Just as fashion is worn for pride and vanity, desiring to impress others in one's extravagance, clearly the object of following RET is none but national pride and vanity. Government is happy to spend your hard-earned money on RET for the same reason it is happy to spend it on national sports teams - they want Australia to look good and rank well among those other artificial constructs called "nations", perhaps in order to cover up and justify their immoral existence.

Had one truly cared about "saving the world", one wouldn't care where on the planet the consumption of non-renewable energy is reduced, so long as it is. One would also care about reducing consumption of non-renewable energy by thrift rather than the introduction of additional renewable energy just in order to display a nice percentage as a badge.

What's not been realised is that so long as the reduction of non-renewable energy is taken as a government project, ordinary people no longer feel responsible for the planet ("why, the government is taking care of that") and won't bother to consider "do I really need to keep that light on, that air-conditioner; do I really need to make this trip in my car or fly to this holiday?"

The title "Australia's Renewable Energy Target is failing to achieve positive outcomes" is correct for very many reasons.

However, this is incorrect: "The problem with large-scale renewable projects is that they are extremely efficient."

This is completely wrong, see:

"Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17311

"New Study: ‘CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)’" http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/06/guest-post-peter-lang-new-study-co2-emissions-savings-from-wind-power-in-the-national-electricity-market-nem/

"CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)" http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/report.pdf

"... the RET Review summarised economic analyses of the abatement cost of the Large Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) at $32-$70/t CO2. … If the economic analyses do not take effectiveness into account, and if effectiveness decreases to [60%] by 2020, the estimates of abatement cost would nearly double to [$53-$116]/t CO2 with effectiveness included.

To put these abatement costs in context, the ‘carbon’ tax was $24.15/t CO2 when it was rejected by the voters at the 2013 Federal election. The current price of EU ETS carbon credits and the international carbon credit futures are:

European Union Allowance (EUA) market price (10/3/2015) = €6.83/tCO2 (A$9.50)
Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) futures to 2020 (9/3/2015) = €0.40/tCO2 (A$0.56)
Therefore, the LRET in 2020 could be 2 to 5 times the carbon tax, which was rejected by the voters in 2013; 6 to14 times the current price of the EUA; and more than 100 times the price of CER futures out to 2020.

Clearly, the RET is a very high cost way to avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The rational policy decision is to close the RET to future investments. Or, as an interim measure, wind the target back to a real 20% of electricity generation."

We may need a fact check here. The Macarthur Wind Farm at 420MW could generate about 1000 GWh/yr using 20 ongoing staff or 50 GWh/yr/person.

Hazelwood at 1500MW generates about 12,000 GWh/yr using 540 ongoing staff or 22 GWh/yr/person.

Not sure how the author came up with "Hazelwood power plant employs between 6 to 8 times more people compared to the same output from the Macarthur Wind Farm.

But yes, wind farms can employ less people per unit of electricity than one of the worst coal plants. The good people of Morwell might see this as unwanted job losses.

Having reviewed the figures above, it seems that the article's author may not understand the concept of capacity factor. The capacity factor of a coal plant is about 3 times that of a wind farm. So the "6 to 8 times more people" should probably be 2 to 3 times.

The RET certainly has not failed in its main aim: to rip off as much taxpayers' payers money as possible. As with the carbon tax, it has no other aim. It is a cynical operation to take money from the poor to give to the already rich. Nothing to with clean air or natural climate change.

I have to agree with both Peter Lang and Martin N, the author's figures on renewable energy are quite wrong. He hasn't taken into account the rate outputs of the projects or the respective capacity factors - not to mention intermittency - all of which completely blow his comparisons out of the water. To make matters worse for the author the basic costs of these projects have already been discussed on this site http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17227
by me and, I believe by Peter Lang in other articles. There are other problems with his article but that colossal error is enough to ensure that the author will not be taken seriously.

Curmudgeon,

Did you see this on Catallaxy Files?

"New Study: ‘CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)’" http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/06/guest-post-peter-lang-new-study-co2-emissions-savings-from-wind-power-in-the-national-electricity-market-nem/

The report is here and it is truly fascinating (and very well written):
Wheatley, 2015, "CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)" http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/report.pdf

This coluld be a major scoup if you could write it up so the poublic can understand the consequences. If the public start to understand, it could put pressure on Hunt and MacFarlane to delay a decision on the revised LRET. They are about to agree to a target of 33,000 GWh for the LRET. That would mean about a 4 times increase in wind turbines by 2020.

This planet is a ball of minerals and energy, infinite to our understanding.

Humans are ants scratching around on the surface. But some of the ants believe they can control the mega-climate by taxing a trace (life-supporting) gas. We ants can now control our local climate if we build air-conditioned enclosures, but Nature can destroy any man-made structure in an instant. An earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, asteroid impact ... and bingo, we are history. Prosperity gives the chance to learn and defend our life, liberty, property and happiness, yet prosperity is being bled white by blood-sucking taxation policies. RET must be dumped into the waste bin of useless ideas - comparable to so many examples of mass hysteria which have lured shiploads of humanity onto the rocks.

Wake up Australia. Wake up.

I am sure there would be lots of people (including the Government) that would like to know where the "at least $1 billion in federal funds each year that are intended to finance large-scale renewable projects" sit. The reality is there is no such funding associated with the RET or any other programs around large-scale renewable energy.

I am afraid this article seems largely bereft of facts.

Greg Hunt's speach yesterday includes these snippets:

"Labor's 15.4 billion carbon tax"

"Through its various industry assistance packages associated with the carbon tax, Labor allocated over $30 billion of taxpayers’ money to underpin the carbon tax. The taxpayers paid the tax through higher electricity prices, then they paid the polluters to keep polluting."

"Most amazingly, there was $5.5 billion in no strings attached payments to brown coal generators to keep operating."

"Third, contrary to the claims of some, it was not cost-free to the Budget. The carbon tax came with $30 billion in budget or balance sheet-based expenditure, which I have outlined in an attachment to this speech. This is more than ten times the investment involved in the Emissions Reduction Fund. "

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3270/Speech--2nd-Emissions-Reduction-Fund-Summit.aspx

Well, I never before heard something critiqued for being too efficient! Too costly, maybe? Which probably applies to most renewable!?

Except say very large scale solar thermal projects; which has costless fuel and now competes successfully with coal; and as 24/7 base load power!

Or (half price)carbon free Thorium energy connected to micro grids; and or, (quarter price) carbon neutral domestic biogas projects, which include scrubbers, bladder storage, ceramic fuel cells and endless free hot water.

We need to replace far costlier national grid power, with very localized and vastly cheaper power!

All have large workforce requirements initially! And most of the lost mining jobs can and should be replaced by locally manufactured; exportable thorium plants/biogas> improved ceramic fuel cell projects/gas powered electric cars/trucks/trains/trams/tractors?

And given locally sourced indigenous sweet light crude produces 75% less carbon from wellhead to vehicle exhaust, we should therefore preference that, than much dirtier fully imported liquid fuel.

And for a number of reasons; the first being in common use, it produces just a quarter of the carbon created in total, of fully imported fuel.

Even if that includes limited DRILLING on the REEF!

And given the ease of recovery, possibly for less than $10.00 a barrel?

And or, even cheaper NG, which produces even less carbon; 40% less!

And given the local product costs far less and in common use, produces far less TOTAL carbon! Why the hell not!?

We could use compressed air as a commuting fuel, but all too often these "GOOD" ideas fail to include the cost of compressing the air and the carbon produced as the first consequence.

Even replacing the car with a bike or running shoes produces bottom line carbon, which equates to all energy output regardless of the source; horses/bullocks.

Something, can't see the forest for the trees, gullible greens inevitably overlook!

And city dwellers (which includes most greens) produce 2.5 times the amount of carbon of their country cousins!

Lifts, pumps, street lights, and ubiquitous public transport!

And it seems, fight the hardest to prevent rational cost effective ideas/implementation, from reducing that output!
Rhrosty.

Peter - I'm pushed just now, but I will look at those links.. tnks..

RET is aimed at lowering human emissions, so we should not be having this conversation. There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
The IPCC used laboratory science to run climate models, and made predictions based on the computer results. They have proved that their science does not translate into the real world, yet they persist with the nonsense that lowering human emissions will affect climate.
Human emissions are 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle, so it is not surprising that the effect is trivial and not measurable.
What is surprising is the longevity of the climate fraud, which has no basis other than dishonesty.
We need a Royal Commission, to uncover the means whereby the nonsense is promoted, with a view to appropriate legislation to put a stop to it

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Peter: the “extremely efficient” comment refers to employment, not GHG emissions. I do take your point though.

Martin: the calculations are different because I used megawatts, opposed to gigawatt hours. I was unable to verify the gigawatt hours of the Macarthur Wind Farm. Additionally, I also compared to the Nyngan Solar plant which is where the range figures came from.

Curmudgeon: the figures relied on originate from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. If anything, government would provide the lowest possible figure; if the figure is higher it would only support the argument more.

Dave: the $1 billion figure is from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. As per their annual report 2013/14 and section 46 of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act, they are credited with $2 billion in funds (held by Treasury) in addition to funding for operational expenses. If the Corporation spends less than half of their investment on renewable projects, they have to explain why under section 74(1)(c) - this is were the $1 billion came from. Also for your interest, the current government has failed to repeal the Corporation twice through the Senate.

Thanks again.

Spencer
Author.

The problem is Spencer, doing any performance analysis on generators should never be done based on capacity (MW) rather than energy generated (MWh). It will almost certainly be misleading. I suggest you research the term "capacity factor" and see how it varies significantly between a coal fired power station and a wind farm or solar farm.Typically a wind farm will produce about a third of the energy generated from an equivalent sized coal plant.

I agree with Martin Nicholson's important point. There is much relevant information in this new report on CO2 emissions avoided by wind energy in the NEM in 2014. It lists the energy generated by technology per state and NEM total; the generators displaced by wind generation; the amount of CO2 avoided by wind; the average capacity factor of wind in each state:

Wheatley, 2015 'Emissions savings from wind power: Australia': http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power-australia/

Background (explains the methodology):

Wheatley, 2013, paper on Ireland ( published in ‘Energy Policy’) 'Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power' http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513007829
and also a free pre-submission version here):
Wheatley, 2012, 'Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power: Ireland' http://joewheatley.net/how-much-co2-does-wind-power-save/

The 'The Sustainability Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) report: http://joewheatley.net/quantifying-co2-savings-from-wind-power-redux-ireland-2012/

Other: http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/page/2/

For the CO2 abatement cost and policy implications see my Submission (No 259): http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions .

Martin, I agree with you. The method was perhaps too simplistic for individuals such as yourself. As I mentioned, I was unable to verify the GWh from a reliable source. From your figures, you'd be right with 2 to 3. However, keep in mind the biggest wind and solar plants would normally be the most efficient regarding GWh to staff. Moreover coal miners, transport staff, contractors etc would also add to the ratio. I'd be interested to know the actual ratio.

Peter, I do not dispute the very clear evidence that wind farms in Australia reduce GHG. In essence the argument states that if Australia wants to offset the "most" emissions, we'd do it in places such as China.

Spencer Wright,

I didn't understand the point of this comment "Peter, I do not dispute the very clear evidence that wind farms in Australia reduce GHG." Could you please clarify what you mean and the relevance to my point? What evidence are you referring to? What proportion of NEM's average GHG emissions intensity do you think wind energy avoids per MWh?

I don't dispute that wind and solar avoid some emissions. But it is less than most people believe. Furthermore, the CO2 abatement effectiveness decreases as wind penetration increases. At 15% wind energy penetration in the NEM (as would be required to achieve the existing RET by 2020), CO2 abatement effectiveness would be around 60%. That means the CO2 abatement cost of wind would be some 67% higher than the estimates in the RET Review. That's 2-4, times the carbon price that was rejected by the voters at the 2013 election, 4-8 times the average CO2 abatement cost at the first Direct Action auction, 6-12 times the EU carbon price, and 100-200 times the International carbon price futures.

The key point is that wind and solar power are a very high cost way to reduce emissions. Therefore, all incentives for wind and solar should be discontinued. Allow Direct Action to do what it is designed to do - cut emissions at least cost.

I'd urge readers to stop advocating for economically irrational policies. They are not sustainable and inevitably will not succeed. All major reductions to GHG emissions have been achieved by direct action policies, not by policies such as carbon pricing and renewable energy mandates.
.
If we want to reduce emissions sustainably, we should do what France did 50 to 30 years ago and is still doing. France has near the lowest cost electricity in Europe, near the lowest emissions intensity of electricity in Europe and its emissions intensity is 1/10th of Australia's. It's been like that for over 30 years. And that was achieved by direct action.

Peter, I misinterpreted what you meant. I think I understand your point now. However, I must disagree with your direct action comment. There is no cost of abating emissions in renewables. It is commercially viable. Even the government-owned Clean Energy Finance Corporation yields 8.1% on project finance - that is far better than any term deposits on the market, and far higher than the benchmark bond average of around 3.5%.

What you could argue is that in order to achieve such high yields in the renewable sector you must distort the marketplace by introducing regulations such as the RET. However, this would be avoided in my scenario - China can distort the market as much as they want, and we should profit off their policies.

The idea that renewable projects are profitable contradicts your idea regarding abating emissions at the lowest cost. Direct action and the carbon tax cost taxpayers, whereas investing in renewables provides a return to taxpayers, lowering their long term tax burden. Moreover, the CEFC is achieving higher yields than more diversified portfolios such as the government's Future Fund.

Even though investing in renewables it is profitable in Australia, it is more profitable in China. According to Ernst & Young's Renewable Energy Country Attractive Index, China is the best country to invest in renewables.

Considering Australia has a budget deficit, we must ensure that the capital invested in renewables is used as efficiently as possible - that is why I suggest international investment.

Regards

Spencer

Spencer Wright,

> “There is no cost of abating emissions in renewables. It is commercially viable.”

That comment is not supported by the evidence. Read the 2014 RET Review Report https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/56-cost-abatement There are many other authoritative reports from other OECD countries that draw the same conclusion.

The RET Review Report Executive Summary says:

>“With the renewables industry now established in Australia, the main rationale for the RET hinges on its capacity to contribute towards the Government’s emissions reduction target in a cost effective manner. However, the RET is a high cost approach to reducing emissions because it does not directly target emissions and it only focuses on electricity generation. It promotes activity in renewable energy ahead of alternative, lower cost options for reducing emissions that exist elsewhere in the economy. In the presence of lower cost alternatives, the costs imposed by the RET are not justifiable.”

Here’s an interesting article from Germany: ““Energiewende” Takes A Massive Blow…Top Green Energy Proponent Concedes: “Blunder With Ugly Consequences”! http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/09/energiewende-takes-a-massive-blow-top-green-energy-proponent-concedes-blunder-with-ugly-consequences-huge-blow-to/#sthash.aP54nNTI.ziYo9jNr.dpbs

See Slide 10 here: 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/ It compares the electricity cost versus emissions intensity of electricity in selected countries and states with high proportions of renewables and high proportion of nuclear energy. The contrast is obvious and stark. Then consider the irony in Slide 14, and recognize that you are one of the many advocating for the wrong solution.

The evidence is overwhelming - renewables are a very high cost way to abate emissions and cannot have a significant impact on reducing global GHG emissions (because of their high abatement cost compared with other alternatives, emissions leakage, and negligible proportion of global electricity generation.

Are you open to challenge your beliefs?

I often challenge and change my beliefs.

Perhaps the divergence is that I referred to project finance, which is a loan. In this case the CEFC lend money and yield 8.1%. This may not account for the whole cost of the project - which I believe the documents you refer to. If the CEFC granted money for projects, I would be very critical.

I am trying to narrow down the cost to government, not the whole cost including corporations - this was not the perspective of my original piece.

We both appear to argue that renewables in Australia are not effective. We just change in regards to what we should do instead.

Thanks for your input Peter.

The cost to the economy is what counts. All the high cost of renewables are a cost to the country, and therefore to our standard of living. They have no beneficial effect on global GHG emissions because of carbon leakage.

If renewables were economically viable as you claimed in one of your earlier comments, then we do not need the CEFC or RET or any other incentives to support them.

Furthermore, the CEFC's rate of return is not a commercial rate of return for the risk involved. It is hugely subsidised. The CEFC is taking all the regulatory risk. The loans should be from financiers without any government involvement and should be at commercial rates of return. There is no rational argument for government involvement.

Peter, I keep thinking to myself that we are more aligned than it would otherwise appear.

Regarding renewables being commercially viable, I did mention that a counter-argument was that the market was distorted due to the RET. In other words, they are viable, but mostly (or possibly only) due to that distortion.

I also agree that overall large-scale renewables are doing harm to the economy and that is why I advocate for a different approach.

It seems to me that the only thing we disagree on is what that different approach should be.

My starting position was a carbon pricing/ETS pathway, but which corporation is going to go into a nuclear reactor start-up that way, even without obstruction?

I've come to a direct action position, but not in the direction our government is taking. Let's take the French path.

Meanwhile, we should export coal only for smelting purposes, or to developing countries until they can proceed to nuclear, or to developed countries demonstrably committed to going to nuclear. Ultimately, however, much of it will have to stay buried to avoid CAGW.

Spencer Wright,

>”It seems to me that the only thing we disagree on is what that different approach should be.”

OK. I may have misunderstood you. Perhaps you can restate where we differ, what your alternative is and why you disagree what I advocate for.

I argue that we need to aim to achieve France’s electricity generation mix by 2040. That would reduce Australia’s emissions intensity of electricity by 90%. It provides the safest, most reliable and most sustainable supply of electricity. It can be implemented over two three decades at negligible costs IF…

The IF is that the US and EU must remove the regulatory impediments they have implemented. Australia probably cannot implement nuclear power economically until that happens because I can’t see Australia being prepared to buy Korean or Chinese reactors yet. However, this could happen in about a decade from now if they are exporting small modular reactors to other OECD countries.

I don’t believe any policy that raises the cost of energy is sustainable. Renewables will always be a very high cost way to generate electricity so they will not supply a large proportion of electricity. The fact that prices are reducing (from a very high current price) is irrelevant because they cannot be economic in the system and they are not sustainable (reference in earlier comment).

The main benefits of Direct Action are:

1. It pays for the actual emissions avoided, not simply a policy to raise revenue and raise energy prices – which damages Australia’s economy and destroys jobs. There is no environmental gain because of emissions leakage.

2. Its budget cost is $2.55 billion over 4 years versus the previous government’s policies that cost about $20 billion per year.

3. It is flexible. This is very important. The previous government’s policy was a monster and enormously difficult to unwind (see chart here: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/09/10/1226716/439140-130911-climate.pdf ). Direct Action is easily modified so it can be adapted to fit with whatever scheme the world agrees to – if it ever does.

Luciferase, I have little doubt that eventually your sort of proposal will become a reality.

Peter, I do like direct action, but I still take issue because of the cost to government.

Where I differ is that I believe Australia should invest (by way of loan) in renewable projects. In particular Ernst & Young score China (1st) and India (5th) above Australia (10th) for renewable investment. These countries in particular are expected to increase their gross capacity by 1,536 GW (China) and 675 GW (India) by 2030 (compared to Australia's 36 GW).

If the CEFC can achieve project finance of 8.1% in Australia, it may be able to increase its margin in these countries ranked higher for renewable investment.

I noticed before you made a point about risk. You're right, there is risk, in addition to operational costs associated with the yield. 8.1% isn't all profit; there is wholesale costs, bad debts and operational costs that must be taken out of that.

The risks are largely mitigated though a method consistent with modern portfolio theory. The CEFC only invests in a minority share, so for the $1 billion Macarthur Wind Farm the CEFC loaned only $50 million. ANZ, NAB, ING, Shinsei, ICBC and EKF loaned a further $479. The rest of the capital was committed by owners AGL and Meridian.

As we've discussed, a project like this is in most part viable because of the distortion of our market - due to the RET.

What I believe we should do instead is:
1. Repeal the LRET;
2. Repeal section 61 of the CEFC Act that limits investment in Australia; and
3. Loan money to other countries (maybe loan a maximum of 10% of the total cost).

Summary benefits:
- We can profit off China's distorted market;

- No net cost to government or taxpayers;

- We can reduce the distortion in our economy; and

- It will save overall jobs in the short to medium term (until coal power plants finish their effective life).

Let me know your thoughts.

Spencer Wright,

I do not understand the justification for much of what you argue.

>” I still take issue because of the cost to government. “
Why do you think that?
“To put this into context, the first auction of the ERF – limited as it was by a relatively small number of new ERF methods – delivered more than four times the total emissions reduction of Labor’s $15.4 billion carbon tax, and at a fraction of the cost.”

“Through its various industry assistance packages associated with the carbon tax, Labor allocated over $30 billion of taxpayers’ money to underpin the carbon tax. The taxpayers paid the tax through higher electricity prices, then they paid the polluters to keep polluting.” http://www.greghunt.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/87/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3270/Speech--2nd-Emissions-Reduction-Fund-Summit.aspx

See this chart: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/09/10/1226716/439140-130911-climate.pdf

Direct action is $2.55 billion over 4 years c.f, the previous government’s policies were costing about $20 billion per year.

“If the CEFC can achieve project finance of 8.1% in Australia, it may be able to increase its margin in these countries ranked higher for renewable investment. “

8.1% is not a commercial rate of return for the risk. It’s a taxpayer subsidy. You’d need to pay around 20% for a commercial loan for these projects because they are entirely dependent on government support. The regulatory risk is enormous because eventually the electorate will wake up to this boondoggle, as they are in UK, Germany, and elsewhere.

There is no valid justification for government’s being involved in funding projects like renewable energy. The government should not be competing with the private sector for services like electricity supply.

If you genuinely want to cut global GHG emissions, why aren’t you advocating for nuclear power? A rational analysis would show you nuclear is the key to large cuts in global GHG emissions by 2050. Renewables cannot make a significant contribution. See previous comments.

Why do you avoid the obvious solution? Most people who avoid doing options analyses objectively do so for ideological and emotional reasons. Motivated reasoning prevents rational analysis. I’d like to see you present a rational options analysis.

Peter, we will not be able to meet eye to eye on these points.

Nonetheless, I have appreciated and enjoyed our discussion. Thank you for being apart of it.

Thank you to everyone else for contributing to the discussion and reading my article.

Spencer
Author.

Spencer Wright,

>"Peter, we will not be able to meet eye to eye on these points. "

That is disappointing and frustrating. So may discussions end up this way when it gets down to debating points of fact rather than belief about renewables v nuclear as the best way to reduce global GHG emissions. The same happens with discussions about CAGW. It sometimes seems like we are reverting to pre-Enlightenment times.

Are you familiar with the Pareto Principle, commonly taught to middle level management:

"The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters" http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm .

Nuclear power can deliver 90% reduction in emissions intensity of electricity (as has been demonstrated by France for the past 30 years or more). Australia could achieve that before 2040.

However, renewables can achieve no significant GHG emission reduction. They are not viable and not likely to be. The risk of betting on them is huge. The EMV of that risk is around $ /MWh.

You are wasting your time advocating for renewables. You could be far more effective if you learnt about nuclear and explained the benefits to the public.

But it needs a change in beliefs. People like you should conduct your own objective policy options analyses and then explain it to others.

Peter, I don't mean to disappoint you.

I think we are just in two different mindsets, and we could argue all day. From my perspective I come to this conclusion:

The governments auction abated 47 million tonnes for $660 million at a cost of $13.50 per tonne to taxpayers.

The CEFC makes a profit of $2.40 each tonne they abate. If they abated 47 million tonnes, they'd make a profit of $112.8 million.

You can come to your own conclusion about this.

But my biggest issue is that you have the exact fundamental problem that I clearly outline in my article. Your idea suggests Australia could achieve 90% reduction by 2040.

This means you have to shut down coal power plants - there is no other way around that. This is effectively what the CEFC is doing too.

End result? Coal companies export the coal they were selling in Australia - completely negating any advantage that your idea proposes.

Building renewables in Australia, building nuclear, it's the same fundamental problem.

That is one of the reasons why I advocate loaning money in countries that have growing demand.

Your idea won't work unless Australia has strong demand for electricity. Unfortunately it doesn't.

>The CEFC makes a profit of $2.40 each tonne they abate. If they abated 47 million tonnes, they'd make a profit of $112.8 million. "

That is a complete misunderstanding. There is no profit. The taxpayers are subsidising the risk. If it was viable to build renewables the private sector would do it and take the risk. Financiers would invest. The fact the government is doing it show your assumption there is a profit is seriously flawed.

>"Your idea suggests Australia could achieve 90% reduction by 2040."

That is not what I said. I said reduce the emissions intensity of electricity by 90%.

>"This means you have to shut down coal power plants - there is no other way around that. This is effectively what the CEFC is doing too. "

The CEFC is not doing any such thing. Coal plat;s will be replaced at the end of their economic lives by the least cost option. What is needed is to advocate and explain to the public that the irrational, unjustifiable impediments to nuclear power be removed. Here's a classic example: http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/05/05/environmental-and-health-impacts-of-a-policy-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-in-sweden/#comment-405169

>"End result? Coal companies export the coal they were selling in Australia - completely negating any advantage that your idea proposes. "

Coal will be exported while there is a market for it. Energy suppliers and those with energy resources cannot hold up or stop supply.

>"Building renewables in Australia, building nuclear, it's the same fundamental problem. "

We’ve covered that already. Renewables are not viable and probably never will be.

On the other hand, nuclear is viable but blocked in some developed countries by irrational beliefs.

>The CEFC makes a profit of $2.40 each tonne they abate. If they abated 47 million tonnes, they'd make a profit of $112.8 million. "

That is a complete misunderstanding. There is no profit. The taxpayers are subsidising the risk. If it was viable to build renewables the private sector would do it and take the risk. Financiers would invest.

cont ...

...cont

>"Your idea suggests Australia could achieve 90% reduction by 2040."

That is not what I said. I said reduce the emissions intensity of electricity by 90%.

>"This means you have to shut down coal power plants …. This is effectively what the CEFC is doing too. "

The CEFC is not doing any such thing. Coal plants will be replaced at the end of their economic lives by the least cost option. What is needed is to advocate and explain to the public that the irrational, unjustifiable impediments to nuclear power be removed. Here's a classic example of the issue: http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/05/05/environmental-and-health-impacts-of-a-policy-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-in-sweden/#comment-405169

>"End result? Coal companies export the coal they were selling in Australia - completely negating any advantage that your idea proposes. "

Coal will be exported while there is a market for it. Energy suppliers and those with energy resources cannot hold up or stop supply.

>"Building renewables in Australia, building nuclear, it's the same fundamental problem. "

That’s not correct because renewables have negligible impact. They are not viable and probably never will be.

On the other hand, nuclear is viable and blocked in countries like Australia by irrational ideological beliefs.

Paying for emissions reduction overseas is also a massive waste of money. The international carbon price futures ($0.50/tonne) shows what investors are prepared to invest in that boondoggle.

None of these sorts of schemes are likely to succeed. The solution has to be in viable technologies. You really need to get your head around nuclear as being the early winner here. Until you and the rest of the anti-nuke crowd get your head around that, there will be no progress.

I guess you didn't read these when I posed them earlier, did you?
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii

"The taxpayers are subsidising the risk" - risk is mitigated as already discussed. In the case of the Macarthur Wind Farm, there is effectively no chance of losing money because of the loan to value ratio.

"There is no profit" - The CEFC achieves a positive return on investment as outlined in their annual report.

"If it was viable to build renewables the private sector would do it and take the risk" - For every $1 in projects the CEFC funds the private sector invests $2.20. The private sector do not invest out of charity and they factor risk and return into their decisions.

"The CEFC is not (shutting down coal plants)" - They help fund projects that add supply to the grid. As the grid has too much supply they force out coal power plants or make them reduce output; once built, the cost of the sun and wind is cheaper than coal.

"Coal plants will be replaced at the end of their economic lives by the least cost option" - So now you're advocating for natural gas-fired power plants? You realise they are cheaper than renewables and nuclear. Also, the average life of coal-power plants will mean many will be in operation post 2040 making your 90% emission in electricity reduction impossible.

"Renewables are not viable and probably never will be" - They are viable, evident by countries building them.

"That’s not correct because renewables have negligible impact" - You've missed my point entirely. I refer to electricity capacity. It applies equally to renewables, nuclear, coal, gas, whatever capacity you add. Nothing to do with emissions.

"Massive waste of money" - CEFC gets a commercial rate of return, the money is turned into even more money, that is why banks also invest in the exact same projects.

You think this argument is renewables vs nuclear. I advocate for lending money. They could loan money to nuclear also.

I can't see nuclear reactors supplanting fossil-fuelled electricity without government legislating them out of the way by putting a finite life on them, keeping a rein on their efficiency, and prohibiting the building of new ones after a stated date. That date is very near, if not here.

Meanwhile, coal should be sold on the basis I described earlier, with much of it remaining buried. Even carbon-based smelting will need supplanting by clean electrolytic processes, IMO.

""Renewables are not viable and probably never will be" - They are viable, evident by countries building them."

Why are they building them when REAL experience, not theoretical calculation, says they shouldn't (eg. Prieto and Hall)? Ideology drives it. In Australia the Greens and Labor drove the push. The LNP has been dragged along political to appease a brain-washed portion of the electorate needed for winning elections, while still championing coal!

Free renewable energy, oh what a feeling, but public re-education is needed to demonstrate the hollowness of it, and no government will bite the bullet.

Money wasted on carbon abatement via RET's, growing trees etc. is money denied to the only real solution logic supports, and whoever champions that, I will vote for, even at the cost of social policies I may hold dear. Energy becomes the only 'social' policy if one is concerned about CAGW. The rest is rearranging the deckchairs of our descendants.

P&H's book has already been cited, but here's a softer-hearted look: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-05-03/solar-dreams-spanish-realities

Spencer Wright,

I notice you are a law student and advocating about subjects you clearly have little or no understanding of. So, I’ll make this simple.

Technology change is needed to allow fuel switching from fossil fuels. The alternatives must supply energy cheaper or they will not replace fossil fuels sustainably and globally. That’s a fact.

Coal fired power stations have economic lives or around 50 years. Many are due for replacement, and nearly all existing plants will be replaced over the next 40-50 years.

Renewables are not economic (without govern,ment incentives), and not sustainable. As a result of huge subsidies (per MWh) solar generates 0.5% and wind about 2% of world’s electricity. They can have virtually no impact on global GHG emissions. They cannot replace coal.

Nuclear has demonstrated it can reduce emissions intensity of electricity by 90% and has been doing so for over 30 years in France. France’s electricity is near the cheapest in Europe. Therefore, nuclear has demonstrated it can replace coal economically.

However, it is blocked by regulatory impediments. These need to be removed. Subsidies are justifiable until they have been removed and all the effects of them have washed out. Subsidies are not justifiable for renewables because they are not viable and never will be.

CEFC is a government intervention in energy markets. It should be closed or sold off. It does not make a commercial rate of return. 8.1% is not a commercial rate of return for such high risk investments (it’s not even half what would be a commercial rate of return for renewables.

Here’s a way for you to do a reality check. Ask yourself who would buy CEFC and take over the commitments if it was offered for sale. Answer: no one. If it was making a commercial rate of return the private sector would have financed the projects without any need for the government to set up the CEFC. That is an example of how you can make simple reality checks on your beliefs.

Peter,

"Renewables are not economic (without govern,ment incentives)" - exactly! That's why we should invest in foreign countries with government incentives.

But you will ignore my argument and continue to decide that it is renewables vs nuclear.

But lets make it interesting.

Hypothetical - the government sells off all electricity assets, removes all incentives that favour one energy source over the next, and allow nuclear power plants to operate in Australia.

What electricity source will companies prefer to build?

Peter Lang,

Even if the private sector are reluctant to take the risk, the fact remains that it's paying off for the government, who continue to make over 8% even as the official interest rate's fallen to 2%.

But IMO the government SHOULD NOT BE trying to produce a commercial rate of return; rather they should be trying to maximise the benefits. Interest on debt is the biggest cost component for renewable energy. If the CEFC loaned it out at (for example) 3%*, it wouldn't have to make so much money to become profitable for the owners, so a lot more renewable energy infrastructure would get built. This would have the twin beneficial effects of reducing emissions and making electricity cheaper.

Risk to the government could be minimised by insisting on a minimum level of equity funding from the private sector, which would risk losing it if it defaulted on the loan.

* What I'd really like to see is economic modelling done to determine what the appropriate interest rate for each project would be. The same goes for other kinds of infrastructure, including roads, railways and the NBN.

"Even if the private sector are reluctant to take the risk, the fact remains that it's paying off for the government, who continue to make over 8% even as the official interest rate's fallen to 2%."

Who's buying the power from the renewable installation? The public is being taxed through higher prices to pay to subsidize RE into the grid and the public benefits from the profit passing to gov't (public), to subsidize RE. Doh!

Investing in Chinese RE to avail ourselves of Chinese govt subsides sounds like something outside our govt's brief. Do it as an individual, by all means, follow your heart.

"What electricity source will companies prefer to build?" The cheapest, not RE.

, and, who pays for the intermittency? Buffered or unbuffered, RE is a losing proposition.

Luciferase - "prohibiting the building of new (fossil fuels)" - This is a good plan.

Luciferase - "Investing in Chinese RE to avail ourselves of Chinese govt subsides sounds like something outside our govt's brief" - currently the governments Future Fund has a small portion of renewables in its investment portfolio, and a very wide variety of international investments. It's not totally outside the governments brief, and there is a moral argument to suggest that we are exporting emissions, and therefore we should be investing to help lower future demand for coal. It is a very on point argument though - thank you!

Luciferase - "The cheapest, not RE" - exactly. It is far more likely to be natural gas-fired plants in Australia because of the cheap access to gas. Not nuclear as Peter may have otherwise suggested. Nuclear has too much of a capital cost and a long construction phase when the company could be achieving a ROI on their money. That is potentially why the French government owns most of their nuclear power plants and provides subsidies to lower the electricity price. Therefore, Peter needs to advocate for government incentives on nuclear, which in my mind he has omitted to do.

Luciferase - "RE is a losing proposition" - of course it is commercially viable if there are government subsidies, as Peter has even suggested. This is what makes the idea I propose work. Moreover, it is at the expense of the Chinese government. However, the advantage to the Chinese people will come by way of cleaner air. The Chinese government has made it clear that they are willing to pay for cleaner air. Win for Australia, Win for China, Win for the environment. That isn't to say Australia couldn't finance nuclear to help achieve this purpose also.

Aidan - "government SHOULD NOT BE trying to produce a commercial rate of return" - this is interesting. It's a good moral argument. The only problem I see for this is that Australia has limited capital to invest in projects, so I am not sure if this would help.

"However, the advantage to the Chinese people will come by way of cleaner air."

But that's just it, it won't, unless it is done on such a massive scale as to become the major contributor to China's total energy mix. The investment to do this would limit virtually all other aspirations. The Chinese (and world) economy would completely tank before getting anywhere near the goal.

Reading P & H we find the effective EIOEI of unbuffered PV's stuck at around 2-3, without much prospect of technological advancement raising that. Buffering (energy storage) makes it even more ridiculously unviable as the world's great future hope.

Either the Chinese are as daft as other countries in failing to see this, or, they're just doing their bit to look like green citizens without breaking the bank, much like our LNP government.

Investing Future Fund money in a Chinese "boondoggle" may well have an unhappy ending that should not be risked, IMO, whatever the subsidy.

Luciferase - China is building renewables on a pretty big scale.

Bloomberg predicts out of US$7.7 trillion in gross electricity generation investment by 2030, $5.1 trillion will be renewable and $2.6 trillion will be non-renewable.

China will grow the most gross capacity, 1,536 GW compared to Australia's 36 GW.

"The Chinese (and world) economy would completely tank before getting anywhere near the goal" - this is a very interesting point. Currently we have an abundance of private capital that could be invested but is being held as cash or in liquid assets due to uncertainty in global and Australian markets. The RBA cuts interest rates to deter people, businesses, and investment funds hoarding cash and bank deposits - as well as other reasons.

Renewable infrastructure would likely grow and improve some sections of the economy. It would be lucrative for the construction sector and would undoubtedly help improve our trade account as we'd import less diesel and export more coal and gas.

Moreover, we'd have to build quite a lot of renewables to create the equivalent to base load - when electricity demand isn't high, these power plants could sell electricity for extremely low cost because it is almost free to produce. Electricity prices may invariably fall as renewable companies go bankrupt and renewable projects are purchased for a fraction of the price - once one goes bankrupt it will be far more competitive than the others, operating in a circle of ever expanding scope until they all go bust and are purchased for pennies.

Of course, I don't advocate for any of this - just curious. It's sort of like some economic analysis showing that crime can improve the economy - it's unexpected.

"without much prospect of technological advancement" - Tesla has a home battery unit they've developed. Not sure about the viability, but it looked promising.

Unlike Australia, China would face huge health care and productivity costs because of their air quality; it would be far more economical to build renewables/nuclear as healthcare costs and productivity outweigh the added expenses in electricity infrastructure.

Spencer, if you make a wish and tap your heels together three times, maybe it will happen. The planet is in the grip of this reverie and it looks like I'll be waiting awhile for the voices of reason to prevail, hopefully before it's too late.

Good luck with that.

Spencer Wright, it simply isn't true that "Australia has limited capital to invest in projects". Australia owns the Reserve bank, therefore has unlimited credit in Australian dollars. Of course just because there's no limit doesn't mean there's no consequence, and we do have to watch out for inflation. But at the moment inflation's so low that the Reserve Bank's had to cut interest rates to half of what Joe Hockey's previously described as "emergency levels". And spending on things that make electricity cheaper has a long term deflationary effect.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, though it's not my preferred method of encouraging renewable energy, the RET is not a tax, and its effects on electricity prices are far from clear, as the encouragement of more renewable energy prevents price gouging by the electricity suppliers.

Asking "who pays for intermittency?" is like asking "who pays for the supermarkets to shut at night?". Intermittency is not something you buy, it's something that simply occurs, so when the cheap electricity isn't available we can either pay more for electricity from elsewhere or adjust consumption to exploit variations in supply (which in practice means variations in price). The latter approach has been going on for decades (with things such as off peak hot water systems) but with internet connected appliances there's a much greater scope for short term demand variation.

EROEI is usually only a minor factor in determining commercial viability, and P&H's EROEI figures are garbage. They used flawed methodology to convert non energy inputs into an energy equivalent to make the EROEI look much lower than it actually is.

Spencer says "Moreover, we'd have to build quite a lot of renewables to create the equivalent to base load" .

Well that's the understatement of the millenium! The cost and scale of the undertaking, even without obstructions is devastatingly massive. Affordability is not something that can simply be ignored. EROEI DOES matter greatly in determining the path carbon mitigation.

It is EROEI that underlies the Spencer's statement. P&H valued inputs other than energy in terms of energy inputs, and came to the very unsatisfactory conclusion for some the EROEI of PV's is a REAL 2.45, and that's unbuffered! It's possibly in negative territory with storage added.

Furthermore, technological improvements will have little effect on this situation as it they are swamped by the other issues. Prieto sees solar as only ever being a projection of fossil-fuelled energy, or nuclear I'll add. The cost of intermittency is also underwritten by fossil-fuels if storage is not calculated into solar's cost.

Applying P&H methodology to nuclear can't possibly damage its EROEI to the point of uselessness for baseload as it does with solar. It remains still miles way and above what is needed to sustain our level civilization and our aspirations to improve it, which require ever more energy.

Regarding RE projections for China, which probably includes hydro BTW, I'm sure the projections for Germany and Spain were looking stratospheric a few years back too, but there's a return to coal. Why? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf

There is no such thing as free energy from the sun, so stop dreaming AGW away by pursuing a chimera.

PS, My references to EROEI's is to their "effective" levels, per P&H.

PSS, EROEI's don't matter a fig to commercial investors if gov't subsidy and assurances makes investment a no-brainer. That goes for corporations as well as Jo Public wanting to save on energy and feel a cosy green glow by buying a PV installation.

German wholesale power prices drop to €30/MWh

In the face of strong input from some 80 GWe of solar and wind capacity, averaging 13.5 GWe through April (9.7 TWh), heavily subsidised and with preferential grid access, the wholesale price for electricity has dropped to about €0.03/kWh, making much conventional capacity barely economic at best. A lot of gas-fired capacity has been closed and cheaper coal-fired plants are being built, disregarding the CO2 emission implications. In 2014 the grid companies paid €21.5 billion in feed-in tariffs and marketing premiums for electricity from renewables which was then sold for €1.6 billion on the wholesale market, the difference being funded by the €0.0624/kWh “Umlage” surcharge on consumers’ bills, totalling €22.4 billion for 2014.
Power in Europe 11/5/15, German Energy Blog 9/1/15 quoting www.netztransparenz.de.

Aiden, "Australia owns the Reserve bank" - the RBA is independent from government.

"therefore has unlimited credit in Australian dollars" - actually, the RBA is limited in the printing capacity of money. In late 2008 it increasing the production of cash, released banknotes in reserve, and halted the destruction of cash which resulted in $5 billion (12% of cash) being released in the economy at the time. This isn't sustainable (only so many notes held by the reserve and not on issue). Furthermore, there is no mechanism to create electronic currency as you are alluding to, so it is very much limited.

"we do have to watch out for inflation" - if in order to invest in something overseas we print the cash, the most likely scenario is that the exchange rate will fall relative to the cash printed. Therefore, it is all relative, you may have more money on face value, but the real value will be the same (give or take)

Peter Lang, I'm not surprised that Germany's renewables have led to lower wholesale prices. Indeed that's one of the reasons I support more renewables (though not Germany's inefficient way of encouraging them).

However, I am very surprised that "A lot of gas-fired capacity has been closed and cheaper coal-fired plants are being built" as I'd have expected the increased price volatility to favour gas over coal due to its greater responsiveness. Any idea why that's not the case?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, a few decades ago when renewable energy technology was far less advanced than it is today, EROEi was crucial as it struggled to even reach 1, so was only suitable for specialist applications. But those days are long gone; with the more efficient systems we now have, there is no doubt that we get much more energy out than we put in, so EROEI is a minor consideration. I am baffled by so many seemingly intelligent people accept the impossible proposition that an advanced society requires EROEI to reach some arbitrary figure. And then they try to demonstrate that RE's not reaching that figure by using the fudged figures from P&H that rely on the FALSE ASSUMPTION that financial inputs are energy inputs.

If you want to see whether something is financially viable, you should use a financial analysis, not an EROEI analysis distorted to the point of uselessness by financial factors. And at the moment, it is likely that some sort of subsidies or inducements will be needed. As I have consistently said, I think concessional loans are the best solution; funding renewable energy this way would benefit nearly everyone.

Spencer Wright, the RBA is independent from government in its day to day operations, but it's not completely independent and it would never deny credit to the government if it needed it.

There is a facility to create electronic money (by lending it to banks). But currently there's the general opinion that this should only be regarded as the source of last resort. There's enormous potential to improve this, both by making it more attractive compared to other sources, and by lending directly to public sector businesses.

You are correct that "if in order to invest in something overseas we print the cash, the most likely scenario is that the exchange rate will fall relative to the cash printed." Indeed it's similar with investing in Australia, particularly when expensive equipment needs to be imported (as is usually the case with solar cells). However, a fall in the exchange rate won't cause prices to rise by anywhere near the same amount. And right now there's a general consensus that our dollar is overvalued. Its long term value, which is what we should be trying to maximise, depends on the competitiveness of our industry.

Aiden, "There is a facility to create electronic money (by lending it to banks)." - Purely from a legal point of view, they don't have the ability to create electronic currency out of nothing. However, they can buy and sell securities, international currency and a few other things to increase or decrease the amount of electronic currency in the banking system. It's not creating electronic currency per se. Though you may be referring to a different thing entirely so I can't be certain.

"(the RBA is) not completely independent" - considering the Treasurer has the ability to pick the board members and choose where the profit goes, I have to agree with you. It is far less independent as many think. I was speaking quite broadly regarding its independence.

"concessional loans are the best solution; funding renewable energy this way would benefit nearly everyone" - of course the government could always borrow more and lend it to Australian renewable energy, the benchmark bond rate would increase only marginally over time as the risk of default would increase by an increase in risk. However, the problem I still have is that all the evidence points to coal that would have otherwise being used in Australia being exported and burned overseas when renewables are built. That is why I lean towards financing renewables in countries with growing demand - to minimise the need to construct new fossil fuels. I think there is enough investment opportunity at commercial rates internationally - well into the trillions by 2030.

What really needs to happen in the short term is the internationally community pledging not to build new coal and diesel power plants.

Preferably in the short to medium term some sort of home electricity system, be it nuclear or solar + battery, could be developed that isolates each home and can be done for an economical price.

Spencer Wright,

<"What really needs to happen in the short term is the internationally community pledging not to build new coal and diesel power plants. "

There is virtually no chance of that sort of policy succeeding. Surely 25 years of failed attempts at top down policy should have convinced most people to give up on that approach, or any other centrally controlled approach.

What will succeed is appropriate deregulation to remove most of the very large impediments to low cost nuclear power (see the example from Sweden I posted in an early comment on this thread). When you are willing to consider this alternative, then you can start seeking it out. It's not too hard - if we could educate the public. However, that is near impossible with the anti nukes scaremongering. Those who like to think of themselves as 'Progressives' are the ones stopping progress, and they have been for 50 years.

>"Preferably in the short to medium term some sort of home electricity system, be it nuclear or solar + battery, could be developed that isolates each home and can be done for an economical price."

Focusing on home electricity is not where you need to focus. It's a small component of total electricity. And off grid electricity is about 5% of total electricity and that proportions is shrinking. So, focusing on off-grid is a waste of time too.

You may want to consider applying the Pareto Principle to you policy analysis (I provided a link earlier).

Spencer Wright, there is no law preventing the RBA from creating currency out of nothing. They can and do. The fact that they also pay interest on reserves means that it ultimately nets to zero, and it's far less inflationary than the physical printing of money. But unlike commercial banks, central banks can lend money they don't already have.

See http://www.rba.gov.au/mkt-operations/dom-mkt-oper.html#exchange-settlement-funds for an overview of how the RBA does it.

There is no risk of the Australian government defaulting. It never has, and the RBA would never deny it the credit to prevent it from doing so.

I don't think the evidence does point to coal that would have otherwise being used in Australia being exported and burned overseas when renewables are built. Or at least not to a large extent. Internationally the cost of brown coal is so low that it's not really viable for Australia to export, and demand for Australian black coal isn't unlimited. Black coal prices have fallen so much recently that it may no longer be viable to develop new coal mines for export. And a lot of what we do export is for steelmaking rather than power generation.

I'm not sure what you've got against diesel power plants; they're very efficient and very responsive. though fuel costs limit their application.

I don't know why you'd want homes to be isolated, as the grid is quite efficient.

" I think concessional loans are the best solution; funding renewable energy this way would benefit nearly everyone."

The investment in nuclear energy required to achieve a carbon abatement unit is a tiny fraction of that required for buffered RE.

Given the magnitude of abatement required, the time there is to achieve it, and the amount of money that can be thrown at it, why would anybody who considers themselves intelligent think RE is the solution unless, of course, they have an aversion to nuclear energy?

Your putting down any mention of EROEI, as if you can just close your eyes and it will go away, is your immense blind spot. I can well understand that you will see no limits to the resources that can be thrown at AGW, whereas they are very real to anyone who is not a complete dreamer.

It's your ilk that is dragging us towards the precipice, because you put impediments in front of real solutions by your obstinate rejection of them. You say you have no issue with nuclear, but really, it is a passive-aggressive stance in the happy knowledge that nuclear is down and out in Australia thanks to the sheer terror instilled into the population. Nuclear is seen as evil partly because your ilk has been so successful in brain-washing the public, from childhood through the education system, that green is good and will save the planet. Well it can't and it's not! It can only help as an projection of the true solution. It is not the main game.

All this crap about the Reserve Bank, concessional loans, printing money, investing in China, blah blah blah, is just so detached from the basic problem it makes my gums bleed!

Peter - "top down policy" - this is not my approach. Perhaps best described as wishful thinking, comparable to nuclear in Australia I might add.

"remove most of the very large impediments to low cost nuclear power" - I see multiple issues with Nuclear. I am not an expert on it but from a laypersons perspective, and the minimal reading I've done, there are huge hurdles to overcome that are not the governments fault: water usage, Australia's high wages; waste disposal; and no need for additional capacity.

Convincing the public will be the most challenging. As you've stated, or at least alluded to.

Aiden, "is no law preventing the RBA from creating currency out of nothing" - you're correct on this point. There needs to be a law that allows them to do it (it's not like criminal law). What part in that link are you referring to in support of your proposition?

"used in Australia being exported and burned overseas when renewables are built" - I think there is sufficient evidence, but not conclusive. Australia can extract and export coal for a profit, so when a coal plant cuts production there is little economical reason for an existing coal mine to also cut production. Thermal coal exports have also been increasing above trend since 2008 when black coal plants starting cutting production.

"a lot of what we do export is for steelmaking rather than power generation" - You're right, but it's mostly thermal exports: 182 million tonnes vs 154 million tonnes in 2012-13.

Luciferase, "the time there is to achieve it" - nuclear power would take a while to get going in Australia. Possibly several decades.

"basic problem" - Australia produces around 1.3% of the worlds emissions and we export about 2.6%. If we replace coal and gas with nuclear, we will export more offsetting a lot of what you wish to achieve. I don't think you are considering the wider implications.

"EROEI" - why is nuclear rated so highly by this measure but needs a high level of subsidy to make it economically viable?

>"Peter - "top down policy" - this is not my approach. Perhaps best described as wishful thinking, comparable to nuclear in Australia I might add. "

So, you are not seeking any legislation or taxpayer funding, or government targets' or anything, eh?

> " I see multiple issues with Nuclear. I am not an expert on it but from a laypersons perspective, and the minimal reading I've done, there are huge hurdles to overcome that are not the governments fault: water usage, Australia's high wages; waste disposal; and no need for additional capacity."

Correct, there are huge hurdles. They are not technical (it’s the safest way to generate electricity), not water usage, not waste disposal, do not increase capacity because they will replace aging coal plants as they are retired - IF, we get the impediments out of the way so it is cheaper. However, removing the impediments is blocked by people like YOU, who understand little about what's relevant, yet keep repeating the anti-nuke nonsense. As you admit, you know little about it - other than what you've read from the anti-nukes scaremongering.

>""EROEI" - why is nuclear rated so highly by this measure but needs a high level of subsidy to make it economically viable?

Why can’t you grasp these facts you’ve been told repeatedly? You seem to struggle to understand and combine relevant facts rationally. Subsidies for nuclear are a small percentage of those for renewables (per unit of electricity supplied). They are needed to offset the massive impediments we’ve imposed, until they are removed. Nuclear fuels is effectively unlimited. ERoEI can increase by almost a factor of 100 above what it is in the current generation of reactors. Then there’s fusion. But renewables are hugely expensive, use ten times more materials and not sustainable. Their ERoEI is too low.

You keep repeating the same misinformation despite repeated explanations of why you are wrong. Not acknowledging when wrong is one of the signs of intellectual dishonesty. See 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty

Peter,

"you are not seeking any legislation" - I only need one subsection of a section to be repealed or amended. You need to change both State and Federal laws and introduce new legislation for nuclear subsidies. Comparing our ideas is misleading.

"taxpayer funding" - none.

"government targets" - only from international countries.

"they will replace aging coal plants as they are retired" - gas plants are well and truly doing this job. Nuclear isn't needed from an electricity capacity perspective.

"keep repeating the anti-nuke nonsense" - other than what I mentioned, there is no chance, or a miniscule chance, perhaps in the thousands of one per cent, that you could get nuclear approved in Australia. Why would I want to waste my time on that?

"combine relevant facts rationally" - The fact remains that gas-fired power plants are more economical than nuclear in places that have access to gas. Even the World Nuclear Association admits nuclear isn't more economical in places that have cheap supply to coal or gas. I prefer not to get my information from sources with obvious vested interests unless it makes the opposite point.

Therefore, I was asking a question as to why Luciferase was so reliant on this analysis when it doesn't explain the broader economics of nuclear vs gas-fired (omitting nuclear vs renewables for a moment).

"Subsidies for nuclear are a small percentage of those for renewables" - Nuclear may or may not be better, but this really doesn't impact my proposal at all.

"why you are wrong" - I am happy to tweak my proposal, but considering Ernst & Young, multiple banks, the CEFC, the Future Fund all support the idea that investing in renewables is profitable, I don't see how you've come to this conclusion.

Perhaps you're confused that my argument is about the energy production of renewables? How did we get onto comparing renewables with nuclear? To me this has no impact at all on my proposition.

You may or may not be wrong but I don't see it as a good investment in my time to advocate for nuclear.

Spencer Wright, sorry I linked to the wrong part of the page. Have a look at the Standing Facilities section.

And if you look at a chart of Australia's M1 money supply (such as http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/money-supply-m1 ) you'll see it's rising. How do you imagine it's doing that if not by creating electronic currency out of nothing?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, the main use of EROEI is determining whether something's technically viable.
It's reached the stage where it's clearly technically viable. EROEI can't tell us much more.

EROEI figures can't tell us whether something's financially viable. British Energy, which operated mainly nuclear, would've gone bust had the Blair government not intervened.

And use of P&H's EROEI figures is deceptive, as some of the things they count as energy inputs don't actually involve inputting any energy at all.

Assuming you don't just mean the energy investment, I don't accept that "The investment in nuclear energy required to achieve a carbon abatement unit is a tiny fraction of that required for buffered RE". It's usually quite a large fraction, though it depends on the individual circumstances. I'd expect it to be a lot lower for a small densely populated country than for Australia.

I also think it's pretty misleading restricting the argument to buffered RE when we have the ability to handle plenty more RE before the need for buffering becomes important.

What you appear to have overlooked is that different power sources have very different cost structures. Fossil fuels have relatively low infrastructure costs but very high running costs (because of the fuel needed). Nuclear costs more to build but its running costs are lower. And renewables have even higher infrastructure costs but much lower running costs. And that's something that can and should be exploited, though we've scarcely begun to.

Currently renewable energy's market share is low because it's often uneconomic due to the cost of interest on the loans. Concessional loans would make it economic. If you can't get your teeth into it that's your problem, but until you solve that problem your view of what can be done will remain distorted.

Aiden,

If you are referring to the RBA's open repurchase agreements, that is just an agreement between the RBA and a private bank on an exchange.

It is like a secured loan, but the certificate of title (proof of ownership) for the security that is being exchanged will pass to the RBA until it's repaid (with interest) and the private bank will have an interest over the title.

An actual secured loan, such as in the case of a mortgage, the proof of ownership always remains the landholders (even though the bank gives the landholder money) and the bank still has an equitable interest over the title. Of course the bank can become the landholder if you don't pay your mortgage and it gets permission from the court to transfer it into their name.

I've probably used a bad example, because the bank has the interest in each scenario, but in the former scenario they are being paid money and in the latter they lend you money.

Does that make sense? Probably not! I've done a poor job explaining it I think.

As for M1 its money supply (the $62 odd billion we have in circulation in notes and coins) plus bank current deposits from the private non-bank sector (the latter part does not include the RBA). So even if the RBA created electronic currency it wouldn't be counted in M1.

Spencer,

The problem is you don’t know what you are talking about and you won’t listen.

You began with a disingenuous statement about the RET negotiations. Rudd Labor’s policy was to increase RET to 20%. Liberals, unadvisedly, gave bipartisan support. Labor’s GWh target was a mistake. Liberal policy was to return to the agreed 20% target. That would mean reducing the LRET to about 26,000 GWh, the Liberal’s policy. Liberals progressively raised their offer to 32,000 GWh to attempt to get bipartisan support.

Your comment says: “Perhaps you're confused that my argument is about the energy production of renewables? How did we get onto comparing renewables with nuclear?”

Your post says: “The remaining funds could be used to build renewables in developing countries such as China.” That’s a naive idea. You haven’t thought it through properly. Renewables cannot have much effect on global GHG emissions.

Your comment says “"taxpayer funding" – none”

Your post says: “the remaining $500 million could be spent in China”
That would damage Australia’s economy for no benefit?

>” The fact remains that gas-fired power plants are more economical than nuclear in places that have access to gas.”
That’s irrelevant since your argument is about reducing GHG emissions. If we want to make significant cuts we need to replace baseload fossil fuel generators. Emissions intensity of OCGT is 300 times and CCGT is 200 times that of nuclear. So Gas is not the main solution needed. Gas will not replace baseload generators in Australia.

>“ all support the idea that investing in renewables is profitable”
It’s only profitable with massive incentives – which are damaging the economy. If not for the incentives virtually all investment in renewables would cease.

>” I don't see it as a good investment in my time to advocate for nuclear.”

Until the public understands that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity and can be cheaper than fossil fuels if the regulatory impediments are removed (internationally, starting at the IAEA and then the US NRC), progress will remain blocked. Little can be achieved until nuclear is cheaper than coal.

Peter,

"GHG emissions" - it is inevitable renewables will abate more emissions than nuclear. Regardless if the money would be better spent on nuclear.

"Renewables cannot have much effect on global GHG emissions." - emissions aside, it is a viable investment.

"That would damage Australia’s economy for no benefit?" - Investment can service debt and provide a positive return. So I disagree on both points here.

"It’s only profitable with massive incentives" - The Chinese government has made it clear they are happy to pay for renewables at their expense, but you're right, they offer massive incentives.

"Gas will not replace baseload generators in Australia" - Natural gas has already surpassed brown coal generation in GWh terms back in 2012 to become the second largest source of generation behind black coal, which is in decline. If the trend continues it could surpass black coal quite comfortably within a decade.

"Until the public understands that nuclear is the safest way" - I'll be dead before this happens.

"can be cheaper than fossil fuels if the regulatory impediments are removed" - I'll be dead before this happens.

"progress will remain blocked" - I'll be alive during this part.

"Little can be achieved until nuclear is cheaper than coal." - Nuclear will really be competing for investment against gas-fired plants which are already replacing black coal as a cheaper alternative.

Considering public opinion and the political stance of the current parties, the idea you propose, regardless of its validity, is really a figment. As I've mentioned, I can't dedicate my life to advocating for something so farfetched.

Moreover, as I've mentioned wages (which are high for renewables and nuclear) mean Australia isn't the most efficient place for this sort of investment. You'd be able to build nuclear and abate more emissions in places like China. Not only could they build the plant cheaper, you'd prevent coal plants from being built and using Australian coal.

You could use my idea, but tweak it to only being applicable to Nuclear. That is more likely, will have better emission abatement, and would be more profitable.

Spencer,

This stuffs just your keep repeating is wrong and repetitive blabber. You've provided no evidence (misrepresenting factoids is not evidence).

"- it is inevitable renewables will abate more emissions than nuclear." How much? By when? Evidence that renewables can replace a large proportion of baseload electricity globally?

"emissions aside, it is a viable investment. " Prove it. provide authoritative sources comparing the cost of electricity from a system powered mostly by renewables versus mostly by nuclear. Explain why re needs massive incentives to survive if, as you wrongly believe, it is a viable investment without the subsidies.

"Investment can service debt and provide a positive return. So I disagree on both points here." 8.1% return for high risk investments is not a positive return because all costs are not included. If CEFC was commercially viable there'd be no need for government legislation to mandate it

"gas-fired plants which are already replacing black coal as a cheaper alternative." Misunderstanding or misrepresentation on your part.

" I can't dedicate my life to advocating for something so farfetched. " That's exactly what you ARE doing: "advocating for something farfetched". Not only far fetched but cannot make major global emissions reductions.

"You could use my idea, but tweak it to only being applicable to Nuclear." Your idea is naive and based on ignorance on so many planes it's ridiculous.

You need to provide numbers and show them and the basis for estimates. How much and what proportion of global emissions will you reduce by when and at what additional cost?

If you can't or wont answer those questions it suggests you don't understand what you are talking about. I can give you cost comparisons from authoritative sources and also done them myself using the government's unit costs. Examples of proper comparisons:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

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/

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

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. Lower priority 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 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 less than renewables per unit of electricity supplied through life

8. Nuclear power requires less expensive transmission (shorter distances and smaller transmission capacity in total because the capacity needs to be sufficient for maximum output but intermittent renewables average around 10% to 40% capacity factor whereas nuclear averages around 80% to 90%).

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 countries can store many years 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.

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.

Useful references on Nuclear v Renewables

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/

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

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

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

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

‘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

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. 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/

The Wade Alison YouTube video deals with the science beautifully. He moves onto the political aspect from just after 41 min onwards, pointing out that not only Greens maintain the fear of nuclear.

The campaign against the fear must get a head of steam in Australia ASAP, but with Greens, Big Oil and Big Coal in cahoots it is difficult. The Greens must break free to champion the only real solution to AGW, and stop luxuriating in the wishful thinking that is unshared by their Big mates. That's me dreaming!

Peter, your post on Sunday evening contains multiple comments suggesting that I have made propositions which I simply have not. Therefore, I will not respond until you reconsider what questions you wish to ask me.

Regarding your subsequent posts, the challenge as Luciferase has pointed out is the difficulty of implementing Nuclear in Australia. If I may add to this, getting multiple parties to change their position, regardless of the validity of Nuclear as you state, boarders on impossible.

If Labor or the Liberal Party start advocating for Nuclear the other will undoubtedly use that for political purposes.

The phenomenon on countries retreating from Nuclear in areas that Nuclear has worked well is a demonstration of the inability for the political system to enable Nuclear here. It is simply politically and publically unpopular.

You have made some compelling arguments, but this does not defeat the fact that Nuclear will not play a role in Australia's energy mix, be it anytime soon, or permanently.

Therefore, I am forced to work within the confines of possibility.

I do wish you the best of luck as I can see that you are passionate. However, I do not wish to debate renewables vs Nuclear in Australia. I am critical of renewables in Australia, and this is unhelpful as although we argue differently, we come to the same conclusion that renewables have several disadvantages.

Spencer Wright,

Such an agreement brings more money into the economy. Temporarily, but the aggregate of them is effectively permanent. And it isn't just the open repurchase agreements – there's also the long dated open market operations. See http://www.rba.gov.au/mkt-operations/resources/tech-notes/open-market-operations.html#s2

Regarding what you wrote in the original article, it's not usually a problem that large scale renewables are efficient. They may employ fewer people, but providing the economy is competently run (which admittedly is not something we can rely on) that frees up the opportunity for those people to do something more valuable. Having said that, not all large scale renewable energy is that efficient in terms of staffing, and employing more people can be seen as an advantage in a depressed area such as Port Augusta. Unfortunately that advantage is one economists have difficulty quantifying.

Either way, investing in renewables in Australia makes far more sense for Australia than investing in renewables overseas.

Peter Lang, why, when you keep posting that intellectual honesty link, do you persist in displaying intellectual dishonesty by claiming that "An ERoEI of around 7 to 14 is needed to support modern society" when I've previously explained why that's false?

And do you understand that the costs in the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator are based on assumptions, and by changing those assumptions there can be a substantial change in the results?

Spencer,

You did not answer my question @ 17 May 8:41 pm: So I am trying to educate you.

Your idea cannot succeed. My comments and references on Sunday provide background to understand why nuclear power has to be a major component of reducing global emissions.

Here's how to get there (in two comments):

Nuclear power will have to be a major part of the solution to significantly reduce global GHG emissions. It seems it 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/

3. 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:

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).

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Aiden,

You've made some great arguments. None of which I can complete refute.

As you state for employment, efficiency in the job market it not always good, but can be good.

If I can add to that, renewables have a lower proportion of their running expenses on staff compared to loan repayments when compared to coal-fired plants. Loan repayments flow to banks, with some profits flowing through dividends, whereas wages flow to individuals.

Investors, be it individuals or fund managers use cash in a different way than most wage earners. Where wage earners will use their cash for necessary consumption of goods and services, investors will invest.

On this point about investment, the Future Fund has purposely taken over $100 billion out of the economy to invest, and Superannuation over $1.9 billion. Much of this is invested internationally. Investing overseas has a longer term purpose.

I think you've made some great points, but I can't meet your conclusion that investing in Australia makes more sense. Investing in developing countries will abate more global emissions which is the purpose of investing in renewables.

Peter,

Nuclear power does not have to be a major part of emission abatement. The World Nuclear Association purports that Nuclear produced 2359 TWh of electricity globally in 2013. The International Energy Agency purports that renewables produced 5070 TWh. Moreover, whilst many countries are retreating from their Nuclear programs, renewables are expected to produce 7310 TWh by 2020.

Therefore, it can be concluded with certainty that renewables already offset more emissions than Nuclear. Furthermore, renewables are growing at a rate of 5%, opposed to Nuclear which although increased 2% between 2013 and 2014, policy changes from the worlds largest users of Nuclear will likely result in a decline in future years.

On your further points, I think you will have a great deal of trouble implementing your plan. Increasing radiation limits for a start is extremely problematic and educating a population regarding Nuclear would be exceptionally difficult and expensive.

I am happy to answer any questions you have Peter, I just didn't appreciate false accusations of statements made.

Peter Lang, “safety first” is THE appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences. That conclusion comes not from overestimating the effects of radiation, but from assigning a very high value to the environment, and from understanding that nuclear's better safety record is a direct result of its safety first culture. And as we've seen in Japan, when something goes wrong it will result in a huge shift of public opinion away from nuclear power.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Wright, on a purely financial basis it makes a lot of sense to invest overseas, particularly if our dollar is overvalued or rising too quickly. But investment in renewable energy is not a purely financial decision – the benefits are likely to flow to the electricity users rather than the investors. And overseas we don't have the ability to impose taxes or RETs, so the bulk of the benefits can only flow to the electricity users.

So if Australia's paying to bring the benefits to the electricity users, surely it makes more sense to do so when those users are in Australia?

That way we can become a world leader and have other countries copy us, which I think would be the best outcome by far.

Aiden,

I think the benefits are both financial and emissions abatement because of the cheaper construction and ongoing costs overseas. Of course there were reasons why the legislature prohibited international investment.

As for the end user, I don't know if reallocating the CEFC money would make much difference to the wholesale electricity price (if price was your only consideration?). There is so much additional capacity that even the RET Review highlights that the RET has reduced retail electricity pricing until at least 2020 (when the RET requires no additional renewable capacity). The RET Review came to the conclusion that the LRET and SRES should be abolished or amended significantly - so they were not pro-RET.

Considering the AEMO's Electricity Statement of Opportunities determined that there is 7,650 to 8,950 MW out of a 45,000 MW system that could be removed in 2014-15 without impacting electricity supply, and 4,650 to 12,000 MW could be removed in 2023-24 (depending on projections), the likelihood of increasing wholesale prices by removing the CEFC's funding would be minimal, if any, in the short to medium term because of the competition between wholesalers. Furthermore, coal plants have cut capacity rather than cutting their wholesale price further to stimulate demand. Even if one assumes large-scale and small-scale renewables cease to be constructed after 2020, you'd have to conclude that coal plants would be forced to reinstate capacity before increasing prices by any large degree.

Your point about being a world leader is also something that has been brought up in political discourse regarding our international commitments. It is a difficult point to quantify, and it's so on point. What I am wondering, is whether other countries look at the percentage of renewables, or alternatively at our emissions. If we can offset more emissions through new Kyoto units, would it be more valuable internationally than having a slightly higher proportion of renewables (or quite a lot if the LRET was abolished)? I don't know the answer to this.

I am finding your arguments compelling and it's challenging. Keep them coming!

Spencer,

There is so little additional capacity that many, including the government, don't believe that the RET has reduced retail electricity pricing overall. Indeed the RET Review concludes that the costs of the scheme to the community outweigh its benefits. As I keep saying, concessional loans are needed to bring the cost much further down.

Other countries look both at the emissions and the percentage of renewables, and while the former is technically more important, the latter is potentially more significant if we increase it faster than everyone else – they'll look at how we did it and many will copy us, potentially resulting in a much bigger cut in emissions.

BTW I forgot to say last time: efficiency, in terms of employee numbers, is usually good, and when exceptions occur they're due to the government failing to address the underinvestment in the area.

Spencer,

You don’t recognise the fundamental issues.

Most emissions are from electricity generation and transport fuels.

To reduce global GHG emissions we have to replace fossil fuels with low emissions energy for electricity and transport fuels.

We have the technologies to nearly stop emissions from electricity.

With cheap electricity we can produce unlimited petrol, diesel, jet fuels etc. from seawater (technically but not yet economically).

What the world (especially the largest emitters) need is energy cheaper than fossil fuels.

No amount of legislation, regulation, subsidies, targets or ‘command and control’ policies can force the switch. The issue is technology and the regulatory impediments we’ve placed on the most viable and effective technology.

The solution has to be to remove the impediments on nuclear power.

USA and EU have to lead the way. They’ve caused the problem and only they can unwind it.

Australia can have negligible impact on global GHG emissions until the cost of nuclear comes down.

When it is a cheaper option (for the life of the plants), there will be no issue with repealing Australia’s legislation.

Renewables can have negligible impact on global GHG emissions as explained repeatedly in previous comments.

No amount of 'thought bubbles' will succeed if they don’t recognise the fundamental issues.

You say: “>“Nuclear power does not have to be a major part of emission abatement. “
Your statement is wrong. Renewables can have little impact on global emissions (explained in previous comments).

You demonstrated in previous comments you do not understand units: you don’t understand the difference between power, energy and emissions; MW, MWh, tonnes CO2. You keep confusing them and talking about emissions in units of MW or MWh and confusing power and energy.

You’ve made it clear you have no expertise in the subject. But worse still you have a closed mind – you don’t want to learn. You haven’t read the references. You haven’t attempted to understand. It seems you are advocating for ideological belief, not rational analysis.

It is your idea that wont succeed. Mine is for cheaper energy. That will succeed.

Spencer

>“Nuclear power does not have to be a major part of emission abatement. The World Nuclear Association purports that Nuclear produced 2359 TWh of electricity globally in 2013. The International Energy Agency purports that renewables produced 5070 TWh.

Therefore, it can be concluded with certainty that renewables already offset more emissions than Nuclear. Furthermore, renewables are growing at a rate of 5%, opposed to Nuclear which although increased 2% between 2013 and 2014,”

A disingenuous comment. Most of the ‘renewable’ electricity you refer to is from hydro and biomass, not wind and solar. Hydro and biomass’ shares of global electricity supply are shrinking and will continue to shrink because there is limited additional economically viable resources. Solar and wind supply 0.5% and 3% of global electricity. Growth rates at this low level of penetration are not an indication of growth rates at higher proportions of electricity. These technologies are not sustainable, so they cannot expand their share to a large proportion of global electricity. They do not produce sufficient energy through life to support modern society and reproduce themselves. So, they cannot make much of a contribution to global energy supply and, therefore, to replacing fossil fuels. Their growth rate will inevitably falter once the emotional attachment to them – and the incentives - cease.

It is poor policy advice to be advocating for high risk strategies – like wind and solar that are not proven at scale and practitioners recognize are very unlikely to succeed – while opposing the proven technology that can make a large difference. The only reason it is blocked is because of the irrational paranoia that has been spread by the anti-nuke lobby and accepted without objective investigation by people like you.

If the many like you who are fearful of nuclear power remain opposed and continue to block progress (as you are doing) there will be little progress. You are blocking progress!

I am happy to answer any questions you have Spencer, I just didn't appreciate intellectual dishonesty, (including disingenuous comments, misrepresentations, strawman tactics, avoiding the main issues).

Peter,

I am well aware that electricity is the largest contributor to Australia's emissions, and global emissions. However I am very concerned with your continued rhetoric. You provide no alternative to nuclear when it appears apparent to me that policy is not favourable to nuclear and it will play a minor role in future electricity generation.

Furthermore, you are now alluding to the legislation being repealed when the cost of nuclear comes down. Nothing could be further from the truth. From an obvious perspective, if the issue was just cost, then there would be no legislation and nuclear could compete with other sources to generate electricity. Although there are various reasons, it is likely that it is simply unpopular and lower cost is only one element.

You also stated that I've made it clear I have no expertise in the area, I would have to say the same about you. However, you are forgetting that I did not advocate directly for renewables in my article. You forget I did not advocate for the continued prohibiting of nuclear. I advocate for reallocating CEFC funds on a merits basis.

You have thrown this thread on a tangent in which I should have not engaged, and only because of your fanciful ideas have I done so.

Aiden,

You may very well be right regarding concessional loans if we could allow further borrowings. I am still concerned about carbon leakage and the flow on effects to the international community, but any impact may very well be offset by our international influence.

I did come to the conclusion that the RET has reduced prices, but only because it forced supply into a system with no demand. Once the supply stops the modellings all tend to see an increase in prices. Unless you've seen more recent modelling that you could direct me to?

Less employees is normally good. However, I point out that the argument tends to be around generating more employees.

Thanks

Spencer,

You advocate for renewable energy and for command and control polices imposed by governments. Neither can succeed in making the deep cuts to global GHG emissions that are advocated by those most concerned about them.

You are ignorant about energy, policy analysis and implementation, about how long it takes for technologies to emerge as being viable and how few of them succeed. You don't have any appreciation about how little you know on this subject and are unwilling to try to learn. You have a closed mind.

You conflate technical constraints and political constraints. Politics changes when the public's mood and interests change. Anti nuke sentiment will change once the population realises they've been fed disinformation about nuclear for the past 50 years. Nuclear is actually the safest way to generate electricity and can be the cheapest once we get over the paranoia about safety. The fuel supply is effectively unlimited so it is sustainable indefinitely. You don't get any of that. It seems you don't want to know.

On the other hand, renewables are not sustainable. they require far too much energy to produce them for what they return, too much land area, too much mining and materials for them to ever be able to supply much of the world's electricity. You don't get any of that either.

You have no policy expertise or experience. You are a law student - but over confident and arrogant about your competence. Your energy policy ideas are fanciful - and based on ignorance. You are unable to understand that renewables cannot provide much of the world's energy. Therefore, they cannot have much impact on reducing global GHG emissions.

Here is an example of the cost of abating emissions with wind power in the NEM in 2014"

What’s the cost of CO2 emissions abatement?

Answer: much higher than recognized.

The Warburton Review estimated the cost of abatement under the LRET at $32-$72/tonne CO2 in 2020 (Section 5.6 - Cost of abatement’ - from estimates by ACIL-Allen, Frontier Economics and Deloitte).

But the actual cost is likely to be much higher because the estimates apparently do not take the CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Wheatley estimates wind energy in the NEM was just 78% effective at abating emissions in 2014, and would be about 70% effective if wind power’s share was doubled http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power-australia/

Under the current RET legislation, wind energy would have to supply about 15% of electricity in 2020. At 15% share, wind is likely to be about 60% effective .

At 60% effective, the CO2 abatement cost would be $53-$120 per tonne CO2

Compare these abatement costs:

Source Year $/t CO2
Warburton review 2020 32 - 72
With effectiveness included (at 60% in 2020) 2020 53 - 120
Carbon price at 2013 election 2013 24.15
Direct Action (based on first auction 2015 13.95
EU ETS price 2015 9.50
International carbon permit futures (to 2020) 2020 0.56

Therefore, the cost of abatement under the LRET would be:

• 2 to 5 times the 2013 carbon price

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price achieved at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020

Compare the costs of mostly renewables verus mostly nuclear to power the NEM and cut emissions intensity of electricity by about 90%. This analysis is theoretical in that the hypothesis of mostly renewables is not feasible. The unit costs are the Australian Government's projected costs used by Treasury and others for energy policy analysis including for the CPRS and later carbon price modelling.

Peter,

Thank you for providing that information in your last post. This information helps both of our arguments. I've seen LRET abatement costs higher than those stated in your previous post. The SRES is even worse.

Of course, my article doesn't promote renewables in Australia, just the opposite.

I do not advocate for control policies, I've just determined that they already exist. I do not advocate directly for renewables, rather I have determined that instead of building renewables in Australia it should be done in China as they are cheaper to build and there is less impact on carbon leakage. I have considered and agreed that it would be possible to fund nuclear, though currently this is expressly prohibited and would create an additional hurdle for my proposition to succeed.

You have some good points regarding nuclear, they are very compelling. However, even populations that have previously accepted nuclear are moving away from it. I therefore cannot come to the same conclusion as you regarding that being the absolute saviour. There will always have to be another alternative.

Renewables, similarly to nuclear power, require fossil fuels for the construction phase.

As far as your land requirement, there is plenty of otherwise low quality land that is prime for solar or wind.

To undermine my argument you continue to revert to me not knowing what I am talking about. I obviously have a greater understanding of the possibilities within government, and moreover, you have no experience in the specific area either. You probably think that I am a 20 year old something with no real life experience.

It's not relevant, but I have previously solely owned an international company with offices in two different countries and contractors in several more (including China). I have also run Australian businesses. I intend to be a partner in a new multi-million investment in China.

I do not revert in my argument in saying that you are retired and have nothing better to do but to advocate for nuclear, now do I?

"Peter Lang, “safety first” is THE appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences."

Driving cars and flying, have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but the benefits outweigh the fear. The benefit of nuclear energy is that is the only affordable way to mitigate AGW in the time we have. The task of replacing baseload requirements with renewables is preposterously unaffordable, as Germany will find if Merkel gets too far along with her plans.

Aidan amd Spencer are products of their mind-controlling education, which provided one-sided information and left no room for proper debate in most classrooms. Along with the science they were taught the fear in Australia, while france carried on merrily.
They recognize that they are scared witless by the prospect of nuclear power, they just don't really know why.

The movie "The China Syndrome" shown along with "The Day after" was enough to make students wet their pants and convince them of the sheer folly of having anything to do with atoms, let alone splitting them. Science teachers have a lot to answer for by their attempts to engage students in Science with this tripe.

What chance has a kid got when the Greens then come along with their "free energy" mantra, supported by a glee squad of Science teachers full of wide-eyed wonder at the marvellous new technology?

All history now? Nup, it continues today based on what my kids tell me.

Luciferase,

Let me assure you that I have not had any science teacher tell me nuclear was a bad option. As for education, I have chosen a discipline that determines there is very rarely one right answer.

When MIT looked at nuclear they concluded that "In our view, it would be a mistake at this time to exclude any of these four options (consumer efficiency; renewable energy; carbon capture; nuclear) from an overall carbon emissions management strategy."

Nine professors and several additional members of MIT also understood their restrictions "Our survey results show that the public does not yet see nuclear power as a way to address global warming, suggesting that further public education may be necessary."

I think this sums up the problem beautifully, and it is a rational and well considered position that no one can argue against.

Have you noticed I don't tend to argue against nuclear directly, but rather take the approach that politically it won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions? It makes arguing against me far more difficult than if I started combating Peter on the actual science of nuclear vs renewables in which I would have a much harder time.

So you all have advanced notice, I will be leaving this thread after tonight. I will try to reply later tonight if any further comments are made.

"...politically it (nuclear) won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions"

So, we should root for RE because nuclear is in a political abyss? Is that the plan, to keep the lid on nuclear while idiocracy rules?

A dollar spent on RE to mitigate AGW is a dollar wasted. No, I'd rather keep the powder dry by opposing RE, which is what the LNP and Labor are up to with their lip-service LRET levels to date, I can only hope.

Spencer,

It’s good to know you do have some real life experience: it’s a pity you didn’t say so in your bio. Also a pity you didn’t say what your companies and relevant policy analysis experience are. I’d like to know about that.

Also a pity you haven’t read the links I’ve posted. If you had you wouldn’t have made your wrong assertions about my background.

And a pity you keep making assertions, disingenuous statements, misrepresent and distort what I’ve said, instead of asking questions (i.e. unloaded questions).

You still haven’t answered my questions about the cost-benefit for Australia subsidising renewables in China. And if your argument were rational and objective, why not subsidise nuclear in China instead?

> “I have determined that instead of building renewables in Australia it should be done in China as they are cheaper”

Why renewables? Why not be te4chnologically neutral? And who’s money? Taxpayers? Electricity consumers? Why should they pay? What’s the cost benefit for them? Clearly you require command and control policy. So there is no chance of success.

>”Renewables, similarly to nuclear power, require fossil fuels for the construction phase.”

As far as your land requirement, there is plenty of otherwise low quality land that is prime for solar or wind.”

These assertions are disingenuous. The second is wrong. You need to understand the importance of scale, perspective and valid comparisons. Clearly you don’t.

> “Have you noticed I don't tend to argue against nuclear directly, but rather take the approach that politically it won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions?”

You have that backwards. Renewables cannot be a major part of cutting GHG emissions. That’s because of physical constraints.

Nuclear has proven it can do the job. But progress is blocked by irrational paranoia driven by anti-nukes – like you – and those pushing their own self-interest.

The alternative to nuclear having a major role is not renewables. It’s fossil fuels.

Political issues are temporary and change over time. Physical constraints cannot

Peter, whether you like it or not and speaking for myself, I have a sneaking sense of gratification that you certainly don't, distributed renewables are here, they are increasingly acknowledged as the power generation mode of choice by people who actually know rather a lot about the subject and they are not going away.

Centralised mechanisms for power generation, manufacturing, corporate activities such as administration, which have been the model for the past couple of hundred years, are being rapidly phased out and will cease to be dominant within a generation. Efficiency of all of these activities and others is rapidly increasing, as is that of power generation by renewables.

The basis for your argument is being dismantled under your feet, but that's OK, you can keep wandering around in ever decreasing circles happy that nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong on the premises you have chosen.

And we'll all live happily ever after.

Craig,

You're comment is disingenuous and highly misleading. Distributed generation is and always will be a small proportion of electricity generation. Therefore it is irrelevant for reducing global GHG emissions. It's a minor proportion of total generation, and globally it is a shrinking proportion (over the long term). See the first figure here: http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-way-to-get-power-to-the-worlds-poor-without-making-climate-change-worse

Whatever you say, Peter.

Craig certainly brings something to a thread when he arrives, doesn't he?

Whooohooo, we're all going off grid, and the sun will power our daily lives, and our night-lives too. Can't wait. I live on an urban acre and can spread my panels around. My brother will have to take turns at using his electricity with the other residents of his apartment tower.

It's all so wonderful!

"True costs of wind electricity" http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/ provides an excellent reality check on the real cost of wind energy. (this is well worth reading - it's by professionals who have a life time of experience in electricity system planning and systems analysis).

Solar costs are much higher.

This is an excellent report, just published, that estimates the emissions avoided by wind generation in the NEM. This is the gold standard for such analyses.: http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sub348_Wheatley.pdf

The negative consequences of our RET are not widely understood:

What’s the cost of CO2 emissions abatement with wind turbines?

Answer: much higher than current estimates.

The cost of abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020 under the RET will be:

• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2103 election

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price achieved at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020

The Warburton RET Review estimated the cost of abatement under the LRET at $32-$72/tonne CO2 in 2020 (Section 5.6 – Cost of abatement’ – from estimates by ACIL-Allen, Frontier Economics and Deloitte).

But the actual cost is likely to be much higher because the estimates apparently do not take the CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Wheatley estimated wind energy in the NEM was just 78% effective at abating emissions in 2014, and would be about 70% effective if wind power’s share was doubled.

Under the current RET legislation, wind energy would have to supply about 15% of electricity in 2020. At 15% share, wind is likely to be about 60% effective.

At 60% effective, the CO2 abatement cost would be $53-$120 per tonne CO2

Compare these abatement costs:
Source Year $/t CO2
Warburton review 2020 32 - 72
With effectiveness included (at 60% in 2020) 2020 53 - 120
Carbon price at 2013 election 2013 24.15
Direct Action (based on first auction 2015 13.95
EU ETS price 2015 9.50
International carbon permit futures (to 2020) 2020 0.56

Of course, you must be right, Peter.

Luciferase, distributed generation is facilitated by grid connection. Perhaps next time you should ask about things you don't understand?

Of course, you could always join Peter and form a lovely conga line going round and round and round and round...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779601001018

So, the grid distributes the supposed excess electricity from my acre, my needs, my storage, to my brother's apartment building and its residents' needs and storage. This is this supposed to be more efficient than mass installation generation and storage. There's an argument to be had right there, but that would be rearranging deck-chairs.

The basic problem remains, the affordability of, and the time we have to act on, mitigating AGW.

Luciferase, the paper you referenced is over a decade out of date, although it does canvass some of the issues.

The game changer in distributed generation is so-called "smart grid" technologies, which allow for real-time coordination of supply and demand, as well as other grid parameters.

10-15 years will see the end of central generation as the dominant paradigm in the Western world. For many parts of the developing world distributed systems will be the first and only model implemented, with or without grid mediation.

I also suggest you investigate the trends in demand, as well as advances in technology such as additive manufacturing and distributed information.

Central generation is not just dying, it is already dead.

I'm not seeing a game-changer in a smart-grid, possible efficiency yes, but game-changer? If it is more efficient and less costly than ramping up and down coal or nuclear generation, it will have a place.

There is still the basic issue that a preposterously large investment in RE is required to replace fossil-fuels in world base-load delivery. Unless enough of the world adopts such a transition, requiring that many other necessary human endeavours be put aside to achieve it, it'll be under-capitalized failure. Why on earth bother, when the affordable solution is already successfully and safely at work?

Only with a morbid and irrational fear of nuclear technology can the bleeding obvious be rejected. Expectations about renewables and smart-grids is just noise. RE will only ever project fossil or nuclear base-load energy, not supplant it. It's sexy feel-good hype that makes you wanna conga.

Yes, it is more efficient; yes, it is less costly; yes, it is a game-changer.

One major problem for rolling out distributed generation has been integrating them into a grid that can supply demand that varies across time and space. The solution is to enable real-time feedback, which is what smart-grid technologies are all about.

The idea of base-load is antiquated and decrepit.

Nuclear will not be a part of the mix of next-generation power-supply systems. Rapid response stored energy systems will. These include gas turbine, battery (both fixed storage and mobile battery storage in transportation systems), thermal (especially solar thermal, but also geothermal), supercapacitors, kinetic energy (especially hydroelectric, but also magnetodynamic and other KE recovery) and other technologies both small and large scale.

But if you disagree, that's cool, join the conga and start spinning - every little bit helps

Don't leave out snake-oil from your sexy list.

"True costs of wind electricity

Wind turbines have become a familiar sight in many countries as a favorite CAGW mitigation means. Since at least 2010, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has been assuring NGOs and the public that wind would be cost competitive by now, all things considered. Many pro-wind organizations claim wind is cost competitive today. But is it?

[Figure 1]

Yet incentives originally intended only to help start the wind industry continue to be provided everywhere. This fact suggests wind is not competitive with conventional fossil fuel generation. How big might the wind cost gap be? Will it ever close? We explore these questions in four sections: incentives, lifetime cost of electricity generation (LCOE), system costs, and market distortions. We examine onshore wind, since EIA says offshore is almost 3x more expensive. For simplicity, we examine EIA national averages, rather than regional ranges."

Continue reading here: ... http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/

Luciferase,

I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record.

Spencer's spoken for himself, but I'm certainly not a product of "mind-controlling education, which provided one-sided information and left no room for proper debate in most classrooms". On the contrary, I frequently question assumptions. And when I do I find that most of the arguments against renewable energy are bogus. The claim that "The benefit of nuclear energy is that is the only affordable way to mitigate AGW in the time we have" is dubious in most of the world, and completely false in Australia due to our great land area and low population. I can tell the difference between physical, political and arbitrary constraints. Unlike you I understand that an EROEI of over 7 is not actually a requirement of an advanced society. I also understand why Prieto and Hall's EROEI figures are wrong, whereas you accepted them uncritically.

And if I'm "scared witless by the prospect of nuclear power", why do I support it in England?

I haven't watched The China Syndrome and I wasn't even aware of The Day After. I have seen War Games, but that didn't affect my attitude to nuclear power. There was something that made me wary of it: the marine pollution the British nuclear industry was producing at the time. But that has now ceased. My objections to nuclear power in Australia are based on economics not fear. And though I think Germany would be better off not phasing out nuclear power, that too is an economic decision; there are no insurmountable problems that would prevent them from moving entirely to renewables.

Peter Lang says "...“safety first” is THE appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences"

Aidan says "I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Great, me too. Let the science rule. Oz should set up a body of scientists to investigate, dispassionately from scratch, what those policies should be in light of ALL the evidence. That body should include Wade Alison, IMO, among the experts in the field. Let's abandon policy that adds nothing to safety, only to cost, which has incrementally grown to favour interests with political clout.

This is the least we can do before allowing ourselves to be sucked any further into the black-hole that is base-load RE.

PS, thanks for the chuckle, Craig, with "The idea of base-load is antiquated and decrepit." S'pose your list of sexy things cures baldness too?

Round and round and round...

>"I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Not even if you understand that those policies are causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year?

The avoidable fatalities will increase to over 2 million by 2050 if nuclear doesn't replace coal for electricity generation?

That's what excessive, unjustifiable nuclear regulation policies and anti-nuke scaremongering are causeing. The excessive regulations on nuclear have raised the cost massively (4 x up to 1990 http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html and probably double that since). That is making nuclear uneconomic so it is retarding progress and stopping the world having the benefit of much safer electricity supply, as well as more reliable more secure energy supplies (explained in earlier comments).

Read the links I posed up thread if you want to learn about this.

Round and round and round they go...stuck on their merry-go-round.

And meanwhile, in the real world, real people are doing real things to make a real difference to the real future without a merry-go-round in sight.

Peter Lang,

The nuclear safety standards are not to blame for causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year. AIUI that figure is for all air pollution, not just that from power generation. Not all fossil fuels are that dirty, and most importantly, nuclear power is not the only alternative to fossil fuels.

Lowering the safety standards would greatly increase opposition to nuclear power, and it would introduce an unacceptable risk of a humanitarian crisis if something does go wrong.

Your extrapolation to "over 2 million by 2050" rests on some dodgy assumptions. You seem to take a very lazy view of statistics: assuming the parameters stay the same and looking at where the trends are pointing rather than looking at how the parameters are likely to change and how they could actively be changed to reach a different outcome.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Wright,

Concessional loans would make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels, therefore it would not result in carbon leakage. And leading by example is the most effective way of changing how things are done overseas.

The RET has reduced prices by supplying more energy regardless of demand, but whether that makes up for the cost of having it in the first place is far from certain. The supply will not stop, but in the future we'll need a lot more despatchable renewable energy or a lot more energy storage.

Meanwhile by making electricity prices more volatile, adding more renewable energy is likely to result in some shifting from coal to gas due to the latter's greater responsiveness.

Wrong! as usual!

As usual you make stuff up and haven't; a clue what you are talking about. $1.3 million is the fatalities avoided if nuclear replaces coal fired electricity generation.

You haven't studied the links I've provided so you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You are continuously on a fishing trip. Making up BS to deceive readers. You are and example of the sort of people - deniers - who have b.locked progress for the past 50 years.

Peter your assumption that I haven't studied the links you provided is wrong. I did, but because I didn't blindly accept their assumptions like you did, I came to a different conclusion.

I hadn't realised you were referring to a dollar value – I thought you meant that many people. (Or is the $ sign just a typo?)

If, as you say, I'm wrong, perhaps you could provide the link because I don't recall seeing that figure in any you've provided so far.

Aidan,

You being dishonest again. There was no $ sign in my comment and you din't have a $ sign in your strawman, response:
"The nuclear safety standards are not to blame for causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year. AIUI that figure is for all air pollution, not just that from power generation."

You made up a strawman argument (intellectual dishonesty), made an incorrect and unsupported statement about the 1.3 million people was from all air pollution. (What is your sources for your assertion? )

You're a waste of time, Aidan. I despise dishonesty. You would do well to read about intellectual dishonesty, motivated reasoning and denial.

Peter I'm not being dishonest. Though there wasn't a dollar sign in your earlier comment (or my response to it) you inserted one in your comment this afternoon.

And your accusation of dishonesty looks suspiciously like an attempt to shift the focus away from your mystery source.

Not knowing where you got the figure from, and not finding it in your previous links, I googled it and found http://theconversation.com/pro-nuclear-greenies-thinking-outside-the-box-with-pandoras-promise-18941 which, in an argument for nuclear power, claims that "...outdoor air pollution is a major contributor to about 1.3 million deaths every year."

If that's not your source then what is?

You have repeatedly displayed intellectual dishonesty when denigrating the capabilities of renewable energy. You baselessly claim that they're not sustainable. Or rather, your claim had a blatantly absurd basis that indicates a severe lack of critical thinking. If you don't believe me, try explaining how an advanced society could possibly require an EROEI of at least 7 without assuming any other constraint?

Because I know you're so prone to displaying intellectual dishonesty, I was suspicious that you might be trying to shift the goalposts again. But rather than assuming you were, I did mention the possibility that the $ might just be a typo. So if it's not a distraction tactic, your whinging is pointless.

>"Peter I'm not being dishonest. Though there wasn't a dollar sign in your earlier comment (or my response to it) you inserted one in your comment this afternoon."

That's dishonest. My typo was AFTER your dishonest comment. Your latest comment simply compounds your BS, dodging, weaving, diversions and dishonesty.

Your comment is an attempt at projection of your behaviour onto me:
>"And your accusation of dishonesty looks suspiciously like an attempt to shift the focus away from your [dishonesty]."

The Conversation article links to WHO and misquotes it. The WHO article says:

"- Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012.

- In addition to outdoor air pollution, indoor smoke is a serious health risk for some 3 billion people who cook and heat their homes with biomass fuels and coal."

You can read the references I've linked. I'm not going to bother with changing your nappies for you every time you cry, especially since this just a diversion from addressing the point in my comment of 24 May 2:18 PM where I said:

>" >"I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Not even if you understand that those policies are causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year? "

Address that point seriously rather than try diversions. The 1.3 million is irrelevant to the main point. Arguing about that detail is just a distraction (Just to confirm, it is correct and you can find it if you want to). If, after you addressed the issue I raised (honestly), and I am satisfied you've done so, and you still want the source for the 1.3 million, and have seriously tried to find in the references I've given, and haven't, then I'll give it to you. But you have to do your homework and demonstrate you are willing to learn.

And round and round and round...

If RE with storage is to supplant fossil fuels, before or after they disappear, it must fairly out-compete all other options on its own merits, no knobbling of other competitors or subsides.

It's stupid to leave out storage from this determination if fossil fuels are to be completely supplanted, and ingenuine to argue that it should be. How else is intermittency to be dealt with? Certainly not with Minn's fantasy infinity drive contraptions.

How ingenuine it is not to accept the constraint of EROEI upon what can be done with the available money and time needed for RE to supplant fossil fuels and to mitigate AGW. To trash EROEI as a concept, or effective EROEI, is the last bastion of a scoundrel who insists, simultaneously, and in direct contradiction to the only real world data available (not hypotheticals), that technological advancement will change the basic equation. This is the position of blind and blithely faithful, the pied-pipers leading us to oblivion.

Due to its tiny effective EROEI, to supplant fossil-fuelled electricity generation, buffered RE must be installed at a scale so preposterously massive, costly, and time consuming that it can't possibly compete with other options other than by totalitarian decree and the impoverishment of the world. A Great Leap Forward for those who don't have to do the suffering, but misery to the rest.

Aiden, in putting the challenge to "try explaining how an advanced society could possibly require an EROEI of at least 7 without assuming any other constraint", be absolutely public in your own assumption that money will fall from heaven to bring your wish to fruition.

Peter,

"I'm not going to bother with changing your nappies for you every time you cry"
Nor I you.

But unlike you I'm willing to justify my opinions, whereas you seem to take the snobbish stance that I should accept and address any extraordinary claim you make before you're even willing to reveal the basis for that claim! And meanwhile you keep falsely accusing me of intellectual dishonesty while you ignore your own.

But I HAVE addressed the issue. The nuclear safety standards are not "causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year". I gave several reasons why and you used my first one as a pathetic excuse not to address the rest. You wrongly claimed it to be a strawman, when in reality it was just my understanding of what the figures were. I preceded it with AIUI, so you could've just told me I'd misunderstood. But trying to denigrate me seems to appeal to you more than addressing what I'd written.

You yourself later admitted the figure was "the fatalities avoided if nuclear replaces coal fired electricity generation" so unless you're seriously trying to tell me that lowering nuclear safety standards would result in it completely replacing all the coal fired power stations in the world (including those in Australia) your earlier rhetoric was obviously wrong.

But rather than admit your mistake you launched into a flailing attack. And you also put a dollar sign in front of your 1.3 million/year figure. You accused me of dishonesty, AFTER I pointed that out. Why are you're lying about that? It's plain for everyone to see!

________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, EROEI is an important technical concept where net energy is low or negative. But where net energy is high, it's relatively unimportant. It's at most a minor factor in determining commercial viability.

But I'm quite happy to discuss the financial aspect of renewable energy if you want to.

"But where net energy is high, it's relatively unimportant."

Right there's your problem. You want to ignore Prieto and Hall for all your worth, the only voice of real, experience in mass PV installations, because it destroys your mantra of "free energy"

P&H's EROEI calculation, which included applying energy equivalents to all costs involved in running a mass installation, which is the most efficient way to roll out and maintain PV's, comes in at about 2.5 UNBUFFERED. Throw in storage and you have a lead balloon. But you won't even throw in storage, on what basis I cannot fathom. How is RE supposed to supplant fossil-fuels without storage? Oh, but do tell us about the marvel of Elon Musk, a snake-oil salesman if ever I saw one, who's sucked you in up to the ears, no doubt.

Apply the same P&H methodology to existing nuclear, and you'd have EROEI to burn, as well as the upside of fast breeders to throw at it. What it means is that the investment required to build the nuclear capacity to meet base-load requirements, and to aggressively mitigate AGW is massively less than for renewables.

But do dream on. Your "financial aspect of renewables" whatever route you advocate, is pointless to discuss. All routes involve sucking more out of the public purse that is ultimately affordable, and I begrudge any amount wasted on impoverishing solutions to the problem of AGW. The sooner we go down the nuclear path is the planet will benefit, and it would be appreciated if your lot would get out of the way and let it happen instead of knobbling it.

Yeah, that Musk, what would he know eh?

www.teslamotors.com/

www.spacex.com

www.solarcity.com

www.paypal.com

Yeah, what would he know about anything? Stupid snake-oil salesman didn't even finish his PhD on ultracapacitors before he dropped out to start that silly paypal pie-in-the-sky.

Can't understand why people pay him any attention at all when we've got world class circular conga-line operators here on OLO...

Hi everyone, just checked in and caught up. I'll be on and off sporadically over the next 3 weeks (assuming this conversation goes that long).

Peter, I am going to answer your question first regarding the cost-benefit for Australia subsidising renewables in China as it is most relevant to the article.

Australia emits about 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions. However, we export around 2.6 per cent of the world’s emissions. Therefore, a population around 23 million in a world with over 7 billion inhabitants contributes around 3.9 per cent of the world’s emissions in total. However the Australian economy is heavily reliant on the mining industry, and there is no chance that Australia will ban the export of coal or gas. Therefore, Australian’s must participate in other ways.

Considering emissions are not bound by jurisdiction, it is only an egoist perspective who would take an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach to reducing emissions. Emissions must be tackled on a global level - as you suggest with nuclear.

A critic may suggest that this approach is not possible, although there is significant precedence that supports it. Australia has already signed binding international law that supports the advancement of emission abatement and provides the option to invest in other countries projects that reduce emissions (not just renewables). Furthermore, the Future Fund, and the government mandated superannuation scheme has resulted in hundreds of billions being invested internationally. Much of this investment is far more controversial than renewables and perhaps even nuclear - consider that our government had invested in international tobacco companies!

There is nothing stopping the government from investing in international renewables right now under current legislation or constitutionally. I am unsure if there are provisions that prohibit investment in nuclear, but I would be doubtful.

Cont.

However, I propose a more narrow investment mandate. I advocate for the broadening of CEFC funds to be invested on investment merit, rather than merely in projects here in Australia. The reason for this is that the $2 billion in CEFC funding is built into the legislation which the current government has failed at repealing twice through the Senate. Therefore, it is not a question of whether we should invest, but how we invest.

Considering I am specifically trying to reallocate the CEFC funding, there is a provision tied to that funding under the CEFC Act that requires investment be mainly-Australian based. I propose a compromise. Considering they have failed to repeal the legislation, they could try to negotiate to repeal that “mainly-Australian based” provision. Admittedly, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is little benefit from a consumer’s perspective for the government to repeal the LRET. Considering the LRET compromise is now supported by both sides, seed funding from the CEFC is largely irrelevant in Australia.

As for a cost-benefit analysis, private investors and banks invest in renewable projects for a profit. Ernst & Young demonstrate that China is the best country in the world for renewable investment. Whilst I don't limit this to any particular country, I use China to demonstrate that Australia can build two to three wind farms in China compared to Australia’s one. This will abate more emissions. You may be right that investing in nuclear could even abate more – and I have never said I was against this proposition (we have argued primarily about the political implications of nuclear in Australia).

Considering the CEFC funding can’t be repealed and must be spent on renewables, you must ask yourself – do you want to invest in costly renewables here in Australia that are not needed and result in carbon leakage? Or alternatively do you want to invest in places like China where the same funding will result in 2-3 times more emission abatement and is considered more investable?

Can't knock Elon for Paypal, love it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/21/what-do-you-really-get-for-7000-tesla-powerwall-home-battery/

The fantastic farrago of fact and myth in buffered domestic/business solar going the same way as computer memory is what sustains the beautiful reverie. It won't even be viable against unfettered/unknobbled competition if in mass installation, let alone anything else.

The solution to AGW is already here, and has been for decades. May solar and wind improve as its extension, by all means, but let's drop the stupid notion that they can be anything more.

Round and round and round...

Spencer Wright,

>” Therefore, Australian’s must participate in other ways.”

Your justification for this statement is not correct. Your moral beliefs are irrelevant. Moral arguments that may appeal to you are repugnant to others. The only way you can justify your proposal is by demonstrating that the benefits exceed the costs. You need to demonstrate that 1) Australians would be better off, and 2) the whole world will participate equally and if they do the world will be better off. You have not done either and cannot do so. Any policy that increases the cost of energy makes people worse off. Read these to understand why (althoug they are about carbon pricing, they apply just as much to any policy that increases the cost of energy):

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

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

Global GHG emissions can be tackled globally – but not by command and control polices like you are advocating. Instead, we need to reduce the cost of low GHG energy that meets requirements and is fit for purpose (renewables fail on this). We need to allow energy technologies that meet requirements to compete and be developed. We need to remove the impediments to nuclear power so the cost can reduce and become cheaper than fossil fuels (over time). That will allow the world to have unlimited energy indefinitely. That’s the solution.

You have not provided a cost benefit analysis. You have no valid argument. (look at the second link for a hint how to do CBA).

>” There is nothing stopping the government from investing in international renewables”

Yes there is. It’s a massive waste of money. It’s a boondoggle. There is no valid cost benefit argument. If there was you would have provided it.

> “As for a cost-benefit analysis, private investors and banks invest in renewable projects for a profit.”

So let them do it. There is not need for the CEFC. It will be repealed, eventually, just as all the banks were privatized. There is not justifiable role for government in banks like CEFC or Rudd Bank.

Peter, constantly reiterating the same thing doesn't make it so.

Similarly, trying to extrapolate to future applications using current (or in your case, past) cases without adjusting for changes in impactful factors does not work.

The simple fact is that you're wrong. You're wrong because you don't know enough to be right, which is not your fault in this particular case, but its still the reality of the situation.

Nuclear has a small role to play and the amount of nuclear generation is likely to be relatively constant for the next 50-100 years, so in that sense nuclear will become a larger component as total demand drops, but renewables, particularly solar and especially solar PV, are going to rapidly increase beyond any of the projections you might be able to find. This will become apparent over the next 12-24 months.

There are also other factors which you have no possible way of knowing about that are going to make the case for cost/benefit indisputable.

Now, you don't have to take my word for any of that and I won't add anything further at this point, but if you don't want to have large amounts of egg on your face in a short while, I recommend you moderate your stance.

Peter,

I do not think it is farfetched to suggest Australia must participate in other ways. In fact, I must insist that your argument must rely on this reasoning and I fail to see why you've made this point.

As far as the benefits exceeding the costs: I have previously stated that the CEFC already invests for a positive return despite being limited to the Australian marketplace (contrary to modern portfolio theory). I am not proposing to exclude Australian projects, but to allow the financing of global projects on a merits basis.

I do not understand your point about the whole world participating equally. No one has suggested this, nor is it possible. Fundamentally however your argument is weak as Australia is a high per capita emitter (even excluding export emissions) and therefore Australia must do more. Consequently, I do not see how this is relevant to your argument.

I am unsure how you've made the connection that investing overseas will increase the cost of energy. You have admitted the CEFC is unnecessary, so I shall leave this point until you clarify.

It does not appear my previous points regarding the legislative and political impacts of what I am advocating for. I will reiterate myself in more understandable manner for you but please take these points into careful consideration before reposting:

1. The government tried to abolish the CEFC and failed twice;
2. There is little prospect of abolishing the CEFC before the next election (and a low prospect thereafter);
3. The CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act;
4. The CEFC has a mandate to invest that money in Australia;
5. Consequently it is not a question of if we should invest but how we should invest; and
5. I propose a compromise that provides a wider merits review for how the financing is allocated to projects.

Your arguments are illogical and irrelevant in the current parliament. I must ask that you consider your points more carefully.

Regards,

Spencer.

Spencer Wright,

>“I do not think it is farfetched to suggest Australia must participate in other ways. In fact, I must insist that your argument must rely on this reasoning and I fail to see why you've made this point.”

I’ve provided the reasons and fully supported my arguments. You haven’t. Show the cost benefit analysis, or admit you cannot justify your idea.

Your arguments come across as based on beliefs, ideology, and self-interest.

If renewables are viable without government support, the private sector will support it. No need for the CEFC.

If you cannot demonstrate that Australia will receive a benefit that exceeds the cost, you have no case. It’s that simple.

You also need to show you’ve read the links I’ve posted, otherwise I suspect you haven’t bothered, and therefore you are not interested in anything other than advocating for your beliefs.

Your 6 points are based on your beliefs, not rational analysis. Just because CEFC hasn’t been abolished yet doesn’t mean it won’t be. People also said the carbon tax couldn’t be abolished. Legislation can be changed in short time. But reducing global GHG emissions requires policies that will succeed for decades. Therefore, it must be economically rational. What you propose is not.

My main argument

1. Renewables cannot achieve much (they are far too expensive and not viable (because of physical constraints).

2. On the other hand, nuclear can replace virtually all fossil fuels over time (e.g. 60 to 100 years). It is sustainable indefinitely. The costs can reduce by orders of magnitude. There are no insurmountable technical constraints. The only issue is political fanned by anti-nukes and ideologues like yourself. This can and does change. It will change. It’s just a matter of time.

3. You need to support your case with a cost-benefit analysis.

Your arguments are illogical and irrelevant for reducing global GHG emission or benefiting humanity. I must ask that you consider your points more carefully

Peter,

I cannot reiterate my points. You state that there is no need for the CEFC. I have stated multiple times that the government has tried and failed to repeal the CEFC. Your arguments are moot. You can make the point that the CEFC shouldn't exist, that is fine. However, at some stage you need to consider the alternatives or you will just allow sustained investment into renewables into Australia. The CEFC can't be repealed right now, so how can we best use the legislative funding which also can't be repealed.

I will no longer engage with you because drawing the conclusion that a statement such as "the CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act" is one of my beliefs, is far from rational.

Furthermore, you have not provided a cost benefit analysis for nuclear in Australia and are providing a double standard.

>".I have stated multiple times that the government has tried and failed to repeal the CEFC."

That's totally irrelevant as I've explained multiple times. That's this week. Things change in politics. Economically irrational polices don't last. it seems you have no understanding. Look what happened to the carbon tax.

But you cannot change the physical constraints that mean renewables cannot have much impact of global GHG emissions.

You still have not explained the benefit v the costs of your scheme. That's the killer crunch for you. You have not valid justification for your idea. It's just driven by ideology, and presumably, self-interest.

Those who like to call themselves 'Progressives' share your irrational ideological beliefs. They have been retarding progress for 50 years.

Got a PV quote today to make the point as to why domestic PV is viable.
On an 8.32 kW system costing $18296 there is a gov't rebate of $6536, and surplus electricity is bought by the utility.

No wonder Warren Buffett and Berkshire-Hathaway invest in China, with the subsidy and Gov't guarantees there. Whatever, I'd rather see Oz gov't money buying into Oz nuclear rather than into anything Chinese. Why build up China's future rather than our own?

Stand alone RE doesn't cut it without subsidies, electricity buy-back, and knobbling competition.

Craig Minns, I congratulate you on the most vacuous post on this thread. No, not "round and round", that's good for you, but your "trust me, I'm right" effort. GSOH.

No, you don't have to trust me, Luciferase. You're welcome to be as foolish as you like.

But I'm still right.

The fundamental facts that need to be recognised are:

Fossil fuels have done an enormous amount of good for humanity and the environment:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature

Fossil fuels will continue to be the main source of energy and do enormous good for humanity and the environment until there is a cheaper alternative.

Renewables cannot be the alternative to fossil fuels (see previous comments and references). They cannot replace fossil fuels (except small amounts on the margins - but, this is irrelevant to the main discussion. Pareto Principle says to focus your efforts on where you can have the most effect - do the most good.)

Trying to force more expensive energy to replace fossil fuels is bad for humanity, bad for the environment and cannot succeed - economically irrational policies as these are - cannot survive therefore they cannot succeed, Therefore, they cannot change the climate so they do not deliver benefits (in terms of climate damages avoided).

To succeed in reducing global GHG emissions, the world must act together; and the policies must be sustainable for 100 years or more. The only policies that will be sustainable over long time periods are policies that deliver net benefits to all sovereign states. The most obvious way to achieve this initially (i.e. over the first half century or so) is to reduce the cost of energy, globally. This can be done - with GHG emissions reductions delivered as a bonus - by removing the impediments that are blocking nuclear power. The US and EU can make this happen. Australia can't (on its own). But we can play an important part by becoming advocates for rational policies and dumping the irrational policies of the anti-nuke scaremongers and 'Progressives'.

Luciferase,

I don't think anyone on this thread has come close to suggesting that domestic PV is viable. Though, it is projected to increase 24% p.a. between 2013/14 and 2016/17. It serves little value financially or environmentally for the money invested.

In regards to EROEI, I've reviewed several journal articles. I've come to the conclusion that EROEI is heavily dependent on the location and the specific project, so broadly stating EROEI tells us one thing can be highly misleading. It seems coal, nuclear and hydro can all have the highest EROEI under the right conditions, and equally can have very low EROEI under the wrong conditions.

For example, a previous article from Hall C.A.S determined solar, hydro, wind, gas, oil and coal had higher EROEI than nuclear. In addition solar had an EROEI within the same range as nuclear. But this was under certain conditions that wouldn't be replicated here in Australia.

Specifically, the problem is that the whole calculation requires variables. The first solar PV panels had a efficiency of something like 1%, recently Australian researchers broke the record at 40%. This changes the EROEI. Equally the same for efficiency improvements in wind turbines/nuclear/hydro.

Where a solar panel or wind turbine is located is going to determine a different EROEI. Australia has one of the highest average solar radiation per square metre anywhere in the world. Wouldn't this favour Australia over places such as Spain, France, Germany and USA for solar PV EROEI?

I want to point out I am only asking a question. I am not advocating for anything one way or another.

True, there have been many analyses of ERoEI. Many methodologies used. Much debate. But many analyses have been seriously flawed one way or another.

The Weißbach analysis has stood up well to critiques: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520

However, what many people don’t understand is that the ERoEI stated for nuclear is for LWRs. These use <1% of the available energy in nuclear fuel. When it becomes more economic to use breeder reactors than LWR, the ERoEI can increase by up to a factor of 100.

It’s also important to recognise that wind and solar use about 10 times more materials than LWR per unit of electricity produced over the plants life time, as well as much more land area.

And the transmission cost is many times more expensive as penetration increases: http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf

Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited, so it is sustainable indefinitely.

And it has the potential to power the planet. Wind and solar cannot (for reasons explained above. There are enormous opportunities for reducing the cost of nuclear power. But progress is retarded by the ‘Progressives” and anti-nukes.

It’s easy to see Spencer Wright knows he’s lost this arguments. He knows his idea is a dud. He knows he can’t justify it with cost benefit analysis.

Furthermore, he’s neatly dodged throughout this thread the points that are killers for his idea – the latest example is he’s simply avoided this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#306767 .

Not admitting when wrong is sign No. 5 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Luciferase,

"Free energy" isn't my mantra, and my objection to Prieto and Hall's figures isn't because they destroy any mantra of mine, but because they're so misleading!

Far from being "the only voice of real, experience in mass PV installations", Prieto and Hall's figures are distorted to the point of uselessness. Pretending their figures are the true EROEI is fraudulent. I repeat: FRAUDULENT! But that doesn't mean I want to ignore P&H, it means I want everyone to understand the fundamental flaw in their methodology:

MONEY IS NOT ENERGY! Prieto and Hall's conversions are based on the average amount of energy it takes to make a certain profit. But in reality the amount of money in circulation depends on how much banks lend, not how much profit is made. So financial inputs don't have an energy equivalent.

The unbuffered figure is the appropriate one because it makes sense to go for the low hanging fruit first. There's plenty of opportunity to replace fossil fuel. According to an SMH report I read yesterday, SA's already getting an average of 40% of its electricity from renewables. Yet there's no grid level storage in SA.

Eventually of course we will need storage. But by then EROEI is likely to be much too high to be of any concern (if it isn't already).

Lending cheaply to finance renewables will probably be revenue neutral, but will definitely reduce electricity prices. There's no way the public purse can't afford it. Meanwhile nuclear's far from cheap.

And until this post I never mentioned Elon Musk.

Spencer, domestic PV is very much viable, although it is a little costly at present. That cost is going to plummet very soon. I'd go further and say that domestic (and rooftop commercial) PV is essential, especially when combined with storage and interactively controlled grid connection (smart grid).

Some (by no means all) important reasons are:

1. It reduces the need to design reticulation systems or central generation systems for high levels of peak demand. Therefore, there is a large efficiency dividend from highly distributed systems.
2.It smooths the supply fluctuations due to variability of sunlight. The more widespread PV is, the less a local clouding event matters. Especially with storage to buffer the grid connection.
3. It allows the widespread adoption of HVDC reticulation which adds to the efficiency dividend discussed in 1.
4. It allows for the ready adoption of more efficient DC motors in domestic appliances.
5. Properly broad adoption of PV will include the rollout of new technologies, including dye-sensitised coatings, perovskite-based films and so on that operate well under low ambient light and are hence useful for recapturing energy within homes and in shaded areas.
6. It provides a demand base that allows large scale manufacturing at efficient scales, driving costs down.
7. It drives industrial development servicing, installing and designing the technology and new technology that is enabled.
8. It provides resilience against natural disasters damaging reticulation systems. Cyclone Ada, that hit Cooktown a little while back knocked out power for 3 weeks. Similarly, the cyclone that hit Rocky earlier in the year knoocked out power for some time. One of Nepal's major problems is lack of power after their earthquake.

A systems approach is needed and rooftop PV has to be a large part of that.

Aidan, you make a good point wrt money and energy. It seems to me that a large part of the problem with our present economic model is that money is decoupled from energy. If it were more closely coupled, it could represent a useful feedback mechanism to enable close control of financial and trading systems, rather than acting as an arbitrage mechanism that allows for positive feedback and hence destabilises the operation of markets (and distorts calculations of value).

Craig,

You may be right. I was referring to current solar which is not competitive with large-scale renewables for cost of emission abatement, breakeven timeframe, or return on investment compared to large-scale renewables.

The cost of emission abatement for the small-scale renewable energy scheme has been put at $100 to $200 per tonne. Large-scale is more efficient (though it incorporates wind and hydro so not a direct comparison with PV, but a comparison in the sense it is an alternative).

On the provision domestic solar and batteries reduce in price significantly, and likely increase in efficiency, then an off the grid house would be preferable, because around 70% of Australia's electricity costs are from the distribution grid and retail mark up - this is why it is good to compare a year of electricity bills to the cost of domestic PV for an estimate, rather than comparing to the cost of wholesale electricity.

However, there would need to be a significant breakthrough in both battery technology and PV solar efficiency. I've done off the grid cost calculations and considering you need to consider having enough storage for at least a week of no sunlight, a backup generator big enough to power most of an average home, and a pretty big solar system, the cost is so prohibitive that the take up rate would struggle if the price was a third of what it is now.

Additionally to get rid of the distribution system requires everyone to have that system, which is highly improbable. Therefore large-scale is preferable to domestic from a costs/breakeven/ROI point of view.

Moreover, areas of high electricity usage per square meter, such as in the CBD would not be able to rely on solar off the grid. So small distribution networks would still exist even if every household was off the grid.

I know much of this wasn't your point. Domestic solar is growing pretty quick, and is one of the three biggest reasons for declining electricity usage in the network. So, it is working in that sense, and people are free to pay for good feelings

Spencer Wright,

You are displaying denial and intellectual dishonesty. Am I correct you are dodging this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#306836 and diverting to other subjects you'd prefer to discuss because you know it is correct and explains why your pet idea is economically irrational and would deliver no net benefits?

As previously mentioned, I will not engage with you.

Considering you have drawn the conclusion that a provision in legislation is merely my belief demonstrates that you are a cockroach that trolls the internet.

If anyone else wants to ask me the same question I really want to dismiss these false and misleading statements.

Spencer Wright,

>"As previously mentioned, I will not engage with you.

Considering you have drawn the conclusion that a provision in legislation is merely my belief demonstrates that you are a cockroach that trolls the internet. "

That is a strawman. I did not say that. If you are going to make such allegations you should have quoted the statement and the full context.

It shows how badly our society is slipping when a law student engages is such blatant dishonesty.

Furthermore, I am not trolling. I've been posting relevant facts and arguments that you have not been able to refute, so you dodge and avoid them. More examples of intellectual dishonesty The people who are trolling are those you like getting comments from (boosts your ego, I guess).

You are practicing what is called "denial" by your ilk. You deny the relevant facts and distract and divert the discussion to irrelevancies. More examples of intellectual dishonesty. http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Instead of dodging and weaving, making up strawman arguments as an excuse to not engage, why don't you respond to this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#306836 or demonstrate some intellectual integrity by accepting it is correct and admitting you hadn't really considered the big picture, long term policy implications of your pet idea?

Peter,

"
1. The government tried to abolish the CEFC and failed twice;
2. There is little prospect of abolishing the CEFC before the next election (and a low prospect thereafter);
3. The CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act;
4. The CEFC has a mandate to invest that money in Australia;
5. Consequently it is not a question of if we should invest but how we should invest; and
5. I propose a compromise that provides a wider merits review for how the financing is allocated to projects."

"Your 6 points are based on your beliefs, not rational analysis."

1 - Not my belief (See CEFC Abolish Bill, Hansard)
2 - Sure, my belief.
3 - Not my belief (See Act, EM)
4 - Not my belief (See Act, Hansard, EM)
5 - Sure, if you assume you can abolish it (but see point 1)
6 - Sure my belief, but really a statement.

There you go. I have demonstrated your inability to accept fact and dismiss it by stating it is merely my belief.

I have provided a response to each of your questions and you do not accept those arguments. That is fine, but we will have to agree to disagree.

You continuously drawing me back to argue with you brings no value to this thread.

You continue to refer me to JC's website, but that was originally posted in a blog and is not JC's work.

You continue to suggest that nuclear fuel is unlimited when the World Nuclear Association states it isn't.

You used ERoEI as if it was a god until I pointed out its flaws and you conceded.

I want to engage with rational and intelligent individuals. I do not consider you in that group.

>’There you go. I have demonstrated your inability to accept fact and dismiss it by stating it is merely my belief. “

The argument in your six points is irrelevant and key parts of the arguments are based on your belief,as you acknowledge. Your argument is irrelevant because your proposal will not deliver benefits, so it is not justificable.

>”You continuously drawing me back to argue with you brings no value to this thread.”

Your dodging, weaving, avoiding and denying the relevant facts brings not value to this thread. In fact your advocacy for irrational policies contributes to damaging Australia and the world. I am bringing value, you the opposite.

>”You continue to refer me to JC's website, but that was originally posted in a blog and is not JC's work. “

So what. An irrelevant distraction

“You continue to suggest that nuclear fuel is unlimited when the World Nuclear Association states it isn't. “
No it doesn’t. And you misrepresented what I said. And you are dodging the main point, as usual. Intellectual dishonesty (by a law student!).

You used ERoEI as if it was a god until I pointed out its flaws and you conceded.
That is really dishonest. More diversions. Unbelievable that law students could be so inherently dishonest.

>”I want to engage with rational and intelligent individuals. I do not consider you in that group.”

You have demonstrated throughout this thread you do not understand what rational policy analysis means.

All this is a diversion from dealing with the critical issue that your pet scheme would not deliver net benefits: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#30683

Peter,
If you have such low standards as to where you get your information from, then no one will take you seriously. Quoting blogs is not compelling and demonstrates that you’ll use anything to advance your purpose, regardless of its validity.

Regarding the World Nuclear Association, I’ve stated something, and you have flatly denied it as if you know everything that the WNA has published. You didn’t bother asking for a reference to challenge my proposition.

Unless other contributors come back to this post, I will not comment further.

Spencer