Jerry_Atrick

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.

Last week, a packet of Tim Tams were £1.85 in Tesco (on sale from £2.50). Needless to say, to support Australian manufacturing, if not ownership, I bought a few packets 😉

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.

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.

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.

On another random thought track, walking along a deserted train platform as the train company reduced their services and the trains in service are buckling under this heatwave, I wondered if the doomsday preppers inadvertently got it right for the wrong reasons. The earth is getting drier and food will become more scarce. Having a decent sized bunker underground with enough food to last one or two generations and enough weapons to defend it from all but bunker buster bombs may result in them surviving heree others fall, and fornicating a brave new world..

Actually he does have form.. Not only as a councillor in Manchester, but also as a an ex parliamentarian and secretary of state (cabinet minister): https://members.parliament.uk/member/1427/career I honbestly wish my house was completed and sold.. He is likely to suff things up more than most.

Longest for me... And this week is expected to shatter warmest day in June records in the UK. Apparently in Seville in Spain, it hit 48 yesterday or the day before

I don't support the one nor the twenty. The evidence should be gathered, heard and tested in the appropriate court, with any appeals to the higher court, after which I would accept judgement. I am generally against the court of public opinion in these types of matters

Er.. ahhh.. ahem... yes... yes... i suppose it was

Hookers will have to find new clients 😉 In the same vain, Chump has probably cost the US arms manufacturers and other military suppliers many more billions. Most of the big spending ex property leases will be on US companies.. Even construction of their bases, etc, will likely be US suppliers vetted by the military (I am guessing). I know someone who worked at RAF Lakenheath, and and I think it was RAAF Tindal (can't remember). He worked for an American company, ironically at the time, supplying the ADF and MoD, and not the USDF. At Lakenheath, there is a permanent USAF facility separated and at I think it was Tindal, there was a temporary command centre set up of the USAF. On both occasions, as a friendly American he went to introduce himself to the yanks at each base (probably trying to sell them something) and he was met with a very terse response equivalent to eff off. When he spoke to the UK/Aus personnel, on both occasions he was told they operate entirely separately and barely a word is spoken between them; a lot lived on the base and they had US supplies of their favourite home treats shipped in. Certainly, his antics will have his allies relying less on US manufacturers and after sales provisions as a result. For example, Spain and Portugal have cancelled or stop going ahead with procurement of the F35s, Europe is looking at shifting much of their military supply from US to their own suppliers; the UK is accelerating its Tempest fighter development; I don't think anyone in Europe is even looking at US drone manufacturers at the moment. If Chump unilaterally withdraws troops because of his childish antics, you can bet the long term damage to the US will be much more than a few landlords, supermarkets, and hookers. Yeah, there would be stuff that won't make sense to buy anything other than locally - normal food, civvie clothes, etc. And yeah, the sudden withdrawal of a large number of troops from the country will make a dent, but they rarely have a vast number at a single location, so the loss is probably minimal in the grand scheme of things, except where business are set up solely or mainly to service a local posting.

I don't think any of the western world mistook Chump for anything other than what he is, except in one way. They though that pandering to him would soften the economic blows he is capable of inflicting and attract favourable treatment. I have always maintained that is not the way to deal with transactional narcissistic bullies; and that they have to be stared down right from the get go. As I have mentioned on this forum, the pandering Starmer - a technocrat who was an unedifying capability of political self-alienation - was sickening to watch; at home though, many were initially claiming he played Chump skilfully, but quickly ate humble pie. The "allies" that did the best - Trudeau/Carney (the latter an ex head of the Bank of England), Albo, and the like - none of whom caved - seemed to get the better outcomes relative to their situations. For the rest, the horse has well and truly bolted; the only thing they can do is what Meloni has done - stare down Chump and correct him. However, I have to be honest, European (inc. British) leaders are generally spineless these days; and beholden to what they think may cost them an election, which, from my very small conversations with Europeans (mainly Germans), does not correlate to what at least some people think will cost them an election. Any move to push back will now be seen as fodder to carry out threats and treated as if the Europeans are withdrawing their hand of friendship. The new and improved "Art of the Deal".

I know the collectibles CGT wasn't introduced by Albo et al, howeve, Labior did introduce CGT in 1985 as a more equitable tax. At the same time, it did reduce income and some corporate taxes. However,the reforms were only at the top marginal tax rate so, with the exception of bracket creep, don't impact too many Aussies. Yet the thresholds for the tax to apply haven't changed since 1985. And even then, for the average punter - even a hobbyist. There is no threshold for a reasonable turnover as a hobby (i.e. selling off say one stamp to fund the purchase of another). AAlso not being able to offset against losses of othe CGT assessable asset classes is also pernicious. The cultural comment was aimed at the Aussie governments as a whole. Not just Albo... Not indexing thresholds, for example, is a cultural thing,. It is niot necessarily the coal face workers I am talking about. Is the CGT a stealth death tax? Yes.. In Australia, you don't pay inheritance tax on receiving the property, but when yu sell it. Many people sell the property (or want to).. so you have to pay the tax. It effectively defers the inheritance tax payable. It is better than the UK though, where death taxes are payable on property recived > GBP 250K per person and the taxes payablke on inherited pensions can be up to an effective 80%. I am setting up our property (which is diminished with this house) such that it is owned by an Aussie company,, and the kids can derive rental income so as not to ave to sell it. They can then use the equity to fund hopefukly fund further investment/growth.It is about the most tax efficient way of doing it..

Well, I hope we make a lot of money from it and they are building us an effective iron dome

I neglected to include the difficulty of enforcement (train/phone at the time), but if when you sell someone wants a receipt, you are going to be, if only slightly, a little more at risk because the next bloke nay get audited and he produces a receipt from you. Granted, the risk is tiny, but regardless $500 for a single item that doesn't have an exemption for, say not having up to a reasonable amount of the type of collectable for normal use whether you can prove it is for normal use or not is scummy and shows they may be prepared to use it against the little people when there are far bigger fish to fry. It's about a culture as opposed to the probability of enforcement... IMHO

Farq.. I agree with PM.. it will bring a lot of ordinary people into the net. $500 is not a lot these days and unless you can prove what you have bought is used on a frequent basis, it will be classed as a collectible and if you sell it as yiu don't use it anymore and you make a profit, you pay. But if you make a loss, you can only offset that loss against other gains on collectibles you sell within the tax year.. not even other CGT payable assets let alone your total assemble tax. This is what I call pernicious tax... And Google tells me thar the official rate of inflation isn't taken into account, but some formula applied by the ATO, which is usually lower than the inflation rate. This is what I call a pernicious tax or a money grab. There is a carve out for personal use, but you have to prove it and it cant be occasional; it has to be frequent.. In theory, that jewellery necklace bought for wearing on the wedding day and only dragged out for special occasions will he caught.. so yeah, it will affect a lot of ordinary people.

As there is a thread about Chump already, how about we make this about the "average American". Firstly, what is the "average American"? Or do we mean the stereotypical middle class American - and even this is hard to define as their preferences and attitudes can vary differently between states. But how does this correlate to their rise in economic and political power? And concentration of that economic and political power. Don't forget, the US economy was originally built on some of the most oppressive largesse compared to its peers - slavery, suppression of workers rights, etc. Even today, not a rise since 2009 of the minimum wage.. very little leave entitlements, virtually no redundancy rights, etc. at least compared to its peers. And let's not forget, the leader in a democracy, of which it still was in 2025 when Chump was elected, is the result of a majority of votes or seats or states or whatever, in accordance with the electoral laws and systems. In this case, in 2025, Chump was able to attract the popular majority of voters as well as states. Yep, I feel sorry for the Democrat voters, and for America not having what it considered a better option. But ultimately, they knew what he was going to do, knew he would do it and some cited that is why they voted for him. As a result, I don't feel so sorry for the Americans.. they made theiur bed (if not all of them - but that is how it works). In fact, I could argue the current administration doesn't break with their historical past, particularly with respect to avarice. I do feel sorry for the rest of the world (or at least the US allies) that bought into the US, had no say, and now have to deal with the fallout.

On the basis that current aged voters would die out, yes. But it ignores two other things. First, and less likely, the new found popularity of one nation will result in those offspring and impressionable of those new found voters being conditioned into following... Of course, most of the new found voters probably have adult kds where it is too late (hence, less likely). But, as we age, our ideology tends to change - usually moderate more than flip.. But there are enough people on the boundaries that may keep PHON in popularity or even increase it (assuming every other factor stays the same). I just mentioned it as a possible outcome, but if UK experience is anything to go by - and indeed US experience - the electorate may well have had enough that something really bad has to happen before they change their tune. On any other electoral system, Farage and UK Reform would possibly be the second or likely third party in the UK House of Commons today - straight past the post averted that. Chump is in because of the protest vote - the die-hard MAGA base is not enough to give them more than a few states (yes, Chump is Republican, but lets face it, their national elections are usually based on the presidential candidates). Pauline#s rise is not dissimilar to Farage's.. disenfranchised population, structural unfairness, immigration concerns, etc. And now, a rise in the polls; the difference is Reform are now polling ahead of anyone else. Both parties have the same issues - candidate vetting is terrible, controlled by billionaires and open about it, offering cheap solutions to difficult problems, etc. It is likely, unless Labour in the UK turn things around quickly, Reform will be the next government (Conservatives are in the same position as the Libs). Then the shit will hit the fan and as the British are less rusted on, Reform will hopefully implode before they can do too much damage, or will at least be booted out and we will never hear of them or their people again. Although Albo is far less unpopular than Starmer, it is plausible that without Labor turning it around, Pauline could make a decent go of it at the next election.. definitely not a majority, but with preferential voting, you may well see quite a few One Nation taken seats in the House of Reps. That would give her enough to make a dent, but not enough to extend them the rope to hang themselves (metaphorically to those sensitive to Pauline). If Labor continue, then as long as ON don't royally screw up, they could be in for a treat in 2031. It is not that far away (and assuming no early elections called). At the polls stand today, they look to be the majority party on a "two-party" preferred basis, where if one substituted them for the Libs/Nats in that race. As it is, they are polling well ahead of the Lib/Nats. Once they are in, if they are, like Reform, they would likely screw everything up and we will never hear of them again. So, while I agree, they are a fringe riding a wave of discontent, there is a more than tight probability they will become a major at the next election and the libs will pay for it. Agreed. this is the major reason for voter discontent; it's just the billionaires are great at getting a manipulated message out to the population it is identity politics (pick whatever you like) that is the problem. She had so many "I don't do policy on the run" responses to basic policy questions - I would put her more like Joe BP - "Don't you worry about that!"

Whoa.. There were a few spicy pages I just caught up on. 🙂 I think it is fair to say the two party system is in transition. To what - who knows? I will leave the performance of Albo and his crew to the appropriate thread. However, it is clear that there is a perception that neither of the two majors are truly representing the majority of Aussies at the moment. And, from the polls, it is clear the libs at least (and possibly the Nats) aren't thought to be at all representing their traditional base. Labor, at least federally, seem to be not too far off their normal primary vote; I read it was somewhere around the 28% mark; not too much lower than the last federal election of, from memory, about 32%. At the same time, there is a perception (real or otherwise) that the gap is ever widening between the haves and have nots and that blame is being successfully laid at the feet immigration, which plays into both fear and bigotry. This is because more and more of what was the middle class is being squeezed more and more. For various reasons, which would take a book to go through, blame has successfully been laid at the feet of immigration. This results in a perception the immigrants are taking away previous little resources that the majority of the population have to fight for, and along comes Pauline with her silver bullet fixes to everyone's problems. The Libs had their time and between Morrison and Dutton (with a little Littleproud thrown in), screwed things up so royally, they were booted out (Albo technically won, but in the famous words of Bill Hayden - a drover's dog would have won that election). To his credit, he took an early lump in the form of the Voice, licked his wounds, and then did a reasonable job. But hubris seems to be setting in (early) as it inevitably does, and he is no longer looking like he is really looking after the majority of the people he purports to represent. Having said that, the loss of primary vote is probably not much more than a protest vote - yet. The Libs seem to be so far removed from reality, that all but their most ardent supporters seem to have jumped ship. It's hard to understand precisely what they stand for. If I was a betting person, I would suggest in 5 - 10 years, without a complete about-face, they will fade into oblivion. Which may leave a two party system - Labor and Phon.. Or more likely, some other party will spring up as the Greens seem to be marginalising themselves (or at least no one is covering them much anymore). Or there may be more parties, in which case it is likely to become lie some European countries where coalitions are formed and broken. Whilst I support the key budget changes on economic grounds, there is a lot more that can be done. And, people like David Pocock are using social media effectively to get a message across of what is wrong with Labor and the LNP. Just google or youtube him and you will see what I mean.

Don't worry, Marty; I can still input some Jerry-isms...

Thanks, Chaps.. Just saw this thread.. Been terribly busy at work.. Still am, but took a couple of days off while the missus and daughter go to London for some culture. And for some reason, they browser spell checker is working again! Back to it on Tuesday, but have a lot of personal stuff to catch up on.

I did.. but this house is taking a bloody long time and draining more funds than we imagined. , so every so often we have to pause to let them build up. Unf, this year, I made a bit of a blue of a decision because I was too busy at work to think things through and that cost be £25K as well.. So that has to be made up, too. But this week, things are back on, and it is some rewiring and all the decorative work.. If I don't sell the lot, I will subdivide, where I can sell the cottage to pay off the mortgage and then rent out the main house.