A pro-nuke gish gallop.

Really? A "gish gallop"? What regular words does that stand for?
;]

Gish Gallop is an ad hominem attack sometimes justified in a stand-up debate. But this is a written forum. If someone makes 10 points, you have plenty of time to make a considered rebuttal. If the 10 points are worthless, then you can usually show this with a solid rebuttal of 3 or 4 points and, in the words of many text books, leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

If wind is so absolutely terrible why does it have one of the lowest LCOEs?

Figures from US DOE:
Wind 96.8; Nuclear 112.7; PV 156.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

"How many square miles do 18 wind 'farms' occupy?" - Not many at all, given that the only land that is used up is the diameter of the shaft.

"How many species are interfered with or killed?" - very few if you are not stupid enough to put them in a migration path.

"How much noise produced?" - Why don't you ask the cows who peacefully graze right underneath them.

"How much fossil-fuelled maintenance?" - Bugger all frankly. Greasing the gears?

"What about the initial debit of 700tons, per peak MW installed, of resources that must use fossil fuel for processing, transport, etc? Yes, each 400-ton steel windmill tower needs over 1000 tons of coal & coke. Each 1000 cubic meter foundation needs concrete kilned from limestone plus aggregate, all mined, crushed, transported, etc."

1000 cubic metres sounds a lot. In actuality it is 10m x 10m x 10m. Or about 20 houses worth.

Aussies are smarter than being tricked by an American with an obvious agenda.

Seriously though - this Thorium thing sounds interesting. Drop us a line when it's ready to go in 2050.

LCOE isn't much of a measure.

Suppose I have two cars, one costs me 98 cents per kilometer but only runs some of the time and sometimes just slows to a crawl for hours at a time. The other costs 112 cents per kilometer but runs reliably 24x7. Which is cheaper? The LCOE doesn't factor in the fact that I might very well need twice as many of the unreliable cars as the reliable ones. Nor does it factor in the idea that the unreliable car sometimes buggers up the road so I need to find more money for road repairs. Etc, Etc.

Geoff, "Gish gallop" is not an ad hominem attack, it's a method of confusing the issue during a debate, primarily, but also employed in print. It's the favoured tactic of creationists because they lack any genuine understanding of the topic they frequently criticise, namely, evolution. Instead they repeat factually false statements, even when they have been corrected time and again.

It's also a tactic employed by the landscape guardians when attempting to diminish the value of wind energy.

Check out a few YouTube videos featuring Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Wendy Wright or Duane Gish. Warning: watching any of the above will likely make your head bleed.

Your analogies are eye-wateringly bad.

LCOE is an industry agreed method of calculating the cost of delivered energy.

On that basis 'gish gallop' is an excellent description of the Mark Lynas article you called "great".
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/26/missing-the-point.html

Perhaps this is off topic, but it seems to me that the elephant in the room is the cost of "reticulation" of electricity. At present I have to pay some 10 times the generated cost of electricity and the added cost (approx 90%) SHOULD be constant. Thus even a doubling the generated cost would scarcely be noticed!

What we need is any form of safe electricity generation. Let's get on with it!

Bovine excrement.

Wholesale electricity prices in SA have dropped from $56.39/MWh in 2000/01 to $24.45/MWh in 2010/11.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/should-sa-fear-closure-coal-power

How about exporting more SA power to NSW and Victoria. How about putting more wind turbines in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent 15 Km offshore to minimise visual impact as is happening in Europe. Shallow water. Windpower is one of the few areas of SA comparative advantage.

Losses, costs and dangers are even higher for offshore wind. Here's the assessment of our first major project that we hope will never happen...
www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicConsequences.pdf

On the subject of losses, costs and dangers ...

"None of Japan's commercial wind turbines, totaling over 2300 MW in nameplate capacity, failed as a result of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, including the Kamisu offshore wind farm directly hit by the tsunami"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Japan

Of course wind power in South Australia cannot expand indefinitely - there is, after all, only a finite amount of wind blowing at any given moment, and only a finite amount of available land (and shallow enough ocean!) on which to install wind farms.

What would be of use is an expansion of wind utilisation across the rest of Australia.

Meanwhile, Mark, would you be so good as to read and comment on Marvel et al, "Geophysical limits to global wind power". Nature Climate Change, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1683?

The Science Daily news release "Wind Power Not Enough to Affect Global Climate, Researchers Find", ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2012), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143414.htm begins: "Though there is enough power in Earth's winds to be a primary source of near-zero emission electric power for the world, large-scale high altitude wind power generation is unlikely to substantially affect climate.

For that matter, you might also be interested in "Solar Power Day and Night: New Storage Systems Control Fluctuation of Renewable Energies"
ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2012), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809124611.htm
"Energy storage systems are one of the key technologies for the energy turnaround. With their help, the fluctuating supply of electricity based on photovoltaics and wind power can be stored until the time of consumption. At Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), ..."

That tech can be readily expanded by the use of vertical axis wind turbines and adding it to the suburban environment. There is a lot of focus on vertical axis because of the low noise and reduced visual impact this is a good example of what is being achieved already http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonfreeenergy/3957479225/. So rather than focal point of wind generated power and more distributed network.

More likely the bulk of regional SA is a sucky place to live. Unlike the eastern sea board, where many regional areas represent ideal retirement and hobby farms. SA lacks those opportunities over much of it's area but try and set up a wind farm in Mclaren Vale, Barossa Valley, Mount Gambier and see how far you'll get.
A great spot for a wind farm, The Nullabor National Park in parallel to the Eyre Highway, a hundred mile odd long wind farm.
With energy creating a new regional town becomes a real possibility.

As a Yank, I simply comment that lif SA ia anything like Calif & other dryish parts of the US, local solar on structures is far more productive and predictable than wind. And,, solar PV technology has at least one doubling of power per sq meter to go. Wind doesn't, apart from the other typically unaccounted-for costs of wind farming.

As to pumped storage, it's efficiency is at best 75% and such installations are not only weather dependent (having something to pump), they cannot follow the rapid fluctuations windmills produce. Solar compensation is better for them. However, pumped storage has many environmental defects, so expansion of it is unlikely in most places with such concerns.

Any region wanting low-impact, good efficiency 'renewable' power can simply copy efforts like the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative -- >30GWe hours/day with no land or transmission losses..

The above article is primarily about wind power, with a passing comment on solar. These renewable sources of electricity should not be seen as competitors, but rather as meeting different parts of the demand equation. In fact, solar PV is likely to do little for the summer peak demand (at 5-6pm), and absolutely nothing for the winter peak demand, so alternative capacity has to be provided to meet those peaks.

Nevertheless, solar PV is a power source with a lot of potential. I would hope and expect that it will be possible to more than double its output per $ capital cost in due course. However, at the moment it is a bit-player. Just consider the figures: one in five homes in SA have solar PV installed, but it only produces 2.4% of all electricity generated.

It is true that California has done better with solar PV than Australia, with average installed solar PV per home being 10 kW, rather than 1 to 1.5 kW in Australia. It is interesting that California has been a world leader more than once.

Solar PV is still an immature industry, with lots of development ahead of it. It is likely to become more economically attractive as time goes on; as a result prudence would suggest keeping government financial aid to modest and manageable levels, but enough to keep development proceeding.

With solar PV, the feed-in-tarrif issue needs to be resolved in Australia. This should reflect the true economic benefit to the electricity network, which surely can be calculated and agreed: it is not rocket science (e.g. does it reduce the electricity network cost or not?).

In regard to pumped storage, it is the ideal complement for the oversupply of windpower at night. To handle instanteous supply fluctations from wind, it is likely that gas-fired electricity will continue to be required. The cited 75% efficiency of pumped storage is not too bad: it certainly is not the critical issue, since one would expect that an operator could buy electricity at $20 MW and sell it for $60 MW. Also environmental issues can hardly be compelling, since all it needs is a top dam and a bottom dam, and a recycled supply of water. However, capital cost is an issue, and that is a topic on which I would like to see more published data.

Your comments are indeed interesting, Graham -- such as: "in fact, solar PV is likely to do little for the summer peak demand (at 5-6pm), and absolutely nothing for the winter peak demand," -- that assumes no storage locally, either via EVs, recharge stations, or on the local grid. Wind does nothing as reliably as that.

As to pumper storage, not only is capacity severely limited by appropriate sites and the inevitable environmental damage via repeated drawdown/refill cycles, but hydro generators/pumps cannot be reversed quickly enough to handle wind's inevitable, high-frequency variability. And, when the reservoir is at bottom, along with the wind, then what?

What the Swiss do with much pumped storage is buy nuclear power from France during the night to fill reservoirs, then drawn those down in the morning to sell power to Italy!

In contrast to solar PV's predictability and local sourcing, wind power in places like Denmark must be forecast very accurately -- the Danes maintain a 300MW cushion of online, non-wind generation each day simply because the best forecast cannot guarantee <1m/sec wind shortfall. This 300MW comes directly or indirectly from fossil fuel.

Your statement about summer vs winter PV output is actually wrong for a few reasons -- in northern/southern high latitudes, panels are positioned for winter at high angles, gaining 2 benefits to output: obviously more direct solar flux, and higher efficiency due to clearer winter air and cooler PV junctions. These are very significant effects.

The bottom line for wind remains: low efficiency per kWHr-day, high resource demands for construction, foreign-market dependence, larger maintenance costs than for PV, larger, continual wasted generation due to conversion & transmission, plus the various environmental impacts including noise, ugliness, inability to move with climate changes, and low output per sq km.

Solar PV is already superior in output per acre, $/kW, and has continual efficiency increases and cost decreases as the physics improves. Wind has no such possibilities.

So, fine to have a windmill or two for a remote farm, but a "community wind farm" makes little long-term sense, since the community's structures can easily be outfitted with more reliable, cheaper PV at no land or environmental costs. In fact, it's amazing to hear that communities anywhere would just do wind without also doing local PV. Tthey could even do comparison tests. It just shows the power of misinformation, subsidy and human resistance to counter factual science.

It would be interesting to hear that any of the wind uber alles advocates here actually read real results of wind studies, such as in Allison's, Hargraves' or MacKay's books.

But maybe the real test i to see how many would allow their names to be painted in blg black letters on the big white towers, for all to read, forever, even after each windmill goes out of service for its inherent maintenance costs and inability to compete with PV, storage, nuclear, etc.

It's interesting, here, how no one has agreed to that, not even wind advocacy organizations -- maybe since they can easily see all the wind junk from the '80s that still lies around Calif. hills. Funny how no one with PV installs minds labelling with thier names.
;]

I read somewhere that if you face the panels West instead of North the generation does match the summer peaks. (But obviously nothing in the mornings)

Alex - I have read MacKay's book. It does not say what you keep implying it says. Have you read it? It appears not.
It inspired a local version "AUSTRALIAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY - BY THE NUMBERS"
Here is the last paragraph
"Whether we use pumped hydro, molten salt or hydrogen storage and which mix of wind, solar, wave and geothermal power we use, the conclusion is the same. Given the will, we could supply all our energy needs in a sustainable and mostly renewable way. We could do this at a price we could afford. Possibly the best
solution will be a combination of these approaches"
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/

After MacKay published his book, he joined DECC and helped develop a open source Energy Pathways model.

"... the cost of the "do nothing" option does not include the damage to the economy expected as a result of climate change, and the calculator notes that, according to the landmark Stern review: "This is the equivalent of up to £6,500 per person per year on average, on top of the cost of the energy system.""

"The government's "higher renewables, more energy efficiency" scenario, in which wind delivers 55% of the total electricity supply and all cars and buses are fuelled by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, is forecast to cost £368 a year (8%) more than the "do nothing" scenario, if climate change damage is ignored."

"The final scenario, "higher nuclear, less energy efficiency", is the most expensive, £499 (11%) more than doing nothing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/28/uk-switch-low-carbon-energy

Yes, Mike, I like to read things I recommend. I've even discussed issues with him personally.

MacKay's book is referenced to indicate that 'renewables' as advertized don't do the whole job, which everyone here seems to agree on already. It's also an older look at sources, so his appreciation of nuclear costs isn't necessarily up to date. And, the statement: "higher nuclear, less energy efficiency" is obviously silly, since the two are independent and efficiency is always an agreed-upon goal. MacKay understand this is obvious.

The issues are with "efficiency" at both the generation and use ends. One can't just pick one side. That' why wind, being less efficient than present solar PV, and guaranteed to fall further behind, is a logical source to drop from massive power-generation deployments, even apart from its serious environmental impacts.

That;s the point. Now please read the other books, as you asked me to read MacKay's.

One of my relatives, in the 1880s, had a wheat farm at Pt. Germein, just outside of Goyder's line. It was too hard, and he had to give it up. Co-incidentally, my great-great grandfather had land in the same region. This is near the beginning of a harsh region, and difficult to use for cropping. They were right to give up.

You can travel north from here, along the side of the Flinders Ranges. Here you can also see the tragic remains of the hopes of those who sought to farm this region as well. However, if you look up you can see the magnificent sight of wind turbines, one after another, in stately array. They are the modern equivalents of the old-time battler farmers.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but they look very impressive to me, like modern day pyramids, as they progress in their unhurried way to generate carbon-free electricity for South Australia.

Perhaps one day the wind-farms will be redundant, a reminder of a time in the late 20th and early 21st century when the world made vigorous efforts to try to ameliorate the effects of putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. Let us hope that when our grandchildren and great-grandchildren look back to this time they won't have to say, "Why didn't they try harder?" but rather, "They tried this, and they tried that, and eventually came up with the solution we enjoy today," just as I can say about my ancestors.

No Alex - I did not ask you to read MacKay's book. It was your sneering and arrogant comment.

"It would be interesting to hear that any of the wind uber alles advocates here actually read real results of wind studies, such as in Allison's, Hargraves' or MacKay's books."

The choice of the "higher nuclear, less energy efficiency" pathway to model was MacKays not mine. As was it MacKay's choice to model the 55% wind pathway - why would he do that if as you claim wind is useless.

I admit I have not read the "The Wind Farm Scam" - I do not intend to. Any book with that title should stay in the dumper where it belongs.

"Have you read it? It appears not." -- a famous quote of Mike Hansen!

"The choice of the "higher nuclear, less energy efficiency" pathway to model was MacKays not mine" -- never said it was yours. You just seemed to like it enough to quote it here, Mike.

"MacKay's choice to model the 55% wind pathway - why would he do that if as you claim wind is useless" -- MacKay was writing that at an earlier time, as an example. It doesn't mean he thinks wind now is better than other choices that have improved more than wind has. And he understands the advantages of nuclear systems, present and future. I've discussed things like this with him over a year ago.

"I admit I have not read the "The Wind Farm Scam" - I do not intend to. Any book with that title should stay in the dumper where it belongs" -- how unfettered by ignorant bias!

Again, what you think is not my concern, Mike. As an adult, it should be yours, but you'll have to find a Knowledge Nanny somewhere else.
;]

.

"MacKay was writing that at an earlier time, as an example. It doesn't mean he thinks wind now is better than other choices ..."

earlier - like December 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/28/uk-switch-low-carbon-energy

That argument is so sad, it does need responding to - I will allow readers here form their own judgments.

Really? Why? Our fossil fuellers love to 'invest' in wind & solar 'famrs' because they get tax credits, subsidies... and they know those sources will never cmpete with them.

They've always known nukes could put them out of business and so they support anti-nukes.

So, keep up the good work for combustion, Z, they love it and they love selling the fossil fuels used to process the 700 tons of materials needed per 300kW of installed windmill.power. Facts are wind's biggest enemies.
;]

See - this is what you don't get about the situation down here Alex.

We don't have nuclear power and are extremely unlikely to get it. For both technical and economic but mostly political reasons. The current debate down here is between renewables and fossil fuels. And by denigrating the cheapest leading renewable it is you that is playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry.

Gary, you say the choices are "mostly political". then you say I don't understand your situation there. Of course I don't.

But, the scientific & engineering facts don't support your assertion that wind is "the cheapest leading renewable", unless there's some odd political subsidy or penalty relating wind & local solar.

Again, that's nothing to do with long-term reality, true costs, or emissions reduction, since politics changes, as do subsidies/penalties. The physics, chemistry & international economics for wind make it more costly long term than local solar PV.

Your politics can change, however.

Wind has the most installed capacity and the lowest LCOE of all renewables except hydro. That is what I mean by 'cheapest leading renewable'.

Keep repeating that, Gary!
;]

Good to see you've got the last word again Alex. Oh s*** - sorry!

Blair: " I can categorically state that opposition to wind is not so much based on any supposed environmental concerns" -- which means that: a) you don't understand the issues, or b) you've $ in the wind biz and don't want ny offending facts.

Got it. And what you wrote indeed fits the description of a "gish gallop"!
;]

Alex - your comment is offensive ("you've $ in the wind biz") not your facts which are largely irrelevant or made up.

And again - look up "gish gallop". If you understand what it is, you may stop firing your "link buckshot" at the thread.

Mike, it's true that I do own a small number of shares in Australia's only community owned wind farm, wish I could afford much more actually.

I don't bother reading or responding to the droppings of the resident psittacine and wonderful example of Christian hypocrisy. I'm happy knowing his words condemn him while highlighting his lack of objectivity and honesty.

Facts are tough, eh Mike? So Blair does admit to having $ in wind. So, what's "offensive", again?
;]

Blair, good on you for participating in the Hepburn wind farm, and good comments about community engagement.

Don't be too hard on Alex. He's viewing the situation from the perspective of the US, with similar land area to Australia and much higher power demand.

As a matter of fact, there is another nation with one quarter the population of the US, and one sixth the land area - so if the case for nuclear power in the US is as strong as Alex states, it is even more so for Iran. I assume Alex makes that argument in fora as and when the opportunity arises.

Still offensive. Blair is not going to get rich on shares in Hepburn Wind which uses its profits to support community projects. I have a house at Hepburn Springs - most people who have invested are treating it as a donation. You questioned his integrity - he has demonstrated it consistently in his behaviour in discussions here.

David, thank you. I found out as much as I could about various German and Danish community owned projects. I like the idea of communities benefiting from public infrastructure. It seems to work well in those countries so I was happy to give it a go and participate here in Oz. There are at least two more community owned projects in the pipeline around the country but legislative handicaps introduced by the LNP are making these popular projects difficult.

Funny you should mention Iran, can't help but wonder why if nuclear power is so safe and wonderful that the US and Israel are making noises about destroying the handiwork of the peaceloving Iranians - of course a little homework reveals the ease with which domestic nuclear can be used as cover for military purposes - which is why uranium powered reactors were/are preferred by the US rather than thorium according to Richard Martin – Superfuel: Thorium, The Green Energy Source for the Future
http://www.blubrry.com/littleatoms/1454035/richard-martin-superfuel-thorium-the-green-energy-source-for-the-future/

Mike, I appreciate your defence, thank you. The disappointing thing is that Alex has never bothered to ask me why I got involved with the Hepburn community windfarm, as you correctly say, it wasn't to get wealthy, far from it, it was because I like the idea of community owned and controlled projects rather than governments imposing things from on high.

The bonus was that this project also involved clean, renewable energy. There was also an element of altruism involved, there is reward far more valuable than any monetary gain knowing my small support is helping the push towards a sustainable future.

I'm bemused that he should think I'd be embarrassed about others knowing of my interest in the Hepburn project. Far from being ashamed, I consider it a badge of honour to be a member of Australia's first community owned wind farm.

Geoff, installed wind energy capacity in Australia in the last six years, 2+ gigawatts, in the UK, 7+ gigawatts. In the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

Nuclear zero.

Your "shaky grid" concern is something of a beat up, nobody is saying "don't worry, something will turn up". There have been numerous unplanned, emergency generator shutdowns in the last couple of years in the Latrobe valley courtesy of flooded mines, plant failure and earthquakes? They didn't do much for grid stability but you didn't mention that.

In any case, the interconnecters linking the eastern states greatly reduce any grid instability.

Geoff,

I suggest you have a look at a radiation map for the Chernobyl region.
The contaminated area (not the exclusion zone) is roughly the same area as the whole of South Korea. This is reason enough for most people to reject that "pathway".

Nuclear power installed in South Korea in the last decade 7 GW and these are real gigawatts, not divide by 3 or 4 gigawatts.

Nobody is suggesting building reactors without containment buildings.

But what's the big deal about the levels of radiation in the region? Russia/Belarus/Ukraine had 14 million cancers during the past 25 years with about 6000 due to Chernobyl with very few fatalities. Had those countries had Australian cancer rates during the past 25 years, then instead of 6,000 extra cancers, they would have had 6 million extra cancers, ie., about 20 million in total. Radiation is pretty much a cancer wimp compared to the major lifestyle factors ... cigarettes, red and processed meat, alcohol, obesity, inactivity.

The tiny cancer debit due to Chernobyl is swamped by a much more massive health credit due to cleaner air around plants compared to coal equivalents and due to the 1000 or so lives it saved in Japan when the tsunami hit. ie., with 3 exceptions all the 1000 or so workers on duty at the nukes are alive. Had they been employed on some coastal solar PV installation business, for example, they'd mostly be dead.

Of course you could replace the Fukushima reactors with solar thermal, but that would need an area about the size of the 20km exclusion zone.

Geoff

Your right about the relatively low death rate due to Chernobyl. However big dramatic events that lead to deaths always have a much bigger pull on the human psyche than low key slow events that have the same result - a house fire vs cigarettes for example.

But some considerations. The area of the exclusion zone might be needed, but they don't all have to be in one location. They could all be mounted along road sides for example, conveniently connecting to the power lines that run over head. And in Japan it would be dumb to build them all down at sea level ready for the next tsunami. Japan is a country with a high population density so lots of roofs in relatively compact clusters - easy to feed into the grid.

So if one where to replace Fukushima with Solar - PV, Not Thermal - you wouldn't have to use up any valuable land at all - just road-sides and rooftops.

Just some comments about Nuclear. The safety record of Nuclear is pretty damn good, but that comes about due to a very strong regulatory regime, which equates to long lead times. Lower the regulatory standards to improve construction times and the safety record becomes far more debatable.

Next, to have a viable Nuclear Power industry a country needs the infra-structure in place to support it. This isn't just wires and cooling ponds. It is the depth of capacity within the Engineering & Scientific community within that country needed to support the industry, the decisions that it makes, processes etc.

You tell me that a Nuclear Power plant is going to be built just down the road from me, staffed by people with at least a decades worth of detailed experience of Nuclear - I am not too fussed. Tell me that it will be staffed by people with at least a decades worth of experience in Coal fired power and I will be putting my house on the market.

Because this is the point. Current Nuclear technologies have the safety record they have in spite of the underlying physics. Nuclear power is intrisically unsafe, but made quite safe by extreme & herculean engineering & management. That level of engineering & management capability cannot be created out of thin air or over night - 1 decade at least, minimum. You tell me that Australian power companies are going to buy a Nuclear plant at their local 'Nuclear Power Plant Supermarket', set it up down the road from me and some nice folks from Stuttgart or Inchon are going come over here to 'do some training then hand it over to the locals' - my house is on the market.

Current technology Nuclear is viable and safe when done right. But for Australia the lead time to build up expertise and then build plants is 10-20 years. Any faster than that and it most definitely is not safe. No doubt you could argue that we could get some plants in the ground quicker than that. We could. But without the capacity building within Australia, their safety record overseas counts for nothing. Build a real world scale local technical capacity first, which we are certainly don't have at the moment, and then Nuclear in Australia would be as safe as anywhere else. But not until that capacity has been built.

Why did Fukushima fail? They built it too close to the sea. Then the cooling rod storage ponds were 5 floors up in the air in a tsunami damaged building. And the switch room where they might have connected emergency generators brought in to keep the coolant pumps running were in the basement and flooded. Even with the capacity of the Japanese, and they aren't slouches in this game, they still got stuff wrong.

There are other Nuclear technologies out there - 4th generation reactors, Thorium based systems, systems that use particle accelerators to initiate the reactions and if the accelerator is turned off the reaction stops. All technically viable. But all just on the drawing boards. 10-20 years away because that is how long it takes with Nuclear if you want it safe.

Meantime, Wind & Solar are going from strength to strength. China flexed it's muscles a bit and the price of PV cells plummeted. By the time Nuclear gets up and running here in Oz, how much Wind & Solar will be installed anyway?

Apropos your comment below about Korea; How long had those plants been in the pipeline?

South Korea is building their current nukes in under 5 years.

I would have agreed with much of what you say about nuclear until recently, but the more I find out, the more obvious it becomes how the risks of nuclear have been overstated not just a little but massively and consistently. Consider, please. Studies of atomic bomb survivors lump people into groups depending on their radiation dose. The top group is typically above 2 Sieverts. The LD50 is about 5 Sieverts. So 2 is a huge dose. The residents closest to Chernobyl got 3 milli Sieverts despite the top being blown off the reactor and there being no containment. So among the atomic bomb survivors, the people with a massive dose >2 Sv, who would have had significant acute radiation sickness but who survived, how much extra cancer did they get? Their cancer rate (solid cancers) rose about 60%.

http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late_e/cancrisk.html

Now compare that with the changes in the Japanese diet in the 60s. Of all the changes, just one is convincingly linked to cancer ... red and processed meat causes bowel cancer. So what happened to their bowel cancer rate? It rose by a factor of 5. The Japanese originally were getting 20,000 bowel cancers annually and now they are up over 101,000.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17059355

So surviving an atomic blast with a massive dose of radiation is far less dangerous than Aussie beef. But radiation fear has been spread extremely effectively and the lies about beef have been extraordinary and MLA has been given a free ride by ACCC to lie about their product.

Technically, what will reactors look like in a decade?
The Chinese will be doing with nuclear exactly what they have done with other technologies ... make it a commodity. SMR, small modular reactors, dig a hole, bury it, connect up a generator. There is no reason why this isn't technically feasible.

Geoff

I think you have missed my point somewhat. The risks of Nuclear aren't simply a static, intrinsic risk. Rather thay are a risk derived from the circumstances that each country finds itself in, based on the capcity of it's engineering infrastructure. If Korea is building reactors in 5 years - is that build time from turning the first sod or time from the first stage in the planning and approvals process. And if Korea has been progressively building Nuclear Reactors for years then their domestic engineering capacity outstrips ours.Korea might buid a reactor in 5 years safely. We couldn't do it in the same time frame as safely because our technical infrastructure isn't up to it.

As to your comments about radiation doses etc, I agree with you. Hiroshima, Chernobyl and everything says that the risks from lower level radiation, while present, aren't as severe as some people feared. That said, the risks from more extreme exposure are still real and it is the infra-structure capability of a country that allows it to remove the higher risks, leaving only the lower level ones.

The safety leve lof Nuclear doesn't come from soemthing intrinsic. It comes from the overall technical capacity and expertise of that society. If Korea has had a continuous Nuclear program for years, they are at least 10 years ahead of us here in Oz

Glenn.
Why did Fukushima fail?

According to The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, because the regulators were in bed with the company. This report is scathing of the nuclear industry in Japan.

It refutes the idea that it was the reactors location that was the problem - although obviously that did not help.

"The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.” We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual."

"Following the 1970s “oil shocks,” Japan accelerated the development of nuclear power in an effort to achieve national energy security. As such, it was embraced as a policy goal by government and business alike, and pursued with the same single-minded determination that drove Japan’s postwar economic miracle.
With such a powerful mandate, nuclear power became an unstoppable force, immune to scrutiny by civil society. Its regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion. At a time when Japan’s self-confidence was soaring, a tightly knit elite with enormous financial resources had diminishing regard for anything ‘not invented here.’"

"Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents. It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant."

http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res4.pdf

Geoff states above "Nobody is suggesting building reactors without containment buildings.". Perhaps not - but Peter Lang, chief renewables basher for the pro-nuke web site BNC consistently argues that nuclear is only expensive because it is "over-regulated".

If Japan's experience is any guide, it is under-regulated - who is going to watch the regulators?

"who is going to watch the regulators?" -- us.

Who watched the banking regulators?

As Pogo Possum said: "I've seen the enemy and he is us."

In the US, that's hy the NRC was split out of the AEC (which went into DoE), and NRC only reports to Congress. Guess who elects those dudes?

If anything, Fukushima and the entire Sendai tragedy is the responsibility of the Japanese govt. and the Japanese traditions that allow top-down, unquestioned control by a few. TEPCO was known for decades to be corrupt -- even Yakuza involvement, as with the Japanese banking scandal that brought down Olympus. The Sendai coast was known for hundreds of years to be tsunami country. The entire Tohoku quake result is was caused by Japanese policy on land use, despite clearest warnings possible, form geologists and ancestors -- read about the stone tablets placed all around the region hundreds of years ago by concerned ancestors, who were ignored.

Osnos in 17 Oct 2011 New Yorker (of all places), explains the tablets. They say, in careful, hand-carved Japanese: "Don't build here".

The banking crisis was predicted by Bourne, Stiglitz and other economists after we deregulated va the Gingrich Congress in the '90s. Anyone listen?

Chernobyl's RBMK reactors were designated illegal outside the Soviet Bloc. Fortunately, everyone else listened. That's one reason nuclear power has maintained its superior safety record worldwide.

But, we can look in the mirror and see who's responsible when things like foolish deregulation are legislated.

Good points, Geoff. And, there's a new study from U. of N. Carolina regarding the surprisingly broad array of inherited tendencies for various cancers, meaning that our parentage is far more dangerous to us than most any modest chemical or radiological threats.

There's also a recent report published by the AAAS that illustrates the very dangerous consequence of our moving to 7 billion folks in such a short time -- multiplication of bad genes.

Right Gei=off. the problem is that folks with 'green' biases, just like the deniers, don't get the significance of the industrial revolution's combustion output.

A Berkeley geologist just presented up-to-date Carbon-Cycle knowledge yesterday to a symposium, and the issue we must get our minds around is that we're moving 10 billion tons of Carbon from geologic storage into the air each year now. The pre-industrial rate was less than 1/10 that.

The only return path is subduction of sequestered Carbon in limestone, which is predominantly the result of near-surface sea liofe that forms carbonate skeletal/shell structures from CO2 dissolving in surface water. When they die, they sink. Their rate of sequester is tiny compared to our massive CO2 emissions, and those emissions acidifying surface waters have begun to make those creatures' lives difficult.

In the historical fossil/sediment record, the closest rate of Carbon movement into the air & seas occurred about 54 million years ago, and the rate then was <1/10 what we're doing today.

So, just as the scientific gang knew decades ago, the way to prevent the quick evolution of an entirely different & uncomfortable, food-disrupted planet is non-emitting power, deployed at the rate of 1GWe per week. Only nuclear could have done that in the 70s & 80s.

Now, we need 1GWe/day and we'll still have created a large change in planetary habitability that will last thousands of years, even if emissions were zeroed today.

So we see the frivolity of the wind/wave... advocacy. Of course, a few will make $ on such 'gish galloping'.
;]
The combustion industry loves what the anti-nukes do.

One may be able to get DePaolo's presentation here...
http://energyclub.stanford.edu/index.php/Events/All_events_around_the_bay#ItemDetail2667

"TEPCO was known for decades to be corrupt -- even Yakuza involvement...'

Read the report from The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.
http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res4.pdf

Why did the Investigation Commission miss that? You are a BS'er. The fact is you cannot face the fact that it was the nuclear industry in Japan that was the problem - there is no need to go looking for Yakuza.

"...caused by Japanese policy on land use" - not according to the Accident Commission who slated the blame home to the cosy collusion between the industry and the regulators.

"...despite clearest warnings possible, form geologists "
So why are you not screaming about the restart of Ohi reactor No. 4.
"...seismologists said there were potentially active faults under Ohi and the nearby Shika station, operated by Hokuriku Electric Power Co."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-japan-nuclear-restart-idUSBRE86H0CO20120718

You and Geoff should get together and write the marketing material for the nuclear industry.

"People of Australia. Your bad genes and your addiction to Macca's hamburgers means that you are going to fall off the perch anyway. So we have decided to put a new Chinese modular reactor down the end of your street".

Glenn Tamblyn,

Your argument seems to be to do nothing, because as we know, renewable energy is not a viable option.

By trying to block nuclear development - as the anti-nukes have been doing for 50 years - you are not only blocking the capacity for the world to cut GHG emissions, you are also causing higher levels of fatalities per MWh of electricity generated. Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html . The arguments about nuclear being higher risk than other electricity generation technologies is not correct - as demonstrated by nearly 60 years of nuclear electricity generation and 15,000 reactor years of civilian operation.

I agree there is financial risk because of the high capital cost and long construction period. This would be reduced with smaller nuclear plants. See the latest cost estimates for Australia Table 4:38 here: http://bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf (but ignore the projections of future cost, the cost projections make no allowance for cost reduction for nuclear but assumed optimistic cost reduction rates for renewables).

This is how I suggest the world could get there (It will take time and Australia has no to negligible role to play at this stage):

We need as much competition as possible. Competition improves the technology and reduces costs. We need competition from companies in the manufacturing countries – USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China. Korea, 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

Geoff, here is another wonderful example of the inherent problems linked with nuclear energy and plant construction:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-india-nuclear-idINBRE88H1B020120918

The combination of an energy hungry country, poor regulatory laws, real nuclear plaint failures courtesy of natural events have companies like GE being tangled up. Again, if nuclear was so safe and reliable, why do you think GE is being "hamstrung by liability laws that oblige the firms rather than the Indian state to pay for the damage from an industrial accident…"?

Note, the project mentioned in this article has been in the pipeline since 1988

You know, Mike, it's always good to talk with people before you malign publicly what they know.

A close friend was a nuclear safety engineer with GE when TEPCO was building Fukushima. He and others were amazed at what the managers at TEPCO did to avoid costs & safety recommendations GE engineers made at every meeting.

You can also look up for yourself things like "TEPCO executives dismissed for fraud", or NISA's negligent collusion with government and TEPCO managers. Or you can read the accounts of nuclear workers in Japan, etc. who have explained aspects of Yakuza involvement in contract workers. And you can study the Japanese banking scandals related to Yakuza, industry (like Olympus) and the govt.

It's not my job to babysit your studies before you display ignorance. So feel free to learn more before accusing someone of being a "BSer" -- that sounds too desperate for anything but pity. But to be nice, start here...
..
http://tinyurl.com/4pqahtt (3/14)
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-causedge-
scientist/story?id=13141287 or: http://tinyurl.com/69yyh37
www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html?_r=1 (3/15)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-
Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html or:
http://tinyurl.com/63pe99a
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5298-safety-on-thecheap
(3/16)
http://tinyurl.com/45mvlz7
www.itworld.com/business/140626/legacy-1800s-leaves-tokyo-facingblackouts
(3/18)
http://tinyurl.com/3avkq62
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13226179 (3/26)
www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/japan.nuclear.tepco/index.htm
l?hpt=T2 (4/3)
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/world/asia/18japan.html?_r=1&nl=todaysh
eadlines&emc=tha2 (4/18)
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html (4/27)
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-anger-
20110429,0,7071068.story (4/29)
www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/338-177/5785-japans-nuclearadviser-
resigns-in-tearful-protest (4/30)
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/japan-tsunami-2011-tepco-tsunamiphotos_
n_864168.html#s280815
http://tinyurl.com/3lp4o5k (5/19)
http://tinyurl.com/3j6ysja (5/26)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13700905 (5/27)
http://tinyurl.com/6dvnxun (6/19)
http://tinyurl.com/63pe99a (10/31)
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201111240030
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203240031 (NISA)
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/fukushima-owner-is-nationalized.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-06/opinion/opinion_takeshita-fukushimamanagement_
1_tepco-japanese-companies-japanesescandals?_
s=PM:OPINION (7/7/2012)
http://tinyurl.com/72fww8u

Thanks Alex.

While you're here, would you be so good as to comment on the story out of Mark Jacobson's Stanford University lab to the effect that offshore (I assume off the US's Atlantic coast) wind power could meet one third of the US's peak power demand?

The Stanford news release is at http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/september/offshore-wind-energy-091412.html, and it's summarised for us here at "The Conversation" at http://theconversation.edu.au/enough-wind-off-east-coast-to-power-one-third-of-us-9674

pdf's of Jacobson's reports are accessible from http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/offshore.html

Another "gish gallop" of links. What is the objective here Alex - to prevent anyone checking your claims without having an afternoon free?

I have checked a few and they are actually saying the same things as the Accident Report which I linked to.

For example the NY Times link
"In Japan, the web of connections between the nuclear industry and government officials is now popularly referred to as the “nuclear power village.”

From the Accident Report which I quoted above
"With such a powerful mandate, nuclear power became an unstoppable force, immune to scrutiny by civil society. Its regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion. At a time when Japan’s self-confidence was soaring, a tightly knit elite with enormous financial resources had diminishing regard for anything ‘not invented here.’
http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res4.pdf

So not Yakuza - that is a cop out - that is the same "special pleading" that is always used to explain away nuclear accidents.

But the corruption of the entire nuclear industry in Japan.

Peter

"Your argument seems to be to do nothing, because as we know, renewable energy is not a viable option."

We know nothing of the sort Peter. Solar & Wind are rapidly approaching cost competitiveness with Fossil Fuels now, particularly with the way PV Solar costs are crashing due to China ramping up production. We have already seen here in Victoria that uptake of Solar PV in new home construction has been the equivalent of avoiding the need for a new power station.

The argument is often made about the fluctuating nature of renewables. However with good siting of wind farms you can get pretty good predictability. And Solar may be variable but it isn't unreliable. Also a number of studies have shown that a mix of Solar & Wind, sourced from a geographically wide area can cover, with a modest amount of biofuel combustion and hydro, can meet demand.

So to the baseload argument is often trotted out. Current changes in energy demand are all in peaking load - base load hasn't changed much. And how much of supposed base load is policy & pricing driven? Power is sold at much lower costs at night - so called off-peak power - creating an artificially inflated base-load figure. What would true base load look like if poer was cheapes at midday, not midnight?

There are certainly challenges still to be managed with a fully renewable system. Primarily energy storage although there are a lot of developments in that area, and also smarter rid designs that allow for energy to be sourced from a far wider geographical area. And smarter grids also allow the possibility of dynamic demand management as well. Imagine the grid being smart enough to request consumer devices on the grid to lower their demand a little when loads are high in exchange for lower power costs - your airconditioner might adjust it's set point a degree higher temporarily and you get a lower energy bill.

There is a sort of inertia, 'we have always done things this way' mindset with the idea that power generation needs to come from 'big iron' scale systems. Renewables allow an alternative system that has components of many scales, functioning like a self-correcting organism. 'Big Iron' Fossil Fuel plants still have problems too. The unplanned loss of a major Gen-Set can throw the system into chaos too you know

Glenn Tambling,

"We know nothing of the sort Peter. Solar & Wind are rapidly approaching cost competitiveness with Fossil Fuels now,"

Rubbish. The renewable advocates have been saying that for over two decades. They are not close to being cost competitive or economically viable and probably never will be.

You have to compare on the basis of cost of electricity.

"Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” by Elliston et al. (2011) ... the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include costs for the existing electricity network).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
The remainder of your comment is simply nonsense; you'll realise why by reading the link.

Yes - let's compare on the basis of cost of electricity:

Latest LCOE figures from the US DOE:
Nuclear 112.7; Wind 96.8; Solar PV 156.9; Biomass 120.2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

I see you have linked to your own paper again. Where you costed a modelled scenario with a lot of solar thermal (which is still quite expensive). Although the Saudis have just invested $100 billion in it so it will probably get cheaper.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/11/109-billion-increase-for-solar-in-saudi-arabia/

But you don't really need solar thermal anyway. With a geographical distribution of wind and PV and some on-call backup like hydro/gas and some energy storage.

In short: more wind; more PV; less solar thermal and less biogas than your costed scenario.

And here's another idea for storage:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/26/greenpeace-energy-turns-wind-power-in-to-gas-power/

Gary Murphy,

The costs you quoted are not comparable in the way you are suggesting because fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro are dispatchable, but non-hydro renewables are not. So you need to calculate the cost of electricity when they are included in the system. You need to properly attribute the costs of back up, transmission and other costs to the non-dispatchable technologies. I gave a link in my previous comment. It explains it all. My previous comment shows how far renewable energy is from being viable.

Gary Murphy,

For substantiation for my comment above, see p24 here: http://bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf

"Projected LCOE does not necessarily provide a reliable indicator of the relative market value of generation technologies because of differences in the role of technologies in a wholesale electricity market. The value of variable (or intermittent) power plants (such as wind, and solar) will depend upon the extent to which such plants generate electricity during peak periods and the impact these plants have on the reliability of the electricity system. Unlike dispatchable power plants (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, and hydroelectric) – which are reliant on some form of stored energy (e.g. fuels, water storage) – wind and photovoltaic power plants do not, typically, include energy storage. "

LCOE ($/MWh) for individual technologies for Australia in 2012 (but note the comment above with reference to the renewable energy technologies)

wind = 116
PV (commercial plant) = 224
solar thermal (no storage) = 347
OCGT = 196 (@10% CF)
CCGT = 89
Nuclear = 96

Oh - I see the problem. The largest generation sites are in SA which means the transmission network is hugely expensive. A 2.6GW transmission line from the nullarbor to Adelaide?

Basically - the scenario you have costed is a ridiculously, unnecessarily expensive one.

All 100% renewables scenarios for Australia incorporate either multiple transmission lines of similar dimensions or dozens of multimillion tonne/year biomass burners. That the Greens oppose the latter tells you all you need to know about the likelihood of that getting up.

Gary Murphy,

"Basically - the scenario you have costed is a ridiculously, unnecessarily expensive one."

This is not my scenario. This is the scenario analysed by Elliston et al. They assumed the locations for the solar thermal plants for high insulation, wide dispersion (SA, NSW, Qld) to minimise the effects of large areas of cloud cover which can cover the whole area.

Why don't you redo their analysis with your preferred locations if you think you can come up with a much cheaper option.

By the way, the BZE "zero carbon Australia by 2020" is a far worse analysis and many times more expensive.

Face it, non-hydro renewables are not viable and unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. I'd suggest you challenge your beliefs.

The Greens do not oppose biomass.

I know it is not your scenario. That scenario was created merely to demonstrate that it is technically feasible to have a 100% renewable system. There has been no attempt to optimise the costs.

Of course sourcing 40% of your energy from Solar Thermal plants a long way from the trunk lines is hideously expensive.

"Why don't you redo their analysis with your preferred locations if you think you can come up with a much cheaper option." - Well I might give that a go. One question though - where did the $1500/MWkm come from? The transmission capacity / cost relationship seems unusually linear.

Thanks for those numbers, Peter. What are the xCGTs?

The lost sales opportunity for wind below mimum, or above maximum, operating speeds -- are they included in the wind values?

Any numbers for local (home/business) PV?

Glad to see the nuclear figures so superior.

Mike, how about actually reading the links that don't fit your bias? You know, like the one about the TEPCO fraud, or the one about the national grid problems, or...

You know, the ones that cover the simple facts -- Japanese govt + Japanese business causes problems. The Yakuza is an interesting thing for you to latch onto, but that was only one example of how the govt. itself has been the prime source of troubles for Japanese suffering loss. Remember the Japanese banking collapses? Was that "nuclear industry"?

For example, the huge LNG terminal that exploded in the quake and killed people -- was that the "nuclear industry"? Was ignoring of tsumnami warnings from geologists as well as dead ancestors the "nuclear industry"?

We all know the answers, so all your selective wimpering does is show your dedication to the truth appears lacking.

Perhaps if you ever had experience in or with Japanese corporations, you'd understand the reality ordinary Japanese face.

Peter is quite right. The effect of unwise anti-nuclear groups has been to increase the global emissions problem.

The need to prevent thousands of future years of extreme hardships worldwide was know in the 1960s to be 1GWe per month of new, emissions free power. Nothing but nuclear could meet that.

The US faltered in its funding toward that goal in the '70s. Now the debt is 1GWe/day, just to prevent absolute climate & ocean catastrophe.

The anti-nuclear movements are as responsible for this state as are the combustion folks. My own Sierra Club is becoming aware of this disgrace of its own making, even beyond its recently admitted disgrace in accepting $millions in combustion-industry contributions to support one fuel versus another.

The countries of the world with the largest populations at risk from combustion's present dangers, if not the grimmer future ones, are moving as fast as possible with new nuclear builds and R&D. China knows the percentage of GDP it spends on healthcare for combustion-emissions victims, and is addressing that via far more nuclear GW than it could via wind/solar. India is doing similarly. Russia, S. Korea & others all appreciate the reality that was understood 50 years ago -- nuclear power solves the 24/7, emissions-free needs worldwide.

At 10GT of carbon/year now, and for many recent years, being pumped into the atmosphere, we've exceed earth's ability to return that carbon to whence it came (underground) by over a factor of 30 each year.

Part of that burden lies with those of us who have ignorantly opposed nuclear power, despite it being the safest mass power source ever deployed.

"Mike, how about actually reading the links that don't fit your bias?"

OK Alex. You are now making a complete fool of yourself.

Here is your comment
https://theconversation.edu.au/wind-power-why-is-south-australia-so-successful-9706#comment_77054

Why don't you count the links. How am I supposed to know which one to read?

And again - this is all misdirection anyway. The NAIIC report said it best.
"Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl"

In your case, you simply refuse to acknowledge the Fukishima report - it has to be Yakuza - you exhibit the same arrogance and hubris.

Read the BREE report.

"It should be noted that the LCOE analysis for nuclear technologies does not include disposal/storage of spent fuel or provision for decommissioning of plant."

Or the costs of setting up the regulatory environments.

"The anti-nuclear movements are as responsible for this state as are the combustion folks"

Crap.

Nuclear has never been on the agenda in Australia because of a plentiful supply of cheap coal. It is not on the agenda now - from commercial interests or from government because of cost.

Nuclear has never competed against renewables - it has competed against coal.

The BREE report that Peter Lang quoted shows a LCOE that is based on a carbon price. See Figure 2.2

It will be a carbon price that will make nuclear cost competitive against coal.

Who supported a carbon price - the Australian Greens. Who has been one of its most vitriolic opponents - Peter Lang.

"China...and is addressing that via far more nuclear GW than it could via wind/solar." - actually no. They are installing renewables faster than they can install nuclear.

China installed 20GW of wind power in 2011. That extrapolates linearly(?) to 200GW (60GWe) in a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

They plan to have 40GW of PV by 2015 (Up from 3GW in 2011). That extrapolates to 100GW (20-30GWe) in a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

As for nuclear:

"The official target of a capacity of 40 GW by 2020 is unchanged but earlier plans to increase this to 86 GW has been reduced to 70-75 GW due shortages of equipment and qualified personnel as well as safety concerns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_china

Carefully chosen words, Zvy. They might not oppose as an abstract concept, but look what happens when a proposal is actually put forward to progress electricity generation (as opposed to transport fuels) from biomass:

http://www.tfga.com.au/in-the-news/from-the-ceo/biomass-rejection-is-flawed-policy/

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/forests-agreement-clear-logging-must-stop

http://lee-rhiannon.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/Pages%2048-49%20-%20PoliticalTrends%20Feb%202012%20%28low%20res%29.pdf

Hope you can see how I got the impression they opposed it.

Interesting ploy Mike -- you complain there's no information to refute your misinformation, then when information is provided you complain it's too much.

Every one here can see the silliness of your avoidance of facts by playing the victim. Man up.
;]

So, Gary, the math is simple: 20GW wind = ~6GWe (24/7). That's 2, nuke plants.

Your extrapolation unfortunately also misses the climate realities China is planning for as well...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

Now, when the winds over existing 100s of square km of wind farms change undesirably, will the cost of abandonment, or mass migration. of windmills be in the EROI?

70 GWe of nuclear is 24/7 greater than 210GWe wind, and 300 GWe solar.

But, in any case, the work China is doing with on-structure solar is exceedingly important & valuable, as it is most anywhere. And, as it's efficiency regularly increases & cost decreases it makes wind irrelevant.

But, anyone can have their personal windmill.
;]

.

So you refuse to count the links - here you go - 35 links in a single comment.
https://theconversation.edu.au/wind-power-why-is-south-australia-so-successful-9706#comment_77054

Then you state "Mike, how about actually reading the links that don't fit your bias?"

Apparently I was wrong - you don't mind making a fool of yourself

(BTW, I am aware of the OCD that requires you always to have the last comment - fair enough - no harm, but don't you think the ";]" affectation is a bit "off")

Yes - forget about solar thermal for now - it is still too expensive.

Do it all with Wind/PV and backup natural gas (for now) and hydro for smoothing smaller fluctuations.

The trunk lines should be about $30 Billion (3000km*10GW*$1000/MWkm).
Maybe another $20 Billion for connecting generators to the trunk line.

That's $50 Billion for transmission (about the cost of the NBN). If the govt could pay for the transmission lines then the energy retailers could pay the generators about 15c/kwH. That's an increase of about 10c/kwH on current wholesale prices and an increase of 5c/kwH over nuclear.

Mike Hansen,

Your advocacy for Greens policies reveals all. What a joke.

Others my be interested in this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/

Carbon pricing will never work in the real world. This has even been acknowledged by US Senator John Kerry (one of the strongest advocates of the US Cap and trade legislation) and Professor Richard Tol "The cost of tackling and not tackling AGW" http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

Gary Murphy,

You said: "Do it all with Wind/PV and backup natural gas (for now) and hydro for smoothing smaller fluctuations."

You can do that yourself in the spread sheet you can download from the site here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

It turns out to be a system with about 54% of electricity generated by gas generators.
LCOE = $207/MWh
CO2 abatement cost = $161/t CO2
[lower if we use CCGT instead of OCGT, but this is good enough to get the message across for now, you optimise if you want to).

This is substantially cheaper than the system with solar thermal. However, it is still expensive and 54% electricity is generated by gas. The trend is clear. The less renewable energy the cheaper is the system.

Furthermore, if you have a nuclear, renewable and gas system you get the same emissions as the renewables and gas system, but at far lower LCOE and far lower CO2 abatement cost.

If you crunch the numbers yourself the conclusion is unavoidable.

Unfortunately, it is obvious you are guessing and making stuff up. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

A typical Greenie.

Anyone who doesn't know units has negligible understanding of the subject. Writing "kwH" is a dead give away.

Mike Hansen,

The cost of decomissioning and disposal is not included for any plant. However, the cost of decomissioning and disposal for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle is included in the cost of nuclear generated electricity in USA, UK, EU. It is adds a small cost to the cost of electricity (look it up for yourself if interested).. However, importantly while this cost is internalised for nuclear it is an externality for all other electricity generation technologies. It would be much higher fro renewables - see these photos for example: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

The cost of setting up the regulatory environment is a significant cost up front. However, UAE has gone through that recently and is now building 5400 MW of nuclear plant. So, it is clearly not onerous. In fact, it is clearly viable in the heart of the oil and gas regions of the world and in the deserts where solar power should be cheapest! Furthermore, it will probably be much less than the compliance cost for an emissions trading scheme when fully implemented to the standard that would ultimately be required: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578

But you are happy to quote from the BREE report which includes a carbon price to improve the LCOE of nuclear vs coal - what's up with that?

What about the other points?

You can make the claim that nuclear's failure is due to environmental groups and not economics - I do not accept it. Look at the US where there is substantial environmental opposition to fracking - it has not stopped the drillers and now relatively cheap gas is pushing out coal and probably nuclear as well.

"It turns out to be a system with about 54% of electricity generated by gas generators." - I meant more wind and PV than the original scenario (I was thinking double the wind; triple the PV). Not just replacing the solar thermal with gas.

The $1000/MWkm was not a guess. I went to the same source you did but I took the average of the 3GW capacity lines in it. The 2GW capacity lines varied from 1360-2120 $/MWkm but both of the 3GW lines were around 1050 $/MWkm.

The 3000km is probably a bit understated but the 10GW required capacities are probably overstated.

I will try to get a more accurate picture of the requirements if/when I find out what the states' demand peaks are. I don't think I need to be an expert to work out what the required trunk line capacities / lengths are. (I am thinking running the SA link up through Broken Hill to Sydney will get a lot of cheap good solar potential land close to a trunk line).

I admit the $20 Billion for generator connections was a bit of a guess. I simply used your figure of $10 Billion and doubled it because I was envisaging using double the wind. Obviously if we had PV farms they would have to be connected too so that could be more.

I got the generator LCOE figures from the US Department of Energy (copied into wikipedia). Solar PV 156.9, Wind 96.8, Natural Gas 65.5, Nuclear 112.7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

15c/kWh (I forget which letters should be capitalised) is a little below Solar PV cost but that technology is rapidly coming down in price. It is overpriced for Wind. It is also quite a bit above the natural gas but because those plants will not be operating all of the time their LCOE's will be increased.

I admit I'm no expert and if there is something seriously wrong with my analysis I am sure someone will point it out.

"So, Gary, the math is simple: 20GW wind = ~6GWe (24/7). That's 2, nuke plants." - In one year Alex.

Wind + Solar installed in a decade = 90 GWe
Nuclear power installed in a decade = 70GWe

"..the work China is doing with on-structure solar is exceedingly important & valuable" - Indeed. We can agree on something. Doesn't make wind irrelevent though. Because the wind blows when the sun don't shine. (Unless storage becomes very cheap)

Mike Hansen,

Are you being intentionally misleading? The AETA report includes shows prices with and without a carbon price. I used without a carbon price for all the figures I quoted.

Gary Murphy,

I have to say, you haven't the slightest understanding of the subject and not the slightest idea of what you are doing. You can't just pick the numbers that suit you. The discussion is pointless.

But it sure is revealing to see how the Greens think. It also explains why they believe they understand economics but there understanding is about the same as that of a taxi driver, or the guy you happen to strike up a conversation with at the pub.

Gary, the wind "may blow" when the sun don't shine, and it may blow less & less where the towers & foundations were expensively installed, as climate changes -- that's what the Chinese already see.

So indeed, avoiding honest appraisals of power density & reliability will make wind irrelevant, and do that expensively.

The Chinese now expend a significant fraction of thei GDP on healthcare due to combustion emissions. They know this can't go on. That's why local solar and advanced nuclear are important to meeting their goals.

"The discussion is pointless." - Is that because you think I am an anti-nuclear zealot who will never change my mind? That's not true. I would much rather avoid nuclear because it is dirty and dangerous, but if renewables truly can't do the job then I will change my mind.

BTW I am not affiliated with the Greens. I just know we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases and I don't trust nuclear energy.

"You can't just pick the numbers that suit you."
Do you mean the $/MWkm figure? I chose to use the 3GW Capacity lines as an approximation instead of the 2GW Capacity lines because the Capacity/Cost relationship is obviously not particularly linear. The 2GW Lines averaged 1700 whereas the 3GW lines averaged 1050. And the 3GW lines were considerably shorter which I would think would involve more costs/km.

I chose the US DOE's LCOE figures because they are based on real projects. They are lower than the the BREE figures but BREE forecasts costs falling below the $150 level I use by 2020. While they forecast the cost of nuclear power increasing.

You invited me to try to come up with a more cost effective scenario and I did. I even invited your opinion on if there was anything wrong with my analysis (because I admit I am no expert and there could be).

All you offered in response was a personal attack (followed up by a generalised attack on 'greenies').

Actually the reality in a modern society is far more complex than that. For example when they talk water shortages, there is not shortage of water, there is a shortage of 'CHEAP' potable water, cheap as in low energy cost.
The more accessible and the lower the cost of energy the more accessible water becomes, even condensate water becomes usable with cheap energy.
There is also a balance between energy and raw minerals, the lower the cost of energy the more recoverable and recyclable materials become.
So nuclear still has a place with wind and solar, simply because a whole lot more energy is required to make equitable global access to the essentials, health care, food, quality accommodation, shareable leisure activities and, clothing. Energy is the number one driver of this, the more cheap low environmental impact energy available the more achievable it becomes.
Australia is drawn into nuclear energy for one main reason, other high population density countries require it and we can only monitor and advise if we demonstrate expertise and we need to do this because whether or not we use nuclear we will be subject to the consequences of poor implementation.

Gary Murphy,

OK, you’ve got my attention with this:

“”The discussion is pointless." - Is that because you think I am an anti-nuclear zealot who will never change my mind? That's not true. I would much rather avoid nuclear because it is dirty and dangerous, but if renewables truly can't do the job then I will change my mind.”

Let’s see if there is any room for progress.

Q1. Why do you say nuclear is dirty and dangerous?

I’d argue and objective analysis demonstrates the opposite is true. Nulcear is the safest way to generate electricity. Can you dispute these figures from authoritative sources: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html (Please do not refer me to arguments based on Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists (who are not scientists at all; they are just an anti nuke group) and similar advocacy groups.) We have over 50 years of civilian nuclear electricity generation and 15,000 reactor years of operating experience to base the safety record on. So, ‘dangerous’, no. Definitely not, on any objective basis of comparison.

“Dirty”? Definitely not. They are far cleaner than fossil fuel plants and cleaner than most renewable energy plants, given that the latter require ten times as much mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, fabrication, construction, decommissioning, waste disposal, and transport between each step, per TWh of electricity generated.

“"You can't just pick the numbers that suit you." Do you mean the $/MW.km figure?”

Yes. And your choice of US costs instead of the costs from the AETA report.

There is much more to the cost of the transmission lines than your comment demonstrates you understand. Far too much to explain here. Issue to include are:
• AC or DC (DC cannot accept branch lines in or out, so it runs from generator to the demand centre termination. They have to be long to make them worth while; e.g. Adelaide to Sydney. Therefore, much of the transmission would have to be AC, not DC. I used a mix, so I did not overestimate)
• Shorter lines are more expensive
• ‘N+1’ (spare line capacity)
• 2000 MW is what is being considered for the Adelaide to Sydney interconnector, and it is what most of the estimates are based on. Therefore, to go beyond that size, cannot be justified.
• Much more to consider.

“I chose the US DOE's LCOE figures because they are based on real projects.”

There is a long and substantial history of previous analyses leading up to the cost figures presented in the AETA report. The figures have been improving. Some early reports were based on US figures without properly taking into account many differences between USA and Australia – especially Australia’s lower labour productivity and higher labour rates (for comparable trades). The difference is much greater than you may realise. So, IMO, you should use the AETA costs not the US costs for Australia. AETA Table 5.2.6, p91 shows a comparison of LCOE costs from AETA report and six other reports.
http://bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf

I’d suggest using the costs for the 2012 for comparison, not the projections. The projections have many assumptions. Cost projections for renewable energy have been highly optimistic for the past 20 years, and there is no reason to believe this will change. Take them with a grain of salt. Inconsistently, the AETA analysis assumes no learning curve for nuclear. Therefore, I’d argue, if we want to do a reasonably objective comparison, we should use the best currently available figures. The 2012 figures in the AETA report are as good as we have for Australia right now. I’d argue that, if anything, the AETA cost estimates underestimate renewables and over estimate nuclear. My reason for saying this is that the AETA report steering committee has been completely revamped so that it is now comprised of ‘politically correct’ people who overly represent renewable energy, researchers and bureaucrats who tell the government what supports its ideology. No longer is it impartial and giving frank and fearless advice.

“You invited me to try to come up with a more cost effective scenario and I did. I even invited your opinion on if there was anything wrong with my analysis (because I admit I am no expert and there could be).”

Yes, you did ask my opinion of what you proposed as a “more cost effective” scenario. While I accuse the authors of the Elliston et al. study of pro-renewable bias (to the extent of being fanatics), they have gone to a lot of effort to model scenarios and roughly optimise the system to achieve the requirements to what they consider meeting the AEMO reliability requirements (in fact they don’t go even close to achieving that). So I do not agree you can just make up some other scenario to improve it without modelling. Your scenario would not meet the reliability requirements.

If you increase the amount of wind and PV you must reduce the assumed average capacity factor of wind and PV. Without solar thermal, you need to have about 35 GW of gas capacity.

There is much more to the analysis than just picking and changing a few numbers. I’d suggest you read, carefully, the Elliston et al paper, my critique, Mark Diesendorf’s response to my critique and the comments on these two threads. You will gain a lot better understanding from these. I cannot write it all here. My critique is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
Mark Diesendorf’s response is here (also read the comments):
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532

Here I’ve summarised the original paper and added the nuclear scenario for comparison:
“Renewables or nuclear electricity for Australia – the costs”
http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf

Enjoy!

"So I do not agree you can just make up some other scenario to improve it without modelling. Your scenario would not meet the reliability requirements."

I am aware that it would have to be backed up with gas and/or storage.

30GW of gas generation has a capital cost of about $30 Billion? And obviously a fair bit of that would be recouped at a Wholesale price of $150/MWh when the LCOE of natural gas is well below that.

"Cost projections for renewable energy have been highly optimistic for the past 20 years, and there is no reason to believe this will change." - there is a very good reason: Chinese mass production.

Transmission line cost - I'm still not convinced.

From the SA Interconnector Feasibility Study it would appear that a 500kV line can carry 3GW at about the same cost as it can carry 2GW. Am I missing something? And the trunk lines required with a larger amount of Wind/PV would be up around 9GW.

And I have noticed you don't think we could get much rooftop PV in the cities. There are a lot of roof tops in cities that aren't residential - warehouses and factories (right where the demand is).

So I am still thinking $50-60 Billion for transmission lines and $30 Billion for the gas backup (of which some would be recouped). And the renewable generators could fund themselves.

And that's with complete gas backup - worst case scenario. I imagine that with some modelling and good generation siting and judicious use of existing hydro the gas requirement could be reduced.

That is to rebuild the entire power system and would obviously be done over many years (15 years @ 6 Billion a year).

I don't think that is so expensive that it justifies nuclear power.

Gary Murphy,

You ask lots of questions. But they cannot all be answered on a blog site like this. I urge you to read the papers I referred you to. I cannot write them in bits and pieces here in such a way that you will be able to follow them. Your questions are answered, IMO, in the papers I referred you to and the references contained in them. If you have specific questions relating to the papers, then feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to answer them. But there is no way I can explain the LCOE calculation here or the complexities of the transmission system analyses.

How can we deal with this? Let’s go back to your comment that got my attention. You said:

“Is that because you think I am an anti-nuclear zealot who will never change my mind? That's not true. I would much rather avoid nuclear because it is dirty and dangerous, but if renewables truly can't do the job then I will change my mind.”

Q1. Why do you say nuclear is dirty and dangerous?

You haven’t addressed that question. I’d urge you to do so, objectively. If you do, that part of the issue will go away for you. Then we are left with the cost and economics (which include safety, risk, decommissioning, waste management, and everything else).

Q2. Can renewables to the job (provide the power the world will need this century, with acceptable reliability, cost competitive with fossil fuels).

If you look at this issue objectively, the answer is no. Not even close.

Look at Figure 6 here: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf . It compares nuclear and gas versus renewables and gas to power the NEM. Notice that the mostly nuclear scenario is about 1/3 the capital cost, less than ½ the cost of electricity; and about 1/3 the CO2 abatement cost of the mostly renewables scenario.

Both scenarios can be optimised, but that will not make much difference to a factor of three difference. It should be very clear how enormous the difference is.

Your last sentence says:

“I don't think that is so expensive that it justifies nuclear power”

Your assumptions and estimates have many errors and misunderstandings. There is no point trying to discuss that here – there’s far too much wrong with it. Again, I’d urge you to read the papers I linked and the references contained with in them.

I’d also urge you to address the two questions above. If you are not prepared to do that, then there is little point in getting into the weeks of trying to optimise the scenarios and the cost estimates. By the way, you can see from the comments on the articles, that the details have been pretty extensively challenged and discussed in detail.

"Q1. Why do you say nuclear is dirty and dangerous?" - Another discussion for another time.

"Q2. Can renewables to the job (provide the power the world will need this century, with acceptable reliability, cost competitive with fossil fuels)."
I'm not talking about the whole world - other countries can make their own decisions. I am talking about Australia.

My calculations seem to indicate that they can do the job in Australia. And not at a prohibitive cost.

Your costings are of a system that has not been cost-optimized and is FAR more expensive than it needs to be. You can't simply hold them up and say "this is what renewable energy would cost".

"Your assumptions and estimates have many errors and misunderstandings. There is no point trying to discuss that here – there’s far too much wrong with it." - I think you are obfuscating. I don't think you can find
anything seriously wrong with them. Gas pipelines haven't been included - that's it.

"...getting into the weeks of trying to optimise the scenarios and the cost estimates." - I have no interest in refining it further. I will leave that to the experts. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure of the cost so I could decide whether it was prohibitive. It isn't.

Gas is more than pipelines -- it's a limited resource and unless substituting for coal, it's a significant emitter, not just of CO2, but of wasted/leaked methane, which is >25 times worse than CO2.

Gas, presently cheap up here, is estimated to last onlt another few decades at reasonable extraction costs. By then, it will be far too late to deal with the climate consequences.

For Australia, with bountiful Uranium, etc., nuclear power makes great sense, with immediate emissions reductions.

Large, immediate reductions are needed at once because we've already committed to thousands of years of very unpleasant, very expensive climate. See this fellow's publications......
http://eps.berkeley.edu/development/view_person.php?uid=6449&page=72
--
Alex

Gary Murphy,

Q1. Needs to be addressed. You made the statement that "nuclear is dirty and dangerous". But that is an emotional response. It is not objective. It is paranoia. Your paranoia is preventing you thinking objectively. It causes you to make ridiculous cost estimates to try to back up your beliefs. For as long as you are not prepared to challenge your beliefs about nuclear being ‘dirty and dangerous’, you will not be able to get past your paranoia. You will not be able tackle any discussion about nuclear logically and objectively. Therefore, I urge you to confront your ‘nuclear phobia’.

Q2. <blockquote> I'm not talking about the whole world - other countries can make their own decisions. I am talking about Australia.</blockquote>

You have to consider both if you’re major concern is global CO2 emissions. Australia is not going to implement policies that cause energy to be many times more expensive in Australia than in other countries.

Anyway, why have you used this tactic to avoid answering the question? The papers I’ve urged you to read so you can understand the basis of the cost estimates are for Australia. And the point point about viability applies to Australia too. Renewables are not viable – they cannot meet a large portion of our electricity demand - and not likely to be in the foreseeable future. I’ve given you the reasons in previous comments.

<blockquote>Your costings are of a system that has not been cost-optimized and is FAR more expensive than it needs to be. You can't simply hold them up and say "this is what renewable energy would cost".</blockquote>

It is correct that the system has not been cost optimised. Butr no system can be at the concept stage. Cost optimisations will improve the costings of all options, but not by enough to close the 3:1 gap between renewables and nuclear and not by enough to make renewables a viable option.

<blockquote> anything seriously wrong with them. Gas pipelines haven't been included - that's it</blockquote>

Yes. Read the papers I linked to. Then, if you still think you’ve found a significant error that no one else has found, state exactly which figures you disagree with, provide your alternative figures and provide justification for the figures you want to substitute for mine. Then provide the basis of estimate for your estimates total capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost. I’ve given you the link to a spreadsheet so you can do that. You should be able to provide me with the revised figures so I can make the same changes you have made in that spreadsheet and get the same results as you have derived. Then we can argue about the basis of estimates for the inputs.

<blockquote> I have no interest in refining it further. I will leave that to the experts. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure of the cost so I could decide whether it was prohibitive. It isn't.</blockquote>

I’ve given you a ball park estimate. You have not found anything wrong with it that I can see. You haven’t done a ball park figure at all. You’ve made up some inputs to get the result you want, but cannot substantiate any of them. You’ve put garbage in and got nonsense out.

What you’ve done is similar to how the Greens do their estimating. They decide the number you want as an answer then make up the inputs so you can get that answer. They simply dismiss what doesn’t suit their agenda.

In a separate comment below, I’ll respond to some of your previous comments about cost items.

However, at this point in time you have pretty much confirmed my original impression – you are not objective, you are irrational, you are a true believer in renewable energy no matter what, and you are an anti-nuclear zealot.

Gary Murphy,

I am not sure where you got the $1,000/MW.km from.

You cannot use the $1000/MW.km figure, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is for a augmentation of existing capacity. That is obvious from the table heading. So it is clear you just make stuff up to suit your agenda. More below.

I used the figures from Table 6 http://www.electranet.com.au/assets/Uploads/interconnectorfeasibilitystudyfinalnetworkmodellingreport.pdf as the basis for unit cost estimate of $1,500/MW.km

Option Ultimate Capacity Distance Cost estimate Unit cost
MW km M$ (2010) $/MW.km
Northern AC 2,000 1,100 3,750 1,705
Northern DC 2,000 1,100 3,000 1,364
Southern AC 2,000 125 530 2,120
Central AC 2,000 1,050 3,500 1,667

Note: small capacity lines are more expensive and shorter lines are more expensive, all else equal. Therefore, the cost will be higher, not lower, for more wind power sites. The transmission lines to wind farms have to be sized to carry near peak wind power, but on average carry less than 30%. So the cost per MWh will be considerably higher for your proposed optimisation, not lower.

You’ve used the 3,000 MW augmentation lines as a basis for your lower cost estimate. That is not appropriate. They are augmentation to existing capacity so the ‘n+1’ (redundancy) is already covered.

Your estimate for capital cost of gas is roughly OK, but we’d need around 35 GW of gas to back up for wind and PV since neither has any storage. Currently we have a peak of about 35 GW and we have 49 GW installed capacity; that is we have about 30% reserve capacity. If we optimistically assume 20% reserve capacity 1e’d need about 42 GW of capacity. We have about 7 GW of hydro and pumped hydro so we’d need about 35 GW of gas. A little less if you want to allow some capacity credit for wind and PV, but I’d say that is not appropriates since we’ve already reduce the reserve capacity from 40% to 20%. We are dealing with a ball park estimate here, so I’d suggest 35 GW of gas capacity.

Your estimate of LCOE is overlooking many factors. See the spreadsheet for the inputs required and the calculations.

“There are a lot of roof tops in cities that aren't residential - warehouses and factories”. What does “a lot” mean? Elliston, et al. made an optimistic assumption that we could install 1 kWp per capita in each of the mainland capital cities. That’s 4 kW on a house with 4 people living in it. But most houses do not have roof space, oriented roughly north, for about that much PV. Apartments have much less. The amount of roof space on commercial buildings is very small compared with residential roof tops. Look out an airoplane window as you fly into Sydney to see that obvious fact. Taking all this into consideration, the assumptions of 1 kWp per capita is highly optimistic. Furthermore, PV installations will be poorly oriented and some will be partly shaded so the average capacity factor will be much less than 15%. And the average productive life of each installation will be much less than the optimistically assumed 20 years (house renovations etc). I expect 10 years average amortisation period for the LCOE calculation would be realistic.

If you want to argue about the figures I provided in the two papers, can you please say exactly which figures, refer to the table in the Appendix where each figure is stated, state what is the figure you’d suggest we substitute, and explain the basis for your suggested revision.

"Cost optimisations will improve the costings of all options, but not by enough to close the 3:1 gap between renewables and nuclear and not by enough to make renewables a viable option."

I disagree. If you get rid of the large amounts of currently expensive solar thermal and substitute more Wind/PV and gas backup; and put the energy generators closer to the trunk lines and closer to where the demand is; the costs could be reduced dramatically.

"The amount of roof space on commercial buildings is very small compared with residential roof tops. Look out an airoplane window as you fly into Sydney to see that obvious fact." - then fly over an industrial district and look at all of those big sheds (and not many trees around either).

"You cannot use the $1000/MW.km figure, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is for a augmentation of existing capacity." - Oh is that the difference between augmentation and supporting augmentation. I did not know that.

Table 8 just below those costs show a 500kV line costs 2.5M per km and can carry 2.5GW. So a 10GW trunk line would cost 10M per km or $10Billion for 1000 km. Which is pretty much what I estimated in the first place. But that doesn't include transformers so add maybe another $1B? (4 lines x 5 transformers x 50Million).

Getting a bit sick of the personal insults Peter. If I am making mistakes just point out what they are and I will adjust for them.

"Gas is more than pipelines -- it's a limited resource and unless substituting for coal, it's a significant emitter..."

I know Alex. In the short term they will be substituting for coal. And the renewables will be reducing the amount of time they need to be running (and hence the emissions). In the longer term the idea is to reduce the amount of time they need to be running further as different renewables and/or large scale storage become viable and eventually switch the last of it to biogas.

Politicians in this country aren't going to commit suicide by going nuclear Alex. All they will do if we don't get renewables working is stick their heads in the sand and say 'we are only a very small part of the problem - it doesn't really matter if we keep emitting'.

Gary Murphy,

<blockquote> I disagree. If you get rid of the large amounts of currently expensive solar thermal and substitute more Wind/PV and gas backup; and put the energy generators closer to the trunk lines and closer to where the demand is; the costs could be reduced dramatically.</blockquote>

What does “dramatically” mean? You need to provide the numbers and show your basis of estimate. I can tell you now your are wrong and just making stuff up.

Gary Murphy,

You’ve provided three arguments to justify your strident opposition to even considering the nuclear option::

1. Nuclear is ‘dirty and dangerous’
2. It’s too expensive compared with renewables (or however it is you are trying to that point)
3. “Politicians in this country aren't going to commit suicide by going nuclear”

You were not prepared to substantiate your first point

You are clearly wrong on the second (by a large margin)

The third is silly. If we need to reduce emissions, we’ll go with the least cost option. The public will buy that (not right now, but over time). However, progress is being delayed, and has been for 50 years, by Greens/Progressives/Left ideologues who continue to spread the sort of anti-nuclear disinformation and nonsense you’ve been arguing in the comments here.

Just saw a nice documentary on SA and the Aussie pelicans that migrate from around your inland rivers and southern coast to Lake Eyre (I think), when it receives flood waters & fish from your inland rivers. Those rivers are supposedly yet to be dammed or otherwise messed with.

The doc was impressive about your scientists working to preserve the natural populations of birds, etc. in SA, along with the rivers.

Would politicians there go with ruining that rather than build a safe reactor or two on 100 acres somewhere close to demand? You know what a "safe reactor" is, right -- any of the 100+ we have, or the others UK, Sweden, France, Germany, etc. have, totalling >400. Or, even the 100+ more in our nuclear navy -- one of which we gave you to scare the Chinese with.

Gary, there's >2% of earth's land covered by our structures. Businesses have varying areas for large to small, depending on floors, obviously. But, as reported here earlier, even NYC has enough rooftop space for 50% of its peak, hot summer day load, just from local rooftop PV that's 20% efficient..

Residential areas are even better. Walmarts are great. There's no need for wind, even if it weren't inefficient and cursed by transmission & conversion losses.

Let's both watch this several-year-old PV installation on a church up here go through the day... http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b

Alex,

You may find this of interest: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/16/solar-power-realities-supply-demand-storage-and-costs/

The system I envisage has 3 ~10GW trunk lines connecting Sydney to the other 3 mainland capitals. ~40GW of wind generation and ~40GW of PV generation. With 30GW of additional natural gas backup (NEM already has ~4GW).

I estimate the trunk lines to cost ~$30 Billion.
(3000km*4 2.5GW(500kV) Transmission Lines @ $2.5Million/km).

I estimate the cost of connecting the wind generation to the trunk lines at ~$20 Billion (I just doubled the number you used in your paper for 23GW of Wind)

I estimate the cost of connecting the PV to the transmission lines as being not much because a lot of it would be rooftop and if you run the Adelaide trunk line through Broken Hill you could add a huge amount of PV right next to the trunk line. And I think the wind connection cost is overstated anyway as I think the 300km distance average could be reduced.

I estimate the cost of the natural gas backup to be about $30 Billion (I think you already agree with me on that). It could also easily be built right on the trunk lines.

Govt. builds the above at 80-90 $Billion.

I envisage a 15c/kWh wholesale electricity price.

Onshore wind already produces for less than this (12c according to AETA).
Solar PV is projected to fall below this by 2020 (AETA again) and with China mass producing them - I believe it. Also the LCOE for PV projects in the US is already down to around 15c.

The renewable generators can fund themselves.

These costings don't include transformers or gas pipelines. I don't think these things will significantly affect the cost.

What part am I making up?

Yes - lake Eyre is a beautiful place when it floods.

It floods around once every 10 years and is slightly below sea level. There would be absolutely no point damming anything around it and I don't think anyone has ever proposed it.

This just in - you've just been elected King of the straw people. Congratulations! ;)

Strident opposition? I have hardly even mentioned nuclear. I am just trying to ascertain what the cost of a renewable energy system would be.

Wow, Gary, an initially pleasant exchange I started on Lake Eyre triggers a brain fart about "straw people"?
;]

Clearly, Gary, you're no power engineer or environmentalist grounded with enough science & engineering.

Yes you did. You said it is "dirty and dangerous". You then avoided substantiating your statement. This shows you are not objective. You suffer from radiation phobia, nuclear phobia and paranoia about nuclear. That is thanks to 50 years of brain washing by the irrational Greens and anti-nukes. For as long as you cannot challenge your beliefs on this, you will not be able to do any objective analyses. It is clear that the nuclear spring is 1/3 the cost or less, lower emissions, safer, cleaner, more reliable than renewables, but you are clearly not prepared to look at it objectively.

Gary Murphy,

You ask:

“What part am I making up?”

The question would be better asked as “what am I misunderstanding?”

The answer is you understand next to nothing about the issues. You clearly haven’t tried to understand. You haven’t read the EDM paper or the critique or the paper with the nuclear option added. And you continually ignore what I’ve been telling you on this thread. Your understanding is totally naïve.

There is no point going through all the points you make they are so wrong there would be no way of addressing them here. If you want to understand, read the papers I’ve pointed your. However, I am convinced you don’t want to understand. Despite this, I’ll make a couple of points about your assumptions:

“The system I envisage has 3 ~10GW trunk lines connecting Sydney to the other 3 mainland capitals.”
So the maximum renewable energy you can get from SA is 10 GW. So when there is no sun and no wind in the Eastern states (a common occurrence and extends for days at a time (see the EDM paper), virtually all the power must be provided by gas (our existing hydro capacity cannot serve that purpose, for the reasons explained in my paper and in comments on the thread). Therefore, the renewable energy component of your system might contribute say 30% of the electricity to the NEM (I haven’t done the calculations). Therefore, mostly a gas system with the emissions from gas generation, and the full cost of gas plus the cost of renewables as an extra for little benefit. Are you beginning to appreciate how ridiculous this idea is yet?

“~40GW of wind generation”
much wind energy will have to be spilled because it cannot be stored and because of limited by transmission capacity, so assume 15%-20% average capacity factor.

“~40GW of PV generation” as above much will have to be spilled, assume 10% annual average capacity factor less in winter.

“Govt. builds the above at 80-90 $Billion.”
What does that mean? It is s till a cost. The tax payer pays. The cost of the nuclear system would be far cheaper, much lower emissions and only a much small initial contribution from government to assist us to recover from 50 years of irrational, anti-nuclear polices.

“I envisage a 15c/kWh wholesale electricity price”
This is wrong for the system you envisage. As I said before, you are guessing and making stuff up. You haven’t understood how to calculate LCOE. Again I urge you to download the spreadsheet and the pdf paper, read the appendices and try to understand what is involved in the LCOE calculation.

Furthermore, 1vc/kWh about five times the current cost baseload power.

“Onshore wind already produces for less than this (12c according to AETA).”
I’ve already explained in a previous comment that this is not the whole cost. Are you ignoring what doesn’t suit you.

Your belief about cost projections for renewable energy I your belief. I don’t agree with it, but that’s a debate that cannot be held here. However, I’d also point out the cost of nuclear will come down by far more than renewables once the world starts rolling out small, modular, factory built nuclear power plants that run for their whole life on one fuel load or are returned to factory for refuelling. For th4ese reasons, I urge that the comparison can only be done with best available current costs not the wishful thinking and biases incorporated in cost projections.

“The renewable generators can fund themselves.”
What sort of ideological drivel is that? The whole system has to be paid for by someone (e.g. taxpayers and electricity consumers). So the whole cost has to be calculated. As doies the LCOE for the whole system and the CO2 emissions and the CO2 abatement cost. Yoy have to do this to be able to compare options.

Doesn’t it raise a red flag in your head that AEMO and all its consultants that have done many studies to estimate the cost of trunk transmission lines estimate costs and you don’t accept them but instead take an inappropriate cost figure from the report just because it is a lower number? You have no understanding of what the figures are based on, but the figure suits you so you pick the low number. You haven’t allowed for the fact that the costs for the wind connections would be much higher than the simple on size fits all figure I used for my simple ball park analysis.

OK, so here are the costs and CO2 emissions for your thought bubble:

Capital costs:
Existing hydro = $0
PV = 40GW @ $4,650/kW = $186 billion
Wind = 40 GW @ $2,744/kW = $110 billion
Gas (OCGT) = 35 GW @ $995/kW = $35 billion
Total = $385 billion

LCOE (each technologies contribution of total LCOE):
Existing hydro = $8/MWh
Hydro = $8/MWh
PV = $68/MWh
Wind= $45/MWh
Gas = $88/MWh
Total LCOE = $239/MWh

CO2 emissions from the system = 0.28/t/MWh
CO2 abatement cost = $269/t CO2

Compared with the nuclear scenario, costed on the same basis, the total CO2 emissions from the system are three times higher, the CO2 abatement cost is about three times higher, and the CO2 abatement cost is 27 times higher than the EU carbon price.

How ridiculous is advocacy of renewable energy?

You take the system as is and just say 'too much spillage'.

Obviously it is an extremely crude approximation and line capacities would have to be adjusted to suit generation siting and demand.

I strongly doubt your assumption that half of the renewable energy would have to be spilled. Obviously if that was happening it would be worth increasing some transmission capacity.

“I envisage a 15c/kWh wholesale electricity price”.

I understand the LCOE for the whole system would be higher than this. The 15c/kWh would obviously be subsidised by the government built transmission lines / gas backup.

“The renewable generators can fund themselves.”

What I mean by this is that the wholesale price is high enough for them not to need any further subsidisation over and above the transmission lines/gas backup.

"Doesn’t it raise a red flag in your head that AEMO and all its consultants that have done many studies to estimate the cost of trunk transmission lines estimate costs"

I would be most interested to see these studies. Can you tell me where to find them?

"You haven’t allowed for the fact that the costs for the wind connections would be much higher than the simple on size fits all figure I used for my simple ball park analysis."

So you have underestimated the costs in your analysis? That could change things (a bit). I had assumed you were more likely to overestimate them - given your obvious hatred of all things 'green'.

$4,650/kW for PV? - This from the AETA report:

"In 2010, the United States Department of Energy (DoE) implemented a program with the aim of achieving installed solar photovoltaic for $1/Watt by 2017. With the current rate of progress, the cost of utility-sized photovoltaic (PV) systems is predicted to reach $2.20/watt by 2016."

The chinese are already getting close to $1/Watt.

"Clearly, Gary, you're no power engineer..."

Very true Alex - by background is in accounting.

"Yes you did. You said it is "dirty and dangerous". You then avoided substantiating your statement. This shows you are not objective."

All that shows is that I don't want to get into that discussion here and now. I want to focus on the costs of a renewable system.

"...50 years of brain washing by the irrational Greens..." - Now that's objectivity!

Gary Murphy,

Admit it. Your mind is closed. You are not trying to understand anything. You just being devious, right?

I gave you the link to one of the transmission line studies. Read it and read the other reports. You can get them from AEMO.

You say: “I strongly doubt your assumption that half of the renewable energy would have to be spilled.”

You wouldn’t have a clue. You’ve done not calculations. You haven’t understood the EDM paper. You haven’t looked at the charts showing times where there is near zero PV or wind generation for days at a time. You haven’t looked at the charts showing the amount of spillage with their capacities. You haven’t considered that you are advocating 80GW of capacity and baseload is about 18 GW, so of course there is a lot of spillage. You haven’t considered that PV would spill much around midday and would produce no power to negligible power for all but a few hours per day in winter.

You say: “The renewable generators can fund themselves.”
What a dumb comment. It’s a total system. If renewables could fund themselves (they cannot of course) then everything else (gas nuclear coal, gas) etc not only funds itself by a factor five or so but subsidises the renewables as well. Your comments are extremely stupid.

You say: “$4,650/kW for PV?”
I’ve given you the references for the costs a dozen times. Look them up.

You say: “The chinese are already getting close to $1/Watt”
So what? That is not the capital cost of the plant.

It’s clear, you have a belief and you’ll go to any extent to justify it, no matter how clear is the evidence you are wrong.

You really have not idea what you are talking about. It’s scary to think you are a voter, and representative of the loony Left.

Its a really pity you know nothing about estimating then. I guess that is not really what accounts do. But you'd think you'd be more open to the bleeding obvious when its put in front of you.

You said: ""...50 years of brain washing by the irrational Greens..." - Now that's objectivity!"
Clearly, you do not realise how you got brain washed.

"I want to focus on the costs of a renewable system."
You don't give me the impression you are making an honest attempt to do that. You are continually making up rubbish. If you were making an honest attempt, you'd:
1. genuinely try to understand the basis of the estimates I've given you (including the calculations in the spreadsheet); and
2. you'd prepare your own estimate, properly laid out with all the assumptions clearly presented so it can be discussed.

Wow - you get very upset when people question your assumptions. I am sorry but I can't just take one person's word for it that a blanket $1500/MWkm is the correct figure - especially when that person clearly has his own idealogical barrow to push.

Yes - I've found it on the AEMO website:
http://www.aemo.com.au/~/media/Files/Other/planning/0179-0176%20pdf.ashx
page 20 Comparison of Costs of Providing a 1200km 3000MW transmission link.

Looks like the cost varies from 1.5B to about 3B depending on the type of line. That is LESS than what I have been estimating. But hang on - that comes from a 2007 US paper. So maybe those numbers are no good either?

"...at the charts showing times where there is near zero PV or wind generation for days at a time." - That's why you need the gas backup. Obviously.

I've just been looking at your PV/Storage estimates. Obviously large scale longer-term storage is nowhere near viable.

PV is getting 14% cf in Queanbeyan. I didn't know they even got any sunshine there. Imagine Brisbane/Sydney/Broken Hill.

Then I remembered our discussion on storage costs and how small scale NaS storage worked out to around 10-15c/kWh. So if the generators were getting a lot of spillage it would be worthwhile for them to invest in some smaller scale storage at 15c/kWh wholesale price so they could feed it into the grid later when it was required.

And this would reduce the gas requirements even further. Yes - I'm liking this scenario more all the time.

1. I have looked at your estimates.

2. I have prepared my own scenario and (very rough) cost estimates. And I thought we were now discussing it. (If you think just calling me a 'stupid-head' and saying it's all wrong constitutes a 'discussion').

Gary Murphy,

“Wow - you get very upset when people question your assumptions.”

I get annoyed when someone is devious. That’s what I think you are. You don’t even bother to read or understand the material I’ve urged you to read. You pull figures out that suit your position without the slightest attempt to understand. I could explain further that you are using when you quote 3000 MW for trunk lines. I could explain that up itil the recent estimates they previous estimates were far too low because they had not built any new trunk lines for a long time and were still using figured dating back to 1996 and escalated, but not enough. They were too low by a factor of two. But what’s the point of trying to tell you anything? I’ve already told you and you lots but you ignore it. Importantly, you’ve still never put an estimate together. You haven’t shown anything in my estimate is wrong. Not one item, let alone anything that would make a significant difference to the ‘ball park’ estimate.

“"...at the charts showing times where there is near zero PV or wind generation for days at a time." - That's why you need the gas backup. Obviously.”

Yes, its why you need lots of gas, obviously. And why you get lower capacity factor, obviously. And why the LCOE is higher, obviously

“I've just been looking at your PV/Storage estimates. Obviously large scale longer-term storage is nowhere near viable.”

You are supposed to be looking at the charts in the EDM paper. You actually need to read that paper first, then the critique then the one with the nuclear options added. And you need to down lad the spreadsheet and understand it. There are notes in each cell to explain.
http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/docs/Solar2011-100percent.pdf
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532
http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf

“Then I remembered our discussion on storage costs and how small scale NaS storage worked out to around 10-15c/kWh. So if the generators were getting a lot of spillage it would be worthwhile for them to invest in some smaller scale storage at 15c/kWh wholesale price so they could feed it into the grid later when it was required.”

You must be joking. This would be orders of magnitude more costly than solar thermal. Have you no sense of proportion. You are plucking numbers out all over the place and putting nothing together. It’s frustrating trying to explain any6thing to you. And you claim to be an accountant. OMG

“And this would reduce the gas requirements even further. Yes - I'm liking this scenario more all the time.

It’s really frustrating dealing with people who are so irrational. And an accountant. But I guess it shows that once you’ve been hooked by a belief it can be impossible to think rationally.

To summarise,

1. You have not found any error, let aloe a significant error, in my ‘ball park estimate’. Therefore it stands as OK
2. You have not presented an estimate yourself. There fore there is nothing from you to discuss (other than a jumble of ‘thought bubbles based on no understanding whatsoever)
3. Despite this you say: “Yes - I'm liking this scenario more all the time.” We’ll it demonstrates again it is impossible to reason with a zealot.

Gary Murphy,

You say: "1. I have looked at your estimates."

Can you state that you accept the assumptions, the figures and the totals for the scenarios covered?

If not, can you say which figures you disagree with, why you disagree, what you'd suggest be substituted instead of my figures, and the basis for your recommended figure/ Then we can discuss the discrepancies and get them agreed before we proceed to looking at your proposed scenarios.

It is pointless moving on to discuss your scenario if there are outstanding points of disagreement on my 'ball park estimate'.

If you don't agree with this approach, say so and suggest an alternative approach.

I repeat, there is no point proceeding to discuss your scenarios while there may be unresolved issues with my estimates.

Yes - it is rather devious of me to try to devise a cost-effective renewable energy scenario. I guess I should just take Peter Lang's word that it can't be done.

The problem with the EDM scenario (which they admit themselves) is this:

"Currently, NEM wind farms are predominantly sited in South Australia and Victoria in the same wind regime."

http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/docs/diesendorf-simulations.pdf pg20

(See: I have read it)

Situating all of the Wind power in one geographical area obviously makes the generation quite volatile. Not to mention it is a long way from the major demand centres (NSW,QLD) and thus increases transmission requirements.

Also they have relied heavily on currently expensive solar thermal.

I am sure you know that when you are trying to minimise the costs of something you look at the big ticket items and question them. Are they right? Are they necessary? Can they be reduced? That is all I have been trying to do here Peter. I am sorry if it has offended you.

"And why you get lower capacity factor, obviously. And why the LCOE is higher, obviously" - That is why I am suggesting that the govt build the gas plants. It would be unrealistic to expect the private sector to finance it when the stated goal is to reduce the amount of time they are running to a minimum.

"You must be joking. This would be orders of magnitude more costly than solar thermal." - Yes. I might be wrong about that one. I don't know how to interpret that ESA capital cost chart. And they say the c/kWh/cycle figure isn't appropriate for arbitrage. Although I'm not sure why - once a day charge/recharge would go through 2000 cycles in about 6 years. Won't the batteries last that long?

Nothing you have said has changed my mind that the system can work with ~$100B of Govt Investment and a wholesale electricity price of 15c/kWh.

Luckily I don't have to do this anymore. It looks like the AEMO is going to have a go at it.

Gas-fired peaker plants in existing power systems are sometimes built with a projected 5% capacity factor and end up being used even less ... they're fired up only when the spot price soars in near-emergency conditions, and earn their keep well enough that way.

All the same economic concerns apply no matter who owns the plants : if it isn't potentially profitable, it's clearly not a least-cost approach to the problem.

But I don't necessarily agree that we need any new gas generation at all. We have an overbuilt fossil-based system already, and very little of its existing infrastructure is really in need of retirement for any reason other than for emissions reduction purposes. For as long as renewables are inadequate to provide all our power needs, we should keep existing fossil fuel generation capacity available, but we do not need to build more. If we're running old fossil generators less, they will have more downtime for minimal maintenance, and higher spot prices for delivered power whenever we do need to bring them up.

Given the notions that renewables, including solar thermal power, are getting progressively cheaper, and that coal-seam and shale gas are not very much "cleaner" fuels in GHG emissions terms than coal, and that Australia is going to be increasingly exposed to global gas prices as we export more LNG, and that global gas prices are getting higher and more volatile, it doesn't necessarily seem a great idea to me any more that we should proceed much further with a move to gas-fired baseload as a "bridging" solution to a low-emissions future than we already have. It was a good idea when gas was clean and cheap.

My opinion has changed significantly on this one just in recent months -- I've realised that dispatchable renewable power is viable; that emerging power storage and dispatchable load technologies can enable much higher penetration of intermittent renewables than once seemed cost-effective; that even old coal has a better ramping ability than I used to think possible (yes, it's inefficient to run at a fraction of capacity, but it's absolutely possible, and if properly managed doesn't have to be especially wasteful).

Last but not least I've realised, too late, that the extremely low cost of brown coal in the La Trobe Valley means no argument from dollars alone will convince the owners of those power stations to shut them down, despite having the highest carbon emissions of all. I honestly believed until very recently that they'd leap at the chance to retire their aging infrastructure at any price. Now, alas, I realise that they'd need a *very* high carbon price to render them uneconomical (brown coal plus carbon price is still very much less expensive than black coal plus carbon price -- and thanks to free allowances the carbon price as enacted is in fact a pure subsidy to them for the first couple of years anyway).

I think now that in the amount of time it will take us *politically* to revoke the social operating licence of the La Trobe Valley altogether and despite its low costs, we could more easily and cheerfully subsidise commercialisation of large-scale solar thermal, and continue the build-out of wind and solar PV (and associated storage technology as appropriate), to the point where it's clear to everyone that we can pick off all the fossil-fueled stations one by one in order of emissions intensity with no need for any new gas-fired infrastructure. There are plenty of policy mechanisms available to assist with this process.

Sorry to anyone who was convinced earlier, that a carbon price was all that was required. A higher one could have worked, but the one we got just isn't big enough.

Why do you advocate renewables given that nuclear would be 1/3 the price at current costs, safer (less fatalities per TWh), more reliable and fit for purpose?
http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf.

Nuclear power is not available in Australia today at *any* cost. Its "current cost" is therefore effectively infinite in this country. In one or two countries, China and South Korea perhaps, it is currently cheaper to add nuclear power than renewables. Everywhere else, even in France and the largest user of nuclear power the USA, renewables are demonstrably cheaper.

The biggest difference between nuclear power and renewables is that renewable generators come in small, mass-produced pieces. Since production has really ramped up in the last decade, producers of renewable generators have been able to do learning and development that the piecemeal development of nuclear power has been unable to do.

The opportunity cost of NOT advocating renewables is huge. Nuclear has a long, long lead-time, on the order of a decade, with a cost of capital to match. Wind has a lead time of two years or less; solar PV has a lead time of weeks.

Jonathon,

That response is wrong on costs and illogical on argument. You didn't read the link did you?

The comparison is on costs, not on the basis of ideology and politics. Laws can be changed any time. If it is clearly cheaper by a large margin to go nuclear to make the emissions cuts being advocated, then clearly is is better to go nuclear. Saying it is not available because it is blocked by politics is not relevant to the cost comparison. The costs are clearly much cheaper at current prices for build in Australia. You didn't read the link, did you?

I read your paper some months ago when you posted the same link in another thread on The Conversation and when you posted links to the same arguments as comments on Brave New Climate threads. I've responded to the arguments in it before, elsewhere.

I believe your estimates of costs for the renewable energy scenarios to be overstated because:

* capital costs have always fallen and will no doubt continue to fall for energy conversion technologies as they mature.
* the vast majority of the cost of ambient renewable energy is in the capital
* capital expenditures for ambient renewable energy are in small bites with small lead-times
* intermittency is readily manageable up to significant penetrations with existing fossi infrastructure (despite much propaganda to the contrary)
* intermittency will be readily manageable at much higher penetrations with overbuilding and curtailment
* relying as heavily on biomass as the EDM simulation does is unrealistic in the face of the fossil-fuel establishment and a coming liquid-fuel crisis
* for brief seasonal unavailability of ambient renewables I have no objection to falling back on fossil resources in extremis -- I think the goal of "100% renewable" is laudable but ultimately not necessary if gross fossil fuel consumption (transportation and non-electric stationary uses included) is cut by 90% or more.

I think that overbuilding intermittent generation is an opportunity, not a waste, because (and I know perfectly well that this depends on various technological developments which are not yet commercially available, but I'm very hopeful):

* curtailment and economic inefficiency can be avoided with large-scale power storage and dispatchable loads
* readily deployable, cost-effective, large-scale power storage technologies *are* becoming available
* cost-effective dispatchable loads including electricity-to-fuel technologies *are* becoming available
* the liquid-fuel crisis can be addressed with electricity-to-fuels and electrified transportation

I believe that your costs for nuclear generation are understated, because:

* you assume away all the difficulties by assuming away politics.

I'd like to live in your apolitical world but I don't. I'm interested in least-cost abatement, today. Wind power and solar PV are growing at low cost in this country and in many others, nuclear is growing only in one or two countries, neither of them this one.

I'll change my opinion to match yours when the information and hopes on which I base my opinion change to match the facts, hopes, and hopeless assumptions on which you base yours.

Jonathon,

A long list of your beliefs - all text and no numbers - is no basis for a constructive debate. The figures I used are from the most authoritative source available for the purpose. So I am not persuaded by your beliefs.

You said: "I believe your estimates of costs for the renewable energy scenarios to be overstated"

Which figures do you disagree with? Please state which figures and which tables in the Appendices here: http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/lang_renewable_energy_australia_cost.pdf

What numbers do you suggest should be substituted and why? What is the basis for your revised number?

Jonathan, your statements indicate clearly you're not an engineer or economist.

And, you seem unaware that the very countries wishing to buy Aussie Uranium (China, S. Korea...), stand ready to build nukes in your country as soon as you sign contracts, just as they're now doing with the Saudis, etc.

The Saudis, etc.,despite overabundant sun, know they can replace their combustion power far faster with nukes than any other way. They also know you and we will buy their oil, so they don't waste it themselves.
;]

I'm nodding sagely here. Eyes on the prize in Saudi Arabia. Don't hold your breath.

I suggest the removal of "24GW of gas turbines running on biofuels" altogether. Existing fossil-based infrastructure (with dramatically reduced capacity factor) and overbuilt intermittent generation are likely to be far more cost-effective in the long run than collection of chaff for burning.

I suggest spreading wind farms out across all regional areas accessible to the NEM instead of concentrating them in SA and Victoria, and doubling or quadrupling the stated capacity to 55GW or more.

I suggest quadrupling (or better) the suggested capacity of solar PV to 40GW or more, and putting more of it inland;

I suggest substitution of power towers with several hours of thermal storage for parabolic trough solar thermal.

I suggest addition of significant amounts of pumped-heat power storage both in cities and near large remote renewable energy installations, to improve the capacity factor of transmission infrastructure and of intermittent generation.

I suggest allowing a significant reduction of winter peak electric demand instead of dismissing it.

I'm not going to suggest actual numbers. Give me a raise and I'll go and study accounting.

Jonathon,

You say: “I'm not going to suggest actual numbers. Give me a raise and I'll go and study accounting.”

Anyone can make up thought bubbles unless you test them and see if they make sense, it’s pointless. You add nothing constructive, just your beliefs, wishes and hopes. That’s what renewable energy advocacy have been running on for 30 years.

No constructive debate can be held if you just make up stuff as you are doing.

You clearly have not read the paper I linked to. Only the first of the four scenarios assumes gas turbines running on biofuels. The other three scenarios assume natural gas back up. The costings are done for all four scenarios. Here http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf I added a fifths scenario – nuclear – and did the costings on the same basis. So all five scenarios are costs on the same basis.

Regarding most of your other numbers, they are just made up0 with no support what so ever. So pointless. You have no data to say what generation can be produced at other sites. Therefore, for the first cut ball park estimate we need to stick with the figures generation figures from the EDM paper. They have roughly optimised the capacitities and done senitivity analyses. You have not basis for changing those numbers, so no point, at least until you’ve fully understood what they’ve done already.

I’d add another point. Yours and many others attitude to making up numbers to support your belief in renewable energy, without the slightest substantiation is prevalent amongst the renewable energy advocates. It is very revealing that this is an example of the zealotry that has been driving the completely irrational advocacy of renewable energy for three decades.

I refrained from making up numbers except for suggesting that far more inexpensive, intermittent generation can be accommodated than typically accounted for; and that the cost of dispatchable backup should correspondingly be discounted and/or deferred until we have enough intermittent generation that curtailment becomes a significant drag on the system.

Better-trained economic minds than mine are running numbers, including experts from and/or hired by the NEMMCO itself. I eagerly await their numbers. I have given you my reasons for not accepting yours.

Jonathan Maddox,

You say:

"I refrained from making up numbers except for suggesting that far more inexpensive, intermittent generation can be accommodated than typically accounted for"

But this is just an unsubstantiated assertion. It is wrong, as I have shown.

Jonathan Maddox,

You said:

"I have given you my reasons for not accepting yours."

No you haven't. Which figures are wrong? What do you suggest they be replaced with and why? It's meaningless to just say I want more wind capacity, without saying what other numbers have to be changed (like capacity factor, transmission costs, etc) and putting it together that add up. Therefore your assertions are nothing more than ideological drivel. The AEMO study will be of little use because they have excluded nuclear and have no baseline for comparison.

You (and the EDM model you work from) assume the absence of any power storage technology bar existing pumped hydro in the Snowy, and likewise assume curtailment (spilling) and therefore inevitable low capacity factors for intermittent generation at high penetration.

Large dispatchable loads, making good use of off-peak renewable power when and where it is available, and high-volume, low-cost power storage which is not tied to geography, are in active development. My hope and assumption is that some or all of these prospective technologies will eventuate and prove profitable.

These are not so much "unsubstantiated" assertions as forward-looking ones. Substantiation is here:

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/news/46/66/UK-Government-backed-body-invests-in-Isentropic-s-revolutionary-low-cost-energy-storage-system
http://www.dotyenergy.com/
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/391748/data/364260/1/rwe-power-ag/innovations/adele/Brochure-ADELE.pdf
http://www.solar-fuel.net/en/the-challenge
http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/windgas/windgas-idee-mit-zukunft/die-technik-strom-zu-gas.html

The success of any one of these concepts would mean that high capacity factors for high-penetration intermittent generation are readily achievable.

This is no less likely than a rapid political turnaround on nuclear power in Australia.

Peter Lang, you leap back and forth between requesting intelligent dialogue and dismissing your opponents' contributions to that dialogue as "ideological drivel" and worse.

It's not that I think your figures are especially inaccurate. I think they're probably much better than anything I, personally, could come up with.

Rather than dismissing those numbers outright or suggesting *specific* adjustments, I merely assert that your figures fail to take into account certain realities, such as politics, and rapid recent cost reductions and technical improvement in the fields of renewable energy and power storage.

I readily admit that I am not qualified to estimate the costs of the technologies which inspire me with hope. It is simply too early for *anyone* to give credible numbers. It's also entirely possible that the numbers which you are using will prove to be inaccurate -- prediction is hard. Accurate prediction is impossible.

Ultimately your emotive dismissals clearly indicate that you are no less burdened with ideological assumptions than I.

Jonnathon Maddox,

You say: "This is no less likely than a rapid political turnaround on nuclear power in Australia."

Sorry but that is just silly. Your beliefs about nuclear are based on ideology and paranoia. But energy storage is limited by physics and cost. The cost of renewables with storage is so far off being economic it's not worth me wasting time discussing. Put up a properly prepared estimate as a basis for discussion, not just random assertions wishes and hopes.

How's your pushing of Inhaber Syndrome* going? Nothing turned up from your anti-Irish windpower crusade either?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions

* Failure in analysis of complex systems

Great link! Thanks for posting.

Yes, thanks Z, it demonstrates what folks who don't actually understand wind power, physics, engineering, or the environment do when misinforming. I appreciate your giving me the chance to comment there, along with otehrs who do understand wind myths.

To save anyone going back to the link, this is what I posted to it...
-----
Whoever wrote this, doesn't seem to get the physics or environmental realities of inefficient windmill power.

To paraphrase, "It's a myth that it's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions".

Read a data sheet -- any land-based windmill requires the combustion processing of ~700 tons of resources per MW of peak installed nameplate) power. Or, ~700 tons per ~300kW of average output power. Any sea-based machine needs at least as much.

What is that 700 tons? Coal, at >4x the amount of steel in the tower. Iron ore in the amount of toer mass divided by ore yield of pure iron. Limestone, mined, then kilned, emitting CO2 in vasta mounts, to make Portland cement. Rock, mined & crushed to aggregate to mix with the cement and water, to make ~1000 cubic meters of concrete foundation (or sea ballast) per tower. Oil, gas to do the processing & transportation of subunits (e.g., towers/generators/power cables...) to each site. And,of course, new roads and transmission towers for land installations. Expensive elements required for efficient generation (rare-earths, etc.) that are expensive and now a world monopoly controlled by China.

Then there are the permanent realities -- transmission/conversion losses of ~10% meaning lost power revenue opportunity. Danger to local species, land or sea, often very expensive dangers in crop-growing regions dependent on flying insect predators. Noise & visual pollution for anyone local to installations. Excessive danger to shipping & air/water-migrating species in water installations. High maintenance costs and risks to such workers. Relatively short life spans for blade/generator mechanicals (e.g., transmissions. Expense of control modules to covert power for grid adaptation and manage the natural, high variability of wind. Inability to move installations as winds slow over time, especially under cliamte change (e.g, China already sees this).

And, of course the reality that as combustion decreases, all the above remain for wind, thus its relative contribution to CO2 emissions actually increase over time.

So, what to do? a) be honest -- horizontal windmills are very inefficient wind converters, in comparison even to ancient verticals; b) windmill generation is now below solar PV and will fall further behind as PV continues it efficiency increases from >20% now to over 40% in the near future (already there for concentrating, ocal solar); and c) solar PV on existing structures eliminates land, transmission loss, species threats, noise & visual deficits, and makes a robust, more predictable 'renewable' portion of the overall grid.

Windmills are fine for remote farms, absurd & unnecessary for mass generation.

Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071 (USA)

Some refs...
www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicConsequences.pdf (1.23 marine collisions/year -- cost?)
www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/environmental-impact.html?mid=538
www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/allan-farago-big-wind-s-inconvenient-truth

Do you think it is justifiable to commit to spend about $24 billion on subsides to renewable energy, mostly for wind power, without knowing whether or not they are reducing emissions by the amount claimed by their advocates and without knowing the CO2 abatement cost?

See here (and three preceding comments): http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2012/09/high-wind-production-in-south-australia/#comment-4745

Peter:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3396

Why do you keep linking to all these renewable energy advocacy sites? Do you really believe they are authoritative or balanced? Don't you question what your reading? The opening sentence says:

"How much more solar power could we have installed if we had gotten rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, and pushed them towards a new technology?"

Doesn't that question raise the sensitivity of you BS meter? The obvious response is:

"How much more solar power could we have installed if we had gotten rid of subsidies for renewable energy?"

The answer of course is "None".

Peter, but that's the thing. You don't seem to mind the obscene subsidies being paid to the fossil fuel industry to prop up outdated, polluting processes but you get a bit huffy when anybody has the temerity to suggest we should be developing clean, renewable technologies? You don't see the hypocrisy apparently?

Out of curiosity, can you name any new industry that kicked off entirely free of subsidies at some stage?

PS I'm fully aware of the fact that renewable energy advocacy sites are not entirely objective but you seem to be ignoring the fact that those opposed to renewables are equally guilty of the same lack of objectivity. You fossil fuel fundies really do double standards very well.

Yes. Very good. Both nuke spruikers immediately responded by linking to their **own** blog comments as authoritative sources of information.

Cannara links to anti-wind sites that quote noted crank Nina Pierpont.
"Dr. Pierpont also reported that some people feel disturbing pulsations in their chests and ears even when they can't see or hear the wind turbines."

This is the guy who says "Facts are such problems for you, Blair!" Hilarious.

Here is some data for South Australia.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wind-power-nice-theory-better-practice

Yep, Mike, "hilarious" -- you can't seem to write without the crutch of wimpy epithets, like "spruiker".

And, since I've no "blog", is this also fabricated in your desperation?

As to sites I linked -- the US MMS site, the NC site, the Maine site... are all "cranks"?

C'mon, you can do better than play that weak joker.
;]
But you just don't seem to get it -- I don't care what you think or why. I only care that misinformation doesn't propagate to folks who deserve better.

fabricated? You have forgotten your post already? Although in your case you reproduced the "blog comment".
"To save anyone going back to the link, this is what I posted to it."
Losing the plot Alex?

"I only care that misinformation doesn't propagate to folks who deserve better."
Well in that case why don't you provide links to Nina Pierpont's peer reviewed medical research on "wind turbine syndrome?

Here is a start for you - a link to the PubMed site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
"PubMed comprises more than 22 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites"

You're propping up the "wind turbine syndrome" as your scientific justification of why windmills are efficient & the way to go, Mike?

That's desperate even for you!

Whether people feel/hear wind farms or not, the performance of the systems is clearly inefficient and consumptive of resources. Why can't you address that?

Oh, I did forget the "plot" -- you can't. So you find some straw man. Wow. Impressive, Mike.
;]
But, it is interesting how some folks who advertize themselves as 'green' and environmentally concerned, don't want to hear others who complain that a particular choice hurts their environment. You ignore many, Mike, but expect your preferences to be accepted by all.

You claim
"But, it is interesting how some folks who advertize themselves as 'green' and environmentally concerned, don't want to hear others who complain that a particular choice hurts their environment."

Well funny you should say that. Here is a quote from Professor Boland's article
"I suggest that one would find a significant difference in attitudes towards wind farms in communities where genuine consultation and involvement has happened versus where it hasn’t. This is an obvious point, but one that still must be emphasised. Don’t forget that this was the original way wind farms developed in Europe – community ownership – and that model has been taken up with the Hepburn wind farm in Victoria. It extends to most development activities – truly involve the community and it is a lot easier; ignore it at your peril."

I completely concur with Professor Boland's sentiments. But we never got an opportunity to discuss the article because a pro-nuke troll decided to attack the comments with his anti-wind vitriol - I wonder who that could have been?

Nevertheless I digress.

It was **you** who linked to the anti-wind site that featured Nina Pierpont's arguments. I am waiting for **you** - the great debunker of misinformation to show us the scientific basis of "wind turbine syndrome".

Your post reminds me of the misinformation 'sponsored' (by General Motors mainly) that the $30k Toyota Prius somehow contains $150k of embedded energy and materials.

"Expensive elements required for efficient generation (rare-earths, etc.) that are expensive and now a world monopoly controlled by China."

Seeing as you're the expert in data sheets and manufacturing inputs; tell me how much rare-earth is in a Vestas DFIG turbine? (You can pick another manufacturer if you like).

"without knowing whether or not they are reducing emissions by the amount claimed by their advocates"

You must believe that on the design, purchasing and operating side of large power utilities (like AGL, Windlab for example, one of our clients) sit a bunch of morons.

It's beyond tedious Peter Lang.

Blair Donaldson,

You say:

"Great link! Thanks for posting"

Did you look at it? Did you read it? Did you think critically about what it says? Or does it just say what you wanted to hear before saying "great link"? Did you look for any critiques? Try this: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/26/missing-the-point.html and be sure to see my two comments on p3 and my rough calculations of the CO2 abatement cost with wind in South Australia and in UK (Note the calculations are intended to show the methodology, I do not claim the numbers I used are correct; after all we don't have any actual emissions measurements).

I suspect that is what drives many of those who advocate renewable energy. They have no idea about the costs and other consequences of advocating renewable energy. But it just seems like a nice idea. And it fits with their ideological beliefs about evil corporations, small is beautiful, distributed generation in the hands of the individual is best, more power for the eco-warriors, etc.

Mike, Mike, Mike -- "we never got an opportunity to discuss the article because a pro-nuke troll decided to attack the comments with his anti-wind vitriol" -- really? Does your 'argument' really need support by childishness like "troll"?

We've indeed been discussing the article, and the realities of the various technologies involved. Now anyone who's already invested in a particular technology and doesn't understand or like the scientific or engineering facts impinging on it can either accept facts or blank them out via bias.

The facts of wind power inefficiencies, resource consumption, flutteriness, losses, noise, combustion-fuel dependence... are facts.

You my want to pick on poor Nina because you know the facts about wind relative to local solar are not in your favor. Or, you could simply say: "never thought about that, thanks, I'll add some solar to our home and see if others want to..."

Nina may well be right about the effects of windmill noises on some people. Certainly, if true, they don't deserve your thinking they are irrlevant and your opinion of windmill noise counts above all others, do you?

Of so, then it would be time to present you with more facts about prop-generators and their noise production -- from gearsets, prop vibrations, etc. A typical multi-MW windmill has a 50dB sound front generated by the blades as they pass from 2 o'clock to 4 o'clock, facing an observer. Blade design & windspeed all affect this and compromises are made for efficiency rather than noise.

There's also a smaller sound-pressure pulse as the blades pass in front of the tower. If you understand acoustics in outdoor air, you'll realize that ducting occurs, especially as layers of air at different temps arise, especially at night. It's quite possible that people a km or so away could be bothered by these noises, particularly from a massed set of windmills, whose wavefronts can reinforce each other at various azimuths from the wind 'farm'. Similarly for gear noise, which has high & low-frequency components, thus varying behaviors in air layers.

The sound levels & wave fronts have been well documented in various locations here in the US, so your blanket dismissal of folks who complain is both unscientific and disrespectful.

Having investment 'skin' in any technology doesn't mean ethics or responsible adult behavior are suspendable.

You likely don't accept that from your medical practitioners, just as the rest of us wouldn't.

Alex says "Nina may well be right about the effects of windmill noises on some people. Certainly, if true, they don't deserve your thinking they are irrlevant and your opinion of windmill noise counts above all others, do you?"

So Alex - you have not met the challenge of finding the scientific research behind Pierpont's "wind turbine syndrome".

Let us just reword your statement a little - we will even leave in your typo.

The critics of nuclear may well be right about the effects of radiation on people. Certainly, if true, they don't deserve your thinking they are irrlevant and your opinion of radiation counts above all others, do you?

Do you see how that works?

Oh Mike, you are just so wickedly perceptive! How long did this verbal arrow take you to sharpen?

So windmill noise, well documented and perceived, is somehow equivalent to nuclear radiation, which is well documented but not perceived (until seriously sick)?

Radiation has always been taken seriously, except by combustion folks. That's why nukes aren't allowed to emit Radon, vaporized Uranium/Thorium/Polonium, etc., but combustion plants can, via their industry-lobbied NORM Exemptions. And tobacco companies can make you breathe vaporized Polonium too -- unregulated.

Why not go after them? Gas/oil extractors & geothermal emit those radioactive elements freely as well, even when their products are used to make the 700 tons of materials needed for 1, 300kW windmill.

We have mufflers on cars, that must meet sound limits. What you're saying is that folks complaining about being bothered with poorly-muffled vehicles, or Harleys, can go pound sand, as you tell Nina et al to just "shut up"?

It's not your straw man Pierpont, whoever that is, who's talking about windmill noise pollution, it's the many engineers and ordinary folks who've studied and complained about it for years.

If you've invested in windmills & feel defensive, fine. But don't think you can get away with frivolous analogies when anyone can perceive and measure a noise problem from a 100 meter prop generator in the wind.

After all, you can't even hear my keystrokes, but they seem to annoy you!
;]

You say "It's not your straw man Pierpont, whoever that is..."

Alex - when you are put under pressure, you go to water.

For a virulent wind energy hater such as yourself to claim that you do not know who Pierpont, the inventor of the fake "wind turbine syndrome" is, is really laughable.

Do you seriously believe that those people still following this thread are convinced?

This is what happens Alex when you become a zealot - objectivity and integrity goes out the window.

You may think that I am being a bit harsh - but I am in no way as harsh as the Fukishima Accident Commission.

"Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents. It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant."

and

"The regulators should have taken a strong position on behalf of the public, but failed to do so. As they had firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively
create new regulations."

http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res4.pdf

Mike, I've given up paying any attention to any of the pro-nuclear propaganda spewed by Alex. His biases are there for everyone to see. Let his snarky little posts and double standards speak for themselves and reflect on him.

Mike, go easy on poor old Alex.

If I read your comments correctly, it's hilarious that Alex thinks Pierpont is some wind industry creation rather than an unqualified quack promoting a non-existent health condition. I'm starting to think Alex is here for comic relief, he's certainly not writing anything that could be considered enlightening or enlightened.

Z -- "Your post reminds me of the misinformation 'sponsored' (by General Motors mainly) that the $30k Toyota Prius somehow contains $150k of embedded energy and materials"

Actually, it's your 'post' that reminds us all how willing some are to make snarky statement despite full ingnorance of othwers and facts. -- What if I said we have a Prius and are looking at a Tesla, Z?

Now to your obvious lack of engineering & science knowledge: " tell me how much rare-earth is in a Vestas DFIG" -- how about you learninga bout what you seem to blindly support? Look uop the going price of Neodymium per kg. And see if you can learn enough electromagnetics to estimate how much of that goes into a 1MW generator. Then note China;'s market control...

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japan-vietnam-join-forces-exploit-rare-earth-minerals
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/materials/complaints-over-chinas-rare-earth-export-policies-get-serious/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=031512
www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/china-reduces-number-of-rare-earths-mining-permits-in-new-move-to-tighten-control/2012/09/19/ac2c7862-0220-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html

Keep selling that misinformation, Z.

Come on Alex, engineering/data-sheet expert that you are, tell me how much rare earth material is used in the production of a doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)? You know, the kind used in most wind turbines (Vestas, Suzlon etc).

Likely none, Z, which is part of their inefficiency and stability problems....

"In practice, the classical wound-rotor doubly fed induction electric...generator (WRDFIG) system has known issues of instability, high maintenance and inefficiency of an integral multiphase slip-ring assembly, and discontinuity about synchronous speed where induction ceases to exist. A practical WRDF electric machine system that does not rely exclusively on asynchronous induction principles while symmetrically motoring or generating over its entire speed range has never materialized from the electric machine establishment, despite years of research to find an evolutionary brushless, synchronous, and stable control technology.

Consequently, the WRDFIG...has been forced into antiquity, except in large installations where efficiency and cost are critical over a limited speed range, such as wind turbines.

The primary reason for using a WRDFIG is generally to produce three-phase voltage whose frequency is constant, i.e., whose frequency remains equal to the frequency of the ac power network to which the generator is connected, despite variations in the generator rotor speed caused by fluctuations of the mechanical power provided by the prime mover (e.g., a wind turbine rotor) driving the generator. To achieve this purpose, the frequency of the ac currents fed into the rotor windings of the WRDFIG must be continually adjusted to counteract any variation in the rotor speed caused by fluctuations of the mechanical power provided by the prime mover driving the generator."

Now, newer, direct-drive egenrators, which eliminate both the loss in gearsets and the issues of the DFIG, use permanent magnets made of materials such as Neodymium and other rare-earth, magnetics elements.

The control systems for DFIGs, also depend on rare-earth (RE) materials, of course to a lesser degree.

The point is, without the pound or ton of REs needed for particular designs, nothing gets installed. And, even if obtained, the cost to a manufacturer outside China is great & supply in question -- thus manufacturers of all manner of products with RE content are moved into China, losing IP & outside jobs. I'm sure you can Google more, to master the issue.
;]

Well you nearly got it. There are no rare-earths used in wind turbines common in commercial wind farms. It is not a limiting factor.

The rest of your post is 'motivated reasoning' nonsense.