Ben,

“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.”

Not bluster at all. Your assertion that there is insufficient fuel to run nuclear fission for 1000 years is uninformed. Apparently you have not objectively researched this. You haven’t yet answer what research you’ve done to check your facts on your criteria about nuclear. I hope you will answer my question because it goes to the heart of my concern about whether I am debating a Green, RE ideologue or an honest objective researcher. I’m not dodging this, I am waiting till you answer so I can assess if your mind is open or shut. I’d like to understand who I am debating with.

The fact the fuel for solar and biomass is ‘renewable’ is irrelevant. The total materials that have to be mined, extracted, processed, manufactured, fabricated, constructed, maintained throughout life, decommissioned and disposed, plus the transport between all steps and transport of labour for maintenance to remote sites throughout their life are not renewables and they exceed the material quantities and and energy requirements for nuclear.

On an ERoEI basis, renewables are not sustainable: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ .

Renewables are not sustainable now and they certainly cannot meet the world’s future energy demand in 100, let alone 1000 years.

Up to this point I’ve shown that:

1. renewables cannot meet the requirements of the electricity system cheaper than nuclear

2. renewables cannot reduce CO2 emissions at lower cost than nuclear.

Here we are again, all wasting your time arguing about global warming.
Again, it does not matter if global warming is true or not.
The shale oil boom is finishing, especially at current prices, we will soon
have to face up to declining availability of petrol & diesel.
We import 95%, so if a scramble occurs, we are in trouble.
It is well past time to start building the next energy regime.

It can only be built if we use all the fossil fuels we have to build it.
Alternatives cannot build the new regime including nuclear.
I suspect there is no alternative to building nuclear, uranium or thorium
other than using coal and oil to build them.
I have read a study that said the ERoEI of solar and wind is too poor
to enable those energy sources to build power stations, railways etc.

Peter,

My correct title is Ben or Ben Rose (not Roses). If you give me the courtesy of using it I will do likewise for you.

We will debate on debate.org in good time; will start putting it together tomorrow.

I am currently staying on Long Is New York USA, gaining more first hand knowledge of what I am talking about:
-Inspected the 110 MW the Solar Reserve CST molten salt plant at Tonopah Nevada.
-Inspected the 20 y.o. 50 MW biomass plant at Burlington Vermont
-Talked to locals about the nuclear reactor on Long Is., built and never run
-Discussed with RE Long Island their campaign for GW's of offshore wind off Long Island.

You seem desperate for me to 'show my colours'. I am not a 'Greens ideologue', but a scientist and pragmatist with 20 years' career experience in resource management, energy assessment and carbon sequestration. I am a self funded retiree and I continue to work many hours a week in these these fields. I am not beholden to industry or any political party. As a committee member of Sustainable Energy Now, I am involved in lobbying any party or group who will listen on the benefits or energy assessment, efficiency and renewable energy and the urgency to implement all of the these. Financially, I have divested from fossil fuels and have most of my meagre investments in ethical funds and residential property.

Likewise it would be honorable of you to 'show your colours' and allay any suspicions I have that you may be a 'Blues / neoliberal ideologue' or a shareholder in uranium mining or in the employ of / have any vested interests in any of the above.

Re your requests for links / more details of my research, I suggest you start the with the References in the SEN 100% 2029 WA studies I gave you links to. Also type my name into the Renew Economy, Business Spectator and OLO websites and you will find several of my articles, with references.

I can provide others in the debate.org.

Bazz,

I agree with you about the futility of arguing global warming and that on fuel security grounds alone something must be done to move on from fossil fuels.

But the argument you refer to: ' ERoEI of solar and wind is too poor
to enable those energy sources to build power stations, railways etc'. is false.

Here is a reference to a table that compares total CO2e emissions from construction and fuel per kWh of electricity generated, for the various electricity generation technologies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

This is a measure of total fossil fuels used for each type of generation. You will see that wind is the lowest, followed closely by nuclear, with hydro, geothermal solar thermal and solar PV close behind.

Ben,

My apologies for the mistake in your name. Thank you for the details of your career and interests. Good to know you are a scientist and claim to be not a green ideologue; however, your comments “renewable energy and the urgency to implement all of these” suggest you do have strong ideological leanings and not unbiased and objective. If by ‘ethical investments’ you exclude nuclear energy and fossil fuels, I wouldn’t agree that is ‘ethical’. And I’d see it as ideological, not rational or objective. Regarding “committee member of Sustainable Energy Now”, I suspect you are not aware that nuclear is sustainable and so called ‘renewables’ are not (see previous comment). I see you’ve been visiting renewable sites and nuclear plants and I suspect you are hearing what you want to hear. But that is not objective research.

You can see my short bio on top of most of my posts. I am also a self-funded retiree. I am invested in index tracker funds and LICs so invested across the market in proportion to the market capitalisation. I am not in any political party nor a member of any political or advocacy organisation.

“Re your requests for links / more details of my research”
I didn’t ask for links or more research. Please reread what I asked.

I’ve looked briefly at your SEN WA 100% renewables on SWIS by 2029 study. I’ve pointed out it’s similar to the BZE ZCA study which is nonsense (I gave you links). And I’ve asked you why your figures are so different (opposite) to what the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator shows. Your response showed you were not familiar with it. Worse still you made blatantly wrong statements, apparently to try to dismiss it.

Let’s not divert from the three criteria we each raised until we can reach closure on each of them. I’ve supported each of mine and asked you a question on how you conducted your research that underpins your three concerns about nuclear power. I’m waiting for your response to that. No more research required.

Ben,

Bazz's statement about ERoEI is not false. It's correct. Renewables are not sustainable. The Wikipedia link you just gave is not about ERoEI. I suspect you don't understand what EOoEI is.

The energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) in renewable energy is not sufficient to supply the energy needs of modern society.

A short explanation of why is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/. The ERoEI needs to be at least 14 to support modern society. So, only fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear can do it.

Below are some ERoEI figures for various electricity generation technologies. These including buffering – i.e. energy storage so the unreliable, non dispatchable renewables are properly comparable with the dispatchable technologies.

Solar PV = 1.6
Biomass = 3.5
Wind = 3.9
Solar CSP (desert) = 9
Gas (CCGT) = 28
Coal = 30
Hydro = 35
Nuclear = 75

Source: http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Read it if you want to understand ERoEI.