Leaderboard

I always like (need) to have positive things to look forward to. Next week, Mrs Octave and I are headed off to NZ. This is nothing new, every year we do some kind of tour through and end up staying with our son, or we go on a road trip with our son. We are planning to do this later in the year or early next year; however, we have justified to ourselves an extra trip. My son and partner are having a new house built for them. They are painting the place themselves, and the builder has a quite detailed build schedule that they are adhering to strictly. My son and partner have 2 weeks to fully paint the interior, so we have (generously) offered to go over and help paint. We are really looking forward to inspecting the house because it is a little more high-tech than anything we have built or lived in. This house is a SIP build (structural insulated panel). The insulation rating is amazingly good. Another feature is that the house is amazingly airtight. The average Australian home is rated at 15.4; my son's house is 0.38. My initial question was, "Would not this mean that the air quickly became stale?" There is actually a ventilation system called an HRV (heat recovery ventilator), sometimes referred to as an ERV (energy recovery ventilator) Air is constantly pumped in. The air pumped out goes through a heat exchanger and scavenges the heat in the air going out. This place is so thermally efficient that they did calculations for the heat produced by their 2 desktop PCs (a plus in winter and a negative in summer). This house is being built on a jointly owned block that my son owns with is business partner and wife. They have lived in a huge house that is actually 2 houses in one for many years. The business partner couple already have a large house on this block. They are going to tie together their solar batteries and solar panels, which will equal an enormous 45Kw system. From this, they are planning to be at least partially energy independent. Charging 3 EVs has been factored in. Here is the site. The big house in the background has a bottom floor full of workshops for their joint projects. The engineering gear they have is mind- blowing. My son's partner Amazing double-glazed window facing the winter sun ( expensive, I imagine) Ventilation heat exchanger bits and pieces. This was the day they pressure-tested the house.

I loved Penelope Keith.

Can't work my wife out. First she says "Sure! Get yourself a tattoo." Now she's whining about the bagpipers in the garden.

I was on my way to work this morning and thought stuff it, I'm getting a coffee and going to have it at the beach before I start. My daughter told me on the phone it was -4c in tamworth, and here I get to wake up to 9c and this view. It was 14c by the time I got to the beach. I'm starting to catch on life is too short to let this stuff pass us by and work is not everything.

We have a fat white goldfish with a red cap which we've named Trump. Bit insulting to the fish, but they share the same hairstyle, IQ, and belly to height ratio. Also, they both open their mouth constantly but nothing intelligible comes out.

I particularly liked her role in 'To the Manor born". She and Peter Bowles were absolutely hilarious together.

Trump continues to dig even deeper holes for himself. His pathological lying used to just raise eyebrows among world leaders. Now they are giving him back some of his own medicine. He is still insisting Meloni begged him for a photo but she has shot him to pieces with her latest comments. Mary Trump apparently said that his father told him to never accept defeat ever. He still insists he won the 2020 election & just last week walked out of an interview when a Journo stated the evidence was there & he insisted he had evidence to the contrary but has never ever produced anything (because he can't). The US has always exploited its position in every place it has set up a base or even just an embassy. The Yanks were widely despised during WW2 here, the UK & in NZ. Remember the catch phrase " over paid over sexed and over here". There were riots in Brisbane & in Wellington all due to the attitudes of US servicemen & their pompous boss MacArthur. They have rewritten history so many times. For example there were 75,000 British & Canadian troops that landed on D-Day & 57,000 Americans, all the navy ships & most of the landing craft were British & the Yanks stuffed up their landings, refused to use most of Hobarts inventions, took out half the bolts of the mulberry floating harbours so they got destroyed in a storm & had huge casualties & in the battle of the Bulge, Montgomery's 30 Corps stopped the Germans getting to Antwerp after they had over-run the yanks & Patton was too far away . The list goes on. The USA is an empire in decline and it has been for some time. The only thing Trump has been good at is hastening that decline. The sooner the leaders of rest of the World act in a positive way like Meloni & The US leaves or gets kicked out of countries it has bases in the better.

It will be more than just a price rise in prices of premium chips. The world cannot afford to give up Taiwan. At Davos, the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: "I would say that the single biggest threat to the world economy, the single biggest point of single failure, is that 97 percent of the high-end chips are made in Taiwan," Bessent told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He described a potential blockade or destruction of the island's manufacturing capacity as an "economic apocalypse," emphasizing Washington's efforts to relocate semiconductor production to American soil." A blockade of these chips would send the world into the tech dark ages and we would certainly lose the AI arms race against China. As I understand it, it would take decades to build the ecosystem required to produce these high end chips.

I agree, but the thing is that to some people not automatically believing he is innocent equates to "not supporting the troops" My point is that BRS is not the only soldier in this story. Those who beleive BRS is innocent surely must believe that the 20 soldiers who brought this to light must be lying. It will be tested in court.

Who did you go to war with? Trump: “IRAN” And how did it end? Trump: “ I RAN”.

So when my son and partner picked us up from the airport they were planning to go to their sea shanty at the pub club. They asked if we would like to come? We had a brilliant time drinking beer and singing shanties. Many obscure shanties. They also make up the verses for the crowd to join in at the chorus. They have written shanties about public transport and current political issues. The crowd varies in age from 10 to very old. Most people seem to be in their 20s or 30s They sang this shanty bellow in honour token Australian. We had an absolute ball and intend to find a club like this near us.

Just pointing out something many may not have known.

Have been visiting the extended family. Well at least those around SEQ. Really enjoying catching up with all. Especially the younger ones. Last night we booked in to a Gold Coast hotel for a rest. In spite of my general dislike for this part of the world, it is nice to wake up to the sound of surf on a beach.

Nah, he just edited out all his keyboard errors.

Did you know.... If you spell Absolutely Nothing backwards, you get.... "Gnighton Yletulosba", which means....... Absolutely Nothing!

My wife once told me, "Sex is more fun on holidays". It wasn't the best postcard I've ever received

This is why I don't do politics or science by meme, or in this case a simple graph, because we are find a set of numbers that suits our agenda and just publish it. Is the above the cost of generation, the wholesale price, or the retail price. Because, the latter two have factors that can distort the market. For example, Denmark's wholesale price is connected to the European markets believe it or not, so if an expensive dirty coal plant happens to produce and sell energy at the same time or within a price setting period, the wholesale price is largely set to be based on that price... which is far more expensive than wind or solar. That is wholesale price distortion. Of course, other European markets are subject to this as well, but since the grid is segmented, not all are setting the same wholesale price. Then the distortions at the retail price are local market conditions, taxes (of which Denmark has a lot - even VAT (GST) on electricity! Wowsers. Not even the UK levies VAT on electricity. So the retail price may not be at all reflective of the generation price. I prefer the Levilised Cost of Electricity comparison, which seeks to take out some of the more artificial price setting. According to Google AI, Denmark wins on wind, but loses on Gas and Solar: Note, the cheapness of fracked shale gas does not include the cost of cleaning up. Also, if Denmark decided to stay gas (or presumably coal, etc), from the above, they would be paying roughly double or more to produce electricity. I would suggest that the numbers show that wind and solar is much cheaper - for them. Not so much for the USA, again except this does not cover the true clean up costs. Which sort of shows the point of renewables - the optimum mix will be determined by local conditions. And, yeah, in some cases, even fossil fuel generation will make sense.. So, lets do a like for like comparison. South Australia, according to Google has around 84% of its electricity generated from wind (44% of total electricity generated) versus solar (33%). According to your chart, Denmark has a touch under 70%. That would suggest for South Australia, solar and onshore are very cost effective producers of electricity and offshore not so much (at least not yet). Also, because of SA's rapid deployment of storage, they seem to be already reaping some economies of scale benefits because of a rapid roll out, but as there is only commentary, it is hard to tell. In addition, in SA, gas is more than double solar and coal is almost triple the cost of solar, and around double of offshore wind. It does though, beat offshore wind, so unless we can address the issues that cause that, offshore wind (which probably has more constant wind). But interesting, SA is more wind and solar as a percentage of its generation, yet on a levelised basis, SA is cheaper. And as someone who has worked in the generation business, I am sure you're aware of the importance of this measure over retail or wholesale prices as a true indication of the comparative cost of generation. Thee price that is paid at the "pump" is only in a small way related to the cost of generation.. that, in @pmccarthy's vernacular, is the politics end of the argument. The cost of generation is the data end, and renewables are already at a big advantage there. Take politics out of it, and there really is no compelling reason to do so., The sun doesn't always shine - no.. Only at night or seriously overcast days is it that bad, but when it is shining brightly, we can store the excess and save it for when it isn't shining brightly. Even today, they are developing nocturnal solar panels which can harvest the infrared rays during radiating cooling of the earth to generate electricity (https://www.moeveglobal.com/en/planet-energy/sustainable-innovation/nocturnal-solar-panels-energy-without-sunlight). And there is a new technology that it looking at capturing vibrations from the wind and earth instead of using blades to generate electricity - fewer parts, cheaper and less landfill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration-powered_generator This is the point. Fossil fuel burning is destroying the planet (in conjunction with a lot of other stuff we do). And now, it is no longer cheap to do it; and it will get more expensive. So we have to seek out alternatives. To not do it is kicking the can down the road and just making it more expensive to fix. It can be done; the tech is already here and it is improving very quickly. It is the politics that is the issue. In the mean time, if you want to take a meme-led approach, go for it. As for wind and solar not yet powering most of a country - well - no.. but it does most of a state that is the physical (admittedly not population) size bigger than many countries. But it's a ridiculous assertion because a place should use the most appropriate renewable/s, not an arbitrary renewable, anyway.

Coincidence perhaps, the importers of modern day Urals, Ural Australia, are located at Uralla, NSW.

I just picked up my car from a service. The dealer gives me a little bag of jelly lollies. I don't know whether this is common practice, I'm afraid to try another dealer in case I don't get the jelly lollies.

My point was it is immaterial if it were nuclear or fossil; France's generation planning has been better than the UK and Germany's.. The fact that France exports energy is not in itself an advertisement for nuclear. I get it is a predictable load "comapred to renewables", or intermittents as you call them. Yes, their source is intermittent, but, again, you ignore that the actual generation bit is only part of the puzzle of supply.. there is this thing called storage you are leaving out of the equation. Solar and wind are not the only net zero generation technologies. If we are talking non nuclear, zero emissions, there are a few already around the world. But you don't need me to tell you.. But here are a few: Iceland, Paraguay, Albania, Ethiopia. Greater than 90% includes Netherlands, Cost Rica, Congo, and a few others. Google can help list them all. The UK today, from offshore wind farms alone; so that does not include onshore wind farms, and solar farms, with the right investment, can power its country for free (well, amortisation, maintenance, and depreciation costs alone). That includes industrial use. Yes, the up front cost and initial amortisation and depreciation costs are high, but in the mid - longer term, the costs reduce dramatically.. the costs only increase in fossil and nuclear fuel... and with nuclear, you still have to factor the real cost of decommissioning and handling waste... And mining uranium, transporting it, etc.. And you still have the depreciation, amortisation, and maintenance costs.. and the latter ain't cheap. It takes investment - as does nuclear and indeed new fossil plants; it takes time to build and deploy... Your argument is today we don't have the capacity for renewables.. That is correct. There is no arguing that. That does not mean we stop. We still have horses running around and wood to make carriages from; but cars became a more efficient technology. They weren't for a long time.. but investment continued as people could see they would become more efficient. Renewables are now coming up the same maturity curve. As I say, follow the money.. most banks are not interested in lending to new fossil developments because they look at the two elements that can cost them money - credit risk and market risk. And the models are telling them to stay well away from old technology.

I guess I am a serial offender. Just published a second book on gold mining history. https://www.echobooks.com.au/books/gold-beneath-the-hill

I have just been catching up on here. There is still some disbelief in the science.. And there is the argument for nuclear, which hasn't really changed for a while. @pmccarthy - from October, I believe you will, like it or not, be the beneficiary of the economics of renewables. As I understand, all of Victoria will be able to receive free electricity between the hours of 11am - 2pm every day if they have a smart meter or opt in through their energy retailer. Of course, you don't have to, but it is there.. because of solar - a renewable. Not because of fossil fuels, etc. For working couples/families/households, this is not going to give much - the fridge I guess plus any alarms and compute they may have on.. But, if one has an electric car and takes the train or other means to work, set it to charge in this time.. better still with a fast charger.. Suddenly you are now getting a chink of your vehicle fuel for free, too. Can't do that with fossils... You can thank renewables for that.. @Siso - I get that France, with a well developed pwoer generation network exports a lot of electricity especially to the UK and Germany. This is not because of nuclear. They would be doing this if they had all fossil plants, too. This is because the governments of the UK and Germany (Merkel, in this case) are crap at energy planning. Pre Fukishima, Germany was producing enough of its own power without needing top ups from France.. one of two blunders of Merkel's reign, and in this case, as she is a physicist by training is harder to fathom, she knee-jerked the closure of the county's nuclear generation plants without allowing a transition to other generation. Germany is playing catch up. There was talk of recommissioning one of the plants, but the decom process had progressed sufficiently to make it uneconomic. I am not completely across of Germany's capacity increasing plans, but the irony of this is that they are importing electricity generated by the same means that they shut it down, and some of it on their own front door. I honestly believe Merkel was losing her marbles towards the end of her reign. At first, I agreed with the development of new nuclear in the UK - we already have a nuclear industry - of which I was part of and still have the occasional dip of my toes in it; and renewables in the form of efficient electricity generation is not really viable, right? Well, as it turns out, that is... wrong. A couple of days ago, I was in a discussion at work, where, amongst other things, we provide project finance for electricity generation.. and one of the originators said the UK today has the generation capacity to power the country from its offshore wind farms alone. I scoffed at it (I don;t know why; part of an originators' job is to know the industry they are trying to sell finance to inside out). I did my research and yes - offshore wind farms alone have enough capacity to power the country, at least mathematically, but would need investment in infrastructure (storage, cabling, and grid connectivity). Accoirding to Gemini AI, this would be about 30% more than the cost of nuclear - but nuclear already has infra in place... However, a full lifecycle cost of nuclear v renewables, by Gemini has renewables has renewables between a little over 1/3 and 2/3 of the cost of nuclear. Of course, there has to be a transition; you can't day 1 replace on a like for like basis, so the cost comparison has to be refined. But suddenly, nuclear as a long term strategy is not looking as compelling as it did.

I think there is.. The science is more or less settled and contrary opinion, which is healthy, doesn't really hold water. Even the economics points wildly in favour of renewables. Yes, there is an initial cost, as there was with setting up fossil fuel generation. But if you stop investing, you eventually stop growing and wither and die in the competition of emerging forces. Even China can see this. What is stopping progress is... politics.. or vested interests with money and ideology.. not the science. Therefore, it is the bit that does need comment.

I watched a documentary about the Webb telescope last Night . It enables us to look way back in time, All that Info was made available to the entire world. One of the Most important Scientific achievements EVER. Nev

Yes I was aware of this. My son has a computer games development company. Their flagship games is based on an idea my son had when he was 10. His company now based in NZ employs around 7 people. We are now the poor relatives https://share.google/7DKAr1mzPdrUUSidR

If you are planning to install a battery to store your solar or a complete solar panels/battery system, consider becoming a VPP (virtual power plant). I did & got an additional subsidy on my 18.4 kWh battery of $676.00. I joined Amber as the VPP Manager at a cost of $25.00 a month. Instead of getting just a few cents/kWh when the sun is shining & the rates are low, the system charges the battery till its full & sells the energy when the price is high. My average is 18.2c/kWh. All my costs are at wholesale rates so I pay the same to buy power as the Energy retailers. In Summer when there is too much solar in the grid the sale price goes negative. When that happens & my battery is full, the system curtails the solar production so none is exported. When there is a grid failure somewhere like a power station partial shutdown the spot price can go to $10.00/kWh or even more. When that happens the system will export energy at its maximum rate. In an hour I can be credited more than a couple of months electricity cost while helping to stabilise the grid.

The trolley wire Kiruna trucks were quite popular in Europe. But they failed at Mt Isa as they produced too much heat from braking downhill. They did not have batteries, just produced the braking effect by sending the power into big resistor banks. Many mines in Europe and Canada have heaters at the surface just to stop the intake shaft from freezing up.

Don't be ridiculous, it obviously means keyboard players 😁

Yes that is true. The comment I was addressing was this: So lets see what is going on with mining vehicles and machinery. For many mines, getting renewable electricity for crushers, conveyors, processing plants, camps and offices is relatively straightforward. The really difficult challenge is replacing the huge diesel haul trucks, loaders, trains and other heavy equipment. Where the industry is today Processing plants Many Australian mines are already running a large portion of their fixed equipment on renewable electricity because the power comes from the site's solar, wind and battery systems. This includes: Crushers Conveyors Mills Pumps Processing plants Workshops and accommodation facilities These are the easiest loads to electrify. Haul trucks The giant haul trucks are the biggest diesel users. A single large haul truck can burn millions of litres of diesel per year. The major miners are now trialling battery-electric trucks: BHP and Rio Tinto are jointly trialling 240–250 tonne battery-electric Caterpillar haul trucks at Jimblebar in the Pilbara. Fortescue has developed its own high-power charging systems and expects its first operational 240-tonne battery-electric haul truck to enter service in 2026. Fortescue is probably the most aggressive 5 Fortescue's strategy is not just to build renewable power stations but to electrify the fleet as well. The company is: Building more than 1.4 GW of solar generation in the Pilbara. Installing large battery systems. Deploying battery-electric haul trucks. Operating electric excavators. Testing electric dozers, graders and loaders. Their goal is to eliminate fossil fuels from their terrestrial iron ore operations by 2030. Mining railways are also beginning to electrify. BHP has taken delivery of Australia's first purpose-built battery-electric heavy-haul locomotives for testing on its Pilbara rail network. These locomotives use large battery packs and regenerative braking. How much diesel is still being used? For most Australian mines today: Equipment Renewable/Electric Status Processing plants Often 50–100% renewable electricity Site buildings Often 50–100% renewable electricity Conveyors and crushers Often renewable-powered Light vehicles Increasingly electric Excavators Early electric deployment Haul trucks Mostly diesel, some electric trials Trains Early battery-electric trials Drill rigs Limited electric deployment So when you hear that a mine is "80% renewable", that usually means 80% of its electricity, not necessarily 80% of all its energy use. Diesel trucks can still account for a very large share of total energy consumption. This is one reason critics sometimes argue that mining companies overstate their progress, while the companies respond that the technology for replacing 250-tonne haul trucks is only now becoming commercially viable. The next five years will probably determine whether battery-electric mining fleets become mainstream in Australia.

Australia has quite a few mines that either run partly on renewable energy or are among the world's leaders in renewable-powered mining. Very few large mines operate on 100% renewables all the time, but several are regularly achieving 50–90% renewable penetration and occasionally reaching 100% for extended periods. Major Australian mines using renewable energy Mine Commodity Location Renewable Energy System Renewable Share Agnew Gold Mine Gold WA Wind, solar, battery, gas microgrid Typically 50–60%, up to 85–95% at times (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) Bellevue Gold Mine Gold WA Solar, wind and battery hybrid system Designed for ~80–90%; achieved 155 consecutive hours on 100% renewables (Reddit) Kathleen Valley Mine Lithium WA Solar, wind, battery, gas hybrid Around 60–80% renewable energy (The Australian) Mt Weld Mine Rare earths WA Renewable hybrid power system Reportedly exceeded 95% renewable share during one quarter (Reddit) St Ives Gold Mine Gold WA Large solar and wind project under development Expected to provide over 70% of site power (Reddit) DeGrussa Mine Copper/Gold WA Solar farm with battery storage One of Australia's pioneering renewable-powered mines (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) Weipa Mine Bauxite QLD Large solar installation Partial renewable supply (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) Tropicana Gold Mine Gold WA 24 MW solar, 24 MW wind, battery system Significant renewable contribution to mine power (Solar Now) The leaders Agnew Gold Mine Often regarded as the pioneer. It was the first Australian mine to use large-scale wind generation as part of a mine microgrid. The site combines: 18 MW wind farm 4 MW solar farm Battery storage Gas backup It typically obtains 50–60% of its energy from renewables and can reach much higher levels under favourable conditions. (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) Bellevue Gold Mine Currently one of the most ambitious renewable mining projects in Australia. The mine recently reported operating for 155 consecutive hours (over six days) entirely on renewable energy with diesel and gas generators switched off. (Reddit) Kathleen Valley Lithium Mine A good example of a new-generation mine being designed around renewables from the outset rather than adding them later. It uses a large solar-wind-battery system and has reportedly achieved renewable shares above 80% in some periods. (The Australian) An interesting pattern Most of Australia's renewable-powered mines are in remote Western Australia. That's because: Diesel fuel is expensive to transport. Many mines are off-grid. WA has excellent solar resources. Wind and solar can often generate electricity more cheaply than diesel generation. As a result, renewable energy is often adopted primarily for cost savings and reliability rather than environmental reasons alone. The economics can be very attractive for remote mining operations. (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) If you're interested, I can also list the major iron ore mines (BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue) and explain how far they have progressed toward running on renewable energy, because the Pilbara iron ore sector is currently undergoing a huge transition.

A lot of industries are already exploring renewables and some are already off grid such as parts of the mining industry. As solar and batteries get cheaper, it will be irrational for households to connect to the grid merely to support the grid for the benefit of industry.

One thing I love about my place is when showers sweep in from the ocean side at night. If they're slow moving and you are out on the verandah, you can hear the noise as they move in across the valley raining down on the canefields. Sometimes you can hear it coming for a full five minutes before it hits the tin roof.

I was watching a video of a bloke touring the Simpson Desert, and he came across a similar sign advising the earliest drill hole in the Simpson, Beachcomber #1. Someone had a sense of humour. The sign had no name on it, so one has to presume the name on the Willowie No 1 sign, is the welders name. The welded letters accuracy and eveness is something to be proud of, and to put your name to, because I've never been able to weld letters and numbers that straight!

I was giving DT some slack to see what outcomes he achieved, but I have to concede that he is completely deranged.

Asia is eye-opening when it comes to vehicle misuse. As Army engineers working on road construction in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, we were constantly amazed at what the Vietnamese considered a normal load for any vehicle or motorcycle. The Lambro 3 wheelers ("Tuk-tuks", or "xe lam" as the Vietnamese called them) were universal transport, and they were used to regularly transport workers to and from the rice paddies. As we often had construction road works they would have to traverse, they would often have to unload passengers to get through the road works. One day, a Lambro full of rice paddy workers (all girls and women, I might add), unloaded its passengers so it could get past us at the road works. We counted THIRTY SEVEN women and girls getting out of that Lambro! Admittedly, the Vietnamese women and girls are only tiny, but even at that, thirty seven people in a Lambro would have to be some kind of record.

He's back! I especially liked the last one. It's what's in the mind of many young blokes (and women) in the nightclub...

We messaged our son in NZ to remind him of our flight details. My wife referred to us as FIFO workers. My son's message back was "f***ing Australians, coming here and taking all the jobs"😆

From the Guardian...

Just catching up on this thread. Apart from some misstated knowledge of the First Nations' which I will deal with later, there are three main threads of negative impact immigration. The first is the impact on the housing market and how it pushes up prices. The recent developments of tax changes have already seemed to knock that one on the head, but it is too early to determine if that is the case, and I will explain why in a second. But, as a rough and ready set of numbers, I got Google to give me the following in a table: So, what does it compare (all sourced from ABS data): Each year from 2000 to 2025 EOFY. The net migration into Australia The natural increase in the population (non-immigrants) Net dwelling additions to Australia - that means number of new dwellings built minus the number of those demolished. The average number of people per immigrant household The average number of people per non-immigrant household The new immigrant homes needed based on the number of immigrants divided by the average household size The new homes needed for non immigrant families The surplus or deficit of new dwellings built minus the sum of immigrant and non-immigrant houses required. This is rough and ready by any measure. For example, we don't take into account the number of bedrooms per new dwelling. But on this measure, only 6 of the 26 years there was a deficity in the number of new dwellings constructed versus the estimated new homes required across both the immigrant and non immgrant dwellings required. The biggest deficit was 77k homes in 2022-23, immediately after Covid. Pre-Covid, the biggest deficit was 7.5K. The biggest surplus was 142,500 dwellings in a year! With the exception of 2024-25, which ad a small surplus of 2,700 most years of surplus were well into the 10s of thousands. This is especially important because of the compounding effect. Every year, immigrants come, and then the next year some/many will have a baby or 2. That baby further increases the population. That is reflected in the domestic and not immigrant size and skews the figures at is is deemed one domestic person in the household of domestic population.. and increases the number of dwellings required according to the stats. These are two examples of statistical error, but the numbers of surpluses involved for the amount of years would indicate that the issue of immigration on housing in de minimis; or marginal at best. There goes that claim that immigration has a big impact on the housing costs. The second, on crime, it is hard to get stats. The reason why is because an immigrant is considered someone who is born overseas, and with young kids committing crimes, many may well be born in Australia and considered part of the domestic population. In addition, the ABS does not publish statistics by ethnic origin. So the best I could come up with is this from AI: It's not much, but it points to a debunking of the myths. My anecdotal observations in the UK is that crime, with the exception of hate crime, is linked more to socio-economic issues than specific ethinic backgrounds. But like Australia, the UK statistics Office doesn't publish such information, at least according to Google. The third is the dilution of Aussie culture ("traditional Australian"). This is a little too subjective for me; the behaviour of Aussies differs on socio-economic and location. Just look at Melbourne Football club members, for example. And if you think Aussies are laid back, well, they weren't compared to their UK cousins, at least pre Covid, that is for sure. But, that was my impression. And, they certainly don't or didn't swear anywhere near that of the Brit, nor did they drink anywhere near as much, either (NT excepted, I guess).. Again, that was my observation, which may be different to yours. But I get the feeling Aussies have this view of themselves as somehow unique.. My travels have busted that myth to me. However, I do get that people who have a vastly different culture and physical appearance can come across as not integrating with the local culture. There is a difference between people coming here and doing well, and people coming here, doing well, and integrating. But that does not mean they have to not wear what they want (Australia is about freedom of choice, right). Nor does it mean they need to fit into everything a "traditional Aussie" would do.. Many years ago, if you didn't smoke, you weren't Australian.. Despite the tobacco wars, there has been a big shift in attitudes to smoking, drinking, and I think those with massive muscly cars are considered either bogans or correcting for other deficiencies. I doubt much of this is the result of immigration., yet our cultural values have changed. Even marital rape is now illegal all over Australia since 1996 (though it was progressively made illegal from 1976). Think about it.. Marital rape was acceptable in modern Australia. Sometimes, it is good to have a cultural change.

"English is what happens when Vikings learn Latin and use it to shout at Germans, and then the French shout back!"

How can we have a half decent argument if you say stuff like this?

That is a bold claim to make without evidence. The short answer is no. There is no credible estimate that connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers requires $1 trillion in grid upgrades. Here's where the claim appears to come from. What Snowy Hydro 2.0 actually costs The project has experienced enormous cost overruns: Original estimate (2017): $2 billion Revised estimate (2023): $12 billion Snowy Hydro now acknowledges the final cost will be higher than $12 billion. Some independent analysts (Bruce Mountain and Ted Woodley) estimate the total economic cost could reach around $42 billion, but this includes: construction, financing (interest), and Snowy 2.0's share of major transmission projects such as HumeLink and VNI West. Even critics of the project are talking about tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Where does the "$1 trillion" come from? There are a couple of possibilities. 1. Confusing Snowy 2.0 with the entire energy transition Some opinion pieces have argued that Australia's entire electricity transition—generation, transmission, storage, distribution upgrades and financing over decades—could approach very large figures. For example, one recent opinion article claimed: about $450 billion for transition infrastructure plus around $600 billion in financing costs and rounded this to roughly $1 trillion. It was not referring solely to connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. That estimate is controversial and is not an official government, AEMO or CSIRO estimate. 2. Simple exaggeration Sometimes numbers grow in online debates. Someone may have taken: "$42 billion for Snowy" plus "Australia's grid will need hundreds of billions of investment" and turned it into "Snowy needs a trillion dollars of transmission." There is no evidence for that statement. What do official bodies estimate for transmission? Australia does need significant transmission investment regardless of Snowy 2.0. AEMO's Integrated System Plan includes projects like: HumeLink VNI West Marinus Link EnergyConnect These collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions for Snowy alone. The purpose is to connect new renewable generation across the National Electricity Market, not just Snowy Hydro. Is Snowy 2.0 competitive? That's a separate question. There are legitimate criticisms: huge cost blowouts years behind schedule uncertainty over final cost batteries have become much cheaper since Snowy 2.0 was conceived Many energy economists now question whether Snowy 2.0 would be approved if starting from scratch today. Others argue its enormous storage capacity and expected operating life (many decades) still make it valuable for grid reliability. The "$1 trillion to connect Snowy 2.0" claim isn't supported by any credible estimate. Even critics of the project put Snowy 2.0's total cost at around $40–42 billion, including construction, financing and associated transmission. The "$1 trillion" figure comes from some opinion pieces estimating the possible cost of Australia's entire long-term energy transition—not the cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. They're two completely different claims. So I'd rate the original statement as: "Connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs $1 trillion" → False "Snowy Hydro 2.0 has become extremely expensive" → True "Australia will need major transmission investment during the energy transition" → True "Those transmission costs are all because of Snowy Hydro 2.0" → False

Actress and presenter Dame Penelope Keith has passed away. Notes online simply say died c. June 2026.

When the Americans built the US Naval Communication Station, North West Cape, at Exmouth, W.A. between 1963 and 1967, everything to build the base, was shipped in from the U.S. When I say everything, I mean everything. The Americans shipped in their own prefab housing, their own power generation, and they even built their own baseball fields and a bowling alley, so the troops would feel right at home, and not in a hostile and foreign environment, like Australia. 😄 Even every fitting in the buildings, right down to hinges and fasteners, was imported from the U.S. In addition, even though LHD cars were banned on Australian roads, the Americans were allowed to import as many LHD vehicles as they wanted, so they wouldn't feel like they were in a foreign land, where the natives drove on the wrong side of the road. Unfortunately, the Americans couldn't change the local road rules, or the side of the road they drove on, so they had to put up with driving their LHD vehicles on the wrong side of the road, at all times. Fortunately, Australia insisted the town had to be on 240V AC power, which must have caused a lot of angst amongst the Americans used to 110V AC power. When the land for the base was leased to the Americans by a Liberal right-wing Govt ("all the way with LBJ!"), it was for peppercorn rental. Only when a Labor Govt was elected in Australia in 1972, was the base operation and rental costs put under scrutiny. Slowly but surely, Australian Naval personnel were allowed to operate in conjunction with the Americans at Exmouth. But all the Australian Navy personnel, including their leaders, were banned from access to the U.S. Naval Communications Cipher Room for many years. Ever so slowly, the Americans gradually relented and handed more and more operational power over to the Australian military, for the base operations. It was eventually turned into an Australian Naval Communication station by 1999, with an Australian Naval Commander initially taking control of the base in 1991. The Americans finally withdrew in 1993, and they sold off the base housing - fairly cheaply, it seemed to many keen buyers. Then those house buyers found that the American houses built there, couldn't be repaired using standard Australian building materials. Doorways were a U.S. standard, 3' 0" wide, to accommodate big Americans (as compared to the Australian standard of 2' 8" or 815mm). Fittings and plumbing all had to be changed if repairs were needed. Those houses ended up not being such a bargain after all. Numbers of the LHD cars from the base stayed here after the local authorities relented, and allowed LHD vehicles to be imported and driven on Australian roads. I would guess the Americans got good money for their used Yank Tanks, due to high local demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt

She wouldn't be happy about his spat with the Pope either. I don't think she ever mistook Trump for who he was, but she was willing to play the game. Not any more, it seems.

My eldest son is 18 today. Couldn't be prouder of the fine young man he's become. 😊