While the rich, including EV owners, Solar panel and battery owners, just coast along on their next subsidy, the rest of us just cop the next increase, and keep voting the same way.
It is beyond ridiculous that winter house heating is now more expensive than charging an EV.
granny trickle charger?
Anyone doing less maybe 100-120km a day can survive on a 10A EVSE.
I charge mine on 10A a day between midnight and 6am. (I get about 50km range a day)
That's when you put a modified diesel generator in the lounge room and run it off straight vegetable oil from the chip shop.
They sure can, just cant take it with them after lease ends lol…
You can absolutely install solar powered heating in a rental, it just takes a long time to grow the trees to stick in the fireplace.
Look for a place with a gas heater connection in the living room.
Gas heating is so much cheaper and way superior
Not anymore it isn't.
There are a bunch of policies the government can enact to help such as allowing virtual net metering (if I have lots of solar, and my friend has none, I can attribute some to him).
It's easier for the power companies just to whip up some anti-renewables headlines to divert attention tho.
Some clickbait, as it were.
Unfortunately, there is no going back to the energy prices from 30 years ago when we had power stations paid by tax payers built years earlier next to coal mines to fuel them.
Unsubsidized wind and solar is cheaper than new coal or gas power plants, and vastly cheaper than hydro/nuclear/other.
We do have to spend a bit over the next decade on transmission to connect the best sources and the biggest users, but it is still cheaper over any reasonable multi-year period.
Even in places like China where build costs and labour costs are low they are building more renewables than anything else.
It isn't that renewables are expensive, it is that we benefitted from the run down of past capital investment without putting anything aside to replace the aging coal plants, or sequestering any gas.
So the whole bill is due for new Capex over a short period - which would have hurt with renewables or new fossil fuel plants.
@V2L: batteries at the scale needed to be useful enough to replace coal/gas are more expensive than any other form of energy currently. Totally and completely unviable
@MindGrenadius: responding to comment above about solar panel shading and night time usage. on a household level, it's very viable with today's technology which is advancing very quickly. it's really not much of an investment for households - it will cost around 20k after rebate for solar/batteries to reduce your grid reliance by 70%+ for the average detached house and less than 40k for near self sufficiency. if you really want to be off grid you can even add a diesel generator for 10-20k for the 20-30 days of the year where solar+batteries don't get you through. obviously this varies depending on where you are and your roof space/aspect/usage patterns and you're out of luck if you live in an apartment
@V2L: You've basically confirmed my original comment that "they're bloody expensive".
How long does that $20k or $40k investment last though before needing replacement? And what's the payback period?
@tenpercent: They don't just suddenly stop working after X number of years, the capacity just reduces.
@tenpercent: I mean it's a lot of money, but ROI is 5-7 years on average, assuming the electricity tariff remains the same - which is unlikely and reduces period for ROI further. the investment makes economic sense for most households and I'd imagine as battery tech gets better it'd be a stronger proposition
@V2L: You know the guy I replied to said absolutely nothing about batteries, right?
Here's the full quote, since you can't read:
"Unsubsidized wind and solar is cheaper than new coal or gas power plants, and vastly cheaper than hydro/nuclear/other."
You are quite well aware of the fraud that you're deliberately perpetuating. Solar panels would still be horrifically expensive even if they were free, because they obviously don't work at night or on cloudy days, at which point you need full replacement power, but only at fractional usage, which makes that replacement power even more expensive as well.
I'm replying to you, here's what you wrote since you obviously can't read or remember what you wrote either
@sareth: only in your head. and my replies show why. being able to read is a wonderful thing, you should try it
you know batteries exist right
Right now, coal and gas are effectively acting as our batteries.
No matter how much solar we install, we can’t shut down our fossil fuel plants unless we have a reliable solution to supply energy overnight.
@V2L: We don't have to - and we can't actually anyway, we will have to pay for both.
That why electricity prices will continue to go up even while we're adding all this 'cheaper' generation.
@trapper: sorry if I misunderstood, but why would households adding solar / batteries cause electricity prices to go up?
@sareth: I’m assuming you haven’t read anything about power in the last decade to still be carrying on about intermittent power.
The power after bed time was so critical they used to almost give it away and encouraged people to use off-peak hot water, because the coal generation couldn’t respond to need.
Australia is big enough so that there is always somewhere windy, and when people need power, when they are awake, Australia has great solar resources.
David Osmond has run the numbers showing how much power can be generated with renewables and 5 hours of batteries, and it is routinely over 98%. The final 2% can be gas or more batteries, no coal ‘baseload’ needed:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/grid-renewable-…
This is particularly funny with the story in today’s paper that shows the big coal plants need a day off a week due to failures and maintenance - hardly a reliable source of energy:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/old-king-coal-is-spl…
I’m not confident to run an energy system on intermittent coal power.
@mskeggs: "intermittent coal power" has run the energy grid for devades.
5 hours of batteries for the entire national energy grid firstly doesn't exist, and secondly isn't good enough. One or two cloudy days and your fantasy is cooked.
@sareth: Ok. I can show you figures and stats but if you won’t read them or think harder than “coal used to work” I can’t help you.
Best of luck getting by in a changing world.
@mskeggs: Please do, because I work in the industry and we can't yet run entirely off renewables.
Nor are they really entirely renewable - a hell of a lot of resources and materials go into those wind farms and they aren't viable to transport back to recycle let alone the batteries that don't last long and solar panels and loss of farm land they put them on. Hate to break it to you but a lot of diesel is going into those materials mines and the transportation and coal into fabrication and it appears to work due to subsidies and ignoring the embodied energy and non-renewable materials.
@sareth: Run the grid and destroyed the environment.
Far too much power is wasted transmitting energy around the grid. Renewables and storage where it's needed it the obvious choice.
I only have 13.5kw on an all electric home, even on a cloudy winters day like today, It generated more power than we used. I'll be putting in enough battery storage soon to cover our morning/evening usage soon.
Only people without solar underestimate it's potential.
@NMC: agreed I did the numbers recently and was bewildered why there's not a greater take up of solar+batteries
David Osmond has run the numbers showing how much power can be generated with renewables and 5 hours of batteries, and it is routinely over 98%. The final 2% can be gas or more batteries, no coal ‘baseload’ needed: https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/grid-renewable-…
That's absurd, look how much wind generation he's put in there! lol
Check NEM https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/ and you will see wind is often producing less than 1 GW total from our 13.3 GW installed capacity.
@trapper: The article model aims to answer "what is the optimum mix of renewables and storage?"
It replaces current coal and gas with wind and solar, plus 5 hours of battery storage.
This totals more capacity than is currently in the grid.
This is enough to cover 98%+ the time, including periods of low wind.
The remaining 1.2% of the time will need power from another source. On the most challenging day the biggest gap was 9MW, which is approximately what the current installed base of fossil peak plants deliver (8GW).
The model shows how much solar, wind and battery is needed to match current power demand almost all the time.
How we power the remaining percent can be debated, but be clear the argument isn't about needing to have a duplicate grid or similar, it is about having about what we have in gas peaking plants now, and how much of that can be viably replaced with demand constraints (paying Tomago not to operate for example) or batteries or staying with gas for that once in a blue moon occasion.
@mskeggs: 35 GW of wind generation will require ~465 GW of installed capacity, which is completely ridiculous.
He's making up fantasy numbers.
@trapper: 35GW of wind power needs 35GW of turbines when the wind is blowing and infinity of turbines when it isn't.
The numbers in the model show firming scaled up wind and solar with 5 hours of storage covers demand 98%+ of the time.
The point of the storage is to cover the periods when renewables aren't producing at full capacity. You don't need 13 times name plate capacity, because the times when demand is high and wind is low line up infrequently.
35GW of wind power needs 35GW of turbines when the wind is blowing and infinity of turbines when it isn't.
lol, so how much do you think infinity wind turbines will cost? where will be put them all?
You don't need 13 times name plate capacity, because the times when demand is high and wind is low line up infrequently.
No. Look at NEM https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/
We have 13.3 GW installed capacity and it is outputting 1 GW or less very regularly.
It never gets close to 13.3 GW, not even half that on the best days.
@trapper: About 11GW is connected and 9.5GW was the record production set last month.
Average over the past year is circa about 4.5GW, about 40% of capacity, dipping as low as 1GW.
That average production is about half the reliable production of a coal plant, which produce about 80% when you include maintenance and failures.
To produce as much power you need to build more than an equal amount of capacity, the model linked above has about 30% more capacity than current, and add in 5 hours of storage and there is enough to supply demand 98% of the time, plus the remaining 2% at 4 times the average cost, for the prices shown at $95MWh.
Average prices in the q3 and q4 of 2024 were $88 and $119, so it is comparable to what we currently pay.
Average over the past year is circa about 4.5GW, about 40% of capacity, dipping as low as 1GW.
Total wind over last year was 30,747 GWh, this is an average of 3.5 GW.
But the issue here isn’t the average - it’s the lows.
Wind output often drops below 1 GW, and that’s the real problem. It essentially needs to be backed up 100%.
plus 5 hours of battery storage.
This is also ridiculous. Why not just put down 20 hours of battery storage and the graph will look even more amazing.
@trapper: Because 5hours covers 98.8% and adding r times as much only adds a little more in percentage terms.
It happens 5hours also leaves a gap about equal to our current gas peaking capacity, which would be a cheap way to cover the gap of 6days a year.
@mskeggs: Look at this website. And try to work out how to replace black and brown coal for 10 days x 24 hours in case of a 10 day rain event with no wind.
https://anero.id/energy
@diceman99: That is like saying, how will you replace power if there is simultaneous breakdowns in all our coal plants.
Rain means reduced solar, not none. There isn't a time of no wind, just more or less depending on area.
A 10 day rain event with no wind is very unlikely.
The article above models the actual conditions and shows you can replace coal 98%+ of the time with 116% of the total grid capacity in solar and wind, plus 5 hours of storage.
The remaining less than 2% can be provided by existing gas plants, being run about 6 days a year.
The cost of it ends up as comparable to current prices.
Right now, the grid has to accommodate coal generation offline 20% of the time. We don't say that is impossible, we work out the chances of concurrent failures and build excess capacity and pay Tomago to go offline occasionally.
It will be the same with renewables.
@mskeggs: That is like saying, how will you replace power if there is simultaneous breakdowns in all our coal plants. - You will get a blackout if there are simultaneous breakdowns. Having more than one coal plant adds redundancy. Coal plants are built to generate more electricity than required, in case they need to take up the slack of any offline generators
Rain means reduced solar, not none. There isn't a time of no wind, just more or less depending on area. - solar generated 8 out of 24 hours everyday. During a rain low atmospheric event, where the weather system sits in one place for a week, usually this is a no wind event. There is no wind to blow the clouds away. This happens very frequently.
A 10 day rain event with no wind is very unlikely. - Unlikely but it does happen. The grid has to be designed with worst case scenarios in mind, not built with best case scenarios in mind.
The article above models the actual conditions and shows you can replace coal 98%+ of the time with 116% of the total grid capacity in solar and wind, plus 5 hours of storage.
The remaining less than 2% can be provided by existing gas plants, being run about 6 days a year. - Approx 14 hours of every day solar panels will not be generating any electricity because of, dawn, night time and dusk. 5 hours of battery is not enough. A 5MW battery is not the same as a 5MW generator. A 5MW battery needs to be charged, it can also discharge 5MW per hour and is then exhausted. A 5MW generator can can generate 5MW per hour, every hour.
The cost of it ends up as comparable to current prices. - I don't know if you pay your own electricity bills, but mine are up about 40% in the last 4 years. If all this cheap electricity gets any cheaper, I will be going broke
Right now, the grid has to accommodate coal generation offline 20% of the time. We don't say that is impossible, we work out the chances of concurrent failures and build excess capacity and pay Tomago to go offline occasionally. - Tomago has said they will be shutting down permanently with loss of thousands of jobs, and shutting down what little is left of Australians manufacturing ability, because of all this cheap green energy /sarcasm.
It will be the same with renewables
The facts is, we humans like to have electricity available 24 x7. The sun only shines 12 hours of the day, the wind can sometimes not blow for several days, or blow to hard for the turbines to work. The variable nature of green energy means it is not a good source for the 24 x7 generation needed.
I'm all for green energy, but you need it to be generated on demand or 24 x 7. Hydrogen, geothermal, or tide may be able to do it. Solar and wind are good, but cannot do 24 x7
@diceman99: I understand the issue you have. You want power at the prices from 20 years ago when we had power plants that were comparatively new and much more reliable sitting on coal mines next door, that had been paid off by tax payers.
Nobody is giving us free coal power stations, so you have to begin with looking at what we can get today.
I understand how weather works, but the occasions when Townsville to Hobart to Adelaide are concurrently impacted by cloud heavy enough to substantially stop solar and no wind are not weather events that happen. Look at the model linked, that shows concurrent low renewables across the grid is rare.
On those occasions we still have battery and hydro, plus peaking gas to cover the reduced production of renewables. And adding either more gas or more wind is not absurdly costly to have in reserve, but gas is very costly to operate because the government sent all our gas overseas to enrich Santos, and you would still object to more wind because wherever we build it might be covered by the giant wind free storm.
We are actually pretty good at building renewables in Australia, our rooftop solar installation productivity and costs are global leaders, and our renewable sites are also very good. Deciding instead to choose costly rebuilds of polluting plants or some other solution that adds even more costs doesn’t provide cheaper power.
@mskeggs: Mr Keggs,
I have looked at your website, please look at mine.
https://anero.id/energy
From that graph you will see a 24 hour chart showing all power sources and their usage into the grid. Now take off the ticks for rooftop solar and solar farms. You will see that they supply about 10% of the 24 hour total needed energy, and funnily enough, none at night time.
Btw I have a 15kw solar system and a 20kw battery system. I also own Santos shares for the last two years, any excess Money Santos is making does not go to the Santos Shareholders I can assure you.
@mskeggs: To hit those wind and sloar figures we would be looking at an installed capacity of > 100GW from Solar and Wind, realistically much likely more when a whole nations grid depends upon it.
That compares to the current total installed current capacity of 65GW.
I'd like to see how those economics hold up once the overcapacity requirement starts to bite.
Renewables are in the golden era of getting paid for whatever and whenever they produce, and letting other generators pick up everything else. That changes pretty quickly when on dispatchable sources dissappear, as do the economics.
@Mrgreenz: Understood. The model shown has about 75GW of solar and wind, plus 5 hours of storage, plus all existing hydro and it still fails to meet needs 1.2% of the time.
On the worst day, the gap was 9GW. Coincidentally, the grid is currently about 8GW gas.
That is the point, we would need to build more renewables name plate capacity than coal or nuclear name plate capacity, and a bunch of battery. And still run the gas gens half a dozen times a year.
But the thing the model shows is that we don't need 100GW+ of renewables and we don't need 10 days of storage. We can look at the actual real world and build renewables to match the experience of weather across the NEM and add a margin of error to cover how ever many zeros after the decimal you wish to pay for.
And it can be done for the wholesale price currently being paid.
I understand that our personal experience of weather suggests there is huge variation and long periods of low wind and poor solar, but when we look at the actual NEM wide renewable production figures, the extremes disappear in the larger sample size.
I also agree that early wind producers got a cheap ride as they can sell power at full rate, even though they only deliver 40% of nameplate.
I get why people see wind in a table at $41GMW and say "what about the rest of the costs" because firming it would cost more than double that.
But we don't need firmed wind at 2am and 24/7, only between 5pm and 9pm, and we can smooth the firming needed across the whole network, reducing the need because at any time some of it will be generating.
@mskeggs: I think the model is making some hairy chest assumptions on the capacity factor of solar and wind.
231,000 GWh from solar + wind
8,760 hours a year = 26.4 GW steady state
75/26.4 = 35.2% capacity factor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Australia#Wind…
Going from that graph 2024 actual was 12GW installed for 32,000GWh = 31%
So 4% short before dilution from solar lower capacory factor.
I think a sensible option is to pull up short keep 20% dispatchable
@Mrgreenz: I think you're right, and balancing battery storage for artificial inertia and instant response with actual generation like gas will take fine tuning as we get closer to the end of coal.
The value in the model is to show [broad hand wave] you don't need to build a grid of renewables with 100% backing of non-renewables to accommodate night time and still periods.
The level of general discourse is still often "how will you power the TV at night when the sun is down".
@mskeggs: The hand is waving very broadly.
Work out the cost of the '5 hour' 120 GWh battery for example… ~$70 billion
The whole thing is invented numbers which are not remotely realistic, like the 465 GW of wind capacity I mentioned. It's ridiculous.
We will still be burning coal in 2050 with this attitude.
@trapper: I understand your number based on having full grid capacity 24/7 with no storage, hydro or peaking gas requires 465GW of wind. But what the linked model shows is it is possible with approx 75GW of solar and wind, 5h battery and existing hydro and gas.
The grid does not need 100% capacity at 3am. Why would you build it to deliver that?
@V2L: Username does NOT check out. Trump is Mr Warpspeed himself. He wanted to call the magic mystery injections "Trumpcines" - no joke.
@TrumpisKing: Those crazy pro vaxers, small pox wasn't even that serious, surely those 500 Million people were gonna die anyway. 🙄
Renewables are only cheaper than coal in that GenCost report because they based it on Coal being a new greenfield project using tech we wouldn't use.
Also China is also building heaps of goal, gas and nuclear. Not like us who are just full stream ahead letting our main power generation just waste away while we pray that batteries are the answer when the sun and wind don't do anything.
Wind and solar in Australia is subsidised by the taxpayer, and by extension, the consumer.
@R4: How do you want to get power in Australia? Is it your preference to have non-renewables that are more costly? Is it your plan to wait until the coal plants all break down and then pay to build new ones?
It isn't possible to compare the cost of 38yro paid down coal generation against new renewables because nobody is offering to give us free coal plants.
@mskeggs: Renewables have their place but they cannot, and will not, be the whole solution. Ideally we'd go for nuclear but, as it stands, that isn't going to happen. We should build advanced coal plants but politically, that's a non-starter. Therefore we should go for gas. We have more than enough of it and the plants are relatively easy and affordable to build. We use it already but that capability needs to be scaled up.
@R4: Where will you get the gas? On the east coast it has all been sold. Remaining gas is very costly to access.
@mskeggs: Plenty of onshore gas in Eastern Australia. Queensland has vast reserves. Victoria has plenty but the government there refuses point blank to exploit it. You could even build a pipeline from WA - expensive but doable. It's not ideal, but existing LNG export plant owners could be forced to divert some of that gas for domestic use. They'd, rightly, bitch and moan but ultimately would have to comply as they don't own the gas. The East coast states need to have a domestic gas reservation policy the same as what WA has.
@R4: Gas doesnt burn for long enough. Its essentially a battery. Burns faster than we can fill the gas reserve. Building supply that can run continuous is unfeasible.
Even in places like China where build costs and labour costs are low they are building more renewables than anything else.
Have a look how many coal and nuclear plants they already have, as well as currently have in construction and have planned for construction.
Renewables have their place but they are not a panacea. The cannot supply industry with or without economic viability right now. The day they can they still won't be the choice until they're the cheapest choice.
I'd rather see a thorium reactor in the middle of every industrial area than listen to one more hippy insist that the sun or wind alone are going to magically be enough to run a smelter or a fractionating stack, let alone a hundred at the same time.
It's super hard to counter lazy comments like renewables are fantasy along with 'i'd like a nuclear plant'.
It flags that you aren't interested in real world energy solutions, just repeating talking points you heard on Reddit.
@mskeggs: We know exactly how much power we use already (and the trend line of where it's going). We know exactly how much power we can generate, inclusive of the mode thereof. This is literally a simple spreadsheet. That won't convince anyone that believes that there is only one possible answer, because they've already decided their position without or in spite of evidence.
I'll repeat it again: Renewables have their place but they are not a panacea. Either they can meet a given load or they can't. Either they meet the baseload and reliability requirements or they don't. You don't think your local hospital has a massive fossil fuel driven generator on site? It takes all of five seconds to think about all the public and private sector organisations that don't have the luxury of going offline during blackouts.
Also, we literally have an isotope reactor in Sydney right next to residential land, so the same nitwits that believe that all nuclear comes straight from Satan can get their x-rays and radiotherapy without a single thought entering their empty heads. Show me the hippies that are picketing Lucas Heights and declining nuclear medicine. At least they're not smug hypocrites.
@cfuse: Comparing nuclear medicine to multiple full scale permanent nuclear power stations, in a continent that can't afford the water (even in the medium term) . Uh-huh.
Bottom line. Pick a lane, limited population expansion, or safe, viable energy for all.(including disposal and long term safety of the massive risk factor waste)
TLDR
Lucas Heights is not comparable to an energy fix.
@Protractor: TLDR; either you can supply the power required for the task or it's just wishful thinking. Industry usage vastly outstrips almost everything on energy density. Nuclear is just another option, I like the idea but I'm not married to it for everything, nor am I deluded as to believe Australia has the spine for it.
If the anti-nuclear freak out is merely from the existence of radiation, the both the reactor and intentional voluntary exposure to its output is a reasonable counterpoint. You're baulking at spent nuclear waste whilst couriers drive short half life isotopes right past you.
We already have closed loop reactors. The technology has moved on.
The logistics of placing a conventional power plant are long solved and equally applicable to nuclear versions. The logistics of moving to different fuel for energy storage is not a solved problem. Renewables share that problem, so to solve one is to solve the other.
We don't need to limit population growth, it is already a net negative trend. We wouldn't be importing half of the third world if we could meet our own labour needs, would we? What could be limited with severe austerity measures is power usage (which unlike the population is growing). If you can't or won't make more, then you have to use less. Simple accounting.
As stated, for industrial use on which we are dependent, renewables are not viable. Not financially, and in most cases not pragmatically. We cannot generate the power required, and even if we could we can get that power cheaper and more conveniently from fossil sources. Men wouldn't be out on rigs risking their lives if a solar panel could do the job. We wouldn't be driving gigantic trucks around even more gigantic holes in the ground if a windmill was enough. Our energy infrastructure and usage is literally visible from space (go on google maps and start following power lines) but for some reason greenies religiously claim coal trains don't exist when then they are right in front of them on a map.
As for waste, I sure wish we could bury smog or an oil spill.
We don't need to limit population growth, it is already a net negative trend.
Yeah, we do. The non human component is already buckling past it's capacity. The only argument for the status quo is purely capitalist growth. The Furphy about looking after the older portion of our society was debunked decades ago.The west just needs to change the way it sees and values the generations around them. Rather than (as here) blaming one cohort for the entire problem matrix.
@Protractor: You think population is the problem (I don't, but that doesn't matter here). The population is dropping like a stone right now. All you have to do is be patient. Yet you're suggesting we violate bodily autonomy of the individual?
If your creed of environmentalism is misanthropic/anti-natalist then I really don't see the possibility of any common ground.
@cfuse: How is breeding less , (living within the means of a finite,declining biological life support system, that isn't ours alone to exploit) ,impacting on your or anyone else's bodily autonomy?
I'm not interested in common ground where that common ground involves ignorant denial or an anointment of species dominance imperative, for the sake of itself.
Keep bathing in the physics defying populate or perish myth, as I watch from the sidelines.
@Protractor: The word limit has a very specific meaning. If you don't care what people do then that's less policy and more just hoping things turn out as you wish (idly, from the sidelines).
If you are not interested in common ground then expect to get nowhere. If you believe that there can only ever be one answer then expect to be hobbled by your own hand without a single conversation, even in complete isolation.
Humans were not appointed dominance, natural selection exists. We haven't always been the dominant species (and we still aren't in many contexts, because we get predated too) and eventually we will be displaced. We are just another part of nature.
It's maths, not physics. Either the line is going up, or it is going down. Everything that is linked to that number will follow accordingly. If you refuse to believe a line is going down when multiple independent sources confirm it then that's an article of faith. You cannot disabuse a doomsday cultist hellbent on the death of humanity that there'd ever be a possibility that humanity might have a place in the world. To those acting from faith, that is heresy. The unbeliever isn't just wrong, they're evil.
As for my own position on reproduction, I am not a natalist nor an anti-natalist. Pragmatically I'm much like many others in that I haven't bred and won't. I don't care about the status quo and the crisis in birth rate that much, simply because I think it's going to be solved by technology. Artificial gestation is far closer than people suspect.
@cfuse: On the surface it genuinely appears that simple. In amongst all you say there is this thing called reality, in that, there is a thing called choice. In amongst that bit ,where think we are choosing, we are being convinced,manipulated,bribed,coerced and cajoled into dishing up cannon fodder, slaves,customers and other useful ape-ish business opportunities. Natural selection ,in regards to humans ignores that we have the facts before us, the knowledge to change direction, but the ability and desire to ignore all that, to align with the material, capitalist,egotistic outcomes.Because of 'us' it has become anything but 'natural selection. It's quite the opposite.
Like you say, it's maths. Stacked against the species who have no idea what maths is, and no way of successfully navigating themselves around us, or it.. We have pretty much fkd the planet and the systems that drives it. That's physics.That's fact.You can go back sleep now. Kudos for you though. At least the rug rats won't disturb it.
; )
@Protractor: The only thing that changed was the environment. We have chemical and mechanical birth control, so that takes care of pregnancy, and we have antibiotics and antivirals, so that takes care of STDs (for now). So, humanity's usual fecund behaviour stands (or increases) but the consequences for it have been nullified. It's no more complex than that. Choices stayed the same, it is consequences that changed.
Organisms exploiting their environment, inclusive of modifying it, is part of natural selection. Behaviour is heritable. Most human conduct isn't choice in the way we believe it to be, it is neocortical justification post facto (and we have the functional imaging to prove it).
As for successful navigation around the problem, we are so much closer than people think. We could do it now if we weren't so squeamish. Presently we import immigrants, but there's no reason we can't simply rent third world wombs on a massive scale (admittedly with a lead time to effect). That works with all the reproductive technology we have right now, all that is required is that the state decide to implement it and deal with the resultant offspring. Problems have solutions, you just have to look for, evaluate, and refine them (preferably without quasi-religious dogmatism clouding your considerations).
As for the doomsday cult dogma, there have been multiple mass extinctions and the earth still has life on it. That's pretty good evidence that life bounces right back. Humanity simply doesn't have the means to end life completely. Nature wins. Every single time we've ever observed (the tardigrade laughs at your pessimism as it rides a satellite into orbit and back, eats radiation, hard vacuum, and hundreds of degrees of temperature variation).
And for the record, just because you don't give birth doesn't mean you don't parent. Those roles are divisible. I'm an adhoc daycare and youth hostel because Western ideological atomisation of the individual didn't work that well on me.
I get it. It sounds a bit like Marie Antionette "Let them eat cake"
The phrase "Let them eat cake" is traditionally attributed to Marie Antoinette, but there is no historical evidence that she actually said it. The quote likely originated from the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who mentioned a similar phrase in his writings about a "great princess" before Marie Antoinette's time.
I get it. It sounds a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Let them eat cake".
Happy now. :)
It sounds a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Let them eat cake".
the phrase "Let them eat cake" sounds like to me translates to, "Let them eat the booty".
it isnt great energy prices are crazy high and outstripping wages and inflation - nothing more i can add
energy prices are crazy high and outstripping wages
This will keep going on as long as the powers that be want to keep importing more and more people which results in both increased demand (and prices) for energy and increased suppy of labour (and downward pressure on wages).
whilst immigration remains unsustainability high the standard of living for Australians will continue to decline there is no doubt about that
whilst immigration remains unsustainability high the standard of living for Australians will continue to decline there is no doubt about that
whilst immigration corporate profiteering remains unsustainability high the standard of living for Australians will continue to decline there is no doubt about that
@Grunntt: Im not saying corporate profiteering isnt an issue. But ultimately who do you think want high migration?
It isnt average people it is the big companies who know they will profit from the strain on supply/services
The issue with many modern Australians is everyone has 'very' shallow thinking- high migration benefits the richs whilst disproportionately hurts the poorest
@Trying2SaveABuck: I wasn't disagreeing with you that immigration is a contributor to the problem (the strikethrough probably makes it look that way I guess).
Ongoing uncontrolled corporate greed is somehow put lower down the list of causes so that those 'others' can be be blamed and argued over.
This pointing at the others (not just immigrants) just helps the greedy business owners avoid their fair share of the blame.
eg mention immigration and everyone jumps on. Mention corporate greed and the discussion wanders off.
@Grunntt: Look im not saying corporatations dontn deserve blame but government/s spending and finacial mismanagement is a bigger issue - look at how f—ked Victoria is
We got way to many Politicians and they are all on way too much money for the poor job they do
They allow the companies/organisations donating to them to 'profit' without challenge
If you want change we need to look at who you are voting for and who is donating to them
@Trying2SaveABuck: Anyone who disagrees the worst, most corrupt and lease responsible business in this country are our governments at all levels is a fool
You are getting exactly what you deserve if you cannot admot the real issue is those ruling us
Don't forget exporting so much gas it is cheaper to import it than buy locally!
so much for 'beating inflation' - there wouldn't be so much inflation to beat if they weren't so spineless with gas exports
If only Albo Labor would adopt Dutton's gas plan to reserve some our gas for ourselves.
If only Albo Labor would adopt Dutton's gas plan to reserve some our gas for ourselves.
If only it had been an actual thing for the 9 years the LNP were already in power previously…
@tenpercent: I agree with gas reservation, and that it should have happened earlier. I hope Albo will enact it.
It is unfortunate for renters who obviously can't install this stuff on their landlord's house.