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.