New nuclear electricity could cost double that of uncarbontaxed power from already built coal stations. However it should be long term price stable unlike east Australian gas which may get too expensive. Gas fired electricity is generally what fills in the lulls from wind generation and what takes up the slack as solar power fades in the late afternoon.

Nuclear electricity could help greatly if Australia gets millions of electric cars that are charged overnight. Therefore it can displace both power sector and transport sector emissions, a double edged attack. The evidence suggests from Germany and elsewhere that efforts to reduce emissions will fail without a lot of nuclear. Those opposing it for Australia are helping to keep our emissions high.

"Without nuclear energy we would have burned millions more tons of coal and billions more barrels of oil."

Here's another counterfactual analysis:

If those who like to call them selves 'Progressives' had not been doing all in their power to bloc nuclear power development and deployment for the past 50 years, over the past 30 years, nuclear power could have replaced most fossil fire electricity generation by now and , consequently avoided 75-170 Gt CO2 emissions and avoided 4.5-8.9 million fatalities by 2015.

Here is a bloke who knows what he is talking about, but the green anti nuclear lobby seems to have the pollies by the short and curlies and no one is game to bite the bullet and get on with the job.
David

Nuclear energy?

Yes sure, but only as cheaper than coal thorium that just doesn't produce the same toxic waste, which is eminently suitable for long life space batteries; and has no weapons spin offs!

I understand the Indians are working on a 300 MW power plant they hope to have up and running this year?
Alan B.

Very nice to hear a logical and reasoned argument for nuclear power. There is no doubt the world will require lots of it over the next 100 years and beyond. Of course the Greens and left wingers will do their best to frustrate its development but eventually their lies and propaganda will be shown up for the rubbish it is. The real question is how much damage they will do before reality kicks in.

It's not just oppositiont o nuclear power that's holding it back. Economic obstacles are probably a bigger factor. England has (rightly) decided to build more nuclear power stations, but has found the cost of doing so to be much higher than expected. And compromising the safety standards and culture that make nuclear power so safe is not an acceptable solution to that problem, even if the claims of the radiation being much less dangerous than is commonly believed are 100% correct.

IMO unless and until we get a much bigger population, nuclear power in Australia is unlikely to be cost competitive with renewables. But it's worth keeping an eye on — it may yet confound my expectations.

If not for the success of the anti-nuke protest movement [1] in blocking nuclear progress and deployment and making it around 10 times more expensive thatn it could have been, nuclear power could be 1/10th it's current cost [2]. Unfortunately for the word, the anti-nukes are still blocking progress - thereby causing the GHG emissions they say they oppose and causing half a million deaths per year. The anti-nukes lack of decency or ethical values is reprehensible.

[1] Origins, Goals, and Tactics of the US anti-nuclear protest movement. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf

[2] "Nuclear power learning rates: policy implications" https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/

If we have finally woken up to the fact that solar and wind cannot do
the job, we had better get a wriggle on, because it has just been
realised that world peak coal and Chinese peak coal has occurred.
Now because we will have no money we will have to use coal for longer
than other countries and deny it for export, while we scape together
enough to get started on a uranium or thorium power program.

We do not have much leeway in what we do.
It is ban coal export and continue as long as possible with our coal.
Just hope that we can start building nuclear one at a time.

There can never be a justification for using a fuel [or a weapon] that is so toxic, so unstable, unable to be disposed of, will be a target for terrorists and is capable of destroying all life on earth if there's a large earthquake nearby. The insanity of the idea should have everyone quaking in their beds. The sword of Damocles hanging forever above the heads of our children for what amounts to eternity. Renewables will be able to provide energy forever - or at least until the sun dies, so stop this death wish.

ybgirp

You are truly ignorant

Good! glad to see I'm not the only one who believes in "atoms for peace". It's a vital component of diversifying our energy portfolio in this and other countries.
Refinements and technological advancements in Nuclear reactor design have come a long way since the early designs of 20th century..

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/FAQ-About-Nuclear-Energy

Bazz,

The problem is that there are enough idiot activists insisting that the requirement for baseload is a myth, so that many people believe them.

The only time people will seriously consider nuclear is when the limit of renewables is tested and then we will have to wait for a decade.

Ybgirp, I used to think the same as you, but I've been reading a lot lately. Trying to answer the following questions. I think I've got a bit of a handle on them, see how you go.

What unit do we use to measure radiation's impact on the body? With this measure, what's a safe annual dose? What's the average natural background radiation we're all exposed to per year? What places have the highest natural dose (from decaying thorium) and how does this compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima? Are natural sources higher or lower? What is the annual dose where harm is first detected? What government policies did Japan use to have about levels of exposure, and what is their policy now? What did the government do recently to change their policy? How much of Fukushima is being resettled? Why?

Come and have a look at some of the answers I've found.
https://goo.gl/zry95w

If anyone doubts the seriousness of the situation then read this and
remember this is the opinion of the oil industry itself.
We are in for ten years of very critical decisions and if the right
ones are not made then the younger of us should think about farming.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Is-Facing-The-Perfect-Storm.html

Bazz,
it's about climate, not peak oil. The car fleet turns over every 16 years which I think is faster than the downslope of Hubbert's peak. If we replace cars naturally with a mix of EV's and more bike lanes, then electric vehicles will *gradually* substitute oil for cars and what are bike lanes but a little paint on the ground? I used to be one of Sydney's leading peak oil activists, marching in to brief the NSW Cross-Benchers back in 2005 on the day oil hit the record price of $60 a barrel. We predicted it would be around $150 to $200 today, maybe even *rationed*! How funny. Look at the prices today! "Net energy" guys have been hanging around dieoff.com too long. Seriously! Extreme rationing with trucks into buses, bike lanes, car-sharing apps that can double or tripple car 'efficiency' by merely adding a few passengers on the way to work, fracking, tar sands, even coal-to-liquids would substitute in an emergency: but I just don't see an emergency on the horizon.

Self-driving electric cars will eliminate the cost of taxi driver salaries and bring the cost down to about 10% of what it is today to catch a cab. They will allow more families to think about NOT even buying a car, and relying on public transport, bikes, and robot-EV's to plug the gap. What will power all this? Will we have to buy more power plants to charge these cars? Here's the deal. Smart charging overnight will allow about 45% of our cars to charge, and just under 90% of (American) driving could be charged on today's grid!
Page 10 here
https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf

Climate is the real emergency. I *hope* peak oil is as bad as that article says, because it will finally force us to do what we need to do to get off the stuff, and take bikes, trains, trams, and EV's a lot more seriously. Imagine a world where Chevron didn't rule so much energy policy, or fund so much climate denial? Awesome.

More on radiation. Smokers beware.
https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0

No Max, climate warming is irrelevant, it just does not matter as
there is not enough fossil fuel affordable to cause the rise in
temperature predicted by the models.
The technology solution is just wishful thinking.
Certainly we will switch to electric cars if we have the generating
capacity after sunset that we will need to charge them.

Max, just had a quick look through that article you referenced.
I will get back to read it in detail.
I agree that converting the light vehicle fleet to hybrid electric
is a good idea especially in Australia where we have a good supply
of high quality coal, but it is even for us a stopgap.
The US situation is different as their coal is getting expensive and
power stations have switched to gas in many cases.
The time limit on US gas is becoming obvious.

Sooner rather than later we need to make decisions on what we will use
as base load power.
Experience has shown that solar & wind cannot do the job and
Australia is poorly equipped with hydro storage possibilities.
I note that the SA government wants the gas turbine station restarted.
They must have been too optimistic.

Thank you Max, I read the article and posted a response giving a few reasons why I still think people who seriously advocate nuclear fission as an energy source are certifiably insane

I second Peter Lang's comment.

Ybgirp, you had a big rant without any backing in science, any numbers, or even any links to typical Greenpeace agit prop. Just nothing. As I answered on the blog, you lack any real *data* backing your anti-nuclear stance. In summary:-

American LEGISLATION makes nuclear expensive, but other countries are not facing this issue.
http://goo.gl/YGnZnu

BREEDER reactors will eat the actinides (longer lived nuclear waste), and be massed produced, and China are planning an assembly line GenIV nuke cheaper than coal in just 6 years!
http://goo.gl/fePqHf

SOLAR THERMAL: just asserting it is ready for prime time doesn't make it so. It's exponentially more expensive than nuclear.

FINAL NUCLEAR WASTE (fission products) are only radioactive for 300 years: vitrify them into ceramic tablets and drop them in the ocean! Radiation from them will halve every 15 cm, meaning a fatal dose becomes a non-issue with just a few metres of water. But if the ocean is not palatable, just bury them in a bunker for 300 years. Done.

Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.
He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he’s aware of all the ‘studies’ that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70’s under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today’s nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line.)

Hansen's carbon tax proposal, as applied here in Oz, was turned to subsidizing the renewables "kool-aid" solution to AGW.

If, as he suggests, the tax is fully redistributed, yes people will make good decisions around efficiency, but that's all. Buying into household solar or subsidizing mass installations is drinking the kool-aid that seems so appealing on its surface, but will do very little to solve the problem the carbon-tax is ultimately aiming at.

No, a carbon tax is a waste of time, time we don't have. We simply need education towards the only viable solution there is by a political party with enough balls to take us there. Hopefully, Turnbull has had a good think about renewables and, together with our Chief-Scientist, will get the nuclear ball rolling. If not, people of sound mind on the matter must infiltrate the major parties and try to rid them of Tooth-Fairy/Easter Bunny thinking and redirect them towards sane logic.

To those saying Oz is better suited to renewables than nuclear, you are selling kool-aid as a solution to keeping our children safe from AGW. It is simply not an either/or matter.

...and just to preempt the usual suspects with their usual comments:

I am excluding hydro from my statement and referring to main-grid electricity supply in populated areas.

Renewables are merely an extension of the grid because they are built with main grid energy. They, like fossil-fuelled electricty, are unavoidable in remote situations.

BTW, Sth Aus in trouble with their alt energy. They are restarting
the gas turbine station. They now want NSW & Vic to provide backup
electricity at a good price. The company who owns the gas turbine will
no doubt soak the Sth Aussies. After all they were told they would not be needed.

Nuclear falls over on cost comparison to just about any other power source. But only if you take into consideration the storage cost or spent uranium rods. This has to be stored in a secure area for at least a thousand years. This storage cost falls back on the public purse.
That means you and me folks will be paying for this for a thousand years plus.
Not to mention clean up costs and health costs when things go wrong. See Fukushima, that was caused by a natural disaster not human error. With a changing climate (regardless of cause). How can we make it safe?
In Fukushima for children under 10 to date, they have found 90 cases of thyroid cancer with another 500 suspected cases. They have only looked at the children. They won't look further, as the aging population is a liability. Only the children are assets and they want to see how much damage has been done to there asset values.

Jumping the gun there. From

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/20/national/number-fukushima-kids-thyroid-cancer-jumps-17-december/#.V42bOxSQ9PA

"After studying data provided so far, including the new cancer figures, the panel said it was difficult to determine that a causal link existed between the children’s cancers and the triple meltdown at the nuclear plant."

Maybe see also http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-child-thyroid-issue.html

The nuclear waste issue is a topic Greens bend around to horrify us. It's virtually a non-issue now and and breeder reactors will mitigate it to vanishing point.

Burn the transuranics in a breeder reactor, which will give America a thousand years of clean energy just with today's level of waste. (The UK has enough for 500 years clean energy).

Then vitrify it, which is melting it down into ceramic tablets!
Then dump the final fission products in the ocean!

Ocean? Yup! It’s in the book Dr James Hansen promotes! “Prescription for the planet!” (Download it free here).
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
This is laws of physics stuff. Radiation halves every 15 cm it travels through water. By the time you’re the height of an average man away from nuclear waste, a lethal dose of radiation has already been halved 12 times to barely detectable! There are parts of the ocean that are 6km deep. If the entire world was run on nuclear power, the true waste would only fill one barge every few years. This barge could be towed out and sunk into the deepest ocean trenches where it would sit, and maybe fry a few sea worms that crawled within 50 cm of it. Satellites could inspect the zone to make sure no vessels are after it. That’s the cheapest mechanism for high level waste. Burn it in breeders, vitrify, and dump at sea. Done.

But if you don't like that, bury it in a bunker for 300 years. Then it's safe. Done.