Yairbut renewable energy consistently gets 65-75% approval ratings in opinion polls. Therefore politicians must respond accordingly. A factoid that is often overlooked is that wind and commercial solar get $90 per Mwh LGC subsidy on top of the NEM market price. The subsidy alone is about double the full price of black coal power. Then there are other integration costs like keeping gas plant on standby using fuel inefficiently. Some dislike the way wind farms change rural vistas. So far the public is lapping it up.

I see no way that batteries can do bulk energy storage at the Gwh or even Twh level. A national level they may help for a few minutes or seconds worth of frequency control or uninterruptible power supply. For home owners the payback time must get down below the battery replacement period which seems unlikely for present versions on the market.

Thirdly our emissions are not on track to meet the promises made at climate conferences. Therefore renewable energy is not only expensive and unreliable but it is unlikely to be helped much by tinkering with batteries. It also fails in its supposed aim of significant emissions reductions.

The problem with both the article and your comment Taswegian is that the best genuine experts in the world disagree with you.

Instead of playing dog-in-the-manger, how about trying to work out why they think you're wrong?

Here's a hint to start: look forwards instead of backward. The development curve is trending steeply up for renewable technologies, contrary to Mr Moran's claim that these are mature technologies. On the other hand, coal power is a completely mature technology and as such costs are only going to rise.

Solar PV is already lower in cost than new coal and is dropping in price, where coal and other central generation is increasing.

Don't believe all you read from people paid to produce particular opinions.

oh dear another tinfoil hat wearer trying to use the utter incompetence of government and AEMO as a pretext to global warming is okay.

The problems experienced in SA are simply the grid has not been maintained in such away that there are multiple pathways and redundancies in the distribution of power. SA had plenty of power it just couldn't distribute it out.

I don't like speaking I'll of the dead but in the former head of AEMO had a public and private onion that differed as the author says then the former head was also incompetent.

What happened is SA is a great example about why a essential service like power should not be privatized. And utter incompetence in a public office should be a criminal offence.

A small celled power network with nukes, wind and solar should be the order of the day. SA should build a nuke waste dumb not for the east coast caste offs but for the spent fuel rods of it's own nuke power stations.

"... one of the highest levels in the world...", and one of the dearest. Three times the cost of coal generation! And we are supposed to listen to "experts" who cannot even tell us how much CO2 the pain will reduce in the long run. Not a very realistic ask, I suggest.

And, think of the whopping cost of replacing these wind monsters (already described) every decade or so!

Up yours, you fear-mongering "experts".

Cost reductions for realtime wind and solar may be missing the point. This article asks the question; what if they were free?
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/08/31/intermittent-renewables-cant-favorably-transform-grid-electricity/
To that I'd add
1) if they are so cheap why do they need such generous subsidies?
2) is it possible other technologies will get cheaper in time?

The subsidies exist to enable renewables to compete with the heavily subsidised coal generation model. They are needed in order to provide a short-term incentive to develop renewable technologies and will disappear in a very short time-frame.

Unlike coal and other central generation models, renewables have very low operating and maintenance costs and almost zero decommissioning costs - the vast majority of the cost is up-front.

As the manufacturing cost declines, as it does with every new technology over time, the effective lifetime cost declines. On the other hand, centralised fossil generation models, whether coal or nuclear (yes, nuclear fuel is a fossil), grow continually more expensive to build, which is the case with all fully mature technologies. The low-hanging fruit of improvement are already gone for those centralised models, while they are yet to be picked for the renewables.

It's not that hard: think about the cost of your TVs over the years. The price has remained roughly the same despite inflation and the massive improvements in both power consumption and functionality. Every new technology starts out dear and becomes cheaper over time.

Ah yes another bludger from the IPA,a highly secretive organization with the transparency of a brick wall,and claiming to be a charity as well,all in support of the great neo con myth which you implicitly believe when you know its BS a bit like the total uncontrolled market myth another load of bollocks.
Who are your doners by the way Alan that keep you and you friends in comfort until you find yourself a seat on a Parliament somewhere under the Liberal party banner,where you can resume your budging,we only have to look at the chinless wonders you already have in the parliamentary Liberal party to see just how thick you all are,though at least they don't have to do the one thing you at the IPA seem to hate that's actually WORKING for a living.
Another tiresome RW ideologue with little idea about the real world supporting an Idea that never existed get a real job then get back to us

Finally someone who thinks with the head!

I forget how much coal is used making a wind turbine, but it wouldn't surprise if the number was around 25 ton per?

These things are useful if located where the wind nearly always blows and strongly, like the roaring forties? (or Canberra) And there are Islands that are right in the path of trade winds! As is the southwest of the continent? And if so placed could operate without an economy killing subsidy!

Solar panels are not problem free, but come with mountains of toxic waste? That we just never see! So that's okay then?

Solar thermal at least now competes with coal in roll-out costs, and as baseload provision!

What that storm highlights is the vulnerability of the grid and the cost it and it alone (doubled) adds to electricity charges! Moreover, the "Ideologues" will never ever consider nuclear! Regardless of how compelling and logical the case!

For them it's just A-bombs, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Hiroshima etc!

And ban, na, na, na sung to the tune of the Mexican hat dance with fingers stuffed in ears!

Or just restated carved in stone party policy,or broken record rethoric! And the devil take the hindmost and or the economy!

And exactly what you'd expect when dogma and ideology replace all reason and logic; and the limited hidebound vision rarely if ever extends beyond the desired treasury benches!

Or one-up-mans-ship! Or how to excel in turning overdue pressing social issues into an ever so convenient political football! Kicked to Hades and back as the economy goes to hell in a hand basket!

Highly credentialed speakers on U tube or google scholar, armed with incontrovertible facts! BORING!

WORLD'S CHEAPEST CLEANEST SAFEST ENERGY? EVEN MORE BORING!

HOW WILL WE MANAGE IF THE RIVERS OF GOLD THAT IS THE CURRENT ENERGY MARKET ARE RETURNED AS THEY SHOULD BE, TO GROWING A ROBUST INHERENTLY STRONG ECONOMY? WHEN THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS GROWING OUR PARLIAMENTS, POLITICAL POWER AND INFLUENCE/POST POLITICS RETIREMENT INCOMES!?

Poor bugger my country!
Alan B.

Alan, you're right, some nuclear technologies hold the promise of trending cheaper over time.

Yes Craig, none more so than thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium and needs no enrichment!

And in inverse proportion to reviled uranium, burns around 95% of the fuel, leaving only around 5% as so called waste, which is far less toxic than that created in uranium burning reactors! And eminently suitable in long life space batteries!

Given recovery and refining costs are both simple and cheap! Around $100.00 for the small amount needed to power average family home and electric vehicle for 100 years!

I dare say, that's progressively lower! NOW TODAY! Waddya reckon?

Used in walk away safe molten salt reactors they can even be tasked with very safely burning and re-burning current waste, starting with the most dangerous and toxic, to "progressively" reduce the half life to 300 years!

We clearly don't want that or the billions we could earn doing it?

Thorium is a fifties technology abandoned because you can't make a bomb or plutonium from it! and less radioactive than a banana!

Yes the prototypes were comparatively small just 40 MW! But, at that size, able to be mass produced and trucked anywhere in a shipping container!

Eliminating any need for vulnerable transmission towers, which effectively doubles the retail cost! And given molten salt, in a water-less desert if that's the preference! And the heat generated can heat air, which is then tasked with turning a turbine!

Coal cost 13000 lives in the US last year and around 100,000 around the world during the same period! coal fired power gives of shiploads of toxic heavy metal contaminants, brain damaging lead, carcinogenic cadmium and toxic uranium just to mention the worst offenders!

If we would actually save the planet? Then ultra-cheap thorium is the only real choice! T.B.C.
Alan B.

Saving the planet is doable, if ultra-cheap and very safe energy is included. and just in the topsoil, we have enough to power the planet for a thousand years, and thousands more in igneous rock! Recent advances in desalination utilizing in flow deionization, allow us to recover 95% potable water for quarter the price of traditional reverse osmosis!

And that's using current energy options!

Conversely, thorium power, allows us to turn previously inhospitable, uninhabitable deserts into veritable gardens, with just current foreign aid budgets.

Then relocate 65 million displaced people in these new Edens! Where they will "progressively" flourish!

As minimum incomes traverse through $7500 a year! Numerous studies show the birth rate plateaus to 2,5 children per fertile couple (replacement only) And as average incomes traverse $5,000.00-$60,000.00 P.A., the birth rate drops to one child per couple!

Some moribund troglodytes might see the energy reliant money tree being replanted in ways that exclude them and their personal profit ambitions?

However, lifting other folk out of endemic generation poverty, serves that ambition far more thoroughly than trying to milk money from stone!

The current practice and mindset of a few small minds bereft of any new ideas or just one or two truly rational ones!?

We need good safe, clean cheap energy examples the emerging nations can grasp which alacrity, with criteria that walk out the door! And given ultra-cheap nuclear power is made available as envisaged?

Enable the production of synthetic hydrocarbons to be extracted out of thin air, or rather from seawater! "DONE" And given water's affinity for Co2, have degassed seawater, suck Co2 directly from the atmosphere!

Yes, that will not bode well for some folk! Fortunately those now holding us hostage, I believe, with the help or permission of the governing class, as a milked for every possible (economy harming) cent, cash cow captive market, via dirty planet destroying fossil fuel!

Intelligent folk still able to do their own thinking, will look at the overwhelming evidence available and arrive at the same conclusions!
Alan B.

Hi Alan,
I must admit I haven't followed the thorium topic very closely, mostly because I'm of the view that mechanisms for exploitation of renewable energy resources are not even close to being fully explored.

On more conventional nuclear power though, you might find this paper interesting. It's a slightly popularised version of a comprehensive paper that was first published in the IEEE journal Explore a few years ago.

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/AQR_abbott2016.pdf

Essentially, it's a very strong argument against reliance on nuclear power sources, but the form of the argument is also valid for other forms of fossil energy, even if the specifics are obviously going to vary.

Think, factory built mass produced 40 MW thorium reactors, will enable rapid rail electric trains to tow their safe clean cheap power source with them, housed inside a shipping container!

And save a fortune in wires that come with transmission distribution losses!

And once fitted not have to worry about refueling for around 100 years?

Although some essential routine maintenance would be envisaged every couple of decades or so!

Things like ocean going dredges could be powered up to run day and night on not much more than 100 grams of thorium, utilizing the power of water and pumps to cut a two lane seaway canal through the heartland.

As man-made one way shipping canals that also bring self flushing permanent water to our arid inland; and new similarly powered desal plants to also take economy building advantage of new ultra reliable water.

Cotton grown in the desert i.e., using only underground irrigation applications, would rank among the finest in the world, and would have a ready made highway to take it to them and anything else we could produce under optimal, out of northern hemisphere seasonal production paradigms, to maximize profitability

And in miniaturized laser actuated modules, power and and all ancillary equipment!

Mines currently powered off grid by diesel generators could be re-powered with 40 MW reactors that would massively reduce total running costs!

Ditto bulk freight forwarding via our own national fleet!

We confront an enviable future if our decision makers (stop preventing) allow us to grasp it? Given the seeming predilection for selling the farm and most business opportunities to debt laden, tax avoiding, profit repatriating foreigners?

If we were but lead by rationalists able to put all the petty partisan politicking aside in favor of the national interest!? What a wonderful world it could be!

Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago! Buddy Won't,, his older brother, is alive and well and grows ever more cantankerous with age and obvious (age/custom related) dementia!
Alan B.

Thought I'd just pop my head in. Thanks for the link to the pamphlet, Craig, possibly the most intellectually lightweight propaganda I've read on the matter.

This fairy-tale tickled me most, "In desperation, nuclear advocates are putting a new spin on their marketing. The slogan now is that nuclear and renewables make perfect marriage partners, as nuclear provides the grid with ‘baseload’ power. Unfortunately this pick up line cannot woo renewables into bed."

Who talks of a mix of nuclear and renewables on the same grid? What would be the point? Renewables have their place in reaching places the grid doesn't, that's all. Dreams of renewables (excepting hydro) replacing fossil or nuclear fuel on the main grid are fantasy, as is the idea uranium is a fossil fuel (From what life-form did it derive? Perhaps you're talking about the birth and death of stars, indicating fantastic thinking far beyond that of silly realists).

No, Craig Minns, nuclear is not fossil fuel. By definition the latter originates with living organisms.

And if the author of the linked pamphlet is the same Derek Abbott who contorts whatever irrelevance his latest anti-nuclear google trawl has dredged up into a post on the 'Nuclear Fuel Watch South Australia' facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/?ref=nf_target&fref=nf) on a daily or more frequent basis, I could not be less surprised to see it described as "possibly the most intellectually lightweight propaganda I've read on the matter".

what a wonderful target those solar panels and wind turbines make
to enemy aircraft

They cant be hidden in buildings out of site or underground.
The whole thing is typical, mickey-mouse-green -scheme.

The NBN phone connections are something else that will shut
down communication in any big emergency when they have ripped up all the old landlines.

Craig,

You really need to be more careful of where you get this stuff. For example the article claims that there is only 200yrs of uranium left. This is complete bollocks, as the existing mines have sufficient ore for 200 yrs at existing levels. There is 10x the amount available at the existing prices of known ore, and higher cost ores (but still financially viable) 100x that. Then if you add Thorium, the usable quantities can supply 100% nuclear energy requirements for upto 100 000 yrs.

Secondly, the cost of uranium fuel at about 0.02c/kWhr is so cheap that it is presently difficult to justify the $bns to develop the new technology reactors such as Thorium liquid salts, unless the inherently safe designs reduce the capital cost.

SM, I suggest you take it up with Prof Derek Abbott. He can be found at Adelaide University I understand.

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/

I'm not making any claims in relation to the article, I simply put it up, as previously stated, for Alan's interest, since he is especially engaged with the subject.

I went back to the original article in the IEEE journal Explore, which is where I first encountered it and it is clearly marked as a "Point of View" and doesn't purport to be rigorous. Having read through it again, however, it is much closer to that standard than anything I've seen here...

Craig,

If you look hard enough you will find an academic that will espouse any point of view, and the measure of intelligence is the ability to think independently and verify claims.

The IAEA has produced assessments of reserves that show that there are vast untapped reserves of uranium.

Uncritically linking to dubious articles reflects badly on you.

Well, off you go and look, SM. I'm sure that shopping around for congenial opinions is one of your core skills so I'll defer to your expertise on the subject.

Craig,

Just because you linked to a stinker of an article and got called out by several posters does not mean that you should lash out impotently.

SM, I don't have an opinion on the article, other than that it is well written and interesting to read.

There may be flaws, I don't know, but given the record of those of you who seem to be extremely vexed by it, I'm sure they must be minor.

If you liked that, then you'll enjoy this http://fairytalesoftheworld.com/all-stories/

Craig,

To say that this article might have some flaws is the understatement of the century, then to claim that the negative reaction of the 3 most technically savvy posters gives it credibility is counterintuitive in the least.

I previously gave one example of an outright lie in the article, but here are the most outrageous "flaws"

1 - There is enough fissile material to supply nuclear reactors for millennia assuming the use of existing plants, not 200yrs as claimed. New reactors such as fast neutron reactors can use U238 (99.5%) of the natural uranium that presently is not used and extend the supply 200x, then thorium which far more plentiful can extend nuclear power even further.

2 - Nuclear reactors are not on the way out, there are 440 reactors presently running, with 60 new reactors under construction. Reactors are being restarted in Japan, and further reactors are getting approval in many countries incl the UK, USA and Russia. On top of this the new reactors are far bigger than the handful being decommissioned, and existing reactors are being upgraded to produce much more power.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

3 - The 40yr life span of a reactor is a conservative financial estimate (most existing reactors are 50yrs or more). Most reactors can be upgraded and rebuilt to last >60yrs, and even at the end of the reactors life, the entire plant does not need to be rebuilt, and the reactors can be replaced extending the life of the plant > 100yrs.

4 - Nuclear fuel waste, the 10 000t/yr is again a lie. The waste of all the world reactors produces between 2000 and 2300 t/yr of spent fuel, with a total of spent fuel being less than 80 000 tonnes from the past 40yrs. You should read the following:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

5 - Prices, considering that the cost of energy from Nukes in the EU is less than half the cost of renewables, I find this part of the article hard to swallow.

Those are the biggest whoppers, but just about every assertion he makes is a half truth.

You're right SM, credibility is important, so let's examine a few things.

On the one hand, there is Derek Abbott, who has a BSc in physics and a PhD in electrical engineering and is a Chartered Engineer, as well as a Chartered Physicist and has been elected a Fellow of both the Institute of Physics and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He's also a full Professor at a Group of 8 university that consistently appears in lists of the top 50 universities in the world in his field. He's also a Visiting Professor at 2 UK universities and has a peer-reveiewed publication list that is extremely extensive, across a wide variety of topics.

On the other hand, there are three anonymous trolls and some citations from a lobby group that calls itself the World Nuclear Association, which has a "mission" that includes:

"3: Nuclear Energy Communication

With a goal to increase global support for nuclear energy among key stakeholders, our role is to represent the nuclear industry’s interests where the energy debate is taking place. By coordinating on key messages with our partners, we deliver targeted information to decision-makers and influencers, including the media and international organisations that have an interest in energy-related issues."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/who-we-are/mission.aspx

On the gripping hand, we have my comment above:

"Well, off you go and look, SM. I'm sure that shopping around for congenial opinions is one of your core skills so I'll defer to your expertise on the subject."

And you wonder why I say you have a "shabby reputation"...

Craig,

When you don't get your way instead of debating the issues you resort to ad hominems, and you wonder why you have a reputation for deceit and self inflicted ignorance.

Let's compare sources, Firstly Dr Abbott has no qualifications in heavy current electrical engineering (CEng is chemical engineering) nor any experience whatsoever in power generation, or nuclear science. The paper he wrote has had no peer review and is essentially a mish mash of unsubstantiated rubbish.

On the other hand the World Nuclear Association has as members just about every industry involved in the nuclear cycle as well as access to the brightest minds in every field.

If you want to try other sources try https://www.iaea.org/ whose job it is to monitor nuclear activities and see if you can find a difference, instead of resorting to dishonest anti nuke activists.

SM, you brought up the issue of credibility, which was foolish, given that you have none.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18573#331034

"to claim that the negative reaction of the 3 most technically savvy posters gives it credibility is counterintuitive in the least" were your words, as can be readily checked.

CEng refers to the title of Chartered Engineer, which is a British qualification equivalent to our CPEng.

http://www.bcs.org/category/14957

It has nothing to do with chemical engineering, just as you have nothing to do with power engineering.

You also raised the issue of Prof Abbott's credibility

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18573#330995

"If you look hard enough you will find an academic that will espouse any point of view, and the measure of intelligence is the ability to think independently and verify claims."

And then you went looking for a paid lobbying organisation whose role is to promote nuclear power on behalf of the industry to give you an opinion you liked. The competence of the people involved is not at issue, but their stated goal of:

"[...] to increase global support for nuclear energy among key stakeholders, our role is to represent the nuclear industry’s interests where the energy debate is taking place."

shows that they are neither objective nor unbiased, which means that whatever is posted on their page should be treated as an advertisement, not a serious contribution to the discussion.

If you can't work that out for yourself, you're not just incompetent, you shouldn't be allowed outdoors without someone to hold your hand.

Now off you toddle, little Shallow Trollster, you've wasted enough of everyone's time.

Craig,

You as an admitted liar on the site is the last one to lecture on credibility. Your frequent resorting to ad hominems makes you the worst troll on the site.

Secondly the WNA (world nuclear association) is set up to co ordinate co operation between all suppliers and users of nuclear technology. That it is pro nuclear energy is not surprising, but to write it off simply a lobby group is not only dishonest but intellectually feeble as well. Based on your record, you had to back down from all previous technical claims, and now prefer to deal with ad hominems.

I have pointed out a series of clear and verifiable errors in the paper you linked to, I challenge you to look on the net and find out whether my claims or Abbott's claims are correct.

Here are two other independent sites that back up my claims:

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide

Cobber said;
What happened is SA is a great example about why a essential service
like power should not be privatized. And utter incompetence in a
public office should be a criminal offence.

If you want an example of the competence of the public service try this;
The NSW Railways has ordered a fleet of new carriages from Korea.
One problem, the carriages are 20 cm wider than the loading gauge.

Hmm, anyone wanting a job cutting 10 cm off many many stations ?