>"It is starting to sink in that the world's heavy reliance on fossil fuels will only end once the alternatives become a lot cheaper and that this requires a much bigger research and development effort. The alternatives are still too expensive for widespread deployment. "

You're dead right on that. The alternatives are far too expensive for widespread deployment. Practitioners who understand the electricity system and understand the issues recognise it is highly unlikely that intermittent renewables will become economically viable at the scale required. Nuclear has enormous potential to reduce costs and emissions. However, most of the research focus needs to be on the social engineering aspects of it rather than on the technical. If we (initiated by US and IAEA) remove the impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear power, that's really all that needs to be done. No international agreements are needed. Appropriately deregulate the nuclear industry, and markets will then do what they do. There'll be no need for carbon pricing or renewable energy subsidies or GHG emissions monitoring or massive waste on bureaucracies or UN control, with international courts, international police forces, etc to deal with recalcitrant states,

The chart here shows that carbon pricing costs far more than the projected benefits for all this century and beyond: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
This is from the worlds most widely cited and accepted model of costs and benefits of GHG emissions, climate damages, emissions abatement, and carbon pricing.

Risible rubbish!
So we need R+D eh?
No doubt at enormous cost to someone, i.e, the as ever gullible tax paying public.
Why? Because change will only come with cheaper alternatives!
You don't say!
People who regularly contribute to OLO, will have bean bored out of their brains by my posts advocating just that, and with proven examples!
#1 cheaper than coal thorium, which if we're still stupidly lead. will be hastily dug up and sold for a pauper's bargain, and then used to hand all the low cost energy advantage to those we compete with, or keep and used here, to hand it to us; and given our currently know reserves, for at least the next thousand years.
Virtually carbon free, cheaper than coal, 50's technology, Thorium reactors are small, and don't suit national grids!
[Moreover, they produce far less waste, which is nowhere as toxic and is eminently suitable for long life space batteries.]
They do however suit micro grids, and rolled/trucked out as bolt on factory built modules, connected to micro grids, will power up industry, (industrial estates, aluminium/steel-mills/smelters/military bases/essential defense industries) and for less than half what they shell out now, but particularly if they're rolled out as government owned and operated public utilities.
Sorry paper shuffling energy barons, but the days of captive markets, and endless price gouging are over; (or they should be)along with the rivers of BS that virtually handed our energy market to you!!
But particularly if we're lead by Lee Kwan Yu type pragmatists! (just don't hold your breath)
T.B.C. Rhrosty

The Watermellons have held up alternative energy by decades by the multi-trillion waste of money on half-assed "Alternative Energy" systems.

Electricity is the ULTIMATE perishable good (effective batteries don't exist), not used and it is instantaniously lost, fish heads in a hot sun last longer.
What else would one expect from a Party whose chief credentials are Bugger Alls.

To achieve the same emission reductions would cost more than twice as much with renewables than with nuclear. Furthermore, there is a very high risk that renewables will not be able to do the job. They’ve not demonstrated they can anywhere in the world whereas, nuclear power has demonstrated it can – for example it’s been supplying over 75% of France’s electricity for 30 years and cut Frances emisisons intensity from electricity to about 15% of Germany’s and Denmark’s.

The CSIRO eFuture calculator provides one easy way to check for yourself. It uses cost and CO2 emissions inputs for each technology from the Australian Government Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE)'s ‘Australian Electricity Technology Assessment Report’ (AETA). However, the cost of additional transmission is not included; these are a significant additional cost for options with a high proportion of renewables.

To use the 'eFuture' calculator select the inputs from the pull down menu options then click ‘Build charts’; or select ‘Default scenario’. It calculates the least cost proportions of technologies to meet the demand profile to 2050. It produces charts for generation proportions, wholesale cost and retail price of electricity and total CO2 emissions.

Compare the default scenario with and without nuclear permitted

1) default scenario, central estimates (most likely values) for all inputs, nuclear not permitted, in 2050:
renewables supply about 40% of electricity,
wholesale cost of electricity (in 2013 $) = $130/MWh
CO2-e emissions from electricity = 80 Mt/a

2) With nuclear permitted and all else same as default scenario:
nuclear supplies about 60% of electricity,
wholesale cost of electricity (in 2013 $) = $80/MWh
CO2-e emissions from electricity = 25 Mt/a

Therefore, for these inputs the wholesale electricity cost is about 1.6 times higher with nuclear not permitted than with nuclear permitted. If renewables supplied 50% of the electricity, the wholesale cost would be around twice what it would be with nuclear permitted.

#2: Is biogas, produced onsite and stored in bladders, makes power available 24/7!
Scrubbed and fed into super silent ceramic fuel cells, this gas, (methane) Will not only power the average domicile, as well as creating a sizable surplus, and endless free hot water! But for virtually nothing, once the roll out costs are recovered.
An 80% energy coefficient and scales of economy will ensure just that; and that the related infrastructure costs the average family less than the cost of a median priced car!
And given necessary scales of economy/government involvement, that's doable as a thousand dollars a quarter, for just a single decade!?
[Conversely, a decade down the track and a thousand a quarter, would be vastly lower than the average energy burden by then!]
And very doable if the government/gas and oil/energy corporation, steps in as the very low cost financing entity.
Why, even a high rise or a small village or suburb, could be serviced by a SMELL FREE system, not a lot larger than a couple of cargo containers!
All of which could also be buried if convenient!
And located at the lowest possible flood free site, eliminating most of the pumps that might be required!
The waste products include thoroughly sanitized high carbon fertilizer rich in both phosphate and nitrates; plus recyclable water, eminently suitable for an endlessly sustainable algae based oil industry!
Which by the way, if scales of economy are included, could according to industry experts, reduce the cost of jet fuel and diesel, to as low as 44 cents a litre, retail!
The waste products from this industry suitable as endless cattle fodder; or used as the basis for an arable land free, source of material, that sustains an equally endless, petrol replacing ethanol industry!
The resulting sludge, still useful as sanitized fertilizer!
As one very wise PM said, you just can't lose in the energy business.
Which should at least enable patently pragmatic politicians to propose the reinstating of the gas and oil corporation, but for the different purpose of actually rolling out these very same alternatives!
T.B.C. Rhrosty.

Don't forget to add the Pixie dust to the Bullsh--.

#3 penultimately, there are Pebble reactors. These also can be mass produced/factory built and then trucked onsite as bolt on modules, ready to provide power in just weeks!
The coolant is helium; meaning, they can be located virtually anywhere, given there's no reliance on water.
The marbles, (pebbles) of enriched uranium are coated in a grape fruit sized ball of toughened (virtually bullet proof) graphite!
The same sort of material/ceramics, that we use as molten metal vessels!
This design concept ensures if for any reason the coolant supply is shut down or lost, no melt down or collecting of fissile material is possible; nor the resultant critical mass.
And given they can be mass produced in factories, and then trucked on site; means they are also very suitable replacement for the larger diesel engines in many shipping vessels; certainly, almost entire navies; (export and fit) but only if we're actually lead by pragmatists, actually able to put aside personal considerations; and or, after politics careers/consultancies, in favor of the national interest!?
And a mass production and power within days once delivered and bolted on, means nuclear power, as shown, is now also vastly cheaper than coal! But then and only then, where vastly less problematic thorium is not practical!
T.B.C. Rhrosty.

#4. Finally there is solar thermal. And no we aren't currently building any, but we could. Scales of economy, and fluoride/thorium salts (24/7 power) have brought these babies down to the cost of coal, whether measured against roll out times or costs, or the availability or 24/7 power.
And they only need be sited in arid desert land not suitable for any other purpose.
So it could be a thousand or more hectares?
What other viable purpose would or could you use such land for!?
And they would, I'd imagine, what one might consider, if also considering the roll out of very rapid rail and or, nationwide electric vehicle recharge stations. [And we are able to look at working examples in both Arizona and California?]
And something that would require the sort of finance only Bill Gates or a sovereign economy could muster.
I'd favor a sovereign economy, on the grounds, their borrowing costs are usually half that of the private sphere!
And their subsequent costs structures are not also necessarily burdened by tax imposts, nor shareholder ever rising expectations!
So now, with all the necessary R+D done and dusted, what other possible reasons can we search around for, to enable the inevitable delays, or obfuscation, the four trillion plus a year fossil fuel industry are rolling out, along with their endless survival methodology/mechanization equivocation!?
Rhrosty.

The solutions actually look a lot closer than they did even a few months ago.

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

or for those who prefer moving pictures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM

More R&D is certainly needed, but the cost of finance is arguably a bigger barrier. Renewable power has a much greater infrastructure requirement than fossil fuel power, but a lower running cost. If the required return on investment wasn't so high, we'd have far more power at cheaper rates than fossil fuels could provide.

The same conditions favour nuclear, though not to the same extent.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty, methane is the main component of natural gas. Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate the two than keeping them separate?

And where did you get the crazy idea that thorium reactors don't suit national grids?

I agree with the general sentiment that R and D for energy needs to be increased and the cost of alternative energies needs to be kept as low as possible.

However, how will the increased R & D be funded?

We had a carbon price of up to $25 for 2 years. It has minimal (about 8%) impact on electricity prices and there's no way it was 'crippling the economy'. It was funding R and D through ARENA and addressing the finance problem through the CEFC. These have been dismantled / de-funded by the current government.

They have replaced successful climate action with a taxpayer funded scheme to subsidize industries that may decide to undertake energy efficiencies or other emissions reductions. Most experts believe IT will struggle to achieve even 5% emission reductions

Re solar thermal electricity: Yes it only works in direct sunlight so needs sunny, climates with very little cloud. But it does NOT require the sun to be 'virtually overhead'. I recently toured the Solar Reserve CST plant in Nevada (Lat. 38 deg.N). It has tracking mirrors and molten salt storage and is designed to operate for 20 hours a day at full power in summer.

An excellent article with reasonable, balanced comments.

One technology not mentioned is predictable regular TIDAL power. Tidal can be seen as more frequently available hydro-electricity without the need for particular river-dam combinations. The prdictable nature of tidal puts it ahead of solar and wind power.

Tidal power from the worlds oceans (near Sydney, Newcastle, etc) is a technology which demands much more research and practical testing.

Pete

Roses1,

Let’s get this straight from the start. You've demonstrated in previous threads your opinions are defined by your ideological beliefs. You are not prepared to conduct a rational debate despite claiming you are a scientist and stating you want a rational debate. You have little understanding of the electricity system, engineering, economics, or policy analysis. Your comments and responses demonstrate intellectually dishonesty. (see ‘10 signs of intellectual dishonesty’ here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/ ). You dodged, weaved and snow-jobbed throughout the debate here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809 . You said you wanted a rational debate but haven’t refuted my statements, references or figures and have refused to admit when the facts demonstrated clearly you are wrong http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0 - see my comments on Nov . 9 and 10 on that thread; they sum up the case against your beliefs in RE. You dodged and weaved and avoided addressing the substance of the points raised. The evidence against your beliefs is clear. You were unable to refute it. It shows clearly that renewables are very high cost and therefore unlikely to succeed. In fact you avoided even reading the references cited.

For those interested there are two excellent recent posts by 'Planning Engineer' here:

"Myths and realities of renewable energy"
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/

"More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve"
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

There are a large proportion of excellent comments among the over 1200 comments on these two threads.

And here is another excellent and highly relevant recent post:
'Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it'
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/03/cognitive-bias-how-petroleum-scientists-deal-with-it

Technological optimism, it will be the death of many :)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/11/interstellar-insane-fantasy-abandoning-earth-political-defeatism

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.

G'day Peter Lang

Nice comparitive cost calculations, but...

Too bad nuclear remains a political impossibility in Australia.

The recent reminder "we don't want a nuclear waste dump on our land" proves it.

When you get down to the question "where do you want the Reactor built"? No-one wants it near their town, city, nature reserve, native title land, desert or coastal resort.

The effect on house-property prices? Real Estate agents changed the suburban name of Lucas Heights because of the bad reputation of nuclear pushing down house prices.

Even Liberal Prime Ministers and Premiers know not to raise nuclear proposals because local Liberal-National MP's tell them its a vote-loser electorally.

And then there's the taxpayer cost of nuclear subsidies, tax breaks - very much on the scale of Very Fast Trains projects.

Even engineers need to work with the politically possible.

Pete

One area that fascinates me is artificial photosynthesis - doing what plants do only better.

Imagine getting fuel from sunlight, water and CO2.

One researcher working along these lines is Douglas MacFarlane at Monash.

See:

http://monash.edu/news/show/creating-fuel-from-sunlight

And also

http://monash.edu/science-stories/story/harvesting-sunshine/

BTW the cost of photovoltaics fell 99% over the past 30 years. Half the fall occurred during the past six years.

In many parts of California builders are adding solar cells to the rooftops of new houses as a matter of course. The builder retains ownership of the owner and sells the electricity to the occupants at a discount of 20% to the grid.

This year Texas of all places is set to get 10% of its electricity from wind. Last year it was 8.3% but a lot of new capacity is coming on line.

So it goes.

Plantagenet and Steven - I agree; good comments. If you want to read my responses to Peter Lang go to:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=15

Ben Roses,

"Plantagenet and Steven - I agree; good comments."

How interesting that you would agree with two comments that support your ideological beliefs, despite them being substance free and contain no rational argument. It is another example of what I've been pointing out all along. Your comments demonstrate you are intellectually dishonest.

Readers can see my responses to Ben Roses here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809#296212
He got a FAIL on 10 out of the 12 questions.

>>How interesting that you would agree with two comments that support your ideological beliefs>>

LOL

I'm not actually sure what ideology my post espouses.

The first part of my post was about advances in the technology of artificial photosynthesis

The second part was about the extent to which the cost of renewables is falling and how they are responsible for an ever growing proportion of electricity production.

I don't see any ideology there. Merely reporting some developments on the ground.

You may also be interested in this piece from Bloomberg which does not augur well for Australia:

China Coal Peak Imminent Makes Coal Risky Investment: Study

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-21/china-coal-peak-imminent-makes-coal-risky-investment-study.html

And this one from Forbes:

Which Is More Scalable, Nuclear Energy Or Wind Energy?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/08/22/which-is-more-scalable-nuclear-energy-or-wind-energy/

The Chinese are installing more wind capacity than nuclear - that's AFTER taking into account the lower load factors for wind.

BTW even the Wall Street Journal now concedes that age is the main determinant in people's attitudes towards global warming. The youngsters mostly believe the science.

Politics Counts: The Real Split on Global Warming

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/25/politics-counts-the-real-split-on-global-warming/

Once again science, NOT ideology, will win.

:)

>>How interesting that you would agree with two comments that support your ideological beliefs>>

More for Peter Lang

The provision of energy is only one side of the equation. On the other side appliances are getting more energy efficient. According to LA Times the cars produced in the US average the greatest fuel efficiency since records started.

However that's not a US phenomenon only. All over the world carmakers are striving for greater efficiency.

Then there's this from NIST:

NIST Test House Exceeds Goal; Ends Year with Energy to Spare

http://www.nist.gov/el/nzertf/index.cfm

This is a concept house similar to a concept car. But, over time the technology will start being incorporated into up-market homes - say the Mercedes Benz's of houses.

Then, as always happens, the price of the technology will plummet and it will become a commodity put into Toyota Corolla class homes as a matter of course.

More interestingly, energy efficiency is becoming chic.

I'm a technology optimist but even I am astonished at the speed at which things are moving.

Pixie dust and bulls, Mackrackie?
Well, anyone able to reach that conclusion without any reference to the facts or credible research, would have to be the best possible source of both!
Yes NG, CSG and biogas are all methane, and there are roles for methane in any serious study of alternatives!
The stuff recovered from the ground is a one off only able to be recovered with some serious outlays; whereas, biogas made in sanitizing smell free digestors from waste, is never ever going to run out, as long as we humans produce biological waste!
And the fact one can consume any of these sources of (scrubbed)methane in ceramic fuel cells, producing mostly water vapor in the process; means, it should be looked at kindly by so called environmentalists!?
Or the smog free electric vehicle industry, given this is the only electric (CNG> Ceramic fuel cell> electric drive, air conditioning, lights etc) vehicle option able to be refueled with CNG (methane) in just minutes; and ten or twenty times a day, if that's convenient!
Thorium reactors are comparatively small, and the biggest successful prototypes have thus far, maxed out at around 50 MW?
A national grid, given the usual unavoidable losses, needs big generators with a capacity of 1000 MW, (coal or oxide reactors, or hydro) to be commercially viable.
One could get around that by parking 20 thorium reactors on a single site, and then pushing power down wires, and as usual, experiencing the average 50% energy losses.
For mine, putting those same 20 reactors in 20 different locations, and very adjacent to the industrial energy consumer, makes much more sense.
Particularly given the then eliminated energy losses, halves the cost of (carbon free power) to the end user! And who needs expensive (gold plated) poles and wires anyway?
And given, if we are sensible, we could power our seriously advantaged industries, with this very cheap energy source for at least the next thousand years; it must be included in the mix!
By which time, the world would have ironed out all the bugs in fusion power!?
Rhrosty.

Nuclear power is the least cost way to generate low emissions electricity. To cut CO2 emissions from electricity by 50% to 90% by 2050, mostly nuclear would be around half the cost of mostly renewables. If the CAGW alarmists want to cut global GHG emissions, they'd better get behind removing the impediments that cause even nuclear to be too expensive.

This is the right size for the Australian grid, super flexible, and ideal many mid-sized economies.

“Canadian technology to innovate China fuel cycle

A Framework Joint Venture Agreement has been signed between China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and Candu Energy to build Advanced Fuel Cycle CANDU Reactor (AFCR) projects domestically and develop opportunities for that technology internationally. While the basic technology is Canadian, R&D at Qinshan in China since 2008 has turned a simple concept into technology which can now be utilised, so that the used fuel from four conventional reactors can fully supply one AFCR unit (as well as providing recycled plutonium for MOX). This means greatly reducing the task of managing used fuel and disposing of high-level wastes, and also significantly reducing China’s fresh uranium requirements.

The AFCR is described as “a 700 MW Class Generation III reactor based on the highly successful CANDU 6 and Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) reactors with a number of adaptations … [allowing] it to use recycled uranium or thorium as fuel.” The present focus is on uranium recycled from conventional used fuel (RU) blended with depleted uranium (DU) to give natural uranium equivalent. Trials of this in one of the CANDU-6 units at Qinshan have been successful, and next year both those reactors will be modified to become full AFCRs. Then the joint venture plans to build new AFCR units in China and beyond.

Setting the scene for the latest JV agreement, an expert panel hosted by the China Nuclear Energy Association praised the AFCR’s safety characteristics and said that it forms a synergy with China’s existing PWRs and that it is positioned to “promote the development of closed fuel cycle technologies and industrial development” in China.

WNN 10/11/14. China FC”

Well researched and argued Peter Lang. Fast breeder/conversion reactors are very definitely the way to go!
But particularly if we would draw down the fissile material currently stockpiled in nuclear weaponry. Better it be entirely used up providing economy improving energy!
FBR's will enable the half life of toxic waste to be reduced to just 300 years or so?
And surely, we as an intelligent species, can safely store this stuff until then; by which time, we may have viable fusion up and running; and possibly even powering us to the stars; via now also theoretically possible, warp drives!?
Rhrosty.

>>Nuclear power is the least cost way to generate low emissions electricity.>>

I don't think we have to make a one size fits all decision. It depends on geography, availability of other resources, etc. Texas apparently has a wind power boom because there are regions where the wind blows nearly all the time.

California is sunny.

I have no ideological objection to nuclear.

Rhosty, where did you get the idea that transmission losses were anywhere near 50%?

Hi stevenlmeyer

I agree with your non-ideological, science based arguments.

---

In contrast

@Peter Lang

You label all those who disagree with you as ideological - presumably leftwing.

Reds under the Bed at every turn?

You don't know me very well.

You appear so steeped in tthe mechanics of nuclear engineering that you forget about the politics of what people want.

Would you gain financially if Australia went nuclear Peter Lang?

:)

Transmission line losses average out at 0.6% a mile.
And the national grid covers thousands of miles. And each one of those miles is accompanied by 0.6% transmission line losses.
I mean, just take a thousand mile of wires, (1000 x 0.6) and the loss is 60%!
How many thousands of miles of wires do you think are needed just to reticulate power to any of the capital cites/2-3 million consumers?
We live some 15 miles from the nearest power station, yet our power is sent down better than a hundred miles, and sent back up through a feeder line.
And it's not just wires that create loss through friction, heat, resistance; but transformers, capacitors and conductors as well.
And the hotter the line the more the resistance!
Power doesn't travel down the wires, but rather electrons bump into other electrons, displacing them, which in turn pass the favor on, and remarkably, just under the speed of light.
And we're talking about a national grid that stretches from Tasmania to Cains on the east coast; criss crossing the landscape.
Lord only knows how the other states fare or if they're also connected to this huge white elephant, we call the national grid. Conversely, if you piped gas and then turned it into electricity onsite, providing there were no leaking pipes; any transmission losses would be negligible.
Aidan, what makes you think that just by asking lots of uninformed questions, you can somehow make the science go away?
Simply put, it hasn't changed since I worked for a power authority, and in a science related capacity.
Aidan, what makes you think I intend to respond to any more of your asinine questions?
I am not your science teacher, and I think you'd learn a lot more, and or, not appear so dumb, if you simply bothered to do your own research.
Rhrosty.

Rhosty

Transmission losses 0.6% per mile?!! That computes to 70% of the electricity produced at Collie being lost before it gets to Perth, 120 miles away?! Only 30% of the power produced at the power stations that supply more than half of Perth actually get to that city?!

I audited a mine > 200 miles from Collie where its electricity came from. Total line losses (including transmission and switch yards) were 9%.

Check you figure; you're out by a factor of more than 10.

Before you challenge the science OR MY INTEGRITY, roses1, you first need to be able to do the very simple maths!
i.e., 120 (miles) x 0.6 (T.L.L.)= 0.72% as transmission line losses between Collie and Perth!
But in the interest of being helpful to someone who is usually very much right on the money, with extremely well researched posts, 99.99% of the time; I'll give you the maths formula you actually need to work out your transmission line losses.
i.e., 0.6 times 120 divided by 100 = 0.72%!
I hope you find that helpful, and I haven't left too much egg on your face, one of your greatest admirers; and with all due respect, Rhrosty.

OK Rhosty, your last calculation seems near the mark.

If 50MW reactors are too small then roof top solar panels must be net negative contributors to energy production, maybe its the Pixie dust that makes solar panels worth while.

I would think distributed, smallish but capable 50MW reactors would to a degree mimic the internet; that is have emergent fault tolerance that would add robustness to a core of massive base load units.

‘morning David,

I’ve followed this thread with interest in the hope that someone might raise the BGO moment.

Surely the R&D issue should have been BEFORE the world rushed into renewables and not AFTER they failed?

There are so many technical calculations, engineering principles and alternative solutions being offered here, for what? Are we trying to retrospectively “shoehorn” even more non “market ready” solutions into an already failed market mix?

Let me put it another way, would we be having this conversation if the renewables we forced into our energy economy were economically viable in the first place? Why are so many posters still trying to force this economically failed technology?

The vast majority of the economic impost on the developed world has already fallen on the consumer. We carry the burden of energy surcharge and our taxes have been paid out as “subsidies and loan guarantees” by governments for renewables consortiums, wealthy landowners to host wind farms, renewables industries, paid “research” into CAGW, failed emissions trading markets and spinning backup for renewables. We have already seen 800 million Euro’s sucked out of the EU economy alone since 2008.

What could have been produced if this level of funding had been spent on R&D before any response to CAGW was implemented instead of after?

The “deadlock” to which you refer is not a deadlock at all. It is a last ditch attempt to suck even more funds out of our governments without acknowledging that the cart was before the horse in the first place.

What remains of this back to front creation? The global renewables industry index RENNIX, collapsed in March 2013, the Emissions Trading markets have either closed or collapsed, governments are withdrawing subsidies and tariffs and there is still no Kyoto replacement.

And now we are being asked to fund research into failed renewables to compete with a glut of fossil fuels?

There is something mind-blowingly crass about such jaundiced thinking!

Fortunately, the USA, China, India and Russia will never participate in such manic economics and Kyoto can rest in peace

Peter Lang

I am interested in your views on the need for government funding of nuclear R&D.

Do you think that the reactors currently being built could compete in many places with fossil if the government simply removed unnecessary impediments?

Also under these favorable conditions do you think private industry would be willing to do all the research, development, demonstration and initial deployment needed for the more advanced types of reactors?

We will find a new, better & cheaper source of energy. Of course we will.

Like all major discoveries before, it will come out of left field, imagined & developed by a individuals, or companies. Governments & academics will only come in later, often dragged kicking & screaming, after the fact.

For gods sake lets stop wasting taxpayer funds by giving them to academics to play with. If they had any imagination, they would not be academics.

A scenario. Government wanted a new mode of transport & threw millions at academics in the mid 19Th century. What would they have got. Something using steam, or a different way of using a horse.

It took some kooks who liked playing with dirty smelly bits of iron to come up with an internal combustion engine, & the motor car.

It took a couple of ratbag bicycle mechanics to come up with an aircraft.

Same today, get our money out of university research, & build roads railways & airports with it. Let private industry come up with a profitable economic new power source.

Hi David McMullen

A great article - and your comment above is well aimed. Nuclear power companies are well known to talk-up any gains or profits while more quietly relying on governments and taxpayers to pay for the research, losses, accidents and inevitable decommisioning of reactors.
---

@McCackie

Its a total myth that small 50 MW reactors might in some way be easier or have some economies of scale compared to standard 1000 MW reactors.

Installation of any reactor in Australia would be a major political, social, environmental impact and security risk process that would take 10-30 years of scoping, planning and building. All this means it would make more sense to build a large-standard reactor because all the endless hurdles and considerations would be repeated for each of any small ones.

In any case its all academic. No serious Prime Minister, Premier or Mayor would dare declare that an actual reactor would be built anywhere near their electorate.

This is one reason why the the Russians have been proposing floating (on the sea) reactors for decades - in which case potential disasters might come from tsunamis, pirates, terrorists, accidents, cyclones, ship collisions etc.

You name it - reactors blow up rarely - but when they do, like Fukushima, its a huge societal $100 Billion problem for a whole country.

Like Peter Lang, Dream on.

David McMullen,

Yes to both questions.

When the impediments are removed, the cost of nuclear will reduce as it has done for all other electricity generation technologies over the past >100 years. A cost reduction of about 10% per capacity doubling is reasonable based on history.

Recall that regulatory ratcheting has increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four to 1990 and probably doubled that since. Also recall that nuclear is at the very beginning of development. Current reactors use less than 1% of the available energy in the fuel. Over time this will increase to approaching 100%. The cost reduction potential is enormous. All this potential is effectively blocked.

Renewables are receiving far more public subsidy per MWh than nuclear. So you should pose your question to the renewables advocates. Nuclear is inherently cheap per MWh and the fuel is effectively unlimited. Renewables are very expensive, low energy density and therefore not sustainable (see ERoEI http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ )

When we remove the impediments to low cost nuclear and move to small modular reactors innovation can be unleashed and competition will reduce costs, improve fit-for-purpose and develop products for each niche market segment. Of course all this will take time. Until the impediments are removed the effect of the impediments on costs needs to be offset by subsidies. That is necessary so mankind can reap the benefits – it’s best for human well-being.

Recall that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity. If nuclear replaced coal overnight over a million fatalities per year would be avoided. With cheaper electricity, it would be rolled out faster to the billions of people who do not have electricity saving millions more fatalities per year.

The anti-nukes are blocking the world from receiving all the benefits.

Peter Lang

You exhibit the regrettable tone of a fervent engineer for whom all considerations but mechanical efficiency are superfluous.

Where you say: "When the impediments are removed,"

Is it not more accurate to say: "When the great body of political, social, environmental and national security .concerns with nuclear are resolved in Australia?

I say "If" because increasingly in the US and Europe it is taking decades from bright idea to reactor completion.

"If" because I'm 53 and I don't foresee a complete reactor in Australia before I may croak at 80 :)

Nuclear eventually but not in the lifetimes of many in Australia.

Pete

Sorry Pete, but you & the rest of the current population may have little say in it.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, there is a Russian fleet sailing around out there, just off our coast. It is undoubtable nuclear armed. There is not a damn thing we can do about it, other than posture.

Unless we start arming ourselves with cruise missiles, with some nuclear armed, there is every possibility that there will not be an Australia as we know it, quite some time before you croak.

We can either go nuclear ourselves, or at the orders of a new master.

It would be perhaps poetic justice if our green/left folk ended up not agrarian as they would like, but as field labour for such a new master.

Plantagenet,

Why don’t you ask questions instead of making false assumptions and unfounded assertions? I am advocating least cost energy. Until you and the renewable energy proponents recognise that you cannot succeed in your mission if you are advocating to increase energy costs. The world wants and needs energy at lowest possible cost. Anything else is not politically sustainable. The lowest cost will win. So, for those concerned about GHG emissions, it is up to them to advocate for least cost, low emissions technologies if they want to reduce global GHG emissions. Nothing else will succeed. Renewables cannot meet the requirements. Nuclear can

Peter lang wrote:

>> I am advocating least cost energy>>

It really depends on your definition of "least cost"

If you cling to the belief that the negative externalities of:

--adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere

AND

--Relying on Middle-East and Russian oil and gas

= zero

You'll arrive at one answer.

If you believe either or both of these > zero you'll arrive at another.

However, as I've pointed, even without taking these into account, renewables AND greater energy efficiency are gaining ground because in many regions they are the cheapest option to fill at least part of the mix.

The Germans are, of course, potty. They believe relying on Russian gas is less risky than using their nukes.

Right now the Chinese seem to be the most enthusiastic builders of wind energy capacity followed by the Texans.

Peter Lang

I am aware there are major impediments in the USA, Oz and western Europe. But what about China, India and Russia? I might be wrong but I don't think they have the same political problems. In Russia nuclear provides 18% of power generation which is marginally less than the USA. The share for China and India are quite low, 2 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. Fossil on the other hand is huge in these countries and their planned increase dwarfs those for nuclear. Indeed China has just announced that it intends to increase CO2 emissions at least for the next 15 years.

This leads me to tentatively conclude that current reactors cannot compete. The question then is whether private firms would be prepared to do all the R&D to bring nuclear up to speed given the sort of problems I mention in the second paragraph of the article.

David McMullen,

My answer is ‘Yes’ the private sector will do the R, D&D once the impediments are removed, just as they do for coal, hydro, gas, diesel, petrol, jet engines, aircraft and everything else that isn’t regulated to the point of being uneconomic.

“But what about China, India and Russia? … I don't think they have the same political problems.”
The fact they do not have the political problems is not the constraint to the world getting access to low cost nuclear power. The USA is the big player. It has the knowledge and the greatest ability to innovate once unleashed. It is also the world’s de facto nuclear regulator. It has enormous influence in the IAEA. The LNT hypothesis and the resulting allowable radiation limits are an enormous problem. All countries have to abide by them. The Fukushima accident would have been 1% to 10% of the cost if not for the excessive regulations. See this short pamphlet: http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf and if you have time this video presentation by Oxford Professor Wade Allison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0

Nuclear fission fuel is 20,000 to 2 million times more energy dense than fossil fuels. This means there is huge cost reduction potential. We need to recognise nuclear is already about the safest way to generate electricity and get the impediments out of the way. It will take decades for the cost reductions and other benefits to be fully realised, so there will be a period where subsidies for R&D are required to offset the costly impediments imposed as a result of 50 years of anti-nuke scaremongering.

As you’d know, licencing of a small modular reactors costs about $10 billion and takes 10 years. Each future design change has to go through long costly government review processes. That’s blocking progress. No competing technology has that impediment. And it is having the perverse effect of causing electricity to be less safe, not safer.

The bottom line is the world will go for least cost electricity. Renewables cannot make much of a contribution and are too expensive

‘morning stevenlmeyer,

Your comments that, << The Germans are, of course, potty. They believe relying on Russian gas is less risky than using their nukes >>, and << Right now the Chinese seem to be the most enthusiastic builders of wind energy capacity followed by the Texans >>.

Germany has already announced the delay in spooling down their nuclear plants from 2019 to 2022, they have twelve new coal plants in build with no CCS at all, three come into service in 2015 and nine of the twelve new coal plants will burn lignite. Germany has cut roof top solar rebates three times and rebates end completely in 2017 and between 2012 and 2013 demand for PV dropped by 60%. Not potty at all.

China has just delivered a crushing blow to any hope of binding targets in Paris in 2015, as they will not sign up for anything until at least 2030 and will grow their emissions by 25% until then.

According to the IEA, by 2030 China plans to generate just 3% from wind, 5.5% from nuclear, hydro 3% and wood 6%. So a total renewable contribution of 11.5% by 2030? At which point they “may” review their emissions options?

China already has 21 nuclear power plants with an astonishing new build program of 28 more in progress.

3% wind by 2030? Hardly “enthusiastic”?

Additionally, as at March 28 2013, “CHINA'S Suntech the world's largest solar panel producer, plunged to bankruptcy in just one year.

The Texas wind farm program, like the rest of the USA, has stalled with the only activity being current projects. The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Investors predict its total demise.

The USA’s renewables industry has collapsed, eight of their largest subsidized renewable energy manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy between 2007 and 2012. Beacon Power Corp, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Babcock and Brown, Mountain Plaza Inc and Solar Millennium. The cost to the US taxpayer is U$ 3.9 Billion.

Cont’d.

Cont’d

A further six USA subsidized green energy companies are in default or in decline at a cost to the US taxpayer of U$ 6 Billion.

Obama may try to bypass the congress he “lost” recently and try to direct the EPA to legislate for power and industrial companies to further reduce emissions?

However, following “Climategate” no less than 15 US companies and the State of Texas, all served Litigation Hold Notices on the US EPA and Britain’s CRU.

If the EPA tries to legislate emissions reductions on industry without congress, it is likely to trigger the LHN’s and put both Britain’s CRU and the US EPA in the supreme court.

Russia supplies 30% of the EU’s gas and already controls the EU’s energy security, which is why Germany is building coal plants so quickly. Russia is also nearing completion of a $20bn pipeline to ship gas to China. So is it likely that Russia will sign up for binding limits on their energy markets and new found geo-political strength?

India has already made it clear by there refusal to even participate in talks that they will continue with their nuclear program and coal build programs to drive their economy.

More generally, EU has recently offered significant binding emissions targets however, this is “conditional on the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”? Well that went poof with China’s announcement, let alone India and Russia.

So no Paris commitments from the biggest emitters, so non from the EU.

Japan has withdrawn its RET and tabled the prospect of again spooling up some of its more modern nuclear power plants, meanwhile it imports more coal and oil to replace its renewables?

Whilst not major emitters, Japan, Australia, Canada and NZ will not be signing up for binding targets, so any hope of exhuming Kyoto seems more dependent on magic rather than reality.

If on the other hand if you can see some excitement for warmers in all of this, be my guest

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with Hasbeen.
Simply put, if we but focus on the least costly examples of power provision, we will do a number of things.
#1 abandon the great energy wasting white elephant called the national grid, and for more than just socio economic reasons, but our inherent security as well.
#2 Build and locate, small thorium reactors, which can be located/buried almost anywhere, and even provide a very lucrative export trade.
#3 Almost any half decent engineer could build/mass produce them for the (govt contract) domestic or export market!
The very fact that there is no weapons spin-off from this old 50's technology, is the only reason they were abandoned, rather than some so called technical difficulty.
And because there's no weapons spin off, the actual reactors present no real problem, be it radioactivity, or thermonuclear melt down, currently impossible, given the ridiculously small size of individual, units/nuclear fuel requirements.
Yes, I would prefer one in buried deep in my backyard, as a replacement for a nearby coal fired unit!
And because the coal fired smoke stacks are giving off much more dangerous substances; including uranium, lead, mercury, carcinogenic cadmium, lead and other nearly as dangerous to the health, poisons.
Coal fired power stations burn annual millions of tons of increasingly expensive coal.
Whereas, if we powered Australia, with a combination of very long term thorium and endless biogas; not only would we eliminate these extremely dangerous carcinogens from our atmosphere, but reduce our power cost by more than half, given the very safe localized examples, produce little or no transmission line losses.
The only people who need the national grid and thousand MW generators, are the very people now price gouging power delivery!
Hasbeen is right, we only need focus on the cheapest possible options!
And if they also just happen to be carbon negative or carbon neutral, so much the better!
Given, as sure as chickens lay eggs, carbon tariffs will be likely used, sooner or later, to create export/trade advantages, by the biggest economies; or our so called trading partners!
Rhrosty.

David McMullen,

I welcome your interest in the potential to reduce costs of nuclear (e.g. by deregulating to facilitate private sector competition, innovation and R,D&D).

Professor Bernard Cohen, 1991, ‘Costs of Nuclear Power Plants – What Went Wrong?’ says regulatory ratcheting increased costs of nuclear power by a factor of 4 by 1990, http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html . It’s likely doubled again since.

Ramasb and Kohler, 2007, say:
“Negative estimates have even been reported for technologies when they have been subject to costly regulatory restrictions over time (e.g. nuclear, …”

“Schrattenholzer (2001) survey the evidence for energy technologies, showing that, in line with the more general results mentioned earlier, unit cost reductions of 20% associated with doubling of capacity has been typical for energy generation technologies, with the exception of nuclear power.”
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg0723.pdf .

According to Rangel and Leveque, 2013, ‘Revisiting the Nuclear Power Construction Costs Escalation Curse’ nuclear has averaged 4% cost increase per doubling in France and US. http://idei.fr/doc/conf/eem/papers_2013/leveque.pdf ,
http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2013/01/27/revisiting-the-cost-escalation-curse-of-nuclear-power-new-lessons-from-the-french-experience/ ,
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/TransitionstoNewTechnologies/06_Grubler_French_Nuclear_WEB.pdf (Figure 3)

Clearly something is preventing the cost reduction rates of other electricity generation technologies from applying to nuclear power. It’s regulatory ratcheting and the financial risk because of the damaging litigation the anti-nukes cause to the operators. There is a high financial risk premium, which in turn is caused by the public’s irrational nuclear paranoia and the anti-nuke activists.

Allowable Radiation limits are set at the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) level instead of at the ‘As High As Relatively Safe’ (AHARS) level http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0 . Raising the limits could be the catalyst to get people to rethink the causes of their fear of nuclear power, http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf , http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0

The US deregulation of drilling for oil and gas provides a relevant example of the effect of freeing up the private sector to innovate and compete. ‘The Driving Force Behind the US Oil Boom’ http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Driving-Force-Behind-the-US-Oil-Boom.html shows how competition and innovation in all sizes of organisation down to the smallest niche specialists is reducing the costs. The same will happen when nuclear is appropriately deregulated.

Peter and others make a serious mistake in believing that economic assets will be dumped in order to be replaced by a more expensive technology. Nuclear power is just not going to happen in Australia for a very long time if ever. This does not have a lot to do with a fairly vocal anti nuclear movement in Australia. The problem is grid power consumption in Australia is currently declining, but power generation capacity is increasing. I can not see any business building a very expensive nuclear plant in order to pump great deal more power into a grid which is already over capacity, no matter how good an argument is put forward. Just to make it interesting the gold plating of the grid is making mains power increasingly expensive and making home solar ever more attractive.

http://theconversation.com/why-is-electricity-consumption-decreasing-in-australia-20998

Rhosty idea of small scale thorium nuclear reactors might have worked if they had decided to go that way 50 years ago but now it is just to late.

The coal industry spends a great deal of time and effort trying to put down renewables (as they are the cause of their current problems), primarily by lobbying against things like the RET scheme and the carbon tax. They don’t worry about nuclear power as it is simply not a threat to them on any time scale that matters to them.

Rhostry,

There's a serious error in your calculations. Firstly 1000 * 0.6% isn't 60% it's 600%.
You're out by a factor of ten.

Secondly 120 * 0.6% isn't 0.72%, it's 72%
You're out by a factor of a hundred.

Thirdly, exponential decay calculations would be more appropriate than linear. So for a thousand miles at 0.6% loss the total loss would be (1-(0.994^1000))*100% = 99.76%
At 0.06% loss it would be (1-(0.9994^1000))*100% = 54.87%
And at 0.006% loss it would be (1-(0.99994^1000))*100% = 5.82%.

The last figure's closest to the truth. I suggest you read this to see why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

And finally, have a look at the real world figures for transmission loss:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS
Australia's at 5% and falling!

Aidan: 0.6 x 1000 as a way of working out percentages is completely wrong!
And the very worst mathematical obfuscation I've ever seen!
Do I have to teach you basic maths as well as even more basic science?
Honestly, do you actually expect anyone to believe any power authority, public or private, is going to generate electricity and push it down wires, that produce a 600% transmission line loss!?
And 0.6 times 120 divided by 100, is still 0.72% not the 72% you fatuously claim!
Alternatively you could try, 0.6 divided by 120, times 100, to arrive at a still lower 0.5%; which if multiplied by 1000, is 50%!
Let's try it one more time, using a common calculator.
Type in 0.6. Okay thus far?
Then hit the divide button; still with me?
Then type in 120, hanging in?
Yes I know it's very hard; but it'll be worth it later; then hit the times button and type in 100, then hit the equals button!
See it just wasn't that hard was it?
Is that smoke coming from your ears?
There, there, poor little ickle diddums; persist, it'll get easier?
You have a nice day now y'hear.
Cheers, Rhrosty.