There is much debate about 'fosil fuels' and 'alternative energy', but, has enough thought been given to the real cost of 'cleaner energy'.

Take fosil fuels, say coal.

First, there are geoligists that have to find and assess the deposits.

Then there are the fild officers who have to consult with land owners in many cases.

There are the miners, the manufacturers of mining equipment, the service workers who maintain this equipment.

Then the are the haulage workers, who haul the raw coal.

There are those who buy and sell the comodity.

Then we go to those who process the coal into useable fuels.

The number of people either 'directly employed', or 'indirectly employed' is simply 'mind boggling'.

Now how on earth do we stand a chance of providing jobs for the masses if we stop using fossil fuels?

My suggestion, as always, find a way to deal with ploution.

In the mean time, we should be working on a 'fail safe' way to switch to nuclear power. For at least this will secure jobs going forward.

rehctub
I don't know what the comparsion would be but I imagine there would be more jobs in small business with renewable energy rather than a conglomerate such as with the coal industry. Solar and wind energy shops who also employ staff, manufacturing of parts which are made of metal or glass which require mines, employees of smaller energy companies who harness wind power etc.

It would be interesting to see the comparison, not only employment-wise but if there would be greater opportunities for Australian ownership particularly on the smaller scale.

There is currently a world shortage of geologists so I don't think this would affect that profession as much as one would think given all the other sorts of mining enterprises around.

We can afford nothing less.
I am running the PC and lights right now via stand alone battery backed solar.
It cost less than $1000 in time I Will generate all my power,we all could if government restored the solar rebates rates of last year.

pelican
Problem is, we would export the raw materials and import the parts, if not the entire pannels.

Where are the jobs in that?

After all, once a solar pannel is built and installed, there are very few ongoing jobs created. Where to then?

Belly, good on you. Now let's hope we don't all follow suit, otherwise our mining workforce will be cut to shreds. Don't you think?

Remember, the newly branded 'mineral tax', only gets paid once a profit is made.

Less coal = less profit = less tax = less revenue = less to spend = less jobs = less disposable income = a poorer economy. Then what!

We simply can't afford to do away with fosil fuel until an alternative is found that creates the same number of jobs.

This is why I say we need to find a way to deal with carbon, rather than stop producing it.

I say we should surreptitiously include it in a new range of sausages (no-one knows what goes into those things anyway - except perhaps rehctub)

Good luck with that system Belly. I have lived with a system that had solar, wind, & diesel, to give a reliable supply.

After about 18 months the maintenance became a real annoyance, & battery replacement became a major expense.

If you expand the instillation, only use the absolute best quality in everything, or lack of reliability will drive you up the wall. Definitely source aircraft quality wiring, & connectors, only that quality is worth using.

Reccy... the issue with renewable energy is not about providing 'jobs' it's about reducing the damage to the planet by reducing the amount we pollute.

Solar panels are only effective 'because' there is no on-going labor cost after they are installed.

We should be looking elsewhere for 'job creation' mate.

AGiR re - We should be looking elsewhere for 'job creation' mate.

maytbe if the government reduced the amount it taxes consumers and those consumers were allowed free choice, being mindful of their own financial positions they could choose to spend on things they really wanted.

Now whoever can predict the things people want could set up businesses to employ people to supply those goods and services.

or is that too simple an idea.

Better people are gainfully employed in productive activities than either

pulling the dole (a charge on taxes and demeaning to the recipient)

employed as pointless civil servants (a charge on taxes and demeaning to the servant wit5h enough sense to realise how pointless his contribution is

Take fossil fuels, say coal.

NO, take fuels that have a infinite life and do not deplete with time

First, there will be geologists that have to find and assess the GEOTHERMAL potentials, the best wind regimes, the best sites for large scale solar......

Then there are the field officers who have to consult with land owners before geothermal, wind, wave, large scale solar thermal/PV plants etc are installed.

There are the ENGINEERS, the manufacturers of RELEVANT equipment, the service workers who maintain this very wide range of equipment.

Then the are the haulage workers, who haul the raw coal? How many is that?

There are those who buy and sell the commodity, that is, electricity.

Then we go to those who process the coal into useable fuels. And they might well be deployed in processes that use coal for its chemical potential, not its grossly inefficient steam generation properties. This said because we are close to exhausting oil resources.

The number of people either 'directly employed', or 'indirectly employed' is simply 'mind boggling', whole villages and towns have now seen full employment for the first time in decades as big solar plants have been built. Engineers, mechanics, even window cleaners now working on mirrors.

Now how on earth do we stand a chance of providing jobs for the masses if we stop using fossil fuels? We make the transition as we have done before, and are already doing it.

In the mean time, we should be working on a 'fail safe' way to switch to nuclear power. For at least this will secure jobs going forward.

Or is that backward? No fail safe, no way of managing the disaster when greed drives. The shareholders (78% of which for coal are NOT in Australia) are king. As the resource recovery gets harder and riskier ..... "accidents" happen; people get killed; whole marine ecosystems get destroyed. That last tonne of high grade uranium ore is maybe 15 years away. What then? The poorer grades at deeper and deeper levels?

Wow Al, I agree with your comments.

There are also many jobs that are not currently being done away from mining due to lack of staff. Mines in some cases have been a negative in attracting skilled labour away from small business in the cities who cannot compete with the high wages eg. mechanics.

rehctub
Don't forget coal mining is only one form of mining there are many more in the metals sector still employing people and with more mines to come. We do have to think about getting away from a strong dependence on mining, we cannot keep digging holes all over the place indefinitely.

The question should be can we really afford not to move to clean energy?

In reality there may be a mix of coal and renewable until the transition is made and up until the issues with base load power and the like are sorted out. Even a reduction in coal dependency is better than none at all.

This discussion has missed the point.
There can be no doubt that we we have to transition to renewable fuels.
However the reason is not what you all seem to have assumed.
We do not have the luxury of 20 and 50 year plans.

Peak Oil appears to have occured in July 2008.
Certainly crude oil production stopped increasing in May 2005.
Production is expected, at the end of the plateau, to start falling
about 2011 to 2013.

World coal production will peak about 2025.
These are the time lines that we have to cope with.

To make the transition, we needed to start 20 years before peak.
See Hirsch report US Govt Energy Dept.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking_of_world_oil_production_study_hirsch.htm

Here is a Tiny URL

http://tinyurl.com/c9btu

However, we will need lots of fossil fuels to construct the equipment
needed for the transition.
We are really in a very serious position having left it so late.
Geothermal is the great hope, but it will take time. It has a steep
learning curve associated with the best drilling techniques and placement.

We are also facing supply problems with various metals used in
manufacturing wind generators, photo cells and the list goes on and on.

We face a time of no growth in the economy and indeed a probable time
of a definite contraction in the economy and we have additionally
given ourselves very large debts.

The continued pollution of the planet is not sustainable, that much we all agree on i hope.

I can not imagine where anyone could get the idea that nuclear generation is anything but problematic. How do you plan to process the waste product with it's 1000+ year half life. This can hardly be considered safe from polluting the planet. We are human after all and the inevitable will happen.

Automation and computerisation were also meant to destroy the labour market but we found ways through those dilema's. The concern is less of jobs but more the alternative energy it's self. Solar systems using batteries are costly to produce with much debate over the true cost of panels. Then there are disposal issues. I did live with a solar system for ten years and enjoyed it, but without question the biggest saving i see now i am on power is the solar hot water. Why these are not required on every house i will never understand, the power savings are enormous.

In the end we need to find a new source of energy. The current direction of the industry does not seem to inspire confidence that they are really taking it seriously. We are still looking for that new inspiration, an idea and vision that will carry the future.

rehctub,
I don't think the employment is an issue, as we coped with massive changes with the introduction of railways and motor vehicles and before that the 'industrial revolution'. Likewise when steam replaced sail on the oceans.

Belly,
with due respect, I do not think you can get a household to run with a $1000 solar system alone. Most solar houses I have seen have gas cooking and seperate hot water or gas hot water and fridges. Even with the current rebates it is not economical for me to change to solar. Batteries need replacement after a time and are costly.

nairbe,
The problem with solar hot water systems was, and maybe still, is that they only operated with gravity presure from the roof cavity. If that has been overcome they could be worth considering.

"Can we really afford 'clean energy'?"

We sure as hell can't afford polluting, unsustainable energy.

Next question.

Well Severin, isn't it lucky that isn't what we've got. Of course it would be if we had to go back to burning wood, & cow dung, as we would have to with "green energy". Our nice clean well organised coal power houses put only harmless plant food into our air

Don't kid your self Banjo. Spain, the king of "green" has lost 2.2 real jobs for every green job created, at great subsidy cost. Each of those green jobs cost their taxpayer over A$180,000 each PA.

Worse, the green jobs are now drying up, as their economy fails under the cost of those subsidies.

But even worse, the drought of green jobs is about to expand, as the now broke Spanish government has announced cutbacks in those green subsidies. It's that, or join Grease as a failed state.

Mate, we can do without that extreme mess. If only we could get the over green, & the warmists to look at the facts, we could avoid so much pain to come.

Look. Over there. It Hasbeen and he's holding up a Red Herring.

"Cow Dung" and "Wood Fires". Watchoo talkin' 'bout?

Here, I am a kind hearted person this should help:

http://www.ecogenmagazine.com.au/news/

"Clean energy is the generation of electricity with zero and low greenhouse gas emissions. This covers renewable sources such as wind, solar and water, as well as waste-to-energy, gas-fired generation and energy efficiency.

Clean energy is a major area of growth within the broader energy industry. With an increasing focus on the effects of climate change on the Earth and our way of life, the clean energy industry is receiving increasing attention and investment within Australia and overseas. "

If you are not too old to use a computer, you are not too old to learn.

:D

I don't think that solar power installations on normal domestic premises is the answer.
All those home units could not install them.
Think about it, the maintenance burden is not insignificant.
Most people can turn a switch on and off but that is about their limit.

From where does anyone think the people to maintain such systems on
every dwelling will appear ?
Remember we are talking of a time when we will need 100 times the
number of farmers that we now employ.
That is where all those in the mining industry will be employed.

No I am afraid the "Greenies" have overstated the ease in changing to
alternative energy. The availability of materials like rare eaths and
a number of other metals are going to put big hurdles in the way of
the energy transition that MUST take place.
To give Australia more time we should stop export of coal and natural gas.
Pity about others, but it will be everyone for themselves quite soon.

Re nuclear waste, I am told that repeated reprocessing techniques
now available can reduce the half life quite considerably.

People can say that this is all nonsense, but the geology is not listening to you.

Severin have you heard of Rocky Point. That's where we Queensland taxpayers built, at great expense, a waste burning power house, to be fueled by the left over biomass from the sugar mill.

We sold it off for scrap, the power was far too expensive to use.Cost us millions. A similar story to the experience in Spain, & Denmark.

It would appear to me the learning difficulties are in the green/warmist camp, where it is hard to get facts past closed eyes, & into closed minds.

My mother still reckoned, on her 99Th birthday, that there are none so stupid, as those who just wont learn. Perhaps she was old, but not as stupid as your lot.

It does get painful talking to those who's only equipment are ear plugs, & rose coloured glasses.

hasbeen,
I have no stats about jobs, what I said was my own observations from previous big changes. The types of jobs changed but people adapted and/or moved to where the jobs were. I wasn't aware of the Spain situation.

nairge,
Now i think of it there were a couple of other issues with solar hot water systems. Pipes on roof would burst in frosty weather and if a pipe burst in the roof cavity it flooded the house and caused lots of damage. People got into trouble with burst pipes after they installed insulation, as the insulation stopped the warmth from the house entering the roof space and thus the pipes froze and burst.

Sounds good with a quick look but I suggest the solar hot water systems be gone into thoroughly. maybe these things have been overcome but still am cautious.

carbon capture and storage. S Korea in investing billions to they can still buy our coal

Hasbeen and other sundry Luddite doomsayers,
As usual you show the imagination and knowledge of one of those low intellectual achievers you rail against.

If you looked a little wider at history you'll find it is full of groups of people who feared different technology, because it would destroy jobs and economy etc, they were called "Luddites". In my lifetime I've heard several, it'll be the end of jobs.....Remember the computer age, the paperless office et al. All were touted at the time as killing jobs.
Reality bites there are more people involved employed now that pre computer age, more paper is used than the pre the the electronic ages.
Going back to your mental times giving women the right to vote, have jobs, the pill cars, were all going to end society. Guess what... it didn't happen.

In the 60's 75% of the jobs today didn't exist then. What's more 40% of the jobs then, no longer exist.
I was trialled for an apprenticeship as a lithographic camera operator in the printing industry....fortunately I bombed out (wrong attitude). 4 years later the trade ceased to exist.
My point my Luddite friends, is that we are spitting into the wind trying to ascertain jobs for the future.The way that technology is advancing, doubling every 6 months in computers, we have no idea what careers children leaving primary school today will do when they graduate high school.i.e. 16 years ago most of the mobile phone industry jobs didn't exist. 18 ago most net jobs didn't exist. and for your benefit much of the medical science care and management for those with mentally limitations i.e. those with RIPLS were doomed. (oh yes, Recalcitrant Incurable Political Luddite Syndrome)
PS if you are going to wave history around, at least read the relevant parts or be prepared to accept the ignominy of being labeled a fool by history.

Examinator. you have posted some garbage here, in the past but this one is a beaut. The only word that describes the "statistics" you have posted is a four letter one, that starts with c, & ends with p.

Do you get these figures of yours out of the air, or some other place they suggest.

The only reason to be frightened of the technology you greenies promote is because it is a total failure, & very expensive failure at that.

If you want to argue, please refute some of the facts regarding wind solar & other rubbish failures that have been presented, not produce such meaningless rubbish.

What has made you so angry with the real world? Did the libs knock you back as a candidate, or something?

Hasbeen and others (part 1)
Thank you for your gut response. Clearly assuming merely suggesting different lines of thought is inadequate.

The stats are available (albeit not in the Murdock press).
Consider the jobs of the 60's and compare them to today, they are so different as to say the old ones effectively (Functionally/skills wise) no longer exist.

Then 60% Aussies worked in unionised production (environments), today the % *far* smaller.

Many job defining functions no longer in say motor vehicle and white goods manufacture (i.e. spray painters , spot welders etc).
Those jobs that do ,do so largely in name only. Computers controlled robots, technology etc.

Even shop assistant is very different, Check out chicks/console operators didn't exist. Bowser Jockeys, counter sales gone.

Radio shack (Tandy)Dick Smith didn't exist in Aust.

Even motor mechanics job skills are radically different, vehicle servicing fuel management computers etc
The ATO business used ledger cards, now computer loss of jobs? Once typing was a defining skill, now it's knowledge of Computer Applications.
Whole industries didn't exist and others have gone i.e. most printing trades ...gone replaced by a few different ones.

The tourist industry didn't really exist 62 the biggest building on the gold coast was 8 stories and wasn't for visitors. No big hotels. Chevron Island was still being built.
You could go to booths on the beach and have them play your favourite song, get an sun tanning oil spray.

Part 2
Most medical/science career specialisations today simply didn't exist then.
In the early 60's plate tectonics was new, space exploration didn't exist nor did all the technologies that revolutionised our world.
IN FACT.
My self and 3 of my children made/make careers in fields that DID NOT exist while we were in primary school.

The point, my political commentator is that 90% of jobs that were are so different now that if you got a worker from then and put him in 'the job' today, he would be lost, ergo the job as he knew it no longer exists.

As for green technology most of the myopic (political) commentary is predicated on what exists in the popular knowledge today not what is coming, Either in trial mode or is possible/plausible.

Your rant over 'geny' power is so out of date as to be quaint not applicable today.
The premise to your argument is locked in / bounded by 'political party dogma', which is based on seeking 'political' (commercial interests) power not betterment for people.
We can't afford not to move to the next level

PS my tone was to show you that absolutism and insult is pointless and will bring you undone. See my comments about meaningful conversation V great unwashed political rant.

Have a good one.

OLO can be very informative at times, but as usual, when it comes "clean" energy or renewable energy the information content seems to evaporate. Facts are obviously not verified, sweeping statements are made and shining, isolated examples of failure are quoted as exemplars of why clean energy is never going to "work".

I am not going list the chapter and verse as to why it does present the way forward - anyone who wants the information can go and find it. But my main reason for making this comment is that one correspondent is maintaining that roof top solar waters are gravity fed and do not work well.

Let me describe one. Mains pressure, built to Australian Standards, highly efficient black chrome absorber panel coating (NOT brazed copper tubing), frost proofing if nec. Uses gas boosting as required.
Where I live in the south, the "on" time of a booster is less than 30%.

If you did not know it, the basic research was done in Australia in the 1960s and from then on, several firms refined their products and QC became a number 1 priority

A report was released today claiming that Australia could replace all
it's power generation needs (inc base load power) with renewable energy
sources by 2020. On the ABC morning news program this morning

This report also claims that twice the jobs that now exist in our existing
fossil fuel burning methods of generating power will be created in the same time.

The report also quantifies the cost to the consumer of this transition from fossil
fuels to renewable sources as $8 a week per household.

I think my local privatised electricity supplier has increased their profit margin by
more than that in recent years.

If this report stacks up then it's time for all the skeptics and conservatives to
move aside, because it is possible that progress can be made in our country
regarding our environment and the sustainability of our future.

Thinker2;
read the article you mention. The plan if I remember correctly was
to erect 30 large solar power stations in various parts of the
country. Part of the plan is to use melted salt for use at night.
They did not explain how they would use the salt heat.
I guess to generate steam for turbines at night.
There would be lots of energy loss in the various steps at night so
in the daytime the energy captured from the sunlight would have to be
many times the power generated for daytime use.

The loss of output on cloudy days would still have to supply the
daytime load plus the multiple output needed for the night time supply.
A major part of the project is a built up grid covering almost the
whole country. This would help out with cloudy days as other parts
of the grid would be in full sunlight.

However there is catch in this as the Germans found out.
The wind did stop at the same time over the whole of Northern Europe !
There is no guarentee that a significant number ofhe 30 stations
will not be in cloud for the whole day.

The article was published on the Australian Oil Drum.
I cannot access the url from here at present.

Thinker2

Here is the URL.

http://anz.theoildrum.com/

Is our addiction to jobs that bad?

If so, we can hire thugs to break people's legs, then hire surgeons to put those legs back together.

OTOH, if we are willing to stay home and face those inner monsters that are lurking in the dark to catch us un-busy, then we can save energy by not spending all those hours daily, driving to work bumper-to-bumper.

Thanks Bazz , I've checked your link.

Would be great if it was possible to be powered by renewables by 2020
Would work even better, as a goal.

One can hope.