Leaderboard

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

I loved Penelope Keith.

Into the above arguments, we could factor in the rapid adoption of home batteries. According to one report there are about 400,000 home batteries installed in the first half of 2026. This alone must noticably reduce peak load on the NEM. Consequently, lowering peaking generation and therefore driving down overall retail electricity prices even for non solar householders. Even small home batteries are designed to reduce peak load on the grid. Sure, it isn't a complete transition to 'intermittents'. But the trend is gathering momentum in the right direction.

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

There was this Gorgeous Film star who was going with and eskimo, But SHE broke it Off. Nev

My wallet is like an onion. Every time I open it, it makes me cry.

I asked AI this: how much would a new coal-fired power station cost, and what impact would it have on electricity bills? The short answer is: A new coal-fired power station in Australia would likely cost A$8–15 billion, depending on its size and technology. It would probably increase, not decrease, average electricity bills compared with building new wind, solar, and battery capacity today. However, it could reduce exposure to gas price spikes if it displaced expensive gas generation. Here's why. Construction cost A modern high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal plant of around 1,000 MW would likely cost: Item Estimate (A$) Construction $8–15 billion Construction period 7–10 years Expected operating life 40–50 years The wide range reflects uncertainty because no large coal-fired power station has been built in Australia for decades, so there is no recent local benchmark. For comparison: The cancelled expansion of Medupi Power Station ultimately exceeded A$25 billion after delays and cost overruns. Recent coal projects in Europe and North America have also experienced substantial overruns. Why is it so expensive? Coal plants require much more than the boiler itself: enormous steam turbines pollution control equipment cooling systems ash handling facilities coal storage and conveyors high-voltage grid connection extensive environmental approvals. Modern emissions standards also require equipment that older Australian coal stations never had. What would electricity cost? This is where it gets interesting. The cost of electricity from a new plant is usually measured by the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE). Approximate ranges today are: Technology Cost (A$/MWh) Existing depreciated coal 40–80 New coal 120–180+ Gas peaking 150–300 (depends on gas price) Wind + firming 70–120 Solar + batteries 60–110 These figures vary between studies, but most recent analyses conclude that new coal is more expensive than new renewable generation with storage, largely because of its high upfront capital cost and ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses. Why are old coal stations cheap but new ones aren't? This often causes confusion. Australia's existing coal stations: were built 30–50 years ago, have largely been paid off, operate under older environmental standards. That means today's consumers mostly pay for: coal, maintenance, staff, repairs. A new station has to recover billions of dollars of construction costs over its lifetime. What impact would it have on household bills? For a typical Australian household spending around A$2,000 per year on electricity: Scenario 1: Coal replaces expensive gas Bills might fall slightly during periods when gas prices are very high because coal fuel has historically been cheaper than gas. Scenario 2: Coal competes with new renewables Bills would likely be higher than under a system dominated by new wind, solar, and batteries because the new coal plant's capital costs would need to be recovered from electricity consumers (or taxpayers). Scenario 3: Government subsidises construction If taxpayers funded part of the construction cost, electricity prices could appear lower, but the cost would be shifted from electricity bills to government budgets funded by taxation. Other considerations A coal plant also faces economic challenges because it operates best at a relatively constant output. Australia's electricity demand now has a deep midday dip caused by rooftop solar, making it harder for coal stations to run continuously at high utilisation. If a new coal plant generated fewer megawatt-hours than planned, its fixed costs would be spread over less electricity, increasing the cost per unit produced. Could private companies build one? In theory, yes. In practice, no major electricity company has announced plans to finance a new conventional coal-fired power station in Australia. The main reasons cited are: the very large upfront capital cost, long construction times, uncertainty over future electricity market conditions, competition from lower-cost renewable generation and storage. My assessment If Australia's objective were simply to build the lowest-cost new electricity generation, the evidence available today suggests that a new coal-fired power station is unlikely to be the cheapest option. Existing coal stations remain relatively inexpensive because their construction costs were paid off decades ago, but replicating that infrastructure today would require a very large new investment. Unless there were substantial government support or a major change in technology or fuel costs, that investment would probably place upward pressure on electricity costs compared with building a mix of renewable generation, transmission, and storage.

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.

When I post posting re-read the above, I realised they referred to GWh of storage capacity. Not actual GW generation supply (as a reduction of generation to meet peak demand). Still, it's a consequential amount of distributed energy getting stored

According to google... "Australia has surpassed 400,000 home battery storage installations with 11.2GWh of cumulative capacity installed in less than a year "

That sounds... spectacle-r.

A guy got pulled over by the police. The cop walked up to his window and asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The guy said, "To check how tall I am?" The cop looked definitely unimpressed and said, "Step out of the car please." The guy said, "So I was right then?"

Men's Shed Tomorrow. I got my old Au Fairmont aircond to work, so I will take it. I Thought the A/Cond Module was Cactus but it wasn't. Got a new alternator and Multi Vee belt tensioner and an electric window fixed. surprised I can still get the Parts. 1998 year build.. Nev

Quite some years Back a Toyota Corolla I think had a nut that retained a chain wheel or timing belt drop off and They said book it in Friday and we will fix it. They then found that one oil change period had gone a bit over the time but not the Mileage. No warrantee!!!. How could THAT make a Nut fall off? . They USED to be a Pretty good car. Nev

Heart attacks and cancer take out 1.2M Americans every year, they are America's biggest killers. A lot of that can be put down to their rubbishy, ultra-processed food, full of toxic additives. If you pick up a factory processed food and the ingredients label reads like a biblical text, or an extract from a science article, put it back. The food processing additives are nearly all industrial by-products, or based on petroleum-orgin chemicals. The worst part is buying food that says it has no additives. Not in their factory, anyway. Then you find out they are importing food ingredients from other countries, that have had illegal, un-approved or dodgy additives added, in that other country. Orange juice is an example. You buy Australian-packaged orange juice, it says, "no additives, just 100% orange juice". Then you find out they're importing orange juice CONCENTRATE from Brazil, where additives not approved here, have been added to the concentrate. So you're getting un-approved additives in your juice, yet the manufacturers here, tell you you aren't. Our food labelling system is as dodgy as a 3 dollar note. Another interesting angle is seed oils. RFK Junior, despite his crazyiness, does have some relevant points with his crusade against seed oils. Here's an example. Cottonseed oil is the most common frying/cooking oil used. It's used in every commercial kitchen, cafe and restuarant. Why? Because it's cheap, and no food business will pay a lot more, for better quality oils. The rub with cottonseed oil is - cotton is not recognised as a food crop. Food crops have all sorts of laws banning certain pesticides and weedicides from being used on them. Not so with cotton. Cotton is attacked by hordes of bugs, they love the stuff. So the cotton growers use millions of litres of highly toxic pesticides, and weedicides to assist in cotton growth - and half of them are not allowed in food production. But the cotton seeds are then processed to yield lots of cheap oil, which is then sold as cooking and frying oil. It is idiocy. I read an article the other day, where a cooking guru was lamenting the cooking show chefs, and their lack of attention to good, healthy cooking oils. The writer talked about how the celebrity chefs went to great pains to select premium foods and indulge in celebrated food preparation processes - then they reached for cheap, shitty cottonseed oil, to cook it all in!!

SKEW gears are a bad way to do things There's one in a Merlin that causes engine double Mag outs and is the reason most Countries won't have Merlin engines on the civil register. The Howard Vee Motor is as rough as guts. The 600 cc Jap Motor is a Much better proposition. and they also made a Vertical twin.. I sold MY very nice Howard 2 years ago. Never left out in the Open, but still couldn't get Much for it. . Some KR racing Harley 750's have coned cams as the valves are inclined to make the Combustion chamber more compact and achieve a Higher compression ratio and better gas flow. It Puts a lot of end thrust on the camshafts. From a machining Point of view it's not difficult on a Cincinnati tool and cutter grinder. The cam profile itself is harder to do. You need a Master cam Nev

Is that your Scottish heritage coming out?

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.

Wonder how they'd go fried in batter.

You get a packet of 2 Mentos with most Supercheap automotive parts or consumable purchases. But I hate Mentos, so they get binned. The Camry transmission story is ongoing. The Toyota dealer gave us the Camry back on Friday evening - after having held it for 3 days, and having never even laid a spanner on it. The "Service Advisor" (you don't get to speak to the Service Manager any more), says they hope to get a reply back from Toyota Head Office by this Friday, as to whether they will replace anything under warranty. That will be 10 days they've had to consider their position. I reckon I'm right, they are running it through their legal dept to see which loophole they can use to squeeze out of paying out anything. In America, there's apparently more than one class action lawsuit being initiated against Toyota for the faulty transmission problem. This looks like a costly headache for them.

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.

Even the OIL companies KNOW it's happening.. Plenty of deniers do so because it's in the Financial interests BHP lost a lot of face Recently and were caught out breaking a promise.. Trump and Hanson are Notable deniers but Hanson is a Trump Worshipper (and Farage and Victor Auban) Trump has also Handicapped the EPA. Nev

Within science there are often a range of studies. Over time peer review and further studies make things clearer. As a layperson I go with the majority of science sources. Obviously I can't read and analyse this paper myself and I suspect you can't either. I did look at what other scientists say about this study Article: Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening Author: Frans J. Schrijver (2025) Main question The paper asks whether today's increase in plant growth ("global greening") caused by rising atmospheric CO₂ implies that past periods with equally lush or greener vegetation must also have had higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations than those shown in Antarctic ice-core records. SScience of climate change How the author approaches the problem The paper: Starts from evidence that global terrestrial plant productivity (Gross Primary Production, or GPP) has increased by roughly 30% since 1900, largely attributed to CO₂ fertilization. SScience of climate change+1 Uses Mitscherlich's Law (a mathematical model describing diminishing returns in plant growth with increasing nutrients) to estimate how GPP changes with atmospheric CO₂. Applies the model to historical periods believed to have been at least as green as today, including: the Holocene Climate Optimum the Eemian Interglacial the Miocene Compares the CO₂ concentrations that the model suggests would be required with CO₂ estimates from Antarctic ice cores. SScience of climate change Main conclusions The author concludes that: If modern greening is primarily driven by higher CO₂, and if earlier warm periods were similarly or more vegetated, then atmospheric CO₂ during those periods may have been substantially higher than the <300 ppm values indicated by Antarctic ice-core reconstructions. The paper therefore argues that the conventional interpretation of long-term ice-core CO₂ records may underestimate past atmospheric CO₂ during certain warm intervals. SScience of climate change Significance The paper suggests that if its analysis is correct: historical CO₂ variability may have been larger than generally accepted; climate sensitivity to CO₂ could differ from current mainstream estimates; additional evidence beyond Antarctic ice cores should be considered when reconstructing ancient atmospheric CO₂. SScience of climate change Important context This paper presents an argument that differs from the prevailing scientific consensus. The mainstream view, reflected in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and much of the paleoclimate literature, is that: Antarctic ice cores provide reliable atmospheric CO₂ records over the past ~800,000 years. Multiple independent proxies (marine sediments, fossil plant stomata, boron isotopes, and others) broadly support the conclusion that pre-industrial CO₂ remained around 180–300 ppm during that interval, despite uncertainties for much older periods. GGMD+2 The Schrijver paper challenges this interpretation by reasoning from vegetation productivity rather than by presenting new direct CO₂ measurements. As a result, its conclusions are not widely accepted and should be viewed as a hypothesis that would require corroboration from multiple independent lines of evidence.