You have heard of peak oil, this is a subject that has well and truly come to light in recent months, as seen for example, in the ABC's recent production on the topic "Crude". On the Energy Bulletin website is an article that outlines possible declines in available coal, declines that unsurprisingly may parallel the familiar Hubbert curve:

http://energybulletin.net/30692.html

It challenges the notion that we've got two centuries of coal-burning left in our economy. Depending on several variables, including consumption growth in rapidly expanding economies, and economic viability of raw coal production efforts, we may be looking at a peak happening within fewer than 100 years. More data is needed, (and so there should be in most points of social/economic/scientific discourse), but it is noted that both the U.S. and China could be at peak coal production within 20 years.

Let's put this possibility into perspective (and let's for the sake of argument, ignore the environmental issues like CO2 and particulate emissions).
Remember what petrol prices were 20 years ago, before the Gulf Wars? Try half of what it is today - inflation accounted for. See:

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

Given that much of Australia's electricity grid runs on coal, how would we feel if our electricity bills were double what they are today?
What I am suggesting is that even if we don't invest in 'greener' energy, electricity prices are still probably going to go up. The argument against solar photovoltaic has always been an economic one..."it is not economically feasible given the lower cost of electricity generation from coal." OK, so availability of high-grade silicon is also part of the problem, but I digress..

I ask our well-intentioned politicians: if the cost of coal is going to double within the next 20 years, AND if that much-hyped geo-sequestration goes online (at additional substantial cost to electricity producer hence consumer), AND if one accounts for the costs incurred in bringing new power plants online such as the one near Chinchilla (750 MW @ $ 1.2 billion) - would it not be fair to suggest a more vigourous role for solar PV? Sure, the cost of PV might not be going down by much, if at all, but in light of increased prices associated with the inevitable decline of coal, why not PV?

When you start to crunch the numbers, here's why not: PV can be installed for roughly $6/W, and only with the help of the new extra $4000 rebate announced in the budget. The Chinchilla powerstation was installed for $1.60/Watt. This frames the classic anti-PV argument. Of course, powerstations do have substantial running costs, whereas PVs do not. The unknown future price of coal is what makes it tough to justify PVs based on the status quo economic argument. However...

Given that the inevitable decline of coal quantities could lead to social unrest, and that the inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration associated with burning of coal could lead to social unrest, shouldn't we increase our renewables capacity?

One thing will definitely help to tip the balance back towards the uptake of PVs and other renewables by consumers:

A carbon trading scheme THAT DOESN'T SKIMP ON THE COST OF CARBON. This is a crucial point. The IPCC working group 3 comments on numbers ranging from $5-$100+ per tonne equivalent CO2. The higher the pricetag placed on carbon emissions, the more likely we'll get this global warming thing roped in. We created money as an economic system based on the value of human service and physical assets. Meet the new money - the environmental cost of doing business...so how does this translate?

Well a litre of petrol costs 2 kg of CO2. See: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/fuelguide/environment.html

The dollar cost equivalent is:

CO2 emission per unit of energy source (petrol) x $ equivalent per tonne

at $100 per tonne, {[2kg/L / (1000 kg/tonne)] x 100 $/t} = 20 cents per litre

at $5 per tonne, this works out to be 1 cent per litre.

"TWENTY MORE CENTS!?" you say...

Yes. This does hurt. But the longer we wait, the more it is going to hurt our progeny.

Remember that we don't have much time, according to the IPCC, to get our house in order. Those of you with pre-school children - the paradigm shift needs to happen BEFORE your children can vote, according to the IPCC. Start today if you can. You will benefit both from lower emissions and increased energy security.

Get on your bike
get your new light
Do for your future
What you think is right

Climate change is here
But let us not fear
In this climate of change
The targets are in range.

Peace