complain about the government

[dirty man]

as per mel's advice in 'glasshouse axed' thread


get whinging

[mel_bound]

I'd rather Howard stay in government over Beazley.

I don't really care who's in office, Labor and Liberal end up pretty much the same anyways, just as long as the other party's in the majority in the senate. Then atleast not much happened :p

PG 4 PM :D

[Julian]

Labors a fucking joke

[Sammas]

Labors a fucking joke

Why do you say that?

[Julian]

Meh I have reasons but I can't be stuffed going to far into it. There's a reason why Howard still manages to poll well. My family has voted Labor their whole life but it'll change with the next election.

[Kylie eats dugong for tea]

im a little lazy and i cant really be bothered to explain in detail but I am pretty much against liberal party policies in general.

im against privatisation
i am pro-welfare state and extensive welfare provision.

theres many other thing that I have against the liberal party policies but those two are the main ones.

[Evil Chris]

I hate John Howard.

[Julian]

Thankyou for your valuable input

[Lowee]

Yes, it's up there with 'Labors a fucking joke' for meaningful conversation.

[Kevin]

i'd vote for howard again

[Jawn]

hahahah i love kiddies when they get angsty about the government. Because seriously, they can do fuck all about it. Its great. They hate the government so much and can do nothing but create a "whinge about the government thread", wheras the much cooler and older people can actually VOTE. :p

Seriously though, I don't like a lot of Howard's policies, but I think Beazley is a jellyback and is weak. I could be a better opposition leader. Howard's government have put their foot in it a lot of times, but Beazley never attacks. How the hell they haven't managed to turn Ruddock's "sleep deprivation aint torture" thing into a huge issue and try to convince the Australian public he is a giant douchebag is beyond me. Seriously, the guy says he is in Amnesty International, and thinks sleep deprivation is cool. Not only that, Amnesty International are making a campaign to get Hicks out of Guantanamo, yet the government doesn't seem to care about Hicks. It seems to me a conflict of interest between the policies of the government and the Amnesty International group Ruddock says he is part of. How has labor not picked this up and gone for the jugular?

The main issue that I wont vote for Howard on is the Iraq issue and all issues related to this (ie Hicks). A lot of people are getting uptight on the workplace reforms, but its such a complicated policy no-one can really understand it. I haven't sat down to read it all, so I'm not going to whinge about it unless Im presented with a pretty clear cut example of how it is fucked up. This example has to directly affect me as well.

I could also vote for the Greens or Democrats. But that would just be to give them hope that at least one person out there sympathises with them. I like the Greens policies as ideas, but the Greens have this problem of having these great ideals and policies but never actually telling us how they are going to achieve said policies. I fear the Greens will just run the country into the ground. But good on em.

Family First don't have as barbaric policies as people think. Seriously, Ive read their policies, they are pretty good. Of course the hidden agenda is kinda scary, but if people forget the fact that the majority of them are christians, and putting any christian prejudices you may have aside, you may find out that Family First aren't such a bad party.

The Victorians have a state election coming up. I have no idea who to vote for. So far the policies have been a spending spree and I like some from both. I think Liberal might be winning so far with the promises they have made, but I seriously doubt they will implement all of them. And I think Ted is a pretty weak leader and a bit of a tool. Again, the Liberal party could have attacked Brack's so much as Brack's has done nothing, but they are weak. Also, it pisses me off that all of a sudden Labor is going to spend all this money and do all this shit at election time. Why couldn't they spend that cash they been sitting on during their term and actually do something? Again, I may vote Greens or democrats here. I like their ideals, and even though I know they are un-implementable, they will never get into power anyway.

[Lowee]

I'm more or less in agreeance with you. I don't like Howards policies, particularly mandatory detention (especially of children), his attempt to send asylum seekers traight to Nauru, his recent changes to the Land Rights Act, I don't go much on what I know of Work Choices, David Hicks, and I strongly diagree with his opposition of gay marriage. That said Labor oppose it too.

That said whilst I prefer Labor, they're not great at the moment, and I agree that Beazley is spineless. Labor and Liberal policies are too close in some areas (Gay Marriage, Uranium mining, etc).

So, I'll probably be voting Green on a federal and state level. Statewise (Tasmania) there are some important environmental issues at the moment, and I'd like to see the Greens have a bit more weight. Federally I want Howard out, and I know that Labor are the only hope, so I'll vote green with prefs to Labor. I like to see the greens with some power. People always say the greens have no realistic way of implementing their policies, and I think it's somewhat true at present, but they know they aren't going to suddenly come into power, and if they were to gradually win more and more seats I suspect they'd start looking more and more at how to implement some of their goals. But heh, thats mere speculation on my part.

One line summary:
Don't like Howard, Not a huge Beazley fan, Probably voting Green.

[chainsaw cheney]

hell yes, the government sucks and yeh we cant vote yet, but its not like the votes has changed anyway! theres still an asshole leading our country

[Sammas]

The Greens a the biggest bunch of clowns out there... Their narrow viewed campaign against uranium export isn't even consistent with being an environmental friendly party.

[Kylie eats dugong for tea]

The democrats are probably most consistent with my ideas about the world etc, although I voted green at the last QLD state election. It didnt matter anyway, I live in a super-safe labor seat and stupid QLD has no senate.


Generally, I think that people don't take their right to vote seriously enough. I think most voters fall for whoever has the best marketing campaign in a particular election.

[Sammas]

The democrats are probably most consistent with my ideas about the world etc, although I voted green at the last QLD state election. It didnt matter anyway, I live in a super-safe labor seat and stupid QLD has no senate.


Generally, I think that people don't take their right to vote seriously enough. I think most voters fall for whoever has the best marketing campaign in a particular election.


Peter Beattie has been alright from what I've seen though. Do you know if a nuclear powerstation is actually on the cards in queensland? That would be kickass...

[Rhiannon]

So many kids growing up with parents saying 'all politicians are liars so it doesn't matter who you vote for' doesn't help with the whole taking it seriously thing.

[Kylie eats dugong for tea]

I think theres a lot of opposition to a nuclear power station wherever you go.

However, we do have a fabulous 4000 bed prison on the cards!

[Sammas]

I think theres a lot of opposition to a nuclear power station wherever you go.

However, we do have a fabulous 4000 bed prison on the cards!



I reckon nuclear power is the only way to go, as long as it is used properly and sparingly ... Australia is has one of the biggest supplies of uranium in the world. That and the fact it is a great way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... something australia is one of the best at in the world.

[Jawn]

There are better ways to cut out greenhouse gas emmissions than to build a nuclear power station. I can't believe that these things are being considered. Did we learn nothing from Chernobyl?

There's wind farms, hydro stations, solar... I don't think these things have been researched properly before we go nuclear.

Nuclear is such a short-term narrow minded approach to things. In the long term we may have cleaner electricity, but we got a fuckload of waste that we don't know what to do with.

[KillingInTheNameOf]

Jawn's rant

haha I get to vote :p

[Aaron]

Australia is has one of the biggest supplies of uranium in the world.
We also have a large supply of kangaroos, but they don't burn too well. Seriously, we have a large supply of sunlight and coastline. They aren't going to run out, either. Solar isn't good for baseload energy production because of its variable output, although this can be countered by using surplus to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen, then storing the hydrogen for use in fuel cells to produce energy during peak times. Dead simple idea, just needs funding to develop efficiency and then market forces take over as everyone realises what an awesome idea it is.

Nuclear is only a good option if you ignore everything else.

[Sammas]

There are better ways to cut out greenhouse gas emmissions than to build a nuclear power station. I can't believe that these things are being considered. Did we learn nothing from Chernobyl?

There's wind farms, hydro stations, solar... I don't think these things have been researched properly before we go nuclear.

Nuclear is such a short-term narrow minded approach to things. In the long term we may have cleaner electricity, but we got a fuckload of waste that we don't know what to do with.


No its not Johnny... The only thing that should have been learnt from Chernobyl is how not to build a nuclear powerstation, and how misconception can kill a very valid idea and beneficial technology. You are talking about a single incident that directly affected a small localised area. Coal and Gas stations (which Australia uses at its primary source of power) have been slowly churning out ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases of the past century which amount to problems on a global scale. Why does nobody reference a country like France that has 59 nuclear reactors that create 75% of the countries power all without a single incident? They generate so much electricity that it is one of their major exports to neighbouring counties.

Spent nuclear fuel is reprocessable. 95% of it can be recycled through reprocessing and reused again to create energy.

Wind farms and solar power while a valid form of power, would take ridiculous amounts of money and space to replace whats currently implemented in australia. Photovoltiac cells are one of the least efficient forms of power. Each panel converts only about 10% of sun energy into electricity. A 1metre by 1.4metre solar panel creates about 50watts of power. Current powerstations in Australia put out about 600-800MW (600 million watts) of power. If you do the math that isn't a small area of solar panels to replace a single powerstation.

Per house you have a choice of 1 wind turbine, 1000 ton of coal or a piece of nuclear material the size of a $2 coin to create enough power for a year.

[Sammas]

We also have a large supply of kangaroos, but they don't burn too well. Seriously, we have a large supply of sunlight and coastline. They aren't going to run out, either. Solar isn't good for baseload energy production because of its variable output, although this can be countered by using surplus to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen, then storing the hydrogen for use in fuel cells to produce energy during peak times. Dead simple idea, just needs funding to develop efficiency and then market forces take over as everyone realises what an awesome idea it is.

Nuclear is only a good option if you ignore everything else.

Right... it only needs money to implement. Pretty simple huh? Not to mention the reconstruction of the implemented mains system, installing DC->AC inverters and DC-DC converters isn't a small nor cheap task.

Wind and solar power are only a good option if you ignore the restraints of reality. I think there is much more potential for replacing petroleum.

[Julian]

Seriously though, I don't like a lot of Howard's policies, but I think Beazley is a jellyback and is weak. I could be a better opposition leader. Howard's government have put their foot in it a lot of times, but Beazley never attacks. How the hell they haven't managed to turn Ruddock's "sleep deprivation aint torture" thing into a huge issue and try to convince the Australian public he is a giant douchebag is beyond me. Seriously, the guy says he is in Amnesty International, and thinks sleep deprivation is cool. Not only that, Amnesty International are making a campaign to get Hicks out of Guantanamo, yet the government doesn't seem to care about Hicks. It seems to me a conflict of interest between the policies of the government and the Amnesty International group Ruddock says he is part of. How has labor not picked this up and gone for the jugular?.
I agree 100% with that.

[Jawn]

Spent nuclear fuel is reprocessable. 95% of it can be recycled through reprocessing and reused again to create energy.


Its the 5% that can't be reprocessable that is the worrying factor. I will put up my hand and say yes to nuclear energy when all other avenues are explored fully and are deemed unfeasable for a good reason. A good reason is not "wwaahh the wind farms are too noisy". They aren't. I have stood in the middle of a windfarm and the turbines were going flat chat. You can't hear anything.

[Julian]

They're too expensive, they don't produce enough energy

[Steph Format]

this thread is interesting reading, seeing the parallels that exist.

there's a midterm election next week, and it'll be my first time voting, hooray.
will Bush spend his last two years in office up against a Democratic Congress? dare to dream.

[Aaron]

Your figures on solar are way outdated, Sammas. You're talking 1980s technology there.

But you're right, setting such a system up would be expensive, but it would ensure limitless energy practically forever. Production costs would be greatly reduced with mass-production, and Australia could become global leader. Current political systems don't require foresight beyond four years, so no-one is game to spend.

If you don't like the idea of on-shore distributed solar power, how about massive off-shore facilities that only produce hydrogen, which is shipped back to the mainland for consumption? It greatly reduces the need for DC converters. The fact remains that not all options are being considered.

Nuclear energy is just a fancy version of steam power, and releases at least 40% of its energy through the cooling towers.

[mel_bound]

Sorry to not have anything useful to add, but damn this thread is a good read. Good work people :D

But I do agree that Nuclear power should be a definite last resort.. although we could blast the waste into space... :p

[Strider]

I think I saw some stats saying it would take 5 years of nuclear energy production to actually create the energy required in building the plant. To me that seems quite wasteful.

I think a variety of options need to be looked at for creating energy rather than just one single "fix it up" as they Howard Government are suggesting. While solar panels, wind energy etc may work well for residential energy sources we still have to adress the huge demand of energy by commercial and industrial developments. It's clearly a number 1 priority of the Howard government to implement Nuclear Energy so they're going to adress every single pro that they can. We need far more debate before rushing into any decision but I would rather Australia not rush into Nuclear energy...

In saying that however, I think our concern should be more in our water supply. Toowoomba made a huge mistake by voting No a few months back, it's going to lead to huge long term problems. When you think about it, water is recycled anyway so it shouldn't be such a big deal.

[Aaron]

But I do agree that Nuclear power should be a definite last resort.. although we could blast the waste into space... :p
If there was a cheap and reliable way of sending stuff into space, the sun would be the ultimate dumping ground. Unfortunately, rockets fail way too often to send high-level nuclear waste into space, plus the cost is thousands of times too much. Which is why more investment is needed in materials engineering so that a space elevator can be built!

In saying that however, I think our concern should be more in our water supply. Toowoomba made a huge mistake by voting No a few months back, it's going to lead to huge long term problems. When you think about it, water is recycled anyway so it shouldn't be such a big deal.
Heck yeah. All water is currently recycled anyway, through natural processes. Making the loop more efficient and reliable is certainly the way to go. There also needs to be a requirement that new developments come with a grey-water system. Using potable water for everything is ridiculous, especially in a dry country like Australia.

[State_Of_Emergency]

I would vote for neither... my parents not sure yet i don't think

I hate Mr.Brako... he gave our school PORTABLES when he promised us proper classrooms :mad:

I don't think that "Nuclear" idea is really good either

[worry_rock]

Maybe nuclear power isn't for us, but as someone said, we have shitloads of uranium. I believe we have about 40% of global uranium stores.

I've heard about enriching the uranium and producing fuel rods. This would give us the ability to lease nuclear fuel to power companies (globally).

Fuel rods can be tracked and fuel leasing also allows us to monitor the material against misuse (don't ask for details, I'm basing this on an article I read haha). And yeah, the spent fuel would be returned back here, and while it IS highly radioactive, it's a relatively small amount of material. And really, comparitively, Australia also has the capability to store the waste.

Australia is geographically ideal for nuclear waste disposal. We live on a big land, a lot of which is uninhabited, geologically stable desert. Some authority figure said something like that...

But yeah...I'm also not too knowledgable concerning alternative power sources. But I've heard that wind power is really expensive (2 to 3 times moreso than the cost of coal) and is unreliable?

GAH. This is too much of a reminder of our issues work in English.

[Sammas]

Its the 5% that can't be reprocessable that is the worrying factor. I will put up my hand and say yes to nuclear energy when all other avenues are explored fully and are deemed unfeasable for a good reason. A good reason is not "wwaahh the wind farms are too noisy". They aren't. I have stood in the middle of a windfarm and the turbines were going flat chat. You can't hear anything.

HIFAR has been blazing away since 1958, if nuclear waste was as bad as most people make out half of Sydney would be glowing green. I think most people overestimate how much fuel a nuclear power station uses and how much of that waste is actually of a high level radioactivity.

The average nuclear power station uses 74kg of uranium a day, a coal power station uses 8600 tonne of coal a day.

As far as emissions, the coal powerstation will release 20,000 tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as well as some other gases like sulphur dioxide. Compare this to under 4kg's of waste coming from the nuclear power station that then undergoes long term treatment in water where its radioactivity is reduced to 0.1% of its previous level. Compared to gas and coal, nuclear power only has the potential to cause problems..

If you are worried about the cleanliness of nuclear power, you should be scared shitless about coal and gas power...

Using wind power has nothing to do with noise. Its the shear cost and logistics of implementing wind power. The biggest turbine in australia now are 80metres in diameter and produce 2MW. That means you need 300 odd wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as the powerstation it is intended to replace. But thats at peak power production, given that wind power is intermittent you need an underlying method of producing consistent power.

Your figures on solar are way outdated, Sammas. You're talking 1980s technology there.

Whats the average efficiency of currect photovoltiac cells then?


But you're right, setting such a system up would be expensive, but it would ensure limitless energy practically forever. Production costs would be greatly reduced with mass-production, and Australia could become global leader. Current political systems don't require foresight beyond four years, so no-one is game to spend.

If you don't like the idea of on-shore distributed solar power, how about massive off-shore facilities that only produce hydrogen, which is shipped back to the mainland for consumption? It greatly reduces the need for DC converters. The fact remains that not all options are being considered.

All options are being considered, its the fact that one option alone doesn't hold the complete answer. Im not suggesting that nuclear power become the only method of power production in Australia. The fact that hydrogen as a power source isn't ready for implementation probably has a huge effect on the decision not to use it ;) Even with unlimited funding its implemention would be many years away. The fact that the process of electrolysis of water is patented isn't aiding the goal of green power.

The government could meet it half way if they were smart though. Like by subsidising solar power per household. If households were given a cheap option to install solar power to their house im sure many would jump on board. In peak production, excess power would be returned to the mains grid, yet the house could still rely on mains power during inconsistant sunshine.


Nuclear energy is just a fancy version of steam power, and releases at least 40% of its energy through the cooling towers.

Yes, but you have to consider the amount of energy created per quantity of fuel used.

[Erin]

I don't think that "Nuclear" idea is really good either

well your pal the liberals is thinking of building nuclear power plants in and around melbourne

I hate Mr.Brako... he gave our school PORTABLES when he promised us proper classrooms :mad:

anyone in power's gonna rip off public schools, especialy lil jonny howard

[State_Of_Emergency]

like they said on TGYH, if there was a "yellow: don't really give a shit,so not voting for anyone" I'd be in that category


And they are not my pals erin... Ok, you guys at school are (and my friends on the forum :D)

[Erin]

i just needed to get shit off my chest

[State_Of_Emergency]

so you dropped it on to me?? :) its ok

[Jawn]

can someone explain to me why its John Howards fault about the public school system, when it falls under the state's jurisdiction?

Seriously. a lesson to kiddies, and everyone. Its cool that you don't like John Howard or Steve Bracks or whoever. But find out WHY you disagree with them and don't just dislike what they do because its the cool thing or its "punk".


And Sammas, I raised the noise because that was a big issue in the Gippsland region when they were trying to put in wind turbines. Some environmentalists got angry because they will generate too much noise.

[Neryssah]

Toowoomba made a huge mistake by voting No a few months back, it's going to lead to huge long term problems.

That's because the whole town is full of rednecks. And Clive Berghoffer or however you spell his stupid name isn't helping much either.

[Aaron]

Maybe nuclear power isn't for us, but as someone said, we have shitloads of uranium. I believe we have about 40% of global uranium stores.
I also mentioned that we have a lot of kangaroos - I daresay more than 40% of global stores. The philosophy that the land is there to dig up and sell is not sustainable.
And yeah, the spent fuel would be returned back here, and while it IS highly radioactive, it's a relatively small amount of material. And really, comparitively, Australia also has the capability to store the waste.

Australia is geographically ideal for nuclear waste disposal. We live on a big land, a lot of which is uninhabited, geologically stable desert. Some authority figure said something like that...
The problem is with shipping the stuff, mostly. It's a good idea economically - bad environmentally.
HIFAR has been blazing away since 1958, if nuclear waste was as bad as most people make out half of Sydney would be glowing green. I think most people overestimate how much fuel a nuclear power station uses and how much of that waste is actually of a high level radioactivity.
HIFAR is a research reactor, not a power plant. It doesn't even produce the nasty stuff - plutonium.
If you are worried about the cleanliness of nuclear power, you should be scared shitless about coal and gas power...
Oh, I am! Burning such a valuable and finite resource is stupid, not to mention the horrible byproducts.
Whats the average efficiency of currect photovoltiac cells then?
Current record is 24.7%, held by a team from my uni - UNSW. But efficiency isn't really that much of an issue, since the sun is all-powerful.
The fact that the process of electrolysis of water is patented isn't aiding the goal of green power.
Fact? Please back that up - I've never heard such a thing.

Sorry for the lateness of this reply - I got distracted :p

[CourTLErocks]

i hate voting! never can decide, everyone there is to vote for is shit. Howard is goin down the drain, beazly couldnt even get outta the drain, the greens will fuck everything up more, even though im into environment and animals and crap but they would take it too far, im not a christian so ill be damned if im voting for a religious group and the rest are complete power hungry fools like the rest of them.

and why the hell did they have to axe the best show on the ABC? Damn government couldnt take a joke. It'll prob go to another network though, a non government owned one.

and again...I hate voting

[Sammas]

I also mentioned that we have a lot of kangaroos - I daresay more than 40% of global stores. The philosophy that the land is there to dig up and sell is not sustainable.

The problem is with shipping the stuff, mostly. It's a good idea economically - bad environmentally.

HIFAR is a research reactor, not a power plant. It doesn't even produce the nasty stuff - plutonium.

Yeah, but given the reactions that some people have to nuclear anything you'd swear southern sydney residence had 3 legs and gills.

Current record is 24.7%, held by a team from my uni - UNSW. But efficiency isn't really that much of an issue, since the sun is all-powerful.

Efficiency is always an issue when its implementation comes down to the all mighty dollar.

Fact? Please back that up - I've never heard such a thing.

Hydrogen power cell - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5292600.html

Another interesting idea - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6841893.html

and according to this company's website the University of British Columbia holds the patent for "methods of generating hydrogen from water" - http://www.hydrogenpowerinc.com/techdiagram.html

The description sounds word for word similar to the process of water electrolysis.


Sorry for the lateness of this reply - I got distracted :p


*shrugs* thats ok... :)

[Aaron]

Higher efficiency is always good, but when so much energy (in the form of prospecting, drilling, refining, transporting) has been put into your average hydrocarbon fuel you really want to get your money's worth. Burning coal and oil is inefficient in that it wastes energy in such a way that it causes undue pollution. Solar cells are inefficient in that you might need twice as many square metres to generate the power output you want (yes, it's still a problem because those extra cells need to be produced, but that's a one-off cost rather than ongoing).

Of those three links, the first two are fuel cells (the net opposite of electrolysis) and are certainly patentable ideas - fuel cells exist in many forms, but they all aim to achieve the same thing (except for choice of fuel in some cases). The third link is a method of electrolysis, not electrolysis itself. The patent is narrowly-focused enough that it doesn't claim to have exclusive rights to the process of electrolysis by other means.

So, what's next on the list of whinges? This got a little off-topic :p

[Madtwins]

There are better ways to cut out greenhouse gas emmissions than to build a nuclear power station. I can't believe that these things are being considered. Did we learn nothing from Chernobyl?

There's wind farms, hydro stations, solar... I don't think these things have been researched properly before we go nuclear.



Wow! :eek: What do you know about Chernobyl? Ukraine had nuclear weapon ( it was from soviet past ) but refuse of it. Nuclear it's a big political power of intimidation.
Funny but we studied solar systems and green architecture by australian examples.

And what about politics - watch South Park episode 808 - Douche and Turd.

[Jake]

Although I regard myself as being quite well educated in the happenings of the past, I thought the Chernobyl accident was something that a lot of people knew about. In science, when learning about power sources, we spent a good half an hour being told about it because only 2 or 3 out of 30 students knew what happened... I found that quite disappointing, as it was such a major thing.