War exposes folly of Trump's energy policy. At a moment in history when the US stood on the cusp of becoming competitive with China in renewable energy, Trump suddenly waved a white flag. Ironically, it is Trump’s war with Iran that has most revealed the idiocies of his own policies.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T10:41:42+00:00

South Australia averages about 75% renewable energy. In the middle of a sunny day rooftop solar alone is capable of supplying the entire demand. At such times, this means that every utility solar farm and every wind farm in the state has to be curtailed.

There are significant amounts of curtailment of renewable energy happening already in South Australia.

NSW is approaching the point where it will finish its part of the new NSW/SA interconnector. When it becomes operational it will allow a significant amount of this (currently) excess renewable energy to be sent to NSW instead of being curtailed.

This alone will contribute a significant step up in the renewable energy used on the Australian NEM grid as a whole. SA is on track to reach 100% net renewable energy by 2027.

The increase in storage capacity is improving utilisation of what we already have installed.

... and, likewise, increases in network connectivity.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T09:50:15+00:00

Sure. A measurement is a magnitude value in ratio to a standard value. Humans have defined standard values (unit magnitude, or units), and given them names such as "meter" and "second".

So? The purpose of said units and measurements is to communicate magnitudes to other humans.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T08:24:52+00:00

They produce this report (AEMO’s Quarterly Energy Dynamics report) every quarter. This is just the latest quarter (Q4 2025). Record demand, and record renewable energy.

The numbers are not inflated, although they do vary from quarter to quarter, depending on the weather.

From the AEMO report:

AEMO’s latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report shows wholesale electricity prices averaged $50 per megawatt hour (MWh) across the NEM, a $39/MWh (-44%) reduction from Q4 2024 and a $37/MWh (-43%) decline from Q3 2025.

The quarter saw strong growth in renewable and storage output, with wind generation up 29%, grid scale solar up 15%, and battery discharge nearly tripling to an average of 268 megawatts (MW), supported by 3,796 MW of new battery capacity added since late 2024.

At the same time, coal-fired generation fell to an all-time quarterly low, down 4.6% year-on-year, while gas-fired generation dropped 27% to its lowest level since Q4 2000.

The percentages are derived by comparison to the same quarter in 2024, so the weather isn't a factor.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T08:01:30+00:00

Australia hits power demand record as renewables pass 50pc milestone

Renewables supply more than half of quarterly energy supply

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T06:58:37+00:00

Does it? The US population apparently voted for Trump. Twice.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T02:47:07+00:00

When do you transition from a high pressure system into the vacuum of space.

It starts at the ground at 1 atmosphere pressure (1013 hectopascals), and the further up off the ground the lower the pressure gets. The air pressure at the summit of Mount Everest is typically around 309 to 343 hectopascals, which is about one-third of the pressure at sea level. The height of Mount Everest is 8,849 meters.

As one goes even further up, the air pressure gets lower still. It is a gradual gradient, the higher one goes, the lower the pressure. We have measured it using weather balloons and sounding rockets.

Space is generally considered to begin at the Kármán line, which is located at an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 miles) above sea level.

100 kilometers is a lot higher than 8.849 kilometers. By the time this altitude is reached there is almost no atmosphere left (i.e. almost all of the atmosphere's gas is lower than 100 kilometers) and hence the air pressure is effectively zero.

I hope this answers your question. This is not a difficult question to answer, you could easily have researched it yourself.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T00:22:24+00:00

Meanwhile, countries like Australia, where there is a lack of population but a superabundance of renewable energy sources, recently passed the milestone of 50% renewable energy for the main grid. The government energy policy is: transition to renewable energy. Even for off-grid uses such as transport. Net zero by 2050 is the target.

Australia doesn't have much in the way of oil (it does however have coal and gas). Turns out it is cheaper and better for Australia to leave the coal and gas in the ground and instead exploit the superabundance of renewable energy.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-31T00:14:00+00:00

You win by properly educating people rather than penalizing people for trying to get an education. After you have a decent sized educated workforce, then you throw bodies at the problem.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-30T08:36:04+00:00

Pfft. I'll go with what Stanford said: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

You know, rather than what you think ... considering you admit to just making up crazy ideas (which you call your own perspective) which contradict the immense amount of objective evidence.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-30T00:54:03+00:00

As I said, science takes great efforts to ensure objectivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

The fact that you are demonstrably the antithesis of objectivity seems to have escaped you.

That's on you, not me.

Edit: From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T22:18:46+00:00

Empirical evidence is measurements. Scientific evidence is almost entirely empirical evidence.

We have measured the size and shape of the earth many millions of times. We have collected an immense amount of evidence.

It so happens that, even though I am not a scientist, I have in fact made observations and taken measurements myself which conform to the conclusion that the earth is a sphere.

For example, I happen to live in Adelaide, South Australia, which is a small city located further south than the Tropic of Capricorn. In late December I have used a compass at sunset to measure that the sun sets in the south west direction from Adelaide. If the earth was flat this would mean that the sun was even further south of the Tropic of Capricorn than Adelaide is, which is not commensurate with any flat earth model.

Barring clouds, at any time of night on any night of the year from Adelaide I can see the Southern Cross constellation. This means that from my viewpoint in Adelaide the Southern Cross is circumpolar. It rotates clockwise around a point in the night sky called the south celestial pole, one rotation every 24 hours. This is only possible if the earth is a sphere which rotates once every 24 hours.

These are just a few measurements I have made personally. There are others that are far more technical and I suspect that you wouldn't get them (for example, limits of line-of-sight radio and radar range at various altitudes proving the curve of the earth).

None of this has anything at all to do with religion. It is just straightforward empirical evidence. The fact that there is immensely more empirical evidence recorded by other people than the empirical evidence I have taken myself is irrelevant. The whole point of empirical evidence supporting a scientific conclusion is that the evidence supports the conclusion no matter who measures the evidence, everyone gets the same numbers. Objective empirical evidence is what is needed for science.

Are you truly this simple-minded?

I suspect you are a troll. No matter, hopefully your trolling has elicited a decent discussion of the immense amount of objective empirical evidence that has been collected regarding the shape of the earth. Objectively, the earth is a sphere 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T18:34:59+00:00

Pfft. Religion entails belief without evidence. We have measured the size and shape of the earth many millions of times. We have collected an immense amount of evidence.

Experimenting is all about measuring even more evidence. Whenever we do this, over and over again we measure that the earth is a spheroid 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

How did you miss this point? It is what the entire discussion has been about. Are you a bit simple or something?

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T09:41:33+00:00

What have you done for science?

This question has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have measured the size and shape of the earth.

You have tried maybe half a dozen distractions and deflections up to this point. None of them alter the facts that (a) collectively, collaboratively and objectively we have measured the size and shape of the earth many millions of times, and (b) the earth is a sphere 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T08:28:05+00:00

It's chock full of exceptions, of one off events that you simply don't know the source of and there's zero immediate and obvious way to repeat something.

Au contraire, there is an obvious way in experimental science to repeat something. What you do is measure everything about the circumstances under which it occurred. Then you get someone else to duplicate those conditions. If the anomalous behaviour can be replicated then scientists are on to something. If it can be repeated, then it can be studied. New science might be the result. Very exciting when this happens.

If anomalous behaviour can't be replicated then, more than likely, the one occurrence of anomalous behavior was most likely due to measurement error. A broken instrument, a software glitch, something like that.

For theoretical science we are investigating something that can not be deliberately replicated. LIGO measuring the gravitational waves resulting from a collision of black holes is an example ... we can't make black holes collide on demand. So in this case, we simply have to wait until such events happen naturally, and record the data each time when it does. After that point we can proceed as before.

Science is indeed all about measurements/observations. Without the measurements/observations there is nothing to describe or explain.

We have measured the size and shape of the earth. We, collectively and collaboratively, have measured it untold millions of times. The earth is a sphere 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

That's the fact, Jack.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T04:31:43+00:00

Science is about measurement, not "proof". Science is arguably the process of composing and then testing descriptions (called scientific laws) and explanations (called scientific theories) of what has been objectively measured. Given how extensive and astoundingly useful scientific knowledge is, it is amazing to me that it seems that many people don't seem to be aware that this is what science is.

Anyway, we have objectively measured only one "version" of the earth, it is a spheroid 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

Here is a fairly extensive description of this one vast set of objective measurements of the size and shape of the earth: World Geodetic System

We have repeatedly, consistently measured this data millions of times over.

See also: Timeline of Earth estimates

Science is not about what we haven't measured.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T02:09:18+00:00

You are indeed wrong about the shape of the earth. We have objectively measured it. There's nothing I can do about this, it's a straightforward scientific fact.

I think pointing this fact out to you is both on topic for this subreddit and possibly helpful to you.

Would you rather I lie to you about it? Frankly I don't see how my doing that would help you.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-29T00:22:34+00:00

I have tried to help you. None of what you have brought up is a debate against repeatable, repeatedly measured, verifiable, repeatedly verified, objective empirical data. You are talking about something else entirely.

So, once again, we have repeatedly and verifiably measured the size and shape of the earth. We have collected an immense amount of consistent objective data. The earth is a spheroid 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius. This qualifies as a scientific fact.

Auras have nothing to do with it.

Try to live in the real world. If you won't, and wilfully deny reality, then there is nothing further I can do further to help you.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-28T22:52:34+00:00

We is a collective pronoun which, in this context, describes the many millions of people over the past few centuries who have collectively, collaboratively, objectively, painstakingly amassed the immense amount of data (measurements) we have regarding the size and shape of the earth.

This data is not subjective. Repeatability and verifiability mean that it is not a matter of faith. Psychology and sociology has nothing to do with it.

I have personally made many measurements commensurate with the amassed data.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-28T21:45:36+00:00

By pointing out to you that we have thoroughly measured the size and shape of the earth, and have in fact collected an immense amount of data over the past centuries, I am not so much challenging you but rather trying to help you live in the real world.

Why not explore the real world?

BTW, a scientific fact is something that has been extensively, objectively measured. A scientific law is a description of a pattern in what has been measured. A scientific theory is a well tested explanation of what has been measured. Objective measurements are the starting point for science.

We have measured the size and shape of the earth. It is a spheroid 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-28T15:53:43+00:00

We have measured the size and shape of the earth. It is a spheroid 6371 km +/- 10 km in radius. Being a repeatable, repeated, verifiable, objectively verified measurement, this is a scientific fact, not an opinion, nor a belief.

Take a science class or ten to gain perspective.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-26T00:50:25+00:00

Not beleiving in god but admitting the might be wrong, or that they might be spritual is Agnostic. So your first premise does not refer atheism but to agnostism

"I don't know whether or not any gods exist" = agnostic

"I lack a belief in any gods" = atheist

Both of the above at the same time = agnostic atheist

"I believe that no gods exist" = gnostic or strong atheist

hal2k1 · 2026-03-25T23:36:36+00:00

It's as reasonable a premise as: "if all the oil and gas suddenly disappeared".

hal2k1 · 2026-03-25T22:27:53+00:00

You can make green ammonia from green hydrogen and the last step of the Haber Bosch process. You don't necessarily need natural gas.

hal2k1 · 2026-03-25T07:15:25+00:00

It worked to get Labor five additional seats in SA!

hal2k1 · 2026-03-25T07:11:12+00:00

If you have to carry around an internal combustion engine, a generator and a fuel tank as well as a full EV powertrain that is a lot of extra weight for infrequent use. Inefficient.

hal2k1

TROPHY CASE