Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

4 big ideas for Australia Options · View
Dave
Posted: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:08:45 PM
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 110
Location: Seattle, WA (USA)
Hi All:

It was proposed to me that there were four pressing areas that Australia needed to dedicate resources to, from an infrastructure point of view.

They were:

1) High speed intercity rail links
2) Desalination and water engineering
3) Nuclear energy
4) Fibre-optic communications network

Now, these aren't my suggestions, but I'm throwing them out into the forum to stimulate some thought and conversation. What do you think?

Cheers, Dave.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:43:36 PM
Rank: Guest
Groups: Guest

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 3,289
<a href="http://test.com">testyourself</a> testyourself <a href=http://test.com>testyourself</a> http://test.com "> testyourself
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:45:46 PM
Rank: Guest
Groups: Guest

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 3,289
I agree wholeheartedly that they are the top four priorities for driving our nation forward into the futures, although I would rank it:

Water engineering
Nuclear energy
Rail
Communications

With nuclear energy, desalination and pipelines we can turn back the deserts and open up the arid interior of our country for farming and living.
MixedOrigins
Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:48:06 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/31/2008
Posts: 1
Location: Brisbane
"we can turn back the deserts and open up the arid interior of our country for farming and living."

Did you know that during the Depression (early 1930's) the idea of sending Sydney's treated sewage over the Blue Mountains was considered. As with the building of Victoria Road, it would have used the labour of unemployed men. What would that have done for Australia's interior? Instead Sydney's sewage is now emptied into the ocean.
Australian
Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:09:10 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 8
Location: Brisbane
De-centralisation. The excessive prices of housing and demands on existing infrastructure exists because of supply and demand. A clear solution would be to create lots of new population centers where people can gain meaningful employment. There needs to be development of common facilities - hospitals, schools, shops ect. and recreation facilities. People are leaving regional areas at alarming rates and flocking to the city which stretches limited resources even further. The government needs to be proactive to the point where lots of people even consider leaving the major cities to start a new lifestyle in a new community.
Dave
Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:30:01 PM
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 110
Location: Seattle, WA (USA)
And in order to decentralise, you need water engineering, sustainable & deployment energy, improved transport & communications. Seems like so far the four suggestions are conceptually right on track...
Guest
Posted: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:05:38 AM
Rank: Guest
Groups: Guest

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 3,289
Nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen until we get Fusion.

The others are excellent.
Dave
Posted: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:09:28 AM
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 110
Location: Seattle, WA (USA)
Hi guest - thanks for posting.

Quote:
Nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen until we get Fusion.


Well, a number of countries have very successfully deployed nuclear power solutions - are you suggesting they're also a disaster waiting to happen, or do you think that Australia specifically could not enjoy the same success should we elect to go that route?

Just playing devil's advocate here... :)

Cheers, Dave.
grahmclean
Posted: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:18:46 PM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/6/2008
Posts: 1
Location: AUSTRALIA 2756
The seduction of the techno-fix is apparent. It is too confronting to face the consequences of our impacts

I have been losing sleep about human provoked climate change for nigh on thirty years. In 1992, I suggested “our environment” would become a central concern of humanity in the early 21st century. And so it has! Now my family have graciously said “so you were right!” and apologised for all those “OH! he’s at it again!”

At that time, I was teaching in “systemic agriculture” and “social ecology” and was also a weekend farmer. Yet it was not the references used in the classes, such as Gore’s Earth in the Balance.
One day I sat down and, metaphorically, using the back of an envelope, created an elementary “earth systems model”.

These were the ingredients: (i) an earth globe - showing the finite land masses and oceans; (ii) a geological and evolutionary time line with a tiny dot on it representing 150 years. That number was chosen to be approx. the span of my late fathers life, plus my own and that of our youngest daughter (three people who could talk to each other in 1991); (iii)world population estimates 1908( 1.6 bill. ), 2060 (9.2 bill.) (now seen as an over-estimate; ( 7.2 better)
a range of estimates in creasing propensity t o consume [e.g. 2060 citizen average of 1.8, 2.4....3.6 times the per person consumption in 1908]; (iv) a recognition that the environmetal consequences of a rising population and consumption are lagged: and (iv) a thought experiment in which i applied the model to an island that I could cycle around in a day (PHILIP island).

the longer perspective will show we are not immune from the consequences and i don't have any quick fixes
James
Posted: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:16:23 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2008
Posts: 6
Location: Newcastle
Someone will have to explain what water engineering is, i've never heard of it. As for nuclear power stations... I guess they would be better than coal power stations, but I still don't want them. Solar and (if it's ever really invented) hydrogen seem to me to be the way to go.

I think that high-speed rail should be built between the capitals and outer towns e.g. Sydney to Newcastle, Sydney to Bathurst, Melbourne to Bendigo, and Brisbane to Ipswich but I think it would be hard to justify high speed rail between capitals in the begining. It should be a slow process, with links between capitals and satelite towns being developed first, and then, maybe, links between capitals themselves.

High speed internet is, without a doubt, Australia's link to prosperity in the 21st Century. We must invest in the infrastructure for it.
Aidan Stanger
Posted: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:08:01 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/8/2008
Posts: 4
Location: Adelaide
[James] Water engineering is a branch of civil engineering that involves the storage, movement, and improvement of water. Desalination is an example of it (being a form of improvement) but water engineering involves many different topics, including flood defences, river rehabilitation, and the entire water supply and sewage disposal systems, including the pipes under the street.

Hydrogen might become a useful energy storage method, but it will not become an energy source without nuclear fusion!

A Sydney to Newcastle high speed line may make sense, but Bathurst is a bit far? Isn't it outside the area served by Cityrail? A high speed line that way may be justified eventually, but surely Canberra should be a higher priority destination?

As for internet access, ADSL1 is adequate for most purposes at the moment. Much higher speeds will eventually be needed, but that need should not be used as an excuse to delay anything.
gazelle
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:46:11 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/17/2008
Posts: 7
Location: Melbourne
I think that the initial "big 4" (High speed intercity rail links, Desalination and water engineering, Nuclear energy, Fibre-optic communications network) are worded incorrectly.
We are jumping straight into "solutions" rather than defining the "problems".

The equivalent problems are:
1. Inefficient long-distance transport
2. Water shortages
3. Unsustainable energy generation
4. Inadequate communications

If we look at the problems instead of the solutions, then we open up to more alternatives.
eg.
1 - Move everyone into one big metropolis
2 - Reduce our demand for water
3 - Reduce our demand for energy
4 - Reduce the size of the information being passed around

My thinking is along the lines of grahmclean, in trying to take a "systems" view of the world. I'll point him and anyone else interested to a popular environmental studies textbook:
"Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions, Fourth Edition", Michael L. McKinney, Robert M. Schoch, Logan Yonavjak (2007), Jones & Bartlett ISBN:0763742627 http://books.google.com/books?id=xBGffKNfsq8C
I particularly like the diagram on page 7.

@Dave, re Nuclear energy, apart from the much-discussed issues surrounding cost, safety, security and disposal, the use of nuclear energy is just replacing one problem with another. Uranium is even rarer than coal. If the world miraculously shifted all of its coal-fired energy to nuclear, it's estimated that we'd run out of uranium within 2 to 3 decades.
For a sustainable solution, we need to look outside of Earth's closed system for sources of energy. i.e. the Sun (solar), gravity (tidal and hydro), and the earth's rotation (wind and geothermal).

@Aidan, hydrogen can be obtained without fusion. For example, by supplying enough energy, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen fuel cells exist now, and are an exciting and promising method of storing (potential) energy.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

YAFVision Theme Created by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.326 seconds.