Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:22 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25293 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595 ... 633  Next

Whos Going to Lead the Labor Rabble
Albo 36%  36%  [ 5 ]
Plibbers 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Bowen 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Chalmers 29%  29%  [ 4 ]
Uncle Tony 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Clive Palmer 14%  14%  [ 2 ]
George Smith 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 14
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16354
Location: STRAYA!
wamberal99 wrote:
The Bob Brown "Caravan of Righteousness" could have been a good thing, if all those activists had travelled north to engage with the locals and have a reasoned and respectful debate about the issues.


We all might all have learned something. Now that would be a big step forward, eh?


The thing is, there is no one in this country more in touch with the environment than someone who lives off the land. As the LNP MP for Rockhampton said "I've never seen farmers and miners more united"

You can't just go into a place and tell people they are wrong, that everything they know is wrong and that they have to change without offering viable solutions.

"LOL. Just retrain yourselves..."

What kind of advice is that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3679
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I much agree about this. And I have some of the strongest progressive views on this forum. I'm disappointed that another, potentially forward thinking party lost another major election to a low tax support corporates government, but then, from what I've heard, I'm even more frustrated that supposed progressives just don't "get it". Across the anglosphere there is just this terrible culture of sniffing your own farts and demonising the masses who think wrong and eating their own if they aren't the purest of woke BS and intersectional PC politics instead of worrying about how the everyday person feels their needs are and their vision of the country.


You really don't understand the Australian political scene, like a few others here posting from outside... or Queensland. What you have posted there just doesn't apply.

Intersectional PC politics wasn't a factor. The Labor party offered greater tax cuts than the victors to a larger proportion of the electorate. Woke BS is what I see when I read most of your posts.




I think you dismiss his analysis too quickly. The ALP offered greater tax cuts to more people and still lost. So it wasn't anything to do with tax cuts now was it?
I have lost count of the number of times Bill Shorten appeared in photos that just had women in it. All to prove some BS PC moral stance. "Look at us, we are the moral choice" because some or other PC nonsense. Pandering rather than substance. The ALP has climbed so high up the moral mountain that it is out of touch with what mainstream Australians deal with day to day. For a party that claims to represent the working man/woman this moral smug self righteousness is right out of touch. So much so that even the offer of greater tax cuts was not attractive enough to get the everyday Australian voter to vote for them. In the privacy of the polling booth the mainstream conservative Australian was free from scrutiny. And they didn't vote for greater tax cuts.


On a more personal level I am actually quite disappointed that Labor lost. It is time for change. We are now going to enter a third term of Coalition government, and what is even more frightening, is that Labor may not win the next election. Healthy government requires change in order for the swings and balances to be effective. I say disappointed but probably more annoyed that they lost the un-loseable election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5016
I listened to Alan Jones on the way to work this morning.
It was interesting.

He was going to do a special piece on Tony - which i missed. I'm glad about that.

----

More broadly:
- before the election there was a view that Barnaby J could be back - is this dead in the water with the big win to Libs & Nats?
- has anyone read / posted any links on why the polls were so far out? I've heard and read commentary but nothing backed up...
- by mentioning Cormann on Saturday night i felt ScoMo was accepting him back into the team after supporting Dutton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5016
Clogs wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I much agree about this. And I have some of the strongest progressive views on this forum. I'm disappointed that another, potentially forward thinking party lost another major election to a low tax support corporates government, but then, from what I've heard, I'm even more frustrated that supposed progressives just don't "get it". Across the anglosphere there is just this terrible culture of sniffing your own farts and demonising the masses who think wrong and eating their own if they aren't the purest of woke BS and intersectional PC politics instead of worrying about how the everyday person feels their needs are and their vision of the country.


You really don't understand the Australian political scene, like a few others here posting from outside... or Queensland. What you have posted there just doesn't apply.

Intersectional PC politics wasn't a factor. The Labor party offered greater tax cuts than the victors to a larger proportion of the electorate. Woke BS is what I see when I read most of your posts.




I think you dismiss his analysis too quickly. The ALP offered greater tax cuts to more people and still lost. So it wasn't anything to do with tax cuts now was it?
I have lost count of the number of times Bill Shorten appeared in photos that just had women in it. All to prove some BS PC moral stance. "Look at us, we are the moral choice" because some or other PC nonsense. Pandering rather than substance. The ALP has climbed so high up the moral mountain that it is out of touch with what mainstream Australians deal with day to day. For a party that claims to represent the working man/woman this moral smug self righteousness is right out of touch. So much so that even the offer of greater tax cuts was not attractive enough to get the everyday Australian voter to vote for them. In the privacy of the polling booth the mainstream conservative Australian was free from scrutiny. And they didn't vote for greater tax cuts.


On a more personal level I am actually quite disappointed that Labor lost. It is time for change. We are now going to enter a third term of Coalition government, and what is even more frightening, is that Labor may not win the next election. Healthy government requires change in order for the swings and balances to be effective. I say disappointed but probably more annoyed that they lost the un-loseable election.


There's a lot out their that they lost their way on being the party for the worker, or the progressive inner city etc etc (blah blah) - the next of that is that they likely do need to re-think their positioning.

To Thomas's point above do Labor have a good QLD candidate for leader?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 1755
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I much agree about this. And I have some of the strongest progressive views on this forum. I'm disappointed that another, potentially forward thinking party lost another major election to a low tax support corporates government, but then, from what I've heard, I'm even more frustrated that supposed progressives just don't "get it". Across the anglosphere there is just this terrible culture of sniffing your own farts and demonising the masses who think wrong and eating their own if they aren't the purest of woke BS and intersectional PC politics instead of worrying about how the everyday person feels their needs are and their vision of the country.


You really don't understand the Australian political scene, like a few others here posting from outside... or Queensland. What you have posted there just doesn't apply.

Intersectional PC politics wasn't a factor. The Labor party offered greater tax cuts than the victors to a larger proportion of the electorate. Woke BS is what I see when I read most of your posts.



Yours have a touch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5016
I liked this little gem:

Quote:
"When Scott Morrison talks about quiet Australians, I think he has a significant point. Online, quiet Australians are either lurkers - who observe but do not comment - or are much more likely to comment in 'safe' online third spaces such as a parenting groups or sports forums: non-political online communities, where political talk emerges."


https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election ... 51owf.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1868
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:38 am 
Online

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Sydney (for now)
mdaclarke wrote:

You are also right about the politics. I actually consider myself quite a green person but I have right of centre politics. The Green party seems to think that Green = Socialist. It is a real shame there isn't a right of centre Green party. I would add a strong military to your winning policy wishlist as most voters are patriotic and like to see a strong military.


This is a good point, the green revolution is far more likely to succeed through a technology-driven, R&D focused innovation which create better batteries, more productive sources etc. It is unlikely to succeed through heavy-handed, top-down state intervention.

Further, I have no idea why Anglosphere green parties have to wrap up environmentalism with extreme left wing policies as it's gravely off-putting to most of the electorate. Is it possible to, perhaps, make R&D tax deductible form EBIT whilst not insisting on open borders and abolishing world institutions like NATO, IMF and WTO. As long as the greens continue to be fringe lunatics on most issues, their appeal will never improve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5768
So the Libs have changed PM three times due to bad polling figures only to find out the polling figures a farking useless and Labor primary vote is down 34%

Who would have thought

Antony Green gave a pretty good explanation of how the disappearance of the landlines makes it near impossible to get the same level of accuracy from polling as we are used to, they used to be able to call landlines in specific electorates - no more.

So I would be highly sceptical in the future of any polling being anymore than a guess


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19540
Green is right, calling landlines in specific electorates was very handy.

However ...

_fatprop wrote:
So I would be highly sceptical in the future of any polling being anymore than a guess


This is a sweeping statement.

There are other ways to skin the cat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28650
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I much agree about this. And I have some of the strongest progressive views on this forum. I'm disappointed that another, potentially forward thinking party lost another major election to a low tax support corporates government, but then, from what I've heard, I'm even more frustrated that supposed progressives just don't "get it". Across the anglosphere there is just this terrible culture of sniffing your own farts and demonising the masses who think wrong and eating their own if they aren't the purest of woke BS and intersectional PC politics instead of worrying about how the everyday person feels their needs are and their vision of the country.


You really don't understand the Australian political scene, like a few others here posting from outside... or Queensland. What you have posted there just doesn't apply.


You're right I don't. Which is why I'm happy for people to explain. Which is why I'm reading the thread and only picking up what is being said in commentary elsewhere and here. Though you cut out the bit where I say it's not even the political parties projecting the intersectional stuff towards voters.

Quote:
Intersectional PC politics wasn't a factor. The Labor party offered greater tax cuts than the victors to a larger proportion of the electorate. Woke BS is what I see when I read most of your posts.


LOL I'm not woke, I don't promote oppression points or make false claims about gender pay gaps and stuff. I am a proud 2nd wave feminist which is why I'm against 3rd and 4th wave feminism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28650
guy smiley wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
What an arrogant poop you are, Guy.


I've been having the odd disagreement with EDF on exactly these lines for ages. What I see from him repeatedly is diving into a discussion and presenting an opinion that doesn't fit the scenario.

I've already suggested where I think the 'left' if you like needs to change here. They're not connecting with the wider electorate and there's more than a trace of moral superiority at the root of that. After reading some FB posts from aghast acquaintances since the result, I'd go further and suggest it's snobbery on the part of many. Thomas' point about the fears of working people is bang on. Knowing that things won't get better under the winners isn't cause to scorn those who voted for them.


This was my point earlier,

Quote:

Across the anglosphere there is just this terrible culture of sniffing your own farts and demonising the masses who think wrong and eating their own if they aren't the purest of woke BS and intersectional PC politics instead of worrying about how the everyday person feels their needs are and their vision of the country.



and yet you literally claimed this wasn't the case. Sure you can say the woke bit wasn't an australian issue but is the rest of my point not understanding the situation here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:03 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16720
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Caley_Red wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:

You are also right about the politics. I actually consider myself quite a green person but I have right of centre politics. The Green party seems to think that Green = Socialist. It is a real shame there isn't a right of centre Green party. I would add a strong military to your winning policy wishlist as most voters are patriotic and like to see a strong military.


This is a good point, the green revolution is far more likely to succeed through a technology-driven, R&D focused innovation which create better batteries, more productive sources etc. It is unlikely to succeed through heavy-handed, top-down state intervention.

Further, I have no idea why Anglosphere green parties have to wrap up environmentalism with extreme left wing policies as it's gravely off-putting to most of the electorate. Is it possible to, perhaps, make R&D tax deductible form EBIT whilst not insisting on open borders and abolishing world institutions like NATO, IMF and WTO. As long as the greens continue to be fringe lunatics on most issues, their appeal will never improve.


This is interesting.
I dont necessarily agree that the policies put forward by the Greens in Australia are all that lunatic.
Here are there policies: https://greens.org.au/policy
There are a handful in there that I dont agree with (GMOs for instance). But most are quite sensible. I do tend to think that the way the policy is sold can be quite condescending, and there are certainly some fringe members, but the actual policy is reasonably sound and the leadership is now pretty decent and rational.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:08 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16720
Location: STRAYA PLUM
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 4105
Farva,

What is the Greens policy on transitioning workers in coal mining regions, and their assets (the family home, for example) to the places where there will be new, green, jobs?


What about people who do not want to go? What about the communities that exist now?


These are complex and difficult problems. Not amenable to simple, easy to remember, solutions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
wamberal99 wrote:


The ALP is going to have to take some tough decisions, and bring some new talent into the House. People who actually have some real life working experience, not just more party hacks.


This applies to the Liberals as well. Very few have has a real career that anyone else would recognise.
Don't forget, they did not expect to win at all - those spineless MPs who jumped ship before the election...they must be very displeased with the result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:15 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16720
Location: STRAYA PLUM
wamberal99 wrote:
Farva,

What is the Greens policy on transitioning workers in coal mining regions, and their assets (the family home, for example) to the places where there will be new, green, jobs?


What about people who do not want to go? What about the communities that exist now?


These are complex and difficult problems. Not amenable to simple, easy to remember, solutions.


Wambers, the Greens will not be forming government and so have not developed in depth policy to address these. Frankly, given many of their members, I think a Greens led government would be scary.
However, the point was made that they were fringe and lunatic with their policy and I dont actually think they are. Their policy aims are reasonable IMO. They arent far left, they are centre left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5016
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:


The ALP is going to have to take some tough decisions, and bring some new talent into the House. People who actually have some real life working experience, not just more party hacks.


This applies to the Liberals as well. Very few have has a real career that anyone else would recognise.
Don't forget, they did not expect to win at all - those spineless MPs who jumped ship before the election...they must be very displeased with the result.


I thought Julie was looked radiant on Saturday night .... a future ambassador for sure...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16354
Location: STRAYA!
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:


The ALP is going to have to take some tough decisions, and bring some new talent into the House. People who actually have some real life working experience, not just more party hacks.


This applies to the Liberals as well. Very few have has a real career that anyone else would recognise.
Don't forget, they did not expect to win at all - those spineless MPs who jumped ship before the election...they must be very displeased with the result.


Pyne looked ecstatic. I get the feeling he left politics because he no longer identified with his party.

Now he's just having fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8987
Location: Sydney Town
It's a rock and a hard place for centre-left parties I think. The perception facing them in the face is that the traditional party of the coalmines is now anti-coalmine. The party that traditionally fought for the working class now goes silent when those working class jobs are threatened to be taken away because climate change. Seems to be one of the vibes I am getting from the election. Trump did a similar hit job in the US election.

In NZ I think one of these days the old Labour coalmining and forestry heartlands of the West Coast will eventually vote National. I think the only reason it remains in the red corner is because of the MP they have there at the moment. Once he goes, it's all over I reckon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5768
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


The French worked it out and have had no issues, the high build costs are often down to bespoke design, the French standardised design and have cheap power


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3679
_fatprop wrote:
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


The French worked it out and have had no issues, the high build costs are often down to bespoke design, the French standardised design and have cheap power



They probably also run their ships and submarines with nuclear power too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16720
Location: STRAYA PLUM
_fatprop wrote:
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Edit: Its not the high build costs. it is the high decommissioning costs that pushes up the LCOE.

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


The French worked it out and have had no issues, the high build costs are often down to bespoke design, the French standardised design and have cheap power


Maybe. I think its mostly down to tighter safety standards pushing up prices.
I will say I am keen to see nuclear available to Australia. I think if the price issues can be resolved its a great solution. I just dont see the price issue being sorted. That is another policy area I dont agree with the Greens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32817
Location: in transit
eldanielfire wrote:
Sure you can say the woke bit wasn't an australian issue but is the rest of my point not understanding the situation here?


I just don't like you. You smell funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32817
Location: in transit
kiap wrote:
Green is right, calling landlines in specific electorates was very handy.

However ...

_fatprop wrote:
So I would be highly sceptical in the future of any polling being anymore than a guess


This is a sweeping statement.

There are other ways to skin the cat


this is illuminating...

Quote:
The above graph shows that the 20% of the polling booths with the fewest people with a graduate degree saw a swing of nearly 7% to the Coalition. On the other end of the spectrum, the most educated fifth of polling booths- actually swung 0.5% towards Labor (two party preferred).

How I did it: first I got this morning’s results for each polling booth in the country from the electoral commission and looked at the population in the Microburb directly surrounding it, making the assumption that if you live within a few blocks of a polling booth, that will be the one you vote at.

Then I gave it over to the machine to find the drivers of the swing. Out of the many tens of thousands of potential predictors I’ve collected over the years, university education came up #1. It has a correlation of -0.4 with a negligible P value (6061 polling booths could be matched and had enough data).

A pattern of bias among experts

The core problem is that when humans ask specific questions in surveys or of databases, they are starting with bias. Whereas the “big data” approach to throw in as much data as possible and let the machine find the patterns.

In this case, survey targets no longer reliably answer land line calls and even when called on their mobiles, most don’t agree to be surveyed. So it was left to the experts to try and make the surveys representative. Chances are they weren’t entirely empirical about this and relied on their intuition.

My work analysing the data of big Australian consumer brands has routinely uncovered this systematic bias: market researchers and analysts make sense of numbers using a mix of stats and intuition. That intuition is always informed by their own life and experiences. They are mostly cosmopolitan, don’t encounter uneducated people so their voice is not properly extracted or smoothed over as noise.

There are many factors at play of course and I’m certainly not saying that all the Left has to do is send people to university. In the corporate world, I encounter lots of assumptions about them like that they are simply poorer versions of us and all they want to do is be like us. But these forgotten people have their own values, and don’t understand the world in the same way.

Nor am I saying intuition is worth nothing. It’s very valuable in coming up with hypotheses. But eventually these assumptions are tested in the marketplace and the polling booth.

The two Australias

In predicting behaviour these days, my models end up dividing Australia into two classes: a university educated, affluent, multicultural, cosmopolitan one on one side and on the other have to be very delicately described – the people who go against the brand’s values. But every mainstream brand should strive to understand the latter, not least ones that are supposed to champion the working class.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1868
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


Agreed about the closed system, there are some good elevated basins in NZ's south Island as well.

Batshit crazy idea follows:
Dam the Gibraltar straights.
lower the water level in the Mediterranean by a couple of meters using solar power from the Sahara desert.

The Sahara Desert is your renewable power source.
The Atlantic Ocean is your base load battery.

A couple of minor issues with shipping, and environmentalists, but what the hey?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6089
Location: Vandean Coast
if you're going to that extent, you may as well leave Gibraltar open and infill some of the dried up inland seas in the Sahara via canals, and generate power and lower sea level at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am 
Online

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Sydney (for now)
guy smiley wrote:
kiap wrote:
Green is right, calling landlines in specific electorates was very handy.

However ...

_fatprop wrote:
So I would be highly sceptical in the future of any polling being anymore than a guess


This is a sweeping statement.

There are other ways to skin the cat


this is illuminating...

Quote:
The above graph shows that the 20% of the polling booths with the fewest people with a graduate degree saw a swing of nearly 7% to the Coalition. On the other end of the spectrum, the most educated fifth of polling booths- actually swung 0.5% towards Labor (two party preferred).

How I did it: first I got this morning’s results for each polling booth in the country from the electoral commission and looked at the population in the Microburb directly surrounding it, making the assumption that if you live within a few blocks of a polling booth, that will be the one you vote at.

Then I gave it over to the machine to find the drivers of the swing. Out of the many tens of thousands of potential predictors I’ve collected over the years, university education came up #1. It has a correlation of -0.4 with a negligible P value (6061 polling booths could be matched and had enough data).

A pattern of bias among experts

The core problem is that when humans ask specific questions in surveys or of databases, they are starting with bias. Whereas the “big data” approach to throw in as much data as possible and let the machine find the patterns.

In this case, survey targets no longer reliably answer land line calls and even when called on their mobiles, most don’t agree to be surveyed. So it was left to the experts to try and make the surveys representative. Chances are they weren’t entirely empirical about this and relied on their intuition.

My work analysing the data of big Australian consumer brands has routinely uncovered this systematic bias: market researchers and analysts make sense of numbers using a mix of stats and intuition. That intuition is always informed by their own life and experiences. They are mostly cosmopolitan, don’t encounter uneducated people so their voice is not properly extracted or smoothed over as noise.

There are many factors at play of course and I’m certainly not saying that all the Left has to do is send people to university. In the corporate world, I encounter lots of assumptions about them like that they are simply poorer versions of us and all they want to do is be like us. But these forgotten people have their own values, and don’t understand the world in the same way.

Nor am I saying intuition is worth nothing. It’s very valuable in coming up with hypotheses. But eventually these assumptions are tested in the marketplace and the polling booth.

The two Australias

In predicting behaviour these days, my models end up dividing Australia into two classes: a university educated, affluent, multicultural, cosmopolitan one on one side and on the other have to be very delicately described – the people who go against the brand’s values. But every mainstream brand should strive to understand the latter, not least ones that are supposed to champion the working class.


That is exactly why newspapers or 'blogs' should be banned from interpreting statistics.

There appears to be no controls for the very obvious factors that would influence 'education' level (in inverted commas because it's usually defined as obtaining a tertiary degree) such as age. The proportion of people over the age 50 have far less tertiary education as only about 5% of people went to university, each subsequent cohort would most likely have a higher proportion with a tertiary qualification. It is totally unclear what this guy has controlled for. Other reasons it appears to be nonsense, he utilizes a correlation between variables which doesn't tell you anything about how the variable points are related (and indeed assumes a linearity). There can be an extremely strong correlation which implies nothing more than chance covariance. Further, he does not specify if has any statistical significance, there is mention of a p-value but what's the t-stat, AIC, BIC etc. There is also no mention of the multitude of sins committed by crude analysts: heteroscedasticity, excessive collinearity, controls for non-linearities, out of sample testing etc.

Bad statistics is at the core of lots of misunderstanding, scientists (and I'm talking about top journal publications) are often riddled with errors meaning their conclusions are complete nonsense. Journals with (relatively) low numeracy authors and peer reviewers such as sociological, psychological and anthropological contain the most egregious errors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 4:18 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16720
Location: STRAYA PLUM
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


Agreed about the closed system, there are some good elevated basins in NZ's south Island as well.

Batshit crazy idea follows:
Dam the Gibraltar straights.
lower the water level in the Mediterranean by a couple of meters using solar power from the Sahara desert.

The Sahara Desert is your renewable power source.
The Atlantic Ocean is your base load battery.

A couple of minor issues with shipping, and environmentalists, but what the hey?


Obviously that is unfeasible at the moment, but I really like the thinking! Its the sort of thing that we need to get us over the line from an energy point of view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 158
Location: Straya, cnuts!
wamberal99 wrote:
The Bob Brown "Caravan of Righteousness" could have been a good thing, if all those activists had travelled north to engage with the locals and have a reasoned and respectful debate about the issues.


Not while my ar$e points down. I grew up in Queensland country, yet after most of my lifetime living in Brisbane but working all over the state I have become a "big city shiny arse" whose opinion is suspect since I blow in, stir things up, and sod off. I've been in the same position as the convoy.

Country people don't especially like to be lectured at, hectored even, by people who have done nothing whatever directly to earn their respect, and they're smart enough to recognise the hypocrisy of a caravan of CO2 belching vehicles travelling all that way to "enlighten" them about their culpability. They know the issues all right. It's just that they're honest about their response to them. The convoy will have done nothing positive whatever (except make the participants feel good about themseves)

Actually, I heard similar sentiments in Brisbane, but about "Brown and those Mexican wankers". Maybe country Queenslanders aren't the only ones unwilling to be lectured at by their self appointed intellectual betters

insane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1523
ScoMo didn't just give the ALP a hiding:

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/sports-bett ... 28031.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2894
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Nah, regardless of what is right, if a bunch of people from 1000s of km away, with no idea of the local issues, are going to turn up and tell people how to live their lives, its not going to go well. No matter what the issue actually is.

Its like all the vegan protesters charging into restaurants or blocking up the CBD. Are they really helping their cause, or hindering it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28650
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Sure you can say the woke bit wasn't an australian issue but is the rest of my point not understanding the situation here?


I just don't like you.


That much is obvious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28650
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Nah, regardless of what is right, if a bunch of people from 1000s of km away, with no idea of the local issues, are going to turn up and tell people how to live their lives, its not going to go well. No matter what the issue actually is.

Its like all the vegan protesters charging into restaurants or blocking up the CBD. Are they really helping their cause, or hindering it.



:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:54 am
Posts: 204
Location: wheelabarrowback
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?


You could use the same argument on People on welfare that take drugs and refuse to accept testing.
Long term unemployed that refuse work for the dole.
The proposed welfare card that limits discretionary spend to foodstuffs

You’re opening Pandora’s box when you make these sorts of arguments


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 254
guy smiley wrote:
whezmabeer wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Well, you've always been an advertisement for rational, reasoned posts in here :thumbup:

Yeah, but you post that to everyone who doesn't agree with you. :nod:
Besides that, I'm surprised you can remember what i post, as it is usually only around test time or RWC.


Your version of rational and reasonable is easy to remember.

So quote these so called versions gs or have you confused me with someone else that you disagree with?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 26257
You might pardon the intrusion gents for a quick question.

Is three years not very short for a fixed term parliament?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15875
Three years isn’t too short. In the scenario that you have a shíte Government you can turf them out in an election before they can cause more damage.

In regards to Thomas’ referring to inner city latte sets deciding what is best for rural Queenslanders and having a pop at that on Twitter, agreed 100%. I was shot down on here for posting that argument particularly from those on here stating that changing the weather was the key issue not local employment which mining jobs provide. The poll that mattered backed that up particularly in Queensland and northern NSW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 26257
Just seems to me that would it would lead to Governments be very focused on the short term.

But each to his own.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25293 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595 ... 633  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: booji boy, Caley_Red, Farva, Fat Old Git, Mr Mike, puku, Slim 293, Ted. and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group