Peak oil is the point of maximum annual consumption, ever. It has almost certainly come and gone. The amount we SPEND will go up and up for quite a while yet!

Just because there are still profits to be made in oil (there are HUGE profits to be made), does not mean that we'll produce oil faster in the future than we used to.

Hey David

I agree with your sentiments on purchasing emission abatement overseas- madness. It is a golden scamming opportunity as proven by the near collapse of the European scheme.

You are very upset about the people who "so busy complicating the process, they've forgotten about the goal". Well, you don't need to worry because these people are actually hitting reaching their goals easily. How can this be?

The goal of 'They" is to make a complicated process that APPEARS to look like emission trading schemes are reducing fossil fuel use, but without actually reducing fossil fuel use. Every major energy agency and authority projects massive increases in coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuel consumption for the foreseeable future.

It is somewhat akin to the many people who read The Conversation. They passionately want the world to reduce or stop using fossil fuels and live on a sustainable world. Amazingly, many of them, after reading this comment, will then go to the Qantas or Jetstar website to choose their their upcoming holiday to Europe or Asia, or in fact, anyware else in the world.

And in doing so, this "They" will burn billions of litres of non-renewable Jet1 fossil fuel to do it.

It is their choice alone to not burn the fossil fuel. They can stay home. But they don't. And that is where politicians and the nations they lead, learn how to handle the vexed issue of wanting to be seen to be green, but then wanting to be seen on the beach in Thailand.

Now, watch the Red Tickers stab the mouse. ( A mouse made, not of blood and muscle and hair but of oil and plastic and copper and rare earths and aluminium - all dragged from the earth.)

They just don't get it.

Gerard Dean

Thanks Mr Dean,

I agree with the first part of your remarks, that is about how "cap-&-trade" schemes are nothing but the usual parasitising of the real economy by the finance sector and their ma-ates among the self-styled "progressive" political Parties; I understand we each recognise the superiority of carbon pricing via escalating fossil fuel consumption taxes, made revenue-neutral by cuts to other taxes until fossil fuel use is priced out of the economy, and the tax cuts used to effect the requisite enabling technological transformation.

I disagree with you, however, on the responsibility of consumers of the services of airlines. As the price of fossil fuel increases, airlines will lead the charge to biofuel alternatives.

Now, lest you think this is tantamount to taking the food from the mouths of the starving billions, I remind you that biotechnological R&D is well on track to be producing renewable biofuels from non-edible photosynthesisers.

Now, lest you scoff at this prospect, I remind you that when JFK announced NASA's moon project, he specifically referred to materials and technologies that had not yet been invented; however, he knew perfectly well that they were feasible. I encourage you to subscribe to Reuter's daily newsletter on scientific and technological progress, which you can organise at www.sciencedaily.com

It's free.

Mr Arthur

Again, thanks for a reasoned reply. Actually, it annoys me a little, because you have obviously put some thought into your points, and that is a rare thing on this site indeed.

Nevertheless, we agree on stupidity the various ETS schemes, however I am not yet convinced about bio fuels.

You are right, again! I do scoff whenever biofuels are mentioned by persons who believe it is simple matter of draining the local fish and chip shop deep frying oil into your car.

However your point about the future is well made. An excellent example is this very internet we are using, I daresay if Grandfather Arthur had explained his dream of a computer network spanning the globe that allowed anybody, anywhere access to huge amounts of information, Grandfather Dean would have scoffed. (Maybe he wouldnt, however, if I were him, I would have scoffed)

Now, back to biofuels. My main issue is huge amount of energy we consume and the massive additional agricultural load it would place on the planet. I can get into the figures, however perhaps we should wait a few months to see how a new biofuel plant is rolling in NSW.

I believe that Algaetech in Nowra have commissioned their first container based algae production plant. It should provide an output of petroleum 'like' feed stock soon for appraisal. I have my very serious doubts about the feasibility of the plant and its projections, however I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Let us wait and see how their cooking goes.

Thank you

Gerard Dean

Unpicking of the Kaya Identity [1] shows that little can be achieved unless we allow a low cost alternative to fossil fuels. Realistically, the only two variables that can be influenced are energy/GDP and CO2 emissions/energy.

We are inevitable increasing energy consumption. So, if we cannot dramatically cut CO2 emissions/energy, the only alternative is to cut our GDP growth rate. On a simple analysis (Cass 1: all parameters held constant except GDP growth rate) as described in Attachment 2 [2], GDP growth rate would have to be cut to -1.7% pa average for 8 years to achieve the 2020 targets (see the assumptions). That’s a very deep depression.

It is clear, that we have to allow low-cost, low emissions energy if we want to make deep cuts to CO2 emissions.

[1] “Reality Check”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/reality-check.html

[2] Submission to:”Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136435

Peter Ormonde says: "There are quite a few "impediments" blocking the world from having low cost nuclear power I'd suggest."

True.

High cost abatement policies will not be adopted, and nor should they be.

Renewable energy is a very high cost policy when all costs are properly accounted – at about $300/tonne CO2 abated [1]. So, mandating and subsidising renewable energy is bad policy.

Carbon pricing is also bad policy. It will not work in practice – for reasons explained here [2]

Most of the growth in emissions this century will be in developing and underdeveloped countries unless there is a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. They will not pay more for energy than they have to, nor should they and nor should the developed countries expect them to. Therefore, they will not implement carbon pricing. Therefore, carbon pricing cannot achieve what its proponents expect it to achieve.

Decarbonisation of the global economy cannot be achieved by improving energy efficiency. Energy efficiency can have only a minor and slow effect. See Kaya Identity discussion here: [3]

Therefore, the only realistic option is to provide a cost-competitive alternative to fossil fuels.

Since renewable energy is not a realistic option, only nuclear power is a realistic option.

But nuclear power is too expensive, and the current plants are too large, for most countries.

Therefore, to cut emissions we need cost competitive small nuclear power plants.

The small nuclear plants need to have good quality control. To achieve that they need to be factory built, shipped to site, installed, run for life on a single fuel load or returned to factory for refuelling (e.g. once a decade or so). Some examples of such plants, currently going through the nuclear regulatory process are listed here (there are many others): [4]

The block to progress is the widespread anti-nuclear sentiment, bordering on paranoia. It is referred to as ‘radiation phobia’. This has been caused by 50 years of anti-nuclear advocacy, and massive misinformation. Since it is a social problem it can be changed by education.

However, as long as the Greenies, ‘Progressives’ and Warmists remain opposed to nuclear power, it will be a very slow rate of unwinding the problems

Therefore, it really is up to the Greenies, Progressives, and Warmists to change tack, be objective, learn the facts about nuclear and become enthusiastic advocates of a realistic, low-cost way to reduce global CO2 emissions. It has to be a global solution, not just aimed at the developed countries.

Once there is a much higher level of support for nuclear, especially in US, UK, EU, then there will be the political environment to allow removal of the impediments that are blocking low cost nuclear power for the world.

Here is how I see it progressing:

We need as much competition as possible. Competition improves the technology (including improving safety) and reduces costs. I’d like to see companies in the manufacturing countries - USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China, Korea and Japan - building small modular nuclear power plants on production lines like aircraft. Small is essential for several reasons:

a. only small power plants can fit easily into most electricity grids around the world
b. small units can be ordered ‘just in time’, once demand is assured
c. small can be constructed and installed quickly, thus reducing investor risks
d. small can be built in factories, shipped to site, returned to factory for refuelling
e. small can be manufactured on production lines like aircraft, turned out rapidly and with good quality control
f. small leads to faster rate of improvement because more are manufactured and lessons learned are built into the next model more quickly.
g. More competition between more manufacturers leads to faster rate of improvement

Examples of small modular nuclear reactors here (see also the ones accessible from the left margin): [4]

[1] “Renewable electricity for Australia – the cost”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

[2] “What the carbon tax and ETS will really cost”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/

[3] “An evaluation of the targets and timetables of proposed Australian emissions reduction policies”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2010.36.pdf

[4] NRC, “Hyperion Power Module”
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html

Sure Pete...

But you haven't actually answered the question regarding real tangible impediments.

See at the moment Israel is running planning scenarios for a pre-emptive attack designed to wipe out Iran's cheap nuclear power option.

The US is still trying to untangle itself from the deal struck between the US and North Korea regarding it's access to safe "cheap nuclear technology".

And the fact that the world's poor people all seem to choose to live in nasty violent unstable places like the Congo and Somalia suggests that we won't be seeing any big nuclear dissemination programs in poor places any time soon.

So we're really talking here about energy for feeding us - not them. They'll just be sitting there watching on through the razor wire. That right?

I actually agree with you about small fast breeders ... but the models on offer so far are far far too big - the responsibility is inherently elsewhere.... down the street, in the next suburb, over near me somewhere. No what we need is something that can fit under Rochester and Antoinette's bunk beds ... that would be ideal, so they can have 24/7 cheap safe and free nuclear power for their ipods.... No more of this NIMBYism - let's bring it all back home.

How many can I put you down for Peter?

Now answer the real questions I put to you regarding the serious observable impediments to the nuclear option? Or is it that you cannot?

Peter Ormonde says: "There are quite a few "impediments" blocking the world from having low cost nuclear power I'd suggest."

Yes. They are political, ideological and social so they can be overcome by education, especially if the ‘Progressives’, Greenies, ideological Left and ‘Warmists’ stop blocking the technology that can have the greatest impact on reducing emissions. The following shows the advantages.

How much better is the ‘Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels’ policy than the ‘Optimal carbon price’ policy'?

The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008) [1] show the ‘cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels’ policy (called ‘Low-cost backstop policy’) is far better than the ‘Optimal carbon price’ policy. In fact, it is better by 3 times, 5 times, 5 times and 49 times for Benefits, Abatement Cost, Net Benefit, and Implied Carbon Tax rate. Details summarised below. Table numbers refer to Nordhaus (2008). (Costs are in 2005 US $ trillion)

Benefits (reduced damages), ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy 5.23
Low-cost backstop policy 17.63
ratio 3

Abatement cost, ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy 2.16
Low-cost backstop policy 0.44
ratio 5

Net Benefit, ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy 3.37
Low-cost backstop policy 17.19
ratio 5

Implied carbon tax, ($/ton C) (ref. Table 5-1)
Optimal carbon price policy 202.4
Low-cost backstop policy 4.1
ratio 49

CO2 emissions in 2100, (Gt C/a) (ref. Table 5-6)
Optimal carbon price policy 11
Low-cost backstop policy 0

CO2 concentration in 2100, (ppm) (ref. Table 5-7)
Optimal carbon price policy 586
Low-cost backstop policy 340

Global temperature change in 2100, (°C from 1900) (ref. Table 5-1)
Optimal carbon price policy 2.61
Low-cost backstop policy 0.9

[1] http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf Table 5-1 and and 5-3

Peter the EDI study you post a link to is every bit as unrealistic as the BZE proposal. It looks at *current* marginal costs for undeveloped industries and extrapolates with no sensible corrections for learning curves and economies of scale.

Indeed, the abatement cost you cite is ridiculous, because wind power with its current relatively modest subsidy (nearer $30/tonne than $300/tonne) already cuts emissions in this country by reducing domestic demand for black coal and gas. The same can be said for very low cost consumption efficiency improvements, which your post overlooks altogether.

It would be better still if it cut the consumption of brown coal, but it does not do this because brown coal, not being a globally-traded premium commodity, costs a fraction of the price of black coal. This is a problem for *any* strategy of electricity-sector emissions reduction in Australia : cost-first reductions hit gas and black coal before the really dirty brown coal business is affected. We may need a special, separate mandate to retire the Latrobe Valley.

BZE are certainly optimistic in their projections for reduced costs with mass rollout of solar thermal electric power, but there's no question that if a massive, ambitious rollout such as they propose were attempted, the costs would come down dramatically.

Indeed, if the rollout were accelerated only long enough to shut down all the brown coal fired power stations, costs would already be driven down to the point where it would actually be profitable to replace gradually the remaining black-coal-fired power stations -- that is, the emissions abatement cost by solar thermal power alone would be negative.

There are other reasons why the BZE proposal is unrealistically ambitious, but they are primarily political. The cost of renewable energy is not one of them.

Jonathon,

I suggest you read the cited reference and understand it before you start trying to critique it. The figures you are quoting are nowhere near the full story.

Sure Pete,

But you haven't actually read and understood the comment posted or the cited references.

Now lets get practical here Pete.... let's look at Iran and it's pursuit of the peaceful atom. Who should we be edgerkating? Should we be telling Israel that Iran is a great neighbour and just want the most economically feasible power on offer? Or should we be doing powerpoint presentations to Mr Dinnerjacket explaining that nuclear weapons are bad if he's got 'em but OK if Israel got them via illegal deals with South Africa.

How do you parachute your cheap safe and reliable nuclear power option into the real world Peter?

Nuclear Power – would avoid 900 fatalities per year in NSW and provide the least cost way to reduce emissions;

Why the opposition to nuclear? Surely nuclear would provide everything most people want, e.g.:

- energy security
- reliable energy supply
- by far the least cost way to reduce CO2 emissions
- avoid about 900 fatalities per year

What more could we ask for?

Here is a very simple calculation of the number of fatalities that would be avoided by replacing coal with nuclear power in NSW (using USA figures for fatalities from coal and global average figures for nuclear power: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html ).

NSW generates about 60 TWh of electricity from coal each year
USA rate of fatalities from coal fired electricity generation (mostly from air pollution) = 15 fatalities/TWh
= 900 fatalities from coal fired electricity generation in NSW each year

If nuclear replaced coal
Fatalities per year from nuclear electricity generation = 0.09 fatalities/TWh
= 5 fatalities from coal fired electricity generation in NSW each year
Therefore, fatalities avoided by substituting nuclear for coal generation = 900-5 = 895 fatalities avoided per year.

Who wants to argue against that?

Any comment on current abatement costs *already* being a fraction of the figure you came up with?

If you oppose the world having low-cost nuclear power, you oppose any realistic opportunity of significant cuts to global GHG emissions. That's the reality. Make your choice.

I think the US and Chinese figures for coal-related fatalities don't extrapolate so easily to Australia. Our mines are bigger, more automated, better regulated and generally safer for the few people they employ than the smaller, more labour-intensive, less unionised ones abroad. Our coal is relatively cleaner (even our brown coal is clean : carbon emissions from burning it are high due to its high moisture content rather than because of sulfur or heavy metal contaminants) and the emissions restrictions on our coal-fired power stations more stringent than those in most countries. The USA with its current abnormally low gas prices and its strange habit of running coal halfway across a continent by train has found that it is cheaper to build gas-fired power stations than keep dirty coal-fired ones running.

Without wishing to denigrate the impacts of coal dust and water usage on the neighbours of large open-cut mines, or meaning any disrespect to those who are killed or injured in Australian coal mining operations, I think it's fair to say the cost of coal to Australia is largely climate-related. In that sense, it doesn't much matter whether we export it or burn what we dig here.

Abatement cost of wind generation in Victoria = $1400/t CO2 abated.

"Hopes of slashing greenhouse emissions just blowing in the wind"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hopes-of-slashing-greenhouse-emissions-just-blowing-in-the-wind/story-fn59niix-1226462745494

I have not seen the report and don't endorse it, but you asked for a figure for current abatement costs and there is one just published.

So you'd be full steam ahead with the Kim Il Sung peaceful powerplant then Peter?

You'd be telling those Israelis to take a pill and have a cuppa while Tehran pushes ahead with its nuclear power option?

You'd be demanding that the yanks drop all their nanny-state objections to a free market in perfectly safe economically feasible nuclear technologies?

You'd be up for dropping a few nuclear plants into sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East as if none of these issues was real?

Are you serious?

Perhaps you should ban oil from all countries you don't approve of. After all, oil is used to make conventional bombs and the delivery systems for all weapons. So why not ban oil?

I guess, that comment invites the usual uproar from the anti nukes scaremongers. I should have stated the usually stated point first, which I am sure just about everyone knows, but when dealing with anti-nuke scaremongers it needs to be said every time. My bad!

weapons grade nuclear material is made in dedicated reactors designed and operated to make weapons material It is not made in civil plants designed for electricity generation. the mix of isotopes is wrong. It would be prohibitively expensive to try to extract and make the ratio of isotopes necessary for explosions using civil reactors. The least cost way to make weapons materials is with dedicated reactors designed an operated for the purpose.

I think that is sufficient explanation for the anti-nukes. Let them run down the rest of their scaremongering Greenpeace talking points. Hopefully, some people who converse on the Conversation who can see the big picture.

Interesting, thanks for the link, and your skepticism is appreciated. If I were you, I wouldn't go endorsing it any time soon :-D

It looks like Cumming has completely failed to take into account the "merit order" effect within the national fossil fuel electricity market. Indeed it seems he doesn't look at it as a national market at all, but at Victoria separately, and South Australia separately while ignoring altogether the retirement of the Port Augusta power stations -- picking big, fat cherries, in other words!

It's important to note that because a market is operating, baseload generators will "see" the effects of fluctuation in wind power as no different from everyday fluctuations in demand. At current low penetrations of renewable energy, the variation is still mostly hidden within the day-to-night demand changes that generators have always been accustomed to.

We know that brown-coal-fired power stations have not been adjusting their output in response to market conditions. Gas-fired and black coal power stations, on the other hand (and as I said above), have indeed been moderating their output in response to reduced demand for their power on the national energy market.

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2012/08/trends-in-power-station-output-by-fuel-type/

Cross-state connections are limited, but there's no question that the Vic-NSW interconnects are of sufficient capacity to have NSW generators (including of course) handle all the variation in wind power in both Victoria and South Australia -- indeed the interconnect to the Snowy handles almost all Victoria's day/night variation already. SA intermittency could benefit from a beefed-up interconnect to Victoria.

Total national gas consumption has been going up due to demand growth in WA and Queensland, and NSW's retirement of older black coal power stations in favour of gas.

This means that wind in Victoria and SA has indeed completely failed to reduce local Victorian coal consumption. Reduced consumption has proceeded cost-first : gas, black coal in NSW, and brown coal only in SA where it has been rendered marginal by gas and wind.

Holland: Wind avoids near zero CO2 emissions.
http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html

"Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) 'name plate' capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments. From the actual Statline production figures we know that 27% of this 23 MW = 6,17 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO2 savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW. The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our windturbines therefore is 6,17 - 4,6 = 1,57 MW on average over the year. That is ~ 1,6% of the installed capacity. It makes wind developments a Mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving. "

How many more studies do you want?

You can find similar for USA, Canada, Ireland, Denmark.

Here is an overview:
"Why is wind power so expensive"
http://docs.wind-watch.org/hughes-windpower.pdf

Forget promoting renewable energy if you want to make progress cutting global emissions. Surely it must be as clear as daylight that it's not going to achieve anything. We've been wasting time and a lot of money for two decades.

It seems my comment got lost in the ether. I’ll try again.

There are many other reports from around the world producing similar conclusions from empirical data. Here is one example:
http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html

“Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) 'name plate' capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments. From the actual Statline production figures we know that 27% of this 23 MW = 6,17 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO2 savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW. The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our wind turbines therefore is 6,17 - 4,6 = 1,57 MW on average over the year. That is ~ 1,6% of the installed capacity.”

How many more such reports do you need? They are available for USA (various grids), Canada, UK, Europe.

Here is an overview:
“Why is wind so expensive?”
http://docs.wind-watch.org/hughes-windpower.pdf

Given your unsolicited advice, I’ll reciprocate. If I were you, I wouldn't go endorsing wind power at all, le alone any time soon. My advice to you would be to stop advocating economically irrational, renewable energy policies and instead advocate to remove the impediments that are preventing the world from getting low-cost nuclear power.

The le Pair article does precisely the same cherry-picking as Cummings. He does the same thing with domestic Netherlands emissions figures, where in fact the abatement from Netherlands wind is achieved by displacing fossil fuel generation wherever the Europe-wide market means it makes sense. The Netherlands has been increasing its consumption of fossil fuels for *other* market-related reasons, unrelated to renewable electricity generation. le Pair makes other unreasonable discounts for wind (like treating repowering upgrades to perfectly functional 12- and 15-year-old wind farms as a reasonable estimate of turbine lifetime for the new investments whose data he is using) while also waffling over why wind power must be regarded as a second-class citizen. I don't think le Pair has an ounce of credibility.

The Hughes paper is better, in a sense (and much more clearly written), but he lays out some invalid assumptions very clearly in his introduction, for instance :

"2. The problems posed by the intermittency of wind power can, in principle,
be addressed by (a) complementary investments in pumped storage,
and/or (b) long distance transmission to smooth out wind availability,
and/or (c) transferring electricity demand from peak to off-peak periods
by time of day pricing and related policies. However, if the economics of
such options were genuinely attractive, they would already be adopted
on a much larger scale today because similar considerations apply in any
system with large amounts of either nuclear or coal generation. "

In other words "If there had ever been any money lying around on the ground, somebody would already have picked it up, so there definitely isn't any there now". Typical economist!

The assumptions are false, therefore most of the analysis is irrelevant. Corollary : the conclusions are both false and irrelevant. Pity, because Hughes, unlike le Pair, does not come across as starting with the conclusions and making up data to match. Hughes is just blinkered.

I suggest it is you that is cherry picking and bending data to suit a cause. What is that cause? Are you getting funded from wind farms, renewable energy search or something else?

Perhaps you can give me some examples where coal power stations have been closed down as a result of wind generating capacity.

No, your original comment was not lost.

I take your point that there are plenty of people prepared to cherry-pick data in many countries to prove whatever point they like.

The same arguments of "economic irrationality" that apply to renewable power apply to nuclear power also.

I think many of the impediments to low-cost nuclear power are rational and I don't think removing the irrational ones would be enough to let nuclear power proliferate in countries such as Australia and Somalia. If Japan and Germany are (indeed perhaps irrationally) backing out of nuclear power, selling it here is a lot to ask, given that it must get over all the same political opposition from the "greenhouse mafia" as renewables do.

Unlike some, I won't bother to argue that nuclear power is necessarily expensive. I think "new" nuclear power technologies are *technically* every bit as promising as new renewable power technologies and the power storage technologies which will make them viable.

Massive investment into nuclear power in China in particular (the one place where there are both engineers in the top circles of government and authoritarian structures to push such risky things past NIMBY objectors) may make a huge difference to carbon dioxide emissions; and indeed I hope it does. I believe they can do it sensibly enough that fewer peoples' lives are ruined by nuclear power than would otherwise be ruined by coal in that country.

That doesn't mean nuclear power is cheaper than renewables here and now. I can't buy a reactor for my rooftop, nor has Alinta Energy or any other utility owner flagged the likelihood of replacing any power station in this country with a nuclear one.

If I were you I'd stop trying to undermine renewables with cherry-picked arguments and go and work with CNNC on repowering the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels.

That's laughable. Yes, I have a cause : lowest-cost abatement ... which means, at the moment in Australia, that wind abates black coal and gas. This is counterintuitive because brown coal "should" be retired in advance, but it makes sense when you realise that in energy terms brown coal can be had for half the cost of black coal, which is in turn available to generators in NSW for about one-third the global market price.

I am in no way "funded by wind farms", I'm a software developer in an unrelated industry. I am watching the power storage market very closely and I do have some money put aside to contribute to a community wind farm when it is able to take investments. I'll be long though, I'm not doing it for personal profit (alone).

I think Playford B is your Exhibit A of a coal fired power station closed down as a result of wind generating capacity, and Munmorah can be Exhibit B. That's two, right here in this country.

Now of course because of intermittency you will tell me that wind was not responsible for those closures, and you'll be half right.

Most of the capacity of these two recently-closed coal-fired power stations has of course been replaced by other fossil-fueled generators that are more cost-effective and better able to ramp up and down with demand, and this would have happened eventually anyway since they were very old power stations. But this is how the electricity market is meant to work. Intermittent generation displaces whatever power would otherwise have cost the most to make. At low penetrations that's sufficient to justify huge rollouts of intermittent generation at significantly higher costs than the cheapest baseload power, because it's displacing (at least some) peak-time generation. In the case of PV in summer, it's replacing peak generation almost exclusively.

I guess you'll never see wind "alone" replace any coal-fired power station, but you definitely already see significant fuel consumption reductions (black coal power stations DO ramp their fuel consumption in response to demand changes, and the newer ones can do so quite quickly) and if this enables retirement of the most expensive fossil power stations in the network, that's grand.

At higher penetrations of intermittent renewables, the three techniques adduced by Hughes come into play. Demand shifting, broad regional power interconnections and power storage all already exist and all are growing. Power storage in particular is set for exponential growth in short order. Eventually, with intermittent renewables, dispatchable renewables including storage of solar heat, and some seasonal gas backup (or biomass, just to keep the BZE people happy) we will quite easily be able to retire all Australian coal fired power stations.

China is a somewhat different story. Do keep us posted on your nuclear power investments there.

You say:

"I think many of the impediments to low-cost nuclear power are rational and I don't think removing the irrational ones would be enough to let nuclear power proliferate in countries such as Australia and Somalia."

Those are unsubstantiated statements of your beliefs. Pointless. Baseless.

I've explained that the vast majority of the population hold beliefs based on misinformation. We have been subjected to 50 years of anti-nuclear propaganda. So, frankly, I see your beliefs as nothing more than that - unfounded beliefs. Do you remember the Greenpeace poster: "Love Wind - Hate Nuclear". That is where you are at, for whatever reason.

If you were objective you'd go carefully through the posts here and go to the links to understand the basis of these summary statements. But no, you started making silly points before you'd even read them.

According to Bernard Cohen (1990) [1], regulatory ratcheting had increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four by 1990. I expect it has doubled it again since. Arguably, that has not increased safety. It has reduced it compared with where it would have been if nuclear power had been allowed to develop competitively with other technologies. However, safety is a silly point to argue about since it is already 10 to 1000 times safer than the alternative - coal fired electricity generation - and safer than any other electricity generation technology [2]. What the anti-nukes are doing by blocking the development of nuclear is:

- preventing least cost CO2 reductions
- preventing the world having a far safer way of generating electricity than what we have now [2]
- therefore, causing avoidable fatalities (over a million per year if nuclear replaced coal power)
- causing 20,000 to 2 million times more shipments of coal than would be required if nuclear replaced coal
- preventing countries from having greater energy security (see explanation in previous comment)
- causing 20,000 to 2 million times more fossil fuel to be used for transporting coal.

It's very difficult to argue, objectively, against these facts, no matter how bad is your radiation phobia.

[1] http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

[2] http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

"That's laughable. Yes, I have a cause : lowest-cost abatement"

Sure is. You are advocating very high cost renewable energy that does next to nothing to reduce emissions and opposing the world getting low cost nuclear power. Yep. Sure is laughable.