I've started a debate at Debate.Org.. I don't think I can control who participates. So first to respond and accept has first chance to accept the debate. I've written my pro case. it's here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Nuclear-power-is-the-least-cost-and-fastest-way-to-substantially-cut-GHG-emissions-from-electricity/1/

"Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity"

Ben Rose,

To change your mind to support nuclear power you’d need to be convinced that (my paraphrasing):

1. Weapons proliferation is not a serious risk and, balancing all risks and benefits, is not sufficient to warrant delaying the rollout of nuclear power; and

2. Nuclear power is comparatively safe compared with other options to provide the world’s electricity; and

3. Fuel supply for the world for a thousand years.

What have you done to research these? Have you a plan to research them objectively? I am not asking for what you’ve concluded, just asking how you went about objectively researching these?

My short responses (but you need to do objective research yourself),

1. Weapons proliferation is not a serious risk, especially when weighed against the benefits of nuclear power. You can research it yourself. Start at WNA and go from there. I can’t be bothered arguing about the Green’s talking points. If you want to find out about it you’ll do your own objective research instead of reading and believing the catastrophists: Greenpeace, the Greens, Jim Green, Helen Caldicott and the like.

2. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity. We’ve known this for over 30 years. There have been hundreds of authoritative studies reaching the same conclusion. Here’s one summary of the results (there are many others): http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

3. Your demand of 1000 years is ridiculous and if you applied that to renewables they’d be a fail at achieving it over any timescale. Renewables can’t do it for any years, let alone 1000! So your requirements is ridiculous. However, nuclear power can meet your requirement. In fact, uranium alone (i.e. not even including thorium) is sufficient to supply all the world’s energy (that’s all energy, not just electricity) for 10 billion people using the USA’s per capita energy consumption for a million years. As well there is thorium and then hydrogen for virtually unlimited fission. We’ll probably be using fusion this century, <1/10th of your 1000 years.

Are you genuinely receptive to challenging your beliefs about nuclear power?

Ben Rose,

Have you conceded? If so it would be a sign of intellectual honesty to publically state it or are considering the points I've made.

Why do you draw opposite conclusion to the CSIRO ‘My Power’ calculator about the comparative cost of nuclear and renewables? What’s wrong with ‘MyPower’ calculator?

CSIRO’s ‘MyPower’ calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is does not have community support, nuclear would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

Below is a comparison of options of different proportions of technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now.

Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix:
1. 80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Points to note:

• For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

• For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease.

• These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

The difference is stark. Nuclear is far better.

But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.

Peter,

No I have not conceded.

CSIRO calculator has problems - does not show a scenario including solar thermal with storage and does not properly show the potential of woody biomass. Just because it carries the label 'CSIRO' does not mean it's definitive nor are your selected scenarios.

My requirement of 1000 years is 'ridiculous'? Bluster on your part. I remind you that once constructed, solar and wind require no fuel and biomass fuel is renewable.

' In fact, uranium alone (i.e. not even including thorium) is sufficient to supply all the world’s energy (that’s all energy, not just electricity) for 10 billion people using the USA’s per capita energy consumption for a million years.' ?? A sweeping and unsubstantiated statement - please provide a link.

I will accept on debate.com your challenge starting tomorrow providing I can get into the CSIRO calculator. I will need more time to examine more closely how it calculates - something that you've obviously already spent time on. No point my arguing your claims relating to its calculations until I have done this.

I re-iterate - if it uses AETA costings, these do not include the cost of decommissioning, waste storage or full disaster risk. Fukushima is estimated to cost 100 billion.

Ben Rose,

I’m pleased you’ve agreed to try Debate.Org. When you’re ready to begin, tell me, and I’ll ask to have the opponent who’s accepted the debate remove his response and allow you to post yours so we can have a constructive, honest debate about what’s important and relevant.

I am concerned you didn’t answer my questions which are important for me to understand. At the moment I am concerned you are not genuinely interested in challenging your beliefs. I am concerned that 1) you have swallowed the Greens ideological beliefs; 2) you haven’t honestly critique their material; 3) you are in fact a green Ideologue and not open to being convinced by the relevant facts. Can you assure me that I ham wrong on these, you are open to persuasion, you do genuinely challenge the Greens and greenies beliefs, and you do conduct objective research?

Can you please answer my question about how you have conducted objective research to find answers to the three criteria you need to be persuaded about for you to consider nuclear a viable option?

Regarding your dismissal of the CSIRO calculator. I feel CSIRO has become a renewables advocacy organisation and its research in energy matter can no longer be held in high regard. However, your dismissals are not persuasive to me. I need to understand your grounds for dismissal are sufficiently significant to show the MyPower results are grossly misleading. How much difference would it make to the figures I quoted for change in electricity price and CO2 emissions if the calculator included solar thermal and biomass? How did you estimate that difference? What are your assumptions? I doubt including solar thermal or biomass would reduce the cost of electricity.

Regarding biomass my reasons are explained here http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ and in unanswered question to Mark Diesendorf here: and other comments on that thread (including the last comment). http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532

Regarding solar thermal my reasons are explained in the first link above and here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
These are extensively debated on those threads (and the reasons for simplifying to single technology explained).

More later …

My Calculator does include both biomass and solar thermal under renewables: click on the ‘I’ next to ‘Renewables’. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

I’ve just posted these comments on the MyPower Calculator site:
[My proportions were: 0% coal, 20% gas, 0% CCS, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear (like France but less nuclear, more gas and less hydro)]

Q. Why did you choose this energy mix (above)?
A.
“See debate on Online Opinion here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0

I am debating with Ben Roses who is behind the the WA Greens proposal for renewable electricity generation for WA. My interest is least cost electricity and, to a lesser extent, reducing CO2 emissions. I believe a high proportion of nuclear power is our best future and the costs will come down at faster than 10% per doubling globally once the developed countries get over their irrational objections to nuclear power - nuclear paranoia.”

Q. Are there any other comments you wish to make in relation to the range of options for generating electricity in Australia?
A.
“MyPower is a useful calculator (and so is eFuture). They are very helpful for educating others and for supporting referencing in blog comments, which is what I am using it for now. However, I believe both calculators are biased in favour of renewables.

1) the AETA figures are biased in favour of renewables and against nuclear.

2) MyPower and eFuture do not include the additional cost of transmission and distribution which is much higher for renewables than for nuclear

3) MyPower and eFuture do not include the additional grid management costs that renewables require.

An important argument as to why renewables are not sustainable is well explained here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ (and its references).”

The cost of decommissioning and waste storage are insignificant costs, and maybe less for nuclear than renewables. Nuclear accident insurance needs to be addressed in an objective manner. What should the insurance required to cover? Is it the real cost of damages (health effects, etc.) or does it have to cover the costs of the excessive and irrational response that is a result of 50 years of anti-nuke propaganda?