octave

The good thing about today is that modern technology supersedes candles, etc. Modern LED lighting, cheap solar panels, lower cost batteries mean that even without a full-on rooftop system with battery, you can cobble together quite a good backup power system. Action is better than whinging.

Just out of interest, what are you paying per kWh

PM, do you believe new coal or nuclear (and I am not anti-nuclear) can be built without increasing electricity bills? The fact that you use the tired old "woke" to describe a valid method of generating electricity. My woke panels mean that for me , electricity bills are not really an issue. So do antivaxxers.

It is a matter of data isnt it? I assume that you don't accept the figures from CSIRO or AEMO?

GON, you are comparing the cost of building solar and wind with building nothing. Let's say we stopped solar and wind, we would need to build new coal power stations. Whatever source we choose has to be paid for. In Australia, renewables (wind and solar) are currently the cheapest sources of new-build power generation, even when accounting for integration costs. According to the latest CSIRO GenCost Report, utility-scale solar and onshore wind maintain a significant cost advantage over fossil fuel and nuclear alternatives. The important figure to look at is the Firmed Renewables. The point is, whatever the cost is now does not tell you how much you would need to pay if they replaced the coal power stations that are nearing the end of their life. Technology Source Estimated Cost (AUD/MWh) Solar PV (Utility-scale) $44 – $65 Onshore Wind $45 – $57 Firmed Renewables (with storage/transmission) ~$81 – $91 Gas (Combined Cycle) $65 – $111 Black Coal (New Build) $87 – $118 Nuclear (Small Modular Reactors) $230 – $382+

People sometimes get the idea that if we stopped building solar and wind, then everything would be much cheaper without considering that something has to be built. Old coal was mostly built by the government (the taxpayer). Building a host of new coal power stations or refurbishing old ones would come at a cost that would be borne by the taxpayers or the electricity customers. The question is which is cheaper to build and operate?

I am not sure whether you are serious about this suggestion, or it is something you just believe or that you have evidence for? In fact, she does cop a lot of flak. She strongly supports Nuclear power and is supportive of renewables, but sceptical about how much this can achieve. She also does not believe that net zero will ever be achieved. If she is in the pay of "climate cultists", then they are getting poor value for money. The ocean is mildly alkaline, with an average pH around 8.1 — not strongly alkaline. Since the Industrial Revolution its pH has dropped measurably due to absorbed CO₂. Even small pH shifts matter because the scale is logarithmic and marine organisms are sensitive to carbonate chemistry changes. So describing the ocean as “strongly alkaline” is chemically misleading and ignores well-documented acidification trends.

I just looked up bated breath, and although I have great respect for Nevs opinion, there are limits

Great. Sabine definitely agrees with anthropomorphic climate change. I am happy to post a detailed assertions.

Nothing???????

I have followed for many years . If you think she is a dumb f***k then please produce your assertions

And do you accept her findings or do you think she is somehow co-opted by hi[ppe-dippie climate fantasists. If so pl.e4se show how.

Anyone??????? Good. She presents a view between renewable scepticism and realism that you can respect. CO2 absorbs infrared at a rate greater than it radiates, This is a fact of physics.

I would love the climate change doubters to present a case against this, but I don't believe they can

Hopefully, you folks who think climate science is airy-fairy bullshit will man up and watch this video. I will take a pretty dim view of you if you criticise this video, and it is clear you did not even watch it. The maker of this video, "Christina Hoffensfelder," is not a soft touch. She is pretty savage about "renewable optimism" and is savage about the likes of Greta Thunberg. Sorry, but (and I regret this because on other matters I think you are right) If you guys have solid rebuttals of this video, please provide them. Sabine is quite happy to answer questions, and I have in the past

Not exactly a bog standard Viva, but even as a non-car enthusiast,t I found this interesting. My son, who lives in New Zealand hasd a game development company, and their flagship game involves designing cars and engines and running car companies. Their engine and car build software is quite accurate in the real world. Anyhow, about 10 years ago, for advertising, they paid for and organised and paid for the US YouTube channel "smoking tyre" to come to NZ and film interesting local cars. My son organised all of this and also did some of the camera work. I am not sure if anyone will find this interesting, but I, although not a car nut justr love to see ordinary people innovating.

True story. I joined the RAAF in 1979. My now wife moved in with me in 1980. The Air Force at this time chose to recognise De facto relationships. This meant we were entitled to married accommodation. At the time, they did not have enough Air Force accommodation. This meant that they subsidised our private rental. Every 3 months I would go to the pay section and be given thousands of dollars in cash. Then, temporarily, the crusty old conservatives gained power (f**k I hate conservatives) and suddenly they did not recognise our relationship. we of course, being rational people, got married.

I guess the same evaluation applies. Between 1900 and 2011, I lived on a beautifull 44acre bush block, although up until this point I had lived on grid power. This block was several KMs from the nearest power. I had three choices: pay around $30000 to extend the power poles, install a diesel or petrol generator or install a solar battery system, which at the time was in its infancy. We took the rational choice and installed solar. One of the things I like was energy-wise, we were standing on our own two feet. One of my crusty old conservative neighbours actually said that solar was "gay", they were the ones "cuckolded" by the power company with monthly bills. Now I am on the grid. Although I am now on the grid, I have solar that generates more than twice what I need. Of course, when it is cloudy or at night, I rely on the grid, which is either wind, grid sized battery or failing those 2 sources, filthy brown coal. Only an idiot would think the brown coal is preferable to the other two. If I had a home battery, I think I could once again. The economic case for a battery is just dubious at the moment but the price of this tech is falling all the time. Even the most ardent coal/gas/nuclear fans must admit that harvesting the more than ample energy that the sun provides us (solar wind, tidal and wave) is the holy grail. So we are not there yet, but only an idiot would think that digging for energy is somehow superior.

I don't have any philosophical objections to nuclear, where it is found to be the most practical solution. I think, in fact, the solution will not be just one method. Every generation source has its pros and cons. My scepticism over nuclear in the short term is a matter of time and cost. Sure, start planning and building nuclear where it will be most appropriate. In the meantime, keep building the lower-cost, quicker solutions until nuclear can be built.

yep https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

The theory of anthropomorphic climate change precedes the IPCC (Svante Arrhenius 1896). Whether the temperature is increasing or not is best measured with hard science rather than our gut feeling. My question OT would be is NASA is fabricating these measurements? Is there a conspiracy between NASA and all the other scientific organisations? Are the acidity measurements of sea water also fabricated? NASA knows the climate is warming through comprehensive, multi-decadal data from satellites, ground-based weather stations, sea buoys, and atmospheric sensors. These tools, analyzed by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISTEMP), show a clear, sustained rise in global surface temperatures of roughly 1.8°F (C) since 1880. NASA Science (.gov) +3 NASA's evidence for climate warming comes from several key sources and findings: Satellite Observations: NASA operates over two dozen satellites that monitor Earth's atmosphere, land, and ice, allowing scientists to track changes in real-time and over long periods. Surface Temperature Records: Millions of data points from stations, ships, and buoys indicate consistent warming. Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Satellite measurements of the cryosphere show shrinking ice sheets and glaciers. Additionally, ocean temperature sensors and satellites confirm that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are causing oceans to absorb heat and expand, resulting in rising sea levels. Atmospheric Data: Instruments monitor atmospheric composition, tracking the increase in heat-trapping gases. Natural Records: Data from ice cores, tree rings, and rocks are used to compare current temperatures with historical, long-term trends. NASA Science (.gov) +8 Independent data from other agencies like NOAA and universities worldwide confirm NASA's findings of significant and rapid warming

Yes, I was missing something. Tolls now apply to trucks (not cars) on the Westgate Bridge and on parts of the Westgate Freeway. The news is so poor at presenting facts and data prefering outrage. Whether expensive infrastructure should be paid for only by the users or spread out across all taxpayers, or a little of both, is something I dont have a strong opinion on.

Sometimes you come across a comedy sketch that is not necessarily laugh-out-loud, but does trigger a smirk of recognition. We fly to Adelaide 4 times a year to visit my mother in aged care. This means 8 trips through airport security, plus a few more for other trips. It has been frustrating (a lot better lately, though) that there has never seemed to be a standard procedure, and the staff are often under pressure and grumpy (again, I note a recent improvement). In the past, we have had the conversation that goes "Is it Melbourne or Adelaide where you have to take out your laptop?" Last week, one situation in this video actually occurred. My wife and I found this quite amusing - Trayyyyy

I genuinely don't understand this. Perhaps I am missing something. The news stories seem to assert that the completion of the tunnel has increased truck traffic through these suburbs. Weren't these trucks driving through these suburbs before the completion of the tunnel? Surely the worst-case scenario is that it has not improved the truck situation. Again, perhaps I am missing something, but the tunnel surely has not increased the traffic to a level greater than before the completion of the tunnel. Happy to be corrected.