octave

I am not particularly knowledgeable in the field of economics; however, growth surely is not purely the production of manufactured goods. As an individual economic unit, I made a good living selling a service, not an item. If I sold my services overseas, the profit would be every bit as important as the income for selling wheelbarrows.

You should note that my correction was merely to your numbers, not to your main argument. It is crucial for all sides of any debate to use the available resources to ensure that your argument is supported by accurate data. The resources of the net allow us to present figures that, even if not 100% accurate, are at least somewhat accurate. I am sure there have been times when I have presented statistics that turn out to be less than accurate, which I find highly embarrassing. Australia’s economic model is built around growth, and population growth has been a big part of that. Without migration, our population would age much faster. Like Japan, we would see a shrinking share of working-age people supporting a growing number of retirees. That shift matters because fewer workers means less tax revenue, while demand for healthcare, aged care, and pensions increases. Australia’s system—especially superannuation—helps reduce pressure compared to some countries, but it doesn’t eliminate it. An ageing population still creates a gap that has to be filled somehow. In practice, that leaves a limited set of choices: higher taxes, reduced government support, later retirement, or increased migration to maintain the workforce. Migration isn’t the only solution, but it is one of the most immediate ways to keep the balance between workers and retirees from deteriorating too quickly. Without some combination of these adjustments, maintaining current living standards in retirement becomes more difficult over time. The reality is you can’t have a rapidly ageing population and expect the same level of support in retirement without trade-offs. The numbers simply don’t balance.

This is not an ad hominem attack, just merely reporting facts. If there are alternative sources, then I am more than happy to consider them. This is the best “headline” number (arrivals minus departures). 2022–23: ~536,000 → highest on record 2023–24: ~429,000 → still extremely high 2024–25: ~306,000 → fell significantly 👉 So by this main measure, 2025 was not the highest—it was already coming down from a post-COVID surge.

I have just briefly scanned through the entire thread, and I am not sure I see ad hominem attacks, certainly no more than usual. Perhaps you could highlight them for me. You then talk about lefties, which doesn't personally bother me, but I am sure you don't mean it as a compliment.

Your typo amuses me 😁

I am not necessarily anti-nuclear, in fact, in some maybe it makes sense. Whilst decommissioning may be a small cost, all up the building of the NP in the first place is enormous. Decommissioning can sound straightforward, but at least at this stage, it is not. Common Problems and Challenges Decommissioning is a complex engineering task that often faces technical, financial, and logistical hurdles: Financial Shortfalls: Costs typically range from $500 million to $2 billion per reactor. Some countries, like France, face concerns that set-aside funds may be insufficient to cover the total future costs. Waste Disposal Bottlenecks: No country currently has an operating deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel). This often forces waste to stay on-site in dry casks indefinitely, preventing the site from being fully released. Technical Delays: Projects frequently experience timeline extensions. For example, Japan's Tokai 1 reactor dismantling was delayed by over a decade, with completion now pushed to 2030. Unexpected Hazards: Older plants often lack detailed historical records, leading to the discovery of unexpected contamination or structural issues during dismantling. Workforce Shortages: As a "wave" of plants reaches retirement, there is a growing need for a highly skilled, specialized workforce that the industry currently lacks. World Nuclear Association +4

I guess we need to look at facts and figures rather than perception. When we think of immigrants, let's say from India, we tend to think of Uber or DoorDash rather than an engineer or a doctor. I am not sure what the stats would show. The music studios I have worked at have a high percentage of people who study music in Australia. The reason is that these music schools have a tough time finding qualified, reliable teachers. There is no bias towards employing people from other countries. Having managed one of these places myself, I can tell you that it is a case of "are you qualified? Are you reliable? Are you good at it? I have loads of ex-colleagues who came here as students and became productive members of society, and therefore were able to become permanent residents. It may well be different is some other industries.

Are there immigration figures for feb 2026? Short answer: not yet in a clean “monthly immigration” sense for February 2026—but there are related figures you can use, depending on what you mean. Monthly “arrivals” (closest thing available) The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes monthly Overseas Arrivals and Departures (OAD) data. Latest release goes up to January 2026, not February yet Even when February is released, this dataset counts border crossings, not actual migrants (people can enter/leave multiple times) 👉 So: you can get February 2026 arrivals eventually, but it won’t equal “immigration”.

I think it is crucially important that, whatever our views are, we try hard to present information that is accurate. The problem with a meme is that it can say anything, true, partially true or false, and this somehow becomes fact. Incorrect reporting of ABS data fuelling false claims Australia has a mass migration problem The report’s authors say that public commentators, activists and some media outlets are incorrectly using Permanent and Long-Term (PLT) movement data, which is collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), to claim Australia has a ‘migration problem’ and distort public understanding. This is despite repeated, clear comments from the ABS that PLT does not measure migration but instead records people coming in and out of Australia, and includes tourists, temporary visa holders, returning residents and repeated short absences. ANU Professor Alan Gamlen explains that net overseas migration (NOM) — the number of migrants arriving in Australia minus the number of migrants departing Australia — is in fact falling sharply and has been since June 2023. Approximately 838 people were added to Australia's population each day through net migration during the 2024–25 financial year [5.18, 5.21]. This daily figure is derived from Net Overseas Migration (NOM), which measures the number of people arriving in Australia minus those departing [5.27, 5.33]. It is the most accurate official measure for population growth, as it only counts individuals who stay in the country for at least 12 out of 16 months [5.27, 5.33]. Recent Migration Statistics (Daily Breakdown) Net Overseas Migration (NOM): In the 2024–25 financial year, NOM was 306,000, averaging roughly 838 people per day [5.18, 5.21]. This was a decrease from the record high of 538,000 (approx. 1,474 per day) seen in 2022–23 [5.21]. Gross Migrant Arrivals: About 1,556 people arrived daily (568,000 annually) in 2024–25 [5.18, 5.21]. However, many of these arrivals were offset by the roughly 720 people who departed daily during the same period [5.18, 5.21]. Permanent vs. Temporary: Of the daily arrivals, only about 252 people per day (92,000 annually) arrived on permanent visas, while the majority were on temporary visas, such as international students [5.3]. Distinguishing Different Data Measures Reports often cite different numbers depending on the metric used: Official NOM (Population Growth): Currently averages around 838–933 per day based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) [5.27, 5.33]. Net Permanent and Long-term (NPLT) Arrivals: This is a "raw" measure of border crossings often used as an early indicator [5.13, 5.32]. It is typically higher (sometimes cited as 1,160 to over 3,400 per day in specific record months like February) but can be misleading because it may count the same person multiple times if they travel frequently [5.1, 5.2, 5.11, 5.33].

What is your point? Is this a bad thing?

Yes, No Yes. I wonder why it is important to you that we all share identical knowledge. What is the point of a conversation between 2 people with identical knowledge and culture?

Does that exclude me? I was born in Britain and came here when I was 2. I am not sure if I have shaped Aussie culture and colloquial lingo. Should I go back to where I came from?

I guess the issue is not immigration per se, but the method. These conversations often seem to assume that the worst cases are the most common. In the past, there were a lot of Italian migrants. Although now accepted by most Australians, there were certainly a minority involved in organised crime. My son's partner is a migrant from China (to NZ). She is a highly paid (and taxed) contributor to society. The term immigrant is rather broad. My doctor and my dentist are immigrants. For the last 30 years of my working life, I mainly worked as a music teacher in private music studios. The number of my colleagues born overseas was quite large. These people were the best and brightest. Here is a picture from when I retired. There are Irish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Hong Kong, South American, South African, British, and probably more. These people were all smart and talented, and I loved working with them. I am also an immigrant. My family arrived in Australia in 1964 as "ten-pound tourists" We lived in a new city called Elizabeth, which was full of immigrants, mainly British but other nationalities as well. A few immigrants failed to adjust, and there was crime associated with this. I don't have the figures, but I doubt it would have been much greater than from Australian-born people.

I found this very interesting. Plastic turned into viable fuel. I do, however, have concerns. Plastic that is either reused or recycled into another product is, in fact, sequestering carbon. Even plastic that is thrown away is actually sequestered carbon (until it eventually breaks down). Turning plastic into fuel, however, while it has environmental benefits, is releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.

Actually meant to post the above fuel ad in the fuel crisis thread.

I remember this from 1979 fuel crisis.

https://tyrecycle.com.au/what-we-do/the-process/

We often go for an evening walk on a walkway over the water which is made of recycled milk containers. The walkway at Geelong Adventure Park was constructed using approximately 17,000 kg of recycled plastic, equivalent to 440,000 2-litre plastic milk bottles. This project utilized APR Composites' materials to create a durable, reclaimed infrastructure that keeps waste out of landfills. APR Composites +1 Project Details Location: Geelong Adventure Park Material Composition: 17,000 kg of recycled plastic (milk bottles) combined with 17,000 kg of reclaimed non-treated timber. Volume: Reused approximately 440,000 x 2-litre plastic milk bottles. APR Composites Local Recycling Context Plastic Types: In Geelong, HDPE (High-density polyethylene) milk containers are typically accepted in recycling bins. Container Deposit Scheme (CDS): Certain milk containers under 1L may be eligible for the Victorian Container Deposit Scheme, though guidelines can vary based on the specific material (paper vs. plastic).

Ah interesting. 30% to 40% of used tyres are used as fuel for cement kilns, industrial boilers and energy recovery systems. Here is a list Fuel (TDF): ~30–45% Crumb rubber / materials recycling: ~15–30% Export (often for fuel or reuse): ~20–40% Stockpiled / unaccounted (varies): remainder

Tyres are used in road surfacing and asphalt. You can also see it in that playground, black springy flooring. Also used in conveyor belts, and apparently, you can make fuel, but I am not sure how much this is done

Coincidentally, I just came across this. I will post a link but here are some highlights. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wild-attack-on-batteries-and-renewables-by-7s-spotlight-program-falls-over-at-the-first-fact-check/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRSvLRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeRENsgXVWg03njVcjEv25LrV4q7XUJEVAYcOkDfurOU4zO3LDDzae9NSaOn8_aem_LVPR3uKcuhqbLOHAX9gfnA Spotlight, the so-called flagship current affairs program on the 7 network, dedicated more than an hour on Sunday evening on a report into the supply chains feeding into the renewables and EV industries, with a particular focus on cobalt mines in the Congo, and also activities in Australia. It was amplified on Murdoch and social media. It fell over at the very first fact-check. “Every battery, every electric vehicle, every piece of so-called clean energy technology today” uses cobalt, reporter Liam Bartlett claimed at the start of the program. Wrong. Nearly every big battery installed in Australia these days uses (LFP) lithium iron phosphate chemistry, which means no cobalt, and no nickel (that’s relevant because Bartlett did a similar hit job on the nickel industry last year, using that as a platform to attack EVs and renewables). Tesla, the biggest supplier to big batteries in Australia, now uses only LFP batteries for grid scale batteries. No cobalt. The two big batteries at Liddell and Tomago being built for AGL Energy by Fluence are LFP. No cobalt. A spokesperson for Fluence said all its batteries in Australia use LFP. “We don’t use cobalt.” Finland-based Wartsila, which is building the country’s biggest grid battery at Eraring for Origin Energy, also uses only LFP for its battery projects in Australia. No cobalt. It’s a similar story with EVs. Tesla, for instance, uses only LFP chemistry for most of the variants of its best selling Model Y and the Model 3. No cobalt. It uses NMC chemistry (which does include cobalt) only in “performance” variants, which amounts to about 10 per cent of sales. Home batteries, which are now being installed at record rates in Australia, are the same. New market leader Sigenergy uses only LFP chemistry, so no cobalt, as does another market leader Sungrow, and most others. Bartlett claims to be appalled by the conditions in some cobalt mines in the Congo, and the nickel mine in Indonesia. And so he should be. So should everyone. But the inconvenient truth is that these mines have been operating for decades, and cobalt has been used widely in many industries. The mineral is essential for the iPhone that Bartlett presumably uses, for the laptop he writes his stories on, for the jet engines that flew him from Australia to Africa, and for widespread use in medicine (hip and knee replacements), the petroleum industry, the manufacture of tools, for construction, for cosmetics, and even ceramics. The use of cobalt in EV and grid batteries is relatively new, and is already moving on. Where it is used, most EV makers are at pains to point out that the mineral does not come from such mines, and they produce blockchain style tracking reports to underline their claims. But Bartlett did not seem particularly interested in balance, or inconvenient detail. His story had three major themes – he doesn’t like the Chinese, he doesn’t like renewables and EVs, and he doesn’t like federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen. “Bowen’s fanatical approach, aided and abetted by a conga line of true believers and latte-sipping Teal supporters is now set to send the country into bankruptcy,” Bartlett wrote in an op-ed also published on 7’s website. Bartlett – was global head of TV, creative visual at oil giant Shell in London from 2013-2015

Whilst some cobalt is mined under poor conditions, my understanding is that most is not. The other thing is that batteries are increasingly moving away from cobalt. LFP (lithium iron phosphate) uses no cobalt at all. I think it is entirely appropriate to give a sh1t about the percentage of cobalt that is mined by dubious means; however, it is often used is some sort of argument against renewables and EVs. Does anyone say oil refining is evil because it uses cobalt as a catalyst? About 20% of cobalt comes from artisanal mines with poor conditions. Some uses of cobalt Batteries (EVs, phones, home storage) Superalloys (jet engines, turbines) Magnets (motors, wind turbines) Catalysts (oil refining, chemicals) Pigments (cobalt blue in glass/ceramics) Medical uses (cancer treatment, sterilisation) Tool steels and industrial uses

Rooftop solar isn’t the problem here—the constraints you’re pointing to are a sign the grid hasn’t caught up yet. The system we’re using was built for one-way power flow from large generators, not for distributed generation like rooftop solar. So when you see oversupply or curtailment in places like South Australia, that’s not solar “breaking” the grid—it’s the network hitting its limits in moving and using cheap energy. We’ve seen this before in other sectors: when better technology comes along, you don’t hold it back to suit old infrastructure—you upgrade the system. That’s exactly what needs to happen here with transmission, storage, and smarter demand. Yes, we need enough capacity for low-renewable periods, and yes, storage is critical—but that’s part of the transition. Excess daytime generation isn’t a flaw, it’s an opportunity to shift cheap energy into the evening peak. Even Australian Energy Market Operator is clear on this: the solution is more transmission, more storage, and better integration—not less rooftop solar. So those constraint charts don’t show solar causing instability—they show where investment is needed to modernise the grid. You don’t solve a modern energy system with 20th-century infrastructure—you upgrade the infrastructure.

GON, I guess this is the Australia you pine for.

My son's partner is Chinese. When you say "beating down to the same level", she is a highly educated software engineer as well as kind, generous and highly amusing. I can't really see what you would find so repugnant about her. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Before I retired, I worked with many people from different countries. These people were the best and brightest in this field.