Researching energy and defence. Physics and data science background. Happy getting into the weeds.
Sydney, New South Wales
Joined March 2025
- Tweets4.2K
- Following141
- Followers6K
- Likes3.7K
"Students will learn which actions serve an ecosystem's health, and which actions achieve the opposite at an individual and societal levels".
There's so much wrong with that sentence, starting with grammar ("an" is singlar, "levels" plural).
But at 10 or 11 years old? This can only be indoctrination. Kids at this age should be learning foundational skills; the priority is English and maths.
The impact of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is quite positive for many ecosystem's health, negative for others. Same with temperature... it's complex. To engage with that at all seriously can only be done late in high school.
What they're proposing will be a lesson on what to think, not how to think.
And also, which ecosystems exactly? Why are ecosystems' health the only metric? Do they get a corresponding lesson on which individual and societal actions serve an economy's health, or the health of society, and which the opposite?
I have thoughts on the proper allocation of local government resources, the proper focus of tertiary educational institutions... the prioritisation of class time in Primary Schools... Serious societal impacts there that should be weighed against the claimed ecological ones.
What's wrong with this picture?
Is it the role of a local council...
to fund a University...
to teach 10 year old children...
in primary schools...
to become Climate Warriors...?
That has to be a microcosm of progressive group-think.
cdu.edu.au/news/cdu-educates…
The unlimited secrecy excuse for renewable energy costs is wearing thin with voters.
Everyone can agree that more transparency is good.
Very interesting poll results, indicating support for coal and gas picking back up again.
theaustralian.com.au/nation/…
In contrast to the nonsense on the cost of electricity from the wind and the sun, a surprising dose of honesty appears in the climate impacts section.
1% change in GDP... by 2066?! With the extreme 3 degree scenario vs zero warming!
Let's take our chances on getting some real growth! We could be ahead in just a couple years of Keating-Howard era growth.
Likewise, the disaster impacts are small.
This is just not worth hobbling the economy for! 4/4
Our fossil-fuel exports "will likely plateau".
Right. They haven't yet.
This isn't even a continuation of trends claim, it's a claim a new trend will start.
And still, renewable energy exports like green ammonia, steel etc... (oh dear, where's all they hydrogen?) 3/
Don't know what else to say...
Saying something that's false many times over doesn't make it true.
But it does help get people to believe it.
The uptake has been driven by government policy, not economics. 2/
Somewhere deep in the bowels of Treasury there are some grey-beards with their heads in their hands. They joined an institution that was regarded as world-class for its analysis.
Now it's producing nonsense propaganda.
Renewable energy is...
putting downward pressure on bills?
supporting energy entensive industries?
making us a renewable energy superpower? 1/
Even the official Intergenerational Report, written by Treasury, under a Labor government, gets the 45% penetration of renewables correct.
Why is it ok for @australian to get it wrong, just two days later, and report 50%?
Still no correction forthcoming.
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…
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…
🤩🤓 Can't describe the explosive nerd-out excitement at seeing this incredible family tree, of jets.
I read a brilliant book a while back that covered the early lineage of the Rolls Royce family in exquisite detail.
The process of developing jets is such an amazingly intense process of engineering; truly new jets are rare. I grasped immediately that the entire universe would be tractable and family-tree-like.
So cool seeing it laid out like this.
