continued ...

4. Disagree. However, I’ll defer answering this until you have answered my question about what you are basing your beliefs on. I want to understand how you undertook an objective research on which to base your concerns.

5. Disagree. What’s your basis for this assertion?

6. Sorry, that’s just an emotionally charged, unsupported assertion. That’s not science, that’s just ideological belief.

7. Another unsupported assertion. That’s just nonsense. This is not science, it’s just belief.

Your last two paragraphs are irrelevant for the reasons I’ve explained in this and previous comments.

Your second comment is from an anti-nuclear source. If that’s what you base your beliefs on, no wonder you are a nuclear denier.

“A UN panel of expert scientists concluded that radiation caused no attributable health effects and likely none in the future. Radiation killed no one, but the evacuation stress did kill hundreds. Most refugees could have safely returned home.”
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

You haven’t addressed the three criteria I gave you nor provided authoritative cost estimates per MWh decommissioning and waste disposal for renewables and nuclear.

As I said at the start of this discussion, I am advocating for least cost electricity that meets requirements. I urging people like you who are deeply concerned about GHG emissions, you should be advocating to remove the impediments people like you have caused to be imposed on nuclear power. You are thwarting development, and blocking progress.

I asked you what is your priority: reducing global GHG emissions or promoting renewables? You haven’t answered this or my other questions.

Peter:

1/ " Comparing a mostly nuclear v as mostly renewables NEM, the nuclear would be about 1/3 the capital cost, ½ the cost of electricity and 1/3 the CO2 abatement cost." Nonsense - no references and no substantiation. When you've written or co-written a well referenced "100% nuclear grid' scenario as I have for renewables I will read it and be happy to comment.

2 and 3/ you have not provided me with any risk assessment/ risk costing studies that substantiate your wild assertion that nuclear is as safe as renewables. When renewables force evacuation of a million hectares of land then maybe you could say that. The reference you gave (Hargraves) was a basic summary of N radiation and its health effects, with added assertions by the author that the 'safe limits' of radiation could be quadrupled and then all the problems of nuclear would be solved! What about air and water borne radioactive particulates? Ones man's assertion against the thousands of scientists and health professionals.

He also mentioned the 200,000 deaths by incineration from the A-bombs in Japan. Weapons proliferation is a hard one to ignore. Have you forgotten the cold war? Provide me with evidence that there are not still N arsenals sufficient to destroy civilization several times over. And do you think Russia and the US are friends now?

4-7/ - These relate to risk, disasters, storage and decommissioning costs. You have given me no substantive references. Most of which you gave me is form bravenewclimate, a site that by its own description exists to promote nuclear.

Peter I am afraid it is you who has neither read widely enough or had binocular vision on this issue. We must have nearly 'done it to death' and neither convinced the other of their stance, which is what I predicted. However, I have learned some things; hope you and other readers have too.

I do intend to post more renewable energy articles on OLO in future - pumped hydro storage and solar thermal with storage. Hope there will be some mutual learning there too.

Ben Rose,

I see you have effectively conceded.

Have you read the latest post by Planning Engineer on Climate Etc. “More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

You haven’t any of your assertions or criteria we agreed were the issues to be debated I did Apparently you didn’t read them. I suggest, if you are intellectually honest, it’s time to concede.

Below I summarise the significant relevant points from the debate so far.

1. Nuclear is the least cost way to make substantial cuts to GHG emissions from electricity generation. That is with all costs included - including decommissioning, waste disposal and accident insurance (for the consequences attributable to the accident as opposed to the irrational response caused by nuclear fear; the latter should be paid for by government from the public purse since it caused it and therefore best managed by it).

2. Nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA with all risks included) so this is not a valid reason for opposing nuclear power

3. Renewables cannot supply a large proportion of the world’s energy demand so they cannot make the cuts in GHG emissions that the CAGW alarmist say they want. Nuclear can

4. Only solutions that will improve countries’ economies over the short and medium term have a realistic chance of succeeding.

5. The impediments imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of scare mongering by anti-nukes (mostly the environmental NGO’s and political Left) have made nuclear far more expensive than it could and should be.

6. Those who want policies to cut global GHG emissions should advocate to remove the impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power. They need to argue to appropriately deregulate nuclear power and make the regulation properly comparable with all other industries, e.g. on the basis of fatalities per TWh.

If you are intellectually honest you will concede. Then you’ll reconsider your advocacy of renewable energy and denial that nuclear is the best way to achieve global GHG emissions reductions and a sustainable energy supply for the world for the future.

Is nuclear the safest way to power Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Colombia, Egypt, Libya or west Africa?

If yes, how would that be implemented safely?

Peter just to make it clear what should be obvious to you and all readers. I have NOT CONCEDED that nuclear is a better way to go for electricity generation than renewables. In fact I am even more convinced that the converse is true. And I am very relaxed about my own intellectual honesty. Hope you are with yours.

Thanks for an enjoyable debate. This is my last post on this thread.

Ben Rose,

1/ You said “Nonsense - no references and no substantiation.” That’s a blatantly dishonest statement. I provided the references and links in my earlier comments. It seems you did not read them. Can you confirm you read (fully) all the links I provided? If not, which ones didn’t you read?

2 and 3/ “you have not provided me with any risk assessment/ risk costing studies that substantiate your wild assertion that nuclear is as safe as renewables.” That’s blatantly dishonest. You even agreed!!

“Ones man's assertion against the thousands of scientists and health professionals.” How disingenuous. How dishonest. Clearly you only read the Helen Caldicott et al side of the debate. You’ve really shown your colours, just as you did in your comment after you’d watch the Wade Allison video.

Weapons proliferation is not nuclear electricity generation. Another sign of extremist ideological anti-nuke beliefs.

4-7/ “You have given me no substantive references.” I asked how you’d gone about researching that. You didn’t answer. I was waiting for your answer so I could address what has misled you so badly. I suspect you didn’t answer because you know you’ve relied on junk, anti-nuke websites. When you answer, I’ll respond. It’s been you who has not substantiated your statements.

I am very familiar with zealots simply dismissing everything that challenges their beliefs, as you have demonstrated you do too.

You’ve clearly displayed 8 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty