Easy pop shots at OZ labor Govt.

[noosard]

In short: A 43-year-old former immigration detainee has been arrested and charged with sex offences in Melbourne.
The man was released from detention following last year's High Court ruling that indefinite detention for people who cannot be deported is unlawful.

Victoria Police confirmed he was a member of the so-called NZYQ cohort – a group of 149 former immigration detainees released into the community late last year, many of whom have convictions for serious offences including murder and sexual assault.

The federal government rushed legislation through parliament before the long summer break, creating a new visa category for the group, imposing ankle bracelet monitoring and curfews on the individuals.

It has since been revealed that not all of the former detainees have been subject to such monitoring.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-29/ ... /103527968

In more up to date news
Police will drop sexual assault charges against a man released from immigration detention following a High Court ruling last year just hours after arresting him.

The man, 43, was arrested on Wednesday following reports of stalking and sexual assault a day earlier in Melbourne.

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/ ... 87498687d6

[jackspratt]

Well that shot lost its "pop" pretty quickly, hey noos?

The good news is that it will save Sport from getting all hot under the collar again.

[noosard]

So you think a criminal should be walking the streets rather than being deported
Lots of kiwis been sent back to country they never lived in as adults

[jackspratt]

So you think a criminal should be walking the streets rather than being deported

Keep up at the back, noos.

If they could have been legally deported, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Sport]

Have a go at the Oz PM albosleazy knocking nuclear and Peter Dutton at a labor speech recently. albo said, 'labor is the party of the light on the hill and the Liberals just want us to glow in the dark' lol. Are the French glowing in the dark with their 56 nuke reactors.

Rubbish from the PM and blackout bowen.

[Whistler]

I have no objection to Nuclear power plants on environmental grounds or safety issues. However there is little doubt in my mind that Dutton is simply trying to pick a bone. N power is a favourite hobby horse of the Right, however, I have never seen economists or power generation specialists make it an option of choice.

For some reason, the experts say it takes 10 years to build a N power plant, seems a long time to me, but I have not seen a counter argument so it is probably correct. This means the fossil fuel plants now nearing end of life, can not be replaced in time with N power.

The other issue is Nucleur is considered the most expensive option for power generation. Again, I have not seen a single expert refute that fact.

So why is Dutton promoting a technology that will take too long to build and is economical unsound?

The answer undoubtedly is it is for political posturing, and not made on rational grounds.

[Whistler]

Have a go at the Oz PM albosleazy knocking nuclear and Peter Dutton at a labor speech recently. albo said, 'labor is the party of the light on the hill and the Liberals just want us to glow in the dark' lol. Are the French glowing in the dark with their 56 nuke reactors.

Rubbish from the PM and blackout bowen.

France has 34 reactors, but is an entirely different position to Australia. They get economies of scale not possible in Australia as the are in the Euro zone which buys 3Billion Euros worth of power from France each year. Even if we built such a massive Nucleur sector we have no market to deliver it.

There are also mixed policies in France which at one time had a policy to cut back N power from 72 % of total generation to 50%. Then policy was abandoned. Of the 34 reactors, most are within 10 years of end-of-life, now a big medium term problem for that country.

Any comparison between France and Australia is fatuous.

[Barney]

Have a go at the Oz PM albosleazy knocking nuclear and Peter Dutton at a labor speech recently. albo said, 'labor is the party of the light on the hill and the Liberals just want us to glow in the dark' lol. Are the French glowing in the dark with their 56 nuke reactors.

Rubbish from the PM and blackout bowen.

France has 34 reactors, but is an entirely different position to Australia. They get economies of scale not possible in Australia as the are in the Euro zone which buys 3Billion Euros worth of power from France each year. Even if we built such a massive Nucleur sector we have no market to deliver it.

There are also mixed policies in France which at one time had a policy to cut back N power from 72 % of total generation to 50%. Then policy was abandoned. Of the 34 reactors, most are within 10 years of end-of-life, now a big medium term problem for that country.

Any comparison between France and Australia is fatuous.

Fatuous remarks belong to yourself, Sport did not compare the reactors and energy policies of France to Australia.

[tamada]

fat·u·ous
/ˈfaCH(əw)əs/
adjective

silly and pointless.
"a fatuous comment"

Similar: silly foolish stupid inane nonsensical childish puerile infantile idiotic brainless mindless vacuous imbecilic asinine witless empty-headed harebrained pointless senseless ridiculous ludicrous absurd preposterous laughable risible moronic cretinous dumb daft gormless

Opposite: intelligent sensible

Origin

early 17th century: from Latin fatuus ‘foolish’ + -ous.

I'm with Whistler in that fatuous describes Albanese's "glow in the dark" comment.

[Whistler]

ya reckon Albo was not ridiculing Dutton?

[tamada]

ya reckon Albo was not ridiculing Dutton?

If so, he's pretty rubbish at stooping to the Liberal's level of fatuous banter, no?

[Barney]

ya reckon Albo was not ridiculing Dutton?

https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8?si=PKiVk9p8KlK3uM7c

Say no more

[jackspratt]

Crikey, Barney - quoting Malcolm Roberts, quoting Sky News, misquoting Albanese.

Whatever next.

[tamada]

Crikey, Barney - quoting Malcolm Roberts, quoting Sky News, misquoting Albanese.

Whatever next.

Strewth! After all that, I'm having a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down.

[Sport]

I have no objection to Nuclear power plants on environmental grounds or safety issues. However there is little doubt in my mind that Dutton is simply trying to pick a bone. N power is a favourite hobby horse of the Right, however, I have never seen economists or power generation specialists make it an option of choice.

For some reason, the experts say it takes 10 years to build a N power plant, seems a long time to me, but I have not seen a counter argument so it is probably correct. This means the fossil fuel plants now nearing end of life, can not be replaced in time with N power.

The other issue is Nucleur is considered the most expensive option for power generation. Again, I have not seen a single expert refute that fact.

So why is Dutton promoting a technology that will take too long to build and is economical unsound?

The answer undoubtedly is it is for political posturing, and not made on rational grounds.

Have a go at the Oz PM albosleazy knocking nuclear and Peter Dutton at a labor speech recently. albo said, 'labor is the party of the light on the hill and the Liberals just want us to glow in the dark' lol. Are the French glowing in the dark with their 56 nuke reactors.

Rubbish from the PM and blackout bowen.

France has 34 reactors, but is an entirely different position to Australia. They get economies of scale not possible in Australia as the are in the Euro zone which buys 3Billion Euros worth of power from France each year. Even if we built such a massive Nucleur sector we have no market to deliver it.

There are also mixed policies in France which at one time had a policy to cut back N power from 72 % of total generation to 50%. Then policy was abandoned. Of the 34 reactors, most are within 10 years of end-of-life, now a big medium term problem for that country.

Any comparison between France and Australia is fatuous.

Gee Whistles, I think you are watching and listening too much abc and reading the lefty guardian paper. From what I have seen nuke power is not expensive compared to blackout bowens green dream it is certainly cheaper than green stuff, solar, wind and possible hydrogen.

[Whistler]

Got a source for that Sport?

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/pol ... 0f67a6dc99

[Sport]

I watch and listen to comments and news from both sides of politics and I do like the idea of nuke power maybe possible in OZ.

[Barney]

Yes Sport, nuclear power should be a feasible option in Australia, it appears the only group, the liberals, are trying to place the thought into the arena and open the dialogue on how we can achieve this. Head in the sand Bowen is hell bent on not listening and rushing to destroy the countryside that we Aussies cherish so much by pushing his own political agenda, that being huge acreage solar farm, environment destroying wind farms and pump turbine system at a huge cost to Australia not only in money but the destruction of the delicate landscape.
Why not have a mixed spread of power generation utilising Nuclear, solar and wind.

Many countries are taking the option of nuclear generation after, of course, close consideration by their governing teams and the people.
Technology has advanced since the old days of at risk units, not that there is no risk now.
Examples are Korea have smaller nuclear units available to be built and Westinghouse have their same style of unit, each capable of 1,400 mw.
These units can be built as standalone (usually 2) or in groups of 4 or more. Meaning they can be located throughout Australia where demand is required. Utilising the existing grid system and infrastructure already in place.
These units each have a 60-year license life, far exceeding the life cycle of anything else available. Can you see a solar farm or windmill operational for that length of time. Any type of plant you build has a 25 to 30 year life.
UAE is in the last phase of commissioning their 4th unit. Korean made APR1000. Poland has just signed up for 6 units of the Westinghouse AP1000. What I have seen in the industry is a cost of 6 to 8 billion dollars per unit and around 8 years to construct and commission. Getting past the Australian regulatory bodies of the environment and in place govt acts is the difficult part. If they are led by a current govt agenda then that will add years to any timescale. And time is money. These groups could scuttle any attempt.
There is also a new technology called Natrium generation reactors using a different Uranium compound. There is currently a Natrium plant that has commenced construction in the USA which may determine the future of these type of reactors. Natrium also will have a limited storage capacity.

We could even sell this power overseas to Indo, Singapore, PNG.

[jackspratt]

I watch and listen to comments and news from both sides of politics ......

That's fantastic to hear Sport - politically rounded characters are increasingly rare.

Now which side gave you the heads-up that nuke power is not expensive - particularly as it relates to Oz?

[Whistler]

Yes Sport, nuclear power should be a feasible option in Australia, it appears the only group, the liberals, are trying to place the thought into the arena and open the dialogue on how we can achieve this.......

Good information Barney. I agree we should keep an open mind on options and make decisions based on the available facts on a project by project basis.

As I have stated a few times on this forum, I think the major issues are electrical storage. For the life of me, I cannot be enthusiastic about build massive lithium based power banks as a long term solution. I am more keen on pumped hydro, green hydrogen and other chemical storage solutions like ammonia recycle plants.

If new nuclear is viable from a time frame and economic point of view, it should be part of the mix. Right now, this does not appear to be the case. Not Bowen objecting in isolation, but also from AEMO, CSIRO and other scientific bodies.