In comparing power costs we should firstly add subsidies then divide by capacity factor. So if wind power was quoted at $40 per Mwh then add say $35 for LGCs so we're up to $75. Now divide by 30% capacity factor and we get $250 per Mwh. That is a proxy for a large overbuild with free energy storage during lulls. Now if nuclear was $100 per Mwh with no green certificate income dividing by 92% c.f. we get $109 cost.

The likely first SMR NuScale say they can sell power for $US60 per Mwh. They can also load follow to some extent thus eliminate the need for the expensive gas balancing of wind and solar. In California as PV declines in the afternoon they have to ramp up 13 GW of mostly gas fired power. That should really be factored into the cost of renewables. The NuScale pack of 12 modules may sell for about $US5 bn for 720 MW or about $7/w capacity.

Then there is the vexing question why do we still have coal if wind and solar are so cheap. Why hasn't Germany reduced emissions for a decade despite $25bn a year in renewables subsidies? Why does French electricity have 50 grams of CO2 per average kwh and Australia has 820?

Jim Green,

Your costs for intermittent renewables (wind and solar) are not comparable with costs from dispatchable generators such as fossil fuels and nuclear. To be comparable you must include the substantially higher grid costs and the cost of sufficient storage to make them fully comparable with the dispatchable technologies.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity and always has been – since 1954 when the first power reactor began sending power to the grid.

For this reason, you should also include the health externality in the cost of electricity from each technology to compare like with like. When you do that, nuclear is by far the cheapest.

Thirdly, you should acknowledge that nuclear power could now be around 5–10% of its current cost [1] if not for the disruption, caused by the anti-nuclear protest movement – of which you are a classic example.

Further, if not for that disruption, nuclear could have replace around 100% of coal and 76% of gas generation by now, avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions [1].

That’s the damage the anti-nuclear protest movement has done.

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169

Four pages of rationalising, & he still has to wriggle like a worm, twisting the whole story to get the story he wants.

Risible rubbish in, risible rubbish out by well known anti-nuclear activist, moribund Ideologue, Jim Green.

Who, when it comes to nuclear energy and comparative costs, doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
Or is stuck in the 19th century/moribund in the extreme?

Simply put and extrapolating from the published results from Oak Ridge, The cost of MSR thorium would come in at around 3 cents PKWH.

Compare these numbers. A 350 MW light water reactor, will over the course of a thirty-year operational lifetime, require 2551 ton of (as rare as platinum) enriched uranium, will burn less than a ton and create 2550+ tons of highly toxic waste.

[This is were anti-nuclear activist, Jim Green gets his (cherry-picked) less than favourable comparative cherry-picked numbers from? And crafted so it favours renewables over all else?]

As usual, ignored by the cherry-picking Activist, is the fact that an MSR thorium, (FUJI [CARBON FREE] 350MW) Will use in a (CARBON FREE) comparable lifetime, just one ton of (CARBON FREE) thorium and this source of (CARBON FREE) fuel as common as lead. THesse costs further reduced to below a cent PKWH is these (CARBON FREE) reactors are tasked with VERY SAFELY burning the world's stockpile of (CARBON FREE) nuclear waste! And paid annual billions for the service!

Someone genuinely concerned with carbon-induced climate change or the growing stockpile of nuclear waste? And our CABON REDUCED economy, turbocharged and sent into overdrive! Would surely want both outcomes!

Moreover, because this reactor operates at normal atmospheric pressure. and is self-regulating! It is, walk away safe and may be left very safely unattended for months at a time! The security guard out front costs more than the fuel.

Jim will ask as is the want of all anti-nuclear activists, if it's so good why doesn't everybody have one, or show me the reactor?

Hard to show something that has been prohibited to protect the profit curve of the fossil fuel industry, big nuclear and big pharma alike, and in that context, ably supported by advocates just like Jim Green! TBC.
Alan B.

When it comes right down to it, we have Just two choices for dispatchable reliable 24/7 energy. And a choice between, a fossil-fueled system or a nuclear-powered one! If one is concerned about health and safety issues, or actually, effectively, finally addressing climate change, then the very best by far and away option is and has to be nuclear, and the very safest form is MSR!

The cheapest nuclear fuel is thorium! Suggest you look at a couple of videos Alan Goulding has posted on his Facebook page, to see how many deaths are attributable to comparable power sources.

The alleged "war" between super funds is a fire, activists like Jim Green, pour allegorical petrol on!

And as usual for this author and most Australian politicians/decision makers, studiously ignore the fact that MSR technology may be used as, nuclear waste burners that VERY SAFELY also generate virtually free electricity, with CARBON FEE FUEL! The cheapest reported renewables are located in an oil-rich desert! As a vast solar voltaic array that produces power during daylight hours at around 5 cents PKWH.

Even so, one simply cannot ignore the production of, mountains of toxic waste generated at the point of manufacture, and this waste eventually enters our oceans, the lungs of the planet, via highly polluted waterways!

Something Jim Green and his Ideologically driven cohort of moribund numbskulls adroitly avoid! Just as if it was never ever part of the conversation!

Just goes on and on with his brainwashed, broken record rhetoric!

Plug it in switch it on and lower the needle and hey presto, Jim Green endlessly repeats his time-worn idealogical (Putin) response to CARBON FREE (alternative to fossil fuels) nuclear energy!

Rember to check, Alan Goulding's Facebook page, for some extremely interesting, videos of, entirely informative and verifiable facts!

You'll be amazed at the scientifically verifiable energy comparisons!
Alan B.

We all know what Jim Green thinks without the need to read about it.

And let's not forget of the two available sources of MIRACLE CANCER CURE. bismuth 213, only U233 and radium are the available choices.

Radium is bombarded in a linear particle accelerator, with massive energy and cost outlay, to produce a few piddling grams of inordinately expensive millionaire medicine.

Whereas the MSR, thorium>U233> Bismuth213 route, produces almost free, alpha particle, bismuth 213, as a desirable byproduct of nuclear decay inside a U233 fuelled MSR thorium reactor.

Big pharma has had its (profit protecting?) way here? As has the foreign-owned and controlled, fossil fuel industry?

Why?

Because as the only credible explanation, our pollies, (political puppets) serve them? Rather than the electors?

1 in 3 of who, will over the course of a single lifetime, also become (hung out to dry) cancer victims!
Alan B.

Asking Jim Green a anti nuke activist for an honest opinion on nuclear reactors is like asking a radical vegan for an honest assessment of the nutritional benefits of beef.

The single greatest barrier to renewable power generation is its inability to provide base load.

Clean reliable nuclear power will do this.

Great article, Jim Green. As it is packed with information - facts and figures, especially on the diseconomics of nuclear power, - well, it's no surprise that the usual pro nuclear commenters are having trouble in disputing this article.

You know that the nuclear lobby is in desperate defensive style when they come out with ad hominem attacks like -

"Risible rubbish in, risible rubbish out by well known anti-nuclear activist, moribund Ideologue, Jim Green."

VALCOE: "the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed the idea of a “value-adjusted” LCOE, or VALCOE, to include the elements of flexibility and incorporate the economic implications of dispatchability. IEA calculations using a VALCOE method yielded coal power,for example, far cheaper than solar, with a cost penalty widening as a grid’s share of solar generation rises."

http://energypost.eu/iea-solars-exponential-growth-could-make-it-less-competitive-not-more/

If you are unconvinced of the truth of the above statement, here's something a non-expert can grasp:

http://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf

Sir David Attenborough thinks poorer people should be dissuaded from air travel to reduce emissions (via a ticket tax). http://7news.com.au/news/environment/david-attenborough-says-air-travel-should-be-more-expensive-to-fight-climate-change-c-208037

He says "we can't be radical enough" to deal with emissions, yet stops short of advocating the only proven solution, nuclear energy. He needs to grasp the physics and instead of exhortations to development renewables should push for synthesis of jet-fuel from CO2, or H2O. No more need for fossil fuels after the electrification of urban transport, production of industrial heat and of synthetic fuels for aviation, shipping, and long-haul transport, the list goes on. To think renewables can deliver this as well as the normal electrification of people's lives is to believe in magic.

The bottom line to Jim, ChristinaMac1 and other dreamers is there is no economically viable, feasible storage solution to make renewables capable of driving a modern civilization, only dispatchable solutions. Only nuclear energy provides emissions free dispatchable energy 24/7/365.

Just to add, the task is to present a viable alternative to nuclear, not to diss it with cherry-picked failures, which one could go to town on over renewables too.

South Korea's nuclear position, which is hardly a phase-out, is entirely political. Its cookie-cutter approach to building LWR's, built with their input here, would smash renewables even further out of the park. Taiwan continues a nuclear phase-out despite citizens voting at a referendum to continue down the nuclear path: http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Taiwan-government-maintains-nuclear-phase-out. Nuclear shut-downs in the US are based on cheaper, CO2 emitting, fracked-gas that may, or may not be, busy backing up intermittent renewables.

Jim Green and Co. have little else beyond hoary old chestnuts with which to fight the coming wave. They've had their time in the sun (and the wind). it's time to solve the emissions problem with science, not magic.

Another superb Murdoch Media defying article from Jim Green.

Oddly the pro-nuclear power crowd in Australia are (with one exception) all men all right-wing and can be found in the:

- On Line Opinion
- the National Party
- Minerals Council of Australia
- media shock-jock Alan Jones
- "shock JILL" (you saw it here first) Peta Credlin
- the MURDOCH MEDIA (especially The Australian),

But in Australia, support for nuclear power is increasingly marginalised to the far-right. Indeed support for nuclear power has become a sign of tribal loyalty: you support nuclear power (and coal) or you’re a cultural Marxist, and you oppose renewables and climate change action or you’re a cultural Marxist.

‘SMALL MODULAR REACTORS’ (SMRS)

The far-right repeatedly claim that SMRS will come to the nuclear industry’s rescue. But real-world experience with SMRs under construction suggests they will be hideously expensive.

According to a December 2018 report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, the cost of power from SMRs would need to more than halve to be competitive with wind and solar PV even with some storage costs included (two hours of battery storage or six hours of pumped hydro storage).

Rightwingers hope support for nuclear power drive a wedge in the unions, GetUp, the Greens and the Labor Party.

Abbott ‒ and some others on the far-right ‒ would undoubtedly oppose nuclear power if Labor and the ‘green left’ supported it and they would be pointing to the A$14‒24 billion price-tags for new reactors in western Europe and north America.

Howard’s nuclear promotion did nothing to divide the Labor Party. On the contrary, it divided the Coalition, with at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distancing themselves from the government’s policy during the election campaign.

The policy of promoting nuclear power was seen to be a liability and it was ditched immediately after the election.

Those of us opposed to nuclear power can take some comfort in its increasing marginalisation to the far-right.

MORE SEE http://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-exits-australias-energy-debate-enters-culture-wars-47702/ OF 13 JUNE 2019

From planta's link,

"Hence, we must find a way to support nuclear. The problem is that, on any realistic analysis, there’s no chance of getting a nuclear plant going in Australia before about 2040.

So, the nuclear fans end up.... saying that we will have to rely on coal until then. And to make this case, it is necessary to ignore or denounce the many options for an all-renewable electricity supply, including concentrated solar power, large-scale battery storage and vehicle-to-grid options.

As a result, would-be green advocates of nuclear power end up reinforcing the arguments of the coal lobby. … In practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal."

Firstly, if we get cracking, we can have modular nuclear running well before 2040. They'll be ready to go mid-2020's

Secondly, concentrated solar power and large-scale battery storage, at a grid level sufficient to make renewables dispatchable 24/7/365, are totally unviable.

Thirdly, re the vehicle-to-grid option, http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/vehicle-to-grid :

"However, this strategy is facing stronger challenges, which is lacking public acceptance. V2G techniques imply violation of the recommended charging pattern and an increased number of charging/discharging cycles. Consequently, this causes accelerated wear and tear of the batteries, reducing their lifetime and performance. Taking into account the current battery technology, it seems that this strategy will—for a while—remain not practically applicable, unless incredible incentives are offered for the car owners."

Add to this the trend towards diminished vehicle ownership and driverless transport and you have the remnants of yet another Green dream.

Finally, a decent carbon-tax would wreck the VALCOE of renewables to the benefit of nuclear energy. Don't renewables advocates want a carbon-tax, or do they support fossil-fueled emissions until that wonderful day when some miracle storage breakthrough? Support for renewables is support for fossil-fueled backup and higher emissions intensity.

Jim Green, if cost is the issue then support lifting the ban, safe in the knowledge nuclear can't possibly compete!

Oh bugga, http://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/?fbclid=IwAR26fsA0RDrGG8w7dZOR6Iw3vtnYeJgYU6VBzy0H3agEIEqnNL1SHjBCKOg

In your blog at https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor you state,

"Support for nuclear power has become a sign of tribal loyalty for the far-right, and they claim nuclear is cheap despite an abundance of contrary evidence. They are lobbying to have national legislation banning nuclear power plants repealed, but that seems unlikely."

Finnish Greens are pro-nuclear, and why are Aussie Greens? Do you know something Finns don't?
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/6/26/the-greens-are-no-longer-anti-nuclearin-finland-1