Just when you think things can't get any worse, the Nuclear Lobby rears its ugly head again. Tony Abbott, Minister for Being Persuaded by Vested Interests. I would like to voice a truism here: the ETS might be awful, but nuclear power is worse. Much much worse.
To be fair, mining companies are businesses, out to make a buck, just like everyone else. They make their money digging stuff out of the ground. Uranium happens to be one of those things. Why not try to make a buck off it?
It's all so seductive. They promise you all the electricity you can eat, enough to power hundreds of thousands of air conditioners, enough to keep every home and office cold enough to chill milk even at the height of summer. Goodbye energy scarcity, hello energy security! No need to think about your carbon footprint - nuclear energy is guilt free. You know you want it.
People, please do not buy this crap. Do not touch it with a barge pole. They are lying through their teeth because there's lots of money in it for them. Nuclear power is not cheap, it's horribly expensive, and it is not clean, it's stupidly dirty.
1) EXPENSIVE
Digging uranium out of the ground is cheap. It's all downhill from there.
First the uranium has to be refined to fuel grade. That will require a special facility with special staff and special safety systems. Expensive.
Secondly, the uranium fuel has to be used to generate electricity. Again, a special facility needs to be constructed to do this. The amount of safety and risk management built into nuclear power plants makes them expensive to build and run. And then if something does go wrong, it's much more expensive to clean up the mess than would be the case with a non-radioactive power station.
Thirdly, after the fuel is spent, it still needs to be managed. CO2 can look after itself once it leave a coal fired station. It's aggregate CO2 over a number of years that is the worry, because of the greenhouse effect. However, radioactive material is a direct threat to all living things all of the time, and needs to be managed through every little step of the process, including disposal. So even after the spent fuel has stopped generating a profit, it is costing money, time and effort to manage.
2) DIRTY
With non-radioactive solid waste, Australia can afford to dump. Because we have a low population density, and we can rationalise dumping by saying that the land wasn't going to be used for something better in the lifetime of the dump. Besides, there's always the chance that in years to come, new technologies will emerge that will enable dumps to be mined for their resources. Or the land could be remediated and turned into new housing (hello Cranbourne!) or recreational facilities (hello Sydney Olympic Park!).
Not so nuclear waste dumps. Once you build a dump, it has to stay a dump. A very well guarded dump, too. It will have to be placed out in the middle of nowhere, because nobody wants to live near it, which means it is more expensive to maintain and guard. You can tell yourself that it's useless land, but it's a bit bloody presumptuous to decide that it is going to be useless land for the next 100 years, let alone the next 10 000. Not to mention that nuclear dump design is mostly temporary at present, because they're still hoping someone will come up with a better dump sometime soon...
3) You won't like it.
Honestly, you won't. They will put a dirty great nuclear reactor somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard (probably NSW), because that's where all the air conditioners live. Then your cute little coastal town within commuting distance to Sydney will become a social pariah. No tourists will visit and the fall in property prices will mean you can't retire until you're 102. Radioactive material will be trucked around your home town on its way to or from the reactor. It will probably be trucked around Sydney too, so don't think you're going to get off lightly by making it someone else's problem, Sydneysiders. Much extra security and restrictions and inconvenience and fear are going to accompany the trucking.
Even if you're in favour of nuclear (and lets face it, unless you're going to make some of the stupendous amounts of money that will be thrown at it, you're probably not in favour), you will have to put up with the constant fear and loathing of the anti-nuclear lobby, who make up in volume what they lack in grooming and taste in suits. They want everyone to realise that if the reactor explodes it will be the end of the world. They will use the C-word. You can argue to your heart's content that the C-word will never happen here, that the reactor will not explode and everything is going to be ok. The problem is that you cannot state categorically that "this reactor will not fail catastrophically". You can only say "the catastrophic failure of the reactor is not a part of the plan, and we will be sticking to the plan to the letter". And who trusts a bunch of capitalists to go against their instincts to make maximum profit and actually put public safety first? Even the commy bastards couldn't get it right, so what chance do a bunch of privateers have?
Every dollar that gets spent on nuclear power is a dollar of taxpayers money handed over to the private sector and a million dollars robbed from the future, where they will still be dealing with the leftovers of today's nuclear power generation. At least wind and solar generators pay off their energy debt, which is the energy cost to produce the generator, and make an energy profit. You can't say the same for nuclear. It's just not worth it.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Fix it. Fix it now.
Hey NSW!
South Australia can be bothered getting of their arse to fix entrenched corruption in their state government agencies. What's stopping us?
South Australia can be bothered getting of their arse to fix entrenched corruption in their state government agencies. What's stopping us?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Time just flies
Bart Bassett, Mayor of Hawkesbury Council, quoted in this ABC news item about the Richmond RAAF base being used as Sydney's second airport.
On the face of it, it does seem only right and proper that Sydney should have a second commercial airport. Sydney Airport is pretty much at capacity! It would be awful if the two or three hundred people left in the world who actually wanted to visit were somehow denied the opportunity because there wasn't space for them on a flight...
Brief investigation reveals that Sydney's second airport needs have been a hot political topic since just after WWII ended. And lets not even begin to think about how much money has been spent on purchasing property at the proposed sites, feasibility reports, consultation and so on. It will only make you angry that the money hasn't been spent on employing nurses. And the last thing that we need at this time of health funding shortfall is people being outraged into having apoplexies. You'll probably die tragically in the emergency room, with not even a change in health policy to show for your sacrifice.
But back to the rant at hand. You see, there are inevitable problems with a second Sydney airport. Firstly, people in Richmond will be up in arms about the aircraft noise over their historic towns. This is despite the fact that there is already aircraft noise over their historic towns, and those old military planes are a damn sight louder than modern passenger jets. Also, it has been shown convincingly that the historical suburbs under Sydney Airport's flight paths have gotten used to the noise. So grin and bear it, Hawkesburians. Think about how cheap the taxi fare to the second airport will be, and how many jobs it will bring. You'll wonder how you used to put up with a two hour drive to get a ninety minute flight, plus airport parking that cost more than your car was worth.
Of course there is one person who would be absolutely delighted to have Sydney's second airport, whether it is given to him or he can claim it by default. And that person is Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron. Being as they're already spending some money on doing Canberra Airport up a little, it would be no trouble to put up a couple more signs while they're at it. Maybe a tasteful "Welcome to Sydney" sign underneath to the "Welcome to Canberra" one? Of course three hours is a bit of a long transfer for most travellers' liking, so there would probably be a market for connecting flights from Canberra to Sydney... oh hang on...
Besides the fact that the only thing that would make the Canberra Airport work as a second Sydney airport is the building of a high speed rail connection, or, more likely, the invention of the teleport, either of which would possibly render both airports redundant, there are other reasons against adopting Canberra as Sydney's second airport. Like the fact that it's possible some Sydney residents may actually see Canberra while they are there, and decide it's a much nicer place to live than Sydney.
Regardless of if or where the second Sydney airport is built, it still won't change the problem that everyone has when they get here, namely, it's impossible to get around. Diverting air freight to Canberra just means more trucks hogging the Federal Highway and slowing down the pollies' cars. Making Richmond RAAF base a commercial airport just means Clarendon Station will be renovated by a private consortium who will then charge a $5o "station access fee" in line with the other private consortium bastards over at Mascot. The newly upgraded Windsor Road will be even more congested than before the upgrade, full of taxis and impatient people on their way to drop off or pick up folk from the airport.
The solution is clear, people! We need to put the money that was going to be spent on the second airport nonsense towards something useful, like teleport research. I shall set up a Teleport Institute post haste.
"It goes round and round every six months or so and they throw up Richmond as a possibility for another commercial airport for Sydney," he said.I'd say that's a fair assessment, Mr Bassett. This story does seem to crop up every six months, give or take a bit.
On the face of it, it does seem only right and proper that Sydney should have a second commercial airport. Sydney Airport is pretty much at capacity! It would be awful if the two or three hundred people left in the world who actually wanted to visit were somehow denied the opportunity because there wasn't space for them on a flight...
Brief investigation reveals that Sydney's second airport needs have been a hot political topic since just after WWII ended. And lets not even begin to think about how much money has been spent on purchasing property at the proposed sites, feasibility reports, consultation and so on. It will only make you angry that the money hasn't been spent on employing nurses. And the last thing that we need at this time of health funding shortfall is people being outraged into having apoplexies. You'll probably die tragically in the emergency room, with not even a change in health policy to show for your sacrifice.
But back to the rant at hand. You see, there are inevitable problems with a second Sydney airport. Firstly, people in Richmond will be up in arms about the aircraft noise over their historic towns. This is despite the fact that there is already aircraft noise over their historic towns, and those old military planes are a damn sight louder than modern passenger jets. Also, it has been shown convincingly that the historical suburbs under Sydney Airport's flight paths have gotten used to the noise. So grin and bear it, Hawkesburians. Think about how cheap the taxi fare to the second airport will be, and how many jobs it will bring. You'll wonder how you used to put up with a two hour drive to get a ninety minute flight, plus airport parking that cost more than your car was worth.
Of course there is one person who would be absolutely delighted to have Sydney's second airport, whether it is given to him or he can claim it by default. And that person is Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron. Being as they're already spending some money on doing Canberra Airport up a little, it would be no trouble to put up a couple more signs while they're at it. Maybe a tasteful "Welcome to Sydney" sign underneath to the "Welcome to Canberra" one? Of course three hours is a bit of a long transfer for most travellers' liking, so there would probably be a market for connecting flights from Canberra to Sydney... oh hang on...
Besides the fact that the only thing that would make the Canberra Airport work as a second Sydney airport is the building of a high speed rail connection, or, more likely, the invention of the teleport, either of which would possibly render both airports redundant, there are other reasons against adopting Canberra as Sydney's second airport. Like the fact that it's possible some Sydney residents may actually see Canberra while they are there, and decide it's a much nicer place to live than Sydney.
Regardless of if or where the second Sydney airport is built, it still won't change the problem that everyone has when they get here, namely, it's impossible to get around. Diverting air freight to Canberra just means more trucks hogging the Federal Highway and slowing down the pollies' cars. Making Richmond RAAF base a commercial airport just means Clarendon Station will be renovated by a private consortium who will then charge a $5o "station access fee" in line with the other private consortium bastards over at Mascot. The newly upgraded Windsor Road will be even more congested than before the upgrade, full of taxis and impatient people on their way to drop off or pick up folk from the airport.
The solution is clear, people! We need to put the money that was going to be spent on the second airport nonsense towards something useful, like teleport research. I shall set up a Teleport Institute post haste.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Slow news day
What do you do on a slow news day?
The Sydney Morning Herald rehashes this story about the Common Ground project and its founder, Roseanne Haggerty. It's an excellent story and a great model for service delivery. Very much a "give a man a fish" vs "teach a man to fish" sort of idea. Interesting how it developed, though. Haggerty founded the first Common Ground building by renovating a derelict hotel in the middle of a property slump, when many buildings were vacant and real estate prices were down. Obviously it's a different situation in present-day Sydney, where vacancy rates are very low and there is a general shortage of housing stock exacerbating the homelessness problem. As has been reported by the SMH previously, the project will cost "tens of millions of dollars" to construct an apartment block to house "up to 90" people. The reason the project is back in the news is because the development application (DA) for the land in Camperdown has now been lodged, meaning the project is one step closer to not being entirely imaginary, and one step further away from falling down the deep black well of lost promises.
While the NSW Department of Housing is happy to report that they've started work on the 1000th home (pdf) to be delivered as part of the stimulus package, how many houses they've finished is a mystery. It will be interesting to see if there is a Christmas update on the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness from the Federal and State governments, one year on from the release of the Homelessness White Paper. Considering that each state was meant to have released its Action Plan by April 09, and NSW released their "dynamic document" (pdf) which was actually only an action plan for 09/10 in August 09, perhaps we will get a Christmas update at Easter.
Seriously, people, if you can't get a document out on time, how can the public believe you'll get anything tangible, like housing, done on time? I guess that's why they were buying them ready-made. What a quick and elegant solution to the shortage of public housing - to exacerbate the shortage of private housing instead. Bring on the bright shiny future!
The Sydney Morning Herald rehashes this story about the Common Ground project and its founder, Roseanne Haggerty. It's an excellent story and a great model for service delivery. Very much a "give a man a fish" vs "teach a man to fish" sort of idea. Interesting how it developed, though. Haggerty founded the first Common Ground building by renovating a derelict hotel in the middle of a property slump, when many buildings were vacant and real estate prices were down. Obviously it's a different situation in present-day Sydney, where vacancy rates are very low and there is a general shortage of housing stock exacerbating the homelessness problem. As has been reported by the SMH previously, the project will cost "tens of millions of dollars" to construct an apartment block to house "up to 90" people. The reason the project is back in the news is because the development application (DA) for the land in Camperdown has now been lodged, meaning the project is one step closer to not being entirely imaginary, and one step further away from falling down the deep black well of lost promises.
While the NSW Department of Housing is happy to report that they've started work on the 1000th home (pdf) to be delivered as part of the stimulus package, how many houses they've finished is a mystery. It will be interesting to see if there is a Christmas update on the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness from the Federal and State governments, one year on from the release of the Homelessness White Paper. Considering that each state was meant to have released its Action Plan by April 09, and NSW released their "dynamic document" (pdf) which was actually only an action plan for 09/10 in August 09, perhaps we will get a Christmas update at Easter.
Seriously, people, if you can't get a document out on time, how can the public believe you'll get anything tangible, like housing, done on time? I guess that's why they were buying them ready-made. What a quick and elegant solution to the shortage of public housing - to exacerbate the shortage of private housing instead. Bring on the bright shiny future!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Haves and have nots
This article from the SMH today is hilarious, but I am not going to rant about it until some minister actually comes out saying it's a good idea, let's do it, here's some funding for a preliminary study. Enough hot air swirling around already today, no need to make the problem worse.
Instead I will draw your attention to this article by Chris Zappone from November 6, which seems like straightforward stale news about house affordability decreasing. "Yes I knew that already," you jaded New South Welshpeople will say. And then you will either be smug about how your property has increased in value, or, more likely, downright pissed off that you can't afford an entry-level property any more because seemingly overnight every property that used to cost less than $400k now costs exactly $550k.
Pissed off people, you can skip to the end of this post, because I am now going to explain to the smug bastards why unaffordable housing is not a bounty of investment return for the lucky few, but a curse for the many.
Unaffordable housing means more miserable people bringing down the mood in your workplace, and more useless freeloading bastards just marking time or brown-nosing for an undeserved promotion "because they need the money".
Unaffordable housing means more middle-class people bitching about how hard it is to make ends meet and acting like they really know the meaning of suffering just because they can only afford one latte every second day.
Unaffordable housing means your favourite little cafes and specialty food stores close down because nobody except you has enough discretionary funds to justify shopping there. And let me tell you, there is very little prestige in buying your Essential Ingredient supplies from the internet in your PJs, no matter what designer label said PJs are branded with.
Unaffordable housing, in short, is fucking up your life in a million little ways that you previously hadn't thought. You probably thought that the world was just full of bad tempered pricks, jerks and general arseholes. Au contraire, property owning elitist. Unaffordable housing is making everyone around you unhappy and unpleasant to be around.
[Ok pissed off people, I think the smug property owners are convinced, now read on...]
So now we are united, smug homeowners and pissed off landless serfs. Unaffordable housing is bad, affordable housing is good. Very well, what can you do to make housing more affordable and get people to cheer up and be nice to each other for a change?
What? Hop to it, folks! Think of something to do and then do it. I'm not going to tell you how to solve your problems. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit. After all, I'm a proud homeowner and staunch misanthrope. Go fight your own battles.
Instead I will draw your attention to this article by Chris Zappone from November 6, which seems like straightforward stale news about house affordability decreasing. "Yes I knew that already," you jaded New South Welshpeople will say. And then you will either be smug about how your property has increased in value, or, more likely, downright pissed off that you can't afford an entry-level property any more because seemingly overnight every property that used to cost less than $400k now costs exactly $550k.
Pissed off people, you can skip to the end of this post, because I am now going to explain to the smug bastards why unaffordable housing is not a bounty of investment return for the lucky few, but a curse for the many.
Unaffordable housing means more miserable people bringing down the mood in your workplace, and more useless freeloading bastards just marking time or brown-nosing for an undeserved promotion "because they need the money".
Unaffordable housing means more middle-class people bitching about how hard it is to make ends meet and acting like they really know the meaning of suffering just because they can only afford one latte every second day.
Unaffordable housing means your favourite little cafes and specialty food stores close down because nobody except you has enough discretionary funds to justify shopping there. And let me tell you, there is very little prestige in buying your Essential Ingredient supplies from the internet in your PJs, no matter what designer label said PJs are branded with.
Unaffordable housing, in short, is fucking up your life in a million little ways that you previously hadn't thought. You probably thought that the world was just full of bad tempered pricks, jerks and general arseholes. Au contraire, property owning elitist. Unaffordable housing is making everyone around you unhappy and unpleasant to be around.
[Ok pissed off people, I think the smug property owners are convinced, now read on...]
So now we are united, smug homeowners and pissed off landless serfs. Unaffordable housing is bad, affordable housing is good. Very well, what can you do to make housing more affordable and get people to cheer up and be nice to each other for a change?
What? Hop to it, folks! Think of something to do and then do it. I'm not going to tell you how to solve your problems. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit. After all, I'm a proud homeowner and staunch misanthrope. Go fight your own battles.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Student housing now, company villages later...
This article from the Sydney Morning Herald today reminded me of my harebrained thought that if the housing crisis and transport system got much worse, big companies would probably have to start buying up accommodation near their offices to house their workers.
In fact, the University of Western Sydney seems to be saying exactly that. The third paragraph of the above mentioned article says:
I'm sure there's also scope for the enterprising large business with good lobbyist connections to claim these employees as a carbon credit, being as they are now walking to work rather than taking a car or public transport. Add to that the return on the investment in real estate and you'll be laughing. Businesses and employees both will be wondering why they didn't think of this sooner. We've been approaching this "work from home" idea entirely the wrong way around.
And there are myriad other ways this idea could be turned to a profit, too. For instance, the State Government could give big businesses tax credits to set up employee accommodation within walking distance from offices, benefiting both the business and also the State Government, which now does not need to spend money on new roadways or on upgrading public transport. In fact, not only do they not have to spend money, they don't even need to do anything! Now that's a realistic plan of action for the future. Not like that Metro lark, billions of dollars for very little result a long way off. Try a couple of million in tax concessions over a couple of years, and watch the congestion start to clear.
Public good aside, I don't think it would take very much to make company housing appealing to Sydney residents. Think of all the money you would save not having to take public transport every day, or not owning and running a car. Also, a critical mass of working age folk would make all sorts of company-supported (or even private) enterprises economic, like childcare centres. How difficult it is to find a childcare place is the second favourite whinge of Sydneysiders (with kids, obviously), after how hard it is to find an affordable home in the right location. Company subsidised child care facilities with guaranteed places for employees' children would be a very large carrot to offer employees.
So in summary, get off your lazy backsides, big business, and take some social initiative. Solve Sydney's transport/housing/everything crisis and reap the benefits for yourselves. Because it's obvious that nothing is going to be fixed by our State Government, which seems to be incapable of locating its arse even with the help of a very expensive GPS.
In fact, the University of Western Sydney seems to be saying exactly that. The third paragraph of the above mentioned article says:
UWS has put forward a proposal for a five-day boarding complex to assist students living in the city who have to struggle with crowded public transport and congested roads to get to the campus.University students may be a special case, in that they are paying to attend, rather than being paid. But I still think that the first company to buy or build an apartment block next to their offices and offer subsidised employee accommodation will be swamped with people wanting to sign up. And before you start accusing me of being some sort of Soviet sympathiser, think about this. Australians work more overtime than ever before. A commute of an hour each way is considered standard, even short in Sydney. If your employees live next door, that's nearly two extra hours unpaid overtime you could milk off them every day. Not to mention fewer sick days from viruses contracted on public transport.
I'm sure there's also scope for the enterprising large business with good lobbyist connections to claim these employees as a carbon credit, being as they are now walking to work rather than taking a car or public transport. Add to that the return on the investment in real estate and you'll be laughing. Businesses and employees both will be wondering why they didn't think of this sooner. We've been approaching this "work from home" idea entirely the wrong way around.
And there are myriad other ways this idea could be turned to a profit, too. For instance, the State Government could give big businesses tax credits to set up employee accommodation within walking distance from offices, benefiting both the business and also the State Government, which now does not need to spend money on new roadways or on upgrading public transport. In fact, not only do they not have to spend money, they don't even need to do anything! Now that's a realistic plan of action for the future. Not like that Metro lark, billions of dollars for very little result a long way off. Try a couple of million in tax concessions over a couple of years, and watch the congestion start to clear.
Public good aside, I don't think it would take very much to make company housing appealing to Sydney residents. Think of all the money you would save not having to take public transport every day, or not owning and running a car. Also, a critical mass of working age folk would make all sorts of company-supported (or even private) enterprises economic, like childcare centres. How difficult it is to find a childcare place is the second favourite whinge of Sydneysiders (with kids, obviously), after how hard it is to find an affordable home in the right location. Company subsidised child care facilities with guaranteed places for employees' children would be a very large carrot to offer employees.
So in summary, get off your lazy backsides, big business, and take some social initiative. Solve Sydney's transport/housing/everything crisis and reap the benefits for yourselves. Because it's obvious that nothing is going to be fixed by our State Government, which seems to be incapable of locating its arse even with the help of a very expensive GPS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)