I'd rather us spend money on de-centralised energy storage than nuclear at this point.

Not because I think nuclear = bad. I'd actually love to see Australia lead the world on Thorium LFTR technology. It's safer than the nuclear reactors other countries are currently using, and we have the Throrium resources to last us thousands of years.

What we don't have is the expertise required to build nuclear reactors in Australia. And even if we had the expertise, it'd still be prohibitively expensive and take decades to get it up and running.

A better long-term solution would be to continue to develop renewables while working on storage solutions like large scale liquid metal batteries. e.g. http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Even if we kept coal and/or gas burning in the background (which is likely for at least the next 10-20 years), having localised (suburban) storage capacity would enable us to generate power consistently at the most efficient rate 24/7 and store any excess generated during off-peak for peak usage. Something about the size appropriate for a substation would be ideal. It could respond quickly to spikes in usage, and provide a somewhat fault tolerant supply of power.

John, what data are you basing your doubts about CSP? The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan 2020 produced by Beyond Zero Emissions and the Energy Research Institute, Melbourne University shows that Australia can indeed be powered affordably by 100% renewables using a combination of CSP+ (CSP plus molten salt storage), wind, a small biomass/hydro backup, efficiency and an upgraded grid. As Lynette says, making it happen will come from vision and inspiration rather than efficient allocation of resources and that's the hardest part. An inspiring video about CSP+ in Spain is at http://tiny.cc/0jahy.

The pro-nuclear website BraveNewClimate has published thorough critiques of the ZCA proposals. This one is from UNSW's Ted Trainer who is not pro-nuclear
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

Shorter version it is not physically credible, nor I suggest is the likely sacrifice by individuals. I'd call ZCA the pay-more-get-less scheme.

As you say, more than one such critique has been published on that site. As you admit, it's a nuclear power promotional site.

ZCA has wisely refused to be sucked in. I'll follow their lead.

For mine, nuclear reactors - fission or fusion - have no rightful place on the planet. Come to think of it, they have no such place anywhere close enough to the planet that there's a substantial risk of them falling on it. In deep space, they may have uses.

On Earth, there's enough potential in renewables that I regard resources devoted to things like nuclear and "clean" coal as wasted. http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf shows some of the potential.

Well David, you'll have to rake up your naive "nuclear reactors - fission or fusion - have no rightful place on the planet" with God or MA Nature, depending on your belief system. Natural fission reactors have operated on Earth for many, many years. Google "Oklo natural reactors", for example.

See, fission is natural, and occurring all the time. Controlling it gives us access to a very natural source of power that was stored long before you had a planet to make statements like this on.
;]

And ZCA has been "sucked in" by the promoters of solar thermal, wind, etc.

Alex,
Thanks for further reducing the probability that readers will be deceived by your misinformation

ZCA has proved resistant to being sucked in. Perhaps that's your problem; they didn't swallow the nuclear industry's propaganda.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinfirmation and spin.

Keep that hat by your bed, David!

So David, we know you can pick a great hat shot with your camera, in bed, and you've shown you don't understand basic physics & thermodynamics, and you've shown you don't understand nuclear power, and we know you don't care. So, again, why should you expect anyone buy what you're selling?

My aim is to reduce the risk that anyone will buy what you're selling.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinfirmation and spin.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinfirmation and spin.

Get out on your "land" David, and make use of that lovely hat!

Predictability isn't a virtue, David.
;]

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

To lazy to write a new jibe each time? Hard day out on the "land"?

I don't have the resources that the nuclear power industry no doubt provides to you.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

Good one David -- read what Confucius says about ignorance & study.

Peter, the thermal efficiency of solar thermal power stations is equal to or less than that of coal fired power stations - typically, significantly lower.

More than 50% of the thermal energy is lost in both cases, so there is no comparative difference, only a matter of degree.

Regarding CSIRO, Goesciences Australia and any other list of academic and research establishments, for every project that is aimed at fossil fuels, there is another (or more) that is aimed at renewables, which represent a tiny smidgen of the energy produced nationally. If you choose to see the subsidy on one side, then please open the other eye and see both sides.

Regarding Gross Valley, NSW, that's a bit of an irrelevance on this thread, isn't it? There are very significant environmental impacts from both renewable and fossil fuelled power generation, not least due to the enormous volumes of concrete, glass and steel which are part of the renewable picture but which are so frequently ignored by the renewables lobby. Ditto the exotic materials which are included in PV panels, inverters, magnets of wind turbines, etc.

The world is much more complex than simply "renewables = good, fossil fuels = bad".

At what cost, Alex? Certainly not the proponents - PV is simply far too expensive, even at 15 cents per kWh as against the marginal cost of coal fired power at about 3 cents.

When proposing to clad every structure on the planet with exotic materials, it is also reasonable to account for the cost of transmission/ interconnection, inverters, system control, backup/reliability and all those other nice "ancilary services" which we take for granted and which are essential for industrial, if not domestic, users and which have always been part of the National Electricity Market's (NEM's) purpose and duty.

It makes me want to puke to see half-answers pulled like bunnies out of a hat in a Gotcha moment when real engineering and practical affordable solutions to the world's energy issues are discussed. Don't get me wrong - I don't like the fossil fuel industry either, but there is an elephant in this room called nuclear power, and its time will come again, regardless of whether or not the renewables dreamers choose to ignore its scaleability, reliability, safety, economy and low environmental footprint.

The question is: "Will Australia be smart enough to be part of the next energy revolution, or will we sit idly by again?"

Alex, how did you arrive at 20% for solar thermal? I believe coal plants operate around 600C and get 40%, The article claims 1000C as feasible for solar thermal, which would get you over 60%, no? There'd be reradiation loss too, but with a 1000:1 collection/target ratio it would only be about 7%.

That said, I dislike comparisons of efficiency between technologies that use unrelated power sources, like solar and coal, as in the article. It doesn't mean anything. It wouldn't matter if PV were only 1% efficient if there were sufficient abundance of solar energy and the technology were extremely cheap. The comparison is more meaningful between solar PV and solar thermal.
(Other than that, good article :-).)

Wrt solar farms, I get what you're saying about land use, but in both the US and Australia there are large deserts and degraded land. Transmission losses with HVDC are only 3%/1000km. And wind farms do not displace agriculture (can even be beneficial).

Derek, the most reasonable way to compare technologies is by use of the LCOE - Levellised Cost of Energy. This take account of all life cycle costs.

It does not include non-dollar issues such as availability, scaleability, reliability and environmental impact, but at least it does bring together construction, operating and maintenance costs. More advanced versions also account for Owner's costs, such as land acquisition, financing during the construction period and project design and supervision.

There are many sources of LCOE comparisons on the web, all calculated by smarter people than I. I will not provide links here, lest my selected sites appear to some to be politically incorrect.

Derek, the problem with solar thermal is that, yes, theoretically we could approach a combined-cycle turbine system as for gas/coal/oil, but the reality is that 1000C hasn't been reliably achieved with even the best (salt) fluids & plumbing metals. So to be fair, we could say 40% starting out. However, solar thermal systems are far from loads and the loss is typically 10%. Add to that the need to keep the working fluid hot overnight, and you get down to around 20-30% -- they even provide for natural gas piped in to keep the plant operating at night, or at least warm, so the salt remains liquid. The steam versions are even less efficient.

The reality for PV is that it continues to be more & more efficient, because there are huge opportunities to apply different photonic-conversion methods. So, PV & hot water, done locally, will always be superior to any thermal conversion scheme.

To be fair with solar also, (1 - efficiency) x 1kW/sqm = waste heat, so we definitely want PV as efficient as possible. Any waste heat adds directly to global warming, and excites the GHGs in the air above -- water vapor being the dominant GHG, believe it or not.

Certainly I agree that thermal efficiency for a CO2 emitter is not environmentally equivalent to efficiency for PV or hot water.

The great thing is that we need no combustion or solar thermal systems. Nor do we need wind, which shares inefficiencies, land-hogging & losses, with the other 'farm' ideas.

Try turning off the combustion industry on the Koch Bros. watch, however! We had the chance 50 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

.

Yes, I know. (What did I say that prompted your response? I was merely objecting to a different method of comparison.)
That said, there are a few issues with LCOE:
- you need to check for externalities; there are grounds to suggest health costs of fossil fuels are comparable to the wholesale price of the power produced, but further research is needed.
- there are always transition costs; LCOE for early deployments may be far higher than for the same technology as incumbent.
- LCOE depends on discount rate, which has nothing to do with the merits of the technology.

Alex has been known to indicate that he'd rather sleep with a nuclear reactor than a human being:
http://theconversation.edu.au/growing-the-grunt-developing-green-biofuels-for-australia-6954#comment_39125
Alex Cannara: "... nuke plants are not only safer than anything else ... bananas & coal plants, and people (you too) radiate more...
... you definitely don't want to sleep next to someone, since each of you radiate at the reate of over 4000 decays per second ..."

Elsewhere, he's tried to spin the health impacts of nuclear power:
http://theconversation.edu.au/growing-the-grunt-developing-green-biofuels-for-australia-6954#comment_39096
Alex Cannara: "Civilian & naval nukes have caused 0 deaths since their rollout."
http://theconversation.edu.au/growing-the-grunt-developing-green-biofuels-for-australia-6954#comment_39151
Alex Cannara: "... show us the deaths & injuries from Western nations' nuclear power ..."
and implied that power generated by reneweable means can't be economically reticulated.
http://theconversation.edu.au/growing-the-grunt-developing-green-biofuels-for-australia-6954#comment_39192

I conclude that Alex is a minion of the nuclear power industry, bent on hijacking environmental concerns to their benefit. He has denied being paid for promoting nuclear power and I've no doubt the association is deeply obfuscated.

Any comment from him would most wisely be viewed in that light.

Overnight losses depend on the scale of the plant (tank size, receiver size). For envisaged production plants (GWs) it would be well under 5%, I believe. Given that demand is higher during the day, that only applies to 30-40% of the collected heat. So we have 40% * 98% * 90% = 35%.

I've not heard of the gas being used on a regular basis, except perhaps in demo-sized plant. It has to be there to cope with a major outage, where you might need to protect the salt from freezing for weeks.
I agree entirely that PV is more cost-effective per kWh than solar thermal, and is likely to become more so. But the challenge is to displace baseload and peaking plant, particularly around 5pm-8pm in the summer. I'm still hoping for a breakthrough in storage that would make solar thermal unnecessary.

Wrt waste heat from PV adding to GW, I believe the added warming is equal to the loss in albedo, regardless of whether useful energy is produced. This is based on the useful energy all ending up as heat eventually. OTOH, I think it's a pretty minor issue. As a last resort, you could add an area of reflectors equal to the area of the solar collector and bring the average albedo down to 50%.

Derek, what you're missing id the thermodynamics of the conversion from heated fluid to turbine power output. 1 - Tcold/Thot) can't be fudged. Other losses, as overnight cooling, generator & transmission losses just add to that . You can look up thermodynamic info such as the ideal Carnot Cycle, which can only be approached.

As far as PV albedo, you're right that it's a key to waste heat generation there, but the input is always 1kW/sqm in the sun, so 1 - cell efficiency indeed measures the waste at the cell itself. The generated power eventually becomes heat waste too, in our TVs, EVs, iGadgets, etc. Conservation of energy remains true at all stages. The best installation is on a reflective surface, with cells occupying only whatever's needed.

As to gas lines to solar thermal plats, we indeed have that going on in Calif. And, proposals for 5GW of such in the desert here are being evaluated for approval. It will be another long-term waste of resources. They may account for the gas burned, but not for the $ lost in transmission lines that deliver less out than the plant put in.

"what you're missing id the thermodynamics of the conversion from heated fluid to turbine power "
No, that's the 40% efficiency. We already discussed that.
Wrt waste heat from solar, you seem to be agreeing with me that all absorbed light ends up as heat, yet expressing it as though you disagree with me. Confused.

So David, when you don't bother to understand something, are others supposed to stand by while you mouth inanities?

Just trying to get the the level of juvenile 'superiority' you think we should accept from you.

Derek, the light on a solar cell ends up as thermal & quantum losses, and free electrons. Those electrons give us the 20% or whatever, of the solar input that comes out as electricity. So a 20% cell wastes about 80% as heat internally & reradiated IR, which then unnaturally heats air above via its GHG content.

This is why inverters that go on the backs of solar panels have to withstand 85C in typical environments. The Waste of electricity out isn't dissipated in the panels. Those electrons get lost in all the loads we add to the connected grid.

If we wanted less thermally-wasteful panels, we'd also add external filters that reflect most of the light frequencies not used by the quantum processes inside the cells. Then they wouldn't look black to our eyes and the waste heat & GHG heating would be far less. Filters cost $, unfortunately.

For the 40% efficiency of the thermal part of the solar-thermal plant -- that's a very good, but difficult number to achieve. But even if it were, the temperature profile over operating hours couldn't maintain that, and if gas-burning made up for such shortfalls, then we're kinda going backwards. After all, any remote solar/wind 'farm' will incur typical, 10% additional loss just in transmission & grid interfacing. And rarely do the mirror gang discuss maintenance, or the water & fuel needed. But subsidies attract plenty of flies.
;]

Alex Cannara: "...while you mouth inanities". What that I have said is untrue?

David, you should know better. Where to start? Well, how about...
-----
Alex Cannara: "... show us the deaths & injuries from Western nations' nuclear power ..."
and implied that power generated by reneweable means can't be economically reticulated.
-----
What on earth does that sentence mean? I asked for death statistics and you go off into la la speak?

Then there's the easy one...
-----
I conclude that Alex is a minion of the nuclear power industry, bent on hijacking environmental concerns to their benefit. He has denied being paid for promoting nuclear power and I've no doubt the association is deeply obfuscated.
-----
Well David, you fall into the trap of speaking from breathtaking ignorance. Not only am I not a "minion", though it does sound intriguing, I'm an active member & supporter of more environmental organizations than you. Your own statements make that clear. By the way, who here cares what you "conclude"?
;]

Yes, reflecting back what won't be used would help. But as I said, it's unclear how much it matters. If we were to derive all our power from solar PV (some sort of storage) at 10% efficiency overall, with zero albedo, what would be the percentage increase in radiation absorbed?

John, the mouse in the room with the elephant is called Fukashima. Yes, there may be all the positives you mention, but when it goes wrong, the result is catastrophic.

Alex, thanks so much.

My aim is to reduce the probability that readers will be deceived by your misinformation. Your response aids that nicely.

I've no doubt that you're associated with numerous groups, named to sound environmentally friendly. I believe the term is "Greenwash".

David, you're hilarious! I suppose my membership in Sierra Club, support of Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, EDF...I can't remember all I'm associated with, but you know they're "grreenwashers"? Really?

So why not take off that cute hat & tell us all which are the 'right' organizations? You know, the ones you approve of. C'mon, off with carefully propped hat, scratch your noggin & let us in on the true environmental orgs you've vetted. Or, do you fit the old Texas label of "all hat & no cattle"?
;]

Alex Cannara: "So why not take off that cute hat ..."
Alex, as I've told you before, I live on the land. What for you might be a frivolous fashion statement is for me necessary working gear.

Clothing yourself in green doesn't make your nuclear advocacy so.

Again, thanks for further reducing the probability that readers will be deceived by your misinformation. Are you a person or just a name, used by a nuclear promotional group?

You really are desperately hilarious, when you don't know what you're talking about, Derek ol' boy. But you've heard that before, haven't you ol' boy.

Alex thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinfirmation and spin.

Keep workin' it, Dave "the hat"! Someone might believe you.
;]

My aim is to ensure that you fool as few as possible.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinfirmation and spin.

A million laughs, David! But you've a low opinion of everyone here if you think you fool us.

My aim is to reduce to risk that you will fool anyone.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

Dave's awake! Hat on straight?

You'll no doubt be saddened to hear that the hat of which you're so fond has come to the end of its days. It was a leather Jacaru that started to fall apart after many years of faithful service. I replaced it at the beginning of summer.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

David your cheekiness can't hide your lack of scientific knowledge and breathtaking disinterest in fact. Nor can ignorant statements about me & others impress anyone else here. So why not recoup what you can and put a sock in it?
;]

Alex,

I freely acknowledge my ignorance. Your mistake is in thinking that the way to convince me is to fool me into believing that I understand enough to judge the science.

Confucius is said to have commented: "The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he doesn't know". Much is apocryphally attributed to Confucius and he didn't use English anyway, but the principle is good.

As with climate science, on nuclear power I'm left with no option but to judge the sources of information. In the US, where extremes are apparently the norm, your uncritical advocacy might succeed. From an enlightened Australian perspective, it just makes you look like a mendacious wanker.

Thanks again for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

David, as I said before -- don't care what you think. My job is simply to make facts available to others. Confucius was of the same opinion. You contradict yourself, and Confucius would have a good laugh...

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous."

Alex Cannara: "... don't care what you think. My job is ..."
Precisely; it's your job, for which you're no doubt paid.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

Ahh David, you so fool yourself & waste our time & server Watts -- no one pays me, they couldn't pay enough to deal with spammers like you.

Alex, your behaviour says otherwise. As you said, https://theconversation.edu.au/set-the-controls-for-the-heart-of-the-sun-time-for-solar-courage-7070#comment_40536 it's your job. Somebody pays you and who pays the piper calls the tune. Your tune is relentlessly pro-nuclear, so my best guess is that your paymaster is in the nuclear power industry.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

Nobody pays me to do anything related to my statements here, David. And no one would pay you for how you waste our time.

But Alex, you've acknowledged that it's your job. https://theconversation.edu.au/set-the-controls-for-the-heart-of-the-sun-time-for-solar-courage-7070#comment_40536 I'm retired; nobody pays me for anything I do.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

Apparently you retired from reading too, David. But BSing seems to be your retirement avocation, eh?
;]

Alex, given that you've been known to indicate that you'd rather sleep with a nuclear reactor than a human being:
http://theconversation.edu.au/growing-the-grunt-developing-green-biofuels-for-australia-6954#comment_39125
Alex Cannara: "... nuke plants are not only safer than anything else ... bananas & coal plants, and people (you too) radiate more...
... you definitely don't want to sleep next to someone, since each of you radiate at the reate of over 4000 decays per second ...", being paid for your extreme advocacy is the least unhealthy option. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks again, for further reducing the risk that readers will be misled by your misinformation and spin.

David, you always show us you had your hat in bed, so that's odd enough. Don't you have something useful to do on your 'land'?

He won’t tell you that all the environmental groups he has listed are opposed to nuclear energy. That's because he’s an astroturfing greenwasher.

He won’t tell you about the 86,000 sick, despairing and ridiculed radiation victims who are finally being compensated inhis motherland, already to the tune of $7.4 billion since the programme began.

http://www.missouripersonalinjuryblog.com/2011/09/labor-dept-manual-makes-light-of-nuclear-industry-illnesses.shtml

He won’t tell you about the radioactive wild boars in Germany 25 years after Chernobyl or the massive compensation the government must pay to hunters. Or the advice from experts that the radioactive boars will plague Germany for at least the next 50 years:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/radioactive-wild-boars-increase-in-number.html

He won’t tell you about the Paducah uranium enrichment plant in his motherland which is a massive emitter of ozone destroying CFCs or the disgraceful site contamination bequeathed to the taxpayers:

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/ranking.tcl?tri_id=42001PDCHGHOBBS

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0404794

He won’t tell you about the nuclear accidents in his motherland:

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#power

He won’t tell you about the nuclear state crimes against the people in his motherland:

http://jthomasniu.org/class/781/Assigs/kauzvictimology.pdf

He won’t tell you that the San Onofre Nuclear power plant in his home state of California impinges and entrains 5,671,565,000 fish every year, rendering them mortally wounded or maimed and that nuclear states continue to use this technology throughout the nation and in nuclear states around the planet:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/SWRCB-1000-2008-001/SWRCB-1000-2008-001.PDF (page 22)

Etc etc etc.

Thank you for saving the planet from Alex Cannara whose opponents all “speak from breathtaking ignorance.”

1) 21st Century – Nuclear Renaissance - U beaut "Revolutionary" Generation III+ AP1000 reactors - Gigantic Water Guzzlers:

Two proposed new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors at nuclear Plant Vogtle are estimated to use 55-88 million gallons of water per day from the Savannah River with 50-75% consumptive loss (Southern Nuclear, 2008).

http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/uploads/proceedings/2009/1.7.3_Barczak.pdf

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/hot-water-the-other-global-warming

2) NY Department of Environmental Conservation Report:

2:1 Groundwater Contamination by Leaking Radionuclides Contention

Radionuclides are leaking into the groundwater and into the Hudson River from the aging structures of Indian Point. Amongst others are strontium-90 and tritium, radioactive substances that have been linked to various forms of cancer. These leaks and their obvious public health and safety impacts are not being considered - at this point -- as part of the renewal proceeding.

2:2 Impingement and Entrainment Contention

The operation of Indian Point consumes and returns approximately 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water each day. Large fish are "impinged" on screens at the water intake where they are severely stressed and then suffocated. Smaller fish are "entrained" in the water intake -- pulled through the operating plant and killed.

This process has continued relatively unabated for almost 40 years. The NRC must fully consider the alternative of closed cycle cooling to mitigate these significant adverse impacts.

2:3 Heat Shock/Thermal Contention

Indian Point's 40-year-old design uses massive quantities of Hudson River water when operating, and this system returns significantly heated water back to the river. The Hudson River would be a far more productive estuarine ecosystem if the heat shock/thermal impacts from Indian Point could be mitigated. Tens of millions of fish are impacted -- from behavioral and growth impacts to fatalities.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/40237.html

The duplicitous nuclear pusher displays a blatant inclination to assume that his opponents (including scientists and the bulk of humanity) are illiterate. We all know what that means.

"To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it." ~Confucius

Ah yes and here we have the ethics-free nefarious "gentleman" who just today wrote that Dr Timothy Mousseau is "a fledgling researcher.":

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/mousseau/mousseau-cv.pdf

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/Mousseau/Mousseau.html

Useless meanderings again, Shirley -- not advocating LWRs for our future, especially since they were planned by President Kennedy to be gone here by 2000. But you don't care about facts of hisitroy do you?

Again, the combustion folks are standing in ovation to your blind hyperbole.

Timothy himself has said he started in his studies at Chernobyl out of personal interest, not a history of similar bird research.

He also admits that his methods even now can stand improvement. He's over there doing some of this now.

Critique of scientific methods and publications is the essential part of science that separates it from religion. You seem not to grasp that. Tim, thankfully does.

Wow, you got spunk there, ol' Shirley!

You forgot all the shipborne reactors -- >100 for US alone, and I think we're lending you one of our subs. Careful!

So since you evidence no understanding of nuclear physics, explain for us how you deal with the amazing lack of huge nuclear explosions & accidents around the world with so many hundreds of those nasty machines?

How many of your countrymen have your anti-nuke biases forced to breath unnecessary coal & petrol emissions? We admit to many thousands here.

But again, keep it up Shirley, the combustion folks love what you do from your fact-free zone..
;]

Nuke zealot duping readers by scaremongering on coal vs. nuclear. Same mangy dogs, different haircuts. Nuke zealot conceals global contamination from prying eyes. Using humanity as lab rats is the practice of atomic despots. Lift your game Mr Pitiful - it’s the 21st century – hellooooo?

Sticks & stones....

Yes, Shirley, it;'s the 21st century and nuclear power is both the past & the future of safety, just as it was in the last century: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

But remember, no matter how you try, I don't care what you think. I only care that others aren't misled by your foaming.

Yes indeed BP & Peabody Coal love what you do, Shirley.

All this nonsense from an ethics-free silly old codger who defames and verbals a reputable scientist and calls him a "fledgling researcher" - cringe.

That's the "fledgling researcher" named Mousseau whose >130 peer-reviewed papers and books have been cited >6900 times.

Remember the placebo effect folks? 90% nuclear = showbiz. The second-rate vaude-villain knows what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.

So where's the medieval stocks, rotten eggs, tar and feathers for yesteryear's atomic parasites and ecocidal freaks who are preying on humanity and sending evolution backwards?

Ahhh Shirley, if only self-published papers were truly peer-reviewed, eh? Tim admits to needing to do his research better and is over there now trying to come back with more conclusions rather than guesses, like uncarefully using "brain mass", "brain size", "head size", etc. all in the same paper, when all he's admitted doing is taking a caliper to a bird's head and assuming an ellipsoidal model for estimating "brain volume".

Any true reviewing scientist would: a) ask him to pick the proper term and stick with it; b) estimate the error in his one linear measure, from beak tip to head back, and c) then realize on paper that his 5% estimate of fledgling brain-size shortfall is in the noise of his measurement & estimation ability.

Remember, Shirley, using 1 dimension to estimate a volume, requires not only a valid model of that volume, but a measurement accuracy better than the cube root of the observed difference. In other words, in his case, his caliper has to be better than 1.5% accurate.

Of course, since he did no analysis of what he was actually estimating -- brain mass, and had no nutritional data, any conclusions about a 5% estimate are meaningless. This is especially true since he detected no differences in adult birds.

But those are basic problems with his initial work.. He & I have others to discuss. So far, in what I've read, he's shown no conclusive evidence about the cause of his observations, whether radiological or nutritional.

Your vitriol seems to have wiped your memory -- you raised Mousseau's works here first, as support for your unsupported statements about Chernobyl.

I merely followed the links, read several of his self-published papers and worte comments, some of which you've seen. He & I have continued to exchange emails on several comments, and he's promised more answers, That's how honest science & criticism works.

It's apprently not how you work, but again, I don't care. He, by the way, helped establish a nuclear program at his university.

Nuclear power. worldwide, remains the safest form of generation ever deployed: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

We lost several Chinese coal miners the other day, adding to their annual record of coal-mine deaths, which outdoes all countries'. Their civilian deaths from emissions do the same, and ours go well over 10,000 each year in the US. Australia?

So the combustion industry really does appreciate the blind, unscientific, inhumane lobbying you do against nuclear power.

I appreciate the repeated opportunities you provide to remind all here about the net, inhumane, uneconomic effects of your ill-conceived bias.

I have never debated Mousseau's paper. I provided a link only. What I have endeavoured to do is defend Dr Mousseau from your false and despicable allegations and character assassinations.

I am in regular contact with Dr Mousseau, however, unlike you, propriety prevents me from elaborating.

Your allegations are libellous. This thread (and the original one) can be used as evidence against you. I suggest you wash your mouth out with carbolic soap and take a hike - pronto.

Tiem to read what's been said, Shirley: "you raised Mousseau's works here first, as support for your unsupported statements about Chernobyl."

All else here know what you said & what I said. As for Mousseau, you indeed disturbed him by claiming I was libelling him here. That's libellous, Shirley, if I cared.

But you don't seem to get that arguing over scientific publication content is not libellous. You've reduced yourself to muttering and trying to scare others, instead of displaying some respect for facts.

Again, the combustion folks love what you do.

@ Cannara: "As for Mousseau, you indeed disturbed him by claiming I was libelling him here. That's libellous, Shirley, if I cared."

Dr Mousseau said no such thing. You sir, are a blatant liar.

Shirley, you don't know what Tim said to me -- you do understand that little bit of reality poking into your vicious other world, don't you?

Lynette, yours is a critical approach that could save us greatly in the future.

I am amused by claims of the "cost" of subsidies to renewable s vs. the "low" cost coal (or even more amusing nuclear) when these are either cross subsidized, often non transparently or the cost of their externalities deliberately transferred to others. Whilst the vested interests involved encourage full time sprukers to dissect the alternatives to the nth degree, presenting unbalanced data or untested projections as proof of their position and trying to influence the tone of discussions through shear volume of postings in order to generate perceptions more favorable to their own agendas.

Corporates and their lackeys, paid or otherwise are very good at this. Just as the Greens also use some very sophisticated social engineering and manipulation techniques.

In the end it is still about balance, no solution should have a monopoly and the adoption of a basket of technologies and fuel sources is the least risk approach.

Conquered by Corporates we may be, but passively conforming to this fate is a personal choice and resistance can be fun...

Right, Peter, "passively conforming" is always bad for thre set of us. As a retiring Congressman recently said to a reporter who asked why our House of Reps. is so poorly judged and ineffective: "No members are appointed. Each of us was elected by our citizens."

And, ascribing benefits to technologies uncritically, is equally bad judgement. The "basket of technologies" approach makes it sound like lack of study will gain an "A". In fact, it never did and never will. It will, however cost a lot and make $ for the few being subsidized.

Alex,

Alas passively conforming is a majority position, until they wake up one day and the lights don't come on or the tap delivers sad noises but no water. I am surprised though the reporter in your example did not correct the Congressman for overstating his colleagues level of citizen support, after all each of them was elected by only a proportion of the citizens who bothered to vote...and a proportion of these were likely uncritical in their political assessment, or temporarily swayed by "the politics of perception" created by big campaign budgets, parades and bright colors.

Over here we have a more mature and considered political system involving a measure of proportional representation backed up by compulsory voting, so that 50.1% gives you a political mandate for reform and 49.9% a rejection of failed policy initiatives. The epitome of efficiency really.

Meanwhile back in the real world show me a energy technology over here in Oz that is not supported directly or indirectly by subsidies in some form (except ours which truly is not, an attribute that has attracted a number of corporate interests to us for this reason alone).

I stand corrected on the basket of technologies bit, I was uncritically thinking that this might also include a nuclear component, but on reflection and after careful study of the many excellent links made available I have concluded that the risks and likely cost blowouts are so big as to make its inclusion unreasonable at this time.

In Germany today we're certainly not seeing the entire country being run on solar power, despite enormous amounts of money spent, enormous handouts and subsidies from the government and political support. We're seeing many new coal-fired plants being built, and politicians suggesting the insanity of replacing existing nuclear power plants with coal plants.

Some people seem to think that it is virtuous to spend the largest possible amount of money on solar energy just because it is somehow intrinsically metaphysically good, irrespective of how much energy you get and how many coal-fired plants you're actually replacing.

It is not virtuous to spend billions and billions of dollars on things that will not replace a single coal-fired power station. It's nuts.

"The German PV industry is now well-established and has been instrumental in the installation of 25 gigawatts of power, the creation of 130,000 jobs, the despatch of 18.5 terawatt hours of energy in 2011, and earning Euro 10 billion of income in 2010."

18.5 TWh of electrical energy in one year is about equal to the energy output from ONE two-reactor nuclear power plant.

The entire German PV industry, despite billions and billions of Euros spent, generates energy which is about equal to just one nuclear power plant?

No, actually. It is not equal to one nuclear power plant.

If the nameplate installed capacity of solar PV in Germany was 25 GWe, and the energy generated in one year was 18.5 TWh, what's the capacity factor?

18.5 TWh / (1 year * 25 gigawatts) = 8.44%.

The average capacity factor for solar PV in Germany in 2010 was only 8.44% !? That's ridiculous.

This is a beautiful example of the mendacious nameplate capacity fallacy which "renewable" energy proponents commit all the time. By saying you've got, say, "25 gigawatts" of installed solar PV capacity, you're implying that this 25 GW of nameplate capacity is equivalent to and interchangeable with 25 GW of installed nuclear power nameplate capacity, for example.

Of course, when your capacity factors for solar power (especially solar PV) are so small, that's absolutely ridiculous.

Thus, 18.5 TWh of energy from solar cells is NOT the same as or interchangeable with 18.5 TWh of electrical energy on the grid generated from nuclear power, typically with a capacity factor around 90% or so.

The total installed body of solar photovoltaics in Germany is actually significantly less useful and less worthwhile than just one single nuclear power plant, despite the enormous amount of money that has been spent.

The fundamental objective of what we're trying to do here is not to spend the maximum possible amount of money that we can possibly spend on solar cells.

The fundamental objective of what we're trying to do here is not to create the maximum possible number of jobs, either. If all those jobs receive an honest salary, then requiring lots and lots of jobs intrinsically requires spending lots and lots of money.

If all we wanted to do was to "create lots of jobs" I'm sure we could find obsolete, inefficient anachronistic technologies that we could deploy everywhere in place of modern technologies to give us much greater labour requirements. If all we wanted to do was "create lots of jobs" then all we have to do is generate electricity by lining up all the unemployed people on large banks of electricity-generating treadmills and exercise bikes.

What we're actually fundamentally trying to do here is to generate a sufficiently large amount of electrical energy with a high capacity factor which is actually equivalent to the electrical energy production from our existing coal and gas-fired power stations, so that those power stations can be replaced with clean energy sources which really, actually, reliably, replace them.

We're trying to do this using the absolute *lowest* amount of expenditure that it will take to actually do the job, and the *lowest* amount of technological risk and immature unproven technology, without technologies for which scale-up hasn't been proven on the scale required, with the *lowest* amount of labour intensity.

Today, the immense value and importance of nuclear fission power, and the insanity of turning away from it, is more clear than it has ever been.

Nuclear power is extremely effective at replacing fossil fuels for scalable high capacity factor stationary energy generation, and essentially nothing else comes close.

Look at Japan today, look at Germany, and it is more clear and more obvious than ever before.

Turning away from the existing productive, safe, economical use of fission power means enormous increases in greenhouse gas emissions, enormous increases in fossil fuel consumption, and the resulting enormous increases in foreign debt and spending and dependence on other nations by nations such as Japan in order to import these fossil fuel requirements.

Knee-jerk anti-nuclearism is shaping up to be an environmental and public health and economic and climatology targets disaster for Japan, whilst fission power is still empirically proven to be the world's safest way to get a high-capacity-factor kilowatt-hour.

It means much greater injury, illness and death, due to the dangerous mining and processing and distribution of dangerous natural gas and coal in increased amounts, as well as due to the public health damage resulting from dangerous fossil fuel waste released into the atmosphere in enormously increased amounts.

The actual empirical evidence that we're seeing today in Japan and Germany should make it extremely clear to everybody that in the real world, for real, there is a very real dichotomy here - it's nuclear power or it's fossil fuels. And it should be abundantly clear to everybody that the French decisions of the last 50 years or so are very wise indeed. After all, they still have very good energy security and independence, and amongst the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the industrialized world.

Yes, the above is simply a verbatim copy-and-paste from another recent comment I posted on The Conversation, but, as Richard Feynman put it, the same equations always have the same solutions. Repeating yourself endlessly when discussing these sorts of things with some people is certainly nothing new.