this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)

Australia

4983 readers
24 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
30
Six fuel ships bound for Australia cancelled (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Valnao@sh.itjust.works to c/australia@aussie.zone
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Where are the people who opposed bike lanes now? Where are they?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What you listed is exactly means "impossible". To be more precise "Practically impossible". And really, batteries are not a answer, we simply can't make enough to cover the need. But more realistic way to rid off coal, nuclear never get promoted by so called "green". Be back to earth, plan for something which possible to achieve in next 10 years, we just do not have time for something which take 30 years to materialise. And oil have to stay anyway, but more as material than source of energy.

[โ€“] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

And oil have to stay anyway, but more as material than source of energy.

100% with you here. Hence why we need to preserve it and move to stop burning it ASAP.

batteries are not a answer

Also agree with you on this. Batteries habe their place, but not for long duration storage, they aren't practical for that. There a number of promising technologies (beyond pumped hydro which is probably the best, but requires certain terrain) while have poor round trip efficiency, are still worth it in my opinion - compressed/liquid air energy storage, vanadium flow batteries, other thermal solutions like sand.

It also bears noting that a lot of our thermal energy needs (both heating and cooling) could be built our as district heating/cooling.

There's a bunch of stuff that can be done, we have literally no choice but to try.

nuclear never get promoted by so called "green"

Nuclear, while vaguely better than oil and gas, is a stupid long-term solution, because there still is almost no permanent storage of waste, and to get the most out of it, you need to do recycling which the US and other nuclear powers don't want you to do because you can enrich plutonium.

I could maybe live with building it provided no alternative in the short-term, but just doesn't seem like the smart play to me. Everyone just conveniently forgets about the waste which will last for 10,000s of years.

Thorium seems interesting though.

we just do not have time for something which take 30 years to materialise

Almost everything listed above could be built right now. It wouldn't be the absolute most efficient thing possible, not profitable, but we could start right now - and are, but usually drips and drabs and banks don't want to fund them at the scales we need.