Who is going to build and pay for the transmission lines?

What fuel do you expect will be used in the distributed generators?

There is a large step between not building any more coal stations and shutting down the ones that you already have. In the US, we have built very few new coal plants in the past 25 years, but our coal consumption has increased from about 800 million tons per year to more than 1.3 billion tons per year. Multiply those numbers by about 3.65 to find out the carbon dioxide emissions related to coal burning.

As Jim has pointed out, the world really does need more energy. While it is possible that the people in your country, mine and a few other rich, developed nations can do with a bit of an energy reduction, it would be extremely selfish for us to think that the people in China, India, Africa, and South America will agree to a scheme that keeps their energy consumption at its current value per capita.

If we want those places to develop even a modicum of comfort, we have to develop new sources of reliable energy - like small nuclear power plants that can be distributed safely around the world.

Rod

Coal is certainly the crack cocaine of the stationary energy industry in the 20 century. Replacing it with plentiful energy from nuclear should be considered but perhaps the drug analogy needs to be extended to make sure our reckless demand for more energy doesn’t cloud our judgement going forward.

We certainly need to get rid of all the coal power stations and certainly not build any more.

I still think there’s certainly a place to reduce our energy consumption, particularly reduce our reliance on products and services which are highly energy intensive.

Interestingly in Australia we have around $30B dollars of power distribution upgrades required (sorry dont have direct source). If we can cut our energy demand and implement distributed generation then we don’t need that nor an additional coal power station. I don’t honestly think Australia needs nuclear.

As for counties that already have functioning nuclear industries I think its a harder decision, and probably makes more sense because new plants can actually be implemented in shorter time-frames, and hence be competitive.

China and India are the real question marks regarding Nuclear Power. Not sure what the answer is for them.

Nick

“New research suggests that the impact of shipping on climate change has been seriously underestimated and that the industry is currently churning out greenhouse gases at nearly twice the rate of aviation.

Shipping, although traditionally thought of as environmentally friendly, is growing so fast that the pollution it creates is at least 50 per cent higher than previously thought. Maritime emissions are also set to leap by 75 per cent by 2020″

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3043734.ece

Coal power plants are the source of 2/3 of the world’s accumulating CO2. I think it’s possible to convert them quickly and safely to nuclear, thus saving the investment in the existing power plant and it’s infrastructure.

I don’t think it’s wise to put an energy-starved world on an energy diet since we will need more, not less energy, to surmount the Global Warming problems we’ve already created.

Regards.

I am really embarrassed. At about minute 13 or so, I provided bad data. What I think I said was that nuclear power production cost in the US in 2006 was about 1.72 US dollar cents per kilowatt hour - that much was correct. When I then compared that to the prices of the competition, I left out the “cents” part of the unit. I also used incorrect numbers - though I was kind of close.

Here are the real numbers (in US dollar cents):
Per kilowatt-hour production costs
Nuclear - 1.72
Coal - 2.37
Natural Gas - 6.75
Oil - 9.63
(Source Global Energy Decisions updated June 2007)

I guess I should be more careful.

Now back to listening to the show.