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 ?