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.