Alan, I suppose if you look at it from a short term, negative, right wing economic elitist perspective, then you would be right, But if you look at it from a long term, positive, economic, environmental perspective, then you would have to say that you live in ga ga land.

Your assumptions lack the necessary information, to make a judgment that is so narrow and vested as the one you put forward. The only way to provide cheaper energy, is to make as many people self sufficient in energy as possible and decentralise energy generation. With your approach, we are going down hill rapidly with one result in sight. Environmental, economic, infrastructure meltdown, as is happening now. So why more of the same as an answer.

Giving rural populations combined solar, wind and biofuel backup generation for households, as well as solar furnaces for larger populations, within 5 years would turn around our energy problems. Solar sunballs, cells and modern small wind generators are economically viable and over a lifetime, saves lots of money. By connecting to the current grid, excess can be then supplied for manufacturing, paying of the system. This would create lots of jobs, business and industry, reducing costs firstly to rural sectors, then cities.

The current approach is designed to keep as much as the resources as possible in the hands of a few. This will lead to where it's currently going, down the tube.

The discussion omits the costs of not reducing emissions and some indirect benefits of alternative energy, both of which are hard to quantify. If climate disasters continue the rest of the world could retaliate against Australia's unrestricted burning and export of coal. Meanwhile alternatives to oil must be found and countries such as China will surge ahead with nuclear power. Therefore it might be prudent to bite the bullet now and learn to live with carbon constraints. Nations that don't will lose not only moral authority but technical know-how.

Our standards of living depend on trade - exporting those goods and services we produce competitively and importing those where overseas suppliers are more efficient. Many of Australia's most competitve export industries are energy-intensive. Alan points out that carbon-saving measures, both proposed and in place, could double the cost of power. Without comparable cost increases for overseas competitors, this would make those export industries uncompetitive. The economic costs would be severe. In practice, the greenhouse gas savings from shutting down those industries would be negligible, as coal would be diverted to export markets such as China and metal ores would be exported for processing in Asia. Such an "all pain, no gain" policy does not have much to commend it. (Even leaving aside uncertainties on the complexities and timing of climate change, the prospective rate of which has been exaggerated by flawed IPCC modelling.)

In touting the costs of reducing emissions, this article makes several assumptions and omissions to exaggerate the case for the status quo being the least cost (best) option.

There is also no mention of the advantages born from taking a strategic lead in 21st century development.

The assertion that Australian carbon trading costs would be $41 begs explanation. Based on a similar scheme in operation in the EU? How do you arrive at $41?

In 2002, the Bush Administration said it would take carbon trading at about $150 CO2t in order for the US to meet its Kyoto target. Such an “insidious economic burden” turns out to be less than the difference that US motorists have paid at the pump between petrol 12 months ago and today. And gee, petrol consumption in the US increased last year, matching national economic growth.

The full cost of nuclear power in Australia should ALSO include the cost of Importing the technology, expertise, contractors, fuel and generally subsidizing the industry. And exactly which Nuclear power station has been decommissioned and had all its waste safely disposed of for only 10 - 15% of its total cost? The real costs of nuclear power in a country without any nuclear power infrastructure, like Australia, from scratch to electricity, would be nearer $200 per kilowatt hour.

The cost of renewables like wind is continually decreasing whereas the cost of coal energy, particularly in a carbon constrained world, is increasing. The significant but narrowing difference also reflects the fact that coal has greater economies of scale and far greater historical investment. The real question is which mix of energy provision is better for Australia in the long term? In what should we invest our efforts today?

Today, alternative fuels are more expensive than coal but will this always be the case? Australia’s interest lay in being able to minimize the cost of energy and maximize the consequences of our energy production over the long term.

IPA can do better than this Anti Climate Change Fear Mongering for Dummies.

Temperature rises have been a little higher than the IPCC 'B' scenario but there has been some retraction on expected sea level rise. Firstly events such as Katrina have been indelibly linked to global warming in the public's mind. Secondly having a polluter-pays regime in place is good insurance in case urgent action is needed later on. Therefore we should implement modest carbon taxes or permits and strongly increase renewables quotas. The coal industry can live with this particularly if other countries follow suit. If down the track wind energy (for example) appears to hit a plateau despite carbon tax exemption at least we will have tried. The thing is to get serious now. Ex-BHP chief Paul Anderson has called for carbon taxes so even some businesses see it as the way to go.

To dismiss renewables such as wind or solar is very shortsighted - we really need to be putting alot more money, effort and research into these forms of energy.

Consider the following:

"If you install enough wind or solar power stations you can easily compete with nuclear, but what you have is a difference of scale - wind and solar are generally smaller, but you can have more of them. Nuclear costs more because it is a very complicated and dangerous technology.

Coal is also a dangerous technology, but it's not complicated. With nuclear, you've got all the mining and related hazards and then you've got the radioactivity that has to be contained - it's 2 to 3 times more expensive then coal. Nuclear will probably never really be cheap, simply because of the safety costs.

However, adding in the cost of greenhouse gas production, changes everything. There's been studies done in the EU on the external costs of burning fossil fuels - there are some substantial health and environmental costs - and when you take that into account, you double or triple the cost of fossil fuel production.

But I'd rather use that as an argument for using renewable energy sources, such as wind or bio-fuel. Wind is expensive because it's a technology that is undergoing rapid development, it's already competitive with coal in some parts of the world (where the coal has to be imported) but in Australia it's probably 20 years before wind will be able to compete with coal.

In the interim the industry needs some government assistance. Also, once we increase the scale of production and the size of the market, wind power will get cheaper. The tragedy in Australia is that the government is not giving enough support to the renewable energy industry and it will probably stop growing next year. There are huge subsidies to the nuclear industry, in the UK and US and these subsidies continue. Renewables don't receive this.

Dr Mark Diesendorf, Institute of Environmental studies"

Coal is finite, nuclear inefficient, renewables? There could be a future.

Worth a look:-

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

The alchemist maintains the "negative right wing economic elitist perspective" is no solution to our carbon usage and suggests we all become sel-sufficient in energy. He even argues that there will be surpluses and these can be connected to the grid. Are we living in the same world? The outcome would be spending all our lives searching for and creating energy and conserving what little we have. Life would truly be brutal and short.

Martin Callinan should consult the Uranium Information Centre website if he wants to obtain information on nuclear disposal costs (and no, IPA does not receive any support from the Centre). Nuclear is the cheapest and safest form of energy production for most countries in the world but not for Australia.

The $41 per tonne carbon tax/price I cited was the trading price of CO2 in Europe last time I looked. The Bush Administration's estimate of price of $150 per tonne may well be the price that would be required if there were to be genuine reductions even to the level of Kyoto.

The cost of coal is, contrary to Mr Callinan's suggestions, not constantly increasing. The cost of coal fired electricity ten years ago at best practice was $38-40 per MWh. Even with the 30% inflation since then it is now $32 per MWh on the latest Queensland figures (which may contain some subsidy). Renewables have also reduced in cost but entropy is catching up and they will remain 2-3 times more expensive.

And Australia does have carbon taxes already in many guises. As my article demonstrates, present taxees and subsidies mean at least $800 million per year is scheduled.

Without commenting on the Australian details of Alan's article, the rest looks plausible. Certainly the European Emissions trading scheme (ETS) has seen the price for CO2 ranging above EUR 20/t for some time, and it once came close to EUR30/t. At those levels nuclear would be comfortably comptetitive in Australia.

Alan suggests the Chicago study excludes wastes and decommissioning - I dont think so. The main point it made was the effect of series construction on actual power costs. But his figure of about AUD 5 cents/kWh fits. See also www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm for more.

certainly we will not see nuclear power in Australia - or at least the eastern states - if we are able to keep on using coal as we do. if however we get serious about CO2 emissions and cost them like the ETS, then for base-load power we have nowhere else to go. Forget the folklore and fantasy of some of the detractors (as quoted in one posting), and look at what is actually going on overseas, and why investment in nuclear is ocurring and likely to do so much more.

“The outcome would be spending all our lives searching for and creating energy and conserving what little we have.” Alan, what a senseless stupid and un informed statement.

Five years ago we installed a solar system for our hospitality section. Now our entire business is on 24vdc. We use led lighting, a 5kw pure sine wave inverter, a 2kw solar bank, two 450w wind generators and a 5kw diesel backup generator that is coupled to a 1000ah bank of gel batteries. We have only ever used the generator for workshop equipment. Our neighbour is connected to the grid and receives a 3 monthly cheque from Aurora energy for his excess power.

We are updating by including solar balls, producing 3 times the energy of our cells for half the cost. The last 4 years, we have been using biodiesel to provide fuel for our vehicles and 15m charter boat. This year we will produce enough oilseed to become self sufficient in fuel from the mustard plants that we are growing. One acre of land provides enough fuel for our 3 vehicles, boat and generator.

We recovered the entire cost of our first system within 3 years. Even with 38c fuel excise, we still produce our fuel for less then 65c per litre. There are many people in Tasmania that are providing surplus energy to Aurora. So I think you need to come out of your closet, have your chains removed and get a life.

By the way, our system will not need renewing for more than 25 years. Before we changed, our energy bills ran to more than $10000 pa, the electricity component, $5600. Last financial year, it was $450 for cooking water heating gas, next year we hope to change that to methane from our own bio system.

It is you that does the searching, not people like us, we live in the real world, not the past fantasies that you are trapped within. We have satellite internet and voip as well, no landlines, another great saving.

Congratulations Alchemist - you did all you have mentioned without the need for a carbon tax or credit scheme.
What's the point of having one then if businesses can change of their own free will, without being heavily subsidised and they reduce costs.
You should encourage as many businesses as possible of the need to do what you do. If it is as financially prudent as you say, companies will jump on board quick smart, without the need for government regulation and imposition. Capitalism in action.

t.u.s.

Yeah, I’ve had a look at Uranium Information Centre website; they think Uranium is fantastic. They do not however provide any example of a Nuclear power station that has been decommissioned and had all its waste safely disposed of for only 10 - 15% of its total cost. They don’t even name such a station, let alone provide evidence that its life cycle costs are as modest as they suggest.

If you’ve already invested in a nuclear power industry, and a nuclear arms industry, then sure, I can see how the numbers stack up.

The Bush Administration's estimate of price of $150 per tonne was a large number plucked from the air to support their case for not doing anything. My point was that last year such a large (unrealistic) cost was paid by US motorists (via the gasoline price rise) with apparently little adverse impact upon the economy, or even the energy sector. Fo’ shizzle, US oil companies did rather well last year.

Do you think, Mr. Moran, that the establishment and operational costs of new coal stations (those with modern emissions controls and perhaps, even, carbon sequestration) won’t drive up prices? Australia definitely doesn’t have the newest fleet of coal fired power stations in the world.

Entropy catches up with everybody. Times, ideas and circumstances change, if it weren’t for climate change there’d be far less incentive to develop renewable energy.

Taxes serve purposes. One of their key advantages as a mechanism is that they can be directed to serve long term national interests; the sort of interests that individuals are rarely willing to sacrifice short term gains to meet.

martin, I suggest you check www.uic.com.au/nip13.htm if you reckon UIC is a bit short on relevant facts in that area! How many examples do you want?

UIC, all I want is one example.

In listing a dozen retired reactors, that page of yours merely quotes size, location, the years they were in operation, along with some commentary about dismantlement.

You mention, very briefly, the Berkeley reactor in the UK and that it is currently being prepared for an extended period of “Care and Maintenance” (scheduled to start around 2006) now 16 years after it was closed. – fine, at what cost?

Like everybody, I have concerns about safety but even on the simplest economic grounds there seems to be even greater uncertainty.

My question, for the third time, is can you provide any example of a nuclear power station that has been decommissioned and had all its waste safely disposed of for only 10 - 15% of its total cost?

Just give me the name of the station and if you don’t have accounts of the associated costs, I will try to find them.

In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. Is this sufficient? Does this fully fund the entire cost of the safe, permanent disposal of all waste?

Just like renewable energy options, I just want to know how much it all really costs.

The premise behind this article is that the atmosphere is a resource which can be freely used. Or in economic terms, that air pollution is not an externality.

This premise is incorrect.

The coal power generation business in Australia does not pay all its true costs and naturally they do not support a trading scheme which attempts to correct this.

Regarding cots of nuclear power reactor decommissioning, most of the info I have is in the UIC Decommissioning paper mentioned. The 10-15% estimate is not my figure, but I dont think it is far out. You can compare the OECD 2003 survey figures with $1500-2000 per kW for those second-genration reactors. Costs for Magnox units such as Berkeley will be way higher due to the carbon radwaste, which is one reason why none have been built for about 40 years.

Re US levy this would seem to be sufficient from the figures quotd.

For more detailed info see http://www.world-nuclear.org/wgs/wg.htm#decom