How come nuclear deprived Germany and Japan are going backwards while pronuclear China is forging ahead?

Jim: if this bloke annoys you so much why do you keep reading his stuff? Alan Jones annoys me so I don't listen to him and then I don't get annoyed. It would seem the logical course of action.

Cheers,

Tony

Yes it is a wonder why Jim has bothered to nail/expose Kemeny here - given little chance nuclear power will be voted in in Australia for decades. Coal and gas power stations will rule for decades - with a small percentage of renewable solutions.

Can't wait for Kemeny's rebuttal on OLO.

When you can't beat the argument, play the man eh?

Jim and his FoE mates are past masters at these sorts of tricks.

Jim Green,

How do you argue with these two key facts:

1. Nuclear power is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies. Furthermore, it is about 10 to 100 times safer (ExterneE) or 150 times safer (Forbes summary of authoritative studies) than coal which is the main alternative to nuclear power for most of the world's electricity generation. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

2. There is no other viable alternative if we want economically viable, low emissions energy supply.

This http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf shows how much more expensive renewables would be compared with nuclear to supply the power the Australian National Electricity Market. This compares several options on the basis of CO2 emissions avoided (Fig 5) and Capital Cost, Cost of Electricity and CO2 abatement costs (Figure 6).

Mr Kemeny's article makes the point that

"Australia is a country hungry for energy and thirsty for water."

Nuclear electricity needs to be put in perspective - electricity is but one form of energy, and has limited application to transport. These sweeping generalisations are grand, but it's a bit like saying that Australia is a country hungry for transport, implying that trains will solve the problem of transport, or that maybe more panel vans are the solution.

Don't get me wrong. Trains and panel vans both have their significant roles.

Nuclear electricity needs to be put in perspective. It is an exceptionally complicated technology, embedded in an international system of expertise and technical and political regulation.

The unprecedented degree of state and international oversight is mandated by the perhaps low but nevertheless real and demonstrated risk of catastrophe and threat.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are stark reminders of catastrophe. To write off the social dislocation and suffering they have caused by claiming that few people have died is to selectively ignore the actions of governments who must make grim choices to protect their citizens in the face of an internationally acknowledged threat of radioactivity, and the real consequences of exposure to ionising radiation.

And it's worth remembering the military destruction of reactors in the middle-east and Vietnam. Not to mention the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, associated with states such as Iran and North Korea, and Pakistan.

Somehow, to me, an energy source that can produce such catastrophic conseqences and dire threats is arguably neither clean nor green.

Oh, and I nearly forgot: nuclear electricity generation requires large amounts of water for cooling, in a country hungry for water.

Mr Kemeny's article can be read in all its glory at
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/nuclear-is-clean-energy-20130110-2cinm.html#ixzz2JJLbzsBO

Thanks Jim, for bringing it to folks' attention. In my opinion, Mr Kemeny and his associated lobbies are newsworthy.

Sir Vivor,

>"Somehow, to me, an energy source that can produce such catastrophic conseqences and dire threats is arguably neither clean nor green."

Where are these catastrophic consequences and dire consequences? Any examples? What is your objective basis for determining that a accident is "catastrophic" or "dire threat" if it is not on the basis of fatalities, health effects, or other measurable consequences?

Have you considered whether perhaps you are suffering from radiation phobia?

>"Chernobyl and Fukushima are stark reminders of catastrophe. To write off the social dislocation and suffering they have caused by claiming that few people have died is to selectively ignore the actions of governments who must make grim choices to protect their citizens in the face of an internationally acknowledged threat of radioactivity, and the real consequences of exposure to ionising radiation. "

The evacuations and disruption are a response to the widespread nuclear paranoia in the community. The evaccuations are not a rational or objective response. We don't evacuate hundreds of thousands of people when far more dangerous toxic chemicals are leaked. The evacuation response is a response by governments which in turn respond to the widespread nuclear phobia in the community.

And guess why there is widespread nuclear phobia in the community? It is a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear scaremongering by doomsayers like Jim Green and you. Guys like you are causing the cost of nuclear accidents to be so high. It is not the actual damage, but the irrational response to it. It is also the anti-nuclear doomsayers who have caused global CO2 emissions to be some 10% to 20% higher now that they would have been if not for 50 years of anti-nuke activism delaying progress on development of nuclear power and increasing its cost unnecessarily.

The facts are clear, nuclear is about the safest way to generate our electricity and is the least cost way to make substantial cuts to CO2 emissions from electricity.

The anti-nuke doomsayers have a lot to answer for for the damage they have caused to the planet.

"he continually denigrates opponents", isn't that what the author has done throughout this piece? We need an actual factual debate about nuclear energy in Australia, instead of Anti-Nuclear scare mongering/Pro-Nuclear cherry picking!

Jim,

The bottom line in this debate is that the physics of nuclear energy is absolutely on Lelie's side. If the fearful prognostications of the man made CO2 climate crisis are true, or even probably true as you undoubtedly advocate then it is only a matter of time and the sooner Australia realises this the better off it will be.

Nuclear energy does not need water!
The latest examples are cooled with helium!
Pebble reactors can be mass produced in factories and then trucked onsite, to begin providing power within days. As demand increases, more modules can be trucked out and simply bolted on!
Pebble reactors can lose all their coolant without melting down, thanks to the design features of the carbon encased fuel capsules.
Had this technology been applied to either Chernobyl or Fukushima, disaster could have been avoided or prevented!
Coal-fired power stations spew out their own cocktail of contaminants, including uranium, lead, mercury, cadmium and other heavy metal or highly toxic oxides!
There's an interesting book written on nuclear power, titled, thorium cheaper than coal.
Fossil fuel prices can only rise with depletion.
Even so, we have enough known thorium to power the world for 600 years!
When green advocates talk about renewables, their options are usually limited to solar voltaic and wind turbines.
It's no accident that these two are also the most expensive options!
In reality, the green agenda is simply anti development?
And or, a highly romanticised return to agrarian economies, and the dawn to dark gut-bust, that made them barely possible!
They have acted for decades as a virtual handbrake on Indigenous economic development and or economic self sufficiency?
And they would allow famine and epidemics to rage unattended, sans any assistance.
Too many people and natures reaction, is the usual response, or dehumanising calloused indifference, not seen since the decline of the third Reich?
Our economic wealth was purchased with cheap energy, and will be resuscitated and revived, with more of the same!
Rhrosty.

There is one point of which no one seems to be aware.
Food production needs very large amounts of energy, more than will ever
be attained from solar and wind.

If we can't make hot rocks geothermal work then we only have nuclear.
To support the worlds population of 7 billion or even at half what it
is now will require very large amounts of electricity.

In the 19th century multi furrow ploughs and other machines were
pulled back and forth across paddocks by steam tractors.
We will have to replace them with electric winches or overhead wires.
It is either that or we forget industrial farming and all go back to
working the land and let 6 billion starve.

They are the only choices you have.
How many years do you have to make the choice ?

Peter Lang, I thought I made clear that I was talking about "social dislocation and suffering".

The followinginformation may interest you and/or other readers, in this regard:

Chernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Economic_and_political_consequences
Economic and political consequences
It is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.[2] In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).[119] On-going costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[119] Much of the current cost relates to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.[119]

Fukushima
http://www.devast-project.org/img/project/events/pdf/Dasha_Mokhnacheva_slides.pdf

This puts the evacuee figure at about 160,000, and a map shows an area of 600 square km or more, designated as a restricted zone. My short search has not revealed any of the detail such as is given above, but hardly two years has passed, compared to over 25, for Chernobyl.

As for radiation phobia, perhaps you can recommend a psychiatrist who is competent to diagnose this illness. If Belarusian and Japanese citizens have suffered this, I'm not surprised.

As for your opinions as to the cause of radiophobia, they are opinions, not facts. Do you understand the difference?

Sir Vivor,

You either misunderstood or ignored the point in my previous comment. Most of the damage costs of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are due to the irrational response (as I explained). The irrational response is a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear doom-saying by people like Jim Green, and the so-claimed Environmental NGO's such as Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc.

As I said in my previous comment, these anti-nuclear activists are responsible for massive damage to the planet and millions of avoidable fatalities. To put a figure on this, if nuclear replaced coal for electricity generation, globally, doing so would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year. (Of course doing so is not possible overnight, but remember that there are some 50 years over which time nuclear power would have produced a lot more electricity than it has, avoided a lot of CO2 emissions, avoided a lot of fatalities, and be more advanced than it is now. We'd be well positioned for a faster roll out across the world to cut GHG emissions at the rate advocated).

These are some examples of the sort of damage and destruction the anti-nuke activists are responsible for. The effects of their irrational and irresponsible actions have caused damages in the past, are doing so now, and the delays in development so far will cause ongoing delays for many decades to come, even if the anti-nuke activists immediately reversed their position and became enthusiastic advocates, the effects of what they've done in the past 50 years will be felt for many decades in the future, perhaps for centuries.

They sure have a lot to answer for!

The values of these people are repugnant. But once a person gets a belief like this, and closes their mind to the possibility they could be wrong, they just cannot see it, can they?

Mr Lang, I don't believe I missed your point.

You responded to my comment, and I gave you an entry into the evidence of massive social dislocation and suffering caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes. That is part of what I was highlighting, in my initial comment. I acknowledged that radiation phobia may be a diagnosable medical condition.

If you sincerely believe that the Chernobyl and Fukushima locations were evacuated because of irrational fears of radiation,then there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

Personally, I think it's important to distinguish fact from opinion. Otherwise, one risks being the captive of superstitions, which are in the end analysis, just wierd opinions.

If you really believe that there is negligible radiation hazard in the excluded zones around those two places, then you may be able to make a killing on real estate, if you are willing to gamble on your opinions. Perhaps you would like to travel to one place or both, to have a look at what would be investing in.

It would be very good for any power debate for everyone to have the experience I have had, & am in fact still having.

I have had no power for over 80 hours.

The Bar B Que developed a gas leak, so nothing at all hot, for 20 hours. That until flooding allowed access to Beaudesert for a spare part.

Limited availability of fuel means we have had only 35 hours of running a small generator.

The generator would not start the fridge or freezer, only a 1 cubic foot camping fridge. What food was saved ran out after 40 hours.

No decent water flow, just a dribble at the tank, & none hot. Talk about stinky.

The dog & cat hate me. They don't like baked beans.

I now don't give a damn how it is generated, or delivered, but with out power, life is hell. Give the vast majority no power for a few days, & they will agree.

More to above.

Ice at our service station ran out before fuel. None got in even yesterday.

I am typing this on the generator, as we cool the camp fridge, to keep the milk we got today cool.

Please people on TV & radio, don't suggest we check things on the net. It was down for about 20 hours. We don't have fuel to run the generator to run the computer, & the mobile things are very low on power, & being saved for further emergency.

Energex have promised power by 1.00 PM today. This is their third promise, I hope they keep this one.

Hasbeen, I'm with you!
If any of these city central green advocates actually experienced life without power, they'd soon change their broken record rhetoric.
If all the frozen food on the super market shelves thawed, because of lack of energy or fuel for the emergency generator. they'ed go ballistic?
I doubt they'ed be too bothered if all the meat went off, given they're likely to be vegan tree huggers, but milk and eggs going off, would likely be a different story?
It's said that hydrogen will be a fuel of the future?
However, making it with coal fired power would be entirely counter productive!
I personally can't see the point, when we can grow algae.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb up to 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2 emission!
Under optimised conditions, quite literally double that absorption capacity and oil production potential, every 24 hours!
Moreover, some types will naturally produce, ready to use as is, diesel or jet fuel.
And we make enough biological waste, converted to methane, to power every home, and much more reliably, than Ergon! Currently, we inject power into it, just to pump it out to sea, where it does nothing but harm, to a surprisingly fragile and finely balanced marine environment!
It's amazing just how much we now rely on power, just to live.
I could install some solar cells and a wind turbine, nonetheless, would still have to power up the genie at night or on a cloudy windless day; or install lots of extremely expensive batteries, which then would contribute to a growing E-waste problem!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

I just posted this on the other thread.
I think we are approaching a point where a decision will be imperative.
If our peak demand is around 30 Gwatt we will need to build x number
of nuclear power stations by the time coal production has declined to
the point it is no longer economic to run coal fired power stations.
With peak coal around 2025, we would need the first nuclear to be on
line about that time, then as coal production decreased, we would
need to install a replacement of one coal fired station at a time.

How long will it take to build and commission one nuclear station ?
I have seen figures like five to twenty years.
I presume that the first ones will take longer.
Would it be possible to convert coal fired to nuclear, that would save
some money.

Can you see the problem I am pointing out ?
We need to start now on building the first replacement power station.
That will enable us to train the engineers and operation people to
run these plants. A new industry like this takes years to crank up.

As I pointed out, if we do not take steps to keep our electrical
energy production up we have no choice but to start diverting people
leaving school into agricultural courses.

Whether the plants are hot rocks geothermal or nuclear does not affect
the argument but we do have to start NOW !

There are some experienced power station people on here, I would like
to hear their comment on this proposal.

Sir Sivor,

Your numbers are meaningless without context.

You’ve selected some numbers and say “massive social dislocation and suffering caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes.”

But you’ve provided no context for your numbers so they are meaningless. Examples of context you should provide are:
• How many fatalities and what is the total damage costs of nuclear accidents to date
• Divide this by the amount of electricity generated by nuclear to date to get fatalities and a damage cost per TWh
• Compare these figures with equivalent figures from other sources of electricity generation (hint: fatalities per TWh: nuclear 0.09, coal 60 world average)
Then provide context by telling us:
• How many fatalities has nuclear avoided world wide so far (hint: around 2.5 million - rough estimate in my head)
• What’s the value of that (hint: about $1 trillion – in my head)
• How much CO2 has been avoided (hint: about 50 Gt CO2)
• Value: at $10/t CO2 = $500 billion
• Value of cheaper electricity: around $500 billion
• Benefits: Higher GDP growth, better health systems, education, infrastructure, reduced population growth rate.

What is the value of all that? >$3.5 trillion?

How do your damage costs stack up when put in context of the benefits, eh?

The “social dislocation and suffering you refer to is due to the evacuation, not to health effect of radioactive contamination. Therefore, a rational person might consider the response, massive and permanent evacuation, is irrational. It may be better to give people the option and the facts on the risks and allow them to make their own choice.

>“Personally, I think it's important to distinguish fact from opinion. Otherwise, one risks being the captive of superstitions, which are in the end analysis, just wierd opinions.”

Exactly. You might want to consider your advice. And tie facts with rational arguments. Just because you source figures somewhere doesn’t mean you understand how they were derived. So what you call ‘facts’ and how you apply them to argument is actually just your interpretation, your opinion..

Baz,

Thank you for telling us about your real world experiences with the extended power outage. It should be an eye opener for many. It raises the question: what would happen if we had a systemic electricity systems failure. No power means: no water supply in cities, no petrol pumps working so you can’t escape from the city, no access to money, no ATM’s, no transactions system so no shops, no food. Majority of city dwellers would be dead within a week. That is how vital a reliable electricity system is.

Regarding nuclear replacing coal in Australia:

20 GW of nuclear, about 15 GW of gas and 7 GW of hydro generating capacity would provide all the NEM’s electricity demand. It would meet peak demand with about 20% spare capacity. The nuclear would meet all the baseload plus some intermediate load with capacity to spare for unplanned and planned maintenance outages.

Construction could begin in about 2023 and be complete by about 2040 by replacing coal fired power plants when they reach the end of their economic lives.

At current costs for nuclear compared with new coal capacity, the subsidy required to make this happen might be in the order of $20 billion over about the first 10 years. It will be self sustaining and cheaper, requiring no further subsidy, after the first few plants. That is less than we’ve already committed for renewable energy which will achieve next to nothing.

Construction time in China, Korea, Japan is around 3.5 to 4 years. 5 years in USA for new plants. But several plants are normally under construction on one site at once. We can build in NSW, Victoria and Qld at the same time. So, the potential build rate is not the constraint. The constraint is the rate the coal fired plants reach the end of their economic lives (i.e. when it becomes cheaper to replace the coal with a new nuclear plant than keep the coal plant operating). That partly depends on the rate that nuclear power costs comes down.

What Peter Lang said...

And said again... several more times, always supported by facts.

Sure beats unsupported, emotionally argued opinion.

Regarding the lead article, I'd much prefer to heed a retired academic, even a right wing one with foibles, than to swallow the blatant and foul character assasination attempt from this author, whose obvious personal bias is derived, at least in part, from the source of his income.

Peter Lang said;
Thank you for telling us about your real world experiences with the extended power outage

err it wasn't me that had the power fail problem, it was Hasbeen.
The amount of energy used to provide us with food is ten times the
energy we get from our food. At present most of this comes from oil
products such as diesel and bunker fuel, gas & coal.
To add all that onto the electrical system will mean we might have to
generate twice the amount of electricity that we now produce.

As far as I know no one has done any calculations on that nightmare.
If we don't have as much energy as we have now we will have many less
people in the world and a lower standard of living.
Somewhere I have the figures that might enable a rough calculation on
how much electricity we will need to do what we now do with oil, gas
coal and electricity.
Hmmm what have I said !

Mr Lang, your facts do not address the low-probability high-risk nature of nuclear electricity generation.

The demonstrated catastrophes at Chernobyl and Fukushima are enough evidence to suggest to me that perhaps their probability is not so low as the theoreticians would like to have you believe.

If I were you, I would put my effort into arguing for technology that is not so pernicious in its failure.

It makes far more sense to me to phase out of coal generator electricity and into technologies that are nuclear proliferation-proof and more environmentally sustainable than one that produces nuclear waste (which still wants a proper storage technology)and a risk of uninsurable catastrophe. Wind generation solar generation, smart electricity grid networks, all of these are developing and being deployed while the boffins scratch their heads about what to do with the radioactive waste generated to date.

I can understand how someone might have a diagnosable condition called radiation phobia, and I can understand how mass panic would result from unknown but dire consequences, such as might be anticipated from the the explosions at Fukushima Daiichi, especially given the failure of TEPCO executives to speak honestly with the evacuees.

What I can't understand is why anyone would persevere in defending an obsolete 20th century technology, in the 21st century.

Sir Vivor,

Sorry for misspelling your name in my previous comment.

In you previous comment you said:

>“Personally, I think it's important to distinguish fact from opinion. Otherwise, one risks being the captive of superstitions, which are in the end analysis, just wierd opinions.”

Your emotional and fact free arguments, opinions and beliefs show you are not applying your own advice? Here are some examples:

>”Mr Lang, your facts do not address the low-probability high-risk nature of nuclear electricity generation. “

I said nothing about the low-probability of accidents. You raised issues about the consequences of the only two serious accidents that have occurred in 56 years and15,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations. I showed that what you think are “massive social dislocation and suffering”, are in fact small compared with the overwhelming benefits of nuclear power. Furthermore, the consequences (social disruption) would be far less if not for the effect of 50 years of anti-nuclear scaremongering.

>” If I were you, I would put my effort into arguing for technology that is not so pernicious in its failure.”

That is exactly what I am doing, as the facts I’ve provided clearly demonstrate. But your comment demonstrates you prefer emotive scare-mongering and have a closed mind to facts. You prefer the nonsense spread by that anti-nuclear activists/doom-sayers.

Your beliefs about renewables are baseless. They are not based on facts; see Figures 5 and 6 here: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf .

What a pile of emotional drivel your comment is; some of your words and phrases::
• Catastrophes
• pernicious in its failure
• uninsurable catastrophe
• mass panic
• unknown but dire consequence
• explosions

>” What I can't understand is why anyone would persevere in defending an obsolete 20th century technology, in the 21st century.”

A silly, emotional comment. All technologies improve. Hydro, Wind, solar thermal engines and coal are all hundreds of years old. Hydro is the oldest electricity generation technology. Are you suggesting it should be discarded. Solar PV has been around for the same length of time as nuclear electricity generation. Should we ban it.
Your comment is nonsense.

Mr Lang,

Your comments make me wonder that no-one has thought to coin the term "greenphobia". In any case, I doubt that it would be a medically diagnosable condition, though it might brighten up a few quiet moments.

As I said before, your argument does not address the matter of low-probability high-consequence incidents.

If you have been following the news, you may note that all the new Boeing Dreamliners have been grounded, because of a minor technicality.

Why should I digress to mention this fact? Because we both know that air travel is much safer than automobile travel, just as, according to your evidence, there are arguably fewer historical fatalities attributable to nuclear electricity generation than to coal powered electricity generation.

The problem lies in the impact of the catastrophe when it occurs. No-one likes an airplane accident. If you have travelled by plane since 2011, you will have noticed the assiduous measures being implemented almost everywhere, to avoid airplane crashes due to human malevolence.

I believe you probably agree that low-frequency, high-consequence incidents are to avoided and worked agains at all costs. We don't want passenger planes crashing, nor dams failing, nor power stations blowing up. And when catastrophes happen, we don't want them releasing radioactivity and making people sick, and downwind areas uninhabitable. To me, it's just common sense.

Is it the word "radioactivity" that makes nuclear catastrophes different, for you? Perhaps you are the one who has radiophobia, but are in denial. Should you ask your GP for a referral?

Hasbeen,

Thank you for your comment on the consequences of the power outages you’ve suffered. Sorry for wrongly attributing your comment to Bazz.

Bazz,

>” At present most of [the energy for food production] comes from oil products such as diesel and bunker fuel, gas & coal. To add all that onto the electrical system will mean we might have to generate twice the amount of electricity that we now produce.

As far as I know no one has done any calculations on that nightmare.”

These calculations have been done many times by many people. It is very clearly explained in the book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” by Professor David MacKay, now Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. The book is well presented on line here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Professor Barry Brook leads you through the calculations in a short article here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/11/tcase3/ . In short, he calculates:
>”2050 power demand will be ~10 TWe of electrical generating power — a 5-fold increase on today’s levels”.

Hasbeen says:
> ”If we don't have as much energy as we have now we will have many less people in the world and a lower standard of living.”

This is a furphy. We have effectively unlimited energy. There is sufficient nuclear fuel to supply all the energy requirements of far larger populations at US per capita consumption rates for hundreds or thousands of years. And transport fuels can be made using nuclear power (although currently high cost compared withy fossil fuels).
Here is one interesting idea: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

> ”Somewhere I have the figures that might enable a rough calculation on how much electricity we will need to do what we now do with oil, gas coal and electricity.”
See URLs above.

Sir Vivor,

> ”As I said before, your argument does not address the matter of low-probability high-consequence incidents. “

Yes it does. I pointed out how you must provide context for consequences and gave you examples. Re-read my previous comments. It seems you are ignoring the answers and facts I’ve given you.

Peter, thanks for those links.
Five times the present generation is a frightening project.
I wonder if the better efficiency of most electrical systems might
mean that less than five times might be possible.

The other consideration is that it is already too late to undertake a
project of that size now as the financial system can no longer fund
such an enormous credit based project ?
We are in a time of near zero growth and if as expected growth does
not recover, how could it be financed ?

Can you see most European countries being able to finance the tearing
down of their present power stations and replacing them with five
times the number of nuclear stations.
It could be a bit less as the stations could be bigger than the existing ones.

Sorry, I could be mistaken, but I think we are too late.
Invest in shovels, hoes & ploughs !

Bazz,

I guess you didn't read the links, eh?

Certainly, it is not feasible to do this by 2020, which is what BZE argued is possible in their Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 report. But by 2050 is near the realms of achievable if there really in the need to do so. The cost for the electricity part could be significantly cheaper than simply continuing with ongoing replacement of fossil fuel plants that we have to do anyway (and many times cheaper than renewable energy). That means a net saving, not an increase in cost. We just need to remove the impediments to low cost nuclear power. It is going to happen one day anyway. The sooner the better.

I agree the ramp up to replace transport fuels and gas for heating is probably not realistic in that time frame, but who can foresee what is possible in 40 years? After all, there is enormous room to reduce the cost of nuclear power once we start producing modular nuclear power plants like these off production lines (like aircraft are manufactured): http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library/Design%20Specific/mPower/Presentations/2012%20-%20Reactor%20Design%20Overview.pdf

Or these which can produce hydrogen and, when combined with CO from CO2, can produce liquid fuels for transport: http://www.uxc.com/smr/uxc_SMRDetail.aspx?key=HTR-PM

Regarding replacements for liquid fuels, US Navy research indicates that harvesting H2 and CO from seawater and using them as feedstocks will result in jet fuel for about $3 to $6 per US Gallon, ie about $0.8 to $1.6 per litre.

As Peter indicated, none of this can happen in a decade, but several decades could make a huge difference. Maybe airlines, trucks, ships and non-electric trains will be carbon neutral by 2050.

The electricity could come from either nuclear power stations or renewables, with the proviso that it must be fairly reliable because the process is continous.

Here's a link to one article. http://defensetech.org/2012/10/02/converting-sea-water-to-navy-jet-fuel/

Peter, yes I did read the links, and the time scale I was speaking of
was to 2050. In another post I had postulated that the first large
nuclear station would be up and running by world peak coal 2025, and
then the rest would be installed over the period to 2050.

I was shocked at the need for 5 times present capacity.
That is one big crankup in a new industry, and can it be done
technically and financially ?

Bazz,

>“That is one big crankup in a new industry, and can it be done technically and financially ?”

I have no idea, and haven’t tried to work it out. Because, IMO, we don’t need to do anything like that. Just replacing most coal electricity generation globally would reduce global emission by 13 Gt CO2 in 2050. That is the same as William Nordhaus’s ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy is projected to achieve (assuming all his assumptions are achieved) http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf. You can see a summary of his assumptions here: http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373

I’d add that small modular nuclear power plants, built in factories and returned to factory for refuelling, and shipped to site in a large container, could be produced as fast as large passenger air liners. The USA was building aircraft carriers in 100 days in 1943. That is 100 days from the very start of laying the keel to fully complete and loaded with aircraft and weapons. That demonstrates what the industrial countries can do when they want to. USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China, Korea and Japan are all nuclear capable now. What will be the capability over the next 40 years? Who knows?

For an excellent example of nuclear phobia and anti-nuclear extremism see here: http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/ben-heard-decarbonisesa

This is the sort of complete tripe being pedaled by that anti-nukes.

Peter, I was not really concerned about CO2, my concern was world
peak coal around 2025 together with the decline in the quality decrease
in the coal. The steepness of the decline will be increased as the
quality declines.
For the same electricity output more coal has to be mined.
A rate of our exports would affect the rate at which we would have to
build new stations. Why give ourselves an increased burden just to
ease other countries same burden ?

Bazz,

Thanks for the comment. I understand where you are coming from. I haven't looked into 'peak coal'.

Mr Lang,

The context you keep asking for is something I believe I provided in my post of Tuesday, 29 January 2013 8:03:05 PM.

Chernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Economic_and_political_consequences
Economic and political consequences
It is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.[2] In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).[119] On-going costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[119] Much of the current cost relates to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.[119]

The references (eg [119]) are available at the Wikipedia link. You are welcome to go after the Wikipedia references one by one, if you like, and argue the toss. After all, many people consider Wikipedia a very second-rate encyclopedia. I consider it a reasonable entry point into currently ongoing discussions.

The Wikipedia article suggests to me that Chernobyl is arguably the straw that broke the camel's back (the camel in this case being the USSR). Of course with any global government or high technology, the cause of a failure is usually multifactorial, and one can advocate ad nauseum for one's pet factor. Some people even get upset about lithium batteries that do not work properly. "For want of a nail ..." and so on.

One take-home message from the link is that crippling, immediate and ongoing costs of Chernobyl and Fukushima can be counted in money that need not have been spent, and in social dislocation and suffering that need not have happened.

Chernobyl could have been avoided, except the USSR boffins thought that making steam with radioactive boilers was a good idea.

Ivor, it doesn't really matter what is the cost of nuclear.
If it or Geothermal is all we have, then if we cannot afford it the
answer is buy a farm.
It now seems to be clear that solar and wind cannot have a nameplate
capacity 20 times our present generating capacity plus storage five
times our present generating capacity.

Either such capacity will not be available or we will not be able to
afford it.
If nuclear is not to be used then we have until about 2025 to install
the first solar and/or wind capacity 20 times the size of the first
larger power station to be closed,together with storage five times larger.
Then keep repeating that exercise until all coal fired stations are closed.

If coal quality falls quicker than expected then this timetable would have to be accelerated.

Remember we are to cater as well for all the energy previously supplied by oil & gas.

Mr Lang,

This item came up, on lithium batteries and grounding of aircraft fleets, and naturally I thought of you.

You seem to have gone quiet. I fully expected to give you the last word. Have you shifted your focus to another thread, perhaps one on the green conspiracy to destroy the air travel industry?

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_02_04_Will_Boeings_787_Battery_Issues_Ground_Electric_Vehicles

Oh. And here's another interesting set of readings. Seems not all the Fukushima alarmists were tree-huggers. Some of them even run a nuclear navy:

PROMETHEUS TRAP (1): U.S. frustrated with Japan's initial response to Fukushima
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301280006

PROMETHEUS TRAP (2): U.S. officials feared for loved ones still in Japan
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301300006

PROMETHEUS TRAP (3): Japanese ambassador felt something not right before State Department meeting
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302010004

PROMETHEUS TRAP (4): U.S. official sought 'heroic sacrifice' from Japan
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302040001

"Editor's note: This is the fourth part of a series that has run in the past under the overall title of The Prometheus Trap. This series deals with the differences between Japan and the United States in dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 following the Great East Japan Earthquake. The series will appear on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays."

Peter, Regarding nuclear waste problems, a few years ago a friend, who
was responsible at the highest levels for Menai & worked in nuclear
power in the UK, said that with reprocessing waste could be used over
and over and the result would be very low level radiation.
He said it would be more costly but would still be positive money wise
but would reduce the cost of waste storage to a large extent.

I wonder if this is still the case ?

I remember reading something about having a series of nuclear stations
each operating with lower radio active fuel and as each depletes the
fuel is moved to the next station in line.

Does that seem feasible ?

Sir Vivor,

I gave up answering any of your comments. They demonstrate you are incapable of thinking logically or rationally. Until you can understand and are prepared to acknowledge the most basic and fundamental facts, there is no point in getting sidetracked into discussing the irrelevancies you keep bringing up. But I realise you can't and wont understand that. That is what being a zealot means. the key facts you need to recognise and acknowledge are:
1. Nuclear is about the safest way to generate the electricity the world needs. Replacing coal with nulcear now would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year. Only an ignoramus or a zealot would oppose that?
2. It is the least cost way to reduce global GHG emissions
3. There is a virtually unlimited supply of nuclear fuel to provide the Worlds energy needs for hundreds of years or more with far higher population using far more energy than we do now
4. It provides energy security for everyone and reduces the amount of coal, and gas that needs to be transported for electricity generation by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, that is 20,000 ship loads of coal passing through the Great barrier Reef, replaced by one ship passing out of Darwin.
Until you can get your head around these basic facts, why would I bother wasting time replying to your comments?

Bazz,
Can I provide you with a couple of links to answer your question:
1. "A lifetime of energy in the palm of your hand": http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/

2. "The energy demand equation to 2050": http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/11/tcase3/

3. "Gen II and Gen IV nuclear power synergy - why we need both" http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/

4. George Monbiott: "The UK's stockpile of nuclear waste could be used to generate enough low-carbon energy to run this country for 500 years." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/02/nuclear-waste

Sir Vivor,

I'd suggest you open your mind and trying doing some research to challenge your beliefs.

Mr Lang,
What may appear irrational to one depends a lot on differences in opinions and unshared assumptions .

Clearly, my posts haven't altered your opinion. That doesn't make my opinions irrational, nor does it make me a zealot. Pasting me with labels will not save the earth, if that is your intention.

Your point 1 is your opinion, and has been argued by cleverer folks that you or I or Mr K, for 40 years or more.

Point 2 is your opinion, removed from fact as is any economist's opinion about "least cost" means of reducing global CO2 emissions.

Point 3 addresses the world's energy needs, but nuclear electricity addresses only the some of the world's electricity needs.

Point 4 states that "It provides energy security for everyone". And then goes off at a tangent about coal exports through the Great Barrier Reef. You have conflated an advertising quip with current environmental issue, one that will not be addressed by the sudden expansion of nuclear electricity generation.

The problems of nuclear waste disposal, the link between nuclear electricity and nuclear proliferation, and acceptable risk and insurability of nuclear electricity generation remain to be resolved.

What a shame you appear unable see advantages of solar energy applications that provide decentralised low-grade heat as well as electricity; to backing increased energy efficiency; to backing a range of decentralised and relatively low-tech interventions which are in fact applicable and far less fraught with unforseeable and potentially catastrophic consequences, especially in the developing world. Especially as you appear to have an interest in "energy security for everyone".

It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Dr Amory Lovins has been leaving a track record of solid results for over 30 years. I venture to say that he has already done far more for global energy security than Mr Kemeny can hope to achieve.

I encourage you to check out the Rocky Mountain Institute website ( www.rmi.org ) Or maybe you'd rather paste Mr Lovins with a label or two, irrationally ignoring the solutions RMI has developed and demonstrated. Your choice.

Sir Vivor,

All four points are facts. You haven't refuted any. I've provided the evidence.

They don't support your ideological beliefs. They don't support your opinions.

Try to refute the points or don't waste time expressing your unsubstantiated and baseless opinions.

Mr Lang,

I am surprised that an erudite man such as yourself would appear unable distinguish between fact and opinion.

As a starting place to address this possible shortcoming, I recommend Wictionary.

Enjoy your day.