What I additionally meant to say: there is no basis for Pearce's statement that 'nuclear is unlikely to grow much'. Sure, that is the prediction of many business-as-usual models, but business as usual is exactly what is taking us towards climate catastrophe. It has to change.

Moreover, 'the IPCC says the only way is a vastly bigger plug-in of wind and solar' is a misrepresentation of what the report actually says is required, which is this: "a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero- and low-carbon energy supply from renewables, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050" (see http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-double-standards-on-energy-barriers/ including the comments for a discussion of this).

I couldn’t respond any earlier as I had exceeded my article limit.

Nutter, I am not a climate scientist but I am a scientist. Popper’s idea of Falsifiability is what we work with: it is not possible to prove anything but all it takes is one negative example to disprove a theory.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is one theory (along with Evolution and Atoms). It cannot be proven but when the available evidence, produced and blind peer-reviewed by reputable scientists, points in one direction scientists working in other fields trust and accept the idea: a consensus develops. This persists until a reputable scientist produces work which after standing up to blind peer-review points the available evidence in a different direction and a new theory is created to better explain the available evidence.
I see thinning, but spreading, Antarctic ice, diminishing Greenland ice, more Arctic ice-free days, higher temperatures in higher latitudes, and retreating glaciers as part of this evidence: I accept the ideas that climate scientists offer. These ideas explain these observations in an understandable way.
Is Global Warming happening?: I accept that it is. Is Global Warming the result of human activities?: I accept that it is. If evidence changes and a theory evolves which better explains the evidence I will probably accept that new theory. We are talking here about observations described by climate and other scientists in blind peer-reviewed journal articles: non-scientists can easily create plausible websites made of straw.

Mark, I also noticed the debate narrowing. Carbon Sequestration and Capture does not have workable technology. It seems a better idea to leave the carbon in the ground than to try the risky manoeuvre of putting Carbon Dioxide underground hoping it stays there.
I cannot see economic logic behind nuclear energy. It seems nonsensical to spend millions digging it up and processing it to put it into a power plant with a life of 40 years, which power plant costs millions of dollars to construct. The radioactive building and the toxic waste remain intractable for thousands of years requiring constant monitoring. It doesn’t add up.

I think it is fairly clear that even if decisions were made tomorrow about new nuclear that it would struggle to contribute a massive amount to low-carbon sources by 2050.

In an era of cheap gas, there is limited economic incentive to invest large amounts of capital in construction that may go nowhere due to changes in the political wind. Currently, the investment risks are high and the investment rewards are low.

New construction, from decision to power output is at least a decade and that is only for countries that have an existing power program. For countries without one, the timelines are much longer. In addition, approvals are going to be bedevilled by the political process required to get approval.

Thorium reactors are still at the experimental stage and are likely to take an even longer period to come on line if they ever do.

Likewise carbon capture and storage is at the experimental stage. If shown to be effective, some rapid retrofitting of power stations can probably be done. However, geology will likely prohibit its use in some localities.

So it would seem to be good odds that renewables will have to do a share of the heavy lifting. At least they are known to work. However, to make renewables a large component of energy systems, the storage problem needs to be solved. If you have dams available, that might be easy, but otherwise some other storage mechanism is required.

Given the uncertainties with all the technologies, a spread of investment in research to solve the issues would seem to be a prudent thing to do.

Thank you for that confirmation Brian of Buderim, I have long suspected from your posts that you were some kind of academic. I have also long suspected that you have long been unable to believe ill of your fellows.

It is obviously quite odious for you to admit even to yourself, that there are in the scientific community, many shysters, & frauds. I can see this fact alone makes it difficult to do anything but believe the increasingly contrived stuff they are producing.

Surely the fiasco of "the ship of fools" should have given you some pause in your belief in the quality of the people in this Johnny come lately discipline.

You are the very type of person the world needs to reevaluate the stuff you have been fed by these fraudsters.

I, like you, believed everything they said for some years. I could not believe the whole thing was off the rails & crashing. Then a couple of minor worries led me to do a bit of math, & that was the end of it.

I am perhaps too virulent in my criticism, because I am so annoyed at myself for once taking the word of these people as gospel. I ask you to not only have another serious look, but to do the math. Do that & it will prove to you the thing just doesn't work.

So Brian what you are saying to me is because a whole mob of people claim, without proof, that AGW, is happening even though recorded and peer reviewed data says the warming led co2 increases, that the whole world should share your belief and pay fcarbon taxes and the development of energies that are not guaranteed to reduce current energy costs to the point where we in Australia regain our comparative advantage in using fossil fuels.

It that intrepretation of your response accurate?

I can supply the link that shows warming began before co2 increases. It is in a warmist magazine and was written by warmist scientists. It was quoted on olo by some who attempted to use it to support their belief in AGW.

Do you want the link? Will you admit then the AGW theory that co2 caused the initial increase in temps is incorrect?

Nutter,
Post the link so that everyone can read it and assess its accuracy and verifiablility.
You miss the point I made about peer-review: it is blind. The author supplies a clean copy of the article or paper (clean in that it contains no reference to the author's or authors' names or employing institutions) to the journal editor. The editor passes it to an authority in the field without disclosing the author's/ authors' names or links. The reviewer does not know who wrote it and author/authors do not know who reviewed it. Most articles are blind reviewed by a number of reviewers none of whom know who else is reviewing. It is conceivable that work by a Finn could go to a British journal and be reviewed by a Canadian, a Turk and an Australian. The comments the editor is looking for are one of three: 1. good enough to publish as is; 2. good enough to publish once work has been done in [listed] areas, and 3. not good enough to publish: can be repetitious, can have been published in part somewhere else or can say nothing new. Depending on the journal somewhere between 50% and 95% of submitted work is not published. Once an article has been published any competent scientist in the field is able to pass judgement on the quality of the work by citing the work in their own publications. Much published work is cited by very few other authors and dies a quiet death. Errors are corrected in the full public gaze of the letters section of the journal. Falsity is also completely and quickly exposed: if you don't pick it up, your colleagues will draw their own conclusions of your status in the cut-throat world of academia. First to publish and first to expose errors and pick up faking wins praise.
Talk to scientists about a global conspiracy to impose a ‘dud’ theory on the world has them rolling on the floor laughing. Conspiracy involves collaboration: advancement in science is climbing over others’ mistakes as scientists compete ruthlessly for the research dollar.