Aiadn,

You are clearly not concerned about intellectual dishonesty. perhaps you should read about the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Consider my comments and your responses above.

I said solar power is much high cost than nuclear. That statement is correct, for both solar PV and solar thermal. I provided several references,

Your disingenuous response was to say the operating cost of PV is cheaper than nuclear. So what? That's irrelevant.

Regarding EROEI, you clearly have nothing to offer or you would have explained what you believe is wrong with the analysis. I invited you (ore someone) in an earlier comment to point out any errors in the analysis, but first read up on the many critiques that have attempted to discredit the analysis, They amount to no more than nit-picking about trivialities. Nothing has been pointed out that makes any significant change to the conclusions. So as of now they stand. And this is becoming more widely understood as time progresses.

The fact, as it stands now is that solar power is not sustainable. It can't produce sufficient energy to power modern society and reproduce itself. Therefore, it can't make a significant contribution to world energy supplies and therefore only a negligible contribution to abating global emissions. These are the facts (as we understand them now).

And don't forget the latest solar thermal plant in the us is $19/w average power delivered. The wholesale price of electricity for the new 20 MW, 13 MW and 7 MW commercial solar PV stations in the ACT is $180 to $190/MWh (plus hidden costs). That's around 5 times the cost from conventional baseload plants and about 2-3 times the cost from intermediate load plants.

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

Nothing worse than a zealot with an axe to grind.

Craig Minns,

I presume your comment was directed to me. Pity you didn't provide any argument. nor evidence to show my statements are incorrect, nor address any of the comments I've provided above and the links (to authoritative sources).

You could also benefit from seriously considering the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty, linked above.

Nuclear cheaper and lower emissions than renewables

The CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear power would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx
“MyPower is an online tool created by CSIRO that allows you to see the effect of changing the national ‘electricity mix’ (technologies that generate Australia’s electricity) on future electricity costs and Australia's carbon emissions.”

Below is a comparison of options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now.

Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix:
1. 80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Source: CSIRO 'MyPower' calculator

Points to note:

• For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

• For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease.

• These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

The difference is stark. Nuclear is far better.

But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.

Yeah, Peter, my comment was directed at you.

It's a shame you aren't able to interact with people in any way other than trying to bludgeon them into submission.

You see, as it stands, all that you're doing is making it completely impossible for yourself to learn anything new, because nobody is going to bother trying to discuss the topic with you. Not because your argument is unassailable, but because it's not worth the effort of showing you why your limited and poorly framed argument is wrong, since you will never accept that it could be.

That is the nature of zealotry.

Craig Minns, after promising to dig up some references to substantiate his point, has returned not with substantiation, but with personal attack of another contributor.

We all occasionally have issues with other contributors - that is the nature of OLO-type online discussions. However, it would help mightily if discussion was (a)courteous and (b)based on demonstrated sources and lines of reasoning other than mere personal conviction.

Unfortunately, the expected has happened. Anti-nuclear activists have dragged this discussion, as so many others, off topic to a discussion of PV and wind Nirvana which might, just might, eventually be reached if all the stars in the believers' firmament align.

Mark Lawson was correct when he wrote:
"The very vocal green community is not about to accept assurances...". Yet that same community is represented here by those who demand that the discussion proceed only on the basis of their own unsubstantiable assurances.

Mark was right.

A Royal Commission type enquiry, as has been proposed is certainly appropriate for in a RC claimed facts will be be tested and supposed expertise challenged. It is probably not the ideal way to determine the best technical way forward, but at least there is hope that the RC will separate mere beliefs from substantiated fact. Bring it on!