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.