Cacatuoidea
New member
Australia cannot afford AUKUS. Before Australia can afford nuclear submarines, we must become a "developed" country.
Our Government wants to play on the Big Boys' Paddock, with the Big Boys' Toys. Toys we cannot afford and don't know how to use.
How well developed IS Australia? Australia will probably never be anything more than a nice place for tourists or a haven for inventors. I doubt our continent can support many more than about 50,000,000 souls without stressing our wildlife and scenic beauty.
Australia is a Maritime Nation, by definition, and only by definition. We do not make or crew our Merchant Navy.
Our Navy has 43 commissioned ships plus 3 non-commissioned, soon (maybe) to be 9. Our Navy doesn't even have an Australian enterprise managing its Port Services: DMS Maritime is a subsidiary of Serco. Very little of the Navy fleet is actually Australian, with the exception of the Armidale class built at Henderson (WA) by Austal in cooperation with DMS Maritime.
Australia is a net importer of eucalyptus oil. Australia is a net importer of macadamia nuts. Why? There are many things we could make here, but we have been too long a colony, thinking colonial thoughts: "Colonies don't manufacture." We pay Chinese factories to make our clothes, boots, furniture... Why? We are a colony, with a colonial attitude to money and government, so we have made ourselves powerless to think of change. We do not manufacture any vehicle parts like engines or transmissions. There are no effective Australian vehicle manufacturers.
We do not manufacture computers or computer parts, we do not make aircraft of any kind, we do not even make satellites. (I must admit we were able to buy 3 very nice satellites of Australian design for Sky Muster, for the NBN. But we did not make them.) In short, Australia has no Secondary Industry. Our whole economy balances precariously on Primary Industry and Tertiary Industry, and if anything upsets that (like, for example, COVID) our economy defecates in its pants.
Even the Kiwis do better than Australia. As does Canada. They at least have an established aerospace industry.
How can Australia develop itself? Well, given we do have half-way decent communications, then transport would have to be the next step. We do, in fact, have a useful road and highway network. Unfortunately, that network is totally incapable of mass transport of goods. The roads cannot take the tonnage of semi-trailers needed, and the fuel cost alone would be unsustainable.
The only sustainable mass transport system is rail. We won't consider coastal shipping simply because that cannot access all areas of Australia. However, our rail transport system stretches only from Port Augusta to Perth and Geraldton in the West, Darwin in the North, Adelaide and Melbourne in the South, and Sydney and Brisbane through to Cairns in the East. It is not interconnected in any meaningful sense.
What does Australia need as a Robust Rail System?
We are not talking about a "one in 200-300 year event" or "18 locations along 300km of track needed major repair." My question is, "Why was so much of the only east-west rail connection not elevated at least 2 meters above the surrounding flood-plain?"
This will be very expensive. But let me put the cost in perspective. I do not have costings for our participation in Korea, Malaysia (Konfrontasi), Viet Nam, Iran/Iraq/Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman/Gulf of Aden/Arabian Sea, and Afghanistan. However, I think we can confidently put the cost of these adventures into the thousands of millions that we have totally wasted. Thrown away. For ever. About the cost of a Robust Rail System.
However. We cannot think about "just a railway". To make the railway, we need steel, and lots of it. We are not bothering to count the BHP Whyalla mill, it's too small to matter. We need to produce some thousands of tonnes of the stuff just for rail tracks, not to mention any bridges and elevated rail beds. A real steel mill. We have the iron, lots of it. We need only water, and power.
Water is everywhere, literally, we just cannot drink it, too salty. But power, that could be problematic. We will need something that looks like 100MW, since we need to both desalinate artesian water and convert iron to steel. There are two options, although we should be able to use both of them.
The best option is nuclear, which at first sight seems very risky. Although, as it happens, not really. Uranium sucks, mostly because greed takes all the good out (U235) and leaves the dross (U238) as waste, and there's not a lot of U235 left in the world. But thorium (World Nuclear Association, Thorium) is a definite problem-solver. Mostly because Australia has lots of it, but also because it produces less "waste" to be stored for future generations.
The second option is renewable, solar/wind. One possible option could be a solar updraft tower as discussed in "GS Energy" and "An Ignored Wind Generates More Electricity: A Solar Updraft Tower to a Wind Solar Tower", or simple wind farms.
And, yes. If we can build a Robust Rail System, we can build the locomotives and all the rollingstock. We can build the signalling, and the comms systems.
How do we pay for all of this? We must get rid of AUKUS. It's that simple: there is still the ANZUS treaty, which -- importantly -- restricts our obligations to the Pacific and even then, only for defence "The Australia Institute".
We get rid of AUKUS, we can carry the rest on taxes, iron ore/natural gas revenues and other exports.
So.
If our Government wishes Australia to play with the Big Boys, using their toys, Australia must become a "Developed Nation" with a sustainable income from a robust Secondary Industry. The path to a Secondary Industry is the development of the infrastructure to build a robust pan-Australian rail transport system with adequate power and water resources.
It's your call.
©Cacatuoidea 28 Feb 2022; All rights reserved; Fair Use Applies.
Our Government wants to play on the Big Boys' Paddock, with the Big Boys' Toys. Toys we cannot afford and don't know how to use.
How well developed IS Australia? Australia will probably never be anything more than a nice place for tourists or a haven for inventors. I doubt our continent can support many more than about 50,000,000 souls without stressing our wildlife and scenic beauty.
Australia is a Maritime Nation, by definition, and only by definition. We do not make or crew our Merchant Navy.
Our Navy has 43 commissioned ships plus 3 non-commissioned, soon (maybe) to be 9. Our Navy doesn't even have an Australian enterprise managing its Port Services: DMS Maritime is a subsidiary of Serco. Very little of the Navy fleet is actually Australian, with the exception of the Armidale class built at Henderson (WA) by Austal in cooperation with DMS Maritime.
Australia is a net importer of eucalyptus oil. Australia is a net importer of macadamia nuts. Why? There are many things we could make here, but we have been too long a colony, thinking colonial thoughts: "Colonies don't manufacture." We pay Chinese factories to make our clothes, boots, furniture... Why? We are a colony, with a colonial attitude to money and government, so we have made ourselves powerless to think of change. We do not manufacture any vehicle parts like engines or transmissions. There are no effective Australian vehicle manufacturers.
"Australian Industry and Skills Committee"
We do not manufacture computers or computer parts, we do not make aircraft of any kind, we do not even make satellites. (I must admit we were able to buy 3 very nice satellites of Australian design for Sky Muster, for the NBN. But we did not make them.) In short, Australia has no Secondary Industry. Our whole economy balances precariously on Primary Industry and Tertiary Industry, and if anything upsets that (like, for example, COVID) our economy defecates in its pants.
Even the Kiwis do better than Australia. As does Canada. They at least have an established aerospace industry.
"ManufacturingNZ Election Manifesto 2020, ManufacturingNZ".
How can Australia develop itself? Well, given we do have half-way decent communications, then transport would have to be the next step. We do, in fact, have a useful road and highway network. Unfortunately, that network is totally incapable of mass transport of goods. The roads cannot take the tonnage of semi-trailers needed, and the fuel cost alone would be unsustainable.
The only sustainable mass transport system is rail. We won't consider coastal shipping simply because that cannot access all areas of Australia. However, our rail transport system stretches only from Port Augusta to Perth and Geraldton in the West, Darwin in the North, Adelaide and Melbourne in the South, and Sydney and Brisbane through to Cairns in the East. It is not interconnected in any meaningful sense.
What does Australia need as a Robust Rail System?
- It must go around ALL of Australia, and include EVERY coastal town or city except Hobart.
- It must also have a radial component, to link The Alice with every other capital city except Hobart.
- It must be a SINGLE gauge.
- It must be ALL-weather, capable of use during any flooding event.
- It must be (as far as possible) earthquake resistant.
We are not talking about a "one in 200-300 year event" or "18 locations along 300km of track needed major repair." My question is, "Why was so much of the only east-west rail connection not elevated at least 2 meters above the surrounding flood-plain?"
This will be very expensive. But let me put the cost in perspective. I do not have costings for our participation in Korea, Malaysia (Konfrontasi), Viet Nam, Iran/Iraq/Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman/Gulf of Aden/Arabian Sea, and Afghanistan. However, I think we can confidently put the cost of these adventures into the thousands of millions that we have totally wasted. Thrown away. For ever. About the cost of a Robust Rail System.
However. We cannot think about "just a railway". To make the railway, we need steel, and lots of it. We are not bothering to count the BHP Whyalla mill, it's too small to matter. We need to produce some thousands of tonnes of the stuff just for rail tracks, not to mention any bridges and elevated rail beds. A real steel mill. We have the iron, lots of it. We need only water, and power.
Water is everywhere, literally, we just cannot drink it, too salty. But power, that could be problematic. We will need something that looks like 100MW, since we need to both desalinate artesian water and convert iron to steel. There are two options, although we should be able to use both of them.
The best option is nuclear, which at first sight seems very risky. Although, as it happens, not really. Uranium sucks, mostly because greed takes all the good out (U235) and leaves the dross (U238) as waste, and there's not a lot of U235 left in the world. But thorium (World Nuclear Association, Thorium) is a definite problem-solver. Mostly because Australia has lots of it, but also because it produces less "waste" to be stored for future generations.
The second option is renewable, solar/wind. One possible option could be a solar updraft tower as discussed in "GS Energy" and "An Ignored Wind Generates More Electricity: A Solar Updraft Tower to a Wind Solar Tower", or simple wind farms.
And, yes. If we can build a Robust Rail System, we can build the locomotives and all the rollingstock. We can build the signalling, and the comms systems.
How do we pay for all of this? We must get rid of AUKUS. It's that simple: there is still the ANZUS treaty, which -- importantly -- restricts our obligations to the Pacific and even then, only for defence "The Australia Institute".
We get rid of AUKUS, we can carry the rest on taxes, iron ore/natural gas revenues and other exports.
So.
If our Government wishes Australia to play with the Big Boys, using their toys, Australia must become a "Developed Nation" with a sustainable income from a robust Secondary Industry. The path to a Secondary Industry is the development of the infrastructure to build a robust pan-Australian rail transport system with adequate power and water resources.
It's your call.
©Cacatuoidea 28 Feb 2022; All rights reserved; Fair Use Applies.
}
