The article states that this "... target is ambitious, but not unrealistic".

We have insufficient dam water to come close to storing this much power.  And it would be infeasible with Molten Salt Storage.

So could someone please suggest what "realistic" method might the author be assuming, that could store sufficient power, during the day, to keep 8.5GW of solar generated power, to be generated through each night?

Wanting something to be true does not make it so.

The report is not mildly flawed - you can't quote any of its costings for example - because they (in theory) have to be based (somehow) on the proposed plan.

The solar part of their plan, will require the importation of 20 million tonnes of salt mixture - ie 12 million tonnes of NaNO3, + 8 million tonnes of KNO3.

The world's largest exporter of NaNO3, Chile, only exports 0.8 million tonnes/year(Year 2000) .  They export 0.1 million tonnes of KNO3.

Then somehow we have to get this "salt" to 12 remote sites.  That is about 64,000 truck loads per site.

Their claims that they can run the solar collector turbines through each night are based on storing power in this salt.

Similarly, the number and size of the mirror fields would have to be at least twice the size they estimate, in order to come even close to being able to store 17 hours of heat.

Someone needs to seriously question why Melbourne University allowed itself to be associated with this report.

Paul Brown, rather than making naive and ill-informed accusations, I suggest you read a critique of the ZCA plan of which Peter Lang was a lead author here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

If you still disagree with him, why not contribute to an informed discussion of the substantive issues here or at BraveNewClimate?

I just had a look at the author page of the Zero Carbon Australia plan, and Peter Lang's comments are just false, and a 60 second scan will show this. What's wrong Peter? Can't critique the actual plan so now you have to throw mud?

No first names are used - only full names and the authors are listed clearly, together with their qualifications.

Wow, the pro-nuke zealots are getting desperate - hilarious. They have to spread lies which can be rebutted with a 60 second internet search. Talk about losing credibility.

Well done Peter - just publish a few more of the mysterious "emails" you get and soon no one will listen to you.

Funny how some good research can drive the pro-nuke zealot crowd crazy and into desperation - I would have thought you had more brains than that, I guess I was wrong.

Dean, agree that privatisation came at the worst time as far as formulating a climate change policy. One of the reasons (among others) that the Victorian SECV was sold off was due to the debt incurred after building Loy Lang B. A state-owned SECV could have simply implemented a planned early retirement of the oldest generators, replacing them with CCGT, at a modest cost to consumers, and driving a debate over long-term options, including both nuclear and renewables, but with a somewhat more rational approach.

There was certainly enthusiasm for the nuclear option in the SECV in the late 60's, early 70's, and there is no doubt it would have been the obvious choice, despite the SEC tinkering with wind. The split in ownership of generation/transmission/retailing has created a whole raft of split incentives and regrettably the egg has already been scrambled, and there is no central bureaucracy ready to drive a rational debate. State owned utilities would have largely rendered a debate over carbon price redudant.

If the debate isn't driven from the community, it will not happen.

Dean,

I think the subject of public versus priviate infrastructure is interesting.  You might find this Chattam House article "Electricity - social service or market comodity" interesting.

[the link has triggered the Spam filter so you will need to Google Chatham House and the title]

I'd be interested in whatever way gives us least cost, reliable, secure electricity supply to meet our future needs, and also to assist the developing world to get access to cheap, reliable, clean electricity as fast as possible.

Firstly, thanks John, I'll follow you advice.

I might take some of this full circle if I can. Energy generation in Aust has been partially privatised and we sort of have a national grid. Lets car park Big Solar just for the moment.

 If we all start going Home Solar, how is that going to encourage major new investment in the generation industry?

Yet again, just like water, kid the population they are making a difference when it is really industry that is the user and must improve efficiency.

The other bit I don't quite get is if rooftop solar is such a great idea, why isn't someone leasing all our roof spaces and putting their own panels up there and selling the power that enters the grid, or is that not legal?  Or is it really that it is just not economic to start with.

Should Big Solar really be distributed Solar on a large scale.

On the Nuclear argument, only fission gets a mention, A while ago I read there have been some very interesting developments on fusion in the US, which if the articles were right we could see these emerge as very cheap reactors within a decade.

Any views out here?

Now let me openly admit I lean toward Government ownership of essential infrastructure. 

Can I pose a question: If we had Federal ownership of the Generation and Distribution and competition in retailing would we have the same issues and debate?

• The Greens leader, Bob Brown, Senator Milne, other Greens senators, many members and senators of the Labor party and some in the Liberal party have demonstrated they are not competent to handle their responsibilities. 

   

  These politicians and many senior academics provided enthusiastic endorsements for the “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan” which advocates Australia could and should replace all fossil fuel used for stationary energy and much of what is used for transport with solar power and wind energy by 2020.

   

  However, apart from the report being grossly misleading in many ways, it appears the authors may have intentionally misrepresented their credential for the job.  I have received two email in the last two days and I quote them below.

   

  What's really odd about this report is the difficulty of establishing the credentials of the authors. Try to understand the capabilities within ZCA and you'll see what I mean. Many of the 'team' use only their first names. What's going on? Presumably there are some lead authors from Melbourne Uni but I can't figure out who they are.

   

  The other email said:

   

  This is not a serious research project. You will see the author list on page viii of the report. Apparently the "researchers" are all PhD students or young recently graduated engineers, some of them participating outside their areas of expertise. There is nothing wrong with that of course. People are entitled to develop their own ideas so long as they are honest about how they present themselves. This report is not honest however. For example on page viii the listed researchers include:

   

  • "Derek Bolton ... Oxford Univeristy" yet there is no one in the Oxford directory with this name;
  • "James Bramwell ... ANU" yet there is no one in the ANU directory with this name;
  • "Kevin Casey ... formerly Ericsson" yet apparently not affiliated with this company any longer;
  • "Dominic Eales ... Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" yet there is no one in their directory with this name, though there is someone with a LinkedIn profile with this name who claims to be a "Wind Data Analysis Engineer" with the "Alternative Technology Association" in Melbourne;
  • "Rob Campbell ... RMIT" yet there is no one at RMIT with this name, though there is someone with a LinkedIn profile with this name who claims to be a "solar subject matter expert" at Jemena and who was previously a "home sustainability assessor at ecoMaster".

   

  I think you get the picture. Incidentally, Matthew Wright, the Executive Director of "Beyond Zero Emissions" and one of the lead authors on this plan was previously a technical sales engineer at HP and a climate campaign educator at the non-profit "Climate Positive". This is a report by non-experts, and it shows in stark terms what it is possible to imagine if only you are prepared to come to a massive problem like this without any experience and with the boldness to make those assumptions that wiser and more expert individuals might have shied away from. 

   

David Bentley,

Your post makes many errors and clearly you have not been following the discussion or reading the links I’ve posted.  The comparison of the cost of electricity is provided in many of the links I provided in my previous comments and in the Critique of the plan.  For the ZCA2020 plan the cost would be about 5 times higher than doing the same job with nuclear.  To push this is irrational.

You said “Please accept the reality that (unfortunatley) a good and rational debate on nuclear in Australia is a long way off at this point, so we need to start looking positively at alternatives (of which solar will make up a small but important component)”

No, I don’t accept that.  That has been one of the excuses we’ve been using for 20+ years to avoid the debate.  Furthermore, I think the debate is just beginning and could develop rapidly.

I do not agree that solar will make up a small and important component of our electricity supply, unless you think <5% is important when it is totally based on massive government subsidies, requires 10 times as much material, 10 times as much water during construction, more freshwater during operation, far more land areas, more mining, material processing, manufacturing, construction, decommissioning, waste disposal and transport between all those steps.  And yes, I did provide the links to back all that up – Google ‘ExternE Project’ and ‘NEEDS ExternE’ for an authoritative source on much of what I’ve said here.

You ask “I think it's about $80/MHh vs $150/MWh or there abouts.”

As you would know, this analysis depends on many assumptions so that is why I sometime quote $/kW and $ per average kW (or $/kWy/y).  However, Iinternational Energy Agency, US Department of Energy, EU and other authoritative bodies put the cost of new nuclear in USA and EU at around $80/MWh and solar at about $225-$300/MWh.  However, they are not comparable.  The solar is not baseload power.  It is provided in the day time and mostly in summer.  So it is not a comparison of like with like.  It is impossible for solar power to supply baseload now.  US DOE has a goal for solar to be capable of providing baseload power by 2030.

I find it startlingly silly that someone who claims to have knowledge and experience in the electricity industry would advocate spending our time and resources arguing about a technology which at most may provide 5% of our electricity (but only if highly subsidised), while wanting to shut down the debate on the one technology that is available now, proven and provides clean energy.

You said “Secondly, whilst you do misleadingly use capex/MW as a comparitor, you also understate the likely cost of building nuclear here (by referencing a project in the UAE which has minimal planning laws and extremely cheap imported labour).”

The cost of nuclear depends mostly on the regulatory environment.  If we want to impose an US or EU type regulatory environment on Australia nuclear will cost at least twice as much as if we implement a low cost regime.  There is much on this topic on the BraveNewClimate web site.  You are wrong about the UAE costs and their regulatory environment.  Research it instead of attempting to mislead the readers here and probably elsewhere.  The in country labour costs are a small component of the cost of the plants.  If you know as much as you true to imply, you should know this.

You said “Last time I looked, they weren't building too many new uranium mines and many of the ones we do have are suffering declining grades - just ask Rio Tinto.”

This is highlighting that in reality you are simply an anti-nuclear protester.  You are repeating the same nonsense propogated by Greenpeace and the like.

Fuel is about 1-3% of the cost of electricity from nuclear.  You can double the cost and it makes little difference.  It is insignificant.  We don’t need many uranium mines because we need very little uranium to power reactors.  You sure don’t know very much at all, do you?  If we want more uranium, we’ll open more mines or extract it by in situ leaching (no mining required).  I posted all this in a previous post.

You asked about comparative costs.  Read my previous posts and the links I provided.

You said: “So whilst you've got the cost of solar, wind and other renewables coming down, the cost of nuclear (capex and fuel) is going up.”

Wrong!.  Costs of all utility scale electricity generation projects have been increasing over the past few years.  The capital cost of Wind power in Australia increased 25% over the past year and has been increasing at about 15% per year for quite some time.  The USDOE, and EIA have pointed out the increasing costs of all power projects including solar.  EPRI estimate the cost of electricity from solar thermal increased 30% last year.   Get your facts correct.

If you are actually interested, I’ve posted the links to support my statements in the preceding posts, and you can read the Critique of the ZCA2020 Plan here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

and get information on “Renewable Limits” here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

and “Sustainable nuclear” here

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

I missed how you reached the conclusion that the cost of nuclear is going up.  I would draw the opposite conclusion from 'the push to build plants in China and Korea' (and plenty of other places besides), namely that economies of scale in manufacturing increasingly standardised designs will push prices down, not up.  It's not like scarcity of materials is an issue (is that what you were implying?).

My profession affords me a pretty fair handle on the state of the uranium mining industry.  Given that demand certainly isn't dropping off, that there aren't too many new uranium mines opening up is simply a function of the fact that U prices have been bumping along on the same, not very high level for quite some time now, and are forecast to stay that way for quite some time as well.  That's telling you that nuclear fuel scarcity is not an issue at least in the medium term, and as Peter Lang pointed out yesterday, not in the long term either.  Believe me, there are plenty of potential mines waiting in the wings for prices to rise, without even considering the exploration that has only recently ramped up after a hiatus of several decades.

In any case, nuclear fuel prices could rise tenfold and still be only a small fraction of capital expenditure.

David, fair comments. But to get back to my question, you repsonded:

"I can guarantee you, we will have well over 1000MW of solar power installed and operating well before the first sod of soil is ever turned on construction of a new nuke.  That's just the reality."

My question is - how many coal power stations will this displace and how closer will this solar capacity bring us to reducing our dependance on coal in Australia? I suspect you already know the answer and suggest that until others understand this, then we'll be running hard but getting nowhere.

Peter and Mark,

Thanks for your comments. My argument is not circular, I'm not saying "don't talk about it", I'm saying, we need to investigate a variety of alternatives, of which nuclear is one, but not the only realistic one, as you seem to pretend. Please accept the reality that (unfortunatley) a good and rational debate on nuclear in Australia is a long way off at this point, so we need to start looking positively at alternatives (of which solar will make up a small but important component). I don't see how that is circular, or an "almighty cop-out" - thanks Mark.

At risk of being drawn into this debate, although I think that's too late, to reiterate my comment in my initial post, I am personally a supporter of having a discussion around nuclear energy in this country . My profession affords me a pretty fair handle on the relative costs (both capital and operating) of the various power generation options and my experience is that the value gap is not as dramatic as you make it out to be. For a start, you continually quote capex/MW as a key measure which is misleading. If you are to be truly objective, you should be quoting long term cost/MWh, which includes initial capex, fuel, insurance (if you can even get it!), other operating costs, regulation, and site rehabilitation costs, discounted back at a commercially acceptable cost of capital (just don't ask Ken Henry what that means). Given that you've aparently done the work, I'm sure you have these numbers. Perhaps you can provide them. I think it's about $80/MHh vs $150/MWh or there abouts. Nuclear will probably still come out ahead, but not by the same 34,000 to 4,000 order of magnitude you misrepresent.

Secondly, whilst you do misleadingly use capex/MW as a comparitor, you also understate the likely cost of building nuclear here (by referencing a project in the UAE which has minimal planning laws and extremely cheap imported labour). If you wish to inform the reading public, why not show a comparable cost today of constructing and operating a station in the US or Europe? Do you have information on the cost of the new nuke they’re building in Georgia? I also note that the US has allocated US$36bn in loan guarantees to help build a new fleet of reactors, thus materially reducing their cost of funding (renewables are not the only ones that need help getting up). Given this, together the the push to build plants in China and Korea, I'm not sure how you expect capital costs not to escalate quite dramatically, let alone the cost of fueling the thing. Last time I looked, they weren't building too many new uranium mines and many of the ones we do have are suffering declining grades - just ask Rio Tinto.

So whilst you've got the cost of solar, wind and other renewables coming down, the cost of nuclear (capex and fuel) is going up. Now who knows where you hit parity (maybe you don't - have you done this analysis?), and whilst is nuclear is a good option in certain circumstances, it's not the only option. Given our leaders have the spine of a cuttlefish, I don't expect it to be deployed here anytime soon. Accordingly, it would be nice, if every time on this forum when we start out with a reasonable discussion on some newly proposed technology or project, we don’t end up a with a discussion on nuclear.

Is that too much to ask?

Graham Palmer, I don't take responsibility for all the hyperbole used in this article. There is some newly emerging technology which enables solar energy storage through molten salts, but it's some way off from commercial viability as has been hotly debated here previously. I'm not pretending otherwise, even if the author is.  In response to your other question, I would ask you how many Australian coal fired power stations you expect to be replaced by nuclear any time soon?  I can guarantee you, we will have well over 1000MW of solar power installed and operating well before the first sod of soil is ever turned on construction of a new nuke.  That's just the reality.

Good point David - can you provide a link showing which coal power stations have been replaced with solar, anywhere in the world, because of the "rapidly decreasing costs" of solar, or even to provide a link to a solar thermal power station which this article suggests:

".. the technology is ready, including the ability to dispatch power to the grid when it is needed most, 24 hours a day.."

Or likewise, given that wind is already competitive and has been a mature technology for a decade or more, can you do likewise with wind? Perhaps, start with Denmark, which derives 20% of its electricity from wind power.

Thanks

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Interesting:
The peak power output from all the UK's wind farms yesterday was 5% of installed wind capacity and wind generated just 0.1% of UK's electricity. 

That is after how many years of renewable energy advocacy and massive subsidies?

Having worked at Lucas Heights (1960's) when we were designing a reactor for Australia until stopped I am disappointed at the lack of appreciation of nuclear power possibilities in Australia. 

France has been discussed but to see the world leading approach being taken by China with a balanced diet of alternate energies is disconcerting for Australians. China's aim is, I think, nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

According to China's National Energy Administration, $739 billion in "newly developing energy industries" would go to "nuclear, wind, solar and biomass energy, as well as clean coal, smart grid, distributed energy and new energy sources for vehicles by 2020."

Another argument also relevant to nuclear power is the rapid rate of technical change.  We can be Tolpudian martyrs (?) or recognise that improved designs are being developed in other countries.  The ultimate aim is FISSION and will one day be achieved by non Tolpudian scientists and engineers. 

In the mean time when one looks at the problems with the desalination project in Victoria and its energy demands perhaps a nuclear desalination plant (eac-eletter@angelnexus.com 10 Aug 2010) should be considered next time.

I am concerned that the "clever country" is running behind, especially if the Government does cut it support for all clean energy to fund other election promises.

David Bentley,

The post by James Fisher provides a very good example of what the general population believes.  That is why the discussion needs to be held. 

We are the only one of the top 20 economies that doesn't have nuclear or is not progressing towards getting it as quickly as possible.  We've been wasting our resources playing with renewables for 30+ years.  Our first solar thermal plant was built and operating in the early 1980s at Whitecliffs, NSW.  We really haven''t progressed very much since then in real terms.  The new 230 kW PV power station at Windora, Qld, just commissioned, cost $34,600/kW and has an expected capacity factor of 32%.  So the cost per average kW is about $110,000/kWy/y.  For comparison, the new nuclear plants being built in the UAE will cost about $4,100/kW and about $4,500/kWy/y.  Anyone numerate can see how rediculous it is to keep pushing the renewable energy dream.

Please have a look at the links I've posted so we can leanr and then help to educate the population, rather than continuing to propogate irrational beliefs.

David Bentley, if you're finding reading Peter Lang's contributions "tiresome", imagine how he feels about having to write them.  Certainly that would explain a certain tetchiness that sometimes creeps into his posts.  Do you really think it would be better for the streams of one-sided, uncritical boosting to go unchallenged?

If the opposing opinion is held by 'a large number of Australians' (actually not even a majority, last I heard), and that opinion happens to be demonstrably irrational and wrong, isn't the obvious thing to try to change those opinions?

And if the future of our country, if not civilisation in toto, depends on it (which it does, on several levels) wouldn't you try to do so in every form and forum possible, at every opportunity?

Or do you really think it's better to meekly accept an extrapolated status quo that will end up costing ten times as much and not work well enough?

David,

I note your concern.  But I don't agree.  You are putting a circular argument.  In effect you say "We can't have nuclear because it is unpopular.  So please don't talk about it any more".  But if we don't talk about it, the population remains ignorant about it so it remains unpopular.

We were in a similar position 20 years ago when Bob Hawke was prime minister.  We committed to the "Toronto Targets"; i.e. we committed to cut our CO2 emissions by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.  However, nuclear was banned.  It was not to be mentioned in the bureaucracy or in any government publications.  The government passed laws to ban it in Australia.  Rather similar to now?

The only way we will overturn the irrational fears about nuclear is by discussing it and getting the information out to the public.

There are significat imposts on our society, and all the world, if we raise the cost of electricity by government imposts.  For example:

First, we make our country less competitive internationally.  Our standard of living falls behind those countries that did not impose irrational policies.  We have less wealth, less remuneration for the workforce on average, less tax revenue, less government funds for all the things we want from our governments.  Not many people seem to be able to put together that, when we make business less competitive, it hurts us all in the long run.

However, there is also an international effect.  If we raise the cost of electricity in western countries it raises the bar on electricity costs.  Join a lot of dots and realise that the cost of clean electricity will be higher in the developing countries as a result.  That means as they develop they will burn more fossil fuels than if clean electricity was cheaper.  It is up to all of us to develop clean electricity at the least possible cost.

If clean electricity in Australia (and other countries) is cheap, it will displace fossil fuels faster (fossil fuels for heat and land transport).  So we will cut emissions faster if clean electricity is cheap than if it is expensive.

It seems that every time there is an article about Solar the same people post nonsense about Nuclear being the way Australia should be heading.  The standard claims are;

Nuclear is clean - complete rubbish.  Nuclear reactors produce waste so toxic that there is still no way known to deal with it safely.  Today hundreds of thousands of tonnes of toxic waste are stored 'temporarily' in the hope that technology will be developed some time in the future to alleviate the massive problem.  Nuclear waste is so toxic that a single reactor operating for 1 month produces enough waste to kill the entire human race.

Nuclear is safe - also complete rubbish.  Of the 300 reactors that have been built around the world there have been hundreds of accidents with 2 being catastrophic and one alone resulting in over 100,000 deaths.  Spend an hour reading about Chernobyl and you will not want a reactor anywhere near your kids.

Nuclear is cheap - again rubbish.  It costs about US$4 billion to build a 1GW Nuclear power plant.  This is more than double the cost of a 1GW coal fired power station and 5 times the cost of a 1 GW gas turbine.  This is aside from the cost of the regulatory framework and the insurance that would be required if the government was not to subsidize the nuclear industry by underwriting the cost of any catastrophes.  Nuclear would be a very expensive option for Australia where we have an abundance of solar and wind.  

Clark,

There are many comparisons of the various electricity generation technologies on the basis of capital cost, cost of electricity, CO2 emissions, cost of CO2 avoided, energy return on energy investes, etc.  However, you have to be careful that they are genuinely comparable.  For example, it is not correct to compare the cost of wind wind or solar with a baseload plant, because wind and solar do not provide power on demand.  Therefore, to compare like with like, you need to include the cost and emissions of the back up system to make them comparable to coal, gas and nuclear (and hydro where hydro generates baseload power).   Here is one simple comparison I did:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/

You could also look at the NEEDS analyses (Google "NEEDS ExternE"), select 'projects' and select the projects you want to look at.

Here is a summary of some authoritative sources (but remember that the wind and solar figures are not directly comparable with the baseload technologies; you need to add the cost of the back-up system):

http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/electricity-costs-and-carbon-emissions-by-technology/

Here is a simple comparison of the cost for wind power, including back up or energy storage, and nuclear:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/#comment-86108

I expect the uranium figures you are quoting may have come from this source (which is authoritative), but be sure to read the caveats.  They are really important.  I can explain more on this if you want me to:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

In short, when we want more uranium we explore for more.  We've hardly scratched the surface, let alone looked below the surface.  Exploration methods and mining methods are continually improving.  We are already mining uranium with in-situ leaching methods (no excavation is required, just boreholes).

These two references explain why there is no shortage of nuclear fuel:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/

and

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/

And here is an explanation of the 200 million year estimate:

http://channellingthestrongforce.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-nuclear-power-sustainable.html

Having now read quite a few of the discussion threads on Climate Spectator, a common thread is emerging.

Peter Lang has been very active on these discussion forums and whilst I appreciate Peter's dedication to his subject of nuclear energy and do not doubt his knowledge and credentials to speak on his topic of choice, his constant lambasting of new renewable energy projects on the basis that they cannot compete with the nuclear option is getting a little tiresome.

As Peter says, this IS indeed a forum for discussing ways to reduce our carbon emissions, and for me at least nuclear presents a good option for helping to meet this goal, however, this is an opinion which is not shared by a large number of Australians, and therein lies the problem.  Peter should display a little pragmatism and realise that given the current (and no doubt future) political environment, we're not going to get any nuclear power plants up and running any time soon.  On that basis we're stuck with coal (not great), gas (better, but not renewable) and alternative energy technologies, of which solar is one. 

The efficiency of solar (both PV and thermal), is improving at a rapid rate as one would expect of a nascent technology, and as this happens costs come down.  Not gradually - rapidly.

Given our need to start taking action on this relatively soon, one would think that it would be prudent to support projects which can be deployed quickly and with limited risk of adverse political interference.  Peter, your outspoken opposition to such projects is not really helping anyone.

Whenever we have huge schemes to attract media attention, then we all feel good. In fact large concentrated solar schemes in a few selected locations are not the best options. Large concentrated solar installations need also massive high voltage power lines, which will suffer from large transmission losses, require expensive maintenance and are just simply ugly.

The best option is actually to decentralise power production as much as possible. Increased production by business and homeowners of small solar power stations and increased use of ceramic fuel cells is a far better option. These installations will hardly suffer any transmission losses. Electricity production occurs close to the place of consumption and ownership is not concentrated in the hands of a few large companies. Instead of spending a few Billions of Dollars to support a few companies, a decentralised system will provide a more effective and democratic use of Government funds. 

This is an excellent discussion.

Adding to Dean's request for clear facts and figures, I'd love to be able to see how all of these, shall we call them non-carbon electricity generating technologies, stack up against each other if we leveled the playing field. Get rid of subsidies and talk about simple bang for buck.

We all want a non-carbon solution to base-load and peak power, but the discussion of nuclear vs "renewable" seems to be a bit like arguing about whether Ford or Holden make better cars. We need verified numbers and to compare apples with apples.

Peter, my information about the timeframe of availability of Uranium etc. came from a single, if authoritative source (that I can't find at the moment), so I'm prepared to accept that it's incorrect. That information was the dealbreaker for me as far as nuclear fission is concerned. I accept your points about it being a safe and relatively inexpensive technology that is well proven internationally.

Dean,

Some of the comparison costs you seek are available on-line.  The contained energy in all forms of power station, whether wind, solar, coal, nuclear, will always be too high to ignore, as also the capital cost of construction compared to the running cost for production and maintenance.  Add to this consideration of reliability and ability to be controlled to meet market demands.

A good starting point is to keep an eye on the Brave New Climate blog and/or to buy or borrow a copy of "Why Vs Why - Nuclear Power"; Pantera Press, 2010, about $20.  This is not meant to be an ad for the book, which presents arguments put  by Prof Ian Lowe and Prof Barry Brooke, complete with their responses and some on-line further references.  I found it both informative and interesting, in part because it provides insight into nuclear options, including safety, capital cost, construction time, running cost and so forth.  The two authors do not agree: they do try to get their points across without unpleasantness or personal attacks.

Intersting dialogue. Puting aside the costs,  I'd be really interested to know the net benefit of all the various options when the carbon footprint of their construction is subtracted from their future carbon generation over expected useful life.  This information never seems to appear, and seldom either does rhe energy expended in construction vs energy generation post construction.

How much carbon is produced and how much energy  is used in creating a windfarm?  How about a solar farm?  Anybody know?  Is there any positive benefit or not and how long is breakeven?

Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic. I just take the view world salavtion isn't on anyone's agenda because it just insn't critical yet, I reckon its just another US led attempt to turn a dollar.

Volcanoes erupt, and deep mines get hot, so there is plenty of molten magma down below to heat water to generate steam.

The sun always rises, the wind sometimes blows, beneath the earth's crust its always hot.   On a cloudy day I can still see, so their is light and radiation, we just can't efficiently capture it yet.

Plenty of renewable energy gobally, we just need cheap efficient technology to harness it, and to lose the get rich quick mentality that is holding back human potential.

We should pray that the CEO of the Australian Solar Energy Society be in a position to enthuse us on the latest advances in storage, certainly to boast of a technology which could supply stored solar energy for a week of cold overcast weather. Without such storage, solar can only ever be camouflage for a burgeoning costly gas industry. (See @11:01 Mark Duffett)
.
The target is 100%, not 5%. The replacement of carbon fuels should be achieved with any technology which is cost-effective. The use of the term "renewables" is a religious distraction when we should be attending to the dreadful facts. Or perhaps it really is time for religious language: Decarbonise or die.

Steve,

All inductrial plants have some problems.  But nuclear power has about the least of all the electricity generation technologies.  It is about the safest of all the electricity generation technologies.  Healthe effects, in terms of equivalent fatalities per MWh, are 10 to 100 times higher from coal than nuclear electricity generation.

Here are authoritative references (not Wikipedia and Greenpeace):

http://www.externe.info/

See Figures 2 and 3 here and then follow the link to the sources if you want to dig deeper:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/

Hi Giles,

Thank you for your reply.  There is much to discuss regarding your statements.  As with all such discussions points can be made selectively.  I feel you are doing just that.  I could, over several posts, tackle each of your statements and provide a very different, but factual, perspective.  But that would take me time.  In the meantime, could you please consider two points:

1.  New Nuclear power costs around $2.3/W in Korea, less in China and a little more in Japan.  The plants are being built in 4 to 4.5 years.  In the USA the same plants are being estimated at 2 to 3 times the cost and 5 to 6 years to build.  The reason is purely due to the regulatory environment, the likelihood of public disruption, and the risk of forced closure due to public law suits etc. before they have run for their economic life.  That is what we need to overcome.  You say that France's nuclear power plants were built by public utilities.  Well, so were nearly all power plants in most countries in those days.  So that is irrelevant.   Electricity de France selected the most economic generation technologies at the time, and their judgement has proved to have been a wise one.  Wind and Solar have no hope of achieving that.

2.  My second point, I hope you will allow this to stay posted, is that Climate Spectator seems to be more of a renewable energy advocacy site rather than a site dedicated to the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.  If the site was balanced and genuinely seeking a solution wouldn't you be posting a balance of articles that address the real issues?  I know that Martin Nicholson offered you an Op-ed on our critique of "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan" but so far that has not been accepted.

The critique is here if you would like to read it and perhaps post your own review of it if you do not want to publish Martin Nicholsons's op-ed:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

Peter, please explain how we overcome these issues -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power

….and before you criticise the basic reference I have linked - do you think there is perhaps some small possibility, nuclear may have some problems?

Furthermore, thanks, for correcting Trevor, but I think most of us knew what he meant.

Bill Parker,

Your statements about wind power in Denmark are not correct.

It is highly subsidsed. 

Although 20% of Denmark's electricity is generated by wind power, only about 5% can be used within Denmark because it is generated when the wind wants to blow, not when the consumers want to use it. So most of the wind generated electricity is exported for very small payments then bought back at premium prices (the premium prices that have to be paid for hydro power).  So Demark pays nearly the highest electricity prices in Europe.

Denmark has near the highest CO2 emissions per kWh from electricity generation of any country in Europe, which demonstrates that wind power does not reduce CO2 emissions (because the fossil fuel generators emit more CO2 to firm wind than they would if there was no wind power in the grid).

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/

Denmark, Spain, Germany, Italy, UK, Ontario have all announced recently that they are winding back their subsidies and favourable treatment of renewable energy.  The decision makers are beginning to realise it is a sham.  Hopefully, Australians will realise this too before we go too far down this track.

If we want to provide an investment climate that allows low cost, clean, safe electricity in Australia, we should remove all the impediments to nuclear power in Australia; such as:

ban on nculear power

Renewable Energy Targets

Renewable Energy Certificates

Feed in Tariffs

Direct subsidies for renewable energy

Tax and other favourable incentives

Fast tracking of approvals process

Extensive funding for renewable energy research but not for nuclear

Continual stream of anti-nuclear propaganda and no proper education in nuclear energy

Massive funding for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) research and development but none for nuclear

Government has guaranteed it will carry all the risks of leakage from CCS.  Would it do the same for nuclear?