octave

Renewables and batteries drive down fossil fuel use despite record electricity demand Here is a short summary of this article. Australia’s latest electricity data shows that renewables and batteries are increasingly meeting demand and displacing fossil fuels, even during periods of extreme heat and record usage. Rooftop solar, wind and large-scale solar all contributed strongly, while batteries helped shift cheap daytime energy into evening peaks—cutting gas use to around 25-year lows. This shift has contributed to lower wholesale electricity prices compared to a year ago. While retail prices don’t fall immediately—because they include network costs, retailer margins and are often locked in through contracts—the trend suggests that continued growth in renewables and storage should put downward pressure on retail electricity prices over time. Now I am expecting someone to say "oh it is the bias ABC" I think it is fair to look at the source of any story. In this case it is the AEMO "Quarterly Energy Dynamics Report Q4 2025" Quarterly Energy Dynamics Q4 2025

And surely downhill on the way back

No one is trying to convince you to get an EV. Uphill does, of course, use more energy; not only does going downhill on the return not use energy, it actually gains energy through regenerative braking (whilst saving brake pad wear). My son has to drive up and down a long, steep hill (NZ). Going downhill, you will end up with a higher state of charge than you started with. Of course on the return journey, you still have to get back up the hill (not 100% effective). I can't think of any EVs that would not comfortably do that trip. You can then plug in at home, and if you have solar, it is virtually free.

We can also go further back by using ice cores. "Continuous ice core records from Antarctica provide direct measurements of atmospheric \(\text{CO}_{2}\) going back 800,000 years. [1, 2] However, specialised, discontinuous ice samples (specifically "blue ice" from the Allan Hills, Antarctica) have enabled scientists to measure \(\text{CO}_{2}\) from air bubbles trapped as far back as 2 million years ago, with experimental studies extending even further. [1, 2, 3]" Two million-year-old ice cores provide first direct observations of an ancient climate

When I’m asked what I pay per kWh, I’d usually say around 30 cents. But thinking about it, that’s not really accurate for my situation. Because I have rooftop solar—and the system has already paid for itself—a portion of the electricity I use is effectively free. A better way to look at it would be to take my total electricity bill over a period and divide it by the total kWh I’ve used (including both grid and solar generation). That would give a blended cost per kWh, which is likely much lower than 30 cents—probably somewhere around 10–15 cents. When you think about it this way, electricity doesn’t seem especially expensive for households with solar. Given there are now over 4.5 million homes with rooftop solar in Australia (roughly a third of households), that’s a large number of people benefiting from relatively low effective electricity costs. That said, this raises a genuine equity issue. Not everyone can access rooftop solar, particularly renters or lower-income households. The solution, in my view, isn’t to reduce the benefits for those who have solar, but to expand access for those who don’t.

A coal power plant may last 50 years, but during that time, it would undergo maintenance and upgrades. Private banks and investors are unwilling to finance new coal. The long payback means that even if it were viable now, the risk is that somewhere down the line it may become unviable due to advancing technologies. There is no law in Australia that prevents building new coal; there is simply no good business case. You keep talking about "intermittent power" without considering energy storage. Battery efficiency and cost fall every year. A builder of a coal plant that is burning coal whether it is generating at all, is competing with ever cheaper and more efficient battery storage. It is not just chemical energy storage. Underground Air Batteries — The Energy Storage You’ve Never Heard Of Generating electricity with renewables is extremely cheap; this is undeniable. However, the challenge is both long and short-duration storage. Batteries are being built at an astonishing rate, and there are other promising methods in the pipeline. An investor in coal would need to know that they could never be undercut during the payback time of the plant.

Any new generation, regardless of method, imposes a cost on the electricity they generate. New renewables impose a cost, but so would a bunch of new coal power plants. This cost would need to be paid for for many years to come.

Can you name a country where building new coal or nuclear power plants recently has kept retail electricity prices flat or below inflation? You’re asking renewables to reduce total electricity bills while we’re simultaneously replacing an entire ageing system and building new infrastructure.

You’re assuming prices are high because we’re adding renewables, but that skips the key comparison—what would be cheaper instead? New coal isn’t being built anywhere in Australia because it’s not economically competitive. If it were cheaper, companies would be investing in it—but they’re not. Nuclear might be reliable, but in Australia it would take 10–15+ years and cost significantly more than renewables. That doesn’t solve current prices. A big driver of recent price spikes has actually been coal plant outages and high fossil fuel prices, not renewables. That’s been highlighted repeatedly by Australian Energy Market Operator. The idea that coal is still reliably holding the system together is outdated. Plants like Eraring Power Station are ageing, breaking down more often, and becoming expensive to maintain—that’s not ideology, it’s physics and economics. You’re right that redundancy is needed—but that applies to any system. The difference is that renewables + storage are currently the cheapest way to build that redundancy at scale. So the issue isn’t that renewables are making power expensive—it’s that we’re replacing an ageing, increasingly unreliable system, and that was always going to come with costs no matter what technology we chose.

Here is just one of the mistruths from a formal complaint that is being lodged about the Channel 7 story. 3.4 Environmental Misinformation (Koala Treatment) Broadcast Claim: The program alleged that wind farm clearing involves euthanising koalas with “blunt force instruments” [4]. Verified Fact: The Clean Energy Council (CEC) has confirmed this practice has never occurred in any Australian renewable project [1]. Its inclusion in a prime-time broadcast without evidence constitutes a failure to present factual material accurately under Section 3.3.1. Yes, they are claiming with no evidence that koals are being beaten to death in order to build wind farms. This comes from a viral claim several years ago and has no evidence. What astonishing overreach. I am confident that they know this to be untrue, but know a small number of viewers will believe this claim. According to AI In Australia are koalas killed to build windfarms Short answer: No—koalas are not routinely killed “to build wind farms” in Australia. But like any land development, there can be impacts on habitat, and that’s where most of the real issue sits. Here’s the clearer picture: 1) The viral claim about killing koalas You might have seen claims that koalas are being “clubbed” or deliberately killed for wind farms. These have been widely circulated in politics and media, but: A fact check found no evidence of koalas being killed during construction of a major wind farm (Clarke Creek). Companies involved said they use wildlife spotters and strict “zero harm” policies to avoid injury to animals. Claims about workers killing koalas were publicly repeated but later debunked or unsupported. So the idea of routine or intentional killing specifically for wind farms is misleading. 2) What does happen in reality The real issue is more mundane (and still important): Wind farms (like any big project) may require clearing land, which can remove koala habitat. Environmental laws require: surveys before clearing relocating animals where possible minimising harm Developers often pause work if wildlife is present and bring in ecologists. 3) How big is the impact compared to other threats? This is where context matters: Since 2012, mining has cleared far more koala habitat than renewables. Agriculture (like land clearing for grazing) is even larger again. Scientists consistently say the biggest long-term threat to koalas is habitat loss and climate change, not wind farms. 4) Important nuance There are legitimate concerns about renewable projects being built in sensitive habitats. Some proposals have been criticised or modified because of risks to koalas and other species. But that’s about where projects are built, not deliberate killing. Bottom line ❌ Koalas are not being systematically killed to build wind farms ⚠️ Some habitat can be cleared, which affects them ✅ The bigger threats are land clearing (especially agriculture), mining, and climate change If you want, I can break down one of the specific controversies (like Clarke Creek) so you can see exactly how these claims started and what’s actually in the documents.

The ABC is not above manufacturing hatchet jobs against EVs AI summary: "In April 2026, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) faced intense criticism from electric vehicle (EV) advocates following a 7.30 report focused on the difficulties of long-distance EV travel. Primary Criticisms of the Report Advocates and experts, including The Driven, accused the ABC of adopting a "petrol tank mentality" and producing a "hit piece". Key points of contention included: YouTube +1 Choice of Vehicle: The report featured a 2021 Hyundai Kona, an older model with slower charging speeds, which critics argued was used to unfairly represent the entire modern EV market. Poor Timing: The segment was filmed during the Easter long weekend, the busiest travel period of the year, which naturally led to atypical charging station queues. Lack of Context: Critics argued the report failed to mention that roughly 95% of EV charging occurs at home, rather than at public fast-chargers. Technical Exaggeration: Claims that using Bluetooth audio or cabin heating significantly drained the battery were labelled as "ignorant or deliberately misleading" Review of ABC story by the Driven “Petrol tank mentality:” ABC’s 7.30 report on EV charging problems rated a fail

I think your point is a reasonable one. This is what AI says, for what it's worth: "It’s true that if inflation is caused by something like higher fuel costs, then demand isn’t the initial cause—so in that sense, raising interest rates doesn’t fix the root issue. But where demand does matter is what happens next. If demand stays strong, businesses can keep passing on those higher costs, workers push for wage increases, and inflation becomes ongoing rather than a one-off spike. That’s what interest rate rises are trying to prevent. They reduce spending enough that businesses find it harder to keep increasing prices, so inflation doesn’t get embedded in the system. So it’s not really about saying ‘demand caused this’, it’s more ‘demand determines whether it keeps going.’”

My understanding is that raising interest rates is supposed to prevent runaway inflation. "Increasing interest rates lowers inflation by making borrowing more expensive and saving more attractive, which reduces consumer and business spending. This decreased demand slows economic growth, cooling the economy, and reducing pressure on businesses to raise prices, ultimately lowering inflation." It does, however, inflict financial stress on people who are struggling. The ordinary person suffers for something they have little control over. In this case, the orange ones Iranian adventure. On the subject of interest. Let me strenuously state that my worldview is not dictated by total self-interest. In my case, I retired early, and I am living off my super. Since the orange one is wrecking the world economy, I have pulled out my super, and it is all now in term deposits. This money has to last me a little while longer. A rise in interest rates for me personally is a bonus. To stress again, I do have empathy for mortgage holders.

PM, the media watch segment does note the journalist's history; however, its main thrust is about mistruths. The journo says "it (cobalt) has been the key element in practically every storage battery on the planet" Whilst cobalt was a common ingredient, this is no longer the case. This should have been pointed out, but that would detract from the purpose of the story. If the problem is cobalt, then why limit criticism to its (diminishing) use in EVs and renewables? My understanding is that about a third of all cobalt is used in laptops and smartphones as well as jet engines, medical implants, car tyres and pigments. But this would not fit the narrative. Whilst the vast majority of EVs and storage batteries are now LFP those other uses still remain, but this seems to be OK. I am intending to buy an EV within the next year and I am only considering LFP (which is pretty much the vast majority), so there is no story here. Awareness of the problems with cobalt is fairly recent, so I certainly would not point at someone in their EV or hybrid (Corolla Cross?) and yell, "blood battery". I am also keenly aware that cobalt is used in my phone, PC, etc.

There are commercially successful projects happening right now. proven / operational or pilot success HYBRIT (Sweden) → Produced fossil-free steel using hydrogen instead of coal → Successfully demonstrated large-scale hydrogen storage and steelmaking Fukushima Hydrogen Energy Research Field (Japan) → Operational facility producing hydrogen from solar power → One of the world’s largest working green hydrogen plants Large-scale projects with strong commercial backing NEOM Green Hydrogen Project → ~$8.4 billion investment, backed by 20+ banks → ~80%+ built and aiming for production around 2026–27 → Long-term buyer already locked in (key sign of commercial viability) 🌏 Emerging industrial-scale success (often overlooked) Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project → One of the first fully operational, large-scale green hydrogen/ammonia plants → Producing hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually (industrial scale) .

The mistruths are easily provable. I am happy to go through them one by one.

Here is an analysis of the claims made in the Channel Seven story. The relevant part starts at 3:08

Geelong leads nation with first hydrogen fuel station Hydrogen from a 2.5-megawatt electrolizer powered by wind and solar. Just a small trial at the moment, but several buses and trucks are using hydrogen fuel cell tech on the streets of Geelong

Governments have always invested in promising new technologies. Many may turn out to be dead ends but others winners. Early aviation was able to flourish because of government subsides for early air postal services as well as passenger routes. You are pro nuclear right? Would you have any objections to public money helping to kick start nuclear power plants in this country?

Whilst it is true that green hydrogen is still in its infancy, it does not mean that it is a dead technology. Notable (and relatively successful) green hydrogen projects 🇸🇦 NEOM Green Hydrogen Project One of the world’s largest projects (over 2 GW electrolyser capacity) Backed by Air Products and ACWA Power ~90% constructed as of 2025–2026 Designed to produce hydrogen → ammonia for export 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the first projects moving from hype to bankable, near-operational scale. 🇨🇳 Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project Developed by Envision Energy Produces ~320,000 tonnes of green ammonia per year (already operating) Powered by wind + solar 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the few large projects already running, not just planned. 🇩🇪 Bad Lauchstädt Energy Park ~30 MW electrolyser using wind power Supplies hydrogen to chemical industry (e.g. TotalEnergies) 👉 Why it matters: A good example of industrial integration, not just production. 🇮🇳 Kandla Green Hydrogen Plant Small (1–10 MW), but operational and locally used Powers buses and port infrastructure 👉 Why it matters: Shows hydrogen working in real transport and port use, not just theory. 🇨🇳 Large-scale wind-to-hydrogen hubs (Inner Mongolia) Multi-billion-dollar developments combining renewables + hydrogen China already exceeded ~220,000 tonnes/year capacity and scaling fast 👉 Why it matters: China is arguably the only place doing this at real industrial scale today. 🏭 Companies that are actually delivering projects These aren’t single projects but are consistently active (a good proxy for “success”): Fortescue Future Industries Adani Enterprises TotalEnergies Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners They’re leading global capacity build-out and investing across dozens of projects . ⚖️ Reality check (important) Even the “successful” ones share a few traits: 💸 Still expensive (often $3.5–6/kg vs cheaper fossil hydrogen) 🏗️ Heavy subsidies or government backing 📈 Success = scaling + proving viability, not big profits yet ⚡ Economics depend heavily on very cheap renewable electricity Globally, there are 500+ projects and $110B+ committed, but only a fraction are fully operational .

Trump has control of both houses. This means he can and has done pretty much whatever he wants. If the republicans lose control of Congress and the Senate, he will have very little power.

Also, if polling is accurate after November, he will most likely be a lame duck president.

Getting back to the assertion that political leanings are determined by the dominance of one hemisphere over the other. It is not unusual for people to change their political leanings throughout life or as a result of particular life experiences. I came to Australia from England when I was 2. I endured a moderate amount of bullying early on in school for being a Pommy. This no doubt allows me to empathise with victims of bullying. My sister came out as gay when she was 17, and suffered badly due to conservative attitudes back then. This means that I can not abide anti gay behaviour and therefore identify more with the so called left than right. As I said, I have been a musician/music teacher all of my life. This means that I am keenly aware of which side of politics is likely to support the arts. As a teenager, I was heavily involved with the Astronomical Society and had a general love for science I have an awareness of which side of politics is more supportive of science. Our neighbour and friend is a trans F to M. My logical side says, " Do I enjoy this person's company? Anything else is irrelevant. Again, this seems more left than right. Whether or not we have hard-wired tendencies, that is all they are, tendencies. Much more important is the overlay of life experience. For some, a life event may even change someone from right to left or vice versa. It is also not uncommon for people to move across the political spectrum as they age.

According to the AI summary 🧠 The “left brain vs right brain” idea The claim that people are either “left-brained” (logical) or “right-brained” (creative) is not supported by modern neuroscience. The brain does have hemispheric specialization—that part is real. For example, language is often more dominant in the left hemisphere. Some spatial processing leans right. But almost everything you actually do—math, music, drawing, decision-making—uses both hemispheres working together via the corpus callosum. Large brain imaging studies have found no evidence that people consistently favour one hemisphere in a personality-defining way. 🧾 The examples (tax vs art, daydreaming) These are too neat to be accurate: Doing your tax return: Uses logic, yes—but also memory, attention, language, and even visual processing → both hemispheres involved. Painting or playing music: Not just “right brain.” Skilled musicians and artists show strong left-hemisphere involvement (timing, sequencing, structure). Daydreaming: Linked more to the brain’s default mode network, which spans both hemispheres, not just the right. 📚 About Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain This book is popular and helpful for many people learning to draw—but its explanation is not scientifically accurate. Betty Edwards uses the “right brain” idea as a teaching metaphor. What she’s really helping people do is: Stop relying on symbolic shortcuts (“this is what an eye looks like”) Start observing shapes, proportions, and negative space more carefully That improvement is real—but it’s not because you’ve “switched hemispheres.” It’s because you’ve changed how you pay attention and process visual information. 🎨 The Vincent van Gogh example Van Gogh’s improvement is absolutely real—but: It’s explained by practice, training, and perceptual learning, not “activating the right brain.” Adults can improve dramatically at drawing once they learn to see differently, which is what Edwards is tapping into. 🧩 So what is true? ✔ The brain has some lateralization ✔ People can improve artistic skills a lot with the right training ✔ The book’s exercises can genuinely help 🚫 What’s not true (or overstated) ❌ People are “left-brained” or “right-brained” ❌ Logic = left hemisphere, creativity = right hemisphere ❌ You can switch modes by “using the right side of your brain”

I think these things are oversimplified. I can talk specifically about music, having been a musician and music teacher for my entire working life. Music is not only artistic but also analytical and mathematical.