octave

I also use both Flight Radar 24 and Flight Aware when my wife has been away on a solo trip. This happens about 4 times a year. We have the pickup down to a fine art. I park at a large service station a couple of KMs from the airport (free). I can then find her flight on either of these apps. and see exactly where it is. This means I can get to the pickup zone at just the right time. Another purpose I use it for is following other people's flights. Recently, my son and partner spent 3 weeks in China. I tracked all of their flights, not out of concern but out of interest.

Here you go OT. Flight Radar 24 historic flights. Untitled 552.mp4

I am not sure if you can do that or not on the free versions of FR24 or Flight Aware but there is a site run by Air Services Australia called WebTrak. II think its main purpose is for reporting aircraft noise. You can go back 3 months, I think, only for capital cities, though https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/community/environment/aircraft-noise/webtrak/

You can also type an aircraft's registration on FlightAware for example VH-*** for historic data.

This was my last flight from Adelaide to Melbourne Untitled 551.mp4

FlightAware allows you to search for past flights for free

If you close the ad I think it takes you to the subscription page. I suspect this is what is happening. The free version is sponsored by an ad. Here is how I use this app Untitled 549.mp4

I am not sure why you are trying to register. It is free to use and does not require registration unless you want the paid version.

Definitely free with no need to register or pay. You can upgrade to the paid version for more features but I have never thought it necessary. I used to do a bit of aircraft photography near Melbourne airport. Radar 24 is great to see what is coming in. For following a specific aircraft there is another app called Flight Aware also free.

Flight Radar 24 is free to use. There is a paid version but I use the free version.

Trump confirms US has launched 'major operation' in Iran

Good job GON. Even if you only save a small amount, it is good take action and feel that you have some control.

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.