Peter, if you think that $2-3 per MW for insurance (which I am not disputing) is the sum total of the risk story then thing again.

One of the websites you cited is one I have looked at in the past; it conatins some good primary data from which I distilled the following:

Total of 104 reactors have reached end of life

End of Life - reactors > 150MW
Number of reactors Average life yrs Life - range
Ran full term 20 32 3 to 44
Uneconomic before full term 30 21 10 to 42
Political reasons 26 20 3 to 28
Core melt 7 19 1 to 40
Other accidents 4 16 0.5 to 32

Continued, from the data in the previous post:

1/ 10% of the reactors failed due to catastrophic accidents
2/ 30% were closed for political reasons; likely due to leaks and safety breaches
3/ Average life was about 20 years, not the 60- 70 years you claimed from the nuclear propaganda site bravenewclimate.

Do you think this history of nuclear power does not constitute risk for future reactors?

You cited $2-3 / MWh for insurance and decommissioning. I don't dispute that (though I haven't checked on the degree of cost over-runs) but the cost of disasters is borne by governments not insurance. Fukushima - $100b, (Schneider et al from Japanese Government sources).

Government will also pay for future storage; most nations don't have anywhere to store waste; even the US has vetoed the proposed Yucca Mountain site.

Do you think the energy companies who have increased use of solar as much as nuclear and increased wind generation 5 times as much since 1997 (cited previously) don't understand costs and risks?

And what of the 200,000 people incinerated in Japan by A bombs. Do you think that can never happen again? Who pays the cost of nuclear wars and cold wars? Not electricity consumers.

You have not addressed any of the issues I've put before you, except to say the contamination limits should be reduced to make things safer! And you say Government (us taxpayers) should pay for accident cleanup! Contorted logic if ever I heard it.

On the other hand, I have not disputed the LCOE costing results from CSIRO eFuture, though I have corrected some of your overblown claims.

I repeat, you have not won a debate over which alternative power source is BEST.

I agree/ concede that nuclear is CHEAPER in the short term, if the risks are ignored. If the industry can't assure voters that disasters and failures will not happen at anywhere near the rate they have in the past it won't be cheaper; it will be unacceptable

PS Desist from the insults (dozens so far) if you want me to keep debating with you in future

Roses1,

You are still ducking and weaving. Avoiding the key points and trying to dismiss the point with irrelevancies. You are arguing about cents in the dollar and avoiding dealing with the dollars. This suggests either innumeracy, lack of ability to consider perspective, lack of understanding of magnitudes, ideological blindness (likely), or obstinacy (likely). Certainly not the behaviour of a credible scientist.

You throw out a whole pile of irrelevant numbers, of which none have been converted to LCOE. I quote relevant LCOE figures from authoritative sources and you don’t even bother reading them or attempting to refute them. This is not a rational debate. I’m providing arguments and evidence to support it and you’re arguing from the basis of ideological belief - throwing up irrelevant numbers from anti-nuke sites

You haven’t provided an alternative to the authoritative estimates of the insurance costs ($1-2/MWh), so they remain the best we have available. Even if you double them or increase them by a factor of ten they still don’t change the conclusions. They are overwhelmed by the cost of transmission at high penetration (not included in the AETA LCOE), and the risk that renewables cannot do the job. You also don’t seem to have considered that nuclear is about the safest (fatalities per TWh on an LCA basis) of all electricity generation technologies, so if you want to argue that cost of insurance for nuclear should be higher, then you should also argue that it would be higher by even more for other technologies. How do you reconcile that discrepancy? Let me guess, more ideologically biased cherry picking?

It’s clear. All costs included nuclear is much cheaper than renewables, is proven can power a grid at over 75% penetration for 30 years, reduces emissions much more than renewables can do, provides reliable and secure energy and has enormous potential to reduce costs in the future. On the other hand, practitioners realise renewables are highly unlikely to be able to do the job.

You’ve lost the debate, repeatedly demonstrated lack intellectual honesty, little understanding of the issues. Your credibility is low.

[Previously posted on the wrong thread by mistake]

Ben Rose,

Let’s see if we can establish what we agree and disagree on. Could you please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the questions below. Where you answer ‘No’, please provide your alternative figure and the authoritative source for your figure):

1. eFuture LCOE for default values with and without nuclear are: $85/MWh and $130/MWh respectively

2. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are relatively trivial

3. Waste disposal and decommissioning LCOE; (nuclear $1/MWh, renewables, ($0.15/MWh)

4. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA basis all risks included)

5. Nuclear accident insurance is relatively trivial compared with LCOE

6. Nuclear accident insurance is around $0.11/MWh

7. Transmission cost is not included in the AETA LCOE figures

8. Transmissions costs for renewables are much higher than for nuclear (at high penetration for both).

9. Nuclear has demonstrated it can supply over 75% of the electricity to a large, industrial economy (e.g. France for 30 years)

10. Non-hydro renewables have not demonstrated they can supply a large proportion of the electricity to a grid in a large industrial economy

11. There is a significant risk that renewables will not be able to do the job (meet requirements at economically viable cost)

12. The ‘expected value’ of this risk, when added to the LCOE, would inflate the LCOE of the mostly-renewables grid by a very significant amount.

Peter Lang

This post will be entirely on the issue of personal attacks by you on me - i.e. your insults.
You are have repeatedly called me:
-intellectually dishonest
-ideologue
-zealot
-denier
-blatantly dishonest
-disingenuous

You don't even know me! I could just as easily have called you all of these things but I have desisted because I don't know you.

Small wonder that I have seen no-one willing to engage in in-depth debate with you on OLO when they would have to put up with this sort of psychopathic nonsense every time they disagree with you.

In addition you resort to accusations of professional incompetency, all of which could equally be applied to yourself.

I have continued discussion with you only because the issue is so important.

But I repeat that I will not respond to any post that contains personally insulting, bullying, pompous or border-line libelous statements i.e trolling

Peter Lang

I will address your last post because the questions are relevant. I will not address the previous one because it contains personal insults.
Most questions do not have 'yes/ no' answers but I will address your list with 'yes/no' or 'yes/no if' or 'maybe but' type answers:

1. eFuture LCOE for default values with and without nuclear are: $85/MWh and $130/MWh respectively.

No. From the bar graphs shown I get $80 and $110. Maybe we ticked different cost assumption and storage boxes?

2. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are relatively trivial

Yes in terms of $ costs, which is low. But it doesn't factor in that the sites remain dangerous and not usable for 10 -70 years. Land rent, and anxiety / real estate value impacts on neighbors should be included.

3. Waste disposal and decommissioning LCOE; (nuclear $1/MWh, renewables, ($0.15/MWh)

I do not dispute that these may well be true median costs, but please give the reference for me to check

4. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA basis all risks included)

No. Nuclear wins only for air pollution by a trivial margin, assuming safe reactors with no core melts or leaks. 'All risks' includes accidents, nuclear arms proliferation/ cold wars/ wars and problems with future storage. Renewables have none of these problems and are far safer when all risks are taken into account

5. Nuclear accident insurance is relatively trivial compared with LCOE.

Yes if you mean insurance paid by companies to date. But no if the cost of major accidents such as core melts downs, of which there have been 7, are taken into account. These are not covered by insurance payments and have cost governments many billions

6. Nuclear accident insurance is around $0.11/MWh

I dont dispute this as a median figure paid in the past. But please provide reference so I can check.

7. Transmission cost is not included in the AETA LCOE figures

Yes