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.