We'd have rather got Marsh than Head I reckon
TeWaio
Posts
-
-
It's the hope that kills you.... just like the RWC Final
-
@Chris said in Black Caps v Australia:
Southee should be done,very ineffective as an opening bowler he just is wasting the new ball.
He has been good for NZ but you have to know when to go like Wagner ,I admired his decision if Southee carries on he will ruin his earlier performances.
It would be sad to see if he is only remembered for what he is producing now.Wagner retired after he was told he wouldn't be selected though...issue is its unlikely someone is telling the captain that....
-
@nzzp said in Climate Change:
@TeWaio said in Climate Change:
, I don't think by 2030 mass manufactured batteries will be more than single-digit % better than todays. I would love to be wrong as in my current role I have decent investment exposure to battery companies.
that's really interesting! Why is that - I'd assumed we'd continue to see incremental ongoing improvements; it's one of the things that has been a cause for future-optimism.
The best way to think about it is to consider the physics/chemistry involved in burning fossil fuels vs a battery.
In the former case, energy stored in covalent bonds between fuel molecules is unlocked by combusting them with oxygen. There's a LOT of energy in this, which why a fairly light/small tank of gasoline can propel a multi tonne vehicle hundreds of miles. The bar to get something better than this is pretty high, which why is we still burn petrol well over 100yrs after the first automobiles.
For a battery, you're not breaking any chemical bonds to access large amounts of energy, rather you're storing energy by separating electrical charge across a given medium. As you seek to store more and more energy via "separated charge" in a fixed volume, you begin to bump up against physical limits. Enough charge differential in any given volume, and the electrons will leap across the gap - this is how we get lightening; enough charge differential builds up between clouds and the ground that electrical charge travels through the air itself.
In modern batteries we are approaching the limit of how much charge can be stored in a given space (for vehicles at least, stationary power doesn't have as much constraint). As the battery electrolyte materials get more and more exotic, or cathodes get more efficient at facilitating electron flow, a slightly increased amount of charge can be packed in, but the gains are marginal at this point.
The hype cycle that talks every 6-12 months about some amazing new battery material that can hold twice the energy, be charged in minutes, and be easily and cheaply mass-produced, is just that, hype. Again, I'd love to be wrong, but physics and chemistry are not on our side here.
-
@nostrildamus said in Climate Change:
@TeWaio said in Climate Change:
Wind/solar are fine in places they make sense, but can't really be more than 5% or 10% of a grid without drowning it.
Sorry I don't follow this, are you saying if wind and solar are 5-10% cheaper that is a bad thing because they would 'drown' the grid?! If more efficient, that isn't their fault!
I meant 5-10% of the total generation capacity of a grid. Addendum: this is just my own impression and I could be wrong on this, as its the part of the energy system I know the least about. @NTA (and it seems @antipodean) know more about the details. Definitely there the correlation of more expensive electricity in any grid that has deployed loads of renewables. Could be correlation vs causation, as I intuitively understand its gas rather than renewables that set the marginal price, but that total cost vs renewables penetration relationship looks fairly horrible everywhere.
SolarAlmost everything in particular is artificially cheap as its mostly made in China using coal fired energy and slave labor as inputsFIFY.
Fair point, but wind and especially solar are probably the most energetically- and carbon-intensive things the Chinese make at scale
; it never has to earn its cost of capital in actual markets like other technologies.
Some have said that of costings for nuclear. Such as the power required for the plant itself, the location value of the location near a large enough population, the cost of the transition stage...
Yep true for nuclear as well, but wind/solar in China is much more distorted from free markets than nuclear in the West.
The mining ethics and supply issues with battery materials are well-documented
including solid state here? I think the potential of future batteries is quite impressive.
I really really want this to be true, but there is so much hype/vaporware in next-gen batteries, and there has been for decades. Having followed it for a long time, I don't think by 2030 mass manufactured batteries will be more than single-digit % better than todays. I would love to be wrong as in my current role I have decent investment exposure to battery companies.
and imagining they can scale up to be most of the vehicles AND balance a mostly wind-and-solar grid is fanciful, to say the least.
Depending where you are a nuclear power plant from political debate to efficient use could be 15-30 years that is a lot of time for wind solar and battery technologies to improve within.
Yes, but a lot of that is due to red tape/regs that were lobbied for by people who are anti-nuclear. Who then say "we can't do nuclear as it takes too long" - a fairly obvious sleight-of-hand IMO. The French built 56 reactors in about 20yrs from the early 1960s. The idea we don't have better tech/designs/construction six decades later is fanciful.
My reservation with (current) nuclear is mostly logistical and also: I don't trust the standards and quality control in the country I am in.
Not sure where you are, but certainly nuclear requires stringent safety regulations. The Soviets' built water-cooled reactors with a positive void coefficient because they were cheaper, which made the Chernobyl disaster possible. The Japanese put the diesel backup generators for Fukushima in the basement instead of on the roof. There are easy fixes to all this, but agree it is scary given the potential consequences.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
Which is the common thread:
Renewables need(ed) subsidies
Fossil fuels have subsidies - massive subsidies
Nuclear needs subsidiesNo, they don't. But the only thing that keeps
global warmingclimate change and green energy afloat is untruths. These untruths, and the ugliness behind them (like slave labor), is becoming more and more obvious now.Here's an old article on this subject
The fact that the ODI have resorted to including items which plainly are not subsidies in any shape or form is an indication that their report has more to do with a political agenda, rather than a genuine attempt to assess fossil fuel subsidies.
Evidence of this lies in the fact that they have completely failed to mention the very real tax revenue which fossil fuels generate for the government.
I have already touched on North Sea oil revenue. But by far the biggest contribution comes from fuel duties, which generated £28bn last year.
The reality is that the ODI is yet another part of the green blob, funded largely by the UN, EU and taxpayer funded foreign aid money. (Last year, for instance, the DFID contributed an astonishing £16.8m).
Given their background, this grossly dishonest report is probably what you would expect to see. But why UK taxpayers have to pay millions to such a disreputable outfit is a mystery.
This is absolutely correct (I have disagreed with @Winger a lot in this thread, and here I am agreeing twice in 24hrs ); when considering all govt policy interventions globally, FFs are definitely net-taxed rather than net-subsidised. The "but fossil fuels get lots of subsidies" myth is unfortunately in the same category as Elon's solar exaggerations and LCOE.
By way of details, here is the third Alex Epstein substack I've posted in the thread - I know that seems a bit biased to cite the same guy 3 times, but his research is very very well referenced, and he sits outside the academia / govt grant / NGO ecosystem which effectively prohibits anything that runs counter to the wind+solar narrative. That said, he is clearly pro fossil fuels, so is far from a neutral source (who is?).
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
BTW by clean coal, I don't mean storing CO2.
I finished my PhD in this a little over 10yrs ago. The tech works, and has been rolled out at bigger scale in China. Its appealing because the world effectively has infinite amounts of coal (for the Chinese, its the only natural resource they DO have) and even if you ignore climate change, the local pollution effects of burning coal are terrible. The only reason clean coal hasn't caught on faster is the shale oil revolution in the USA effectively gave the world a lot more cheap oil and gas from 2008-today, meaning the economic forcing function for "clean coal" disappeared. Its now reappearing, as post-Ukraine war the idea that wind+solar+(non-existent) batteries+hope can power a modern country is now being rightly called into question.
My own view is that nuclear is the longer term solution, and is mostly expensive due to regulations/legislation since Chernobyl effectively criminalising it. Every other human technology displays a positive "learning function", in that it gets cheaper the more volume is produced. Nuclear since the 1950s has shown a negative learning function - that, to me, has to be a man made distortion caused by external factors, not inherently due to the technology itself.
Nuclear still takes a long time to build, mostly because a lot of the engineering knowledge base has been lost in the past 30yrs. Clean coal is much faster, particularly as it can be augmented to existing plants fairly easily, and will serve as a useful bridging technology in the 2030s/2040s as the "nuclear renaissance" takes off.
Wind/solar are fine in places they make sense, but can't really be more than 5% or 10% of a grid without drowning it. Solar in particular is artificially cheap as its mostly made in China using coal fired energy and slave labor as inputs; it never has to earn its cost of capital in actual markets like other technologies. The mining ethics and supply issues with battery materials are well-documented, and imagining they can scale up to be most of the vehicles AND balance a mostly wind-and-solar grid is fanciful, to say the least.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
Only just found this about wind generation. Completely agree with @MajorRage all solvable and yes those are good alternatives. Storage definitely an issue but again solvable.
The biggest issue is that everyone wants governments to do it in the first place. Macro generation, storage, and distribution is costly and wasteful. The whole system needs to be approached on a micro scale. Governments can play their part with subsidies (we really need to address some of the ways our whole societies operate wrt transport - power or otherwise) but if I stay on topic with power, it is far more efficient done as close to the user site as possible and can also be tailored to the local met conditions. The grid can still be used for surplus distribution where local conditions are over supplying.
I'm considering a 3kw vertical axis turbine to charge my battery because we still have wind at night and there is often a decent breeze on cloudy days to supplement the solar system. I have largely been forced into this as our grid is so unreliable (utter shit actually). If we get a decent breeze a tree somewhere will touch a wire a few times and we great brown or blackout. I could change that from a negative to a positive with a turbine on site. Electricity is getting so expensive that self-production and storage is becoming financially viable with a reasonable payback period.
Disclaimer - I have no idea who funds "statista". They may be vulnerable (bribed) to (by) green lobbyists and "contributions" as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
Anything metric that uses LCOE is effectively junk science, unfortunately.
Lazard themselves, who created it, now no longer use it, as to ignore intermittency renders most analysis pointless.
This is the second most annoying thing in the energy debate after Musk's solar panels gaffe above.
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
Any reason why Australia hasn't gone full solar for all it's energy needs?
If Musk says 100 miles by 100 miles for entire USA, then in theory you should only need 20-25 miles for Australia. Given the amount of sun and arid land, isn't this a straight no brainer? What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that Musk was utterly full of sh1t when he said this, unfortunately.
He understates the area by a factor of 25.
To really power the world, you'd need 1.8 million square km of panels. For perspective, the total built area of the world including all buildings and infrastructure is ~1.5 million square kilometers.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Dodge said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Well this is a perfect fucking summary of what happened in this tournament. Flats is a top journalist / pundit. I hated thinking he was right the first time I saw this, I wanted France or Ireland to go all the way (I never thought we had a chance), but fuck me the simplicity of this message is perfect
Hopefully by the next RWC cycle Pougach will be fucking put out to pasture and Flats will be running the show
He's brilliant
And funny as fuck too
If you have a chance to see him live, do it
I discovered Flatman during this world cup by listening to his podcast with Tom Shanklin. You're right, he's absolutely brilliant, most talented pundit I've come across in rugby for ages. What a breath of fresh air for a game that is becoming increasingly tedious and frustrating to follow.
-
Appropriate that we are now talking about criminality/diversion in the RWC Final thread because WE WUZ ROBBED!!!!
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@No-Quarter said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@TeWaio completely agree, especially when it comes to cards, refs have been extremely harsh on the ABs while overlooking stuff from the opposition in the same game. It's an ongoing thing - SBs card was such a good example of that - a YC for batting the ball away in his own half? What the fuck? Not a chance another team cops a YC for that. Frizell's YC another great example - how in the hell did they find a card there?! And then in the discussion over whether it should be a red, Barnes said something along the lines of "the YC stays as it was incidental after the cleanout". So basically said, we've reviewed it, and we'll keep it a YC because he got pushed onto someone's leg. That alone was an absolutely outrageous call.
We are the most carded team. Cards make it extremely difficult to win. At least half the cards we get appear to be complete horseshit, and not in line with how other teams are carded.
Is this a conspiracy against the ABs? Not a chance, but there does appear to be a bias against us at the moment. Maybe it's the black?
What @Dodge says is the most important point though. If they are not consistent then some teams will prosper from that, while other teams will get screwed in the biggest games of their lives. That's inevitable with the current application of the laws and brings the game into disrepute.
Ironically I think it's because we Kiwis may stamp our feet and drop the bottom lip but we're completely harmless while other nations raise holy hell and that has an impact. I just look back to that Lions decision. Holy fark the world would have exploded if that had been the other way round. Same with 2007. You reckon Barnes would ever been able to step foot in SA if they'd been on the receiving end of that one?
Kind of reminds me of the attitude of a French minister to NZ protests over nuclear testing in pacific. I paraphrase, but it was essentially: "We can live for 6 months without being liked by New Zealanders".
In truth nobody gives a shit what we think, even in a sport we've often dominated.
This is bang on. We are, as a nation, "nice". Are we too nice? I'd argue no - I've lived abroad for my entire adult life and enjoyed the fact that kiwis are generally liked and well though of everywhere. It is fantastic. If it means we get the short end of the stick around rugby decisions, I'm happy with that. Others might disagree.
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@TeWaio said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@TeWaio said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Call me a chippy kiwi, one-eyed, sore loser etc, but it really winds me up that we seems to be constantly on the wrong side of some really dubious referring decisions over the years.
Yes, we are the most carded international team, but (hear me out) might that be because we are just subconsciously looked at differently than other sides? Don't know why, maybe because we dominated 2004-2017?
Off the top of my head, in rough chronological ordrer:
-
Poite's "deal" to decide the 2017 Lions, exact replica of the (correct) call Joubert was pilloried for in the 2015 RWC QF Scot vs Aus. Poite rules it correctly, then has an off-mike conversation with Garces, IN FRENCH, then downgrades the penalty to scrum, presumably to be less controversial. Wtf?
-
Lions Test 2, after playing most of the game with 14 we lost it to a penalty at the death, where Sinckler jumped into a tackle to collect an errant pass, and we got penalized. Never seen that before or since in a rugby game. I think there's now a rule that awards a free kick to the defending side if the attacker attempts to jump clean over NFL-style?
-
Jordie Barrett's red card vs Aus, where he jumped high to catch a kick and someone just ran into his foot. Not seen that before or since either?
-
The stitch up last year vs the Irish, Ta'avo gets done for a red, but a near-identical shot from Porter on Rettalick gets let off with "absorbing soak tackle" - never heard that language before or since!
-
Aki high shot vs the Irish not looked at.
-
Scott Barrett's yellow against Argentina. Stupid move, but would a ref really card any other team that deep in opposition territory?
-
The Final: EDG forearm to the face, not looked at. Etzebeth leading forearm to Cane's head, not looked at despite right in front of the ref. Frizzell carded for being cleaned out onto a random leg he wouldn't have even seen.
-
Cane's upgraded to red, harsh for me given Kriel changed direction so suddenly, but fair enough. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander when Kolisi lines up Ardie from 10m back and smokes him head-to-head. Nope, stays yellow. Bad luck guys, 4 more years.
Thank you for indulging me, rant over.
Are you the most carded team in the world or have you just decided you are? England have given away loads of cards in the last 12 months but i don't know what the stats show.
Also, going back to 2017 and that's the best list you can come up with to demonstrate subconscious bias?! I could find as many decisions that went against England this year - but it still wouldn't demonstrate unconscious bias, it would just show that a. referees make mistakes, b. i like to see incidents through rose tinted specs, c. i was only looking at one side of the equation.
Anyway, i understand the frustration with individual decisions, I felt the same about some in the semi. I even understand the 'what if' feeling and the devastation of losing a final against the Boks who I don't like. I just think saying the ref was the reason you lost is a bit silly, saying refs hate you is a bit silly, saying that it definitely would have been different result if one ot two decisions had gone the other way, is a bit silly.
As you were.
I didn't say any of those three things though?
I pointed out a load of really rough decisions we've copped over the past few years, of course I am absolutely biased, and it was mostly cathartic. Plenty of those decisions seem literally exceptional, maybe I don't watch enough rugby outside of the ABs though.
apologies, my first bit was an answer to you, the rest was more of a generic response to some points made above in the thread, lazy of me not to distinguish.
Ah understood, thanks. I take your point that other teams might be able to come up with a similar list of harsh decisions. My list was more the fact that so many of ours seem pretty unprecedented (at least to me). "Soak tackle" - get in the bin.
-
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@TeWaio said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Call me a chippy kiwi, one-eyed, sore loser etc, but it really winds me up that we seems to be constantly on the wrong side of some really dubious referring decisions over the years.
Yes, we are the most carded international team, but (hear me out) might that be because we are just subconsciously looked at differently than other sides? Don't know why, maybe because we dominated 2004-2017?
Off the top of my head, in rough chronological ordrer:
-
Poite's "deal" to decide the 2017 Lions, exact replica of the (correct) call Joubert was pilloried for in the 2015 RWC QF Scot vs Aus. Poite rules it correctly, then has an off-mike conversation with Garces, IN FRENCH, then downgrades the penalty to scrum, presumably to be less controversial. Wtf?
-
Lions Test 2, after playing most of the game with 14 we lost it to a penalty at the death, where Sinckler jumped into a tackle to collect an errant pass, and we got penalized. Never seen that before or since in a rugby game. I think there's now a rule that awards a free kick to the defending side if the attacker attempts to jump clean over NFL-style?
-
Jordie Barrett's red card vs Aus, where he jumped high to catch a kick and someone just ran into his foot. Not seen that before or since either?
-
The stitch up last year vs the Irish, Ta'avo gets done for a red, but a near-identical shot from Porter on Rettalick gets let off with "absorbing soak tackle" - never heard that language before or since!
-
Aki high shot vs the Irish not looked at.
-
Scott Barrett's yellow against Argentina. Stupid move, but would a ref really card any other team that deep in opposition territory?
-
The Final: EDG forearm to the face, not looked at. Etzebeth leading forearm to Cane's head, not looked at despite right in front of the ref. Frizzell carded for being cleaned out onto a random leg he wouldn't have even seen.
-
Cane's upgraded to red, harsh for me given Kriel changed direction so suddenly, but fair enough. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander when Kolisi lines up Ardie from 10m back and smokes him head-to-head. Nope, stays yellow. Bad luck guys, 4 more years.
Thank you for indulging me, rant over.
Are you the most carded team in the world or have you just decided you are? England have given away loads of cards in the last 12 months but i don't know what the stats show.
Also, going back to 2017 and that's the best list you can come up with to demonstrate subconscious bias?! I could find as many decisions that went against England this year - but it still wouldn't demonstrate unconscious bias, it would just show that a. referees make mistakes, b. i like to see incidents through rose tinted specs, c. i was only looking at one side of the equation.
Anyway, i understand the frustration with individual decisions, I felt the same about some in the semi. I even understand the 'what if' feeling and the devastation of losing a final against the Boks who I don't like. I just think saying the ref was the reason you lost is a bit silly, saying refs hate you is a bit silly, saying that it definitely would have been different result if one ot two decisions had gone the other way, is a bit silly.
As you were.
I didn't say any of those three things though?
I pointed out a load of really rough decisions we've copped over the past few years, of course I am absolutely biased, and it was mostly cathartic. However, plenty of those decisions seem literally exceptional - maybe I don't watch enough rugby outside of the ABs for context though.
-
-
Call me a chippy kiwi, one-eyed, sore loser etc, but it really winds me up that we seem to be constantly on the wrong side of some really dubious refereeing decisions over the years.
Yes, we are the most carded international team, but (hear me out) might that be because we are just subconsciously looked at differently than other sides? Don't know why, maybe because we dominated 2004-2017?
Off the top of my head, in rough chronological ordrer:
-
Poite's "deal" to decide the 2017 Lions, exact replica of the (correct) call Joubert was pilloried for in the 2015 RWC QF Scot vs Aus. Poite rules it correctly, then has an off-mike conversation with Garces, IN FRENCH, then downgrades the penalty to scrum, presumably to be less controversial. Wtf?
-
Lions Test 2, after playing most of the game with 14 we lost it to a penalty at the death, where Sinckler jumped into a tackle to collect an errant pass, and we got penalized. Never seen that before or since in a rugby game. I think there's now a rule that awards a free kick to the defending side if the attacker attempts to jump clean over NFL-style?
-
Jordie Barrett's red card vs Aus, where he jumped high to catch a kick and someone just ran into his foot. Not seen that before or since either?
-
The stitch up last year vs the Irish, Ta'avo gets done for a red, but a near-identical shot from Porter on Rettalick gets let off with "absorbing soak tackle" - never heard that language before or since!
-
Aki high shot vs the Irish not looked at.
-
Scott Barrett's yellow against Argentina for batting the ball from the halfback's hands. Stupid move, but would a ref really card any other team that deep in opposition territory?
-
The Final: EDG forearm to the face, not looked at. Etzebeth leading forearm to Cane's head, not looked at despite right in front of the ref. Frizzell carded for being cleaned out onto a random leg he wouldn't have even seen.
-
Cane's upgraded to red, harsh for me given Kriel changed direction so suddenly, but fair enough under the current protocols. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander when Kolisi lines up Ardie from 10m back and smokes him head-to-head. Nope, stays yellow. Bad luck guys, 4 more years.
Thank you for indulging me, rant over.
-
-
I picked 45-6 for the Argentina match and was out by 1 point....would it be a bit too bold to pick the same score again?
-
I think undefeated in calendar year 2013 was probably our best achievement, esp given the way it ended with that last gasp try against Ireland
-
No chance that's real. Whoever is that good a mate of Cane's he'd speak so freely, would NEVER screenshot and share it.
-
@Dodge Disagree, the laws are complicated enough. Just scrap it all, and use the existing knock on rules. Don't want your passes disrupted? Throw better passes.
-
Question: if we win the RWC, will Foster get knighted like Hansen and Henry?
Black Caps v Australia
Black Caps v Australia
Black Caps v Australia
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Rugby World Cup general discussion
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
RWC SF: All Blacks v Argentina
Sports Memes
RWC QF: France v South Africa
Rugby World Cup general discussion