>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.