Bart R
Read it again, Bart.
Just as our hostess did, I found it to be an objective summary of the rise and fall of the “the science is settled (i.e. there is no remaining doubt) and to deny this would be immoral and reckless” shtick voiced in 2007 by Gro Harlem Brundtland.
Max
Michael
Aw, c’mon. I know the truth can hurt sometimes.
But you’ll get over it (and not by shooting the messenger).
Bart may have more of a problem, though (he seems to get more emotional about these things).
Max
In the attempt to frame the essential mythological character of the AGW groupthink narrative it is necessary to delve into mythology. I’d have gone with Darth Vader as an example of redemption through – eventual – balancing of the forces of light and dark.
blouis79,
Pro-nuclear is only borderline rational if the price of coal is near doubled by a carbon tax.
That is true (for Australia) NOW. But I am not talking about now. I am talking about what could be by the mid to late 2020s if the developed countries with nuclear power expertise, especially the USA, implemented policies to remove the impediments (licencing and regulatory) that are causing small modular nuclear power plants to be far more expensive than they could be (by next decade).
Here is an example. The US DOE has selected the first small modular nuclear power plant to be taken through the licencing process to the point of two units (one plant) being in operation and ‘commercialised’. http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/
The Australian government estimates the cost of electricity of this plant in 2020 at A$113/MWh in Australia (2012 A$). http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf
Assuming a moderate cost reduction rate of 10% per doubling of capacity (world wide), I calculate its cost of electricity would be the same as a new coal plant in Australia (without CCS) when 2.5GW have been built world wide, and half the cost of new coal in Australia when 200 GW have been built world wide. That is assuming no change in the cost of electricity from coal (which is more likely to increase than decrease).
Now consider that the cost of nuclear could reduce much faster than 10% per doubling if there is competition between many companies and many countries. There are some 40 small modular nuclear power plant designs described here http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UYi44qIcbSg , but they are mostly blocked by NRC’s inability to handle more than about three designs at a time
What I am advocating is that we need to get the blockages and huge licencing costs out of the way.
Gimme the slightly shorter and warmer winters bit. I don’t mind it a bit if the ski lifts have to shut down end March.
Max
Well that makes about as much sense as anything you have said here – nil.
Michael
Check AR4 WG1 SPM for “examples”
Max
@lolowot
I may be in a minority on this topic, but its a growing one’
No doubt there are still many ‘professional scientists’ who cling to the idea that climatology peer/pal review isn’t a currency that their own actions have devalued to nothing.
But – as Gary M so sagely points out, when even the climatologits own home journal – the IPCC ARx reports – pay no attention to whether something has overcome this near-invisible hurdle, then it’s time to give it a pauper’s burial in some distant corner of a churchyard.
Its time came and went. And that’s about all that can be said for it.
blouis79 and Peter Lang
I’ve seen studies showing that new nuclear is fully competitive with new coal in most places in the world today without any carbon tax, unless you are sitting smack-dab on top of a coal mine.
The problem is political and regulatory (as Peter has written).
Max
Due diligence required.
Notably with ‘bow uncritically’ and ‘dogmatic representation’.
“examples” suggests handwaving.
Manacker you are correct, in a way. But there are lots of assumptions.
- Is there an existing nuclear infrastructure already in operation in the country
- What is the price of electricity from the alternatives, e.g. new fossil fuel plants. Coal is cheap in Australia and gas is cheap in USA.
- what is the regulatory risk (e.g the AP1000 being built in China are less than half the cost of the same design in USA, (the cost of local labour is only a small part of that cost difference).
- what is the financial risk (which are largely due to politics and public perception – look what has happened to the German investors in nuclear power plants for example.
- discount rates
- local market conditions
How do we stop them?
The whole of the “consensus” is exactly the efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of global warming and demonic carbon dioxide as if Science Fact.
And at best they continue to refuse to provide any empirical science back up, instead waffle on about how its irrelevant to making decisions.
Manacker,
I didn’t see your comment until after I’d posted mine. There are several authoritative sources: e.g. IEA, OECD/NEA, EPRI, and Australia’s AETA 2012 report for costs relevant for Australia (see link in my previous comment). With the AETA report you can down load an Excel Spreadsheet and change virtually all the inputs.
Waffling sociological babble is your thing.
OK then.
Manacker,
Here is EIA 2013 “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013”
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
EIA’s 2013 projection of LCOE for new plants being commissioned in USA 2018 (in 2012 US/MWh) are:
Conventional Coal 100.1
Conventional Combined Cycle 67.1
Advanced Nuclear 108.4
Nuclear is not competitive in USA based on current prices.
Steven
That is 50 years.
How many more years do you need?
Yer gotta inn -occ-u-late the positive..
No serious scientist would make such an extravagant overconfident claim as “no serious scientist thinks climate sensitivity could be much lower than 2 degrees Celsius”
