Hello and welcome, dear listener.

Yes, the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast, episode 433, coming

to you on the 24th of June, 2024.

I'm Trevor, aka The Iron Fist.

With me as always, Joe the Tech Guy.

How are you, Joe?

Evening all.

Yes.

We don't have Scott.

Scott is working hard this evening.

So keeping that private school accounts, uh, keeping those private school accounts.

In order, no doubt, making sure that every government dollar is

extracted as much as possible.

I think that's what he's up to.

Anyway, uh, Scott, good morning to you as you're listening to us on your morning

walk, which will effectively be tomorrow.

Well, dear listener, I reckon we'll probably just do an episode on Peter

Dutton's nuclear Now I don't want to say policy, folly, folly, thought bubble, it

is an exaggeration to call this a policy and the ruckus that it's caused and let's

just talk about it and it's so instructive of where our politics is at, where our,

our population is at in its ability to understand topics and its tribalism.

And, you know, it's really going to be a good examination of our capacity as

a community to call out bullshit when we see it, call out obvious crap, and

if we can't do that on what is a really simple decision, then, Lord help us,

Joe, um, maybe not the best expression.

We saw this in 2016 with Trump, didn't we?

Yeah,

what are you thinking exactly there?

The

more egregious the lie, the more the press were falling over themselves to repeat it.

Yes, yeah.

So, let's get something straight right from the get go with nuclear energy.

Joe and I were just talking about this prior to going live.

In certain countries, it may well be a very good decision.

to fire up and create nuclear reactors.

Like it may make perfect sense if you don't have the ability to use wind

turbines and, and solar energy and you don't have access to those things.

And your other peculiar circumstances of industry or other requirements

might make it a sensible thing.

But not here.

I, I think 60 years ago maybe that was the case.

I don't even think he in Europe these days.

It is.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I, I, I just, so I, you know, I'm not against nuclear power in that sense.

Like I'm completely agnostic about it in the sense I don't have

particular fears about danger.

I don't have, I, I grew up in the shadow of nuclear power station.

Yep, I don't have particular fears about the waste storage,

particularly in Australia with fairly stable, um, you know, we

don't have earthquakes and whatnot.

It's just the economics of it.

It's so obvious that our economics means that it doesn't make sense.

And that's the incredible part about all this.

Um, we'll see where we get to.

You were about to say something else then, or not?

Oh, it was just, um, there was something about one of the power stations,

because they're talking about converting some of the power, the coal fired

stations, sites, uh, of the seven that have been picked, and one of them,

it was mentioned, was actually in Australia's highest area of earthquakes.

Oh, was it?

Okay.

So it wasn't a particularly good choice, but I think it's still relatively low

compared to Japan, which does have.

nuclear and despite Fukushima, uh, the actual impact to the, um, the

population has been relatively little, given that they've been running nuclear

power plants for what, 60, 70 years?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's, it's an amazing sort of case study that we can use on

the state of Australian politics, looking at this whole, um, issue.

So, so, um, . Before we get onto that, Joe, just a quick bit of homework.

I did a a, a video last week about Joe Biden and the Parachuters and how he

sort of wandered off to the side and to

talk to another, to a guy who was backing up a shoot.

Yes.

And which was the

video that you showed

kind of Yeah.

The video was kind of, there are videos going around that

are kind of clipped and right.

So the spokespeople for Biden are saying that, that these videos have been altered

and they're cheap fakes and that there was a perfectly good explanation for him for

the way he wandered off from the crowd and

What did you think?

Is it still,

it's still an odd behavior.

He does look like a dazed old man when he's guided back.

Yes Um, I don't think it was quite as bad as was made out by The right wing press.

Yes.

But I think they're both in their dotage.

Yes.

So, so some of the videos, I'm not sure the one I showed, um, whether

it showed the guy, it did show the guy packing his parachute.

It was certainly odd behaviour and there are some videos which are edited in

that they cut off some of the vision.

But in any event, I think, uh, Joe is sliding into a type of dementia

that doesn't look particularly good.

So anyway, just mention that as an aside as a bit of homework.

Um, thanks for, um, He wouldn't be the first

president to die in office.

How many have died in office?

Um, FDR at the very least.

I think there have been, uh, what's his name, Lincoln was assassinated.

Yes, Kennedy was assassinated, yeah.

I think

there was another one that was assassinated, wasn't

there?

Don't know, but um

Further back in time.

Yeah, certainly Reagan was in a dementia type state towards the end and was

relying on cue cards and things like that.

And, um, it was just being shuffled along as an old man.

So

he was an actor.

He was used to it.

Yeah.

Alison's in the chat room.

Hello Alison and Landon Hardbottom is there and John Simmons as well.

So good on you folks.

Right.

Let's talk a bit.

Um, This whole Dutton and his nuclear thought bubble.

Ah, Joe, I've been listening to different arguments as people mount them on left

wing or even neutral sort of sides, thinking ABC here, thinking Labor Party

members as they're talking about it.

One of the things that came up was that there was a sort of initially

Labor was concentrating on the dangers of nuclear and there were memes

being passed around showing mutations of people and things like that.

And that just made it easy for the pro Dutton camp to say, stupid Labor,

raising unnecessary fear mongering.

This is a safe technology.

It was, it was an arc of.

You know, of all the things you could complain about with his

policy, that was way down the list.

And I watched, uh, the 7.

30 report.

Two episodes where they were, um, sort of dealing with this topic.

And, um, Basically, in the two episodes on the 7.

30 report on ABC, there was no mention of the levelised cost of energy report

showing that nuclear is expensive in Australia compared to the other options.

That would be

too useful.

Exactly.

What we got was old men living in the electorates where there's currently coal

fired stations That would be the likely spots for nuclear power stations, and

this would create jobs in their community.

You do know what generates large levels of radiation in the community, don't you?

What's that?

Coal fired power stations.

Yeah, right.

No, I didn't, but it doesn't surprise me, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Coal emits radiation?

Coal has small amounts of radiation in it, and as you burn it off, uh,

the small specks of radioactive dust go up the chimney and fall

out in the surrounding area.

Right.

So there are actually higher levels of radiation around a coal

fired power station than there are outside a nuclear power station.

Well, all these 7.

30 reports didn't care, Joe.

They just went to the, to these, um, well, they're really

rural areas, I guess, I guess.

And, and found old men and said, what do you reckon?

Would you be happy with a nuclear power site here?

And guys with only a decade or two left in their lifespans, still

running businesses, were going, yeah, I'd be happy to have one here.

And because Joe, because they wanted the jobs, they wanted the

economy, they wanted the, um, the infrastructure, the spending, they

wanted people to stay in their community.

And they had no idea of the relative cost of nuclear versus renewables.

If it was

the right technology, I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear.

Yeah.

The problem is it's not the right technology.

Yep.

But these guys were seeing it from the point of view of, well our

community could use some jobs.

And if this is offering jobs, then great.

They were totally without any knowledge of the merits in terms

of, of the cost compared to other.

I do think that's been the other problem, is we haven't offered a viable answer

for the communities that are going to be hit by the shutting down of coal mining.

Yes.

We haven't said, here is our plan for the future, this is how we move to renewables,

these are the jobs we're going to create.

Thank you very much.

Uh, this is how we're going to take your expertise and leverage it.

Yeah, like maybe construct, uh, solar farms, uh, wind farms, um, uh, the,

the water dams that are required, you know, the lower dam, the upper

dam for the sort of the storage.

Yeah, the pumped hydro.

These sorts of things could be done maybe in those areas if they're

suitable, but you know what?

I don't know.

If the areas just aren't suitable for that, then they're just not suitable.

If it's flat, if it's not windy, um, maybe it's just not suitable.

Um, and you have to move.

Like sometimes people just have to move.

It happens, it happens everywhere.

Yeah.

Ah.

But there are other things.

We can look at, um, green hydrogen.

Yes.

Yeah.

True.

Um, So, so we can be a, a major source of green hydrogen that we

can sell to the rest of the world.

Yep.

Uh, and we can also grow biodiesel.

Yep.

It may not happen in those electorates.

It might have to be in other electorates for other reasons, but certainly overall

that's, that's the possibilities.

But,

but I think regional areas.

don't necessarily, even if it's not the same regional, it's not

that everyone's going to be forced into the cities or whatever.

Yes, a lot of that stuff, you're right, could definitely be in the regions.

But Joe, just cost money, money, money, like when it comes to elections,

the famous Clinton line was, you know, it's the economy stupid.

Well, when it comes to a range of, of, Uh, energy sources.

The fact that, the fact that the renewables are so much cheaper than

nuclear should have been the first, second, third and last thing that

every advocate should have said to these people because the people

who are against this, Joe, money's their, usually their main motivation.

Like.

Yeah, but again, um.

We, we come to the fact that renewables aren't 24 hour a day.

Mm-Hmm.

Uh, and I don't think it's been explained adequately to the public

how we can have a solely renewable system that can cope 24 hours a

day, seven days a week, 365 a year.

Yeah.

And I think that's the, that's the big missing piece is people are

going, but what about my base load?

And I, I have seen people, um, talking.

Uh, very, very persuasively about that.

The problem is these conversations are not being held in front

of the average citizen.

Exactly.

We've talked about it here.

We've gone through it and talked about Pumped Hydro and various reports that are

available that make it perfectly feasible.

And it's, um, it's a great system.

And that sort of information, if you tell it to people, their eyes just pop out of

their heads and go, I talk to people, you know, old boomers around here and say,

you realise of course that renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear.

And they just have no idea.

Nobody's ever, from the information sources they have, they have no idea.

And also They're taking their experiences.

I mean, obviously Australia is an incredibly sunny country, but yeah,

uh, we get an average of eight hours of sun a day in Brisbane, but that's,

that's only a third of the day.

Yes.

Um, but what people don't realize is between Tasmania and the

mainland are the Roaring Forties.

Um,

where the wind is so consistent Yep.

That's sailors before the age of steam.

regularly moved around the world using the wind.

Yeah.

You could run hydro, sorry not hydro, uh, wind there for probably

60 70 percent of the time.

Hmm.

Um, so the wind is, yeah, the wind is going to blow in some part

of Australia most of the time.

Yes.

Yep.

Yep.

So, um, I'm going to talk later about an article in the Sydney Morning

Herald where Peter Fitzsimmons was interviewing an energy expert about this.

But, um, uh, he made a really interesting point about wind power

and I'm just going to try and find it here now if I can quickly find

it, um, about how much is generated by, um, these offshore wind farms.

So, yeah.

The latest turbines tend to be offshore and the biggest of them are 15 megawatts

in size, which provides 150 times more power than the first ones that they had.

Just one turbine could power a town with a population of 5, 000 homes.

It's incredible, isn't it?

And he says here, a single rotation of the blades of a large wind turbine generates

the same power as the solar panels on five homes would export in an entire day.

These things are huge and their capacity to generate energy is massive.

They're offshore.

They're out of the way.

They're a really good solution.

Wind blows at night time.

They're an amazing solution in conjunction with all, you know,

photovoltaic, solar, and the um, and the storage that we've mentioned before.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, um, when I was back in France at Christmas, um, I was, up at

a cliff on the northern part of France, and they've just opened up a brand new

wind farm out there that's 496 megawatts.

Yeah.

So that's about the same size as a standard power station.

The biggest power station I think here is one, just over a gigawatt.

Yep.

And this was half.

Wow.

Yep.

Yeah.

They're quite extraordinary, what's possible.

The other thing about this, Joe, that just, It just amazes me that, uh, right

wingers, Liberal Party, Rustadons, have, you know, are all for the nuclear

because that's what their tribe's for, or their tribe leader has declared.

And it goes against the fundamentals of what they normally go for.

So it's, it's fully acknowledged by Dutton.

That if this nuclear power, I don't want to call it policy, this thought

bubble, requires the government to do it.

It's not private enterprise.

It's going to be a big government bureaucratic operation.

And the people in favour of this are normally so pro free enterprise.

You know, the market, free enterprise, you can't have government doing stuff

because the government's always wasting money, you don't want large bureaucracy,

and, and on this issue, those sort of fundamental liberal values are just thrown

away, and all of a sudden they're happy to have a big government bureaucratic, um,

monster created, building infrastructure that is notoriously corrupt.

built over time and over budget.

It's so

counter to what they would

normally

want.

Well, no, they, they want government funds going to private industry.

Oh yes, of course.

So this is government funds going to government industry.

Well no, so you spin off a private company that's going to have shareholders.

Yes.

And it's going to be run by Peter Dudden's mates.

Of

course, it'll be sold off, privatised.

Yeah, absolutely.

Government will build it and then it'll be privatised.

Yeah.

In the meantime though, just the fundamentals, when they're looking

for solutions for things, it's They always talk about the market and free

enterprise and, and we've got heaps of free enterprise groups wanting

to build renewable sort of options.

Um, actually, I think it was, uh, who was it?

Monique Ryan said, if only we lived in a country with lots of sparsely

populated land, year round sunshine, endless windy coastlines, established

solar, hydro and wind industries.

And billions of dollars of private investment lined up and ready to go.

You know, if only we

had that.

They've been lined up for a long time, but because of every time the, um, LNP

get into power, they screw up whatever renewable incentives are out there.

They're just unwilling to invest because they don't know what the

next LNP government's going to do.

Yeah.

You know, 40 years ago, we could have had a booming renewable sector.

But there's too much money floating around in certain other industries.

Yeah.

Um, in Crikey, some letters to the editor I think summed it up.

There was a guy, Terry O'Hanlon, wrote, All Peter Dutton cares about

is appearing to offer an alternative.

He doesn't care if it's unrealistic or if there are federal and state laws in place.

That'll make it impractical or even impossible.

It's likely better for him that way, as he can more easily abandon his nuclear

folly after he wins the election.

He wants simply to be proposing an alternative something, so he can

give the electorate a justification for kicking the current mob out.

There's a lot of truth in that.

The headache of actually getting this done.

is not something that Peter Dutton thinks he's going to have to deal with.

No, and I don't think it was.

It's also an excuse not to, uh, stop burning coal.

Yes.

Which realistically is what the LNP and the Murdoch press is all about.

Indeed.

So even as the

coal fired power stations break down, which they are, you know, they're reaching

their end of their design lives, um, they want to move to coal seam gas.

They don't want renewables.

Yep.

That is part of it.

Another guy, Bill Barnes wrote, Dutton and his strategists have appeared to

borrow straight from the Steve Bannon playbook to flood the zone with shit,

announce something highly controversial with little detail and sit back and watch

the media and other commentators fall over themselves reporting on nothing.

That's true too.

Trump 2016.

Yep.

Indeed, just announce shit and step back, and there's no accountability, there's no

shame in the world anymore, Joe, so this is why people can get away with this.

Jack the Insider on Twitter said, half a trillion dollar energy policy announced

with a 20 minute press conference.

And a one page press release.

He said, I've seen Nigerian email scams with more detail.

Dead right.

And probably more realistic.

Indeed.

More believable.

Well, yeah.

With the assistance, Joe, of News Corp, who are actively

promoting the nuclear idea.

Oh yeah.

And the ABC, who are inadvertently promoting it.

I think Dutton might pull this off.

As in, win over voters, enough.

I'm

sure.

As in, it's depressing, isn't it?

I think he might pull it off.

And

also it gives him an excuse to get out of Paris, because we can't

possibly meet Paris in the short term.

Yes.

So we're going to go completely zero emissions by going nuclear, whilst

ignoring that electricity generation isn't all of our carbon emissions.

Mm.

I'm going to give some examples of News Corp and the ABC and how they've

handled this whole issue, um, One guy, Dean Rosario, again on Twitter

said, Peter Dutton could claim the Earth is flat, and the ignoramuses at

ABC News would report that as news.

Spears and Cavallis would ask Albo, Peter Dutton says the Earth is

flat, what's your response to that?

It's dead right.

They don't stop and say.

Hang on a minute, that's complete nonsense.

Have you gone crazy?

I'm not going to put that to anybody else.

You've got to justify this before we start getting other people's opinions on this.

It's completely bonkers.

Nope, don't get any of that.

I think Albanese should just announce a perpetual motion machine that's going

to generate lots of energy for nothing.

Yeah, yeah.

And, and give as much detail as Mr.

Dutton has.

Yeah.

So it'll be even cheaper because, you know, it's a perpetual motion machine.

Yes.

So.

I

agree with Alison, it's a

scam to protect fossil fuels.

Yes.

Yeah.

Uh, um, yeah.

John says this is not a policy that will get the teal seats back.

We can only hope.

That's true.

That will not.

Um, um, Sue says people complain about wind farms next to them as well.

It is a big deal in Port Stephens at the moment.

Um, yes, people do complain about the wind farms.

Um, I wonder how much they'll complain about nuclear facilities

and I just, that's, well, I think the, um, The wind farms that are

20 kilometres out to sea are such a great option, I mean, realistically.

Yeah, but then of course they interfere with the right whale migrations.

Yeah.

I think, uh, whales have been navigating, um, shipping, um,

islands, um, other hazards.

Yeah.

I reckon they'll find their way around a wind farm without too much trouble.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Okay, what else have I got here?

So legal hurdles, Joe.

This is the interesting part.

Um, Michael Bradley writing in Crikey talked about some of the legal hurdles.

And the fact is that the premiers of the states where the reactors will

supposedly be built have already said they don't want them and they won't

be changing the law to allow them.

And each of the states has specific legislation prohibiting.

The sort of activities you need to build a nuclear power plant, like constructing

and operating a nuclear facility, transporting nuclear material or waste,

and converting or enriching uranium.

That's all banned

at a state level.

Well, New South Wales doesn't.

Um, doesn't have some of that?

Well, um, there's um, what's it, isn't there?

The, the, Lucas Heights.

Yes.

I would imagine it has a special exemption to a broad prohibition.

Probably.

That's what I think would probably be the case here.

So, so Dutton needs the states to repeal the laws that are already in place,

um, or he somehow needs to override it with valid Commonwealth legislation.

So, neither of those is possible.

But even before we get to that, there's federal law against it.

So, there's existing federal law which explicitly Expressly prohibits.

An Environment Minister from approving the construction or operation of

a nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants.

In addition, there's the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety

Act, which prohibits the nuclear regulator from authorising the same activities.

So at a federal level, the law is against it.

He would have to get control of the House of Reps and the Senate.

in order to change that law.

That's never going to happen.

The last time the Liberals had control of the Senate and the

House of Reps was John Howard.

And in, ironically, Use that power to legislate the federal

ban on nuclear power, Joe.

I love the irony of that.

So, at a federal level They had,

um, Ziggy Swiatowski for a while, didn't they?

What about him?

Well, he was, uh, he's actually a nuclear physicist.

Yes.

And they had him, I don't know, 10, 15 years ago, investigating

the possibility of nuclear.

Mm.

I don't know what the output of that ever was, but They were in power at the time.

They could have done it then.

Yeah, they've been in power for, what, 10 years with, um, Turnbull, Morrison, etc.

Never a mention of all this until the Dutton era.

Ah, anyway, um, so, so at a federal level, there's laws against it and there's

no way they're going to get power over both houses of parliament to change it.

So that's not going to happen.

Yeah.

But even if they did, there's state laws in place that they cannot override

because under our constitution, um, basically the state has power, the

states have power to make laws and it's only where specific powers have

been granted to the, to the federal government that they can make laws.

And there's nothing in that list of specific powers That comes

anywhere close to nuclear power generation is something that the

federal government has power to do.

That's why our electricity generation is all state based,

because there's no federal power to legislate in relation to it.

And you know, on a really outside chance, you could argue, well, we've

signed an international treaty.

Of some sort, and the federal power has relation, uh, federal government has power

in relation to international treaties.

But we haven't signed any treaty in relation to nuclear power,

so they can't even use that.

It's just, from a legal standpoint

They're proposing to use sites that are currently coal fired power stations,

and a lot of these are privately owned.

So they would have to either buy them from these private operators, or,

um, if the operators refuse to The

private operator to run nuclear for them?

Yes.

Uh, they would have to They would have to, if the private operator

refused to sell, they would have to, um, forcibly buy it from them.

There are just so many issues, from a legal point of view, that it's,

there's so much wrong with this.

It is, it's crazy how, every which way you look at this proposal, it's a dumb,

stupid, impossible, crazy idea, which makes it all the more infuriating.

Such a large percentage of the population thinks it's quite,

quite possibly a good idea.

We'll get to that in a moment with some polls etc.

Yeah, so, um, before we get to polls, how's the propaganda working out there?

So, as you know, dear listener, on your behalf, I read the

Courier Mail for my sins.

And, uh, today's Courier Mail, headline, Yes, in my backyard.

Exclusive poll shows nuclear support.

Regions back plan to replace their coal plants with reactors.

And a picture of a couple of farmers basically saying, yep, put

the, uh, nuclear power plant here.

We want it.

And then on page four today, headline, Nation is open to the nuclear option.

And on page, it goes all the way over to page five, where they've basically, um,

done a quick poll of 923 people and asked them, um, whether they were happy to have

a nuclear power plant in their backyard.

And surprisingly, the people they surveyed, the majority of them said yes.

And, you know, so there's the sort of propaganda, um, kickoff

by, by Murdoch Press, um, all in favor of the nuclear power.

And, um, And that's how that's sort of heading off.

In terms of actual articles, so one of the I was just

seeing the um, 60 billion dollars to build the plants.

Mm.

Are you aware of Hinkley Point C?

No.

It's okay, in the UK one of the big nuclear power stations is Hinkley Point.

Yes.

And EDF, who are probably one of the world's leading companies in

terms of building power stations.

You're welcome.

are building the Hinkley Point C reactor for, uh, British

Nuclear Fuels, I think it is.

Yeah.

Uh, it's four years, at least four years overdue.

It's 50 percent over budget, uh, and, and this is at an existing budget.

site that has the infrastructure already set up, uh, with all the

laws in place, uh, by experts who know what they're doing.

Yeah.

Well over time.

Well over budget.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I have heard of that one.

It might be in the notes here somewhere.

So, um, so one of the articles here, um, transfer of power skills set is ideal.

This is one of the articles in today's Courier Mail.

Coal fired power station workers are a ready made workforce.

They could easily shift their skills across to new, high

paying nuclear energy jobs.

Experts say, Joe, I see that, I see those two words all the time in the News Corp.

And it invariably means

Some blokes on the pub.

Some.

Some guy with a degree who was sold out on his profession, which is

only marginally related to the topic at hand, has, has come out in the

same way that you can find some.

Medical people came out as anti vaxxers, you know, um.

You can find geologists, the young earth creationists.

Indeed.

So, experts say, is immediately, my ears prick up, experts say Australia

should also tap into the growing pipeline of skilled specialists.

For the AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Program and train them for a local industry.

And he says here, um, Centre for Radiation Research, Education

and Innovation, Director.

Tony Hooker said the co location would not only lower energy transmission

costs but provide a ready made workforce with transferable skills.

Quote, the advantage is that all of your electrical engineers, mechanical

engineers, all of your trades and ancillary staff would just likely

transition across to a nuclear power plant, Professor Hooker said.

Professor Tony Hooker.

So I immediately googled.

Who the fuck is Professor Tony Hooker?

And, um, um, he's got a PhD in Molecular Biology Genetics with

research interests in the mechanisms of radiation induced damage.

He's the inaugural director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and

Innovation at the University of Adelaide.

Um, as the principal radiation advisor, Radiation Health for

the South Australian Government.

It's all to do with biology, genetics and radiation.

Yeah, radiation damage and radiation cures, radiation treatment.

Guess what?

That doesn't make you an expert on whether a power station in the regions

is a good idea, whether jobs are transferable, whether it's And the

Courier Mail kicks off with experts say.

He's not a friggin expert of what skilled specialists can transfer their skills.

If you were going to ask him about what the risk of nuclear exposure is

to humans in the surrounding area.

Absolutely, he's an expert.

Yes, yes, exactly.

Ah, and there was another article, uh, in the Courier Mail, um, scare

campaign, embarrassing, say experts.

And this was about how I think a number of Labor MPs or others were

sort of doing memes with, um, talking about sort of mutations of, of people

and animals that might happen in around, um, Nuclear power plants.

And, um, further on in that article, um, University of Sydney Electrical

Engineering Senior Lecturer, Dr.

Jeremy Kwee, said he was supportive of the Coalition's nuclear plan.

He pushed back on claims nuclear was too expensive, by clarifying that although

it is much higher capital costs in the short term, the production of energy is

more affordable than renewable energy.

Comparing nuclear to renewable, it is very stable, and its cost is very low.

In terms of the running costs, it's lower than coal and natural gas.

But when we talk about capital cost investment, that will be

much higher over the short term.

So

But again, he says it's lower cost than coal and natural gas, renewables.

Guess what's cheap?

Sunlight and wind.

Exactly.

And who is he?

He's currently a Senior Lecturer in Electrical Engineering.

Thanks That doesn't make you an expert on energy costs.

Just because you've got a degree in something electrical doesn't

make you an expert in this field.

Just because you've got a specialty in radiation damage doesn't make you an

expert in, in the economics of putting nuclear power stations in the regions.

But we get these Courier mail articles that have experts say, and these

guys sell their souls for a few lines of propaganda, for God's sake.

But Joe, Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Fitzsimmons, excellent article, um,

which should be compulsory reading for every person in Australia.

And so he has interviewed.

Professor Ty Christopher, an electrical engineer

with four decades of experience in the power industry, and is the

director of Energy Futures Network within the Faculty of Engineering

at the University of Wollongong.

And so, uh, The interview starts and Fitz Simon says to this guy, you

know, well, what's your credentials?

And he says, I'm now just shy of 40 years in the power industry, including

10 years on the executive of what is now Endeavour Energy, with the last

five years as the chief engineer.

I'm now with the University of Wollongong, helping coordinate energy futures

research, and I lead a collaboration of just under 100 academics from all

disciplines across the university Social scientists, market economists, marine

ecologists and engineers, all the varying backgrounds, to bring together those

minds in a focused way on energy systems.

And, um, uh,

there's somewhere else there where he talked about billions of dollars

of stuff that he'd been involved in.

Let me see if I can look.

I might get to it soon.

So, um,

uh, there we go.

Um, I say this from the point of view of being an engineer who's

delivered billions, literally billions of dollars worth of

energy projects throughout my life.

Thank you.

Even 20 years to build a power station is very optimistic.

Thank you.

So that's, that's, you know, this is somebody with some

credentials that we can listen to.

And he was the one who talked about, uh, the offshore turbines that I mentioned

earlier about the size of them and, um, and, and the sort of equivalent of

what a large wind turbine can produce compared to Five homes, et cetera.

So, um, now, um, uh, he's talked about the capacity of offshore wind and

how it's, um, it's relatively high compared to solar and onshore wind.

Um, its capacity is around 50 to 55 percent.

Um, so that's when it's sort of functioning and generating, um, power, um,

compared to onshore, which is about 30%.

And, um, and he's saying that in Australia, it makes even more

sense because as a population, we mostly cling to the coast.

So you can put them offshore near where the energy is needed.

So it's much shorter and less expensive transmission lines.

So he says, uh, Fitz Island says 55%.

sort of, um, capacity still sounds a bit low, uh, compared to say

nuclear, which is surely 100%.

And he said, well, um, uh, and, and coal.

And he says, well, um, the capacity factor of coal at the moment is 60%.

So there's a lot of downtime in, you know, Electricity generation

for our coal fired generators.

Especially when they blow up.

Yes, and um And the bulk of Australia's coal fired power plants

will exit the grid within 10 years.

Their energy has to be replaced, not in 20 to 30 years time,

but within the next decade.

And even, um, yeah, International Atomic Energy Agency publishes a guidelines

handbook, step by step guide on how to go nuclear, internationally recognised

manual on what you have to do to go from zero to a functioning nuclear power plant.

And, um, it's at least 15 to 20 years, so our existing coal generators are going

within 10, nuclear would be at least 15 to 20, we need something in between,

and um, uh, what else did he say here,

um.

He says, um, when people ask me, am I anti nuclear, I look them in the

eye and say, no, I'm anti bullshit.

That's a guy I can relate to.

He says, renewables are the cheapest.

They are reliable enough for what we need.

They are the best way to bring down customer bills.

And they are the best way for us to decarbonise our economy, which

is what we are committed to do.

Joe, we need to decarbonise and the solution Is cheaper, and it's

decentralised, and these fuckwits in the conservative cause just

want to make it harder and harder to get to the right decision.

Yeah.

I just like the scare stories about electric vehicles.

Mm.

The stuff I'm seeing about them, and

it's bullshit.

Yeah, and it's relatively easily debunked, but, you know, you put your news headline

out, nobody reads past the headline.

Yeah, and this is the problem with the ABC, when it just issues a headline, you

know, Dutton says this, um, blah blah blah, uh, Albanese asked to respond.

People think, oh, well it must be a reasonable proposition.

Must be a 50 50 moment, must be some credibility to it.

So you're saying the headline should say Dutton arse again?

In an ideal world, Joe, uh, yes, yes.

Dutton spews irrational nonsense Albanese refuses to answer.

Yeah.

Ted O'Brien, Joe.

This guy reminds me of Morrison.

He's got the same smirk happening.

He's got the same

mannerisms.

So he's the opposition energy spokesman and, you know,

they've got this nuclear plan.

You would think one of the basics of the plan, Joe, would be, well,

how much of our needs is going to be covered by nuclear under your plan?

Mm hmm.

Roughly.

Ballpark figure.

What percentage of our electricity needs are going to be met by

these seven power stations?

Because they haven't even said whether they're proper power stations or they're

the small, modular ones that don't exist.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So just the basics of, OK, you're going to go nuclear, how much

can we expect from nuclear?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Insiders, um, Spears is the guy who, the compere, normally he's terrible, but on

this occasion maybe he's better than that.

So let's go with a bit of, uh, David Spears on this one.

Will it be 10%?

And so again, our, our energy mix, we'll talk about In the future, ahead

of the market needs to know now.

I mean, if it's only going to be a tiny fraction of the market

They won't have long to wait, David, until they understand

the energy mix.

Look, they need to know very soon, right now, really, whether they

should keep investing or not.

And what matters is whether nuclear is going to make up 20,

50 percent of the energy mix, or 2 or 3 percent of the energy mix.

So, a couple of things.

Firstly, uh, I'm a Liberal.

And, um, I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money.

And so we have designed this policy with a crystal clear vision of Australians paying

for cheaper, more affordable housing.

And they'll only

do

that

if the market keeps investing, as you've acknowledged at the outset.

Indeed, and

I've answered that, acknowledging the need.

So, they'll only

invest if you give them some clarity on whether nuclear is going to

take up 50 percent or 2 percent

of

the

mix.

They will get clarity, um, and Do you know this answer?

In terms of the broader energy mix, David, we will be coming

out with that in due course.

But do

you know yourself or will you leave this to another body to work that out?

You mentioned earlier this body that will work out how many

reactors will go on each plant site.

That suggests you haven't worked this out.

So, we have done our planning and we'll be very explicit about our assumptions.

Do you know?

But, about our assumptions.

Do you know the answer to this question?

Rephrase the question, is it, is it The question is, how

much of the energy mix will be nuclear under your plan?

We will be announcing that at the time that we announce our broader mix.

Because David, we've only talked But do you know it at the moment?

Do you know it at the moment?

I'm very clear Or would this be for an

independent body to work out?

We've announced the nuclear part of our, our policy.

The real question is not on nuclear, for example, how much it costs.

But is it value for money?

I think a lot of people worry about how much it costs

and whether it's pushing their bills up.

But it's from a business case point of view.

I just want to be clear on this.

Go ahead.

You're not sure at the moment whether nuclear would make up

only 5 percent of the energy mix?

David,

we've done all the work on the nuclear front.

Do you know this?

But until, until we release renewables, policy and gas

Depressing, Joe.

Feels like that.

Well, I guess he knows the answer.

The answer is 0%.

They've no intention of delivering nuclear.

They've no intention of delivering it.

No.

But even if you said to him, you know, in a fanciful world where these seven

nuclear reactors are built, because they haven't even said whether they're

proper reactors or whether they're the small modular ones that don't

even exist yet, he's got no idea.

It just demonstrates how full of shit these guys are.

That, um He couldn't give a ballpark figure of what they're

gonna generate from this.

And it just had a Morrison type smirk about him.

For, oh, goodness me.

Ahhhh.

They're schooled in not answering the question, aren't they?

But it's obvious to anybody watching it.

Like, surely nobody fools for that anymore.

The, it's clear to everybody, he doesn't know.

No, I'm sure he doesn't.

Or, or the answer is so low, he doesn't want to say.

Each, each one is, you know, which one do you reckon it'd be, Joe?

I reckon, I reckon he doesn't even know.

No, I reckon they know and the answer is zero percent.

This is a distraction.

They've no intention of delivering on it.

Oh, Joe.

I reckon they'll have some reports that are, um, generated by some

very expensive contractors.

Some consultants will go out and go, actually, you know, nuclear

is going to be too expensive.

But it'll take them several years to get to that point.

Yeah.

By which time, you know, we'll have kicked the coal industry down the Road

for another however many years and carried on digging up shit out of the ground.

It should be staying in the ground Yeah, and it will have fulfilled its purpose

John says the smirk reminds me of the Dunning Kruger theory.

Look, the smirk reminded me of Morrison.

I was reading about Dunning Kruger today statistical Screw up.

Right.

Yeah What do you mean it's a statistical screw up?

It doesn't exist They've actually gone back and re analyzed the

statistics from the paper.

What did the paper say?

The paper said basically people who are less capable overestimate their ability.

Yes.

Uh, and basically the way they figured this out was by correlating two numbers,

but one of the numbers was actually generated from the other number.

Ah.

So it was correlated with itself.

Yes.

Okay, so it wasn't, um, okay, and so it's not a replicatable, um, study.

Yeah.

There's so much in, um, Thinking Fast and Slow that was not replicatable as well.

Like a lot of these things are questionable.

So, so Dunning Kruger theory doesn't stack up based on that.

Yeah.

Well, the evidence they relied on is flawed.

Didn't show that.

Yeah.

Interesting.

Yes.

Yeah.

Look, there is a solution, Joe, to this power issue.

Well, maybe not a solution, but some help.

The Lucas Heights facility, um, Which is the one which, uh, actually Whatley

was corresponding about, he had some connection with it at one point and,

um, So this is the facility that sort of has a very low level sort of nuclear

facility that generates stuff for medical purposes and for scientific

research, like, Extremely, extremely low output for these sort of minor medical.

interests of sort.

Yeah, it

basically allows us to become self sufficient in nuclear medicine.

Yes.

Um, anyway, that, um, the politician who was, um, kicked off from the

Liberals, I think, and then stood as an independent, Dai Li, Li, Dai Li?

I don't know how you pronounce her name.

Okay.

She's talking about that facility.

We'll play this one.

Um,

my understanding also is That, uh, uh, Lucas Heights, where our, our nuclear

reactor, my understanding is from speaking in this, uh, space is that

it generates so much energy, but that energy is actually not being utilized.

It's just, you know, it's not being captured.

So that's another, you know, perhaps in discussing, uh, nuclear

energy, we can look at Lucas Heights and see what's happening there.

There

we go.

A secret height facility is possible, Joe.

Lucasfix was never designed to generate electricity.

It was designed for a completely different purpose.

You're such a pessimist, Joe.

Think expansively.

Think, think outside the box.

You know, get in touch with your community.

And um, start sentences with, you know, it's my understanding that.

Which is what you do in the law a lot, when you basically, I don't

really know, but here's my best guess.

But the laws of physics, you know, just obey whatever a lawmaker says.

Oh, okay.

Um, yeah.

I was in the elevator, Joe, and um, there's a guy there I met,

Mark, who I've talked to before, and I know he's a conservative, of

a conservative bent, and he said, you know, how's your website going?

I said, well, my podcast is going fine.

In fact, tonight I'm going to be talking about Peter Dutton and his crazy nuclear

policy, and I'll be bagging it severely.

And he mentioned about the, um, sort of, mutation memes and stuff.

And I said, Oh, I'm not worried about that.

Oh, it's the cost.

It's incredibly expensive.

And he said, Oh, well, it's cheaper in France, actually.

It's cheap in France, but you know, maybe they've been doing it for a long time.

These are the sorts of things you've got to deal with all the time.

Quick Google search.

Dutton apparently said France has the cheapest power in Europe with

70 percent of its electricity generated from nuclear energy.

But And again from another article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Sydney Morning Herald seems to at least be publishing stuff,

um, anti nuclear that I don't see in the Murdoch press, Joe.

Not sure why or what's going on there, but at least a couple of decent things

have come from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Anyway, in this article it says, Last month, France's spot electricity

price went negative as cheap renewable energy flooded its power market.

This Combined with reduced, combined with reduced demand over a weekend, French,

French officials shut down three nuclear reactors because their power could not

compete against ultra cheap renewables.

Other parts of Europe are also turning off their nuclear reactors for

periods of time because their power is expensive compared to renewables.

Joe, I didn't know it was possible to do that.

shut down a nuclear facility.

But it is?

Yeah, I mean, you don't shut it down, you turn down the

amount of energy you produce.

They're always going to be ticking over.

But yes, um, basically when you split an atom, uh, it produces a number of neutrons

that fire off into and split other atoms.

And if you stick in control rods, they absorb the neutrons.

And they reduce the amount of atoms that are being split.

Hmm.

And so you can reduce the amount of energy that you are generating.

So there you go dear listener, if you are in an elevator with

somebody and strike up a conversation and they mention the French, uh,

experience, you are now fully armed.

Oh, and one extra bit for you, you can say, um, France, despite

its long experience building nuclear power plants, has struggled

to meet cost and time targets.

The 1, 650 megawatt Flaminville.

Power plant on the Cherbourg Peninsula in North West France completed fuel

loading last month and is due to be fully operational by year's end.

Construction started in 2007.

That's a long time ago, Joe.

That was, that's the one that literally, sitting on Mum and Dad's chimney stack,

I could see when I was growing up.

There you go.

Well, this is, uh, Flammable, Flammable 3, our plant.

Yeah, this is the third one, yeah.

Yeah.

And then just up

the coast is Capitola Hog, which is the nuclear reprocessing plant.

Yep.

And you're perfectly fine, Joe, despite growing up, yep, and you are.

So when I was, I don't know, early teens, they opened up a power line to France.

We got more reliable electricity because the local power station used

to drop out for hours at a time.

Yes.

Um, and it was cheaper.

And the local press ran an April Fool's.

article That said you could tell when we were switching over to french

electricity There'd be a warning light and we'd have french sockets next to

the english sockets on the wall And you'd have to unplug everything out

of the english sockets and plug into the french sockets And you know that

you were running on french electricity because it would smell faintly of garlic

And people honestly believed it wrote in complaint

letters Anyway, there's a third power plant.

Construction started in 2007 and they've only just completed fuel loading.

Yeah.

It's nearly 20 years later.

And it was,

this is

a hundred miles from the 500 megawatt offshore wind plant

they've just built in three years.

There you go.

This one is, is.

It's going to take close to 20, and it was initially supposed to take five.

It was supposed to be up and running by 2012 at a cost of 3.

3 billion.

Brackets 5.

3 billion.

That would be 5.

3 billion in today's money, I think.

No, no, no, 3.

3 billion euros.

Ah, euros.

Ah, 5.

3 billion

Dollars.

Dollars, yep.

12 years behind schedule, the estimated cost is now 20 billion euros.

So, initially A five year build has blown out to nearly 20.

Initial cost 3.

3 billion euros, now 20 billion and, uh, and this is in a

country with long experience of building nuclear power plants.

There's a reason that the French are building, um,

uh, wind farms.

Yes.

Because it's cheap.

Yes.

It

works.

They've got wind.

Yeah.

The other thing you'll see, some other people I speak to about this, life's

getting hard dear listener, when I just speak to people, and you know,

you say, well you realise of course the levelised cost of energy looks at

the amortisation of the capital costs and is a fair way of working out the

true cost of the various systems.

You know, you'll say the CSIRO has done a report and somebody will go,

well you can't trust them, bunch of scientists, they're all in the pay of the

government, of course they're going to tell the government whatever it wants.

And you just go, oh, okay.

You've also got the international finance services firm, Lazard, has been doing

this for a long time as well, and I know in previous episodes we've looked

at their reports, and it's the same story, and it's all over the world.

Onshore wind the cheapest, utility sized solar next cheapest,

nuclear the most expensive.

And in terms of trends, wind and solar getting cheaper,

nuclear getting more expensive.

Um,

that's the sort of stuff that is going on.

Interestingly, although solar isn't, um, effective for large periods of the

day, It is effective at the time that we actually use the most energy, which

is when we're running air conditioning.

True.

Which is in the middle of the day.

Yep.

To the point where when I was out at a coal fired power station back in 2018,

I think, they said when the power plant was built, their don't touch anything

period was in the middle of the day.

They were running peak capacity, uh, and because they, um, Because

power generation is based on the difference between the heat in the

generator and the heat outside.

So basically trying to shed the heat outside to cool the water down to reheat

it.

Um, they actually run at less capacity in the middle of the day.

So they're less efficient in the middle of the day because of the heat outside.

Hmm.

That makes sense.

Um, So that was their peak, don't do anything, don't do any work.

It's now their maintenance period because there's so much rooftop

solar that the demand for coal fired generation in the middle of the day

has dropped down to nearly nothing.

Yes.

At least for this plant.

Yes.

Um, actually I should do with, um, levelised cost of energy, where

have I put that in these notes?

I did have it here somewhere.

Yeah, I did it.

It's gone missing.

Doesn't matter.

Let me just, um,

Joe,

share the screen here with a bit of luck.

Am I going to share the screen?

Share the screen.

Not yet.

Let me just try and add a screen share to this.

Um, essential report.

Um, there we go.

A central report has asked people their views on nuclear power.

And it's a bit depressing.

This is from the 18th of June.

Views on emission targets by voting intention.

Oh dear.

Which of the following is closer to your view on Australia's

2030 2050 emissions targets?

And the blue one is Australia should stick to the 2030 target.

And achieving this target is necessary to meet the 2050, or the red one, which

is Australia should abandon the 2030 target, because it's unachievable,

it's hurting the economy, and instead we should focus on the 2050 target,

which is basically 2030's too hard, we should kick this can down the road.

Oh, and see the report where it said basically the earlier we start.

Moving towards net zero, the less pain we have,

the

later we leave it, the more effort we have to put in.

Yeah.

Overall, 52 percent of Australians said we should stick to the 2030.

48 percent of Australians said, let's forget 2030, it's too hard,

it's hurting too much, let's just kick that can down the road.

Do they have any evidence that it's actually hurting too much?

That it's had any impact whatsoever on the economy?

I doubt it.

Uh, gender.

Of course, um, males more likely to kick the can down the road than females.

Age.

Old people, 55 plus.

They weren't going to live to see the Prime Minister.

Correct.

Uh, more than happy to kick that can down the road.

It's the young people, 63 percent of 18 to 34 year olds want

to stick to the 2030 target.

Um, only 41 percent of 55 year olds want to.

There's such a selfish bunch, these old codgers.

With no concern for

Well, they've proved that with house prices, haven't they?

With everything.

Voting intention, of course,

Labor and the Greens more likely to stick to the 2030 target.

Coalition and minor parties, which usually means Pauline Hanson

and Catter and people like that.

No, no, no, minor as in M I N E R parties.

Yes.

What gets me is 27 percent of Greens voters want to kick the can down the road.

Yeah.

What's a Greens vote?

I mean, obviously you could consider nuclear as a green option, but

it's an economically stupid option.

Yeah.

Maybe that's what they're thinking.

Nuclear's green.

Let's go the nuclear option.

Without knowing their economics.

The Greens Party's Greenpeace, for instance.

were against the expansion of nuclear.

Greens have historically been, not necessarily in this country,

but Greens around the world have historically been against nuclear.

Yes.

Yep.

Ah.

Which of the following do you think is the better way for Australia to achieve

its emissions target of net zero by 2050?

The blue is continue to develop renewables, and Decommission Fossil Fuels.

The red is Stop the development of renewables, stick with fossil fuels,

and wait till nuclear is developed and can kick in in 15 to 20 years.

In what world is stick with fossil fuels the right answer?

Renewables are available and cheap even if you want to go for nuclear.

Joe, 51 percent of coalition voters think that is the best option.

Stop renewables, stick with fossil, wait for nuclear.

See ya.

Same in the minor parties.

Joe, 26 percent of Greens voters think that's a good idea.

That's the scary part.

27 percent of Labor.

Once again, let's look at gender.

Gosh, wonder what this will reveal.

Oh, actually very similar.

Yeah.

That's interesting.

So

I, I would say within statistical noise, actually

yes.

Matches the exactly 62% or of males.

63% of females wanna continue renewables.

Um, 37, 30 8% don't.

What was the overall figure I should have had that, the overall figure, 63%

of Australians, let's go with renewables.

37% say, let's stop renewables, keep going with fossil fuels.

Wait for Nuclear.

And I bet with age it's very much skewed towards the older ones.

Age.

Not as strong as I would have thought.

Age.

No, no, it's the 35 to 54 that are the most keen on.

Oh, sorry, no, Renewables is.

Yeah.

Funnily, the 35 to 54 are more keen on the Develop renewables and get rid

of fossils than the younger 18 to 34.

Still the 55 plus are the strongest group, but not by so

much as I would have thought.

No.

Comparatively.

Voting intention, um, kind of what you'd expect.

Sometimes the way these things are phrased can make a difference.

Um,

we've already done the 2030 target, I won't do that one again.

Um, Quickly, views on Israel, uh, overall,

um, which is your, uh, view on Israel's military action in Gaza, um,

the blue is Israel is justified, the orange is Israel should agree to a

temporary ceasefire, and the red is Israel should permanently withdraw.

The grey is unsure.

So

15 percent of Australians overall think Israel is justified in

continuing its military action.

The rest think there should be either a temporary or permanent

withdrawal, or they don't know.

So, only 15 percent think Israel is justified.

That's the overall trend.

Gender.

Males.

20 percent think Israel is justified.

Only 10 percent of females think so?

I

think it's the unsure that shows the biggest gender variation.

Yes.

And in the unsure, 34 percent of females are unsure.

19 percent of males are sure.

Age, uh, the older you are, the more Well, 18 34 and 35 54.

Only 11 percent think Israel is justified, but when you get to the Boomers, 55

22 percent think Israel is justified.

So, that's Australians current thinking of that, and, uh, the rest, uh,

don't think we'll worry about those.

I think we'll just move on from that.

Sorry.

Oh, Joe, where are we up to?

9.

13.

I thought it would just be about nuclear, this one.

Um, could I find that lowest cost, that lowest cost of energy report?

I can't, but it's clear, dear listener, renewables are the cheaper option.

When you look at the capital costs and the depreciation over the lifetime of

the capital, And the decommissioning and the running costs, the renewables

are considerably cheaper than nuclear.

It's a no brainer.

And all the other arguments don't really matter because you

can bring it online quickly.

You don't have to wait 20 years.

It's not going to be, um, fraught with the, with the, With the same difficulties

that nuclear has, and Joe, just a decentralized system, like, they worry

about China attacking us, well, seven well placed bombs on nuclear facilities

would wipe out, under the coalition plan, a fair bit of our power generation,

but when you've got multiple facilities scattered all over the country It really

provides, uh, comfort in the sense that, uh, you're spreading the risk amongst

all these, these minor facilities.

So in the event of disasters, uh, you don't have all your eggs in one basket

or all your eggs in seven baskets.

There's so many arguments for this.

Um, but it's a measure, Joe, of where we are in this community.

That's the most obvious, simple solution is somehow up for grabs for discussion.

I'm depressed.

You asked the average.

I would say even the conservative voters, would you put rooftop solar on?

Hmm.

And they would absolutely.

Yes.

It would be interesting to ask that question actually.

All these people who are going, oh no, we should keep fossil fuels, is to

ask them, do you have rooftop solar?

Yeah.

Because I bet they do.

I bet the majority of them do.

Yeah.

It's so tribal.

It's our tribe has decided nuclear.

If, if it was Labor pushing nuclear and Liberals pushing multiple privately

owned renewable facilities all over the country that were cheaper, these

same people would be jumping across to the other side of the argument.

It's pathetic, Joe.

It's depressing.

How would anybody get into politics when

good, solid arguments backed by facts.

are just worth nothing.

I think this is, I mean, you're again It's interesting with the whole, um, you

can't trust C I R O, C S I R O, would be to ask, well, who would you trust?

It

was, yeah, let's say none of them.

Right, so how, how would they know?

Yeah, well, you won't know.

They're all the same.

You can't trust any of them, they then say.

Well, that's enough of the rant, Joe.

We've got an hour, hour 20, hour 17 on.

And

we've sent all the listeners to sleep.

Yeah, we

have.

Anyone still there?

Two people.

John says, My ardent right wing FW climate denying man put solar on his roof.

There we go.

And he says, The positive twist on those polls is that the Libs are

getting more popular in Libs seats.

Only their base.

Yeah, they're not appealing to the inner city suburbs,

inner city electorates at all.

Um, yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Thanks in the chat room for watching.

Next week, a grab bag of different topics.

We'll talk to you then.

Bye for now.