Jerry_Atrick

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.

You're just in denial.. I'll leave it at that

Yes it does make sense... You ancestors decided at some stage to stay on their own free will, did they not? Even if they were went to the colony for the term of theiur natural life, when released from custody, at some stage they were relased from custody and stayed - on their own volition.. .does that not make them immuigrants at that point? Or, say thaey had kids while in custody - those kids would be, at the time British citizens.. and when they stayed, does that not make them immigrants? Or are you telling me your whole line of family are still incarcerated? We

Convicts deported to a land that was not the sooverign land of the country they were deported to, are in fact immigrants. And, anyway, what is wrong with being an immigrant. Yeah, there have been some bad-uns, but many, if not most, have contributed positively econimically, socially, and dare I say, culturally. Look at the wheels of industry in Australia before it was choked by government policy - much of it by immigrants; Remeber what we called Greeks and Italians - Wogs - and their culture and cuisine were scoffed at. But now, we can't get enough of it. Asians? Turks? Much the same. There have always been issues with immigration.. And don't go saying, "yeah, but they integrated".. Not any more than the current waves.. How many of us don't remember the kid in class that had to interpret for their parents; or the concentration of new waves iof immigrants in particular areas resulting in culture, religion, shops, etc, sometimes not even showing signs in English, let alone speaking English? And people are going to say oh, yeah, but the Somalians or Afghans or whoever, are different.. they are far more violent? I can tell you living in an area resplendant of landed Italians that there was enough violence there.. Gangs, Mafia, etc.. it was all rife.. The culture politics wasn't quite as strong and you just didn't hear about it. Asians and the import of their gangs, particularly the Triad? There was scant news, but it was there. Dare I say "White australia" has its fair share of criminals? Also the news was more moderate in its ideology pushing than it is today. Remember the Sky News debacle about whippig up a storm over Samalians as they are Muslim? Turns out, they are predominantly Christian. While each wave of immigrants suffered localised racism, they weren't pilloried like they are today in the press and use as cutlure politics pawns, mainly hyporcritically by the ideological right who abhoor.... culture politics.. when it is used against them. The realitty is for any wave if immigrants comng from a materially culturally different background, where their culture and identitiy is ingrained since birth and they are middle-thrities and beyond, it takes a generation to properly integrate into societty.. Always has. Even for me, as in immigrant to the UK from a materially similar culture, I identify more closely to being an Aussie than a Brit despite spending the vast majority of my adult life here. My best mates are Australian, I support Australia in the cricket (rugby and soccer I couldn't give a toss about). I go out of my way to buy Aussie wnes (well did - off the plonk at the moment). Jeez, I still have an Aussie accent I am told (in the UK, I believe they say I have an English twang in Aus, now). My favourtie sport? Aussie rules. My favourtue content providers - Australian.. But, my kids? Both as pommie as they come.. even with the whingeing! And I find that with immigrants of all walks - even those from more ancient cultures.. many of the kids consider themselves British.. Yeah, they may not have converted to Chritianity, but in many other ways, they are British.. And the "Aussie" Culture, is essentionally a pigeon version of English culture, anyway.

Sadly, she is literally one (of a handful) in a million

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?)