Leaderboard

I loved Penelope Keith.

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

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 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 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.

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

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

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.

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?"

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!!

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

I agree with you there Marty. Making up a bike out of old bits has some honour about it, but turning a new or modern type bike into one seems to be a bit like fraud in my way of seeing it.

Arnott's has undergone several ownership changes over the years: 1997: Arnott's was acquired by the Campbell Soup Company. 2019: Campbell's sold Arnott's to the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), making it a subsidiary of KKR.

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

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."

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.

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

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

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

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

Is that your Scottish heritage coming out?

They'll be on the bill somewhere even if they're not listed.

From Google AI: 'Urinary Health: Ural is Australia's #1 over-the-counter urinary alkaliniser.' Maybe riding a Ural will fix prostate problems. Or make it worse.

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.

You're pretty close, Marty! It's actually for UTI's! https://www.chemistwarehouse.com.au/buy/8190/ural-effervescent-powder-lemon-28-sachets

Ural sounds like a drug to fix a kidney infection.

Like everything, you have to do your homework to make sure it works. Sadly, Aussie consumer law, or its approach to it, is not quite as robust as the UK or the USA, where they tend to make illegal bumping up prices to compensate. In fact, in the UK, sadly in my case with the exception of heating oil, pricing for retail energy is regulated and if retailers don't pass on the savings through subsidy schemes, then they get big time fines. That is a political, not science thing. The fact is still, without the abundant cheap generation of electricity, which fossils can't match, you wouldn't have an option. And from the article, it seems like the roll out of smart meters is coming anyway.

France would be supporting them even with fossil fuels. They thing is they are supporting their failing intermittents with carbon free nuclear. On Australia's situation, name me a country anywhere in the world that has cheap electricity deliverd to the consumer and got close to net 0 using a grid made up of wind and solar. Australia has only 8% traditional hydro. Germany has 170Gws of instaled wind and solar for a max grid demand of 65 GW and still imports from other countrys. We have no other country. SA last week had a few days where we could have doubled our wind and solar and it still would not have been enough, yet we say we are 70% intermittents. How much is that last 30% going to cost and if we did triple our generation to get that last little bit, there will be a lot of plant laying around doing nothing in the part of the year when the fuel for the intermittents is good. Underutilised plant = $$$$. Ask any earthmover, aircraft owner

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/

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

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.

You see a lot of Goldwing ratbikes on the net. The motors look the part. Of all the Jap bikes, it's about the only one that fits the style. This is an older one:

I don't think Arnotts are Australian owned any more. Its US owned, isn't it? Does anyone know WHEN?. I'd look itup but would run out of time to edit. Nev

Thanks, Octave for well argued AI analysis. As you might expect, it doesn’t change my point that there are studies ( indeed books) that challenge the science. And as for the political arguments from others, no further comment needed.

Did you know that Arnotts Tim Tam biscuits are named after a racehorse? Tim Tam was a champion American Thoroughbred racehorse foaled in 1955 and owned by Calumet Farm. Sired by Hall of Famer Tom Fool out of Two Lea, he was trained by Horace A. Jones and ridden by Bill Hartack. In 1958, Tim Tam won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, becoming a strong favorite for the Triple Crown. However, his bid ended in the Belmont Stakes when he fractured a sesamoid bone during the race, finishing second and ending his racing career. Tim Tam died of a heart attack in 1982 and was buried at Calumet Farm. The Australian chocolate biscuit Tim Tam is named after the horse.

Meanwhile in China

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.

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.

Probably just the one he had in mind Marty, I don't think he claims to be an expert on the subject. Good on him for starting a thread; it's the content creators that keep forums going and gives the reactors something to react to.

OIne of the things I wanted to draw attention to was that China is so far ahead of the rest of the world in solar panel technology.

There's a guy whose ego is so big he has his own postcode.