Re: Aluminium price increase for Australia

Nowhere wrote:


Fuckin ridiculous that we would be importing aluminium, considering we are the world's biggest producer of bauxite.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is, but then the question that needs to be asked is why is locally made Ally more expensive in the first place?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Because our pollies are too gutless to consider a nuclear option for cheap electricity production. Instead we sell our bauxite and uranium overseas where they can use the uranium to make electricity which they can then use to turn the bauxite into aluminium and sell it back to us. Fucking stupid.
--
Kwyj.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kwyjibo wrote:

So they take the risks and we get the benefits. Actually sounds like pretty smart thinking. Of course, it might take a smart person to see that. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


There's no real risk though. Buy something cheap. Process it is using cheap power. Sell the end product at a premium. Where's the risk in that?
And we get a very minor benefit, compared to what's possible.

Not even close.

Or a politician to think that........
--
Kwyj.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kwyjibo wrote:

You clearly know nothing at all about nuclear power if you're prepared to argue that it is risk free! Sure, it is beneficial in many ways, but why not let those who are prepared to take the risks continue to do so?
In the meantime, we can keep buying aluminium at prevailing market rates and know that it's still cheaper than trying to dispose of nuclear waste etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fuck them.
We need a nuclear power plant or 6 yesterday.

We already have a *huge* complex suitable for dumping millions of tonnes of nuclear waste. It's called "South Australia".
--
Regards,
Noddy.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's after hours.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noddy wrote:

Fair enough. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You omitted "Uninhabitable by humans"..
--
Knob



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haven't eaten tripe in about 40 years but I sorta' remember it being kinda' nice. No-one eats offal any more......
--
Knob



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kwyjibo wrote:

Any argument that relies upon stats alone for proof (as yours seems to do) is pretty worthless, and only a fool would think otherwise.
You're really not going to get very far by continuing to argue that a full-scale nuclear meltdown is somehow safer than an ordinary fire at a coal-fired plant.
You can try to save your argument by desperately pulling in all the stats you like about secondary deaths from various if that's what makes you feel good about yourself. But when talking about a pound-for-pound comparison of primary deaths directly attributed to a major explosion, the only idiotic claims are the ones you are making.
If the only way you can beat me is to make up claims on my behalf that I never made, or argue points that I have never contested, then it doesn't really say much about the strength of your case, does it? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Damien wrote:

You're not very good at this trolling thing, are you?
Try to be a little less transparent.
Moike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Moike wrote:

I'm not trolling. I'm just too stupid to ignore bigger idiots than myself, that's all. :-)
You tell me, just where *did* I say that we should *not* go nuclear? All I've ever said was that there are risks involved that these other tossers seem hellbent on ignoring completely - which, as they seem to be unaware, is precisely the way that otherwise safe activities become absolutely lethal. Not my fault they're too stupid to recognise that there is a difference between being opposed to something and to simply pointing out important factors that they want only to ignore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So assumption makes all the difference? :)

Probably not, but I don't think he was doing that.

Perhaps you can put up something that proves he's wrong, instead of just saying he is?

Hey, if you don't fancy a nuclear power plant being builtn in your neighbourhood that's fine. But if you've got any *valid* reasons as to why the rest of the country shouldn't enjoy the benefits of one then we'd be delighted to hear them.
Oh, and "Because I don't like them" isn't really going to cut it.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noddy wrote:

Tell me just where they would actually go if we decided to seriously do something about building some?
There's no way it would ever be near a major population centre for starters. Even if you didn't give a toss about risks, or were able to somehow come up with a guaranteed foolproof design, it would be electoral suicide for any government or opposition to support such positioning.
But you couldn't build one away from major population centres either. Nuclear power plants require considerable volumes of water for their operation and safety. But the only places where you'd be able to build one due to the relative isolation from people are also ruled out for their isolation from reliable and sufficient water supplies.
So just where are you going to put it then, hmmm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One could go in my back yard if they paid me enough money. I couldn't care less about living 20 feet from it.

That has never stopped them from doing such things before.
The bigger danger would be getting a government to commit to one, as they would be highly unlikely to see the benefits in a single term and if they get the arse before it's finished the incoming government gets all the cream.

Crap.
Wherever they like. I couldn't care less.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noddy wrote:

The Latrobe valley in Vic would be perfect, plenty of water for a power station especially if they shut down some of the coal fired power stations and the transmissions lines are already in place.
Daryl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noddy wrote:

Really? Care to prove it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is there a point?
I mean, what form of proof would you be prepared to accept? The fact that there already are a number of power stations in use using *salt* water for cooling, or that there already are nuclear power stations in use using waste water for cooling?
What *specifically* is it that you're not getting here?
-- Regards, Noddy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.