diver dan,

That's FN brilliant! You are a FN genius!

That, that must not be named in relation to climate change exacerbated bushfires is carbon-free nuclear energy!

Why? Well, how many of the most disastrous fires were caused by white anted and falling power poles?

A product of privatisation/corporatisation and criminal cost-cutting by tax-avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating foreigners or seriously incompetent state governments, who've used their power generating corporations as their own personal ATM?

And used operating capital and therefore, responsible for the cost cuttings that lead to, blame on lightening, tragedies?

Some of the maddest schemes have been cooking coal to liberate the methane then putting that through another industrial process to separate the hydrogen from the remaining carbon.

And based on largely tried and found wanting, problematic geosequestration of the carbon products of this mad hatters scheme!

Two things, the methane could be cooked out with safer flameless nuclear heat then transmitted via underground pipelines that eliminate most of the combined transmission and distribution 75% loses as the methane and the fed into individual ceramic fuel cells to produce on-demand, 24/7 power!

And where this system is deployed, the exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapour. It can also be used in backup turbines as is if that's the price gouging goal? Or as long haul transport fuel as compressed gas!

And the carbon wouldn't be buried but treated to convert it to other carbon-based commercial products. Added to recycled plastic to replace bitumen e.g.?

But then why would you just not use, nuclear waste burning MSR to create your power and given graphene highways are used to transmit the power, almost any desert region would suffice. With vastly reduced combined transmission and distribution losses as the first of many benefits! One of which, the world's lowest domestic and industrial power prices!

Current transmission, towers could be recycled for the steel and aluminium metals. And given carbon-free electricity (nuclear) and arc furnaces are used, plus hydrogen replacing coal as the reductant. produce carbo free metals for export to the world, using the world's cheapest energy in the arc furnaces. TBC.
Alan B.

Um, maybe we don't mention arson because there's no need. It's just assumed. Fires don't light themselves.

The problem with the dead handed "Harsher penalties" thing is the poor honest bloke who screwed up one day and never meant any harm. He's the one who'll get the book thrown at him.
No doubt somewhere penalties for arson will be increased, but it won't make any difference to the ill willed.

There's a saying. Good men need no laws and bad men aren't improved by them. It's very true.

Better to deny the arsonist the opportunities.

This is why the talk's about fuel loads, buffers, defendable spaces and removing vegetation clearance restrictions from private land.
Oh and manbearpig so the Al Goresketeers feel included.

Nuclear power is great. It's a pity that advocates like AlanB can destroy its credibility in the minds of thinking people.
No disasters were caused by termites felling wooden poles.
Construction of underground pipelines burns infinitely more energy than erecting poles and wires.
Recycling transmission towers would burn more energy than erecting them in the first place.
The 'renewables' industry has already created a future disaster of dead solar and wind farms. Why stuff up the argument for achievable nuclear?

Cont. My prefered method of hydrogen production would be using modernised water molecule cracking from seriously abundant seawater.

And the eminently suitable flameless nuclear reactor heat as the most suitable flameless heat and from unpressurised, walk away safe, nuclear waste burning, MSR fifties technology! How many years do we want to wait for this tried and proven technology is deployed? Another three-quarters of a century?

Abandoned after several years of accident and incident-free trails due to the fact of the difficulty of weaponising the technology and the pulling of the funding jus as it was to be tasked with turning electrical alternators.

And able to be sited almost anywhere given more efficient turbines can be turned with CO2 Captured directly from the atmosphere. Some very modest water needed for the reactor surrounding water jacket, that prevents, rogue emissions!

What prevents any of this logical and timely transition?

Lack of a funding model?

NO!

Only fearmongering, blatantly illogical dullards who as always, know all the reasons it can't be done or why we must have/burn coal and annual, burn baby burn, bushfires! Or slimey, special vested interest? Or, all of the above!?
Alan B.

I agree Aidan

The overpaid, News Corp/Murdoch muppets (who dominate the thoughts of so many OLO commenters and authors) hype Arson all the time. see http://youtu.be/s23q9DkCaVY?t=10m

And note the NSW rural fire chief says the 2019-20 fire season was so fierce: "hazard reduction" (read fuel load reduction) "has very little effect at all" see http://youtu.be/s23q9DkCaVY?t=9m32s

Also senior firies talk about Dry Lightning as a major fire starter - see http://youtu.be/s23q9DkCaVY?t=13m