Jerry_Atrick

Using the Contact Us page on their new website

From what I read, it wasn't reneweables that caused the issue, but they certainly didn't help the issue because there are no ruddy biug flywheels to take the load. There is a lot more to go wrong, as are a lot of technologies that advance. But, as thorughout technological development through history, somethinng goes wrong and we learn from it, adjust the design and move one. There are other ways to stabilise a grid than relying on spare capacity of conventional power stations. The reality is the generation side is changing and the transmission/distribution side has to adapt to meet the changes. That really depends on how the generation, transmission, and distirbution network is developed. I would say the generation plant is awfully expensive when it is not in use. However, due to the distributed nature of renewables, I find it poretty inconceivable using a mix of generation technologires, there would be no generation going one somehwere in a regional area. No sun, no wind at the same time over various microclimes probably happens. Batteries come in, and they can be distributed; there can be a place for a much smaller fossil or wood-burning generation networ. or nuclea to pick up the slack Also, remember, when a facility goes down, the total generation capability of that facility goes down - that is expensive. You can lose a panel/cell or an array of them, but the rest of the facility will still generate. When plants go down, and they do with alarming regularity, the cost is huge. In the nuclear days, if we could save a day of an outage, way abck then, it s was £1m/day saved. When you have the infrastructure there, yes, it is economic But, how much does, say, $650,0000 get you up and running fairly quickly with renewable generation? You can then say, yeah, but youhave to upgrade the grid.. Well, the grid is being upgraded anyway, but even with renewables, it is continually being upgraded, so grid upgrade costs aren't really relevant. But, lets say they are.. How much will your nuclear facilities cost. At last count, local facility here is up to USD$45bn projected and years late. Australia doesn't have the experience at nuclear builds.. TYhat buys an awful lot of generation for whatwe have experience in - renewables. I am not sure about Australia, but taxpayers money is used here to prrop up all generation so the consumer doesn't have to pay the full price of it. I am sure I read somewhere Australia does to. This is usually through tax credits, contracts for difference, guaranteed loans, low-interest givernment loans, grants and the like. So why shoudl renewables be excluded from the list? On that basis, yeah, I would be happy for out taxpayers funds supporting it (and I am in no way connected to the industry at all, anymore). In addition, the benefit of lowest CO2, even compared to whole of life nuclear, is good for the planet, as well as, in the case of nuclear, not having to have the cost of waste storage and maintenance, etc, which are rarely refleted in the costs of the CO2 equations. To me, the good it can doe far outweighs the need to subsidise it in its maturing stage. The UK is importing wood chips for two reasons. First, although I think it is a fallacy, to reduce emissions. In fact, per kw. coal prodices lower CO2 emissions because of its energy density, except in he theortetical perfectly managed forestry - which it isn't. But secondly, an on island 1/33 the size of Australia and with twice the population, it is hard to put caol plants too far away from anyone. The toxic pollutants emitted by caol, even considering scurbbing, and miles worse than wood burning pellets, so it is also an air-quality thing. The UK still has good quantities of mineable coal.. but it it still a silent and slow killer of many people with repiratory disorders. So, there is method in what you see as their madness. Again, this is point in time.. But, I agree that Germany was completely nuts to abandon its nucelar generation ihn the wake of Fukishima. I think towards thei end og Merkel's chancellorship, she became a little nuts. Germany have been talking about restarting their nulcear facilities as they were mothballed in generally very good condition. I am not sure what has come of it. The UK dilly-dallied for decades over its energy policy and it is paying for it now. France is predomionantly nuclear powered and has been investing in nuclear since god-knows when. When I last looked, all nuclear generation was, and i think still is owned by EDF. Although quoted on the French bourse, it is something like 90% owned by the French government. If it had to operate as a real company, and charge eelctricity at commercial rates like the rest of it, there would be another French revolution. And they stick dogmatically to their guns.. The EPRs they are building out are a lemon, but vive le France - they are too proud to change tac. But, these were original nuclear generators when renewables weren't what they are today. If Australia wants to go nuclear, it may pay to wait.. because there are billions being thrown at fusion. Yeah you get the radioactive waste (tritium), but you don't get the quantity, and there is no fallout, outside the containment area in the case of an accident as when you stop the reaction, the radiation stops.

It's a 2017 model. We bought it with 1,000 miles on the clock. We realised that its on condition service schedule was a joke, so I change the oil every 5k miles and service it every 10k miles regardless, and it has been a treat. The enterntainment/sat nav unit was flakey, but a software update developed by an independent maintenance company fixed it. Mini, like Bentley, is owned now by BMW, but still produced in the UK (Oxford, I think). It has great handling, and for the weight of the thing, is quite nippy in sport mode (which does make a decent different). If it get's written off, our funds are sapped a bit by the house, but will try and fins something from behind the sofa cushions to get one of their electric (not hybrid) ones. Though, it will take some time.

This one has been totally reliable.. but yes, the market decides. Still worth about £9k on the 2nd hand market

Darn. I love that car

Yep mini countryman

Both North Melbourne and Hawthorn play a handful of home games, usually at Universityof Tasmania Stadium. With a capacity of 17.5k, one can usually see plenty of empty seats at these games

Have heard that one at least 100 times this morning alone...

The insurance company want to total it.. I am discussing it with them now.. It wasn't a huge deer, no... Agree.. Although I still should have taken the bl@@dy motorway! More burger or stew than haunch (in one piece)... No idea! Should probably have been "Was on..", but sometimes I wonder if it is me or the Bluetooth conenction from the keyboard getting signals mixed.

That is also my plan

Hit a deer last night on the drive home from London. Bugger! Did it on the A303, wgucg us a dual lane carriageway (where I hit it), travelling at c. 70mph. Deer went under the car as far as I could tell. I thought I hit it middle on, bit it was slighlty left of centre (or its inertia took it that way as it was coming right to left). As it was in the A303 in a live road, the police had to come first to cordon off the lane. They they recovered it, but I have to do the insurance stuff this morning and have it recovered and hopefully repaired. Airbags didn't deploy, so hopefully not a write off (getting value for a like for like replacement is almost impossible). On the positive, car did astonishingly well; driver unharmed, buut radiator and no doubt some of the undercarriage is stuffed. Would say a minimum of £3k damage:

This seems to be reasonable article re renewables.. prices dropping, but the risks if renewables investment does not continue and mismanaged roll out. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-04/aemc-flags-fall-in-power-prices-as-renewable-energy-surges/106098392?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

Apols was tapping the above on a train and had to end it quickly.. Add @nomadpete, @rgmwa @kgwilson and others to competently addressing the issues..

The country of 28m has to pay for the existing infrastructure. The older the infrastructure, the more maintenance, and eventually replacement (in segments) is required, And of course, as the population expands, the network has to expand with it. I would love to see the transmission and distribution maintenance and upgrade budget over the years to compare incremental upgrading/installing upgrades to handle renewables over a similar period Rome, after all, wasn't built in a day, The stats provided by @octave already bear out the major cost of your bill is infrastructure, so it would be interesting to compare that cost to a new build and its projected costs over time. You also speak of this under-utilisation of capacity - which is not quire accurate. I am sure there are times the grid is underutilised - for example, around 3am Easternm - this would be factored into the price you pay. All utilities are underutilised at some stage. Yet it is even more expensive with coal, as you have to keep those furnaces burning.. That is under utilisation. I think what you mean and I may have misread it - the cost of writing off the capital before the end of its useful life. Yes, that is a cost, however it is borne from continual investment in obsolete technology. And isn't the grid being upgraded for renewables, and transitioning rather than abruptly stopping legacy network infrastructure? Sounds like they are trying to make the transition (as oppose to switching) from legacy to upgraded grid as cost efficient as possible. But this sort of thing happens anyway, as even with legacy infrastructure, components time expire, become obsolete and are replaced (sometimes before their useful life if the benefits of replacement technology can provide a quicker economic return). Then there's the extensions to nuclear plants. This is not a simple visit from the NRC or NII (as it was called then), a few patch jobs and biob's your uncle. I was involved in a two life extensions (not the whole thing). They are years in the planning and delivery and are major refubrishment programs. Both cost well above USD$600m and that was (jeepers!) 25 years ago. Typically, plants have two generation facilities - and that well above $600m was for each facilitiy (which is why they do one at a time). So, yeah, you can get life extensions, but they don't come cheap and are still full of risks to budget, timelines, etc. Thee was mention of it's great if one can afford the subsidies for renewables.. I am not even sure what the issue is here. Virtually all new nuclear builds, at least in the Western word are subsidised or guaranteed one way or another. The LNP caolitiion's plan was to significantly subsidise the new builds in Australia. Great if it can be afforded. Hinkley Point and Sizewell C - Government guaranteed and guarateed price post commissioning, indexed, which are eye watering. Have a look at tax credits, government grants, loan guarantees, retail bill levies, etc that all prop up the industry in these countries.. As you say, great if you can afford it.. Obviously it can be afforded. Lastly, no other country has relied on intermittent generation? No one had done much more than jump of a tree or a cliff,yet now, through technology, people fly safely. What sort of argument is that? It hasn't been done before, let's not do it? Is that really your argument. Everything else @octave has dealt with competently. Keep investing in coal - lets see where you are in 20 years time.