Excellently argued Geoff. Get ready for the denials.

My understanding is that the Greens don't want to sell coal to anyone.

When the whole fuel cycle is examined nuclear is safer than coal or gas. It certainly beats wood fires in huts!

As for Germany, only a madman could believe that electricity from its existing nukes is more dangerous than gas from Putin's Russia.

Some excellent points, Mr Russell.

But as you will be well aware, logic stands little chance of getting a hearing, once fear has become the only tradeable currency.

I shall watch with interest to see whether there are any responses that actually engage with the arguments you have put forward - particularly those that show the callous disregard of human life involved in the abstract decisions of taxpayer-funded jobsworths...

"...ANSO, unlike the Indian Government, isn't responsible for the tens of thousands of Indian children under the age of 5 who die every year from respiratory illnesses because their mums cook with wood... children dying because of the pollution caused be being stuck with a deadly renewable energy source ... wood, cattle dung and the like."

Not my Department, chum. Next, please.

Charles Darwin once observed a fish in an aquarium collide full-pelt with its reflection in the glass – (probably thinking it was another fish) - over and over again.

It's painful to watch leftists keep making the same mistake over and over again when it comes to sustainability.

The problem can be thought of in two steps.

If all relevant resources could be calculated in terms of money, then we'd automatically know that any alternative energy option that cost more to produce a given unit of energy, is less sustainable, because it uses more resources obviously.

The problem is that all the relevant resources cannot be calculated in terms of money, because lots of resources are not exchanged against money, such as climate or rivers. These resources, though valuable, are “externalities” to the exchange – and so their value is not included in money calculation concerning their use.

However, contrary to the fish-like persistence of the leftists, this does not necessarily indicate or justify government intervention, for two reasons.

Firstly, the fact that economic calculation omits externalities in no way reduces the utility of economic calculation, nor increases the utility of government intervention. Once we have established that a particular option is more costly, there must be a heavy onus on the interventionists to demonstrate, not just to declare, the superiority of any intervention they advocate.

Secondly, absent money calculation, the interventionists have no way of comparing the options in units of a lowest common denominator. The only other possibility is to compare the different production possibilities in terms of zillions of disparate physical quantities:- practically impossible.

Interventionists never cognise this problem, nor ever satisfy the rational standard of proof. Thinking of the problem not in scientific and falsifiable terms, but in terms of “ideology” they instead satisfy themselves with recourse to polemics.

Only after each intervention has been tried, at great money and social cost, does it turn out that the obvious was obvious: if it costs more than it produces, it’s using more natural resources, not less. It’s less sustainable, not more.

Honestly, they’re dumb as fish.

Well argued and well researched article!
Inherently correct except for the claim that the big solar array in California, doesn't generate electricity after dark?
It does exactly that, and because the Thorium fluoride salt that is heated by the solar arrays, remains both molten and white hot for days, thanks to the reacting thorium fluoride salt!
Yes it does cover many hectares, but what else would you do with desert country, farm it?
Yes it took four years to build, so also any comparable coal fired project.
Mass production and scales of economy allowed it to be rolled out for around the same money as a comparable coal fired project!
And the fuel source is forever free!
As for other renewable energies, the Indians can and should make and use biogas onsite.
Scrubbed biogas works quite well in ceramic fuel cells, and the exhaust product is mostly water vapor.
The energy coefficient at 80%, is four times better than coal, meaning the electricity is four times cheaper; than that of wholesale coal fired electricity!
Making each KW, worth around a cent per! The free hot water costs nothing!
India is currently working on cheaper than coal thorium power, said to cost less than half, given there's are far fewer transmission wires involved; where coal fired power, losses as much as half its output, or put another way, doubles its carbon output per MW delivered.
We have mega amounts of thorium, and are inherently stupid, not to be using it.
It still needs to be mined and separated out from the often also very useful companion minerals,; and I dare say, there would be a similar number of power station jobs, albeit, far fewer transmission line repair staff; and perhaps just a drum, rather than continually topped up, mountains of exponentially expensive fuel!
Rhrosty.

Geoff, while your points abut the relatively large area footprint of the solar CST plants and their high material requirements are true, you dismiss solar CST too flippantly, using selected statistics, while making exaggerated claims about the suitability and safety of of nuclear

Here's another set of figures: SolarReserve in Nevada - solar thermal with molten salt storage, capacity factor >60% (as good as some coal or nuclear plants); can generate 24 hours per day. Rated at 110 MW for up to 20 hours per day. Let's be generous and say 10 of these per GW or 96 plants to do what your 9.6 GW of nuke would do. Each plant covers 700 ha so that makes 67,200 ha; about 1/2 what you claim.

These plants are built in sunny, semi desert regions, which would minimize the need for displacement of villagers. They are air cooled and use desalinated ground water for steam production.

Your nuke plant would need a lot of water for cooling and have to be close to the coast, a lake or river, most likely high population density. Such a large plant would surely need more than 968 ha to include an adequate safety buffer.

A life of 60 - 80 years? Can you name a reactor that has lasted that long? There are others that have been closed down after < 10 years. The Shoreham plant on Long Island took 9 years to build and was never commissioned due to safety concerns.

There's no 'silver bullet' for sustainable energy. The best and most economic alternative to fossil fuels is a dispersed mix of renewable energy technologies. Costing can be found here: http://www.bree.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-technology-assessments
Nuclear is by no means the most cost effective option.