It IS bespoke internal development, not for deployment outside of the facility.
The computers running the software exist only to run this software and have no business talking to the internet at all.
IT is provided by an external third party vendor who operate on an inflexible "best practices dogma".

Liars do that.
Especially if they have a financial incentive.

That's what makes this possible.

Part of this funding is to underwrite a new interconnect with the NSW grid, to increase the SA grids ability to transfer power in and out.

Having those interconnects means when we have a surplus or shortage of sun + wind in one location, we can transfer it from somewhere else.

The plan even relies on the ongoing backup of gas turbines, which will be turned off 99.9% of the time, but still require maintenance etc adding cost to the grid.

But the plan is to have enough solar + wind + storage to go 100% net green over any given year.

That was an editor at The Guardian, David Leigh.

So 450 x 1.8 = $810B

(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).

You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B

These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.

Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728

CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.

In short: Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.

8.5 * 7 = $59.5B

So it's within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.

Which don't cost as much to run, have no "scary" nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).

If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we're going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.

Nuclear isn't happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.

Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.

A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/

It's only 2GWh, but it's going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.

Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn't going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it's no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it's repaying loans on new constructions.

Sure I read it, but Simon's premise is incorrect.

Even his tangential commentary is incorrect.
Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making "captains calls", they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.

You, being aware that there are more choices that Labor vs Liberal, are more educated than the vast majority of my family (and dare I say the community at large), who believe that voting for anyone else is "throwing their vote away".

The facts here are that the core mobile infrastructure, the core broadband infrastructure and the core landline infrastructure are all down.

This doesn't feel like a "whoops, misconfigured a route".
This feels like a coordinated attack against multiple (theoretically) separate systems.

FOSS is enshitification-hardened, not proof.

VLC remains awesome because the guy (maybe Jean-Baptiste Kempf?) that controls the project has refused to be bought, has in fact refused HUGE sums of money.

The original author of any project has to right to sell it with the corresponding licence changes at any time.
There's some legal grey area on something like Linux or VLC which have MANY MANY developer hands in the pie, and existing users could certainly fork off the existing releases, but VLC could pivot tomorrow to a for profit company and make future releases of the official VLC a paid product, if they choose too.

You've taught me something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

I can't find anywhere listing what we get in UPU fees for things coming into Australia from China, but I have recently ordered items for a few dollars which have not charged me for postage.

This is head torch, for 77c, that will be posted to me for free from China.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004823147597.html

This page lists the cheapest domestic package I can send from the Adelaide CBD to another Adelaide CBD address:
https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/calculate-postage-delivery-times/#/option/domestic/5000/5000
$10.60

Something doesn't add up here.
The minimum cost of anything coming out of China should be the UPU, completely ignoring handling, packaging and the item itself.

So either Aliexpress/China is subsidizing sending crap over here, or Australia Post is not getting the fees.

edit: Page 111 of the annual report: https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/2021-australia-post-annual-report.pdf
shows in 2020, Australia Post had a $4.3M Foreign exchange loss (net).
Which is honestly WAY better than I was expecting.

https://join-lemmy.org/instances