octave

The ABC is not above manufacturing hatchet jobs against EVs AI summary: "In April 2026, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) faced intense criticism from electric vehicle (EV) advocates following a 7.30 report focused on the difficulties of long-distance EV travel. Primary Criticisms of the Report Advocates and experts, including The Driven, accused the ABC of adopting a "petrol tank mentality" and producing a "hit piece". Key points of contention included: YouTube +1 Choice of Vehicle: The report featured a 2021 Hyundai Kona, an older model with slower charging speeds, which critics argued was used to unfairly represent the entire modern EV market. Poor Timing: The segment was filmed during the Easter long weekend, the busiest travel period of the year, which naturally led to atypical charging station queues. Lack of Context: Critics argued the report failed to mention that roughly 95% of EV charging occurs at home, rather than at public fast-chargers. Technical Exaggeration: Claims that using Bluetooth audio or cabin heating significantly drained the battery were labelled as "ignorant or deliberately misleading" Review of ABC story by the Driven “Petrol tank mentality:” ABC’s 7.30 report on EV charging problems rated a fail

I think your point is a reasonable one. This is what AI says, for what it's worth: "It’s true that if inflation is caused by something like higher fuel costs, then demand isn’t the initial cause—so in that sense, raising interest rates doesn’t fix the root issue. But where demand does matter is what happens next. If demand stays strong, businesses can keep passing on those higher costs, workers push for wage increases, and inflation becomes ongoing rather than a one-off spike. That’s what interest rate rises are trying to prevent. They reduce spending enough that businesses find it harder to keep increasing prices, so inflation doesn’t get embedded in the system. So it’s not really about saying ‘demand caused this’, it’s more ‘demand determines whether it keeps going.’”

My understanding is that raising interest rates is supposed to prevent runaway inflation. "Increasing interest rates lowers inflation by making borrowing more expensive and saving more attractive, which reduces consumer and business spending. This decreased demand slows economic growth, cooling the economy, and reducing pressure on businesses to raise prices, ultimately lowering inflation." It does, however, inflict financial stress on people who are struggling. The ordinary person suffers for something they have little control over. In this case, the orange ones Iranian adventure. On the subject of interest. Let me strenuously state that my worldview is not dictated by total self-interest. In my case, I retired early, and I am living off my super. Since the orange one is wrecking the world economy, I have pulled out my super, and it is all now in term deposits. This money has to last me a little while longer. A rise in interest rates for me personally is a bonus. To stress again, I do have empathy for mortgage holders.

PM, the media watch segment does note the journalist's history; however, its main thrust is about mistruths. The journo says "it (cobalt) has been the key element in practically every storage battery on the planet" Whilst cobalt was a common ingredient, this is no longer the case. This should have been pointed out, but that would detract from the purpose of the story. If the problem is cobalt, then why limit criticism to its (diminishing) use in EVs and renewables? My understanding is that about a third of all cobalt is used in laptops and smartphones as well as jet engines, medical implants, car tyres and pigments. But this would not fit the narrative. Whilst the vast majority of EVs and storage batteries are now LFP those other uses still remain, but this seems to be OK. I am intending to buy an EV within the next year and I am only considering LFP (which is pretty much the vast majority), so there is no story here. Awareness of the problems with cobalt is fairly recent, so I certainly would not point at someone in their EV or hybrid (Corolla Cross?) and yell, "blood battery". I am also keenly aware that cobalt is used in my phone, PC, etc.

There are commercially successful projects happening right now. proven / operational or pilot success HYBRIT (Sweden) → Produced fossil-free steel using hydrogen instead of coal → Successfully demonstrated large-scale hydrogen storage and steelmaking Fukushima Hydrogen Energy Research Field (Japan) → Operational facility producing hydrogen from solar power → One of the world’s largest working green hydrogen plants Large-scale projects with strong commercial backing NEOM Green Hydrogen Project → ~$8.4 billion investment, backed by 20+ banks → ~80%+ built and aiming for production around 2026–27 → Long-term buyer already locked in (key sign of commercial viability) 🌏 Emerging industrial-scale success (often overlooked) Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project → One of the first fully operational, large-scale green hydrogen/ammonia plants → Producing hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually (industrial scale) .

The mistruths are easily provable. I am happy to go through them one by one.

Here is an analysis of the claims made in the Channel Seven story. The relevant part starts at 3:08

Geelong leads nation with first hydrogen fuel station Hydrogen from a 2.5-megawatt electrolizer powered by wind and solar. Just a small trial at the moment, but several buses and trucks are using hydrogen fuel cell tech on the streets of Geelong

Governments have always invested in promising new technologies. Many may turn out to be dead ends but others winners. Early aviation was able to flourish because of government subsides for early air postal services as well as passenger routes. You are pro nuclear right? Would you have any objections to public money helping to kick start nuclear power plants in this country?

Whilst it is true that green hydrogen is still in its infancy, it does not mean that it is a dead technology. Notable (and relatively successful) green hydrogen projects 🇸🇦 NEOM Green Hydrogen Project One of the world’s largest projects (over 2 GW electrolyser capacity) Backed by Air Products and ACWA Power ~90% constructed as of 2025–2026 Designed to produce hydrogen → ammonia for export 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the first projects moving from hype to bankable, near-operational scale. 🇨🇳 Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project Developed by Envision Energy Produces ~320,000 tonnes of green ammonia per year (already operating) Powered by wind + solar 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the few large projects already running, not just planned. 🇩🇪 Bad Lauchstädt Energy Park ~30 MW electrolyser using wind power Supplies hydrogen to chemical industry (e.g. TotalEnergies) 👉 Why it matters: A good example of industrial integration, not just production. 🇮🇳 Kandla Green Hydrogen Plant Small (1–10 MW), but operational and locally used Powers buses and port infrastructure 👉 Why it matters: Shows hydrogen working in real transport and port use, not just theory. 🇨🇳 Large-scale wind-to-hydrogen hubs (Inner Mongolia) Multi-billion-dollar developments combining renewables + hydrogen China already exceeded ~220,000 tonnes/year capacity and scaling fast 👉 Why it matters: China is arguably the only place doing this at real industrial scale today. 🏭 Companies that are actually delivering projects These aren’t single projects but are consistently active (a good proxy for “success”): Fortescue Future Industries Adani Enterprises TotalEnergies Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners They’re leading global capacity build-out and investing across dozens of projects . ⚖️ Reality check (important) Even the “successful” ones share a few traits: 💸 Still expensive (often $3.5–6/kg vs cheaper fossil hydrogen) 🏗️ Heavy subsidies or government backing 📈 Success = scaling + proving viability, not big profits yet ⚡ Economics depend heavily on very cheap renewable electricity Globally, there are 500+ projects and $110B+ committed, but only a fraction are fully operational .

Trump has control of both houses. This means he can and has done pretty much whatever he wants. If the republicans lose control of Congress and the Senate, he will have very little power.

Also, if polling is accurate after November, he will most likely be a lame duck president.

Getting back to the assertion that political leanings are determined by the dominance of one hemisphere over the other. It is not unusual for people to change their political leanings throughout life or as a result of particular life experiences. I came to Australia from England when I was 2. I endured a moderate amount of bullying early on in school for being a Pommy. This no doubt allows me to empathise with victims of bullying. My sister came out as gay when she was 17, and suffered badly due to conservative attitudes back then. This means that I can not abide anti gay behaviour and therefore identify more with the so called left than right. As I said, I have been a musician/music teacher all of my life. This means that I am keenly aware of which side of politics is likely to support the arts. As a teenager, I was heavily involved with the Astronomical Society and had a general love for science I have an awareness of which side of politics is more supportive of science. Our neighbour and friend is a trans F to M. My logical side says, " Do I enjoy this person's company? Anything else is irrelevant. Again, this seems more left than right. Whether or not we have hard-wired tendencies, that is all they are, tendencies. Much more important is the overlay of life experience. For some, a life event may even change someone from right to left or vice versa. It is also not uncommon for people to move across the political spectrum as they age.

According to the AI summary 🧠 The “left brain vs right brain” idea The claim that people are either “left-brained” (logical) or “right-brained” (creative) is not supported by modern neuroscience. The brain does have hemispheric specialization—that part is real. For example, language is often more dominant in the left hemisphere. Some spatial processing leans right. But almost everything you actually do—math, music, drawing, decision-making—uses both hemispheres working together via the corpus callosum. Large brain imaging studies have found no evidence that people consistently favour one hemisphere in a personality-defining way. 🧾 The examples (tax vs art, daydreaming) These are too neat to be accurate: Doing your tax return: Uses logic, yes—but also memory, attention, language, and even visual processing → both hemispheres involved. Painting or playing music: Not just “right brain.” Skilled musicians and artists show strong left-hemisphere involvement (timing, sequencing, structure). Daydreaming: Linked more to the brain’s default mode network, which spans both hemispheres, not just the right. 📚 About Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain This book is popular and helpful for many people learning to draw—but its explanation is not scientifically accurate. Betty Edwards uses the “right brain” idea as a teaching metaphor. What she’s really helping people do is: Stop relying on symbolic shortcuts (“this is what an eye looks like”) Start observing shapes, proportions, and negative space more carefully That improvement is real—but it’s not because you’ve “switched hemispheres.” It’s because you’ve changed how you pay attention and process visual information. 🎨 The Vincent van Gogh example Van Gogh’s improvement is absolutely real—but: It’s explained by practice, training, and perceptual learning, not “activating the right brain.” Adults can improve dramatically at drawing once they learn to see differently, which is what Edwards is tapping into. 🧩 So what is true? ✔ The brain has some lateralization ✔ People can improve artistic skills a lot with the right training ✔ The book’s exercises can genuinely help 🚫 What’s not true (or overstated) ❌ People are “left-brained” or “right-brained” ❌ Logic = left hemisphere, creativity = right hemisphere ❌ You can switch modes by “using the right side of your brain”

I think these things are oversimplified. I can talk specifically about music, having been a musician and music teacher for my entire working life. Music is not only artistic but also analytical and mathematical.

No, it is not. Would you like references?

'Neo-nazis' boo condemned at Melbourne Anzac Day dawn service

If you add up all of the countries that contribute less than 2% it comes to around 35%. The amount of tax I pay is minuscule by itself, so perhaps I shouldn't have to pay it.

The fact that I like my son's Chinese partner does not mean I hate Australia. I judge people by their character and their deeds, not by where they were born.

I am not particularly knowledgeable in the field of economics; however, growth surely is not purely the production of manufactured goods. As an individual economic unit, I made a good living selling a service, not an item. If I sold my services overseas, the profit would be every bit as important as the income for selling wheelbarrows.

You should note that my correction was merely to your numbers, not to your main argument. It is crucial for all sides of any debate to use the available resources to ensure that your argument is supported by accurate data. The resources of the net allow us to present figures that, even if not 100% accurate, are at least somewhat accurate. I am sure there have been times when I have presented statistics that turn out to be less than accurate, which I find highly embarrassing. Australia’s economic model is built around growth, and population growth has been a big part of that. Without migration, our population would age much faster. Like Japan, we would see a shrinking share of working-age people supporting a growing number of retirees. That shift matters because fewer workers means less tax revenue, while demand for healthcare, aged care, and pensions increases. Australia’s system—especially superannuation—helps reduce pressure compared to some countries, but it doesn’t eliminate it. An ageing population still creates a gap that has to be filled somehow. In practice, that leaves a limited set of choices: higher taxes, reduced government support, later retirement, or increased migration to maintain the workforce. Migration isn’t the only solution, but it is one of the most immediate ways to keep the balance between workers and retirees from deteriorating too quickly. Without some combination of these adjustments, maintaining current living standards in retirement becomes more difficult over time. The reality is you can’t have a rapidly ageing population and expect the same level of support in retirement without trade-offs. The numbers simply don’t balance.

This is not an ad hominem attack, just merely reporting facts. If there are alternative sources, then I am more than happy to consider them. This is the best “headline” number (arrivals minus departures). 2022–23: ~536,000 → highest on record 2023–24: ~429,000 → still extremely high 2024–25: ~306,000 → fell significantly 👉 So by this main measure, 2025 was not the highest—it was already coming down from a post-COVID surge.

I have just briefly scanned through the entire thread, and I am not sure I see ad hominem attacks, certainly no more than usual. Perhaps you could highlight them for me. You then talk about lefties, which doesn't personally bother me, but I am sure you don't mean it as a compliment.

Your typo amuses me 😁

I am not necessarily anti-nuclear, in fact, in some maybe it makes sense. Whilst decommissioning may be a small cost, all up the building of the NP in the first place is enormous. Decommissioning can sound straightforward, but at least at this stage, it is not. Common Problems and Challenges Decommissioning is a complex engineering task that often faces technical, financial, and logistical hurdles: Financial Shortfalls: Costs typically range from $500 million to $2 billion per reactor. Some countries, like France, face concerns that set-aside funds may be insufficient to cover the total future costs. Waste Disposal Bottlenecks: No country currently has an operating deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel). This often forces waste to stay on-site in dry casks indefinitely, preventing the site from being fully released. Technical Delays: Projects frequently experience timeline extensions. For example, Japan's Tokai 1 reactor dismantling was delayed by over a decade, with completion now pushed to 2030. Unexpected Hazards: Older plants often lack detailed historical records, leading to the discovery of unexpected contamination or structural issues during dismantling. Workforce Shortages: As a "wave" of plants reaches retirement, there is a growing need for a highly skilled, specialized workforce that the industry currently lacks. World Nuclear Association +4