These sources may be of interest for those interested to learn about nuclear power, and especially the cost comparisons with renewables and fossil fuel:

Renewable Limits http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

Sustainable Nuclear http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

Unlimited transport fuels from sea water: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

Why renewables are not sustainable:
John Morgan, ‘Catch 22 of Energy Storage’: http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

John Morgan’s response to serious critiques: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520

David Mackay, ‘Sustainable Energy without the hot air’: http://www.withouthotair.com/

BREE, AETA reports and models: http://industry.gov.au/industry/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-technology-assessments.aspx

CSIRO eFuture: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios

CSIRO MyPower: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan – critique’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

‘100% renewables for Australia – the cost’ (see summary in Figure 6, and download the spreadsheet to run your own scenarios and sensitivity analyses): http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

‘Renewables or Nuclear Electricity for Australia – the costs’ (See summary in Figure 6): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

‘Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/16/solar-power-realities-supply-demand-storage-and-costs/

‘Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/

Graham Palmer, 2013, 'Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?': http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406

System costs for renewables v nuclear:
OECD/NEA ‘System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems’ http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

Martin Nicholson and Barry Brook, 2013, ‘Counting the hidden costs of energy’ http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf

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

Scientific American: Renewable Energy’s Hidden Costs: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/

Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity (10 times safer than rooftop PV, 4 times safer than wind):

Forbes: ‘Deaths by energy source’: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

Allowable radiation levels are set too low:
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

Video by Wade Allison, Oxford Uni Professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0

Wade Allison, OLO, ‘Nuclear Radiation is Relatively Harmless’: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0

Regulatory Ratcheting increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four by 1990: Bernard Cohen, 1991, ‘Costs of nuclear power plants – what went wrong’: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Slide 10 compares the price of electricity versus the CO2 emissions intensity of electricity for selected countries with high proportions of nuclear or high proportions of renewable energy. The numbers in the circles are the emissions intensity of each country/state. Also notice the irony in Slide 14:
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/29/how-much-does-it-cost-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-a-primer-on-electricity-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change/

An interesting piece, thank you.

I don't think there has been any question that storage is the model solution to intermittency for some time. However, reductively framing the problem as storage vs fossil-energy extraction is not especially useful.

The problem we face is to maintain a high-level technologically assisted society. The solution to that problem will include some storage(including vehicle storage systems used for home demand/supply levelling, hydro, thermal, batteries, hydrogen); some large-scale generation (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro,wind, concentrated solar); some local fossil fuel backup power, probably gas turbine or fuel cells; some local generation (rooftop PV, wind, possibly thermoelectric, direct thermal heating, etc).

It will also include efficiencies derived from both changes in usage patterns and by improvements in technology. We've already seen the effedt of LEDs in driving down the power demand due to lighting and computers/TVs. Microsoft has started trials of distributed servers, whereby servers are installed in homes and businesses so the waste heat can be used to reduce heating loads rather than require expensive and energy-hungry cooling within data centres. Distributed data storage and processing is going to have an enormous effect on reducing power demand, both through reducing those direct demands and by reducing the net power consumed by network switching equipment. Prof Rod Tucker of Melbourne Uni has identified power consumption by internet routers as a major problem for future development of the networks.

In addition, geographical distribution and increased ubiquity of generation sources will have its own ameliorating effect on intermittency, both through reducing the effect of local weather and by spreading the time of availability. The sun comes up in Perth two hours after Sydney and goes down two hours later, giving a net 4 hours of insolation overlap across the continent.

It's not all doom and gloom.

So what happens when the -very strictly- non renewables run out? Do we just put our heads between our knees and kiss our butts goodbye?
Batteries are certainly not the only storage solution. As your graph indicates, hydro electric dams are an excellent means of storage. A new 'Bradfield scheme' of high level dams along the Great Divide would not only provide storage for renewable power (wave, wind, solar pumps) but also drought proof most of the nation.
Hall's work demonstrating at what point a cheetah will stop chasing it's prey was fascinating, but in a world where energy has monetary value, and people's lives are not valued according to their energy requirements or surpluses...
Or does the author suggest euthanasing any human who does not create an energy surplus?

Grim - certainly a series of dams in the Great Dividing range or blue mountains would ease the problem of power storage for intermittents but would not solve it, and would be very expensive.. Dams are not cheap. I have seen suggestions for expanding existing dams which would be better but would not provide anything like the capacity required. My recollection from calculations done in Britain is that there was not a shadow of a chance of building all the dams required to cover the times the wind is not blowing.. The system here is different and the weather is generally sunnier but the expense would still be huge.. forget it..

Grim,

Renewables are not renewable. Only their fuel is renewable. They require about 10 times more materials than nuclear and the emissions released to the environment are far more toxic. And they cause more fatalities per TWh energy supplied and higher CO2 emissions: (see links in first comment, e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/ )

Importantly, As the post demonstrates, renewables are not sustainable. They cannpt power modern society. That's the point that needs to be grasped.

On the other hand nuclear is sustainable, effectively indefinitely. Estimates of the nuclear fuel available vary from 1000 years to 1 million years supply of uranium (not even including thorium, let alone fusion) to provide ALL the energy needs a world with 10 billion population consuming the same per capita energy as the USA.

The Snowy Mountain scheme was hugely expensive, as was the Sydney Opera House (funded by a raffle).
10% of the population unemployed is enormously expensive, as are the frequent -and becoming more frequent- droughts.
Weaning ourselves off imported fossil fuels not only makes economic -and strategic- sense, it could also save us enormous sums of money.
In a world gone mad, autarky is merely a sensible precaution.
At the end of the day, the machinery used to extract energy from renewable resources is no more elaborate -and considerably less complex- than the machinery used to extract energy from non-renewable resources. Therefore, logically, the only difference in price is the cost of the fuel itself.
One is free.
As for storage, just drought proofing the majority of our country (while creating full employment) would justify the cost in itself; the energy derived would be a bonus.

The argument by some here and on the other energy thread is that just because something can be done, in theory, that it should be, and to hell with cost and constancy. Do they require that their solutions be mandated and that society must simply pay the price for their decisions? This can only be if nuclear is banned, and no rational reason exists to mandate that.

Renewables, as costly as they are, have their place, but not in cheap base-load power provision to a world growing in its energy consumption with population and affluence. One far off day, perhaps, with some much hoped for outrageous technological breakthrough, but not yet. It's not simply a matter of applying the known science. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

PL has more than demonstrated this but pie-in-the sky is still being served up. I see no sensible argument against his well supported points here, only proof by bold assertion.

I notice Tesla have toned down their rhetoric about lithium ion batteries. For example their new home battery will do night lighting and phone charging, not run air conditioners. I see little prospect of such batteries keeping Gwh of electrical energy on tap. If electric cars go mainstream I predict they will be mostly charged at night from the grid and very little by daytime solar. Perversely they will increase the need for centralised electricity generation, the very opposite of what enthusiasts claim.

As the ratio of energy output/input declines some say increase the input. We haven't got that many more rivers to dam or forests to chop down for 'biomass'. Enthusiasts for wind and solar don't seem to know how silicon, rare earths, metals and cement will be produced in a carbon constrained world. Batteries of manageable size are stuffed after 1,000 deep cycles. We need something else.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is hydrogen extracted from ever abundant sea water utilizing a very modernized Water molecule cracking process would make a useful start and endlessly sustainable fuel produced for just cents per cubic metre; but particularly if the heat source were solar thermal.

And given lighter than air hydrogen can be guaranteed to rise without pumps, used on the way up, to turn a few turbines, and a few more once the energy package is extracted, sending pristine water down to its next user!

Solar thermal competes with coal and thanks to the inclusion of thorium fluoride salts, now available 24/7 as base load power.

Then there is even cheaper endlessly sustainable biogas, which is made very simply from our own waste, and endlessly available as bladder stored gas. Coupled to ceramic fuel cells to extract the energy quotient, available as the cheapest electricity in the world; and the bonus of endless free hot water.

Moreover the waste from this process would enable large scale oil rich algae farming, which in turn would support an energy input free ethanol industry!

Then there's cheaper than coal thorium, which coupled to very regional micro grids, will at least halve the cost of industrial energy, and that being so, get our manufacturing base up and running and successfully competing with other mass producers, also extremely reliant on energy!

As for batteries, GM seems to be trialing one, said to double the considerable range of lithium ion!

Grimm - your post did not constitute a response but the Opera House is a useful analogy.. It was an expensive white elephant built with out any adequate analysis at the urging of a committed few which has proved of marginal use in it original purpose - staging operas - but has become a landmark. The equivalent would be building these high level dams you want to find the energy storage completely inadequate, but that the high level lakes have excellent scenic and recreational uses..

Not such a bad idea really.. but that's enough of that.. back to work..

I didn't see any reference to Natural gas powered fuel cells in this discussion. This technology is apparently available in domestic sized units which are capable of providing both heat and electricity at high levels of efficiency.

Perhaps this is a topic for another article.

David

Before considering big dams see:

"In a paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams, Dr. V. P Jauhari wrote the following about this phenomenon, known as Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS): "The most widely accepted explanation of how dams cause earthquakes is related to the extra water pressure created in the micro-cracks and fissures in the ground under and near a reservoir. When the pressure of the water in the rocks increases, it acts to lubricate faults which are already under tectonic strain, but are prevented from slipping by the friction of the rock surfaces."

Given that every dam site has unique geological characteristics, it is not possible to accurately predict when and where earthquakes will occur. However, the International Commission on Large Dams recommends that RIS should be considered for reservoirs deeper than 100 meters.'
and others, lots on Google.

This articles FAILS to bring in 2 major issues. That is:

- the Political Power that is important in decisions on energy sources, and

- Price Levels (placed by the regulation-taxation regime).

Example 1 - For example the efficiency of fracking in Australia is strongly influenced by political tolerance of relatively little tested environmental standards and considerations. State Governments more easily tolerate environment (eg farmer) sensitivities due to the up-front buy in taxes-fees that energy companies are prepared to pay to states.

Example 2 - the efficiency of nuclear energy in France is heavily influenced by French decisions to have a dual use civilian-military nuclear weapons capability. With weapon sector considerations (eg. storage of high level nuclear waste in France itself) strongly influencing civilian consumer prices.

Pete

Taswegian, theres two main factors that determine when people will charge their electric cars: when they can, and when electricity is cheap. The third most important factor is likely to be convenience.

If the consumer electricity price varies with the wholesale electricity price, most of the charging will be done when electricity is cheap, which by the time electric cars enter widespread use, is likely to mean when it's all sourced from renewables.

But if consumers are paying a flat rate, or even just peak and offpeak rates, they'd probably just charge their electric vehicles at night. And pay much higher electricity bills.
________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty, I'm pretty sure thorium fluoride isn't practical for solar thermal — being radioactive it's quite expensive to work with, and I don't think it's specific heat capacity is particularly high (though I admit I haven't checked). Its real significance is in nuclear power generation.
________________________________________________________________________

Curmudgeon, the Sydney Opera House was built with the best analysis that was available at the time, but the idea of using shell elements was new and they had to resort to using physical models. Nowadays it would be done fairly easily with finite element analysis, but back then the entire world didn't have the computing power that would require!

It was the subsequent change to a more conventional structure that diminished its suitability for staging operas.

Australia has about 18m cars. Suppose half were replaced by EVs each requiring 10 kwh for about 40 km of daily travel. That's 90 Gwh of EV charging per day. That does happen to be about the average daily renewables output of 32,566 Gwh/365 but that is not currently used seriously for electric cars and it's pooled with 87% fossil electricity.

We'd need to double our renewable output and somehow make in coincide with the times that people want to charge their cars. Since I live in dry looking hydro country I suspect our renewable output will be way down this year. If the electric car revolution ever happens we will need new power sources that produce at times people want.

Rubbish Aidan. The design for the Sydney opera house was a competition. The winner was a half baked thing, designed to look pretty, with no expectation of serious consideration.

In the event the arty farty dills prevailed, the sail design won, & it was only after the fact that it was found to be impossible to fit a sensible opera venue under the flights of fancy the roof represented.

This fits renewable power perfectly. Fools want to believe it is wonderful, engineers have tried to make it work, & smarties have made a fortune out of this stupidity.

Aidan, I wasn't referring to a theoretical concept, but a huge (economies of scale) coal competitive working thorium fluoride salt, solar thermal example, in the Californian or Arizonian desert.

And a thorium isotope (thorium 302, as memory serves) has removed the need to use uranium to jump start a cheaper than coal thorium reactor.

Yes there is some radioactivity, so also in air travel; and far less than that currently found in safer than coal, electricity generating oxide reactors!

Concentrated and focused sunlight, collected via moving mirrors, is enough to excite the thorium/fluoride (acid and a base compound) salt in a tower; which in turn retains heat (base load power) for literal days!

Pity there's not a single government in this entire land, with that much pragmatic foresight/future vision!

It's easy to sow the seeds of doubt, except where we have proven working examples! Nice try though!
Rhrosty.

We could also start getting smart and not wasting electric power.

Little things like switching off lights when there is no one in a room.
Putting whistles on electric kettles, on average modern self switching off kettles boil for ten seconds before switch off.
Whistling kettles boil for an average of 3 seconds because the noise is annoying.

Multiply both examples by millions.

Rhosty, I think you've wrongly conflated two completely different molten salt technologies. I've found no evidence online that any solar thermal installations anywhere using thorium fluoride. And considering ThF4 has a melting point of 1110ºC, I don't believe there'd be any advantage in using it for that purpose even without the extra costs its radioactivity imposes.

Hey Aidan, they tell me those solar arrays make for the interesting sight of birds bursting into flame, when they fly through the arc of the mirrors too.

A bit like spontaneous combustion, helped along by some greenie stupidity.

I wonder if greenies will ever do enough proving of a dream idea, before rushing into wasting tax payer money.

Something has puzzled me lately - I'm a slow learner - around the discussion about forms of renewable energy.

All the bits and pieces of each type of technology - wind-towers, blades, fiddly bits, solar panels, hydroelectric turbines, etc. - are they made using renewable energy or using non-renewable energy ?

Sorry, that might seem such a dumb question, asked by a fool. But if non-renewable energy production is still far cheaper than renewable energy production, even though it is dreadfully polluting and creates CO2, etc., then is it used to create the mechanisms of renewable energy production ? And if so, how much energy goes into (and how much CO2 comes out of) the production of those renewable energy producing technologies (shades of Sraffa !) relative to the production over the life of those renewable energy producers, by non-renewable sources, AND are non-renewable forms of energy used in their production precisely because it is so much cheaper ?

Could a company make any money, producing renewable energy technology using renewable energy technology ?

A fool can ask the obvious question: is the total cost of renewable energy technology still dependent on low-cost non-renewable energy ?

How much more would, say, wind towers cost if they were produced using wind power ? Hoe much more would solar panels cost if they were produced using, say, only solar power ?

Just wondering :)

Joe

Loud mouth. of course you are correct. Have a look at the chart in the first link below and also look at the other links. There's also a wealth of useful background information in the links at the top of this thread. I'd suggest copy the lot to a file and keep it on your computer for future reference.

Scientific American, 'Renewable Energy's hidden costs':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/

Graham Palmer, 2013, 'Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?': http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406

System costs for renewables v nuclear:
OECD/NEA ‘System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems’ http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

Martin Nicholson and Barry Brook, 2013, ‘Counting the hidden costs of energy’ http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pd

This discussion has come right to the knub of the whole alternative energy systems.

Peter Lang; most write off nuclear as the backup on risk possibilities.
I say that the first winter night that the power goes off while dinner
is being cooked, any opposition will disappear next morning.

Grim; the idea of a row of dams along the Great Dividing Range I
believe is used in California.
The Catch22 is how much energy is used to build and maintain the dams.

Grim; one reason the Opera House was so expensive was that the
original roof design was faulty and would have fallen down during
construction.
Remember the big row with Utson ?

Tasweigen said:Batteries of manageable size are stuffed after 1,000
deep cycles. We need something else.

True, try nickle iron much longer life more tolerant of abuse.

VK3AUU; We will not have enough natural gas if we start using it for
electricty generation to say nothing of exporting it.
de ...- -.- ..--- .- .- -...

Hasbeen; the problem with the interior was caused by what had to be
changed to the roof design so that it would not fall down.
The consulting engineers spent a lot of time on the English Electric
KDF9 at Sydney University. Remember the big row between the government
and Utson about the changes ?

THE REAL CRUNCH PROBLEM is that the ERoEI of oil has fallen from
100 in 1930 to 10 today and is still falling.
That means oil is reaching the end of its useful life.
Coal in that same time period has fallen from 80 to 30.

What that says we will really have to start on something very soon
because nuclear as a known technology will take many years to build
a fleet of nuclear stations, or whatever alternative.

Bazz,

Thank you. Here’s an LCOE comparison with risk included:

The lowest cost way to generate our electricity and reduce GHG emissions by 2050 is with a large proportion from nuclear power.

Using CSIRO ‘eFuture’ calculator to compare two scenarios to supply electricity to meet the projected electricity demand of the NEM in 2050 as well as cut CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions for nuclear not permitted are 80 t/MWh versus 25 t/MWh with nuclear permitted. That is, if nuclear is not permitted emissions would be 3.2 times higher than if nuclear is permitted.

The table below lists the LCOE (wholesale price) with nuclear not permitted and with nuclear permitted. Cost items commonly queried are itemised. Costs are in $/MWh.

Item; No nuclear; With Nuclear
LCOE from 'eFuture'; 130; 85
Accident insurance; 0; 0.1
Decommissioning; 0.15; 0.01
Waste management 0; 1
Transmission, 50% penetration; 18.5; 2
Total LCOE; 149; 90

Policy analysts also need to estimate the Expected Value of the risk that renewables will not be able to deliver the benefits claimed by their proponents. We know nuclear can provide around 75% of electricity in an advanced industrial economy because France has been doing it for over 30 years. But renewables have not demonstrated they can or will be able to. Many practitioners think they will not. An estimate, in LCOE equivalent terms, of the risk that renewable technologies do not meet the hopes of the proponents is $54/MWh.

With the risk of failure included the total LCOE for the two scenarios are:

No nuclear = $203/MWh
With nuclear = $101/MWh

Therefore, the LCOE of the ‘no nuclear’ option is 2 x higher than the ‘with nuclear’ option. And emissions would be 3.2 times higher.

The risk that renewables will not be able to do the job is the major risk that those concerned about GHG emissions should be most concerned about, not the costs of nuclear waste disposal, decommissioning, accident insurance etc. all of which are trivial compared with the LCOE and the risk that renewables do not deliver the benefits claimed by their proponents.

Basis of estimate of expected value of the risk RE cannot achieve claimed CO2 savings by 2050:

Estimate the risk renewable energy technologies, that meet requirements, will not be available by 2050 to provide 50% of electricity economically.

Nuclear – already proven it can do it (France for past 30 years), so say 5% probability it cannot in 2050.

Renewables – have not demonstrated they can do the job, EROEI suggests they cannot do the job and many experienced practitioners say they cannot; therefore, assume 90% probability they cannot.

Consequence = Social Cost of Carbon of the emissions not avoided by RE technologies. Assume the projected carbon price is equivalent to SCC. Weighted average carbon price (from Australian Treasury 2013 projections) to 2050 is $60/tonne. Average projected Australian emissions intensity (for delivered electricity) is about $1 t/MWh. Therefore, average carbon cost (2013-2050) would be about $60/MWh.

Risk that renewables will not be able to do the job = $60/MWh x 90% = $54/MWh

Peter, surely it is now reaching the point that any CO2 factor in the
consideration of the next energy regime should be abandoned ?

I ask that because with the falling ERoEI of oil & coal means that we
should soon reserve them to build the next energy regime.
The latest article by Gail Tveberg suggests that oil is fast becoming
too expensive to use as we now use it.

Is it now time to ignore global warming as oil & coal use must decline
anyway due to the falling ERoEI ?

Bazz,

I agree. I am persuaded that there will be only slow progress until nuclear power is cheaper than fossil fuels. The way to achieve that is not by trying to raise the cost of fossil fuels. That will not succeed, IMO. Instead, we need to remove the impediments that are causing nuclear to be far more expensive than it could be.

The USA has the capacity to enable large GHG emissions reductions globally over the next four or five decades. USA could reduce the cost of nuclear power massively for the whole world. Regulatory ratcheting raised the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four up to 1990 and probably doubled that since – to a factor of eight increase. There are some 50 small modular (factory build) nuclear power plant designs. But it costs about $1 billion and 10 years delay to get licencing approval. This causes huge risks for potential investors. It is irrational that the safest way to generate electricity by far is prevented from being rolled out to the world. The USA is best placed to lead this. But Obama has done next to nothing other than blame others (like India, and Australia) for not doing enough. The first step should be to get IAEA started on raising the allowable radiation limits for the public. This would lead to major cost reductions (of accidents and insurance) and also be a catalyst to get the public rethinking the nuclear power option. Once the public realises how much safer nuclear is than any other form of electricity generation, the culture change could progress quite rapidly. Then the costs can come down. The USA is by far the most knowledgeable and influential country in nuclear engineering and could lead the way to make it a reality.

Once nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels and its safety is recognised, there will be no need for UN agreements to reduce global GHG emissions. Low emissions will be rolled out across the world, just as happened in France starting in the 1970’s (without any UN agreement forcing it).

Further to previous post:

For nuclear power to make major cuts to global GHG emissions, does not require nuclear be implemented in the least developed countries for decades. Developed and developing countries contribute over 80% of global GHG emissions. The countries that contribute 80% of the world’s emissions are all (except Australia) nuclear capable already or planning to build plants. Therefore, nuclear’s proportion of electricity can be ramped up in countries that already have or are planning nuclear generation. But this will only occur rapidly if nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity. If nuclear’s proportion of electricity ramps up to that of of France (i.e. 75%-80%) over the next 5 decades, emissions intensity of electricity could be cut to around 10% of Australia’s (as France achieved 30 years ago). Furthermore, more emissions will be saved as cheap electricity will displace some gas for heating and some petroleum for transport (both as electric vehicles and by producing low emissions liquid fuels).

Nineteen countries contributed 80% of global emission in 2013. Of these, only six don’t have nuclear power, and all except Australia are planning to get it.

Country and cumulative proportion of total global GHG emissions in 2013:
China 29%
USA 45%
India 52%
Russian Federation 57%
Japan 61%
Germany 63%
South Korea 65%
Iran 66%
Saudi Arabia 68%
Canada 69%
Indonesia 71%
Brazil 72%
Mexico 74%
UK 75%
South Africa 76%
Italy 77%
France 78%
Australia 79%
Thailand 80%

Source: Global Carbon Atlas: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/?q=en/emission

The key to progress is to focus on cutting the cost of nuclear power by removing the legislative and regulatory impediments that have driven the costs of licencing, security and investor risk to many times higher than it should be if regulation was on a rational and objective analysis of risks and benefits.

The more that people can be educated that it has been established
that solar and wind cannot give them the standard of living to which they
have become accustomed the sooner they will accept nuclear.

Ask any acquaintance about nuclear power and they will throw up their
hands in horror.
Cut off the power while cooking dinner and when they realise that
will happen EVERY night, they will be demonstrating in the streets
for nuclear power tomorrow.

However all that is very well, but I suspect the above scenario is too
late as the existing energy system has become so expensive that we
no longer have the financial credit facilities to undertake such an
enormous project. Remember every other country will be facing the
same moment of truth, ie solar and wind and tide will not do the job.
Every country will be trying to raise the money to build fleets of
nuclear power stations all at the same time.

Australia's only option is to prohibit the export of coal and gas,
while our coals ERoEI is still high, so as to extend the time needed
to raise the finance and build the fleet.

Sounds good Bazz, but desperate governments, watching deficits climbing into the stratosphere, & foreign reserves going equally negative, are going to be desperate for every export dollar they can lay their hands on.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for such a policy old mate. Can you actually imagine a lefty government in particular, wanting to cut welfare, or union welfare, just to secure our future. Even J K Rowling couldn't dream up that scenario.

Ha Ha yes Hasbeen, I really do think we are going to need some magicians.

What you warn of re the pollies is true but they may get the message
too late from overseas.
If it gets to that stage there will be be no pensions or anything.
It has all the marks of Joesph Tainter's book, The Collapse of Complex Societies.
That will have the lefties sucking their thumbs !

Bazz,

I was surprised by your last paragraph.

>”Australia's only option is to prohibit the export of coal and gas, …”

This approach has negligible likelihood of success.

What is needed is deregulation, not more regulation and protectionism. Deregulate to allow markets and competition to do what they do – deliver the goods and services people need and want at least cost. The most important commodity is energy. Everything else is derived from energy and human ingenuity. We need least cost energy that meets requirements, the most critical of which are secure and reliable supply of energy. To succeed the approach needs to reduce government involvement, not increase it. Governments don’t know best.

These are some of the likely consequences of restricting energy exports:

1. Australia’s economy would be severely damaged. That means lower standard of living, less jobs, poorer pay, less government revenue so less funds for education, health, hospitals, cities, infrastructure, law and order, defence, etc. (compared with no export restrictions).

2. We can’t restrict supplies of energy to other countries. It’s an essential resource. If we try, first there’d be trade wars and ultimately we’d be invaded. Restricting energy supply to our customers is a sure way to cause war (UK’s attempts to block Japan’s oil supplies was a main reason for their preparations for war and entry into WWII). How long would we last if China blocked our oil imports?

3. Restricting trade is the opposite of free trade. It’s a return to protectionism. This would encourage other groups to argue to restrict exports of uranium, meat, food, IP, etc.?

4. Any government that tried to legislate this approach would be thrown out.

We need to remember that fossil fuels are hugely beneficial to humanity and to the environment (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity). So, we should not restrict exports nor raise the cost of fossil fuels. Instead, we should focus on removing the impediments on nuclear energy that 50 years of irrational, anti-nuclear scaremongering has caused governments to impose.

I urge people to seriously consider the deregulation approach and stop advocating policies that have negligible probability of success.

Bazz,

Over about 50 years nearly all existing fossil fuel power stations will be replaced. They will be replaced by the technologies that are expected to supply electricity to meet requirements at least cost. If we remove the impediments to nuclear power, it can become least cost and will be the technology of choice for replacements. Thereafter, the replacement of fossil fuel plants at the end of their economic life is done at no net cost, in fact as the costs come down, it will be net economic benefit – and that’s without even including the benefits of lower externalities (like reduced fatalities per TWh).

Allowing nuclear to be cheaper than fossil fuels, would mean most fossil fuel electricity generation would be replaced by near-zero emissions nuclear in the 19 countries that contribute 80% of the world’s GHG emissions. Assuming this reduces emissions intensity of electricity by say 80% (France’s EI is 90% less than Australia’s), and assuming electricity and fossil fuels for heat and transport displaced by electricity over the period avoid 50% of total emissions in the 19 countries, then this deregulation policy alone would reduce global emissions by 80% x 80% x 50% = 32% over 50 years. Nuclear would be the cheaper option in other countries too, so they would also convert to nuclear later in the period the period.

I hope you will give serious consideration to the deregulation approach as an alternative to the regulatory approach. Regulation that raises the cost of energy or damages economies has virtually no chance of succeeding. It will not get sustained support and even if temporarily implemented it will not be sustainable for much the same reasons as carbon pricing has little chance of success (explained in these two posts):

Why carbon pricing will not succeed, Part I: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

Why the world will not agree to pricing carbon, Part II: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii

Peter Lang oil & gas may cease to be important as a fuel for electricity generation, & I agree completely with the requirement to go nuclear, but that is only a small part of their importance to us.

First they are pretty important for the production of plastics. The modern world can not operate without a huge quantity of plastic.

Yes we could use cellulose to produce some & perhaps many materials to replace those plastics, but no where near all of them.

Then of much greater importance is fertilisers. Without these much of the current population would starve. Herbicides & pesticides equally critical to food production also require large volumes of hydrocarbons.

Then there is of course the fuel required for mining & agriculture. We can perhaps get by with electric light transport, but heavy mobile work will require liquid fuel for a very long time.

If it were not for our huge reserves of shale & coal gas, & central Queensland's oil I would also want to see us reserve these materials for our own use. I would much rather see reduced wealth & welfare for us now, but with some still available for our grand kids.

I expect we will ultimately miniaturise steam generation using nuclear fuels sufficiently to steam power most vehicles, but not for quite some time.

Peter, I agree that your reasoning is correct, but---
I would like to reserve our coal while its ERoEI is still, I believe,
at a high level to enable us to build a fleet of nuclear stations.
Because of finance it will be a long drawn out process and the more
coal we export in the meantime the lower the ERoEI will become.

In fact I wonder if it is not too late already to be able to finance
the new energy regime ?
I can see the existing coal fired stations continuing for the next 100 years.

Bazz, I understand the point you are making, but I am not persuaded.

1. I am convinced any attempt to restrict exports economically damaging and cannot succeed. World markets are becoming more integrated, not less. Free trade is best for human well-being. Government intervention to restrict exports (or imports) is the wrong approach. The correct approach is to remove the impediments that are making nuclear more expensive than fossil fuels. This will address all the issues. Once nuclear is allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no economic cost to replacing them, only benefits.

2. I am not convinced of the immediate problem with running out of fossil fuels (but haven’t researched it).

3. Fossil fuel plants have a life of about 40 to 50 years (including life extensions). So most existing plants will be replaced in the next 50 years. The energy needed to replace existing plants with new plants is similar (ball park) whether the new plants are fossil fuel or nuclear. So the ERoEI issue applies to either technology.

4. There is effectively unlimited energy available for electricity and liquid transport fuels from nuclear power (unlimited transport fuels from sea water: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/ ). So, we will not run out of energy. Only the high cost of nuclear is preventing faster replacement of fossil fuels.

5. There is no issue with financing the new energy regime if we can get the focused changed to removing the impediments to low cost nuclear power! I’d urge serious consideration of this.

Hasbeen, there is no shortage of hydro-carbons to meet all the needs you mention. Hydro-carbon fuels can be produced from electricity, hydrogen and sea water. However, I agree that fossil fuels should be preserved for non-energy uses for the medium term. The way to achieve this is to allow nuclear to be cheaper than fossil fuels, not by trade barriers. There is one key solution here. Let’s focus on it.

Bazz,

I think we are approaching the issue from different directions. I think you are looking at it from an intellectual perspective. However, the concepts are far too difficult to get across to voters. The main thing voters are interested in is what will make them better off. If the voters won’t support the policy, governments cannot implement it, or even if they do, unless voters continue to believe it will make them better off it will get abandoned later.

The saying “it’s the economics, stupid” applies.

I approach the issues from the perspective of what policies can be implemented and sustained for the long term. Trade barriers, government intervention to raise the cost of fossil fuels, etc, cannot be sustained over the long term.

Policies that are sustainable are those that benefit human well-being and voters see it in better employment opportunities and better standard of living.

We can have what you and those who are concerned about sustainability want. But to succeed we need to approach it from a perspective of what can gain sustainable support from voters, policy makers and governments.

Reducing the cost of energy will always be a winner. As is providing reliable energy supplies to those who don’t have it, and increasing energy security (e.g. current threat: Europe is threatened by Russia restricting gas supplies).

We can have what you want. But I’d urge you to seriously consider the approach I suggested in my reply to you above: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17160#303150 .

We need to focus our efforts on how to reduce the cost of nuclear power. The answer is not primarily technical and engineering. It’s about removing the impediments governments have imposed. It’s about appropriate deregulation, not increasing regulation. Advocacy should aim to get the US Administration to support cost reductions for nuclear power. Advocate for the IAEA and NRC to change their emphasis from safety first to costs and benefits of nuclear compared with the alternatives. US should urge other members of the IAEA to require the IAEA to change radiation limits from ALARA to AHARS (ref. Wade Allison links in first comment).

Nuclear power will have to be a major part of the solution to significantly reduce global GHG emissions. It seems will have to reach about 75% share of electricity generation (similar to where France has been for the past 30 years) and electricity will have to be a significantly larger proportion of total energy than it is now to reduce global GHG emission significantly.

To achieve that, the cost of electricity from nuclear power will have to become cheaper than from fossil fuels.

Here’s my suggested way to get to nuclear cheaper than fossil fuels:

1. The next US Administration takes the lead to persuade the US citizens nuclear is about as safe as or safer than any other electricity source. US can gain enormously by leading the world on developing new, small modular nuclear power plants; allowing and encouraging innovation and competition; thus unleashing the US’s ability to innovate and compete to produce and supply the products the various world markets want.

2. The next US President uses his influence with the leaders of the other countries that are most influential in the IAEA to get their IAEA representatives to support a process to re-examine the justification for the allowable radiation limits – as the US recently announced it is to do over the next 18 months.
a. WNN 20/1/15. Radiation health effects http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Nuclear-Radiation-and-Health-Effects/

2. Once the IAEA starts increasing the allowable radiation limits for the public this should be the catalyst to reducing the cost of nuclear energy:

a. it will mean radiation leaks are understood to be less dangerous than most non experts believe > less people will need to be evacuated from accident effected zones > the cost of accidents will decline > accident insurance cost will decline

cont ...

... cont.

b. the public progressively reconsiders the evidence about the effects of radiation > they gain an understanding it is much less harmful than they thought > fear level subsides > opposition to nuclear declines > easier and less expensive to find new sites for power plants > increased support from the people in the neighbourhood of proposed and existing power plants > planning and sight approval costs decline over time;

c. The risk of projects being delayed during construction or once in operation declines; > all this leads to a lowering of the investors’ risk premium > thus reducing the financing costs and the fixed O&M costs for the whole life of the power plants;

d. Changing perceptions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power leads to increasing public support for nuclear > allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation to be changed from “safety first” to an appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences if nuclear development and rollout is made too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower (e.g. higher fatalities per TWh if nuclear is not allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels).

3. NRC is revamped - its Terms of Reference and its culture are changed. Licensing period for new designs is greatly reduced, e.g. to the equivalent of the design and licensing period for new aircraft designs.

4. Small modular reactors are licensed quickly. New designs, new versions, new models, and design changes are processed expeditiously. This will lead to more competition, more innovation, learning rate continually improves so that costs come down.

5. The efficiency of using the fuel can be improved by nearly a factor of 100. That gives some idea of how much room there is to reduce the cost of nuclear power over the decades ahead.

6. Eventually, fusion will be viable and then the technology life cycle starts all over again– but hopefully the anti-nuke dinosaurs will have been extinct for a long time by then.

Peter said;
2. I am not convinced of the immediate problem with running out of
fossil fuels (but haven’t researched it).

There is no chance that we will run out of coal & oil, just never.
What we are running out of is cheap coal & oil.
With oil already we are seeing the effects of high cost as it has
resulted in lower demand and a glut !
It will always be available for plastics etc as plastics are too cheap
anyway. The US has already reached the point with coal that the
quality grade has fallen which puts up the cost of using it.
Hasbeen mentioned fertilisers, I think they are mostly produced
from natural gas, so what it amounts to is if we stop burning
fossil fuels they will last a long time for other purposes.
As Kenneth Deffreyes said in his book "Beyond Oil" do we really
want our great grandchildren to say "You burned all that Oil ?"

Baz,

Thank you. I appreciate the exchange. I should have said I am not convinced (rather than not persuaded) there is an immediate problem with cost of oil and coal. I think there is much more to the glut, price reductions, etc. than you address. Anyway, by far the best way to handle the issues is for governments to get out of the way. Allow the energy markets to sort it out. The industry has by far the best knowledge and by far the best foresight about declining reserves, market share, viable alternatives, etc. They are most capable of innovating to meet future needs. Government interference inevitably stuffs it up – e.g.: excessive nuclear regulation, Keystone Pipeline, RET, carbon pricing. There is no end to the examples of detrimental government interference in energy markets.

Bazz, as I said before, I am convinced your approach is the wrong way if you really want to achieve genuine progress. I’ve responded to all your points (I think), but you don’t appear to have seriously considered mine. My main point is that if we want to make progress, we (led by the US Administration) should be advocating to remove the impediments government have imposed on nuclear power. The markets are massively distorted by these impediments. But they can be fixed by appropriate political actions. The issue is not an engineering or technology constraints. It can be fixed. That’s where we should focus our attention. That’s where virtually all our advocacy efforts should be focused.

Bazz, another point: Many people react negatively to what they interpret as scaremongering. To many, the arguments about a looming oil crisis is more scaremongering. A far greater risk is that our oil supplies could be disrupted. We have only 2-3 weeks of petrol and diesel in Australia. This is a massive risk. The consequences would be dire. But almost no one in the population wants to know about it.

I hope I can persuade you to seriously consider, and then start advocating, for the approach I’ve suggested in my replies to you on this thread

OK Peter, what you advocate is the best way to go ahead, there is I
hope no catch 22 in our change over that will stop the program you
advocate. I certainly am not convinced that we have to stop exports
but we should keep it ready to pull out of our bottom draw.

Re doomers etc not being listened to and you mention our precarious
position with fuel supplies;
I have been talking to those in emergency management and there is a
Displan for fuel disruption but it is only at state level the plan
says there is no need for local Displans.
I think that is totally wrong as about four weeks after the tankers
stop arriving I think it is highly likely that both Federal and State
governments would no longer be operational.
All those public servants would be out working in their vegie gardens HI !
I believe that local government would still be able to function to some
extent and the Local Emergency Management Committee could allocate
the remaining fuel in the district for emergency services.

Talking to friend about this, he asked if Meals on Wheels would get
get a ration and I said I thought not, in any case they may not have food !

Bazz,

Thanks again. I am still trying to urge that those who are concerned, avoid getting drawn into arguing about the many side-track issues that can be raised and instead focus strictly on the pragmatic solutions. The solutions that are pragmatic and achievable given the real world constraints, are the only ones we should focus on. We’ve spent 25 years advocating for policies that in reality never had much likelihood of success. What can succeed are policies that offer:

• Cheaper energy
• Improved Health and Safety
• Increased energy security (for all countries not just those endowed with energy resources)
• Sustainable energy forever.

Nuclear can deliver all these, but only if the impediments that have driven up its costs are removed. And it will take decades for the cost reductions to wash through, so subsidies are justified to offset the lingering impediments, previous governments imposed, until they are fully removed. The faster they are removed the faster the rollout rate will increase which in turn will cause competition and innovation to increase and costs to reduce faster.

But it all depends on removing the impediments. And that needs advocacy focused on it, not on tangential issues.

Did you see this article by Matt Ridley yesterday: http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420 ? It includes this paragraph:

“Nuclear’s problem is cost. In meeting the safety concerns of environmentalists, politicians and regulators added requirements for extra concrete, steel and pipework, and even more for extra lawyers, paperwork and time. The effect was to make nuclear plants into huge and lengthy boondoggles with no competition or experimentation to drive down costs. Nuclear is now able to compete with fossil fuels only when it is subsidized.”

I’d urge advocacy focus on getting the message across about removing the impediments to nuclear power and the short and long term benefits of doing so. I’d suggest focusing on convincing those who have influence. Surely there must be some rational people amongst: Tristan Edis, Giles Parkinson, Matthew Wright, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe, and the policy setters in ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc. What about James Hansen?

Peter, I think you underestimate the ability of the general population to understand and therefore accept low levels of nuclear radiation. There are just too many crackpots out there feeding them with misinformation and they are the ones who unfortunately are the ones most likely to be believed. As you have said previously, the limits have been set too low. Most people don't even realize that there is an easily measurable level of background radiation with which we have been living quite without consequence for ever.

Something needs to be taught in schools in science classes to give people a more realistic sense of what it is all about. That in itself may pose some problems if the rabid opposers are allowed to interfere with the truth. Most people equate nuclear energy with making bombs still, hence the problem between Israel and Iran.

David

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224258678_Is_Nuclear_Power_Globally_Scalable_Point_of_View

David,

>“Peter, I think you underestimate the ability of the general population to understand and therefore accept low levels of nuclear radiation. “

The general population don’t have to understand radiation and its effect (at least not until they are considering whether they want to grab the opportunity to have a power station in their neighbourhood - and gain the benefits of the enormous opportunities they offer: stable employment in a high tech industry, jobs for life, excellent education and research facilities and education, and much more).

What the majority of voters are interested in are the points I made above: cheaper energy, improved health and safety, more secure and reliable energy supply, good jobs with a bright future.

The allowable radiation limits are not something the voting public would vote on. The IAEA would reconsider the evidence for the LNP hypothesis and, if supported by the evidence, begin raising the limits progressively over time. In January the USA started the process (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Nuclear-Radiation-and-Health-Effects/). Just the fact of increasing the allowable radiation limits will provide an opportunity and a catalyst to represent and re-examine the benefits of nuclear power - a new opportunity to revive the public debate of the evidence. It can be a catalyst to get the population to reconsider whether they've been hearing 50 years of baseless scaremongering. That’s where the population would be involved, not in deciding what the radiation limits should be. If that was done objectively, no other electricity generation technology could pass the requirements set for the nuclear industry.

I agree with your comment about science classes. The deterioration of education in the west is a whole other issue. However, a well-informed and persuasive US President can make an enormous difference. He can lead the US citizens to understand the benefits for the US of making cheap nuclear power available to the developing nations (there are many and enormous benefits. And he can influence the leaders of the other nuclear countries to support a thorough re-investigation of the evidence for the LNP hypothesis. And lead to get the NRC’s purpose and culture changed.

"The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for members of the public, and even in two major nuclear accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukushima – exposure to radiation has caused no harm to the public."

Peter, the above quote from your previous reference.
Unfortunately it isn't true. It has recently come to light that in the Fukishima area there is a significant increase in the number of children who are suffering from one of the radiation induced thyroid problems. I suggest you read
http://www.naturalnews.com/038185_Fukushima_children_thyroid_disorders.html

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22013/us-babies-suffering-radiation-poisoning-from-fukushima/
There was a reference to the first one on the ABC a couple of days ago.

I am not anti nuclear, but I believe we need to be careful how we handle the truth. Blatantly denying that there are problems does not give the public confidence and it is the public who will vote for the anti-nuclear politicians.

David

David,

I agree it is important to not exaggerate or overstate. However, it's also important to provide appropriate context.

The reference you linked is a news article and all the references in that article are to non authoritative sites. I'd urge we avoid posting links to junk sites. Thorough studies have been conducted by authoritative organisations, such as WHO, and my understanding is very few if any fatalites are expected from radiation induced illnesses resulting from the Fukushima accident. Of the thousands of thyroid cancers diagnosed and attributed to the Chernobyl accident all but about 30 were treated effectively. There have been about 30 deaths attributed to thyroid cancer resulting from the Chernobyl accident. Few if any are expected from Fukushima. And thousands less polution caused fatalities per TWh of electricity supplied by Fukushima than if that power had been supplied by coalor gas over the past 40 years.

I strongly agree with you that we must not overstate the case. I believe Wade Allison's video and his articles in OnLine Opinion are excellent, balanced and informative. Such articles are needed to correct the 50 years of dishonest scaremongering we've had from organisations like Greenpeace and anti-nuke advocates like Mark Diesendorf. It's important to get this information out to the public. So I'd urge to not rely on that news source. Instead of defending and propagating such articles, let's include context and perspective. Let's try to get the balance right. The big picture is that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity (see references in first comment on this thread). We save lives by rolling out nuclear. Even if some thyroid cancers are identified AND attributed to leaks of radioactive material, we need to provide context. Otherwise it is just scaremongering – e.g. how man fatalities if fossil fuels had supplied the electricity instead.

On its own EROEI "energy returned on energy invested" is on use in choosing between energy sources. To be useful, an energy technology just has to produce more energy than it takes to build. The ratio of output to input is meaningless on its own. What you also need to know is how much it costs to build the plant. A low ratio plant is fine, it is cheap to build and operate. As an example, if solar cells are cheap to make (they are made from sand) and run (they run on sunlight), then it is worth making a lot of them, even if they are not very efficient (you can use the energy from the existing solar plants to make more solar panels). What also has to be taken into account in the cost is any pollution caused (burning coal causes carbon dioxide pollution which causes global warming, for example).

How does tidal stack up?

I saw a small tidal plant in Ireland that was some 400 years old; originally it drove a mill but had been converted to drive a generator and charge a bank of batteries.

Peter,
I don't think you get any brownie points for dismissing the thyroid cancers so lightly, even if most are apparently cured. The public should be told the truth about them.
The other subject which you raised, is that of reducing the levels of allowable ionising radiation. To date there is actually no scientific justification for any level. Some would suggest that there is no safe level, others want a higher level than is currently internationally agreed. It is all just about consensus, an argument which the conservatives are winning, a situation which will continue well into the future because of the lack of good scientific evidence to change it. Statistics plays a large part in all this and as we all should know, there are liars, damn liars and statisticians.
David

David,

"The public should be told the truth about them."

I agree the public should be told the truth. They are provided with the best scientific evidence and conclusions available at an time by the authoritative bodies, not by scaremongering journalists and media.

What you read in junk articles is not the truth, even if you accept such nonsense. I'd suggest you do some objective research, put your faith in the authoritative bodoies that have done objective and thorough research using the best authorities available in the relevant field instead of scaremongering.

"To date there is actually no scientific justification for any level. "

Absolute nonsense. More is known about radiation effects on humans than any other pollutant, including smoking.

And, you still haven;t been able to appreciate context: even if the media article is correct, the thyroid cancers may not have been attributable to contamination from the accident (proper studies have to be done to attribute cause to effect), and even if they are they absolutely trivial compared with the counter-factual of the case if Japan had been using coal, gas and oil for the past 45 years instead of nuclear power. I'd urge you to consider context and use perspective.

tomw, I'd recommend you read the original articles and follow the debate on the scientific sites where the in-depth debate has been held. You could short cut it by reading John Morgans response to all the critiques (see link at top of this thread).

However, can I urge you to consider this: why would a rational person, once hes' become informed of the relevant facts and comparisons advocate for renewable energy given that nuclear is far superior at meeting all the important criteria:

1. energy security

2. reliability of supply

3. cost of energy

4. health and safety

5. environmental impacts

Why would any rational person advocate for renewable energy once they are aware of this. If they are not aware, and they are not simply advocates for some cause or ideological belief, why wouldn't they undertake to do their own objective research to find out?

tomw, with battery storage PV's are in deficit EROEI (below 1). Even if it was 1.6 with hydro storage (possible in some cases) do you suggest that a year's world energy from high EROEI production sources should be given over to producing PV's?

We realize that this could not all happen at once, but over what time period do you believe the transition would be completed? Meanwhile, world energy demand won't stand still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:World_primary_energy_consumption_in_quadrillion_Btu_by_region.svg
I have no calculation on this as many realities intervene, but I'm guessing it would be in the order of many more generations than we have to solve the climate problem.

That's why we must look at high EROEI alternatives to renewables.

Luciferase said;
Meanwhile, world energy demand won't stand still:

Well actually it will stand still and a possibility that it will decrease further.
No one knows at this stage, but it is pretty certain
that it will not increase because of high prices, which is what has
got us to where we are now.
Production decline is here now with a 40% decline in drilling rigs in the US.
Any reverse in demand will very quickly lead to higher prices.
The production peak in conventional oil was in 2005 and unconventional is peaking now.

Re ERoEI, some sources say oil is now 10 which accounts for why the
major oil companies are getting such poor results on investment.
I guess we will all know clearly by the end of this year what will happen.

Luciferase, EROEI is not a useful measure for working out energy strategies. Even if batteries produce less energy than they take to manufacture, it may still be worth using them. This is because the storage allows energy to be used where and when it would otherwise not be available.

World energy demand is not locked in (unlike some effects of global warming which are now unstoppable). Because highly polluting fuels, particularly coal, cannot be used so much in the future, the cost of energy will have to go up and its use likely be lower as a result.

Tomw, batteries do not produce power as I am sure you know.
It is just that there are firstly charge/discharge losses in them and
the embedded energy in their manufacture, all it does is lower the
ERoEI of the solar cells or whatever is used to charge the batteries.

Luciferase further to my last post I have just seen the figures for
the Bakken field and it looks like the Bakken may have peaked in December.
Its output fell 3% in January.
If the Texas field also falls that will confirm peak all oils.
Interesting times.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2015/01/26/North-Dakota-rig-activity-slowing/7641422279770/

tomw, I'm glad you can see that there is no Catch-22 of energy storage. But what Luciferase and Peter Lang aren't telling you is that renewable technology is advancing very rapidly and those low EROEI figures for solar PV are obsolete, and with newer technology they can get an order of magnitude higher. See http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sunedison-begins-production-of-electronic-grade-polysilicon-using-fluidized-bed-reactor-technology_100016659/#axzz3TSIHgplE and http://www.clca.columbia.edu/7B_SolarToday%20June12_c.pdf

So even if their critical thinking skills are so poor that they still believe an advanced society requires an EROEI of at least 7, renewable energy can meet that figure easily.

Have a critical think about this:

http://energyskeptic.com/2014/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/

2.45 based on mass installation real data, and that's without storage. Solar has a place, with or without storage, but not in delivering base-load.

Those EROEI calculations are of course based on the older, less efficient solar panels. They're not explained in detail in the linked article, but I'm baffled as to how insurance can consume 19.9GWh/year, for example, and Municipal taxes etc 14GWh/year.

As I have said many times, I do not support the feedin tariffs system for funding renewable energy infrastructure; I think they should be funded by concessional loans instead.

No disagreement with the book, Aidan, other than a quibble? The bit to which you most need to pay most attention is,

"Cheaper and More Efficient DOESN’T MATTER: PV is only 1/3 of the EROI

Critics of this book will say cheaper and more efficient PV cells are on the way. But as Prieto and Hall point out, the most effect an improved solar PV could have on the overall EROI is a maximum of 1/3 because of all the other factors. Plus EROI goes down every time the oil price goes up, because that causes all of the other factors to increase. Press releases of solar PV breakthroughs can be very exciting, but keep in mind that none of these past improvements could replace fossil fuels: thin-film, nanotechnology PV, cadmium telluride cells, organic cells, flexible cells, rollable sheets of PV for rooftops, slate modules, multi-junction cells, back-junction cells with 20-40% efficiency, PV grapheme, etc.

These improvements have costs, that’s part of what’s meant by the “premature phase out” factor. Solar businesses and PV plants go bankrupt when out-competed if they can’t afford to make expensive alterations and retrofits."

Of course, you can retreat to "2.45 (unbuffered!) is just great" but I hope you can see that the renewables route, generally, is the slowest possible road to carbon abatement and can't head off CAGW in the time we have.

The two things I'm reasonably sure of about renewable energy technologies are:

* that they tend to be made using fossil fuels;

and

* they (at least their components) have shorter working lives than is usually assumed.

So this raises the question: is the total fossil-fuel-based energy used in their manufacture (including the processing of all the raw materials needed) AND maintenance less than the total energy generated by any 'renewable-energy' technology ?

Clearly, a fool can ask any question.

IF NOT, then go for it. But IF SO, then even this fool knows it may be all a con.

Joe

Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity

1 Energy supply requirements

The most important requirements for energy supply are:

1. Energy security (refers to the long term; it is especially relevant for extended periods of economic and trade disputes or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970’s oil crises [1], world wars, Russia cuts’ off gas supplies to Europe).

2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks – e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2])

3. Low cost energy - energy is a fundamental input to everything humans have; if we increase the cost of energy we retard the rate of improvement of human well-being.

Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements. Second order requirements are:

4. Health and safety

5. Environmentally benign

1.1 Why health and safety and environmental impacts are lower priority requirements than energy security, reliability and cost:

This ranking of the criteria is what consumers demonstrate in their choices. They’d prefer to have dirty energy than no energy. It’s that simple. Furthermore, electricity is orders of magnitude safer and healthier than burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut. The choice is clear. The order of the criteria is clearly demonstrated all over the world and over thousands of years – any energy is better than no energy

2 Nuclear better than renewables

Nuclear power is better than renewable energy in all the important criteria. Renewable energy cannot be justified, on a rational basis, to be a major component of the electricity system. Here are some reasons why:

1. Nuclear power has proven it can supply over 75% of the electricity in a large modern industrial economy, i.e. France, and has been doing so for over 30 years.

2. Nuclear power is substantially cheaper than renewables

3. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity; it causes the least fatalities per unit of electricity supplied.

4. Nuclear power has less environmental impact than renewables.

5. ERoEI of Gen 3 nuclear is ~75 whereas renewables are around 1 to 9. An ERoEI of around 7 to 14 is needed to support modern society. Only Nuclear, fossil fuels and hydro meet that requirement.

6. Material requirements per unit of electricity supplied through life for nuclear power are about 1/10th those of renewables

7. Land area required for nuclear power is very much smaller than renewables per unit of electricity supplied through life

8. Nuclear power requires less expensive transmission (shorter and lower capacity transmission lines).

9. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited.

10. Nuclear fuel requires a minimal amount of space for storage. Many years of nuclear fuel supply can be stored in a warehouse. This has two major benefits:

• Energy security - it means that countries can store many years or decades of fuel at little cost, so it gives independence from fuel imports. This gives energy security from economic disruptions or military conflicts.

• Reduced transport - nuclear fuel requires 20,000 to 2 million times less ships, railways, trains, ports, pipelines etc. per unit of energy transported. This reduces shipping costs, the quantities of oil used for the transport, and the environmental impacts of the shipping and the fuel used for transport by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude.

There is no rational justification for renewable energy to be mandated and favoured by legislation and regulations.

2.1 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.

3 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.

Aiden, The insurance costs and council rates do have to be taken into
account, just as they are in other energy systems, some of their
output has to be set aside to pay those bills. The same with all their
other overheads, workers wages to clean the cells, etc etc etc.

I have no idea what the hail damage insurance costs are and I would
not be surprised if it were considerable.

Re the new type of cells that you gave me the reference to, well a 10 times
improvement would be a complete game changer so I await them being put
out in the sun to see what the yield actually turns out to be.
Until then we can only proceed with what we have.
Many a slip between cup & lip !

Peter, if it takes 3 posts that nobody will be bothered reading to say what you think you want to say, then it probably isn't worth saying.

Just saying...

Burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut is perfectly OK if there is an efficient stove.
I've been in huts in India where this is the case, dung,as a fuel, is also very cheap.

Bazz, the insurance costs would be significant when deciding which energy infrastructure to build. And cost is far more important than EROEI except when the latter is at very low values. But it is nothing to do with EROEI. And trying to factor it into the EROEI calculation is like trying to factor the cost of car insurance into the car's fuel efficiency figures!

___________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, I've not read the book; merely the review, so I haven't got sufficient information to pass judgement on it. Nevertheless, my second objection was more than just a quibble: it appears to be evidence of a serious flaw in the methodology.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth I think you've got your answers mixed up. But the evidence is pretty clear: including maintenance, the EROEI of renewable energy is greater than 1. Usually much greater.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang, I'll examine the assumptions behind the CSIRO's tool when I have more time. Meanwhile I've explained to you several times why the claim that "An ERoEI of around 7 to 14 is needed to support modern society" is wrong. Why do you persist in the intellectual dishonesty of claiming otherwise?

"... my second objection was more than just a quibble"
These are real costs for real installations. There is a perfect world where insuring installations prone to weather damage is an insignificant cost, then there is the real world where actual cost matters.

EROI's are not additive, you'll agree, two plus two does not equal 4. The absurdity of building massive installations in parallel to power modern civilization, when the return on investment is so low (except for the recipients of feed-in tariffs, at everyone else's expense), is already manifest in Spain, Germany and Japan.

Your assumption that concessional loans by governments to investors will overcome the reality of PV experience so far is heroic. Stupid lending and stupid investment cannot make PV's more viable.

Aidan,

>"Meanwhile I've explained to you several times why the claim that "An ERoEI of around 7 to 14 is needed to support modern society" is wrong. Why do you persist in the intellectual dishonesty of claiming otherwise?"

No you have not. You've done nothing of the sort. You've repeated your baseless assertions over and over again. They've been refuted repeatedly by me and others including many of your silly comments on BNC.

When you had the opportunity to make cogent comments to state the basis for your beliefs and support them, on this thread, on BNC and on the threads elsewhere where the EROEI work has been discussed by the authors of the work, you squibbed it. You preferred to divert your comments to the trivial and irrelevant matter of the Opera House design and cost.

You have nothing cogent to offer on ERoEI. You can't present an argument. No one who knows anything about the subject has taken you seriously. And you continually display the signs of intellectual dishonesty. read them here and think about how they aply to your arguing tactics: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

If you were honest, had an open and inquiring mind, and were capable of researching objectively, you could begin to learn about the genuine, pragmatic achievable alternatives. You could start by reading the links I posted in the first comment on this thread and reading the cited references in each where you want to dig deeper.

I see you're resorting to outright lies now Peter!'

On BNC I stated the reason for the figure of 7 being ridiculous: with a lower figure you could achieve the same result with more energy infrastructure. I did so in the context of John Morgan's example of oil, and when he responded by mentioning the limit to the amount of oil we have. When I pointed out that although this was true for oil it was not applicable to renewables, he withdrew from the discussion.

On the Compact Nuclear thread here I twice posted:
"...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."

Both times you refused to engage with my argument but carried on as if I hadn't said it. The fourth sign of intellectual dishonesty on that list you are so fond of linking to.

On this thread, the author (John Morgan) isn't participating so it provided no new opportunities. The first few respondents were already participating in the Compact Nuclear thread, and I saw no reason to split the discussion over two threads. Subsequent posters were responding mainly to each other rather than the article, and it was in this context I replied in one post to three of them, one of whom was discussing electric cars, one molten salt, and the third the Sydney Opera House. And that's as far as my comments with that went: a third of a post.

Is it a matter of presentation? Then what would I have to do to get you to take my argument seriously? And why?

Luciferase I completely agree that cost matters. It usually matters far more than EROEI. But the cost of insurance has nothing to do with EROEI.

EROEI is not additive, but net energy is. And it is the latter that modern society requires.

There is nothing stupid about lending to fund renewable energy infrastructure. It serves a very important public purpose.

>"Is it a matter of presentation? Then what would I have to do to get you to take my argument seriously? And why?"

There's nothing you can do now that you lost credibility. I' don't take any notice of what you write on EROEI, nuclear, renewables, or anything else about energy and policy because of you've demonstrated you are a zealot advocating for a cause. You don't engage honestly, you are devious and cannot be trusted, you don't answer questions honestly. Instead you just repeat your mantra, restating your beliefs ad nauseum. You don't present a cogent case and support it with authoritative sources. It's been the same pattern where you've posted on BNC and the previous OLO thread. So there is nothing you can do to get me to take anything you write as worth spending time reading.

If you are interested in costs of renewables versus costs of nuclear to achieve significant reductions in global GHG emissions, then start studying the links at the top of this thread. If you are interested in the fastest way to reduce global GHG emissions, study the links at the top of this thread.

Of course, I recognise you don't want to know what may undermine your beliefs. So you wont do so.

I hope you can learn something from this response, but I seriously doubt you will. Zealots and deniers of relevant facts, cannot be contacted. Your comments demonstrate you are one of those.

Peter Lang
>>There's nothing you can do now that you lost credibility. I' don't take any notice of what you write on EROEI, nuclear, renewables, or anything else about energy and policy because of you've demonstrated you are a zealot advocating for a cause.<<
That's the second and seventh signs of intellectual dishonesty according to the page you so frequently link to.

And your accusations of zealotry have no basis in reality, but describe yourself very accurately.

>>You don't engage honestly,<<
You're the one who's refusing to engage honestly.

>>you are devious and cannot be trusted, you don't answer questions honestly. <<
What questions have I not answered honestly?

>>Instead you just repeat your mantra, restating your beliefs ad nauseum. <<
So when I repeat a claim that you've refused to engage with even though it demolishes the basis of one of your claims, that makes it a mantra, does it?

>>You don't present a cogent case and support it with authoritative sources.<<
Because you refuse to engage with my argument, I can't tell what part of it you do not find cogent. Is it that I haven't found a link to someone who agrees with me who you consider authoritative? (And is that an oxymoron?) But many of your links are of low quality, yet when I asked you on another thread if you have any evidence the claims on a web page are wrong, you tried to rubbish me by association with that site! The sixth, fourth and second signs of intellectual dishonesty.

"There is nothing stupid about lending to fund renewable energy infrastructure. It serves a very important public purpose"

That purpose would it be a "vibe" thing, the warm, cosey-green feel that's doing little to curb GHG's, as evidenced wherever massive PV installations have been put to practise. These installations rely on fossil fuels to mask the fact that buffering (storage) would make them even less viable.

Furthermore, the possibility that technological advancement in PV's will make them viable for base-load is a chimera, so that even the infrastructure will be useless by the time the penny drops for even the most zealous of zealots.

IMO, anything spent in the cities and regional centres served currently by fossil fueled electricity is money wasted and denied to investment in the nuclear solution. Household rooftop PV's are the worst drain of all, with their feed-in tariffs and infrastructure to accommodate them, all paid for by other energy users (serving the wealthier).

Luciferase,

I agree. The RE advocates are irrational. They simply don't understand, and don't want to understand the relevant facts for policy analysis. Wind and solar cannot supply a significant proportion of global electricity, cannot be rolled out fast enough and, therefore, cannot make a significant contribution to reducing global GHG emissions (or increasing energy security, human wellbeing, life expectancy, etc)

These RE advocates rave on about high rates of growth from 2% and 0.2% proportion of global energy. So what? They are in dream world if they think RE can supply a relevant proportion of global electricity by 2050.

On the other hand, nuclear has proved it can. So, if the RE advocates are genuinely interested in reducing global GHG emissions, as distinct from simply promoting their cult's beliefs, why aren't they promoting nuclear power?

The most critical point of comparison for policy decision analysis is the cost of electricity. For any system to replace fossil fuels the electricity it supplies must be cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels. Apart from the fact that renewables are not sustainable so cannot provide a large proportion of electricity, they are also hugely expensive. The RE advocates don't understand and don't recognise that. They don't want to understand it and don't try. They won't engage on the important issues. They'd prefer to try to divert the discussion to irrelevant side track issues.

If they were interested in an honest debate, they'd look closely at my three posts of 18 March, instead of simply ignoring them.