The big multinational green groups and foundations, big industrials, big financial houses, and of course big governments have succeeded in pouring countless billions into global warming policy.

But they have ultimately failed to win the scientific debate because the data keep not supporting their theory, and the policy debate because their daft solutions are political suicide.

The great shame about Mark's argument, basically that anything Australia can do would be futile in the absence of total international agreement and would cause more economic damage than the benefits it might offer, is that the case gets its main public support from climate sceptics (like Mark, I believe). Unfortunately this weakens its impact simply because it gets discounted by the rest of the population. In fact, the case stands up even if one accepts everything that, for example, the IPCC says about climate science. Of course, one can also add to the argument that there is as yet no real alternative to fossil fuels, apart from nuclear power as the source for the 40% of our energy that we use in the final form of electricity. As for the other 60%, mainly liquid fuels and chemical reductants, there are still no effective substitutes (even if electric vehicles for personal transport are accepted in that category).

Mark Lawson here;
Jardine - I certainly don't disagree but its not so much a question of political suicide but bearing political pain at all.. the undeveloped countries are in it for the grants and usually don't have the governance systems of internal control to control emissions anyway. The developed countries by and large, aren't interested in serious effort.

Tombee - dunno its discounted because I have also expressed skepticism about everything else in this area. Although almost everyone can see that an international agreement is not in sight, the public haven't made that leap to asking why individual countries are bothering to reduce emissions, probably because they haven't been hit over the head with this point. As the global warmers who dominate the debate aren't about to do it, that will mean a lot of money wasted.

Mark Lawson,

"Hands up those who think that there an enforceable, workable international agreement to limit emissions is still possible? "

Excellent question. I don't and I'm strongly persuaded an international agreement cannot be achieved if it will damage economic growth.

I think I've shown clearly why carbon pricing is highly unlikely to be achieved in Part 2 of "Why the world will not agree to pricing carbon": http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

Comments and critique would be greatly appreciated.

In short, it seems the most widely accepted and cited models of the economic impacts of GHG emissions, abatement cost, carbon pricing and social cost of carbon show that carbon pricing would be a significant net damage to the global economy for all this century and beyond. If this is correct, rational negotiators will not sign up. Part 1, here explains why: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

The same considerations apply to any international agreement that will damage countries' economies.

Jardine, K Jardine, and anyone else from all persuasions on this issue could I ask you to read those two posts and contribute. I am keen to get some debate going on this really important matter - before it's too late.

‘morning Mark.

Sadly your article has little chance of making the MSM which is where it should be, this is a terrible indictment of our MSM, especially with so much devastating CAGW news emerging from Europe.

Even our scant coverage of this EU decision fails to make it clear that this is conditional bid to try to secure a global agreement, that the decision by EU “leaders” was in fact by the EU Commissioners, an unelected body and not by the EU parliament. Current targets are however still binding for the UK because they legislated them, oops?

EU Commissioners, many of the EU MEP’s and national politicians have only three things motivating them currently. The first is to extract whatever votes they can from the remnants of the “Green Blob”. Secondly they are motivated to maintain a slow decline in the CAGW mantra in order to avoid the blame and consequences as legislators of this scam. They would like to be retired before it finally goes poof!

Thirdly and critically, it has just dawned on the EU that they are the only ones left to carry the disastrous industrial, economic, social and environmental costs of their climate policies, without a Kyoto replacement they on their own and truly stuffed.

The way I read it politically, the EU Commissioners are launching a set of targets that they know full well will never be acceptable, which effectively gets Europe off the hook for further binding commitments.

They are also fully aware that even with a binding agreement on emissions, the entities created to support Kyoto no longer exist. Emissions Trading mechanisms, the global renewable index RENIXX and the subsidies from taxpayers have already collapsed.

Frighteningly, this leaves only one source of funding which is increased tariffs on the consumers. Which nicely explains why so much EU industrial might is moving off shore to low cost energy regions.

The highly (publicly) funded Green Blob and its political clout remains the only thing keeping this alive for as long as possible, which suits both the Green Blob and the politicians.

Mark and your curmudgeonly mates - with your usual negative diatribes against anything threatening the 'fossilocracy'.

1/ You need to get real re the RET - it is and will actually save consumers money- it drives electricity market prices down by more than the cost it imposes on consumers. Not that it would matter id it did cost a few cents a kWh more - small price to pay for energy security. Why don't you get on a bandwagon against State network operators and their gold plating of networks - their costs comprise 40-50% of our energy bills

2/ You're right that the <1% with big stakes in Australian coal power generation companies wish the RET never was - it reduces their profits and indeed is designed to eventually displace them with clean generators. But as for the rest of us - it's not costing us anything; in fact it gives us a great sense of satisfaction - cleaning up our energy consumption.

By the way there's nothing stopping the likes of AGL and Origin from changing their generation / retail businesses to fit the flexible, clean energy supply that consumers want. They were actually starting to do that quite well until Origin got into coal seam gas and AGL bought dirt cheap brown coal power stations and now they reckon they can make more by staying with fossils and crushing renewables.

Roses1
We've already established that you're lying and cannot provide any rational basis for climate policy:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16792&page=0
so you need either to learn to be quiet when you have no rational argument, or demonstrate that climate policy would have net benefits which you haven't done. Mere name-calling and hyberbole about the world's going to send soon don't cut it.

"By the way there's nothing stopping the likes of AGL and Origin from changing their generation / retail businesses to fit the flexible, clean energy supply that consumers want."

You're lying. The fact that doing so will cause losses is what's stopping them, and you've already admitted that, so you're contradicting yourself.

If it's true that consumers want so-called flexible clean energy then why don't you provide it with your own capital, and that of everyone who agrees with you? If you're right, you'll make lots of profit. The reason you're not doing it is because you know you'll make losses, otherwise you'd do it.

Why don't you, and everyone else who agrees with you, fund it yourself? Why do you demand using force and threats? Why shouldn't energy decisions be based on voluntary agreement? Why the fascism?

‘morning Peter,

Both your links offer an excellent analysis of the CO2 abatement economics however, they are already proven to be a disaster as evidenced by the self inflicted economic and industrial pain in the EU. We already know Green has not worked.

I would be more interested in you exploring the “real” beneficiaries of these CO2 mitigation based economics?

In the EU alone some 800 million Euros( $US 1 Trillion) has been sucked out of their economy since 2008 alone, so who are the real beneficiaries of this?

“Investigations by the Mail on Sunday reveal the Green Blob is not just an abstract concept. We have found that innocuous-sounding bodies such as the Dutch National Postcode Lottery, the American William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Swiss Oak Foundation are channeling tens of millions of pounds each year to climate change lobbyists in Britain, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. According to leading energy analyst Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, current UK energy policies shaped by the Green Blob will cost between £360 billion and £400 billion to implement by 2030. He said this will see bills rise by at least a third in real terms – on top of the increases already seen over the past ten years”.

“Meanwhile, it is clear that the sheer scale of this lavishly funded lobbying effort dwarfs that of its opponents”.
--David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 26 October 2014

Yakity yak, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I think the planet is in more danger from all the hot air emanating from yet another round of very expensive, if completely emasculated and as ever, fruitless talks!
Were were to grasp the nettle, we would simply crack on rolling out the cheaper than coal publicly owned and operated alternatives, on the ground the would help our economy and economic prospects/export industries far more than anything else in prospect!
Forget the fact they are also carbon neutral or carbon free: I mean, that's hardly a logical reason to reject cheaper than coal alternatives! Or is it?
We might have more success turning water into wine, than trying to get countries like Russia to agree with anything, let alone the rejection of fossil fuel, and the extreme control that guarantees them; even as our world is very slowly being brought to the boil.
I mean, we warm and comfortable frogs won't react until it's to late to do anything about it; but particularly, if it's left to eternally disagreeing politicians; some who for all we know, may have a vested interest in the status quo, or fossil fuel industries?
Honestly folks, what other possible reason or reasons could there be for the abysmal lack of economy boosting success in this area!
Seriously, are we going to allow ourselves to be held back by essentially, tax avoiding price gouging foreigners!?
Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago.
But won't is still alive and well, and kicking the planet destroying carbon can down the road, or the incredibly long corridors of power!
Rhrosty.

Mark Lawson here
Spindoc - actually a version of the article first appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The Australian does run stuff like that every now and then, but you're right in that such material seldom appears.

Roses1 - your response showcases all that is wrong with the RET debate. If you seriously think the RET saves money, then why not chuck away all the legislative requirements and let the market work? The problem is that it doesn't save money. It can have a temporary effect on wholesale spot prices, but that's merely by pushing the costs elsewhere the system. There is even a question about how much carbon it will save. In any case, there is no chance of renewables taking over the energy system for decades yet, if ever, and with no international agreement in place its all just a waste of time and money.. time to adjust to reality.

Perhaps we need to re-frame the problem in a form that doesn't rely on reducing CO2 to reduce global warming. It's time for a bit of lateral thinking.

We know that the biggest producers of CO2 are burning coal and, to a lesser extent, burning gas and oil. Burning coal produces other emissions that are dangerous to human health. This reason alone should be sufficient to move away from using coal, at least for generating electricity. Electrification of light transport will reduce emissions from burning oil. These actions alone will deal with a significant part of the CO2 problem without discussing global warming.

In a way this is the approach of the Chinese. Their primary interest is protecting their people from polluted air by burning less coal and using hydro, wind, solar and nuclear instead to generate their electricity. This approach has avoided the controversial issues around the AGW discussion.

Perhaps our emission targets should not be measured in tonnes of CO2 but in reducing the death rates from coal and oil toxic emissions.

Martin. You make a valid point here, dismissing the phurphy of CO2 causing global warming, (actually it being greatly beneficial to the re-greening of the planet), I think that you will find that since the 60's, the amount of sulphur and particulate 'black carbon' emissions from modern super critical coal fired stations, those being built in China and India (at considerable cost) has reduced fugitive toxic emissions by up to 90%.
Roses1. Your argument still confuses me from your previous post. As clarified by Jardine and Curmudgeon, the 'market' will readily make the RET redundant if what you state is true. Why would AGL and Origin possibly invest in gas and coal if, as you claim, renewables are cheaper? It just doesn't make sense.

Mark Lawson here
Martin N - it would be a solution if anyone was going to switch to nuclear plus renewables and hydro, but the Chinese aren't gong down that road .. as this govt report makes clear http://www.bree.gov.au/publications/asia-pacific-renewable-energy-assessment

About 10 per cent (?) Chinese electricity now become from renewables, with the vast bulk of that being hydro, thanks to the Chinese obsessions with building dams.. that obsession is for party political reasons, incidentally - nothing to do with the environment. The true renewables of wind and solar have real problems on the unsophisticated Chinese grids at the moment. There are a host of other problems and, in any case, ther is still India, the US and Russia and everyone else..

Have they given up, or, have they come to their senses.

How on earth anyone can think we can continue to provide for an ever increasing demand, and cut emissions is in fairy land. All those research dollars would be far better spent Finding ways to deal with, use or store carbon, unless of cause we want to invoke global poverty.

Barnaby Joyce summed it up well when he said " you know, if you keep funding researchers to research, they will keep researching so long as they are getting paid".

At the end of the day, a healthy planner will mean little if there is mass poverty.

Thanks for the link to the BREE report Mark. BREE seems to recognise the use of RE in China but is rather silent on their use of Nuclear. China has and is building a large fleet of nuclear plants.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/

Unless they are going to abandon them, we can safely assume that they are building them because they are the best replacement for coal plants.

Martin N,

I'd suggest the solution is not to do anything that requires more regulation, emissions monitoring (the cost of that would become enormous and prohibitive), top down fiat, targets and timetables, carbon taxes or ETS. The solution I urge we consider is mentioned briefly in the last section here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

I have figures suggesting the large cost reduction that can be achieved and I've got a plan. We just need to get over this obsession with the big brother approach. It just won't work.

See also my last comment on that thread.

Co2 is helping to green the planet.
Clean coal plants have much less emissions.
I'm going to say something really ignorant now..
Those like Bill Gates who worry about Co2 emissions should spend a few billion giving people JOBS to plant trees, and updating storm water drains to collect rain water that otherwise flows back into the sea to water said plants..

Peter, Jardine, Mark you are missing the elephant in the room: Coal fired electricity is massively subsidized:
- Taxpayers pay for the health costs ( mainly respiratory illness and mercury pollution) through the Government health system.
- Nobody is paying for the cost of climate damage now the C price is repealed (I know Curmudgeon is saying but 'those kids over there are not going to pay either so neither should we'; I'll address that next post).
- These pollution costs are estimated to be $6- 9 billion per year
- Also taxpayers paid for the construction of 90% of them and government has sold most off for a song - the private owners don't pay capital depreciation anywhere near the market rate.
No wonder coal generation is artificially cheap!

The reason new clean power has to be subsidized is to offset the subsidies coal is getting.

And don't worry, subsidies rapidly reduce as the price comes down due to technology maturing. For example PV costs have gone down about 70% in 7 years; consequently FIT tariffs and lump subsidies for rooftop solar have been removed, leaving only the RET market-based subsidy which is still needed to offset the subsidies given to 'old coal'.

If the C price had been retained at or above $25/ t CO2 and there were a plan or pollution regulations (like the US has) leading to the the phased retirement of coal power stations (many of which are already over 40 years old and past their design life) then the RET would eventually be unnecessary. But given we now have none of the above it is imperative we keep the RET.

PS The C price was working well on the main sector it applied to - electricity. However I acknowledge that level of C price would have little effect on transport or agriculture emissions (7c/L for petrol and 10-15c for beef). Additional measures are needed to reduce emissions there.

Ben Rose

"This is becoming ridiculous."

No, it has BEEN ridiculous for over three decades now. It is becoming sane.

Roses1,

"Peter, Jardine, Mark you are missing the elephant in the room: Coal fired electricity is massively subsidized:"

No it's not. You simply do not understand what you are talking about and you have no concept of how to provide comparable figures. You have to reduce all figures to comparable units, such as $/MWh.

When you do that you realise that the fossil fuels for electricity gets negligible subsidies.

Yes, there are some externalities if you look at only the negatives. But you need to offset those with the enormous positives. For example, fossil fuels are supporting nearly 7 billion people. Without fossil fuels the world probably could not support 1 billion people.

Peter: Nobody is denying the fact that we have got to a technological society and high populations because of the harnessing of coal and oil - that is a historical fact we learned in primary school. But I am saying that now is the time to move on and we do have viable options, though you and I may agree on which of them are best.

I have read some of your articles and see that you have researched your arguments and have made relevant points. What was missing on the catallaxyfiles website (loved the sinking coal barge!) was constructive criticism. You have asked for some and I will give it as long as you decease from rudeness ('you don't know what you're talking about'etc).

This report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf
states that: "... if the external cost of producing electricity from coal were to be factored into electricity bills, 2-7 eurocents per kWh would have to be added to the current price of electricity in the
majority of EU Member States."
That converts to AU$30 - 100 per MWh.

As for the reduced capital cost of old coal stations it would be small in comparison (a few dollars/ MWh).

It appears that you acknowledge global warming and health problems with coal? And you assert that the solution is nuclear.

The costs of all electricity technologies are to be found in:
http://www.bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aeta/AETA-Update-Dec-13.pdf

Peter: You will see from the link I posted that nuclear is far more expensive than land based wind or solar PV. In terms of dispatchable technologies it is only marginally cheaper than solar CST with storage and more expensive than biomass from waste. Note also that the cost of decommissioning, weapons proliferation, waste storage and the risks of nuclear contamination from accidents are not included in the costings for nuclear.

The cost of replacing all generation on the WA SWIS grid has been estimated in the document I co-wrote with others at Sustainable Energy Now (sen.org.au), commissioned by the Greens. It is summarized here:
http://greenswa.net.au/assets/e2029-2014redux.pdf (table on P2)

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) in the two renewable scenarios ranges from $163 to $172/MWh (using the revised AETA 2013 data). Note that significant overbuild of wind and solar plus new transmission lines have been included in this analysis.

The LCOE in the BAU case with 9% wind and PV is 172/MWh with a carbon price of $24/tonne (about $145 without) So it is clear that generation from new plant (whether coal or renewable) will cost about 3 times as much as the current $50/MWh.

The cost of nuclear SMR is estimated by AETA to be $120 - 190 per MWh. I bet if you were to estimate for nuclear, at 2025 prices and with additional transmission factored in, you'd arrive at a similar figure to our estimates for renewable scenarios. But the the externalities I listed previously are additional costs, which our grandchildren would be left to carry.

Ben Rose

Alas Ben Rose, the world is full of contradictory studies. BREE's 2013 study was very different to its 2012 study. Possibly after pressure from a government and RE activists that didn't like the results shown in the 2012 version.

Here again is another study which contradicts your view: "Nuclear outperforms wind and natural gas" says study - See more at: http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/operations-maintenance/nuclear-outperforms-wind-and-natural-gas-says-study?#sthash.UOMyHix4.dpuf.

Ben, please don't dismiss this study just because it was published in a journal called Nuclear Energy Insider. Giles Parkinson in Renew Economy seeks out studies that support his confirmation bias as no doubt Nuclear Energy Insider has done.

Energy industry operators support the study results that give them the best financial result - not the ones that suite there technology biases.

Roses1,

You’ve quoted two reports I’ve cited and linked many times (possibly you picked them up from my comments), but have exaggerated one and misunderstood the other.

The ExternE study is an excellent study of externalities of electricity generation. But you need to understand it and not exaggerate.

First it is for EU-15 countries, not Australia.

Second, there are two parts: damages and avoidance costs. The avoidance costs are the estimated cost of achieving the EU’s commitments, not the externalities of GHG emissions. The External costs of GHG emission are too uncertain to estimate authoritatively.

Third, the estimated externalities of damages for Germany are (in A$/MWh): black coal 11, Brown coal 15, gas 5, nuclear 2.5, PV 6.6, wind 1.2. However, solar and wind need back up so, the mix is much higher than the figures for wind and solar - in fact the external cost of the mix is between coal and gas.

The externalities of coal fired electricity generation in Australia (low population density) are perhaps 1/10th of what they are in EU-15 (high population density).

These are all the negative externalities. You can think about the positive externalities as what would be the case without fossil fuels? Just think about it … no fossil fuels would mean ... ? You might like to read: “Humanity Unbounded: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity” http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

Then you argue that there are alternatives. I disagree. Nuclear and the unlimited transport fuels cheap nuclear will be able to produce in the future are decades from being an economic reality because of the effect the anti-nukes have had retarding progress over the past 50 years. Renewables are just an ideological dream. There’s little realistic likelihood of them making a significant contribution to electricity supply. This explains why: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Roses 1

You said: “You will see from the link I posted that nuclear is far more expensive than land based wind or solar PV. In terms of dispatchable technologies it is only marginally cheaper than solar CST with storage and more expensive than biomass from waste.”

This shows you do not understand what LCOE means and how it is used. Read the section in the AETA report about LCOE and note the caveats. We need the LCOE of the system that meets the requirements for secure reliable electricity supply to meet customer needs; the LCOE of non-dispatchable technologies when not included in a mix that meets requirements, is irrelevant and it’s misleading and disingenuous to state it. Here is a simple example of how to estimate the LCOE of a system that meets requirements: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf
This shows that a mostly renewables mix would cost about 3 times as much as mostly nuclear mix to supply most of the NEMs electricity and reduce emissions by about 90%. However, renewables cannot do the job in any practical sense.

The CSIRO calculators which use the AETA LCOE values support what I’ve said above. And that is dispite the fact the CSIRO calculators do not include the cost of transmission (which is much higher for renewables than for nuclear), nor does it factor in the cost penalties of having to include the unreliable, non-dispatchable renewables in the system.
CSIRO MyPower: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx (link is broken)
CSIRO eFuture: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios
Both show that nuclear is far the cheaper than renewables to reduce GHG emissions.

There is so much to explain about all this, we can’t do it on Online Opinion. But you’d learn a great deal if you read this recent post on Climate Etc. and the 800 comments of which many are highly informative. http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/

Ben Rose,

I’ve just realised you may be the same Rose I’ve been discussing renewable and nuclear with here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/ . If so, my apologies for my reaction to your questions. I realise now your comments here were not by just another RE advocate but are honest questions genuinely seeking information and discussion about the issues.

To explain why LCOE of unreliable, non-dispatchable generators (like wind power) cannot be compared with the LCOE of dispatchable generators (like fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro), let’s consider a simplistic example.

Requirement: 1 GW of baseload power supply.

Generator technologies available; LCOE; t CO2/MWh:

• Wind farms; 116; 0.0
• OCGT; 196; 0.515
• CCGT; 89; 0.368
• Nuclear SMR: 113; 0.0

Source for LCOE and emissions intensity: BREE AETA 2012: http://www.bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf (I used 2012 data because its more easily accessed than the 2013 data).

CCGT can meet the requirement on its own at LCOE $89/MWh and CO2 0.37t/MWh

Nuclear can meet the requirement on its own at LCOE $113/MWh and CO2 0t/MWh

Wind + Gas alternative (assume backup is provided by 50% CCGT and 50% OCGT):
38% wind + 31% OCGT + 31% CCGT
Wind + OCGT + CCGT: LCOE $132/MWh and CO2 0.27 t/MWh

Therefore, the LCOE for the wind mix is 50% higher than CCGT and 17% higher than nuclear. The CO2 emissions from the wind mix are 0.27 t/MWh v 0.0 t/MWh for the nuclear option.

This is very rough and needs lots of refinements but sufficient to explain why the LCOE of unreliable, non-dispatchable generators is not comparable with LCOE of dispatchable generators.

Peter, I believe you and I can and should have continuing constructive discussion on this the most important issue our society faces - 'what are the optimal technologies to replace fossil fuels'. We both have considerable knowledge of energy generation - yours focused on nuclear and mine on renewables. One of my main regrets is how this issues has become polarized. People with differing knowledge must sit down together and learn from each other.

I recommend you read these recent OLO discussions on the same subject: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16780&page=1
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16792

That will help you see what I (and many others) think the problems are with nuclear and where I think it may have a role.

Re LCOE I certainly do understand it and your example of wind-gas uses the same approach we in SEN used in our 100% Renewables Study for WA. I recommend you read it:
http://greenswa.net.au/assets/sen2029study.pdf (click download technical study)
We arrived at an LCOE for a combination of generation technologies for each of 3 scenarios. To do this we adjusted capacity factor according to how much energy would be required from each e.g. biomass was working far below nameplate CF.

We are currently updating the study using AETA's updated 2013 numbers (giving lower LCOE's - the $162- 173 I quoted from http://greenswa.net.au/energy2029 'the Redux Study'). We do not claim to have arrived at the optimum mix; there's a lot more work and brains to be involved to arrive at that and we are working on improved scenarios.

Also, it is worth using the midpoints of the graph bars of the 2013 AETA update. The cost ranges move with the year (we used either 2020 or 2025 I forget which). AETA estimates for solar and to a lesser extent wind technologies get cheaper and nuclear more expensive out to 2040.

Finally, I would like to discuss other related issues with you by email. In particular your report on pumped hydro for the Snowy scheme.

My email is biroses@westnet.com.au

Ben Rose

Ben Rose,

Thank you. I'll get in touch by email after I've considered comment and the links in more depth.

Sorry I didn't realise what background you have on the subject. I wouldn't have posted my last comment explaining the LCOE and emissions for the wind mix if I'd known.

I agree with you on this: "Peter, I believe you and I can and should have continuing constructive discussion on this the most important issue our society faces"

However, I don't agree this is a valid premise to begin at: "what are the optimal technologies to replace fossil fuels". IMO we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity. And to improve human well-being we need to improve the world’s economies, not damage them. To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy. That's my starting point – it’s about the economics.

"We both have considerable knowledge of energy generation - [PL's] focused on nuclear and [BR's] on renewables."
I'd like to change the emphasis. Mine is not focused on nuclear. Mine is across all (although I have more years of practical experience with hydro and nuclear than with others). My focus in on economically rational, politically and diplomatically achievable solutions because only they can succeed in the real world. Any policy that will cause higher cost electricity is not going to be politically sustainable. I keep talking about nuclear because I am trying to offer the people who are most concerned about CAGW a way they can achieve their aim of cutting GHG emissions from fossil fuels as well as satisfying what 97% of the world's population wants - i.e. improved well-being. I am persuaded renewables cannot do that and cannot make much contribution towards achieving it, if any. In fact, I am convinced the longer we remain focused on renewables the longer we delay progress.

I think this is a useful guide to having a rational discussion:
"A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussion"
http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion

Ben Rose,

I’ve been through your comments on the two OLO links you gave. I realise now there are so many points of fundamental disagreement we’d get nowhere in an email exchange and I don’t want to get bogged down in an email exchange that has no real prospect of getting a result. Furthermore, no one else would gain anything from such an email exchange between you and me. I am happy to debate online, but to make any progress I need to understand what it would take to change your mind. Have you considered what would change your mind? Can you state it (succinctly in a few dot points)?

Peter: OK so your main criterion is to find the alternative(s) to coal that are least cost? Are you also looking to maximize replacement of all fossil fuels including gas? If so we are in agreement on those criteria.

Re your statements:
....we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity......... Needs qualification - do you mean humanity now? I would agree if it means the well being of humanity over say 7 generations (200 years) into the future

......And to improve human well-being we need to improve the world’s economies, not damage them......Generally agree but could take a hit of up to say a couple of percent GDP now to achieve this in future because a future ruined climate will have massive economic impacts through crop failures, deaths due to disease and heat stress and indeed displacement of whole coastal populations

.....To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy..... disagree, although I agree that of course consumers will tend to buy the cheapest energy on offer. I thought it was clear from our previous discussion that cost of generation from modernized plant will be higher than that from the old coal plants we are using. if we switch to gas, demand pressure will continue to push up gas prices, a problem that does not occur with renewables. I think clean energy (nuclear or renewables) on upgraded networks could eventually cost retail and residential consumers about 33 c/ kWh in today's AU dollars (about 8 c more than current prices). With energy efficiency, they could run their premises and vehicles on this for cheaper than what they are paying now. It's metal smelters (in particular aluminium) that are addicted to cheap wholesale electricity (6-10c range). If this price were to double, causing say a 50% rise in the cost of aluminium it would have very little effect on the economy.

.

Peter,
As for dot points that would persuade me nuclear is an option for the future:
- Weapons proliferation problems removed (this would probably entail binding international agreements which would appear to be as difficult as doing this for carbon pricing).
-'Fail safe' reactor design in which leaks and melt downs could not happen e.g the exclusion zones of both Fukushima and Chernobyl are each larger in area than the land required to provide 30% dispatchable solar thermal/ salt storage backup for the whole of Australia.
- Fuel supply for the world for say a thousand years. Nuclear fission fuels will run out. 'Fast breeders' can extend fuel many-fold but (to my limited knowledge of the subject) entail production of Plutonium, which is highly radioactive, toxic and has a very long half life. so I'm not convinced breeder reactors it will have an acceptable level of safety when done large scale.

Nuclear fusion is another matter. If they can do it safely and economically I'm for it, but I am skeptical of it ever being possible.

For me, I’d need to be convinced that:

1. Renewables can meet the key requirements of electricity consumers as well as reduce the cost of electricity, and

2. Renewables can supply a large proportion of the world’s electricity requirements forever.

3. Nuclear is not capable of doing all of the above.

Peter Lang and Roses1

There's a site called debate.org which being set up for exactly this kind of issue, is more suitable than this forum, plus your pearls are not lost to the world, but others can look on and even vote. You could adjourn to there and even invite us if you get set up.

I would be interested in attending though you might not be interested in having me in attendance.

Roses1, you're not comparing apples with apples because you're applying a double standard of no risks and perpetuality to nuclear that you're not applying to so-called renewables, therefore failing to meet the basic standard of rationality - again.

Also, what if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience with your proposed policy don't accept your pretensions to speak for "the world" for "say a thousand years"?

Do you accept the authority of governments of even only 40 years ago to decide energy policy for you now?

Peter, I'll address your conditions, admitting any worries I have; I hope you'll do the same for mine:

Renewables can meet the key requirements of electricity consumers as well as reduce the cost of electricity........ RE can supply reliable electricity with proper planning and smart electricity grids (see SEN and BZE plans). Back-up will include storage - mainly pumped hydro but also batteries, compressed air, flywheels. Also some biomass. All this will entail bipartisan agreement on national plans - the only obstacles are political and people power can overcome that. CST causes bird kills but I think it cam be overcome. Wind and solar farms have only aesthetic problems in some peoples eyes and it will a matter of location and getting used to them.
I do see difficulties in getting sufficient dispatchable renewable energy backup in densely populated areas such as India and China; nuclear could do this but there are the impediments I've listed.

2. Renewables can supply a large proportion of the world’s electricity forever......... Once the infrastructure is in place there will be no problem renewing / replacing it; this will take much less energy input than the initial construction and will be ongoing. There are no fuel costs so as long as the sun shines and wind blows.... The energy supply will be electrical, which together with some cellulosic biofuels and bio-oils can also fuel most of road, rail, agriculture and all of the materials recycling industries. Some, such as cement will need new electric arc technologies to replace gas lances etc. Construction will have to become more wood-based (as it already is in most US suburbs). Agricultural inputs would have to become more organic

3. Nuclear is not capable of doing all of the above....... Nuclear fission could meet consumers' needs and a large part of electricity requirements. But I think that politically,it would only be possible as an alternative path if the problems I highlighted can be overcome. Also fission wouldn't be forever, even if breeders could be made safe.

Energy efficiency is the first imperative whatever the energy technologies

Jardine: Thanks for your suggestion re debate.org. I'll look at it but would need to be convinced it has broad Australian readership at least equal to OLO.
I think you and all of us can have valuable input but we all have to:
- Try to couch even negative comments in positive language
- Don't assume negative motives to those of different views.

e.g. your comment .....'what if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience with your proposed policy....' I'd have no intention of ever doing that and I don't like the inference. I'm trying to participate in civilized, informed public debate to catalyse change I see as much needed. In a real democracy we are persuaded by logical arguments, not coerced or bullied.

Ben Rose,

“Peter: OK so your main criterion is to find the alternative(s) to coal that are least cost? Are you also looking to maximize replacement of all fossil fuels including gas? If so we are in agreement on those criteria.”

No! That’s not a correct summary of what I said. My criterion is least cost energy that meets user requirements: for electricity the most important requirements are energy security, reliability of supply, and power quality. There are other requirements for energy for other uses such as transport fuels; these include energy security, reliability of supply, fuel quality and consistency. Lowest cost is an important requirement for all energy.

You asked for clarification of what I meant by this statement: “we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity”
Yes. I mean what I said. That applies to the short term, and long term. I’d add, if we remove the impediments to nuclear power we’ll get to what you say you want much faster than if we keep retarding progress by opposing nuclear power.

“To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy..... disagree,”

Your response demonstrates such a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and its effect on human well-being, I doubt there is any point continuing this discussion.

The three concerns you listed about nuclear are easily refuted. But, if you've been researching (objectively) already, you’d already know the answers. So I suspect you don’t want to know. That makes progress on a rational discussion impossible. However, I will address them in a later post.

Regarding your three responses in your latest comment:

1. Disagree - Demonstrate it with actuals. BZE is nonsense: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

2. Disagree – unsubstantiated assertion. EROEI precludes it: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

3. Nuclear – disagree (uranium alone sufficient for 10 billion people for a million years at US per capita consumption).

I don’t think we have a basis for a rational debate. We can’t even agree the key issues.

I've started a debate at Debate.Org.. I don't think I can control who participates. So first to respond and accept has first chance to accept the debate. I've written my pro case. it's here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Nuclear-power-is-the-least-cost-and-fastest-way-to-substantially-cut-GHG-emissions-from-electricity/1/

"Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity"

Ben Rose,

To change your mind to support nuclear power you’d need to be convinced that (my paraphrasing):

1. Weapons proliferation is not a serious risk and, balancing all risks and benefits, is not sufficient to warrant delaying the rollout of nuclear power; and

2. Nuclear power is comparatively safe compared with other options to provide the world’s electricity; and

3. Fuel supply for the world for a thousand years.

What have you done to research these? Have you a plan to research them objectively? I am not asking for what you’ve concluded, just asking how you went about objectively researching these?

My short responses (but you need to do objective research yourself),

1. Weapons proliferation is not a serious risk, especially when weighed against the benefits of nuclear power. You can research it yourself. Start at WNA and go from there. I can’t be bothered arguing about the Green’s talking points. If you want to find out about it you’ll do your own objective research instead of reading and believing the catastrophists: Greenpeace, the Greens, Jim Green, Helen Caldicott and the like.

2. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity. We’ve known this for over 30 years. There have been hundreds of authoritative studies reaching the same conclusion. Here’s one summary of the results (there are many others): http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

3. Your demand of 1000 years is ridiculous and if you applied that to renewables they’d be a fail at achieving it over any timescale. Renewables can’t do it for any years, let alone 1000! So your requirements is ridiculous. However, nuclear power can meet your requirement. In fact, uranium alone (i.e. not even including thorium) is sufficient to supply all the world’s energy (that’s all energy, not just electricity) for 10 billion people using the USA’s per capita energy consumption for a million years. As well there is thorium and then hydrogen for virtually unlimited fission. We’ll probably be using fusion this century, <1/10th of your 1000 years.

Are you genuinely receptive to challenging your beliefs about nuclear power?

Ben Rose,

Have you conceded? If so it would be a sign of intellectual honesty to publically state it or are considering the points I've made.

Why do you draw opposite conclusion to the CSIRO ‘My Power’ calculator about the comparative cost of nuclear and renewables? What’s wrong with ‘MyPower’ calculator?

CSIRO’s ‘MyPower’ calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is does not have community support, nuclear would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

Below is a comparison of options of different proportions of technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now.

Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix:
1. 80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Points to note:

• For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

• For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease.

• These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

The difference is stark. Nuclear is far better.

But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.

Peter,

No I have not conceded.

CSIRO calculator has problems - does not show a scenario including solar thermal with storage and does not properly show the potential of woody biomass. Just because it carries the label 'CSIRO' does not mean it's definitive nor are your selected scenarios.

My requirement of 1000 years is 'ridiculous'? Bluster on your part. I remind you that once constructed, solar and wind require no fuel and biomass fuel is renewable.

' In fact, uranium alone (i.e. not even including thorium) is sufficient to supply all the world’s energy (that’s all energy, not just electricity) for 10 billion people using the USA’s per capita energy consumption for a million years.' ?? A sweeping and unsubstantiated statement - please provide a link.

I will accept on debate.com your challenge starting tomorrow providing I can get into the CSIRO calculator. I will need more time to examine more closely how it calculates - something that you've obviously already spent time on. No point my arguing your claims relating to its calculations until I have done this.

I re-iterate - if it uses AETA costings, these do not include the cost of decommissioning, waste storage or full disaster risk. Fukushima is estimated to cost 100 billion.

Ben Rose,

I’m pleased you’ve agreed to try Debate.Org. When you’re ready to begin, tell me, and I’ll ask to have the opponent who’s accepted the debate remove his response and allow you to post yours so we can have a constructive, honest debate about what’s important and relevant.

I am concerned you didn’t answer my questions which are important for me to understand. At the moment I am concerned you are not genuinely interested in challenging your beliefs. I am concerned that 1) you have swallowed the Greens ideological beliefs; 2) you haven’t honestly critique their material; 3) you are in fact a green Ideologue and not open to being convinced by the relevant facts. Can you assure me that I ham wrong on these, you are open to persuasion, you do genuinely challenge the Greens and greenies beliefs, and you do conduct objective research?

Can you please answer my question about how you have conducted objective research to find answers to the three criteria you need to be persuaded about for you to consider nuclear a viable option?

Regarding your dismissal of the CSIRO calculator. I feel CSIRO has become a renewables advocacy organisation and its research in energy matter can no longer be held in high regard. However, your dismissals are not persuasive to me. I need to understand your grounds for dismissal are sufficiently significant to show the MyPower results are grossly misleading. How much difference would it make to the figures I quoted for change in electricity price and CO2 emissions if the calculator included solar thermal and biomass? How did you estimate that difference? What are your assumptions? I doubt including solar thermal or biomass would reduce the cost of electricity.

Regarding biomass my reasons are explained here http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ and in unanswered question to Mark Diesendorf here: and other comments on that thread (including the last comment). http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532

Regarding solar thermal my reasons are explained in the first link above and here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
These are extensively debated on those threads (and the reasons for simplifying to single technology explained).

More later …

My Calculator does include both biomass and solar thermal under renewables: click on the ‘I’ next to ‘Renewables’. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

I’ve just posted these comments on the MyPower Calculator site:
[My proportions were: 0% coal, 20% gas, 0% CCS, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear (like France but less nuclear, more gas and less hydro)]

Q. Why did you choose this energy mix (above)?
A.
“See debate on Online Opinion here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0

I am debating with Ben Roses who is behind the the WA Greens proposal for renewable electricity generation for WA. My interest is least cost electricity and, to a lesser extent, reducing CO2 emissions. I believe a high proportion of nuclear power is our best future and the costs will come down at faster than 10% per doubling globally once the developed countries get over their irrational objections to nuclear power - nuclear paranoia.”

Q. Are there any other comments you wish to make in relation to the range of options for generating electricity in Australia?
A.
“MyPower is a useful calculator (and so is eFuture). They are very helpful for educating others and for supporting referencing in blog comments, which is what I am using it for now. However, I believe both calculators are biased in favour of renewables.

1) the AETA figures are biased in favour of renewables and against nuclear.

2) MyPower and eFuture do not include the additional cost of transmission and distribution which is much higher for renewables than for nuclear

3) MyPower and eFuture do not include the additional grid management costs that renewables require.

An important argument as to why renewables are not sustainable is well explained here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ (and its references).”

The cost of decommissioning and waste storage are insignificant costs, and maybe less for nuclear than renewables. Nuclear accident insurance needs to be addressed in an objective manner. What should the insurance required to cover? Is it the real cost of damages (health effects, etc.) or does it have to cover the costs of the excessive and irrational response that is a result of 50 years of anti-nuke propaganda?

Ben,

“My requirement of 1000 years is 'ridiculous'? Bluster on your part. I remind you that once constructed, solar and wind require no fuel and biomass fuel is renewable.”

Not bluster at all. Your assertion that there is insufficient fuel to run nuclear fission for 1000 years is uninformed. Apparently you have not objectively researched this. You haven’t yet answer what research you’ve done to check your facts on your criteria about nuclear. I hope you will answer my question because it goes to the heart of my concern about whether I am debating a Green, RE ideologue or an honest objective researcher. I’m not dodging this, I am waiting till you answer so I can assess if your mind is open or shut. I’d like to understand who I am debating with.

The fact the fuel for solar and biomass is ‘renewable’ is irrelevant. The total materials that have to be mined, extracted, processed, manufactured, fabricated, constructed, maintained throughout life, decommissioned and disposed, plus the transport between all steps and transport of labour for maintenance to remote sites throughout their life are not renewables and they exceed the material quantities and and energy requirements for nuclear.

On an ERoEI basis, renewables are not sustainable: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ .

Renewables are not sustainable now and they certainly cannot meet the world’s future energy demand in 100, let alone 1000 years.

Up to this point I’ve shown that:

1. renewables cannot meet the requirements of the electricity system cheaper than nuclear

2. renewables cannot reduce CO2 emissions at lower cost than nuclear.

Here we are again, all wasting your time arguing about global warming.
Again, it does not matter if global warming is true or not.
The shale oil boom is finishing, especially at current prices, we will soon
have to face up to declining availability of petrol & diesel.
We import 95%, so if a scramble occurs, we are in trouble.
It is well past time to start building the next energy regime.

It can only be built if we use all the fossil fuels we have to build it.
Alternatives cannot build the new regime including nuclear.
I suspect there is no alternative to building nuclear, uranium or thorium
other than using coal and oil to build them.
I have read a study that said the ERoEI of solar and wind is too poor
to enable those energy sources to build power stations, railways etc.

Peter,

My correct title is Ben or Ben Rose (not Roses). If you give me the courtesy of using it I will do likewise for you.

We will debate on debate.org in good time; will start putting it together tomorrow.

I am currently staying on Long Is New York USA, gaining more first hand knowledge of what I am talking about:
-Inspected the 110 MW the Solar Reserve CST molten salt plant at Tonopah Nevada.
-Inspected the 20 y.o. 50 MW biomass plant at Burlington Vermont
-Talked to locals about the nuclear reactor on Long Is., built and never run
-Discussed with RE Long Island their campaign for GW's of offshore wind off Long Island.

You seem desperate for me to 'show my colours'. I am not a 'Greens ideologue', but a scientist and pragmatist with 20 years' career experience in resource management, energy assessment and carbon sequestration. I am a self funded retiree and I continue to work many hours a week in these these fields. I am not beholden to industry or any political party. As a committee member of Sustainable Energy Now, I am involved in lobbying any party or group who will listen on the benefits or energy assessment, efficiency and renewable energy and the urgency to implement all of the these. Financially, I have divested from fossil fuels and have most of my meagre investments in ethical funds and residential property.

Likewise it would be honorable of you to 'show your colours' and allay any suspicions I have that you may be a 'Blues / neoliberal ideologue' or a shareholder in uranium mining or in the employ of / have any vested interests in any of the above.

Re your requests for links / more details of my research, I suggest you start the with the References in the SEN 100% 2029 WA studies I gave you links to. Also type my name into the Renew Economy, Business Spectator and OLO websites and you will find several of my articles, with references.

I can provide others in the debate.org.

Bazz,

I agree with you about the futility of arguing global warming and that on fuel security grounds alone something must be done to move on from fossil fuels.

But the argument you refer to: ' ERoEI of solar and wind is too poor
to enable those energy sources to build power stations, railways etc'. is false.

Here is a reference to a table that compares total CO2e emissions from construction and fuel per kWh of electricity generated, for the various electricity generation technologies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

This is a measure of total fossil fuels used for each type of generation. You will see that wind is the lowest, followed closely by nuclear, with hydro, geothermal solar thermal and solar PV close behind.

Ben,

My apologies for the mistake in your name. Thank you for the details of your career and interests. Good to know you are a scientist and claim to be not a green ideologue; however, your comments “renewable energy and the urgency to implement all of these” suggest you do have strong ideological leanings and not unbiased and objective. If by ‘ethical investments’ you exclude nuclear energy and fossil fuels, I wouldn’t agree that is ‘ethical’. And I’d see it as ideological, not rational or objective. Regarding “committee member of Sustainable Energy Now”, I suspect you are not aware that nuclear is sustainable and so called ‘renewables’ are not (see previous comment). I see you’ve been visiting renewable sites and nuclear plants and I suspect you are hearing what you want to hear. But that is not objective research.

You can see my short bio on top of most of my posts. I am also a self-funded retiree. I am invested in index tracker funds and LICs so invested across the market in proportion to the market capitalisation. I am not in any political party nor a member of any political or advocacy organisation.

“Re your requests for links / more details of my research”
I didn’t ask for links or more research. Please reread what I asked.

I’ve looked briefly at your SEN WA 100% renewables on SWIS by 2029 study. I’ve pointed out it’s similar to the BZE ZCA study which is nonsense (I gave you links). And I’ve asked you why your figures are so different (opposite) to what the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator shows. Your response showed you were not familiar with it. Worse still you made blatantly wrong statements, apparently to try to dismiss it.

Let’s not divert from the three criteria we each raised until we can reach closure on each of them. I’ve supported each of mine and asked you a question on how you conducted your research that underpins your three concerns about nuclear power. I’m waiting for your response to that. No more research required.

Ben,

Bazz's statement about ERoEI is not false. It's correct. Renewables are not sustainable. The Wikipedia link you just gave is not about ERoEI. I suspect you don't understand what EOoEI is.

The energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) in renewable energy is not sufficient to supply the energy needs of modern society.

A short explanation of why is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/. The ERoEI needs to be at least 14 to support modern society. So, only fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear can do it.

Below are some ERoEI figures for various electricity generation technologies. These including buffering – i.e. energy storage so the unreliable, non dispatchable renewables are properly comparable with the dispatchable technologies.

Solar PV = 1.6
Biomass = 3.5
Wind = 3.9
Solar CSP (desert) = 9
Gas (CCGT) = 28
Coal = 30
Hydro = 35
Nuclear = 75

Source: http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Read it if you want to understand ERoEI.

Ben ? alaias Roses1,
Well I am certainly not a scientist, so I hope you do not put me down for that.
I have worked in industrial control systems and computers and I am also a self funded retiree.
Having worked on control systems in steel works etc, I know how much energy is
needed to produce a ton of steel, lots ! Then to roll & keep hot.
Now much of this energy comes from coal. Also a lot of coal is used for the coking ovens.
If we cut out coal we will be riding wooden bicycles.
However world peak coal is expected around 2025 to 2035.
Like with oil, it will peak because the seams will be too expensive to mine.
I would like to know how the steel to manufacture wind farms is going to be produced by wind farms ?
Unfortunately I cannot find the article I mentioned, it was a couple of months ago.
It was one that I did not keep.
I cannot see an alternative to nuclear, unless this cold fusion turns out to be real.
Long term, we will have to transition to a semi agrarian economy built around an 18th century model.

Ben,

‘Renewables’ are not sustainable (see links in previous comment). Their low ERoEI means they cannot provide the energy needs of modern society.

They are not cheap - not economically viable - except in small niche applications (see links in previous comments)

They cannot reduce GHG emissions (by substantial amounts) as fast as nuclear (see previous comments and links)

So, why do you continue to advocate for them?

Why do you think you are being objective, rational and unbiased (as a scientist should be)?

What is more important to you – renewable energy or realistically achievable and sustainable programs to reduce global GHG emissions? (as explained previously, any policy that will damage economies and, therefore, impact negatively on human well being is not sustainable economically or politically in the real world. That's a key point to recognise.)

One rather important factor that has not arisen in this discussion is
how do we finance this change over while so many governments have such
large debt burdens ?

The oil industry us in a bind over the debt of the US frackers.
A similar situation could develop for wind & solar farms.
The financial bind that governments are now seeing in their teacups will not go away.
If we don't finance the transition to the alternative energy regime with borrowed money
will there be any left over to pay school teachers etc ?
Has anyone on a VIP jet done a back of envelope calculation ?
Should we abandon the NBN and divert the money into alternatives.

Did you see the 7-30 report tonight ?
At last the ABC is catching up with me, six years too late, one sunken tanker
and Australia starves !
Notice how cock sure our minister for energy was ? Gawd, we are doomed !

Peter (and Bazz)
Peter, do you really understand EROI or are you using biased, poorly substantiated studies to push your case for nuclear?

Firstly, EROI's are misleading, as shown in the example below. An EROI of 50 means 2% of the energy output is used in production of it (i.e. net 98% output). EROI 10 means that 10% of the output is used in production of it (i.e. net 90% output). So EROI of 50 is only 98/90 = 1.09 times as efficient as an EROI of 10; not 5 times as the EROI numbers suggest.

This is explained here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625

Secondly, as I explained previously (Oct.1 OLO discussion on EROI), EROI figures vary widely depending on assumed factors such as:
- life of plant
- capacity factor
- 'buffering'

For example if the life of nuclear is reduced from the assumed 60 years (no plant has yet run this long) to a more realistic 40 years (the life at which many plants such as Vermont Yankee are being decommissioned), then the the EROI reduces by a third to 50.
If wind CF is increased from typical Europe (30%) to typical Australia (40%), EROI increases from Weibach's 16 years to 21 years. If lifetime is doubled to 40 years (with replacement of blades and generator components), it would likely increase again by at least 50 % to 33 years.

Your reference (Weibach et al) gives no explanation as to how they arrived at their buffering estimates. It makes absurd assumptions on buffering leading me to believe that it is biased in favor of nuclear. The SEN study shows that overbuild of about 100% is required for 100% renewables (solar thermal, wind and solar PV with about 5-10% pumped hydro), Compared to 50% overbuild with coal/ gas 'business as usual'. Buffering would at most halve the wind EROI in Australia making it 10- 15 not the absurd 4 claimed by Weisbach.
Also, nuclear would need at least 15% over-build (buffering) to allow for plant outages and Weisbach assumes zero.

Bazz,

1/ You are quite right - steel, plastics, glass, fibreglass etc can't be made with wind or PV. Biomass can do these things, but the reality is that fossil fuels will continue to used. Fossil fuels need to be kept for these essential purposes where renewable solutions are limited. The heartening thing is that as economies mature, the majority of metal requirements are recovered from scrap and that can be done with electricity. The US gets > 60% of its steel from scrap.

2/ Yes, finance in particular the cost (interest rate) of it is a major concern. Low interest bonds will be essential - 4-5% not the usual quoted finance rate of 7%; this will make a huge difference to project cost. Also, consumers will pay for the new electricity generation through their electricity bills, which will rise regardless of what technologies are used (as previously discussed. When we pay more for energy, we become more efficient, as is shown be the steadily decline in electricity use in Australia:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/4/energy-markets/power-emissions-continue-rise?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=983208&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

Ben,

Your comments suggest an ideological bias, not objectivity. It seems you are guided by your ethical beliefs; however, if everyone shared your beliefs about ethical investing, 5 billion people would die – that’s right, stop fossil fuels and 5 billion people would die. That’s unethical. These ethical beliefs seem to drive irrational beliefs about renewable energy and nuclear power.

Your SEM study of 100% renewables for WA is biased. You haven’t stated the requirements objectively and you haven’t even considered nuclear as an option to meet them. Your LCOE is about twice that of mostly nuclear; it would actually be higher. It would also have higher GHG emissions with any achievable technology proportions.

You clearly don’t understand ERoEI. First you respond to Bazz’s comment by referring to a Wikipedia article that has nothing to do with ERoEI, then you respond with an attempt to dismiss an authoritative, peer reviewed paper on ERoEI and refer me instead to an ‘OilDrum’ post. What a joke.

You made assertions to dismiss the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator, without even checking your facts. You were wrong.

You haven’t addressed the three criteria I laid out for what it would take to change my view. That’s avoidance. I provided links that support for my position on these three criteria. You have not responded. It seems you are attempting to avoid debating the key criteria (three each) we agreed at the beginning.

That’s not displaying intellectual honesty.

Let’s not get diverted into arguing about side issues. Let’s stay focused on the six criteria we nominated. If you want to divert to other issues, please explain how the point you raise is sufficiently significant to change the conclusions. But I strongly urge we deal with the three main criteria we nominated first. Let’s reach closure on them as the first step.

Roses1;
Hmmm, I have my doubts about biomass, how much would have to come from crops ?
Sure, a lot of waste could be diverted into biomass energy production, but it does
not seem to have the volume to replace oil, let alone oil, gas & coal.
It is after all the leftovers from products produced by oil, gas & coal !
Sounds a bit like an inwards spiral to zero.

What made it all so demanding to me was the graph of net energy for ERoEI.
It very quickly becomes a non event with the gain being lost in energy transitions & transmissions.

Another thing I wanted to comment on is the "ethical" selling of shares in
coal, & oil companies etc.
This is a total nonsense ! Someone else buys them, so whats changed ?
Also when super funds do this they could be sued for not acting in the
best interest of the members.
eg, they sell BHP and buy an ethical wind farm company which later goes down the gurgler.
As wind farms are only making money because of subsidies when/if the government
pulls the plug (pun intended) they could go broke big time.

Ben,

I stated the three criteria you’d need to address to convince me I am wrong:

1. Renewables can meet the key requirements of electricity consumers as well as reduce the cost of electricity, and

2. Renewables can supply a large proportion of the world’s electricity requirements forever, and

3. Nuclear is not capable of doing all of the above.

You haven’t seriously addressed these. On the other hand, I provided links demonstrating renewables cannot do 1 and 2, and showing nuclear can meet the requirements of electricity consumers. Nuclear is currently more expensive than fossil fuels but that can and inevitably will be changed when the unjustified impediments to nuclear power development and roll out are removed. I stated that nuclear power can supply the world’s energy needs effectively indefinitely. You disagreed. I asked you to explain how you’d researched this issue. You haven’t answered.

You stated three concerns with nuclear power you’d want to be convinced are not warranted for you to agree that nuclear is a viable option

1. Weapons proliferation

2. Safety; and

3. Fuel supply for a 1000 years.

I responded to each. You disagreed. I asked you to explain what research you’d done to support your opinions on this. You haven’t responded.

So far it seems you don’t know much about any of this. I get this impression because:

1. Your SEM analysis is biased and flawed. It doesn’t consider nuclear so it is clearly biased. Your own calculation shows that LCOE of renewables is very expensive, ~2x the projected cost of mainly nuclear.

2. Your comments show you do not understand ERoEI

3. Your response to me shows you don’t understand that renewables are not sustainable

4. Your attempted dismissal of the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator was factually incorrect. Your comment suggests you are prepared to make dismissive statements without checking your facts.

5. Your comments about nuclear proliferation, safety, insurance, and duration of fuel supply show your opinions are those of the anti-nuke activists not obtained from researching authoritative sources.

Are you going to address the criteria?

Peter,
For this to be fruitful, we need to debate constructively and avoid being aggressively adversarial. I think we are both wanting to achieve the same aim - safe secure and affordable energy for humanity now and in the future. So let's be proactive and acknowledge truths on both sides. In summary, here's where I am at. Please note that I acknowledge some positives for nuclear and I hope you' do the same for renewables.

- Nuclear is best of any technologies in relation to EROI. However both nuclear and RE have EROI's that are sufficiently good even when 'buffering'/ backup is taken into account. EROI is not the best measure - fossil fuel GHG emissions per kWh is. Nuclear, hydro, wind solar CST and Solar PV are all sufficiently good using this measure.

- Nuclear is the best of all technologies on air pollution mortalities

- But renewables and nuclear are so close on these scores that the difference is irrelevant.

- Disaster risk, future storage costs and weapons proliferation remain significant risks which are not costed into nuclear and should be.

- All-nuclear would be cheaper than all- renewables if the above risk factors are not costed in but not costing them results in a false economy.

- The nuclear risks (none of which apply to renewables) mean that renewables should be developed to the maximum economic level before nuclear.

- If nuclear is used in future it should be as backup to renewables, perhaps in densely populated cold countries where CST can't be used. It should only be new, flexible (rampable) reactor designs that are as near as possible fail-safe. i.e. existing reactors should be phased out, not extended to 60 - 80 years as some are advocating.

We need to acknowledge that about 19% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear and 22% from renewables (more than half this from hydro). http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/480-Medium-Term_Renewable_Energy_Market_Report_2014
Wind and solar are currently growing >4 times faster than nuclear.

All of these sources are viable and contributing to the aim of minimizing the burning of fossil fuels for energy

Peter, you claim that I have not been doing sufficient research on nuclear, while at the same time you have been trivializing the risks of nuclear and not providing documents to support this. It is true that this debate has accelerated my research in this area. I urge you to read this well researched document by Schneider et al:
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/201408msc-worldnuclearreport2014-hr-v4.pdf
from which I obtained the following:

- The Fukishima disaster has so far claimed over 1600 lives and 3 years later few have returned to the 125,000 ha total exclusion zone.

Note: This area is larger than the total area that would be revitalized by providing Australia with 30% of its electricity from dispatchable solar thermal with storage.

- Fukushima will cost about $100 billion in compensation, decontamination and decommissioning

- Since 1997 electricity generation from 'clean' sources has increased (in TWh) by:

Nuclear - 114
Solar - 124
Wind - 616

Schneider cites the IPCC 5th assessment report:

"Renewable Energy
Many RE338 technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions, and a growing number of RE technologies have achieved a level of maturity to enable deployment at
significant scale… Regarding electricity generation alone, RE accounted for just over half of the new electricity&#8208;generating capacity added globally in 2012, led by growth in wind, hydro and solar power.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG339 emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing
contribution to low carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist. Those include:
operational risks, and the associated concerns, uranium mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear weapons proliferation concerns, and adverse public
opinion."

Why do you claim that wind and solar electricity are not viable, when they have they been increasing at much faster rates over the past 15 years than nuclear ? Perhaps it is it this fast growth of renewables that has panicked you and the nuclear lobby into attacking renewables?

Ben,

>” For this to be fruitful, we need to debate constructively and avoid being aggressively adversarial. I think we are both wanting to achieve the same aim - safe secure and affordable energy for humanity now and in the future. So let's be proactive and acknowledge truths on both sides.”

That’s a great start. Thank you. I agree. I wasn’t expecting this. I’d given up hope of a constructive and honest discussion or debate.

My answers are honest and supported by links in previous comments: (I number your dash points 1 to 7 to facilitate response).

1. I don’t agree. Renewables cannot now and never could supply 80% to 100% of the world’s electricity supply, let alone all its energy. Energy use per capita will continue to grow as it has been doing since man was a hunter gatherer. Renewables cannot come close. ERoEI is one reason – too low to support modern society. Materials requirements, land areas and transmission requirements are another. I’ve addressed all this in previous comments. Have you read the links I’ve provided? I don’t agree that GHG emissions per kWh is the most important measure. However, even there nuclear is far better than renewables. Nuclear provides lower GHG emissions per kWh in a system and the lowest CO2 abatement cost per kWh. Comparing a mostly nuclear v as mostly renewables NEM, the nuclear would be about 1/3 the capital cost, ½ the cost of electricity and 1/3 the CO2 abatement cost. We can argue about the details and assumptions used, but that’s the big picture conclusion.

2. Disingenuous. Not just air pollution. Nuclear is about the safest of all the electricity generation technologies on a LCA basis including all ‘cradle-to grave’ risks. That’s including the concerns you raised in point 4.

3. The point is that nuclear is as safe as or safer than renewables with all risks included.

continued ...

continued ...

4. Disagree. However, I’ll defer answering this until you have answered my question about what you are basing your beliefs on. I want to understand how you undertook an objective research on which to base your concerns.

5. Disagree. What’s your basis for this assertion?

6. Sorry, that’s just an emotionally charged, unsupported assertion. That’s not science, that’s just ideological belief.

7. Another unsupported assertion. That’s just nonsense. This is not science, it’s just belief.

Your last two paragraphs are irrelevant for the reasons I’ve explained in this and previous comments.

Your second comment is from an anti-nuclear source. If that’s what you base your beliefs on, no wonder you are a nuclear denier.

“A UN panel of expert scientists concluded that radiation caused no attributable health effects and likely none in the future. Radiation killed no one, but the evacuation stress did kill hundreds. Most refugees could have safely returned home.”
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

You haven’t addressed the three criteria I gave you nor provided authoritative cost estimates per MWh decommissioning and waste disposal for renewables and nuclear.

As I said at the start of this discussion, I am advocating for least cost electricity that meets requirements. I urging people like you who are deeply concerned about GHG emissions, you should be advocating to remove the impediments people like you have caused to be imposed on nuclear power. You are thwarting development, and blocking progress.

I asked you what is your priority: reducing global GHG emissions or promoting renewables? You haven’t answered this or my other questions.

Peter:

1/ " Comparing a mostly nuclear v as mostly renewables NEM, the nuclear would be about 1/3 the capital cost, ½ the cost of electricity and 1/3 the CO2 abatement cost." Nonsense - no references and no substantiation. When you've written or co-written a well referenced "100% nuclear grid' scenario as I have for renewables I will read it and be happy to comment.

2 and 3/ you have not provided me with any risk assessment/ risk costing studies that substantiate your wild assertion that nuclear is as safe as renewables. When renewables force evacuation of a million hectares of land then maybe you could say that. The reference you gave (Hargraves) was a basic summary of N radiation and its health effects, with added assertions by the author that the 'safe limits' of radiation could be quadrupled and then all the problems of nuclear would be solved! What about air and water borne radioactive particulates? Ones man's assertion against the thousands of scientists and health professionals.

He also mentioned the 200,000 deaths by incineration from the A-bombs in Japan. Weapons proliferation is a hard one to ignore. Have you forgotten the cold war? Provide me with evidence that there are not still N arsenals sufficient to destroy civilization several times over. And do you think Russia and the US are friends now?

4-7/ - These relate to risk, disasters, storage and decommissioning costs. You have given me no substantive references. Most of which you gave me is form bravenewclimate, a site that by its own description exists to promote nuclear.

Peter I am afraid it is you who has neither read widely enough or had binocular vision on this issue. We must have nearly 'done it to death' and neither convinced the other of their stance, which is what I predicted. However, I have learned some things; hope you and other readers have too.

I do intend to post more renewable energy articles on OLO in future - pumped hydro storage and solar thermal with storage. Hope there will be some mutual learning there too.

Ben Rose,

I see you have effectively conceded.

Have you read the latest post by Planning Engineer on Climate Etc. “More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

You haven’t any of your assertions or criteria we agreed were the issues to be debated I did Apparently you didn’t read them. I suggest, if you are intellectually honest, it’s time to concede.

Below I summarise the significant relevant points from the debate so far.

1. Nuclear is the least cost way to make substantial cuts to GHG emissions from electricity generation. That is with all costs included - including decommissioning, waste disposal and accident insurance (for the consequences attributable to the accident as opposed to the irrational response caused by nuclear fear; the latter should be paid for by government from the public purse since it caused it and therefore best managed by it).

2. Nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA with all risks included) so this is not a valid reason for opposing nuclear power

3. Renewables cannot supply a large proportion of the world’s energy demand so they cannot make the cuts in GHG emissions that the CAGW alarmist say they want. Nuclear can

4. Only solutions that will improve countries’ economies over the short and medium term have a realistic chance of succeeding.

5. The impediments imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of scare mongering by anti-nukes (mostly the environmental NGO’s and political Left) have made nuclear far more expensive than it could and should be.

6. Those who want policies to cut global GHG emissions should advocate to remove the impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power. They need to argue to appropriately deregulate nuclear power and make the regulation properly comparable with all other industries, e.g. on the basis of fatalities per TWh.

If you are intellectually honest you will concede. Then you’ll reconsider your advocacy of renewable energy and denial that nuclear is the best way to achieve global GHG emissions reductions and a sustainable energy supply for the world for the future.

Is nuclear the safest way to power Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Colombia, Egypt, Libya or west Africa?

If yes, how would that be implemented safely?

Peter just to make it clear what should be obvious to you and all readers. I have NOT CONCEDED that nuclear is a better way to go for electricity generation than renewables. In fact I am even more convinced that the converse is true. And I am very relaxed about my own intellectual honesty. Hope you are with yours.

Thanks for an enjoyable debate. This is my last post on this thread.

Ben Rose,

1/ You said “Nonsense - no references and no substantiation.” That’s a blatantly dishonest statement. I provided the references and links in my earlier comments. It seems you did not read them. Can you confirm you read (fully) all the links I provided? If not, which ones didn’t you read?

2 and 3/ “you have not provided me with any risk assessment/ risk costing studies that substantiate your wild assertion that nuclear is as safe as renewables.” That’s blatantly dishonest. You even agreed!!

“Ones man's assertion against the thousands of scientists and health professionals.” How disingenuous. How dishonest. Clearly you only read the Helen Caldicott et al side of the debate. You’ve really shown your colours, just as you did in your comment after you’d watch the Wade Allison video.

Weapons proliferation is not nuclear electricity generation. Another sign of extremist ideological anti-nuke beliefs.

4-7/ “You have given me no substantive references.” I asked how you’d gone about researching that. You didn’t answer. I was waiting for your answer so I could address what has misled you so badly. I suspect you didn’t answer because you know you’ve relied on junk, anti-nuke websites. When you answer, I’ll respond. It’s been you who has not substantiated your statements.

I am very familiar with zealots simply dismissing everything that challenges their beliefs, as you have demonstrated you do too.

You’ve clearly displayed 8 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty

Ben Rose,

So far you have not seriously responded to the three criteria I nominated. I have supported each with references. It seems you did not bother to read them.

Can we focus on the key points of apparent disagreement, reaching closure on one at a time, and see if we can progress without diversions.

Do you agree or disagree with:

1. The LCOE of a mostly nuclear powered electricity system is substantially less than the LCOE of a mostly renewable powered system.

Here are some links:

CSIRO ‘My Power’ calculator: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

CSIRO ‘eFuture’ scenario options calculator: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios

There are any others from other countries.

Your own analysis for WA estimates LCOE for 100% renewables is around >200/MWh. That’s nearly twice the LCOE of a mostly nuclear system. (please don’t get picky about 100% v ‘mostly’). http://greenswa.net.au/assets/sen2029study.pdf

Critique of the ZCA2020 report: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

France v Denmark and Germany are a practical demonstration. France’s electricity (75% nuclear) is near the cheapest and lowest CO2 intensity in EU, whereas Denmark and Germany have near the most expensive electricity and much higher CO2 intensity.

Note: decommissioning, waste disposal and accident insurance costs are included in the cost of electricity for nuclear but not for wind and solar. Do you have an authoritative references for these costs per MWh for wind and solar? (I agree they are not included in the AETA LCOE figures, but they are small; for the USA decommissioning $1-2/MWh, waste disposal ~$1/MWh and accident insurance ~$0.11/MWh).
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2013/7061-ebenfc-execsum.pdf (Figure ES.1)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html
If you have better figures from authoritative sources, please provide links and let’s discuss.

You asked me for my analysis comparing the cost of a mostly nuclear and mostly renewables grid. Here is a rough estimate for the NEM. http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf If you find a significant error that would significantly change the conclusions, please let me know and also please provide context as to how much difference you estimate it would make to the costs in Figure 6.

OK Peter, here’s two last posts from me for the sake of keeping us both ‘intellectually honest’.
I ran scenarios from the CSIRO eFuture calculator. In all cases assuming medium technology costs , high fuels costs and battery storage. Their results for wholesale electricity price in $/MWh in 2030 and 2050 were:

‘Default’ 97- 134 – (actually about 50% gas, 40% renewables, 10% coal)
Emissions down to 45%
‘Nuclear’ – 85, 100 (scenario was actually about 30% renewables, 60% nuclear)
Emissions down to 5%
‘Wind turbines’ – 110, 145 (actually about 60% renewables including 15% wind, the rest ‘clean’ and other coal and a bit of gas)
Emissions down to 35%
Solar CST - 111, 145 (actually about 50% renewables including 5% CST, the rest ‘clean’ and other coal’ anda bit of gas)
Emissions down to 45%

Points to note are:
eFuture will not do all nuclear or all-renewables scenarios. I suspect they would have included 1/3 renewables with nuclear because they think it would be impossible to go all nuclear – too insecure and not diversified enough.

Also (and this baffles me), it will also no allow more than 5% solar CST or 1% biomass (both of these are proven commercial technologies) It will allow up to 40 % ‘clean coal’ mainly carbon capture and storage (not yet commercial for stand - alone power generation) and coal engines, which are neither clean or yet commercialized.

If we assume that, as BZE and SEN claim, it will be feasible to do have to 10% biomass, 30% solar CST and about 10% pumped ocean storage hydro, then we can have 100 % renewable scenarios and reduce emissions to about 5%, but CSIRO eFuture simply won’t do these.

It appears that eFuture has been ‘damped down’ for political reasons so it won’t take any ‘radical’ solutions like all nuclear or all renewables. I intend to contact them and suggest it be revised to include these.

Continued in next post....

CSIRO’s costs for ’clean coal’ (CCS) would be at least as high as $130/ MWh for the solar thermal 10 hour molten salt storage in Nevada, and much higher than biomass combustion. So I think their estimate for wind of 11c/ MWh on the NEM is probably close to what it would be for 100% renewables.

Hence with regard to the nations' future electricity system:
1/ Voters will first need to decide whether they want the clean energy option – i.e reduce carbon emissions to about 5% rather than 45% of current that could be achieved with gas / 'business as usual'
2/ Then they'll need to decide whether they want clean energy with all nuclear or pay 3c more per kWh for clean energy with all renewables.
5/ If voters want the clean energy option and don’t want to pay 3c more, which of us will be OK having one of the 20 or more nuclear reactors in our district?

PS: In arriving at your false statement that nuclear would be half the cost of renewables, you have made two incorrect assumptions:

1/ SEN’S updated costs for 100% renewable electricity on the SWIS are $160-170 not the $200 you cited form the first study.
2/ You did not compare ‘apples with apples’ - SWIS is a small isolated grid so energy is and will remain significantly more costly on SWIS than the NEM, for which CSIRO did its calculations.

Using eFutures' estimates, the cost of ‘mostly nuclear’ on the NEM is likely to be about 75% of ‘mostly renewables'

That is of course without nuclear’s risks costed in in.

Ben,

This is frustrating.

Why did you begin with eFuture instead of MyPower? Why didn’t you check the values I gave in an earlier post and respond? Seems you realise what I said is correct but is not what you want to hear. First you need to accept those figures or explain what’s wrong and quantify by how much.

Why have you begun using eFuture with non-defaultsetting? You’re cherry picking. It reveals bias. It’s sufficient reason to dismiss your work. If you’d started with the default values, which are the central estimates, with and without nuclear, you’d find eFuture projects nuclear will provide 60% of electricity by 2050, at 1/3 the cost and 60% of the emissions of the default (mostly RE) scenario.

We know nuclear can provide 80% of electricity generation, France has been doing it for 30 years. Renewables cannot do it.

BZE’s analysis is nonsense, as explained previously.

Apparently you haven’t read the links I provided. I don’t accept your study as correct or authoritative, so let’s leave that one aside and focus on the authoritative MyPower which is the one that better gives the emissions and costs for the different energy mixes, but does not include transmission so it favours RE.

Don’t introduce another diversion guessing what the voters will decide. We are discussing which mix gives lower cost power. Try to stay focused on the point!

LCOE of a mostly nuclear NEM would be around half the cost of a mostly RE NEM. That statement is explained and supported. You haven’t read the link I provided and responded as I requested if you have an issue with it.

I’ve given you the costs for the nuclear risks you asked about. They are from authoritative sources. They are negligible. You haven’t shown they are wrong and provided alternative authoritative figures. You don’t acknowledge and reach closure on any issues and just keep repeating the already refuted assertions.

You effectively conceded the point: “Using eFuture' estimates, the cost of ‘mostly nuclear’ on the NEM is likely to be about 75% of ‘mostly renewables'”.

cont ...

You effectively conceded the point: “Using eFuture' estimates, the cost of ‘mostly nuclear’ on the NEM is likely to be about 75% of ‘mostly renewables'”.

But, if you use the default values (the most likely values) mostly nuclear is about 60% of mostly RE

As explained previously decommissioning, waste disposal and accident and disaster insurance costs for nuclear are negligible ($2-$3/MWh) and may be higher for renewables. I asked you to provide authoritative figures for these costs for RE. You didn't respond. Transmission is not included in the figures and that is much higher for RE than nuclear. So you can say eFuture favours RE, not nuclear.

Using eFuture defaults, the cost of ‘mostly nuclear’ on the NEM is likely to be about 60% of ‘mostly renewables'”, not including transmission costs which are much higher for RE than nuclear. And CO2 emissions from mostly nuclear are 1/3 of those from mostly RE.

Whether you can admit it or not, you’ve lost this debate. You are wrong but apparently don’t have the professional integrity to admit it and concede the point.

Peter; what is LCOE ?

Peter you say I've lost. If it's on the criteria of LCOE alone without costing in the risk, future storage costs and costs of nuclear disasters (Fukushima cost $100 billion and you have addressed that one), then you won.

If it's what I think it is - a debate about which electricity mix is best and most acceptable for the future then you haven't won. That debate won't be decided by voters for years yet. But I think we both agree it's a debate that has to be had as soon as possible.

I will be away for a few days but as I say there is little left for me to say in this thread.

PS Your insistence that I accept you 'verdict' from the coarse 'MyPower' calculator that gives insufficient explanations and does not model the scenarios I advocate is ridiculous.

No Ben. You lost on all the criteria we nominated. I demonstrated (with authoritative sources) you are wrong.

Clearly you’re an ideologue, a zealot and a denier - as demonstrated by the fact you won't read the evidence in the links I've provided. You don't read authoritative material if it does not support your beliefs. You accept any junk that supports your beliefs. You have no competence in energy engineering, economics or policy analysis.

Did you read the Climate Etc. post “Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it” http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/03/cognitive-bias-how-petroleum-scientists-deal-with-it/ Did you consider your own motivated reasoning and cognitive bias?

After all the unsubstantiated assertions and nonsense you've posted, all refuted, you haven't the integrity to admit or concede you are wrong. So you run away - again! That clearly demonstrates a lack of personal, professional and intellectual integrity

The eFuture LCOE figures are favourable to renewables not nuclear because the excluded costs you keep referring to are much higher for renewables than for nuclear. Excluded transmission costs are far higher than decommissioning, waste disposal, accident and disaster insurance. The difference between renewables and nuclear in LCOE of transmission is far greater than the difference on the three items you keep raising. The three you keep raising are small for nuclear (as is well known). AETA excludes them from their LCOE figures because they doen't have comparable figures for all technologies (not do you it seems). For nuclear they are about $2-$3/MWh. You've have not refuted the authoritative evidence I provided.

You clearly have little understanding of what you are talking about and are unwilling to take on accept anything that doesn’t support your ideological beliefs. Or you are obstinately innumerate.

You lost all points. You couldn't substantiate any of your beliefs. And now you want to run away without conceding.

Prove me wrong. Show some integrity. Acknowledge you were wrong on every point or provide authoritative evidence to demonstrate I am wrong. Prove me wrong on:

1. The LCOE of a mostly nuclear powered electricity system is substantially less than the LCOE of a mostly renewable powered system.

Ben,

I’ve just realised, you may not understand what risk is. You said the Fukushima damages are $100 billion. Apart from being a gross exaggeration, that is not the risk. It is consequence, not risk. Risk is consequence x probability. See “What is risk – a simple explanation” http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ . Or read the AS/NZS:4360 Risk Management Standard.

You haven’t factored in the high risk that RE will not be able to supply a large proportion of a grid’s electricity by 2050. It can’t yet whereas for over 30 years nuclear has been demonstrating it can.

Nuclear accident insurance is based on objective information, not ideology. What should the insurance cover? Is it the cost of damages caused by the electricity industry or does it have to cover the costs of the damages caused by the excessive government and regulatory agencies’ responses which are a response to 50 years of irrational anti-nuke fear-mongering?

The health, trauma and psychological consequences of nuclear accidents are mainly the result of the ill-advised, irrational governments’ and agencies’ excessively cautious response to accidents.

The proportion of the cost that is due to the irrational paranoia are rightfully and best covered by the tax payer because it is the voters who have wanted the excessive, unjustified requirements that caused most of these costs. They are not justifiable on a rational basis. Standard risk management practice is for the party who is best able to manage a risk to be responsible for that risk. The electricity industry cannot be accountable for the consequences of the excessive, irrational regulations imposed and for the government’s response to accidents. Nuclear power is well known to be about the safest way to generate electricity. The insurance premiums reflect this.

Decommissioning, waste storage/disposal and nuclear accident and disaster insurance costs are a small proportion of LCOE, and maybe higher for renewables than for nuclear. For nuclear in the USA the costs are:

decommissioning $1-2/MWh,
waste disposal ~$1/MWh
accident and disaster insurance ~$0.11/MWh
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2013/7061-ebenfc-execsum.pdf (Figure ES.1)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html
If you have better figures from authoritative sources, please provide links and let’s discuss.

Ben,

“Peter you say I've lost. If it's on the criteria of LCOE alone without costing in the risk, future storage costs and costs of nuclear disasters (Fukushima cost $100 billion and you have addressed that one), then you won.”

With all costs included (including transmission) nuclear’s advantage increases. Apart from transmission, the other costs are negligible. You haven’t bothered to read the links. The other costs are about $2-$3/MWh, a small proportion of LCOE and included in the cost of electricity sold by nuclear plants. Do you have authoritative sources for decommissioning and waste disposal for renewables? AETA didn’t include them because they don’t have comparable figures. Your $100 billion is a gross exaggeration from the anti-nuke activists.

“If it's what I think it is - a debate about which electricity mix is best and most acceptable for the future then you haven't won. That debate won't be decided by voters for years yet. But I think we both agree it's a debate that has to be had as soon as possible.”

That’s just a cop out. We never said the voters were the adjudicator. We were intending to have a rational debate. You lost this debate. You just don’t have the integrity to admit it.

“I will be away for a few days but as I say there is little left for me to say in this thread.” Yes, there is, admit you are wrong.

You are avoiding dealing with the relevant facts. You have no relevant engineering background. You don’t understand and you don’t want to know. You won’t read references that you think won’t tell you what you want to hear. Some scientist!

“PS Your insistence that I accept you 'verdict' from the coarse 'MyPower' calculator that gives insufficient explanations and does not model the scenarios I advocate is ridiculous.”

It’s your scenarios that are ridiculous, not the CSIRO calculator. Your scenarios are pie in the sky. Unlikely to be achievable. Factor in the risk. Use ‘Expected Value’.

The relevant facts are clear. Show some professional integrity and admit you are wrong.

Ben Rose,

Since it appears you have difficulty understanding the numbers and keep trying to dismiss the CSIRO calculators’ LCOE figures, I’ll lay it out so just about anyone should be able to follow it.

I’ll use CSIRO ‘eFuture’ projections for this and use the default scenario settings (central estimates for each selectable item) with and without nuclear permitted. I’ll compare the projected emissions and LCOE in 2050 with and without nuclear permitted.

CO2 emissions for the default scenario (nuclear not permitted) are 80 t/MWh. With nuclear permitted, CO2 emissions are 25 t/MWh. These show emissions would be 3.2 times higher if nuclear is not permitted.

The LCOE (wholesale price) in $/MWh without and with nuclear permitted and showing the ratio ‘no nuclear / with nuclear’ are in the table below. Estimates of individual items you have asked about are itemised.

Item No nuclear With Nuclear No/With
'eFuture' 130 85 1.5
Accident insurance 0 0.11
Decommissioning 2 2
Waste management 0 1
Transmission, high penetration 37 4
Total LCOE 169 92 1.8

The LCOE for no nuclear is 80% higher than with nuclear. With a higher proportion of renewables than the default (no nuclear), the LCOE would be even higher, probably more than double.
Sources for the above figures are in previous comments.

Policy analysts also need to include in policy options analysis an estimate of the risk that renewables will not be able to do the job. We know nuclear can provide around 75% of electricity in an advanced industrial economy because France has been doing it for over 30 years. But renewables have not demonstrated they can or will be able to. Many practitioners think they will not. An order of magnitude estimate for the risk adjusted cost for renewables is 10x the AETA LCOE estimates.

The risk that renewables will not be able to do the job is the major risk you should be questioning!

Ben Rose,

Correction. The decommissioning component of LCOE in my previous comment was wrong. As I’d mentioned in an earlier comment, decommissioning costs for renewables are higher than for nuclear – say about 15 times higher!
Nuclear = 0.01 USD/MWh
Renewables = 0.02 – 0.71 USD/MWh, rough weighted average with most electricity generated by wind, CST and PV ~0.15 USD/MWh.

Ref: IEA, 2010, Tables 3.7a and 3.7d for USA (at the same discount rate as AETA uses for LCOE calculations, i.e. 10%) http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/projected_costs.pdf

The revised components of LCOE (wholesale price) in $/MWh without and with nuclear permitted are:.

Item No nuclear With Nuclear
'eFuture' 130 85
Accident insurance 0 0.11
Decommissioning 0.15 0.01
Waste management 0 1
Transmission, high penetration 37 4
Total LCOE 168 92

The LCOE for no nuclear is 80% higher than with nuclear. With a higher proportion of renewables than the eFuture default (no nuclear) scenario, the LCOE would be even higher, probably more than double the LCOE for nuclear.

Perhaps now you may understand why AETA did not include these figures – they are down in the weeds and a distraction from what is relevant.

Peter, if you think that $2-3 per MW for insurance (which I am not disputing) is the sum total of the risk story then thing again.

One of the websites you cited is one I have looked at in the past; it conatins some good primary data from which I distilled the following:

Total of 104 reactors have reached end of life

End of Life - reactors > 150MW
Number of reactors Average life yrs Life - range
Ran full term 20 32 3 to 44
Uneconomic before full term 30 21 10 to 42
Political reasons 26 20 3 to 28
Core melt 7 19 1 to 40
Other accidents 4 16 0.5 to 32

Continued, from the data in the previous post:

1/ 10% of the reactors failed due to catastrophic accidents
2/ 30% were closed for political reasons; likely due to leaks and safety breaches
3/ Average life was about 20 years, not the 60- 70 years you claimed from the nuclear propaganda site bravenewclimate.

Do you think this history of nuclear power does not constitute risk for future reactors?

You cited $2-3 / MWh for insurance and decommissioning. I don't dispute that (though I haven't checked on the degree of cost over-runs) but the cost of disasters is borne by governments not insurance. Fukushima - $100b, (Schneider et al from Japanese Government sources).

Government will also pay for future storage; most nations don't have anywhere to store waste; even the US has vetoed the proposed Yucca Mountain site.

Do you think the energy companies who have increased use of solar as much as nuclear and increased wind generation 5 times as much since 1997 (cited previously) don't understand costs and risks?

And what of the 200,000 people incinerated in Japan by A bombs. Do you think that can never happen again? Who pays the cost of nuclear wars and cold wars? Not electricity consumers.

You have not addressed any of the issues I've put before you, except to say the contamination limits should be reduced to make things safer! And you say Government (us taxpayers) should pay for accident cleanup! Contorted logic if ever I heard it.

On the other hand, I have not disputed the LCOE costing results from CSIRO eFuture, though I have corrected some of your overblown claims.

I repeat, you have not won a debate over which alternative power source is BEST.

I agree/ concede that nuclear is CHEAPER in the short term, if the risks are ignored. If the industry can't assure voters that disasters and failures will not happen at anywhere near the rate they have in the past it won't be cheaper; it will be unacceptable

PS Desist from the insults (dozens so far) if you want me to keep debating with you in future

Roses1,

You are still ducking and weaving. Avoiding the key points and trying to dismiss the point with irrelevancies. You are arguing about cents in the dollar and avoiding dealing with the dollars. This suggests either innumeracy, lack of ability to consider perspective, lack of understanding of magnitudes, ideological blindness (likely), or obstinacy (likely). Certainly not the behaviour of a credible scientist.

You throw out a whole pile of irrelevant numbers, of which none have been converted to LCOE. I quote relevant LCOE figures from authoritative sources and you don’t even bother reading them or attempting to refute them. This is not a rational debate. I’m providing arguments and evidence to support it and you’re arguing from the basis of ideological belief - throwing up irrelevant numbers from anti-nuke sites

You haven’t provided an alternative to the authoritative estimates of the insurance costs ($1-2/MWh), so they remain the best we have available. Even if you double them or increase them by a factor of ten they still don’t change the conclusions. They are overwhelmed by the cost of transmission at high penetration (not included in the AETA LCOE), and the risk that renewables cannot do the job. You also don’t seem to have considered that nuclear is about the safest (fatalities per TWh on an LCA basis) of all electricity generation technologies, so if you want to argue that cost of insurance for nuclear should be higher, then you should also argue that it would be higher by even more for other technologies. How do you reconcile that discrepancy? Let me guess, more ideologically biased cherry picking?

It’s clear. All costs included nuclear is much cheaper than renewables, is proven can power a grid at over 75% penetration for 30 years, reduces emissions much more than renewables can do, provides reliable and secure energy and has enormous potential to reduce costs in the future. On the other hand, practitioners realise renewables are highly unlikely to be able to do the job.

You’ve lost the debate, repeatedly demonstrated lack intellectual honesty, little understanding of the issues. Your credibility is low.

[Previously posted on the wrong thread by mistake]

Ben Rose,

Let’s see if we can establish what we agree and disagree on. Could you please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the questions below. Where you answer ‘No’, please provide your alternative figure and the authoritative source for your figure):

1. eFuture LCOE for default values with and without nuclear are: $85/MWh and $130/MWh respectively

2. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are relatively trivial

3. Waste disposal and decommissioning LCOE; (nuclear $1/MWh, renewables, ($0.15/MWh)

4. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA basis all risks included)

5. Nuclear accident insurance is relatively trivial compared with LCOE

6. Nuclear accident insurance is around $0.11/MWh

7. Transmission cost is not included in the AETA LCOE figures

8. Transmissions costs for renewables are much higher than for nuclear (at high penetration for both).

9. Nuclear has demonstrated it can supply over 75% of the electricity to a large, industrial economy (e.g. France for 30 years)

10. Non-hydro renewables have not demonstrated they can supply a large proportion of the electricity to a grid in a large industrial economy

11. There is a significant risk that renewables will not be able to do the job (meet requirements at economically viable cost)

12. The ‘expected value’ of this risk, when added to the LCOE, would inflate the LCOE of the mostly-renewables grid by a very significant amount.

Peter Lang

This post will be entirely on the issue of personal attacks by you on me - i.e. your insults.
You are have repeatedly called me:
-intellectually dishonest
-ideologue
-zealot
-denier
-blatantly dishonest
-disingenuous

You don't even know me! I could just as easily have called you all of these things but I have desisted because I don't know you.

Small wonder that I have seen no-one willing to engage in in-depth debate with you on OLO when they would have to put up with this sort of psychopathic nonsense every time they disagree with you.

In addition you resort to accusations of professional incompetency, all of which could equally be applied to yourself.

I have continued discussion with you only because the issue is so important.

But I repeat that I will not respond to any post that contains personally insulting, bullying, pompous or border-line libelous statements i.e trolling

Peter Lang

I will address your last post because the questions are relevant. I will not address the previous one because it contains personal insults.
Most questions do not have 'yes/ no' answers but I will address your list with 'yes/no' or 'yes/no if' or 'maybe but' type answers:

1. eFuture LCOE for default values with and without nuclear are: $85/MWh and $130/MWh respectively.

No. From the bar graphs shown I get $80 and $110. Maybe we ticked different cost assumption and storage boxes?

2. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are relatively trivial

Yes in terms of $ costs, which is low. But it doesn't factor in that the sites remain dangerous and not usable for 10 -70 years. Land rent, and anxiety / real estate value impacts on neighbors should be included.

3. Waste disposal and decommissioning LCOE; (nuclear $1/MWh, renewables, ($0.15/MWh)

I do not dispute that these may well be true median costs, but please give the reference for me to check

4. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA basis all risks included)

No. Nuclear wins only for air pollution by a trivial margin, assuming safe reactors with no core melts or leaks. 'All risks' includes accidents, nuclear arms proliferation/ cold wars/ wars and problems with future storage. Renewables have none of these problems and are far safer when all risks are taken into account

5. Nuclear accident insurance is relatively trivial compared with LCOE.

Yes if you mean insurance paid by companies to date. But no if the cost of major accidents such as core melts downs, of which there have been 7, are taken into account. These are not covered by insurance payments and have cost governments many billions

6. Nuclear accident insurance is around $0.11/MWh

I dont dispute this as a median figure paid in the past. But please provide reference so I can check.

7. Transmission cost is not included in the AETA LCOE figures

Yes

(continued)

8. Transmissions costs for renewables are much higher than for nuclear (at high penetration for both).
Likely true, but cannot say for sure unless you have maps of the particular nation/ state with acceptable locations for nuclear and RE. It's wrong to assume that in future it will be acceptable to locate nuclear near existing coal plants or population centres, thus keeping transmission costs low. e.g San Onofre California, built 1960s-80's is now within 50 miles of 8 million population of SanFrancisco Bay area. It is now permanently retired due degraded steam generator tubes. It would be politically unacceptable to build nuclear power plants in such locations in future.

9. Nuclear has demonstrated it can supply over 75% of the electricity to a large, industrial economy (e.g. France for 30 years)

Yes

10. Non-hydro renewables have not demonstrated they can supply a large proportion of the electricity to a grid in a large industrial economy.

Yes if you mean > 50%. But there are already several nations/ states that currently generate at least 30% of their electricity from renewables - e.g. NZ, Germany, Denmark. And there are many studies outlining and costing how 100% renewables can be done.

11. There is a significant risk that renewables will not be able to do the job (meet requirements at economically viable cost)

No. I believe most consumers would rather have renewables plus energy efficiency at say up to 35% higher wholesale electricity cost (equivalent to about 12% higher retail energy cost), than nuclear.
PS If you are talking about aluminium smelting corporations using non-hydro renewables 24 hours a day, competing with smelters in China using coal then the answer is yes.

12. The ‘expected value’ of this risk, when added to the LCOE, would inflate the LCOE of the mostly-renewables grid by a very significant amount.

No. This is not a risk but a forecast cost of electricity supply from mostly RE. I believe this will be politically acceptable to the majority (see 11 above), and that 'mostly nuclear' will not be politically acceptable in advanced democracies such as Australia.

Ben Roses,

“You don't even know me! “

You’ve demonstrated all those characteristics in your emails. And you continue to do so. You keep demonstrating them. You’re dodging and weaving, avoiding the relevant issues, diverting with irrelevancies, denying and avoiding demonstrated and supported facts, saying “nonsense” to my statements but haven’t provided anything other than statements of your beliefs to support you assertion of “nonsense”.

And you’ve confirmed is all again in the three posts.

Of course the questions have yes no answers. You can answer yes or no and if no then you give your alternative number. You have not done so. So you’ve failed on every questions.

You are clearly dodging and weaving. Clearly intellectually dishonest. Clearly driven entirely by a zealot belie in renewable energy, despite the clear evidence.

1. WRONG! The answer is the numbers I gave. You can’t even follow a simple instructions like select the ‘Default scenario’, get the numbers then select ‘Nuclear permitted’. Is that too hard for a scientist?

2. FAIL! Didn’t provide your figures and evidence to support it. Furthermore, your beliefs are simply Nonsense from the anti-nuke brigade.

3. FAIL! What’s your figures and citations. I’ve given you the references many times in previous comments. You haven’t bothered to read them. You are not attempting to engage in a rational debate.

4. WRONG! It’s about the safest way to generate electricity on a LCA basis and virtually all authoritative studies have been showing this since 1980 or before. You simply don’t understand what you are talking about, and clearly are not interested in learning – you won’t even read the references I provided.

5. FAIL. You didn’t provide an alternative figure from authoritative source. And WRONG! The insurance being paid is excessive. Clearly you didn’t read my explanation and reference in a previous comment.

6. FAIL! You haven’t provided your alternative and references. I provided the references in previous comments. You didn’t read them, as usual.

7. CORRECT! Well done! (I notice you can handle simple questions as long as no numbers are involved).

cont...

... cont:

8. FAIL! No alternative figures and no authoritative sources. I gave you my figures for the NEM earlier for the sites used for the NEM modelling by EDM; AEMO’s are similar. Clearly you haven’t read those references either.

9. CORRECT! Well done!

10. WRONG! These countries do not generate >30% of their electricity from renewables and cannot do so. They are relying on their neighbours to take excess and provide back-up. The EU grid had 11% non-hydro renewables in 2012 (Eurostat).

11. FAIL! You’ve stated you belief (actually your preferences) but provided no evidence to support it.

12. FAIL! Again you shown you don’t understand what risk means and again you clearly didn’t read the link I provided earlier on this. And again you are stating what you would like to be the case.

You’ve demonstrated through your comments all the characteristics you complained that I’d pointed out in previous comments.

You failed to correctly answer 10 out of 12 questions.

You’ve clearly lost the debate. Furthermore, you have a closed mind, a mind of a zealot. You are not open to learn what doesn’t agree with your beliefs.

If you want to learn, go back through this thread, read the comments carefully, with an open mind and read the sources in the links I provided.

But I’ve given up on you. Your comments and responses have demonstrated all the characteristics I stated previously. You are an example of what has happened to the once highly regarded discipline of ‘scientist’. Your comments demonstrate your ideological beliefs are more important to you than the truth.

Peter Lang
Futher to establishing what we agree and disagree on, I put to you my list of questions/ statements. Where you disagree with my references, please provide alternatives:

1/There are many thousands (26,000 by one estimate) of nuclear warheads in the world; more than enough to destroy human civilization.
http://blog.mapsofworld.com/tag/largest-nuclear-weapons-countries-map/

2/ Of the 87-odd nuclear generation plants of > 150 MW capacity so far deommissioned, 7 have been core melt downs and 3 have been other catastophic accidents necessitating evacuations. A further 26 were shut down for political reasons and only 20 reached their intended life term.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/

3/ For the above reasons there are significant risks associated with nuclear power that are not quantified in LCOE calculations.

4/ The average life of the plants shut down so far is about 20 years, ( see ref. for 2 above) so claims made on bravenewclimate of expected life in the order 60-80 years are very optimistic.

5/ The Fukushima disaster caused the evacuation of a 235 sq km covering 11 municipalities. (ref for 5&7: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/201408msc-worldnuclearreport2014-hr-v4.pdf)

6/ That area of solar thermal / molten salt storage generation plants would provide dispatchable energy 24 hour a day equal to 12% of Australia’s current electricty consumption (Area for 500 GW h/yr CST is 670 ha; Australia’s consumption is 184,000 GWh/yr)
http://www.solarreserve.com/what-we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/
https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/311-trends-electricity-demand

7/ Decontamination will cost the Japanese Government $13 billion; compensation is costing TEPCO > $40 billion; total cost will exceed these figures.

8/Based on total cost of 60 billion, this would be enough to pay the entire cost of a 100% renewable electricity system for Western Australia.
http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/energy_2029_redux_2014.pdf

(continued next post)

(continued from previous post)

9/ It has been 60 years since the first nuclear reactor was commissioned ; the first ‘fail safe design’ the AP1000 will come on line this year; ‘ SMR’s’ – similar scaled down versions - are still in the development stage.

10/ These reactors also claim significant ‘load following’ capacity e.g the AP1000 claims to be able to ramp quickly from 20% to full power making it potentially useful in conjunction with ‘variable’ wind and solar energy sources.
http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor

11/ Jobs per GWh for nuclear energy are are only 60-70% of those for solar thermal and biomass, 80% of those for wind and < 20% of those for solar PV.
http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/WeiPatadiaKammen_CleanEnergyJobs_EPolicy2010.pdf

12/ Uranium is not a renewable resource and on current consumption, technologies and reserves there is 230 years supply. If nuclear increased 4 fourfold to 60% of world electricity, there would be less than 60 years supply. Fast breeders and seawater extraction, which may increase supply to 30,000 - 60,000 years may never be economic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

13/ I would rather live within 5 km of a wind, solar thermal or PV farm or hydro reservoir than 5km form a nuclear reactor. Which would you choose?

Ben Rose,

Until you can provide alternative figures where you disagree with mine and substantiate them with authoritative sources you cannot be taken seriously. Therefore, your comments are dismissed.

Just plucking irrelevant numbers that are not properly converted to LCOE so all numbers are on a consistent basis is meaningless.

You still haven’t read the references and made a serious attempt to engage and understand.

As for all your anti-nuke nonsense, it’s mostly irrelevant and has been refuted repeatedly. It demonstrates ignorance about the subject. But you wouldn’t know that because you read only that nonsense and won’t read what doesn’t support your ideological beliefs. You’ve further confirmed all I mentioned earlier – zealot, ideologue, intellectually dishonest, not a genuine scientist, unprofessional, lack personal professional and intellectual integrity.

As I said, until you provide alternative values to the ones I summarised in points 1 to 12, you have no valid argument and no credibility. You’re just sprouting anti-nuke rhetoric. You’ve been wrong on all the main points relevant to the point under discussion. You haven’t been able to present relevant evidence to support your beliefs. You lost the argument.

In short, Nuclear is the least cost to reduce GHG emission from electricity.

Peter Lang,

I have answered your 12 questions using true facts.

You have refused to answer any of my 15 points on nuclear issues, supported with 8 reputable references from which you could have learned quite a lot.

You only debate on your own terms and refuse to hear anything that may refute your case. Some debater!

And you call me, yet again "zealot, ideologue, intellectually dishonest, not a genuine scientist, unprofessional, lack personal professional and intellectual integrity."

All I can say is all of the above apply to you; I couldn't put it better except to add 'one eyed, wooden denier of truths'.

As Plantagenet and others have said, engineering and LCOE are not the only factors involved in sustainable alternative energies. Most Australians understand this and they know we have better energy alternatives for this country - renewables - even if you don't.

You'd do better to study a few more disciplines - try politics and history to start with.

PS Thus far I haven't even mentioned the P word - Plutonium - maybe the biggest of all the nuclear 'elephants in the room.'

' Plutonium created in nuclear power reactors is another source of bomb material. It takes as little as three to five kilograms of plutonium to create a nuclear weapon. There are now some 500,000 kilograms of separated plutonium in global stockpiles. Plutonium stocks continue to increase due to civilian ‘spent’ fuel reprocessing"
The various isotopes have half lives of 90 - 24,000 years.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.html
http://www.laandc.org/images/facts_myths.pdf

But plutonium poses no security or storage problems for future generations........... anyway all these facts are lies or irrelevant aren't they?

Hear no evil see no evil....selective blindness......

I'm done with this 'debate'.

Ben Rose,

“I have answered your 12 questions using true facts”

No you haven’t. You’ve posted piles of irrelevant statements and numbers. They are not relevant because you haven’t shown what difference they make to LCOE. You ignored that part of the question. Until you do you will not understand or accept that they are irrelevant.

You refuse to read the references I’ve posted. Until you provide alternative LCOE estimates and can justify them based on reputable, authoritative sources, all your postings of irrelevant, cherry picked numbers are meaningless.

“You have refused to answer any of my 15 points on nuclear issues, supported with 8 reputable references from which you could have learned quite a lot.”

We’ve been around the mulberry bush on all this over and over again. We never reached closure on any of the key points. So I suggested we focus on one issue first, debate that to closure, then get onto the next one. I posted this to try to reach closure on this one first:

1. The LCOE of a mostly nuclear powered electricity system is substantially less than the LCOE of a mostly renewable powered system.

You have neither accepted it is a true statement nor shown it is wrong. I’ve demonstrated it is correct. You raised lots of irrelevancies. So I posted the 12 questions to try to get you to focus on the point and to try to get you to understand. You’ve not answered those questions with a clear ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and if ‘No' you need to provide the alternative LCOE values and support it. Once we reach closure we can move onto your key point.

“You only debate on your own terms and refuse to hear anything that may refute your case. Some debater!”

I began on the assumption you were a scientist and honest. However, you’ve dodged and weaved and won’t address the issues. Prove I’ve misjudged you. Let’s reach closure on this one first then move onto yours.

Point under debate:

"The LCOE of a mostly nuclear powered electricity system is substantially less than the LCOE of a mostly renewable powered system. "

Could you please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the questions below. Where you answer ‘No’, please provide your alternative figure and the authoritative source for your figure):

1. eFuture http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios LCOE for default values with and without nuclear are: $85/MWh and $130/MWh respectively (i.e. LCOE of renewables 1.6 times higher than nuclear)

2. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are relatively trivial

3. Waste disposal and decommissioning LCOE; (nuclear $1/MWh, renewables $0.15/MWh)

4. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA basis, all risks included)

5. Nuclear accident insurance is relatively trivial compared with LCOE

6. Nuclear accident insurance is around $0.11/MWh

7. Transmission cost is not included in the AETA LCOE figures

8. Transmission costs are much higher for renewables than for nuclear (at high penetration for both).

9. Nuclear has demonstrated it can supply over 75% of the electricity to a large, industrial economy (e.g. France for 30 years)

10. Non-hydro renewables have not demonstrated they can supply a large proportion of the electricity to a grid in a large industrial economy

11. There is a significant risk that renewables will not be able to do the job (meet requirements at economically viable cost)

12. The ‘expected value’ of this risk, when added to the LCOE, would inflate the LCOE of the mostly-renewables grid by a very significant amount.

LCOE totals:

1. eFuture (excluding accident insurance, decommissioning, waste disposal, transmission, risk of technology being not able to meet requirements): $85 and $130

2. Include accident insurance, decommissioning and waste disposal: $86, $130

3. Include transmission: $88, $155

4. Include risk the technologies will not be available: $88, $200+ (depending on method of estimating consequences and probabilities).

Where you disagree, what are your alternative figures and the authoritative sources for them?

Peter Lang,

I agreed early in this 'debate' that nuclear is cheaper on an LCOE basis - up to $30 MWh assuming CSIRO'S calculator is close to the mark.

But now you are coming up with tripe figures out of your head - like you reckon transmission would add $25 to renewables but not nuclear. And then pull another $45 (!) out of the air for some amorphous 'risk' you perceive of non delivery, which you say apples only to renewables!

Meanwhile you ignore the risk of accidents like Fukushima - which ACTUALLY HAPPENED - and cost more than a 100% renewable electricity system for the whole of Western Australia. And you call yourself an engineer with integrity?

Peter, this is embarrassing. Next you'll be banging on about your theory that the cost of Fukushima was due to greenie gremlins and that's even more embarrassing.

Do yourself a favor and avoid digging yourself further into a hole of your own creation. Its not doing your reputation any good.

This thread is done - done - done. You can keep ranting on to yourself but I'm done.

Ben Rose,

You can run away and avoid admitting you are wrong - dead wrong. But that's one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty.

Fukushima is one accident in 60 years of nuclear power. It has not caused a single radiation induced fatality and unlikely to be any. I've already explained the costs of accidents are included in the insurance cost. I’ve already explained how risks should be managed by those best able to manage them, so the public purse is responsible for part of the cost. Reread it. The insurance cost covers the total risk. Furthermore it is a trivial cost. You can do a reality check. Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies. So insurance - on a level playing field - should be lowest for nuclear. This is the reason I've been urging you to come up with alternative LCOE figures if you believe mine are wrong. If you made the effort to do that you'd realise that with all costs included, nuclear is the least cost way to massively reduce GHG emissions from electricity. Without distortions, there'd be virtually no role for non-hydro renewables. That's the fact that's staring you in the face!

“But now you are coming up with tripe figures out of your head”

Why haven’t you provided your alternative LCOE estimates and the basis for it? Until you do that, we can’t debate rationally. I provide estimates from mostly authoritative sources (some are my own with links). But you don’t provide anything except cherry-picked irrelevant numbers. You have not provided them as LCOE so they can’t be compared. What is frustrating me is that you make unsupported, dismissive remarks about the numbers I’ve provided but you provide nothing relevant.

Your comparison of the cost of an accident and the cost of an RE system for WA is so silly it’s beyond belief that an educated person could be so befuddled.

You’re the one who should feel embarrassed, certainly not me – other than for pointing out the characteristics you’ve displayed so obviously throughout.

Ben Rose,

Until you can provide alternative LCOE figures where you disagree with mine and substantiate them with authoritative sources you cannot be taken seriously.

Just plucking irrelevant numbers that are not properly converted to LCOE, so all numbers are on a consistent basis, is meaningless.

You still haven’t read the references and made a serious attempt to engage and understand.

As for all your anti-nuke nonsense, it’s mostly irrelevant and has been refuted repeatedly in the credible literature. It demonstrates your ignorance about the subject. But you wouldn’t know because you read only that nonsense and won’t read what doesn’t support your ideological beliefs.

As I said, until you provide alternative values to the ones I summarised in points 1 to 12, you have no valid argument and no credibility. You’re just sprouting anti-nuke rhetoric. You’ve been wrong on all the main points relevant to the point under discussion. You haven’t been able to present relevant evidence to support your beliefs. You lost the argument.

Nuclear is the least cost way to reduce GHG emission from electricity.

You can run away and avoid admitting you are wrong - dead wrong. But that's one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty.

Ben Rose,

How embarrassed you must feel having agreed to debate this subject then having to run away with your tail between your legs because you lost on every point. You provided nothing of substance relevant to the points being debated. You couldn't refute any of my points. Instead you tried, bluff, avoidance, diversion and piles of unsubstantiated assertions and personal beliefs. Where you criticised my figures you couldn't provide any alternative figures. In fact you never even tried to do so. How embarrassing, eh?

You said:

"But now you are coming up with tripe figures out of your head - like you reckon transmission would add $25 to renewables but not nuclear. And then pull another $45 (!) out of the air for some amorphous 'risk' you perceive of non delivery, which you say apples only to renewables!

Meanwhile you ignore the risk of accidents like Fukushima - which ACTUALLY HAPPENED - and cost more than a 100% renewable electricity system for the whole of Western Australia. And you call yourself an engineer with integrity?"

The Fukushima figure you quoted is irrelevant. You haven't provided the accident risk as an LCOE figure. So it is irrelevant. Why pick Fukushima rather than any of the other ~400 NPPS's that haven't had an accident in 60 years - do you now understand why your assertions are nonsense? (Insurance companies don't estimate insurance rates on just the house that's been robbed or burnt down).

I am still waiting for you to produce alternative LCOE figures and justify them. You say my numbers are wrong, I'm talking nonsense and pulling numbers out of the air. Yet you've provided none. I'm sitting here waiting for you to produce alternative LCOE figures and the basis for them, then I'll critique them. I'll also give you the basis of estimate for the figures I gave.

Nuclear cost reduction potential and learning rates:

The potential to reduce costs of nuclear (e.g. by deregulating to facilitate private sector competition, innovation and R&D) is huge.

Professor Bernard Cohen, 1991 ‘Costs of Nuclear Power Plants – What Went Wrong?’ says regulatory ratcheting increased costs of nuclear power by a factor of 4 by 1990, http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html . It’s likely doubled again since.

Ramasb and Kohler, 2007, say:
<blockquote>Negative estimates have even been reported for technologies when they have been subject to costly regulatory restrictions over time (e.g. nuclear, …”

Schrattenholzer (2001) survey the evidence for energy technologies, showing that, in line with the more general results mentioned earlier, unit cost reductions of 20% associated with doubling of capacity has been typical for energy generation technologies, with the exception of nuclear power.</blockquote>”
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg0723.pdf .

According to Rangel and Leveque, 2013, ‘<i>Revisiting the Nuclear Power Construction Costs Escalation Curse</i>’ nuclear has averaged 4% cost increase per doubling in France and US. http://idei.fr/doc/conf/eem/papers_2013/leveque.pdf ,
http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2013/01/27/revisiting-the-cost-escalation-curse-of-nuclear-power-new-lessons-from-the-french-experience/ ,
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/TransitionstoNewTechnologies/06_Grubler_French_Nuclear_WEB.pdf (Figure 3)

Clearly something is preventing the cost reduction rates of other electricity generation technologies from applying to nuclear power. It’s regulatory ratcheting and the financial risk because of the damaging litigation the anti-nukes cause to the operators. There is a very high financial risk premium, which in turn is caused by the public’s irrational nuclear paranoia and the anti-nuke activists.

Allowable Radiation limits are set at the ‘<i>As Low As Reasonably Achievable</i>’ (ALARA) level instead of at the ‘<i>As High As Relatively Safe</i>’ (AHARS) level http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0 . Raising the limits could be the catalyst to get people to rethink the causes of their fear of nuclear power, http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf .

The US deregulation of drilling for oil and gas provides a relevant example of the effect of freeing up the private sector to innovate and compete. ‘<i>The Driving Force Behind the US Oil Boom<i/>’ http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Driving-Force-Behind-the-US-Oil-Boom.html shows how competition and innovation in all sizes of organisation down to the smallest niche specialists is reducing the costs. The same will happen when nuclear is appropriately deregulated.