Alternative energy sources for cars & other purposes

Alternative energy sources for cars & other purposes

Although I can see some development in petrol piston engines...its kinda floggin a dead horse. The basic design has been around for about 140yrs. Compare that to rotaries about 60yrs!
There has been massive R&D into piston engines yet very little into rotary, cyclic and other designs. Diesels have gone through a complete overhaul in the last decade.

You want to know the real future, esp in high performance?
<>
<>
<>
<>
ELECTRIC!
With vastly superior torque esp from low or zero revs, & almost no maintenance, the only current restriction is battery performance & electricity generation. With All manufacturers & even F1 getting into it, advancements will be in leaps & bounds!

The only issue for us will be water crossings haha :rotfl:

I see electric at this stage as a stop gap until other technology comes on line. Whatever does come needs a massive injection of infrastructure- and that means agreement between everyone on the direction we take. While I accept there will be big improvements in the years ahead regarding range and charge time, who is going to want to go outback and face getting a flat battery? No jump starting or push starting out there! Around town, it might be different, a bit like with gas bottles for the BBQ. I'd like to see how the fuel cell works out, as that seems to me to offer better range and the ability to re-fill more easily.

Presently, there are issues around creating the sheer amount of hydrogen to power the national fleet, but I suspect that this can be overcome. Storage and infrastructure will be an issue, but it- like electricity- will have to be issues that eventually will be overcome. For now, battery type vehicles are one way of improving economy or performance. The future will be interesting. But if we do go electric I will miss the beautiful sounds internal combustion engines are capable of making. Maybe that can synthesise them.

i hope hydrogen can be viable option for engines, not a fan of electric for many reasons

Gidday Thunder

thunder039 said:

i hope hydrogen can be viable option for engines, not a fan of electric for many reasons

Click to expand...

There is a very good reason why hydrogen fuel cells are not in common use - BANG ...

BUT, this technology holds real promise.

https://www.cfcl.com.au/

Developed here in Melbourne, and used in other countries. However, it is unlawful to use one here in Victoria ... !!!!!

At my instigation, two State MPs and I went through their research facility.
Great stuff.

I would already own one, if it were allowed ...

one question what are ceramic powders
modern hydrogen cars are some what safe compared to old technology but i still hope it can be improved.

G'day again Thunder

thunder039 said:

one question what are ceramic powders

Click to expand...

Ceramics that have (usually) been very high fired (1500~4500°C), then ground up into powder.

Read all the stuff on the web site I quoted. The technology is fantastic!
Potentially possible to run one of these on any kind of hydrocarbon fuel - biologically derived or mineral; doesn't matter, and will even tolerate (and remove ... ) sulphur and other nasties in the pre-processor.
Practically zero emissions ... Or wasted energy (e.g. transmission losses, heat losses, etc).

modern hydrogen cars are some what safe compared to old technology but i still hope it can be improved.

Click to expand...

NO hydrogen fuel cell is "safe".

thunder039 said:

i hope hydrogen can be viable option for engines, not a fan of electric for many reasons

Click to expand...

How about cordless phones & mobile phones, cordless drills, cordless kitchen mixers, cordless shavers, cordless electric toothbrushes, cordless whipper snippers, cordless mowers, etc, etc, etc. They all use rechargeable batteries and electric motors. Current electric motor technology is pretty good but can be improved. Its battery technology that lets fully electric cars down...but thats changing.

There are ALREADY electric sports cars that accelerates to 100kmh in under 4sec!

A quick google:
From https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/...ost-exciting-electron-powered-speed-machines/

Rimac Concept One: quad motor; 1,088HP; "The brainchild of automotive designer and successful entrepreneur Mate Rimac, the battery-powered Croatian super-car is capable of churning out the equivalent of 1,088 horsepower thanks in large part to its 92-kWh battery powering four sets of electric motors planted at each wheel. What we’re left with is a car that is capable traveling 372 miles on a single charge, can hit 0-62 mph in less than three seconds, and effortlessly reaches a top speed just below 190 mph"
PG Eleketrus: "0-62 time that clocks in at under three seconds, and a top speed of 155 mph"; Lotus based chassis.
Lighting GT: 300KW; <5sec

Also:
Audi R8 e-tron: 230 kW and 500 lb-ft of torque with an estimated 0-63 mph sprint time of 4.8 seconds
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Arcspeed Sports: [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]mid-mounted electric motor and controller that is over 98% efficient and delivering 522Nm of torque directly to the rear wheels: 3.8 sec[/FONT]

Ratbag said:

Practically zero emissions ... Or wasted energy (e.g. transmission losses, heat losses, etc).

Click to expand...

Nice theory but if it burns any kind of hydrocarbon fuel its not zero emission, its not even low emission!

Even electric cars are not zero emission as the electricity must first be generated...however they can come close if derived from "green" power like solar or wind.

NO hydrogen fuel cell is "safe".

Click to expand...

Neither safe nor efficient...the hydrogen must first be separated from oxygen in an expensive, inefficient , dangerous process...IMO dead-end technology

Rally said:

While I accept there will be big improvements in the years ahead regarding range and charge time, who is going to want to go outback and face getting a flat battery? No jump starting or push starting out there! Around town, it might be different, a bit like with gas bottles for the BBQ. I'd like to see how the fuel cell works out, as that seems to me to offer better range and the ability to re-fill more easily.

Click to expand...

Range is limited only by battery technology.

Think of the improvements in computer technology. A computer that once filled a room is now humbled by a laptop!

The same is happening to battery technology, just its been put on hold for decades by stupid car companies who have had a deal with the devil (Oil companies). Now that the crippling economic & political limitations of oil have been recognized by the US (& others), & pressure from green conscious consumers, real R&D is being done in electric cars. However, battery technology will still be the limiting factor for a few years yet...but not as long as most would think!

But if we do go electric I will miss the beautiful sounds internal combustion engines are capable of making. Maybe that can synthesise them.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I love the sound of a nice, well-tuned engine screaming hard

Gidday NL

Nachaluva said:

Originally Posted by Ratbag
Practically zero emissions ... Or wasted energy (e.g. transmission losses, heat losses, etc).

Click to expand...

Nice theory but if it burns any kind of hydrocarbon fuel its not zero emission, its not even low emission!

Click to expand...

Your prejudices are showing ... :rotfl:

Try reading about the technology ...
before putting your fingers into gear, perhaps?

The only potentially zero emission power is nuclear.
Fission is renewable (fast breeder reactors ... ).
Fusion is unlimited for all practical purposes (Tokamak ... ).

All your blithe talk about environmentally friendly stuff vanishes in a puff of logic when the entire process is examined in detail (any extant process ... ).
Solar provides power to the grid when no one needs it ...
Wind energy is a farce ... AND a blight on the landscape!
The only reasonably efficient method of storing energy is by pumping water uphill when you don't need the base load power being generated (e.g. see Dinorwig power station ... ).

There is no "magic bullet", "perfect" solution.
What is needed is a (much) more creative and imaginative approach to what we are currently doing.
AND stopping one thing humans are extremely good at - over-populating the planet!!
No one ever seems to mention this latter problem ... What does that say about all the mealy-mouthed rubbish published on these issues? Plenty, IMNSHO.

here we go again :rotfl: i only dont like electric cars as i love the sound of combustion engines

the title should be changed from buyer beware to reader beware!


EDITED BY RB

This comment was quite funny before I moved the OT posts to this thread.
Sorry for spoiling your joke, Biesel. It was well in point, mate :rotfl: [end edit]

Biesel said:

the title should be changed from buyer beware to reader beware!

Click to expand...

:lol: :rotfl:

Ratbag said:

Try reading about the technology ...
before putting your fingers into gear, perhaps?

Click to expand...

I did...it was a very "pretty" website with very little real info.
Also, I'm not going to waste my time trawling through an entire website for a few snippets of information. Perhaps you should do what I do...extract the relevant info and post that. If you also wish to provide a link to the website fine, but please dont waste people's time by expecting them to trawl thru the entire website for a few lines which you could easily post yourself.

The only potentially zero emission power is nuclear.
Only in dreams RB!!!

The Uranium must be mined...hardly zero emissions!
It then must be transported using fossil fueled transport, again far from zero emissions!
The nuclear power station must be built using materials such as concrete...a high emissions material.
Once all that is done...its STILL not zero emissions. Workers need to travel to & from the plant, maintenance, etc.

Then you have the worst emission of all...nuclear waste!!!

I used to be a reluctant supporter of nuclear power until I opened my eyes!

Fission is renewable (fast breeder reactors ... ).
Fusion is unlimited for all practical purposes (Tokamak ... ).

All your blithe talk about environmentally friendly stuff vanishes in a puff of logic when the entire process is examined in detail (any extant process ... ).
Solar provides power to the grid when no one needs it ...
Wind energy is a farce ... AND a blight on the landscape!
The only reasonably efficient method of storing energy is by pumping water uphill when you don't need the base load power being generated (e.g. see Dinorwig power station ... ).

Click to expand...

Why havent you mentioned "hot rocks" energy? Or wave energy? Or tidal energy?

Dont pick out a few renewable forms of energy production and close your eyes to everything else.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and "Try reading about the technology ...
before putting your fingers into gear, perhaps?"

As for power storage...pumping water uphill? Are you serious?

There is a power revolution underway, just like the information revolution & the industrial revolution of centuries ago. It comprises 3 parts: energy production, energy storage & energy consumption.
Energy production, as outlined above.
I presume you know about the worldwide push to make energy consumption more efficient, hence our energy saving lights, etc. Also room temperature conductors with similar efficiency to super-cooled conductors, needed for everything from transporting energy thru the grid to electrical components in computers...I'm sure you've heard of that.
Energy storage...the biggest hurdle. Not just batteries & capacitors, but others forms that have yet to be invented yet. Technologies to store energy on the massive scale that is needed.
Also technologies that are yet to be developed such as Graphene

You are also focusing on macro power production, which is inherently inefficient as it has to travel thru a massively inefficient power grid where at least 1/3 of the energy is lost.
Many countries are moving towards local power production, Manchester is one of the leaders here. That fuel cell you mentioned is an excellent example. The energy is created AT the point of consumption AS IT IS NEEDED!

Summary: we are in the middle of an energy revolution. Changes will come thick & fast, often in unforeseen ways.
Energy is crippling our planet, economically, environmentally and worst of all politically. Wars used to be fought over land and religion, now they're being fought over oil!

Click to expand...

Biesel said:

the title should be changed from buyer beware to reader beware!

Click to expand...

Hell yeah mate...dont get me started on nuclear power as an answer to the energy crisis
I want nuclear supporters to be...well shall I say be exposed to the crap they

Nachaluva said:

I did...it was a very "pretty" website with very little real info.

Click to expand...

It does help if you read all those "busy" pages that have so much typing on them ...

Also, I'm not going to waste my time trawling through an entire website for a few snippets of information. Perhaps you should do what I do...extract the relevant info and post that. If you also wish to provide a link to the website fine, but please dont waste people's time by expecting them to trawl thru the entire website for a few lines which you could easily post yourself.

Click to expand...

The only potentially zero emission power is nuclear.

Only in dreams RB!!!

The Uranium must be mined...hardly zero emissions!
It then must be transported using fossil fueled transport, again far from zero emissions!
The nuclear power station must be built using materials such as concrete...a high emissions material.
Once all that is done...its STILL not zero emissions. Workers need to travel to & from the plant, maintenance, etc.

Then you have the worst emission of all...nuclear waste!!!

Click to expand...

Substitute the phrase "wind generator" for "nuclear" and this still remains true.
EXCEPT THAT wind generators cost more to make, maintain and decommission than they ever make in energy ...

I used to be a reluctant supporter of nuclear power until I opened my eyes!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have always had my eyes open; and my mind as well ...

Why havent you mentioned "hot rocks" energy? Or wave energy? Or tidal energy?

Click to expand...

Ho hum.
For the same reason/s that you have not mentioned the "problems" that "greenies" have with hydroelectric power.
Or any other form of power for that matter.
Does it give them more time in the dark to continue over-populating our planet??

Dont pick out a few renewable forms of energy production and close your eyes to everything else.

Click to expand...

Of all people here, you should know me better than that.
ALL life on this planet depends on the energy from the Sun - a naked nuclear fusion reactor ...

I do NOT cherry-pick. I inform myself, rather than relying on the endless repetition of "holy mantras" that contain no more light than they do heat ...

Perhaps you should take your own advice and "Try reading about the technology ...
before putting your fingers into gear, perhaps?"

As for power storage...pumping water uphill? Are you serious?

Click to expand...

Did you read anything about Dinorwig?
Or does that very imaginative solution to excess loads up to 1.8GW for up to 6~8 hours at a time not meet with your approval for some reason?

There is a power revolution underway, just like the information revolution & the industrial revolution of centuries ago. It comprises 3 parts: energy production, energy storage & energy consumption.
Energy production, as outlined above.
I presume you know about the worldwide push to make energy consumption more efficient, hence our energy saving lights, etc.

Click to expand...

Energy saving lights? Enviromentally friendly?
You ARE joking? I hope you are ...
Do you know what these lights contain? I have a fair idea ... It horrifies me.

They are an environmental disaster that is appealing only because they reduce the amount by which we all have to subsidise useless "renewable energy" rebates for solar and wind energy ...

Also room temperature conductors with similar efficiency to super-cooled conductors, needed for everything from transporting energy thru the grid to electrical components in computers...I'm sure you've heard of that.
Energy storage...the biggest hurdle. Not just batteries & capacitors, but others forms that have yet to be invented yet. Technologies to store energy on the massive scale that is needed.
Also technologies that are yet to be developed such as Graphene

You are also focusing on macro power production, which is inherently inefficient as it has to travel thru a massively inefficient power grid where at least 1/3 of the energy is lost.
Many countries are moving towards local power production, Manchester is one of the leaders here. That fuel cell you mentioned is an excellent example. The energy is created AT the point of consumption AS IT IS NEEDED!

Summary: we are in the middle of an energy revolution. Changes will come thick & fast, often in unforeseen ways.
Energy is crippling our planet, economically, environmentally and worst of all politically. Wars used to be fought over land and religion, now they're being fought over oil!

Click to expand...

IF you had bothered to read anything on CFCL's web site, you would have realised that this is precisely what they provide. Distributed baseload power that makes the grid much more robust, with greater efficiencies.

High temperature ceramic fuel cells are mandated for all new developments in a number of first world countries, and illegal to connect in Victoria!!
We must have the highest concentration of greenies in the world here ...

Please listen to yourself, mate. This is dogma, not thought ...

This is also utterly OT, and should probably be nuked anyway.
However, it would be grossly unethical for me to moderate a thread in which I am directly involved. I may however move all the OT stuff to a new thread in the OT forum. I will look at this later.

Gidday All

I have moved all the OT posts from Rally's thread here to this thread, as I think that all of us participants had taken his thread WAY off topic ...

Ratbag said:

It does help if you read all those "busy" pages that have so much typing on them ...

Click to expand...

Im not going to waste my time wading thru a whole website just to find a few points that you should have posted to save evryone this exact problem. How many people do you think wade thru all of the websites you post...not many I guarantee.

RB, seriously, if there is something in a website you want to inform people about...copy and paste that info, with a website link if you wish. Dont just post a website & expect people to go thru the whole thing...very very few people will do that.

Substitute the phrase "wind generator" for "nuclear" and this still remains true.
EXCEPT THAT wind generators cost more to make, maintain and decommission than they ever make in energy ...

Click to expand...

Very true...Im glad you accept there is no such thing as zero emission energy production.

Canada invested billions into nuclear power & are now regretting it big time...it is so expensive in so many ways.
Apart from the fact that how dare anyone force others to accept something so dangerous. Dangerous on a massive scale. Dangerous on a time scale in the order of 1000s of years. You go on about population...where do you think 20 billion people are going to live? in neighbourhoods with 1 of YOUR Nuclear power stations? Would you like to live in Lucas Heights???

Sorry, but I have always had my eyes open; and my mind as well ...
Ho hum.
For the same reason/s that you have not mentioned the "problems" that "greenies" have with hydroelectric power.
Or any other form of power for that matter.
Does it give them more time in the dark to continue over-populating our planet??

Click to expand...

That doesnt really make any sense.
I deliberately did NOT mention hydroelectric power exactly because of its environmental impact!

"Any other form of power"??? You're not making sense. I did in fact mention other forms of green power. Tidal & wave energy has the potential to make base load power, as does "hot rocks" technology. Its used in many nations around the world, yet is virtually ignored here!

Of all people here, you should know me better than that.
ALL life on this planet depends on the energy from the Sun - a naked nuclear fusion reactor ...

Click to expand...

Ahhh...are you supporting solar power then?

Did you read anything about Dinorwig?
Or does that very imaginative solution to excess loads up to 1.8GW for up to 6~8 hours at a time not meet with your approval for some reason?

Click to expand...

No...I didnt waste my time!
I'm not interested in reading about dead-end solutions, no matter how imaginative they may be. Im only interested in future technologies...ones that provide a useful mid-long term solution.

If governments had spent 1% of their warfare (laughingly called defense) budgets on R&D into sutainable, renewable power, Im sure we would already have cold fusion by now!!!

Energy saving lights? Enviromentally friendly?
You ARE joking? I hope you are ...
Do you know what these lights contain? I have a fair idea ... It horrifies me.

Click to expand...

It horrifies me too, esp when one breaks!
However, a far safer idea than nuclear power!!!
Anyone who thinks nuclear power is or ever could be safe is seriously delusional! You even mentioned the safety of hydrogen fuel cells yet have the cheek to propose using nuclear power? John, please, come on...

They are an environmental disaster that is appealing only because they reduce the amount by which we all have to subsidise useless "renewable energy" rebates for solar and wind energy ...

Click to expand...

Oh if only you knew...I know several people who have the CORRECT size solar setup and not just cover their own energy consumption but produce excess, for which they get paid!

IF you had bothered to read anything on CFCL's web site, you would have realised that this is precisely what they provide. Distributed baseload power that makes the grid much more robust, with greater efficiencies.

Click to expand...

What happened to your post on this website?
I did briefly look at their website but John...if you want people to hear a point you have to make, copy & paste...dont expect them to read the WHOLE WEBSITE!

& IF you had bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I acknowledged their fuel cell as a great form of localised energy production!

High temperature ceramic fuel cells are mandated for all new developments in a number of first world countries, and illegal to connect in Victoria!!
We must have the highest concentration of greenies in the world here ...

Click to expand...

Again, that bit of sarcasm makes no sense...greenies WANT cleaner, greener energy production!

Ratbag said:

Did you read anything about Dinorwig?
Or does that very imaginative solution to excess loads up to 1.8GW for up to 6~8 hours at a time not meet with your approval for some reason?

Nachaluva said:

No...I didnt waste my time!
I'm not interested in reading about dead-end solutions, no matter how imaginative they may be. Im only interested in future technologies...ones that provide a useful mid-long term solution.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's the problem as I see it. You presume to "educate" others; yet will not educate yourselves.

Here is the link to Dinorwig.

It is only one page on Wikipedia. Surely it is not too much to expect you to read all of that ...

But this is the parlous state to which spoon-feeding in schools and universities leads us to - intelligent people who are incapable of, or refuse to, or don't know how to educate themselves ...

Nachaluva said:

If governments had spent 1% of their warfare (laughingly called defense) budgets on R&D into sutainable, renewable power, Im sure we would already have cold fusion by now!!!

Click to expand...

IF our feckless state and federal governments (the ones with the "green credentials" particularly ... ) hadn't squandered billions of dollars on dumbo schemes based on the advice of people like Flannery, they could have built a power line and infrastructure to the huge geothermal deposits in central Oz.

OR infrastructure and a pipeline from Lake Argyle to the Murray/Darling river system ... Or even to all the capital cities ...

Nachaluva said:

Oh if only you knew...I know several people who have the CORRECT size solar setup and not just cover their own energy consumption but produce excess, for which they get paid!

Click to expand...

Actually, they produce power at the precise time when there is a huge excess of baseload power already available. So we all pay a huge 'tax' via our electricity bills to "buy" this energy that no one wants, or needs. Same goes for wind turbine power ...
THIS is what has pushed your power bill through the roof over the last few years (and mine too ... ).

IF that power were actually used to pump water from the bottom of a hill to the top of a hill, it could then be used to generate baseload power when it IS needed ... But you have already stated that you aren't interested in this "old" technology.

Well then. Where are the batteries that can store 1.8 GW capacity, and supply this over a period of 6~8 hours continuously? At a consistent voltage?

But I keep forgetting, our green friends don't like dams. I have no idea where they think their water supply comes from, but such are the inconsistencies of the only true defenders of the one true god ...

Try science and facts. It is a whole lot more satisfying than religious mania that has little, if any, foundation.

BTW, I found out about Dinorwig from talking to the guys repairing the water pipes in our street.

Everyone can teach one something ...
One just has to be open to learning or hearing it ...

Sorry to be so rough on you NL, but there are holes in what is being said on this subject that one could easily fly a 767 through ...

Meanwhile, products like the high temperature ceramic fuel cells are designed and built and ready to install TODAY.
They may not be "perfect", but they lead to approximately 70~85% improvements in efficiency of our use of fossil fuels, with a similar reduction in emissions.

How far do you think that solar power gets at 240V? EVEN IF it were useful, the transmission losses are appalling ...

Nuclear Vandalism (Nuclear Power)

John...may I suggest before you hit that little "submit reply" button, that you proof read your post to make sure it is not garbage, or at least makes sense!

Ratbag said:

That's the problem as I see it. You presume to "educate" others; yet will not educate yourselves.

Here is the link to Dinorwig.

It is only one page on Wikipedia. Surely it is not too much to expect you to read all of that ...

Click to expand...

"The original purpose of the scheme it is claimed, was to deal with the difficulty that National Grid would have had if the large numbers of nuclear power stations then planned had been built"
Well thats a helluva start right there!!!

"Although it uses more electricity to pump the water up than it generates on the way down" : "it uses 33% more electricity (when pumping the water up to the Machlyn Mawr) than it actually produces"...Brilliant!
Need I say any more???

That is why I didnt bother reading it, cos it is dead end technology...a stop gap at best with nowhere to go but downhill (pardon the pun)

BTW John, did you notice my use of copy & paste?

But this is the parlous state to which spoon-feeding in schools and universities leads us to - intelligent people who are incapable of, or refuse to, or don't know how to educate themselves ...

Click to expand...

& others who mislead themselves!

IF our feckless state and federal governments (the ones with the "green credentials" particularly ... ) hadn't squandered billions of dollars on dumbo schemes based on the advice of people like Flannery, they could have built a power line and infrastructure to the huge geothermal deposits in central Oz.

OR infrastructure and a pipeline from Lake Argyle to the Murray/Darling river system ... Or even to all the capital cities ...

Click to expand...

Perhaps they could build nuke stations to kill people based on the brilliant advice of people like yourself!

FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL SPIT ON THE GRAVES OF MEMBERS OF OUR GENERATION WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH TO HARM THEM...BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN BORN!!!

IF that power were actually used to pump water from the bottom of a hill to the top of a hill, it could then be used to generate baseload power when it IS needed ... But you have already stated that you aren't interested in this "old" technology.

Click to expand...

You really need to READ, not wave your eyes over, others' posts. I did not call it "old" technology. I called it "dead end" technology as it has nowhere to go. In fact, it is a new technology...clever but dead-end.

Please read posts CAREFULLY before you embarrass yourself!

Well then. Where are the batteries that can store 1.8 GW capacity, and supply this over a period of 6~8 hours continuously? At a consistent voltage?

Click to expand...

Again, please read posts CAREFULLY before you embarrass yourself!

Go back & read my post John...dont just gloss over it like you obviously did! I said:
"There is a power revolution underway, just like the information revolution & the industrial revolution of centuries ago. It comprises 3 parts: energy production, energy storage & energy consumption.
Energy production, as outlined above.
I presume you know about the worldwide push to make energy consumption more efficient, hence our energy saving lights, etc. Also room temperature conductors with similar efficiency to super-cooled conductors, needed for everything from transporting energy thru the grid to electrical components in computers...I'm sure you've heard of that.
Energy storage...the biggest hurdle. Not just batteries & capacitors, but others forms that have yet to be invented yet. Technologies to store energy on the massive scale that is needed.
Also technologies that are yet to be developed such as Graphene"

Please, read this again...I have made it a little easier for you to understand with underlining...

But I keep forgetting, our green friends don't like dams. I have no idea where they think their water supply comes from, but such are the inconsistencies of the only true defenders of the one true god ...

Click to expand...

We dont need more dams John, we just need to utilise the water we have better.
Imagine having vast cotton farms in a desert, cotton having one of the highest water requirements of all crops!
Apart from some tinges of green around the coast, Australia is essentially a big desert!
We dont need a Desalination plant in Gippsland, for a fraction of the cost we could have treated the waste water from the Carrum Downs Waste Treatment Plant, currently flowing into Bass Strait, & used it for farming in Gippsland, instead of the pure drinking water that is currently used there!

Try science and facts. It is a whole lot more satisfying than religious mania that has little, if any, foundation.

Click to expand...

I suggest you follow your own advice...I didnt study intangible subjects like economics or accounting...i studied science John. Mathematics, biology, chemistry & physics, both thru school & at university. I have a very scientific, logical mind. I am interested only in what works & what doesnt, unlike subjects like economics for example, where there are so many conflicting theories, each with devout followers.

Do you realise that just as there are believers that nuclear power is the answer, there are believers of the flat earth??? :rotfl:

Some people are a little slow to catch on...I am not!