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 !