45
A 'wake-up call': How can Australia realistically reduce its reliance on oil? (www.sbs.com.au)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (20 children)

Just build solar cells in the desert. Should be easier than in any other country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Doesn't even need to be in the desert. Build them on every house and business. Add batteries. Add electric vehicles. Done.

    I know it's more complex than that but that's the gist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's also better to build what we can near the cities since it reduces the need for more transmission lines which are costly and prone to opposition from rural types (unless it happens to go through their farm and they make a killing on it).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think it's fair to blame rural types for lack of infrastructure. Generally they are calling for better infrastructure not less. There are NIMBYs everywhere but there are also pragmatists everywhere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    It's just the nature of the issue. Transmission lines are primarily going through rural areas, so consequently that is where the opposition is centred.

    And there's a strong streak of anti-renewable and anti-transmission sentiment in the regions, much of it inflamed by disinformation locally and online.

    NIMBYs are a slightly different problem in that it's primarily about protecting property values rather than mostly ideological opposition in the regions. Which attitude is worse is up for debate, but yeah, I'd prefer both groups had less power to oppose needed infrastructure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I agree with building near use. It's better use of land as well to put them on the roof of buildings.

    There are a lot of small scale solar installations on rural properties. I would guess it is often a question of supporting infrastructure and economics not political opposition.

    Example of rural small scale solar on SA https://www.redmud.net.au/our-farms

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The other parts are fixing up our rail networks for long distance freight transport, and general electricification of heavy industry.

    Biggest downside is we'd have to go change out all those "without trucks Australia stops" slogans with something new.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "Without rail, Australia will fail"?

    Anyway I suspect long haul trucks will win out for the medium term at least. Not because it's the best solution, but because it can be rolled out more quickly. I do hope we pursue rail for the long term good though, and not just for freight but for people moving, particularly as jet fuel takes up a greater proportion of our emissions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    The truck network is privately owned and the big company owners are huge political donors. They will always oppose rail. We have road trains going through town day and night and the roads are getting years of wear in months. Privatise the profits. Socialise the costs.

    There are huge bypasses and highway upgrades not far away costing millions and none of the road trains use them. They are tearing up the B roads because it's the only route they are allowed on. It's crazy.

    The rail here was never fit for purpose. Installed a century ago and conditions were so bad it moved at a crawl. It could not compete with the massive public funding that goes into roads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Dandrews govt had a whole acheme for neighbourhood battery banks to spread solar power between those with panels and those without, soak up excess, decentralise the grid and allow neighbourhoods to island

    Then covid happened arrtfggh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    How do we build and transport any of those without oil? We make none of them here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It’s pretty much impossible to go from an oil dependent economy to an oil free economy overnight. Even this current crisis is based on reduced availability. Not none. Current infrastructure would need to be used to create new, oil independent infrastructure. In much the same way that the original cars has their components shipped by barge, by steam train, by horse and cart etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    The biggest issue that no “renewables” people want to address it the fact that without oil there are no “renewables“, or civilisation as we know it. Oil is in everything, used to make everything, and used to transport everything everywhere. It’s not hyperbole to say that there is literally no replacement for oil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    It’s always been that simple, problem is like half of conservatives in parliament are actively misinforming the public with their Murdoch assigned opinions of renewable energy being a “”rort””.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •