octave

That is a bold claim to make without evidence. The short answer is no. There is no credible estimate that connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers requires $1 trillion in grid upgrades. Here's where the claim appears to come from. What Snowy Hydro 2.0 actually costs The project has experienced enormous cost overruns: Original estimate (2017): $2 billion Revised estimate (2023): $12 billion Snowy Hydro now acknowledges the final cost will be higher than $12 billion. Some independent analysts (Bruce Mountain and Ted Woodley) estimate the total economic cost could reach around $42 billion, but this includes: construction, financing (interest), and Snowy 2.0's share of major transmission projects such as HumeLink and VNI West. Even critics of the project are talking about tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Where does the "$1 trillion" come from? There are a couple of possibilities. 1. Confusing Snowy 2.0 with the entire energy transition Some opinion pieces have argued that Australia's entire electricity transition—generation, transmission, storage, distribution upgrades and financing over decades—could approach very large figures. For example, one recent opinion article claimed: about $450 billion for transition infrastructure plus around $600 billion in financing costs and rounded this to roughly $1 trillion. It was not referring solely to connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. That estimate is controversial and is not an official government, AEMO or CSIRO estimate. 2. Simple exaggeration Sometimes numbers grow in online debates. Someone may have taken: "$42 billion for Snowy" plus "Australia's grid will need hundreds of billions of investment" and turned it into "Snowy needs a trillion dollars of transmission." There is no evidence for that statement. What do official bodies estimate for transmission? Australia does need significant transmission investment regardless of Snowy 2.0. AEMO's Integrated System Plan includes projects like: HumeLink VNI West Marinus Link EnergyConnect These collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions for Snowy alone. The purpose is to connect new renewable generation across the National Electricity Market, not just Snowy Hydro. Is Snowy 2.0 competitive? That's a separate question. There are legitimate criticisms: huge cost blowouts years behind schedule uncertainty over final cost batteries have become much cheaper since Snowy 2.0 was conceived Many energy economists now question whether Snowy 2.0 would be approved if starting from scratch today. Others argue its enormous storage capacity and expected operating life (many decades) still make it valuable for grid reliability. The "$1 trillion to connect Snowy 2.0" claim isn't supported by any credible estimate. Even critics of the project put Snowy 2.0's total cost at around $40–42 billion, including construction, financing and associated transmission. The "$1 trillion" figure comes from some opinion pieces estimating the possible cost of Australia's entire long-term energy transition—not the cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. They're two completely different claims. So I'd rate the original statement as: "Connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs $1 trillion" → False "Snowy Hydro 2.0 has become extremely expensive" → True "Australia will need major transmission investment during the energy transition" → True "Those transmission costs are all because of Snowy Hydro 2.0" → False

True but it does have to be quite hot: The Temperature Limits Standard industrial wind turbines are engineered according to international IEC 61400-1 standards, which dictate a normal operational ambient temperature limit of 40°C and an extreme survival limit of 50°C. [1] When weather conditions push past these thresholds, turbines protect themselves using a two-stage defense mechanism: [1] Thermal Derating (Curtailment): When ambient air temperatures rise between 40°C and 45°C, the turbine's control system automatically throttles or "derates" its power output. By reducing electricity generation, the turbine limits the internal heat produced by electrical resistance. [1, 2, 3] Automatic Shutdown: If the ambient temperature crosses the critical maximum limit—usually 45°C to 50°C depending on the specific model—the turbine will initiate a full safety shutdown. [1, 2, 3] Why Extreme Heat Causes Issues Even though turbines use internal liquid or air cooling systems, they ultimately rely on the outside air to dump that heat. [1, 2] Inefficient Heat Exchange: When the surrounding air is extremely hot, the temperature differential between the turbine's internal components (like the gearbox or generator) and the outside environment shrinks. The cooling loops can no longer dissipate heat effectively. [1, 2, 3] Component Protection: The oil in the gearbox can thin out excessively under extreme heat, reducing lubrication and risking catastrophic mechanical friction. Similarly, generator windings can suffer insulation melting or permanent damage if they overheat. [1, 2, 3, 4] Thin Air Dynamics: Hot air is less dense than cold air. Less dense air provides less aerodynamic lift on the blades, requiring the turbine to work harder (generating more internal heat) just to produce the same amount of electricity. Regional Adaptations To combat this, manufacturers build specialized "hot climate packages." Turbines bound for desert environments like parts of Australia, the Middle East, or the Southwestern United States feature upgraded, heavy-duty cooling fans, larger liquid-to-air heat exchangers, and altered internal insulation to withstand ambient operational temperatures up to 50°C before shutting down. 2. Thermal Derating Over Full Shutdowns When temperatures do spike above 40°C in parts of South Australia, Victoria, or New South Wales, modern wind farms are engineered to dynamically adapt. [1] Rather than shutting down completely, turbines usually undergo thermal derating (throttling back total output by 10% to 20%) to keep internal temperatures safe while continuing to supply power to a stressed grid. [1] Because the majority of Australia’s wind assets are located in coastal or elevated southern regions (which rarely sustain ambient temperatures above the 45°C–50°C critical cutoff), full thermal shutdowns are exceptional events.

I asked AI this: how much would a new coal-fired power station cost, and what impact would it have on electricity bills? The short answer is: A new coal-fired power station in Australia would likely cost A$8–15 billion, depending on its size and technology. It would probably increase, not decrease, average electricity bills compared with building new wind, solar, and battery capacity today. However, it could reduce exposure to gas price spikes if it displaced expensive gas generation. Here's why. Construction cost A modern high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal plant of around 1,000 MW would likely cost: Item Estimate (A$) Construction $8–15 billion Construction period 7–10 years Expected operating life 40–50 years The wide range reflects uncertainty because no large coal-fired power station has been built in Australia for decades, so there is no recent local benchmark. For comparison: The cancelled expansion of Medupi Power Station ultimately exceeded A$25 billion after delays and cost overruns. Recent coal projects in Europe and North America have also experienced substantial overruns. Why is it so expensive? Coal plants require much more than the boiler itself: enormous steam turbines pollution control equipment cooling systems ash handling facilities coal storage and conveyors high-voltage grid connection extensive environmental approvals. Modern emissions standards also require equipment that older Australian coal stations never had. What would electricity cost? This is where it gets interesting. The cost of electricity from a new plant is usually measured by the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE). Approximate ranges today are: Technology Cost (A$/MWh) Existing depreciated coal 40–80 New coal 120–180+ Gas peaking 150–300 (depends on gas price) Wind + firming 70–120 Solar + batteries 60–110 These figures vary between studies, but most recent analyses conclude that new coal is more expensive than new renewable generation with storage, largely because of its high upfront capital cost and ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses. Why are old coal stations cheap but new ones aren't? This often causes confusion. Australia's existing coal stations: were built 30–50 years ago, have largely been paid off, operate under older environmental standards. That means today's consumers mostly pay for: coal, maintenance, staff, repairs. A new station has to recover billions of dollars of construction costs over its lifetime. What impact would it have on household bills? For a typical Australian household spending around A$2,000 per year on electricity: Scenario 1: Coal replaces expensive gas Bills might fall slightly during periods when gas prices are very high because coal fuel has historically been cheaper than gas. Scenario 2: Coal competes with new renewables Bills would likely be higher than under a system dominated by new wind, solar, and batteries because the new coal plant's capital costs would need to be recovered from electricity consumers (or taxpayers). Scenario 3: Government subsidises construction If taxpayers funded part of the construction cost, electricity prices could appear lower, but the cost would be shifted from electricity bills to government budgets funded by taxation. Other considerations A coal plant also faces economic challenges because it operates best at a relatively constant output. Australia's electricity demand now has a deep midday dip caused by rooftop solar, making it harder for coal stations to run continuously at high utilisation. If a new coal plant generated fewer megawatt-hours than planned, its fixed costs would be spread over less electricity, increasing the cost per unit produced. Could private companies build one? In theory, yes. In practice, no major electricity company has announced plans to finance a new conventional coal-fired power station in Australia. The main reasons cited are: the very large upfront capital cost, long construction times, uncertainty over future electricity market conditions, competition from lower-cost renewable generation and storage. My assessment If Australia's objective were simply to build the lowest-cost new electricity generation, the evidence available today suggests that a new coal-fired power station is unlikely to be the cheapest option. Existing coal stations remain relatively inexpensive because their construction costs were paid off decades ago, but replicating that infrastructure today would require a very large new investment. Unless there were substantial government support or a major change in technology or fuel costs, that investment would probably place upward pressure on electricity costs compared with building a mix of renewable generation, transmission, and storage.

I just read that the 400000 figure for home batteries is just since the rebate, and if you include home battery installations before the rebate, the total is somewhere around the 600000 mark. BYD have announced their new generation of sodium batteries, expected to cost $40 US a KWh and be good for 10000 cycles or approximately 27 years. The point is that whilst we are debating this, battery storage gets cheaper and better, solar panels get cheaper and more efficient, as do wind turbines, not to mention other coming technologies. This argument is often predicated on the notion that renewables cost money and must be paid for, whilst ignoring the fact that new coal is incredibly expensive and requires constant fuel, the cost of which would be borne by the consumer. This, according to CSIRO and AEMO would cost more than our present strategies.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-29/free-electricity-solar-sharer-scheme/105999242

A deeper analysis The paper, "Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening" by Frans J. Schrijver, was published in the journal Science of Climate Change. The author is an independent researcher, and the journal is not widely regarded as a leading journal in paleoclimate or atmospheric science. The paper contains no new measurements—it is a modelling exercise based on previously published datasets. (Science of climate change) That doesn't automatically make it wrong, but extraordinary claims require strong evidence. What is the paper actually arguing? The argument goes something like this: Earth today is greener than it used to be because higher CO₂ stimulates plant growth. There have supposedly been periods in the past with similar or greater greening. Therefore CO₂ must also have been much higher in those periods. Since Antarctic ice cores don't show these higher CO₂ levels, the ice cores must be wrong. Notice that this is not direct evidence that the ice cores are inaccurate. It is an indirect inference: "My model predicts higher CO₂, therefore the measurements must be wrong." That is a much weaker form of evidence. The biggest flaw: greenness does not uniquely determine CO₂ The paper effectively assumes more vegetation = higher atmospheric CO₂. But ecologists have known for decades that plant productivity depends on many variables: rainfall temperature sunlight soil nutrients nitrogen phosphorus disturbance (fire) land use length of growing season species composition CO₂ is only one factor. The paper acknowledges diminishing returns from CO₂ fertilisation, but still treats CO₂ as the dominant explanation for high global primary productivity. That assumption is not demonstrated. (Science of climate change) It ignores multiple independent CO₂ records This is probably the strongest criticism. Ice cores are not the only evidence for past CO₂. Scientists also use: marine sediments boron isotopes stomatal density in fossil leaves paleosols alkenones isotopic carbon chemistry These completely independent methods broadly agree with the Antarctic ice-core record over overlapping time periods. A recent Nature study extending atmospheric CO₂ measurements back to about 3 million years found broadly stable CO₂ levels consistent with existing paleoclimate understanding rather than the large fluctuations proposed by ice-core critics. (Nature) If the ice cores were fundamentally wrong, we'd expect these independent methods to disagree. They generally don't. The paper revives criticisms that have already been examined The paper relies heavily on arguments from: Zbigniew Jaworowski Ernst-Georg Beck Hermann Harde These authors have argued for years that: CO₂ diffuses through ice meltwater alters trapped air ice cores smooth or destroy past CO₂ peaks These criticisms have been investigated extensively. Scientists agree on one point: Ice cores smooth rapid year-to-year fluctuations. They do not preserve every individual year's atmospheric CO₂ exactly. That is well understood. But smoothing is very different from inventing a completely false average. The gas age distribution in Antarctic ice is modelled and measured. Researchers know approximately how much smoothing occurs. It does not produce errors of 50–100 ppm. The paper never explains modern observations Suppose the paper were correct. Then we'd have to explain why: modern atmospheric CO₂ matches fossil-fuel emissions carbon isotopes identify fossil fuels as the source atmospheric oxygen is declining exactly as expected from combustion oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb emitted CO₂ satellites observe increasing infrared absorption by CO₂ Those independent observations all point to the same conclusion. The paper does not address these lines of evidence. The logic is backwards Scientific reasoning normally works like this: Measure CO₂. Explain vegetation. This paper instead says: Estimate vegetation. Infer CO₂. Reject measurements if they disagree. That's considerably weaker. The references are selective The bibliography relies heavily on a relatively small group of authors who frequently challenge mainstream climate science, while giving much less weight to the much larger body of paleoclimate research that supports the reliability of Antarctic ice cores. (ResearchGate) That doesn't automatically invalidate the paper, but it should make readers cautious. Does this disprove ice cores? No. To overturn decades of paleoclimate research, the paper would need to show that: Antarctic ice physically cannot preserve atmospheric CO₂, independent proxy records also fail, laboratory measurements of gas trapping are incorrect, and modern understanding of firn diffusion is wrong. It does not do that. Instead, it presents a model whose assumptions lead to a conflict with ice-core measurements and concludes the measurements must therefore be wrong. This paper doesn't present new measurements showing the ice cores are wrong. It starts with a model relating plant productivity to CO₂, assumes that similar greening in the past required much higher CO₂, and then concludes the ice cores must be inaccurate because they don't match the model. That's an indirect argument, not direct evidence. It also doesn't address the fact that multiple independent CO₂ proxies and modern atmospheric observations broadly agree with the ice-core record. Scientific evidence is strongest when independent methods converge on the same answer, and in this case they largely do.

Within science there are often a range of studies. Over time peer review and further studies make things clearer. As a layperson I go with the majority of science sources. Obviously I can't read and analyse this paper myself and I suspect you can't either. I did look at what other scientists say about this study Article: Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening Author: Frans J. Schrijver (2025) Main question The paper asks whether today's increase in plant growth ("global greening") caused by rising atmospheric CO₂ implies that past periods with equally lush or greener vegetation must also have had higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations than those shown in Antarctic ice-core records. SScience of climate change How the author approaches the problem The paper: Starts from evidence that global terrestrial plant productivity (Gross Primary Production, or GPP) has increased by roughly 30% since 1900, largely attributed to CO₂ fertilization. SScience of climate change+1 Uses Mitscherlich's Law (a mathematical model describing diminishing returns in plant growth with increasing nutrients) to estimate how GPP changes with atmospheric CO₂. Applies the model to historical periods believed to have been at least as green as today, including: the Holocene Climate Optimum the Eemian Interglacial the Miocene Compares the CO₂ concentrations that the model suggests would be required with CO₂ estimates from Antarctic ice cores. SScience of climate change Main conclusions The author concludes that: If modern greening is primarily driven by higher CO₂, and if earlier warm periods were similarly or more vegetated, then atmospheric CO₂ during those periods may have been substantially higher than the <300 ppm values indicated by Antarctic ice-core reconstructions. The paper therefore argues that the conventional interpretation of long-term ice-core CO₂ records may underestimate past atmospheric CO₂ during certain warm intervals. SScience of climate change Significance The paper suggests that if its analysis is correct: historical CO₂ variability may have been larger than generally accepted; climate sensitivity to CO₂ could differ from current mainstream estimates; additional evidence beyond Antarctic ice cores should be considered when reconstructing ancient atmospheric CO₂. SScience of climate change Important context This paper presents an argument that differs from the prevailing scientific consensus. The mainstream view, reflected in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and much of the paleoclimate literature, is that: Antarctic ice cores provide reliable atmospheric CO₂ records over the past ~800,000 years. Multiple independent proxies (marine sediments, fossil plant stomata, boron isotopes, and others) broadly support the conclusion that pre-industrial CO₂ remained around 180–300 ppm during that interval, despite uncertainties for much older periods. GGMD+2 The Schrijver paper challenges this interpretation by reasoning from vegetation productivity rather than by presenting new direct CO₂ measurements. As a result, its conclusions are not widely accepted and should be viewed as a hypothesis that would require corroboration from multiple independent lines of evidence.

I am not a huge gamer myself although I use flight sim. Once a week I connect with my brother in law who lives interstate and we fly our world trip together. We have flown all the way around Australia and NZ. Over the last few weeks we have island hopped to New Guinea where we will attempt some of those insane remote mountain top strips. We usually plan a one hour hop so it is a project that will last for years. We try to use current weather conditions and correct flight planning procedures. There are many games that are a workout for the brain.

Yes I was aware of this. My son has a computer games development company. Their flagship games is based on an idea my son had when he was 10. His company now based in NZ employs around 7 people. We are now the poor relatives https://share.google/7DKAr1mzPdrUUSidR

Drilling ice cores. The deeper they drill the further back in time they go. The gas in these ice cores is a sample of the atmosphere at the time. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-much-co2-was-atmosphere-hundreds-years-ago

The highest atmospheric \(CO_{2}\) level during human habitation was recorded in May 2026, when peak daily readings at the Mauna Loa Observatory reached 433.95 parts per million (ppm). For historical context, \(CO_{2}\) levels were stable at around 280 ppm for 6,000 years of civilization and never exceeded 300 ppm during the last million years. [1, 2, 3]

The thing with naming is it can be difficult to avoid repetition and have something interesting. Many businesses make up words. There was a time when once a week for work I would stay in a cheap motel. The chain of motels was called Formule One. No I did not misspell that. All these years later it sticks in my mind. Sometimes a business name will be a portmanteau. If a business or gallery uses perhaps some ancient Viking word from a language that is no longer spoken, is that really problematic?

So would the same apply to perhaps names derived from very early English. Perhaps place names in a language is no longer speaks. What would be an alternate name for these galleries? It just seems a bit boring and stuffy for everything to have English names. I guess we will just have to disagree on this.

Surely after white settlement Aborigines developed words for new things introduced by settlers. Prior to settlement I imagine that Aborigines had never seen a horse or camel but I imagine just like any language it develops new words for new things. Often perhaps in this case the word may be the same as English or perhaps similar. In the case of Naala Badu it supposedly means "seeing waters" which refers to the view. This seems relevant to the location. Am I missing something here?

I don't really see the problem here. I am sure there are British place names from old English and probably have changed over time. I search the name of the village I lived in Mongarlowe. As far as I know there are no other towns with that name. Yes it is probably is not pronounced accurately. Do people have a problem with Woolomaloo?

"Does it matter OT" Sorry OT I meant OME

Does it matter OT? Personally I am proud of our mix of historic British words and the historic indigenous words that make Australia different from the US or Canada or NZ or Britain.

Only half of petrol tax is going back into roads say motoring groups, amid calls to cut fuel excise

It reminds of when we visit our son in NZ. One of our favourite places to visit is Te Papa Tongarewa which is Wellington museum. The literal translation is "container of treasures" I think it is a great name being both an understatement and a name that is quintessentially NZ.

This is pretty impressive: an electric mining truck that does not need to be charged. Note, though, that it only works in a specific setting. The trick is that it travels uphill empty and downhill fully laden. Through regenerative braking, it generates more than is required to travel uphill again (empty)

I guess what is new are battery-powered trucks and autonomous trucks, such as in China and Canada.

Many Australian place names are Aboriginal. I think the only difference here is that this particular name may not have been as commonly used. Despite not being fluent in any other language I have had no problem coping with the places I have lived. Kurrajong, Mongarlowe, Budawang and Geelong.

Meanwhile in China

I believe there are electric vehicle operating in mines in Australia right now. Battery-electric mining vehicles are operating in Australian mines today, but battery-electric haul trucks are mostly still in the trial or early deployment stage. Already operating today Fortescue is operating: 16 electric excavators in the Pilbara Electric drill rigs Various smaller electric mining equipment being tested and introduced into service Fortescue says each electric excavator saves about one million litres of diesel per year. Battery-electric locomotives are also now being commissioned on Fortescue's Pilbara railway. These are not prototypes sitting in a workshop—they are being prepared for operational use on the rail network. Giant haul trucks (the really big ones) This is where things get interesting. BHP, Rio Tinto and Caterpillar are currently trialling two battery-electric Cat 793 haul trucks at the Jimblebar iron ore mine in the Pilbara. These are 240-tonne-class trucks operating in real mine conditions, but they are still part of a formal trial rather than routine fleet deployment. Fortescue has fitted out its first battery-electric Liebherr T264 haul truck and has commissioned a 6 MW fast charger capable of charging a truck in about 30 minutes. However, Fortescue has stated that its first operational battery-electric haul truck is expected to enter service later in 2026. So the answer is: Equipment Operating in Australian mines now? Electric excavators Yes Electric drill rigs Yes Battery-electric locomotives Yes (commissioning/early operation) Small electric mine vehicles Yes 240-tonne battery haul trucks Trialling now Large battery haul truck fleets Not yet The biggest surprise for many people is that excavators may electrify before haul trucks. An excavator works in a relatively fixed location and can be supplied power more easily, whereas a haul truck may need to climb several hundred metres carrying 200–300 tonnes of ore, making battery size, charging speed and mine-site power infrastructure much more challenging. If you're wondering whether these trucks actually make economic sense, the answer appears to be increasingly "yes" for remote mines. A large haul truck can consume several million litres of diesel over its life, so even expensive batteries can be worthwhile if charging infrastructure and renewable power are available. That's one reason companies like Fortescue are pushing so hard—they believe electrification will eventually reduce operating costs as well as emissions.

Don't be ridiculous, it obviously means keyboard players 😁