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.