Peter you say I've lost. If it's on the criteria of LCOE alone without costing in the risk, future storage costs and costs of nuclear disasters (Fukushima cost $100 billion and you have addressed that one), then you won.

If it's what I think it is - a debate about which electricity mix is best and most acceptable for the future then you haven't won. That debate won't be decided by voters for years yet. But I think we both agree it's a debate that has to be had as soon as possible.

I will be away for a few days but as I say there is little left for me to say in this thread.

PS Your insistence that I accept you 'verdict' from the coarse 'MyPower' calculator that gives insufficient explanations and does not model the scenarios I advocate is ridiculous.

No Ben. You lost on all the criteria we nominated. I demonstrated (with authoritative sources) you are wrong.

Clearly you’re an ideologue, a zealot and a denier - as demonstrated by the fact you won't read the evidence in the links I've provided. You don't read authoritative material if it does not support your beliefs. You accept any junk that supports your beliefs. You have no competence in energy engineering, economics or policy analysis.

Did you read the Climate Etc. post “Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it” http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/03/cognitive-bias-how-petroleum-scientists-deal-with-it/ Did you consider your own motivated reasoning and cognitive bias?

After all the unsubstantiated assertions and nonsense you've posted, all refuted, you haven't the integrity to admit or concede you are wrong. So you run away - again! That clearly demonstrates a lack of personal, professional and intellectual integrity

The eFuture LCOE figures are favourable to renewables not nuclear because the excluded costs you keep referring to are much higher for renewables than for nuclear. Excluded transmission costs are far higher than decommissioning, waste disposal, accident and disaster insurance. The difference between renewables and nuclear in LCOE of transmission is far greater than the difference on the three items you keep raising. The three you keep raising are small for nuclear (as is well known). AETA excludes them from their LCOE figures because they doen't have comparable figures for all technologies (not do you it seems). For nuclear they are about $2-$3/MWh. You've have not refuted the authoritative evidence I provided.

You clearly have little understanding of what you are talking about and are unwilling to take on accept anything that doesn’t support your ideological beliefs. Or you are obstinately innumerate.

You lost all points. You couldn't substantiate any of your beliefs. And now you want to run away without conceding.

Prove me wrong. Show some integrity. Acknowledge you were wrong on every point or provide authoritative evidence to demonstrate I am wrong. Prove me wrong on:

1. The LCOE of a mostly nuclear powered electricity system is substantially less than the LCOE of a mostly renewable powered system.

Ben,

I’ve just realised, you may not understand what risk is. You said the Fukushima damages are $100 billion. Apart from being a gross exaggeration, that is not the risk. It is consequence, not risk. Risk is consequence x probability. See “What is risk – a simple explanation” http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ . Or read the AS/NZS:4360 Risk Management Standard.

You haven’t factored in the high risk that RE will not be able to supply a large proportion of a grid’s electricity by 2050. It can’t yet whereas for over 30 years nuclear has been demonstrating it can.

Nuclear accident insurance is based on objective information, not ideology. What should the insurance cover? Is it the cost of damages caused by the electricity industry or does it have to cover the costs of the damages caused by the excessive government and regulatory agencies’ responses which are a response to 50 years of irrational anti-nuke fear-mongering?

The health, trauma and psychological consequences of nuclear accidents are mainly the result of the ill-advised, irrational governments’ and agencies’ excessively cautious response to accidents.

The proportion of the cost that is due to the irrational paranoia are rightfully and best covered by the tax payer because it is the voters who have wanted the excessive, unjustified requirements that caused most of these costs. They are not justifiable on a rational basis. Standard risk management practice is for the party who is best able to manage a risk to be responsible for that risk. The electricity industry cannot be accountable for the consequences of the excessive, irrational regulations imposed and for the government’s response to accidents. Nuclear power is well known to be about the safest way to generate electricity. The insurance premiums reflect this.

Decommissioning, waste storage/disposal and nuclear accident and disaster insurance costs are a small proportion of LCOE, and maybe higher for renewables than for nuclear. For nuclear in the USA the costs are:

decommissioning $1-2/MWh,
waste disposal ~$1/MWh
accident and disaster insurance ~$0.11/MWh
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2013/7061-ebenfc-execsum.pdf (Figure ES.1)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html
If you have better figures from authoritative sources, please provide links and let’s discuss.

Ben,

“Peter you say I've lost. If it's on the criteria of LCOE alone without costing in the risk, future storage costs and costs of nuclear disasters (Fukushima cost $100 billion and you have addressed that one), then you won.”

With all costs included (including transmission) nuclear’s advantage increases. Apart from transmission, the other costs are negligible. You haven’t bothered to read the links. The other costs are about $2-$3/MWh, a small proportion of LCOE and included in the cost of electricity sold by nuclear plants. Do you have authoritative sources for decommissioning and waste disposal for renewables? AETA didn’t include them because they don’t have comparable figures. Your $100 billion is a gross exaggeration from the anti-nuke activists.

“If it's what I think it is - a debate about which electricity mix is best and most acceptable for the future then you haven't won. That debate won't be decided by voters for years yet. But I think we both agree it's a debate that has to be had as soon as possible.”

That’s just a cop out. We never said the voters were the adjudicator. We were intending to have a rational debate. You lost this debate. You just don’t have the integrity to admit it.

“I will be away for a few days but as I say there is little left for me to say in this thread.” Yes, there is, admit you are wrong.

You are avoiding dealing with the relevant facts. You have no relevant engineering background. You don’t understand and you don’t want to know. You won’t read references that you think won’t tell you what you want to hear. Some scientist!

“PS Your insistence that I accept you 'verdict' from the coarse 'MyPower' calculator that gives insufficient explanations and does not model the scenarios I advocate is ridiculous.”

It’s your scenarios that are ridiculous, not the CSIRO calculator. Your scenarios are pie in the sky. Unlikely to be achievable. Factor in the risk. Use ‘Expected Value’.

The relevant facts are clear. Show some professional integrity and admit you are wrong.

Ben Rose,

Since it appears you have difficulty understanding the numbers and keep trying to dismiss the CSIRO calculators’ LCOE figures, I’ll lay it out so just about anyone should be able to follow it.

I’ll use CSIRO ‘eFuture’ projections for this and use the default scenario settings (central estimates for each selectable item) with and without nuclear permitted. I’ll compare the projected emissions and LCOE in 2050 with and without nuclear permitted.

CO2 emissions for the default scenario (nuclear not permitted) are 80 t/MWh. With nuclear permitted, CO2 emissions are 25 t/MWh. These show emissions would be 3.2 times higher if nuclear is not permitted.

The LCOE (wholesale price) in $/MWh without and with nuclear permitted and showing the ratio ‘no nuclear / with nuclear’ are in the table below. Estimates of individual items you have asked about are itemised.

Item No nuclear With Nuclear No/With
'eFuture' 130 85 1.5
Accident insurance 0 0.11
Decommissioning 2 2
Waste management 0 1
Transmission, high penetration 37 4
Total LCOE 169 92 1.8

The LCOE for no nuclear is 80% higher than with nuclear. With a higher proportion of renewables than the default (no nuclear), the LCOE would be even higher, probably more than double.
Sources for the above figures are in previous comments.

Policy analysts also need to include in policy options analysis an estimate of the risk that renewables will not be able to do the job. We know nuclear can provide around 75% of electricity in an advanced industrial economy because France has been doing it for over 30 years. But renewables have not demonstrated they can or will be able to. Many practitioners think they will not. An order of magnitude estimate for the risk adjusted cost for renewables is 10x the AETA LCOE estimates.

The risk that renewables will not be able to do the job is the major risk you should be questioning!

Ben Rose,

Correction. The decommissioning component of LCOE in my previous comment was wrong. As I’d mentioned in an earlier comment, decommissioning costs for renewables are higher than for nuclear – say about 15 times higher!
Nuclear = 0.01 USD/MWh
Renewables = 0.02 – 0.71 USD/MWh, rough weighted average with most electricity generated by wind, CST and PV ~0.15 USD/MWh.

Ref: IEA, 2010, Tables 3.7a and 3.7d for USA (at the same discount rate as AETA uses for LCOE calculations, i.e. 10%) http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/projected_costs.pdf

The revised components of LCOE (wholesale price) in $/MWh without and with nuclear permitted are:.

Item No nuclear With Nuclear
'eFuture' 130 85
Accident insurance 0 0.11
Decommissioning 0.15 0.01
Waste management 0 1
Transmission, high penetration 37 4
Total LCOE 168 92

The LCOE for no nuclear is 80% higher than with nuclear. With a higher proportion of renewables than the eFuture default (no nuclear) scenario, the LCOE would be even higher, probably more than double the LCOE for nuclear.

Perhaps now you may understand why AETA did not include these figures – they are down in the weeds and a distraction from what is relevant.