South Australia has become a running joke where the pursuit of renewable energy has led to consumers paying nearly 3x the wholesale price of electricity, with regular power failures. The threats by industries employing 1000s to close up shop in SA is not posturing, but a consequence of businesses no longer being viable without reliable and competitively priced power.

Next SA's premier holds a citizen's jury over a business proposal to create a nuclear waste facility that will create jobs and add up to $6bn p.a. to SA's coffers, where 90% of "jurors" have no clue about radiation or nuclear power, and unsurprisingly after being exposed to a scare campaign vote not to consider the proposal under any circumstances, even though they would be 10 000 times more likely to get cancer from the bacon they eat than from the nuclear waste disposal.

Next, with the closure of Hazelwood power station, the cost of power in Victoria, Tasmania and SA is likely to rise further by up to 10% and become less stable.

The problem that Aus faces is that as the country starts reaching the practical limits of network stability at roughly 30% renewable power, the laws of diminishing returns begins to kick in, as wind and solar power temporarily produces excess power and it has to be cut back, and back up gas generators need to be built for standby.

The only countries that have successfully reduced CO2 emissions and keep energy costs low rely on nuclear power, which is statistically still by far the safest generator of electricity, and today with new technologies that are capable of burning the waste as fuel, and reprocessing technologies that produce life saving medical isotopes from the waste, there is no logical reason not to replace aging coal fired generators with nuclear ones.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You might find the following link of some interest:

http://www.reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-priced-out-of-australias-future-energy-in-new-report-67465/

cont'd ...

My apologies for the error:

http://www.reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-priced-out-of-australias-future-energy-equation-in-new-report-67465/

Foxy,

Note way down the article that you linked is the paragraph:

"Similarly, the eFuture study by CSIRO showed that the inclusion of nuclear power as an option caused wholesale prices to be 34-37 per cent lower, and led to a 53 per cent nuclear share in 2050." i.e. The lowest cost mix of zero emission technology would be 53% nuclear.

The actual report summary.
http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Executive_Summary.pdf

Remember what I said about biased blogs? This article conveniently leaves out the three factors that increase the total LCOE of wind and solar but not nuclear, which if you read the actual report is included.

1. Because wind and solar are spread geographically and intermittent, the cost of building and maintaining the networks is far higher.

"A levelised cost does not capture the total cost of
operating an electricity grid. For that reason, the LCOE
and current electricity pool prices are not comparable,
as LCOE covers long-run costs but pool prices often
do not."

2. Because wind and solar are intermittent, once one exceeds about 30% standby gas generators have to be built and stand available at a hour's notice to kick in for the windless nights. These cost nearly as much to build and maintain as the wind turbines. Which is why Germany is now building coal power stations for base load to replace the nuclear plants they are closing.

3. Above about 35% there will be times when the wind and solar generate more than required, meaning that the turbines have to power down increasing the LCOE as happens in Spain and Germany.

The cost of nuclear will fall dramatically with layers upon redundant layers of regulation removed.

What happened in Fukushima and the aftermath has become the latest 'reason' to ratchet up on nuclear. A look at this and what did 'not' happen is explored at http://www.nuclear4life.com/ . See Chapter 1 and expand to full page for easiest reading.

I'd lay London to a brick that the cost of storage to make renewables dispatchable is not brought into calculations, and perhaps not even the subsidies wasted on them, such as is the RET.

However cheap a renewables non-solution to CAGW is, it is still a non-solution. Renewables plus fossil-fuelled base-load will not solve the problem. Renewables are redundant on the same grid as nuclear.

Renewablistas simply presume that magical breakthroughs in storage technology, scalability and cost will come. Dreamers, pied-pipers leading us up a dead-end. They misinform about nuclear and don't mind playing the nuclear panic card to prosecute their wafty cause. Of course, most like to say they have open minds, but scratch just below the surface and you see their hair-shirts they would have us all wear. If you're South Australian you already understand this.

Realists look at what has already worked in France and elsewhere for over half a century.

SM, we need our Chief-Scientist to lead this discussion but he's not up to it, being a starry-eyed renewablista himself. How we get some sense on this through our political system is a challenge while renewablistas continue to run interference as they did in SA.

Dear SM,

The following link explains Australia's energy options:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/your-guide-to-australia's-renewable-energy-options/6569874

Foxy,

The link you provided is so generalised that it is of little value. Secondly some of the statements are misleading such as "Developing such an industry, and the professionals needed to run it, would take decades" which would be true if we were building reprocessing plants, but not operating reactors, as we already have trained professionals from Lucas Heights.

A prime example of what can reasonably be done is in the UAE:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx

2009 went out on tender
2010 tender awarded
2012 permits issued and construction started
2017 construction completed and reactors started

Life expectancy 60yrs
Peak generation 5.6 GW
Avg generation 5.0 GW
Cost US$25bn
Operating cost 60yrs +/- $20bn
LCOE is about AU$30 / MWhr. (far cheaper than wind or solar)

So for AU$70bn, Aus could replicate this x2, reduce electrical related emissions by a further 35% by 2030, reduce power prices, and improve reliability.

Foxy, that there are a variety of energy sources is undisputable, but which are dispatchable 24/7/365 at the rate required by modern society, and at what cost?

Nuclear energy is cheap and proven. The only issue is the fear and mythology surrounding it and failed leadership in its promotion. There can be no sensible discussion about our energy future, and hence the future of mankind, until this is addressed. The UN should lead but is wracked with politics and inertia. Read as much as you can of the last link I provided to understand this.

Some are working at things independently http://radiationeffects.org/

The renewables pathway, with the dogmatic belief in the future arrival of scalable, affordable storage, will lead us nowhere in averting CAGW.

Nuclear technology is tried, tested and capable of great further development if we can turn the funding and the brains currently wasted on renewables in its direction

Dear SM,

The link I provided although rather simplistic I
thought would be a good summation for the energy choices
available. I actually have a family member who worked
at Lucas Heights for many years - he went on to lecture
at Sydney University.

Regarding a "nuclear renaissance?"
I think that the principal public fear is that a "meltdown"
at a nuclear reactor could release a plume of deadly
radiation into the atmosphere, before people in surrounding
communities could be warned and evacuated. Despite constant
assurances from the industry that nuclear reactors are safe,
opinion polls show that the public is unconvinced,
especially since the serious nuclear accidents we've had.

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous waste.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the
waste for at least 10,000 years, which is long enough for
most of it to decay. The location of such a site is a
ticklish political problem for the obvious reason that people
are generally unenthused about the prospect of having a
radioactive dump in their own neighbourhood.

To me the disposal problem seems to be the one that so far
has no acceptable technological fix.

Still we do have to look at what needs to be done.
There's no question about that. Few people will deny that
the planet has a finite amount of resources or that it
can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. Therefore
if world population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continue at an increasing
rate - where is human society headed? The most optimistic
answer to these questions would be that, one way or
another sweeping social changes await us.

I'll get in first and mention Chernobyl: a reactor built in the 1950s, about to be de-commissioned in 1986, thirty one years ago, running on a model that no country in its right mind would have even thought to copy back in 1970.

We are now in, what ? the sixth or seventh generation of nuclear power stations ? France, Finland, Sweden etc. derive a high proportion of their energy needs through nuclear power - do they have any accidents ? And we haven't even looked very deeply into thorium reactors yet.

Of all States, SA is well-placed to build nuclear power stations, especially in the north and west. And the east too - well, the entire area north of the Goyder Line, say north of Port Augusta. As for any dangers, how far is Lucas Heights from the Sydney CBD ?

SA's future energy needs will differentiate into urban needs in the south, and mining and processing needs in the north. A string of nuclear power stations, distant from towns roughly as far as Lucas Heights is from Sydney's urban areas, built just north of Ceduna and Port Augusta, at Leigh Creek and Roxby Downs, could transform SA's economy and demography. Perhaps a couple out in the Mallee east of Adelaide too.

Just suggesting.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The following link discloses the uncertain future
of nuclear power plants in Europe and the reasons
for it:

http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-power-faces-uncertain-future-in-europe/a-19215273

Foxy, firstly may I suggest you go to Tinyurl.com and place the
link from that site on your browsers task bar and when you want to
place long url into a post open the page click on the tinyurl link
and copy the tinyurl into your post. Simplifies it for everyone.

Basically I agree with SM on nuclear power.
I had a friend who was the boss at Lucas Heights and who worked at the
nuclear power stations in the UK. I also suspect he might have worked
at Los Alomos.
He attended in 1956 an engineering meeting at the Vienna Nuclear Centre.
The Russians described their new power reactor design but it drew
crticism from western engineers because of its carbon moderators.
They said there was a risk of a steam explosion of coolant.
Precisely what happened at Chernobyl.

As my friend, since then design has improved out of sight.
The Fukishima event would not have happened if it had been built on
the west coast instead.

My main concern is can Australia afford to build a fleet of nuclear power stations ?
The days of massive public works is coming to an end together with
the end of happy motoring.
The mad idea of using battery backup for the power grid is nothing
short of Alice's Wonderland.

We are in significant trouble with net energy or ERoEI if you like.
There is doubt if we can avoid Trainter's Collapse of Complex Systems.
Here is a read for you which is intended to worry you about the near
future economy. It refers particually to the US but as we saw in 2008
we are indeed all in the one boat.

http://tinyurl.com/juv85ax

Just like that Foxy, as pessimistic as I am about the economy I do
not think we have much alternative as solar & wind cannot do the job.
For those following the Trump phenomena you will find the above link
has some interest as the writer thinks Trump is being setup to fail.

Let me know what you think of Kunstler's forecast fo 2017.

Dearest Foxy,

Well, we'll see, won't we ? We're a long, long way from Chernobyl-type designed power stations - and of course, the Soviets believed that whatever technology they used was inherently better (Marx said it would be so) than any capitalist technology by virtue of being socialist. So they were bound to make colossal mistakes - and not rectify them.

Hi Bazz,

Yes, what fool would put a Japanese nuclear power station near a fault line, and just a few metres from the sea and frequent tsunamis ? Of all countries, I would have thought that Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand would be the least favourable for nuclear power stations. Maybe Iceland too. Maybe Tonga. Up in the Andes, or in the Rift Valley. Around Naples. That still leave quite a bit of country.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

Your first post simply shows how effective the scare campaign has been, some wild exaggerations incl:

1, No one has ever intended to build a nuclear waste dump in anyone's neighbourhood.
2, Fuel rods radioactivity after 40 yrs has dropped to 1/1000th, and after 1000yrs has dropped to 1/1000000, and is close to harmless.
3. Nuclear fuel is sealed in glass type confinement, and is only hazardous if you sleep on them. Other industries produce vastly bigger quantities of far more hazardous waste.
4. All of the nuclear waste in the US from 160 reactors over 40yrs would cover a cricket pitch about 1m deep, so the waste storage is minute compared to the size of the industry, and the pollution is negligible
5 The only radiation plumes were from a run down 1950s reactor with no protection in Russia, and 3 reactors that were hit by a massive Tsunami that killed >20 000 people. The reactor failures killed no one. In total one major air disaster kills more people than in the entire history of nuclear power.
6 There is enough uranium and thorium to power the world for hundreds of millennia.

Your second link is also misrepresentative.

There are several new reactors approved in the EU which are much larger than those of a couple of decades ago, and more on the drawing board as the EU realises that renewables cannot in themselves replace fossil fuels.
Also Areva and EDF are a long way from going bankrupt and EDF posted a surplus last year.

No Joe, they can be built in earthquake areas, you just build them on
large concrete slabs that can let the land move under them.
They build multistory buildings that way.
Another way could be to float them on lakes.

Rough ideas of course but I image civil engineers would have plenty of ideas.

Thanks Bazz,

I didn't think of that, not being an engineer. I'll ask one of my brothers who is one, if we're talking. On the other hand, he believes that CIA explosives brought down the Twin Towers, so there you go. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially one's own.

Cheers,

Joe

From Foxy's favourite site:

http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-reactor-sites-dismantle-or-fence-off/a-19111969

So much unnecessary panic and confusion over plant radiation levels.

The decommissioning of nuclear power plants is very nice work if you can get it. One plant is only 16 years old, closed by Merkel fiat, along with others well before the end of their effective lives. Germany is now to pay dearly after losing the court battle over such knee-jerk stupidity. http://www.dw.com/en/german-utilities-win-compensation-for-nuclear-phaseout/a-36639314

Greens are beavering away in France to reduce nuclear in the energy mix until renewables make up 100% ! http://www.dw.com/en/france-tilting-toward-nuclear-phase-out/a-18692209

How such comical stupidity can hold political sway is due to FUD wrought by Green scaremongers. If anything, Fukushima should give us more confidence in a nuclear future, but the stupid reaction to it on the ground is driving the stupidity we are seeing in Europe.

The Green dogma on storage is "have faith, science will find a way."
Show me the money! (and don't cherry-pick hydro as your example).

Science has found a way to solve CAGW, it's nuclear.

LF,

Merkel, after caving into the greens closed the nuclear plants and claimed that the energy companies would have to foot the bill for decommissioning them. The companies sued and won compensation not only for the costs of prematurely decommissioning the plants, but for loss of income totaling EU100bns, and having to build coal fired plants to make up the base load.

Plus with one of the highest energy costs (2x that of France) businesses are starting to close or move to less costly countries.

What's more is that it is starting here:

"Electricity companies have begun hiking consumer prices around the country, blaming the closure of coal-fired generators and the increased cost of renewable ­energy for higher-than-predicted increases of more than $130 this year. EnergyAustralia and AGL have increased electricity tariffs in Victoria by $135 and $132 on ­average for the year respectively — greatly exceeding state government modelling that concluded bills would rise by $27 to $100.

The Victorian price rises will flow from this week but the companies’ customers in other states, including South Australia and NSW, face a yet-to-be announced price rise in June."

If you want to get an insight into why it is so difficult to get
viable renewable energy systems working at reasonable cost this
article on Energy Return on Energy Invested has a lot of information
that I never had a grip on. It is a very complex problem and is at the
heart of the problems we are seeing here in Australia.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Misleading-Are-Solar-Yields.html

So after reading this you will be able to say "Well of course that would happen".

If that was the end of the price-hikes, SM, we could all live with it. However it's only the beginning, and all for no real impact even if every other state and nation followed suit. Renewables need thermal, load following generation, or baseload, with the CO2 abatement achieved cannot solve CAGW.

The eastern seaboard, incorporating SA, could run on a few reactors producing 100% of needs without significantly adjusting the grid.

In SW Australia, small reactors could deliver in place of coal. In NW Australia and NT, let gas reign while renewables compete where they can.

The EROEI issue is one that requires the scale of renewables with storage to be so massive and expensive as to be unviable in normal competition with nuclear.

Instead of decommissioning nuclear plants they should be refurbished and recommissioned. Cutting them into bits and burying them deep (after spent fuel is removed) is mad panic about the radiation risk they pose. The amortized cost of refurbishment of a plant at the end of its operating life would not add much to the cost of nuclear. The completely mad and unreasonable destruction of old plant is driven by Greens who want to expunge nuclear from history, so their ideology is at a public cost irregardless whether energy companies or the government carries out the madness.

The "honest" green advocates talk about the economy not relying on
100% available electricity but adopting a rationing scheme which
would mean that customers could use low power levels at night and
weather following during daylight hours.
So if the day is sunny and windy you can use your allocated maximum.
If it is overcast and still, your available power level is adjusted.
The internet of things is seen as the way to do it.

However that makes an assumption that in that sort of an economy the internet is still working.

Batteries do not solve the problem as you cannot use an allocation to
charge your battery, you have to have your own solar cells not
connected to the grid.
It gets back to the cost = n X solar & battery for one day where n = the number of overcast days + 1.

It really does get too hard.

So, Bazz, honest Greens believe Gov't should allocate an electricity allowance (fairly, somehow) and if you want more you provide your own?

Hair shirt, anyone?

Let me suspend my disbelief in the renewables approach to solving CAGW for one moment. The subsidy of residential or business PV installations on roofs is totally stupid. My neighbours have a large shading tree they love which limits sunlight and have found already that performance has fallen away due, they believe, to dust buildup in the dry months since installation. Rather than clamber up two storeys to clean them (more costly to install too) they just roll with it. Also, their roof setup means non-ideal panel orientation direction or tilt (tilting costs more and looks bad). They remain proud, however, of their reduced footprint (if only EROIE were not true).

If we are to subsidize the complete waste of money that are renewables, it should be mass installations attached to the main grid, correctly orientated and tilting mechanically to follow the sun for maximum efficiency. Cleaning and maintenance is then done at ground level. We've got enough space without needing roofs. Let's get the most bang for our subsidy buck we can.

No doubt this would offend the self-sufficiency ethos of the true hair-shirted, mung-bean, hair-shirted, protesting, anti-nuke, greenie who believes we must do with less of everything to save the planet.

Abundant, cheap, dispatchable, nuclear energy can be used to heal the damage we have wreaked upon the earth, but let's not go there

Luciferase, the problem we face is that large numbers of people still
believe that renewables can keep us in business as usual mode.
Then there is an increasing number of greens who are starting to
realise that solar & wind cannot do the job of business as usual.
They believe we must change our mode of living to one of a low energy
density economy.

I think that the first group will remain largely intact & grin & bear it.
Finally the 2nd group will be forced by logic and desperation to agree to nuclear.

Unfortunately I suspect we may see the collapse of our complex
society before we can get enough nuclear stations up & running and we
will all be looking for small farms.

I am looking at a net meter and have been watching the output of my cells.
At local noon I get over 1 kw from them and at 2pm it is down to
about 950 watts. By 4pm it is down to around 300 watts.
Now, our peak period is 2pm to 8pm so I miss the most productive
time to offset the peak rate. There is a good case to tilt the cells
to face the sun at about 3-30 to 4pm.
However if they face noon, I will get around four hours of 300 to
1000 watts to 300 watts, but at the shoulder rate.
I would like to install a sun follower so will work out the figures.
Do you know of a company that sells a sun follower ?
Would not be a major job to build one, two photocells an amp and motor.

Decisions decisions !

Hi Bazz, as a Green I for one do not believe "that renewables can keep us in business as usual", not if that business as usual means never ending growth in population, and the requirement that production keeps pace to compensate. The world cannot feed itself now at over 7 billion individuals, what does the future hold? Governments go into a flap every time growth drops off, even just a couple of percent. Knowing full well that without productivity growth disaster looms. The fact is the world is running out of resources rapidly, including fossil fuels. The time for real action was years ago, and we need to stop the politicking and get down to a united effort to solve these life and death issues. The present nonsense is not sustainable. 85% of people live in the third world, with little resources and no prospects for the future. The rest of us in the developed world are hell bent on conspicuous consumerism and imagine that through some magic of science all will be taken care of, all will be well! Not bloody likely!

Hi Paul,

Sorry, it appears that the world is feeding itself better than ever. And population growth rates are slowing pretty much everywhere: in the more 'consumerist' countries, it is at zero or negative. If anything, what poorer parts of the world such as most of Africa and India need is more energy generation, better infrastructure (which itself will need a massive increase in the use of energy). Do you reckon that can happen with renewable sources of energy generation ?

We've probably been down this road many times, but how are wind towers and solar panels made ? Using renewable energy ? I don't think so: Chinese firms make them, using relatively cheap labour and fossil fuel-generated energy, because to use renewable energy sources would be horrendously expensive. CO2 is produced in the production of wind towers and solar panels. So we have to build in the unavoidable production of CO2 into the lives of wind towers and solar panels. Isn't that so ?

Until more efficient means are found to make wind towers and solar panels, to bring their costs down below those of using fossil fuels, effectively we are using fossil fuels - not here but over there, out of sight. CO2 ? NIMBY.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe, the world's population is growing at the rate of about 80 million annually, that is about the population of Turkey being added every year, hardly zero. it is predicted by the UN that the worlds population will be 9.7 billion by the year 2050, that is adding the present populations of China and India combined in half a life time for the average Australian, again hardly zero.
Around 800 million people are today affected by hunger, 95% of those to be found in the third world. Energy consumption per capita has been rising steady, in equivalent tonnes of oil, world energy use has grown from 1.3 billion tonnes in 1971 to 1.9 billion tonnes in 2013, nearly all of the growth has taken place in the developed world, plus China. Energy consumption today is between 5.5 and 7 times greater per capita in developed countries than in the rest of the world. World fossil fuel production plateaued around 2010 and is unlikely to increase again. Nuclear power production at around 11% of the worlds total has also dropped slightly since 2010, although there are plans in place to expand the worlds nuclear power generation particularly in China, India USA, Russia some of Europe etc The increase in atomic power will not offset the decline in fossil fuel generation capacity.
Considering the facts I have presented I believe we must become more efficient at energy use, better at distribution, and we must embrace the development of sustainable alternative sources of energy production. Whether or not we like it, there is going to be some pain and some cost, particularly in the West as we adjust from a predominantly fossil fuel reliant energy system to sustainable alternatives.

Joe, what I must add is we will not choose to leave fossil fuels, fossil fuel will leave us. How we manage that change for a better future is the great debate. On one side we have a do nothing head in the sand conservative band who tend to be skeptical of alternatives except nuclear. then there is the Nimby's who see an idealistic world of energy simply blowing in the wind. The answer will lie somewhere in between, and it will mean pain, hard decisions and costs, there will be winners and losers, no doubt about that. How well we cushion the blow, very must depends on us here and now.

Paul 1405,

"On one side we have a do nothing head in the sand conservative band who tend to be skeptical of alternatives except nuclear"

Do nothing? Head in the sand? Do you read anything here before you say that?

Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, i.e. that scalabe, affordable storage will come if you click your heals together and wish hard? That's the real head in the sand stuff.

Do you have anything more than blind faith and bluster?

PS, you do realize that not only domestic, gov't and industrial needs must be met but also the phasing out fossil-fueled transport, right?

That's reliable, dispatchable 24/7/365, repeat, 24/7/365.

Perhaps you're one of the hair-shirt brigade and don't see the need?

Hi Paul,

I believe that the poorest people in the world are entitled to the same comforts and conveniences and life expectancy as we enjoy. If that means their consumption of fossil fuels, then that's OUR problem in the first instance, not just theirs. If thorium nuclear energy generation can help that along, then I'm all for it.

In the meantime, I'd support the massive use of fossil fuels by poorer countries UNTIL they have similar standards as we have. Anything else is callous greed on our part, expecting poor people to stay poor basically for our benefit, i.e.so that we can slowly wean ourselves off fossil fuels without losing too much of our lifestyles.

So, if WE want a cleaner environment, we have a duty, a DUTY, to devise more environmentally-friendly means of generating energy. Until poorer countries have our standards of living, it's not particularly their problem.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

None of my comments are directed at you, or anyone on this forum, you take them as if they are personally directed at you and others when they are nothing more than general observations.
I have no time for your derogatory personal insults, like Nimby and hair-shirt brigade.
Perhaps you think of yourself as one of the movers and shakers of this world, one of the real decision makes, when you are clearly nothing of the sort. As I said don't take it all so personally, relax!

Hi Paul.

Right back at you: where did I make any derogatory comments about you ? I'm simply saying that the poorest people in the world are entitled to what you and I enjoy. And until they do, and if it takes massive development in their countries using whatever energy resources they have access to, we can't criticise.

Actually, given that renewables - good and holy as they may be - are much more expensive in generating energy, until the technology improves sufficiently, it would be entirely understandable if poorer countries used cheap alternatives such as coal and gas.

That was all I was trying to say.

Cheers,

Joe

There is need for a complete rethink on energy.
First remove any consideration of global warming from the discussion.
Reason, it does not matter whether it is true or not.

Second, consider stopping coal export from Australia.
Use our coal to build the new energy system.

Third, stop export of natural gas.
Use NG to build the new energy system.

Fourth, assuming finance available build many nuclear power stations.

The big problem however is to get the general public to understand
that what the greenies have been telling them for years was a load of
rubbish. Sometime around 2025 the lack of investment in search and
development by the major oil companies will start biting.
Then they may understand.
The politicians ARE the general public so there will be no help there.

Unfortunately there is another catch 22. The financial situation is
so dire that we may experience either a financial crash much worse
than 2008, or worse a Trainter "Collapse of Complex Society".

Many financial experts are predicting the crash and warn that there
is nothing that can be done about it.

The real problem is that will rule out any major reconstruction of
our energy system and the above points will be irrelevant.

Sorry Joe, I appositive profusely I mixed your tag up with that of Luciferase and his comment about "Perhaps you're one of the hair-shirt brigade". I will be more careful. Sorry again.

I actually think we are on the same song sheet on this. Fossil fuels are not going to be phased out overnight, but they will decline over time, and the cost will increase, that is inevitable as the supply diminishes. Nuclear will play an increasing roll in future energy supply. The problem with nuclear is twofold, with very high start up costs and the safety aspect as well.

" Actually, given that renewables - good and holy as they may be - are much more expensive in generating energy, until the technology improves sufficiently, it would be entirely understandable if poorer countries used cheap alternatives such as coal and gas."

That is reasonable, I do think we need to do more addressing the efficient use of energy, in western societies we will need to use less energy per capita than what we are now, and allow for a more equitable distribution world wide.

Hi Paul,

No worries :)

I assume that much of the improvements in nuclear energy generation since disastrous early models like the Chernobyl reactor, have focussed very much on safety, even if it has meant higher start-up costs. Fair enough.

We don't hear anything about safety problems with the nuclear reactors in France or Sweden or Finland, perhaps because there are few of them. As I understand it, with my rudimentary knowledge, modern reactors may have high start-up costs, but very long productive lives: sixty years or so. And presumably, even with those, improvements can mostly be retro-fitted as technology improves which pull down production costs.

Of course, as an adopted South Australian ,I've got selfish interests, given the vast potential of Olympic Dam, if it's ever allowed to get into full production. If that happens, up goes the price of housing in Adelaide, so I could sell, down-size and make a packet. Maybe many 'objective' analyses are based on those motives, a sort of RNS (reverse-NIMBY-syndrome) :)

Cheers,

Joe

The nuclear industry in France appears in crisis
20 reactors shut down:

http://www.ecowatch.com/france-nuclear-power-shut-down-2086414462.html

Reuters also reports that French nuclear problems shake
European power market, boost prices. Google it.

Dearest Foxy,

As the article points out, these shut-downs are because of "revelations [that] emerge about the supply of sub-standard parts" and too much carbon in the steel supplied, corruption, etc. All easily correctable, so this is not really evidence of something fundamentally wrong with nuclear power per se. It pays to read articles that one puts up :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I always read the links that I put up.
However, this does not negate the fact that
there are problems associated with nuclear
power reactors and obviously in France
the problems were not "easily correctible,"
as 20 of them were shut down. You also should
Google the Reuters article that I mentioned earlier.
For your information.

Foxy,

I did google your link, and wish that you would occasionally quote sites not published by anti nuke activists. I found lots of other information from other sites.

There was not a problem with the reactors, but a scare about a potential problem that in reality did not exist and is testament to the super high standards that the nuclear industry is held to that no others are.

"France is set to have its usual nuclear power capacity almost completely restored by mid-January, after a number of plants come back online following inspections.

Only 4 out of 58 nuclear power plants will be offline by the middle of next month, and power prices have fallen sharply, as worries about shortages eased.Gravelines nuclear power plant

EDF confirmed on Monday that seven nuclear reactors shut down for safety checks would be up and running again by the end of December and there would be no problem with power supplies this winter."

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/12/french-nuclear-capacity-almost-restored.html

Most reactors have been inspected and passed with flying colors.

Paul,

The problems that the "conservatives" on this site have is not per se with renewables, but rather with the greenie activists that have their heads in the sand ignoring the network experts and pretending that there are no problems with the reliability and cost of renewables, and wildly over inflating the risks involved with nuclear power.

Decisions to close down power generation plants are not taken lightly, as they are complex procedures, as is the start up process. I worked for many years in heavy industry involving 300 ton furnaces, and from experience 'run out' was a difficult operation. 'Start up' was worse, even more difficult and dangerous, in 20 years we lost one furnace during start up, don't want to be too close to all that refractory material and 'batch' at 1000 degrees when it decides to come crashing down. Power generation would have similar problems.

Foxy's French report is factual and it's serious, not to be taken lightly. Whenever man involves himself in, particularly this type of difficult endeavor, there are risks, both foreseen and unforeseen. Most catastrophic accidents start off as a minor problem, which through procedural error, or complacency gets out of hand.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

This is a debate that needs to be had.
Listing the pros and cons of both renewables and nuclear
is important. As is broadening the discussion.

http://www.reneweconomy.com.au/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-the-myths-48635/

Foxy, I keep asking this question but never get an answer.
If nuclear cannot be used what do you suggest that we use ?

Dear Foxy,

As far as I can make out, those French plants were temporarily shut down more as a precaution than because of anything actually going wrong. I don't know how many nuclear power stations there are in France, but I wouldn't be surprised - because of the extreme safety precautions necessary - if one or two of them were shut down temporarily at any time for servicing etc.

We're a hell of a long way down the track from crap power stations like Chernobyl with its first generation, 1950s, BS-socialist-style 'our-technology-is-naturally-superior-to-anything-in-the-capitalist-west' mentality. Can you cite any actual problems with the French reactors themselves ?

My hang-up with wind and solar technology is that the actual bits and pieces are manufactured using fossil fuels, so for all the con job about not producing CO2, they produced it before they were even up and running. I wouldn't even mind if they WERE produced using renewable energy, at least that would be honest, albeit somewhat more expensive. Prohibitively expensive. When wind towers and solar panels are produced using renewable energy, let me know.

Love,

Joe

Dear Bazz,

I'm of two minds on this subject.

Of course I realise that we have to get away from fossil
fuels but nuclear makes me nervous. Perhaps the final
result should be a combination of both? I'm not sure.
That's why it is good to have a debate such as this.
Where a variety of views can be heard and we all learn
something from each other. Having an open mind is crucial.

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.debatewise.org/debates/2499-energy-crisis-nuclear-vs-renewable-sources/

Dear Joe,

It certainly is a complex issue and there's so much
on the web that presents good arguments on both
sides:

http://theconversation.com/is-it-time-for-nuclear-energy-for-australia-16381

cont'd ...

More on the subject from Derek Abbott:

http://www.phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6021978/

cont'd ...

Still having problems with the second link.
However look it up under title -
"Is nuclear power globally scalable?" by
Derek Abbott. His Conclusions are relevant.

Foxy, that was an interesting site.
However we are passing the point of discussing the matter.
By "we" I mean the nation as a whole.
If we do not make a decision in the next year or two we will probably
never build or complete one.
Some say it is too late already as the next economic crash will rob
us of the financial ability to finance a nuclear power station le alone several.

Some financial people are very concerned about this year. Some in
positions you would not expect say derivatives will spark of a crash
this year. Also HSBC bank has warned that peak oil is well behind us.

I hope the financial people are wrong because if they are right we
better turn our backyards into veggie gardens.
Just remembered that the permaculture movement has shown how a
suburban community could remove many of their fences and make
significant gardens at an economic scale.

Still hopefully it won't come to that but it is by no means certain.

The moderate view on all this is there will be a steady phasing out of the reliance on fossil fuels, Bazz commented on the report that "peak oil is well behind us", with the hope that this is wrong. Unfortunate the figures show that our ability to pull oil and coal out of the ground has peaked and will go future into decline.
I am realistic enough to say nuclear power will continue for some time to be an increasing component in the power generation mix. The contention from Joe that you should not produce componentry for renewable energy from fossil fuel produced energy, illogical. People like Foxy and I have legitimate concerns about the nuclear industry, and its safety record is not all that good, Joe assures that technology is winning through, on that score all will be well, not so sure. The proliferation of nuclear weapons as a by-product should not be discounted.
All in all, I think we are going to suffer some pain, as we adjust our energy production away from cheap fossil fuels, and towards a mix of renewable's and nuclear.

Dear Bazz and Paul,

Thanks for your insightful comments.

Who knows what the future will bring for
us. Hopefully, we'll get it right in the
end. I'm still grateful to be living in
this country then anywhere else in this
troubled world. Our science has always
been first-class and hopefully there won't
be too many cut-backs in that field.

Paul1405, yes peak conventional oil is well behind us.
The fill in, ie shale, is now just about in decline, certainly it is a
financial disaster.
I think the Finnish nuclear power station is a useful indicator for us.
It appears to have been a financial problem with delays and I have not
heard that it is operating yet.
To go nuclear we need to build a number of them, but it is difficult
to get the people trained, construction organised for just one so
much more difficult to build five all at the same time.
I suspect that time is the crucial parameter.
If we do not get moving then it will never happen, but it might
already be too late.
Perhaps thorium stations could be built quicker, but there is no
proven design.
In ten years time we will need to have decisions made and physical
construction well under way, if not, then give up now.

Correction, the Finns have a working station, but it is the next one
that has had such a lot of trouble.
Wikipedia has good info on it.
Starting from scratch as we would, do we have the time to make a smooth transition ?

Bazz, if you want people to be able to live off a veggie patch, you had better hope we still have plenty of fossil fuel. Without fossil fuel there is no, or at least stuff all, fertiliser. Without fertiliser you will need a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than the starvation for flora percentage we currently have to grow anything.

I see Paul is indulging in greenie wishful thinking again. We have at least a hundred years of coal available, & over a hundred years, probably a couple of hundred years of shale oil, & a damn great pool under the southern reef. Don't kid yourself mate that all but the extreme ratbag fringe of your greenie mates will still want to protect the reef when their lights go out, or the car can't run.

I can't believe so many can still see CO2 as dangerous. For millennia the planet has been locking up the CO2 it had in so many ways. If it had gone much lower flora would have been in real trouble. No flora & the planet becomes a lifeless ball whizzing around the universe, like so many others.

Rather than reducing CO2 from fossil fuels, if we do run out of them, we are going to have to find some way of converting some of that locked up in stone, back to gas, to give the flora a chance of supporting.

Do try to open your eyes folks.

Foxy sweetie, you are obviously looking a bit further for your information, than the lefty sites you have previously preferred.

I suggest you try
JoNova,
Watts Up With That,
NoTricksZone.com,
Catallaxy Files,
TallBloke's Talkshop,
& see where they lead you, hopefully not up a blind alley.

You'll find some of this stuff can be a bit deep in math, particularly TallBloke, & some of it can give my slowing brain a bit of a head ache at times, but most of them are at least sometimes worth the effort.

Like any other site, don't take any of it as gospel, but I believe they are mostly honest.

Do hope you are continuing well, & getting better all the time. Give your mother a kiss for me.

Dear Hassie,

Thanks for the sites. I shall look them up
as they sound interesting. As for the maths?
You've hit the nail on the head - some of the
sites I've come across are hard to understand.
Still I find the Conclusions that they draw
useful. I shall give mum a kiss from you.
I'm leaving in a half hour to visit her.
It's a hot day in Melbourne today and I'm
wearing her favourite kaftan with all the
glitter beading that she loves to see on me.
So your kiss will be an extra bonus for her.

As for how I'm doing. So far so good. I'm
due at the Austin hospital on 17th January for
an echo and a six minute walk test - so we'll see
what the results will be. Fingers-crossed.

Take care.

Foxy,

Does the site name reneweconomy.com not give you a clue that you have just linked to a anti nuke site? Just about every "myth" that he quotes is a half truth or outright lie. e.g. (limited by word count)

Myth 1 "Base-load power stations are necessary to supply base-load demand." - Half truth, renewables and gas back up can supply base load, but at many times the cost of large high efficiency base load generators such as coal or nuclear.

Myth 2: There is a renaissance in nuclear energy. - That is an outright lie. It is called a renaissance because there are dozens of large reactors being built now, and possibly by 2020 there will be a record amount of power generated by nuclear, and 2050 it will have doubled again.

Myth 3: Renewable energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear energy could fill the (alleged) gap in low-carbon energy supply. - outright lie, there is no viable scenario where reliable generation can completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear.

Myth 5: The death toll from the Chernobyl disaster was 28-64. - Half truth. The 64 death toll was taken from those that died at the scene, and those that died of radiation induced cancer in the affected area. Note that an adjacent area not affected by fall out had an identical cancer rate.

Myth 8: The world has only a few decades of high-grade uranium ore reserves left. - outright lie. That is based on known deposits, by comparison there is 35yrs low cost copper deposits known today. In 1980 and in 1960 the figure was also 35yrs.

Myth 11: Renewable energies are more expensive than nuclear. - half truth. - Wind and solar might be marginally cheaper than nuclear, but infrastructure for renewables (such as networks and gas backup) is vastly more expensive. The proof of the pudding is that electricity is half the cost in France compared to Germany.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We've passed the point that you seemed to be
locked into in this discussion.

I did give you quite a few other links that
you could have chosen, but never mind.
The future does look interesting and both
Bazz and Paul's insights have been most
useful. We'll have to wait and see what develops
as far as our energy sources go. In the meantime
lets learn about the pros and cons of both
renewables and nuclear in order to make a fair
assessment of each.

Foxy,

Nuclear power is the safety electricity generation system, safer even than wind.

Here are some links from people that actually know nuclear power:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/

http://www.enec.gov.ae/learn-about-nuclear-energy/nuclear-energy-myths-and-facts/

http://talknuclear.ca/2016/08/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy/

http://nuclear-energy.net/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy.html

Hasbeen, Fertiliser will be a problem no matter what. We can reserve
our small amount of oil production for fertiliser & import 100% of our
transport fuels.
The fertiliser can be made from natural gas as well so I have read.
We have a lot of coal, which would last us a long time.
The question is should we just allow others to burn it instead ?
If we stop export we will have many years to undertake the energy transition.
If we do not we may not have the time to make the change.
Now all that is my "feeling" of the situation.
What we need is for the politicians to get the accurate figures,
I know from talking to my MHR that he does not have a clue.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for the links. It is good to read a variety
of opinions on any issue.

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono : Seeking
Sustainability," points out a few interesting facts about
the brilliant minds found at universities as well as
scientific organisations . He used to
believe strongly in the collective staff of
universities to seek and proclaim the truth. He believed
that was the reason universities existed - to further
human knowledge. However he is wary today of the
managerialism that is eroding the very concept of a
university. Making money - seemingly for the sake of
making money - now seems to be the raison d'etre of the
modern university. He tells us that
University Presidents or Vice-Chancellors
are paid an order of magnitude more than their more
accomplished professors for no other reason than the former
have come to see themselves as business people.

We're told that the modern university captured by
a managerial class, views
higher education as simply another good to be
produced and sold according to the dictates of
accountants.

We have to be aware that on issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and
political interests, censorship exists.

An example that
Hundloe gives - occurred in 2006 when leading climatologists
with the country's pre-eminent public research organisation,
CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management
from publicly discussing the implications of climate
change. Management was acting on behalf of the government.
And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of
human development status. It is not corrupt. It's science
is world class. None of this mattered. In 2006, the
Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on
global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such
as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report
on climate change, the Australian Government's position
had changed - yet the PM remained half-hearted about a
commitment to counter global warming.
Today we need to question how much has changed and
what is the agenda being pushed?

From Foxy,

"We'll have to wait and see what develops
as far as our energy sources go. In the meantime
lets learn about the pros and cons of both
renewables and nuclear in order to make a fair
assessment of each."

The pro's and cons are fully known.

We know the answers as they currently stand, and to wait further before action in the expectation that a whole new world of viable options will suddenly open up is unwise.

Essentially it all comes down to a dogmatic belief in the coming of some revolutionary, scalable, affordable energy storage solution allowing delivery of abundant energy 24/7/365, versus a dogmatic belief in what has been affordable and working already for over half a century in many countries of the world.

The only thing holding up the latter solution is the running interference of the dreamers supporting the former.

To the fence-sitters saying we need both renewables and nuclear working together, I ask why you would have them on the same grid?

In Ontario, the great plan is for renewables to eventually provide 100% while nuclear is wound down. This will never happen without some miraculous storage solution arising. The renewables are actually redundant while nuclear exists and are already creating affordability issues at the penetration level Greens have promoted.

SM's Myth 1 acknowledges renewables and gas back up can supply base load, albeit very expensively. While this is true, what also must be acknowledged is that it does nothing significant towards solving CAGW.

Dear Luciferase,

I agree with climate scientist Prof. Ian Lowe
when he states that our
political leaders need to confront public fears
regarding nuclear energy. He points out that the
concern people have is that when catastrophic
events happen the consequences of radio nuclear
material is involved are much more serious than if
its coal, gas, solar or wind. Also, the nuclear
waste problem is according to Prof. Lowe in
principle solveable given enough political commitment
and technical effort but as he points out - so far
it has not been solved 50 years into the nuclear
power experiment.

Therefore when all is said and done - before there can be a
sensible debate around nuclear energy in Australia, these
things need to be addressed.

The big problem with storage is cost.
You have to decide how many overcast windless days you can expect.
Then work out the generation & storage cost for one day.
Then multiply that cost by the number of windless overcast days you estimated.
Then add one more day's cost.
It has suddenly become a very costly exercise.

Oh, then after all that expense you get one more overcast day than you bet on !
The rule; don't live above the third floor.

For you, Foxy,

https://www.panterapress.com.au/shop/product/5/why-vs-why-nuclear-power

Nuclear waste is a long way down my list of concerns for the future, but you can make up your own mind, for a small outlay.

Best wishes.

Dear Luciferase,

That's all well and good for you.

However for the rest of us political leaders need to confront public fears.

Foxy
Tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick

"...political leaders need to confront public fears."

Yes, Foxy, and reason must prevail. That is why we must educate ourselves, and why I linked to the publication I did. Everyone must be exposed to the arguments and, since you referred to Ian Lowe, I thought you'd be interested. The argument between he and Barry Brooks covers the necessary ground for a public education and carries on from the book into an ongoing online discourse.

Here is Brooks last entry (yesterday) https://www.panterapress.com.au/shop/media/download/1631/Barry%20Brook%20Rebuttal.pdf

Foxy,

LF has provided cogent arguments, the problem with ascribing the politicians the responsibility of convincing the voters of the facts is that a large contingent make a lot of political capital from scaremongering.

When an aeroplane crashes it is a disaster far worse than a car crash, but the statistical reality is that flying by air is many times safer than driving. Similarly Chernobyl and Fukashima scare people, but in spite of these accidents, nuclear power is far safer than any other method. The problem is compounded by the plethora of activist sites that publish and republish information that is patently false such as several of the sites to which you have linked.

The reality is that by the time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and it eventually dawns on the general populace the massive cost to the economy of trying to eliminate CO2 without nuclear, it will still take decades to get nuclear power up and running while all manufacturing jobs migrate overseas.

I heed what both Luciferase and Shadow Minister are
saying.

However, my concerns remain because when catastrophic
events happen the consequences if radio nuclear
material is involved are much more serious than if its
coal, gas, solar or wind. Also the nuclear waste problem
has still not been solved over half a century into the
nuclear power experiment.

"Also the nuclear waste problem
has still not been solved over half a century into the
nuclear power experiment."

This is Ian Lowe's own statement.

Just what is not solved, exactly? It is that the producers of waste store it in their own back yards with noisy Green birds squarking loudly about the fact. The same birds squark even more loudly whenever long-term storage is mooted.

Any long-term storage facility is bitterly opposed, such as in SA, or the Yucca mountains in Nevada, Onkalo in Finland, etc, on the basis that any level of radioactivity, whatsoever, is lethal now and into the future.

The footprint of this waste is absolutely miniscule. Some of the materials being contained and buried are less radioactive than those naturally occurring.

Putting aside the probability that, in time, the material left in spent fuel rods will be usable in breeder reactors, the amount of material evolving from power production over the next half-century would be similarly of no great issue as it was in the last.

It is a non-issue driven by ideological scaremongers who believe pixie-dust will save us from CAGW.

Dear Luciferase,

Pixie dust?

At least pixie dust is not hazardous for tens of thousands
of years and there is no potential terrorist threat
associated with it if it could leak or be dispersed as a
result of terrorist action. It will do no harm.
I'll take pixie dust any time over radioactive nuclear
waste.

cont'd ...

"All the world is made of faith, and trust, and
pixie dust."
(J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan).

"I believe in everything until it's disproved.
So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons..."
(John Lennon).

Luciferase, you asked if I would put nuclear & solar/wind on the same grid.
I see no reason not to & isn't that the whole idea ?
So nuclear, which from my reading can be ramped up and down fairly
quickly, perhaps not as fast as gas turbines.
to quote; please explain !

Sure Bazz,

What would be the point of pairing a nuclear reactor, which can already provide dispatchable energy 24/7/365 with something that can't?

Is there such a thing as being a little bit pregnant? Once you're in up to your neck (in supposed nuclear filth), why not take the whole plunge? Wouldn't we just be appeasing Green sentiment to have non-hydro renewables in the mix on the same grid, which will never make nuclear redundant because of the non-viability of any storage solution?

What is the cost and what is the benefit of such a mix? Both renewables and nuclear have fixed costs,infrastructure and management. Both would be underutilized, the former because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow and the latter for the purely political reason of accommodating renewables for no tangible benefit other than a warm Green glow.

I see the overall cost far outweighing any benefit, both in financial terms and in EROEI.

The proof is in the pudding in Ontario, which has some of the highest electricity pricing in N. America and farcical subsidies hiding the extent of this fact.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/ontarios-new-electricity-policy-history-repeats-as-farce/article31862790/

https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/ontarios-electricity-dilemma.pdf

OK Luciferase, I see what you are saying.
That is right, there is no point to wind & solar.
Ontario has demonstrated it.
Coal will be closed whether we like it or not if we keep exporting it.
If we stop export we can build a few new coal fired plants as the
older ones run out of time.
We need to build new nuclear stations starting asap.

Hydro would be nice but from what I read somewhere a survey of all
the rivers on the east coast did not come up with any suitable ponds
at height.
Then the ERoEI goes down the spout because of the earth moving needed.
The problem I can see is that solar/wind has such a momentum that
there will be a horrified scream, if it was suggested that nukes be
built and solar/wind be scrapped.
Actually looking at the ERoEI there is really no choice.
I have not seen any figures of ERoEI for nuclear power stations.

However as I read that report there is really no alternative.
I always had an idea what the problem was with solar but as I have
been monitoring my solar cells lately the drop off after noon is
really dramatic and explains those spikey graphs.
If possible I would make them track.

Foxy go and make a strong cup'o tea !

"..there will be a horrified scream."

Yes, like a baby losing its warm, fuzzy blankie and forced to stare reality in the face.

You can bet that there will be a big tug'o'war over that blankie, but it must be done if we are to beat CAGW.

Dear Bazz,

A strong cup of tea is an excellent idea.
I was given an excellent box of special tea bags as a
gift for Christmas.

Most of us on this thread accept that something has to be done about reducing GHG emissions. However, only those with a technical background seem to grasp that renewables alone cannot do the job and renewables with idle gas generation back up is vastly expensive. The disaster in SA shows that nuclear needs to be seriously considered now, not in a decade when it is too late.

The issue of nuclear waste disposal is mostly political (as the disgraceful display of NIBYism showed in SA).

SM said;
Most of us on this thread accept that something has to be done about reducing GHG emissions

As I have said many times, I believe the energy crunch is too close
to worry about global warming. It is now irrelevant and together
with the solar/wind system it is now time for a total rethink.
Just received the HSBC bank's report on peak oil.
It appears to be saying that it is here now.

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wSgViWVAfzUEgzMlBfR3UxNDg/view?usp=sharing

Aaaarrrggghh this is better;

http://tinyurl.com/jgbklnp

I will come back, tomorrow probably and give a report.
HSBC is one of the world's largest banks. So it does have to be taken seriously.

There are 54 pages of it so I have not got far into it.
Seems the upshot is the Bank expects that the margin between production
and demand will fall to 1% this year.
They expect the decline rates from this year will be 5% to 7% per year.
That seems a high figure to me but that is their opinion.
The Bank believes that peak all liquids oil is now.
Any disruption to supply will probably cause high prices and shortages.
Quote:
We believe a range of decline rates of 5-7% (on post-peak
production) is probably reasonable. This represents around 3-4.5mbd
of potential lost production every year over the next few years – far
more than unplanned production interruptions could take out in any
given year.

That is a pretty big slab of production.
Quote:
Decline rates key to oil supply picture; and set to become an issue
for investors as spare capacity tightens again in 2017e-18e
Declines on conventional production (ex-shale) means non-OPEC
production won’t grow from 2016e to 2020e
In the longer-term, a supply squeeze is likely to happen well before
oil demand peaks.

It seems Australia with our almost 100% import of transport fuels
should be making some urgent decisions on our non-compliance storage
commitment to the OECD. Still the government has confidence in our
commercial arrangements. Oh dear.

Several times there has been mention of small modular nuclear stations.
I came across this item today.

Small modular reactors inch forward. Oregon-based NuScale Power LLC
submitted documents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, looking for
the nuclear watchdog to certify its small modular reactor (SMR)
design. Typical nuclear reactors have a capacity of as much as 1,000
megawatts; the NuScale design would only have a 50 MW capacity.
The SMR concept is been heralded as a cheaper and faster way to build
nuclear power. Still, any certification of the design would be years
away.

The rising cost of oil predicted is why we must electrify city transport ASAP and reduce our dependence.

The only scalable and reliable way to do this without emissions, long term, is nuclear.

The EROEI of oil is falling and may become unity soon enough, making the EROEI of coal fired electricity plus storage (lithium vehicle batteries) competitive. So, until we have (modular) nuclear we should be looking towards coal, initially, and nuclear thereafter.

This is so bleedingly obvious, yet our leaders are failing to encourage any move in this direction, being fixated completely on subsidizing renewables. Why are our politicians so dumb, and why doesn't our Chief Scientists lead them out of their stupidity?

Is battery storage even feasible ?
Somebody somewhere calculated that if all the car batteries and all
the mobile phone batteries in the world were hooked up to the world
grid they would maintain the grid for -- wait for it -- NINE SECONDS.

Even if you could maintain one day, how about five overcast still days in a row ?

I'm not for a second suggesting battery storage matched with renewables, but with thermal energy (nuclear, coal).

The EROIE of mining oil to petroleum to vehicular motion is nearing that of mining coal to battery to motion. Electric cars are already out there but we should hurry it along, IMO, with subsidies to support building the infrastructure, including home charging stations.

Electric cars, now there is a joke in Australia.
The Nissan Leaf sold here in 2012 to 2014 for $51,500 so almost none
were sold.
They tried a relaunch last year at $57500. Ho hum they haven't sold
now either.
I recently had a look at the price in the UK for a Nissan Leaf 2nd hand.
They vary from pounds 4000 to 10000. Not sure of the new price it
used to be A$30,000.
I have been musing on going to the UK and buying one there.
$2000 air fare, maybe less, A$12k to A$15k A$2 to 3k to ship it here.

Now there used to be a problem with customs, but that was supposed to
change due to the collapse in car manufacturing and so import of cars
was to be relaxed.
Does anyone know if so ? Hasbeen ?
Anyway a lot cheaper that way.
There are some Nissan Leafs available 2nd hand $28k to $39k.

I had a test drive of one and it was REALLY impressive.
It is now the highest selling car in Norway. Does well in other
European countries.

You're right Bazz.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201701141297286?make=nissan&model=leaf&logcode=p

The AUD is doing well so the time is right and it looks like a home charger is included. Got any good contacts for transport?

Gov't is helping already https://rac.com.au/about-rac/advocating-change/sustainability/electric-highway

This is where our pollies can do some good while the nuclear/renewables debate takes place. What will sharpen their minds in that debate is that the outcome must support electric vehicles, which will mostly be charged at night. (Solar anyone?)

It's oil that's going to be in short supply soon, not coal, not uranium, so let's move some of the way, at least, towards the future and the aversion of CAGW.

Yes, Luciferase it was a different web site that I looked at.
The prices look similar so the starting price is about $8500.
When new the UK government subs it by about 5,000 pounds.
Re the electric highway, I had heard of the WA one.
They are a big thing in Europe. You can just about go anywhere in
Europe now with charging points in all towns and along highways.
The cars have apps to tell you where the nearest one is and how far
to the next one on your route, and it gets that from your GPS.
They are starting to appear in Australia but not enough yet.

Reading the detail on the car that you linked to I noticed it
had engine size 00cc, HP 0 etc.
Reminded me what a chap at the Australian Electric Vehicle Association
was telling me when he tried to get his conversion registered.
It required emmission figures or something like that but the computer
insisted that zero was the same as not answering the question and
he could not get it registered.
After a fuss the clerk enquired and was told just fake the numbers.
I guess they have sorted that out now.
My Carolla is only 3 years old now so she who must be obeyed would
probably put her foot down on it.
Still ----