Leaderboard

I always fact check everything anyone writes and I hope people will fact check what I post. Your figures are correct but with some caveats. In the following, I have omitted the calculations that validate your figres because as I say, they are correct. I am happy to provide links. What is potentially misleading? The statistics themselves are not wrong, but they can be misleading if they're presented without context. 1. China is much larger than it was in 1980 Since 1980: GDP has grown by roughly 50–60× (in current US dollars). Industrial output has exploded. Electricity demand has increased enormously. Hundreds of millions of people have moved into cities. An eight-fold increase in coal use is partly a reflection of China's enormous economic expansion. 2. Coal is growing, but so are renewables One of the unusual features of China's energy system is that both statements are true: China consumes more coal than ever. China is also installing renewable energy faster than the rest of the world combined. In 2024 alone China added approximately: 277 GW of solar 79 GW of wind bringing total new wind and solar additions to 356 GW in a single year. Non-fossil sources accounted for 56% of installed generating capacity, although fossil fuels still produced about 63% of electricity generation because coal plants are used more consistently. 3. Coal consumption isn't the same as coal-fired electricity Coal in China is used for: electricity generation steel production cement chemicals industrial heat Someone using these figures to argue that "China is building huge numbers of coal power stations" is oversimplifying. The statistics refer to total coal consumption, not just coal burned for electricity. 4. Coal's share of China's energy is slowly falling Even though the absolute amount of coal keeps increasing, coal is gradually making up a smaller share of China's total energy mix because renewables, nuclear, and natural gas are growing even faster. Overall assessment I'd rate the statement as: ✅ The numerical data are accurate (assuming the EIA dataset is the source). ✅ The 4% increase is correct. ✅ The eight-fold increase since 1980 is correct. ⚠️ It omits important context, namely that China is simultaneously undergoing the world's largest expansion of renewable energy while still increasing coal use to meet rapidly growing electricity and industrial demand.

Our discussion around climate change has centred on power generation and ICE cars v EVs. But, it is a muilt-pronged approach required. As the rest of the world clears its heat sink, China is building its up: https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/plants/trees-in-chinas-great-green-wall-appear-to-grow-faster-than-natural-forests-study-finds Where fossil or nuclear makes sense, it should be used. The reality with today's technology, there are fewer and fewer places it makes sense. And should the political shift to drive a shift to local storage and distribution, the use of rapidly outdating technologies will make even less sense. We talk about the economics of doing it, but we rarely talk about the economics of not doing it. And economics is man made, anyway... the real cost (ie. outcomes) of not doing will lead to socio-economic costs far beyond the pure economic cost of doing it.

While the data regarding Japan's recent gas-to-coal switch is accurate, drawing the conclusion that this signals the end of the renewable energy transition is a major logical leap. It’s a fossil-for-fossil swap, not a renewable rollback: Japan didn't replace solar or wind with coal. They temporarily replaced expensive, supply-choked Middle Eastern LNG with coal to keep the lights on during an active maritime crisis. Their statutory 2030 and 2040 renewable targets remain legally binding. Fossil fuel volatility is the problem, not the solution: This exact crisis highlights why countries are desperate to exit fossil fuels. Relying on imported gas and coal leaves economies completely exposed to geopolitical price shocks. Asia is building both, not choosing one: While countries like China and India use coal for immediate baseline power, they are also leading the world in clean energy. China alone is currently installing more renewable capacity than the rest of the world combined. The 'Climate Stupidity' claim ignores capital markets: Despite the rhetoric from contrarians like Dr. Curry, global capital isn't abandoning green energy. Global investment in renewable energy infrastructure hit a record $2.1 trillion in 2025, consistently outpacing fossil fuel investment because wind and solar are now structurally cheaper to build and operate. An emergency pivot to secure baseline power during a war isn't an ideological victory against green energy—it's a short-term fire fighting measure."

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

Here is a page from the specs of the Vestas V126-3.3MW 50/60Hz https://www.rettetdenbuschberg.at/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/10_V126-3.3-Allgemeine-Spezifikation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com Page 27 Certainly, derating does begin at around 30 degrees but at a little over 40 degrees it is only losing a small amount and does not cut out fully until 45 degrees. I would suggest that there would not be too many days exceeding 45 degrees in locations where wind farms are generally built.

Unless they have changed in the ladt 4 years. Fot the wtg i worked on the older ones use to be a harx stop at 40 degrees, but often use to stop on hot gen coolant or converter temp. The newer ones would start to derare in the 30s and stop at ambient of 40. They wrre dedigned for europesn summers.

NEW Coal fired Power stations not only Pollute, they cost too much and are not flexible. Lots of people die Mining coal. My Grandfather was one of them. Black lung cases still occur and dust goes for Kilometres from Open Cut mines. Subsidence from old mines affects a lot of towns in Australia.. Pollution of rivers, like the MacArthur in the NT is of great concern. We NEED mining BUT clean up your game afterwards..Today the concept of BASELINE Power is used to confuse. Todey, Peak demand often relates to Airconditioner usage in the afternoon in Private residences. Not Heavy Industry. Nev

That's exactly the point. Fossil fuel supporters always bring up the cost of transitioning to renewable as a reason not to do it. Strangely, they never mention the cost of not doing it

By the way, China's emissions have flat-lined for the last 21 months and may actually be falling slightly, although it is a bit early to celebrate. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/

Seems entirely reasonable. The Dutch weren’t interested in Australia but the French were.

You Missed Incredibly VAIN to the Point of it being his Main weakness. (and he HAS PLENTY). Of ALL the Possible People for the POTUS role we get the Don. Ther's something very Wrong that Produces that result TWICE. Nev

Happy birthday USA. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves to see the greedy, petulant, vindictive, mean and petty man-child the people have elected.

WHO misleads public with cherrypicked climate data Sorry about the length of this, but the original is behind a paywall. At the start of the FIFA World Cup in North America, sensationalist headlines suggested climate change could make the games “the most dangerous ever” because of the heat. Of course the claim is absurd given that the previous tournament was played in much hotter conditions in Qatar, but it is an excellent example of the activist-driven climate alarm stories we see every summer. Riding this wave, the World Health Organisation is again blurring the line between evidence-based public health and climate advocacy. A WHO commission made up of politicians and green advocates has urged the organisation to declare climate change a “public health emergency of international concern”. This is a flashback to the 2010s when WHO’s director-general named climate change the most important health issue of the 21st century. Not long after, Covid arrived – and WHO’s preparedness and early response were found deeply wanting. The lesson clearly was not learned. The WHO commission’s headline claim is that climate change poses a “catastrophic threat to human health”. Its key evidence comes from a Lancet study showing heat deaths in Europe are rising rapidly, reaching 63,000 a year. Even setting aside the peculiarity of a global health emergency built primarily on European data, the argument collapses under scrutiny. European heat death risk has risen 82 per cent since 1990. But heat mortality risk rises sharply with age and Europe has aged dramatically. Since 1990, the share of the European population over 70 has increased by 78 per cent. Ageing alone explains virtually all of the observed increase in heat deaths. The study and the commission simply ignore this. Any honest analysis of mortality would use age-standardised death rates that make figures comparable over time. The WHO report makes no such adjustment. The Global Burden of Disease, the leading mortality database, does. It shows that Europe’s age-standardised heat death risk has changed only marginally since 1990. Adjusted to reflect today’s population size and age distribution, the increase amounts to fewer than 850 additional heat deaths. The WHO commission’s figures exaggerate the problem more than 50-fold. The deeper dishonesty lies in what the report omits. As temperatures rise, heat deaths increase but cold deaths fall. Cold deaths far outnumber heat deaths on every continent. Using the age-standardised methodology that reveals minimal heat death increases, cold death rates in Europe have nearly halved since 1990. At today’s population levels, that translates to about 210,000 fewer cold deaths each year. The WHO commission conceals the fact cold deaths have declined by about 250 times as much as heat deaths have risen. The report’s second big claim is that climate change in Europe has made more Europeans food insecure. This strains credulity. Real food insecurity lies in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The claim also ignores UN projections showing the world on track for record cereal production. If the WHO commission were genuinely concerned about the world’s hungry, it would lead with those facts. There is a cruel irony in the commission’s prescription. Climate policies have already made electricity three to four times costlier for consumers in Europe than in the US and China, and more than a third of all Europeans now say they can’t afford airconditioning. Making even more aggressive emissions cuts would raise energy costs further, making heatwaves even deadlier for those who cannot afford airconditioning and prolonged cold deadlier for those who cannot afford heating. Higher energy prices also raise the cost of fertiliser and mechanised farming, pushing more people in developing countries into hunger. The prescribed cure is worse than the disease. The WHO director who convened the commission writes that “our citizens expect urgency from us” as though he were an elected politician rather than a health official. What global citizens expect from doctors is honest, evidence-based counsel. They do not expect clinical authority to be borrowed for political purposes or public alarm to be manufactured by omitting data that would defuse it. WHO exists to prevent disease and protect human health. Declaring a climate emergency on the basis of cherrypicked, misleading statistics will not protect the most vulnerable. It will erode the organisation’s credibility further, divert attention and resources from real threats and lend political cover to costly policies that harm the people WHO claims to champion. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of False Alarm and Best Things First.

It gave me a better Insight into Elon Musk that I had before. It's on Netflix. An amazing effort by all involved. I highly recommend it. Nev

Let me see if I have got this straight.. your position is that fossils/nuclear provide energy security over renewables (and its related tech)? If that is so, then the above post sort of throws that out the window faster than a Putin dissident. Scotland are paying power stations to mot produce power because of a failure to plan execution of upgrading to renewables. They asked to have all this extra capacity in the form of renewables added to the grid that cannot handle it. That is a policy or politics failure. Not a renewables can't meet "baseload" failure. It is akin to building a new suburb with only bicycle lanes but to be extra green, adding driveways with electric car chargers and declaring it an ice car free green suburb - and they crying EV cars aren't practical transport for a suburban life. That is called overpaying or underinvesting in energy security... the payments they make to compensate the owners for the governments cock up probably would have gone a decent way to grid upgrades. On the other hand, Raring power station was availing itself of a government guarantee because, even presumably fully amortised, wasn't predicted to be economically viable (ie produce power at a price that others could and make money).. in the supposed economically most effective way being a privatised market. Isn't that the government being tapped by the fossil fuel industry for energy security? BTW, Origin don't currently opt into the scheme as they are predicting, again fully amortised, it will not lose money We can find individual cases with all forms of generation that have not gone to plan or need a bail out. And all forms receive some form of government subsidy. That is policy because of energy security

True but it does have to be quite hot: The Temperature Limits Standard industrial wind turbines are engineered according to international IEC 61400-1 standards, which dictate a normal operational ambient temperature limit of 40°C and an extreme survival limit of 50°C. [1] When weather conditions push past these thresholds, turbines protect themselves using a two-stage defense mechanism: [1] Thermal Derating (Curtailment): When ambient air temperatures rise between 40°C and 45°C, the turbine's control system automatically throttles or "derates" its power output. By reducing electricity generation, the turbine limits the internal heat produced by electrical resistance. [1, 2, 3] Automatic Shutdown: If the ambient temperature crosses the critical maximum limit—usually 45°C to 50°C depending on the specific model—the turbine will initiate a full safety shutdown. [1, 2, 3] Why Extreme Heat Causes Issues Even though turbines use internal liquid or air cooling systems, they ultimately rely on the outside air to dump that heat. [1, 2] Inefficient Heat Exchange: When the surrounding air is extremely hot, the temperature differential between the turbine's internal components (like the gearbox or generator) and the outside environment shrinks. The cooling loops can no longer dissipate heat effectively. [1, 2, 3] Component Protection: The oil in the gearbox can thin out excessively under extreme heat, reducing lubrication and risking catastrophic mechanical friction. Similarly, generator windings can suffer insulation melting or permanent damage if they overheat. [1, 2, 3, 4] Thin Air Dynamics: Hot air is less dense than cold air. Less dense air provides less aerodynamic lift on the blades, requiring the turbine to work harder (generating more internal heat) just to produce the same amount of electricity. Regional Adaptations To combat this, manufacturers build specialized "hot climate packages." Turbines bound for desert environments like parts of Australia, the Middle East, or the Southwestern United States feature upgraded, heavy-duty cooling fans, larger liquid-to-air heat exchangers, and altered internal insulation to withstand ambient operational temperatures up to 50°C before shutting down. 2. Thermal Derating Over Full Shutdowns When temperatures do spike above 40°C in parts of South Australia, Victoria, or New South Wales, modern wind farms are engineered to dynamically adapt. [1] Rather than shutting down completely, turbines usually undergo thermal derating (throttling back total output by 10% to 20%) to keep internal temperatures safe while continuing to supply power to a stressed grid. [1] Because the majority of Australia’s wind assets are located in coastal or elevated southern regions (which rarely sustain ambient temperatures above the 45°C–50°C critical cutoff), full thermal shutdowns are exceptional events.

I just read that the 400000 figure for home batteries is just since the rebate, and if you include home battery installations before the rebate, the total is somewhere around the 600000 mark. BYD have announced their new generation of sodium batteries, expected to cost $40 US a KWh and be good for 10000 cycles or approximately 27 years. The point is that whilst we are debating this, battery storage gets cheaper and better, solar panels get cheaper and more efficient, as do wind turbines, not to mention other coming technologies. This argument is often predicated on the notion that renewables cost money and must be paid for, whilst ignoring the fact that new coal is incredibly expensive and requires constant fuel, the cost of which would be borne by the consumer. This, according to CSIRO and AEMO would cost more than our present strategies.

American life expectancy is not that high and is getting worse. Nev

Heart attack on a stick, like so much American-style food.

GON, the U.S. Military forces leave Australia after a 6 month deployment. There are approximately 2000 Marines based in the Territory from March to October, then they go home. There are no U.S. Military force bases in Australia with permanently-based personnel, unlike Japan, Sth Korea, Germany, Italy, etc. The Australian military facilities used by the Americans are used on a Joint Rotational basis, or are Joint Defence Facilities with some American personnel based here permanently. Marine Rotational Force: - Darwin: Approximately 2,000 U.S. Marines and sailors deploy to northern Australia every year. They arrive in March to conduct several joint drills, such as Exercise Pitch Black and Southern Jackaroo, before returning to the U.S. in October. Aircraft and Bomber Rotations: The U.S. routinely sends aircraft (like B-52 bombers stationed temporarily at RAAF Base Tindal) for operations, and stores aerial troop carriers in the country, but the personnel are continually cycled in and out. Joint Defence Facilities: Bases like the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap operate as cooperatively managed Australian and U.S. intelligence sites with permanently stationed administrative and intelligence personnel. A number of the overseas American military bases are treated as "Sovereign territory" by the Americans. I cannot see that being allowed here. In the U.K., the bases are leased to the Americans, the British Govt retains sovereignty over the land. In Spain, the U.S. bases are jointly owned by the Spanish and the Americans.

Update your data, GON. The Yanks want to create a massive arsenal storage in the middle of Victoria, and they are servicing their subs in W.A. Don't forget Tindall and Pine Gap. What's going on around Townsville?

Rather than rewriting the constitution, if they just follow it...... Founding fathers tried to separate state from all religion. The US really began it's slide when the christian lobby got control - about the same time their (&our) government implemented prayer sessions into government processes. The only thing needed to reclaim some semblance of respect is to get the whole lot to obey the rule of law, ditch religious fundamentalism, and drop the Electoral College.

I've got an idea for gun control in the USA! Invoke the spitir of teh Second Amendment which says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The spirit of that amendment was to provide secutiry for the State. Therfore, make it a condition of gunownership that a person join a militia unit and attend training that leads to the unit being well regulated. If a person does not do that, then no firearm. People would find it too inconvenient to give up their time for that, and so would hand in their firearms.

I think that the only thing that can save the democracy of the USA as it moves into its second 250 years is a review of its Constitution. A review and rewriting would permit amendments which have had to be made to be presented in a more organised way, and some of the recinding amendments removed. I think that a new constitution should make the format of the government similar to ours and most other democracies. That is, the People's House should be the place where the people who run the country do their work. That's where the person responsible for the various ministries report back to the representatives of the People. There could be a House of Review to monitor laws proposed by the representatives. Finally, the Head of State should be as apolitical as possible, and have no power to make the sort of Orders that we have seen Trump do.

My son has a BYD Shark PHEV. I've been looking at some Australian-made videos on Youtube made by 4WD influencers, and most of what they present is positive. However there are a few things that have got me thinking that the design concept of the vehicle is wrong. First, the vehicle is a 3-tonne dual cab. It is a tall vehicle, meaning that one has to climb up into it. Why so big? It has a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) of 3,500 kg and a payload of approximately 790 kg. That 750 kg paylod has to include the weight of five persons plus luggage and other junk. Don't forget that if the vehicle is used to tow a caravan or other type of trailer, the towball weight has to be taken from the 750 kg. I wonder how useful it would be as a tradie's ute. How much do a tradie's tools weigh? And how often do five tradies travel in the one vehicle? Next I don't see it as an off-road vehicle. A lot of the videos show it being used off-raod, but I think this is a mistake. I think people might not understand that although each wheel of the vehicle is driven by its own motor, it does not, to my mind, equate to the traditional 4WD. While each motor delivers maximum torque immediately, off-road driving requires that the torque from an ICE or EV power plant should be controlled. I think that the correct application of an EV motor is through a gearbox if one wants to drive through mud, sand and climb mountains. BYD has been honest in stating that the battery-only range is 100 km. That is sufficient for daily running around the local area. They have been honest to say that for longer distances, the 1.5 litre ICE engine must be used. This engine is basically an onborad electrical generator which uses about 7.5 litres/100 km at highway speed without towing. Towing a medium sized caravan or horse float can blow that out to about 20 litres/100km. One advantage of teh BYD battery system is that it has outlest which can provide 240 volts. That would be useful for a tradie to run chargers for cordless tools. Why do I think the design concept is wrong? Around my way, the most popular style of work vehicle is the Toyota Hillux in single or dual cab. The vehicle weighs about 2 tonnes with a load capacity of about 900 kg. This design suits the needs of farmers and tradies. It is available in 2 or 4WD configuration. Why couldn't a model with an EV power system be made to this design? Toyota has a Hilux EV, but it is a big monster like the Shark.