EG: “Summary of this paper” (link to it) shows how 35 AP-1000′s would replace coal for $130 billion (or whatever?) and 40 AP-1000 would also replace gas and oil with potential to run electric cars, fast rail, and trolley buses for xyz billion. (Fast rail & trolley buses not costed)

EG: “This other paper” presents expected costs for GenIV nuclear once it arrives in 10 to 15 years… etc.

This is because the human imagination goes into overdrive when contemplating these kinds of visceral horrific outcomes.

Per-Capita Emissions Rising in China

and the source:

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Then you can appoint certain trusted people moderators, who can help deal with the trolls on the list, etc.

(And if we were using Simple Machines Forum or Phpbb3 I could click “ignore” on Camel and not even see his posts in future).

Forums are great, and if BNC continues to grow in popularity, they could save you a lot of work. You would still publish articles here at the BNC blog, but instead of commenting under the article you’d link to the appropriate thread in the forums. Conversations would then have the full power of forum software to enable better graphics, better moderation, and cleaner threads that are more ‘on topic’.

(EG: Most bulletin boards have forums for various subjects. EG: A forum could be set up for nuclear safety, fuel cycle, activism in , general chit-chat / after hours, politics, etc.)

Anyway, just my 2cents.

Let me make one more appeal on behalf of freedom and against compulsion.

To which I answer:

The GOAL is clean energy, and I don’t care if China gets there using Feudal power structures, America leaves it to the marketplace, or Australia builds them with public private partnerships.

I just don’t care! Keep pouring forth your ideology all you want, what do you think you’re actually going to achieve? You’re one tiny blogger on an nuclear awareness blog. It’s not as if BNC are going to actually write the legislation! So ‘appeal’ away all you like! Rant to your heart’s content. I’ll not be reading any further.

Let me make one more appeal on behalf of freedom and against compulsion.

I started buying compact fluorescent lamps 20 years ago when they cost $10 each and were only available through Amway. Nobody held a gun to my head; I did it because it made sense.

Today, politicians are under pressure to ban the incandescent light bulb and at least one country (the Republic of Ireland) has done it. I deplore such authoritarian action.

Likewise I drive an electric car because it makes sense. I would strongly object if the government took away my choice by banning cars with internal combustion engines.

Taking this to the next level, fiats that ban the building of more NPPs are deplorable but it would be equally wrong headed to ban windmills or Photo-voltaics. Let the people vote with their dollars!

You apparently see no problem with the centralisation of such decisions; perhaps you believe that the end justifies the means. If so, here is a link to Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” reduced to a series of cartoons:
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

Now, another trollish straw-man from yourself!

For example, over-centralised, authoritarian and undemocratic solutions may be seen as Marxist. “Marxist” is not a label that “Brave New Climate” should embrace.

Again with the red-menace hysteria! Where has anyone on this thread actually said anything to justify such a stupid comment? Is Ford motors ‘red’ for developing the Centralised assembly line?

You really have a problem with the C word, don’t you?

I want nuclear power deployed, fast, to deal with the climate and energy crisis. I don’t care how that is achieved.

The GOAL is clean energy, and I don’t care if China gets there using Feudal power structures, America leaves it to the marketplace, or Australia builds them with public private partnerships.

I can easily create a variety of posters that appeal to all political persuasions, and so I don’t need to be dictated to by you.

And you still haven’t answered the main objection to your free market ideological rants.

My main points were:

1/ We already have a few decades worth of renewables testing, especially wind in Europe and German solar PV plants, and the verdict is in already. We don’t need to wait. We have the *science* to advise us in which direction we should move.

Both Open Thread 4 and this thread are getting bogged down too much down in the extreme particulars of how we are going to run a nuclear industry in Australia, not how we are going to get the Australian public to care enough to build one in the first place!

My contribution is to recommend that you stick to the main message (MORE NPPs) without linking irrelevant issues that may alienate large segments of your intended audience.

For example, over-centralised, authoritarian and undemocratic solutions may be seen as Marxist. “Marxist” is not a label that “Brave New Climate” should embrace.

In contrast, I recommend that this site accept support from people you deride as climate “Deniers” or “Sceptics”. I put myself in this category and have mentioned Roy Spencer as a Sceptic who could be an effective advocate.

When it comes to removing government subsidies I have no argument with you. Government subsidies/low taxes encourage while penalties/regulations/high taxes discourage.

EEC subsidies created “Butter Mountains” and “Wine Lakes”. Low corporate taxes in the Republic of Ireland created the “Celtic Tiger”. Byzantine regulations in the USA killed the nuclear power industry. I am sure you can come up with plenty of similar examples within your own jurisdiction.

You ask:
“How do YOU propose we remove government subsidies?”

I ran for state senate and was soundly beaten by a hysterical anti-nuclear (incumbent) candidate who is well to the left of Karl Marx. If I was a little younger I would run again but now it is up to people like you to stop whining and get yourselves or like minded people elected.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d1-Global-warming-Interview-with-John-ChristyModels-sensitivity-the-PNAS-paper-and-more

It seems we agree on most of the important stuff such as the tendency of governments to distort markets by subsidising the solutions they like while putting obstacles in the way of nuclear options. My take on this is that governments are seldom good at picking technological winners and losers.

My apologies to Marion Brook and anyone else I may have offended. Please be assured that my intention is to help you expand you audience.

You argue for a “big tent” approach to winning the hearts and minds of those who might not share one’s world views. I fully agree, though, in passing, I would note that even nomadic arabs generally prefer to keep their camels out of their living accommodation.

You mention the so-called free energy market system in the UK with separation of power producers and retail power suppliers with the buffer of a nationalised grid system. However, it is a very distorted free market system, as is inevitable when the government has a duty to ensure energy security. Furthermore, while you may not agree on the need for clean energy on AGW grounds, the government does see transition to clean energy as essential and is backed by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the discipline of climate science. This split between AGW deniers and believers would not matter a whit (except to fossil fuel producers) were one able to transfer from CO2 emitting energy sources to clean sources without resulting large hikes in power prices. I think that we both agree that only nuclear offers this possibility. However, the possibility can only be realised with full government support for the technology. Without it, it will an expensive option relative to coal and, probably, just as expensive as wind, for reasons repeatedly made by, among others, Peter Lang (see, also, David MacKay). In the UK, however, the government is subsidising wind while leaving nuclear to the free market. Without more overt support from government, it seems that nuclear power expansion will be slow and expensive.

There is an article in my paper today by Bjorn Lomberg (author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming”, entitled “The EU’s response to global warming is a costly mistake”. He concludes that “expensive, poorly conceived carbon-emission plans such as the EU’s will cause major economic damage and political strife, while doing little to slow global warming. Europe must change course.” Unfortunately, he offers no alternative other than to suggest spending the wasted money on keeping yet more people alive, hardly a solution. Not once did he mention nuclear as an alternative to renewable energy. Given that he pays lip service to AGW, perhaps he should be invited into the “big tent” and encouraged to learn what possibilities nuclear has to offer. He has the potential to become a valued supporter.

I have been pondering the wisdom of a free energy market and have begun to wonder whether it is the best way forward, given the pivotal importance of a reliable power supply and the government’s role in ensuring it and given its simultaneous intent of reducing CO2 emissions. The sector must always be in a position to produce surplus product to accommodate demand peaks. This makes matters very uncomfortable for producers – in many commodity markets, a small surplus can result in a major fall in price and eliminated profits (or losses). A private power producer can only buffer against this by selling at high prices when he is in a position to sell at all. Retail buyers are indulging in a commodity trading operation with wild short term price fluctuations. This may be reasonably efficient while the pattern of supply and demand remain predictable, but it threatens to become inefficient when new producers (eg nuclear and wind) enter the market, particularly when wind producers are subsidised, when they have no responsibility for grid management and when retailers are obliged to use their product when it is available.

The currently developing wind energy exercise on Oz-energy-analysis is looking at wind costs and scaling. However, eventually, the knock on effects on those who produce the same product by different means will eventually have to be factored in if we are to have meaningful information on the effects of wind (at various levels of penetration) on overall retail power cost.

It should help you to have feedback from people like me who do not share the world view expressed by most of your correspondents.

Why would it help us get feedback from people who only accept “Denialist science”? Unlike you, a majority of Australians actually care about climate change.

The renewables are being built in spite of all our objections. I would have thought that you would be the first to realise that a market test is the best way to drive a stake through the heart of bad ideas. Currently, the Photo-Voltaic subsidy in the UK can be as high as 45p/KVAh; what an opportunity for fraud! Crazy subsidies like this cannot long endure.

Good, so you admit there is no free marketplace in energy. That’s my first point.
Now, how do you propose to subject new power to a ‘market test’? What would that involve? How do we get there? How do YOU propose we remove government subsidies?
I suspect your strategies would be similar to what we’re already doing: promoting public awareness about the problems with renewables based on the already demonstrated poor performance of renewables in the marketplace. There’s no need for more ‘market testing’: it’s all been done. But it takes clever people to test it: the very thing you expressed horror over a few posts back.
See, after all that I think we’re basically in agreement about the need to remove subsidies and provide accurate information to the marketplace. However, here in Australia it may take government leadership to kick start new nuclear industries as there is a lot of cultural inertia and market nervousness about the word ‘nuclear’. I fully expect the government NOT to make wind power or geothermal or solar illegal, so they’ll still be there in years to come to judge against nuclear (if we can ever get politicians brave enough to have the debate. We need a “Brave New Climate” of political debate in Australia indeed!) However, can you imagine the political mayhem if governments WERE to withdraw the politically-correct subsidies to renewables? Wind power lobbyists are growing around the world. So again, what do we do about it?
Basically, I WISH there were a free-market test for energy but governments and corporations have their hands so far up one another’s pockets it’s getting indecent.
We agree on that. If it were not for your over-reaction to the word “Centralised” we wouldn’t have had this brawl and wasted so much time. I expect clearer thinking in future.

I agree with much of what you say and encourage you to keep making the points.

This is spot on:

This thread is about using big picture arguments to “win the hearts and minds” of folks who currently oppose you. Why make it harder to sell the idea of more NPPs by attaching a load of unnecessary political baggage?

This thread is about using big picture arguments to “win the hearts and minds” of folks who currently oppose you. Why make it harder to sell the idea of more NPPs by attaching a load of unnecessary political baggage?

For example it would be a huge mistake to insist on centralised or monopolistic solutions that will alienate many people who might otherwise support you. You will lose people who prefer individual freedom over authoritarian rule.

Many are not convinced that AGW is a “Catastrophe”. If you insist on acceptance of CAGW dogma as a litmus test, you will lose the support of many people.

David B. Benson,
High temperature NPPs such as MSRs offer high thermodynamic efficiency with a closed system (Brayton cycle). No need for cooling towers. They will also be substantially smaller than LWRs with the same electrical output. They can be cost effective in small sizes (e.g. 75 MWe). These features can make them much less obtrusive than the older technology.

eclipsenow,
The renewables are being built in spite of all our objections. I would have thought that you would be the first to realise that a market test is the best way to drive a stake through the heart of bad ideas. Currently, the Photo-Voltaic subsidy in the UK can be as high as 45p/KVAh; what an opportunity for fraud! Crazy subsidies like this cannot long endure.

Here in the USA, burdensome regulations killed NPP construction over 30 years ago. Obama is talking about government financing for 3 nukes but don’t expect the private sector to invest while the regulatory mine field remains as it is. Until the US government re-writes the Price-Anderson Act, you can be sure they are not serious about nuclear power.

Leadership in nuclear power is passing to China, Russia, India, Canada and maybe France if it gets over its current funk. Will Australia take an active role?

Ewen Laver, you said:
“The reality is that no “real market test” is possible until we actually have them rolled out. On your proposal, that could never happen.”

One of my earlier comments included a link showing the electrical power market in the UK:
1. Transmission system. One operating company. Still a monopoly!
2. Distribution network. Seven companies, fourteen zones.
3. Retail suppliers. Seven companies.

Clearly, the UK has a market test as there are multiple suppliers at the retail level. These companies buy their electricity from thirty major power plants and many minor ones that compete with each other, constituting a market test at a higher level.

If new generating plant is added to the UK system it is immediately subject to a market test against the pre-existing generating facilities. In spite of what you say, there are market tests in the UK. If you still have an operating monopoly in Australia, maybe that is something you need to look at.

I have nothing against academics because I am one. However, Barry Brook has his feet more firmly planted on the ground than most of us. My favourite academics work at North Carolina State University. This is a “Land Grant” university which means the professors are expected to communicate with farmers. I think Barry might fit right in as he can communicate effectively with non-technical people.

Australia’s identified uranium resources have more than doubled over the past two decades, and increased by 63 per cent from 2006 to 2008.

http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/energyAUS2010.pdf (page 7)