I wouldn't underestimate the power of Australia's flawed democracy. The people here are just informed enough to keep governments fearful. The issue is how Australia's mega rich control the media and thus the population.

It's been my experience that all it takes is some well reasoned lobbying to sway politicians in this country. They may not agree with you but they *will* listen. If they agree with you they will tell you how and what they are doing. If you interests align with theirs they will consult you repeatedly until the objective is met.

Don't get me wrong, Aussies are still being manipulated, and there are many time where I've felt the manipulation has been prototyped in Australia first. It's just that we are no more or less manipulated into a "helpless descent into 1984" than anywhere else in the world.

That's not true. The technological development cycle of a Nuclear reactor is dictated at design time and the core technology can't be changed once it begins it's 40 year operational lifespan. The NRC put together a panel of Nuclear power plant manufacturers and they came up with about 30 fundamental advancements in Nuclear reactor technology. None of them have been implemented in the AP-1000, or any other design because they were too expensive. Protests mean a lot more in Europe and that didn't stop advancements that produced the EPR.

I think you generated a lot of preconceptions of Nuclear Opponents based on whatever belief system you have that has clouded your judgement. Frankly people like you are the reason for the type of complacency that allowed a Fukushima accident to happen. If you were a *real* advocate of the Nuclear Industry you would lobby for the creation of a Granite spent fuel containment facility (for example in the rocky mountains) that would mitigate the risk of that happening in America.

But the core of your belief system is totally convinced that it could never happen. If you were right the Price-Anderson act would not exist. But it does and because it does your core belief system is built on ignorance of the facts upon which the Nuclear Industry operates.

It's ignorance that produces comments such as the ones you have made. I suggest you keep on making them to demonstrate how vapid and impotent your argument is.

The Pro Nukers will love nuclear industry propaganda.

There will always be nothing that damages any part of the environment.

There will never be any scenario that could possibly result in anything like Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Facts! well they are just optional, Pro Nukers are never required to provide them.

Evidence! No proof is possible to a Pro Nuker.

Reason. Pro Nukers have a belief system, challenge it and Pro Nukers will ad hominem you.

Arguement. Pro Nukers will produce so much bluster they will exhaust you - but don't make the most minor error (like a spelling mistake) because that means everything you have ever said is a lie.

We could pump our waste water inland and use it for agriculture (with fertiliser built in). I know it's a massive infrastructure project but it would also mean a great deal more potential food export plus enhance the ability to populate inland.

Excellent post, BTW. Melbourne - Four seasons in one day, Sydney - Four seasons at the same time - sometimes - who knows??? I posted about Sydneys weather not so long ago.

Yeah, 50 years ago "skyscrapers OMG 100 stories tall!!!" were impressive, it's time to take the game to the next level.

Absolutely. The NIAC Final report (Phase II) report talks about some remarkable possibilities and not as expensive as I expected ,about 4 billion in 2003 dollars from memory. Time for us to colonise the solar system, I can't see the human race getting any smaller.

Do you remember how efficiently crude oil was harvested and refined 100 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if the early wells achieved 10% extraction of the available raw material.

All we need to get lunar petroleum back to Earth is a space elevator pipeline, (relatively) easy to build on the moon, and if you pump it fast enough, it will get slung out the other end with more energy than you are pumping into it. Then we just have to catch it as it free falls toward Earth and give it a safe re-entry, again, Space Elevators seem like the way to go, and you can run some pretty nice generating turbines capturing the kinetic energy of the falling petroleum.

Anyone who believes the above is serious needs to check their humor sensors... on the other hand, using space elevators to lower raw materials from orbit just might be a good way to power mass up to orbit...

Ok, now you've stopped laughing I guess in another 50 years we will have one.

Incidentally, that's a joke for people who don't understand a sardonic comment.

If Agile and the UP worked for the software for NASA's space program it can work anywhere. This issue is the implementation of the process and quality of management. Some places it's so natural it's easy, in other places it's clunky, you have people who don't want to engage and other people who lack sincerity who are basically insecure about their role.

I like it, when it's done with sincerity to the original idea. Light weight, not process heavy. I find it does help get things done and make work less stressful. Occasionally you get personalities who try to dominate things, but when you realise that people think in different ways and you fix those part of Agile to suit you mix then usually things are ok.

As Agile stand I believe it favours people with pragmatic and realist as opposed to analytical and idealist thinking styles (i.e inquiry modes) and important ideas from synthesists (if you are lucky enough to get one!) can often be overlooked as speculation and not properly examined - especially if the idea is seen in the frame of negativity when it's just negative analysis (eg. what can got wrong here).

Anyway that's my 2cent but, yeah, as long as management dont screw up the implementation - it's ok.

Maybe he should got on that weight loss TV Reality show, you know The Fattest Loser