"Once initially high capital costs have been met"

This expression should be summarily deleted from the English language, because it gives the impression that it’s a one off and can therefore be ignored. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow

Photovoltaic cells also have the obvious problem that they only supply power when the sun's shining, which it notably does not at night. As yet, there is no cost effective way of storing power during the day for use at night, let alone storing it from sunny days for use on cloudy days. So there still has to be other generating capacity available for night time (including the evening peak) and on cloudy days. That plant still costs money even when it's not being used (discounted cash flow again). So when people install solar panels, they're ultimately not just increasing the price they pay for power, they're also increasing the price everyone else pays.

Similar considerations apply to wind farms - since the wind doesn't blow all the time, there has to be redundant capacity elsewhere, and that increases the cost.

Industry's needs cannot just be ignored. It is not some totally separate entity about which we need not be concerned. If our industry fails because its power costs are too high, then we suffer directly in lost employment.

Louise, in case you missed it, and you appear to have, a central thrust of the article was that we should move to sustainable power generation *without* adopting nuclear power. It was ingenuous of you to suggest that I was indicating that we need not tackle climate change.

At the moment, nuclear is the cheapest (including future decommissioning and waste storage costs) known solution to the problem. The alternative solutions, whatever their philosophical or other attractions, may well cost more than we can afford.

Narcissist

Yes, Sweden will quite possibly be oil free in 15 years, but the article said fossil fuel free. I rather suspect that Sweden will still be using some coal, and indeed that its nuclear plants will still be running, with perhaps more being built.

It appears Sylvia's an apologist for economic rationalism, the one causing most of our current problems. Sylvia, spending your life in a school and office only makes you schooled in illusions, not educated in life. I'd get out and check reality, your life of PC number crunching, isn't what's real. Your illusionary world is collapsing, nuclear isn't sustainable, nor even viable under current conditions. Its just another ploy to keep energy centralised and power in elite hands, are you one of those.

As one who's used alternative power for 30 years, I find it very economical and cost effective. Solar cells have life spans of more than 20 years for old types, more than 30 for the new ones. It costs about $20000 dollars to set up an alternative system lasting 25 years without renewal. New gel batteries are guaranteed for 25 years.

If your building a new home, its much more economical to set up on low voltage than destructive high voltage AC, which is deadly. Wiring of your house with low voltage, alone saves thousands as you can do it yourself, (except for inverted power requirements). A quote to wire our business and connect mains power, was more than $45000 with continuing blackouts and power bills.

We did low voltage for $28000, no black outs, or power bills. Air conditioning, you don't need it with solar pumped air circulation coming from under buildings and over small ponds. Even with 35 temps, with proper insulation and air locks in entrance doors, it remains 25 all year round. We have accommodation for 24, a restaurant for 40 to run, the surrounding area goes out, we continue to trade.

De-centralising all energy is the only way to go, sustainably, economically, environmentally, employment and security of supply. How do you equate the continuing pollution daily, caused by energy transport and production using fossil sources, competing with one of production, transport and no economic input for 20 years.

Great article.

The green movement argued for over 20 years that fossil fuels usage would bring on serious climate change. For that they were insulted, castigated, told they were harbingers of doom.

Howard and his men have now turned to nuclear power, in silent admission that their state of denial over human-induced climate change was plaian wrong. He will give no apology.

Just as the environmental movement has convincingly proven to be correct on climate change, it will again be proven to be correct on the disability of nuclear energy to deliver the goods. Again, the proof will come too late.

But I do have one small beef with the article. Far too much focus on supply-side solutions. There is far, far more capability to deal with the energy crises by placing top priority on how we use energy and why. Cutting back on waste is vastly cheaper and less demanding on the global environment than is any 'supply' solution - solar, wind, nuclear... you name it.

In the UK we have just had an Energy Review, which most believe was launched to support Tony Blair’s “cunning plan” to replace our ageing nuclear power plants. Only one, a pressure water reactor (PWR) will be running after 2023 and the seven Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGR’s) may have to be decommissioned prematurely before then, because their graphite moderating bricks are cracking. Debris from the blocks may fill the internal channels and stop the control rods dropping fully, preventing the AGR’s from being shut down in an emergency.

The only way the Energy Review could make an economic case for nuclear power is to discount its electricity costs with carbon credits bought by fossil fuel users. However, as fossil fuels run down, the amount of carbon credits available will progressively reduce. So this fiscal “fix” will be unavailable just about the time when the first replacement station would be commissioned, because there will be less carbon to burn.

The review is available for download on http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31890.pdf

But we do need to do something. For the UK to survive the 21st Century in good order, we have to adopt an energy-lean lifestyle based on around 25% of the energy we use now. There are lots of energy-using activities we could give up without too much agony, such as Formula One and powerboat racing. We need to invest in energy saving technology, not in vain attempts to keep all the lights burning – some will have to go out.

In both our countries the debate on energy has relegated to arguments about nuclear power, renewables and global warming. Nuclear power only provides 6% of the world’s primary thermal energy and a mere 2½% as usable electricity. It is thus irrelevant to the alleviation of climate change, but in the UK it is to be made the excuse for bringing it back and to bolster its economics with carbon credits. The real problem for us all is the depletion of oil and gas and how we live without our customary mobility

I had to laugh, reading Narcissist's comments, which began with his/her criticisms's regarding solar power - of the statement
"Once initial capital costs have been met"
Narcissist goes on to advocate nuclear power - for goodness' sake. The funny part is that nuclear power has no chance of getting started with not only huge "initial capital costs", but huge undertaking from government to subsidise it.
In the case of nuclear power, the subsidy includes the truly uncosted expenses of the cleanup. Britain is going through this realisation now, as the Blair government tries to convince the public, and its own members, that nuclear power is a good idea. Economists remain unconvinced. Can Narcissist tell us how much the taxpayer will be up for, in subsidising the nuclear power industry? Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

ChristinaMac is confusing Narcissist with me

The recent report from ANSTO

http://www.ansto.gov.au/ansto/nuclear_options_paper.pdf

is clearly including all life cycle costs for nuclear power, including decommissioning and waste storage, so it is not true to say that these are uncosted. If new coal fired capacity is allowed, then a subsidy would be required to cover the economic risks associated with building the first few of this kind of power station, but this cost drops rapidly for each new station.

The alchemist, why the ad hominem attack?

The fact that it is possible to build houses whose need for power is lower is not relevant to the problem of how we supply the power needs of the houses that are already in existence, and will continue to exist for many decades. We have to solve the problem we have, not the problem we'd like to have.

The fact that you can wire your own house with low voltage wiring doesn't reduce the cost of the wiring, it just means that you're doing the work yourself rather than having someone else do it. Do you attach so little value to your own time? It's not even desirable for the majority of people to be doing this - you can burn down your house with faulty low voltage wiring as easily, if not more easily, than with mains voltage wiring.

So what if your photovoltaic cells and gel batteries last 30 years. They still have a high capital cost, which make the electricity they produce much more expensive that mains power currently is. As for the immunity from blackouts, your competitors, if they thought it worthwhile, could install a backup generator at a fraction the cost of your solar power setup.

Those who think that economies of scale will radically reduce the cost of solar cells are dreaming. They must think that solar cells are made in some sort of cottage industry. In reality, solar cells are already a multi-billion dolar a year market, with most of these cells presumably being sold to people who can't do discounted cash flow calculations.