pmccarthy

I don't know about anyone else, but I think Keith Richards was there.

It would be an anus horribuls.

I don’t even know the names of the teams after 46 years in Victoria.

That sort of nonsense is going to tip the balance in favour.

He played an IRA guy once. A really moving part. I have forgotten the name of the movie. ( not the Eagle has Landed)

You need a Lab test. They are a great dog

This month was $240 for me. Plus $145 for gas.

I nearly hijacked OME's blog to respond to a highjacked theme, but I will continue here. This is the difference between prediction and actual events. Is the number of global natural disasters increasing? Gianluca Alimonti &Luigi Mariani ABSTRACT We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual inspection suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward trend to around mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of the new century, and thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022. These observations are supported by piecewise regression analyses that identify three breakpoints (1922, 1975, 2002), with the most recent subperiod 2002–2022 characterized by a significant decline in number of events. A similar pattern over time is exhibited by contemporaneous number of geophysical disasters – volcanoes, earthquakes, dry landslides – which, by their nature, are not significantly influenced by climate or anthropogenic factors. We conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ∼2000. The above result sits in marked contradiction to earlier analyses by two UN bodies (FAO and UNDRR), which predicts an increasing number of natural disasters and impacts in concert with global warming. Our analyses strongly refute this assertion as well as extrapolations published by UNDRR based on this claim. See Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?: Environmental Hazards: Vol 23 , No 2 - Get Access (tandfonline.com)

Bill Gates and Dick Smith are both greenies at heart. No vested interest in nuclear, it just makes sense.

One thing I would add is that the world does not have enough available mineral resources to deliver the "electrification" being forced upon us by left wing politicians. That is not just cars, but grid, generation and storage. So, it cannot physically happen. Once that is accepted, we can make more realistic plans for the next 25 years.

Helm

The objection to nuclear because it needs lots of water must be a furphy. It is a steam generator, so would use the same amount of water as a coal or oil fired generator. Edit,,, just found this: Coal, on average, consumes roughly the same amount of water per kilowatt-hour as nuclear, while it does very more heavily depending on the type and age of the individual power plant.

Or the upright bikes.

In Australia it would be called a Froot.

My only experience of electric was not that they were quieter. Apparently the tyres are hard and high pressured, with low profiles, to reduce rolling resistance, which makes road noise. My ICE car can have a softer, quieter tyre. But that is a very small sample of experience.

Injury

I think I made a kissing gesture. Still have the photo.

B seems too easy.

My mum said of my father that he had kissed the Blarney Stone. He hadn't, but I have.

Funny, I have no trust in the ABC or the Age!

He never speaks unless he has something to say. That would be good policy around here!

Marty that capital cost chart has been discredited. See Nuclear energy: The flaws in CSIRO’s anti-nuclear, pro-renewables GenCost report (afr.com) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/energy-ministers-arguments-against-nuclear-riddled-with-errors/news-story/503618ba029e3dea3cc764deda6c2fbb Of course, if you don't trust the AFR or the Australian then these will mean nothing to you. We just have different political views. The science stays the same. Besides the life of the generator, the big cost difference is centralised generation using the existing grid versus wind/solar all over the place with a new spiderweb of transmission to ensure somewhere has wind or solar. Even then, half the time there is no solar.

We use bottled gas at $145 per bottle. I was hoping for reticulated gas but there will be no more added in Victoria. No way I am switching to electric, we will be having brown outs and blackouts within a couple of years due to inadequate supply. Already have the maximum solar electric on the roof and solar heating for the pool.

I will absolutely vote for it and I believe a majority of Australians will support it. The economics is in favour, just depends which analysis you choose to believe and what you think the author's motivation is. And it is the most dependable way to decarbonise for those who have been persuaded that is important.

Sometimes eat my words.