90% of our power will come from renewables in 9 years. That seems very optimistic. The talk about the nuclear plants coming online in 15 odd years is neither here nor there when you boil that down. Better to start now if we need it in 10, even if it takes 20 years to come, than to start in 10 years, and then wait 20 years for it. This is a tale of historics going on here too, so its possible that older plants took longer to come on line due to different requirements, working conditions. If you compare building it where its rainy and cold vs somewhere like here, we might be able to bring it online much quicker as there is more chance to work when it aint raining particularly when talking concrete.
Before anyone says shes right/wrong about the renewables timeline she muted, its in line with where we get power from currently according to her. I.e. she states we get 30% from renewables and this grows 3% on average every year. Whilst that will compound over time, in 10 years time, it will not be any more than 70% of todays power generation, right when she says that we will stop using Coal Power and we will get 90% of our power from renewables. Where does that extra 20% come from to bridge the gap to her claim of 90%?
Integration is neither here nor there. The renewables not working nicely with other power sources is currently true enough too. Ultimately when push comes to shove, when you pick a model including mixed types of power, the same fundamental issue will be there. Sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less. Renewables are no better or worse in this regard and ultimately it looks like you need a medium to store power in temporarily to limit this, irrespective of power source. Saying it doesnt play nicely is politics at play really.
Costs are rubbery figures. Estimates are estimates and there are lots of qualifying statements used when talking costs. Labelled too expensive, and it might be to build, but once built is the cheapest form of power to consume. If you dont build any solar, and focus on nuclear as well is it still expensive? Does the expense change based on where it is built? Interesting question.
I have no issues with her points on number 4.
Ultimately, the other part that is also a bit hard to measure, is that all the assumptions are based on history. i.e. Nuclear plant tech could change. It may be cheaper and more efficient to bring online in time. We wont know until we do it. Still lots of points well made.
For me the number 1 argument against nuclear power is the backyard test. If there was a solar farm next to you, you would get on with it and not think twice about it. A nuclear plant hanging out in your backyard, you would feel much differently about. It would absolutely detract from your house value, and the desirability of people to live in that location. The desal plants are already enough of a reason not to build a nuclear plant. The gippsland folk ive spoken to dont like the thing nearby.
226 seats in parliament and these guys get paid those sorts of benefits across the board.
Career politicians....
LP, you've missed the mark so widely in what I was getting at. Most people in industry (IT) dont truly ever switch off. There are oncall shifts for a reason, and most of the time, there is a lot of unrewarded work done, because the impact is highly visible instead of their profile. You wont see them getting a paid government pension for life (means tested, wont even get a pension, so their super fund will do, or its the aged pension) nor their widows and kids.
From where I sit, these ministers are senior managers. The wear responsibility, but the actual work is delegated out underneath them, and they will scape goat people if it ensures they come out of it smelling like roses. They are career talkers without doing. They get paid handsomely for it, and they will change parties if it will keep them riding that gravy train. You wont see, hear or know who really does the work. Thing is its a giant pyramid scheme. Directors, Associate directors, Associate Program directors. All of them toiling away underneath making sure everything is going ahead.
Media reporting on the gravy... I spit on the assertion that my views are swayed by media and that any stone throwing comes from media. From where I sit, these people get paid a lot of money to oversea that work delegated gets done, but the work delegated is the actual work involved, and they wouldnt know if it got done without an audit from someone like KPMG, PWC or Deloitte.
My opinion has come from what I have seen and experienced working in a variety of government roles. Lots of reporting done, with no one really needing to read it. Lots of managers and middle managers who hold pretend accountability and talk a good game, without having any game of their own.
The more disconnected these people become from every day Australians, the more scope there is for bad outcomes and decision making. Duttons price of eggs answer tells the story as well as any. The fact that Albanese had an idea of the cost of eggs, is likely a result of him having prepared better, but neither of them are buying their own eggs and I was expecting both of them to get it wildly wrong and to be honest, based on their guesstimates, both are incorrect. 10 dollars these days for a dozen eggs is about what ive seen unless you go for the lowest cost eggs, rather than observing where they come from.
They've already gone to: GWS up north. Freo at Optus, Brisbane at the Gabba Sydney for Gather round in Adelaide. Theyll go to Gold Coast later on in the year, and Adelaide at Adelaide.
Aside from playing west coast at home (better they dont get an away bye against them too) and Port Adelaide in Adelaide (one match against last years top 6 side, which was at the G and Pies home game), where else would it be fair for them to play again?
Given the spread of interstate teams you either travel early or you travel late, or you spread your travel out. Usually you see a run of melbourne games coincide with shorter breaks between matches.
Each Melbourne based team will only realistically play roughly 8 true away games if the fixture works against them.
Ours this year:
Gather round was a home game vs West Coast (dismiss this, everyone goes to gather round, be it home or away).
We travelled to Adelaide against Adelaide. We are going to Sydney this week against the Swans. We play west coast in Perth round 14 is the next true travelling game. Port in Adelaide round 16 Freo in perth round 21
We have dodged Queensland altogether this year.
You can only hope for an equitable amount of travel. The pies have managed to get most of it in prior to round 10, and had they lost most of those games this conversation would be very different. Instead, they have managed to win, and win well.
The way I see it, we will go interstate 6 times, and they will go 6 this year. Hardly "grossly unfair" particularly with us not even touching one of the Northern states although we are travelling to Perth twice which is arguably more difficult due to time differences and jet lag. You can only hope for a longer turnaround on the back of that travel.
Wonder if she renounced her UK citizenship and that her Aussie citizenship is in order? 😇
I think that the current crop of pollies have had their citizenship status checked and re-checked by their party, by the other mob and folk with an axe to grind.
Still, some of the vetting leaves a bit to be desired. A few days before the election it was revealed that a Liberal candidate had previously been a member of the ALP and the Greens. While there’s really nothing wrong with that, the Libs’ vetting process should have picked it up so they could get on the front foot.
It's almost like this person is so desperately trying to make it in politics they have no political affiliation.
Wonder why, its probably the gravy train of being an elected MP and a base salary of $205,798 per annum thats the driving motivation.
Who is the best direct comparison for TDK in terms of seeing past performance?
Well, we saw probably Buddy go in an equivalent deal. Did he help the swans? They were there or there abouts. They went hard for him, got their man and its an all or nothing manoever. Meanwhile the Hawks let buddy go and got better. The thing thats intangible there, is that they got the Adelaide bloke at the same time which may have caused more grief than Buddy in isolation.
Its hard to compare.
Buddy's deal was huge at the time ... and many consider him on a par with Leigh Matthews as Hawthorn's best ever players.
If the $$$ suggested by the media are correct, St Kilda isn't offering overs for an elite player, but I'm not sure that Tom is an elite player ... at this stage.
From what we saw on Friday night, Tom doesn't address any of St Kilda's deficiencies and they would seem to be better off spending their war chest on a key forward and midfielder.
no doubt, was just trying to find a basis for comparison. The 1 million per year deal for 10 years was money too good to refuse for buddy, and arguably, money worth paying for one of the games best most athletic key forwards, who was regularly getting about 10 looks at goal per game at hawthorn.
Thing is, hawthorn didn't miss him, and the Swans might have been better off without him. We'll never know and the acquisition of Kurt tippet at that time might have been more troublesome than buddy's deal.
Tdk as a player isn't comparative at this stage. The cap impact is and thats what I was shooting for.
Who is the best direct comparison for TDK in terms of seeing past performance?
Well, we saw probably Buddy go in an equivalent deal. Did he help the swans? They were there or there abouts. They went hard for him, got their man and its an all or nothing manoever. Meanwhile the Hawks let buddy go and got better. The thing thats intangible there, is that they got the Adelaide bloke at the same time which may have caused more grief than Buddy in isolation.
You could ruck Young if necessary. His ruckwork has improved significantly since his lacklustre efforts last season and, at worst, Kreuzer could equip him to nullify the opposition ruckman. Our midfielders are good enough to rove to a break even or losing ruck.
Using Young as our first ruck may be a "break glass in an emergency" situation but it means that we won't be using Harry. Of course, Skull is developing very well and would now be competitive against AFL ruckmen.
In terms of ruck ability/output. TDK/Pittonet Harry/Jack/Cripps Okeefe/Lemmey/Kennedy (yes i know he's not with us anymore) ... Young
He is not a 1st choice, 2nd choice/6th choice ruck.
That was true in previous years, but he's doing better this year.
He's at worst ahead of your 3rd line and possibly a better ruckman than Harry.
He was our best performer in the first half vs Adelaide i thought. Competing well.
His move to defense brought back panic merchant Lewis and i think asking him to go forward and compete relieves pressure in a way that playing in defence doesn't.
Apparently Matt Carroll was withdrawn from the game because he may be required for the Firsts next Friday. If true, that seems a little odd to me.
Doc was a class above the opposition but he had plenty of time to choose the best option and generally executed well. I don’t think that he’s played his last AFL game but that’s got more to do with our injury trends than his form.
Last week a lot of scoring was done through Carroll.
Hes not the first won't be the last to struggle in his third afl game.
Keeping him fresh is a good idea, but it speaks to where our list is at from a "how fit are we" perspective.
Hopefully we are eyeing off post bye to start our season in earnest.
I dont mind Carroll, but he was a bit of a weak link defensively. Wonder what's going on with Boyd. Something not adding up there.
I think Doc has found the standard that is now at his level and pace. Rather than just wallowing in the twos for the rest of the year, he should declare his intentions now. He will most definitely move into coaching, so finish off the year as senior player, on field coach, mentor and assistant to Power. (Can't 'declare' him as a coach due to the soft cap.)
I think he'd be very good in that kind of role. But if he does get back into the seniors.... One thing about last night was that he played a more traditional role in the position where he played his best football for us-off half back. The big criticism recently centres around his disposal. Further up field he doesn't always have the time and space to get the ball away efficiently. For a lot of last night, playing back, he did have that extra time, and as a result his efficiency was much better in a high possession game. (I would add that there was a fair bit of switching the play so his disposal figures are probably a bit padded.)
we see this in soccer a bit. Defenders like to think they can get forward and create, but there's two things that happen.
1. They play with their back facing attacking goal. This makes reading the play harder and also means you need 360 degree vision.
2. Without being able to see the game, they end up with increased pressure and are not as composed in possession.
This describes docherty somewhat. His leadership, work rate and class is what he brings to the table. Before his knee converting him to a mid sounded fine, but it might be time to shuffle the magnets around and give him license to run off half back instead and see if he can recapture form. Ive got no doubt he could make it in time as a midfielder but I remember thinking his best footy came in the Andrew mckay role and imitating bruce doull.
I literally just explained it. Yoi don't agree that's different Paul.
Treating people differently both positive and negatively leads to resentment. Its one thing to acknowledge an indigenous person/people/culture as part of Australia, but giving them different rules is a call back to them not having the same rights as the rest of us. Its just with a different motivation.
It's just not FAIR. you don't cure injustice with more injustice. You just breed resentment.
Can't agree. I am not a motlop fan. Last night there was a few times when there was less than 8 points in it where he was working to create an option and lock it in on a wing. He isn't doing Cyril rioli things but that's the best of the best. He did get his hands on it and get us moving the right way. It just wasn't sexy to watch so people forget it, but it happens southern stand wing 4th quarter when the game was in the balance.
Agree somewhat lods, but the thing is, she isn't the one who is divisive in her opinion. Treating folk different is what causes division. An indigenous voice to parliament is one that seeks to create a separation between indigenous and non indigenous and like all of these things they bring benefits and derision. I remember seeing a form for abstudy vs austudy when applying at uni. Being intelligible for both due to household income, I didn't worry about it overly but it struck a chord. Why is it different? Why are they labelling it different? Is one more or less beneficial?
Historically division between races is what cemented bigotry. So it's only natural that an arm of indigenous people would simply view it as not being invited to the table unless you're hand picked and groomed for the role.
Realistically inclusion means equality and equality means eroding the differences, not equity of privilege amongst the elite. Its like men vs women. They don't want to eliminate the boys club, they want a girls club, and pretend all women would be in it, when the reality is we are talking about 3%ers.
The evey day human isn't represented by any of the aforementioned and thats precisely what an indigenous voice to parliament would do. Create a 3%er in indigenous communities.
First nations people paint a picture that they were one nation living in peace but I suspect there was plenty of fighting and division in their communities. Its human nature to fight over resources.
Somewhat agree, but the bloke has had some serious issues and might need to rebuild confidence in his knee. Better players than Charlie have had similar set backs and taken more time to get back to their old selves and they weren't put out there damaged in the process.
