3 ms·

Australia is also actively not supporting local research and development into renewable energy technologies. Even if I bought the whole "we're only a small cont

Australia is also actively not supporting local research and development into renewable energy technologies. Even if I bought the whole "we're only a small contributor to the problem, so it's not really our problem" argument (which I obviously don't), it'd be nice if we at least supported research and development that could actually make money as opposed to holding to the hard line that "anthropogenic climate change is a myth and therefore any effort to reduce it deserves no support".

roenxi 7y ago
We do support research and development in renewable technologies. It gets farmed out to China because they are better at building things cost effectively than we are [0, 1]. And again, while Australia is quite strong per-capita, renewable energy is a very hot focus in any number of research universities with billions of dollars being spent globally with results that are nothing short of miraculous. It isn't obvious that more investment is needed, solar and wind are improving at an amazing pace led by major players. Germany showed enormous leadership with their Energiewende. It was expensive, convinced nobody and has had what appears to be a marginal effect on their actual emissions emitted. Hoping that Australia charging into the breach would help in any meaningful way is wishful thinking. Business as usual until economic forces cause the US and China to switch away from fossil fuels is what is going to happen, we can't make their decisions for them. Fight that diplomatically, sure. But tank our standard of living for a symbolic gesture and there is going to be very stiff resistance. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-solar-power-technology-to-china-20161128-gsz8gh.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-s... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong
- pjc50 7y ago
  What's the standard of living of being on fire?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    We won't know until the bushfire season ends. There are people who've lost their homes, are in dire straits and need support. But the raw numbers are not doing the same sort of damage as a 10% increase in general energy costs. So far it has been 1,516 homes. Australia will have something like 5,000,000 homes. That is bad, but entirely tolerable averaged over the continent - we build about that many homes in a month or two. The damage is a small % of GDP contained to one year. We need to improve our bushfire management & crisis response, but there is no need to do anything rash.
    - sangnoir 7y ago
      How many peoples health has deteriorated due to inhaling particulates from the fires - what was the cost? How many man-hours have been spent fighting the fires? How many cancelled film shoots, or other outdoor events? How much tourism revenue was lost? The list is endless. Looking just at the number of homes seems very narrow - there's a myriad of costs (direct and indirect)
      - yassam 7y ago
        Hundreds, possibly thousands of deaths, are predicted from smoke inhalation: https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/ https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/
        nl 7y ago
        Someone dropped dead on the Canberra airport tarmac from smoke induced respiratory issues as soon as the got off the plane. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/woman-dies-from-bushfire-smoke-in-canberra-after-exiting-qantas-plane/news-story/280f1c9bb729c5c4f3377f97936b5cda https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/woma...
        roenxi 7y ago
        > The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW 2016, Begg 2007) has estimated that about 3000 deaths (equivalent to about 28,000 years of life lost) are attributable to urban air pollution in Australia each year (Figure ATM29). [0] Ouch. That is bad. It does require a response. However it is close enough to normal that it wouldn't change any rational decisions about our energy mix. This crisis is small enough that we only need to respond to the threats directly, without winding in a decarbonisation scheme that doesn't actually do anything. [0] https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/topic/2016/health-impacts-air-pollution https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/top...
- Hallucinaut 7y ago
  A close friend worked at a cutting edge solar farm organisation in Victoria and from everything he's told me, these opinions are way off base. There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest. To argue that the quality of life would be hit by changing govt funding priorities is like arguing against the construction of roads before automobiles were mainstream. Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable. Leave it to the "major players", so China and USA will just give away the technology for free? Why do any research at all, ever, there will always be someone better...
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Funnily enough I argue against the construction of roads too and I don't own a car. So I suppose at least I am consistent, eh? Cars are unsafe, expensive and make cities unwalkable. I would rather Australia beefed up its train network & river freight rather than this mania for cars. > There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest. Sounds pretty marginal, he might not be factoring in the consequences for grid stability in his calculations. It isn't just a raw numbers game. > Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable. We are doing research, it probably is making a difference. If you go to UNSW the first building you run in to is the great big energy research facility. It wouldn't be too hard to get support for more research into better energy if anyone cared. And for all people blame the Australian right for coal they are the ones who push for dropping the effective ban on nuclear power in Australia and maybe doing some R & D on that front. It was much more promising technology than solar for most of the lest 50 years.

roenxi 7y ago

We do support research and development in renewable technologies. It gets farmed out to China because they are better at building things cost effectively than we are [0, 1]. And again, while Australia is quite strong per-capita, renewable energy is a very hot focus in any number of research universities with billions of dollars being spent globally with results that are nothing short of miraculous. It isn't obvious that more investment is needed, solar and wind are improving at an amazing pace led by major players. Germany showed enormous leadership with their Energiewende. It was expensive, convinced nobody and has had what appears to be a marginal effect on their actual emissions emitted. Hoping that Australia charging into the breach would help in any meaningful way is wishful thinking. Business as usual until economic forces cause the US and China to switch away from fossil fuels is what is going to happen, we can't make their decisions for them. Fight that diplomatically, sure. But tank our standard of living for a symbolic gesture and there is going to be very stiff resistance. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-solar-power-technology-to-china-20161128-gsz8gh.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-s... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong

pjc50 7y ago
What's the standard of living of being on fire?
- roenxi 7y ago
  We won't know until the bushfire season ends. There are people who've lost their homes, are in dire straits and need support. But the raw numbers are not doing the same sort of damage as a 10% increase in general energy costs. So far it has been 1,516 homes. Australia will have something like 5,000,000 homes. That is bad, but entirely tolerable averaged over the continent - we build about that many homes in a month or two. The damage is a small % of GDP contained to one year. We need to improve our bushfire management & crisis response, but there is no need to do anything rash.
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    How many peoples health has deteriorated due to inhaling particulates from the fires - what was the cost? How many man-hours have been spent fighting the fires? How many cancelled film shoots, or other outdoor events? How much tourism revenue was lost? The list is endless. Looking just at the number of homes seems very narrow - there's a myriad of costs (direct and indirect)
    - yassam 7y ago
      Hundreds, possibly thousands of deaths, are predicted from smoke inhalation: https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/ https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/
      - nl 7y ago
        Someone dropped dead on the Canberra airport tarmac from smoke induced respiratory issues as soon as the got off the plane. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/woman-dies-from-bushfire-smoke-in-canberra-after-exiting-qantas-plane/news-story/280f1c9bb729c5c4f3377f97936b5cda https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/woma...
      - roenxi 7y ago
        > The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW 2016, Begg 2007) has estimated that about 3000 deaths (equivalent to about 28,000 years of life lost) are attributable to urban air pollution in Australia each year (Figure ATM29). [0] Ouch. That is bad. It does require a response. However it is close enough to normal that it wouldn't change any rational decisions about our energy mix. This crisis is small enough that we only need to respond to the threats directly, without winding in a decarbonisation scheme that doesn't actually do anything. [0] https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/topic/2016/health-impacts-air-pollution https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/top...
Hallucinaut 7y ago
A close friend worked at a cutting edge solar farm organisation in Victoria and from everything he's told me, these opinions are way off base. There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest. To argue that the quality of life would be hit by changing govt funding priorities is like arguing against the construction of roads before automobiles were mainstream. Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable. Leave it to the "major players", so China and USA will just give away the technology for free? Why do any research at all, ever, there will always be someone better...
- roenxi 7y ago
  Funnily enough I argue against the construction of roads too and I don't own a car. So I suppose at least I am consistent, eh? Cars are unsafe, expensive and make cities unwalkable. I would rather Australia beefed up its train network & river freight rather than this mania for cars. > There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest. Sounds pretty marginal, he might not be factoring in the consequences for grid stability in his calculations. It isn't just a raw numbers game. > Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable. We are doing research, it probably is making a difference. If you go to UNSW the first building you run in to is the great big energy research facility. It wouldn't be too hard to get support for more research into better energy if anyone cared. And for all people blame the Australian right for coal they are the ones who push for dropping the effective ban on nuclear power in Australia and maybe doing some R & D on that front. It was much more promising technology than solar for most of the lest 50 years.