So 1 GW talks about power output in a constant supply over time (in hours) but when we actually write 1GWh we are talking about a specific contained measurement of energy stored. Easy. Now to remember that…

Regarding rise in steel and concrete prices, these will effect the cost of renewables at least 10 times more than nuclear power, see:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7/

where I conclude:

Ratio of materials/land requirements, for equivalent solar thermal : nuclear (both calculated at 90 % capacity factor):
Concrete = 15 : 1; Steel = 75 : 1; Land = 2,530 : 1

Wind is about 10:1 net — but considerably higher if you want enough storage to give it a 90% CF (almost certainly worse than solar thermal).

$1 = 0.70 euro

Also, we tend to import many of the components which would probably drive up price. I don’t think Australia has a wind turbine manufacturer yet?

My point is that nuclear seems to be above that price range anyway, and now here is the super-cheap storage (once verified that it works as per the article).

The capital cost of the recent wind farms built in Australia averaged $2600/kW. (ABARE)

On top of that you need extra transmission and storage or back up.

So the capacity of storage would only be a tiny fraction of the capital cost of wind power.

In 2004, wind energy cost a fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced.[93] However, installed cost averaged €1,300 a kW in 2007,[94][not in citation given] compared to €1,100 a kW in 2005.[95][clarification needed] Not as many facilities can produce large modern turbines and their towers and foundations, so constraints develop in the supply of turbines resulting in higher costs.[96] Research from a wide variety of sources in various countries shows that support for wind power is consistently 70–80% among the general public.[97]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics_and_feasibility

Whereas nuclear seems to be anywhere from $2500 USA to $6000 per kw. What’s that in Euro’s today, to compare to the above prices? ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

“sentopic claims its gravel-based battery would be able to store equivalent amounts of energy but use less space and be cheaper to set up. Its system consists of two silos filled with a pulverised rock such as gravel. Electricity would be used to heat and pressurise argon gas that is then fed into one of the silos. By the time the gas leaves the chamber, it has cooled to ambient temperature but the gravel itself is heated to 500C.

After leaving the silo, the argon is then fed into the second silo, where it expands back to normal atmospheric pressure. This process acts like a giant refrigerator, causing the gas (and rock) temperature inside the second chamber to drop to -160C. The electrical energy generated originally by the wind turbines originally is stored as a temperature difference between the two rock-filled silos. To release the energy, the cycle is reversed, and as the energy passes from hot to cold it powers a generator that makes electricity.

Isentropic claims a round-trip energy efficiency of up to 80% and, because gravel is cheap, the cost of a system per kilowatt-hour of storage would be between $10 and $55.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/26/gravel-batteries-renewable-energy-storage

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/

The impacts on the local economy to the village were wild… each dollar going into renewables went into the local co-op, and recycled through the local economy.

You have to watch out for model regions to get a bigger picture.
We should investigate the energy politics of regions that work (compared to US cities).
I already hinted to Güssing. Then there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n
Lowest uemployment. All bussines startet succeeded (in the US 90% are gone after 5 years), no people fired since they started everything, Highest educational levels, lowest analfabetism and so on…
They set aside 40 Mil/€ every year for cultural activities..on a free basis.
A renewable scheme there would probably cost more than nuclear but surprise…it would create more good payed jobs for the community. What good does it do to free workers from work when they need the income?
Its a good thing that they do not need to make profit.
After loans, operational capital and maybe some investment in new operations (to create more jobs) the balance reads 0.

People in Güssing can tell you how it works. After creating hundreds of jobs and bringing back wealth to the region the electricity prices also came down.
Now it is payed for all the renewables, the jobs are still there and they are exporting power to the surrounding cities and industries.
If you had planted a nuke you would have created some jobs but it would have done nothing more to the region.
Seeing energy politics isolated from communities is faulty thinking.
Wrong economic systems with finanzial constraints like we have set up will not help either.

You could argue that a cooperative corporation owned/run nuke would be possible…I doubt that.

It would be great if somebody could write an article about Güssing or renewable regions that worked out. It would be hard to compare that to nuclear opearated regions in a way that reflects the complexity of the system at large.
Would be even harder if you have to consider future renewable developements and solutions.

Marcus, your arguments are extremely oversimplistic. I agree that everyone should be free to install renewable energy on their homes and cut themselves of from the grid. But they should not be subsidised to do so by other citizens. Why should one group with deeply held, but irrational, beliefs in RE be allowed to force their beliefs on others?

ZERO energy bill… and zero sewerage, zero water bill, and minimal garbage

I’ve already done it plus I make most of my car fuel for less than 30c/L. The flip side is you have live somewhere you can get free energy dense materials and you can maintain inventories and bulky equipment without upsetting the neighbours. It also means that getting around by bus or electric vehicle is unlikely as you not only have to live out of town but regularly carry ute loads of firewood and drums of oil. You also have to remain in continuous good health to withstand the rigours involved.. so far so good.

This approach is simply not available to the majority of people with time and space poor lifestyles in the suburbs. Therefore it seems to me governments should provide adequate energy at an affordable price for the basic needs of that majority. Based on my impressions I don’t believe it can be done with renewable energy alone. I’m always amazed by people who tell me otherwise yet they haven’t done the hard yards.

and not have to worry about price.

As I understand it Marcus, that is exactly what the BNC people are after, not worrying too much about price. If the customers ARE worried about price they might not choose renewables. BNC just disagree that renewables will scale that way.

Now, choosing renewables can result in not worrying about price from another direction. It can be achieved… as a certain lifestyle choice. That is, if everyone were to be content to live in Earthships (or “Earthship-like”) energy efficient homes and apartments, then private individuals would go from maybe a $1500 to $2000 dollar a year energy bill to a ZERO energy bill… and zero sewerage, zero water bill, and minimal garbage.

This is at the ‘cost’ of living in a smaller, more energy efficient home that is quite comfortable, and entirely satisfactory and large enough, but not the huge oversized McMansion McMonsters the western world seems to associate with ‘status’. Over the last 50 years home sizes have doubled while family sizes have halved, resulting in all of us in the Western world, on average, having 4 times as much space for all our clutter and junk.

Insane.

Earthships and New Urbanism bring some sanity back to the ‘stuff’ issue.

However, various industries need HUGE amounts of reliable baseload cheap electricity, and that’s where these important arguments come in. I think BNC has made a very strong case for reconsidering nuclear power. Renewables *might* be possible, but I think it seems one has to build a considerably larger generation capacity to cover the various intermittency issues.

Various energy experts that are interviewed on BZE, well, they appear to think Renewables will be competitive and that intermittency is not that big a deal. We shall see.