It's bleeding obvious that we cannot have cheap electricity AND lower emissions. Our extremely stupid and pigheaded politicians continue to believe the AGW liars - and continue slinging our money at those liars. Now, the really, really stupid thing happening is that, while suffering massive electricity costs to enable the bare necessities of life, we are expected to accept vehicles driven by this extremely expensive electricity, which use a hell of a lot of electricity to produce, and whose batteries will be worn out long before the rest of the vehicle.

Of course, the lunatics in South Australia, at around the same time they were blowing up coal powered electricity-producing plants and putting up Middle Ages windmills, also decided to electrify the trains, which now grind to a stop regularly because of power problems. And, we would have to overnight at places with charging stations in order to cover the vast Australian distances: you couldn't drive from Adelaide to Melbourne in one hit, with one petrol top up as you can now. It's not only our inability to get a decent Prime Minister that makes us a global laughing stock.

Electric vehicles...a sure way to thin out traffic congestion by eliminating the (working) poor from the roads.

This follows the Julia Gillard "disconnect", cash for clunkers, aimed at taking affordable vehicles off the roads.

All travelling down the same broad road as unaffordable housing and electricity.

Yes, we could have nuclear and as small portable mass produced factory-built modules within six months. And because it's essentially proven as MSR thorium, which have the added advantage of being able to be deployed as waste burners, which we would be paid annual billions to bury.

And we would, except after we'd gleaned every last erg of energy from it. And as we do so, half our emissions and massively reduce energy costs. As always with Don, he can't get past coal as being the cheapest energy we could have!

Yes, he gives lip service to nuclear knowing in his heart those who decide our energy policy will never ever actually allow it given the alleged personal revenue and quite massive electoral funding coal provides?

Clearly, he and every other hardline conservative, just don't actually believe in climate change or that we are causing most of it? Bags electric cars, because they don't burn fossil fuel? And probably has never ever driven one and sees problems that don't exist or can easily be remedied.

Adroitly, as usual, overlooks biogas which in scrubbed combination with ceramic fuel cells. Produces power for four times less than coal and from fuel we outlay good money, to dump at sea!

China is on track to roll out over a million affordable electric cars in 2018 and ramped production year on year until 2030 when all production of conventional engined vehicles will be banned.

Others will follow suit if only to keep market share.

As of today, an electric vehicle with highway speed and a range exceeding 140 kilometres, could be purchased for around $7,000.00 brand spanking new? Minus the tariff penalties? Imposed to protect our local car manufacturing industries!

That prospect and the new black gold, lithium terrifies the fossil fuel industry and their likeminded coal-fired supporters. As does private enterprise power prices south of 2 cents per KwH.

Read Robert Hargreaves, Thorium, cheaper than coal.
Alan B.

The future for thermal coal, is as alternative transport fuel we make right here and simply cook out all the methane, then compress it for most conventional powered transport.

Or convert it into methanol as an alternative for petrol or ammonia as alternative diesel. And then only when CNG or compressed methane isn't practical.

Ammonia can be catalytically disassembled to release pure hydrogen, and the CO2 content compressed and recompressed to produce a liquid, reintegrated with hydrogen to produce many other products, which include fertilizer and plastics. All reliant on cheap nuclear energy.

Currently, conventional nuclear energy costs at least twice that of coal in the power plant construction cost and for fuel?

Take a conventional light water reactor of 350 MW. Over a thirty year lifetime, it will need 2551 tons of fuel, burn less than 1% of it and produce 2550 tons of highly toxic waste.

Now extrapolating from fuel usage numbers at Oak Ridge Tennesee and their 60-70's thorium, accident and incident free, burn. A 350MW unpressurized thorium MSR would require just one ton of massively cheaper fuel.

I mean the security guard out front, would cost more than the entire thirty years worth of fuel. And for its operational life, carried in on the back of a holden one tonner, as a single, once only load!

Burn 99% and create less than 1% as far less toxic waste, which is eminently suitable as long life space batteries!

Finally, this combination produces Bismuth213, miracle cancer cure. Successfully deployed in day clinics, against death sentence cancers, including ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, myeloid leukemia, and some very nasty brain cancers just to mention some.

With both ovarian and brain cancer, separately claiming more victims annually than our average corresponding road toll.

Likewise for America, where the numbers sacrificed at the altar of global corporations exceeds 60,00 per!

So keep on blocking MSR thorium mate! You are one of many serving your country and humanity very well and should be ultimately appropriately awarded/rewarded for your conspicuous role?
Alan B.

Apologies and correction, the number 60,00. should be read as 60,000!
Alan B.

The motivation for EVs will be expensive petrol not so much concern for emissions. When that happens farming and aviation will be gutted as their vehicles don't have a realistic battery option. Food and personal mobility will consume people's income too bad for other discretionary spending.

If half of Australia's 18m fuel cars were replaced by EVs each nightly topping up 10 kwh for 40 km travel that is 9m X 365 X 10 kwh = 32.9 Twh on top of Australia's 257 Twh per Energy Update 2017. That's about a 13% increase needed for electricity generation. All from wind and solar? It would however greatly reduce Australia's transport emissions and annual fuel import bill currently standing at $34 bn. Can't see this going smoothly.