Funny how the author didn't seem to catch the WNA report that said 60 new reactors were planned or under construction. The uranium price is certain to rebound. Also strange how sun drenched places like the UAE are building reactors when you think they'd have solar if it could do the job.

"Growth and competitiveness of renewable technologies" is only in the fevered imaginings of BAs. Those grounded in reality know that any "Green" incremental improvements are more than matched by incremental improvements of non-renewables.

The main game is energy stability in which renewables exhibit massive failure. Unstable often wildly so, supply is equivalent to NO supply, if you can't rely on it, it can't be used. A basic stabiliser, "Batteries" and even "Ultra Caps" all suffer from incapacity and Longevity problems. The long and short of it batteries are crap, go to any airport lounge and watch lost souls trying to find a GPO for a charger.

Distributed generation has a lot to say for it both technically, economically and strategically (defense). But if associated with volatility it defeats itself as it increases the need for centralised stabilisation.

I guess I don't have the benefit of having my views defined and fixed by my job. Mia is a 'nuclear free campaigner', I a humble retired scientist who simply tries to think logically according to my craft. To save me time, here's an example that I just sent off to a newspaper.

"Nine key leaders have answered The Australian’s questions about future prosperity (Steps to secure our future prosperity, Business Review, 20/11). Their responses on future energy are interesting but predictable. None is prepared to take the long term view that the electrification of transportation, the elimination of fossil fuels from industries like steel, cement and fertiliser production, the inevitable rise in energy requirements of mining as ores get deeper and poorer, and the emergence of new industries like carbon-free transport fuel manufacture will need a major increase in primary energy capacity that only nuclear power can offer.

It is clearly not the job of today’s industry leaders to plan for problems two or three generations away. So what do we hear from government via the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane? Avoidance is what we hear. No government leader is prepared to disturb the comfort of voters who imagine that the nation can run entirely on wind, sun and waves."

I guess Mia belongs to the latter category. Good luck with that. Her great-grandchildren will wonder what she was on.

Renewables are not sustainable: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/.

But nuclear is. There is sufficient nuclear fission fuel to supply all the world's energy requirements for a million years for 10 billion population using the same average per capita energy as the USA uses now - and that's with uranium only, not even including the 4x more abundant thorium; and then there's fusion. We are at the very beginning of nuclear development

For those who are concerned about GHG emissions, they need to embrace and advocate for nuclear power. Renewables can have little impact on reducing global GHG emissions. Nuclear has demonstrated it can supply 75-85% of the electricity for a large industrial country - it's been doing this in France for over 30 years. Non hydro renewables have not been able to demonstrate anything like this. Furthermore their effectiveness at reducing emissions per unit of electricity supplied decreases as their proportion of electricity increases.

And don't forget, nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity - i.e least fatalities per TWh (all accidents and risks included).

Nuclear is by far the cheapest way to reduce global emissions.

It's inevitable it will happen. Unfortunately, those who would like to be called 'Progressives' have been and are delaying progress.

The author is obviously not abreast of what China is doing or proposes. In his book, "Thorium, Energy cheaper than coal", physicist Dr Robert Hargraves has a section on China.
It starts;
CHINA
China is moving to reduce its dependence on coal for energy. Since 2006 China has shut down many small, inefficient, polluting coal plants that had generated 71 GW of power and released 165 million tonnes of CO2 per year. China is aggressively expanding its electric power generation using several new, advanced nuclear power technologies. These include the light water reactor technologies used in all US reactors, the heavy-water-moderated CANDU technology developed and used in Canada, the gas-cooled high-temperature pebble bed reactor first operated in Germany. and the liquid sodium metal cooled fast reactor being obtained from Russia.
China has 14 nuclear power plants in operation and 25 under construction, with a 2020 capacity of 60 GW(e), growing to 200 GW by 2030. For scale comparison, the Three Gorges hydropower project generates 18 GW.
China bases its nuclear expansion on Generation III LWRs.
China also has a domestic nuclear reactor and fuel industry, the China National Nuclear Corporation, which built LWRs. China contracted with Arena to build four of EPR (European Pressurized Water) reactors, two of which are under construction in Guangdong province, to deliver 1.66 GW, beginning operation in 2014.
China has employed Westinghouse to build four of its AP-1000: reactors, each capable of 1.1 GW net electric power generation Two of the four Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors are nearing completion. The World Nuclear Association reports the capital cost of $2/watt is expected to drop to $1.60/watt for further nuts,, Eight more AP-1001 reactors are planned and thirty more proposed China is also gaining intellectual property rights to this advanced technology, with the intention to become self-sufficient and an exporter of nuclear technology.

CHINA IS BUILDING COMMERCIAL PEBBLE BED REACTORS.
PBR technology was first developed in Germany, where the THTR- 300 thorium-fueled pebble bed reactor operated from 1983 to 1989. South Africa's established PBMR Pty, Ltd to develop such a commercial reactor, but ran out of funds in 2010 and the project ended. One attraction of the PBR is the inherent safety; at high temperatures U-238 absorbs more neutrons, enough to stop the fission chain reaction. Passive air-cooling removes fission product decay heat.
The first pebble bed reactor (PBR) in China became operational at Tsinghua University in 2003, based on technology from Germany's AVR reactor experiments in the 19608; China purchased AVR components and reassembled them. It is a 10 MW(t) high-temperature research reactor cooled by helium gas; the gas heats steam for a turbine generator. The Australian Broadcasting Company visited the HTR-10 pebble bed reactor in China to video its operation. Professor Zhang Zuoyi described the events as the reactor's helium cooling system was purposefully shut down to demonstrate on television the inherent safety of the pebble bed reactor fission. The temperature rose, causing U-238 in the fuel to absorb enough neutrons to stop the chain reaction, and the reactor vessel was then passively cooled by convection.
China is now building a 190 MW demonstration reactor power plant at Rongcheng. If successful, a total of 19 pebble bed reactors generating 3,600 MW will be constructed at that site.

RUSSIA IS SELLING TWO FAST REACTORS TO CHINA.
China has experimented with fast neutron breeder reactors at the China Institute. of Atomic Energy. An experimental 20 GW(e), sodium-cooled, pool-type reactor first went into production operation in 2011. The $350 million project aimed to accumulate experience in fast reactor operation and to be a facility to irradiate fuels and materials at high neutron energies.
Russia has operated its BN-600 sodium cooled fast neutron reactor successfully since 1980, and is now constructing an improved BN-800 880 GW reactor, slated for operation in 2012.

The Hargraves comment finishes;
The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics are collaborating with nuclear engineering experts at UC Berkeley, MIT, and U Wisconsin, especially with regard to safety assessment and licensing. One of the two 2 MW research reactors will be a molten salt cooled pebble bed reactor similar to the PB-AHTR design conceived at UC Berkeley. China already has capabilities to manufacture TRISO fuel pebbles such as used in their HTR-10 experimental reactor and Rongcheng pilot plant.
The university collaborators will develop independent models to predict the neutrons and thermal hydraulic behavior of the CAS reactor design such as reactivity, fuel and coolant temperatures. temperature reactivity feedback, and shutdown control rods. US students may spend time as interns at the CAS, where they may construct molten salt flow loops for materials testing.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the US Department of Energy have a Nuclear Energy Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding, with executive committee co-chairs Mianheng Jiang and Pete Lyons, DOE undersecretary for nuclear energy. Participants include scientists from INL, MIT, UC Berkeley, and ORNL.
The CAS and SIAP are hosting the 4th annual International Thorium Energy Organization conference, in Shanghai, October 29 to November 1, 2012.
The Theo announcement states:
China is taking the lead in exploring fresh approaches to nuclear fission in its quest for sustainable, environment- responsible energy that can be delivered reliably and in quantity. The Chinese initiated action to find viable energy sources significant enough to wean the country off its dependence on carbon-based energy. The large amounts of thorium being produced as a by-product of China's rare earth mining operations is a further incentive.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says in a government report published on March 5, 2012, that China will accelerate the use of new-energy sources such as nuclear energy and put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power.

Peter, renewables are certainly sustainable, giving a positive energy return even in cloudy Germany. In the article you linked to, John Morgan's arbitrary requirement of an EROEI of seven fails to take into account that it's investment of human effort, not energy, that's the limiting factor in what we're able to do.

Nuclear certainly has its advantages, but in sunny Australia they're unlikely to translate to an economic advantage for nuclear, at least until the population's much higher.

I would have expected that a Nuclear Free Campaigner would have a better understanding of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Apparently not.

1. The deal between the US and Russia to disarm nuclear weapons and divert nuclear materials for nuclear energy means FEWER nuclear weapons and MORE fuel for nuclear energy. The opposite of what the author said.

2. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is written by a disparate group of consultants and has nothing to do with the World Nuclear Industry per se. The material comparing nuclear power with renewable energy makes erroneous comparisons between installed capacities. And the claim that "Increased Renewables Generation Entailing Lower Power Prices" does not seem to be supported by Germany's high electricity costs compared to France. The claim that "The report projects a long term decline in the number of reactors after 2020" lacks credibility when compared to the World Nuclear Association reports http://www.world-nuclear.org/.

3. It is unclear on the author's view on the need to reduce GHG emissions, but most of the industrial world recognises that nuclear power is an essential part of the energy mix if we are to reach the reductions needed. The uranium industry has every reason to be optimistic about it's future.

Gotta love the way all the nuke proponents just ignore or brush aside the "elephant in the room", all the inherent dangers associated with every aspect of their pet, let alone the long-term problems and dangers/costs of disposal of the leftovers.
I'm not looking to discuss them either, they've been exposed often enough that if you cannot see or admit them already then nothing I say will make a skerrick of difference, will it?

Too, there isn't a single reactor anywhere that isn't heavily subsidised by the relevant Gov', usually hidden in a blizzard of paperwork, that's what supports their dodgy "profitability" or "cheap power".

Tombee, Peter Lang and Foyle; it makes a very pleasant change to read posts from the erudite and informed, as opposed to Ideologues, who patently aren't!
For mine, we need to just drop the tired old patent predilection for endless political posturing, postulating, prevaricating and promulgated prognostications, and replace all that proscribed polymerizing purple puke, (the government has no business in business) with bipartisan pragmatism and just get on with it.
A house divided is the only one that cannot stand! (And given divide and rule is the order of the day!)
And that is what we have here, and fed on a diet of exploited fear and ignorance; coupled to thespian theatre and political expediency; and dare one suggest, quite massive shareholdings in the fossil fuel industry? (Family, friends, family trusts?)
No not all our prevaricating pompous popinjay pollies are portly Clive Palmers, with controlling ownership of coal/fossil fuel interests!
But you'd be forgiven for believing too many are; based solely on current outcomes!
30% of us understand politics; another 30% economics, with all elections invariably decided by the entirely ignorant 40% who understand neither, let alone very basic science.
And when it comes to leadership on these most important energy questions, we'd likely get more common sense from a drovers dog!
At least he would know when it's too dammed hot; as opposed to warm and comfortable frogs being slowly brought to the boil!
Carbon free thorium and carbon neutral biogas would be my first two energy choices, and based solely on vastly better economic outcomes!
Cost matters!
Rhrosty.

Aidan and G'dayBruce,

I suggest you have not considered carefully what you've been reading. I suggest you are not challenging your beliefs by conducting carefully planned research to check the various assertions from different research, researchers, NGO's and other groups, many of whom are pushing agendas. To present a persuasive case you need to understand the requirements of the energy system then provide comparable figures for the options you are comparing. When you do that you find renewables do not stack up as better than nuclear on any of the key requirements. The primary requirements are energy security over the long term, reliability of supply and cost of electricity. Secondary requirements are health and safety and environmental impacts.You need to compare the options on a properly comparable basis: provide comparable figures and justify them. Otherwise it's just meaningless chatter.

Aidan, You do not understand. I suggest you read the source documents linked in John Morgan's post, And review the debate with a view to trying to understand. Don't cherry pick just the comments that support your beliefs. Human energy input is negligible compared with the energy from the various sources compared. It's just a red herring to raise that. Furthermore, EROEI needs to be greater that 14 to sustain a modern society which is more than any of the renewables are capable of. And that's now. Energy consumption per capita will continue to grow. So renewables are unsustainable, as I said.

G'dayBruce, You have a closed mind as your comment makes clear. You don't even want to consider you could be wrong, let alone conduct research that challenges the material that has persuaded you to believe as you do.

For decades the authoritative analyses have demonstrated that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity. That fact alone refutes much of your anti-nuke beliefs. And the subsidies are many times higher for renewables than nuclear on a per energy supplied basis.

.

An afterthought:
What possible difference can it make, if we as a race can destroy our planet 40 times over, or fifty!?
House of cards indeed!
If only the world were led by pragmatists, we'd continue to use up weapons grade fissile materials in far safer domestic power!
And in so doing, end the threat of mutually assured destruction!
But for now, our species and all oxygen breathing, plant or protein consuming lifeforms, are threatened by climate change!
We should act now while we still have time?
[And even then it surely will be a very close run thing!]
To reverse some of this money faced madness/moral turpitude.
Thank God for the Chinese, single government pragmatism and undeniable proof!
Anyone who believes we can get by selling coal to China or India, has to have rocks in the head or Shiite for brains!
Better we should take such advantages as we have as cheaper than coal thorium energy, and use that to build a long term high tech manufacturing base/future. And right here right now!
Who cares if a few foreign coal kings go broke? Stiff cheddar!
And that just has to mean governments getting back into the energy business, as opposed to trying to duck shove/sell off core responsibilities. Who do they serve?
If the public ownership model is broken then fix it!
And that is as simple as creating independent corporations and completely autonomous competing duopolies!
Stop with the elf evident micromanagement and take a good long hard look at the big picture, and inevitable outcomes!
Time for cool heads and timely pragmatic change!
If only to finally and logically, to resuscitate the non mining economy, that still needs to make and sell things!
And if you can't manage that, then look forward to many more one term governments!
Get real or get out! Or vote for pragmatism and cooperation in the selected leaders!
And wouldn't that make a nice change from the unprincipled power hungry? By their fruits ye shall know them!
Clearly our future is not in coal, but our ultimate annihilation may well be!
Rhrosty.

PL. you know full well there are endless "studies" and "reports" on BOTH sides of the nuke question, and virtually ALL of them are from vested interests of one side or another, which makes it meaningless to cherrypick bits and pieces to support any discussion.
That's why I'm not interested in constantly rehashing the same old stuff over and over.
I cannot help but wonder how much serious research and consideration YOU have devoted to anyone that disagrees with you yourself?

I do notice though that you prove my point about "the elephant in the room".
Or do you believe that radioactivity is harmless and that the mining, transport, use of, and disposal, of ore and processed uranium, let alone the residual waste of every step thereof, are entirely risk-free?
Would that it were so, but it ain't, and that's a fact even you can't change.
Too, I said nada about renewables, I'll save that for a different discussion, bar suggesting that it's a valid case of the "economies of scale", a sufficiently large and varied combination of generation types solves all the so-called "problems" claimed by the existing monopolies that are resisting such developments to protect their own artificial profit margins.

Peter, YOU do not understand. I did not and would not claim that human ENERGY input was significant. I was referring to human VALUE input.

EROEI itself is a red herring except when it's very low. And of course true EROEI (including fuel) is below 1 for all fossil fuel power.

Renewables have a lower running cost than nuclear or fossil fuels, and that running cost is still falling. That's their key advantage.

Though providing figures can be useful, it can also be worse than useless if they're based on incorrect assumptions.

G'dayBruce and Adian,

I am happy to have a rational debate with anyone who wants it. I don't believe either of you want it or are prepared to enter into a rational debate.

Steps:

1. Do you agree to participate in a rational debate and to the rules. I agree to abide by the three boxes here, Do you? http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

2. Do you accept and agree to follow the 10 signs of intellectual honesty and 10 sighs of intellectual dishonesty? : http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

3. Do you accept that for a rational debate we have to compare like with like? We must use the same units for comparison and the same methods for getting the figures to compare renewables and nuclear?

4. Do you accept the key criteria for comparison are:
a) energy security?
b) reliability of supply?
c) cost of electricity?

5. Do you agree that cost of electricity shall mean it includes all costs and benefits on a life cycle analysis basis and this includes all future risks (risk are cost x probability of occurrence)

6. Do you agree evidence must be from credible authoritative sources such as IEA, EIA, DOE, EPRI, OECD, NEA, WNA,WHO, BREE, UK DECC, ExternE, NEEDS and similar authoritative sources.

Nice try PL but no.
Simply put, stats and vested interests have muddied the waters beyond rationality, the big power generators are completely unreliable for factual data, as are governments, which renders any other investigation or source of evaluation meaningless.
Despite your imputation the fact that I or anyone else won't play your game does NOT reflect badly on our opinions or outlook, nor does it detract from their validity, in my case it simply means I've done that to death and have realised the futility thereof.

Meanwhile....LOOK....ELEPHANT....over there...behind you! :lol:

"IEA chief economist Faith Bristol"?! Try Fatih Birol, Mia.

Says it all.

Peter,

I am prepared to enter into a rational debate. However I do have some reservations about those conditions you posted:

Firstly, although I recognise that some sources are far superior to others, scarcity of information is likely to be our most serious problem and I'm concerned that restricting our information to the most authoritative sources would prevent us from being able to reach any conclusion, even a contingent one.

Secondly, if anyone cheats, the rational thing wouldn't be to terminate the discuss in a huff, but rather to alert them to it and ask them to rectify it.

Aidan,

I agree with your second point. The way I propose to handle that is raise it, the other person accept or disagree for stated reasons. Then, if discussion is needed, we state we've move into 'Committee' until it is resolved and we reach closure on it. That's sort of what happens in Parliament when the House moves into 'Committee.

On your first point I agree, too, except, it is important we stay focused and rely on authoritative sources. Sources like Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, ACF, and many of the reports from university professors are simply not authoritative. We'd spend for ever arguing about what's worth debating. Let's give it a go and handle disagreements about authoritative sources by going into 'Committee' if we need to.

Do I interpret correctly that you agree with items 2, 3,4 and 5?

Interesting tactic Pl, you get to determine which are the sources to be considered authoritative?
Just so I'm clear, would you care to nominate which anti-nuclear sources you consider suitably authoritative?
Or does being anti automatically define them as not being so?
Just asking.

Watch out for that elephant over there in the corner while you're at it too!

To read the comments from the pro nuclear lobby, one would think that Mia Pepper is alone, in having reservations about the future of the uranium and nuclear industries.

However, the influential international business journal, Forbes, shares her views, warning that the recent brief lift in uranium prices is a "dead cat bounce". To quote Forbes:

- "For anyone unfamiliar with market slang a dead-cat bounce is the height a cat rises off the footpath after falling 20 floors – it’s an irrelevant recovery, and the cat’s still dead". And Forbes goes on to list its reasons for pessimism about the industry. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2014/11/17/uranium-is-hot-but-not-for-investors/

ChristinaMac1.

The spot price of uranium is totally irrelevant. facts:

1. Prices of commodities rise and fall. Iron ore price has dropped by 50% recently. Oil and gas prices have dripped by over 50% in the USA.

2. the price oif uranium is effecitely irrelevant to the cost of ncuelar generated electricity. Fuel cost is lesss tha 5% of the cost of electricity. it could double or tripple and make litte difference to the price of electricity. However, if gas prices double or tripple, the cost of electricty also nearly doubles or tripples (not quite, but you get the picture)

3. Nuclear is by the cheapest way to reduce emissions.

4. Nuclear is the fastest way to make large reductions to global GHG emissions this century

5. Nuclear is the only energy source that is sustainable for the long term

6. Nuclear power is the safest way to reduce emissions: See "he influential international business journal, Forbes":
"How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

So if you are concerned about GHG emissions, or health and safety, or improving human well-being globally you should be advocating for nuclear power.

There is simply no rational, objective justification for the fear-mongering, or for your paranoia about nuclear power. To oppose nuclear power or advocate against it is irrational.

I wonder what the 22 odd new reactors being commissioned and many more planned in china will do to this silly thread.

Aidan,

Let’s begin with the cost issue because it is the easiest to deal with quantitatively?

I argue:

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

I provide costs from authoritative sources below. Could you please say if you accept or dispute these figures by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the questions. Where you answer ‘No’, please give 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, $150

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?