Jerry_Atrick

From the workshop --> home... Electrical gremlin fixed; sunny day, light breeze, cooling weather (about 18)... traffic reasonable. Smile back on face.

And I have just realised, even my quick response may give rise to doubt. Am I talking about your most recent comment being perfectly good or the comment you most recent comment pertains to? For the record, your original comment is perfectly good.. IMHO Should be no ambiguity now. But let me know if there is.

Perfectly good comment...

As I said, it depends on the context of the use of the word major.. In the purely written form, we only have the words (and the very occasional emoji) to go with. We don#t have inflection nor body language, which usually make up the lion's share of communicating meaning and nuance. Here are the quotes: and then and then and then And i will stop there as the rest adds little value. The very top quote appears (in my perception) in the context of OME's comments which were implying (again, as it is pure written, my perception) that the global demand for nickel will drop and the mining companies value will therefore drop. The way I read the top quote of this post is nickel has other uses... and readers of that could imply all manner of other implications - that those uses can possibly pick up the slack and not impact the valuations of mining companies (which is how I read it). Or, readers may have taken it as it is written - simply there is other uses for nickel, which appears how SISO has taken it, as his post is yeah - in nuclear power plants. But, if someone else's context remained at the global consumption level, then while SISO's statement is not factually incorrect, within the context of global consumption, it is currently minimal. This is where the disconnect seems to start. The next post to me clearly read doubting NPPs used much nickel at all.. That is how I read it.. so now, my context shifted the conversation from global demand to it's use in an NPP. Others may have perceived it differently. And, due to to use of stainless steel, it is at least currently used extensively in NPPs.. And on a scaled basis disproportionately so. (well, except for stainless steel pots and pans I guess). We all seem to get caught up in these perceived context shifts and it is probably a function of only having the written word in front of us. I know i have often bashed out a response based on my perception and on re-reading posts can see how the context it was meant may not be the context in which I perceived it to be. So, this: I cannot disagree with.. it is back to the context of global demand and current projections. I think it would be a brave person or a Putin wannabe that would challenge that. Maybe we all can improve things by rather than doggedly standing our ground, reiterating in our post the background from which our comments are made. I don't believe we are here to fight or prove we know better than the other member - we are here to share ideas, debate positions, and learn from each other. And hopefully enjoy each others company. To be clear - this is not aimed at anyone specifically... We all can do better.

Nickel is used in the production of stainless steel - so theoretically, it is stainless steel that has the lion's share of usage of nickel. Stainless steel is used in all sorts of products - including components of a nuclear plant - particularly - well most of the critical components of the plant really - and of course, beyond the critical components. The stainless steel has to be high grade from a durability and longevity basis - I have no idea of the Nickel volume but around 10% seems to be in my memory for some reason. So, a lot of a nuclear plant is stainless steel - in that sense nickel is a significant component (not the most - but a "major") of a nuclear plant based on the use of stainless steel. Is the nuclear power generation industry a major consumer of nickel worldwide? That depends on how you look at it. On a pure volume basis, no. That would probably go to manufacture of consumer and industrial goods. But on a relative to scale basis - yes it is a major consumer.. not the biggest I would guess - when the plants are being built. If the world decided to do a new build program of, I dunno, 50 nuclear power stations, the projected demand of nickel for stainless steel production would increase the futures price of nickel. I am not going to do the modelling, but it would have significant future demand to immediately impact the futures prices - especially longer dated futures contracts if the announcement was made today. As the demand picks up during the builds, the spot price will increase. But once built, they consume surprisingly little in the maintenance/operate cycle of the plant - because most of it is high grade and lasts.. So, unlike consumer/industrial goods manufacture which more or less has an ongoing constant demand, nuclear power stations - once built (or past a stage in their building) - are not huge consumers of the stuff. It all depends on the context in which people mean "major" user, etc.

Interesting: https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/the-shift-is-now-absolute-china-s-byd-says-australia-just-passed-its-ev-tipping-point-20260905-p60urd.html

Actually, I am the lowest paid director in my department. There are people working for me that get paid more. But that is the story of another gripe - of my own doing..

Hawks comprehensively beat the dockers in a qualifying final - in Perth. The Hawks were not given much of a chance. Bloody bewdy!

I take a day off on Friday and the software release on Thursday eve - a normal regular one - went pear shaped due to simple effing mistakes that I pay professionals not to make. So most of my day was stealthily directing the team and I have to face the music with a cackle of senior management on Monday. Nice day off!

I was wondering why Finnair were offering discount fates to Aus :-)

Fair assessment.. (except for the bean counter... but that is a personal dislike - but at least I admit it)

And the recycled pollies PHON have at the trough are different in what way, exactly? Oh, you want people with proven skills at sticking their snouts into the trough doing it. I get it.

In my case, that is true. In the 22 federal election I would have probably voted for them. Sure, PHON is a party of protest too, and they are also nutters and LNP rejects, but they seem to espouse stuff more Aussies can relate to... Not sure if that is a good or bad thing. For the record, I would vote Green before PHON, but neither would get my vote. Australia needs a party of Pococks.

Why is it a bad look to have them do what the premier is suggesting (I am assuming it is not forced)?

Did you actually read the article? "Premier Ben Carroll said if Labor won the November election, it would work with Corrections Victoria to develop a pilot program to put supervised, minimum-security prisoners to work performing roadside maintenance. The plan would include having inmates take over basic duties such as mowing lawns, controlling weeds, removing graffiti and picking up rubbish." A photo and then "Premier Ben Carroll, who served as roads minister between 2020 and 2022, said it would free up skilled roadside maintenance crews to concentrate on fixing potholes. Low-security inmates are already involved in day-release programs doing gardening, weeding and rubbish collection in some parks." So, there is no plan to use inmates to actually fix the roads... Another beat up