The crazy Greens

[Yosemite Sam]

https://greens.org.au/platform

Here's our plan: We will tax the billionaires & big corporations, and
provide the things we all need for a better life. Treaty. Replacing coal
and gas with 100% renewables. Dental and mental healthcare covered under
Medicare. Wiping student debt and free education for all. Affordable
housing. Secure, well paid jobs. An end to all forms of discrimination...

anything else? lots. such as.. attack the Banks! they make money so tax
them some more! "The Greens will increase the major bank levy from 0.06%
of their loan book to 0.20% of their loan book. The Greens will break-up
the banks so that they can no longer cross-sell their own products".
and.. "Implement a 40% super profits on big corporations".  Oh, and no
coal, oil, or gas any more. and.. so on it goes. I won't provide links,
you can get all the details of their lunacy on their website under the
various subsections. It's idealistic nonsense funded by taxing any money
making enterprise out of existence. They would turn Australia into an
economic backwater, send entrepreneurs and corporations offshore in
droves, and lower the living standards of us all.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

[alvey]

There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[keithr0]

On 29/05/2022 3:09 pm, alvey wrote:
>
> There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...
>
>

Serves a useful purpose, it and aus.legal corral a good proportion of
the loonies on the Australian area of Usenet.

[alvey]

Ayup. I was down at Kings for a couple of hours of lunch today and there
was what looked like a Wirraway and a couple of similar size (and vintage)
things flying about. The 'Wirraway' put on quite an extended aerobatics
performance right in front of the beach, getting down to about 40 mtrs
above the water. Was/is there an airshow on somewhere?

[Yosemite Sam]

On 29/05/2022 3:09 pm, alvey wrote:

> There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...
>
>

well there's been so much political discussion here I thought I'd put my
2c's worth in

[keithr0]

On 29/05/2022 4:29 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:45:06 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 3:09 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>
>>> There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...
>>>
>> Serves a useful purpose, it and aus.legal corral a good proportion of
>> the loonies on the Australian area of Usenet.
>
> Ayup. I was down at Kings for a couple of hours of lunch today and there
> was what looked like a Wirraway and a couple of similar size (and vintage)
> things flying about. The 'Wirraway' put on quite an extended aerobatics
> performance right in front of the beach, getting down to about 40 mtrs
> above the water. Was/is there an airshow on somewhere?
>

Hardly likely to be a Wirraway, there are none on the Australian civil
register. Probably a Harvard, there is at least one at Caloundra.
Aerobatics at 40 metres just off the beach doesn't sound in the least
bit legal, CASA would be interested.

[Noddy]

They certainly would be.

It was probably a R/C model and Alvey, being the brainless wanker that
he is, can't tell the difference. Remember, this is the moron who can't
tell the difference between a switch and a light on the dash of his own
car....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Daryl]

I know its not easy for most people to judge how high an aircraft is but
I remember being at a boat ramp near Geelong in Vic about 20yrs ago and
as part of a big festival in Geelong the Roulettes were doing a display,
they came over the top of us in formation very low, certainly at the
time I wouldn't have thought that they were any more than 200ft high.
Being Air Force they most likely have different rules?


--
Daryl

[keithr0]

In their designated areas, they cab do what they like, but not at public
displays. I've seen a Hawker Hunter looped from 50' but that was on
government property and flown by a test pilot.

[alvey]

Once again Fraudster hilariously fails to recognise the irony of him
accusing someone of being unable distinguish real from pretend.



alvey
“Thanks for sharing that, but I presume the only reason you did is
because your killfile has made you feel a bit redundant.’ Fraudster,
14Feb16

[alvey]

Do you know the Surf club at Sunshine Beach? (The first beach south of
Noosa national park). Anyhoo, I was out on the superb outside deck there
one fine day and a pair of RAAF fighter jets (nfi what) in close formation
made two passes just beyond the surfline. Both times they were *below* us.
A tad surreal is looking down on flying warplanes.


alvey

[alvey]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 17:45:58 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:

> On 29/05/2022 3:09 pm, alvey wrote:
>> There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...
>>
>>
>
> well there's been so much political discussion here I thought I'd put my
> 2c's worth in

Hint: 2c coins haven't been produced for about 30 years now.

[Peter Jason]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:28:28 +1000, Yosemite Sam <fe...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>
>https://greens.org.au/platform
>
>Here's our plan: We will tax the billionaires & big corporations, and
>provide the things we all need for a better life. Treaty. Replacing coal
>and gas with 100% renewables. Dental and mental healthcare covered under
>Medicare. Wiping student debt and free education for all. Affordable
>housing. Secure, well paid jobs. An end to all forms of discrimination...

They're raising the trees & critters to God-like status.
It will boil down to economics eventually.

France uses nuclear power for about 80% of its energy.

[keithr0]

Apologies, there are in fact 3 registered Wirraways, one at Point Cook
owned by the RAAF, one at QAM (although registered, it hasn't flown for
at least 6 years), but there is one based at Caboolture which you can
even fly in ($500 for 20 minutes). So it is possible although unlikely
that you saw the Caboolture example, but still the aerobatics that you
describe would be somewhat illegal.

[Yosemite Sam]

On 30/05/2022 5:53 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 17:45:58 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 3:09 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> There must be an aus.politics or somesuch...
>>>
>>>
>> well there's been so much political discussion here I thought I'd put my
>> 2c's worth in
> Hint: 2c coins haven't been produced for about 30 years now.
>

well 5c worth then, pedant

[Yosemite Sam]

yes if they ever get the chance to implement their craziness (God
forbid) it will all go to hell in a hand basket as the realities step in

>
> France uses nuclear power for about 80% of its energy.

those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside

[keithr0]

OTOH they cost a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear power station
to build, cost next to nothing to run, and don't produce radioactive waste.

[alvey]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:


>
> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside

There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...



alvey

[Peter Jason]

On Tue, 31 May 2022 05:44:31 +1000, alvey <al...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>
>>
>> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
>
>There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...

How rude! Tasmania would be a better choice, or King island, or some
Abbo "sacred" site.
>
>
>
>alvey

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 17:39:18 +1000, keithr0 <us...@account.invalid>
wrote:

But the wind is very variable, and the sun shines least when the need
is greatest.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Wrong. Most electricity is used during daylight hours. In any case,
storage system are rapidly being implemented across the nation and thus
fluctuations are able to be smoothed.

[Noddy]

There is that, and to be quite honest I couldn't give a fuck about the
effect they have on the landscape. The Yaloak South wind farm is around
20km's South West of me and I can clearly see the generators spinning
away from my kitchen window. I think they look kind of cool, and they're
an enormously impressive thing to see when you're driving along the road
right beside them.

However in having said that I would have no opposition whatsoever in
building a nuclear power plant or 7, and given that we have one of the
worlds largest (if not *the* largest) natural reserves of Uranium at our
disposal combined with more than enough uninhabited space to comfortably
and safely bury the next 10,000 years worth of radioactive waste I think
we need to have our heads examined for *not* taking advantage of the
somewhat unique situation we find ourselves in and using Nuclear power
to solve our power generation problems.

[Peter Jason]

Another waste solution is to dump into the ocean at the edge of a
subducting tectonic plate. The same goes for most other wastes too,
I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_boundary

[alvey]

The best choice of all would be precisely where you live. That way
something good would come from it...

[Yosemite Sam]

On 31/05/2022 5:44 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>
>> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
> There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...
>

good idea! there's nothing to ruin out there


>
> alvey

[Trevor Wilson]

**We don't need nukes. We have enough Sunlight hitting our nation in ONE
DAY to power the entire planet for around 18 months (assuming Solar PV
efficiency of 20% and 6 hours of Sunlight per day). Of course, that's a
bit silly, but it illustrates just how much totally free energy hits
this planet. We could, for instance devote 3% of our land area (let's
use the desert areas) to generate ALL the electricity required by the
entire planet. No waste. Send it via HVDC cable to SE Asia and convert
it to H2 to send further. Japan is setting it's economy to be highly
reliant on H2. We could cash in on that huge market.

Here's the thing about nukes:

* They're fucking expensive to build, operate and decommission.
* You have to find a place to SECURELY (guarded 24/7 against terrorists)
place high level waste for THOUSANDS of years. In some cases, that means
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years.

While you're planning to build a nuke (around 20 years to plan, build
and commission), the cost of Solar PV (and battery storage) will have
fallen still further, rendering nuclear power (which is already VERY
expensive) completely dumb as a choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date, they
have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that was
generated.

IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.

I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next 200,000
years.

[Yosemite Sam]

but a lot is needed for heating in winter when there is less sunshine

> In any case, storage system are rapidly being implemented across the
> nation and thus fluctuations are able to be smoothed.
>
>

[Daryl]

Battery storage for domestic solar is still to high to make it
financially viable at approx $11,000 for a 10kw battery system, might be
different numbers for large scale which should be cheaper.
I know 2 people that have installed battery storage for their solar and
it has reduced their bills but it will take many years to pay back the
initial cost.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>
>
> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date, they
> have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that was
> generated.
>
> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>
> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next 200,000
> years.
>

LOL, some big assumptions there Trev:-)
Its very likely that the problem of storage will no longer be an issue
when someone invents either a way to recycle the waste or to render it
harmless, given the time frame of "200,000 years" anything is possible.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 31/05/2022 11:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 10:43 am, Noddy wrote:

>> There is that, and to be quite honest I couldn't give a fuck about the
>> effect they have on the landscape. The Yaloak South wind farm is
>> around 20km's South West of me and I can clearly see the generators
>> spinning away from my kitchen window. I think they look kind of cool,
>> and they're an enormously impressive thing to see when you're driving
>> along the road right beside them.
>>
>> However in having said that I would have no opposition whatsoever in
>> building a nuclear power plant or 7, and given that we have one of the
>> worlds largest (if not *the* largest) natural reserves of Uranium at
>> our disposal combined with more than enough uninhabited space to
>> comfortably and safely bury the next 10,000 years worth of radioactive
>> waste I think we need to have our heads examined for *not* taking
>> advantage of the somewhat unique situation we find ourselves in and
>> using Nuclear power to solve our power generation problems.
>
> **We don't need nukes.

That depends entirely on how you define "need".

We "need" sustainable, long term, zero emission power generating
capacity, and Nuclear is more than capable of meeting that requirement.

> We have enough Sunlight hitting our nation in ONE
> DAY to power the entire planet for around 18 months (assuming Solar PV
> efficiency of 20% and 6 hours of Sunlight per day). Of course, that's a
> bit silly, but it illustrates just how much totally free energy hits
> this planet. We could, for instance devote 3% of our land area (let's
> use the desert areas) to generate ALL the electricity required by the
> entire planet. No waste. Send it via HVDC cable to SE Asia and convert
> it to H2 to send further. Japan is setting it's economy to be highly
> reliant on H2. We could cash in on that huge market.

Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we could
profit from selling them.

> Here's the thing about nukes:
>
> * They're fucking expensive to build, operate and decommission.
> * You have to find a place to SECURELY (guarded 24/7 against terrorists)
> place high level waste for THOUSANDS of years. In some cases, that means
> HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years.

And yet 441 nuclear power plants in 32 different countries around the
world are perfectly able to deal with these issues in their day to day
operations.

> While you're planning to build a nuke (around 20 years to plan, build
> and commission),

Bullshit.

374 of the 441 currently active Nuclear plants around the world were
built in ten years or less. Around 15% took longer, which has more to do
with the inadequacies of the people engaged in the building projects
themselves rather than the difficulties of the project per se'.

> http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/

--

> the cost of Solar PV (and battery storage) will have
> fallen still further, rendering nuclear power (which is already VERY
> expensive) completely dumb as a choice.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles will
rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery that
permits them to be.

Here's the thing. No one has claimed that Nuclear power generation would
be the cheapest option. But it *is* one that is already out there
working and has proven itself more than capable of meeting the needs
placed on it. Should the day ever come where a cheaper, greener, more
reliable option that meets the needs ever present itself then by all
means put it into practice immediately. But for now, wind power looks
like the only alternative that's achieving anything and it's ability is
somewhat limited.

>
> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date, they
> have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that was
> generated.
>
> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.

Not exactly.

They're perfectly capable of dealing with it should they decide to do
so, but the problem is that no one wants to. The issue of dealing with
Nuclear waste in the US is a political football that's been kicked
around for *years* with no one being able to agree on exactly what
should be done with it.

Just like health care in the US, it's totally fucked up because the
powers that be can't agree on what to do with it.

> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next 200,000
> years.

Seriously Trevor, in the grand scheme of building, owning and operating
a nuclear power plant the ongoing costs of providing an adequate
security force would be very, very, *very* minor by comparison :)

[Trevor Wilson]

**You're thinking vertically. Think laterally. The future lies in
directions other than what you imagine. I see the future as:

* BEV vehicles as battery storage systems for many homes.
* Small(er) local battery systems to serve (say) a few dozen homes is
more likely.
* Batteries are getting cheaper, not more expensive.
* Al-Ion batteries will make a HUGE impact on energy storage.
* Energy storage make take the form of H2.

>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>>
>>
>> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date, they
>> have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that was
>> generated.
>>
>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>>
>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>> 200,000 years.
>>
>
> LOL, some big assumptions there Trev:-)

**Nope. Just the facts.

> Its very likely that the problem of storage will no longer be an issue
> when someone invents either a way to recycle the waste or to render it
> harmless, given the time frame of "200,000 years" anything is possible.
>

**And, in a few short decades, Solar PV and battery storage will be even
cheaper. Nukes are a poor choice for a nation with abundant Sunshine and
large tracts of land that are not much use for anything.

[alvey]

You don't have to be unqualified & undereducated to be an idiot but they
sure seem to give you a big step down.



alvey
btw, the half-life of U235 is 700 million years. Which is a bagatelle
compared to U238's 4 billion years.

[Peter Jason]

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> OTOH they cost a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear power station
>>>> to build, cost next to nothing to run, and don't produce radioactive
>>>> waste.
>>>
>>> But the wind is very variable, and the sun shines least when the need
>>> is greatest.
>>
>>
>> **Wrong. Most electricity is used during daylight hours.
>
>
>but a lot is needed for heating in winter when there is less sunshine

For solar the ultimate solution is to have a series of satellites
whizzing above the Earth, always in sunshine, and transmitting the
collected energy down to Earth by diffuse microwave radiation to be
concentrated then used.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:25:00 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 5:44 am, alvey wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >
> >
> >> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
> > There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...
> >
> good idea! there's nothing to ruin out there

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just another nothing comment from (one of) aus cars resident suckhole. whodathunkit?.

[Xeno]

Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 11:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 10:43 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> There is that, and to be quite honest I couldn't give a fuck about the
>>> effect they have on the landscape. The Yaloak South wind farm is
>>> around 20km's South West of me and I can clearly see the generators
>>> spinning away from my kitchen window. I think they look kind of cool,
>>> and they're an enormously impressive thing to see when you're driving
>>> along the road right beside them.
>>>
>>> However in having said that I would have no opposition whatsoever in
>>> building a nuclear power plant or 7, and given that we have one of the
>>> worlds largest (if not *the* largest) natural reserves of Uranium at
>>> our disposal combined with more than enough uninhabited space to
>>> comfortably and safely bury the next 10,000 years worth of radioactive
>>> waste I think we need to have our heads examined for *not* taking
>>> advantage of the somewhat unique situation we find ourselves in and
>>> using Nuclear power to solve our power generation problems.
>>
>> **We don't need nukes.
>
> That depends entirely on how you define "need".
>
> We "need" sustainable, long term, zero emission power generating
> capacity, and Nuclear is more than capable of meeting that requirement.

But only if nuclear hasn’t a *radiation emission issue*. At this point in
time, it has, especially with regard to the waste and to the irradiation of
the cooling water. You can’t see the bigger picture, that’s your problem.

Xeno

[Trevor Wilson]

On 31/05/2022 12:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 11:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 10:43 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> There is that, and to be quite honest I couldn't give a fuck about
>>> the effect they have on the landscape. The Yaloak South wind farm is
>>> around 20km's South West of me and I can clearly see the generators
>>> spinning away from my kitchen window. I think they look kind of cool,
>>> and they're an enormously impressive thing to see when you're driving
>>> along the road right beside them.
>>>
>>> However in having said that I would have no opposition whatsoever in
>>> building a nuclear power plant or 7, and given that we have one of
>>> the worlds largest (if not *the* largest) natural reserves of Uranium
>>> at our disposal combined with more than enough uninhabited space to
>>> comfortably and safely bury the next 10,000 years worth of
>>> radioactive waste I think we need to have our heads examined for
>>> *not* taking advantage of the somewhat unique situation we find
>>> ourselves in and using Nuclear power to solve our power generation
>>> problems.
>>
>> **We don't need nukes.
>
> That depends entirely on how you define "need".
>
> We "need" sustainable, long term, zero emission power generating
> capacity, and Nuclear is more than capable of meeting that requirement.

**Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a 20,000
year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot more for
nuclear power than you're paying right now.

>
>> We have enough Sunlight hitting our nation in ONE DAY to power the
>> entire planet for around 18 months (assuming Solar PV efficiency of
>> 20% and 6 hours of Sunlight per day). Of course, that's a bit silly,
>> but it illustrates just how much totally free energy hits this planet.
>> We could, for instance devote 3% of our land area (let's use the
>> desert areas) to generate ALL the electricity required by the entire
>> planet. No waste. Send it via HVDC cable to SE Asia and convert it to
>> H2 to send further. Japan is setting it's economy to be highly reliant
>> on H2. We could cash in on that huge market.
>
> Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we could
> profit from selling them.

**Ummm, nope:

https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/billionaires-andrew-forrest-and-mike-cannon-brookes-tip-more-cash-into-australias-solar-export-vision-c-6045898

It is already happening.

>
>> Here's the thing about nukes:
>>
>> * They're fucking expensive to build, operate and decommission.
>> * You have to find a place to SECURELY (guarded 24/7 against
>> terrorists) place high level waste for THOUSANDS of years. In some
>> cases, that means HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years.
>
> And yet 441 nuclear power plants in 32 different countries around the
> world are perfectly able to deal with these issues in their day to day
> operations.

**Oh really. Where is their waste stored?

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

"More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste
sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production
facilities worldwide, with over 90,000 metric tons in the US alone.
Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the
environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent
disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational. With
nowhere to go for now, the hazardous materials and their containers
continue to age. That unsustainable situation is driving corrosion
experts to better understand how steel, glass, and other materials
proposed for long-term nuclear waste storage containers might degrade.
Read on to learn how these researchers’ findings might help protect
people and the environment from waste leakages."

You can not and must not ignore the issue of nuclear waste. The entire
world has ignored this issue for decades.

>
>> While you're planning to build a nuke (around 20 years to plan, build
>> and commission),
>
> Bullshit.
>
> 374 of the 441 currently active Nuclear plants around the world were
> built in ten years or less. Around 15% took longer, which has more to do
> with the inadequacies of the people engaged in the building projects
> themselves rather than the difficulties of the project per se'.
>
>> http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
>>

**That's just construction time. Planning and all the other shit adds
up. 20 years is a modest estimate. Either way, do you think Solar,
batteries and wind will be cheaper or more expensive in 10 years?

Where will you store the waste for the next 200,000 years?

>
> --
>
>> the cost of Solar PV (and battery storage) will have fallen still
>> further, rendering nuclear power (which is already VERY expensive)
>> completely dumb as a choice.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>
>
> And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles will
> rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery that
> permits them to be.

**Well, yes, but they will get cheaper due to economies of scale. And
legislation.

>
> Here's the thing. No one has claimed that Nuclear power generation would
> be the cheapest option. But it *is* one that is already out there
> working and has proven itself more than capable of meeting the needs
> placed on it. Should the day ever come where a cheaper, greener, more
> reliable option that meets the needs ever present itself then by all
> means put it into practice immediately. But for now, wind power looks
> like the only alternative that's achieving anything and it's ability is
> somewhat limited.

**Really?

https://www.safa.sa.gov.au/environmental-s-governance/energy

"South Australia is at the global forefront of clean energy generation,
successfully transitioning its reliance on fossil fuels to reliable
renewable energy with a goal of achieving 100% net renewables by 2030.

Additionally, the South Australian Government Climate Change Action Plan
2021-2025 identifies that South Australia's transition to a net zero
emissions economy, and a national and international exporter of clean
energy, could mean achieving a level of renewable energy that is more
than 500% of current local grid demand by 2050.

In just over 15 years South Australia’s electricity mix has shifted from
below 1% renewables to over 60% of energy generated by wind and solar,
supported by innovative battery storage technologies and gas. By
2025-26 the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise
to approximately 85%."

Wake up and smell the coffee.

>
>>
>> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date, they
>> have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that was
>> generated.
>>
>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> They're perfectly capable of dealing with it should they decide to do
> so, but the problem is that no one wants to. The issue of dealing with
> Nuclear waste in the US is a political football that's been kicked
> around for *years* with no one being able to agree on exactly what
> should be done with it.

**Of course. And Australia would be no different. Finding a place and
staff to guard a suitable location for a couple of hundred thousand
years is (umm) difficult.

>
> Just like health care in the US, it's totally fucked up because the
> powers that be can't agree on what to do with it.
>
>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>> 200,000 years.
>
> Seriously Trevor, in the grand scheme of building, owning and operating
> a nuclear power plant the ongoing costs of providing an adequate
> security force would be very, very, *very* minor by comparison :)

**For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?

Are you fucking serious now?

[Xeno]

On 31/5/2022 5:44 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>
>>
>> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
>
> There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...
>
>
>
> alvey
>

Then the bumhole blowhard could power those windmills on windless days.

--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Xeno]

On 31/5/2022 11:25 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 5:44 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
>> There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...
>>
>
> good idea! there's nothing to ruin out there
>

Well, Darren did ruin some nice flat treeless farmland and he did that
with his mere presence.

[Xeno]

Darren is way too busy smelling his own bullshit! He generates enough of it!

>>
>>>
>>> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date,
>>> they have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that
>>> was generated.
>>>
>>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>>
>> Not exactly.
>>
>> They're perfectly capable of dealing with it should they decide to do
>> so, but the problem is that no one wants to. The issue of dealing with
>> Nuclear waste in the US is a political football that's been kicked
>> around for *years* with no one being able to agree on exactly what
>> should be done with it.
>
> **Of course. And Australia would be no different. Finding a place and
> staff to guard a suitable location for a couple of hundred thousand
> years is (umm) difficult.
>
>>
>> Just like health care in the US, it's totally fucked up because the
>> powers that be can't agree on what to do with it.
>>
>>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>>> 200,000 years.
>>
>> Seriously Trevor, in the grand scheme of building, owning and
>> operating a nuclear power plant the ongoing costs of providing an
>> adequate security force would be very, very, *very* minor by
>> comparison :)
>
> **For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?
>
> Are you fucking serious now?
>

[Noddy]

On 31/05/2022 2:02 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 12:11 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **We don't need nukes.
>>
>> That depends entirely on how you define "need".
>>
>> We "need" sustainable, long term, zero emission power generating
>> capacity, and Nuclear is more than capable of meeting that requirement.
>
> **Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a 20,000
> year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot more for
> nuclear power than you're paying right now.

The question wasn't about cost, but about a viable green alternative and
Nuclear certainly meets that criteria.

>>> We have enough Sunlight hitting our nation in ONE DAY to power the
>>> entire planet for around 18 months (assuming Solar PV efficiency of
>>> 20% and 6 hours of Sunlight per day). Of course, that's a bit silly,
>>> but it illustrates just how much totally free energy hits this
>>> planet. We could, for instance devote 3% of our land area (let's use
>>> the desert areas) to generate ALL the electricity required by the
>>> entire planet. No waste. Send it via HVDC cable to SE Asia and
>>> convert it to H2 to send further. Japan is setting it's economy to be
>>> highly reliant on H2. We could cash in on that huge market.
>>
>> Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we could
>> profit from selling them.
>
> **Ummm, nope:
>
> https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/billionaires-andrew-forrest-and-mike-cannon-brookes-tip-more-cash-into-australias-solar-export-vision-c-6045898
>
>
> It is already happening.

Hahahaha :) Yeah, right.

Two things here Trev. Firstly, it's not actually happening yet, despite
what you claim, and secondly this is a country that can't even get a
reliable national Internet service working properly for fuck's sake. I
can just imagine what a complete pig's breakfast we'd make of something
like that :)

Lets see how things are going in 2027, huh?

>>
>>> Here's the thing about nukes:
>>>
>>> * They're fucking expensive to build, operate and decommission.
>>> * You have to find a place to SECURELY (guarded 24/7 against
>>> terrorists) place high level waste for THOUSANDS of years. In some
>>> cases, that means HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years.
>>
>> And yet 441 nuclear power plants in 32 different countries around the
>> world are perfectly able to deal with these issues in their day to day
>> operations.
>
> **Oh really. Where is their waste stored?
>
> https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
> >
> "More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste
> sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production
> facilities worldwide, with over 90,000 metric tons in the US alone.
> Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the
> environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent
> disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational. With
> nowhere to go for now, the hazardous materials and their containers
> continue to age. That unsustainable situation is driving corrosion
> experts to better understand how steel, glass, and other materials
> proposed for long-term nuclear waste storage containers might degrade.
> Read on to learn how these researchers’ findings might help protect
> people and the environment from waste leakages."
>
> You can not and must not ignore the issue of nuclear waste. The entire
> world has ignored this issue for decades.

The entire world? So there isn't a nuclear facility out there that has
an effective solution in place for dealing with it's waste?

Not one?

>>> While you're planning to build a nuke (around 20 years to plan, build
>>> and commission),
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> 374 of the 441 currently active Nuclear plants around the world were
>> built in ten years or less. Around 15% took longer, which has more to
>> do with the inadequacies of the people engaged in the building
>> projects themselves rather than the difficulties of the project per se'.
>>
>>> http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
>>>
>
> **That's just construction time.

No Trevor. That's the time taken from design to first power up of the
reactor.

> Planning and all the other shit adds up. 20 years is a modest estimate.

What "other shit" are you talking about, and in what normal world does
it take as long to design something as it does to build it? Especially
in cases where known working examples exist all over the world? It's not
like you'd be starting from scratch building the first one ever.

20 years is a bullshit estimate.

> Either way, do you think Solar,
> batteries and wind will be cheaper or more expensive in 10 years?

I have no idea Trevor, and neither do you. I'm sure you'd like to guess,
and I'm equally sure that guess will fall right in line with the
argument you make, but the reality is that you have no more or less of
an idea than anyone else.

> Where will you store the waste for the next 200,000 years?

Oh, I'm sure I could come up with somewhere decent. Like 3 miles below
the middle of the Simpson desert for example. Some place where even if
there was the worst catastrophic accident imaginable and it all leaked
to the surface it would be highly unlikely to affect anyone for the next
7 million years.

>> And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles
>> will rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery
>> that permits them to be.
>
> **Well, yes, but they will get cheaper due to economies of scale. And
> legislation.

You live in la-la land :)

>> Here's the thing. No one has claimed that Nuclear power generation
>> would be the cheapest option. But it *is* one that is already out
>> there working and has proven itself more than capable of meeting the
>> needs placed on it. Should the day ever come where a cheaper, greener,
>> more reliable option that meets the needs ever present itself then by
>> all means put it into practice immediately. But for now, wind power
>> looks like the only alternative that's achieving anything and it's
>> ability is somewhat limited.
>
> **Really?
>
> https://www.safa.sa.gov.au/environmental-s-governance/energy
>
> "South Australia is at the global forefront of clean energy generation,
> successfully transitioning its reliance on fossil fuels to reliable
> renewable energy with a goal of achieving 100% net renewables by 2030.
>
> Additionally, the South Australian Government Climate Change Action Plan
> 2021-2025 identifies that South Australia's transition to a net zero
> emissions economy, and a national and international exporter of clean
> energy, could mean achieving a level of renewable energy that is more
> than 500% of current local grid demand by 2050.
>
> In just over 15 years South Australia’s electricity mix has shifted from
> below 1% renewables to over 60% of energy generated by wind and solar,
> supported by innovative battery storage technologies and gas.  By
> 2025-26 the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise
> to approximately 85%."
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee.

Trevor you've done your usual trick of frothing at the mouth and
completely missing the point. No one has said that alternatives can't
work. Just that Nuclear is an alternative that *does* work and is
working in many places around the world right now. It is a viable
option, despite it's drawbacks.

Good on South Oz for grabbing renewable power generation by the horns
and heading towards 100% within the next 8 years, but to put it into
some sort of perspective the entire state of South Australia has a
population of roughly one third of the Melbourne Metro area.

Not a big ask in the grand scheme....

>>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>>
>> Not exactly.
>>
>> They're perfectly capable of dealing with it should they decide to do
>> so, but the problem is that no one wants to. The issue of dealing with
>> Nuclear waste in the US is a political football that's been kicked
>> around for *years* with no one being able to agree on exactly what
>> should be done with it.
>
> **Of course. And Australia would be no different.

Really? And on what do you base that?

> Finding a place and staff to guard a suitable location for a couple of hundred thousand
> years is (umm) difficult.

Exactly what would be difficult about it?

>>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>>> 200,000 years.
>>
>> Seriously Trevor, in the grand scheme of building, owning and
>> operating a nuclear power plant the ongoing costs of providing an
>> adequate security force would be very, very, *very* minor by
>> comparison :)
>
> **For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?
>
> Are you fucking serious now?

Yeah, but I don't think you are.

I don't know why you get so excited over rubbish like this Trev. I mean,
if your climatologist mates are right then the argument will be academic
anyway, as by that point in time every living species on this rock will
*long* be extinct and the planet will be hurtling through the universe
like a massive ghost town devoid of all life.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 31/05/2022 3:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 2:02 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 12:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **We don't need nukes.
>>>
>>> That depends entirely on how you define "need".
>>>
>>> We "need" sustainable, long term, zero emission power generating
>>> capacity, and Nuclear is more than capable of meeting that requirement.
>>
>> **Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a 20,000
>> year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot more for
>> nuclear power than you're paying right now.
>
> The question wasn't about cost, but about a viable green alternative and
> Nuclear certainly meets that criteria.

**Not if you include the cost of waste storage. I realise that you are a
'kick-the-can-down-the-road' kind of guy, but sensible people look at
the whole picture nowadays.

[Anecdote] A few years ago, I attended a small superannuation
conference. While waiting to enter the meeting, I met up with a guy who
was also waiting. I asked him what he did. He told me that he was a
nuclear scientist, working at ANSTO. I thought: "Goody. I can have an
argument with someone who can challenge my ideas about how bad nukes are."

His words:

"Australia should NEVER even THINK about employing nukes, unless the
entire nuclear waste cycle has been completely thought through. In my
opinion, nuclear power is simply not viable and not necessary for this
country."

>
>>>> We have enough Sunlight hitting our nation in ONE DAY to power the
>>>> entire planet for around 18 months (assuming Solar PV efficiency of
>>>> 20% and 6 hours of Sunlight per day). Of course, that's a bit silly,
>>>> but it illustrates just how much totally free energy hits this
>>>> planet. We could, for instance devote 3% of our land area (let's use
>>>> the desert areas) to generate ALL the electricity required by the
>>>> entire planet. No waste. Send it via HVDC cable to SE Asia and
>>>> convert it to H2 to send further. Japan is setting it's economy to
>>>> be highly reliant on H2. We could cash in on that huge market.
>>>
>>> Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we could
>>> profit from selling them.
>>
>> **Ummm, nope:
>>
>> https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/billionaires-andrew-forrest-and-mike-cannon-brookes-tip-more-cash-into-australias-solar-export-vision-c-6045898
>>
>>
>> It is already happening.
>
> Hahahaha :) Yeah, right.
>
> Two things here Trev. Firstly, it's not actually happening yet, despite
> what you claim, and secondly this is a country that can't even get a
> reliable national Internet service working properly for fuck's sake. I
> can just imagine what a complete pig's breakfast we'd make of something
> like that :)
>
> Lets see how things are going in 2027, huh?

**Sure. That's a whole lot faster than it takes to build a nuke.

**For 200,000 years. I very much doubt it. The Americans have fucked it.
Do you really think we could do any better?

>
>>>> While you're planning to build a nuke (around 20 years to plan,
>>>> build and commission),
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> 374 of the 441 currently active Nuclear plants around the world were
>>> built in ten years or less. Around 15% took longer, which has more to
>>> do with the inadequacies of the people engaged in the building
>>> projects themselves rather than the difficulties of the project per se'.
>>>
>>>> http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
>>>>
>>
>> **That's just construction time.
>
> No Trevor. That's the time taken from design to first power up of the
> reactor.

**No, it's construction time.

>
>> Planning and all the other shit adds up. 20 years is a modest estimate.
>
> What "other shit" are you talking about, and in what normal world does
> it take as long to design something as it does to build it? Especially
> in cases where known working examples exist all over the world? It's not
> like you'd be starting from scratch building the first one ever.
>
> 20 years is a bullshit estimate.

**OK, then. How long do YOU think it would take for an Australian
company to submit a proposal to build a nuke? Factor in the fact that no
insurance company on the planet will insure a nuke. The government (aka:
You, me and all the other taxpayers) will have to stump up the insurance.

>
>> Either way, do you think Solar, batteries and wind will be cheaper or
>> more expensive in 10 years?
>
> I have no idea Trevor, and neither do you.

**Sure it do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

I'm sure you'd like to guess,
> and I'm equally sure that guess will fall right in line with the
> argument you make, but the reality is that you have no more or less of
> an idea than anyone else.

**I'm not guessing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

>
>> Where will you store the waste for the next 200,000 years?
>
> Oh, I'm sure I could come up with somewhere decent. Like 3 miles below
> the middle of the Simpson desert for example. Some place where even if
> there was the worst catastrophic accident imaginable and it all leaked
> to the surface it would be highly unlikely to affect anyone for the next
> 7 million years.

**And who is going to pay for the security guards for the next couple of
hundred thousand years?
How much will it all cost?

>
>>> And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles
>>> will rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery
>>> that permits them to be.
>>
>> **Well, yes, but they will get cheaper due to economies of scale. And
>> legislation.
>
> You live in la-la land :)

**Nope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

Examine the Solar PV cost curve. What direction is it heading in?

**Sure. Nukes work. The power they generate is also more expensive (in
Australia) than most renewable systems.

>
> Good on South Oz for grabbing renewable power generation by the horns
> and heading towards 100% within the next 8 years, but to put it into
> some sort of perspective the entire state of South Australia has a
> population of roughly one third of the Melbourne Metro area.
>
> Not a big ask in the grand scheme....

**That would be irrelevant. If NSW put the same resources, per capita,
into renewables, we could achieve what SA has. Not as good in rainy old
Victoria, but still...

Then you should pay attention to these words:

"that is more than 500% of current local grid demand by 2050."

>
>

>>>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>>>
>>> Not exactly.
>>>
>>> They're perfectly capable of dealing with it should they decide to do
>>> so, but the problem is that no one wants to. The issue of dealing
>>> with Nuclear waste in the US is a political football that's been
>>> kicked around for *years* with no one being able to agree on exactly
>>> what should be done with it.
>>
>> **Of course. And Australia would be no different.
>
> Really? And on what do you base that?

**Everything I've witnessed living in this country for the last 68 years.

>
>> Finding a place and staff to guard a suitable location for a couple of
>> hundred thousand years is (umm) difficult.
>
> Exactly what would be difficult about it?

**200,000 years. Focus on that for a bit.

>
>>>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>>>> 200,000 years.
>>>
>>> Seriously Trevor, in the grand scheme of building, owning and
>>> operating a nuclear power plant the ongoing costs of providing an
>>> adequate security force would be very, very, *very* minor by
>>> comparison :)
>>
>> **For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?
>>
>> Are you fucking serious now?
>
> Yeah, but I don't think you are.
>
> I don't know why you get so excited over rubbish like this Trev. I mean,
> if your climatologist mates are right then the argument will be academic
> anyway, as by that point in time every living species on this rock will
> *long* be extinct and the planet will be hurtling through the universe
> like a massive ghost town devoid of all life.

**They're not my mates.

[Noddy]

On 31/05/2022 3:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 3:16 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a 20,000
>>> year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot more for
>>> nuclear power than you're paying right now.
>>
>> The question wasn't about cost, but about a viable green alternative
>> and Nuclear certainly meets that criteria.
>
> **Not if you include the cost of waste storage. I realise that you are a
> 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' kind of guy, but sensible people look at
> the whole picture nowadays.

"kick-the-can-down-the-road" kind of guy is somewhat amusing, but not
entirely inaccurate. I would certainly consider myself to give a whole
lot less of a fuck about issues that are not likely to affect me in my
lifetime than you would. But there's a whole lot more to it than that I
take the pessimistic view that I don't believe there is jack we can do
about it whereas you're the eternal optimist and think everything will
be fine if we just do our bit.

With that in mind it would probably be far more accurate for you to
consider me a cynic, because that's what an idealist calls a realist :)

> [Anecdote] A few years ago, I attended a small superannuation
> conference. While waiting to enter the meeting, I met up with a guy who
> was also waiting. I asked him what he did. He told me that he was a
> nuclear scientist, working at ANSTO. I thought: "Goody. I can have an
> argument with someone who can challenge my ideas about how bad nukes are."
>
> His words:
>
> "Australia should NEVER even THINK about employing nukes, unless the
> entire nuclear waste cycle has been completely thought through. In my
> opinion, nuclear power is simply not viable and not necessary for this
> country."

And yet we're happy to dig Uranium out of the ground and sell it to
other people for them to do what they please. Poison their own country
with it, but not us. We'll just sit back and take the money :)

Oddly enough what this bloke told you wasn't anything you didn't already
know, yet for some reason coming from him it seems to have a whole new
meaning for you, and that's the think about "expert opinion" sometimes.

Many years ago I remember reading a book about Volkswagens. The older
Beetle & Kombi types. It was one of those "how to" type books that
covered everything from basic tune ups to full on restorations and
customisations from a casual user's perspective and if I remember
correctly it was written by a guy who, according to him,was an "expert"
mechanic and VW specialist of some renown in the Southern California area.

I don't know why I was reading it as I don't have any particular
interest in VW's. Perhaps it was left in a car that I was working on and
I glanced at it for shits and giggles value. However why I was reading
it was unimportant. What *was* important was the content, and how it
made mention of two particular things that I thought were two of the
stupidest comments I've ever read anywhere and still do to this day.

The first was the authors opinion that no VW should ever be driven in
top gear below 30 miles per hour as it was unnecessary and "laboured the
engine" (or words to that effect) which he implied was harmful. The
second, and what has to be *the* most ridiculous comment I've seen *any*
"expert" ever make was that the big end bearings should be replaced
every 25 thousand miles to ensure the engine was kept in optimum
condition to avoid damage.

It is unfathomably stupid, but this was written in black and white and
I'm sure there were some out there who believed it to be correct simply
because it appeared in the book written by an "expert".

The moral of the story is that expert comment is sometimes not worth two
lumps of dried goat shit, and you can see perfect examples of that here
by looking at the nonsense about power brakes and carburetors from the
resident clueless "expert" Tom Clasener.

>>>> Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we could
>>>> profit from selling them.
>>>
>>> **Ummm, nope:
>>>
>>> https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/billionaires-andrew-forrest-and-mike-cannon-brookes-tip-more-cash-into-australias-solar-export-vision-c-6045898
>>>
>>>
>>> It is already happening.
>>
>> Hahahaha :) Yeah, right.
>>
>> Two things here Trev. Firstly, it's not actually happening yet,
>> despite what you claim, and secondly this is a country that can't even
>> get a reliable national Internet service working properly for fuck's
>> sake. I can just imagine what a complete pig's breakfast we'd make of
>> something like that :)
>>
>> Lets see how things are going in 2027, huh?
>
> **Sure. That's a whole lot faster than it takes to build a nuke.

Sure. *If* it manages to get up and running and achieve it's objectives.
But it's currently a long way from doing that.

>>> You can not and must not ignore the issue of nuclear waste. The
>>> entire world has ignored this issue for decades.
>>
>> The entire world? So there isn't a nuclear facility out there that has
>> an effective solution in place for dealing with it's waste?
>>
>> Not one?
>
> **For 200,000 years. I very much doubt it. The Americans have fucked it.
> Do you really think we could do any better?

Of course. You say that as if it's a practical impossibility despite the
fact that we already do so many things better than the Americans do.

We are a completely different race of people with completely different
ideals. We certainly could *not* do any worse...

>>> Where will you store the waste for the next 200,000 years?
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure I could come up with somewhere decent. Like 3 miles below
>> the middle of the Simpson desert for example. Some place where even if
>> there was the worst catastrophic accident imaginable and it all leaked
>> to the surface it would be highly unlikely to affect anyone for the
>> next 7 million years.
>
> **And who is going to pay for the security guards for the next couple of
> hundred thousand years?
> How much will it all cost?

Trevor, let me ask you a genuine question. If you drilled a hole three
miles deep in the middle of the Simpson desert and stuck your waste at
the bottom of it where you then covered it in a 20 foot thick layer of 7
million MPA reinforced concrete, do you actually think you would *need*
any security guards watching over it for the next 200 thousand years?

Asking for a friend....

>>
>>>> And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles
>>>> will rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery
>>>> that permits them to be.
>>>
>>> **Well, yes, but they will get cheaper due to economies of scale. And
>>> legislation.
>>
>> You live in la-la land :)
>
> **Nope:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>
>
> Examine the Solar PV cost curve. What direction is it heading in?

I'm not sure what that has to do with mandating that electric cars
become the only choice by a given arbitrary date making them cheaper,
anyway.

Give me three examples of products that were madatated by law that
became cheaper once everyone was forced to use them.

>>> In just over 15 years South Australia’s electricity mix has shifted
>>> from below 1% renewables to over 60% of energy generated by wind and
>>> solar, supported by innovative battery storage technologies and gas.
>>> By 2025-26 the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could
>>> rise to approximately 85%."
>>>
>>> Wake up and smell the coffee.
>>
>> Trevor you've done your usual trick of frothing at the mouth and
>> completely missing the point. No one has said that alternatives can't
>> work. Just that Nuclear is an alternative that *does* work and is
>> working in many places around the world right now. It is a viable
>> option, despite it's drawbacks.
>
> **Sure. Nukes work. The power they generate is also more expensive (in
> Australia) than most renewable systems.

No argument here. As I said, the object was green. Not cheap.

>> Good on South Oz for grabbing renewable power generation by the horns
>> and heading towards 100% within the next 8 years, but to put it into
>> some sort of perspective the entire state of South Australia has a
>> population of roughly one third of the Melbourne Metro area.
>>
>> Not a big ask in the grand scheme....
>
> **That would be irrelevant.

Um, no it wouldn't. What they've achieved has been relatively easy to do.

> If NSW put the same resources, per capita,
> into renewables, we could achieve what SA has. Not as good in rainy old
> Victoria, but still...

Interesting. You've just highlighted the brittleness of renewables in
that they're not for everyone.

Nuclear generation puts out an uninterrupted output rain, hail or shine.

>>> **Of course. And Australia would be no different.
>>
>> Really? And on what do you base that?
>
> **Everything I've witnessed living in this country for the last 68 years.

Really? So you can see no difference in how Americans do thinks compared
to how we do them here?

>>> Finding a place and staff to guard a suitable location for a couple
>>> of hundred thousand years is (umm) difficult.
>>
>> Exactly what would be difficult about it?
>
> **200,000 years. Focus on that for a bit.

That doesn't answer the question. Again, I ask what would be difficult
about it specifically?

>> **For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?
>>>
>>> Are you fucking serious now?
>>
>> Yeah, but I don't think you are.
>>
>> I don't know why you get so excited over rubbish like this Trev. I
>> mean, if your climatologist mates are right then the argument will be
>> academic anyway, as by that point in time every living species on this
>> rock will *long* be extinct and the planet will be hurtling through
>> the universe like a massive ghost town devoid of all life.
>
> **They're not my mates.

You're certainly a big fan of the work they do.

[Daryl]

I've heard of that but don't see how it could work except maybe for
retired people and those working from home who don't use a car to commute.

> * Small(er) local battery systems to serve (say) a few dozen homes is
> more likely.

Possible that that creates the issue of where will these batteries be
located?
Can't imagine that too many people would agree for a large battery to be
located on their property or want them on the nature strip in front of
their house or in the local park.

> * Batteries are getting cheaper, not more expensive.

Very slowly yes, still too expensive right now though.

> * Al-Ion batteries will make a HUGE impact on energy storage.

Whenever they become commercially available and so far no one is
mentioning any dates.

> * Energy storage make take the form of H2.

Could be but I like the idea of stored hydro.

>
>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW: The US has been building nukes for around 70 years. To date,
>>> they have managed to safely secure the first two years' of waste that
>>> was generated.
>>>
>>> IOW: The US is generating waste more rapidly than they can bury it.
>>>
>>> I want to know who will pay for the security guards for the next
>>> 200,000 years.
>>>
>>
>> LOL, some big assumptions there Trev:-)
>
> **Nope. Just the facts.
>
>> Its very likely that the problem of storage will no longer be an issue
>> when someone invents either a way to recycle the waste or to render it
>> harmless, given the time frame of "200,000 years" anything is possible.
>>
>
> **And, in a few short decades, Solar PV and battery storage will be even
> cheaper.

Biggest problem with solar and battery prices is when idiots in Govt get
involved, best leave the market to itself and prices will fall.
The Vic Govt $3000.00 solar rebate scheme was a disaster for the solar
industry sending many solar installers broke mostly due to the inept way
the scheme was run, it also increased the price due to the big cost
burden on sales/installers who needed to employ extra staff to do all
the extra paperwork.

Nukes are a poor choice for a nation with abundant Sunshine and
> large tracts of land that are not much use for anything.

Personally I don't think that nuclear power is a problem technically but
politically its a big problem in Australia so its not even worth talking
about.




--
Daryl

[Daryl]

On 31/5/2022 5:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 3:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 3:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a
>>>> 20,000 year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot
>>>> more for nuclear power than you're paying right now.
>>>
>>> The question wasn't about cost, but about a viable green alternative
>>> and Nuclear certainly meets that criteria.
>>
>> **Not if you include the cost of waste storage. I realise that you are
>> a 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' kind of guy, but sensible people look
>> at the whole picture nowadays.
>
> "kick-the-can-down-the-road" kind of guy is somewhat amusing, but not
> entirely inaccurate. I would certainly consider myself to give a whole
> lot less of a fuck about issues that are not likely to affect me in my
> lifetime than you would. But there's a whole lot more to it than that I
> take the pessimistic view that I don't believe there is jack we can do
> about it whereas you're the eternal optimist and think everything will
> be fine if we just do our bit.
>
> With that in mind it would probably be far more accurate for you to
> consider me a cynic, because that's what an idealist calls a realist :)
>

LOL, speaking of getting real and since this threads topic is "The crazy
Greens" did we all notice that Labor now has a clear majority so the
Greens are no longer a concern at least not in the lower house.

--
Daryl

[Clocky]

On 31/05/2022 9:25 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 5:44 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 16:16:29 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> those horrible ugly wind towers ruin lovely countryside
>> There's an easy fix for that. Put 'em in Bumhole (Vic)...
>>
>
> good idea! there's nothing to ruin out there
>

It would be an improvement!



--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

[Noddy]

Thank God for that, but it's interesting to observe two things that come
from it.

The first is obviously that Albanese went back on an election pledge to
"not do deals" with Green or independent MP's in order to form a
government which he had clearly already done in order to be sworn in as
Prime Minister while Labor was still 4 seats short of an outright
majority which he was keen to keep *very* quiet about, and the second is
now that his party has secured the 76 seats needed to govern in their
own right he will no doubt tell those MP's he *had* done deals with that
"It was only for lends, so n'yer n'yer n'yer go fuck yourself" :)


In all seriousness, he strikes me as a pretty genuine bloke and I hope
he grows into the role and does well.

We need it.

[Xeno]

On 31/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 6:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 31/5/2022 5:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> "kick-the-can-down-the-road" kind of guy is somewhat amusing, but not
>>> entirely inaccurate. I would certainly consider myself to give a
>>> whole lot less of a fuck about issues that are not likely to affect
>>> me in my lifetime than you would. But there's a whole lot more to it
>>> than that I take the pessimistic view that I don't believe there is
>>> jack we can do about it whereas you're the eternal optimist and think
>>> everything will be fine if we just do our bit.
>>>
>>> With that in mind it would probably be far more accurate for you to
>>> consider me a cynic, because that's what an idealist calls a realist :)
>>>
>>
>> LOL, speaking of getting real and since this threads topic is "The
>> crazy Greens" did we all notice that Labor now has a clear majority so
>> the Greens are no longer a concern at least not in the lower house.
>
> Thank God for that, but it's interesting to observe two things that come
> from it.
>
> The first is obviously that Albanese went back on an election pledge to
> "not do deals" with Green or independent MP's in order to form a
> government which he had clearly already done in order to be sworn in as
> Prime Minister while Labor was still 4 seats short of an outright
> majority which he was keen to keep *very* quiet about, and the second is
> now that his party has secured the 76 seats needed to govern in their

Make that 77!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-31/labor-projected-win-gilmore-fiona-phillips/101113882

> own right he will no doubt tell those MP's he *had* done deals with that
> "It was only for lends, so n'yer n'yer n'yer go fuck yourself" :)
>
>
> In all seriousness, he strikes me as a pretty genuine bloke and I hope
> he grows into the role and does well.

He will do far better than Morrison who *grew out of the role*!
>
> We need it.

Sadly, Albanese has been left with a *Liberal Debt and Deficit Disaster*
of an incredible magnitude.

[Daryl]

On 31/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

We certainly need a stable Govt and one with a clear majority has got to
be better than one who has to deal with minor parties and independents
to get anything done.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

Absolutely.

That said, a lefty with ideas for change is a worry as I've mentioned
earlier, and economists seem to be concerned that if he implements many
of the proposals he pitched during the election campaign he's likely to
do more harm than good.

Time will tell.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Which is a very substantial chunk of the population. Buying and using
a BEV and then using to supplement home power makes a very economical
solution, compared to standalone batteries.

>
>> * Small(er) local battery systems to serve (say) a few dozen homes is
>> more likely.
>
> Possible that that creates the issue of where will these batteries be
> located?

**Sure. NOTHING is free in this universe.

> Can't imagine that too many people would agree for a large battery to be
> located on their property or want them on the nature strip in front of
> their house or in the local park.

**Certainly, but there will always be a price to pay. That price need
not be onerous, if appropriate planning is put in place.

>
>> * Batteries are getting cheaper, not more expensive.
>
> Very slowly yes, still too expensive right now though.

**Sure, but as supply approaches demand, prices will fall more rapidly.
Economics 101.

>
>> * Al-Ion batteries will make a HUGE impact on energy storage.
>
> Whenever they become commercially available and so far no one is
> mentioning any dates.

**Sure, but It is inevitable.

>
>> * Energy storage make take the form of H2.
>
> Could be but I like the idea of stored hydro.

**Hydro is great for places like Switzerland and, to a lesser extent,
Tasmania. Trouble is, Australia is the second driest continent.

**Nuclear waste is the big problem. No one has found a good answer yet.

[Daryl]

Another problem I see with using a car battery as storage for a home is
that a battery has only so many charge discharge cycles before it needs
to be replaced so if its used to store power for a home its life could
be cut in half.
Having to replace a BEV's battery every 5yrs or so would most likely be
very expensive.

>
>>
>>> * Small(er) local battery systems to serve (say) a few dozen homes is
>>> more likely.
>>
>> Possible that that creates the issue of where will these batteries be
>> located?
>
> **Sure. NOTHING is free in this universe.
>
>> Can't imagine that too many people would agree for a large battery to
>> be located on their property or want them on the nature strip in front
>> of their house or in the local park.
>
> **Certainly, but there will always be a price to pay. That price need
> not be onerous, if appropriate planning is put in place.

Not a problem in a planned new area but I suspect that it will be a near
impossible to solve problem in existing areas.

--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

On 31/05/2022 5:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 3:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 3:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **Sure, provided you can deal with the high level waste with a
>>>> 20,000 year half life. And, provided you don't mind paying a lot
>>>> more for nuclear power than you're paying right now.
>>>
>>> The question wasn't about cost, but about a viable green alternative
>>> and Nuclear certainly meets that criteria.
>>
>> **Not if you include the cost of waste storage. I realise that you are
>> a 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' kind of guy, but sensible people look
>> at the whole picture nowadays.
>
> "kick-the-can-down-the-road" kind of guy is somewhat amusing, but not
> entirely inaccurate. I would certainly consider myself to give a whole
> lot less of a fuck about issues that are not likely to affect me in my
> lifetime than you would. But there's a whole lot more to it than that I
> take the pessimistic view that I don't believe there is jack we can do
> about it whereas you're the eternal optimist and think everything will
> be fine if we just do our bit.

**Me, an optimist? You're fucking dreaming. I am EXTREMELY pessimistic
about the future. We are headed for very dark times. ON a range of
levels. Climate is the big one, but there are others.

>
> With that in mind it would probably be far more accurate for you to
> consider me a cynic, because that's what an idealist calls a realist :)

**If you were a true cynic, then you would be asking the hard questions
about nuclear waste, rather than claiming nukes are a great idea. They
are an OK idea, PROVIDED full and complete attention is paid to nuclear
waste. So far, no one is doing very much on that score. Despite 70 odd
years of generating the stuff. A true cynic would be very concerned
about that issue.

>
>> [Anecdote] A few years ago, I attended a small superannuation
>> conference. While waiting to enter the meeting, I met up with a guy
>> who was also waiting. I asked him what he did. He told me that he was
>> a nuclear scientist, working at ANSTO. I thought: "Goody. I can have
>> an argument with someone who can challenge my ideas about how bad
>> nukes are."
>>
>> His words:
>>
>> "Australia should NEVER even THINK about employing nukes, unless the
>> entire nuclear waste cycle has been completely thought through. In my
>> opinion, nuclear power is simply not viable and not necessary for this
>> country."
>
> And yet we're happy to dig Uranium out of the ground and sell it to
> other people for them to do what they please. Poison their own country
> with it, but not us. We'll just sit back and take the money :)

**Well, the genie is out of that bottle.

>
> Oddly enough what this bloke told you wasn't anything you didn't already
> know, yet for some reason coming from him it seems to have a whole new
> meaning for you, and that's the think about "expert opinion" sometimes.

**Not really. Consider: The guy is a nuclear physicist. IF Australia
decided to build nukes, then his talents would be in great demand. He
could name his own price. Yet he is more concerned about the national
interest than his own pocket.

>
> Many years ago I remember reading a book about Volkswagens. The older
> Beetle & Kombi types. It was one of those "how to" type books that
> covered everything from basic tune ups to full on restorations and
> customisations from a casual user's perspective and if I remember
> correctly it was written by a guy who, according to him,was an "expert"
> mechanic and VW specialist of some renown in the Southern California area.
>
> I don't know why I was reading it as I don't have any particular
> interest in VW's. Perhaps it was left in a car that I was working on and
> I glanced at it for shits and giggles value. However why I was reading
> it was unimportant. What *was* important was the content, and how it
> made mention of two particular things that I thought were two of the
> stupidest comments I've ever read anywhere and still do to this day.
>
> The first was the authors opinion that no VW should ever be driven in
> top gear below 30 miles per hour as it was unnecessary and "laboured the
> engine" (or words to that effect) which he implied was harmful. The
> second, and what has to be *the* most ridiculous comment I've seen *any*
> "expert" ever make was that the big end bearings should be replaced
> every 25 thousand miles to ensure the engine was kept in optimum
> condition to avoid damage.
>
> It is unfathomably stupid, but this was written in black and white and
> I'm sure there were some out there who believed it to be correct simply
> because it appeared in the book written by an "expert".

**A nuclear physicist _IS_ an expert. Not some numpty who writes books
about VWs.

Now, for my anecdote:

I screwed up the computers in my Subaru, by doing something dumb. I
called my Subaru dealer who told me it would cost $120.00 and take 2
hours. I called a guy called The Suby Doctor. He is local to me and
claims to know everything about Subarus. He told me that he was unable
to sort the problem out and I should take it to the dealer who has the
specialised equipment to fix it. In desperation, I called my regular
mechanic, who instructed me to bring my car in at 11.00AM on a Saturday
morning, when things were quiet. He hooked his $12,000.00 OBD-II
computer to the car, reset all the computers. All good. No charge.

So much for self-proclaimed experts.

A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
expert.

>
> The moral of the story is that expert comment is sometimes not worth two
> lumps of dried goat shit, and you can see perfect examples of that here
> by looking at the nonsense about power brakes and carburetors from the
> resident clueless "expert" Tom Clasener.

**A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
expert. And he works in the only nuclear reactor in the country.

>
>>>>> Yeah, right. That's like saying that if we made flying cars we
>>>>> could profit from selling them.
>>>>
>>>> **Ummm, nope:
>>>>
>>>> https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/billionaires-andrew-forrest-and-mike-cannon-brookes-tip-more-cash-into-australias-solar-export-vision-c-6045898
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is already happening.
>>>
>>> Hahahaha :) Yeah, right.
>>>
>>> Two things here Trev. Firstly, it's not actually happening yet,
>>> despite what you claim, and secondly this is a country that can't
>>> even get a reliable national Internet service working properly for
>>> fuck's sake. I can just imagine what a complete pig's breakfast we'd
>>> make of something like that :)
>>>
>>> Lets see how things are going in 2027, huh?
>>
>> **Sure. That's a whole lot faster than it takes to build a nuke.
>
> Sure. *If* it manages to get up and running and achieve it's objectives.
> But it's currently a long way from doing that.

**It's actually not a long way at all. Money is the biggest obstacle and
they're well funded.

**If I was a committed terrorist, I'd drill down from the side. Quite
apart from which there is no such thing as 7 million MPA concrete.
Here's the thing: In 20 years, do you think that the technology for
drilling holes in concrete will be more or less advanced than today? In
50 years? 100?

Safe storage of nuclear waste is an illusion.

>
>>>
>>>>> And that's a bit like you constantly saying that electric vehicles
>>>>> will rapidly become the norm once they invent a new type of battery
>>>>> that permits them to be.
>>>>
>>>> **Well, yes, but they will get cheaper due to economies of scale.
>>>> And legislation.
>>>
>>> You live in la-la land :)
>>
>> **Nope:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>>
>>
>> Examine the Solar PV cost curve. What direction is it heading in?
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with mandating that electric cars
> become the only choice by a given arbitrary date making them cheaper,
> anyway.

**We're discussing batteries.

>
> Give me three examples of products that were madatated by law that
> became cheaper once everyone was forced to use them.

**Seat belts, catalytic converters, indicators.

>
>>>> In just over 15 years South Australia’s electricity mix has shifted
>>>> from below 1% renewables to over 60% of energy generated by wind and
>>>> solar, supported by innovative battery storage technologies and gas.
>>>> By 2025-26 the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this
>>>> could rise to approximately 85%."
>>>>
>>>> Wake up and smell the coffee.
>>>
>>> Trevor you've done your usual trick of frothing at the mouth and
>>> completely missing the point. No one has said that alternatives can't
>>> work. Just that Nuclear is an alternative that *does* work and is
>>> working in many places around the world right now. It is a viable
>>> option, despite it's drawbacks.
>>
>> **Sure. Nukes work. The power they generate is also more expensive (in
>> Australia) than most renewable systems.
>
> No argument here. As I said, the object was green. Not cheap.
>>> Good on South Oz for grabbing renewable power generation by the horns
>>> and heading towards 100% within the next 8 years, but to put it into
>>> some sort of perspective the entire state of South Australia has a
>>> population of roughly one third of the Melbourne Metro area.
>>>
>>> Not a big ask in the grand scheme....
>>
>> **That would be irrelevant.
>
> Um, no it wouldn't. What they've achieved has been relatively easy to do.

**Irrelevant, because SA has a much smaller population to accept tax
from. The major reason SA has an advantage is that the cost of real
estate is lower than Vic.

>
>> If NSW put the same resources, per capita, into renewables, we could
>> achieve what SA has. Not as good in rainy old Victoria, but still...
>
> Interesting. You've just highlighted the brittleness of renewables in
> that they're not for everyone.

**So? Whack up a bunch of Solar PV arrays across SA, WA, NSW and Qld.
Land is cheap and relatively unused and rain is rare.

>
> Nuclear generation puts out an uninterrupted output rain, hail or shine.

**Mostly. However, there is that pesky waste thing. And, of course, the
odd catastrophic accident. What's the worst thing that would happen if a
wind turbine fell over? A couple dead cows?

>
>>>> **Of course. And Australia would be no different.
>>>
>>> Really? And on what do you base that?
>>
>> **Everything I've witnessed living in this country for the last 68 years.
>
> Really? So you can see no difference in how Americans do thinks compared
> to how we do them here?

**I see considerable differences. Some of those differences advantage
Americans. Some don't.

>
>>>> Finding a place and staff to guard a suitable location for a couple
>>>> of hundred thousand years is (umm) difficult.
>>>
>>> Exactly what would be difficult about it?
>>
>> **200,000 years. Focus on that for a bit.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Again, I ask what would be difficult
> about it specifically?

**TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. Humans have not even existed for 200,000
years. The oldest man-made structure is something like 10,000 years old.
The builders of the great pyramid employed the best, most advanced
technology available to protect the treasures within. The great pyramid
was raided. The best technology available today may not stop a terrorist
in the future.

>
>>> **For TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?
>>>>
>>>> Are you fucking serious now?
>>>
>>> Yeah, but I don't think you are.
>>>
>>> I don't know why you get so excited over rubbish like this Trev. I
>>> mean, if your climatologist mates are right then the argument will be
>>> academic anyway, as by that point in time every living species on
>>> this rock will *long* be extinct and the planet will be hurtling
>>> through the universe like a massive ghost town devoid of all life.
>>
>> **They're not my mates.
>
> You're certainly a big fan of the work they do.

**"A fan"? More like someone who accepts and respect people of science.

[Daryl]

Sounds very odd, what did you do?

I
> called my Subaru dealer who told me it would cost $120.00 and take 2
> hours.

Quite reasonable for a dealer.

I called a guy called The Suby Doctor. He is local to me and
> claims to know everything about Subarus. He told me that he was unable
> to sort the problem out and I should take it to the dealer who has the
> specialised equipment to fix it. In desperation, I called my regular
> mechanic, who instructed me to bring my car in at 11.00AM on a Saturday
> morning, when things were quiet. He hooked his $12,000.00 OBD-II
> computer to the car, reset all the computers. All good. No charge.

Obviously you are a good customer because normally its not very clever
to work for nothing, someone has to pay for his time and his equipment.
Main thing is its all sorted but depending on what you actually did it
may have been better to pay the money and get the dealer to sort it
because only they will have the latest software updates.

>
> So much for self-proclaimed experts.
>
> A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
> expert.

Only in that he knows a bit about the subject but has he actually built
and operated a nuclear power plant?

>
>>
>> The moral of the story is that expert comment is sometimes not worth
>> two lumps of dried goat shit, and you can see perfect examples of that
>> here by looking at the nonsense about power brakes and carburetors
>> from the resident clueless "expert" Tom Clasener.
>
> **A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
> expert. And he works in the only nuclear reactor in the country.

But its not a large scale nuclear power plant, he would certainly know a
lot more than most people but his job doesn't necessarily mean that he's
an expert all aspects of nuclear power plant construction and operation.



--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 1/06/2022 12:06 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 5:19 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> "kick-the-can-down-the-road" kind of guy is somewhat amusing, but not
>> entirely inaccurate. I would certainly consider myself to give a whole
>> lot less of a fuck about issues that are not likely to affect me in my
>> lifetime than you would. But there's a whole lot more to it than that
>> I take the pessimistic view that I don't believe there is jack we can
>> do about it whereas you're the eternal optimist and think everything
>> will be fine if we just do our bit.
>
> **Me, an optimist? You're fucking dreaming. I am EXTREMELY pessimistic
> about the future. We are headed for very dark times. ON a range of
> levels. Climate is the big one, but there are others.

If you say so.

>> With that in mind it would probably be far more accurate for you to
>> consider me a cynic, because that's what an idealist calls a realist :)
>
> **If you were a true cynic, then you would be asking the hard questions
> about nuclear waste, rather than claiming nukes are a great idea.

I'm sorry Trevor, but *not* what I said. What I said was that Nuclear
power is a viable alternative to the way we generate power now, and we
should look into it given that we have an abundant reserve of Uranium
and plenty of uninhabited space to dispose of the waste.

> They are an OK idea, PROVIDED full and complete attention is paid to nuclear
> waste. So far, no one is doing very much on that score. Despite 70 odd
> years of generating the stuff. A true cynic would be very concerned
> about that issue.

I'm not concerned about it at all given that it is an issue that I have
absolutely no control over. In case you haven't worked it out by now, I
don't waste time worrying about things I cannot change.

>>> His words:
>>>
>>> "Australia should NEVER even THINK about employing nukes, unless the
>>> entire nuclear waste cycle has been completely thought through. In my
>>> opinion, nuclear power is simply not viable and not necessary for
>>> this country."
>>
>> And yet we're happy to dig Uranium out of the ground and sell it to
>> other people for them to do what they please. Poison their own country
>> with it, but not us. We'll just sit back and take the money :)
>
> **Well, the genie is out of that bottle.

Rubbish. The lid can be put back on that bottle at any time, but they
don't because the export sales generate three quarters of a billion
dollars per year.

I can only assume from your complete lack of protest about Uranium
mining and export that you're in favour of it.

>> Oddly enough what this bloke told you wasn't anything you didn't
>> already know, yet for some reason coming from him it seems to have a
>> whole new meaning for you, and that's the think about "expert opinion"
>> sometimes.
>
> **Not really. Consider: The guy is a nuclear physicist. IF Australia
> decided to build nukes, then his talents would be in great demand.

With respects to both him *and* you, it's highly unlikely that this guy
would be called upon to design, build and operate the reactor.

> He could name his own price. Yet he is more concerned about the national
> interest than his own pocket.

That's nice. There are medical doctors who think vaccinations cause
autism, too.

>> It is unfathomably stupid, but this was written in black and white and
>> I'm sure there were some out there who believed it to be correct
>> simply because it appeared in the book written by an "expert".
>
> **A nuclear physicist _IS_ an expert. Not some numpty who writes books
> about VWs.

The point seems to be completely lost on you.

> Now, for my anecdote:
>
> I screwed up the computers in my Subaru, by doing something dumb. I
> called my Subaru dealer who told me it would cost $120.00 and take 2
> hours.

120 bucks for 2 hours? I'm calling bullshit there. I don't know a
dealership *anywhere* that would charge you less than 140 bucks an hour
at the *minimum*.

> I called a guy called The Suby Doctor. He is local to me and
> claims to know everything about Subarus. He told me that he was unable
> to sort the problem out and I should take it to the dealer who has the
> specialised equipment to fix it. In desperation, I called my regular
> mechanic, who instructed me to bring my car in at 11.00AM on a Saturday
> morning, when things were quiet. He hooked his $12,000.00 OBD-II
> computer to the car, reset all the computers. All good. No charge.

So your problem wasn't major and was an easy fix. Cool. I pulled the
starter motor out of a Corolla that was making a frightful noise when
you cranked the engine after the owner, who is the mother of the woman
who washes my dog, was told by a local mechanic that it was going to
cost her 600 bucks to have the starter replaced. Took me 45 minutes to
pull the starter out, dismantle it, clean the clutch dust out of it,
re-lube the bendix drive with some decent quality anti-seize and put it
back together and put it back in the car.

It's working fine, and she's on her way over to collect the car as I
type. All good. No charge.

> So much for self-proclaimed experts.

Indeed.

> A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
> expert.

So is a mechanic.

>> The moral of the story is that expert comment is sometimes not worth
>> two lumps of dried goat shit, and you can see perfect examples of that
>> here by looking at the nonsense about power brakes and carburetors
>> from the resident clueless "expert" Tom Clasener.
>
> **A nuclear physicist is not a self-proclaimed expert. He is an ACTUAL
> expert. And he works in the only nuclear reactor in the country.

With respect, that's a bit like saying you're a qualified sea captain in
charge of a row boat.

>>>> Two things here Trev. Firstly, it's not actually happening yet,
>>>> despite what you claim, and secondly this is a country that can't
>>>> even get a reliable national Internet service working properly for
>>>> fuck's sake. I can just imagine what a complete pig's breakfast we'd
>>>> make of something like that :)
>>>>
>>>> Lets see how things are going in 2027, huh?
>>>
>>> **Sure. That's a whole lot faster than it takes to build a nuke.
>>
>> Sure. *If* it manages to get up and running and achieve it's
>> objectives. But it's currently a long way from doing that.
>
> **It's actually not a long way at all. Money is the biggest obstacle and
> they're well funded.

Trevor, you understand that despite the theory of it all, it's not
actually up and running yet, right?

>>> **And who is going to pay for the security guards for the next couple
>>> of hundred thousand years?
>>> How much will it all cost?
>>
>> Trevor, let me ask you a genuine question. If you drilled a hole three
>> miles deep in the middle of the Simpson desert and stuck your waste at
>> the bottom of it where you then covered it in a 20 foot thick layer of
>> 7 million MPA reinforced concrete, do you actually think you would
>> *need* any security guards watching over it for the next 200 thousand
>> years?
>>
>> Asking for a friend....
>
> **If I was a committed terrorist, I'd drill down from the side.

You'd have to be a pretty committed terrorist with some serious hardware
at your disposal. I think someone might notice you being there :)

> Quite apart from which there is no such thing as 7 million MPA concrete.

No shit? Get a humour gland transplant for fuck's sake....

> Here's the thing: In 20 years, do you think that the technology for
> drilling holes in concrete will be more or less advanced than today? In
> 50 years? 100?

Well, I suppose there's always the possibility that a company called
"Acme" could spring up one day and actually invent a real, working
version of the "Illudium Pew-35 Explosive Space Modulator" gun that
Marvin the Martian used.....

> Safe storage of nuclear waste is an illusion.

Let me give you a red hot tip here for free: There is no such thing as
"safe". There is only ever varying degrees of "less safe".

Can nuclear waste ever be made 100% conclusively safe? Nope. No chance
it hell. It is a practical impossibility. However, can it be made safe
enough so as not to pose an appreciable threat to anyone for the next
million years? Absolutely it can.

All that is required is the willingness to do so.

>> I'm not sure what that has to do with mandating that electric cars
>> become the only choice by a given arbitrary date making them cheaper,
>> anyway.
>
> **We're discussing batteries.
>
>>
>> Give me three examples of products that were madatated by law that
>> became cheaper once everyone was forced to use them.
>
> **Seat belts, catalytic converters, indicators.

I think you misunderstood the question. Not unless you can show me what
the average indicator cost and how making them compulsory caused an
effective price reduction.

>>> **That would be irrelevant.
>>
>> Um, no it wouldn't. What they've achieved has been relatively easy to do.
>
> **Irrelevant, because SA has a much smaller population to accept tax
> from. The major reason SA has an advantage is that the cost of real
> estate is lower than Vic.

State governments reply on the handouts from the Federal Government for
a fair portion of their consolidated revenue balance, and the size of
the population has little bearing on the amount. The more popular states
like Victoria and NSW have been subsidising the geographically larger
buy more sparsely populated states for years.

As for real estate values, there's no argument there. Who the fuck would
want to live in South Australia? :)

>> Nuclear generation puts out an uninterrupted output rain, hail or shine.
>
> **Mostly.

On what occasions would it not?

> However, there is that pesky waste thing.

Last I read, and I'm happy to stand corrected, a 1000 megawatt Nuclear
power station puts out around 3 cubic metres of waste per year.

> And, of course, the odd catastrophic accident.

The odd one, sure. I've never actually looked at the statistics, but I
wouldn't be surprised if the accident rate per thousand megawatt was
lower than the accident rate per kilometre of air travel.

Like I said, there is no such thing as safe.

> What's the worst thing that would happen if a
> wind turbine fell over? A couple dead cows?

There's been a number of people killed in wind turbine accidents
actually. Including the two poor bastards that were stuck on one that
caught fire.

>>> **Everything I've witnessed living in this country for the last 68
>>> years.
>>
>> Really? So you can see no difference in how Americans do thinks
>> compared to how we do them here?
>
> **I see considerable differences. Some of those differences advantage
> Americans. Some don't.

Really? What specifically do you think the Americans do better than we do?

>>>> Finding a place and staff to guard a suitable location for a couple
>>>>> of hundred thousand years is (umm) difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what would be difficult about it?
>>>
>>> **200,000 years. Focus on that for a bit.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question. Again, I ask what would be difficult
>> about it specifically?
>
> **TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. Humans have not even existed for 200,000
> years. The oldest man-made structure is something like 10,000 years old.
> The builders of the great pyramid employed the best, most advanced
> technology available to protect the treasures within. The great pyramid
> was raided. The best technology available today may not stop a terrorist
> in the future.

That's a nice little anecdote, but I don't know how it's relevant to the
question of "how it would be difficult?" in any way.

Besides the fact of which is why you should care? Why would you give the
slightest crap about what happens 20 thousand years from now, let alone
200 thousand?

For all you or I know this planet might be struck by another massive
meteor wiping out every form of life and not exist a mere 500 years from
now....

>>>> I don't know why you get so excited over rubbish like this Trev. I
>>>> mean, if your climatologist mates are right then the argument will
>>>> be academic anyway, as by that point in time every living species on
>>>> this rock will *long* be extinct and the planet will be hurtling
>>>> through the universe like a massive ghost town devoid of all life.
>>>
>>> **They're not my mates.
>>
>> You're certainly a big fan of the work they do.
>
> **"A fan"? More like someone who accepts and respect people of science.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've stated in the past that climatology
is something you've been passionately interested in for over 40 years.
If that's the case then your "interest" goes way beyond that of the
normal pleb....

[Xeno]

If you understand those *classic* VWs, the reasoning becomes very clear.

The first point that needs to be made is that the older VW engines had
very restrictive intake and exhaust systems. That meant they didn't rev
very high. The early beetles were lucky to rev to 4400 RPM. You needed
only look at the intake manifold to see why.

The second point that needs to be made is that 4th gear (top) on the
early beetles is an *overdrive gear*. Go check out the ratios if you
don't believe me.

With the beetles of the early era, their cruising speed was their top
speed. After all, they were designed to be used on the Autobahns. So,
typically you can cruise at 70mph+ all day long and the engine, because
it is in 4th overdrive, will be humming along at ~4000 RPM. It is not
overrevving at up to its maximum RPM since the engine is so restricted.

The design brief for the original Beetle was to have a car that could
carry 2 adults and 2 children economically whilst cruising at 60mph all
day everyday and to be reliable. Remember, it needed to be useful even
on Autobahns. To achieve this aim, the engine was designed to be
unstressed, with a long narrow inlet manifold and a single small
carburettor. This kept the revs and the heat down but it created a lot
of torque for the size of the engine which, in those early days was
1100cc or 1200cc. All engines were factory run in and could be driven
flat out from day one.

The secret to keeping a Beetle running is in how you drive it and how
well you maintain it. Keep the engine stock, maintain the cooling
system, set the tappets and timing frequently to factory prescribed
specs. Regular oil changes using the correct oil and don't lug the
engine on hills or around town, gears are there for a reason, keep that
motor spinning. And therein lies the problem. The VW engine, being
aircooled, is *noisy*. In third gear the engine is so noisy people
*think* they are revving it too hard so slip it into top gear. That's
bad. What happens is the crankshaft hammers out the centre main bearing.
Apart from damaging the bearing surfaces themselves, lugging the engine
also causes *fretting* of the alloy case *around the bearing* as the
crank flexes causing bearing *crush* to be lost and the bearing to be
loose *in the housing*. The first sign that this is occurring will be a
lowering of oil pressure because it will be leaking out between the
bearing and the housing. That, in turn means the mains will get
insufficient supply and, in turn, starve the big end bearings since they
are fed from the mains.

Now, I used to hack around in a 66 1300cc Beetle in which the top speed
was stated to be ~80mph. At that speed the engine would be doing less
than 4500 RPM in top gear (overdrive, remember?), probably around 4000.
I think they topped out at 4400 RPM but it didn't have a tacho and I
never put one on it. Do a quick calculation and you will find the engine
*at 30 mph* is running at around 1500 RPM. In top gear, that will
definitely be lugging. 30 mph is about 50 kph which, in case you hadn't
noticed, is the speed limit in towns nowadays. Seriously, top gear at 50
kph? Hell, they are even lugging at 60 kph if you try to accelerate at
all. What fool thinks an overdrive gear is useful around town? At ~1500
RPM, you're in the part of the engine's RPM range where it isn't
producing a lot of torque. What's more, the cyclical torque vibrations
at low engine speeds are highly likely to break the Beetle's crankshaft.
The early ones had a couple of notable weak points, one being the webs
and they would crack right through and make a hell of a racket.

And yes, unlike you Darren, I've actually worked on and *owned* VWs.

> second, and what has to be *the* most ridiculous comment I've seen *any*
> "expert" ever make was that the big end bearings should be replaced
> every 25 thousand miles to ensure the engine was kept in optimum
> condition to avoid damage.

A lot of 4 cylinder engines of the 40s and 50s would only last for 50 or
60 thousand miles before needing a complete rebuild so replacing con rod
bearing shells, especially if they were copper-lead types, at 25k miles
would be a smart pre-emptive mood. Those copper lead shells were well
known for hammering out and if they do that you're in for a crank grind.
I know because I have done hundreds of such cases. You need to note, on
a lot of 4 cylinder engines of that era, changing a set of bearing
shells was piss easy - sump off, caps off, slip the shells in, torque up
the caps, sump on, fill 'er with oil - easy peasy.

On a VW engine, not so easy peasy since changing the bearing shells
meant a complete engine strip down right to splitting the crankcase. A
lot of work in a VW. If you're going that far with a boxer engine, then
you might as well do all the bearings and the rings as well. Note, you
can change the con rod shells in a VW boxer engine *without* splitting
the crankcase but it's a *real pain* to do. Nah, far better to follow
the advice on not *lugging* the VW engine and keep up the maintenance -
the engine should be good for in excess of 100k miles.

>
> It is unfathomably stupid, but this was written in black and white and
> I'm sure there were some out there who believed it to be correct simply
> because it appeared in the book written by an "expert".
>
> The moral of the story is that expert comment is sometimes not worth two
> lumps of dried goat shit, and you can see perfect examples of that here
> by looking at the nonsense about power brakes and carburetors from the
> resident clueless "expert" Tom Clasener.

Well, you aren't any sort of expert in VWs, that much is certain.

And it's not *my fault* you cannot comprehend technical info from
*holley* on their website nor the info on *shoe factor* I put up here.
Had you actually done *any apprenticeship ever* you might have had a
ghost of a chance of comprehending that really technical info that
*every apprentice mechanic* studies at TAFE during their apprenticeship.

Oh, and it's nice to see that I'm getting to you in a big way.

[lindsay]

On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:

Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.


You're on U-tube!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs


FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
spiels.. Alvin didn't even acknowledge/reply to your mindless dribble
last nite...

Or are you in the throes of creating a new fusion reactor, and about to
vomit up your own theory of positronic rays, tractor beams, and Borg
psychology?.

Cue the hand-holding flogs.

[Noddy]

On 1/06/2022 6:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>
>
> You're on U-tube!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>
>
> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> spiels.. Alvin didn't even acknowledge/reply to your mindless dribble
> last nite...

Has he done another one?

For fuck's sake when is the irrelevant meat receptacle ever going to
wake up and realise that no one gives the slightest toss about his
insane ego stroking ramblings?

The bloke is a genuine mental case.

> Or are you in the throes of creating a new fusion reactor, and about to
> vomit up your own theory of positronic rays, tractor beams, and Borg
> psychology?.

I don't believe he has any direct experience with any of those things,
but no matter. He can transfer the imaginary experiences he conjuresup
in his head to whip up some up in a jiffy.

> Cue the hand-holding flogs.

Knock yourselves out fellas. Sit around and have a communal wank while
inventing more "proof"....

[Yosemite Sam]

On 1/06/2022 6:16 pm, lindsay wrote:

> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>
>
> You're on U-tube!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>
>
> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> spiels..

speak for yourself only. no need to be nasty and hateful. if you're not
interested just don't read. like I skip most of what noddy and his bff post

> Alvin didn't even acknowledge/reply to your mindless dribble last nite...
>
> Or are you in the throes of creating a new fusion reactor, and about
> to vomit up your own theory of positronic rays, tractor beams, and
> Borg psychology?.
>
> Cue the hand-holding flogs.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

"So some infantile nonsense and running away again
I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

FUCK PUTIN!!

[alvey]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:

> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>
> You're on U-tube!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>
> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> spiels..

"no-one"? Elected yourself leader then. So the Duttonesque makeover will be
starting immediately. It's crtainly needed more than his. Wayyy more.



alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[alvey]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 22:49:38 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 1/06/2022 6:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>
>> You're on U-tube!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>
>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>> spiels.. Alvin didn't even acknowledge/reply to your mindless dribble
>> last nite...
>
> Has he done another one?
>
> For fuck's sake when is the irrelevant meat receptacle ever going to
> wake up and realise that no one gives the slightest toss about his
> insane ego stroking ramblings?
>
> The bloke is a genuine mental case.

Fraudster has an obsession with sanity. Can't imagine why...

>> Or are you in the throes of creating a new fusion reactor, and about to
>> vomit up your own theory of positronic rays, tractor beams, and Borg
>> psychology?.
>
> I don't believe he has any direct experience with any of those things,
> but no matter. He can transfer the imaginary experiences he conjuresup
> in his head to whip up some up in a jiffy.

Regale us with your "direct experience" as owner of NA of Slough IE
Fraudster.

>> Cue the hand-holding flogs.
>
> Knock yourselves out fellas. Sit around and have a communal wank while
> inventing more "proof"....

Come to think of it, now I could be rong (sic), but I can't recall you
launching any more grandiose "inventions" since people started questioning
your credibility. Anyone?

[Clocky]

On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>
>
> You're on U-tube!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>
>
> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> spiels..

Who made you spokesman?

[Yosemite Sam]

On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>
>>
>> You're on U-tube!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>
>>
>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>> spiels..
>
> Who made you spokesman?
>
>
>

that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as they
clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Google was most *definitely* yer friend in the compilation of this diatribe...Just another ' I know all' type of bleat!. (Which, in reality has *fuck* preceding *all*....

>
> And it's not *my fault* you cannot comprehend technical info from
> *holley* on their website nor the info on *shoe factor* I put up here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, a *huge* bleat, which had *Fuck Nothing* to do with the discussion. (term used advisably) at hand.
It is * not* a comparative test to remove the vacuum source from a *power assisted* system and declare that the result was exactly as a *non* assisted system would perform. It was noticeable that *no one* came out in your favour on this....Why? because any *thinking* person could see thru the smoke screen....Yer full of shit with fuck all redeeming features.

> Had you actually done *any apprenticeship ever* you might have had a
> ghost of a chance of comprehending that really technical info that
> *every apprentice mechanic* studies at TAFE during their apprenticeship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No problems with comprehension here (Or for noddy (and others) for that matter)

>
> Oh, and it's nice to see that I'm getting to you in a big way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He (nor *anyone* else) is posting reams of utterly *irrelevant* (to anything)of the moment. Sorry, yer a non entity....Suck it up!.
Yer inferiority problems have cast you as a waste of space.....
Getting *TO YOU* in a big way.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:11:17 UTC+10, Clocky wrote:
> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
> > On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >
> > Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
> >
> >
> > You're on U-tube!
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
> >
> >
> > FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> > spiels..
> Who made you spokesman?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As *you* are wont to say, Public Forum!!......He`s right tho, no *thinking* person does!!.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:42:20 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
> > On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
> >> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>
> >> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're on U-tube!
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
> >>
> >>
> >> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> >> spiels..
> >
> > Who made you spokesman?
> >
> >
> >
> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as they
> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EVERY RIGHT!.... This is a PUBLIC Forum ..........

> --
> https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
>
> "So some infantile nonsense and running away again
> I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your M/O right there..
>
> FUCK PUTIN!!

[Yosemite Sam]

On 2/06/2022 8:10 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:42:20 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>> spiels..
>>> Who made you spokesman?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
>> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as they
>> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> EVERY RIGHT!.... This is a PUBLIC Forum ..........

they can say what they like but they have no right conferred on them by
anyone or anything to behave in any manner of authoritative position on
this forum

>>
>> "So some infantile nonsense and running away again
>> I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Your M/O right there..

nup! I just don't argue with fools. which is why i mostly ignore
anything you say.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

"So some infantile nonsense and running away again
I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Daryl]

The lack of comprehension is his in that he assumes quite wrongly that
"every apprentice mechanic" received exactly the same training which
certainly wasn't the case in the early 70's.
In the early 70's there were 2 trade schools in Vic that trained motor
mechanic apprentices, Richmond and Batman in Coburg, I went to Batman
but some of the apprentices that I worked with (company always had at
least 5 apprentices) went to Richmond and what they and I learned wasn't
exactly the same.
I don't know if the curriculum was the same but each school had
different teachers and they all had there own way of doing things.
We worked on forklifts, trucks, tractors and machinery whereas
apprentices from other employers worked on cars or trucks so what I was
taught was a lot different from an apprentice who worked at a car
dealership.
For example I spent about 12mths being taught how to overhaul diesel
fuel pumps and injectors, most apprentices that I went to trade school
with had never put a spanner on a diesel.
School training is only a small part of an apprentices training, most is
done on the job, if you were lucky like me you had some excellent
mechanics to teach you but others weren't so lucky.
I even recall some older mechanics who wouldn't help teach apprentices
because once they were qualified "they might take my job", there was
quite a bit of that mentality around, luckily we had designated
"apprentice masters" who were generally older blokes close to retirement
who were no longer capable of doing hard physical work so they were
given the job of looking after us apprentices.



--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 2/06/2022 7:59 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 15:29:05 UTC+10, Xeno wrote:

>> Well, you aren't any sort of expert in VWs, that much is certain.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Google was most *definitely* yer friend in the compilation of this
> diatribe...Just another ' I know all' type of bleat!. (Which, in
> reality has *fuck* preceding *all*....

Of course, but he is right about one thing: I am most definitely *not*
an expert when it comes to VW's, and I don't know why anyone would ever
*want* to be. I can also tell you that anyone who thinks pre-emptively
changing bearing shells is a good idea is about as clueless as you could
ever hope to be and still have a pulse.

>> And it's not *my fault* you cannot comprehend technical info from
>> *holley* on their website nor the info on *shoe factor* I put up
>> here.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Yes, a *huge* bleat, which had *Fuck Nothing* to do with the
> discussion. (term used advisably) at hand.

Other than it being lots of irrelevant wank to mask the fact that he'd
made yet *another* clueless cunt out of himself :)

> It is * not* a comparative test to remove the vacuum source from a *power assisted*
> system and declare that the result was exactly as a *non* assisted
> system would perform. It was noticeable that *no one* came out in
> your favour on this....Why? because any *thinking* person could see
> thru the smoke screen....Yer full of shit with fuck all redeeming
> features.

Indeed. I dare say his bestie Jerky Birko hasn't come out and backed him
on it, because even *he* would know that claiming you can accurately
simulate the feel of non boosted brakes by disconnecting the vacuum
supply on a boosted system is an utterly nonsensical comment than only
someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about could ever
make.

Yet here was Clasner. Master mechanic and trade teacher. Making it :)

>> Had you actually done *any apprenticeship ever* you might have had
>> a ghost of a chance of comprehending that really technical info
>> that *every apprentice mechanic* studies at TAFE during their
>> apprenticeship.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No problems with comprehension here (Or for noddy (and others) for that
matter)

Nope. The only person with reality problems here is Clueless Clasener.
The bloke who reckons the carburetor calclulator on the Holley Website
is the limit for carb sizes and nothing bigger would work, despite being
given no end of real world practical examples of that *not* being the
case which he refuses to even look at.

That's the one thing he does consistently which you have to give him
credit for though. When reality grabs his delusions by the throat and
bitch slaps them all over the room he turns into a strange mutant turtle
where he pulls his head up his own arse and hides in the dark until it
all goes away.

>> Oh, and it's nice to see that I'm getting to you in a big way.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> He (nor *anyone* else) is posting reams of utterly
> *irrelevant* (to anything)of the moment. Sorry, yer a non
> entity....Suck it up!. Yer inferiority problems have cast you as a
> waste of space..... Getting *TO YOU* in a big way.

This complete soft cock couldn't get to the packet of Aspirin fast
enough to prevent himself from having a heart attack :)

[Noddy]

On 2/06/2022 8:05 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:11:17 UTC+10, Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>> Who made you spokesman?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> As *you* are wont to say, Public Forum!!......He`s right tho, no *thinking* person does!!.

They must *hate* it when their own bullshit comes back to kick their
teeth in :)

[Noddy]

On 2/06/2022 8:10 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:

> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:42:20 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
>> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as they
>> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> EVERY RIGHT!.... This is a PUBLIC Forum ..........

Absolutely. He has just as much right as Felix has to tell anyone to "go
fuck themselves" which he has done a number of times.

[Noddy]

Which was the same in any workshop you worked in. Each tradesman had
their own way of doing things, and each one would insist that *their*
way was the best way and everyone who did it differently was wrong. That
mentality has existed everywhere that I've worked from Management down
to plebs, and I'm sure it still does to this day.

Did you know John Marshall at Batman? He was a good friend of mine who
taught there, but you might have been a bit before him. He was an
excellent auto transmission specialist, and I mean a *real* one. Not an
imaginary one like Clueless Clasener :)

> We worked on forklifts, trucks, tractors and machinery whereas
> apprentices from other employers worked on cars or trucks so what I was
> taught was a lot different from an apprentice who worked at a car
> dealership.
> For example I spent about 12mths being taught how to overhaul diesel
> fuel pumps and injectors, most apprentices that I went to trade school
> with had never put a spanner on a diesel.
> School training is only a small part of an apprentices training, most is
> done on the job, if you were lucky like me you had some excellent
> mechanics to teach you but others weren't so lucky.

And that's the thing. There are some fucking morons out there. Trade
qualified, but morons just the same.

> I even recall some older mechanics who wouldn't help teach apprentices
> because once they were qualified "they might take my job", there was
> quite a bit of that mentality around, luckily we had designated
> "apprentice masters" who were generally older blokes close to retirement
> who were no longer capable of doing hard physical work so they were
> given the job of looking after us apprentices.

When I finished my time at Repco I was one of a small handful of blokes
that could do any job and operate any machine in the place which was
what they wanted at the time. There was around 14 staff worked in the
workshop when I started and not all of them could comfortably move from
one section to another. One bloke who I remember named Frank was in his
60's at the time and he operated the boring bar and hone and that's all
he ever did. He did it *exceptionally* well and could hone a cylinder to
within half a thousandth of it's finished size just by feel, but if you
took him away from that part of the workshop and tried to get him to do
something else he would have been completely out of his depth.

So blokes like me they liked having around as whenever someone went on
holidays I could move into their section and do whatever they did while
they were off enjoying themselves. They cylinder head section was my
normal day to day routine as that was the busiest section of the whole
shop and I shared that section with a bloke named Alex who I got on
famously with and we worked very well together, but if I needed to be on
the crank grinder, or the line bore machine, or in the piston and pin
section, or in the balancing section, or in the engine assembly room
because someone was off sick or on holidays I was able to do that and
the workshop continued on as per normal.

The other thing I did a lot of was be master of apprentices :)

We usually had two tarpeters kicking around, and when they weren't over
in Maidstone or Carlton doing their schooling they'd be handing around
me like a bad smell doing whatever I was doing. They got moved around
the shop into each section to learn all about the many different tasks
that went into automotive machining, and one of the really cool thing
about the Footscray workshop was that we had a lot of old equipment like
piston knurling machines or skirt grinding machines that could be fired
up to demonstrate processes that were largely redundant but still useful
in terms of providing a degree of understanding.

It was a great shop for stuff like that and we used to do all kinds of
weird and wonderful things like custom making white metal bearings, cast
iron & alloy welding, cylindrical grinding, custom piston making, you
name it we did it. All under one roof with people who had been doing it
for decades which made it such a great place to learn.

Sadly now it's all gone.

[Xeno]

On 2/6/2022 9:38 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>
>>> Had you actually done *any apprenticeship ever* you might have had a
>>> ghost of a chance of comprehending that really technical info that
>>> *every apprentice mechanic* studies at TAFE during their apprenticeship.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   No problems with comprehension here (Or for noddy (and others) for
>> that matter)
>
> The lack of comprehension is his in that he assumes quite wrongly that
> "every apprentice mechanic" received exactly the same training which
> certainly wasn't the case in the early 70's.

You are misconstruing my words. I was referring to the *underpinning
theory*, that "really technical info", that every apprentice should be
studying. What is taught will be from the same source, how it is taught,
that is an entirely different matter and depends upon the college
delivering it - and it always has.

Sidenote. In my time at Richmond, I saw a number of topics deleted from
the syllabus because they were no longer *relevant* in industry.
Cylinder boring, for instance, was gone long before 1981 when I started
at TAFE. Most in the trade sent out any engine blocks that needed boring
to *specialist reconditioners* like *Repco, HM Engines and others*. Just
one of the many things that motor mechanics did that they no longer do.

> In the early 70's there were 2 trade schools in Vic that trained motor
> mechanic apprentices, Richmond and Batman in Coburg, I went to Batman

I beg to differ. There were a lot of places that taught motor mechanic
apprentices, both in urban Melbourne and country Victoria. These however
were mere annexes of general TAFE colleges or departments attached to
*secondary technical schools*. Sunshine Tech, my first teaching
assignment, was one such. Even RMIT had an automotive department but it
later became a Uni and divested itself of all apprentice training, the
last automotive trade being *auto electrical* which came to Richmond in
the mid 90s. Batman and Richmond however were *dedicated automotive
colleges*. Everything at Richmond was, AFAIAA, was automotive related,
even had a vehicle body building department and, in the early 80s, auto
parts interpreting was set up as a brand department. I went through
teachers college with the first two teachers in that trade.
Just in case you think I and doing a Darren here, this link proves what
I have penned above is *fact*;

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1972-73No3.pdf

Jump to pages 32-35. All the colleges and tech schools that taught
automotive apprentices in *1972* in Victoria. There's a heap of them.
You will note, only one place, AFAIAA, taught automotive electrics* and
that was RMIT when it had/was a TAFE college.

BTW, have a look at *note 1* on page 37. Very interesting, aviation
apprentices - *1280 hours* over *4 years*. Makes a mockery of Darren's
claim to have done all his AME apprentice schooling in 3 years. Proves
he didn't have a clue what AME apprentices even did at school. Proves
also that it was a *technician level apprenticeship* and would have a
*higher entry standard* - year 10 instead of year 9. That was confirmed
for me by a current AME who lives here.

> but some of the apprentices that I worked with (company always had at
> least 5 apprentices) went to Richmond and what they and I learned wasn't
> exactly the same.
> I don't know if the curriculum was the same but each school had

The curriculum/syllabus was the same! It was a *gazetted syllabus*. It
changed a lot in 1978 but Batman and Richmond still taught from the same
syllabus. I know because I have taught at Batman after the two colleges
merged. I fought against teaching there because I did not like the way
the syllabus was delivered at Batman, and I won.

> different teachers and they all had there own way of doing things.
> We worked on forklifts, trucks, tractors and machinery whereas
> apprentices from other employers worked on cars or trucks so what I was
> taught was a lot different from an apprentice who worked at a car
> dealership.
> For example I spent about 12mths being taught how to overhaul diesel
> fuel pumps and injectors, most apprentices that I went to trade school
> with had never put a spanner on a diesel.

Diesel mechanics is a different trade. I did diesel mechanics as a post
apprenticeship course when I was working in Hobart at the GM truck
dealership. In my apprenticeship, I covered only the rudiments of diesel
at college but I worked on lots of diesels; tractors, trucks,
earthmovers, pump plants, etc.

> School training is only a small part of an apprentices training, most is
> done on the job, if you were lucky like me you had some excellent

That's why it is called an *apprenticeship*! I am sure I have made that
point before!

> mechanics to teach you but others weren't so lucky.
> I even recall some older mechanics who wouldn't help teach apprentices
> because once they were qualified "they might take my job", there was
> quite a bit of that mentality around, luckily we had designated
> "apprentice masters" who were generally older blokes close to retirement
> who were no longer capable of doing hard physical work so they were
> given the job of looking after us apprentices.

Only happened in the larger enterprises. The dealership I did my time in
had too few mechanics to have an apprentice master, I was taught by the
mechanics I worked with, the main one being a *diesel fitter* and that's
why I did the diesel course post apprenticeship and ended up as a diesel
fitter in the mines.

[Xeno]

On 2/6/2022 11:00 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 9:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/6/2022 7:59 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   No problems with comprehension here (Or for noddy (and others) for
>>> that matter)
>>
>> The lack of comprehension is his in that he assumes quite wrongly that
>> "every apprentice mechanic" received exactly the same training which
>> certainly wasn't the case in the early 70's.
>> In the early 70's there were 2 trade schools in Vic that trained motor
>> mechanic apprentices, Richmond and Batman in Coburg, I went to Batman
>> but some of the apprentices that I worked with (company always had at
>> least 5 apprentices) went to Richmond and what they and I learned
>> wasn't exactly the same.
>> I don't know if the curriculum was the same but each school had
>> different teachers and they all had there own way of doing things.
>
> Which was the same in any workshop you worked in. Each tradesman had
> their own way of doing things, and each one would insist that *their*
> way was the best way and everyone who did it differently was wrong. That
> mentality has existed everywhere that I've worked from Management down
> to plebs, and I'm sure it still does to this day.

You *dreamt* you worked in management*. You didn't dream that you were a
pleb. That bit you got right. Your problem is that you were only ever a
pleb, and an unqualified pleb at that.

>
> Did you know John Marshall at Batman? He was a good friend of mine who
> taught there, but you might have been a bit before him. He was an
> excellent auto transmission specialist, and I mean a *real* one. Not an
> imaginary one like Clueless Clasener :)
>
>> We worked on forklifts, trucks, tractors and machinery whereas
>> apprentices from other employers worked on cars or trucks so what I
>> was taught was a lot different from an apprentice who worked at a car
>> dealership.
>> For example I spent about 12mths being taught how to overhaul diesel
>> fuel pumps and injectors, most apprentices that I went to trade school
>> with had never put a spanner on a diesel.
>> School training is only a small part of an apprentices training, most
>> is done on the job, if you were lucky like me you had some excellent
>> mechanics to teach you but others weren't so lucky.
>
> And that's the thing. There are some fucking morons out there. Trade
> qualified, but morons just the same.

And there are frauds aplenty in the trade too, you being one of many!

>
>> I even recall some older mechanics who wouldn't help teach apprentices
>> because once they were qualified "they might take my job", there was
>> quite a bit of that mentality around, luckily we had designated
>> "apprentice masters" who were generally older blokes close to
>> retirement who were no longer capable of doing hard physical work so
>> they were given the job of looking after us apprentices.
>
> When I finished my time at Repco I was one of a small handful of blokes

<bullshit coming - snipped>

>
> The other thing I did a lot of was be master of apprentices :)

You cannot be an apprentice master if you've never been a tradesman!
>
<more bullshit - snipped>

>
> Sadly now it's all gone.

Such a pity (for you) that one of the foremen there became a teacher at
Richmond TAFE, isn't it. Hey, he is still there too. Must have a
catch-up next time I'm in Melbourne.

[alvey]

Lol!

So newsgoups are public forums and *not* a private conversation now
Fraudster. You're a hoot.

[lindsay]

On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>
>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>
>> You're on U-tube!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>
>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>> spiels..
>
> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.

"*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey

"Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey

There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.



--
"If his story wasn't total and utter bullshit, it would be a doddle for
him to get the info. Trouble is, he was never involved in the incident.
He knows that, I know that and you had best wake up to it. xeno 24/08/14

"I was never in doubt that the accident took place." xeno 12/08/18

[lindsay]

On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:

> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>
>>
>> You're on U-tube!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>
>>
>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>> spiels..
>
> Who made you spokesman?

Hahahaha

"We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is just another delusion anyway."
Clocky

People in glass houses...

[lindsay]

On 2/06/2022 11:42 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>>
>> Who made you spokesman?
>>
>>
>>
>
> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications,

There's a lie...

as they
> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.

So explain this, spazpecker the dull. What happens when your mates do it?

"We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is.... Clocky

"*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey

"Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey

[alvey]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:32:05 +1000, lindsay wrote:

> On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>>
>> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.
>
> "*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey
>
> "Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey
>
> There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.

There you go! Theorising *again*

FFS. I'm parodying another of you faux spokesthings!



alvey
Trump & the FLC. Both are guilty of killing satire and parody.

[alvey]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:34:01 +1000, lindsay wrote:

> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>>
>> Who made you spokesman?
>
> Hahahaha
>
> "We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is just another delusion anyway."
> Clocky
>

You should be in a circus tent. "Watch man turn himself into a goose!"



alvey

[Noddy]

On 3/06/2022 7:32 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>>
>> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.
>
>
> "*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey
>
> "Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey
>
> There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.

Lol :)

[Noddy]

On 3/06/2022 7:34 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>
>>>
>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>> spiels..
>>
>> Who made you spokesman?
>
> Hahahaha
>
> "We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is just another delusion anyway."
> Clocky
>
> People in glass houses...

Funny, huh?

Despite all the rancid bullshit around here which comes directly from
the FLC headquarters, they all see themselves as doing no wrong at all
and it's always someone *else* that causes each and every shit fight.

"Delusional" just doesn't go far enough to describe it... :)

[Clocky]

On 3/06/2022 6:53 am, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:32:05 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>
>> On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>
>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>
>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>> spiels..
>>>
>>> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.
>>
>> "*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey
>>
>> "Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey
>>
>> There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.
>
> There you go! Theorising *again*
>
> FFS. I'm parodying another of you faux spokesthings!
>
>

I thought that was rather obvious.

>
> alvey
> Trump & the FLC. Both are guilty of killing satire and parody.
>

Heh.

[Yosemite Sam]

I used the term 'right' in the sense of 'authority' not as 'ability'.
since this is an unmoderated forum, of course anyone has the 'right' to
say anything in the sense that they can. but no one has the 'right' to
assume they have any authority in this forum to speak for anyone else,
or to tell others to 'fuck off' as you often do. IOW such comments are
without merit ie. right, or justification. HTH.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

"So some infantile nonsense and running away again
I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Clocky]

On 2/06/2022 6:47 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 8:10 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:42:20 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>>> spiels..
>>>> Who made you spokesman?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
>>> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as they
>>> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> EVERY RIGHT!.... This is a PUBLIC Forum ..........
>
>
> they can say what they like but they have no right conferred on them by
> anyone or anything to behave in any manner of authoritative position on
> this forum
>
>

The fraud believes he can have private conversations in a public forum
FFS. What hope is there?

>>>
>>> "So some infantile nonsense and running away again
>>> I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Your M/O right there..
>
>
> nup! I just don't argue with fools. which is why i mostly ignore
> anything you say.
>

Jonz gets a little bit of attention attention by being a proxy (IOW
used) by the bloke who considers him the "village idiot". How low would
you have to get to allow yourself to be used by a narcissistic abusive
habitual liar because you're so desperately reaching for some attention,
any attention.

It's pathetic and sad to be honest.

[Clocky]

> fuck themselves" which he has done a number of times.*
>
>
>

*Except when NoddyLiar is have a private conversation with someone in
this public forum, that's different. Then everyone gets to mind their
own business.

[Clocky]

On 3/06/2022 6:59 am, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:34:01 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>
>> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>> spiels..
>>>
>>> Who made you spokesman?
>>
>> Hahahaha
>>
>> "We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is just another delusion anyway."
>> Clocky
>>
>
> You should be in a circus tent. "Watch man turn himself into a goose!"
>
>

lol, indeed :-)


>
> alvey

[Xeno]

On 3/6/2022 9:46 am, Noddy wrote:

>
> Despite all the rancid bullshit around here which comes directly from

> the FLCJC headquarters, they all see themselves as doing no wrong at all

> and it's always someone *else* that causes each and every shit fight.

Nah Darren, you post, you lie - so expect a reaction.

>
> "Delusional" just doesn't go far enough to describe it... :)
>

You're right Darren, delusional certainly doesn't cover what ails you.

[Yosemite Sam]

On 3/06/2022 11:02 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 3/06/2022 6:53 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:32:05 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>>
>>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>>> spiels..
>>>>
>>>> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.
>>>
>>> "*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey
>>>
>>> "Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey
>>>
>>> There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.
>>
>> There you go! Theorising *again*
>>
>> FFS. I'm parodying another of you faux spokesthings!
>>
>>
>
> I thought that was rather obvious.

no. such subtleties are never obvious to the CJC. everything has to be
explained to them, and even then they often don't get it. education and
intellect are sadly lacking with them. boganism is their forte.

>
>>
>> alvey
>> Trump & the FLC. Both are guilty of killing satire and parody.
>>
>
> Heh.
>

--

https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

"So some infantile nonsense and running away again
I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Yosemite Sam]

On 3/06/2022 11:12 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/06/2022 6:47 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 2/06/2022 8:10 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 11:42:20 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>>>> spiels..
>>>>> Who made you spokesman?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that would be no one. the ppl here with the biggest egos ie. noddy,
>>>> lindsay, and keefy, are the ones who make these pontifications, as
>>>> they
>>>> clearly but wrongly believe they have some right to do so.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> EVERY RIGHT!.... This is a PUBLIC Forum ..........
>>
>>
>> they can say what they like but they have no right conferred on them
>> by anyone or anything to behave in any manner of authoritative
>> position on this forum
>>
>>
>
> The fraud believes he can have private conversations in a public forum
> FFS. What hope is there?

poor old noddy. he got in the wrong queue when brains were being given
out  :)

>
>>>>
>>>> "So some infantile nonsense and running away again
>>>> I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Your M/O right there..
>>
>>
>> nup! I just don't argue with fools. which is why i mostly ignore
>> anything you say.
>>
>
> Jonz gets a little bit of attention attention by being a proxy (IOW
> used) by the bloke who considers him the "village idiot". How low
> would you have to get to allow yourself to be used by a narcissistic
> abusive habitual liar because you're so desperately reaching for some
> attention, any attention.
>
> It's pathetic and sad to be honest.
>

yes indeed!

and btw..speaking of pathetic, i see keefy has done a runner just as
predicted

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

"So some infantile nonsense and running away again
I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Xeno]

What? Darren wasn't even aware they were being issued - missed out
entirely ya see!

>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "So some infantile nonsense and running away again
>>>>> I see. Your standard MO." -Clocky on Keefy
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Your M/O right there..
>>>
>>>
>>> nup! I just don't argue with fools. which is why i mostly ignore
>>> anything you say.
>>>
>>
>> Jonz gets a little bit of attention attention by being a proxy (IOW
>> used) by the bloke who considers him the "village idiot". How low
>> would you have to get to allow yourself to be used by a narcissistic
>> abusive habitual liar because you're so desperately reaching for some
>> attention, any attention.
>>
>> It's pathetic and sad to be honest.
>>
>
> yes indeed!
>
> and btw..speaking of pathetic, i see keefy has done a runner just as
> predicted
>


--

[alvey]

Opinion Fraudster, your mere opinion. Otoh, *anybody* can describe you as a
liar, fraud, coward and massive hypocrite in complete confidence and
'safety'. You're coping a pasting Fraudster.

[alvey]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 11:26:45 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:

> On 3/06/2022 11:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 3/06/2022 6:53 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:32:05 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/06/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:16:08 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're on U-tube!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
>>>>>> spiels..
>>>>>
>>>>> "no-one"? Elected yourself leader then.
>>>>
>>>> "*** EVERYONE*** knows that you are a liar" Alvey
>>>>
>>>> "Now ***EVERYONE*** knows that you're lazy,..." Alvey
>>>>
>>>> There's something satisfying watching you fuck up, Elmer Fudd.
>>>
>>> There you go! Theorising *again*
>>>
>>> FFS. I'm parodying another of you faux spokesthings!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I thought that was rather obvious.
>
> no. such subtleties are never obvious to the CJC. everything has to be
> explained to them, and even then they often don't get it. education and
> intellect are sadly lacking with them. boganism is their forte.

Well, yes.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Nope, yer just another runaway........

> >
> Jonz gets a little bit of attention attention by being a proxy (IOW
> used) by the bloke who considers him the "village idiot".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OH NO!!! Ise hurt!.......<FBG>

How low would
> you have to get to allow yourself to be used by a narcissistic abusive
> habitual liar because you're so desperately reaching for some attention,
> any attention.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Haha, you could/should write scripts for Coronation st, or days of our lives etc. (Bet you were bullied at school.)

>
> It's pathetic and sad to be honest.

Hell yeah!, but thats the way you roll eh.?. Have a Bex and a wee lie down saddo. <FBG>

[Daryl]

On 2/6/2022 11:00 pm, Noddy wrote:

The name doesn't ring any bells but I started there the first year it
opened which was 1970, I very vaguely remember looking at auto
transmissions but can't remember who taught me.
Only trade teacher I can remember the name of was Bart Pridmore, he was
memorable because he had a racing Mini which was often in our classroom

The equipment and also the skills to use most of it is sadly mostly gone.


--
Daryl

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Friday, 3 June 2022 at 12:51:26 UTC+10, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 09:46:17 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
> > On 3/06/2022 7:34 am, lindsay wrote:
> >> On 2/06/2022 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>> On 1/06/2022 4:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
> >>>> On 1/06/2022 3:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Class dismissed! Dont forget your homework, children.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're on U-tube!
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> FFS, Tommy, no-one gives a shit about your mind-numbing 200+ line
> >>>> spiels..
> >>>
> >>> Who made you spokesman?
> >>
> >> Hahahaha
> >>
> >> "We all know NoddyLiar's bullshit bar is just another delusion anyway."
> >> Clocky
> >>
> >> People in glass houses...
> >
> > Funny, huh?
> >
> > Despite all the rancid bullshit around here which comes directly from
> > the FLC headquarters, they all see themselves as doing no wrong at all
> > and it's always someone *else* that causes each and every shit fight.
> >
> > "Delusional" just doesn't go far enough to describe it... :)


> Opinion Fraudster, your mere opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Opinion*? Hmmmm, indeed, however an opinion held by a few in here. Espousing an opinion is a valid form of idea sharing in all walks of life!.

Otoh, *anybody* can describe you as a
> liar, fraud, coward and massive hypocrite in complete confidence and
> 'safety'. You're coping a pasting Fraudster.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Opinion * once again, *however* this time proffered by a mouth breathing oxygen thief, an old saddo acting as mouthpiece for the other old saddo`s, with, i must add, the combined intelligence of a *newt*..
The said person(s) would *not* have the intestinal fortitude to spray *any* of the recipients of their crap in a face to face situation!!
Suck it up your newtness.

[Xeno]

Hmmm, that surprises me. At Richmond, all motor mechanic apprentices had
to completely rebuild at least two (2) automatic transmissions in second
year and another two full strip down, diagnose and rebuilds in third
year. I doubt there would be a single apprentice who passed through
Richmond TAFE would could *forget* the names of their auto trans
teachers. That was because, after the rebuild, the trans had to be
tested on the trans tester and, if it failed, do it all again. For
Richmond TAFE students, the trans workshop was akin to a torture
chamber, no opportunity to slack off. It appears there was a lot of
difference in the quality of teaching and what was delivered between
Richmond and Coburg if you have only a vague memory of *looking at* auto
trans.

> Only trade teacher I can remember the name of was Bart Pridmore, he was
> memorable because he had a racing Mini which was often in our classroom

Bart Pridmore became a lecturer at Hawthorn Technical Teachers College
and was one of my lecturers during my 6 years at that institution.

https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3c78826e-5c40-5b54-8bd9-a35fd07744c6/content

Top of page 12. A lot of the names in that yearbook are familiar to me.

>>
>>> We worked on forklifts, trucks, tractors and machinery whereas
>>> apprentices from other employers worked on cars or trucks so what I
>>> was taught was a lot different from an apprentice who worked at a car
>>> dealership.
>>> For example I spent about 12mths being taught how to overhaul diesel
>>> fuel pumps and injectors, most apprentices that I went to trade
>>> school with had never put a spanner on a diesel.
>>> School training is only a small part of an apprentices training, most
>>> is done on the job, if you were lucky like me you had some excellent
>>> mechanics to teach you but others weren't so lucky.
>>
>> And that's the thing. There are some fucking morons out there. Trade
>> qualified, but morons just the same.
>>
>>> I even recall some older mechanics who wouldn't help teach
>>> apprentices because once they were qualified "they might take my
>>> job", there was quite a bit of that mentality around, luckily we had
>>> designated "apprentice masters" who were generally older blokes close
>>> to retirement who were no longer capable of doing hard physical work
>>> so they were given the job of looking after us apprentices.
>>
>> When I finished my time at Repco I was one of a small handful of

Read: when Darren was given the flick!

All apprentice auto machinists from ~1978 attended Richmond TAFE, Gwynne
Street Campus and Darren was most definitely never there.

<snipped bullshit>

Darren never did an apprenticeship as an auto machinist. Had he ever
done so, he would most definitely have been taught that what holds
bearing shells in place is *crush* and *not the bearing tags*. All the
tags are for is assembly location of the shells *until* the bearing caps
are tightened down and torqued and that *fact* is clearly stated in the
*Repco Engine Manual*, a book written by people Darren considers to be
the *All Knowing Gods* at Repco. Oh the irony. If the bearings lose
crush for any reason, those tags flatten out in no time and the shells
spin in the housing. In fact, *you* should have been taught this same
thing at Batman. *You* should have *corrected* Darren's assertion - but
you didn't. Yes, a big difference between training at Richmond and
Batman and I know which I preferred.

<
>> The other thing I did a lot of was be master of apprentices :)

More of Darren's utter bullshit. It was *Apprentice Master* and not
master of apprentices. Anyone who actually had that role would know
exactly what it was called.
>>

<more bullshit snipped>

>>
>> Sadly now it's all gone.
>>
>
> The equipment and also the skills to use most of it is sadly mostly gone.
>
>

If the trade no longer needs those skills, then the equipment is no
longer needed. White metal bearing pouring for instance. When I was an
apprentice there were still a few old Chev 6 engines around that had
poured whitemetal bearings. Occasionally one of these would run a
bearing and we would send the rod(s) into Repco Launceston to be
remetaled. This occurred until some time around 1972 when we were
advised by Repco that they were no longer able to supply the service and
they had discarded all the equipment. From that point on remetaling of
poured bearings dropped from the mainstream and became niche.
Unsurprising since whitemetal bearings were no longer used by car
makers, the preference being multilayered precision insert bearing
shells more suited to modern high speed engines.
You can still get white metal bearings poured but, because it is a
labour intensive and highly specialised task, you can expect to pay
through the nose for it. I think marine winches still use poured
whitemetal bearings so there will be a longer term demand beyond
automotive but it is definitely niche.

[Durable shipping Containers]

Continental Shipping Containers is an industry leader, selling direct to both companies & individuals globally.

Our customers enjoy readily available inventory, supplier-direct pricing, and every container is certified ready-to-sell and backed by our certification and money back guarantee.

Pick a container you like, and we’ll get you an unmatchable price via the website below

https://durableshippingcontainers.com/shop/