We haven't "surged past 50%". We've crept past 45%. Over last three years, we've added just 2.7% per year. At current rates, we won't hit 50% for nearly two years, possibly after the next federal election. So I can't let this slide. One of my jobs as an energy researcher is battling misinformation, which distorts public debate, and presenting true facts in context. See below my letter to the dedicated energy reporter at @australian, Colin Packham, asking for this '50%' howler to be corrected. Sadly Colin has already indicated to me he's to busy to update today, and that he was actually aware that his 50% number was the peak of a seasonal, fluctuating quarterly number, not a sustainable annual average. So please share and comment widely enough to make sure those in charge of our major newspapers realise that this kind of misinformation is unacceptable, and needs to be called out. Dear Colin, I'd like to request a correction to factually inaccurate and misleading headlines and content in today's Australian in the "Energy Nation" feature: "Renewables push past 50pc but next phase proves harder" "Renewables surge past 50pc but the next phase proving harder" As well as further incorrect claims in your article: "Renewable energy has breached 50% of electricity generation in the national market, a significant advance on a year ago and a major step towards Labor's target of 82%" "Australia's 50 per cent renewable milestone therefore comes at an awkward moment." This claim is misleading, and factually unsubstantiated.  If this was a claim made by any person of public note at Energy Nation Forum, please let me know, and I will pursue a correction and acknowledgement of the mistake from whichever organisation that person belongs to.  But if it is your own (as I can find no attribution in your writing, so I assume that it is) I would kindly request a correction published in The Australian, proportionate to the prominence afforded to this article associated headlines. The source of your confusion might possibly be from headlines published by AEMO claiming more than half was generated from renewables in a single quarter (Q4 2025), which I link below.  The highest quarterly number that can be attributed to an authoritative source is 50.1%, see page 22 of the Quarterly Energy Dynamics report, also linked. However, if you inspect other such quarterly reports prior to or after that one, you'll realise that this is an outlier due to seasonal fluctuation. The 4th Quarter consistently achieves some of the highest renewable share, and a 50% share has never been sustained over 12 months.  A convenient means of viewing these statistics, derived from AEMO data, is to use the tracking tool in the OpenElectricity.org.au website, where you'll find that the quarters prior to and since that single quarter range from the high 30s (eg Q2 2025 at 37.4%) through to the high 40s (eg Q1 2026 at 46.1%). Given the very large seasonal fluctuation that is expected between quarters, the proper basis for assessing milestones for renewable energy penetration must include 12 sequential months.  Assessed again using OpenElectricity, this could be the last calendar year at 43%, the last financial year at 44.9%, or the last 365 days up to 23rd of September, at 45.3%.  But to claim "renewables surge past 50%", and make direct reference to this as progress towards government targets like 82% which must be assessed on an annual basis, it is a fundamental and serious misrepresentation of the facts.  Your article and headlines claims a rate of progress that has no basis in reality. Since FY 2023, when the renewable share was 36.8% to the close of FY 2026 when we had 44.9%, renewable share has grown by just 2.7% on average per year. Therefore, it is most likely that at the current rate of progress, the 50% milestone which your article claims has been achieved will still not be achieved at the time of the next federal election campaign. For major media outlets with prominent standing in the energy debate to establish in the public mind that such a milestone is already behind us is a serious disservice to debate. I therefore request an immediate and clear correction to the articles and headlines in proportion to the prominence given. Please find links to sources below: explore.openelectricity.org.… aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-r… aemo.com.au/-/media/files/ma… Sincerely, Aidan Morrison theaustralian.com.au/special…

The most important imperative for Australia is to get rid of diesel. It is a no brainer for the economy, for national security and the environment. But there is no policy reneweconomy.com.au/australi…

I think this jet family tree is relatively complete.

Superannuation saves a tiny amount of age pension costs. Tax breaks for super far outweigh any budget savings from lower pensions. If you argue we need super to help the budget to afford pensions then you are wrong. You should support scrapping super if that is your reasoning

Economist Milton Friedman once said, "Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas lying around. Our basic function is to develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable." This quote became @CanadiansEnergy guiding philosophy in our campaign to save the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station from early decommissioning. As energy demand forecasts skyrocketed, and now as Trump's trade war brings energy security, domestic manufacturing and Canadian strategic autonomy to the forefront, our work to develop alternatives to the policy of shutting down Pickering became the "ideas that were lying around." We are pleased that this government accepted our recommendations and made the right call to prioritize Ontario jobs and workers, clean air, and medical isotopes, and we look forward to the tremendous economic multiplier effect of this CANDU refurbishment during the challenging times of Trump's trade war on Canada. Our campaign, launched in 2020, was an uphill battle. Labour unions that supported refurbishing the plant appreciated our efforts but had given up. Not only were we the only organization fighting for this refurbishment at a time when nuclear power was struggling reputationally, but major bodies in the nuclear industry made several "interventions," asking us to call off our campaign. Bizarrely, they communicated to us that our efforts were harmful to the nuclear sector. Over and over, they told us the decision to shut down the plant was a "done deal" and that we were "kicking a dead horse." @CanadiansEnergy, however, receives no funding from said industry and had total freedom of action to continue our "Quixotic" quest. Our determination to struggle on, which included holding rallies with placards painted with my son's art supplies at Queen's Park and outside @OPG headquarters, and the 100s of hours of collective energy and expertise we poured into our highly influential "Save Pickering" policy report authored by the extraordinarily talented @dylanjmoon, was rooted in our unshakeable and pan-partisan values: Pro-worker, pro-clean air, pro-climate and pro-health. After all, the reactors at Pickering support 4500 direct and indirect jobs. They are a vital part of our nuclear backbone, which underpins Ontario's energy security and self-reliance. Its 2,200 MW baseload contribution was slated to be replaced by smog-producing natural gas generation, and the plant contributes 20% of the world's vital Cobalt-60 medical isotope, which is vital to maintaining the sterility of the medical supplies I use every day on shift in the Emergency Department. To us, that was worth fighting for. We faced several crises of confidence along the way, asking ourselves why we were pouring so much time into a seemingly hopeless campaign. No one played a greater role in keeping our spirits up and our efforts laser-focused on our goal than Canadians for Nuclear Energy co-founder @cadlam. I'll close with another quote from the opposite side of the political spectrum as Mr. Friedman, American Anthropologist Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." Long live Pickering!

Despite batteries getting cheaper, the relevant department in WA has pivoted back to gas as the lowest-cost means of peaking capacity. The history of BRCP pricing in the chart below tells a story of ideological capture. Specifically, the mental gymnastics required to squeeze batteries in as the benchmark technology - which is supposed to be the cheapest option - while at the same time having to jack up prices by 113% over two years to make batteries viable. Only to realise 4hr or even 6hr batteries still need gas backup thereafter. So you may as well get rid of the battery and just use gas instead. Unfortunately for WA, we dumped $2bn worth of batteries into the grid over those two years, which will never pay for themselves. And the increase in gas costs from 2026 to 2029? That's mostly a function of increased turbine costs, as datacentres bid up the world's supply of generators in search for cheap, dispatchable energy.

DEMAND DESTRUCTION: Ineos will idle three of its chemical plants in northern England due to high energy costs🇬🇧 ⚠️ “With gas prices now 12 times the level in the US and eight times that of China, we just cannot compete,” said Chairman Ratcliffe bloomberg.com/news/articles/…