Peter,
Thanks for going to the trouble of putting up those links, I'll have a look at them.

From previous experience though, it seems likely that there are some significant assumptions made that are based on linear extrapolations which are not necessarily reasonably supportable.

We need to be willing to embrace all of the available technologies if we are to properly address the challenges of a post-fossil carbon future.

Craig Minns,

“We need to be willing to embrace all of the available technologies if we are to properly address the challenges of a post-fossil carbon future.”

Yes. Of course. No rational person would disagree. The decision must be made on the basis of meeting the requirements of the electricity system. The principal requirements are:

1. Security of energy supply (over years and decades)
2. Supply reliability (seconds to days)
3. Cost of delivered energy

Secondary requirements are:
4. Health and safety
5. Environmental impacts

I’ve presented evidence that nuclear is superior to renewables on all five requirements, especially on cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost. It’s also the fastest way to make large reductions to global GHG emissions.

I’d suggest you need to be prepared to challenge your beliefs about nuclear and renewables and let go of your irrational support for renewable energy and opposition to nuclear.

I accept renewables have a small role to play in providing electricity to remote communities before the electricity grid reaches them. But this is a small component of global energy and a small component of GHG emissions reductions.

If you are aware of the Pareto Principal (sometimes called the 80:20 rule) you’ll understand that our efforts, resources and discussions like on this thread should be predominantly focused on the technologies that can meet the requirements at least cost. That means we should be focused on nuclear, not renewables. And we should focus on how to educate the population, and unwind the impediments that are blocking progress.

Hi Peter,
I am not "opposed" to nuclear; I have never suggested that at any point in this discussion. I suspect nuclear will have a role at some point, although I doubt it will be as extensive as you are advocating. Distributed generation and storage is going to be the paradigm for future energy and small nuclear plants may be significant in supporting that, but central generation using nuclear is unlikely to be a very signicant contributor.

Craig,

In an early comment you accused me of being a zealot. You said:

“Sheesh, what a great way to ruin an interesting discussion.

Nothing worse than a zealot with an axe to grind.”

Which I interpret to mean, if you can’t divert the thread to your off topic agenda – your beliefs about renewable energy - you want to torpedo the discussion and accuse others of being what you yourself are.

You haven’t even begun to read the links, and objectively considered and weighed the evidence, before you write comments repeating your unsubstantiated beliefs and giving your reasons for rejecting the evidence provided.

Your last comment is more evidence of you dogmatism, zealotry and denialism. You demonstrate dogmatic beliefs without attempting to understand and weigh the evidence – you just accept dogma without investigating its veracity.

You give the impression you do not have an open mind and are unwilling or incapable of challenging your beliefs.

Your beliefs about distributed networks demonstrate ignorance. You don’t understand the costs, yet believe the dogma of the renewable energy industry and its advocates.

Here’s some more relevant references for you:

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/

All megawatts are not equal: http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/

The case for baseload: http://mydigimag.rrd.com/display_article.php?id=500086

If you want to argue that electricity from distributed renewable energy is cheaper than from networks with centralized power stations for powering a modern industrial society, you need to produce properly costed options analyses. If you can’t do that yourself and justify all assumptions and inputs, then refer to a range of authoritative sources – not just the renewable energy industry and its proponents.

The reason nuclear is highly likely to be the main source of energy for the future is that no other energy source is sustainable. Solar, wind and other renewables certainly cannot provide the world’s energy needs now, let alone in the future as per capita energy demand continues to grow forever. Conversely, nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited.

Peter Lang,

Regarding your six points, the last one is key. You seem to be under the impression that solar and wind technology is still where it was in the 20th century! You've failed to notice the huge technological advances which already make solar and wind power competitive for some on grid applications. And the technology is continuing to advance at a very rapid pace.

Bjørn Lomborg famously thought that economic growth would itself be enough to drive a lot of the cost improvements for renewable energy generation. I don't agree. The biggest three drivers IMO are scientific research, low interest rates and economies of scale. And most people don't seem to comprehend the significance of low interest rates: they make long term investment far more economically viable.

As for your other points:
1. I pointed out the fallacies regarding EROEI (see my response to point 2). And with renewables producing power more cheaply than fossil fuels, there's nothing to prevent them reaching a high market share. There are obvious technical obstacles, of course, but those can be overcome.

2. Claiming I didn't read the link shows you didn't properly read my posts, for I not only read the link but informed you of the logical fallacies it was based on. As I said on Friday: Except when it's VERY low, EROEI is never itself the limiting factor for what can be done. Human effort is a far bigger constraint, and although the "underlying authoritative paper" attempts to do this in section 6, it fails dismally! Two fundamental errors it makes are treating labour costs as a constant rather than a variable (ignoring scope for increased mechanization) and assuming the current situation to be the minimum threshold required. And while it notes that cost structures differ considerably, it does not attempt to quantify this difference even though it's more likely than EROEI to be the deciding factor.

And regardless of whether or not per capita energy consumption will continue to rise for ever, rising EROEI is not a requirement, but rather a likely product of technological progress.

(TBC)

(continued)

3. Cost reductions alone are not enough. Accidents create a huge backlash against nuclear that would do more to prevent its uptake – it's not the cost that turned Germany away from nuclear energy. Nuclear needs to stay safe.

4.1 Safety standards are very unlikely to be responsible for the lower rate at which the cost of nuclear power is falling.
4.2 I've already addressed your "higher cost" and "not sustainable" criticisms of renewables. I would also like to point out that fuel synthesis could be one of the activities timed to exploit excess renewable output.

I will address point 5 later when I've examined the assumptions the calculators are based on.