think my research stands to speak for itself above, but many years of study and working as a researcher at uni and life long interest in this very topic area helps. These were obvious issues of critical importance back in 1990 when I first started. We did not just think up shite for research money and subsidy- that's the marketing or geology department. But hey the Daily Telegraph might know better? I am happy to be shown otherwise, be delighted in fact. Then I could just relax, drink cold fossil fueled chilled beer, throw the tinnies out the boats window and burn some diesel instead of using its sails with a clean conscience. Cheers I need a beer

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-19/sa-big-battery-set-to-get-even-bigger/11716784

I will give Jim some time to think about his post and others can reply for now. But that is just plain drivel.

Glad to know your still doing the services to aviation that you are famous for. My son and brother were in Cairns looking at yachts this week. Son went for a parachute jump. Damn fool who jumps from operating aircraft and pays for the pleasure. I love him but he needs re-education. Next time when local will contact you in advance to join the drifter brigade. Keep up the smile patrols

Fortunate that generally such ego pilots rarely fly bigger stuff. Sad outcome but stupid trumps brains way too often. We need to be very proactive to keep our sport and reduce the idiots. Yet again someone reaches for a Darwin award. Glad no innocents were harmed.

Here is a new article about installed wind costs and subsidies in the UK. The subsidies are really just the level of payment for future contracts of supply. As the price installed drops so does the cost the UK will pay for power contracts. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/new-windfarms-taxpayers-subsidies-record-low "Most of the projects will receive as little as £39.65 for every megawatt hour of electricity they produce. The most expensive projects to win a subsidy contract will cost £41.61/MWh." "The sums were nearly half the £92.50/MWh awarded the year before to Britain’s first new nuclear power site in a generation, Hinkley Point C. The plummeting cost of offshore wind is attracting more interest from major energy companies." And that nuke power gets a many decade price fix at twice new power costs. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/25/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-to-run-29m-over-budget But you claim wind is massively subsidised? the base expected cost is a standard of $40 mwh any less and not considered a susidy. So new round power subsidy of a max One pound and 61 pence per mwh. The long term subsidy for gold plated nuclear is a 52 pounds and 50 pence per Mwh. These are the UK governments figures on contracts signed- so no possible argument on the numbers In simple terms the wind gets 3 cents in the dollar for every $1 given to nuclear for the same power- which is baseload. The wind contracts have no public liability for profitability. The nuclear is a public backed profit machine for a private group. All real costs and risks the public pays including the outsize profits- all for at least 30 years. This Nuclear project is for latest available tech and in a country that has subsidised the nuke industry for 60 years. The model is considered flawed by the builders and governement and any future Nuke power will come at substantially greater cost to ensure viability for investors not the public. the extra cost will be a even greater public subsidy. So the most expensive power on the planet long and short term is admitted to only get more expensive. This in a country which has all the advantages of small space, high population and lots of fresh water. Maths is not hard. Science is not hard. Been ethical is not hard. Been good to the planet and its people is easy if you can use the first three. It can also be a lot cheaper to do the right thing and it only gets cheaper.

What you are afraid I might be right? Not just my science or logic. The legions of science and even pushers of nuclear industry all agree. All the major financial markets, government bodies, and even builders of nuclear power agree. But you can choose your own reality, but not the planets. Snide remarks just reveal bias and demonstrate a inability to see others views. If my logic or science or ethics are suspect, then demonstrate. I stand by my comments, how about more than just spitting the dummy?

Yes big holes in the ground can be used for pumped hydro. A good solution for certain areas. But the thousands of holes we have are far in excess of any practical use. A perfect example of mining never cleaning its mess and always shifting the cost to the public. Glad your onboard, pun intended. Funny we don't see the deniers condemn such waste of our money. But will scream murder about even a free shovel for renewables. Please be careful of mentioning the beneficial uses of holes in ground. Some could see that as justifying all the bomb craters in Vietnam, since some are now used for prawn farming. Perverse I know.

Before anyone complains about the idea of a "industry policy" , it is something responsible governments do. So I accept you may never have seen one. It is not a picking winners thing- it is ensuring the losers don't get placed on the podium and handed the prizes.

Building a nationalised nuclear grid would take at least 30 years minimum and that assumes we could get the money. Nuclear has a role if you have already built and own it. We have not. Even UK are finding they can't build one economically. They have ample experience. Assuming we could build it- we do not have the water to either cool them nor for the steam to power conversion. Steam turbines use huge amounts of water that must be fresh. Or should we build nuclear to run the desal plants needed to provide water to run nuclear. A losers game for a dry country. How is helping sheep farmers going to solve it? I will help them as its my heritage since 1832. But a fibre industry that uses mass water and chemical for low jobs and inedible produce like cotton should be discouraged. As a matter of industry policy. Wind farms do conduct like others, they pay big income to farmers who still get their land to use. Or did you mean the most subsidised industry like mining and coal power, who get govt money, trash the joint, suck up all the water and leave a big hole in the ground and economy?

I am happy to take any challenge you make but will be very busy solving the problems created by others. Help is appreciated. I am more than happy to defend my ethics. Take a shot.