Below are suggestions for an alternative policy to the CPRS (the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — an emission cap-and-trade system proposed by the Australian Labor government). This is not a complete energy policy, but simply some fragments for possible inclusion in a complete policy.
Aim:
1.To reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with international efforts;
2.To increase, not decrease, Australia’s international competitiveness; this will result in:
a.more jobs and better remuneration for workers
b.more wealth and better standard of living for all; and
c.more revenue to support all the things we want; such as: better Health, Education, infrastructure and fixing our most pressing environmental problems such as the Murray Darling Basin.
Increasing the cost of energy has serious negative consequences for humanity, especially the poorest peoples on the planet. A policy such as the CPRS that sets out to increase electricity costs for little or no overall reduction in world GHG emissions is negligent.
The proposed alternative would help the world by supplying products and services with less embodied emissions than now. For example, the policy proposed here would maintain Australia’s aluminium industry and its jobs and provide the aluminium with less embodied emissions than other countries can. This is just one example to illustrate the benefits of this policy, but an important one.
We do not rule out an ETS or some alternative instrument in the future, but we will not impose an ETS on Australia before the USA and we will not impose an ETS that does not protect Australia’s industry and jobs to a similar extent as the USA’s legislation. (It is not clear that the USA will implement an ETS. There are signs the USA may not take this approach to cutting its GHG emissions).
What is the policy and how will it be implemented in practice?
Electricity generation will have to do the “heavy lifting” in cutting our GHG emissions. Electricity generation causes 34% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but is capable of displacing around 50% of our emissions by 2050. It is easier to make large cuts in emissions from electricity generation than anywhere else. Furthermore, if clean electricity is low cost (as proposed here), electricity will more rapidly displace gas for heating and oil for land transport over the coming decades. Electricity will replace, to some extent, oil for land transport both directly as in electric vehicles and indirectly through synthetic fuels produced using electricity. But it is essential that clean electricity be low cost for this transition to take place as quickly as possible and to avoid the need for massive, high-cost policy interventions by future governments.
Specific policies for reducing emissions from Electricity, Heat and Land Transport are outlined below.
Electricity
To cut our GHG emissions from electricity generation we will change the “Renewable Energy Targets” to “Clean Energy Targets”.
Instead of ‘20% of energy generated by renewable energy by 2020’, the target will be: ‘20% clean energy by 2020’.
‘Clean Energy’ means a mix of electricity generators that emits less than 200 kg CO2-e/MWh (kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt hour) by 2020 decreasing to 10 kg CO2-e/MWh by 2050 (that is about 1% of Australia’s current emissions from electricity generation).
A ‘mix of electricity generators’ means a combination of generators that can supply power on demand. Examples of generation systems that can deliver power on demand are:
1.fossil fuel
2.nuclear
3.hydro
4.biomass
5.wind with fossil fuel back-up, energy storage and enhanced grid
6.Wind and solar with fossil fuel back-up, energy storage and enhanced grid
Some examples of generator mixes that would meet the 2020 criteria of 200 kg CO2-e/MWh are:
1.50% hydro and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
2.50% biomass and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
3.50% geothermal and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
4.50% nuclear and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Wind and solar cannot meet the criteria because of the emissions from fossil fuel back-up generators (Lang, 2010). Australia has little more hydro capacity available. Biomass can make a contribution but at relatively high cost. Geothermal is not yet a proven technology in the Hot Fractured Rock configuration being proposed for and tested in Australia. Only nuclear can make a large contribution to meeting our energy needs and reducing emissions substantially and sustainably.
The electricity generator companies would compete to build the new generation capacity required knowing with certainly what will be the emissions requirements for the electricity generation system for the life of their investments. They can factor this into their financial projections for the economic life of the plant. This would not be the case with the CPRS. The CPRS rules would be changed with every change of government, with spendthrift governments always needing to collect more revenue to pay for their economic mismanagement.
Land Transport and Heat
After electricity generation, the next two major sources of GHG emissions are from burning fossil fuel for heat and for land transport.
If we establish policies that keep the cost of electricity low, then low-cost, low-emissions electricity will progressively displace fossil fuels for heat and for land transport. Land transport will be powered by electricity either directly (e.g. electric vehicles) and/or by synthetic fuels produced by electricity.
In short:
1.With these regulations we could reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation by 80% by 2050
2.Low-emissions electricity would be provided at least cost
3.Australia could continue to be competitive in world markets
4.We would avoid a large portion of our national wealth being diverted to financial fraud and to government churn and waste
5.The rate of reducing GHG emissions from heat and land transport will depend largely on how low is the cost of low-emission electricity.
How can we get low-cost, clean electricity?
One currently available technology that can provide this is nuclear energy. Other technologies, such as geothermal and solar energy may be able to in the future but are not economic now and are a high risk to base rational policy decisions on.
Nuclear energy provides low-cost electricity in many other countries. Russia is building new nuclear plants to provide electricity for aluminium smelting for the world market. This is a clear indication that nuclear generated electricity can be amongst the lowest cost electricity in the word. If it were not, they could not produce aluminium at a price they can sell it competitively on the world market. Another example is the United Arab Emirates which has just let contracts for 5,400 MW of nuclear power stations that they claim will provide electricity at ¼ the cost of electricity generated by gas. And this is in the centre of the world’s oil regions.
To achieve low cost nuclear energy in Australia our focus must be on providing low-cost, appropriately safe and environmentally benign electricity. Nuclear generation is already some 10 to 100 times safer than coal fired electricity generation, and far more environmentally benign, so achieving this requirement is not an issue.
The Australian Government cannot be taken seriously on climate change without adopting nuclear as part of its policy. But they are unlikely to implement good policy. If they implement policies that make it a high cost option, this will defeat the purpose.
Implementation Details
This policy:
1.will cut Australia’s GHG emissions from electricity generation by 8% of current levels by 2020 and by 80% by 2050;
2.is by far the least cost option to cut emissions; and
3.will give the least cost electricity of options to cut emissions.
How will this be achieved?
1.Coal power stations will be decommissioned at the rate of 1.4 GW per year.
a.They will be decommissioned as they reach their retirement age,
b.together with a small component of government buy back in a “Cash for Clunkers” scheme
2.They will be replaced with (mostly):
a.Natural gas generation until 2020, then with
b.Nuclear and efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) until 2025, then
c.Nuclear (mostly) to 2050.
3.Coal with Carbon Capture and Storage and geothermal may play a role if they become commercially viable.
4.Wind and solar power will have only a minor role unless major technological advances are achieved
5.Some Pumped-hydro will be built using existing dams – for example by connecting existing dams in the Snowy Mountains.
Implementation
1.A project like a modern version of the Snowy Mountains Scheme initially (to about 2025) to get it through about the first 15 years;
2.A Sir William Hudson type person in charge;
3.“Early Wins” – Establish research facilities in at least one major university in every state; and
4.Research – A significant component of the research will focus on how to implement nuclear energy at least cost in Australia. [For example, how will we avoid the political, NIMBY, regulatory and bureaucratic problems that have raised the cost of nuclear in USA and EU.]
Level playing field for electricity generators
What would be a genuine level playing field for electricity generators”?
1.Remove all mandatory requirements (e.g. the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets)
2.Remove all subsidies for electricity generation
3.Remove all tax incentives and other hidden incentives that favour one generator technology over another
4.Ensure that regulations apply equally for all types of generators. Set up a system to allow electricity generator companies to challenge anything that is impeding a level playing field
5.Emissions and pollution regulations must be the same for all industries and should be based on safety and health effects on an equal basis.
Policy implications of “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation”
Some policy implications of the paper: “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation” (Lang, 2010)
1.Mandating renewable energy is bad policy
2.If we are serious about cutting GHG emissions, we’d better get serious about implementing nuclear energy as soon as possible
3.If we want to implement nuclear power we’ll need to focus on how to do so at least cost, not with the sorts of high cost regimes imposed in USA and EU
4.We should not raise the cost of electricity. We must do all we can to bring clean electricity to our industries and residents at a cost no higher than the least cost option
5.Therefore, ETS/CPRS is exactly the wrong policy
Schedule
Following is a proposed schedule for Australia’s federal Government, noting that our next Federal budget is in May 2010.
May 2010 – Federal Budget contains funding for the following to be implemented during 2010-2011:
1.Establishment of a modern version of the Snowy Mountains Authority. Terms of Reference: to implement low emissions electricity generation in Australia such that electricity costs less than from fossil fuel generation.
2.Funding for nuclear engineering faculties in at least one university in every mainland State
3.Funding of research will be largely for the social engineering aspects of implementing nuclear energy in Australia at least cost.
2010 – Government announces policies:
1.to allow nuclear energy to be one of the options for electricity generation;
2.to remove all the impediments that favour or discriminate one generator system or technology over another;
3.that 20% of emissions will be from low emissions generator mix by 2020 and 80% by 2050. A ‘low emission generator mix’ is a mix of generators that can provide power on demand and meet the emissions limits that will be phased in and become more stringent over time. For example, the limit might be 200 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2020 and 10 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2050. The rate would decrease progressively over time – but not necessarily linearly. The rate does not apply to a single generator. It applies to a company’s mix of generators. The 2020 limit could be achieved by a mix of 50% high efficiency CCGT combined with 50% of one of the following: nuclear, hydro, biomass, geothermal, solar thermal with its own energy storage. Wind cannot meet the 200 kg CO2-e/MWh for the reasons explained here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
4.to buy back some old coal generators at a fair price in a “cash for clunkers” scheme
5.to conduct first public awareness forums throughout Australia.
2012 – Government announces policies to:
1.allow nuclear power plants to be established in Australia and under what conditions;
2.allow States to bid to host the first nuclear power station and the conditions for selection of the state – this will include a time frame for site selection to be complete by 2013 (I know its fast, but if its urgent we need to get on with it!). In the absence of states bidding and agreeing to meet the schedule the first NPP will be build on Commonwealth owned and controlled land.
3.Establish arrangements with IAEA to act as our Nuclear Regulatory Authority until we are ready to take over.
2013 –Source selection starts for our first four or five NPPs
2014 – Contract awarded for first four or five NPPs
2015 – Construction begins
2019 – First NPP commissioned.
2020 – Second NPP commissioned, and so on,
Regarding the rates assumed here for implementing nuclear power, remember that Hanford B was built in 21 months from first breaking of ground until the plant went critical (ASME (1976). That was in 1944. Admittedly this was not an electricity generating plant, but it was the first ever large nuclear plant. If we could do that 65 years ago with the first ever, why can’t we build nuclear power plants quickly now??
References
Lang, 2010. Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
(please click on the link to the pdf version because it contains the footnotes, references and appendices; these are not included in the abridged version on the web)
ASME (1976). Hanford B-Reactor
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5564.pdf
Brave New Climate 
536 replies on “Alternative to Carbon Pricing”
I’ll give immediate responses now and then consider the proposals more carefully. First I believe that a tradeable CO2 cap is the least worst approach but it needs to turn a deaf ear to pleading from vested interests. This appears to be politically unworkable in Europe, Australia and the US so another tack is needed. However prescribing that effectively 5 GW of generation by 2020 should be technology X = renewable is not that different in principle to mandating that a sequence of 1.4 GW installations should be technology X = nuclear. That requirement will effectively impose a quantifiable price on CO2 since rebuilding coal plant would be the cheaper option at current capital costs. Same result different route.
I have a hunch that if Australia burns 40 Mt a year of oil (mostly imported) then by 2020 we could burn a comparable amount of gas for transport, up from virtually zero at present. If this pans out then the ‘gas bridge’ could be very expensive. In my opinion we could pre sign up for a NPP/desal in 2010, not years from now. That facility would be to supply power and water for the Olympic Dam expansion. Don’t expect any green logic in the July ODE announcement.
More later.
LikeLike
It is useful to have Peter Lang’s preferred alternative to CPRS put together in one post.
Although I am in general agreement with his aims and his conclusions relating to how the aims should be achieved, I think there may be some logical incinsistencies in his approach:
1) The document starts out by recommending the introduction of mandatory 20% of clean energy mixes by 2020 without constraining what goes into those mixes (? because nuclear will not have time to make much impact by then). By the end of the document, the author appears to have “picked the winner” in the form of nuclear (which, FWIW I happen to think is correct). However, it implies, to me, an internal struggle in the author’s mind between his free market, liberal philosophy that allows, in theory, all clean energy solutions on the one hand and his technical experience that forces him to conclude that only his preferred solution (nuclear) will prove to be practical and affordable on the other. To exemplify this, most references to research expenditure specifically allude to one form of nuclear research or another, including research as to how best to indoctrinate others into sharing his views.
2) Peter wants to eliminate all mandatory energy targets but then proposes precisely to create a mandatory 20% clean energy target by 2020). Really, all he is saying one should get away from the term “renewable” and replace it with “clean”. In other words, nuclear should become an “honorary” renewable and become mandated (possibly along with CCS coal/gas if one buys into the first part of the document or possibly not if one is guided by the second).
3) Peter provides no real indication to suggest why his mandate (cap) will not result in more expensive electricity – the case he makes against CPRS. ( I agree that it avoids certain bureaucratic and trading costs.) The thing that Peter is banking on to keep costs low is the facilitation of nuclear power with a minimum of unnecessary constraints placed upon it.
4) Peter suggests that he would only favour an ETS-type scheme if America adopted one. He asserts that unilateral Australian adoption would damage its economic interests. Why wouldn’t his mandatory cap do the same? Also, where have his objections to bureaucracy and gaming the system gone? Why aren’t the actions of the Chinese and Indians as important as those of the Americans?
5) Peter hasn’t really explained how efficient energy use can be encouraged without increasing its cost. He tends to discount the possibility of enough economic benefit to offset the extra cost burdens of bureaucrats. However, this is focused on economics and doesn’t address emissions. European vehicles have lower emissions than American. Why? Because fuel costs more in Europe. France has the cheapest electricity in Europe. Probably in consequence, the French use more energy than other Europeans.
A simpler and intellectually purer policy for Peter to promote might be that suggested by John Newlands (above), namely mandate the introduction of an annual aliquot of nuclear as fast as practically possible. I do believe, however, that the concept of a “clean energy mix that can be dispatched on demand” has merit due to the introduction of the last three words. This, too, might give rise to more conflict than it would solve because it appears that many greens don’t believe future society should expect to receive power on demand.
Peter, please accept these comments as a constructive form of criticism, engendered by my penchant for playing devil’s advocate. I remain convinced, however, that your greatest contribution to the debate will come to be recognised as that provided by your technical expertise on power generation technologies rather than from your policy recommendations.
LikeLike
Further to what Douglas says, why wouldn’t an internal (domestic) fee and 100% dividend approach to a carbon price, with the fee refunded/waived on exports and imposed on imports (from/to countries without an equivalent price) be effective in: (a) encouraging energy efficiency [prospect of direct personal/individual savings] and (b) discourage the construction of any new coal-fired power stations and provide a strong incentive for the government to put nuclear power on the table?
LikeLike
Long time reader, first time commenter.
Is there a source on the claim that Nuclear is 10 times safer than coal?
Great post.
Thanks.
LikeLike
it would be nice if international competitiveness led to the rapid spread of clean power around the globe. obviously, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, augmented international competitiveness leads to rapid spread of a technology. Under other conditions, you get other results. Very often favorable and unfavorable conditions for rapid spread of a technology (and we’re talking infrastructure not new iphones) are happening at the same time.
international competitiveness can lead to resource wars and shooting wars and patent wars, including theft of technologies, sabotage, hoarding of tech–especially accumulation shaping ones that might give one country/firm a massive edge over another; it can lead to a race to the bottom in wages, not their increase. it can lead to stalemate (uh… duh), as in the inability of competing countries to cooperate on a framework within which they compete, or the refusal of profit making enterprises to destroy their capital and replace it with new and expensive capital–without massive subsidy or without guarantee that others will do the same.
Huge coordinated infrastructure expenditures are not well facilitated by cut throat competition (international competitiveness) in a context of spiralling indebtedness.
John raises the barrier of “vested interests.” Vested interests are not “the other” of international competitiveness; they are simultaneously an expression of it and a barrier to it.
At any rate, I’ve (English Professor, not engineer) learned more from Peter Lang than just about anyone else in matters energy related.
LikeLike
CPRS is a complex route to get to the only endpoint that makes sense: replacing coal with nuclear. So let’s just do it. This means taking on the coal industry and coal unions and anti-nuclear lobby directly rather than indirectly and in stages. Abbott might have the gumption, but I don’t think he could drag the rest of the coalition along. We’re in for decades of obfuscation.
LikeLike
The only way to give NPPs any hope of being built on time, and on budget, is to first establish a regulatory regime that is more like current aviation authorities in that it sees itself as a working partner of the industry, not an antagonist. Unfortunately in North America and Europe (except France) the industry and the regulators do not have a good working relationship, and that is at the root of most of the problems nuclear power has in those places.
That doesn’t mean the regulator is in industry’s back pocket, but it does mean that it is not allowed to become a tool of antinuclear forces.
LikeLike
A bit OT but interesting nevertheless :
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/nnsa/NR-NNSA-10-01-02.html
LikeLike
I doubt that any systematic carbon reduction schedule will be adhered to. Rather I think it will be a series of knee jerk reactions with gas as the likely winner due to short implementation times. To illustrate we are just 5 months away from the supposed 1st July start to CO2 pricing and the political tribes want $10 under the Labor CPRS, $20 under the Greens proposal and $0 under the Libs/Nationals.
A huge distraction is that I think Peak Oil not climate change will be the centre of attention in the next decade. As this will slow the global economy some will argue forcefully that we don’t need extra carbon cuts. I think it also means that nuclear with high capital costs and slow build times will be shelved, at least until there is a perception of getting left behind.
Therefore any decision to go nuke will be deferred until things are near crisis point. A multitude of events could trigger that… bursting of the China bubble, 50C summers, coral reef bleaching, $5/L petrol, $10 loaves of bread, 20% urban unemployment, 30c/kwh off-peak electricity and so on. Meanwhile working on a single NPP such as a mine supply project would have a good demonstration effect. I just don’t envisage any systematic nuclear program until a panic sets in.
LikeLike
Hi Scott, “Long time reader, first time commenter”,
I’ll answer your question first and come back to the others later.
For a comparison of the relative safety of the various energy options see the second chart here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/
For background on this chart see here: http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/
LikeLike
Putting aside the question of the utility of cap and trade schemes (which Peter and I have debated elsewhere) and the idea of compensating coal plant owners for writing off their “clunkers”, there’s a lot to like in Peter’s account above.
Still, one can’t but conclude that if he believes that nuclear power is the best option, why he doesn’t simply propose legislating the retirement of offending plants and their reconfiguration as nuclear plants.
If you don’t trust the market to sort this out, unless we like lawyers, why allow generators the option of tying up proposals in expensive legal wrnagling over what is or is not a level playing field. We have made up our minds to adopt nuclear technology as superior, and although we plan an orderly transition, with compensation for early conversion if needed, why pretend we are treating all generators the same?
If you are going to adopt a commandist approach to infrastructure programs, one might as well have the upside benefits – speed, eminent domain, control over specifications and timelines etc …
Now personally, I’d prefer a more market-based approach, because I suspect it would be less costly and garner more stable public support, but if this is the way we are going let’s not be half-hearted.
LikeLike
Several of the comments suggest the reader has not fully appreciated the dependence of this article on the paper “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation”.
Thids article, which is simply some fragments of possible energy policy, assume acceptance of the results and conclusions in the paper “Emission Cuts Realities”. In particular the conculusion that “Option 3 – Nuclear and Combined Cycle Gas Turbines” is the least cost option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation over the long term.
As I have mentioned in other posts, and in the lead article in this thread, there is evidence that nuclear can supply electricity at a price competitive with coal – much less than the figures used in the “Emission Cuts Realities” paper. The costs in the “Emission Cuts Realities” paper are high because they are the estimated costs for nuclear in Australia with regulatory distortions mostly as they are now. These are the sort of high cost we could expect from nuclear if we implement the CPRS without first removing the distortions that are biased against nuclear power.
LikeLike
Others have looked at the idea of converting or reconfiguring coal burners to nuclear and found the process more trouble than it is worth. To start off with coal-fired boilers produce steam at much higher pressures and at elevated temperatures compared to current nuclear reactor driven steam generators. So most of the generating equipment would have to be modified so much that it would not be cost effective. As well the buildings cannot be easily converted to provide containment, nor could fuel handling equipment and storage be retrofitted on to old work without incuring a huge expence.
The only economic path is to brownfield the site and start from scratch, keeping only the switchyard and access to transmission from the old plant.
LikeLike
DV82XL,
I really liked your post (at 03:09 am). Thank you.
LikeLike
I’ve reacted somewhat to the assertions that this article is picking winners and that the CPRS is a “market solution”.
Let me see if I understand what some of you seem to be arguing.
Regulations such as these are acceptable:
1. Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets (forcing electricity distributors to buy electricity from renewable generators or pay an exorbitant fine);
2. Government will accept the risk for Carbon Capture and Storage;
3. Massive subsidies for renewable energy (e.g. geothermal, solar power); and
4. Total ban on nuclear energy
However, removing these regulations, and many other distortion that favour existing picked winners, would not be acceptable.
And, I understand, you are arguing that an ETS on top of all these existing distortion would be a “market based solution”
I dont agree.
LikeLike
One advantage of Nuclear that I’ve read, is that it is easily located near the sea (since the cost of transporting fuel is insignificant), so that it uses sea water not fresh water (and can do desalination on the side). This is particularly advantageous in Aus with most of the population near the coast and fresh water scarce.
LikeLike
John Newlands, on January 31st, 2010 at 22.13 you said:
That is not what I said. I said a mix of technologies will be low emission. We already have ‘Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets’. I propose we change that regulation to ‘clean energy targets’. The article is not proposing picking technology winners. It is proposing regulating the emissions at a rate that changes with time – both the rate of the emissions and the proportion of the generation that must meet the Clean Energy Targets changes with time. This is not much change from what we have now, exept that the picking of winners (ie renewables) is removed. I am not mandating nuclear, just clean electrcity generation.
The decommissioning of 1.4 GW of coal per year applies to coal that has reached or is near its retirement age. We have many power stations like that in Australia. AEMO lists the dates when the coal power stations were commissioned. From memory (I don’t have the linke to hand) many are past 40 years old. So we can go for many years closing down power stations more than 40 years old. I don’t propose to attempt to go into all the details of exactly how the policy should be written and what the exact mechanisms are to close these power stations down, and appropriately compensate the investors, where necessary.
LikeLike
Douglas Wise, on February 1st, 2010 at 0.24 you said:
You may well be right on that.
The problem I want to emphasise, however, is that this is the year to get Labor to change its anti-nuclear stance. I encourage all you Labor supporters who are also supporters of nuclear as a key way to address our future needs, to stop battling me and get on with trying to change Labor’s anti-nuclear stance. That is what we need to work on.
This is the time to really put in the effort on this. In fact, this week is the very best opportunity to make some inroads. Let them know. This week the CPRS is being debated in Parliament. Next we have the Federal Budget being delivered about 11 or 18 May. If we do not get Labor to support nuclear by then, and to include some line items in the budget, we lose a year at least. However, it is much worse than that. If we don’t get it in this May’s budget it could be years until Labor changes its anti-nuclear stance. The reason is that the election will be held sometime this year, and if it is not Labor policy by the time the election is held, nothing much will happen for the next three years at least.
This is the time guys. There will not be another opportunity like this for a long time.
LikeLike
Douglas Wise, I have to comment on this sentence of yours:
That’s one way of putting it. Another might be to say we have rebalance and catch up after 40 years of funding renewables and nothing on nuclear. If the conclusion in the “Emission Cuts Realities” paper are correct, and if we want nuclear at least cost rather than at high cost, we will have to do something to find a solution. Please suggest a better solution (and a time line to get emissions from electricity down to at least the profile in Option 3.
LikeLike
Barry Brook,
I am opposed to anything impost on the price of electricity whil we have all the regulatory distortions in place. I’ve explained why in other posts. I may pull it all together later, but not now. I feel we need to focus on removing the distortions first, or they will never be properly removed. I’d argue that if Labor is serious about reducing GHG emissions they must embrace nuclear wholeheartedly. If they are not prepared to do embrace nculear, then they are just playing politics. They are not serious.
This is the time to tackle this issue, not avoid it.
LikeLike
John Newlands, on February 1st, 2010 at 8.13
I agree with all this. I think you are likely to be correct. I think the opportunity is here right now to get Labor to change its anti-nuclear stance – 1) while Labor wants to get its CPRS passed, 2) as we lead up to the Budget in May, and 3) as we lead up to the election later this year. There will not be another opportunity like this. This the best opportunity we will get to avoid some of what you point out in your post, John.
LikeLike
Ewen Laver,
You said:
Surely that comment must be intended as a joke, yes?
How can you have a market based approach with the best option banned, the worst option subsidised and mandated, and a host of other tax and regulatory distortions in place? The concept of a market based approach is nuts.
Can you explain for me the schedule to having our first NPP commissioned if we adopt the CPRS.
Please detail the steps and the timing in a schedule like I provided near the end of the article.
LikeLike
Peter said:
So I take it you are explicitly rejecting a market-based approaches then I waonder why you’d be bothered about “stranded investment” and “risk premiums” then. If the state is to do it all, then that scarcely matters, does it?
The problem with your approach Peter is that it offers no plausible context for meeting the elements of your timeline. It’s a wishlist of things you’d like to see happen, which, absent a discussion over the relative merits of the various options other than on moral values, tribal commitment and superficial aesthetic preferences.
We absolutely must make the debate around energy options about the relative costs, benefits and risks of each rather than whether one is for or against “a nuclear Australia” or for “clean green renewables”. Without a cost on each of the options, we will never escape that dance.
LikeLike
oops … that was untidy …
So I take it you are explicitly rejecting a market-based approaches. I wonder why you’d be bothered about “stranded investment” and “risk premiums” then. If the state is to do it all, then that scarcely matters, does it?
The problem with your approach Peter is that it offers no plausible context for meeting the elements of your timeline. It’s a wishlist of things you’d like to see happen, which, absent a discussion over the relative merits of the various options other than on moral values, tribal commitment and superficial aesthetic preferences will go nowhere.
LikeLike
Ewen Laver,
You have totally missed the point.
The point is you cant have a market based approach if you are banning nuclear, mandating and subsiding renewables, have many other distortions through tax system, industry assistance, grants to CSIRO, universities and other research organisations to research renewables and CCS. Then you want to impose a CPRS with all this in place and you think you have a market based system.
You need to clean up the distortions first. Most importantly, you cant have a market based system when the governent is anti-nuclear (ie anti what we all agree is the best option).
LikeLike
Ewen Laver,
I think you are suggesting Labor might change their anti-nuclear stance if we support the CPRS. Can you give any solid reason to believe that?
I’d argue there is no value in legislating a CPRS until the distorting and blocking policies and regulations are removed. In fact I’d argue the CPRS would be value destroying.
Most importantly, Labor needs to change its anti-nuclear policy if we are to make any progress. That needs to be done first to show genuine committment and genuine leadership.
LikeLike
Peter said:
I believe Garnaut pointed out that MRETs would be redundant if one had a proper ETS. I agree with this. I’d oppose subsidising renewables or any energy source too. I would allow energy providers to borrow to build energy sources at something like the official cash rate. It would be up to each to meet the prevailing caps on emissions of various kinds. Well conceived R&D that met the brief of lower emissions on a reasonable time frame or other related goods would continue to be supported.
You keep saying you can’t have a market-based solutions withoug nuclear being in the mix. I agree. The question is, how do you get the state to reverse its current policy? It is very clear that at the moment neither major party bloc sees this as a good idea for reasons that have nothing to do with the objective merits of nuclear power.
We need a circuit breaker in this debate and IMO that is a serious cost on emissions and an end to MRETs. Once that happens, matters will clarify and the longheld delusions attaching to renewables will dissipate. The debate will largely be coal/gas or nuclear power. That’s a platform for getting the left involved.
Once we show that the old debates about uranium mining and hazmat and proliferation are redundant and we simply consider the relative merits of each technology, and point to the parochial resource nationalism issues of the Connor years the left will come around.
LikeLike
Looks like this forum is convinced nuclear is cheap. Examples of UAE is given (where cheap south Asian slave labor is available) and recent qouted costs in OECD is ignored.
Florida estimates are $17B for 2,210MW (including $3 billion for transmission lines). They want to charge extra money years before customers get a kwh – and it has been recently rejected.
How does that kind of cost affect the analysis ?
LikeLike
Labour costs are not as big a factor as many make out, evnow. Given the generous estimate of up to 20 million man hours for construction of an AP-1000 reactor, that’s $1 billion at a rate of $50 per hour. Most of the extra costs involved in the high end $17B Florida estimate (the only one antis ever seem to cite) involves risk management. But I agree that if cheaper prices cannot be quoted in the US, it’s off the table. Fortunately, there are many cheaper quotes, and the US is hardly the leader in this area any more.
LikeLike
Ewen,
The MRET is locked in for at least 20 years. The Wind Industry is arguing for it to be extended. Once something like this gets started, it cant be easily undone. Garnaut has largely been ignored by the government.
I think you are making a mistake trying to argue that the Coalition would not support nuclear. They always have and would continue to do so. But it is electoral suicide for the Coalition to bring it up without Labor doing so first. It has to be Labor that implements this first. It is Labor that is the anti-nuclear party. And they are the government and the one who has to lead.
I don’t understand why you cannot admit this.
Have you condidered my question about how you believe the CPRS will introduce nuclear on a faster schedule than the way I suggested?
The question I asked was:
Can you explain for me the schedule to having our first NPP commissioned if we adopt the CPRS.
Please detail the steps and the timing in a schedule like I provided near the end of the article
LikeLike
Ewen,
We’ve been over this before, and it is posted on another thread, but to keep it togethe wth the discussion here and for the benefit of other readers, I’ll repost.
The CPRS is exactly the wrong policy, for Australia, and for the world.
The CPRS will make no difference whatsoever to global temperatures.
It will raise the cost of electricity which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
To help people out of poverty, throughout the world, they need electricity.
(see this chart of UN statistics charting life expectancy versus per capita electricity consumption. http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEcKxvG4lnIreQ;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL%5Fn5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=5.71;dataMax=28213$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=12;dataMax=83$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=
Click on ‘Play’ to see how the chart changes over time. Then change the left axis to see the comparison of electricity consumption with any of the other UN statistics such as health, education, fertility rate, poverty, etc).
To get electricity to the poorest people as fast as possible we need to help the world to lower, not raise, the cost of electricity.
CPRS and ETS are designed to raise the cost of electricity.
Instead, we should be doing all we can to lower the cost of clean alternatives to fossil fuel generated electricity.
The only economically viable clean electricity generation technology is nuclear energy.
We should do all we can to lower the cost of nuclear energy in the developed nations – including Australia. Then it can be applied in the developing nations.
Nuclear is some 10 to 100 times safer than coal generated electricity and far more environmentally benign. https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/
So, why aren’t our political leaders explaining this to the population? Don’t they know the facts?
There are other reasons apart from lifting people out of poverty and giving them a better life. Low-cost, clean electricity will reduce emissions more quickly than high cost electricity, because electricity will more rapidly displace gas for heating and oil for land transport. The choice is a slow transition to clean electricity or a much more rapid transition to clean electricity with the added benefit of a faster transition to a clean energy for heating and land transport (clean electricity). Oil-fueled land transport will be displaced over decades by a combination of electric vehicles and vehicles running on synthetic fuels produced using clean electricity.
Summary:
Some policy implications of the paper: “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation” (Lang, 2010)
1. Mandating renewable energy is bad policy
2. If we are serious about cutting GHG emissions, we’d better get serious about implementing nuclear energy as soon as possible
3. If we want to implement nuclear power we’ll need to focus on how to do so at least cost, not with the sorts of high cost regimes imposed in USA and EU
4. We should not raise the cost of electricity. We must do all we can to bring clean electricity to our industries and residents at a cost no higher than the least cost option
5. Therefore, ETS/CPRS is exactly the wrong policy.
LikeLike
Peter said:
I couldn’t leave Barnaby Joyce’s mantra untouched, sorry.
As noted in our previous discussion, your reasoning on energy and wealth is flawed. Raising the price of dirty electricity and dirty energy in general is fine as long as you provide clean alternatives and raise it by no more than the actual cost to the commons. This is especially true of the developing world, whewre we have it within our capacity to offer them a chance to avoid our mistakes and help everyone, including of course themselves.
LikeLike
Well I’m ready to vote for Peter Lang, Barry Brook, et al, but I don’t think that’s the answer. How about creating a thread for folk to discuss “What pro nuclear people should do this election”: join a party? start a party? hassle candidates? hold meetings? stand as independent? I’m going to do something, but I don’t know what. This is the most crucial election in my 40+ years of voting.
LikeLike
Ewen Laver,
Excuse me, I wrote that. Can you please show me the link where you saw it.
And it is your logic that is flawed. We’ve been over this several times already.
I agree if we can properly include the externalities we should. But it must be done properly and equally for all. That is not happening and we have never been able to. Nuclear has most of its externalities included already. Other generators don’t.
Raising the cost of electricity is bad for humanity. All explained above. Pretty simple to understand. Your idealism does not work in the real world.
Actually, I’ve realised I could write forever, But you are simply going to keep repeating Labor party mantra, so there is little point.
An ETS, in Australia when the rest of the world is not proceeding on this action, will damage our economy, transfer emissions overseas (e.g. aluminium), and make zero difference to world emissions. It is simply not the right time for an ETS.
We need to work on implementing low-cost clean electricity. Your Australian only CPRS will not do that.
Your Labor Party’s anti-nuclear policy is the stumbling block to low cost, low emissions electricity in the shortest practicable time. Why can’t you simply admit that and get on with helping to change that policy position rather than trying to avoid dealing with the real problem or cover it up.
Why are you avoiding this question:
Can you explain for me the schedule to having our first NPP commissioned if we adopt the CPRS.
Please detail the steps and the timing in a schedule like I provided near the end of the article
LikeLike
Peter Lang
It seems to me that Ewen Laver is correct in his logic. Your policy is a wish list with which I (and, I think, Ewen) concur.
However, what you really seem to be arguing is that Australia should have no emissions control legislation until such time that its anti-nuclear stance is altered. Your reasons appear sound – you fear that the alternatives left for emissions control will be ineffective and expensive and locked in for long periods.
Concentrate on changing the anti-nuclear position – which, after all, is your main aim. At present, you seem to be allowing yourself to become distracted.
FWIW, I think the following arguments should be deployed to meet the ends that I think you desire:
1) Evidence from your Emissions Cuts Realities paper (note, I am according this primacy). It needs to be given more clout by being published in a reputable journal and, I believe, this is in hand. (I hope the associated delay won’t result in the missing of the political deadlines that you refer to above. If this is a problem, try to get maximum press coverage. Has David Mackay read it and commented? It would help to get overt support from him.
2) Most surrounding nations and many others are deploying nuclear power or are in the process thereof. Therefore, fears over the consequences weapons proliferation are largely irrelevant (horse has bolted). Newer civil NPPs may be somewhat more proliferation resistant and, in any event, fissile material from civil NPPs is not the optimum weapons proliferation route.
3) Australia has large reserves of nuclear fuel, the export of which, generates income. Much more wealth could be garnered with a pro nuclear stance which encompassed having domestic nuclear power and adding value to exports by domestic enrichment. In any event, the current stance can be deemed deeply hypocritical.
4) The problem of waste is vastly exaggerated and will be addressed in large part by the deployment of 4th generation technology. In order to expedite the roll out of this technology, the more 3rd generation plants built in the interim, the greater the number of start charges that will be available for the next generation. The concern over lack of sustainability also vanishes with the onset of 4th generation power.
5) Safety. a) Already very safe by comparison with other power technologies, especially coal. b) getting safer.
6) Consider global economic crisis and upcoming problems of peak oil and energy security as well as AGW. Consider that the current economic model and all democracies that depend on it can only function if there is economic growth, necessary for the repayment of debt. Argue that economic growth is entirely reliant on a plentiful supply of affordable energy. In effect, as Peter likes to quote from Steve Kirsch, if we can’t find an energy source that is as cheap or, preferably, cheaper than that of coal, we’re screwed. Without it, the global economic system would probably collapse well before we get to unsustainable levels of global warming, not that they wouldn’t still be reached anyway.
7) The only technology currently available that has the potential to meet the criteria demanded by Steve Kirsch is nuclear. We already know for sure that alternatives will be more costly or won’t scale. We don’t yet know that even nuclear can fulfil the cost brief but we know that it has the potential and it represents our only hope of a soft landing. Fulfillment with respect to costs is not a technological matter but, rather, one of politics. Therefore, not only must it be deployed but deployed in a manner that avoids unnecessary and costly obstructions being put in its way. It represents the ONLY realistic option left to any that wish to avoid power down. Discussions of ERoEIs could be helpful, particularly the fact that 4th Generation ERoEI will be far greater than the ERoEI of oil ever was at its best. This, alone, becomes a very potent argument for those who appreciate the link between the cost of energy and generation (or maintenance) of wealth.
I hope you don’t find my comments naive and insulting. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Quite right Douglas …
For all his undoubted intellect and knowledge of the engineering questions, by his own logic, Peter’s timeline can’t work.
Peter posits abandonment of nuclear power as a necessary condition for an ETS, declares it won’t happen and on this basis … proposes a timeline for nuclear power by 2015.
The simple reality is that if we could have a proper cost on emissions, or even a transition to one, and remove the MRETs as Garnaut suggests, then those wanting cuts in emissions but would have to accept that (absent nuclear power) the only way to make any cuts at all at a politcally acceptable cost would be to use gas. Every extra tonne abated using renewables will certainly cost a lot more than any cost we could realistically put on emissions. So then they get to either shut up about unambitious targets or reconcile with nuclear power.
We give them a cultural loophole by pointing out that they can keep their old position because IFRs don’t demand new uranium mining or create new hazmat and they do reduce proliferation risks. So does thorium. They can make this a new crusade.
I’ve actually workshopped this position with ALP/Green self-identifying lefties and they find it hard to debate and usually resort to fudging the numbers on renewables or pretneding the cost of nukes is higher to hide their discomfort. Once we get the numbers out and in plain sight, and present them with the choice above there will be nowhere to hide.
Once the ALP cannot be wedged to its left, it will have excellent reasons for going ahead and outflanking the Liberals.
That’s the simple politics of the matter.
Now don’t get me wrong. Despite the sharp exchanges here, I think Peter has done us all admirable service with his work on costing and modelling. Now we have to get the politics right.
LikeLike
Douglas Wise
Thank you for this. I agree with all except the first sentence.
Ewen is arguing FOR the CPRS. I am saying absolutely NO to a CPRS now, and maybe forever. It depends what the rest of the world does as to whether or not an ETS will be the appropriate policy in the future. But definitely for Australia to run ahead of the rest of the world (except the EU) would be disastrous for our economy and for no benefit.
The CPRS is Labor’s avoidance mechanism so it can avoid dealing with the real issue. The problem needs to be faced. We’ve had the problem for 35+ years. I am really frustrated that people like Ewen want to to avoid dealing with the real issue. I can only think this is for party loyalty reasons.
The CPRS cannot be undone once implemented. It involves property rights. From the very first day of trading we cannot undo it and wind back all the trades. We should not implement the CPRS, and certainly not before the USA does.
Douglas, I accept your point about getting distracted, up to a point. But the idea that we should implement the CPRS before we remove the impediments to nuclear will mean those impediments will always be there (most of them). We will always have expensive electricity. The electricity cost will be higher by the cost of carbon. That will set the floor level that nuclear has to come down to. Whereas we should, right now, be setting out to implement nuclear to get it down to the cost of new coal (not existing coal). I acknowledge there will be a FOAK peiod and the difference will have to be carried by the community until we are through the FOAK period. That cost will apply no matter what mechanism we use (CPRS or regulatory).
For the reasons stated in the previous post it is up to all the developed countries to develop least cost electricity for the good of all people.
Despite Ewen’s preaching about his concern for the commons, I think he is morally wrong to be arguing to raise the cost of electricity, given the consequences for humanity. I think it is especially morally wrong when I get the impression that his reason for not wanting to try to change his party’s anti-nuclear policies is partisan.
LikeLike
Ewen,
Your argument is illogical IMO. Based on your logic, no other country could have built nuclear power with out a CPRS.
When are you going to answer the question I’ve asked you four times now? Why are you avoiding it?
This is the question:
Can you explain for me the schedule to having our first NPP commissioned if we adopt the CPRS.
Please detail the steps and the timing in a schedule like I provided near the end of the article.
LikeLike
Ewen,
I just re-read this sentence:
What is the basis for saying “…declares it wont happen”. Is this what is called a strawman argument?
What I’ve been saying all along is: change the policy. This year. Beforethe election. And include funds in the budget. I think you ar stooping pretty low to use that type of tactic. If you are arguing Labor can’t change the policy for internal reasons, I don’t accept that. I say it can and should but doesn’t want to. That is bad government, not in Australia’sbest interests. Led by a spineless leader.
LikeLike
The PM has said he doesn’t want an election over the ETS and may do a deal with the Greens. In turn the Greens want a higher CO2 price but won’t have a bar of nuclear power. The government itself has some flakey thinking with high immigration and increasing coal exports. Federal Minister Garrett apparently thinks 20,000 people died or will die as a result of Chernobyl. I presume he will try to talk Singapore out of their plans for a NPP.
It all says the next few years will be marked by trivial carbon pricing and renewables delusionism. Hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal will be exported or burned at home without the slightest contrition. Like I said earlier, I think we will have to stare down into the abyss before changing anything.
LikeLike
Carbon has a cost, now it needs a price.
I see a market-based process as one in which all externalities are internalized. Unfortunately, many of the powerful players don’t actually want that.
LikeLike
Peter asks:
From the original post …
Peter repeats this rough formulation elsewhere, and to be fair, there is no current evidence that the ALP is rethinking its position, which really is my point. How do we get them to change their position?
Peter continues:
If you unpick this, that is a distinction without a difference. It’s up to us to make the ALP want to change its policy.
We have had a more or less consistent economic and political context during the entuire period when the ALP formed and sustained its policy — centrally fossil fuels the use of which was radically cheap because dumping their waste was free and seen (wrongly) as innocuous, at least for policy purposes.
Today, the ground has shifted. Dumping is no longer seen as innocuous and nuclear can claim to be lower cost if the costs of dumping are internalised one way or another. The coal and crude oil people can totally avoid paying an ETS if they stop emitting. Or they can pay for emissions in a serious schem. Either way, it gets internalised and nuclear gets to compete on fair grounds.
That’s the context in which we can argue for a change in policy.
LikeLike
And since Peter implies it with his references to “my party’s policy”, I will state for the record that I am not a member of the ALP, never have been and they don’t get my first preference.
More often than not, the Greens get my first preference, even though I oppose their current policy on nuclear power and have written to them to tell them so.
Interestingly, their basic platform doesn’t explicitly exclude nuclear power.
LikeLike
David B Benson How does a carbo cost internalise all externalities?
That is a misunderstanding of what are externalities.
The only externality a price on carbon internalises is he external cost of carbon itself.
Google ‘ExternE’ or see here: http://www.externe.info/
LikeLike
Peter Lang, on February 2nd, 2010 at 9.11 — If one actually know what all the externalities were with regard to mining and burning coal, then those could, in principle, be internalized. Similarly for any other power production method.
LikeLike
Ewen,
Wow! This is a play on words:
LikeLike
John Newlands, on February 2nd, 2010 at 7.23 you said:
I agree with this statement.
My gut feeing is that the probability you are right is around 90% to 95%.
There is a small chance that Australia could implement policies to cut emissions significantly. But the CPRS won’t achieve that.
Our best chancce is to put all the pressure we can on Labor to change its policy. Help them to see they can delive the cheapest nuclear via a (significant) public sector ownership/management mechanism. Many on this forum have argued for this in past comments on vareious threads. So help Labor to undersand they can segregate themselves from the Coalition with a genuine solution to many of Australia’s looming problems (energy security, fresh water, clean electricity, clean alternative fuels for land transport as we evolve through these stages over the next few decades).
I repeat: Our best chance is to put all the pressure we can on Labor to change its anti-nuclear policy.
To Ewen and the like minded (supporters of the CPRS) – we need your help to show Labor a better way, not your blocking. CPRS is bad policy for Australia now, and possible forever. It will depend on what the rest of the world does.
LikeLike
David B Benson.
True in theory. It has proved impossible in practice. We’ve been arguing about this for at least 30 years. Only nuclear has internalised most of these costs. And that is done by regulation – for example, the cost of electricity generated by nuclear includes the full cost of decommissioning and waste management. No other electricity generation technology is required to do that.
LikeLike
Ewen said:
LikeLike
Peter Lang, on February 2nd, 2010 at 9.52 — Yes, that was what I pointed out: powerful interests do not want to have to bear the full costs.
Good luck!
LikeLike
Re the ‘gas bridge’ I think it’s worth repeating the problems of south eastern states becoming too dependent
http://www.smh.com.au/business/rise-and-fall-of-the-gas-provinces-20091216-kxk0.html
To that I would add that within a generation we may need a similar mass of gas for transport as we now need for crude oil, ~ 40 million tonnes annually.
If the Greens did a flip on nuclear I would vote for them because the others are just talk.
LikeLike
Where, Peter, have I suggested that the ALP should delay making this (getting rid of the ban on nuclear power) policy adjustment to their platform?
I would love them to do so. As with the Greens, I’ve written to them explicitly seeking exactly this change and setting out the grounds more or less as many of us have here.
But whether they do or not I see no basis for allowing other generators to externalise costs to the commons entailed by their industrial practice. You pay lipservice to this principle, but seem to be objecting to the CPRS or any other measures that might force such internalisation based on comparative advantage (actually your phrase was the more problematic “international competitiveness”). How can this be?
I also don’t see how a good CPRS could delay them making this change. At worst, it would be irrelevant.
I do oppose this CPRS however because that subsidises coal.
LikeLike
Ewen,
If we really get to the nub of the problem, we should be asking:
Is the Labor party fit to govern?
If it is prepared to avoid tackling the big issuers for fear of causing internal party division, is the Labor Party fit to be in government?
If Labor cannot implement policies that are in the best interest of Australia for fear causing division within its Party, is it fit to Govern?
You admit that Labor should end its anti-nuclear policy.
You admit that the reason Labor will not tackle this internal issue is because it would “split the Party” (your words).
If that is the reason for Labor not being able to take the tough decisions, is it fit to govern?
You argue we should support the CPRS to give Labor time to sort itself out. How long? How many more decades? Based on the experience of the past two decades I’d say the probability is we’d still be in this position two decades hence.
And lastly, Ewen, you suggest I, and others who oppose the CPRS (for now), should step out of the way and leave the politics for you and the Greens to sort out!
Oh yea!!
LikeLike
In a democracy there is no point in a party being too far ahead of public opinion: it’ll just be out of office. Parties can get ahead of the public when the public is shifting. And parties will be dragged along by the public. At the moment the public is moving to support nuclear, so parties can get ahead if they’re game. At the very least we need to keep working on the public. Everyone knows that it is nuclear versus the renewables. Everyone knows that nuclear does work. The key messages are: (a) risks are not that great; (b) renewables won’t do the job.
LikeLike
Robert Smart,
I totally agree with what you say.
However, the PM and senior cabinet ministers, could be eading and helping rather than hindering – or worse still, generating fear of nuclear for political advantage (eg Peter Garret with his reputed statement of 20,000 killed by Cherobyl. Such a statement is totally irresponsible by any minister. He should be corrected publically by the PM and Penny Wong).
LikeLike
With a CPRS it will be many years, probably a decade or more, before we realise that we are not making any in-roads on emissions.
Have a lok at this spin being propogated by governments (his is Sustainabiliy Victoria, bu the Department of Climate Change and NSW government propogate the sam sort of nonsense):
Click to access Greenhouse+abatement+figures.pdf
I hope everyone here realises by now that wind power avoids little if any GHG emissions when the emisisons from the wind shaddowing back up generators are included. See here: http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
What is us of a CPRS when governments continue to distribute this sort of nonsense
LikeLike
Ewen,
You said of the the Greens:
“Interestingly, their basic platform doesn’t explicitly exclude nuclear power.”
How did you come to that conclusion, exactly?
http://greens.org.au/node/787
Policy C2: Nuclear
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:
1. there is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium and nuclear weapons proliferation.
2. the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, or of catastrophic accidents at, or terrorist attacks on, nuclear power stations, are so great that the risks are unacceptably high.
3. future generations must not be burdened with high level radioactive waste.
4. nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
5. Australia’s reliance on the US nuclear weapons ‘umbrella’ lends our bases, ports and infrastructure to the US nuclear war fighting apparatus.
Goals
The Australian Greens want:
6. a nuclear-free Australia.
7. a nuclear-free world.
8. safe, long-term containment of Australia’s existing nuclear waste.
9. the elimination of nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
10. the elimination of depleted uranium weapons.
11. safe, ecologically sustainable energy options.
Measures
The Australian Greens will:
12. end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium.
13. maintain the prohibition on the processing and enrichment of uranium in Australia.
14. prohibit the import and export of nuclear waste and fuel rods.
15. prohibit the reprocessing of Australian nuclear fuel rods.
16. promote the development of non-reactor technologies for the production of radioisotopes for medical and scientific purposes.
17. close the OPAL nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.
18. ensure that nuclear waste is stored with minimal risk and is monitored above ground, in dry storage at or near the site of generation.
19. require uranium mining companies to meet enforceable standards to safely contain and to monitor their radioactive tailings wastes for at least 10,000 years.
20. require uranium mining companies to rehabilitate mining sites.
21. immediately close Australia’s ports and territorial waters to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels.
22. prohibit the treatment of food with ionising radiation (food irradiation), and the importation of such food.
23. support compensation for the victims of British nuclear weapons testing in Australia.
24. support the creation of nuclear weapon free zones, municipalities and ports.
25. strengthen the radiation security and preparedness of Australia’s airports and ports.
LikeLike
That’s their current policy, which as I said, Peter, I oppose, but if you look at their charter …
the word “nuclear” appears on one line only, under Peace, at b):
Nothing else in the charter explicitly rejects nuclear power. In theory, one could join The Greens, endorsing the charter, and work to modify their policy on nuclear power.
That might not be time well spent, but one could make the arguments I’ve made above. IFR is more sustainable than any other energy source available if one includes embedded energy costs. Thorium probably is too.
LikeLike
Peter,
You are sounding more and more implicitly partisan. I regard this as counterproductive, especially since, in practice the coalition will not get anywhere near Federal government until at least 2013 and probably not until 2016. You may well suppose that if they did achieve power at either of those elections they wouldn’t be proposing nuclear power either
The question is which of the parties is least fit to govern. The coalition lacks popular support, which makes it currently less fit, by definition.
This has always been the case with both parties, who reason, understandably, that being out of power renders being right entirely moot. One cannot govern from opposition. If you rejected parties that ignored big issues in order to remain politically viable, you’d have to reject all the major parties, including the Greens, but most people don’t do that. Most people see which party worries or offends them least and vote accordingly. It’s very clear that the coalition, had it won in 2007 would have made a dreadful mess of the GFC here, but I don’t want to get off topic. They had a chance to take the steps you wanted from 2001, but of course, they didn’t. And why was that?
Because
a) it would have been politically divisive and electorally poisonous
b) they were opposing anything that would prejudice the value of Australian coal
c) they rejected anthropogenic climate change as a serious issue
Clearly, in your view, they weren’t fit to govern either. They has nearly 12 years to do something and all we got was a Switkowski Report.
I do no such thing. As you know, I oppose this CPRS outright, and propose instead a robust ETS to create a context in which the left can come to support nuclear power.
Hardly. I oppose the CPRS we now have on the table as frivolous and inadequate and hope something qualitatively more faithful to full internalisation can arise. I’d urge you and others to keep pressure up on those opposing a transition to nuclear power to keep up the pressure regardless, while being careful to avoid sounding like coalition lobbyists. That’s certainly what I am doing.
.
LikeLike
Barry,
—
Most of the extra costs involved in the high end $17B Florida estimate (the only one antis ever seem to cite) involves risk management
—
I’m neither anti – nor for. I’m on the fence and want to figure out where the truth is … because I do think nukes would have to be in the solution mix (assuming the world is serious – which I don’t think is really true).
I don’t think Florida is the only expensive one. In Georgia they want exactly the same amount ($14B+$3B).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
All these are for 2 AP1000s quoted in 2008 – I’ve calculated using wikipedia numbers.
Turkey : $5780 to $8071 per kW.
Florida : $6335 to $7692 per kW.
S. Carolina : $4,432 per kW. (Virgil)
Carolinas : $4,977 per kW. (Duke, no financing charge)
Bellefonte : $4,480 to $7,692 per kW.
Georgia : $6335 to $7692 per kW.
Canada : $10,800 (see http://bit.ly/afZoPe)
—
2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody’s Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or “all-in” cost).[12]
However, commodity prices shot up in 2008, and so all types of plants will be more expensive than previously calculated[13] In June 2008 Moody’s estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/kWe in final cost
—
LikeLike
evnow, Canada is covered here:
Other recent cost estimates are detailed here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
LikeLike
I am a newcomer to this thread, and have not bothered to read all the preceeding posts, so if I am treading over old ground then I apologise in advance.
The power generation problem is a difficult one. I think it is a given that all concerned want a number of things:
1. Maximum power for minimum cost.
2. Reliable power – available at all times, as much or as little as we want.
3. Minimal pollution (ie particulates, SO2, CO, NO etc).
4. Reducing CO2 output.
Firstly let me say that I think the fossil fuel providers in Australia have done a marvellous job of reducing pollution (item 3 above). They also have achieved item 1 and 2, reliable power for minimum cost. Unfortunately there seems to be little further progress that can be made by them on reducing CO2 output.
Secondly, as Peter Lang has pointed out, Windfarming is a bit of a mug’s game – you end up having to also pay for more fossil fuelled generators as well, and thereby increasing cost while not substantially reducing CO2 emissions. Solar, while less dreadful than wind, is no pretty flower either.
So at present Nuclear seems to be the way to go, IF reducing CO2 is as important as we are being told.
But I can’t see the CPRS either:
1. Reducing CO2 emissions globally (the loophole in the CPRS as I understand it is that heavy industry will shut down here and simply move offshore) or
2. Providing any incentive to move to sensible electricity generation alternatives (the best of a bad bunch being Nuclear)
LikeLike
Fred Said:
This claim cannot be made without an analysis of the feasibility of such a move, and likewise an analysis of the functional specs associated with any possible relocation.
Since the bulk of the coal plants being built in China, for example, are cleaner than the ones we have operating here, the net effect of a move to China might still be positive. China has growing nuclear capacity and is also going to make extensive use of hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.
Australia’s aluminium industry is heavily subsidised as it stands and uses some of the dirtiest coal in the world, so if they decided to pack their bags they could scarcely do worse and would almost certainly do better.
Of course, they are unlikely to do so since the cost of emissions trading is
a) mitigated under EITE …
and
b) only one in a number of factors affecting the viability of the trade — sunk cost, cost of relocation, availability of other resources locally, currency stability, access to shipping and cost, the local cost of doing business and so forth. They’d also have to be confident that new tax or carbon cost imposts weren’t made or that, following Hansen’s advice, other states didn’t impose tariffs on the docks, and of course they can’t be.
In all these things ceteris paribus applies and so the mere imposition of carbon costs isn’t decisive per se.
LikeLike
Interestingly, for those wanting to take a swing at the ALP on nuclear power, try searching the coalition’s document released today on climate change mitigation.
The word “nuclear” appears nowhere in the document at all. The document does spend quite a bit of time talking about planting trees in public places, rolling out energy efficiency measures, and installing more solar. There’s even a nod at exploring algal synthesis. But don’t mention the nukes …
Peter castigates the ALP for not dealing with the issue but the coalition is no keener to raise it than the ALP. One might well wonder where he thinks the push will come from if not from any of the major parties.
LikeLike
I wish to thank Peter Lang for his ongoing contribution to an analytical view of the real alternatives available for generation of energy in Australia. His analytical and technical skills have created a clear and accurate path through the two major available renewables, namely wind and then solar and then to an analysis of the optimum path to achieving goals set by our politicians for emissions reduction.
I was glad to see that he has now given us a précis of what he thinks should be our national energy policy to achieve the goals so set. I think changing the classification from renewables to clean energy is a major clarification of how we go forward. For example, wind is renewable but for reasons stated in Peter’s first paper it does not create any significant net savings in greenhouse gas emissions. Paradoxically replacing coal by combined cycle gas generation saves and saves permanently a significant amount of greenhouse gas but doesn’t tick the renewables box. The specific identification of actually reducing rather than suffering substantial increases in power costs is also a welcome recognition that one doesn’t see from any of our political leaders.
Peter has done us a major service in providing a clear analysis of what our governments wish to hide. He has articulated in a way no-one else has, a clear and workable policy. We all know this policy has many hurdles to jump and I would like to suggest that rather than attempting to fine tune Peter’s strategy at this stage, we should all try and get it through these hurdles and then make our contributions to fine tuning.
Well done and thank you Peter
LikeLike
Barry will you be doing any sort of commentary on the Libs new alternative-to-CPRS policy?
LikeLike
Matt, there are some brief comments from me posted here, which will probably get picked up in some news stories:
http://www.aussmc.org/Coalitionclimatechangepolicy.php
LikeLike
Ewen,
The introduction of nuclear has to come from the government. After all, it is the government. Don’t blame the Liberals for Labor’s anti-nuclear policy and internal problems. Liberals have said nuclear is to be an option. But every time they raise it, Labor runs out the scare campaign as they did at the last election, and in every previous election. Labor has to introduce it. Where is their leadership??
Surely you must understand this if you have as much understanding of politics as you say you do.
Given the Green Party’s policy as posted above by TeeKay, and your allegiance to them, I doubt it is possible to have a rational debate on this with you.
LikeLike
Barry,
Why would I use a 5 year old study quoting some 7 year old figures ?
I’ve one more $17B proposal for you. Thats the 3rd one I’ve found doing a casual search …
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html
[quote]The estimated cost of two new nuclear reactors proposed by CPS Energy has gone up as much as $4 billion, prompting the City Council to postpone Thursday’s vote on the project’s financing until January.
…
CPS interim General Manager Steve Bartley said the utility’s main contractor on the project, Toshiba Inc., informed officials that the cost of the reactors would be “substantially greater” than CPS’ estimate of $13 billion, which includes financing.[/quote]
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6843645.html
[quote]Construction cost estimates for two additional reactors in Bay City now exceed $18 billion, three times NRG’s original projections.
….
CPS had hidden the higher cost, in essence lying to the San Antonio City Council and the public for half a year. [/quote]
I think the reality of gen 3 plants is that they are financially too expensive and risky.
I hope, LFTR, if and when they materialize will be better.
ps : How do you quote ? Hope my codes work …
LikeLike
evnow, if reactors in the US end up costing $10 billion per GW, then they will not be competitive. That will be a problem the US utilities and NRC will have to deal with — and the government. If they are built for $3.8 billion /GW for a FOAK reactor in the UAE, with the expectation of halving that in subsequent builds, then we know which nation will end up being more economically competitive.
The extra costs involve financial uncertainties, which is why Obama’s tripling of the loan guarantees is essential to get the nuclear industry in the US back off the canvas. Once they’ve built a couple of Gen III+ reactors there, things will look a whole lot different. It’s not about Gen III technology, it’s about risk management and the regulatory and supporting governance frameworks. If they don’t fix this, then nuclear power is as dead, cost wise, as renewables. It’s all about the money and the risk.
LikeLike
Ewen on offshoring to China there are several issues. Even if their coal fired electricity turns out cleaner than Australia’s in time we might be supplying the coal. Australia exports a quarter billion tonnes of coal and China uses 10 times that amount ie 2.5 Gtpa. In a few years their domestic coal supply will decline meaning they either import more coal probably from Australia or find alternative energy sources. Rudd will give them all the coal they want. Secondly Australia loses direct and indirect jobs and company profits. Some heavy industry like aluminium refining should be partly kept at home in case of future supply problems. It retains know-how and provides a physical template. I’m channelling Rex Connor here.
I’m also worried about the secretive Rann government in SA with this idea to export 70% of Olympic Dam concentrates to China. Some uranium is contained in the copper. I surmise that part of the reason is to save the SA govt the excruciating embarrassment of finding new electricity and water supplies such as nuclear. In other words a sellout of Australian incomes and resource security just to follow a political line.
LikeLike
Peter, I think that Ewen is being perfectly rational about this.
The precursor to nuclear energy in Australia will be a commitment to tacking climate change, and there is only one party that is prepared to do what the science suggests and that is the greens.
Their devoutly anti-nuclear stance is no more an impediment to nuclear power than is the ALP or Libs weak emissions targets and influence of coal.
The Libs don’t believe in climate change, so realistically we have a lot of coal in Australia, we have a lot of powerful coal industry lobbyists, coal is dirt cheap, so why would you go nuclear? Forget a strong nuclear push from the Libs.
The ALP is making token gestures towards emissions, and is clearly pushing the coal bandwagon through clean coal. Maybe it is more than token gestures to be fair but it is still based on coal. But the ALP do want Green preferences – in fact the libs do too… if they go pro nuclear then you lose the Greens preferences, and the Libs… well I think they would rather swoop on the greens preferences rather than give bi-partisan support to nuclear.
The Greens, however, are not wedded in any way to the coal industry, and self included have many supporters who are getting on the nuclear bandwagon as far as I can tell. I’ve been lampooned before on my opinion, but my opinion is that I think the Greens will be the first party in Australia to have a pro-nuclear energy policy based on Gen IV technology – despite the clear opposition at present. It may take time but it will be a sudden switch and will leave both majors with no option but to go nuclear. The Greens simply cannot claim to be the “science” part on emissions, and then adopt pseudo-science for nuclear, and I back science to win and the Greens to come to the party.
I can dream can’t I?
LikeLike
Thanks for that link too Barry.
LikeLike
Peter said:
It wasn’t the government until November 2007 and the previous government did exactly nothing in nearly 12 years. This is the standard coalition line, and not the first time you’ve borrowed from them. Surely you can be more creative than that in defending their policy?
As Barry on the coalition notes above:
Don’t argue the toss with me if you think me irrational. Argue it with him.
Not in this latest statement, the one that is their “comprehensive response”, they haven’t.
It’s an odd kind of allegiance on this issue you say I have. The policy you cite is one I’d like to see changed and of course, I refer to their charter in saying so.
LikeLike
Peter: Your plan sounds eminently sensible but your section about “Level
Playing Field” seems redundant. Who funds the research and the courses
at Universities to train the people? Isn’t that a “distortion” of the
hallowed market? It seems to me that you are indeed picking winners,
and subsidising them with appropriate training infrastructure which
is exactly what experts should do.
My only caveat is that while we should
pick winners, we should do so with a little humility. Research shouldn’t stop
on solar or geothermal or other possible game changers. And you
never suggested it should!
LikeLike
Geoff Russell,
I agree. Funding for research for energy should be distributed on the basis of likely return on investment. Of course there will be a spectrum from low likelihood and high return to lower return and higher probability of success. The funds should be distributed on this basis rather than on idelogical belief as much of it is now.
The reason we need to ear mark funds ofr nuclear is because we have to catch up for 40 years of no funding. We have an enormous catch up to do. All the unis are tied up in renewables, coal, etc.
The social engineering research is aimed at providing least-cost, low-emission electricity, no matter what the technologies are. I made the logic jump, based on the results and conclusions in the “Emission Cuts Realities”paper, that the answer would be a mix including a substantial component of nuclear.
LikeLike
Ewen Laver,
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043
Perhaps you weren’t in the country during the 2007 election when Labor run its anti-nuclear scare campaign. As it does at every election!
LikeLike
Oh I see Peter … when the ALP is in opposition, the potential for it to run a scare campaign is an excuse for the government not to show leadership and when it is in government, the ALP should disregard the political fall out and do the right thing.
Very consistent, but perhaps not in a flattering way …
LikeLike
Barry Brook, thanks for the links to the costs of nuclear power – excellent.
Ewan, and John Newlands, thank you for responding to my comments on the effect of the ETS. I think it is apparent that I disagree with Ewan and agree with John!
I think that Ewan and Peter have slipped into a politicised counter-rant. This is unfortunate as partisan accusations etc get the discussion nowhere. This discussion is about energy options and alternatives to the CPRS. I know the Labor, Coalition, Greens and the two Independants all have different, and well publicised views on these two topics. OK, that’s their political stance. But what I think this thread is about, or should be, is coming to a (strongly) agreed logical position, rather than a partisan one.
I think Peter has advanced this debate very strongly with his excellent paper which identifies what the costs and benefits (in CO2 reduction terms) of the available power generation options are. I think his argument holds merit: that if we transition to a greater use of low-C power, and if we move the transport sector into more use of that energy source, then that might be a viable solution to reducing C.
There are several difficulties in the debate.
1. There is some dissent as to the dislocation and economic distress (all agree there will be some) which will result if the CPRS comes to pass. In this regard, it would have been helpful if the Treasury had performed a true Cost-Benefit analysis. Many economic commentators have been less than thrilled with the published analysis to date – I hope they are working on this. The newspapers have reported many of our heavy industries, and some of our transport industries as being potentially very adversely affected by the CPRS. The Treasury has claimed that the effects will be small. Who are we to believe here? The sponsors of the Bill or the CEOs?
2. Are electric vehicles, or hybrids a viable economic proposition? I haven’t researched this from the viewpoint of C saved or critical materials availability – does anyone have any views on this?
3. From Peter’s work Nuclear seems to be the clear winner. Unfortunately this is electorally unpalatable, though recent surveys show a shift. The two sticking points are Safety (people remember Chernobyl) and Waste Disposal. On the first issue, I think that there is general agreement in the texchnical community that Nuclear is very safe. Does anyone have any links?
On waste disposal, the CSIRO was pursuing SYNROCK many years ago. Is it still doing so, and where did they get to?
LikeLike
“Are electric vehicles, or hybrids a viable economic proposition?”
Hybrids, it would seem are, both in energy efficiencies, and carbon mitigation.
The case for pure electric vehicles is not as sound, and depends on location. Both the availability and source of electric power determines whether BEVs are economic in a particular local.
LikeLike
While most of the discussion has been on the ‘stationary sector’ which is electrical generation, process heat etc, there is an obvious interaction with the ‘nonstationary sector’. That includes transport and farm production. If the oilwatch pundits are right global crude oil production could be 30% lower by 2020 than it is today. The consequences are staggering since it means the lifeblood of economic activity relative to BAU will be severely constrained. Wayne Swan’s recent speech on the need for greater population blithely assumed plenty of oil in the future.
The crossover between the stationary and nonstationary sectors has major implications Examples; electricity to charge electric vehicles and the possibility of mass energy storage in car batteries, coal-to-liquids as a petroleum replacement but with double CO2, competition for natural gas as both an electrical generation fuel and in vehicles, hydrogen as a key input to synfuels. The possible substitutions and elasticities create too many free variables to make predictions. The one conclusion is that it would be prudent not to put the sectors in competition ie electricity and transport should not have to fight each other for limited resources. At the same time CO2 needs to be reduced. Since there is a proven technology which removes almost all carbon from the stationary sector that should get priority. That will free up constrained carbon for the nonstationary sector whose ability to decarbonise is less clear.
LikeLike
Fred said:
Excuse me Fred, but that doesn’t describe what I’ve said. Peter is dancing around criticising the coalition whereas I think both sides must share equal responsibility for the lack of movement. It is Peter who has adopted an incipiently partisan approach.
I’d like to focus on how we move from waving flags to examining energy options on their merits. Peter seems to be keen on protecting ancient entitlements to pollute. Why he’d want that is hard to follow, save that he regards the interests of investors, once iterated, as sacrosanct for all time.
Plainly neither, on trust, nor anyone else, without good modelling and data.
LikeLike
Fred,
Thank you for your comments, and for bringing us back to where we should focus our efforts. You said:
“But what I think this thread is about, or should be, is coming to a (strongly) agreed logical position, rather than a partisan one.”
I agree. I’ve contributed my ‘two bits’ for now, and hope others here may be able to build on it, improve it or suggest an alternative aproach. I’ll move to the back row for a while.
LikeLike
I thought the Libs had won the feebleness competition until I looked at the ALP’s targets
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/indicative-national-emissions-trajectory.aspx
If Abbott’s grass farming subsidy gets up next we’ll have a ‘front lawns for climate’ movement.
To his credit Greens leader Bob Brown once told a gathering of coal miners they would have to find other jobs if he was PM. That takes some balls. If only the Greens could get real about the scope and cost of renewables.
LikeLike
Assume a source of excess electrical power (wind blows at an inopportune time or during the night from a big nuclear power plant). This then sells for a low, low price. (Over lunch, Carl Hauser mentioned there are nuclear plant operators in the USA who will pay you to wheel their power away overnight.) What to do with it?
Peter Lang suggested pumped hydro, but this doesn’t work in regions with no significant elevation changes. I’ll propose electrolysis into hydrogen adn oxygen, both to be stored to be later used locally. Upon increased demand, recombine in a fuel cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
or for that matter in a gas turbine configured for oxy-fuel applications. One could even start with natgas fired gas turbines and do the reconfiguration on-site later.
Assuming a new CCGT with 60% thermal efficiency configured to burn hydrogen in oxygen (flue gas is just water vapor), a rough estimate shows that this ought to compete quite well, despite the three large storage tanks required), with natgas fired units even at the current low prices of natgas. The requirement for such competition is the ultra-low cost of nighttime or other unwanted electirc power.
Since such units certainly are not popular (if any currently exist at all), what have I left out? Maybe just undo conservatism?
LikeLike
David B Benson
It is difficult to discuss in any meaningfule way the thousands of possible energy generation and storage technologies that are ofte suggested without adressing the system costs. It really is a pointless exercise. When we suggest a possible solution to a problem, it is important to have some idea of the costs.
Many costings have been done on various aspects of hydrogen economy. They idicate that it is not close to being viable at the moment. If hydrogen does becom viable, I expect it will be with nuclear power as an important component of the supply chain.
Regarding pumped-hydro energy storage, it works well with cheap, baseload fossil fuel electricity (ie coal but not gas) and with nuclear. But not wirh intrmittent renewables and not with gas (to expensive and not neessary because gas canprovide the flexinl power supply neeed to follow demand)
You are correct that baseoad plants sell eletricity cheap a night. The low coast baseload plants (coal and nuclear) are most economic when run at their full capacity, so when demand is low, the price of electricity is low. This is common commercial pracitice. Electricity generators apply this to encourage users, who can, to move from using electricity at peak time to using it at off-peak time (eg for heating water, pumping water, irrigation, etc). Such practice is commn throughout industry. For example, airlines sell cheap faires in off peak seasoms and high prices in peak seasons to encourage people to travel when the airline has spare capacity. If the airfares were the same all the time, then there would be no peak shaving. The airlines would need enough aircraft and crews to carry the maximum demand at peak time and there would be less travellers and less revenue at off-peak time. We’d all have to pay more for the more aircraft, more crews, more airport facilities to meat peak demand but with no more actual passengers caried. We’d all pay more. Same with the electricity generators.
With wind power in the grid, and regulatons that all wind power generated must be bought, the problem of negative prices for electricity when demand is low is exacerbated. If the wind blows in the early hours of the morning, that energy must be bought, so the coal and nuclear plants have to sell their power at lowere and perhaps negative prices (ie pay to take it as you say).
Guess what this means? It means we all have to pay more for electricity. The finance charges and operating costs for the nuclear power station still have to be paid for. But there is the extra cost of the wind farm to be paid for as well. There is more capital investment but no more electrcity, so mor revnue s needed per unit of electricity. Ib short we all pay more for noting.
I’ve covere more than you asked about, but my main point is that without considering costs, all these options that scientists keep suggesting, are not much better than the suggestion to pipe hydrogen from the sun.
LikeLike
DB I think constant electrical output could be split between the grid, pumped hydro, high pressure electrolysis and reverse osmosis or multi-effect desalination. Possibly the desalinated water could recover some energy from elevation in a hybrid approach. Re which some people nearby are considering a 14 kw mini hydro though that may not sit with unprecedented 40C summer temperatures here.
Rather than store hydrogen at high pressure it may be better to use it near real time after temporary low pressure storage. Store the oxygen as well. A ceramic fuel cell for peaking power might be more efficient than a turbine. High value added applications include hi tech metals smelting and synfuels. This is sure to be in demand by mid century (if we make it that far) since it looks like we will have flogged most of our gas by then.
Somewhere Barry gave a link to a BNF reactor in Khazakhstan that did electricity, thermal desal and district heating, so load splitting has precedents.
LikeLike
Barry Brook posted this link yesterday:
This is fascinating. It is a reminder of what went wrong in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
This link provides an example of how the bureacuracy, in this case the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, can change the rules with impunity and force the nuclear industry to pay the costs of its changes of mind. The AP1000 has been being designed and going through approvals and certifications for some 30 years, all with the full support and encouragement of the government and the NRC. At a late stage someone changes some fundamental requirements. The cost and the delay is enormous. No other industry has to absorb this level of cost increase caused by bureaucracy. No other electricity generator has to deal with this level of cost and schedule risk. And this is despite the fact that even the previous generation of nuclear power plants were some 10 to 100 times safer than coal. The AP1000 is expected to be a great improvement. We simply cannot have infinite safety. Safety will improves with each new generation, but if we won’t allow them to be built, we cannot go through the generations.
It is this sort of cost and schedule increase that is making nuclear so costly, especially in the USA and EU, but actually everywhere.
It would be interesting to compare the safety of the chemical plants we have dotted throughout or cities. How does the safety of the chemical planrts compare with that of a nuclear plant? What is the effect of an earthquake or of a plane flying into a large chlorine tank or a cyanide tank. Having seen the effect of Bopal’s 6000 immediate fatalaties compared with Chernobyl 31 immediate fatalaties, I suspect we are so out of balance that we cannot make progress until we tackle this issue.
This is the sort of problem we need to find a way around.
LikeLike
$670m to be spent upgrading the Newcastle coal loader
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKSGE6120DC20100203?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Exported Australian coal produces around 600 Mt of CO2 similar to domestic emissions from coal, oil and gas combined. Therefore a 5% cut in coal exports would make a more reliable reduction to global CO2 since it wouldn’t be heavily negated by offsets.
Increasing coal exports to some countries shows they must have forgotten their Copenhagen promises the second they walked out the door. It also shows the Australian government is not fair dinkum about global CO2 reductions. If the $20 CO2 levy gets up at home that’s equivalent to about $50 per tonne of coal. It could be slapped on coal exports as well with the $50 going to some kind of UN green fund. That means the FOB price per tonne of thermal coal ex Newcastle would rise from $90 to $140.
I suggest the Australian government is both deluded and unserious about adequate CO2 reductions.
LikeLike
John Newlands,
Your post raises many good points. What are the realistic options for progressing with world wide CO2 emissions cuts?
Your suggestion about putting a price on exported coal leads me to think at the limits as a first step. We could:
1. argue for the UN to ban coal exports world wide. That would favour the countries that have their own coal and penalise those that dont
2. We could change the proposed Cap and Trade systems (or ETS) to a consumption based ETS instread of a production based ETS. Tis would be the best way from a theoretical perspective. It would tax the embodied emissions in every product and service. But it is impossible from a practical perspective. It would require a second accounting system that was just as sophisticated as our financial accounting system. But it would be operating on a comodity that cannot be accurately measured.
3. The world could agree to an international ETS which is run by the WTO as part of the Global Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT). Great in theory but no one is prepared to do that yet. And why single out CO2-e? What will be next. Why not the millions of other polutants and destruction. What about cows? Where does this end once started?
4. Or we could regulate to introduce clean, low cost electricity to replace fossil fuel generated electricity. If low cost, it will progressively displace oil for land transport over time, especially as the cost of fossil fuels increases as expected due to increasing demand and declining supply.
5. If we implement #4 in the developed countries and we bring the cost of clean electricity to less than fossil fuel electricity, then the developed wotrld would help the whole world. Because the developing countries can implement a cheaper elelctricity option that would assist them to emerge from poverty faster. This will have great benefits for humanity, such as: increasing life expectancy, supplying fresh water, reduced disease, better health, improved education opportunities which leads inevitably to better governments (over time), better work opportunities which leads to more fulfilling lives and thus to reducing fertility and thus to reducing population growth rates in the poor countries. The population growth rate will decline to that of the developed countries as the poor countries reach our standard of living. The faster we can reduce the cost of electricity, the faster this will happen. I know there are stacks of theories on all this stuff, but just look at the GapMinder charts and play with them for yourselves. And look at the Hans Roslings demonstrations. The statistics are clear to me.
My conclusion is that the best way for Australia to make the most rapid progress, both for ourself and for the world, is as I outlined in the article at the top of this thread. This is the way to cut our emissions at least cost, and avoid locking in a permanent higer cost of energy in Australia forever. If we implement an ETS or CPRS we will lock in the higher price of energuy forever (and wrongly so). We can never undo it. It is a mistake we shall make forever. I suggest we should not go that route. I urge all to seriously consider that nuclear could be far cheaper than fossil fuel energy. The restrictions we are putting on it are totally out of balance with the restrictions on all other industries.
Please consider my comments in my comment on February 4th, 2010 at 16.02 and also have a look at the link to Hanford B in the references in the article at the top of this thread. Just consider, if we could build a 250 MWt reactor in 1944 in 21 months, that then ran for 24 years and was upgraded progressively to 2200MW (uprated by a factor of 9), why on earth can’t we build them fast and at low cost now – including with safety and environmental restrictions that are consistent with other industries and technologies.
The reason is that we’ve gone berserk over nuclear safety and restricitions.
LikeLike
Peter an imposed quota of nuclear would create an equivalent CO2 price so long as coal remains cheaper. Suppose ‘cleaner’ but un-carbon-taxed coal cost $40/Mwh but nuclear cost $80/Mwh. We could then divide the cost difference by the amount of CO2 avoided to get a virtual carbon penalty for nuclear. If the ‘cleaner’ coal option worked out at .75 tCO2 per Mwh while nuclear was near zero then that $40 penalty saves .75 tonnes of CO2. Thus nuclear costs $53 per tonne of CO2 avoided absent carbon taxes. The denier crowd will go nuts about unnecessary expense. It also puts the government in the difficult position of picking winners in advance though that doesn’t seem to have stopped them with CCS and selected feed-in tariffs.
Of course if nuclear could be done cheaper than the cleanest coal the objections would be purely emotional, not financial. I support imposed carbon pricing but not if the referee should really be in TV wrestling. I fear we will slide over an energy cliff due to lack of foresight but if the public, media and politicians have their eyes shut I don’t know what to do. On an ad hoc basis we can point out the mendacity of new coal loaders, gas fired baseload, wind offset desalination, shortsighted LNG exports and the hypocrisy of uranium mining while opposing nuclear power. Maybe the penny will drop one day.
LikeLike
John,
I think you may have misunnderstood what I am sayinf (or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying).
You said:
I am not suggesting a quota of nuclear. I am suggesting a regulated proportion of clean energy generation. The proportion will increase from time (eg from 20% in 2020 to say 80% in 2050) and the definition of “clean energy” will become more stringent with time (eg 200 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2020 and 10 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2050). This can be achieved by the least cost technologies that meet the requirements. I am not mandating nuclear energy. Specifying the emissions limits is consistent with many other regulations on pollutants – such as concentrations of pollutants in drinking water, air, soil. So the precedent is established and, in fact, this is the most common way to regulate pollutants. This is what I am advocating for electricity generation. As I said in the article, we can cut total emissions by nearly 50% by 2050 through clean electricity generation if electricity is low-cost, but not if electricity cost is high. The reason is that if electricity cost is low, electrcity will displace gas for heating (as in Canada) and displace oil for land transport. But this is only possible if electricity is low cost.
You say:
I do not agree that nuclear need to be high cost not should it be. This is my fundamental problem with the whole argument about nuclear and reducing GHG emissions. If we want to reduce GHG emissions we need to stop accepting that nuclear must be $80/MWh. That figure can and must change if we want GHG emissions reductrions, pollution reduction, energy security, greater safety, etc etc etc.
We know nuclear can be far cheaper, and I believe it can be significantly cheaper than coal, even in Australia. But not if we want to keep the constraints on nuclear that have built up over a period of some 50 years. These constraints are unequal and unreasonable. If we really want to get serious about cutting GHG emissions and receiving all the other benefits of nuclear, we need to get rid of these unequal restrictions.
LikeLike
John,
Further to my comment above: you said:
LikeLike
My knee jerk reaction was to think that a portfolio standard for CO2 wouldn’t cover leakage between generation and transport but perhaps it can. A kilogram of transport fuel be it petrol, diesel, LPG or CNG should have at least 10 kwh (36 MJ) equivalent. Auto makers are aiming for 120 grams CO2 per km so 20 km/kg is 2.4 kg per 10 kwh or 240 kg CO2 per Mwh.
Another advantage of a portfolio CO2 standard is that it would tone down public display of wind and solar while gas fired generation is hidden away. That is we see the shiny silicon panels on our street and wind farms along the highway but don’t see the CO2 spewing combined cycle plant in the industrial estate.
It’s hard to know if coal will get expensive on its own, particularly if Chinese coal production nosedives after 2015 or so. Case A stagflation which is high prices low activity or Case B recession which is low prices low activity.
LikeLike
John,
You’ve made a lot of points here.
I haven’t checked your figures for emissions from petrol and diesel cars versus electric vehicles. I amy do so and come back in later post.
I have read, but can’t remember where, that CO2 emissions from electric vehicles, even where the electricity is generated from coal, are lower than from the most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles. (This may not be the full life cycle emissions)
Elsewhere I read that petrol and diesel vehicles need 100kW to 200kW engines because of the need for accelaration. However, an electric vehicle or diesel-electric vehicle could manage on about 20kW because of the electric motor’s high torque at low revs.
I really don’t buy all the many arguments for an ETS that seem to me to be peripheral to the main massive problems with it. I don’t buy you aregument that the ETS will remove the renewable advocates’ lobbyingf for renewable energy. This is belief driven. It is not rational. It will not stop. If it was rational and if the ETS would prevent it, then why were our governements effectively forced to commit to the MRET in the first place. It was because of the public pressure to do so caused by lobbying of renewable energy advocates and NGO’s. I believe if we implement an ETS with all these nonsense marketr distortions in place, we’ll neve srt them out. So we raise the price of energy forever. And unnecessarily so. In my opinion, we really do need to address the cause of the problem, not stick more4 band aids on top.
Regarding the cost of coal, I do intend to get back to you on that. I was too hasty in my replies to your original comments on this thread. I have been thinking about it ever since.
LikeLike
The ETS might end up saving 30 Mt a year of CO2 by 2020 but the new coal export deal with China will add 75 Mt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8501777.stm
I guess Queenslanders want coal mining more than they want the Great Barrier Reef. However it lends credence to claims that China’s domestic coal production will peak within the next decade. If Rudd gives this deal his blessing or spends over $600m upgrading the Newcastle coal loader then I think it shows what we suspect; he was never really serious about the ETS. For example if the oil price climbs he might approve coal-to-liquids and exempt it from the scheme. Kinda irritates when you recall all the high fives over the Kyoto signing.
LikeLike
John Newlands,
I agree with you. I don’t think Rudd was ever really serious about cutting emissions (he clearly demonstrates that by being anti-nuclear). I think he just saw a great opportunity to maximise his political opportunities. Mind you, all the political parties want to maximise their time in government, it’s what they really achieve for the benefit of society that is important.
John, I am addressing the following to everyone, not just you.
Who really thinks the Australian government should block that $60 billion coal export deal? I don’t. If we did block the deal, we would not stop the coal being dug up somewhere else. We’d lose our revenue and not make the slightest difference to total world emissions. We’d give up a $60 billion export deal, our largest ever export deal. We’d give up revenue that pays for wages and salaries, company and personal income tax, that then pays for Health services (hospitals, nurses and doctors), Education (schools and teachers), infrastructure (roads and public transport), and funding to address our most important environmental problems. That is what we’d give up for no gain whatsoever. We’d be giving up all the things that people really want their governments to provide. I think the vast majority of people do not see the connection between wanting all these government services and wanting to stop most of our mining and export deals. Furthermore, they want to raise the price of energy just because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because it will make a zot of difference to the environment.
LikeLike
Peter I have to disagree about the Clive Palmer deal. I don’t think it is wise to go to a $10-all-U-can-eat restaurant the day before you start a diet. I propose that Australia slaps an export levy on coal. Make it $50 a tonne to be consistent with Garnaut/Green proposed $20 per tCO2. That will raise the price of thermal coal by 50% or so and coking coal by 20% I believe. The customers can get the money back from a special fund but they have to pay it up front. No nonsense about offsets and free permits.
This 30 Mt a year is also minor compared to China’s alleged coal habit of 2.5 Gtpa. China will have to decarbonise earlier rather than later. I doubt they can get as much cheap hard coal from other countries. Australia will have to start thinking long term about jobs and export income without coal.
LikeLike
John Newlands,
On February 6th, 2010 at 9.57 you said:
This has highlighted a distinction between my approach and many others here.
I see the need to achieve the optimum balance between low cost of energy, safety and environmental effects.
However, other commenters here seem to take an extreme approach. They want to have near infinite safety for nuclear just because they want it. Or they are prepared to raise the price of energy and damn the consequences, even if raising the price will have negligible or nil environmental benefits.
We can have clean, low cost, environmentally benign electricity generation. But not if we want to insist that nuclear must be 10 to 100 times safer that coal generation and perhaps 1000 times safer than many of the chemical industries we have dotted throughout our cities.
By demanding that nuclear must be 10 to 100 times safer than coal, we cant afford nuclear, so we stick with coal. This has been going on for 40 years.
I am not getting any traction on this point and I don’t understand why. It is really clear to me, but no one seems to want to take this up. This is where I believe the effort needs to be. That is, in trying to change the political agendas to get low cost nuclear energy in Australia – refer article at top of this thread.
LikeLike
“Who really thinks the Australian government should block that $60 billion coal export deal?”
While I will not extend an opinion on this matter, I will point out that similar questions have come up in relation to Canada’s Tar Sands, in this county’s pronuclear community.
I have always held that fighting activities like this are the responsibilities of the Greens, while ours is the promotion of nuclear energy.
Ultimately the goal is to shut down these activities, however as in all things, one has to pick battlegrounds with care, and avoid fights that cannot be won.
LikeLike
John,
We were writing and posting at the same time, so I posted my last poste before I saw you last post.
In you latest post you say:
I don’t think we can do that and I don’t think it tis the right thing to do anyway. I don’t think we can arbitrarily slap a levy on. We can, perhaps start imposing resource rent taxes on and I understand the Henry Revoiew is looking at that. But that should be done on a properly equivalent basis for all resources we extract.
I think we have to be careful in doing what you propose. We need to properly understand the effects and distortion it would cause. Certainly it will raise the price of Saustralian coal relative to that from other countries – such as Indonesia. So our exports of coal would decline relative to others over time. That penalises us relative to other countries but makes no differencr to the total amount of coal burnt in the world.
What yuou are really suggesting, if we get to the nub of it, is you are suggesting Australia should imposse a levy on its emports withlout any reciprocal agreement from our competitors. That not wise in my opinion. We cannot impose our beliefs on the rest of the world.
LikeLike
DV82XL,
Good point.
I’ve been thinking more about the politics and how we could make a break though. It is clear to me that in Australia the Coalition has tended towards being pro nuclear but have down played that position while Labor is anti-nuclear because it is an electoral liability to promote nuclear. It is too hard to promote rational policies against emotive, antoi-nuclear scare campaigns.
So what can we do? It seems to me that those aligned with the Greens and anti-nuclear NGO’s need to find a way to make a breaktrhough. If we could get one card to fall in the anti-nuclear house of cards, I expect the whole house of cards would come crashing down. If we could get any one of either the Labor Party, Green Party, ACF, WWF, FoE, or Greenpeace to change their policy to become pro-nuclear (low cost, environmentally benign nuclear), we’d be on our way.
The fastest way of course would be to get Labor to change its policy before the election, and preferably before the May budget !! (see article at top of this thread).
I don’t believe that is a totally rediculous expectation. Things can happen quickly in politics. There is an upcoming election. Labor needs a believable solution to reduce GHG emissions. CPRS withourt a technological solution cannot achieve it. If Labor offered a technological solution, their CPRS might have more chance of getting support. But with nuclear banned, who is going to trust them with the CPRS. I certainly do not.
Right now, while Labor is trying to get the CPRS through parliament is the time they should make the switch.
Right now is the time to put pressure on Labor. Write to all the Labor politicians and suggest the solutions. For those who think that the Greens could change their position, why don’t you write to them too.
LikeLike
Peter above said:
Which is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. But you are not going to have any credibility with those groups if you don’t back the idea of putting a substantial price on emissions. That is how you parry claims of being simply catspaws for the polluters.
I also like John Newlands’ suggestion of a levy on coal exports of about $50 per tonne. I don’t believe it would sour the deal and it would subvert parochial claims that Chinese coal combustion was subverting emissions. The cash raised could be used here to fund appropriate programs to reduce CO2-intensity or emissions.
LikeLike
Who believes Australia’s researchers, research institutions,and businesses would fail if given this challenge, assuming they are appropriately funded to do so in the May Budget (as per the article at top of this thread):
By 30 June 2012 define:,
1. how Australia can implement low GHG emissions electricity generation that can supply electrcity at a cost less then new coal generation;
2. the impediments to implementing it;
3. what must be done to implement it; and
4. an achievable schedule for implementation (and major milestones).
LikeLike
Ewen,
Your idea is ‘dream-world’ stuff, me thinks. If we don’t move now to remove the barriers to nuclear power, it will be a long slow process following the route you are suggesting. And the rest of the world may not go the ETS route. We’d be sitting like a shag on a rock. We cannot undo the CPRS/ETS once implemented. It is not the right time for Australia to be implementing an ETS. As I’ve said before, the first thing we need to do is to tackle the imposts on nuclear. Let’s expose the problem rather than avoiding it and burrying it, as you seem to want to do. I’d urge you to get onto trying to change the Green Party’s position on nuclear.
Our very best opportunity is between now and April. That is our opportunity to get Labor to include something in the Budget to get the process started. If it is not included in the 2010 budget, it certainly will not be in the 2011 and probably not the 2012 budget. These are the budgets where the government has to be tough to try to get the finances under control – before they give it all away at the next budget (the election year budget).
2010 Budget is the one we need to aim for.
LikeLike