johnasydney.bsky.social
77 posts
27 followers
20 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Well, interesting, quite apart from "the bosses and owners", defence industry employees, seeing their jobs lost or squeezed. It's an interesting contrast to the rust belt workers who saw a ( possibly valid ) point to voting for Trump at the time.
comment in response to
post
Our previous PM Abbott had a plan to buy non-nuclear subs from the Japanese. Maybe the only good idea he had. I don't think the non-nuclear French subs were ever going to be effective, but yes, nuclear subs are not as quiet - waste heat means you cannot ever stop the reactor cooling pumps.
comment in response to
post
Fair point, still, Labor currently in Government have been disappointing on many fronts. "We're not as bad as the opposition" starts to run a bit thin after a while.
comment in response to
post
I recall the past LNP Government going after unions, making comparisons to the scrutiny applied to corporations. Sure, you don't want fraud anywhere, but corporations warrant extra scrutiny because they have the privilege of limited liability. Unions don't. It was a false comparison.
comment in response to
post
I wonder about cables, batteries, time to construct & other impacts on the economy along the way - and any case, we're comparing it to Dutton's "plan", not something sensible.
comment in response to
post
Be interesting to see if the "Australians for Prosperity" group does in fact cause an anti-LNP backlash. I recall how the LNP saturated the booths around Bennelong last election. A sea of blue. Did that show they were serious - or that they were desperate? Wonder how you'd tell? #auspol
comment in response to
post
If people vote for our party for bad reasons, cough cough, we'll look the other way. But if people vote for the opposition for bad reasons, well now, that's actually a problem. #auspol
comment in response to
post
Sounds like a bot response to me.
comment in response to
post
What's the blog you mention?
comment in response to
post
He didn't "drop a bombshell" - www.aap.com.au/factcheck/du...
comment in response to
post
Good on you for voting YES, that's really great. But when he first flew it, there was a lot of support for it. I think the ongoing effect of a well resourced NO campaign took lots of people by surprise - including Albanese. I don't think there was any bad faith or manipulation on his part.
comment in response to
post
Not sure about your question, but for sure I've annoyed at the incessant invitations FB gave me connect with new people and groups. Depends on whether you're trying to "broadcast" or connect with people you know & have common interests. Regardless, FB & other platforms will try to silo you, yes.
comment in response to
post
And I really agree with the article you've pointed to - yes, population is a problem as are impacts, and Effective Altruism is blind to power issues and injustices around the world & OWID to the positive history of activism and Government intervention. But I don't see the connection to Ms. Kayhoe.
comment in response to
post
What's the evidence that Katherine Hayhoe believes in this technological approach? She lives in Texas, but identifies as Canadian. She's had a run in with Newt Gingrich, and you can tell a lot about a person from the quality of their enemies. I'm an atheist, but welcome climate change Christians.
comment in response to
post
I think there's plenty of blame to go around.
comment in response to
post
Wasn't my claim.
comment in response to
post
It still be profitable to be a net energy importer, if you sell energy when it is expensive, and buy it when it is cheap. Good on Tasmanians for making good economic decisions that benefit both themselves and the mainland.
comment in response to
post
Yep, agree, Tasmania made more than 50% of its own energy, but in terms of energy flows over the border, more came out than came in. You can still be a net energy importer at the same time as you make more than 50% of that power yourself. If you create 110% of the energy you use, you export 10%.
comment in response to
post
Yes, that's the CES not Centrelink, but hopefully still of interest - and I'm not trying to stop anyone from supporting their party of preference.
comment in response to
post
OK, I'll point out that I, johna am John August of Pirate Party Australia. I was involved in the preparation of a position statement on bureaucracy, which included mention of, and our support for, the CES : pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Positio... - vote with your preference, but maybe of interest #auspol
comment in response to
post
Thanks, gracious of you to be positive about this. While we might differ - I agree with the *principle* of NDIS - I'd imagine that we both agree that it ( or at least has been, till recently ) wasteful, and could do with significant improvement in how it is managed & money spent.
comment in response to
post
Yes, there's an interesting graph 2 at treasury.gov.au/publication/... ; originally non-income taxes dominated. While I don't like payroll tax, for Land Taxes most of economists of all stripes agree they are the least distortionary taxes. Further, our taxes are relatively low in the OECD.
comment in response to
post
Once upon a time, Australia used taxation rather than interest rates to slow down the economy. Such a policy would have more impact on the wealthy with spare cash. A more complex version would be a "diversion" ( not tax so much ) set aside, to be refunded by the RB when a stimulus is needed.
comment in response to
post
Proof by strong assertion.
comment in response to
post
Mate, you could have waited till I got to post No. 13.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I could be wrong, but I have to start somewhere. It's what I believe, even if you don't. Take it or leave it. Maybe I could provide more detail, but not if you're just trying to undermine me, after bashing away at something, ignoring that and just going onto another criticism. 13/13
comment in response to
post
Yes, it would need good planning. The best time to have gotten started was 20 years ago. The next best time is now - to at least lift the ban on nuclear power, and set up structures so that if nuclear is good, at least there are no obstacles to it reaching its potential. 12/13
comment in response to
post
For sure, nuclear would not make a change to prices anytime soon, and talk of "baseload" misses the point. We'd do nuclear because it is a good thing to do, not for other reasons. Those reasons are not Dutton's reasons. He's selling snake oil, not a plan. 11/13
comment in response to
post
Sure, in the context of ebb & flow of the market, let people move around the globe - but we're not talking about that here. And we're heading for a copper shortage. Lots of things are about to get harder. 10/13
comment in response to
post
Nuclear compares well, in terms what you need to put in for the result. We could try to import foreign workers - really we should subtract the cost of training from our foreign aid budget, but in any case, rather than exporting carbon, we'd then be exporting economic chaos. 9/13
comment in response to
post
Cranking out distributed solar & wind with a matching 24 hour grid is a gargantuan task, like a space or atomic bomb program. Mines soak up all the tradies in local towns - think about this on a capital city wide scale. Ramping up will be challenging, in terms of the diversions in the economy. 8/13
comment in response to
post
Yes, let's try to make power users more flexible - aluminium extraction electrolytic cells with better "idle" states - but limiting the power use in hospitals and other places is a bit silly - you can only go so far. 7/13
comment in response to
post
OK, coal fired power stations, what about renewables? I'm happy for household solar cells, but it is a private initiative. While you can pull less power from the grid, it harder to feed more of that power back. And houses take up 30% of our energy consumption, you can only do so much. 6/13
comment in response to
post
At the other end of the scale, I recall an administrator of a nuclear power station, that he signed 500 bits of paper a day. Yes, nuclear obliges a regulatory framework with good scrutiny, but driven by unrealistic fears, that's not necessarily what we'll get. 5/13
comment in response to
post
Fukushima, well I there I worry about our human frailties, and our ability to properly regulate things, because the fault really rests with our human "original sin" rather than nuclear technology in itself. Still, you kill fewer people overall with nuclear. 4/13
comment in response to
post
There's hidden deaths from coal power, even with nuclear accidents, you kill 3,000X more people for the same power. Chernobyl was the Soviet Union, Windscale was a weapons ( not power ) reactor, Three Mile Island had in fact a minimal release, and Fukushima resulted from inept regulation. 3/13
comment in response to
post
Coal power stations create airborne radiation; you can point at nuclear waste. And while peole talk about "half a million years", after 10,000 years gamma radiation equals that of the original ore & overall radiation is 10,000X less. Over a lifetime, but much less than half a million years. 2/13
comment in response to
post
OK, so nuclear. Replying from a while back. Yes, it seems LCOE does not include the cost of energy storage, we can wonder how to allow for this difference. OK, maybe there are issues around the cost of decommissioning, but decommissioning & nuclear waste are not as bad as they sound. #auspol 1/13
comment in response to
post
Well, the question is - who is spending more, and who is spending less? Maybe there is a cost of living crisis for some people, but it has been more than compensated for by the spending of others who are not suffering under such a crisis.
comment in response to
post
I can't imagine there would be a lot of energy to go around. It's easy to get sunburnt, but I don't think moonburn is a thing.