For anyone who has any doubts about the merits of considering politics in terms of game theory should look at the debt ceiling negotiations. If one or the other political side backs down on their demands, the opposite side gets a considerable "win". If neither side backs down in time, everybody loses.
Classic Game of chicken.
The most important thing to consider is why people play this silly game when the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake? The first question is why do people play chicken when their own life is at stake?
Obviously the perceived political rewards are so huge in having the opposition back down in humiliation.
My hope is that if one side or the other backs down, that they get rewarded at the ballot box rather than punished - Hopefully changing the political perceptions for next time. I don't hold out much hope.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Wow. "Unpopular" tax reform with a hung parliament
One thing that tends to characterise hung parliaments or even non-traditional coalitions in most countries is their ability to only pass popular spending sprees and not the unpopular new taxes (or more correctly, tax reform) that are possible with clear parliamentary majorities.
This is clearly not the case in Australia. Whether for or against a Carbon tax, one has to admit that it is bold, given the popular opinion of the moment.
The thing is, that the idea is to reduce CO2 at the *lowest* cost, which is still putatively an aspiration of a reduced majority. The Europeans have active policies that don't work, and the US has failed to pass legislation that wouldn't work anyway.
This is clearly not the case in Australia. Whether for or against a Carbon tax, one has to admit that it is bold, given the popular opinion of the moment.
The thing is, that the idea is to reduce CO2 at the *lowest* cost, which is still putatively an aspiration of a reduced majority. The Europeans have active policies that don't work, and the US has failed to pass legislation that wouldn't work anyway.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Arguments against my arguments against feed-in tarriffs
Since my goal is not really to try to convince people of my point of view as much as measure it against my own logic, I think it is time to look at it from the opposite angle for a little while.
Valid points made against me:
- Take up has been at a higher percentage in the country than the city - This does not mean that more actual generation capacity or instalments are in the country than the city, but it still is counter-intuitive and thus an important counterpoint against my arguments. It means more money disproportionately to the country than the city, which makes a nice change.
- It is development of "power stations" by stealth, avoiding the red tape, delays and NIMBYISM associated in building bigger more efficient (even renewable) ones. If we are looking at generation capacity added per day, with this surge it is quite reasonable amount but spread quite thinly accross the grid.
The biggest Marconomic counter-argument (so far unmentioned) is that this "subsidy" is more similar to the Brazilian ethanol subsidy, and even in some ways similar to the incentives that built the railways in the US and the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) in Australia that enabled mass planting of a plethora of long term crops such as olives and timber.
The thing that works about these subsidies (whereas European agricultural ones don't) is that the subsidies have leaked a great deal to what would pass as infrastructure. Whereas if the government said they were going to spend $32 Billion over 10 years on solar electric base power stations around the country, it would be voted down, while if we spend the equivalent of $100 billion extra (compared to what we would have with the status quo) Neatly packaged and spread across various risk profiles, REC's and individual investments, people would go along with it.
The Brazilian ethanol subsidy money leaked through to private companies which built efficient ethanol generation and trading infrastructure. The Companies that funded the railway booms became bankrupt, but the railways are still there. The MIS funds are much maligned but they have generated a large "infrastructure" of trees closer to generating income. The German feed-in tarriffs have been incredibly expensive for what they have achieved, and completely distorted the market. However, the result appears to be a semblance of infrastructure. Australia is not repeating the mistakes of Germany, by having a honeymoon period of high tariffs rapidly reducing over a few years, the subsidy portion *may* be temporary, and the constant shifting of the goalposts mean that any tariff regime will not breed dependence on the tariffs from solar panel owners. They already know that they can't count on them being that generous for more than a couple of years.
With all these "infrastructures" built from subsidy money rather than directly, it still is somewhat controlled by the Government(indirectly through the actions of the subsidies), and can possibly fit into the rule of thumb that Governments should own infrastructure, but it usually is a very tenuous control.
Valid points made against me:
- Take up has been at a higher percentage in the country than the city - This does not mean that more actual generation capacity or instalments are in the country than the city, but it still is counter-intuitive and thus an important counterpoint against my arguments. It means more money disproportionately to the country than the city, which makes a nice change.
- It is development of "power stations" by stealth, avoiding the red tape, delays and NIMBYISM associated in building bigger more efficient (even renewable) ones. If we are looking at generation capacity added per day, with this surge it is quite reasonable amount but spread quite thinly accross the grid.
The biggest Marconomic counter-argument (so far unmentioned) is that this "subsidy" is more similar to the Brazilian ethanol subsidy, and even in some ways similar to the incentives that built the railways in the US and the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) in Australia that enabled mass planting of a plethora of long term crops such as olives and timber.
The thing that works about these subsidies (whereas European agricultural ones don't) is that the subsidies have leaked a great deal to what would pass as infrastructure. Whereas if the government said they were going to spend $32 Billion over 10 years on solar electric base power stations around the country, it would be voted down, while if we spend the equivalent of $100 billion extra (compared to what we would have with the status quo) Neatly packaged and spread across various risk profiles, REC's and individual investments, people would go along with it.
The Brazilian ethanol subsidy money leaked through to private companies which built efficient ethanol generation and trading infrastructure. The Companies that funded the railway booms became bankrupt, but the railways are still there. The MIS funds are much maligned but they have generated a large "infrastructure" of trees closer to generating income. The German feed-in tarriffs have been incredibly expensive for what they have achieved, and completely distorted the market. However, the result appears to be a semblance of infrastructure. Australia is not repeating the mistakes of Germany, by having a honeymoon period of high tariffs rapidly reducing over a few years, the subsidy portion *may* be temporary, and the constant shifting of the goalposts mean that any tariff regime will not breed dependence on the tariffs from solar panel owners. They already know that they can't count on them being that generous for more than a couple of years.
With all these "infrastructures" built from subsidy money rather than directly, it still is somewhat controlled by the Government(indirectly through the actions of the subsidies), and can possibly fit into the rule of thumb that Governments should own infrastructure, but it usually is a very tenuous control.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Amartya Sen and all that
Amartya Sen did a lot of research on the causes of famine and the gist of the conclusions was that lack of food was not a factor at all, and that various market failures were evident (including hoarding, purchases by the British military, price gouging etc.) which explains most of it. This perhaps contradicts Adam Smiths conclusion about bakers, bread and "the hidden hand" that means we can all get fed without benevolent bakers.
I don't disagree with the gist of that, and my belief is that Destitution, not Dearth is what causes famines (there is an Economist article of a few years ago that I could look up but I don't need it to make my point)
India became democratic after about that point, and the Government of India has, ever since, had a program of purchasing and distributing food for the poor, including subsidising food in good times and in bad. I like to call this system a "brute force" way of solving the problem. The "hidden hand" of commerce gets replaced by a very visible hand of the Government. However, is this brute force method foolproof? How expensive is it? Why does Australia not embrace or need something similar?
My assertion is that the policy of the Government of India has got the credit for avoiding famines when in reality, a policy concentrating on social welfare rather than food purchases would have both avoided famine more cheaply, and would have resulted in far higher economic growth meaning it would have been considered "first world" well before the turn of the century.
I completely disagree with the policy conclusion that Governments becoming buyers and sellers in the market is a good way to avoid the market failures that cause famines. Certainly there must be enough storage capacity for store levels to increase when prices are low, and drawn upon when prices are high, if only to buy enough time for suppliers to ramp up/down production/imports (panic buyers are profitable, if supply can be ramped up) . Social welfare to avoid destitution should be done with money or food vouchers rather than the food itself, so that market signals still function at the farm level (small farms will not ramp up production if the Government doesn't offer a higher purchase price). Governments are just as capable as individuals of hoarding, price gouging etc. when it comes to/from other countries, so what may be of benefit for a country in isolation may still be a complete disaster to an inoccent other country which has become destitute.
This is to say there is still a dearth of situations where Governments should involve themselves in consumables. Nor any situations where private interests should own infrastructure. That is not necessarily about whether an outcome is an aim of a policy, but whether the policy is equipped to give the desired result.
I don't disagree with the gist of that, and my belief is that Destitution, not Dearth is what causes famines (there is an Economist article of a few years ago that I could look up but I don't need it to make my point)
India became democratic after about that point, and the Government of India has, ever since, had a program of purchasing and distributing food for the poor, including subsidising food in good times and in bad. I like to call this system a "brute force" way of solving the problem. The "hidden hand" of commerce gets replaced by a very visible hand of the Government. However, is this brute force method foolproof? How expensive is it? Why does Australia not embrace or need something similar?
My assertion is that the policy of the Government of India has got the credit for avoiding famines when in reality, a policy concentrating on social welfare rather than food purchases would have both avoided famine more cheaply, and would have resulted in far higher economic growth meaning it would have been considered "first world" well before the turn of the century.
I completely disagree with the policy conclusion that Governments becoming buyers and sellers in the market is a good way to avoid the market failures that cause famines. Certainly there must be enough storage capacity for store levels to increase when prices are low, and drawn upon when prices are high, if only to buy enough time for suppliers to ramp up/down production/imports (panic buyers are profitable, if supply can be ramped up) . Social welfare to avoid destitution should be done with money or food vouchers rather than the food itself, so that market signals still function at the farm level (small farms will not ramp up production if the Government doesn't offer a higher purchase price). Governments are just as capable as individuals of hoarding, price gouging etc. when it comes to/from other countries, so what may be of benefit for a country in isolation may still be a complete disaster to an inoccent other country which has become destitute.
This is to say there is still a dearth of situations where Governments should involve themselves in consumables. Nor any situations where private interests should own infrastructure. That is not necessarily about whether an outcome is an aim of a policy, but whether the policy is equipped to give the desired result.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Feed-In Tarriffs are the opposite of the answer
As the following article, Solar Scam Article, PV solar schemes can easily burn through hundreds of millions of dollars before anyone even notices. Not only that, they fail in the most basic of stated aims - that of more quickly getting PV systems (or rather, any renewable) to substantially contribute to our energy needs.
Most people, even experts, think that at worst, it is neutral to our efforts in replacing renewables, but due to the competing interests for a finite number of available renewable energy certificates it is considerably worse than the Government spending nothing on it(*).
An infinite number of REC's implies an infinite budget so cannot be considered - and what is plainly happening is that the REC's are being lapped up by the most generous policy (in this case PV subsidy + feed-in tarrif guarantees), crowding out significantly more efficient and cost effective (even speedily built) large scale projects, that given no tariffs, could have been built by private enterprise for profit.
There are plenty of wind farm projects, large scale PV and solar thermal, as well as Geothermal which are being starved of funds. Private money is chasing the most generous public money rather than profitable energy enterprises.
(*) By which I mean alternative policies that do not favour small, inefficient installations, that are either revenue neutral or have more tax income than expenditure (eg carbon tax)
Most people, even experts, think that at worst, it is neutral to our efforts in replacing renewables, but due to the competing interests for a finite number of available renewable energy certificates it is considerably worse than the Government spending nothing on it(*).
An infinite number of REC's implies an infinite budget so cannot be considered - and what is plainly happening is that the REC's are being lapped up by the most generous policy (in this case PV subsidy + feed-in tarrif guarantees), crowding out significantly more efficient and cost effective (even speedily built) large scale projects, that given no tariffs, could have been built by private enterprise for profit.
There are plenty of wind farm projects, large scale PV and solar thermal, as well as Geothermal which are being starved of funds. Private money is chasing the most generous public money rather than profitable energy enterprises.
(*) By which I mean alternative policies that do not favour small, inefficient installations, that are either revenue neutral or have more tax income than expenditure (eg carbon tax)
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Grid based access vs grid independent systems
I started thinking about this entry ages ago when I had an epiphany and I felt that it could be proven that a speed/price/throughput advantage would exist for "fibre" over "wireless". (Conversely, a flexibility and ability to function when the grid is "down", advantage would always exist the other way).
The basis of the proof is basically that any imaginable technology that improves speed over wireless electromagnetic radiation, would be applicable to wired electromagnetic radiation in the same proportion of improvement.
In the case of broadband, at one extreme is Fibre to the Home and the other extreme is Satellite broadband. Wi-Fi is closer to the FTTH side, then there is 3G style wireless broadband that relies on the mobile network which is connected via mainly fibre, and satellite, which can work even if the whole countries internet is down, theoretically. This doesn't really prove that FTTH is worth pursuing, because it is a tenable argument (although I would dispute it) that wireless will improve to the point that it is fast and cheap enough for everything we find important.
Back in Uni, it was proposed that solid state storage improvements were happening faster than hard drive improvements and could overtake them, and although a USB stick is enough for most things, portable hard drives still hold more and are used a lot, the storage advantage of hard drives is constant, due to the solid state improvements being equally applicable to hard drive storage.
Similar grid vs grid independent comparisons are common - road vs helicopter, grid power vs home generators, rail vs aeroplane, piped gas vs cylinders, water tanks vs dam & pipes, private dam storages vs large scale dams for irrigation.
With this in mind, simple goal based arithmetic could decide the balance between grid based and grid independent systems.
For Photo Voltaic electricity generation, I think we have got it backwards, which is why grid parity is not served well with thousands (or millions) of individual installations. If a household is after energy independence, a PV system with a significant amount of battery storage (batteries suitable for an electric car?) is actually very useful and would be a boon for extended power outages (like after Yasi). Because home PV installations are optimised to feed power back into the grid, they are quite useless as independent power sources, compared to diesel generators.
However, if we want PV power to compete with Coal or Gas, we need economies of scale of large scale PV based power stations.
The basis of the proof is basically that any imaginable technology that improves speed over wireless electromagnetic radiation, would be applicable to wired electromagnetic radiation in the same proportion of improvement.
In the case of broadband, at one extreme is Fibre to the Home and the other extreme is Satellite broadband. Wi-Fi is closer to the FTTH side, then there is 3G style wireless broadband that relies on the mobile network which is connected via mainly fibre, and satellite, which can work even if the whole countries internet is down, theoretically. This doesn't really prove that FTTH is worth pursuing, because it is a tenable argument (although I would dispute it) that wireless will improve to the point that it is fast and cheap enough for everything we find important.
Back in Uni, it was proposed that solid state storage improvements were happening faster than hard drive improvements and could overtake them, and although a USB stick is enough for most things, portable hard drives still hold more and are used a lot, the storage advantage of hard drives is constant, due to the solid state improvements being equally applicable to hard drive storage.
Similar grid vs grid independent comparisons are common - road vs helicopter, grid power vs home generators, rail vs aeroplane, piped gas vs cylinders, water tanks vs dam & pipes, private dam storages vs large scale dams for irrigation.
With this in mind, simple goal based arithmetic could decide the balance between grid based and grid independent systems.
For Photo Voltaic electricity generation, I think we have got it backwards, which is why grid parity is not served well with thousands (or millions) of individual installations. If a household is after energy independence, a PV system with a significant amount of battery storage (batteries suitable for an electric car?) is actually very useful and would be a boon for extended power outages (like after Yasi). Because home PV installations are optimised to feed power back into the grid, they are quite useless as independent power sources, compared to diesel generators.
However, if we want PV power to compete with Coal or Gas, we need economies of scale of large scale PV based power stations.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Dick Smith living up to his name
(re Dick Smith's opinion that Australians should be limited, Chinese style, to two children)
Dick smith has got a point. If we want to limit population to any amount at all, we may want to have a target no of children per family. However, putting an individual limit and fines analogously to what the Chinese (RMP) do, risks overshooting considerably and also sets a fuse for a deadly demographic time bomb, as well as relying heavily on abortion as a means of enforcement of these policies. What is required is a target for an average(say 2) children per family, and a way to trade fertility allocations with those that do not want any children, analogously to water trading. Personally, I would find it easy to trawl my FB friends to find enough who would be willing to sell theirs to me. At any rate, our average in Aus is already at about 2, so further limiting people's reproductive rights would dangerously undershoot, eventually, when it is too late to rectify.
However, as good as this (fertility cap and trade) sounds, it is not quite ambitious enough. There is still the dual issues of many children being unwanted to the point of being aborted, while many that want to adopt a child are thwarted by a lack of children to adopt and a heap of red tape - which leads to most adoptions being "soft immigration" ie. from other countries.
I am not suggesting the prepurchase of babies from females pregnant with unwanted babies by couples desperate to adopt, mediated and encouraged by the government. That would be the barbaric purchase of children akin to the economics of slavery and other barbaric uses of people trade and smuggling.
What I am suggesting will be viewed as a legitimate alternative to abortion - At a family planning clinic, pregnant teenagers (or other age groups) would be given the option of the fetus being carried to be made a ward of the state while in utero. The medical costs, as well as the loss of employment opportunities, stress and a range of other emotional and actual "costs" current and future, would be reimbursed financially by the state (including the fertility right trade).
At birth a pre-arranged adoption would take place. Rather than a prospective Adopter being limbo (and the baby being in limbo in foster care), there have been at least 6 months to arrange the details and documentation for the adoption to take place.
For the prospective adopter it will be a legitimate alternative to overseas adoption. Of course they would have to reimburse the Government for costs associated with the transfer of care, but this would likely be less than the costs associated with overseas adoption.
A couple of questions remain. Would a prospective birth parent rather get a whole heap of money for letting their baby live, albeit with someone else than making it die and it costing her? Would a prospective adopter prefer to live in the same country as the birth parents rather than on the other side of the world?
I don't know - I guess only people in that position could answer surveys to get a feel for whether this whole idea is bunkim or not.
Dick smith has got a point. If we want to limit population to any amount at all, we may want to have a target no of children per family. However, putting an individual limit and fines analogously to what the Chinese (RMP) do, risks overshooting considerably and also sets a fuse for a deadly demographic time bomb, as well as relying heavily on abortion as a means of enforcement of these policies. What is required is a target for an average(say 2) children per family, and a way to trade fertility allocations with those that do not want any children, analogously to water trading. Personally, I would find it easy to trawl my FB friends to find enough who would be willing to sell theirs to me. At any rate, our average in Aus is already at about 2, so further limiting people's reproductive rights would dangerously undershoot, eventually, when it is too late to rectify.
However, as good as this (fertility cap and trade) sounds, it is not quite ambitious enough. There is still the dual issues of many children being unwanted to the point of being aborted, while many that want to adopt a child are thwarted by a lack of children to adopt and a heap of red tape - which leads to most adoptions being "soft immigration" ie. from other countries.
I am not suggesting the prepurchase of babies from females pregnant with unwanted babies by couples desperate to adopt, mediated and encouraged by the government. That would be the barbaric purchase of children akin to the economics of slavery and other barbaric uses of people trade and smuggling.
What I am suggesting will be viewed as a legitimate alternative to abortion - At a family planning clinic, pregnant teenagers (or other age groups) would be given the option of the fetus being carried to be made a ward of the state while in utero. The medical costs, as well as the loss of employment opportunities, stress and a range of other emotional and actual "costs" current and future, would be reimbursed financially by the state (including the fertility right trade).
At birth a pre-arranged adoption would take place. Rather than a prospective Adopter being limbo (and the baby being in limbo in foster care), there have been at least 6 months to arrange the details and documentation for the adoption to take place.
For the prospective adopter it will be a legitimate alternative to overseas adoption. Of course they would have to reimburse the Government for costs associated with the transfer of care, but this would likely be less than the costs associated with overseas adoption.
A couple of questions remain. Would a prospective birth parent rather get a whole heap of money for letting their baby live, albeit with someone else than making it die and it costing her? Would a prospective adopter prefer to live in the same country as the birth parents rather than on the other side of the world?
I don't know - I guess only people in that position could answer surveys to get a feel for whether this whole idea is bunkim or not.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Quote of the week
"They think we should wait for some science fiction fantasy to jump out from behind a bush, (but) we've got an offer on the table, and we're going to take it."
Bob Katter criticising the opposition (essentially crossing the floor) regarding amendments to NBN legislation put forward by the opposition.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/labor-claims-nbn-milestone-in-marathon-day/story-e6frfku0-1226029637347#ixzz1HtBKgPVh
Bob Katter criticising the opposition (essentially crossing the floor) regarding amendments to NBN legislation put forward by the opposition.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/labor-claims-nbn-milestone-in-marathon-day/story-e6frfku0-1226029637347#ixzz1HtBKgPVh
Monday, March 21, 2011
No Flea Zone
It appears that the quickest way to enforce a no fly zone and to "protect civilians" in Lybia is to kill the leader and to destroy their front line troops.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Oh Yes - about the Arab thing
I have been meaning to say something about the Arab uprising thing - My spin was that it is exciting and unpredictable, and that the "dictators dillemma" is definitely in play in those Arab countries that have dictators (most of them?).
This article explains to me at any rate the relationship of modern technology with why the uprisings have gotten so much momentum.
My view is that at this point, international "judgement" is quite moot, especially as there is no such thing as international law, at least that can be enforced. All there is is a kind of multilateral pragmatism, with perhaps some belated justice being meted out by citizens on their former oppressors, and perhaps sanctioned in hindsight by various countries and groupings. There is absolutely no point in supporting a tyrant when they look like they are going to lose no matter what. It is in a sense "victor's justice"
Chris Fellows says:
(BTW Marco, if you mind me posting an off-topic diatribe, just delete it and tell me to get my own blog already!)
Too bad - Until you get a new blog I'll keep the conversation going here.
It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that the one time the UN can get together it is to kick a man when he's down...surely the time for sanctions against Qaddafi was when he invaded Chad, or blew up that passenger plane, or fomented Tuareg rebellions in neigbouring countries, or killed thousands of unarmed prisoners, or had Sadat assassinated for making peace with Israel (the last not proven, but as proven as some of the allegations being used as justification now)?
If I was part of a mob burning down a police station and calling for the violent overthrow of the government, I would consider that I had crossed some red line between being a 'civilian' and an 'insurgent' and that it would be pretty much justifiable self-defence if the government used deadly force against me. And if there were people all over the country burning down police stations, I would think the government was pretty much justified in imposing a curfew and shooting me if I broke it. And if my whole town was in the control of police-station-burning hooligans, I would think the government would have a pretty good case for sending the air force against us. The hypocrisy of the UN condemning Qaddafi for doing what almost every UN member state would do if they were in his shoe is kind of icky
Not many journalists have taken this line at all. "Groupthink" seems to have taken over and the new good guys can do what they need to do to extinguish the bad guys, who have been happily doing bad things for decades. The double standards argument makes no sense to the groupthink.
This article explains to me at any rate the relationship of modern technology with why the uprisings have gotten so much momentum.
My view is that at this point, international "judgement" is quite moot, especially as there is no such thing as international law, at least that can be enforced. All there is is a kind of multilateral pragmatism, with perhaps some belated justice being meted out by citizens on their former oppressors, and perhaps sanctioned in hindsight by various countries and groupings. There is absolutely no point in supporting a tyrant when they look like they are going to lose no matter what. It is in a sense "victor's justice"
Chris Fellows says:
(BTW Marco, if you mind me posting an off-topic diatribe, just delete it and tell me to get my own blog already!)
Too bad - Until you get a new blog I'll keep the conversation going here.
It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that the one time the UN can get together it is to kick a man when he's down...surely the time for sanctions against Qaddafi was when he invaded Chad, or blew up that passenger plane, or fomented Tuareg rebellions in neigbouring countries, or killed thousands of unarmed prisoners, or had Sadat assassinated for making peace with Israel (the last not proven, but as proven as some of the allegations being used as justification now)?
If I was part of a mob burning down a police station and calling for the violent overthrow of the government, I would consider that I had crossed some red line between being a 'civilian' and an 'insurgent' and that it would be pretty much justifiable self-defence if the government used deadly force against me. And if there were people all over the country burning down police stations, I would think the government was pretty much justified in imposing a curfew and shooting me if I broke it. And if my whole town was in the control of police-station-burning hooligans, I would think the government would have a pretty good case for sending the air force against us. The hypocrisy of the UN condemning Qaddafi for doing what almost every UN member state would do if they were in his shoe is kind of icky
Not many journalists have taken this line at all. "Groupthink" seems to have taken over and the new good guys can do what they need to do to extinguish the bad guys, who have been happily doing bad things for decades. The double standards argument makes no sense to the groupthink.
Monday, February 21, 2011
NBN vs alternatives, again
I don't really want to offer a counter anecdote at this stage, because there is something more fundamental about the NBN plan than the simple "Cost for Cost - speed for speed" rationalisations of the argument between the plans broadly outlined by the Government and opposition.
The fundamental thing for me is the experience Australia had with the privatisation of Telstra in the first place, and whether the mistakes made then can be made up with a new plan.
The rationalisation of privatisation at that point and generally was that investments formerly provided by the Government would be made by private enterprise, and that costs would be borne by the end consumers who were most willing to pay for the services provided.
The main unexpected downsides was that voters even in cities were not happy with the disparity between country and city services, so a regimen of regulation was built up so high, Government became a virtual "owner" of Telstra's minimum service, but in a much more inefficient way than *actually* owning the associated infrastructure.
A second downside was the inefficient duplication of things like mobile phone towers, which provided neither more coverage, nor extra reliability.
A third issue can be illustrated with an anecdote. When a *Telstra* Fibre cable was accidentally cut, all services *other* than Telstra, including mobile phones stopped working for huge swathes of regional areas, including many which ostensibly should not have even relied on that connection. Ironically many Telstra services continued working at a slightly lowered reliability.
The ownership structure of the NBN is the real key to why it will resolve the failures of privatisation without harming its successes.
The fundamental thing for me is the experience Australia had with the privatisation of Telstra in the first place, and whether the mistakes made then can be made up with a new plan.
The rationalisation of privatisation at that point and generally was that investments formerly provided by the Government would be made by private enterprise, and that costs would be borne by the end consumers who were most willing to pay for the services provided.
The main unexpected downsides was that voters even in cities were not happy with the disparity between country and city services, so a regimen of regulation was built up so high, Government became a virtual "owner" of Telstra's minimum service, but in a much more inefficient way than *actually* owning the associated infrastructure.
A second downside was the inefficient duplication of things like mobile phone towers, which provided neither more coverage, nor extra reliability.
A third issue can be illustrated with an anecdote. When a *Telstra* Fibre cable was accidentally cut, all services *other* than Telstra, including mobile phones stopped working for huge swathes of regional areas, including many which ostensibly should not have even relied on that connection. Ironically many Telstra services continued working at a slightly lowered reliability.
The ownership structure of the NBN is the real key to why it will resolve the failures of privatisation without harming its successes.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
4G and new technologies a serious threat to fibre broadband
If you are not already convinced that wireless is the new future and that FTTP broadband is a white elephant you MUST read this.
Not only will 4G kill NBN but as an added bonus will boost personal insect repellant sprays in this country :-O
Not only will 4G kill NBN but as an added bonus will boost personal insect repellant sprays in this country :-O
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Ok. I admit it . the Economist is privatisation biased
Having read the Economist Intelligence Unit's brief accessible summary on broadband plans compared among dozens of countries, it has become obvious to me. Australia's broadband plans have been scored low because of the high comparative cost and mediocre quoted speed.
The issue I have (as I had with their take on university privatisation) is how the length of term of investment is never even considered as an issue. Wireless (Next G as oposed to Wi-Fi) has excellent returns on investment in the short term, but is in no way future-proof.
The real crux of the issue - Who should pay for and/or own infrastructure as opposed to running costs and retail sale of bandwidth etc, is never mentioned. It wouldn't be an issue to me, if the alternative suggestion was the government owning and spending money on a much reduced infrastructure - That would be a reasonable alternative, but in the long run, it wouldn't actually be cheaper. To me it is like Mr Windsor said - "You do it once, and you do it with fibre".
The biggest returns will happen once Moore's law catches up with the capacity of the network. Memory capacity still doubles every 18 months, but data generation and traffic on the internet is doubling quicker than that, about every 12 months. Therefore, given that if you build it, the traffic will eventually fill it - it makes sense to optimise the cost of the end-point infrastructure, rather than requiring a shorter timeframe to gain a payoff with something that will need to be upgraded again, duplicating a lot of the initial work.
The issue I have (as I had with their take on university privatisation) is how the length of term of investment is never even considered as an issue. Wireless (Next G as oposed to Wi-Fi) has excellent returns on investment in the short term, but is in no way future-proof.
The real crux of the issue - Who should pay for and/or own infrastructure as opposed to running costs and retail sale of bandwidth etc, is never mentioned. It wouldn't be an issue to me, if the alternative suggestion was the government owning and spending money on a much reduced infrastructure - That would be a reasonable alternative, but in the long run, it wouldn't actually be cheaper. To me it is like Mr Windsor said - "You do it once, and you do it with fibre".
The biggest returns will happen once Moore's law catches up with the capacity of the network. Memory capacity still doubles every 18 months, but data generation and traffic on the internet is doubling quicker than that, about every 12 months. Therefore, given that if you build it, the traffic will eventually fill it - it makes sense to optimise the cost of the end-point infrastructure, rather than requiring a shorter timeframe to gain a payoff with something that will need to be upgraded again, duplicating a lot of the initial work.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Post Yasi De-brief
Quite a few interesting points to make on the wash-up with regards to this monster cyclone. It is quite amazing how many people went into such a panic that they flew or drove out of Townsville at great personal expense, on Wednesday (3/2/11) at which point we were ruled out of both very destructive winds and the worst of the tidal surges. Fear is contagious, and most of my time on Wednesday was spent calming friends and family down and busting the various rumours circling around - like these Some of the major problem was that uncertainty of where the cyclone was going to land as of Monday and early Tuesday was passed on by word of mouth, and gave the wholly wrong impression to a lot of people that Armageddon in Townsville was still possible when they were making decisions early Wednesday. This was contradicted by the facts, and it is a tribute to Anna Bligh and her team that each press conference had the utmost up to date facts and correct specific instructions to everyone concerned. It appears several important lessons were learned from each recent cyclone to the effect that I couldn't fault the "official" response in any way whatsoever.
The aftermath response is a little bit the other way. The same sort of people that had their families unnecessarily huddled inside wardrobes overnight, were out there the next day thinking it had been way overblown. Bitter disappointment and resentment about power being out for so long gave way to surprise about how much monetary assistance would come their way. So much money has been doled out by Centrelink that Townsville is under a stimulus induced spending spree. One-offs like disaster relief have little of the economic ill-effects of other kinds of government spending, as the money filters back as taxes from those companies that did well servicing peoples needs in this area. The net result might even be more growth for Australia.
The aftermath response is a little bit the other way. The same sort of people that had their families unnecessarily huddled inside wardrobes overnight, were out there the next day thinking it had been way overblown. Bitter disappointment and resentment about power being out for so long gave way to surprise about how much monetary assistance would come their way. So much money has been doled out by Centrelink that Townsville is under a stimulus induced spending spree. One-offs like disaster relief have little of the economic ill-effects of other kinds of government spending, as the money filters back as taxes from those companies that did well servicing peoples needs in this area. The net result might even be more growth for Australia.
Friday, January 28, 2011
(EX) Tropical cyclone Anthony
The lack of a three day forecast track map for this system from the BOM seems to have confused everybody, especially since it is likely to cross the NQ coast within the next three days! There is method to this madness and this system is more chaotic than normal, so they don't want to send even more mixed messages than that.
This link shows the best guess of what rainfall and barometric pressure will ensue in the following few days, so I suggest it is the more useful "warning".
This link shows the best guess of what rainfall and barometric pressure will ensue in the following few days, so I suggest it is the more useful "warning".
Monday, January 17, 2011
Lessons from flooding
I fear that lessons from the Brisbane catchment flooding may not be heeded for the Murray Darling basin at the moment.
The main thing I have seen is that, for the Brisbane River at least, it is enough to refine procedures (or the rule book, as I have heard it called in the media) to have made the catastrophic major flood of the lower Brisbane river a moderate flood (albeit a longer lived moderate flood). The rule book seems to have been written at the time the Wivenhoe was built, and it essentially awaits for upstream data of inflows to enable releases in advance to allow room for incoming floods. This was fine when weather predictions days in advance were highly unreliable (as they were in the eighties) or for inflows of a volume that is not several times the capacity of the dam, nor when "La Nina" conditions point to aggressive early releases being more "conservative", than a wait and see what runoffs eventuate policy.
This lesson, which I am sure will be heeded for the Brisbane River catchment because catastrophic floods make it obvious, seems to be being ignored for the Murray-Darling. At the moment, the calculations are quite similar - with the Menindee lakes at over 100% and three major floods on their way in the next few months.
In 1956, another La Nina year, catastrophic floods hit the lower Murray when floods of the Darling and Upper Murray converged at the same time - Similarly a reaction was to build flood mitigation storages (in that case the Menindee lakes). They really should be emptied at a much faster rate right now, not just to absorb the peaks coming down already, but to have enough capacity to hold back the flood such that it doesn't coincide with possible autumn upper murray floods. The analogy with the Brisbane catchment is that the Wivenhoe may have been able to actually slow down the outflow as the Bremer and Lockyer floods peaked through, mitigating them rather than exacerbating them (If enough pre-emptive releases were made).
Of course, the bigger the flood, the less dams can feasibly hold them back, regardless of strategy.
The main thing I have seen is that, for the Brisbane River at least, it is enough to refine procedures (or the rule book, as I have heard it called in the media) to have made the catastrophic major flood of the lower Brisbane river a moderate flood (albeit a longer lived moderate flood). The rule book seems to have been written at the time the Wivenhoe was built, and it essentially awaits for upstream data of inflows to enable releases in advance to allow room for incoming floods. This was fine when weather predictions days in advance were highly unreliable (as they were in the eighties) or for inflows of a volume that is not several times the capacity of the dam, nor when "La Nina" conditions point to aggressive early releases being more "conservative", than a wait and see what runoffs eventuate policy.
This lesson, which I am sure will be heeded for the Brisbane River catchment because catastrophic floods make it obvious, seems to be being ignored for the Murray-Darling. At the moment, the calculations are quite similar - with the Menindee lakes at over 100% and three major floods on their way in the next few months.
In 1956, another La Nina year, catastrophic floods hit the lower Murray when floods of the Darling and Upper Murray converged at the same time - Similarly a reaction was to build flood mitigation storages (in that case the Menindee lakes). They really should be emptied at a much faster rate right now, not just to absorb the peaks coming down already, but to have enough capacity to hold back the flood such that it doesn't coincide with possible autumn upper murray floods. The analogy with the Brisbane catchment is that the Wivenhoe may have been able to actually slow down the outflow as the Bremer and Lockyer floods peaked through, mitigating them rather than exacerbating them (If enough pre-emptive releases were made).
Of course, the bigger the flood, the less dams can feasibly hold them back, regardless of strategy.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Two non-rhetorical questions
Given the current flood on the Mary River I have two serious questions:
1: Would the Traveston Dam have been ableto mitigate this flood in a meaningful way?
2: Is a major flood any LESS a threat than a dam is to the lungfish or any other endangered species of the river?
I suspect the answer to the first is possibly yes, even though the premise of it needing to be built was predicated on mitigating drought, the shallow nature of the valley it would have flooded would tend to at the absolute least flatten the peak of floods, and with a bit of luck and timing could have absorbed most of it.
With the second question, I suspect the flood would have done the lung fish little damage, but I am not aware of how it copes with floods. Most fish use it as an opportunity to spread. Endangered land animals already marginalised by drought and the encroaching humanity might have been better off with a mitigated flood, however.
1: Would the Traveston Dam have been ableto mitigate this flood in a meaningful way?
2: Is a major flood any LESS a threat than a dam is to the lungfish or any other endangered species of the river?
I suspect the answer to the first is possibly yes, even though the premise of it needing to be built was predicated on mitigating drought, the shallow nature of the valley it would have flooded would tend to at the absolute least flatten the peak of floods, and with a bit of luck and timing could have absorbed most of it.
With the second question, I suspect the flood would have done the lung fish little damage, but I am not aware of how it copes with floods. Most fish use it as an opportunity to spread. Endangered land animals already marginalised by drought and the encroaching humanity might have been better off with a mitigated flood, however.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
What we need is more "lakes" in the not so wild west
There is quite an eerie duality between the lakes of the "wild" west-flowing rivers (in general they flow to wards Lake Eyre) and the "tamed" west flowing rivers. A series of lakes in the "wild rivers" (eg Lake Yamma Yamma, Diamantina lakes, Coongie lakes, etc.) Considerably slows the flow to the treeless salty pit in the end point (Lake Eyre). On the way, these storages are the lifeblood of both wilderness in these catchments(waterholes, trees, wildlife), and for human resources in those same catchments (mainly sheep/cattle grazing).
If you compare this with the Murray/Darling basin, all the human endeavour that has toiled to tame it has merely expanded on this natural system of floods being trapped. Both for the environment and human uses, it is an amazing extension, as the facts remain that floods and drought are as damaging to the natural environment's inhabitants as they are to human habitation. The remaining floods and droughts in the system are still primarily in the gaps where there is no suitable "lake" to absorb floods and make the water available through some of the following drought. I am estimating that by the end of this La Nina year, as much as all the water capacity of all of the Murray Darling water storages will have flowed out through the barrages of Lake Alexandrina. It is an open question as to whether the floods have nicely "reversed" the whole of the environmental damage done through the 10 or so years of it being a closed system (in drought, as it were). Although climate scientists have deemed the last 10 or 20 years as the new normal - I would suggest that it is a very brave call to BET that there will be similar droughts within our lifetime, as opposed to the usual contrived predictions.
If we could have harnessed even half of that water flowing away to the sea, the floods would have been even more controlled. At least we should have generated some osmotic energy from it at Lake Alexandrina, instead of just talking desalination. In the next few years of relatively plentiful water (even if we have a drought immediately after this La Nina) It makes no economic sense to buy (at a high price) water allocations from farmers who would use it to make a profit, for the environment which doesn't need it at that moment because of the soil storage from this recent series of flood events. Just feel grateful that we have got so much flexibility due to large natural and artificial storages, and perhaps plan some more future bountiful lakes that can be huge long term environmental assets for a relatively small environmental and human adjustment upfront price in drowned valleys.
If you compare this with the Murray/Darling basin, all the human endeavour that has toiled to tame it has merely expanded on this natural system of floods being trapped. Both for the environment and human uses, it is an amazing extension, as the facts remain that floods and drought are as damaging to the natural environment's inhabitants as they are to human habitation. The remaining floods and droughts in the system are still primarily in the gaps where there is no suitable "lake" to absorb floods and make the water available through some of the following drought. I am estimating that by the end of this La Nina year, as much as all the water capacity of all of the Murray Darling water storages will have flowed out through the barrages of Lake Alexandrina. It is an open question as to whether the floods have nicely "reversed" the whole of the environmental damage done through the 10 or so years of it being a closed system (in drought, as it were). Although climate scientists have deemed the last 10 or 20 years as the new normal - I would suggest that it is a very brave call to BET that there will be similar droughts within our lifetime, as opposed to the usual contrived predictions.
If we could have harnessed even half of that water flowing away to the sea, the floods would have been even more controlled. At least we should have generated some osmotic energy from it at Lake Alexandrina, instead of just talking desalination. In the next few years of relatively plentiful water (even if we have a drought immediately after this La Nina) It makes no economic sense to buy (at a high price) water allocations from farmers who would use it to make a profit, for the environment which doesn't need it at that moment because of the soil storage from this recent series of flood events. Just feel grateful that we have got so much flexibility due to large natural and artificial storages, and perhaps plan some more future bountiful lakes that can be huge long term environmental assets for a relatively small environmental and human adjustment upfront price in drowned valleys.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Disaster for International Diplomacy?
The ability for high level diplomats to say one thing *on the record* to each other, and say completely different things in public or to their citizens has been completely compromised - To put it another way, our governments ability to lie to us has been hampered considerably. Oh, what a terrible world it is where the people who's job it is to lie to us can't do that convincingly anymore. If you look at it closely, it is the same with lawyers as it is with politicians. How can lawyers (and prosecutors) successfully lie anymore if forensics and bugging of their priveleged conversations keep getting better and more common?
After all there is a grain of truth in the saying that a politician (and lawyer) is lying if their lips are moving. It is their job to do that, and the job of the "free" press to believe them (otherwise come election campaign they lose all their advertising revenue)
It really appears to be the unfortunate result of better technologies - and scientific systems that seem to find truth and rule out lies.
After all there is a grain of truth in the saying that a politician (and lawyer) is lying if their lips are moving. It is their job to do that, and the job of the "free" press to believe them (otherwise come election campaign they lose all their advertising revenue)
It really appears to be the unfortunate result of better technologies - and scientific systems that seem to find truth and rule out lies.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
country qld
From article
''I grew up in a Queensland country town, where people spoke their minds bluntly,'' he wrote. ''They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald Inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.''
''These things have stayed with me through the years. WikiLeaks was created around these core values.''
''I grew up in a Queensland country town, where people spoke their minds bluntly,'' he wrote. ''They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald Inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.''
''These things have stayed with me through the years. WikiLeaks was created around these core values.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)