Leaderboard

I loved Penelope Keith.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Ah... The smoke must have escaped the system. Just go to the dark side and buy a BMW. Here is my little beast K1200R 21 years old and 121,000 km and feels like new.

All I can say is 'Yep, He did this'..... Tomahawk cruise missile. The United States burned through over 1,000 Tomahawks in Iran — ten years’ worth of production. Each one’s fin actuators run on samarium-cobalt magnets. China mines and refines 99% of the world’s samarium and placed it under export licensing on April 4, 2025. To rebuild the inventory, Raytheon must turn to Beijing for samarium. Patriot PAC-3 interceptor. The seeker uses samarium-cobalt (SmCo) to slew its guidance head; the radar’s traveling-wave tubes use SmCo to focus the microwave beam; yttrium-iron-garnet phase shifters tune the array. Replenishing the 1,200-plus interceptors expended in Iran requires roughly 1.2 to 2.4 tons of high-temperature SmCo, plus yttrium oxide. Between 2020 and 2023, China supplied 93% of U.S. yttrium imports. JASSM-ER stealth cruise missile. The fin servos and seeker run on neodymium-iron-boron magnets (NdFB) doped with dysprosium and terbium for thermal stability. Strip out the heavy rare earths, and the magnet demagnetizes in flight. Roughly 1,100 missiles expended translates to between 1.5 and 3 tons of NdFeB feedstock. China refines the vast majority of the world’s dysprosium and terbium. F-35 Lightning II. For a decade, the Department of Defense itself has repeated that each F-35 contains 920 pounds of rare earths. The strategically critical content is the high-temperature SmCo and dysprosium-doped NdFeB in the engine actuators, electric drives, and radar. These are materials Beijing has placed under license. So US used up most of their ammo in Iran and now need China's permission to reload.

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

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.

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.

That is your opinion.. can you present stats from reliable sources to back that up... Otherwise that is the big flaw in democracy - people with only an opinion who can't be arsed to find out the reality get to determine who runs the country. So, what evidence do you have the books are cooked.. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative - your belief system - doesn't mean it is wrong or the books are cooked. Back to the "oh the left.. whatever" argument.. no basis apart from an attempt to disparage. Well, if being left is finding the facts, I am proudly left... You're just tired of being presented facts that don't correlate to your beliefs. Sorry for you, but facts don't give a stuff what you think. Or maybe your typo is a Freudian slip - you are tied up by the fact? I am not sure what the first sentence means.. It was an illustration of how a culture can change over time. And sometimes, the "traditional Aussie" in what I am guessing is GON's stereotype isn't nice, but is becoming nicer. But, also you shouldn't believe everything you read in the press, either. The number of women homicides are slightly down ion 2024-25 over the prevuous year - both in the absolute and intimate partner (domestic violence) categories, but the longer term trend has been downwards: And I doubt this is altogether to do with migration as well, but a shift in culture - to be honest, although it would be great to see it at zero, it is an, in general positive shift over time. Another plus for a shifting cultural values, although recent spikes are cause for concern, they have settled down.

GON could it be that you have not mixed with people from other cultures very much? I have, for most of my working life, worked with people from many countries. These people were highly educated and great people. I certainly have been helped by strangers from another country. My in-laws, who are now in their 90s and pretty frail, have some wonderful neighbours from Pakistan. These people are and have always been the kindest and most generous people you could ever meet. When we visit my in-laws (they live interstate) and go for lunch, their neighbours will often cook some food and send it over. When the woman comes over she will give my father in law a bug hug and ask "how are you Baba"? Baba means father, grandfather or respected older man. My in-laws house is getting pretty run down and their neighbour often comes in and fixes things. Here is a post from my father- in- laws FB page The thing is in any culture are nationality there is a range of characteristics. My doctor is Malaysian but this is the least notable thing about him. My son's partner is: Kind Extremely humourous Scarily intelligent Succesfull The fact that she is Chinese is interesting but mostly irrelevant to us. Is it wrong to assess people from my dealings with them rather than resorting to dumb stereotypes?

Trump has done a wonderful thing for ethical behaviour. Corruption used to be something hidden behind closed doors. Trump has thrown those doors wide open and brought it out into the open.

FIFA management has been corrupt for years bowing to the almighty $. They inserted a drinks break supposedly because of the heat but mandated it for all games whether it is hot or cold, effectively splitting the game in to 4 quarters. This not only disrupts the flow of the game & gives players a bit of a breather but and most importantly provides and additional period to rake in $billions from advertisers.

The thread is devoted to 'God Elp Amerika' but no evidence suggests god is helping at all. Unless god thinks the world might be better off without the US part of america

Microsoft are doing very well, aren't they?

Well, positives are things are slowly moving forward. Currently preparing for Wednesday's flight to Melbourne. I realise it has been 8 years since I have been to Aus. Ship! Time flies. Not going to tell you which day in case you alert immigration 🤣 Although I could be out for as much as a month, I will be travelling light - hoping to get away with carry on only. I don't think I will, so it will probably be a small backpack. Also, on the reno front, things are picking up. I am not sure if I mentioned the need to rewire a floor of the house. Not a terribly big job, but more cost. That was found when they pulled a fuse board out to replace with one up to current regs. The spaghetti behind it, including a circuit that bypassed it altogether made some of my early coding deliverables took well written. We have found a tradie who is working through stuff. He has done these doors we had to put in for building regs; but the building inspector allowed us to not procure fireproof doors or even install them to be a barrier against fire spreading as the listed (heritage) building officer would be dead set against them even being installed. And that is the regulatory environment we are up against. Now, the downstairs loo and bootroom, that I made major progress on until work really heated up are done, and the formal living room is under way. If this fella keeps it up, I think we will be done by mid August and ti will be on the market. And he is doing a good job, too. And on the work front, an opportunity to climb the greasy corporate ladder opened up. I was invited to apply, but because of my plans, declined. I was supporting the application of a colleague, but it looks like he won;t get it either, and it will be an outsider. Which is fantastic, because that person will be both of our manager. Things are transforming at work where it will slim down in the not too distant future. I have already been implementing a succession plan where today, apart from being the doyen of our delivery function, my reports are coming right up the curve and even a contractor has been earmarked to be a sucessor. So, a new person in that almost exec role will want to stamp his or her authority and make changes - and as I don't feel I owe that person anything, the conversation will be something like "don't let anyone go on my account." Employment laws will mean they will have to make me redundant - and that will mean enough to accelerate this reno and put it on the market and take a little while to sell. Even if the latter (which I have been trying to engineer for about 12 months now) doesn't work, I am hoping by the end of the year, it will be all done and dusted.

I agree Peter - part of a previous job was system testing changes to a large organisation's primary database before they were deployed. For five weeks at a time we'd try to break it by doing the stupidest things humans could do to it. After deployment, when the programmers had applied fixes to any weaknesses we'd found, inevitably some moron still managed to break it.

So many threads this could go in. I chose Silly Pics because 'tis silly to allow vested interests to control political narrative..... Oh dear. The forum prohibited me posting a meme that said something like: 'twitter allows exposure of Nancy Pelosi's trades, but not Donold's trades' Have I been found out by the Deep State?

It's not just EVs that have LED and similar tablet type displays in front of them.. most new cars to these days. That really is not the issue. A speedo cable can snap on an analogue system and you have the same issue - I have had it happen on a Saturday arvo and no speedo until Monday morning. I would hope there are no controls on that screen. Sticking yuor hand between the spokes of the steering wheel is not a good thing. On the controls, using touch screen doesn't give you a sense of magnitude of change (e.g. temperature, etc) without looking. Well, at least for some time, anyway. Also, early model Teslas were infamous for the depth of menu setting one had to go through to get to whatever function was required. Muscle memory will only go some way.. as it does on analogue or tactile type inputs. How many times (in an old 4 or 5 on the floor, or even a 3 or 54 on the column) have we crunched the gears or almost stalled the car going into the wrong gear. However, the physical/tactile approach allows us to correct without reverting to looking at the gears (unless we really stuff it up and have lost spatial awareness of where the gear is). So, the Atrick household vehicle mix is chaning. Daughter just wants an old banger (UK speak)/bomb (Aus speak) of a car as she will be in a house in the next academic year, won't have a driveway, and will not want the hassle of a nice car getting road rash from an inner urban environment. Good on her. So it will be a petrol Ford Fiesta (most likely); manual, a/c, power steering and otherwise minimal. Mrs Atrick is in for a little shock... She is getting an EV - Probably an MG4 to replace her mini. She doesn't know it yet.

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?

It's also bad for the US team. If they lose, they're out and if they win, it will seem that they cheated. The best thing by far would be for player himself to refuse to play on the grounds that the rules are the rules. Then even if they lost he and the team would be heroes, Trump and FIFA would get a poke in the eye, and the world would applaud.

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.

The bulk of the place names in W.A. are Anglicised from the local Aboriginal dialects, and often are quite inaccurate in the translation - to the extent, that a pronunciation of the proper Aboriginal name of those places would be nearly impossible for most people. The bottom line is, the Aboriginal languages have died out because they have no way of keeping up with technological advances. This is the reason the English language is the language of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Construction and Aviation. The Aboriginal languages are primarily concerned with place names and land forms, and waterways and waterholes - all that was needed to sustain the nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which involved just the immediate everyday needs.

Yeah, but the Maori language is still a living language. I don't think that any of the indigenous languages of the Greater Sydney Area are still spoken.

I'm writing a book. It's all about things I should do. It's called 'Oughtobiography'

No mass transport system for the carriage of humans makes a profit. It is freight that makes the profit because the costs of transport can be forwarded onto the end consumer of the freight.

The construction of a wind turbine blade is extremely complex, and no doubt very costly. They don't lend themselves to re-usability very readily. Fibreglass is their major constituent. It seem to be the height of stupidity to just bury them.

Musk is a rabid fascist. He's made a habit of sticking his nose in other countries business and supporting the worst far right policies and parties. If Musk is complaining about Australia's immigration then we must have it about right.

GON, I'm using both sides my brain to follow your arguments and logic, but not having a lot of luck so far.

NASA just dropped the clearest view of Moon ever captured... by Artemis 2. You can even see craters in extreme detail. yeah, the moon has a colors, you can see them here. Moon 01.mp4