freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 6:48am:


And nowhere does it say go solely nuclear. We have perfectly god fossil fuels.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 1:43pm:



You do realise the AEMO report based on the CSIRO's 2026 report, shows there are a lot of assumptions. ONE being there is enough battery and pumped hydro for only 2.6 hours of power?

So tell us how renewables are going to do it. For all those climatistas, you being but one, out there we should go nuclear.

Quote:


You have some sever reading comprehension difficulties.

Quote:


That is not asking you what the difference is. That is asking whether you have figured it out. Understand?

Why did you ask us what the difference was between a submarine and power station?

Quote:


No it isn't.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 2:55pm:


That is an odd way to describe a submarine. Makes me think you were asking us what the difference is because you don't actually know, not because you were trying to prove some kind of point.

Or you were just bloviating. No need for what you say to make sense, so long as it is longwinded and makes you feel important.

lee wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 1:50pm:


Use the word of the day in a sentence - do you have a point Lee, or are you just bloviating?

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 4:19pm:

2032 apparently but that’s dependent upon blowouts in manufacturing times.
=-=—
When did I post about walruses?

The so-called’’Nuclear Powered’’ submarines are steam powered as are all other ships which boil their water with nuclear reactors.

My only reference to wind powered submarines was to point out to you that early submarines used sails for power on the surface.
The early one that had a steam engine used it submerged or on the surface.
The famous British K boats used steam for surface propulsion and battery power submerged.

There is a very important difference between the reactors in submarines and most land based ones; those on subs are much safer.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 5:55pm:


That's unfair, Bobby. Lee just wants FD to repeat himself so Lee can quote-bomb him again.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 5:04pm:


Is that average, mean, or reliable?

So Tasmania, which relies on hydro and so it should, it has plenty of rain and snow.
Me :  renewables provide the majority of power in three states of australia. which ones

From AI: Tasmania and South Australia are the two states where renewables generate more than half of their electricity—about 94.7% and 74.3%, respectively, in 2024. I couldn’t verify a third state above 50%; Victoria was at 40.6%.

Me: IS that a steady percentage, an average  or does it fall below 50%

AI: It’s an annual average, not a steady percentage. The figures I gave—94.7% for Tasmania and 74.3% for South Australia—refer to 2024 electricity generation overall; the renewable share varies hour to hour and season to season, so it can fall below 50% at times. For example, South Australia’s share can swing with wind and solar output, while Tasmania’s hydropower output varies with water availability. My earlier answer also didn’t support the claim that three states were above 50%—I could confirm only those two on the figures

Me: Do any territories of Australia produce more than 50% from renewables

AI: Yes—the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has exceeded 50% on an annual basis. It reached 100% renewable electricity in 2020, through renewable generation procured from projects outside the territory. That means the ACT’s electricity use was matched by renewable generation; it doesn’t mean all power physically generated within the ACT was renewable.

So the power produced is either not reliable, or in the ACT's case they purchased green energy credits.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 8:03pm:



bloviating?