Roses 1

You said: “You will see from the link I posted that nuclear is far more expensive than land based wind or solar PV. In terms of dispatchable technologies it is only marginally cheaper than solar CST with storage and more expensive than biomass from waste.”

This shows you do not understand what LCOE means and how it is used. Read the section in the AETA report about LCOE and note the caveats. We need the LCOE of the system that meets the requirements for secure reliable electricity supply to meet customer needs; the LCOE of non-dispatchable technologies when not included in a mix that meets requirements, is irrelevant and it’s misleading and disingenuous to state it. Here is a simple example of how to estimate the LCOE of a system that meets requirements: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf
This shows that a mostly renewables mix would cost about 3 times as much as mostly nuclear mix to supply most of the NEMs electricity and reduce emissions by about 90%. However, renewables cannot do the job in any practical sense.

The CSIRO calculators which use the AETA LCOE values support what I’ve said above. And that is dispite the fact the CSIRO calculators do not include the cost of transmission (which is much higher for renewables than for nuclear), nor does it factor in the cost penalties of having to include the unreliable, non-dispatchable renewables in the system.
CSIRO MyPower: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx (link is broken)
CSIRO eFuture: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios
Both show that nuclear is far the cheaper than renewables to reduce GHG emissions.

There is so much to explain about all this, we can’t do it on Online Opinion. But you’d learn a great deal if you read this recent post on Climate Etc. and the 800 comments of which many are highly informative. http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/

Ben Rose,

I’ve just realised you may be the same Rose I’ve been discussing renewable and nuclear with here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/ . If so, my apologies for my reaction to your questions. I realise now your comments here were not by just another RE advocate but are honest questions genuinely seeking information and discussion about the issues.

To explain why LCOE of unreliable, non-dispatchable generators (like wind power) cannot be compared with the LCOE of dispatchable generators (like fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro), let’s consider a simplistic example.

Requirement: 1 GW of baseload power supply.

Generator technologies available; LCOE; t CO2/MWh:

• Wind farms; 116; 0.0
• OCGT; 196; 0.515
• CCGT; 89; 0.368
• Nuclear SMR: 113; 0.0

Source for LCOE and emissions intensity: BREE AETA 2012: http://www.bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf (I used 2012 data because its more easily accessed than the 2013 data).

CCGT can meet the requirement on its own at LCOE $89/MWh and CO2 0.37t/MWh

Nuclear can meet the requirement on its own at LCOE $113/MWh and CO2 0t/MWh

Wind + Gas alternative (assume backup is provided by 50% CCGT and 50% OCGT):
38% wind + 31% OCGT + 31% CCGT
Wind + OCGT + CCGT: LCOE $132/MWh and CO2 0.27 t/MWh

Therefore, the LCOE for the wind mix is 50% higher than CCGT and 17% higher than nuclear. The CO2 emissions from the wind mix are 0.27 t/MWh v 0.0 t/MWh for the nuclear option.

This is very rough and needs lots of refinements but sufficient to explain why the LCOE of unreliable, non-dispatchable generators is not comparable with LCOE of dispatchable generators.

Peter, I believe you and I can and should have continuing constructive discussion on this the most important issue our society faces - 'what are the optimal technologies to replace fossil fuels'. We both have considerable knowledge of energy generation - yours focused on nuclear and mine on renewables. One of my main regrets is how this issues has become polarized. People with differing knowledge must sit down together and learn from each other.

I recommend you read these recent OLO discussions on the same subject: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16780&page=1
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16792

That will help you see what I (and many others) think the problems are with nuclear and where I think it may have a role.

Re LCOE I certainly do understand it and your example of wind-gas uses the same approach we in SEN used in our 100% Renewables Study for WA. I recommend you read it:
http://greenswa.net.au/assets/sen2029study.pdf (click download technical study)
We arrived at an LCOE for a combination of generation technologies for each of 3 scenarios. To do this we adjusted capacity factor according to how much energy would be required from each e.g. biomass was working far below nameplate CF.

We are currently updating the study using AETA's updated 2013 numbers (giving lower LCOE's - the $162- 173 I quoted from http://greenswa.net.au/energy2029 'the Redux Study'). We do not claim to have arrived at the optimum mix; there's a lot more work and brains to be involved to arrive at that and we are working on improved scenarios.

Also, it is worth using the midpoints of the graph bars of the 2013 AETA update. The cost ranges move with the year (we used either 2020 or 2025 I forget which). AETA estimates for solar and to a lesser extent wind technologies get cheaper and nuclear more expensive out to 2040.

Finally, I would like to discuss other related issues with you by email. In particular your report on pumped hydro for the Snowy scheme.

My email is biroses@westnet.com.au

Ben Rose

Ben Rose,

Thank you. I'll get in touch by email after I've considered comment and the links in more depth.

Sorry I didn't realise what background you have on the subject. I wouldn't have posted my last comment explaining the LCOE and emissions for the wind mix if I'd known.

I agree with you on this: "Peter, I believe you and I can and should have continuing constructive discussion on this the most important issue our society faces"

However, I don't agree this is a valid premise to begin at: "what are the optimal technologies to replace fossil fuels". IMO we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity. And to improve human well-being we need to improve the world’s economies, not damage them. To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy. That's my starting point – it’s about the economics.

"We both have considerable knowledge of energy generation - [PL's] focused on nuclear and [BR's] on renewables."
I'd like to change the emphasis. Mine is not focused on nuclear. Mine is across all (although I have more years of practical experience with hydro and nuclear than with others). My focus in on economically rational, politically and diplomatically achievable solutions because only they can succeed in the real world. Any policy that will cause higher cost electricity is not going to be politically sustainable. I keep talking about nuclear because I am trying to offer the people who are most concerned about CAGW a way they can achieve their aim of cutting GHG emissions from fossil fuels as well as satisfying what 97% of the world's population wants - i.e. improved well-being. I am persuaded renewables cannot do that and cannot make much contribution towards achieving it, if any. In fact, I am convinced the longer we remain focused on renewables the longer we delay progress.

I think this is a useful guide to having a rational discussion:
"A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussion"
http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion

Ben Rose,

I’ve been through your comments on the two OLO links you gave. I realise now there are so many points of fundamental disagreement we’d get nowhere in an email exchange and I don’t want to get bogged down in an email exchange that has no real prospect of getting a result. Furthermore, no one else would gain anything from such an email exchange between you and me. I am happy to debate online, but to make any progress I need to understand what it would take to change your mind. Have you considered what would change your mind? Can you state it (succinctly in a few dot points)?

Peter: OK so your main criterion is to find the alternative(s) to coal that are least cost? Are you also looking to maximize replacement of all fossil fuels including gas? If so we are in agreement on those criteria.

Re your statements:
....we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity......... Needs qualification - do you mean humanity now? I would agree if it means the well being of humanity over say 7 generations (200 years) into the future

......And to improve human well-being we need to improve the world’s economies, not damage them......Generally agree but could take a hit of up to say a couple of percent GDP now to achieve this in future because a future ruined climate will have massive economic impacts through crop failures, deaths due to disease and heat stress and indeed displacement of whole coastal populations

.....To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy..... disagree, although I agree that of course consumers will tend to buy the cheapest energy on offer. I thought it was clear from our previous discussion that cost of generation from modernized plant will be higher than that from the old coal plants we are using. if we switch to gas, demand pressure will continue to push up gas prices, a problem that does not occur with renewables. I think clean energy (nuclear or renewables) on upgraded networks could eventually cost retail and residential consumers about 33 c/ kWh in today's AU dollars (about 8 c more than current prices). With energy efficiency, they could run their premises and vehicles on this for cheaper than what they are paying now. It's metal smelters (in particular aluminium) that are addicted to cheap wholesale electricity (6-10c range). If this price were to double, causing say a 50% rise in the cost of aluminium it would have very little effect on the economy.

.