I thought there would be some sort of denier logic going on here. It took a while to come out. He would rather back something that could take another fifty years to come to fruition, than something we have now. Some people should wear tags.
Solar is alive and well, expanding by the day, and with an incredible lifespan, not to mention free generation

579,

It ius you that is the denier. You make unsubstantiated claims and claims from advocacy web sites about your beliefs. But you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You clearly haven't assimilated the cost comparisons I've provided and simply don't understand that you have to compare the system costs not the LCOE of the individual technologies.

Aiden,

The latest and largest solar thermal plants in the world cost about $19/W average power delivered. Compare that with about three to four times for nuclear.

Did you read the post by Professor John Morgan, and the underlying authoritative paper? Did you understand therm. Do you have any serious error that would significantly change the conclusions - i.e. a new one that hasn't been raised and debated at length in the literature already?

"Denier" describes your comments, 579 and Aiden. You might want to consider that others will interpret such comments as saying more about you than the person(s) you are addressing them to.

JohnBennett, I'm still chasing up those references. They were presented during the seminar, but I didn't note them, so I've got to get in touch with the speakers. I hope to have some time today to do that, but it may be next week.

Aidan, the seminar was at the EA offices in Brisbane.
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/sustainability-practical-engineering-series-2-energy-manufacturing-and-infrastructure?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=EPevents_NCAM_210115

Mark, yes, there was an element of extrapolation from existing technology in the predictions, but in my view these were not unreasonable. In the fields of turbine power, fuel cell storage and particularly solar technology there are rapid advances being made in both structural and chemical/metallurgical aspects of design. Similarly, storage technologies are rapidly maturing. In my view we are at the bottom inflection point of the development curve for all of these technologies, meaning that the rate of improvement and of adoption is going to become close to exponential very quickly.

PeterLang, The argument about ROE for rooftop PV and perhaps for some wind technologies, depending on siting, is partially valid, but only for silicon modules produced using standard smelting techniques. It quickly breaks down for silicon produced using additive manufacturing techniques and is not even close to valid for other technologies.

All, as rollout of PV becomes ubiquitous, the focus on maximal solar conversion efficiency which has driven development to date is likely to be replaced with a cost-of-implementation model and on getting power from areas that are currently not regarded as suitable, such as shaded areas where technologies like dye-sensitised titanate will start to become more important.

Similarly, the problems with AC grid stabilisation will be eliminated by implementation of HVDC grids and local inversion to AC where needed. There is no need to reticulate highly inductive AC, which requires use of statcoms and other corrective mechanisms, this is only a hangover from an historical marketing campaign. There are no devices that MUST use AC and in the case of electronics it is usually rectified internally anyway.

Peter Lang,
The cost of solar thermal doesn't alter the fact that solar PV has a much lower operating cost than nuclear.

Yes, I read John Morgan's post, and I responded to it. 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.

So what is it you think I'm a denier of?

Being selective wanting to talk only about operating cost is simply cherry picking. It's minleading, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest. It is not the full cost of electricity from the installation. You still have to replace them (e.g when the house is renovated). The full cost includes:

capital cost
financing cost
O&M costs (cleaning, repairs, inverter replacement, insurance, etc)
hidden costs (many; some but not all of which which are estimated to be around $36/MWh at 10% penetration

Peter Lang

I'm glad you realise there's a lot more to it than just one measure. I hope now you'll permanently cease those disingenuous arguments based on EROEI!

I am of course well aware that operating cost is not the full cost, and I didn't for a single second imagine you'd think it is. I certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

Comparisons are based on assumptions, and using a single cost figure to compare things with very different cost structures is intellectually dishonest. Solar PV and wind have high capital costs and very low ongoing costs, so how well it will compare financially will depend VERY heavily on the discount rate used. At the moment most countries have low interest rates, and that strongly favours renewables.

Since interest rates are set to control inflation, and renewable energy has a strong deflationary effect (lowering electricity prices) it is my view that governments should fund renewable energy with concessional loans which take this into account.

A similar argument could be made for nuclear power in places currently reliant on fossil fuels, but the high ongoing costs of nuclear make that argument weaker than it would be for renewables.