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.