Gawd's sake. Here we go again politicising the fires to score a risible rubbish political point. Who TF claimed that 100% renewables would stop forest fires!?

Nobody with half a brain is saying we shouldn't reduce fuel loads, just a few firebugs who cannot conceive of a better fuel reduction model than burn baby burn!

Can't conceive of anything else/superior, because they're a couple of sheep short in the upper paddock and consequently, write complete garbage like this!?

As for decarbing and electrifying/drought-proofing the economy, if we choose wisely comes with a huge economic upside that just keeps on giving!

Trouble is getting it past the coal-fired, anti-nuclear nincompoops who can only see their personal coal-fired dividends disappearing!? TBC.
Alan B.

There has been plenty of discussion about arson in the media but it is largely irrelevant. If 3D fuel is allowed to accumulate in the bush it will inevitably burn in extreme conditions.

Geoff,
Before going any further, please watch last week's episode of Media Watch – or at least read the transcript, which is at http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/news-corp-fire/11925590
When you see it, you'll realise not only why arson is a less significant cause of the fires than you think, but also why you shouldn't rely on the Murdoch Press so much!

As for fuel reduction, of course that's needed. But climate change has reduced the opportunities we have for cool burns...

Honestly, there are folk advising the government who want to cook coal to bake out the methane. Then pass it through a catalytic process to hive off the hydrogen atoms? Then bury the carbon.

Sounds good until you count the cost given the hydrogen is then supposed to be used for long haul traffic road and rail freight etc.
And used in reconfigured NG turbines to produce future electricity.

All done to protect the FOREIGN OWNED OR CONTROLLED FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DIVIDENDS AND THOSE OF THE SPITTLE LICK LACKEYS?

Whose dividends would be decimated by (cheaper than coal) MSR! MSR (molten salt reactor) shouldn't be confused with SMR (small modular Reactor)

Thorium burning MSR as a say a reconfigured FUJI 350MW, Will only need one ton of cheap abundant thorium in a thirty-year unpressurised lifetime.

Whereas the conventional equivalent will require 2551 tons of as rare as platinum, uranium, which needs to be enriched the pelletised before it can be used in a highly pressurised system. 150 atmospheres needs seven-inch thick steel to contain it1

and as shown in Chernobyl the additional pressure caused the production and expansion inside solid fuel rods, (reaction) of xenon, added enough internal pressure to rupture something releasing superheated steam.

Which was hot enough to instantly flash to its component gases, hydrogen and oxygen and a massive fuel bomb that went off. And not a nuclear explosion per se. And why we should never build another solid fuel reactor in this country!

Even if it's carbon-free and cheaper by half than the proposed coal> hydrogen proposal! TBC.
Alan B.

"If we wallow in the Twittersphere, we would certainly be convinced that the cause of these tragic bushfires is climate change and that if only ScoMo would announce a 100% renewable target, the fires would immediately abate."

Please show me one person who has argued any such thing.

This is a serious national issue, and this kind of half-baked nonsense does nothing to advance the debate.

Yes arson is a despicable crime, & every effort should be made to catch these criminals.

However, even lighting a fire will not cause major bush fires, if the fuel load is not there. the hugely excessive fuel load is our problem.

It is fuel load reduction that is critical as the first priority in reducing this destruction, the rest is all secondary.