Leaderboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

I am not a huge gamer myself although I use flight sim. Once a week I connect with my brother in law who lives interstate and we fly our world trip together. We have flown all the way around Australia and NZ. Over the last few weeks we have island hopped to New Guinea where we will attempt some of those insane remote mountain top strips. We usually plan a one hour hop so it is a project that will last for years. We try to use current weather conditions and correct flight planning procedures. There are many games that are a workout for the brain.

Point of interest from the above newspaper item. In 1718 the remperature was recorded as 38 degrees Reaumur. The Réaumur scale is an obsolete temperature measurement system introduced in 1730 by French naturalist René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur. It sets the freezing point of water at 0° Ré and the boiling point at 80° Ré. 1 Re = 1.25C and 1 Re = 2.25 F

English is not actually a static language either. If you don't believe me, try listening to a group of 13yo's talking and see how much you understand...

This is pretty impressive: an electric mining truck that does not need to be charged. Note, though, that it only works in a specific setting. The trick is that it travels uphill empty and downhill fully laden. Through regenerative braking, it generates more than is required to travel uphill again (empty)

Trailing cable electric excavators have been around for fifty years at least.all the really big shovels and draglines are electric. Also the bucket wheel excavators in the Latrobe Valley. Electric wheel haultrucks, with diesel engines driving generators, were developed in the 1960s and widely used. Underground, we had trolley wire electric haul trucks from Kiruna at Mount Isa in the 1980s. The first trolley wire electric locomotives were used in Victorian gold mines and at Broken Hill South from 1902 onward.

I hope someone points out that this will result in the public buying more solar panels? I'll make sure my surplus solar power covers the connection fee.... until I am confident I can disconnect. Then those companies will find they killed the goose.

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

Twenty seven years old. At least he got the long yard and not the glue factory.

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

A deeper analysis The paper, "Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening" by Frans J. Schrijver, was published in the journal Science of Climate Change. The author is an independent researcher, and the journal is not widely regarded as a leading journal in paleoclimate or atmospheric science. The paper contains no new measurements—it is a modelling exercise based on previously published datasets. (Science of climate change) That doesn't automatically make it wrong, but extraordinary claims require strong evidence. What is the paper actually arguing? The argument goes something like this: Earth today is greener than it used to be because higher CO₂ stimulates plant growth. There have supposedly been periods in the past with similar or greater greening. Therefore CO₂ must also have been much higher in those periods. Since Antarctic ice cores don't show these higher CO₂ levels, the ice cores must be wrong. Notice that this is not direct evidence that the ice cores are inaccurate. It is an indirect inference: "My model predicts higher CO₂, therefore the measurements must be wrong." That is a much weaker form of evidence. The biggest flaw: greenness does not uniquely determine CO₂ The paper effectively assumes more vegetation = higher atmospheric CO₂. But ecologists have known for decades that plant productivity depends on many variables: rainfall temperature sunlight soil nutrients nitrogen phosphorus disturbance (fire) land use length of growing season species composition CO₂ is only one factor. The paper acknowledges diminishing returns from CO₂ fertilisation, but still treats CO₂ as the dominant explanation for high global primary productivity. That assumption is not demonstrated. (Science of climate change) It ignores multiple independent CO₂ records This is probably the strongest criticism. Ice cores are not the only evidence for past CO₂. Scientists also use: marine sediments boron isotopes stomatal density in fossil leaves paleosols alkenones isotopic carbon chemistry These completely independent methods broadly agree with the Antarctic ice-core record over overlapping time periods. A recent Nature study extending atmospheric CO₂ measurements back to about 3 million years found broadly stable CO₂ levels consistent with existing paleoclimate understanding rather than the large fluctuations proposed by ice-core critics. (Nature) If the ice cores were fundamentally wrong, we'd expect these independent methods to disagree. They generally don't. The paper revives criticisms that have already been examined The paper relies heavily on arguments from: Zbigniew Jaworowski Ernst-Georg Beck Hermann Harde These authors have argued for years that: CO₂ diffuses through ice meltwater alters trapped air ice cores smooth or destroy past CO₂ peaks These criticisms have been investigated extensively. Scientists agree on one point: Ice cores smooth rapid year-to-year fluctuations. They do not preserve every individual year's atmospheric CO₂ exactly. That is well understood. But smoothing is very different from inventing a completely false average. The gas age distribution in Antarctic ice is modelled and measured. Researchers know approximately how much smoothing occurs. It does not produce errors of 50–100 ppm. The paper never explains modern observations Suppose the paper were correct. Then we'd have to explain why: modern atmospheric CO₂ matches fossil-fuel emissions carbon isotopes identify fossil fuels as the source atmospheric oxygen is declining exactly as expected from combustion oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb emitted CO₂ satellites observe increasing infrared absorption by CO₂ Those independent observations all point to the same conclusion. The paper does not address these lines of evidence. The logic is backwards Scientific reasoning normally works like this: Measure CO₂. Explain vegetation. This paper instead says: Estimate vegetation. Infer CO₂. Reject measurements if they disagree. That's considerably weaker. The references are selective The bibliography relies heavily on a relatively small group of authors who frequently challenge mainstream climate science, while giving much less weight to the much larger body of paleoclimate research that supports the reliability of Antarctic ice cores. (ResearchGate) That doesn't automatically invalidate the paper, but it should make readers cautious. Does this disprove ice cores? No. To overturn decades of paleoclimate research, the paper would need to show that: Antarctic ice physically cannot preserve atmospheric CO₂, independent proxy records also fail, laboratory measurements of gas trapping are incorrect, and modern understanding of firn diffusion is wrong. It does not do that. Instead, it presents a model whose assumptions lead to a conflict with ice-core measurements and concludes the measurements must therefore be wrong. This paper doesn't present new measurements showing the ice cores are wrong. It starts with a model relating plant productivity to CO₂, assumes that similar greening in the past required much higher CO₂, and then concludes the ice cores must be inaccurate because they don't match the model. That's an indirect argument, not direct evidence. It also doesn't address the fact that multiple independent CO₂ proxies and modern atmospheric observations broadly agree with the ice-core record. Scientific evidence is strongest when independent methods converge on the same answer, and in this case they largely do.

Drilling ice cores. The deeper they drill the further back in time they go. The gas in these ice cores is a sample of the atmosphere at the time. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-much-co2-was-atmosphere-hundreds-years-ago

The highest atmospheric \(CO_{2}\) level during human habitation was recorded in May 2026, when peak daily readings at the Mauna Loa Observatory reached 433.95 parts per million (ppm). For historical context, \(CO_{2}\) levels were stable at around 280 ppm for 6,000 years of civilization and never exceeded 300 ppm during the last million years. [1, 2, 3]

Jerry, you mean there's still hope for MAGA diehards?? 😄

That car issue qualifies as a Legitimate GRIPE. . Nev

Lorem ipsum are the first words of extracts from the writings of Cicero. The extracts were selected at random simply to be used when printers were laying out the design of pages.

So would the same apply to perhaps names derived from very early English. Perhaps place names in a language is no longer speaks. What would be an alternate name for these galleries? It just seems a bit boring and stuffy for everything to have English names. I guess we will just have to disagree on this.

It's logical for them to assign another word/name for any NEW Object or Phenomenon they observe as all peoples have done. Nev.

Surely after white settlement Aborigines developed words for new things introduced by settlers. Prior to settlement I imagine that Aborigines had never seen a horse or camel but I imagine just like any language it develops new words for new things. Often perhaps in this case the word may be the same as English or perhaps similar. In the case of Naala Badu it supposedly means "seeing waters" which refers to the view. This seems relevant to the location. Am I missing something here?

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

Only half of petrol tax is going back into roads say motoring groups, amid calls to cut fuel excise

The economics would quickly change if they paid excise on fuel like they should..

I guess what is new are battery-powered trucks and autonomous trucks, such as in China and Canada.

I asked my local Toyota dealer if he thought he would be selling EV work vehicles to local agriculturalists. I put up the range limit point. He said that a lot of them were installing solar systems and those systems would enable recharging of EVs. Then I considered how the locals used their work vehicles and came to the conclusion that those vehicle were not driven on long trips. Most trips into the local town wouldn't be more than 50 kms and back. From my place to Dubbo and back is only 150 kms, plus about 10 for running around in Dubbo. That sort of distance is only about half the range of a full charge. We all know that cockies have sedans and SUVs for the longer trips. They are likely to be hybrids.

If you were on gas the situation will be worse. The connection fee for Power is at present about 150%of the price of hiring a set of Oxy-acetylene bottles. Eventually the system will be able to process the feed in Tariffs better and the Payment will be a bit more realistic.. More storage anywhere will bring that change. Nev

Unfortunately that is true. But the ball is rolling, and so far this year, about 400,000 home batteries have been installed this year. The whole system is changing. This transition is going to require some socialist support for those who are disadvantaged by the changes.

I think this is a humorous reference to the shape of the roof.

Probably Making the best effort of any country with regard to addressing climate change. Compare to Trump who says it's FAKE. Nev