Jerry_Atrick

Hobart.. mainly

We are nearing the point of moving back to Aus.. at the moment, Melbourne looks the goods for us (because I am from there, have family, and know it better than anywhere, although there are more jobs in Sydney). Wasn't planning on getting a car - the tram and train network are very good and can get you to where you want to be.. Yeah may have to walk a bit, but that is good for one's health, anyway. Hopefully home shopping is the rage in Aus as it is here. If we need a car, we can borow a brothers, and worked out to hire a car for the odd trip is much cheaper on all accounts. Happy to train/fly between capital cities, and as RandomX says, the trains in Vic are very cheap each way within the state (of course, there will be lots of bussing in between apparently). But, son has decided he wants to do marine biology, and guess where the best marine biology course is in the world? Townsville! So, if we end up there, I will need both a car and a light plane (and an IFR) to get me to Sydney or Melbourne on the odd occasion.; But not to worry @nomadpete and @Marty_d - the second best marine biology course in the world is in Hobart, and my son has a penchant for the place. We may be neighbours, yet. Who knows, I can get a job down there as a sign writer 😉

Forgiven. For some reason, the spell checker on my Firefox browser doesn't work on my Windows box. It does on my Linux box, but as that is packed away, unfortunately, I only have my Windows box to use.

The reality is continual investment in obsolete infrastructure will further result in underutilisation costs, because a lot of it is manifactured/fabrcated by global companies and Australia won't have the economic size to warrant whole production facilities and global supply chains to maintain them. Of you can absolutely pay through the nose and then some to maintain the ability to replace and increase capacity using the obsolete infrastructure. One of my nuclear clients had to do just that and ended up paying virtually all it would have made in profits by retaining old technology. They eventually bit the bullet and upgraded their infrastructure. At some stage, you have to run down the use of obsolete infrastructure. If that means you are decommissioning plant and infrastrcuture before the end of its useful life, that is your bad planning and management and mothing else. This is done by winding down the investment in obsolete infrastructure while investing on the new, far more efficient infrastructure. Indeed, even maintaining the existing infrastructure eventually moves to minimum to keep what is needed going while comissioning the new infrastructure, and keeping some of the obsolete stuff going in parallel to mitigate teething problems. This is called transitioning and is not a new concept. The problem is, the LNP government from Howard on were sponsored by the fossil fuel industry right at the time it was right to start the transition, both ecologically and economically. However, they fought against it and, with the help of the Murdoch and to a lesser extent, then Fairfax press, were able to maintain power and further delay the inevtiable, resulting in the cost of underutilised and increasingly obsolete infrastructure to increase, rather than transition to superseding infrastructire while optimising the life of what would have remained. The other side of it is finding the finance to fund the operations of fossil plants. Do you not remember the Morrison/Dutton government pressuring the Aussie banks to lend for new fossil fuel generation when they weren't prepared to? Banks will generallly lend to lawful etnerprises as long as the risk adjusted return on their capital meets their desired threshold. Even arms dealers can get funding, albeit with more stringent checks before that funsing is provided. Yet reputable banks are unwilling to lend to new fossil fuel electricity generation projects. Even with government pressure to try and get them to lend, why do you think that would be? I can tell you first hand. When we lend for project finance (the model commonly used), we have to work out the economic viability of the plant over the time horizon the finance is sought. We are often talking billions of USD (sorry, @randomx - USD is still the global currency) and usually over multiple decades - sometimes the expected life of the plant (ex. extestions). And, with the global electricity generation industry in its advanced state of transition, the risks are too high that we will lose on the deal. This is happening all over the world.. yes, there are developing economies where you can still get finance for new builds, but ultimately, they will fall away, as well. And we are now seeing, thanks to modelling other climate risks into the equation, operational funding on the decrease in these industries, as this compounds the risk of the probability of default in these sectors (and some others). We see plant of all different types (not just electricity generation, but manufacturing, processing, distillation, etc) being mothballed aand those costs have to be borne. But to continually invest in ne but obsolete capacity and try and be the last man standing and carry the costy of all of that is,well, quite nuts both at a micro and macro economic level.

a) it's not mystical (I think you mean mythical), and b) they are often set automatically at installation time based on your computer's locaisation settings.. So. no need to apologise. Ahh.. yes.. the difference between TV and the internet is you have total choice about the your content consumption, whether you consume it at all, and about content creation. Unlike TV, which is governed by execs, the Internet has totally democratised content.. Of course, it's a furphy to say you have a choice whethe to use the internet or not, as, after all, even doing govenment business like a class 2 medical requires the internet and a app - as I found out on Thursday. But you have total choice about what you consume.. and if you like, you can produce content and make a decent living from it as well. The reason for Americanisation (or should I spell Americanization) globally isn't a simple, "oh, we are force fed US content", The reality is the far more complex than that. America has a much stronger entrepreneurial culture than much ofd the rest of the world. What this means is that the US tolerates a greater degree of risks, and actually celebrates failure as lessons learned rather than failure itself. And, in it's entrepreneurial spirit, it has tapped well into consumerism as and expanded globally. But this is not unique to America. Europe did it beforehand through conolisation, as did the Ottomans, and the Romans. At different times of humanity, cultures of the dominant societies prevailed, although these days, thanks to technology, it is easier to do. One of my favourtie quotes from a British government committee on Thomas Edisson's lught bulb (I think it was the Brits that actually invented a carbon paper filament bulb beforehand): “is is okay for our transatlantic friends…but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.” The Brits invented the computer, but the USA expolited it.. And the nuclear bomb, by the way. And look who owns the global trademart to Ugg (Ugg boots brand). While the US DoD invented the internet, HTM, which powers individual interaction to the internet was invented by a Brit - Tim Berness-Lee (sp?). However, the US business world exploited it. They do this because they are willing to take risks and accept losses. In the 90s dot bomb boom and bust, I was working in San Francsico with a start up looking to launch a B2B premium wine trading site. When I was looking at CVs and interviewing people, I was shocked how they were open with startups they tried and failed. Why would they admit failure? That is a no-no in UK, Europe and Aus. I refrained from interviewing a couple of people, but curioisty got the better or me. One candidate went into elaborate detail about how that was the best learning experience of his life, what he learned from it, and how he would apply those learnings going forward. To use Australian venracular, it was bloody refreshing. I hired him and he was a top performer. The company, though, did go bust, and I learned a lot from it - about business, corporate environments, and myself! And the US is the biggest consumer market in the world. So, while yyou may not be American making content, you want to attract the market likely to make you most money: (made specifically for the US.. but a strangely familiar accent). The reality is you can moan about it, but even if the pollies did tryt something, the sheer juggernaut is off and going, and there is little they can do about it. Of course, rather than moaning, you can start your own content to correct the issue and bring Aussie culture to the world.. You know, like Bluey, Neighobours, and the Aussie travelling spirit. When I first arrivedi in the UK, I was surprised at how well adopted some Aussie vernacular was - such as shocker, She'll be right, mate (mate being English; Cobbah being Aussie, but mate being predominant in Australia, too). In other words moaning about it and to you dear One Nation friends aboujt it is pushing ship uphill, or as we used to say, you'll be up ship creek in a barbed wire canoe.

.. duplicate post deleted.

I know of one person some would think should exit to the USA.

As @octave mentione, the wholesale prices are down, and a lot of what is being paid is infrastructre. Remeber, SA is what, the third largest state/terriroty in Australia, and has 1.8m people scattered over it, far less than the other states, and bigger than the NT and ACT. That requires a decent amount of infrastructure to maintain, which will reduce with a full transition to renewables with batteries. France exports a lot of its energy to the UK. Why? Because, since before I was involved in the UK electricity industry, way back in 1996, the government was paralysed 2with its energy policy,. Then some bright sparkdaid gas is cheap.. Let's build a bunch of gass fired generation plants with a 15 year life span, and not have to maintain them in that time (largely not maintain, anyway). At the same time, the same bright spark said let's privatise Nuclear Electric (client of the company I worked for) and Scottish Nuclear (not a client of ours) and form British Energy and float it on the stock exchange. No prizes for guessing what was going to, and did happen to British Energy. It virtuallywent bust because the gas plants could churn out electricity at next to nothing.. At the same time, there were something like 8 operating plantes for British Energy - all due to decommission within the then next 15 - 20 years. At the time, with renewables technology where it was, nuclear was still the best technology. Some plants of other companies were tconverted to biomass burners, but they have their own problems. And, in reality, they are anly renewable after a 20 year cycle or thereabouts. However, renewable technology has come leaps and bounds, but the problem in the UK is planning laws are archaic, dreadfully painful and slow. This didn't impact the gas plants as these were built on existing decomiossioned sites. But, if you want to build capacity in a new site, the planning process can take years. Hinkley Point C, the new build at an existing generation site for the now decomissioned Hinkley Point A and B took over 15 months. Greenfield bew build planning permissions can take years.. The Sizewell C plant had been locked up in planning 26 months.. again at an existing plant. Renewablesin the UK has been deployed - a mix of solar and wind. Plannign takes forever, even for offshore stuff. Coal plants have been decomissioned as have been the expired gas plants. Nothing new has been built, so the UK for many years has been importing from France. However, since renewables have come online, remebering not a single new nuclear or fossil fuel plant has been built in the UK since 2012 (fossil, I think nuclear was 1996). But since renewables have been being installed, on an annualised basis, the UK was a net exporter of Electricity to France in 2022. This may seem o blip, but there are a lot of factors in electricity demand. And the UK has been reducing its reliance on imports over the last 5 or so years, since the UK has been bringing online more and more renewable generation capacity.

Oh, I give up!! (Well done, @Marty_d - has Mi5 or Mi6 called you for a job, yet?)

Are we talking in general, or simply the continued infusion of what has been a dominant global culture over many decades? If in general, the current "lot" seem to be heel bent in providing far more hope across the population than the previous. In terms of infusion of culture - well you could argue they have started to apply some of the brakes with the under 16 social media laws - albeit unintentionally as they are more intended to stop harmful content reaching the under 16s. In addition, the current lot recently passed the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, into law, requiring streaming services in Australia to invest at least 10% of their Aussie revenue into local content productions. What looks like to be your favoured party, One Nation doesn't appear to consider a media policy and imporant issue according to its own website: https://qld.onenation.org.au/issues. Their education policy mentioned nothing on it - in fact it worries me.. At a time when we are realising that the original Victorian times teaching curricula is not quite fit for purpose anymore, they seem to want to go back to it.. Hmm... Er.. yes.,. force fed US TV inb Australia is a problem.. but that is the free market working for you. Australiam, as an English speaking nation with not much real investment in the media and arts have leveraged a lot of international English speaking content. In the old days, as I recall, it was pedominantly English, with lots of great comedies, dramas, and the like. It transitioned to American TV thaks to its lower price point. It is not the roles of the government to interfere with private market decisions, except to set broad standards. This lot has taken the first step to do that.. it has notbeen on the policy agenda of any other lot that I can see nor remember. But, even when local content is provided, is it local content? A lot of Aussie game shows are actually licensed from either the US or the UK. Remember Sale of the Century, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Big Brother, and a whole lot more. All foreign shows, produced locally. Lots of royalties flow back to their foreign conceivers. I suppose, though, at least they are produced with a distinctive Aussie flavour. The term "Lock it in".. used in who wants to be a millionaire in Australia was not a feature used in the original UK production. Another example, was something like Late Night with Steve Vizard. He openly admitted be copied the David Letterman show format, but abruptly quit when I think it was channel 9 decided to syndicate the David Letterman show. Why, FFS! Yeah - we know the context of what was on the Letterman show, but I would have far preferred to watch Vizard (before his contraversies became public), as it was local - stuff you will never see in the Letterman show. The UK has very similar laws to us.. the difference is by the time the US went global with its productions, the UK was already well advanced of Australia in its media landscape, particularly with content production. In addition, the UK tastes are not the bland pin up model acrtors/actresses with preedicatable plots, comedy that has to be explained to its audience as part of the show, and has a edginess and intelligence that US productions lack to this day. Something like CSI Miami would never survive here.. when I first saw it when I returned to Aus way back in 2003, my response was, "huh" The same over dramatic acting in the same plot every errk, and people watch this.???" We mainly watched ABC and got Foxtel to watch the UK channels. The rest of Europe are not native English speaking, and except for movies and the odd show dubbed in their local tongue, it sort of makes sense for them to make their own productions in their own language. But. likle Australia, many of their local productions are licensed from the UK or mainly the US. Or, like the Vizard show, they copy the forrmat. A firend of mine who lives in Brisbane calls Australia, Ausmerica. When people ask me what Australia is like, I say think of America, with better health and education, but no guns. But, I think both are unfair. We seem to have picked a lot of the advantages, but ny and large pased up most of the more extreme disadvantages. We have picked up many of the disadvantages, but I think that os more from the way the Aussie government works than what has been imported from America. Its just both the Aussie and American systems derive largely (except for Louisianna) commonwealth system. And there are forces in society that seek to manipulate it to their advantage. And I am sorry to say, none of the major and only one of the minor parties are willing to proffer real policy changes to address that. And One Nation is not that one minor party. But good luck getting Pauline to take up your cause.. You may well get some hot air on it, but policy? I doubt it.

I bleieve, under international law, that is tantamount to a foreign act of, and declaration of war.

Gave up long time e ago

There was some sarcasm to my post about him on the moped

Even if he did go to Bali, it isn't exaclty going to the French Riviera or some fancy Caribbean island. I can see him now in a singlet and stubbies shorts, with a stubbie in hand on a rented moped, resplendent with the chin straps dangling from his helmet

I intend to not become shark ship, so that is advice I tend to take in waters where sharks are likely. My partner has called me the most un-Aussie Aussie she has met..