Ah yes, the Institute of Public Affairs.
Sorry, this group justifies any argument based on dodgy biased analysis.
I believe some other IPA "analysis" found Nuclear to be more viable than wind, even though we are yet to see a single nuclear installation with it's costs fully quantified. Sure, wind is not perfect but at least it isn't supported by an accounting whitewash!
They must have "how to write biassed articles that *appear* balanced" classes at the IPA!

“There are 86 new nuclear power plants set down for the 2011-2015 five year plan alone (one every 3 weeks).” (Perseus)

Let’s put Perseus’ "scarenario" distortions on China's “86 new nuclear power plants” in plain English.

China 2008:

* PLANNED Nuclear Reactors: 30 (First reactor expected to be put into commercial use at the end of 2012)

* PROPOSED Nuclear Reactors: 86

Currently China’s nuclear energy is 2% of total output

Intentions are to boost nuclear energy to 4% by 2020

Four percent eh? Is this one of the new innovations you refer to, Perseus?

Definitions (as advised by UIC):

* PLANNED = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely.

* PROPOSED = clear intention or proposal but still without firm commitment.

I’ll put my money on Garnaut’s interim assessments and certainly not on the verbal pestilence exhorted by the IPA and Lavoisier stooges who remain intent on holding the renewable industry back at all costs.

This is a direct result of the lunar right’s dirt "ignorance" on environmental toxicology. - an "innovative" approach which guarantees the smooth running of the gravy train, fiercely driven by the fossil fuel and automobile industrial barons.

Where did you get your data, Dickie? I got mine from the world nuclear association who seem to know a bit about their topic. see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

Note, "In May 2007 the National Development and Reform Commission announced that its target for nuclear generation capacity in 2030 was 160 GWe". That is out of an expected total of 1330GWe or 12%, not 4% as you claim.

Also note, "At the end of 2007 there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe." Add to this, "Two large hydro projects are under construction: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe." and it becomes clear that CO2 emitting generation will not grow as fast as total generating capacity.

So of the total increase in generating capacity of 617GWe from 713GWe today to 1330GWe in 2030, some 34GWe will be from hydro and another 151GWe will be nuclear and only 432GWe will be from coal and that total generating capcity will level off by 2030 because they will be at fully developed status. Garnaut's stupid A1F1 scenario assumes their emissions will keep rising for the entire century.

Note also from the China Daily that the two coal fired plants being commissioned each week are simply replacing 10 old smaller ones that are closed down each week. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-01/30/content_6430665.htm

Nuclear? To go Nuclear is to be hostage to the past. One of the major weaknesses of industrialization has been to develop an economy that depends on finite resources for its future prosperity. The economic arguments against nuclear remain compelling. Known exploitable reserves are sufficient for about 40 years - much less if the take up rate of nuclear power is increased. As with any other resource once one goes beyond the peak the extraction costs tend to outweigh any benefits - in the case of nuclear this means that the window where nuclear is a green alternative is relatively small. What the nuclear lobby also consistently overlooks is the growth of negative watts - ie increased efficiencies that will reduce demand; these are already evident. The other assumption that is made that it will be necssary to have centralised electricity grids - ignoring that for domestic power the potential exists to get the bulk of power needs from solar and wind with a possible diesel back up. For a country like Australia we also have the possibility of wave power (using the technology currently being pioneered off the coast of Portugal) and hot rocks. Nuclear will rely on government subsidies to be remotely economically viable - I would rather see my tax dollars go on r& d on renewables. If there is any doubt about the availability of money for projects such as these you only have to read Stiglitz's The Trillion Dollar War - if we are prepared to divert a fraction of funds away from the military to play their games we may just have the resources to fast track the r& d to an economy based on renewable energy.

"Currently China’s nuclear energy is 2% of total output. Intentions are to boost nuclear energy to 4% by 2020" Dickie

"Where did you get your data, Dickie? I got mine from the world nuclear association who seem to know a bit about their topic. see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html" Perseus

Perseus,

FYI

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-02/19/content_6465565.htm

So Dickie, your reference is an anecdotal newspaper snap shot of two sites from a journalist while mine is from the industry association showing specific detail on the full range of projects in train up to the end of the 2011-2015 five year plan. Not hard to see which is most credible, is it?