octave

I use Amazon quite a lot, and I have had no problems. There is an Amazon warehouse nearby, and sometimes items are delivered extremely quickly. The thing with these sales methods are that Amazon represents many small businesses. I usually make sure I read reviews before I buy something. I am a member of Amazon Prime TV, so postage is free. Many of these sites are pretty sneaky in tricking you into signing up for membership. This happened to me with Kogan recently. There was a charge of around $120 for a premier membership. I was pretty pissed off, however, since I use PayPal they are very good at getting your money back. On this occasion, I was able to send a message directly to Kogan. I said that I did not recall signing up for this and that it should not be so easy to mistakenly do this. I also said that I often shop with Kogan, and how they handle my complaint would determine whether I ever buy from them again. I received a full refund within 24 hours.

Just to be clear, the Danish situation is not that you won't be able to send a standard letter. It is that the public postage system will no longer do it a private company will. There is also a law in Denmark that says the public post system must guarantee that either they or a private company must fulfil this service. It comes down to whether we think one part of the postal system (parcel delivery) should subsidise a loss-making part of the business. I have been looking through some figures, and it seems the average price to process and deliver a letter is around $2.80. However, a stamp is only $1.70. The problem is that as fewer standard letters are sent, the delivery costs don't go down much; the postman has to travel down a given street whether they deliver 1 letter or 20. In 2024, delivering standard letters cost almost half a billion dollars. The government does not subsidise this senders of parcels do. I am not necessarily against subsidies, but I do think we need to always be looking for more efficient and sustainable practices. The number of letters posted is dropping dramatically. Whereas once perhaps a posty would have a letter for perhaps 9 out of 10 houses, these days it might be 1 in 10. My point is, as this figure drops, do we pay half a billion a year to deliver to 1 in 100 houses, or do we find another way?

I think the point is that these things (government letters, etc.) are already largely being done electronically, and therefore little demand for letter services. In Denmark, it is not a case of having to change these functions to digital because the mail is stopping, but they are stopping the mail because these things are already being done digitally. Even in Australia (and I presume Britain), most of these functions are already done digitally. In the Danish situation, their post office is still delivering parcels, which is a growing and profitable area. I imagine they could also deliver documents. I think the question is a what point does the traditional postie become unsustainable.

In Denmark, although the government postage (letters) is being discontinued, a private company is still running a letter delivery service but as a private enterprise, this should satisfy the need for paper-based communications. A couple of years ago, having the power of attorney over my mother, I had to sell her house interstate. I thought I would be required to travel interstate; however, I was able to do it remotely. I signed the contract electronically. My understanding is that this is probably more secure than a signature on paper. I think the headline is a little alarmist, but the article does explain that it is only the government postal (letter) service that is ending. If there is a need or desire to send a piece of paper in an envelope, that can still be done via private companies. I think the issue is that the cost to post a letter is much greater than the cost of a stamp, and this is subsidised by the parcel service. These days, I probably only check the mail once a week, if that.

Denmark becomes first country in world to end letter delivery

Identical twins (monozygotic twins) come from the same fertilised egg, so they start with almost the same DNA. As the embryo splits and develops, mutations) can occur. Environmental factors in the womb — blood supply, position, nutrition — differ slightly. Over time, epigenetics (how genes are switched on/off) makes them even more different. So they’re genetically similar but not 100% identical in every cell. Monozygotic twins do not have identical fingerprints. Fingerprints form in the womb between about 10-24 weeks of pregnancy. They’re influenced by random physical factors: pressure in the uterus, amniotic fluid movement, and how the fingers touch surrounding tissue. Even with the same DNA, those tiny differences lead to unique ridge patterns Identical twins may have similar-looking fingerprints, but they are always distinct. Identical twins can also differ in: Birthmarks Handedness (one left-handed, one right-handed) Susceptibility to certain diseases Personality traits

The synoptic charts are part of the old site, and as far as I can see, are unchanged. If you don't want a coloured chart, you can opt for black and white. I guess out of all the people who use the BOM site, different folks want different levels of information.

https://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Season's greetings to all 🍾

I can confirm that I am both alive and well. I have been popping in for a look around, but I don't think I have signed in lately. I do tend to drift in and out. I did send Spacey a private message a couple of weeks ago to see if he was ok, but no answer.

Also, @spacesailorhas been absent for a few weeks

There are many trials of agrivoltaics going on in Australia and overseas. I My assumption is that with all these trials going on and some already operating agrivolatic farms that things like the stock damaging the accuators or other parts is a known quantity. I am sure it would not suit every farm type or location, but a search of the net does show sheep and cattle and crops (mainly veges and grape vines, etc where partial shade is preferable.

I am quite settled. In terms of asking questions, usually the answer is freely available. For example, off the top of my head, I did not know if wind turbine blades contained asbestos. It is not something I had heard, so I sought out the answer. Perhaps I should have said "people instead" of "you" to make it more general and less personal. There is a common trend to only question the new, whilst ignoring the problems of the old. Yesterday, in my local area, a car burst into flames. There was a flurry of comments about EVs being unsafe, or "I would never drive one of those things" As it turns out, the vehicle was a petrol Hyundai. As soon as this was established, the outrage and concern evaporated.

not in the turbine blades; however, some components are found in turbine brake pads. There have been concerns with wind turbine blades in the past; however, new blades are recyclable. Do you also question what parts of coal power stations are recycled and what is left over when the coal is burnt ? https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/explore/journal/recyclable-blade.html Acuators? I am not sure exactly what you are referring to. There is no shortage of videos and even long seminars on the net. I will happily post links. Also, a search of farms al; already using agrivoltaics will show many examples both here and overseas. There are loads of examples both here and overseas. Here are just 2, but do a search yourself. This is a win-win situation. Change can be hard, but it is necessary

It is early days, but I believe there are a few. Farming has always been a tough way of earning a living. A farmer must decide what they will farm to stay profitable. They can be at the whims of world markets. What better way to diversify than to host renewable power projects? This is drought-proofing a farm.

I was not necessarily suggesting the most likely scenario, only suggesting that in SkyNews' world, only one of these causes would whip them up into a frenzy. As for arson being unlikely, I am not sure about that. It is within the realms of possibility, especially with anti-renewable sentiment. It is quite likely that this fire may have been caused by the solar farm or associated equipment. Power lines, whether they are connected to solar or not, are a major cause of fire. Much of the technical equipment we use is capable of catching fire. When this does happen, we analyse and take measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

Fires on farms are not unusual. The source could have been from farm equipment, natural sources, arson or from the solar farm. Let's say it was from the solar farm; this surely only means analysis and actions to make it less likely to happen in the future. Here is a question: Did the incident below make Skynews? No, it did not. This happened a few weeks ago, not far from where I live. There were numerous comments online from conservative folks suggesting that this is a normal process, and sometimes the stack does get smoky for a time. Whether it was normal or not, it did start a grass fire, which required the fire brigade to attend. A grass fire near an oil refinery ought to be big news. There seems to be a discount applied to existing technologies as opposed to newer ones. A petrol or diesel car catches fire, and it is not a big story. An EV catches fire, and it is huge news and has people suggesting that this technology should not exist.

Exactly. I travel on the train often, but those who drive their cars instead do benefit from all the travellers who are on the train and not clogging up the roads.

As I have said previously, I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear, but amongst other things, an economic case would need to be presented. The other issue is the timeline on nuclear. I get that SMRs are being developed and even a couple are in operation now (Russia and China). How long would it take for us to develop the expertise to build our own, or do we get in the queue to buy one from the Russians, the Chinese or the US?. Until these nuclear options are available and built do we spend money on refurbishing old coal or building new coal? All of the scenarios would result in bigger power bills. Your link that talks about a "death spiral" and lumps Australia in with Pakistan, I think, is inaccurate. Pakistan’s grid is in trouble because of long-term under-investment, big subsidies, high losses and widespread non-payment. That’s not a rooftop solar problem. Australia doesn’t have those structural issues, and we actually plan our grid developments years in advance through AEMO and the ISP. You did tell me I could not use Denmark as an example because Australia is not Denmark. You know what else it is not Australia? Pakistan And in fact, pretty much need to run 24 hours a day. Coal can be somewhat throttled back, you can't really stop burning fuel when demand is low. It is a bit like keeping your car idling in for when you need to go out. Would this be different with the cost of developing and building nuclear? The predictions of death spirals and the grid falling over are not new. I recall dire warnings that if we had more than 20% renerwables on the grid. The yardstick keeps being moved. When wll th grid fall over (other than the usual faults)? I dont say that all this is easy (neither is building NP) problems are being solved all the time. Just because we have relied on inertia from coal generators it does not mean that thius is the end point of technological development. We have more and more batteries and grid forming inverters, synchronous condensors etc.

Whatever way we go, there are costs. Do you really think that building nuclear power plants will not impact your bill?

The electric hot water that is installed now is generally not the old-fashioned resistive hot water system, but heat pump hot water systems. These systems are very energy efficient compared to resistive electric or gas. I believe there are substantial rebates for upgrading to a heat pump, so probably worth looking into.

The cost of electricity comprises direct generation costs plus the infrastructure required to distribute it and retail costs. Electricity could be extremely cheap if we decided not to extend the grid or if we reduced maintenance standards. We could decide what level of resilience we are willing to pay for. Do you think building new coal, gas, or nuclear power would reduce your bills? Would we pay through higher power bills or through our taxes? The Iberian Peninsula power cut is very complex. As the video you posted suggests, there were many failings. Even if the chain of events were precipitated by a component of the renewable system (and I don't think that is universally accepted) do we say "Oh, a failure, let's rip out the renewables and build more coal"? I think a better course of action would be to say "what went wrong and how we can prevent it from happening again." If your car breaks down, you don't swap it for a horse, even though horses were adequate transport back in the day. I imagine neither of us will suddenly change our minds, and the move towards renewables is not likely to stop and be reversed. When I post, I spend considerable time making sure my posts can be supported by references. This makes this a time-consuming activity. I think I might schedule a reminder email to myself, and I could gather as many stats of, let's say June and December (to capture high and low solar) and look for records of grid failures and see if there is a trend and if so, in what direction. Could also record price, both spot and retail (as well as daily connection charges)

Here is a graph of the energy mix for SA for last year. To perhaps oversimplify the argument somewhat. Some people appear to want the green, orange and purple (wind and solar) or in other words, the methods of generation that do not require fuel to be transported and burned, but would rather the teal colour to be 3 times higher. As I see it, the objections to producing electricity without transporting or burning fuel are reliability and cost. On reliability, I can't really find evidence that states with more renewables have a less reliable grid. I do have a basic understanding of maintaining grid frequency. This is why synchronous condensors, grid forming inverters and batteries are being installed. Siso I have open in front of me here a report on the Spanish power cut. Grid Incident in Spain Portugal on 28 April 2025 Excess renewables generation did not cause Iberian blackout Of course, the grid is an extremely complex thing, and from time to time, things can go wrong. It seems to me, though, that solving those problems has to be a better solution than going back to the old system of just coal and gas. Of course, coal and gas is not perfect in terms of reliability. In terms of cost, according to AEOMO, th ten-year forecast is for prices to drop (not dramatically). In fact wholesale prices are lower in SA. Yes, this doesn't translate into retail prices yet. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. When I bought my solar I added the loan montly payment to my monthly electricity bill. This made my electricity quite expensive for 4.5 years but now it is extremely cheap. Like it or not the world is moving towards more and more renewables. Businesses are making investment choices.

Whether or not you approve of the term "nation of migrants," these are the hard, rational facts. As of 2023, 31% of Australians were born overseas. The 2021 census shows that nearly half (48%) of Australians have a parent born overseas. Let's leave out the term "Nation of Migrants" if it freaks you out. Let's just say a nation with a significant number of migrants.

The comparison with Qantas aircraft is misleading, because traditional coal-fired power stations already rely on vast amounts of underutilised equipment. Coal plants cannot ramp quickly, they cannot turn off at night, and they must run even when demand collapses — meaning the whole plant is burning fuel simply to stay online. This is the definition of expensive underutilisation.