... 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.