octave

We priced a battery, but due to our already low bills, it did not stack up economically. It does, of course, provide backup power which is useful. Our thoughts at the moment are that when we need to replace our car (next year or the one after), we will get an EV capable of V2G. This would suit us perfectly. The car is often parked here during the day, and we have excess solar, and it can be on standby for the occasional power cut

Technically true. However, there are many countries that are close in terms of electricity generation. I am not sure if I have used the term 100% and I do think that is something for the future. It is not the case that it is 100% or failure. Even leaving pollutants out of the equation, surely we would not want to build new coal or gas, as it is the expensive option. Switching to renewables is not just an ideology; it is an economic imperative. Albania: Hydroelectric[48] American Samoa Tau: ~100% solar power, with battery backup[69] Australia Tasmania: Hydropower supplies 100 percent of Tasmania's electricity. (Pending legislation plans for %200 renewable power by 2040, with the remainder to be sent to mainland Australia via submarine power cables)[70][71] Austria Lower Austria: 63% hydroelectricity, 26% wind, 9% biomass, 2% solar[72] Bhutan: Largely hydroelectricity; exports 70% of its production due to excess energy generated; no fossil fuel power plants.[73] Canada British Columbia: 97% hydroelectric[74][75] Manitoba: 97% hydroelectricity, 3% wind, <1% petroleum (diesel in four off-grid communities), <1% natural gas[76] Newfoundland and Labrador: 95% hydroelectricity[77] Quebec: 99% renewable electricity is the main energy used in Quebec (41%), followed by oil (38%) and natural gas (10%)[78] Yukon: 94% hydroelectricity[79] Costa Rica: 99% renewable electricity. Hydroelectric (90%), geothermal, wind (and others)[80] Democratic Republic of the Congo: Almost 100% hydro, but only 9% have access to electricity.[81][82] Denmark Samsø: Net greater than 100% wind power and biomass, connected to mainland for balance and backup power[83][84] Ethiopia: Mostly hydroelectricity (>90%). Smaller quantities of wind, solar, and geothermal. 45% of the population has access to electricity As of 2018, and there is a 100% access target set in 2017 for 2025.[85] Germany Aller-Leine Valley: 63.5% wind, 30% biogas, 10.7% hydro, 3.1% solar[86][87] Wildpoldsried, Bavaria: 500% wind, solar, hydro[88] Greece Tilos: 100% wind and solar power, with battery backup[89] Iceland: 72% hydroelectricity, 28% geothermal, wind, and solar power, less than 0.1% combustible fuel (off-grid diesel)[90] Norway: 96% hydroelectricity, 2% combustible fuel, 2% geothermal, wind, and solar[90] New Zealand South Island: 98.2% hydroelectricity and 1.6% wind. Around one-fifth of generation is exported to the North Island.[91] Tokelau: 93% solar power, with battery backup and 7% coconut biofuel[92][93] Paraguay: Electricity sector in Paraguay is 100% hydroelectricity, about 90% of which is exported, remaining 10% covers domestic demand[94] Tajikistan: Hydropower supplies nearly 100 percent of Tajikistan's electricity.[95] United Kingdom Scotland: 97% of electricity (2020) produced from renewables, mainly wind followed by hydroelectric.[96] United States Kodiak Island, Alaska: 80.9% hydroelectricity, 19.8% wind power, 0.3% diesel generator[97] Palo Alto, California: 50% hydro, rest a combination of solar, wind and biogas[98] Aspen, Colorado: Hydroelectric, wind and solar and geothermal[99] Greensburg, Kansas: 100% - wind balanced with grid connection[99][100] Georgetown, Texas: 100% - 154MW solar and wind balanced with grid connection[101] Burlington, Vermont: 35.3% hydro, 35.3% wood, 27.9% wind, 1.4% solar photovoltaic[102] Washington Centralia: 90.6% hydro, 7.9% nuclear[103] Chelan County: 100% renewable energy made up of 99.98% hydroelectric and 0.02% wind power.[104] Douglas County: 100% hydro[103] Pend Oreille County: 97.1% hydro[103] Seattle: 86% hydroelectricity, 7% wind, 1% biogas[105][103] Tacoma: 85% hydro, 6% wind[103] Uruguay: 94.5% renewable electricity; wind power (and biomass and solar power) is used to stretch hydroelectricity reserves into the dry season[106]

To use the example of my rooftop solar SA (and Australia generally) is still at the stage of absorbing the cost of changing to a system that will be cheaper. If you want an instant reduction in your power bills, then what is your solution? No businesses want to build new fossil fuel power, and those companies that are in fossil fuels are moving away from it. AGL has a commitment to move away from fossil fuels by 2035. This is not because they are green hippies, but it is the rational business way to go. The rest of the world is moving in this direction again not from ideology but from financial pragmatism. As a country, we are not at the leading edge. The transition is quite slow and steady. The Middle East has become immensely wealthy because of its oil. Australia is well placed for the next energy revolution. We have vast amounts of uninhabited land, and we have the minerals required for batteries, etc. I am in no way saying it is all easy. So far. Many countries are 100% renewable, but they rely on hydro or geothermal energy. The thing about being weather-dependent is that in Australia, it is usually sunny or windy somewhere. This is why we need a smart grid. So what are these other options? Do you want AGL to be forced to refurbish or build new coal infrastructure? Do you think this would bring you cheaper bills? If, as you say, moving towards renewables is a recipe for disaster, then you would expect this to reveal itself through countries like Denmark (70% wind). What could be criminal is if we go in the opposite direction to the rest of the world. We could end up as a quaint backwater. Coal plants in Australia are aging and need to be replaced with something. Replacing coal plants is far more expensive than renewables plus firming. Coal is now the most expensive form of new energy. I personally am not totally against nuclear; however, the 2 problems I see are the economics and the time required to build. Gas is useful at the moment for peaking, but it is very expensive.

Yes indeed. I have read a lot of articles lately about how the mining industry, in many ways, is leading the way.

I have no problem with that statement. A key issue with power prices is that the savings from cleaner technologies often follow upfront investment. My rooftop solar looked expensive at first, but once the installation cost was paid off, my electricity became extremely cheap. The same applies to buying a more efficient car. No matter how we generate power, Australia needs to build a modern grid. That cost doesn’t disappear if we choose coal. It’s also worth noting that existing coal stations were built by governments — effectively, taxpayers. If we wanted new or upgraded coal plants today, the bill would again fall on taxpayers or consumers through higher tariffs. Meanwhile, real-world data shows the transition is already lowering costs. AEMO’s Q3 2025 report shows wholesale prices in South Australia have fallen, with renewables, storage and interconnectors putting clear downward pressure on prices. So the argument is simple: upfront investment can look costly, but over time it delivers cheaper, cleaner and more reliable power.

South Australia isn’t expensive because it has lots of renewables — it’s expensive because it still relies on gas for backup, and gas is extremely costly. As storage grows and gas dependence falls, SA’s prices fall too (as they already do during sunny/windy periods). The idea that the old coal-based system was inherently cheap or stable isn’t accurate — it was just oversized and inflexible, and we paid the cost whether we needed the power or not. South Australia's prices are predicted to fall by 15% during the next 10 years, according to AEMC. Wholesale prices are already dropping 27%. Only 38% of your power bill is for power. The rest is for maintenance, poles and wires etc. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/02/energy-prices-falling-electricity-cheaper-households#:~:text=As households electrify – switching to,bills could halve by 2050. Fossil-fuel power is yesterday’s technology. Coal and gas were vital in the past, but they’re now expensive, unreliable, and being outcompeted everywhere. The cost of new wind and solar is lower than even the running cost of old coal, and investors are abandoning fossil projects because they no longer stack up financially. Our coal fleet is ageing, breaking down more often, and too costly to maintain. Every coal station in Australia has a closure date because the private sector can’t justify keeping them open. Meanwhile, renewables and storage are now the dominant new sources of generation globally because they’re fast to build, low-cost, and flexible. This isn’t ideology—it’s economics. Fossil fuel power is in long-term decline because it no longer fits a modern electricity system. The future grid will be cheaper, cleaner and more reliable without it. The business world is already voting with its wallet. If coal and gas were truly cheaper and more efficient, investors would be lining up to fund them. Instead, banks, super funds and insurers have walked away because fossil fuels are high-risk, high-cost and increasingly unprofitable. Meanwhile, almost all new investment is going into renewables and storage. Even the big mining companies — some of the most conservative, profit-driven businesses around — are choosing renewables because they’re cheaper and more reliable on remote sites. BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, South32, and Gold Fields are all building large solar, wind and battery systems because they cut fuel costs and improve energy security. This isn’t ideology — it’s economics. While people argue online about whether the transition “should” happen, the market has already decided. The shift away from fossil fuels is happening, accelerating, and financially unstoppable.

My account is in credit, and no, I am not wealthy, but I did my sums. There are schemes with no up-front costs. You can even lease a solar system. In Europe, they have so-called balcony solar, where the panels are attached to the railings and can be taken with you when you leave. It is true that at the moment renewables are backed by fossil fuels, but every year the balance is changing. I recall a time not that long ago when the doubters were saying that renewables could never supply more than 10% now, I believe the average is around 40% and at times, much more. The argument that only coal or gas will do gets less true every year.

Home batteries reduce peak demand on the grid. Peak demand is the most expensive part of the electricity system because it determines how much generation and transmission needs to be built. Reducing peaks lowers system-wide costs, which benefits everyone — including those who don’t own batteries. They still buy and sell power, just less of it during expensive times. Grid-connected batteries actually support the grid by feeding in power at peak periods and reducing pressure on poles and wires The single biggest reason for rising electricity prices over the last decade is volatile and expensive fossil fuel costs — especially gas and coal outages. Renewables (wind, solar + batteries) are now the cheapest forms of new generation, and every major energy body — AEMO, CSIRO, the ACCC — agrees that replacing old fossil plants with renewables is the lowest-cost path. Batteries reduce peak demand, which is the most expensive part of the grid. I bought my system after I retired. The upfront cost was not great, and some of it was financed with a no-interest loan. l did my sums and, for a very modest upfront cost, ensured low power bills. I am more than happy to contribute through taxes to the poorest folks to ensure that everyone can take advantage of cheap renewables. As I posted earlier, China's emissions appear to have plateaued and may actually have slightly reduced. https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/11/11/have-chinas-carbon-emissions-peaked-new-analysis-shows-they-havent-risen-in-18-months Australia has also reduced emissions. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-slashes-emissions-despite-diesel-ute-love-affair-20251126-p5nin

Australia recorded one of its biggest annual emissions drops since COVID: 2.2% lower in the year to June, mainly due to electricity, industry and agriculture. Preliminary data suggests an even larger 2.8% drop for the September quarter. Government says Australia is on track for its 2030 target of a 43% cut from 2005 levels, and for its new 2035 target of 62–70%. Emissions are now 28.5% below 2005 levels, with about half of the 2030 carbon budget already used. Transport emissions are rising, driven by diesel utes and SUVs: Diesel road emissions up 7.8% in a year. Diesel vehicle numbers up 101% since 2014; petrol vehicles up only 5%. Chris Bowen says climate policies—renewables, home batteries, safeguard mechanism—are working. Australia missed out on hosting COP31, but Bowen will lead global climate negotiations for the next year. Bowen accuses the opposition of being “unpatriotic” for criticising the arrangement. The Climate Change Authority will release its own report, with Chair Matt Kean calling for bipartisan, fact-based climate policy. Australia slashes emissions despite diesel ute love affair from the Financial Review

I take your point, but it’s worth recognising the difference between mining coal—which is burned once and contributes directly to emissions—and mining metals like copper, nickel and lithium, which are long-lived, recyclable and essential for clean-energy infrastructure. The environmental footprint per unit of long-term usefulness is simply not comparable. I’m not anti-mining; in fact, through my ethical super fund, I hold shares in PLS (formerly Pilbara Minerals). Mining is unavoidable if we want electricity, transport, communications, and modern technology of any kind. The real issue is how we mine. That’s why I think the focus should be on raising environmental standards and supporting responsible producers. Australia is actually well-positioned here: strong regulations, better labour standards, and the potential to supply much of the world’s demand for critical minerals needed in batteries, electrification, and renewable energy. If anything, responsible mining in countries like Australia reduces reliance on operations in places with poorer environmental controls.

Interesting article about emissions in China. Here is the short version A new analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), published on Carbon Brief, shows that China’s greenhouse gas emissions have been flat or declining for the past 18 months, starting from March 2024. This puts China on track for a possible full-year emissions drop in 2025, which would be symbolically significant because China has previously left its peak-emissions timeline vague. Key Findings Power sector: Even though electricity demand grew sharply from July–September 2025, power-sector CO₂ emissions stayed flat. Renewables boom: China added 240 GW of solar and 61 GW of wind in the first nine months of 2025, setting up another record-breaking renewables year. Solar electricity output grew 46% in Q3; wind grew 11%. Transport: Rapid EV adoption reduced oil-related transport emissions by 5%. Industry: Emissions fell in cement and metals by 7% and 1% respectively; steel emissions also declined. Chemical sector: Emissions rose 10% due to growth in plastics and chemical production, partly offsetting reductions elsewhere. Context and Challenges China is still off track for its 2020–2025 carbon-intensity target (emissions per unit of GDP), meaning deeper cuts are needed. Analysts note China has a history of under-promising and over-delivering on climate goals. China’s newly submitted 2035 climate plan (NDC) commits to reducing net economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10% from their peak. Global Perspective COP30 officials praised China for driving down renewable energy costs globally. A new UN analysis including China’s updated pledge says current global climate commitments put the world on track for a 12% emissions reduction by 2035, up from 10% in the previous assessment. Here is the longer version: https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/11/11/have-chinas-carbon-emissions-peaked-new-analysis-shows-they-havent-risen-in-18-months

That picture isn’t actually an argument against wind turbines — it’s an argument for better mining standards, which applies to all forms of energy. Every energy technology, including coal, oil and gas, requires huge amounts of mined materials. Fossil fuels require steel, concrete, copper, and aluminium too — plus they involve continuous extraction of fuel forever. Wind turbines, by contrast, require one-time mining, then they produce energy for 25–30 years with no fuel burned and no ongoing extraction. 1. Wind uses far less total mined material over its lifetime than fossil fuels. Coal and gas plants need constant mining and drilling for fuel. Wind needs materials once, then no more digging. 2. Minerals for renewables are increasingly coming from countries with strong environmental and labour standards. Australia, Canada, the US and Scandinavia are ramping up production of nickel, copper and rare earths precisely to avoid reliance on poorly-regulated mines. The solution is improving supply chains, not ditching clean energy. 3. Wind turbines don’t use many “rare earths” anyway. Only some turbine designs use them, and manufacturers are rapidly shifting to rare-earth-free generators. 4. Fossil fuel extraction also happens in countries with poor environmental controls — and much more of it. Oil spills, coal sludge, gas flaring, and abandoned wells cause orders-of-magnitude more environmental damage than the mining required for renewables. 5. Modern wind turbine materials are highly recyclable. Copper, steel and aluminium — which make up most of a turbine — are recycled at very high rates, reducing mining needs over time. 6. Showing a single mine doesn’t prove wind is bad; it just illustrates that mining should be cleaner. If the standard is “this technology requires mining,” then all energy sources fail. The real comparison is: Mining once for decades of clean power (wind) vs Mining and drilling continuously and decades of pollution (fossil fuels).

There’s a safety requirement for a gap between the bonnet and the engine. In older cars, when pedestrians were struck, their heads often hit the bonnet. The gap acts as a cushioning zone to reduce the force of impact before the head reaches the engine. Many modern cars reduce this gap for aerodynamic reasons, so they use dynamic bonnet systems to meet safety standards.

The active hood has been around on European cars since 2005, so not a new feature The Jaguar XK was the first car to feature a deployable bonnet pedestrian safety system in 2005, although the system was first unveiled by Honda in a concept vehicle in 2004 and introduced in a production model in 2008. The system uses pyrotechnic actuators to lift the rear of the bonnet upon impact with a pedestrian, creating a cushioning effect to reduce head injuries. Jaguar XK (2005): This was the first vehicle to publicly unveil the production system, which was designed to meet new European safety legislation. The system automatically "pops" the hood up a few inches to create a cushion between the pedestrian and hard points in the engine compartment. Honda (2008): Honda unveiled its "Pop-up Hood System" technology in 2004 and incorporated it into a production vehicle in 2008. Honda's system uses sensors in the bumper to detect an impact, then an actuator raises the rear of the bonnet by about 10 centimeters. General Motors (2007): GM introduced its active hood system in 2007 in the European market. This system works at speeds between 25 and 48 km/h (16-30 mph) and is designed to reduce pedestrian fatalities. Buick Regal (2017): Buick made the active hood standard in China with the new generation Regal in 2017.

Australian (and European) Tesla models have a little-known feature called "active hood" "Tesla has installed a pyrotechnic system that raises the rear portion of the hood (closest to the windshield), if a frontal pedestrian crash is detected. The hood immediately lifts by a few inches so that the pedestrian's impact hits a softer, and more movable surface than that of the solid parts beneath the hood, or even the windshield." https://insideevs.com/news/333820/teslas-active-hood-safety-feature-could-save-lives/ There have been cases of this deploying during a collision with a kangaroo.

Sadly, most rules or safety features are designed for the idiots, and the rest of us just have to endure them.

What I am thinking is that it is very easy to speed at least partially through a school zone. Usually, I have this mild panic near a school. Am I in the school zone yet? What time is it? Is it the school holidays? I can see a place for speed bumps that only operate when needed. Also, speed bumps are unpleasant even if you travel over them slowly. A road near me has about 6 speed bumps. I understand why, because it is a residential street that has become a throughway. Travelling at the set speed of 40KPH, you still have to come to a crawl 6 times. It certainly would be nice to travel the whole street at 40KPH without having to almost stop. I don't think this is a wholesale replacement for the fixed speed bump (reverse or otherwise). Apparently, they have been adopted in Sweden and Iceland. I believe there are other styles, but they broadly fit into the category of "dynamic speed bumps ", which I think was first developed to aid emergency vehicles. I don't necessarily see a case for mass adoption, though.

I wonder if an ideal scenario might be for areas like school zones, where the speed restrictions only apply during certain hours.

Here is another method of cleaning panels by drone, but this time the drone has a connected hose.

I think the drop is quite small and probably no more hazardous than hitting a normal speed bump at high speed. Apparently, they are used in Sweden, with one of the benefits being that they are not triggered by emergency vehicles, which I guess is a great benefit. All in all, though, I think it's probably too expensive to install and maintain. Apparently, they are being used overseas. https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/2037/annex-b-actihump-leaflet

The "negative speed bump" idea may be a little overly complex, as it relies on radar. I guess if the radar fails, it stops working.

Well, it seems such a thing does exist. The good thing about it is that it only deploys for the vehicles that are speeding. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17TjHhm1De/

In no way would I try to convince you to buy an EV, but facts do matter. In terms of hitting a roo I would rather hit one in this vehicle, which has nothing critical to get damaged. I would rather hit a roo in this and probably be able to keep driving than a typical IC car. As far as cost goes, the price of EVs is falling. In fact already more economical if you consider the lifetime cost (maintenance and fuel) As far as batteries falling out, I don't really think that is a thing? As far as catching fire goes, the statistics show that IC fires are more common than EV fires. As battery chemistries change, EV fires will become almost nonexistent. Already, there are many cars on the market with LFP that have an even better fire history. Like it or not, EVs are here to stay and are only getting better year by year. Yeah, I look back at my first car, a 1970 Ford Cortina with rose coloured glasses. A carburettor that needed to be constantly adjusted, also the distributor gap. Later, I got a car with fuel injection, and then later airbags, etc., technology has never stood still.

Not sure why it being an EV makes any difference.