octave

Exactly. I travel on the train often, but those who drive their cars instead do benefit from all the travellers who are on the train and not clogging up the roads.

As I have said previously, I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear, but amongst other things, an economic case would need to be presented. The other issue is the timeline on nuclear. I get that SMRs are being developed and even a couple are in operation now (Russia and China). How long would it take for us to develop the expertise to build our own, or do we get in the queue to buy one from the Russians, the Chinese or the US?. Until these nuclear options are available and built do we spend money on refurbishing old coal or building new coal? All of the scenarios would result in bigger power bills. Your link that talks about a "death spiral" and lumps Australia in with Pakistan, I think, is inaccurate. Pakistan’s grid is in trouble because of long-term under-investment, big subsidies, high losses and widespread non-payment. That’s not a rooftop solar problem. Australia doesn’t have those structural issues, and we actually plan our grid developments years in advance through AEMO and the ISP. You did tell me I could not use Denmark as an example because Australia is not Denmark. You know what else it is not Australia? Pakistan And in fact, pretty much need to run 24 hours a day. Coal can be somewhat throttled back, you can't really stop burning fuel when demand is low. It is a bit like keeping your car idling in for when you need to go out. Would this be different with the cost of developing and building nuclear? The predictions of death spirals and the grid falling over are not new. I recall dire warnings that if we had more than 20% renerwables on the grid. The yardstick keeps being moved. When wll th grid fall over (other than the usual faults)? I dont say that all this is easy (neither is building NP) problems are being solved all the time. Just because we have relied on inertia from coal generators it does not mean that thius is the end point of technological development. We have more and more batteries and grid forming inverters, synchronous condensors etc.

Whatever way we go, there are costs. Do you really think that building nuclear power plants will not impact your bill?

The electric hot water that is installed now is generally not the old-fashioned resistive hot water system, but heat pump hot water systems. These systems are very energy efficient compared to resistive electric or gas. I believe there are substantial rebates for upgrading to a heat pump, so probably worth looking into.

The cost of electricity comprises direct generation costs plus the infrastructure required to distribute it and retail costs. Electricity could be extremely cheap if we decided not to extend the grid or if we reduced maintenance standards. We could decide what level of resilience we are willing to pay for. Do you think building new coal, gas, or nuclear power would reduce your bills? Would we pay through higher power bills or through our taxes? The Iberian Peninsula power cut is very complex. As the video you posted suggests, there were many failings. Even if the chain of events were precipitated by a component of the renewable system (and I don't think that is universally accepted) do we say "Oh, a failure, let's rip out the renewables and build more coal"? I think a better course of action would be to say "what went wrong and how we can prevent it from happening again." If your car breaks down, you don't swap it for a horse, even though horses were adequate transport back in the day. I imagine neither of us will suddenly change our minds, and the move towards renewables is not likely to stop and be reversed. When I post, I spend considerable time making sure my posts can be supported by references. This makes this a time-consuming activity. I think I might schedule a reminder email to myself, and I could gather as many stats of, let's say June and December (to capture high and low solar) and look for records of grid failures and see if there is a trend and if so, in what direction. Could also record price, both spot and retail (as well as daily connection charges)

Here is a graph of the energy mix for SA for last year. To perhaps oversimplify the argument somewhat. Some people appear to want the green, orange and purple (wind and solar) or in other words, the methods of generation that do not require fuel to be transported and burned, but would rather the teal colour to be 3 times higher. As I see it, the objections to producing electricity without transporting or burning fuel are reliability and cost. On reliability, I can't really find evidence that states with more renewables have a less reliable grid. I do have a basic understanding of maintaining grid frequency. This is why synchronous condensors, grid forming inverters and batteries are being installed. Siso I have open in front of me here a report on the Spanish power cut. Grid Incident in Spain Portugal on 28 April 2025 Excess renewables generation did not cause Iberian blackout Of course, the grid is an extremely complex thing, and from time to time, things can go wrong. It seems to me, though, that solving those problems has to be a better solution than going back to the old system of just coal and gas. Of course, coal and gas is not perfect in terms of reliability. In terms of cost, according to AEOMO, th ten-year forecast is for prices to drop (not dramatically). In fact wholesale prices are lower in SA. Yes, this doesn't translate into retail prices yet. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. When I bought my solar I added the loan montly payment to my monthly electricity bill. This made my electricity quite expensive for 4.5 years but now it is extremely cheap. Like it or not the world is moving towards more and more renewables. Businesses are making investment choices.

Whether or not you approve of the term "nation of migrants," these are the hard, rational facts. As of 2023, 31% of Australians were born overseas. The 2021 census shows that nearly half (48%) of Australians have a parent born overseas. Let's leave out the term "Nation of Migrants" if it freaks you out. Let's just say a nation with a significant number of migrants.

The comparison with Qantas aircraft is misleading, because traditional coal-fired power stations already rely on vast amounts of underutilised equipment. Coal plants cannot ramp quickly, they cannot turn off at night, and they must run even when demand collapses — meaning the whole plant is burning fuel simply to stay online. This is the definition of expensive underutilisation.

We moved to a country town in 1990 and lived there until 2011. It was an interesting place to live with a healthy mix of traditional farmers, etc., and people like us (tree change folks). When we moved there, we were worried that it it be a redneck town; however, this was not the case. There were a few redneckish types on one end of the scale and a few dropout hippies on the other side. The town was quite cohesive, not that everyone shared the politics or life philosophies, but there was quite a mutual respect for "differences" The town remained vibrant, and it still is. Rather than being in decline like so many country towns, this place thrived, attracting artists, musicians, craftspeople, etc. An interesting point regarding immigration, there was a large Chinese family called the Nomchong family. They owned several businesses around town. This family came to the town (Braidwood) in 1860. Throughout the years, they had all married other Chinese people, so they looked very Chinese, but all had the broadest Australian accents. The owner of the local electrical appliance shop was Bob Nomchong, and within the family, there was a Betty and an Eileen. Amongst the younger generations, there was a Kylie, etc. The strange thing is if I were standing next to one of the Nomchong family, I would be judged as the Aussie, and they would be assumed to be the immigrant rather than the 5th Australians https://www.cmag.com.au/exhibitions/nomchong-family

EV Sales up 24 Per Cent in First Half of 2025 EV and hybrid sales soar in Australia as internal combustion cars fall below 70% market share for first time

Randomx, what exactly do you want to happen? I don't totally disagree with you, although I would not put the argument so aggressively. I passed someone while bush I said Hi and they, obviously being a Kiwi, said Kia Ora, which I think was quite charming.

Obviously, to arrive at a meaningful figure, you need to average data over time. A single spot measurement—say, 13th June 2024 at 13:10—is just a snapshot. It shows how the grid was powered at that moment, using batteries, hydro, or fossil fuels. Fossil fuels still play a role, though their contribution is declining year by year. You mentioned that Australia has only 7% traditional hydro and is unlikely to get more. I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that several new pumped hydro projects are under construction or in planning—not just Snowy 2.0. As well, there are larger projects like the Australia-Asia Power Link. Yes, I am aware that it had a setback, but it is back. The plan is to start with a more modest link from Powel creek before the eventual connection to Singapore. Yep, ambitious and difficult, but technically feasible. I understand that the biggest challenges might be financial. This is not the only project of this magnitude in the planning stage (Morocco-UK 400km) We can push the bounds of technology, or we can just throw another lump of coal on the fire. We could debate the details endlessly, but in the meantime, solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and other renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient. The grid is being upgraded, home battery adoption is growing, and EVs are becoming more common—many with vehicle-to-grid capabilities. You said earlier that you thought pursuing further renewables was criminal, and you wish the government could be sued (I hope I am not misquoting you). Perhaps you should assemble like-minded people and explore doing just that.

OK, but I have trouble following your logic. You hate political parties, and therefore, I assume, the government. You stick it to them by not voting (which they would hardly notice), and you get a fine, which you pay to whom? THE GOVERNMENT. Personally, I want to spend my money on things that make me happy, not send it to the government. Perhaps a strongly worded letter might be more cost-effective.

My son has this sticker on his 2019 Tesla.

I have just been digging around in the Battery capacity stats. Residential (3.6 GWh) + Business (0.5–1.0 GWh) + Grid (6–12 GWh) → ~10.2 GWh to ~16.6 GWh operational mid-2025 (range reflects uncertainty in business & grid totals). Committed / near-term additional capacity (next 1–3 years): Under construction (end-2024): 23.3 GWh (utility). Clean Energy Council At/near financial close (pipeline): 37 GWh (Rystad — larger pipeline beyond those under construction). pv magazine International If the under-construction + near-financial-close projects all proceed, Australia’s total installed (homes + business + utility) could reach dozens of GWh (40–70 GWh) within a few years. Also, the 410000 EVs (approx) in Australia at the moment have a combined capacity of 30GWh. Vehicle-to-grid is now happening, albeit small at the moment. I think those countries that embrace technological innovation will thrive.

Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 United States presidential election

And how is that working out for you? Poor voting turnout does not stick it to the pollies. Most countries don't have compulsory voting and have low turnouts, but so what? Willingly paying fines when you say you are struggling to pay your power bills seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. How does not voting achieve anything?

Denmark is relevant not because it is identical to Australia, but because it demonstrates what is technically possible: High penetrations of wind (often >70% of demand) Stable grid operation Large-scale integration of storage, interconnectors, and flexible demand Australia will not copy Denmark, but Denmark proves that variability can be managed at the national scale. Whilst it does import power (about17%) it also exports. Iceland → virtually 100% renewables, advanced grid Norway → >95% renewables Uruguay → ~95% renewables, stable and wealthy by South American standards Portugal → frequently >80% monthly renewable generation Scotland → >100% wind generation equivalent to demand They are not “third world,” and they demonstrate that stable, high-renewable grids are entirely achievable Ethiopia or Congo are irrelevant—they rely on hydro because that’s their resource. Australia’s mix will be different. Australia is not physically connected to big neighbours. But we dont need to be. Australia’s strength is spread over a huge geographic area, which actually reduces variability when linked with transmission. Australia also has: Vast land for large-scale storage Strong rooftop solar penetration Mature markets that reward firming and flexibility Growing pumped hydro, battery, and demand-response capabilities We don't need a France next door when we can build storage and firming solutions domestically. Notable pumped-hydro / hydro projects in Australia (2025) Project (or Site) Status (as of 2025) Capacity / Storage Notes / Timing Snowy 2.0 Pumped Storage Power Station (NSW / Snowy Mountains) Under construction ~ 2,200 MW / ~ 350,000 MWh storage potential Wikipedia+1 Links two existing reservoirs via a 27 km underground tunnel + new underground power station. It’s a major national-scale storage project. Estimated commercial operation ~ 2028. DCCEEW+1 Kidston Pumped Storage Hydro Project (QLD, repurposed old gold mine) Under construction / near-commissioning (entered NEM 2025) waterpowermagazine.com+2pumpedhydro.com.au+2 250 MW / ~ 2,000 MWh (≈ 2 GWh) pumpedhydro.com.au+2Genex+2 First new pumped-hydro energy storage facility in Australia in nearly 40 years. Uses two old mine pits (upper + lower) as reservoirs. Expected to deliver dispatchable energy to the grid from 2025. Genex+2Energy-Storage.News+2 Mt Rawdon Pumped Hydro Project (QLD — former gold mine) Proposed / in development / feasibility + design + government backing State Development Plan+1 ~ 2,000 MW / ~ 20,000 MWh (20 GWh) proposed PV Magazine Australia+2pv magazine International+2 The proposal involves converting the decommissioned mine pit into the lower reservoir + a purpose-built upper reservoir, with underground tunnels & powerhouse. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) active; expected construction start around 2028, with commissioning in early 2030s if approved. mtrawdonhydro.com.au+2State Development Plan+2 Borumba Dam Pumped Hydro Project (QLD, near Gympie / Mary Valley) Proposed / planning & early works / design stage pumpedhydro.com.au+2Queensland Hydro+2 ~ 2,000 MW / ~ 48 GWh storage proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 The state-owned developer is currently doing technical investigations, site planning, project design and community consultation. Business case refresh expected by mid-2026; no firm construction start date. Queensland Hydro+1 Glenbawn Pumped Hydro Project (NSW, Upper Hunter) Early-stage / feasibility (under development by private energy co.) WaterNSW+1 ~ 770 MW / ~ 7.7 GWh proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 The project was acquired by an energy company in 2025. Preliminary steps (land-use agreements, studies) are underway; no committed construction date yet. WaterNSW+1 Glennies Creek Pumped Hydro Project (NSW, Upper Hunter) Early-stage / feasibility (like Glenbawn) WaterNSW+1 ~ 623 MW / ~ 6.2 GWh proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 Bought by the same energy company in 2025; still in early development with no confirmed build schedule. World Energy+1 Several other proposed/screened sites (various states / dams / water storage assets) Proposed / “potential / identified for study / early-stage” pumpedhydro.com.au+2WaterNSW+2 Varies — many in the low-to-mid hundreds of MW; small-to-mid GWh storage For example: sites identified by state dam-owners for feasibility studies. Projects have not yet been confirmed. WaterNSW+2NSW Climate and Energy Action+2 Germany’s temporary coal use was due to: The Russian gas crisis Closing reactors without adequate alternatives ready A conscious political decision, not a grid technology failure Meanwhile: Germany’s coal is trending down long-term Wholesale prices in Germany have stabilised Germany added record renewables in 2023–2025 Also important: Germany's grid has remained one of the most reliable in the world, even with high renewables. I dont oppose nuclear, however it does have some drawbacks. Nuclear is a valid technology—but it does not solve Australia’s challenges: New nuclear is the most expensive form of new generation in the OECD Construction times are 10 to 15 years Requires large water supplies Needs a massive regulatory, licensing, and workforce base Australia does not have CSIRO GenCost: nuclear is many times more expensive than firmed renewables If the aim is lower prices quickly, nuclear cannot deliver that. Nuclear is a valid technology—but it does not solve Australia’s challenges: New nuclear is the most expensive form of new generation in the OECD Construction times are 10–15+ years Requires large water supplies Needs a massive regulatory, licensing, and workforce base Australia does not have CSIRO GenCost: nuclear is multiple times more expensive than firmed renewables If the aim is lower prices quickly, nuclear cannot deliver that. Cross-border flows fluctuate every hour. One snapshot doesn’t prove stability or superiority. France often exports, but it also imports during cold weather or reactor outages. The UK also imports and exports constantly. The presence of imports and exports is not a sign of weakness—it’s how interconnected grids work. As the report says - From a VRE perspective, remember that this is early afternoon so we would hope (I have not checked) that solar yield was cranking at that time To be clear, I think we are many years away from, shall we say "near 100% renewables" I believe in the short term, gas will most likely be our backup.

Perhaps it is being raised by British parents, but I have always adapted. When I joined the RAAF, we used to travel around and often go to Williamstown airbase near Newcastle. In line with my northern British roots, I would pronounce Newcastle with a short "a", no one else did. Eventually, I adapted. The other thing for me is that as I age, I definitely don't want to be pigeon-holed as an old man with old attitudes. My circle of friends tends to be younger than me, and like my time in the RAAF, I tend to adapt to my surroundings. This is very much just my personal philosophy.

That reminds me. My wife and I go bushwalking 3 or 4 times a week, and we have noticed something. My tendency throughout most of my life has been to say Gday. Whilst bushwalking, when we pass someone on the trail, we usually exchange pleasantries. People seem not to say "Gday", but instead say good morning (or afternoon). We were wondering if "Gday" might be getting a little old hat these days. I find myself more and more saying "good morning" (or afternoon)

BYD does have a presence in the US, but only buses, trucks, and commercial vehicles, no passenger cars. There is a BYD factory in California that produces buses and trucks. It appears that the primary reason BYD is not permitted to sell passenger cars is due to security concerns over Chinese software.

Me too. I was thinking back to when I joined the RAAF in 1979. Although born in the UK, I grew up in Adelaide. I was posted to Richmond, NSW. Back then, people were much more parochial. It really seemed to matter what state you were from. These days, people you meet are likely to have lived and worked in several states. We talk of preserving our national identity, but I am not sure what that identity actually is. I came to Australia when I was 18 months old, so I am a product of the Australian education system, yet raised by a lovely couple from Yorkshire (no, I don't have the accent). My son was born in Australia, but is now a NZ citizen with a Chinese partner. Amongst my son's employees, there is a German, someone from Holland, some Australians and some Kiwis. It is not uncommon for younger people to work overseas. Even much, much older people, I am looking at you @Jerry_Atrick Whilst we don't want to become exactly like people from the US, we inevitably will be influenced by those we live and work with. Yesterday, someone posted about the creation of an Australian-specific AI. Being a curious person, I asked ChatGPT whether it thought there needed to be an Australian LLM. It said "Yes to a point" and proceeded to tell me what Australianisms it did understand and what it was likely to misunderstand. Its examples of Australian words and phrases tended to be a little exaggerated. We don't usually call each other cobber. Would an Australian LLM become a cartoonish version of Australia?

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.