Unfortunately Bazz it takes between $15,000 & $25,000 per car to bring any of these electric horrors to market. As a taxpayer I resent my money being wasted on any of them. I have no objection however if people actually want them, provided it does not cost real people money for them to do so. If buyers had pay to pay the full cost of the things, they would disappear like the wahoo bird, only more quickly.

As for petroleum fuel subsidies, this is a typical con, from the typical green crusaders, who would never let the truth get in the way of one of their stories.

Not charging miners or farmers road tax on their fuel is justice, not a subsidise. It was a very sore point that those of us working boats in the tourist industry, carrying passengers or freight, were still paying road tax on our fuel. Of course greenies would have called it a subsidy if we had received justice, & had the road tax removed from our fuel.

I don't know why you call them horrors, the Leaf is a very nice car.
In the US the last I saw it was selling just under $30,000 and there
is no subsidy in that. They get a tax rebate of some sort, but the
price for that same car here is $57,500 !
They could not sell them at $51500 so they put the price up !
My friend's iMEV was $26,000. That was discounted, not sure what from.

I would definitely buy at around $30k.

anyone seen any waterfront properties going cheaply lately? Oh thats right the heat needs to come out of the sea before the gw high priests stop purchasing their properties on the coast.

Hi Runner
here are a few properties you might be interested in:-

http://theconversation.com/scrapping-sea-level-protection-puts-australian-homes-at-risk-21271

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/east-coast-surge-wildlife-homes-pier-norfolk

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/east-coast-surge-wildlife-homes-pier-norfolk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889898/Thousands-UK-homes-lost-rising-seas-erode-coastline-no-compensation-available-property-owners.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=southern+coast+of+england+house+falling+into+sea&rlz=1C1AVNC_enAU562AU562&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jZlMVfqvFI3r8AX994CICg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=681#tbm=isch&q=houses+falling+into+sea

warmair

typical gw religous scaremongaring. I was in Sufers last week (your first link). I guarantee none of the units in the article are going cheaply.

The second link compares the storms to that of 1953. Must have been a lot of emissions back then.

You name warmair is very appropriate. You are big on spin but totally lack substance.

spindoc,

". The $550 million in fossil fuel subsidies are NOT subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them to reduce energy costs"

Oh really?

Here's a quick look at the history of the development of the oil industry in the US:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

That's the development of the industry that heralded the era of motor transport...although if you'd been around and in charge, I'm sure you'd have protested that subsidies for "research and development" were not needed as the horse and cart were proven to "work".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period..."

"IEA position on subsidies

According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. "Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits. Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits"

runner,

".....You are big on spin but totally lack substance."

A wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black....you're not even big on spin.

This from the poster whose primary mode of debate is to reach into his grab bag of barely punctuated and hackneyed comments which are affectionately known around here as "runner's run-by put-downs". Usually three lines or less, they are famous for the widely acknowledged fact that they contain almost no substance at all!