octave

In what sense?

It would have an electronically operated handbrake as do many modern cars regardless of how they are propelled. I found the handbrake on the Tesla to be very user-friendly and effective. What is an electronic handbrake?

I think there are places in Australia that are suitable for some types of geothermal Although Australia has no volcanic structures, there is significant potential for geothermal energy to be extracted using hydrothermal and hot fractured rock processes. From what I can see the problem is not that it can't be done but that ii is at this point uneconomic. Geothermal energy in Australia Australia has considerable geothermal energy potential, however the electricity produced is not financially viable in Australia due to three challenges: finding it: identifying suitable geothermal resources flowing it: producing hot fluid from the geothermal reservoirs at a high rate financing it: overcoming the significant up-front capital costs associated with enhanced geothermal system technologies and the cost of transmitting electricity from remote locations.

It is legal if fixed I think. Obviously, you can't use other functions. I do not know about this particular vehicle but I know in the Tesla you can set the screen as you like it if you find too much information to be distr5acting. My son often has his screen act like a huge rearview mirror using the rear camera, pretty useful. It is reasonable to question whether having this many screens is necessary. Using a phone as a navigational device/GPS while riding is prohibited unless it is secured in a commercially designed holder fixed to the vehicle. All other functions (including video calls, texting and emailing) are prohibited. The penalty is a fine of $545 applies.

Whilst that particular project may not have been successful this does not reflect in geothermal power. It does work overseas. Either our location is unsuitable or perhaps we are just not innovative enough. United States* – 3,900 MW (updated our numbers as per the notes below) Indonesia – 2,418 MW – with a last minute addition for 2023 at Sorik Marapi Philippines – 1,952 MW – updated numbers by DOE Turkiye – 1,691 MW – corrected numbers based on official license numbers by the Turkish authorities New Zealand – 1,042 MW – based on official numbers by the national regulator Kenya – 985 MW – addition of the first 35 MW of three plants at Menegai coming online in 2023 and some updates by numbers reported by KenGen (the country is inching closer to joining the Geothermal GW Country Club) Mexico – 976 MW – no change, yet updated numbers from the Ministry of Energy Italy – 916 MW – correction of our reporting of early 2023. Iceland – 754 MW Japan – 576 MW – corrections of plants and number based on official government numbers.

I agree with every word jerry didn't say.

As Nev points out brakes on an EV last for ages due to regen braking. As far as tyres go, I think perhaps in earlier times there were fewer tyre choices. Tyres for a Tesla are not super expensive and there seems to be a wide choice. Buy Tesla Model 3 Tyres from $169 I think they have the potential to wear out quicker depending on driving style.

Yes in fact if you chose the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (not sure how many numbers you chose in lotto) you have the same chance of winning as any other combination of numbers. If you toss nine heads in a row the odds of the tenth throw being heads or tails is still 50/50. This feels odd but it is the "Gambler's Fallacy" What Is the Gambler's Fallacy? The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, occurs when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect since past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future.

Pretty good I would think think. Certainly, they are used for commercial purposes. One example is this sports stadium. Europe’s largest energy storage system now live at the Johan Cruijff Arena

This is an interesting interview with Jim Farley CEO of Ford discussing EVs. I realize this is quite long but even the first 5 minutes is enlightening.

EV batteries can and are being recycled. It is early days and there aren't too many depleted battery packs. They are simply too valuable to ditch. Apart from that, second life batteries for stationary uses are in high demand. 1. Global Top 10 Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Companies [2023] 1.1. American Battery Technology Company 1.2. American Manganese Inc. (RecycLiCo Battery Materials Inc.) 1.3. Ecobat 1.4. Ganfeng Lithium Group Co., Ltd. 1.5. LG Energy Solution Ltd. 1.6. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. 1.7. Lithion Recycling Inc. (Lithion Technologies) 1.8. Redwood Materials, Inc. 1.9. Retriev Technologies, Inc. (Cirba Solutions) 1.10. Umicore N.V.

Electric car battery charges in under five minutes in track test

So it seems that the longer they wait the more radioactive decay has occurred meaning radiation levels are lower, This makes the job cheaper and less hazardous.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 3 methods of decommissioning. Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the USA): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use within a decade. Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after resudual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably. Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern. Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach or combination of approaches is adopted or allowed. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for completion of decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning programme, which may be undertaken by the utility or handed over to a specialist company, with transfer of licence and accumulated funds. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safstor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs. In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from some surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" in steel which has long been exposed to neutron irradiation, notably the reactor pressure vessel. Stable atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, iron-59 and zinc-65. Several are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such (2.7 years, 45 days, 5.3 years, 245 days respectively) after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the occupational risk to workers largely gone.

I would suggest it is more complicated and I would have thought more costly. Here is some information from The World Nuclear Association which represents the nuclear industry, so not lefty ratbags. Considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facility. About 200 commercial, experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 500 research reactors have been retired from operation. About 25 reactors have been fully dismantled. Of the eight German units shut down in March 2011 for political reasons, most will be dismantled over about 15 years. The four operators had €38 billion set aside for decommissioning and waste disposal. A total of 32 power reactors have been closed and decommissioned. NRC requires that the operating licence of a closed reactor be terminated and decommissioning activities be completed within 60 years. Duke’s Crystal River 3 (860 MWe) was expected to cost $1.18 billion (2013 dollars) to decommission via Safstor over 60 years, during which time the funds reserved for the purpose would accrue interest, thereby fully covering the cost, despite the fact that is was closed after only 35 years of operation. Immediate decommissioning (Decon) was then expected to cost $994 million, but the decommissioning fund would have had less time to grow sufficiently to cover it, and a $195 million impact on Florida ratepayers would have resulted. Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities I think my point about needing to know the lifetime costs and timeframes and waste disposal methods is sound isn't it? The situation at San Onofre power station is unacceptable, isn't it?

I believe that newer blades are more recyclable than the first-generation blades. The bulk of a wind turbine is recyclable anyway, certainly the metal parts. "Approximately 85–94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is recyclable and can be recycled in Australia – mostly steel, aluminium, copper and cast iron. This is well above the national average for commercial and industrial waste streams in 2018-19 (57 per cent) and the National Waste Policy Action Plan target (80 per cent average resource recovery rate across all industries by 2030)." Is burying a small percentage of a decommissioned turbine better or worse than storing waste that has to be kept away from people for many generations? Very true. The problem is not using oil to make things but burning it. I suspect future generations will not look kindly on us. We had this amazing substance and we chose to burn it.

Landslide in Taiwan in 2010 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36782187

Nowhere near the time of a nuclear plant. It takes years to decommission a power plant. The power plant in the first video I posted closed in 2013 and still is nowhere near finished. They don't even have anywhere yet to put the waste other than leaving it onsite. The Finish underground vault is an enormously expensive complicated construction. Demolishing a wind farm I would imagine is not that much different than a bridge or other similar structure. As I have said lots of times, show me the expected costs of building, running, decommissioning and safeguarding the waste. Without that information up front, how can anyone throw their support behind it.

I think if we are to do it we need to know the relevant costs including decommissioning and how that will be done. It seems in many parts of the world they went ahead with it hoping a solution to waste would become apparent when the time came. Here is a short doco on the closed-down nuclear power station in the US. It is not a rabidly anti nuclear doco but it does illustrate the need to have a plan for waste an decommissioning. I think it is entirely reasonable and responsible to demand this information before we get on board with this. Finland seems more proactive. The price of this disposal will have to be reflected in the cost of electricity.

PM The thing is that if we go nuclear we are extremely unlikely to be 100% nuclear. I believe that the country with the largest percentage of Nuclear is France at 65%. If we compare a similar country to Australia, lets say Canada, they have 15% nuclear. The bulk of their power is non-nuclear. Electricity sector in Canada Coal: 5.7 (5.7%) Natural gas, oil, and others: 11.8 (11.8%) Nuclear: 14.6 (14.6%) Hydro: 60.2 (60.1%) Non-hydro renewables: 7.8 (7.8%) Whatever happens a large percentage of electricity generation will be non-nuclear unless we do something that no other country has done and go 100% nuclear. As far as 3$ billion in renewable energy certificates, it is my understanding that the proposals for nuclear will involve substantial government financial input. This is how it appears to work in the rest of the world. "Subsidies have been a part of nuclear policy since the beginning of the industry. No nuclear power project has proceeded anywhere without government support." I am not necessarily against government subsidies or nuclear power for that matter, but the economic case has not been presented and I fear it won't be before the next election. It seems pointless to talk about subsidies to wind and solar without the knowledge of subsidies that will be required for nuclear. Again if we build 7 nuclear reactors it it will not be instead of solar and wind etc but as well as.

That's good to hear.

Do you feel I come down on you like a ton of bricks? Or do I just link to data that you are free to dispute? Disagreeing is the lifeblood of this forum. Sometimes all of us can feel we are a voice in the wilderness when the majority of others hold a different opinion. I am happy for people to disagree with me as long as they are willing to back up their assertions and are polite