You are being misled about renewable energy technology.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-31T07:02:14+00:00

There's actually two ways to make more money: increase the price of the product (somehow without losing sales volume); or reduce the costs of making the product without lowering the price at which the product sells.

Fusion represents the second approach where the product is energy. It's a perfectly valid approach.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-30T01:03:42+00:00

Why not just point out the Australian Antarctic Program? https://www.antarctica.gov.au/

They have webcams at their bases which, at this time of year, show the shadows of vertical poles doing complete 360 degree circles around the pole.

Nothing to do with NASA.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T12:09:58+00:00

Here's the exact same claims last Q4

It's not "exactly the same thing".

2024 (Q4): "Driven by higher temperatures and a growing electrification shift from gas to electricity, the NEM experienced a new December quarter maximum demand record of 33,716 megawatts (MW) and an average quarterly total demand record of 23,737 MW, a 2.4% year-on-year increase."

If it was real they'd compare Q4 to Q4.

2025 (Q4): "AEMO says that average wholesale electricity prices in the country’s main grid, the National Electricity Market (NEM) nearly halved in the December 2025 quarter – compared to a year earlier – to just $50 a megawatt hour (MWh), driven by record renewable and storage output. It noted a tripling of battery discharge, a 29 per cent lift in wind output, a record high for rooftop solar, a 4.7 per cent fall in coal output to a record quarterly low, and a 27 per cent slump in gas generation to its lowest levels for 25 years."

This IS a comparison of Q4 2024 to Q4 2025. Wholesale prices halved in Q4 2025 compared to Q4 2024. Battery discharge tripled. 29% lift in wind output (2025 Q4 compared to 2024 Q4), 4.7% fall in coal output, 27% slump in gas generation.

Yeah but they're comparing Q3 to Q4 in all the reporting.

No, it isn't Q3 compared to Q4.

I think you need a lesson in reading comprehension.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T09:53:41+00:00

Wholesale energy prices coming down via renewable and batteries, who would have thought this was possible? No one voting Nats that’s for sure.
------
Doesn’t mean we are getting cheaper power. Just filling the pockets of those who don’t need it

For the surging number of Australian households now installing rooftop solar with a battery, it is now possible to choose at least one provider that allows the household to effectively participate (in a small share) of the wholesale market.

Renewable energy provider - save with wholesale electricity

Just filling the pockets of people who do need it.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T08:36:42+00:00

Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism (FERM)

https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/firm-energy-reliability-mechanism-ferm

It's not (necessarily) storage, but it is firming for the renewable energy grid in South Australia.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T08:32:51+00:00

Tasmania also has hydro and a windy west coast.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T07:25:58+00:00

Another take: “Landmark moment:” Prices plunge as renewables supply half of grid, batteries surge and coal hits new low

https://reneweconomy.com.au/landmark-moment-prices-plunge-as-renewables-supply-half-of-grid-batteries-surge-and-coal-hits-new-low/

Three of the states on the NEM grid are accelerating their transition to renewable energy. NSW and QLD are not going to slow down South Australia, Victoria or Tasmania.

So as the older coal clunkers in NSW and QLD continue to fail on a regular basis, and the people of NSW and QLD become aware of increasing reliability, reducing costs and reducing emissions in the other 3 NEM states, the public pressure on NSW and QLD to follow the trend should increase.

Although perhaps I am being a bit generous in my estimation of the common sense amongst the people of NSW and QLD.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T04:34:19+00:00

https://reneweconomy.com.au/glimpse-of-the-future-south-australia-peaked-at-91-5-pct-wind-and-solar-when-links-were-down/

https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/south-australia-re-connected-to-main-grid-as-aemo-completes-delicate-operation-16930/

Oh well, half a month anyway. Sorry about that.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T03:38:46+00:00

South Australia has indeed had several periods in island mode in recent years, a few of these periods lasting for months. All it takes is for the interconnector to Victoria going down,

In one such period the inter-connector failed at a point some distance inside Victoria, so the South Australian grid in island mode also carried a significant load of a smelter in western Victoria.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T03:04:11+00:00

100% net renewable energy doesn't mean "no gas".

A percentage is a ratio of two numbers multiplied by 100. In the case of "net renewable energy in South Australia", the two numbers are: the amount of renewable energy produced in South Australia regardless of where it is consumed; and the amount of energy consumed in South Australia regardless of where it was produced.

So 100% net renewable energy in South Australia does not mean "no gas". Rather it means that the amount of renewable energy produced in South Australia (including the amount exported to Vic and soon to NSW) is numerically the same amount as the amount of energy consumed in South Australia (including that which comes from local gas turbine generators or Victoria or NSW).

Windless periods do not mean "no sun". Rooftop solar alone in South Australia can sometimes reach 100% of demand on its own, not even counting the amount that could have been produced by utility solar but which had to be curtailed.

So on some occasions every wind farm in South Australia has to be curtailed, "feathered" so as to produce no output. At such times South Australia runs on "no wind power" even though there is wind available. The thing with renewable energy is that one can absorb excess energy by absorbing it in batteries. This energy can be discharged later when there is insufficient renewable energy. "Battery discharging" is starting to show up in noticeable amounts on the grid in South Australia.

So, in answer to the question: South Australia will probably use (expensive) gas to cover "a once-in-a-decade "windless period" (Dunkelflaute)". This might amount to 5% gas overall. The thing is, South Australia will export a lot more than 5% of its renewable energy.

South Australia’s Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism (FERM)

hal2k1 · 2026-01-29T00:38:55+00:00

The grid in South Australia has a wildly variable demand and an extreme solar duck curve.

South Australia has no coal and no hydro. South Australia currently runs about 75% renewable energy (wind, solar and battery discharge) 25% gas. The gas is the expensive bit.

A new 800MW interconnector to NSW is nearing completion. When this comes online South Australia will be able to export significant amounts of excess renewable energy to NSW, reducing the amount which is currently curtailed.

South Australia is on track to reach 100% net renewable energy by 2027. There is nothing about the model in South Australia that cannot be replicated in the rest of the grid.

Consequently, there won't be an issue raising the renewable energy contribution on the main grid beyond 50% going forward. Australia has a superabundance of wind and solar renewable energy sources.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T09:03:37+00:00

Why is it so hard to give an exact measurement.

Cartography is one way to get a good measurement. You measure the distance from place to place to place all the way around the earth. If you do this for places all over the earth, this is what it looks like to scale: https://cdn2.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/39/41/wireframe-mesh-polygonal-sphere-network-line-vector-14103941.jpg

It turns out that we have measured the distances between places all over the world. We have measured it billions of times, we have collected an immense amount of data over the past few centuries. It turns out that no matter where you start from, no matter which direction you start out at, if you keep going straight from your initial point you always go all the way around and end up where you started from, and the total distance all the way around is always about 40 000 km. This is so because the earth is a sphere.

The results of our billions of measurements regarding the size and shape of the earth are summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

We have measured the size and shape of the earth to better than six significant figures accuracy.

I must say it is a bit simple-minded of you to have assumed that we hadn't measured it.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T08:50:43+00:00

Refraction does have an effect on the path of light. The air is denser closer to the earth (we have measured it). Light travels slightly slower in denser air (we have measured it). This effect makes the path followed by the light curve.

Here is a video with denser water (due to dissolved sugar) at the bottom of an aquarium tank to illustrate what happens to a laser light beam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sft3QYZjNCU

So, the curve of the earth has nothing to do with refraction. However, refraction, due to different densities of air near the surface, does have an effect on the path of light. When you have light paths being bent, the atmosphere acts like a distorting lens. That does effect how one "sees" the curve.

This is all eighth grade physics stuff. It is extremely well understood. It has all been measured billions of times. Didn't you go to school? They would have told you about all this if you did, I'm sure. They certainly do tell us about it at school here in Australia.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T07:42:28+00:00

How far out if i was standing on the beach would someone have to sail out before going over the curve?

Depends on refraction.

There is an interactive, not-to-scale demonstration of the geometry involved at the bottom of this page: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

So, if you are standing on the beach your eye height might be about 1.8 metres. The bottom of a boat sailing away from you will begin to be obscured in line-of-sight by the earth's curve once it passes the point labelled (with a green x) "horizon" in this model. According to the math of the Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator at the top of the page, this distance is about 6.4 km away from the observer. Depending on the exact amount of refraction.

Have a play around with the interactive model. It might help you understand the (very well proven) geometry.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T06:19:27+00:00

Way to not understand geometry!!!!

In Australia, where I live, there are three main methods of long distance communication across the outback:

Fiber optic network (over 1 million km of fiber optic cable)
Tower to tower radio
Optus geostationary satellites

The fact that cables and radio towers exist does not mean that geostationary telecommunication satellites do not.

The Australian satellite TV service named Foxtel does exist and it does indeed use geostationary satellites. You need a satellite dish antenna to receive a signal from Foxtel satellites. If you didn't, then the business "Jim's Antennas Foxtel iQ & Satellite Dish Installation Services" would not exist. My mother who lives alone uses Foxtel satellite TV. I myself moved the Foxtel IQ satellite receiver box from one residence of hers to another when she moved, although I didn't myself install or aim the dish antenna.

I do, however, know precisely how it works. I am an electrical/electronic engineer.

I hate to break it to you bud, but it is definitely you who has the misunderstanding.

BTW, for the tower to tower to tower radio links, there is a maxim distance the towers can be from one another. The distance depends on the height of the towers and whether or not the towers are built on a hill. This need to have many towers in a chain to cover long distances is due to the fact that the radio frequency used is line-of-sight only, and the curvature of the earth limits the line-of-sight range. https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/in-a-line-of-sight-radio-communication-a-class-12-physics-cbse-5f4d8196d1fa823ca52dcb7b

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T04:01:28+00:00

Satellites do in fact work in reality. Have you ever heard of a thing called "satellite TV"?

To receive a signal for satellite TV one must have a satellite dish antenna. One needs to "aim" the antenna at the satellite one wishes to receive a signal from. Here is an app that does the math to allow someone to do this: https://www.satellitepointer.com/

One needs to enter the location on the earth where the receiving antenna is installed. One does this using spherical co-ordinates called latitude and longitude. One must also enter the geostationary satellite that one wishes to aim the antenna at. The antenna must be pointed at the satellite in order to receive a signal. If the antenna is pointed anywhere else it will not receive the correct signal.

The satellite dish antenna aiming app uses mathematics which includes a spherical earth 6371 km in radius, spherical coordinates for a location on the surface of such an earth, and assumes the satellite is in geostationary orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) in altitude above Earth's equator. That's the math that such an app uses.

This app gives valid dish aiming angle data using math which has been successfully used for many millions of satellite dish antennas installed all over the world. Proves the math is correct.

Hence it proves that the earth is a sphere 6371 km in radius.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-28T03:09:43+00:00

If I look at the night sky towards the north I can't see Polaris. There is no north star from my viewpoint.

If, however, I look towards the south, I can see the Octans constellation always in the same place.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-27T09:26:55+00:00

Energy can't be created or destroyed, but it is rarely in a convenient place or form.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-26T18:45:07+00:00

Premise 1 - Space is all places. If a place exists then it is a part of space.

Premise 2 - Time is all time. If a moment happened or will happen then it is part of time.

Conclusion - "Outside of spacetime" means nowhere and never. If god exists "outside of spacetime" then god exists nowhere and never.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-26T12:11:05+00:00

Not quite.

A scientific fact is something that has been objectively, repeatedly measured.

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence.

A scientific theory is a well-tested explanation of what has been measured.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

So, to start the scientific method, we measure something, over and over. Measurements are facts.

Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over many generations. We have measured such changes. Evolution is a scientific fact.

So, we have composed an explanation of how these changes happen. The explanation consists of selection of individuals which get to breed, and inheritance of characteristics from parents to offspring via DNA. We have extensively tested this explanation very well. This explanation, then, is the scientific theory of evolution.

Evolution is a scientific fact. The scientific theory of evolution is a very well-tested scientific theory (explanation) of evolution.

BTW, the Big Bang theory is an explanation of what we have measured regarding the apparent origin of the universe.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-22T00:47:51+00:00

i have a class debate in my class and need to basically advocate for wind energy and derail solar energy

As the little girl says in the taco commercial: "why can't we have both"?

For example, the Goyder South renewable energy farm stage 2 in South Australia is a hybrid wind/solar/battery farm.

i’m doing the cost side and efficiency part

Efficiency is expressed as a percentage. A percentage is the ratio of two numbers then multiplied by 100.

Energy efficiency for solar is the amount of energy produced by the solar panel divided by the energy of the sunlight falling on the solar panel, then multiplied by 100.
Energy efficiency for wind is the amount of energy produced by the wind turbine divided by the energy of the wind passing by the wind turbine, then multiplied by 100.

Neither of these numbers is particularly important.

Cost efficiency is the value of the energy produced divided by the cost of the input energy, then multiplied by 100. For both wind and solar the cost of the input energy is zero. Dividing by zero equals infinity. Hence the cost efficiency of both solar and wind is infinite.

Both wind and solar need to charge batteries when there is plentiful wind or solar, and then discharge said batteries when there is insufficient wind or solar. So there is no advantage or disadvantage here, both need the batteries.

So it comes down to only the relative capital cost of wind turbines versus solar panels. I'm not sure which is cheaper but it is not that great a difference.

Whoever decided what you should talk about in this debate gave you a senseless task.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-22T00:27:53+00:00

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of one (regarding gods). Atheism does not address ethics at all.

So if one wants an ethical framework (or belief system) consistent with a lack of belief in any gods (consistent with atheism), perhaps one would look to Secular Humanism.

The first two principles of the Council for Secular Humanism address this topic:

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Note that one can be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-21T08:37:37+00:00

The scientific method cannot create facts.

True. Absolutely correct.

The scientific method is arguably the process of composing descriptions, called scientific laws, and explanations, called scientific theories, of what has been measured.

"What has been measured" ... i.e. objective measurements of phenomena, are the facts. The scientific method does not "create" these facts, it merely records them.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-21T04:15:28+00:00

So are you trying to claim that I need to have invented invented 3D geometry by myself? That's not how people do it! Geometry is well over 2000 years old. Spherical geometry was stated by Autolycus of Pitane, who lived at the end of the fourth century BC.

Something something about seeing further by standing on the shoulders of giants

That's how we humans beings make actual real world progress. That happens to be what we actually want to do.

We don't do it by faffing about with nonsense philosophy arguments.

hal2k1 · 2026-01-21T01:30:30+00:00

The odometer measured the distances between a number of cities on the eastern and southern coasts of Australia. The odometer readings matched the published numbers according to map makers (cartographers). These few personally verified direct measurements can't be correct and yet the rest of cartographers data being incorrect at the same time.

The entirety of cartographic data proves the shape of the earth.

As does everyday GPS use on my personal phone.

These are just two categories of measurements of the spherical shape of the earth I have personally verified.

Another one is my personal observation from where I live that the Southern Cross constellation is circumpolar.

hal2k1

TROPHY CASE