octave

This presupposes that we are the only country attempting to cut CO2. Yes, our share is small, but all of the countries that contribute under 2% make cuts adds up to 30% (I am happy to back that figure up) How are these actions abhorrent? When you say you don't accept the science, are you saying that CSIRO is incompetent or part of the malicious conspiracy that you alluded to? I approach climate science like any other area. I have had people tell me that vaccination doesn't work or causes autism, etc. I reject this because I can see what CSIRO says. Being extra cautious, I can cross-check this with other respected sources. This seems to me to be a solid method of determining what the likely "truth" is. If you believe this is a flawed method, then suggest a better method. If the outliers in climate science are right, then why not the outliers in medical science or any other field? Vaccine sceptics also tend to cite "grand conspiracies."

Yes, China is not only building wind farms in 2025 and 2026, but it is doing so at a record-shattering pace, comfortably maintaining its position as the world's largest investor and developer of renewable energy. [1, 2] Key Trends for 2025–2026: Record Growth: In 2025 alone, China added 120.5 GW of new wind capacity, fueling a record global year for wind energy additions. Massive Scale: In 2024, China added more wind turbines and solar panels than the rest of the world combined. High-Speed Development: Wind power capacity in China reached 580 GW by August 2025, and industry representatives are aiming to add at least 120 GW annually between 2026 and 2030, which is roughly double the average annual installations from 2020–2024. Offshore Dominance: By 2025, China remained the world leader in offshore wind, with installed capacity exceeding 38 GW and significant projects in coastal provinces like Jiangsu, Guangdong, and Fujian

And you think CSIRO are gullible fools falling for this. Why does NASA or CSIRO? Are they dumb, or are they complicit in this "conspiracy" I do understand that China is a mixed bag, although it is interesting to note that CO2 emissions in China have remained flat for 21 months. "China's CO2 emissions have potentially peaked and remained flat or slightly falling for 21 months as of early 2026, despite producing over 35% of global emissions. This plateau is driven by a massive surge in renewable energy, including record solar and wind installations, despite increased chemical industry output" I would add to that nuclear as well. I am not anti-nuclear, although I am sceptical about the economic on this country. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can’t personally evaluate every dataset or model. The only way I can form a view is by looking at the balance of evidence from institutions and experts who work in the field. That’s the same approach I use for everything else—medicine, engineering standards, even things like aviation safety. For example, I accept the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, because the overwhelming published evidence supports that. So I’m struggling with why climate science should be treated differently. If I’m not meant to rely on the major scientific bodies and the weight of peer-reviewed research in this case, what alternative method should I use to decide what’s true? And how would I know that method is more reliable than the one I use everywhere else?”

I follow this YouTube channel closely. She is highly qualified, and I do like that she is particularly tough on new ideas and willing to point out the flaws in new technologies. There are a lot of EV baggers out at the moment; this is probably due to the surge in sales lately. I think because the algorithm classifies me as pro-EV, I get some absolutely ridiculous posts or links. Nearly one in six new cars sold last month was electric, as demand for battery-powered vehicles continues to grow.

Just getting back to the Centre for Independent Studies, I do wonder exactly how independent it is. I will leave it to others to decide whether this information is relevent or not. "The CIS also keeps almost all of its corporate funders secret. While it receives at least $800,000 from corporations, its policy is only to identify sponsors where they agree. [7] Companies which have been publicly disclosed and confirmed by the CIS as its funders include:" BHP Billiton Shell ICI - now a subsidiary of Orica Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation [8] Some of the individuals who fund the CIS include [9]: Dame Elisabeth Murdoch - Mother of media mogul Rupert Murdoch Neville Kennard Robert Champion de Crespigny In June 2006, the Australian Financial Review reported that a 30th anniversary dinner attended by 600 supporters with the keynote address by Prime Minister John Howard raised $2.5 million. The CIS is aiming to raise $10 million as a capital fund to underpin the centre's operations. Former Funders McDonald's Australia Philip Morris Pratt Foundation WMC (once known as Western Mining Corporation, WMC was taken over by BHP Billiton).

Correct, it is a well-known right-wing think tank. I would also be sceptical of a left-wing think tank. The video poses the question, "if renewables are cheaper, why do they require subsidies?" The assumption here is that building new coal or nuclear plants would not rely on any subsidies. It very much would. If low renewables meant cheaper power, countries like Italy or Poland should have low prices—but they don’t. The biggest driver in Europe has been gas dependence, not renewables. Italy (lower renewables than Germany, high gas reliance) → consistently very high electricity prices Ireland (significant gas dependence) → also high prices Poland (coal-heavy, relatively less wind/solar historically) → not cheap, often still high due to coal + carbon costs In terms of being directly attributable to renewable, yes, there is truth there. In 2020, I had rooftop solar installed. I had an upfront cost of $3500 plus a 4-year low-interest loan with payments of around $40 a month for 4 years. If they added to my reduced bills, then it looks like solar would have vastly increased the cost of my electricity. My philosophy here was that in order to save money, I had to spend money up front. My system has definitely paid for itself, and I am now unbothered by the price of electricity. We are in a phase of great change (just like when I got rooftop solar). I regularly go for a bike ride past Geelong docks and also the oil refinery. On one side of the road, there are enormous stacks of wind turbine parts, blades and tower components as well as the nacelle structures that are awaiting delivery to the site. On the other side of the road, it is the refinery that is noisy and stinks (and recently caught fire). This is quite a contrast. It is quite exciting to live in this time of change. Sure, there will be hiccups and missteps along the way. I suppose going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age had its challenges. As solar and battery technology improve in efficiency and cost, it is undoubtedly doing fewer people will need to be connected to the grid, giving people economic benefits as well as autonomy.

You’re right that once you add storage, transmission and upgrades, the system gets more complex and costs go up. But that’s exactly what the modelling already includes. The CSIRO GenCost report looks at the whole system—firming, transmission, everything—and still finds wind and solar backed by storage are cheaper than building new coal. On EV charging specifically, high-power sites do create local demand spikes, but that’s not unique to renewables—it’s a grid planning issue. In practice, most charging is spread out (home, work, off-peak), and fast chargers often include batteries or smart load management to avoid huge grid upgrades. So yes, there are costs—but they’re manageable and already being factored in, not a dealbreaker for renewables

By the way, I just learned that emergency charging from RACV is from a battery pack, not a petrol generator.

I wonder how often an EV driver runs out of charge. I imagine it is no more common than running out of fuel, and probably less given the warnings the car provides. In 48 years of driving, I have never run out of fuel. If an EV does run out of electrons, there are several methods. The RAVC will give you an emergency charge or tow you to the nearest charging facility as part of road service. A granny lead and an extension cord, plus a friendly homeowner. Most clever, though, is V2V or vehicle-to-vehicle charging. As EVs become more ubiquitous, it will be easy to phone a friend or perhaps a friendly fellow motorist.

It is difficult to ascertain how old this picture is. Whilst it is true that traditionally some old turbine blades have gone to landfill, this is changing. Quote "Wind turbine blades can be recycled, but it is challenging and not yet universal. While 85-90% of a turbine (steel, copper, gearboxes) is easily recycled, blades are made of durable fibreglass/carbon fibre composites, often resulting in landfill disposal. However, new recycling technologies and repurposing methods are rapidly developing, with goals for 100% recyclability by 2030. [1, 2, 3] Current Recycling and Disposal Methods Cement Co-processing: The most common method, where shredded blades replace raw materials and fuel in cement production. Mechanical Crushing: Blades are ground into materials for filler, panels, or industrial products. Thermal/Chemical Recycling: Technologies like pyrolysis or chemical baths are emerging to separate resins from fibers for reuse, though many are still in pilot stages. Repurposing: Blades are increasingly used in civil engineering, such as bridges, playground equipment, and noise barriers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Future Outlook and Innovation Recyclable Blades: Manufacturers are developing new resin technologies—such as Siemens Gamesa's RecyclableBlade and NREL's Pecan FRC—that allow materials to be easily separated and reused at end-of-life. Industry Commitment: Major firms aim for zero-waste turbines by 2030–2040. [1, 2, 3, 4] While landfilling is still a common, cost-effective method for older blades, the increasing number of decommissioned turbines is driving the economic viability of recycling. [1] What happens to wind farms in Victoria when turbines ... - ABC News In short: The Clean Energy Council says there are options for old wind farms as the originals approach the end of their life expec... Australian Broadcasting Corporation Recycling Wind Turbines, Solar Panels and Batteries: Fact Sheet Can wind turbine blades be recycled? Wind turbine blades are made of materials such as fibreglass or carbon fibre, as they are des... Clean Energy Council" End Quote Any newer technology creates problems that at first are challenging. We do tend to give a free pass to existing technologies. Consider the size of the pile of coal that would be required to generate the electricity that those blades generate in their operational life. Coal has end-of-life problems, also. Quote "Coal ash is managed through a combination of recycling and landfilling/storage. [1, 2, 3] 1. Recycling and Beneficial Use A significant portion of fly ash is reused, rather than disposed of. [1, 2, 3] Concrete Production: Fly ash is a high-performance substitute for Portland cement. It improves concrete durability and reduces the carbon footprint of construction. Structural Fill and Roads: Bottom ash and fly ash are used for road base, structural fill, embankments, and stabilizing soft soils. Brick and Block Making: Ash is used to make bricks, construction blocks, and lightweight aggregate. Other Uses: Boiler slag is used for roofing granules and blasting grit. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Disposal Methods Unused ash must be disposed of, often using "wet" or "dry" methods. [1] Ash Ponds/Dams (Wet Method): The ash is mixed with water to create a slurry and pumped into large holding ponds. This was traditionally the cheapest method, but it poses high risks for leaching toxic heavy metals into groundwater, particularly if the ponds are unlined. Dry Landfills (Dry Method): The ash is stored dry in landfills, which is considered safer as it reduces the potential for leaching, provided the landfill is properly lined. Mine Backfilling: Dry ash is sometimes placed back into old, abandoned coal mines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Environmental and Safety Issues Leaching: Contaminants in ash ponds can seep into groundwater and surface water, creating toxic cocktail, according to reports in Australia. Dust Management: Dry ash, if not covered, can be blown from storage sites into surrounding communities, posing respiratory health risks. Spills: Large-scale failures of ash dams, such as the 2008 Kingston disaster in the US, have caused massive environmental damage. [1, 2, 3, 4] As coal-fired power plants age and close, the rehabilitation of these ash dams is a significant environmental concern. [1, 2]"

I actually agree with part of that—climate models aren’t perfect and we can’t predict everything precisely. But I don’t think ‘not perfect’ means ‘not useful’. We rely on models all the time that aren’t perfect—weather forecasts, engineering safety margins, even things like flood risk or insurance. Also, climate models aren’t just time-series extrapolations like stock prices. They’re based on physical processes—things like how greenhouse gases trap heat, fluid dynamics in the atmosphere, etc. So it’s not just projecting a line forward. For me it comes back to the question: I’m not in a position to evaluate the models myself, so I look at how well they’ve performed and what the broader scientific community thinks of them. If those models were fundamentally unreliable, I’d expect to see that reflected in the consensus of the people working in the field. .

Ice cores are important in tracking the increase in PPM of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. It is absolutely mind-blowing that they can analyse the composition of the atmosphere at any time between last year and 800,000 years ago. Predicting the future climate relies on understanding the past climate. Core questions: An introduction to ice cores

I thought you didn't bother voting You seem to want to live in some kind of monoculture. Don't you enjoy talking to people who are not identical to you?

I guess you should perhaps define "traditional Aussie" In the current federal parliament, between 12-13% of members are born overseas. By contrast, 32% of Australia's population was born overseas.

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.