Hazza, that is absolutely wrong.

Not only are we the consumers not paying for coal jobs, with out them, & the iron ore, & alumina jobs you would not have a computer, or a washing machine, or a lot of other things.

Without the mining industry we would not have the foreign exchange to pay for our imports.

It's all well & good, taking in each others washing, in our cities while mining pays for the soap, water & power infrastructure that make it all possible, but you are just kidding yourself if you think a green [no mining no agriculture] Oz would be anything but a disaster for most.

In the 60s, I supplied tech support to 150 companies using our plastics to manufacture things like TVs, radios, washing machines Fridges, vacume cleaners, & a host of other things. Those companies, & their jobs, are long gone. The whole damn lot is now imported.

I find it laughable that it's mostly the people living in the cities, the most polluting of life styles, that want to shut down the things that make their life style possible.

khazza, you're one of those people who cannot quote or work in context - So people have died because of Rudd's dud INSULATION scheme- not a PV/turbine device?"

I did not mention a PV/turbine device, much more basic than that, fools with electricity.

If we can't deal with an insulation scheme in large numbers, which incidentally ELECTROCUTED 4 kids, I suspect we'll have similar issues when there is a big rollout of electric cars, whatever method is used.

"And I think you should be a little more open-minded. Just because someone would sooner choose a renewable over nuclear it does not mean they're some trendy. It's simply more expensive to establish and maintain, and I personally don't want to have to pay for its continuous power input instead of a one-off purchase of a renewable generator."

Energy fashion, wait till you need base load generation because a hospital is abut to fail - then we'll see how your hobby renewables stand up.

Nuc has its issues right now for the reasons I explained already, but compared to coal (CO2) renewables, no reliability - it is the BEST current choice.

But please do waffle on about renewables and their low cost, we have the greatest power of our age being ignored because of fashion .. "oooh nuclear is uncool and it might cost us" Waiting for renewables to become reliable will cost way more than getting on with nuclear power NOW!.

No problem, I'll make sure I always live where eco idiots are not in control.

Fester, I guess alot will depend on how Govts change the tax structure.
The thing is, if alot switch to electric cars and cng
cars, it will dramatically effect Govt revenue, so they will claw
it back with taxes, in one form or another.

Personally I think that we will see lots of solutions to transport
energy, rather then one magic pill.

In some countries for instance, they have alot of hydro electric
energy, or nuclear energy. At that point, electric cars would
make sense. The URL that you quoted was from Britain. Given the
huge taxes on petrol there, installing a compressor would seemingly
make lots of sense for instance, for businesses converting their
delivery vans.

For the US, it seems that shale gas will be a real game changer.
They don't just use diesel for trucks, but also to heat tens of
millions of homes too. Some people are claiming that alot of the
truck transport fleet could be converted to shale gas, in total
it means that the US import bill for fossil fuels could halve.
Energy security is a big issue for the US,as is paying the bill.

So I think we will see it all. Electric, gas, petrol and diesel
transport, depending on each individual situation and cost.

Bazz might well be wrong, the world as we know it is not going
to end anytime soon.

Even in Australia, they are talking about huge extra reserves of
available energy, in places like the Cooper Basin, due to the
new technology of releasing shale gas.

Too right about your last two posts Yabby:

Hasbeen- I'm not sure if you're deliberately pretending you're missing the point or not- if we pay for electricity from the grid, we're paying for the coal jobs ourselves- if we stopped, then it would leave the coal industry to only sell coal to other countries willing to pay for it (eg those lacking much sunlight/wind to warrant other fuels) and to steel-makers.
It's really not that hard to grasp.
But personally, I do not accept the earlier implied point on this thread that I must help sustain an industry because they would lose jobs having an actual competitor- hence my post.

Same to you RPG- those are terribly disingenious implications;

Not even touching the 'risk' of electrocution by an electric car or PV panel- especially considering said 'risks' already exist in much more immediate products- power sockets, toasters- and, you know, the batteries of petrol-powered cars).

And nice try attempting to extend the demand for green cars and PV panels to a binary 'what-if-all-society-abandoned-baseload-power' scenario- did I ever actually say I wanted that?

No Hazza, it's you missing the point. When you pay for your electricity, you are paying for the most cost effective electricity available in most places in Oz.

If on the other hand we were silly enough to go in for boutique power, in the form of wind or PV, then you will be paying for coal jobs.

That will be to mine the coal, to send to China, so they can use the cheep efficient power, to make useless wind turbines, or not much better PV panels, to sell to the twits in Oz. You will then pay through the nose for any power they get out of all that gear.

Did you know that there are now 14,000 abandoned comercial wind generators in California. Once the subsidises run out, it's cheeper to walk away from them, than keep them running.

What a great source of power they are!

Have you ever lived with this stuff. It would be a joke, if it weren't so damn infuriating. If we could just make all the dills who push for this rubbish, depend on it for six months, there would be no more arguments.

Hasbeen, let's recount:
You can't pretend that by paying the electricity provider I am in notfact paying the coal industry for its product- therefore, the coal industries jobs are therefore being held at my expense.
And CHEAP? Not according to my last power bill!
Either which way you look at it, it costs much more to keep a coal plant going than a PV panel or turbine (original construction of multuiple mechanized parts, crew quarters, purchasing coal as FUEL, constantly trucking it about vs building the machine once and trucking it once).

Now, your argument about China slapping an extreme pricetag because they can (not unlike our current electricity providers) would be easily sidelined by an Australian company starting to build them (possibly a nationally-owned company)- or even by trading with the many other countries that produce solar panels or other urban energy-generating devices- thus creating either a non-profit public industry, or else some competition.

And the turbines in california? Would they be the same miniature vertical being used in Amsterdam which individually handle a third of each small apartment's power requirements?
I have a feeling you are referring to the large propeller arrays that dot the countrysides- but feel free to correct me with specifics.