Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nuclear, like coal, requires access to a large amount of fresh water, so SA is not ideal.

I know! all we need is a large desal plant near the nuclear plant and we've have lots of water - but how could it be powered?

capitalist wrote:I really think that SA could benefit from being a power supply for the rest of the country. I see no reason why we could not create a number of large energy stations based on a variety of means (Nuclear, Renewable) which supply the country and potentially the surrounding countries

The main reason is that when transmission costs are taken into account, it's likely to be far more expensive than generating it nearer to the point of use.

I realize it would take massive infrastructure outlay but the benefits are going to be there in the long run given the worlds demand for power. These sites could also be developed in regions which would otherwise have minimal potential moving forward. It would also help with the sale of end product uranium rather than just the raw material.

But the raw material is likely to be worth more to SA. We have the renewables to generate a lot of green energy more cheaply than nuclear. Many countries don't, so nuclear makes more economic sense there than it does here.

Anyway what are others thoughts or have I just re-hashed a heap of old ideas.

This was dealt with previously on the SA to power the world thread.

We do need a HVDC connection from Olympic Dam to Queensland via Moomba (where there's plenty of geothermal power available) and we need a lot more solar power generation equipment, but other places will generally make their own electricity.

AtD wrote:Nuclear, like coal, requires access to a large amount of fresh water, so SA is not ideal.

Actually it doesn't. Salt water will do. And there's plenty of salt water in Port Pirie, which is the only place in SA which is both technically and politically suitable for a nuclear power station.

Aidan wrote: there's plenty of salt water in Port Pirie, which is the only place in SA which is both technically and politically suitable for a nuclear power station.

Aiden, can you expand on this please?

Don't we already take electricity from Tasmania and Victoria?

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote: there's plenty of salt water in Port Pirie, which is the only place in SA which is both technically and politically suitable for a nuclear power station.

Aiden, can you expand on this please?

There has to be a permanent source of cooling water, which means it either has to be on the coast or the Murray - preferably the former, as it would raise the temperature of the Murray in the vicinity (only slightly, but still environmentally damaging).

And there is overwhelming public opposition in most areas - the exceptions being Port Pirie and the Lower South East, but the latter has geological problems due to the slight solubility of the limestone. Port Pirie has no geological problems, and there is stronger political support for nuclear there. So apart from state government opposition, the only obstacles there are economic.

However, the economic problems are overwhelming, so nuclear power is unlikely to ever be viable in SA. Solar is a much better bet.

capitalist wrote:Don't we already take electricity from Tasmania and Victoria?

We have two links to the Victorian power grid - one in the SE constructed about 20 years ago, and a privately owned HVDC link to northern Victoria constructed in the early 21st century after the government refused to fund a connection to NSW. But there are still large price discrepancies between states, so it's important for the economy - and perhaps more importantly, there are enormous reserves of geothermal energy at Moomba. Geodynamics Ltd have started to exploit this, but without the connections to state electricity grids they can't sell much electricity.

You can use salt water? Well you do learn something new every day.

There is a submarine cable to Tassie from Victoria. It's majority owned by a Singapore sovereign wealth fund.

I get a monthly newsletter from Liveinaustralia.com as I did some preliminary work on potentially moving there earlier in the year. Now I get regular propaganda. Anyway, this month they had a little blurb that I thought you folks would be interested in:

What you said last month:

Where would you like to live in Australia?

Australian Capital Territory
11%
New South Wales
13%
Northern Territory
16%
Queensland
14%
South Australia
5%
Tasmania
11%
Victoria
18%
Western Australia
12%

This is a newsletter for potential migrants. Keep in mind that many (like myself) haven't really been to these places. I thought Tasmania and the NT were interesting. I guess because they seem exotic. From a migrant perspective, a state-sponsored visa to the NT is pretty easy so that may be a contributing factor. Literally, send them your CV and get certification from the presiding Australian body and you can get a 3 year visa. But there's no jobs. Well, not good ones anyway.

chrism4549 wrote:I get a monthly newsletter from Liveinaustralia.com as I did some preliminary work on potentially moving there earlier in the year. Now I get regular propaganda. Anyway, this month they had a little blurb that I thought you folks would be interested in:

What you said last month:

Where would you like to live in Australia?

Australian Capital Territory
11%
New South Wales
13%
Northern Territory
16%
Queensland
14%
South Australia
5%
Tasmania
11%
Victoria
18%
Western Australia
12%

Yikes! Chrism, what do we have to do to get you to move to SA? Or to at least tell this survey you want to! lol.

That is, indeed, a very disappointing outcome. Obviously South Australia needs to promote itself more. We may have the best city in the country, but it looks like no-one knows about it. There's so much talk about skilled migrant immigration to SA, but it looks like the people we want to come here haven't been advised.

Promotion only gets you so far you can advertise your product night a day but if the product isn't that great then people will know not to worry.

I honestly think we should not worry about advertising ourselves (to inter-state and international travellers) at all and just focus that money on creating things that people will want to come here for on their own accord. World of mouth works just as well as any marketing campaign.

For starters we need some modern 5 star accommdidation in the city. Next we need something that will just grab people and get them intersted straight away, 68% of travellers the Adelaide only stay one night so we don't have much time to play with in getting them interested, I think making the Central market and Casino a bit more fresh and exciting would be a good start

Aren't we talking about attracting migrants? They're not going to stay in 5-star hotels. They want to know that there's work here, and that the living conditions are good, and the weather is great, and the beaches are beautiful and readily accessible. Basically, we want them to think of Adelaide as somewhere they want to live - at least that's what that survey was all about.

rhino wrote:Aren't we talking about attracting migrants? They're not going to stay in 5-star hotels. They want to know that there's work here, and that the living conditions are good, and the weather is great, and the beaches are beautiful and readily accessible. Basically, we want them to think of Adelaide as somewhere they want to live - at least that's what that survey was all about.

I tend to agree with you. I'd also like to add that often they might go by what they know of a city or area. This occurs through what marketers call 'association'. There's not really much of an association with Adelaide and SA with something. I think there could be one, in my opinion, with wine. Maybe start more branding with the vineyards on their bottles (we like Aussie wine over here). Another is to have some type of landmark that is world recognized. Maybe a huge statue, Disneyworld Australia, the world's largest zoo...pick something.

If I do an association for France, I think:
Paris
Eiffel tower
Culture (museums!)
French food
French people are rude

If I do one for Australia (as an American anyway):
Land down under
Kangaroos
Sydney and the opera house (Melbourne and tennis, Tasmania and the "devil")
Shrimp on the barbie
Aussies are cool

I guess what I'm saying is that despite being a great place there still has to be one defining feature that puts into people's minds.

Yes, Adelaide currently lacks a 'top of mind' identity. Many cities achieve this via the built environment (eiffel tower, syd opera house), but this is not always required - and i think this is the wrong approach for us.

We are the FESTIVAL STATE with the 2nd largest fringe festival (by ticket sales) in the world (Edinburgh is 1st). This is where i'd focus. Other things such as wine/food/beaches are secondary.

Some more possibilities that will help build an identity:

• * Once the war ships are under construction we may be known as the defence state
  * When ODX expands we might be known as the clean mining state (esp from a uranium perspective)

That survey is such utter nonsense that I don't quite know where to start.

I would like to move to Melbourne and live in a Eureka penthouse with servants peeling grapes, but that doesn't really mean anything useful.