The Mining Industry had a Christmas party which has leaked, come watch: th-cam.com/users/livefcV9BLeMCLE?feature=share I watched the first part of it yesterday here: th-cam.com/users/liveQJ1bCxnuFY8
I’m a dumb American and I’m so confused on Australia politics Can you dumb it down for me? Like who is the conservatives and who are the liberals?? I love you’re content but I’m so confused on who is who
@@mr-mallard5133 the conservatives have little to no representation labor & liberals both used to be conservative, one for workers the other masquerading as a party for the middle class but only caters to the big businesses. now both (especially the liberals) have been infiltrated by “liberal” and woke crap and both have tried to introduce woke restrictions on free speech the greens are the outward gay race communists and should be ignored
Jordan you're denying future generations to opportunity to eat pink sprinkled donuts while ignoring the responsibilities of their job as a nuclear safety inspector. Shameful.
I'm pro nuclear BUT if the Liebrals were going to try and implement nuclear it would go just like the NBN. Delayed 12 years, 100 billion dollars over budget then cancelled last second and replaced with a retired soviet RBMK reactor from Lithuania using an old coal plants steam turbines as a "cost effective hybrid"
My uncle worked at that nuclear plant in Lithuania. The plant was said to be perfectly safe, efficient, inspected by some Jap experts, they said it was perfectly fine, but our government decided to shut it down anyway.
@@MaKKin187 Because its 100% better than wind and solar energy, its literally a proven fact. The only reason people are against it is because "muh Chernobyl".
331 billions for seven nuclear power plants from the very same party that opposed 43 billion for fttp NBN saying it was wasteful that then ended up spending MORE on their copper based MTM only to switch back to fibre when they realised it was a mess and they want us to believe they can handle building nuclear power plants 🤣
Yep - but just wind, solar and hydro without coal means relying on gas forever - which will eventually run out - and we'll be forced by lack of options to nuclear - or to build new coal plants again. But that's a fair few election cycles away - so nobody will pay any attention to it short term.
@@djdos83 pretty dumb when you consider less than five years remain on the climate clock and coal and oil are incredibly dangerous and damaging to environments and people
@@djdos83 Not like i don't know what's going to be the response to this, but just because you have massive reserves of it, coal is still dumb. Depending on where the deposit is located, the extraction alone wreaks havoc on the environment and if you cannot see the drawbacks of producing energy by lighting shit on fire, im sorry.
Pretty sure he was invited by the Aus government as a consultant at some point too, wasn't he? Or was that someone else that invited him as a consultant?
There's no way they would go through with this plan to any great extent. The whole purpose is to disrupt the renewables industry for their coal, oil & gas mates.
'Video has emerged of Nationals senator Matt Canavan labelling his party's nuclear policy a "political fix" and conceding it is not the cheapest form of power, as a colleague quits the party over its approach to climate change. Senator Canavan told a podcast in August that his party was "not serious" about nuclear power being a solution to high energy costs. "Nuclear is not going to cut it. I mean, we're as guilty of this too - we're not serious. We're latching onto nuclear," Senator Canavan told the National Conservative Institute podcast.' "Canavan admits the Coalition is willing to impose higher costs on Australians with the most expensive form of energy just to 'fix a political problem' for Peter Dutton's divided party room."
5:06 The table shows that while small scale Nuclear is very, very expensive, Large scale Nuclear is similar in affordability, if not cheaper than some Black coal and Gas options. To be fair, renewables are even cheaper per amount of power, and could thus be considered a better option.
Bonus: they are carbon neutral eventually. Downside. Australia has 300 years or coal and 500 years of uranium to extract at current rates. Coal mining companies literally can not afford to stop digging up coal. Wait till you see what Turnbull has planned for the old mines around Newcastle
@@whophd it'll only flop if they treated it like nbn, it should get private investment like toll roads, in the very long term we'll be glad to have nuclear
@@schad1738 absolutely. The unions are too busy taking HUGE salaries, increasing wages for menial jobs beyond comprehension and slugging the tax payers RIDICULOUS amounts of money to care.
dont get how anyone could be anti-nuclear, i actually work at a nuclear powerplant, you can legit see it behind me in my own profile picture where i am standing at the cooling pond of the nuclear power plant, its the best low-cost high-return electricity source i can think of, and its safe too if you dont build it literally on the coast when your country is known for having tsunami's, and you dont run diabolical tests with them that are far to dangerous like chernobyl when the reactors were clearly not in the right state to do so as was known before the tests, you are infact more likely to get hit by a meteorite while you are in a aircraft than die to a nuclear power plant melting down, that is if you even witness one happing all across the globe on the news in your entire lifespan, They have gotten a lot safer from the lessons learnt from fukushima and chernobyl, the way fukushima was handled is thanks to chernobyl, they learnt how to deal with such a disaster, a disaster thats only getting rarer and rarer to ever happen again with every single year as technology improves. and like solar panels or wind turbines, they dont require replacement every few years and take up an enormous amount of space for the small amount of electricity they produce that could be used for other things, both power generation sources being made from minerals that require a whole lot of fossil fuel to even produce them in the first place. they create so much power that if you right now placed a giant nuclear powerplant like the nuclear ZPP in Zaphorizia with its 6 reactors down in the country of the Netherlands and got rid of every other power generation source there, that one plant alone could power the entire country of 18 million people, plus whatever it builds in the future, perhaps even be able to export its excess power to other countries, at the very small cost of using a few tonnes of uranium every year, which is very very little compared to what gas, oil, and coal powerplants require in tonnage of fuel. as for waste, they get dumped so deep underground in special rooms that keep the radiation inside of them that its literally impossible for them to have a effect on the globe in the next 1000 years if the government keeps them maintained which they will, them being underground also means there is literally UNLIMITED space to dump nuclear waste into, what people also dont know is that used fuel rods can also be recycled, which actively happens in these dump sites, although at a slower rate than the rate of waste being dumped into it which is why they keep growing in size underground very very slowly, it can be recycled, a total 96% of it infact, so that waste is not permanent like some anti-nuclear people claim.
*slow clap* Missed the fucking point by a mile with a little misinformation thrown in (replace panels and wind turbines every few years). It's almost as if you didn't watch the video, which I suspect you didn't.
@@TaylorBertieI got a strong anti nuclear vibe from the video... I think this comment adds to the nuance of the situation. Nuclear is a great source for massive amounts of stable energy, which wind power or solar are unable to do. Imagine night with no wind, what do!?!?
@@TaylorBertiesolar and wind turbines (especially wind turbines) do 100% have to be replaced. You're the only misinformation here. The idea of nucular is fantastic. The idea of nucular + solar, wind would be best. Nucular power plan under labour or liberal is terrible as both have been destroying the country for over 60y. Renewables are a lie at scale and there are so many people that have video essays on this. For humanity to progress further we need to mass adapt nucular power.
@@Boog_53 It's like you've never watched a FJ video before. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Jordan actually likes Nuclear Power in terms of the tech, but it wouldn't be a FJ video if he didn't make his opponents feel insulted. He can do "serious" journalism when he wants, but this channel is peppered with rage-bait and engagement bait. It's his brand. The point, which has gone over your head, is that the Liberal Policy has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the technology, or what is right for Australia, and everything to do with diverting money away from renewable energy investment in Australia. You know what a conservative nuclear energy policy would actually look like? Removing the ban on nuclear power and empowering regulators to establish guidelines and safety requirements so that private equity can come and build a plant if they want to. In other words cleaning up red tape and enabling industry. Instead they want to promise to spend hundreds of billions on building publicly funded nuclear reactors? That's very... progressive for a conservative political party isn't it? Nuclear fanbois are so blinded by the shinny promise of nuclear power that they aren't applying their critical thinking skills and realising that the policy doesn't remotely pass the pub test.
Hi, I like nuclear, am a soy boy, etc. but also Jordan is right in an important way. The most important thing to do right now is to build renewables like crazy until they can handle 100% of grid demand while the sun is shining. That means we have a lot more renewables to build. However, a close second is that it would be wise to, in addition, start building enough nuclear plants today that by the time they're done, they can handle the remaining grid demand while the sun isn't shining. That way you don't have to rely on coal or gas peaker plants during the night, which is one of the "firming" methods mentioned in the graph at 5:01 for renewables. As renewables make up a larger and larger share of the grid, the amount of firming required also increases. Better to firm with nuclear than coal. Batteries are good too, but are typically only sized for 2 or 4 hours, which is not enough for what we're talking about. Note that on that chart, nuclear SMRs are the most expensive, but it also shows that regular nuclear is actually cheaper than coal and gas (when including carbon capture). TLDR Nuclear is the best option to complement renewables, but renewables are the star of the show. Don't wait 15 years to get rid of coal unless you want 15 extra years of wildfires.
it's simple, coalition has money in coal. same shit happened with the power bank in SA for Adelaide many years ago. the lib guy literally was saying that the power bank will do nothing and that's it's made up bullshit. oh look he has a large investment in coal.
We had a rad worker show up with his clothes setting off radiation detectors. They had to take radiacs and retrace his steps from the previous workday. They found his car had surface contamination in it and eventually traced the source back to his house to his washing machine. He had taken some irradiated bolts out during a job and tossed them into his pockets instead of the controlling it as radioactive material because he didn't feel like doing all the paperwork that late in the day. He forgot they were in his pocket and went home and did laundry which ended up spreading contamination to the machine and then all the clothes that went through the machine. Fortunately, the radiation levels weren't high enough to do anything. This was a long time ago, a lot of people got in trouble, and they ended up changing procedures to prevent it from happening again. Nuclear power is safe now trust us.
Dutton hasn't said a single straight thing about nuke power here, which means you want to be VERY careful about anything under his embellishments. Sure, nuclear power is a thing but this sort of stuff can rapidly end up in some kind of project management hell before there's even a single spade turned over. God only help us if its somewhere halfway done and then they decide to do additional scope-bloat. Solar and storage is kind of sadly one of the only reasonable options for us right now. Like the coals going to stay on probably in my lifetime (which is not long!) and learn to live with it for a while, but that doesn't mean diversity in how power is produced can't be explored. It doesn't have to be a one and done solution
Scope-bloat by successive governments using nuclear power as a political football is the exact reason for most cost blowouts. That's why these things should be well out of the hands of any political party. Sadly, that isn't the reality we live in.
Nuclear power is not "bad". Australia doesn't need it and is not capable of handling it. Having worked as electrical engineer in this country for over a decade, in rail industry, resources and even at CSIRO facility, i have to say that we dont have engineering workfore and knowledge base even remotely close to be able to sustain the nuclear power industry. We will either on a striaght road to disaster in a decade or two when the facility ages and is not adequatly maintained or we will be outsourcing our power industy abroad being raped on pricing for decades
So the thing is there is not a country on earth that would be more suited to nuclear power than Australia.....building that knowledge amd experience can bee done with ambition
get the csiro to make a plan to implement nuclear, scale it down to 2-3 reactors, use it as a backbone energy supply (20-30%) with renewables used as the majority of energy production. Even if it is more expensive it is important to have energy supply that is consistant for grid stability. Both renewables and nuclear have pros and cons the best solution isn't binary.
Nuclear is by far the best way to produce energy that currently exists in a working form, but I sadly have to agree with you here. the Australian government is way too stupid to ever get a project like that to a operational state
@Belmont1998 Operating costs are high and fuel price is subject to market forces, while sun, wind and water aren't. [doesn't matter how much we have in Aus - look at gas]. But build time is crucial - nuclear won't be completed before coal is scheduled to shut down.
Except for the technology. We have far better and safer reactors now. But Australia doesn’t have the experience or work force to build and run them. They are far cleaner than coal. And for some countries they absolutely need nuclear to make it work. But I don’t think Australia is a good use case. Not to mention if the Libs are for it then it’s obviously a scam and going to cost more and be worse than they are saying.
Well, fun fact, the U.S. was once able to build a nuclear power plant in 4 years that still works today. We don't have to dump massive amounts of money into a project (which will most likely just be stolen by corrupt Australian officials.) some more investment into R&D and better construction techniques (which even in the worst case scenario that they don't help at all for building nuclear reactors, learning how to build things better and faster is something we all could use) & some tax breaks could convince come venture capitalists to finally invest their money into something worthwhile instead of fucking crypto scams.
As a Swedish man who now has to pay an unreasonably high electricity bill just to fund Germany's decommissioning of their nuclear power stations... let's just say I have opinions.
No, you don’t pay a higher bill because of the Germans. Unless you’re having blackouts in Sweden, there is enough power for both your needs and the Germans. That’s is, supply exceeds demand. You’re paying high prices because your energy supply and grid is controlled by a small number of rich people, same here in Australia.
@@CG-dd9tb listen Swedens plan for expanded nuclear power is one of the most grossly incompetent proposals in a long time, electicity Will not really become cheaper and the massive expenses from construction to maintanance is dumb. The idea to government funded infrastructures which is sold to private companies and neglected like our railroadsystem is disgraceful. But I Will push back on one thing: Swedens energy grid is not controlled by a few rich people. Vattenfall who is completely owned by the state is one of the most important contributors for swedish energy unlike other nations which has a more privatised energy grid
Europe shot itself in the foot by severely limiting the number of Chinese solar panels allowed into the country all to appease their American overlords. Did you really think that America, the "Saudi Arabia of coal" would just let it's client states stop buying their coal?
@@CG-dd9tb germany has paid around 700 billion euro to decomission nuclear and have 50% of german energy be renewable. Or they could spent 300 billion to renew the plants and have 75 percent of energy be carbon neutral
'Fallout Guy': Today's Courier Mail front page says in bold type with another headline:' Bowen backs opinion over science to defend Labor's nuclear fiction'. Then in a gobsmacking mental gymnastic doublespeak move, it goes on to criticise 'Labor's scare campaign that radiation from nuclear power can cause cancers and terminal illness'. This is apparently according to the Murdoch press a lie?! The spin makes my head spin.
nuclear despite what is said about it, is way safer and gives off less emissions than majority of any energy solutions the only part that you need to know is do not skimp out on a reactor because we all know what happened at chernobyl
Nuclear Power has the lowest long-term cost. Nuclear Power also is the most efficient and secure power source. Renewables mixed with nuclear power would be the most ideal situation because nuclear power would be taking the place of the really harmful and less efficient fossil fuels and coal as the secure power source backing up the renewables.
So the whole problem it seems is the cost. This is a valid criticism. The problem is you have to start somewhere if you genuinely want to get into nuclear power production. The reason why it costs so much for 7 plants: Build time. That is the major contributing factor for the costs. Since Australia doesn't really have experience building nuclear power plants, those are going to be some long build times. The US has something of the same problem currently, but as long as we actually commit to sticking to the plan of building new plants, its going to get cheaper. Japan, on the other hand, holds the record for shortest nuclear plant build time, because they never stopped building them. They have tons of experience, and they can get the work done very efficiently as a result and so their costs might be a couple of billion per reactor.
Are yall on crack? No nation other than the UK is investing in nuclear power and the UK as described in the vid is massively over time and over cost for ONE plant, how the fuck with all the extra struggles of actually getting shit to aus are they gonna build 7 in a couple of years.
@@ewoodley82 I think the main issue with cost is that negative externalities are not priced in fossil fuelled power generation. If you priced in how much it costs to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it back underground (which we will need to do eventually). Nuclear and renewables become much much cheaper overall. Also nuclear has a distinct advantage as being a base load and not needing storage if done right, as if you priced in the storage costs needed for renewables replacing all fossil fueled power, it makes them much more expensive. Personally I think small modular nuclear reactors (or larger thorium reactors) paired with renewables and modest hydro + battery storage is the perfect combo.
@@TotalWater-d2o AFAIK the main design issue was finding a material strong enough to withstand the corrosiveness of molten thorium salt and a task for something like waspaloy.
@@diggeroldmate8122 You are in a desert, you see a turtle, the turtle is on its back, why is the turtle flipped over? Who flipped it over? How did the turtle get there?
It’s about making the best out of what we have today, and working hard to solve the next problem tomorrow. Nuclear power is the best base load supply solution, on all fronts. Not doing it because it’s expensive is just stupid. We’re still going to need it tomorrow, perhaps even more so, and it will be even more expensive then. Nuclear power, a decent interstate train network, housing for the population, all things we should have started 40 years ago - but it’s still better late than never
I think there are possive and negative benefits to all types of power. And honestly i think having a spread of different types of power rather then focusing on a single type across the whole country is a good idea
I trust the former CEO of ANSTO who oversaw the new medical nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and is probably more qualified than AEMO and CSIRO because they built a more complex reactor that we built on time and on budget than a power generation nuclear reactor. Plus according to MIT in the US a 900 MW nuclear reactor is the equivalent 800 Wind turbines and 8.1 Million solar panels. Also those fossil fuel royalties pay for all of labour spending, stop that and we will all feel the pain.
the real insanity of our electricity situation is that we export massive quantities of coal which gets burned in other countries for electricity and thats somehow ok, but burning it here isn't ok even though it all ends up in the same atmosphere. the pro-renewables side ignoring the "elephant in the room" completely discredits them, and the pro-nuclear side are completely discredited by their failure to point out the "elephant in the room"; our total national CO2 emissions (I.E. from stuff burned in australia) is less than the emissions caused by the coal we export to other countries. at the moment we're like a vegan cattle rancher, or a "gym addicted health nut who only eats organic" but smokes a 40 pack a day, its pure fucking insanity. if we're not gonna shut down coal mining (and i'm pretty damn sure we won't), we should stop pretending that we're "saving the planet" and build the obvious solution.
@@perfectdiversion If we want to go with an overly ambitious plan that needs some minor tweaks to be practical like the Labor NBN It'll probably be: A fully decentralized solar and home battery scheme where every household gets ~10kW system with a ~15kWh battery. Like the NBN just needed to be brought on budget, and use FTTB for apartments (let's ignore the whole Starlink of it all for the remaining 7% for the moment) similar tweaks, like using community batteries instead of individual home ones, and augmenting it with wind and geothermal. But I think the allegory was kinda tortured from the beginning don't you?
The better money would be to get solar panels on rooves and solar batteries in every Australian home That's likely cheaper than nuclear power plants in Australia
An idea of doing that is the government do it as a loan scheme, to install/upgrade solar systems with a battery as well, then the home owners would pay back said loan with X amount of the savings from their normal power bills.
Regardless if you're for or against nuclear, you need base power generation. Solar and wind depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing. You can fill some of the lulls in renewable production with storage but not all of them. So to deal with the rest, are you going to keep burning coal or gas and dump CO2 in to the atmosphere or go nuclear. Your choice. Also, only 90% capacity factor? Here in Finland we've averaged around 95%. Obviously it varies slightly year to year.
It's pretty bad when people forget that for the most part they are conflating the damage nuclear *_WEAPONS_* inflict with the potential damage that nuclear power stations might cause. Well managed nuclear power is more safe than burning any sort of fossil fuel at scale when you actually take into consideration the sheer number of lives (human and otherwise) that are taken every day due to the scale of air pollution, and abysmal air quality that it creates. Does nuclear power have some issues, yeah. Every way we have to generate and use electricity has benefits and drawbacks, but I firmly am in the camp that believes that nuclear power is the way of the future. (paired with solar and wind to be precise) Not an australian, btw - so I have no say in what your country might do, but it is a very good place to slap down a bunch of nuclear reactors. It isn't like you would have to worry about a massive earthquake breaking them, so barring catastrophic incompetence from the staff, you really ought to be fine. And no, nuclear waste isn't glowing green goop stored in metal barrels, nor is it particularly dangerous long term if stored and handled correctly.
Nuclear is for 1d1ots, it's that simple, especially in Australia... Plus it's a massive target we don't need, we have more sunlight per square metre than any place on earth.... If you think nuclear waste is NOT dangerous, you are delusional, naive, and probably not real bright.....
Given your the most reasonable take((even though I disagree with solar and wind) I will amplify this to show how smug and disingenuous Jordan is being I know he’s a liberal but this video he bears his fangs. His country has the Outback it has plenty of room to develop numerous plants and help the environment he pretends to care about. He whines about the cost meanwhile Chernobyl was notorious for cost cutting and corruption for his country to succeed being energy independent and wringing itself away from foreign influence this is how you do it. Planning for the future matters if your able to given the most amount of money to long terms solutions however because it’s a party he doesn’t like he will play contrarian.
We have earthquakes it just hasn't been as devastating as in other places around the world. Nuclear is safe until it isn't. If a coal plant fucks up you don't get nuclear waste, of a solar panel fucks up you replace in a couple of weeks. Nuclear plants will always have to be done correctly 100% of the time, I have not seen any massive project that is 100% ever.
@@MrBleachfanboyyou want independence you build solar panels and wind farms, and firming tech like pumped hydro and large storage batteries. Building nuclear will just make us rely on international knowledge and technology. That's not independence
In theory if australia built a reactor it wouldn't be finished for a decade and there are small modular reactors in development that would be thouroghly tested in other countries by that time. If it's worth it, just ship one of those in
No. Physicists aren’t championing nuclear power and the Greens have silenced no one. The ‘silence’ you’re hearing is the complete lack of interest from people other than the LNP and their sycophants.
Internet technofetishists: "Listen to the scientists!" Physicists (Not on the take from the NEI & NIA): Nuclear may have its place in the long term energy supply, but seems completely wrong for Australia, and frankly its too late with where reactor testing is Internet technofetishists that read even less than the strawman they complain about: Hush, not you
@declanbennett1085 you should speak to one of us once in a while. I doubt someone who unironically uses the word "technofetishist" has ever stepped foot in a physics faculty. Or any science faculty really.
Europe has a common grid like the states of Australia. Germany imports nuclear energy when it needs it, and exports renewable energy when it has an excess. Sky News will rot your brain.
@@CRCinAUAnd which party do you think is going to actively reduce taxpayer funds and investment into renewable energy while funding fossil fuel energy projects? Which party do you think will be more open to criticism and protest against fossil fuel projects? Which party is actively trying to change campaign financing laws to reduce the influence of special interest groups? Finally, which party do you think is going to be more tolerant to the Greens providing the balance of power in the senate and actually try and work with them? It's extremely simplistic to point at Labor and say "but they're also doing a shit job" without comparing just how shit they are.
Yeah... Because shutting down your main sources of relatively cheap power generation in exchange for inefficient wind and solar which won't be able to support the grid is, amazingly, not a good idea.
@@TaylorBertie Both parties will end up contributing to new fossil fuels - mostly in new gas generation. The rest of your post is political garbage which is why we'll continue to screw up energy policy in this country.
I do have to debunk what's being said here. Renewables are in absolute sense cheaper. But to support intermittent energy supply from renewables, you need means to smooth out the supply, meaning peaker plants, batteries or other energy storage infrastructure. And you need more complex grid, which isn't a bad thing, but overall, you need to account all these costs. Other than that, you have long term costs. Nuclear is heavy investment, but on long term basis, given how long plants normally run, it's comparable to other energy sources, including renewables. You either need huge amount of infrastructure to support running renewable grid, or you could use diverse zero carbon solution and get the same effect but for less overall cost and effort. After all, more renewables means you need to absorb, store and transfer more energy all around. Now, reason why renewables are so attractive, is because for one it's not as scary as nuclear, and upfront cost isn't as much, and you can build it bit by bit. I'm not at all convinced it's best solution, but it is attractive due to traits I put forth. And by best solution, I just mean inoring nuclear and going all out on renewables. Frankly most democratic governments/politicians will be drawn to renewables, less upfront investment, quick returns, which is crucial for next election.
I'm an engineer if you want to fact check your knowledge on nuclear. I haven't watched yet, normally agree with you, got a feeling I'm not going to here
If it were up to me I'd have one nuclear reactor near every major city, and transition to renewables asap. Nuclear is good for ebbs and flows in renewable. Also wanna get some batteries in
@@dylanwilliams8428 - Renewables supplementing nuclear power isnt unreasonable. - You're not going to be able to fully transition to renewables like solar and wind. The issues that make them inappropriate for large-scale adoption are endemic to the technology: intermittent, cannot provide base-load power, produce relatively little power for area required .etc - I'm interested in what batteries you're referring to. For storing energy on the scale required for a city you're going to be dependent on geological features like lakes and mountains to store it as potential kinetic energy.
5:00 - Recent GenCost report found that nuclear is by far the most expensive and renewables are by-far the cheapest. Yeh that's because they fudged the numbers: - They only explored the cost of power generated over a 30 year period, which DOES include FULL cost of setting-up a nuclear power plant (expected lifespan of 60-80 years) but DOES NOT include the cost of replacing a solar farm (expected lifespan of 35 years). - Nuclear has a high upfront cost, but over the long term the power it produces is extremely cost effective, they just didnt bother looking at it over this time period. Also the characteristics of intermittent energy sources like solar and wind make them a non-starter as they cannot produce base-load power and wouldnt be a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the first place.
Nuclear has its issues, generally pro-nuclear myself but the amount of delays, nimbys and overspending here in the UK is wild rn. Better to go all-in on Renewables in Australia as 1 - you poor sods are pretty much ground zero for climate change related national tragedies and 2 - unlike here in Europe you don't really have a lack of building room for solar panels or wind turbines, which is a big factor in why we're so fond of nuclear over here.
One problem in Australia is that their environmental movement arose in opposition to HYDROELECTRIC power projects, which disrupted old growth forest habitats.
I am someone who believes give it a go. If france and us can do it we should give it a go. Secondly labour said we would save $275 on power bills and it hasn't happened. Thirdly labour told there voters in the city that the previous government didn't invest in renewables(which nobody in regional Australia believes and know that's bullshit) Fourthly renewable energy investment is ahead because that is where the subsidies are. (If the government said no subsidies there wouldn't be the solar farms and windfarms there are) My fifth argument is the amount of land that has to be cleared for a solar farm. The sixth argument i have is the fact that when it was coal/gas generation if my power was out, i could call the company and they would give me a clear timeline. They could tell me when the power would be back on. Now i have to call a sparky and hope he can come to fix. I support what works and currently renewables isn't working. Because if living conditions go back to how they did when my grandmother was a kid it isn't progressive.
Yet we pay the same price per household as France in electricity bills and they are over 60% Nuclear. So we'd have to go 60% Nuclear just to keep paying the same amount? No, we'd be paying far, far more, the cost to set up Nuclear would appear either on our bills or via extra taxes which we know from recent history most of us paid more tax under the LNP already.
@@trevf3517 maybe they have increased renewable energy in France but last time I checked it was 80%(but I'll take your word for it)because i can't get any information solidly about current rates of nuclear. I hope in the future they can have renewable energy more efficient and with less land clearing. As far as i can research if we do set up were Liddell power station is inbetween singleton and muswellbrook it wouldn't be that much. But in saying that the lawfare would bankrupt the project. I'm just someone who realises that we still need baseload power. So build one and see what can be done. New he-le stations or gas i just don't want Australia to be a 3rd world shithole with loadsheading. Because unless they develop a more efficient renewable program. Yes i know the government will tax more with the middle and working class. Because they have done everything to destroy base load power stations, now Labor premiers are begging them to keep them open. Thanks for the polite reply and know that i agree with your point The end game of a strong Australian is the goal.
I am not disputing that nuclear energy is a reliable option, to support the grid, but the time frame needed to implement, the risk to the Australian ecosystem and costings, based on rhetoric, provided by the LNP - I call BS! Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science. Look what they did to the NBN (I hold a Degree in CS, so I know what I am talking about), why would you trust them? Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea! Ps. Love your work FJ 👍
Start implementing nuclear plants now, utilize low carbon gas plants in the interim (they can be spun-up quick). If you're concerned about the risk to Australia ecosystem then solar and wind are not viable alternatives as they take-up even more space. *"Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science."* - That's an almost verbatim appeal to personal incredulity fallacy. *"Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea!"* - You should apply that same reasoning to solar and wind which has demonstrable flaws which not only make it 'a bad idea' but make it a non-starter in terms of meeting Australia's energy needs.
@@TotalWater-d2o You have implemented such a project? You hold the right qualifications to assume that it would? No wonder this country is fucked, with people like you!
@@TotalWater-d2o 'They can be spun-up quick' - really? You quantify 20 years from now as quick? You hold a qualification in Nuclear Physics? You have implemented such a project? Solar does work as part of a mix of energy technology and get this, it is a lot cheaper and safer! And yes, I have Solar and a battery, which have never failed! If the Solar and battery installations are subsidized by the Government, it allows more Australians to install them and the flow on effect is that the cost drops for all Australians, not just those who can afford it!
@@TotalWater-d2o "Start implementing nuclear plants now, utilize low carbon gas plants in the interim (they can be spun-up quick). If you're concerned about the risk to Australia ecosystem then solar and wind are not viable alternatives as they take-up even more space." yea, completely ignoring that fact that gas power is something we wanna aviod i.e coal, gas, oil? your forgetting that they also harm the environment in different ways then just CO2 emissions "Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science." - That's an almost verbatim appeal to personal incredulity fallacy. if you been on this channel for longer you would know why this guy is telling the truth here. "Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea!" - You should apply that same reasoning to solar and wind which has demonstrable flaws which not only make it 'a bad idea' but make it a non-starter in terms of meeting Australia's energy needs. they may have flaws but i can gaurentee you they are by far the most realistic option, if you actually knew anything about solar and wind development and farmers in australia i can tell you that its an net positive. whole lot of nothin' being said here.
Perhaps you should go to a wind farm and see where they’re located, how many roads are built to them, their longevity, the destruction to pristine areas where wind farms are built. Windfarms are far worse than nuclear for impact to the environment. I think you need to do some genuine research.
So far the only argument has been "oh, but it's expensive!" and sure. Nuclear plants cost a shitload to build, heaps to keep up to scratch and demand a higher class of better paid worker. What all that cost buys us though, is clean and ABUNDANT power. Power that is not impacted by the weather, does not rely on location and begins the process of opening up more electrically demanding advancements. Green power is great and it might cost less. But is it going to produce the same output as those seven plants? Are we just going to write off the space those fields and fields of solar panels and wind turbines need? Is there any reason besides expense not to roll with nuclear power?
Did you watch the entire video? Did you miss the bit about using it as an excuse to not invest in renewables and continue to prop up our coal generators for another decade?
I think nuclear power is an important part of humanity's future. That doesn't mean build nuclear power plants where they're not needed. It can't be that hard to understand
(edit: I mean this to be an informative discussion, so if I come across as accusatory or confrontational please let me know) @patrickwastie5 to answer your question directly: because we don't always have something else that works. By "important part" I mean that reconfiguring coal power plants to run nuclear power or even building new, small plants is a tool in our tool belt. Especially in areas that can't meet all their needs with local renewables and that we don't yet have the grid infrastructure to transmit power to from other areas. I imagine Australia is not one of these scenarios, so I'm not disagreeing with Jordies😇
@@patrickwastie5 I typed out a reply, but idk where it went. The gist of my answer was that it's a better temporary power source than coal/gas, and in various places world-wide there is a need for a temporary solution while grid infrastructure is upgraded so that areas without plentiful renewable energy can have power transmitted to them. Also mentioned that this probably doesn't apply very well to Australia and as such I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the video at all. Hope I make sense😇
The little piece of hair or fluff on Jordies' chin really kept me engaged for the whole video. The anticipation of him eventually wiping it off between shots but never giving in... bravo!
ITS EXPENSIVE!!!! Stupid take. Everyone in ontario gets over half their electricity from nuclear power. Your electricity cost literally double what ours does.
I support Nuclear as well and I wish we had it here in Australia for a multitude of reasons, but this is one of those situations where the person delivering the good idea is a massive reason to run the fuck away from it. Anyone familiar with this channel knows that practically everythying the LNP says is for the benefit of either the Minerals or Business Council lobbyist group. A light breeze can blow away the thin covers their policies have. If we were serious about Nuclear, we'd have done it 25 years ago. If we were going to do it today i'd say we do it like how the european ITER project has gone, in that they've used a $2b steady yearly budget to build a single reactor/facility worth $45b. A single reactor. Situated a favorable place and built with minimal weight on the budget over a consistent time period. Used as a Test-and-Learn excercise on how to properly build the things as we also start up the immense amounts of associated industries and training the skillsets that is needed to support and run them. Once its online, _then_ you can think about building the other 6 this fucked up LNP fantasy project is proposing, not everything all at once. Renewables will never stop no matter how much the LNP bitches and moans about it and denies the reality of the situation. The coal plants don't get any younger, their turbines arent failing any less frequently and the noise surrounding their problems only gets louder and louder. Do any of the big energy companies even care about what the LNP wants in this area? As far as I know the ones still running coal plants are doing so begrudgingly and only with huge subsidies as they do everything in their power to eject themselves from it and move to renewables. I recall the LNP basically begging AGL (?) to keep a failing coal plant open and they all but told the libs to get fucked. None of them are invested in Nuclear because it doesnt exist here, and the prospect of limping along those ancient turbines for the next 2 or 3 decades while waiting on their "investment" in this nuclear fantasyland to happen. That doesn't sound appealing at all when they can instead spend a year on a solar/wind build and start pulling in money after a year or two.
Nuclear is the most expensive upfront cost, its true, but it produces the cheapest energy, also the claim that nuclear will work at 90% capacity all the time is reasonable, since nuclear is taken as BASELINE of total energy usage problem with renewables is the cost of cleanup and footprint, nobody counts the recycling into any calculation because its too early in the technology the future is having nuclear and renewables with batteries for nights and coal/gas as backup having whole grid made by renewables is stupid since you can't control how much energy you will generate
"the future is having nuclear and renewables with batteries for nights and coal/gas as backup" Why do you need nuclear in the setup in your mind? Renewables + batteries with Gas backup is the plan, just unclear why you think Nuclear has to be part of this setup.
@@jason2mateusing gas to make up the difference raises the cost of power. Unless you have a different pricing system compared to the UK. Besides, we really need to ween off gas since it is no where near as clean as what we previously thought and the fugitive emissions have worse impact on the climate than CO2
I work at ANSTO, bruv we don't even have the engineering base to keep that reactor running. The generation that built it are retiring out or moving on and nobody can replace them. nobody goes to uni to study nuclear engineering and waste disposal etc. So regardless of if this get through we have a minimum 5 year wait for someone to get a degree in engineering and then another 10 years before they are ARPANSA certified. so call it a cool 15 years before we can even start the design phase.
It might be worth watching the military’s program for qualifying personnel to work on nuke boats. Without knowing the details, I think you would agree the power generation is more complex on a Virginia than at Lucas Heights. I suspect that might distort your qualification timeline.
Its a chicken and egg situation because if there's no nuclear industry, then there's no incentive to study nuclear engineering and if there's no experts its difficult to maintain a nuclear industry. At first it will simply be necessary to hire foreign experts.
Not really arguing for or against nuclear but it concerns me that jordies didn't seem to understand or consider renewables availability issue. Yes on paper its the most cost effective per megawatt BUT its full capacity is not available 24/7 like coal or nuclear. Yes renewables are good and should be used as part of the system but you cant rely solely on them, at least not yet. They only produce power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and energy storage methods like batteries or pumped hydro are so expensive that they are only ever used as a small buffer but could never run large portions of the network for any long periods of time. So simply comparing mwh per dollar without considering the actual demand and availability at different times of day is in itself massively deceptive. Yes CSIRO may be a leader in scientific analysis but if all they are told is calculate mwh per dollar then no matter how accurate the math and data is then its effectively garbage cause it doesnt consider the real world time varying power supply/demands.
@@deadline546 wouldn't it be great if they did a whole report focusing on different factors to consider instead of just the cost per mWh? But sadly we only have this one graph from an executive summary. /s
Whats in the 'AUKUS' deal about the waste generated from subs we will never get but still have to deal with the uk's and the us's waste from said subs? Pretty clever.
This is closer to why LNP are pushing nuclear Yes it's about distracting & disrupting renewables & strengthening need to keep using gas & coal for longer But there's likely pressure from UK & USA interests that want Australia to increase mining uranium, handle nuclear waste, provide nuclear fuel, sell Australia overpriced reactors & allow USA troops stationed in Northern Australia easier access to nuclear materials
When did the conversation change from: "We need to decarbonise regardless of the cost of the transition (including transmission, infrastructure etc)." to "We know nuclear is the cleanest form of energy... buttttttt its too expensive?!"?
Nuclear isn't clean, it requires heavy mining and produces nuclear waste. Cleanest form of energy is wind and solar. You don't have to mind a fuel source for those.
@@PandaKnight52most uneducated response I've heard. Obviously you haven't heard of rare earth minerals required for renewables before hey? Oh and as a side note China pretty much has a monopoly on those, you know what we do have though?... A butt load of uranium and thorium.
Start today and Dutton will be dead of old age by the time it provides energy to the grid. It’s not his future or that of his children. It’s his grandchildren and mine who will experience the consequences of his (in)decision
too expensive mate. We have aging coal plants that need replacing NOW, replacing them with renewables within the next 5-8 years will mean we have a majority renewables grid anyway.
I am aussie, I'd love nuke, I'm one of the sweaty nerds mentioned at the start of the video. But the libs will find a way to fuck it up. Fuck ups are traditionally something you want to keep away from any kind of nuclear.
@@jamzy9But it is already the most expensive in the world. Since we are going Renewables 😂😂😂 th-cam.com/video/PAsgm1DDRh4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=KojJaIz0aeKi71nM
Yeah Nuclear is expensive but it doesnt put significant drain on the grid on a rainy day. Renewables are supplemental power and cannot effectively maintain what is needed for large scale grids. I would absolutely love if renewables worked on a larger scale but for it to work out you would need to maintain thousands of massive batteries and at times get lucky with windy and sunny days. It is great for a personal backups but it cant reliably support large scale current draw.
The above is absolutely correct. I have worked on a large number of solar farms, wind farms, and snowy hydro projects (I am a geotech engineer). The amount of higher ups that I have spoken to all agree that the grid cannot be sustained by renewables alone, and that the driving factor behind most renewable projects is the ability to buy energy when price is low and sell when it is high; (I mean we live in a capitalist country so making more money is literally the entire purpose of our economy) to pretend it is all for the environment is to have your head in the sand.
@@peteft123 Think about the environment impact of having large solar, wind and hydro farms. A 1,000-megawatt plant is 75x smaller than a 1,000-megawatt solar photovoltaic plant and 360x smaller than wind farm. So which one is better for the environment
I hadn't heard about this so I decided to search it up and correct me if I'm wrong but its a decision made by the AEMC which is up for state governments to decide. So I didn't know about this because I'm in Queensland and our state government decided not to charge for it. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't seem to affect me.
I love nuclear, not even for anything to do with the carbon footprint, it's just insanely efficient and far safer with modern technology. Given that Australia has a lot of Uranium reserves and doesn't experience things like Tsunamis, Australia seems primed for Nuclear energy. But given mining is a huge industry, fat chance unfortunately.
We can’t even enrich our own uranium. Nuclear energy will be built by taxpayers, sold off to private organisations and then they’ll recoup their investment… through higher prices
Renewables are more efficient and safer. Having Uranium reserves means nothing, it still needs to be purchased from a mining company and refined, all we would save is part of the shipping costs.
@@CG-dd9tb renewable are technically less safe due to the deaths in construction since they are often installed in high places oh also they should nationalise mining but thats a whole other thing
$0.331Trilion could pay for every home in Australia to have 15kwh Solar system with batteries and still have change. That would give every home free power and still sell power to the grid.
Yeah except your solar panels will only last maximum 20 years. The batteries even less. Nuclear will last even longer up to 60 - 80 years. We will be paying for panels and batteries over and over again
@@maffdiva Yep but you have not taken into account the fuel and despoil of the nuclear wast. The $0.331Trilion is only to build not to run. Note I have worked in power generation and project risk for meany years and can comfortably say Dutton plan is never going to proceed in Australia. The tec needs to become much cheaper. Further Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life not 60 - 80 years. Also in today dollars it cost around $4 billion to decommissioning of such facilities typically takes around 15 to 20 years. There is no economic scenario that nuclear works at present. Duttons plain is dead in the water. I hope this helps.
I was smart enough to work at a nuclear power plant and if nuclear was economically viable I'd be all for it. In fact if they want to pay me at least $400,000 per year, moving cost and such I'd go back to it for five years. But unfortunately it's just too damn expensive and yes Dutton's figures are bull. Another reason why they may be wanting to bring in a civilian nuclear industry is without it it's very hard to have nuclear within the military, not bombs but ships and subs powered by it.
it can be engineered to be bomb proof if development funding isn't cut, we're spending a bunch on nuclear submarines that'll be Docking in major cities
YeH I'm still pro nuclear and not sure it's fair to say that's a neckband take lol but in Australia there are plenty of places to make hydro wind and more importantly SOLAR if that was implemented properly with efficient solar farms and everything, that's lower risk, cheaper (and anything the liberals party in aus claim they'll do they will not.. it's a scam lol) So basically I'd like to see this start with renewables when we talking about Australia but I would love it if places like top EU member states could work on a better solution for combination of nuclear and renewables and the tech can get even cheaper, more efficient with waste and have better protocols for dispersing of the waste. All of this tech has moved on so so far from the soviet plants fgs haha. Wasn't chernobyl that (XXXX) type reactor? Absolutely insane to even think about doing that. And yet, it could work so damn well. Along with the dams. But places like Germany are starting to dig up coal again thanks to energy shortage from Russia while we get fucked over by the us for oil pipelines (wonder who sabotaged NS2 HMMMMM) BASICALLY I think this totally depends on the country but. With very careful footing - which the common man in Australia doesn't seem to be blessed with, albeit you lot are legends, I just worry about incompetence This is also why I'd be apprehensive about a Nuclear plant in the UK because I'm just not sure our infrastructure can keep up
Which do you think is more realistic? a) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain a few nuclear power plants? b) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain an area of solar panels 57 times larger than Melbourne city? ie. - Australia uses 188.60 TWh of power per year. - 1 Acre of solar panels produces 351 MWh of electrical energy per year. 351 MWh => 0.000351 TWh - The area of solar panels required to power all of Australia: 188.60 / 0.000351 => 537321.94 Acres => 2,174.46 Km² - Melbourne City Size: 37.7 km² - Number of 'Melbourne Citys worth of solar panels' required 2174.46 / 37.7 => 57
Hi papa politics. Unrelated; I'm gay. Remember that desiccated grass skeletons you were grossed out by? Yeah? That's related to coal power. ❤ Love you papa politics.
Rumour - Peter Dutton was door knocking optometrists in his electorate trying to find a set of 3 eyed glasses for the 3 eyed fish to enhance his forward vision.
Which do you think is more realistic? a) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain a few nuclear power plants? b) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain an area of solar panels 57 times larger than Melbourne city? ie. - Australia uses 188.60 TWh of power per year. - 1 Acre of solar panels produces 351 MWh of electrical energy per year. 351 MWh => 0.000351 TWh - The area of solar panels required to power all of Australia: 188.60 / 0.000351 => 537321.94 Acres => 2,174.46 Km² - Melbourne City Size: 37.7 km² - Number of 'Melbourne Citys worth of solar panels' required 2174.46 / 37.7 => 57
To be fair, modern nuclear plants wouldn't meltdown after an earthquake, but they could break and waste tonnes of money. So maybe not deadly, but still extremely stupid.
If a nuclear bomb explodes, an area of a few dozen square miles is irradiated for a week. If a nuclear bomb explodes on a nuclear power plant, an area of HUNDREDS of square miles is irradiated for like A THOUSAND YEARS. This extreme amplification of the danger of nuclear weapons (or even just large conventional explosives) is a very strong argument against nuclear power, but I rarely see it discussed.
No. - When a nuclear bomb explodes, it releases intense radiation immediately, but the area affected by radiation does not remain irradiated for just a week. The initial blast releases significant amounts of ionizing radiation, but long-term radiation from a nuclear explosion (like fallout) can last for years or even decades, depending on the yield and other factors. - If a nuclear power plant were to explode (which is highly unlikely due to multiple safety systems), it would not result in a widespread irradiation of hundreds of square miles for a thousand years. The Chernobyl exclusion zone for instances is a mere 19 miles. A nuclear power plant is not capable of producing the kind of massive, widespread radioactive contamination seen in nuclear bomb explosions.
nuclear red herring, all in service of the coal industry, Howard gurning in delight at wedging his opposition that’s all he cared about as the atmosphere changes, and that was 2006 and we’re still stuck here politically
Nuclear has never proven cheaper and cannot ever be. Not only is the process & supply-chain more expensive, it is **immune to competition** for the simple fact that not any company can obtain permission to build & operate a nuclear power station to compete with the incombent... Nuclear is 100% vendor lock-in and the station cannot be shut down quickly so there are long - long - long legal commitments made on behalf of tax payers. Apart from horrible costs and obvious risks and hazards, Nuclear should not be selected for another likely fact. Nuclear is really being floated to aid Government & Corporate AI programs... Once it is installed, vast data centres will use the energy to run large scale AI farms. Security surrounding both the Nuclear Plant and DC Operator will be extremely high. It will create the basis of a locked down area civilians cannot see what is happening. The likely operators will be Microsoft, Google or Amazon who do not have the best interests of Australians in mind... This will not end well. Stick to improving conventional and renewable energy mix and create more competition.
Agree on the Amazon Google and Microsoft demand for data centres and AI. They are already funding and lobbying for alternative energy sources but specifically nuclear. Google NuScale
Cost. Cost is really an interesting one. It is very easy to say "well it costs less" but does it really? Nuclear plants can survive 80, sometimes 100 years. That's a long time for a power plant to operate. "Obvious risks and hazards" are demonstrably false. In terms of safety, Nuclear is on par with solar and better than the entire rest of energy sources - yes, more people have died from . It does not irradiate the environment, like many strive to point out, and modern designs with modern response systems can prevent most accidents from occurring, and any accidents that do occur, are very very unlikely to impact anyone. In terms of pollution, it is *better* than any other power source and that is *including* collection of materials (including Uranium/Plutonium & others), construction, and operation over the lifetime of the plants. Finally, you're talking about combatting climate change. If you really want to say "well it pollutes quite a lot less than most other energy sources but it costs more," great, you'll have a little bit more money as the country faces harsher weather, rising sea levels and massive loss of food & water supplies.
@@ViscusTH-cam I think you are answering someone else as I did not discuss any of these points. You seem to be regurgitating a copy & paste argument... LOL. I hope you are not a bot. But as to what you have said, its kind of silly anyway as most gas, or coal plants have a designed lifespan of 50 years and can more readily be upgraded as new technology becomes available. The same with hydro... The cost of a replacement is a fraction of a nuclear plant which are stuck with obsolete tech after just 20 years.
Electricity in this country is expensive because we don't have an east coast domestic gas reservation scheme which means we're having to compete with international markets (unlike WA which hasn't suffered the huge price increases). If the Libs don't advocate for gas reservation they're not serious about lowering your power bills.
Not a supporter of the liberals. One thing I haven't seen discussed is that the original report that Labor's energy plan was based on (on the ALP website) indicated that, under Labor's plan, we would achieve total net zero in around 120 years. So far, we have undershot the projection and are currently not expected to meet the 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 outlined in Labor's platform document. The reality is, we can barely build enough uninsulated paper houses/apartments for us to live in, let alone reconstruct our entire electrical infrastructure, replace every car on the roads, replace existing energy generation whist expanding it to meet growing demand. Nuclear is certainly not the answer for Australia because we didn't invest in the knowledge to build & manage it. That said, the technology will play a major role in the transition to renewables in the future. Given we aren't going to invest in it now AND we are not going to meet our energy requirements for the future - it's very possible we will be buying gen 4 reactors from China in a couple of decades as electricity becomes the new oil.
The uptake of renewables is exponential, not linear. We’ll hit our climate goals faster than you realise. Also, not having invested in nuclear know-how isn’t the reason why it’s not viable. The USA and UK have been investing since the 1940s and they still can’t do it.
We can't build or maintain ANYTHING. You think we're gonna be able to keep a million solar panels in working order? Fuck no. Those are gonna fall apart the second any half decent freak global warming storm rolls over and suddenly we're firing up the coal plants again. Just because we lack the knowledge Right Now does not mean it's impossible to develop. In time time it takes to build those nuclear plants we could easily incentivize people to get educated and have a stable pool of trained workers ready.
We will meet the 82% powered by renewables by 2030 with the current projections of the project slated. Carbon reduction is something different but includes power. I am sure that the report is out of date of cherry picking to high heaven.
@@PandaKnight52 it was actually on the ALP website. I'm trying to dig it up but I'm failing to find it (credible, I know 😅). IIRC they were going to be net zero of the emissions we had in 2008. I believe they simplified to a 60% reduction in today's emissions by 2050, as is on the ALP website. Renewables make up 5% of our energy mix rn. We certainly won't increase the amount of renewable power to 70%+ before 2030 (5 years) Though emissions do not exactly equate to energy generation and being mindful of energy vs electricity. If we doubled our renewables that would meet 82% of our electricity, which is 10% of our energy. That's a target that we'd have hit with or without Labor's intervention.
@@CG-dd9tb I too believe adoption of renewable will be exponential and it will increase with better/cheaper technologies. Looking at the historical data from Wikipedia on Australia's energy mix (which isn't the same as emissions), we can expect to be net zero in 150 years lol. Initiatives like Labor's do draw investment into renewable technologies and that has to increase the growth, but the amount we need to cover is still unfathomable. I haven't done the numbers though. Would be interesting to put a dollar figure on exactly how many solar panels and batteries Australia needs to go net zero.
Two important aspects are that Nuclear power works through the night and at still wind. Renewables will require back up for nights. Furthermore, nuclear power takes up almost no space. Wind takes up ~100x as much space for the same amount of power and solar ~20x. The cost of building a reactor is also inflated due to slow construction procedures. Japan does this in 4 years with proper planning and they make reactors at ~$7/MWh. Posting links is sketch so, source: just trust me bro. Or just look into it
Why is it during drought we were able to get legislation that mandated water tanks on new builds but now during a cost of living crisis where power keeps going up we don't mandate solar pannels and battery walls on new builds
Well I guess the main reason is because it wont really be that effective at reducing Australia's carbon footprint. ie. - Australia only accounts for a tiny sliver of global carbon emissions to begin with and only 10-15% of Australia's carbon footprint comes from residential homes. - Solar/wind is an inappropriate technology to supply energy for cities (cant produce baseload power, intermittent, large area required, energy storage on this scale require geological features .etc) Other reasons include - Mandating solar panels and batteries would increase the cost of homes. - Lack of manufacturing capacity for adoption of solar/battery technology at-scale. - Ecological disasters resulting from large-scale solar/battery manufacturing. - The fact solar panels and batteries wear-out and need to be replaced. What should happen instead: - Gradual consumer-led adoption of solar as the technology improves and becomes more affordable / easier to produce (most likely mediated by technological advances in batteries such as graphene or metal-air batteries).
As a dude that's been watching the Australian energy transition for well over a decade, I'm dismayed by the response by both parties. The public communications are clear that none of them really understand anything beyond the executive summary of the reports they're given. The Labor approach embeds gas generation forever, the Libs approach replaces coal with nuclear. In reality, we'll end up with nuclear eventually... At the very least, remove the ban, and see what the market will offer. Just kicking the can further down the road to our grandkids to fix because we couldn't put party politics aside.
this is one of the most politically driven times in all of history, aint shit getting done in this country for the next 50-100 years at best. And chances are the only reason we'll kick into gear is because of societal degradation to the point of crisis. Especially in comparison with other countries as they out-work us in the coming century.
We won't end up with nuclear eventually it is a dying industry. Labor approach only relies on gas when everything else isn't happening it's called redundancy. But you can turn off a gas power plant. You can't with a nuclear one. We don't have a spot to store nuclear waste that we do have, (stuff from the medical nuclear reactor in Sydney), where are we going to put that? Sites that were nuclear reactors that reach end of life still can't be used cause everything is radioactive.
@@PandaKnight52 Do you think that gas will be around forever? It is already a dwindling, finite resource. Once its gone, its gone - and if we're still alive as a species after its contribution to climate change, then there's not much left to fall back on...
@@stephanmorel8979 Renewables are cheaper as long as you don't have to rely on them completely. It's not the CSIRO study that's wrong imho, but the fact that the terms hand-wave over the fact that gas generation must always be present. It will never be a fossil fuel free grid.
I'm only at 3:20 and I already disagree with Jordan on 2 "points" seed oils and nuclear. But that's only based on pre conceived assumptions based on what I've seen. While I'm all for nuclear (if done right) duttons version is unplanned and also the least efficient version of nuclear. Seed oils are still less healthy than animal fats. But not to say, both are still bad for ya, just one give you high cholesterol and heart attacks To touch back on nuclear. They're safer, cleaner and WAYYYYY more efficient Also a big BUT, nuclear just isn't viable for Australian. It's too late for us, it'd be too expensive for us. In other countries it may be the cheapest and most efficient, but for us. It'd cost more than we'd get back. Because we simply lack the infrastructure
The Mining Industry had a Christmas party which has leaked, come watch: th-cam.com/users/livefcV9BLeMCLE?feature=share
I watched the first part of it yesterday here: th-cam.com/users/liveQJ1bCxnuFY8
👍
Here's the leaked video ID: egna0y0pwhM
You wrote 6:30 AEST in the video, did you mean AEDT?
I’m a dumb American and I’m so confused on Australia politics
Can you dumb it down for me? Like who is the conservatives and who are the liberals?? I love you’re content but I’m so confused on who is who
@@mr-mallard5133 the conservatives have little to no representation labor & liberals both used to be conservative, one for workers the other masquerading as a party for the middle class but only caters to the big businesses. now both (especially the liberals) have been infiltrated by “liberal” and woke crap and both have tried to introduce woke restrictions on free speech
the greens are the outward gay race communists and should be ignored
Jordan you're denying future generations to opportunity to eat pink sprinkled donuts while ignoring the responsibilities of their job as a nuclear safety inspector. Shameful.
Average blender tutorial enjoyer.
ignorance can be exchanged for goods and services
Honestly had to unsubscribe after the shameing of Homer
Jordies, make a new Simpsons meme video and include this GEM!!!
I'm pro nuclear BUT if the Liebrals were going to try and implement nuclear it would go just like the NBN. Delayed 12 years, 100 billion dollars over budget then cancelled last second and replaced with a retired soviet RBMK reactor from Lithuania using an old coal plants steam turbines as a "cost effective hybrid"
I don't believe coal mines have steam turbines. You mean coal fired power plant?
My uncle worked at that nuclear plant in Lithuania. The plant was said to be perfectly safe, efficient, inspected by some Jap experts, they said it was perfectly fine, but our government decided to shut it down anyway.
How could you be pro nuclear? Seriously, I want to know.
@@godfreypoon5148 yes
@@MaKKin187 Because its 100% better than wind and solar energy, its literally a proven fact. The only reason people are against it is because "muh Chernobyl".
331 billions for seven nuclear power plants from the very same party that opposed 43 billion for fttp NBN saying it was wasteful that then ended up spending MORE on their copper based MTM only to switch back to fibre when they realised it was a mess and they want us to believe they can handle building nuclear power plants 🤣
You get it
You are correct in so many ways
This is also the same mob that can't build carparks and couldn't deliver Snowy 2.0 even remotely on time or on budget. Nuclear is way more complex.
@@TheMarcHicksa extra 10 billion dollars later and it's nowhere near finished. They proper cooked it with Snowy Hydro
Laughs in starlink
diversity of energy creation is never a bad idea. ( wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro) coal is dumb.
not so dumb when you have multiple operational power plants and one of the highest reserves of coal in the world
Yep - but just wind, solar and hydro without coal means relying on gas forever - which will eventually run out - and we'll be forced by lack of options to nuclear - or to build new coal plants again.
But that's a fair few election cycles away - so nobody will pay any attention to it short term.
@@djdos83 pretty dumb when you consider less than five years remain on the climate clock and coal and oil are incredibly dangerous and damaging to environments and people
@@djdos83 Not like i don't know what's going to be the response to this, but just because you have massive reserves of it, coal is still dumb. Depending on where the deposit is located, the extraction alone wreaks havoc on the environment and if you cannot see the drawbacks of producing energy by lighting shit on fire, im sorry.
yeah fuck coal
Kyle hill on youtube is a good source on anything nuclear related. Doesnt matter if youre pro or anti nuclear, its a good whatch to inform yourself
I was going to say the same thing
I point all my friends and family who come at me with "but green glow bad" to Kyle Hill. He's a good ice breaker on the matter.
Fourth vote for Kyle Hill... I love his docuseries on all things nuclear.
Pretty sure he was invited by the Aus government as a consultant at some point too, wasn't he? Or was that someone else that invited him as a consultant?
Shhh, you’re ruining their narrative
Do you reckon Peter refers to his sideburns as Dutton Chops?
Beef cheeks.😂
I don't know but this is very valid question.
Yes
Well I sure as hell will be from now on.
Absolute legend.
There's no way they would go through with this plan to any great extent. The whole purpose is to disrupt the renewables industry for their coal, oil & gas mates.
Dutton love to distract and deny. Flog
'Video has emerged of Nationals senator Matt Canavan labelling his party's nuclear policy a "political fix" and conceding it is not the cheapest form of power, as a colleague quits the party over its approach to climate change.
Senator Canavan told a podcast in August that his party was "not serious" about nuclear power being a solution to high energy costs.
"Nuclear is not going to cut it. I mean, we're as guilty of this too - we're not serious. We're latching onto nuclear," Senator Canavan told the National Conservative Institute podcast.'
"Canavan admits the Coalition is willing to impose higher costs on Australians with the most expensive form of energy just to 'fix a political problem' for Peter Dutton's divided party room."
Except solar and wind will never be completely reliable, tying Australia to gas as base load.
This is not a five eyes conspiracy,
It's about eating 3 eyed fish in a tent full of clowns.
good, the whole renewables industry is just a giant scam anyway, at least with coal, oil & gas we won't have the worst energy prices in the world
5:06
The table shows that while small scale Nuclear is very, very expensive, Large scale Nuclear is similar in affordability, if not cheaper than some Black coal and Gas options.
To be fair, renewables are even cheaper per amount of power, and could thus be considered a better option.
Bonus: they are carbon neutral eventually. Downside. Australia has 300 years or coal and 500 years of uranium to extract at current rates. Coal mining companies literally can not afford to stop digging up coal. Wait till you see what Turnbull has planned for the old mines around Newcastle
hahaha they're not only cheaper, their LCOE is about 10 times cheaper.
@theairstig9164 please elaborate on the coal mines around Newcastle
Energy storage to run the country on solar and wind is not actually possible in reality. Cost shouldn't matter, the climate shouldn't have a cost.
Renewables can't cover baseline though. Nuclear + renewables is where it's at.
Imagine if Rudd proposed this and Tony Abbott opposed it as a "very Soviet scheme", massive government project? It's literally ten NBNs at once.
Oh sorry, except it's way less ROI and we'll have to put up power prices, or taxes, or both
@@whophd it'll only flop if they treated it like nbn, it should get private investment like toll roads, in the very long term we'll be glad to have nuclear
we all know how the LNP cooked the NBN
nuclear powerplant workers confess their sins when?
Never, because they would expose his short sighted vision.
Got to keep those unions in profit, you know?
I'm too busy drinking duff and eating Donuts to do my job...
@@schad1738 absolutely.
The unions are too busy taking HUGE salaries, increasing wages for menial jobs beyond comprehension and slugging the tax payers RIDICULOUS amounts of money to care.
Homer Simpson would have loads to confess
@@TheChadPhillips 0/10 rage bait try harder
No one can convince me that “man” is a not an alien or a lizard in a skinsuit.
he's so psychopathically driven by greed/corruption that he passes for a reptilian regardless of his actual species.
Gina Rinehart gives much more of the alien in the skinsuit vibes. She looks a lot like the Slitheen's from Doctor Who.
But look how affable he is with his gaudy glasses and dad sweaters.
Don’t be antisemitic
It's pretty funny comparing France and Germany's daily co2 pollution.
It’s also pretty amusing looking at their military. You can’t create a “wind-powered bomb”.
dont get how anyone could be anti-nuclear, i actually work at a nuclear powerplant, you can legit see it behind me in my own profile picture where i am standing at the cooling pond of the nuclear power plant, its the best low-cost high-return electricity source i can think of,
and its safe too if you dont build it literally on the coast when your country is known for having tsunami's, and you dont run diabolical tests with them that are far to dangerous like chernobyl when the reactors were clearly not in the right state to do so as was known before the tests, you are infact more likely to get hit by a meteorite while you are in a aircraft than die to a nuclear power plant melting down, that is if you even witness one happing all across the globe on the news in your entire lifespan, They have gotten a lot safer from the lessons learnt from fukushima and chernobyl, the way fukushima was handled is thanks to chernobyl, they learnt how to deal with such a disaster, a disaster thats only getting rarer and rarer to ever happen again with every single year as technology improves.
and like solar panels or wind turbines, they dont require replacement every few years and take up an enormous amount of space for the small amount of electricity they produce that could be used for other things, both power generation sources being made from minerals that require a whole lot of fossil fuel to even produce them in the first place.
they create so much power that if you right now placed a giant nuclear powerplant like the nuclear ZPP in Zaphorizia with its 6 reactors down in the country of the Netherlands and got rid of every other power generation source there, that one plant alone could power the entire country of 18 million people, plus whatever it builds in the future, perhaps even be able to export its excess power to other countries, at the very small cost of using a few tonnes of uranium every year, which is very very little compared to what gas, oil, and coal powerplants require in tonnage of fuel.
as for waste, they get dumped so deep underground in special rooms that keep the radiation inside of them that its literally impossible for them to have a effect on the globe in the next 1000 years if the government keeps them maintained which they will, them being underground also means there is literally UNLIMITED space to dump nuclear waste into,
what people also dont know is that used fuel rods can also be recycled, which actively happens in these dump sites, although at a slower rate than the rate of waste being dumped into it which is why they keep growing in size underground very very slowly, it can be recycled, a total 96% of it infact, so that waste is not permanent like some anti-nuclear people claim.
*slow clap* Missed the fucking point by a mile with a little misinformation thrown in (replace panels and wind turbines every few years).
It's almost as if you didn't watch the video, which I suspect you didn't.
@@TaylorBertieI got a strong anti nuclear vibe from the video... I think this comment adds to the nuance of the situation. Nuclear is a great source for massive amounts of stable energy, which wind power or solar are unable to do. Imagine night with no wind, what do!?!?
@@TaylorBertiesolar and wind turbines (especially wind turbines) do 100% have to be replaced. You're the only misinformation here. The idea of nucular is fantastic. The idea of nucular + solar, wind would be best. Nucular power plan under labour or liberal is terrible as both have been destroying the country for over 60y. Renewables are a lie at scale and there are so many people that have video essays on this. For humanity to progress further we need to mass adapt nucular power.
@Boog_53 Giant battery farms of stored electricity from the giant fields of solar and wind generators
Ignore the fire risk. It doesn't happen. Much
@@Boog_53 It's like you've never watched a FJ video before. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Jordan actually likes Nuclear Power in terms of the tech, but it wouldn't be a FJ video if he didn't make his opponents feel insulted.
He can do "serious" journalism when he wants, but this channel is peppered with rage-bait and engagement bait. It's his brand.
The point, which has gone over your head, is that the Liberal Policy has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the technology, or what is right for Australia, and everything to do with diverting money away from renewable energy investment in Australia.
You know what a conservative nuclear energy policy would actually look like? Removing the ban on nuclear power and empowering regulators to establish guidelines and safety requirements so that private equity can come and build a plant if they want to. In other words cleaning up red tape and enabling industry.
Instead they want to promise to spend hundreds of billions on building publicly funded nuclear reactors? That's very... progressive for a conservative political party isn't it? Nuclear fanbois are so blinded by the shinny promise of nuclear power that they aren't applying their critical thinking skills and realising that the policy doesn't remotely pass the pub test.
Hi, I like nuclear, am a soy boy, etc. but also Jordan is right in an important way. The most important thing to do right now is to build renewables like crazy until they can handle 100% of grid demand while the sun is shining. That means we have a lot more renewables to build. However, a close second is that it would be wise to, in addition, start building enough nuclear plants today that by the time they're done, they can handle the remaining grid demand while the sun isn't shining. That way you don't have to rely on coal or gas peaker plants during the night, which is one of the "firming" methods mentioned in the graph at 5:01 for renewables. As renewables make up a larger and larger share of the grid, the amount of firming required also increases. Better to firm with nuclear than coal. Batteries are good too, but are typically only sized for 2 or 4 hours, which is not enough for what we're talking about.
Note that on that chart, nuclear SMRs are the most expensive, but it also shows that regular nuclear is actually cheaper than coal and gas (when including carbon capture).
TLDR Nuclear is the best option to complement renewables, but renewables are the star of the show. Don't wait 15 years to get rid of coal unless you want 15 extra years of wildfires.
it's simple, coalition has money in coal. same shit happened with the power bank in SA for Adelaide many years ago. the lib guy literally was saying that the power bank will do nothing and that's it's made up bullshit. oh look he has a large investment in coal.
The people who fund the Liberals have money in coal
nuclear power plant workers confess your sins next?
Fark no we don't wanna know 😮
and also worst nuclear plant power google reviews too
We had a rad worker show up with his clothes setting off radiation detectors. They had to take radiacs and retrace his steps from the previous workday. They found his car had surface contamination in it and eventually traced the source back to his house to his washing machine. He had taken some irradiated bolts out during a job and tossed them into his pockets instead of the controlling it as radioactive material because he didn't feel like doing all the paperwork that late in the day. He forgot they were in his pocket and went home and did laundry which ended up spreading contamination to the machine and then all the clothes that went through the machine. Fortunately, the radiation levels weren't high enough to do anything. This was a long time ago, a lot of people got in trouble, and they ended up changing procedures to prevent it from happening again. Nuclear power is safe now trust us.
@@RyanJones-gk6tt 🤣
@@RyanJones-gk6tt Amazing. 😂
Can we still complain about the lack of Warhammer painting on this Warhammer painting channel?
Dutton hasn't said a single straight thing about nuke power here, which means you want to be VERY careful about anything under his embellishments. Sure, nuclear power is a thing but this sort of stuff can rapidly end up in some kind of project management hell before there's even a single spade turned over. God only help us if its somewhere halfway done and then they decide to do additional scope-bloat.
Solar and storage is kind of sadly one of the only reasonable options for us right now. Like the coals going to stay on probably in my lifetime (which is not long!) and learn to live with it for a while, but that doesn't mean diversity in how power is produced can't be explored.
It doesn't have to be a one and done solution
Scope-bloat by successive governments using nuclear power as a political football is the exact reason for most cost blowouts.
That's why these things should be well out of the hands of any political party. Sadly, that isn't the reality we live in.
Nuclear power is not "bad". Australia doesn't need it and is not capable of handling it. Having worked as electrical engineer in this country for over a decade, in rail industry, resources and even at CSIRO facility, i have to say that we dont have engineering workfore and knowledge base even remotely close to be able to sustain the nuclear power industry. We will either on a striaght road to disaster in a decade or two when the facility ages and is not adequatly maintained or we will be outsourcing our power industy abroad being raped on pricing for decades
Which is why AUKUS and nuclear powered electricity are handcuffed to eachother. It’s both or neither
thats what im saying
@@theairstig9164 AUKUS subs have their own nuclear generator, they don't require power from a nuclear power station on land.
We can happily take U.S. experience and training.
So the thing is there is not a country on earth that would be more suited to nuclear power than Australia.....building that knowledge amd experience can bee done with ambition
get the csiro to make a plan to implement nuclear, scale it down to 2-3 reactors, use it as a backbone energy supply (20-30%) with renewables used as the majority of energy production. Even if it is more expensive it is important to have energy supply that is consistant for grid stability. Both renewables and nuclear have pros and cons the best solution isn't binary.
Does it help that Australia’s it’s on the vast majority of the worlds uranium?
Nuclear is by far the best way to produce energy that currently exists in a working form, but I sadly have to agree with you here. the Australian government is way too stupid to ever get a project like that to a operational state
The *Liberal* government
It's too expensive
Nobody wants a 50% increase on their bill for the privilege of using it
@@gonzo1354 its true that nuclear has a really high up front costs, but long term nuclear is actually among the cheaper options
@Belmont1998 Operating costs are high and fuel price is subject to market forces, while sun, wind and water aren't. [doesn't matter how much we have in Aus - look at gas].
But build time is crucial - nuclear won't be completed before coal is scheduled to shut down.
and of course Canavan said the quiet part out loud today
If you wanted to go nuclear it feels like the best time to do that was 30-40 years ago
exactly
Cool so wait longer right? God dam you guys have some shit takes
Except for the technology. We have far better and safer reactors now. But Australia doesn’t have the experience or work force to build and run them.
They are far cleaner than coal. And for some countries they absolutely need nuclear to make it work. But I don’t think Australia is a good use case.
Not to mention if the Libs are for it then it’s obviously a scam and going to cost more and be worse than they are saying.
@RovXbot don't worry i have even worst ones
Well, fun fact, the U.S. was once able to build a nuclear power plant in 4 years that still works today. We don't have to dump massive amounts of money into a project (which will most likely just be stolen by corrupt Australian officials.) some more investment into R&D and better construction techniques (which even in the worst case scenario that they don't help at all for building nuclear reactors, learning how to build things better and faster is something we all could use) & some tax breaks could convince come venture capitalists to finally invest their money into something worthwhile instead of fucking crypto scams.
As a Swedish man who now has to pay an unreasonably high electricity bill just to fund Germany's decommissioning of their nuclear power stations... let's just say I have opinions.
No, you don’t pay a higher bill because of the Germans. Unless you’re having blackouts in Sweden, there is enough power for both your needs and the Germans. That’s is, supply exceeds demand.
You’re paying high prices because your energy supply and grid is controlled by a small number of rich people, same here in Australia.
@@CG-dd9tb listen Swedens plan for expanded nuclear power is one of the most grossly incompetent proposals in a long time, electicity Will not really become cheaper and the massive expenses from construction to maintanance is dumb. The idea to government funded infrastructures which is sold to private companies and neglected like our railroadsystem is disgraceful. But I Will push back on one thing:
Swedens energy grid is not controlled by a few rich people. Vattenfall who is completely owned by the state is one of the most important contributors for swedish energy unlike other nations which has a more privatised energy grid
Should have stopped those Russians blowing up their own pipeline.
Europe shot itself in the foot by severely limiting the number of Chinese solar panels allowed into the country all to appease their American overlords. Did you really think that America, the "Saudi Arabia of coal" would just let it's client states stop buying their coal?
@@CG-dd9tb germany has paid around 700 billion euro to decomission nuclear and have 50% of german energy be renewable.
Or they could spent 300 billion to renew the plants and have 75 percent of energy be carbon neutral
'Fallout Guy': Today's Courier Mail front page says in bold type with another headline:' Bowen backs opinion over science to defend Labor's nuclear fiction'. Then in a gobsmacking mental gymnastic doublespeak move, it goes on to criticise 'Labor's scare campaign that radiation from nuclear power can cause cancers and terminal illness'. This is apparently according to the Murdoch press a lie?! The spin makes my head spin.
I pray the Vaush and Destiny bit was sarcasm that went far over my head
Who are vrash and density?
@@dobbersanchez1185 pdf files
It was lol, no one with more than 2 braincells respects them
It was, no one with more than 2 braincells listens to, or respect either of them
@@dobbersanchez1185horse loving pdf and a felcher
nuclear despite what is said about it, is way safer and gives off less emissions than majority of any energy solutions the only part that you need to know is do not skimp out on a reactor because we all know what happened at chernobyl
It's also now extremely renewable. You can recycle 100 fuel rods and get 80-90 new ones.
It wasn’t just incompetence at Chernobyl, it also partially due to how old the reactor was with it being built when nuclear energy was in it infancy
Don't let commies be in charge of nuclear power.
Friendly Jordies has entered his "X has entered their Y era" youtube title era.
Nuclear Power has the lowest long-term cost. Nuclear Power also is the most efficient and secure power source. Renewables mixed with nuclear power would be the most ideal situation because nuclear power would be taking the place of the really harmful and less efficient fossil fuels and coal as the secure power source backing up the renewables.
Nuclear power wouls genuinely be good but whether or not the governent would or could make it work 🤷♂️
“Nuclear power! Brought to you by the people who gave you NBN.”
So the whole problem it seems is the cost. This is a valid criticism. The problem is you have to start somewhere if you genuinely want to get into nuclear power production. The reason why it costs so much for 7 plants: Build time. That is the major contributing factor for the costs. Since Australia doesn't really have experience building nuclear power plants, those are going to be some long build times. The US has something of the same problem currently, but as long as we actually commit to sticking to the plan of building new plants, its going to get cheaper. Japan, on the other hand, holds the record for shortest nuclear plant build time, because they never stopped building them. They have tons of experience, and they can get the work done very efficiently as a result and so their costs might be a couple of billion per reactor.
Are yall on crack? No nation other than the UK is investing in nuclear power and the UK as described in the vid is massively over time and over cost for ONE plant, how the fuck with all the extra struggles of actually getting shit to aus are they gonna build 7 in a couple of years.
@@ewoodley82 I think the main issue with cost is that negative externalities are not priced in fossil fuelled power generation.
If you priced in how much it costs to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it back underground (which we will need to do eventually). Nuclear and renewables become much much cheaper overall.
Also nuclear has a distinct advantage as being a base load and not needing storage if done right, as if you priced in the storage costs needed for renewables replacing all fossil fueled power, it makes them much more expensive.
Personally I think small modular nuclear reactors (or larger thorium reactors) paired with renewables and modest hydro + battery storage is the perfect combo.
No. Nuclear is awful. Listen to the scientists and the people who literally run out electricity grid.
Go with thorium reactors so Burgers don't invade for weapons grade fissile material.
Thorium as a technology isnt quite there yet.
If you build the nuclear power plants now you can repurpose them for thorium later.
@@TotalWater-d2o AFAIK the main design issue was finding a material strong enough to withstand the corrosiveness of molten thorium salt and a task for something like waspaloy.
Yeah let's go with a youtube fantasy technology that no one has managed to get up and running at anything approaching economic scale. Moronic.
@@diggeroldmate8122it's free to be nice or to stfu
@@diggeroldmate8122 You are in a desert, you see a turtle, the turtle is on its back, why is the turtle flipped over? Who flipped it over? How did the turtle get there?
It’s about making the best out of what we have today, and working hard to solve the next problem tomorrow.
Nuclear power is the best base load supply solution, on all fronts. Not doing it because it’s expensive is just stupid. We’re still going to need it tomorrow, perhaps even more so, and it will be even more expensive then.
Nuclear power, a decent interstate train network, housing for the population, all things we should have started 40 years ago - but it’s still better late than never
I don't care how much it costs for the reactors. I care that it's the best solution for zero-emission energy. 24/7 clean, efficient energy.
I think there are possive and negative benefits to all types of power. And honestly i think having a spread of different types of power rather then focusing on a single type across the whole country is a good idea
All models are wrong, some models are useful. Source: Chad data science bro
I trust the former CEO of ANSTO who oversaw the new medical nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and is probably more qualified than AEMO and CSIRO because they built a more complex reactor that we built on time and on budget than a power generation nuclear reactor. Plus according to MIT in the US a 900 MW nuclear reactor is the equivalent 800 Wind turbines and 8.1 Million solar panels. Also those fossil fuel royalties pay for all of labour spending, stop that and we will all feel the pain.
the real insanity of our electricity situation is that we export massive quantities of coal which gets burned in other countries for electricity and thats somehow ok, but burning it here isn't ok even though it all ends up in the same atmosphere.
the pro-renewables side ignoring the "elephant in the room" completely discredits them, and the pro-nuclear side are completely discredited by their failure to point out the "elephant in the room"; our total national CO2 emissions (I.E. from stuff burned in australia) is less than the emissions caused by the coal we export to other countries.
at the moment we're like a vegan cattle rancher, or a "gym addicted health nut who only eats organic" but smokes a 40 pack a day, its pure fucking insanity.
if we're not gonna shut down coal mining (and i'm pretty damn sure we won't), we should stop pretending that we're "saving the planet" and build the obvious solution.
Nuclear is the FTTN NBN of energy
Was thinking this the other day.
What's the FTTP NBN of energy then?
@@perfectdiversion If we want to go with an overly ambitious plan that needs some minor tweaks to be practical like the Labor NBN It'll probably be: A fully decentralized solar and home battery scheme where every household gets ~10kW system with a ~15kWh battery.
Like the NBN just needed to be brought on budget, and use FTTB for apartments (let's ignore the whole Starlink of it all for the remaining 7% for the moment) similar tweaks, like using community batteries instead of individual home ones, and augmenting it with wind and geothermal.
But I think the allegory was kinda tortured from the beginning don't you?
The better money would be to get solar panels on rooves and solar batteries in every Australian home
That's likely cheaper than nuclear power plants in Australia
An idea of doing that is the government do it as a loan scheme, to install/upgrade solar systems with a battery as well, then the home owners would pay back said loan with X amount of the savings from their normal power bills.
Regardless if you're for or against nuclear, you need base power generation. Solar and wind depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing. You can fill some of the lulls in renewable production with storage but not all of them. So to deal with the rest, are you going to keep burning coal or gas and dump CO2 in to the atmosphere or go nuclear. Your choice.
Also, only 90% capacity factor? Here in Finland we've averaged around 95%. Obviously it varies slightly year to year.
It's pretty bad when people forget that for the most part they are conflating the damage nuclear *_WEAPONS_* inflict with the potential damage that nuclear power stations might cause. Well managed nuclear power is more safe than burning any sort of fossil fuel at scale when you actually take into consideration the sheer number of lives (human and otherwise) that are taken every day due to the scale of air pollution, and abysmal air quality that it creates. Does nuclear power have some issues, yeah. Every way we have to generate and use electricity has benefits and drawbacks, but I firmly am in the camp that believes that nuclear power is the way of the future. (paired with solar and wind to be precise)
Not an australian, btw - so I have no say in what your country might do, but it is a very good place to slap down a bunch of nuclear reactors. It isn't like you would have to worry about a massive earthquake breaking them, so barring catastrophic incompetence from the staff, you really ought to be fine. And no, nuclear waste isn't glowing green goop stored in metal barrels, nor is it particularly dangerous long term if stored and handled correctly.
Nuclear is for 1d1ots, it's that simple, especially in Australia... Plus it's a massive target we don't need, we have more sunlight per square metre than any place on earth.... If you think nuclear waste is NOT dangerous, you are delusional, naive, and probably not real bright.....
Given your the most reasonable take((even though I disagree with solar and wind) I will amplify this to show how smug and disingenuous Jordan is being I know he’s a liberal but this video he bears his fangs. His country has the Outback it has plenty of room to develop numerous plants and help the environment he pretends to care about. He whines about the cost meanwhile Chernobyl was notorious for cost cutting and corruption for his country to succeed being energy independent and wringing itself away from foreign influence this is how you do it. Planning for the future matters if your able to given the most amount of money to long terms solutions however because it’s a party he doesn’t like he will play contrarian.
We have earthquakes it just hasn't been as devastating as in other places around the world.
Nuclear is safe until it isn't. If a coal plant fucks up you don't get nuclear waste, of a solar panel fucks up you replace in a couple of weeks.
Nuclear plants will always have to be done correctly 100% of the time, I have not seen any massive project that is 100% ever.
@@MrBleachfanboyyou want independence you build solar panels and wind farms, and firming tech like pumped hydro and large storage batteries. Building nuclear will just make us rely on international knowledge and technology. That's not independence
Is this post parody or some bot?
In theory if australia built a reactor it wouldn't be finished for a decade and there are small modular reactors in development that would be thouroghly tested in other countries by that time. If it's worth it, just ship one of those in
The first small modular reactor for commercial domestic use will be ready in ten years
Activists (let's be honest, the Greens): "Listen to the scientists!"
Physicists: "We need nuclear pow.."
Activists: "Hush, not you."
No. Physicists aren’t championing nuclear power and the Greens have silenced no one. The ‘silence’ you’re hearing is the complete lack of interest from people other than the LNP and their sycophants.
Internet technofetishists: "Listen to the scientists!"
Physicists (Not on the take from the NEI & NIA): Nuclear may have its place in the long term energy supply, but seems completely wrong for Australia, and frankly its too late with where reactor testing is
Internet technofetishists that read even less than the strawman they complain about: Hush, not you
@declanbennett1085 you should speak to one of us once in a while. I doubt someone who unironically uses the word "technofetishist" has ever stepped foot in a physics faculty. Or any science faculty really.
Getting a Physics degree absolutely confirmed for me that building nuclear power is a boondoggle.
@Maldark404 please, do go on
I don’t think they would allow potatoes to work at nuclear power plants
Energy bills are significant but seem to me to be in the mid range along with petrol and groceries. Housing costs are the number one issue in my mind.
When it has worked out well for Germany getting rid of their nuclear power 🥴
Europe has a common grid like the states of Australia. Germany imports nuclear energy when it needs it, and exports renewable energy when it has an excess.
Sky News will rot your brain.
Better to spend $300+ on nuclear power plants then spending $600+ billion on nuclear submarines!
yeah oath, nuclear power plants for 100+ years or nuclear subs that'll be outdated when they're finished
The Liberals literally said in their plan "...the Liberal Party intends to continue funding coal and gas infrastructure for the foreseeable future"
... and the Labor plan is to continue to fund new and existing gas fired power generation.
@@CRCinAUAnd which party do you think is going to actively reduce taxpayer funds and investment into renewable energy while funding fossil fuel energy projects?
Which party do you think will be more open to criticism and protest against fossil fuel projects? Which party is actively trying to change campaign financing laws to reduce the influence of special interest groups? Finally, which party do you think is going to be more tolerant to the Greens providing the balance of power in the senate and actually try and work with them?
It's extremely simplistic to point at Labor and say "but they're also doing a shit job" without comparing just how shit they are.
@@TaylorBertie Good. Renewable energy like solar and wind is dog-shit. It contains basic issues that will prevent it from ever being adopted at-scale.
Yeah... Because shutting down your main sources of relatively cheap power generation in exchange for inefficient wind and solar which won't be able to support the grid is, amazingly, not a good idea.
@@TaylorBertie Both parties will end up contributing to new fossil fuels - mostly in new gas generation.
The rest of your post is political garbage which is why we'll continue to screw up energy policy in this country.
I do have to debunk what's being said here. Renewables are in absolute sense cheaper. But to support intermittent energy supply from renewables, you need means to smooth out the supply, meaning peaker plants, batteries or other energy storage infrastructure. And you need more complex grid, which isn't a bad thing, but overall, you need to account all these costs. Other than that, you have long term costs. Nuclear is heavy investment, but on long term basis, given how long plants normally run, it's comparable to other energy sources, including renewables.
You either need huge amount of infrastructure to support running renewable grid, or you could use diverse zero carbon solution and get the same effect but for less overall cost and effort. After all, more renewables means you need to absorb, store and transfer more energy all around.
Now, reason why renewables are so attractive, is because for one it's not as scary as nuclear, and upfront cost isn't as much, and you can build it bit by bit.
I'm not at all convinced it's best solution, but it is attractive due to traits I put forth. And by best solution, I just mean inoring nuclear and going all out on renewables. Frankly most democratic governments/politicians will be drawn to renewables, less upfront investment, quick returns, which is crucial for next election.
I'm an engineer if you want to fact check your knowledge on nuclear. I haven't watched yet, normally agree with you, got a feeling I'm not going to here
Also dutton is a dickhead
If it were up to me I'd have one nuclear reactor near every major city, and transition to renewables asap. Nuclear is good for ebbs and flows in renewable. Also wanna get some batteries in
@@dylanwilliams8428
- Renewables supplementing nuclear power isnt unreasonable.
- You're not going to be able to fully transition to renewables like solar and wind. The issues that make them inappropriate for large-scale adoption are endemic to the technology: intermittent, cannot provide base-load power, produce relatively little power for area required .etc
- I'm interested in what batteries you're referring to. For storing energy on the scale required for a city you're going to be dependent on geological features like lakes and mountains to store it as potential kinetic energy.
5:00 - Recent GenCost report found that nuclear is by far the most expensive and renewables are by-far the cheapest.
Yeh that's because they fudged the numbers:
- They only explored the cost of power generated over a 30 year period, which DOES include FULL cost of setting-up a nuclear power plant (expected lifespan of 60-80 years) but DOES NOT include the cost of replacing a solar farm (expected lifespan of 35 years).
- Nuclear has a high upfront cost, but over the long term the power it produces is extremely cost effective, they just didnt bother looking at it over this time period.
Also the characteristics of intermittent energy sources like solar and wind make them a non-starter as they cannot produce base-load power and wouldnt be a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the first place.
Nuclear has its issues, generally pro-nuclear myself but the amount of delays, nimbys and overspending here in the UK is wild rn.
Better to go all-in on Renewables in Australia as 1 - you poor sods are pretty much ground zero for climate change related national tragedies and 2 - unlike here in Europe you don't really have a lack of building room for solar panels or wind turbines, which is a big factor in why we're so fond of nuclear over here.
excellent comment
One problem in Australia is that their environmental movement arose in opposition to HYDROELECTRIC power projects, which disrupted old growth forest habitats.
I am someone who believes give it a go. If france and us can do it we should give it a go.
Secondly labour said we would save $275 on power bills and it hasn't happened.
Thirdly labour told there voters in the city that the previous government didn't invest in renewables(which nobody in regional Australia believes and know that's bullshit)
Fourthly renewable energy investment is ahead because that is where the subsidies are. (If the government said no subsidies there wouldn't be the solar farms and windfarms there are)
My fifth argument is the amount of land that has to be cleared for a solar farm.
The sixth argument i have is the fact that when it was coal/gas generation if my power was out, i could call the company and they would give me a clear timeline.
They could tell me when the power would be back on.
Now i have to call a sparky and hope he can come to fix.
I support what works and currently renewables isn't working.
Because if living conditions go back to how they did when my grandmother was a kid it isn't progressive.
Yet we pay the same price per household as France in electricity bills and they are over 60% Nuclear. So we'd have to go 60% Nuclear just to keep paying the same amount? No, we'd be paying far, far more, the cost to set up Nuclear would appear either on our bills or via extra taxes which we know from recent history most of us paid more tax under the LNP already.
@@trevf3517 maybe they have increased renewable energy in France but last time I checked it was 80%(but I'll take your word for it)because i can't get any information solidly about current rates of nuclear.
I hope in the future they can have renewable energy more efficient and with less land clearing.
As far as i can research if we do set up were Liddell power station is inbetween singleton and muswellbrook it wouldn't be that much.
But in saying that the lawfare would bankrupt the project.
I'm just someone who realises that we still need baseload power. So build one and see what can be done.
New he-le stations or gas i just don't want Australia to be a 3rd world shithole with loadsheading.
Because unless they develop a more efficient renewable program.
Yes i know the government will tax more with the middle and working class.
Because they have done everything to destroy base load power stations, now Labor premiers are begging them to keep them open.
Thanks for the polite reply and know that i agree with your point
The end game of a strong Australian is the goal.
I am not disputing that nuclear energy is a reliable option, to support the grid, but the time frame needed to implement, the risk to the Australian ecosystem and costings, based on rhetoric, provided by the LNP - I call BS!
Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science. Look what they did to the NBN (I hold a Degree in CS, so I know what I am talking about), why would you trust them?
Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea! Ps. Love your work FJ 👍
Start implementing nuclear plants now, utilize low carbon gas plants in the interim (they can be spun-up quick).
If you're concerned about the risk to Australia ecosystem then solar and wind are not viable alternatives as they take-up even more space.
*"Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science."*
- That's an almost verbatim appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.
*"Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea!"*
- You should apply that same reasoning to solar and wind which has demonstrable flaws which not only make it 'a bad idea' but make it a non-starter in terms of meeting Australia's energy needs.
@@TotalWater-d2o You have implemented such a project? You hold the right qualifications to assume that it would? No wonder this country is fucked, with people like you!
@@TotalWater-d2o 'They can be spun-up quick' - really? You quantify 20 years from now as quick? You hold a qualification in Nuclear Physics? You have implemented such a project?
Solar does work as part of a mix of energy technology and get this, it is a lot cheaper and safer! And yes, I have Solar and a battery, which have never failed!
If the Solar and battery installations are subsidized by the Government, it allows more Australians to install them and the flow on effect is that the cost drops for all Australians, not just those who can afford it!
@@TotalWater-d2o "Start implementing nuclear plants now, utilize low carbon gas plants in the interim (they can be spun-up quick).
If you're concerned about the risk to Australia ecosystem then solar and wind are not viable alternatives as they take-up even more space."
yea, completely ignoring that fact that gas power is something we wanna aviod i.e coal, gas, oil? your forgetting that they also harm the environment in different ways then just CO2 emissions
"Plus, how could anyone believe, these guys? This proposal is a complicated nuclear engineering option and the LNP don't know the first thing about Science."
- That's an almost verbatim appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.
if you been on this channel for longer you would know why this guy is telling the truth here.
"Just because it is a different idea, doss not mean it is a good idea!"
- You should apply that same reasoning to solar and wind which has demonstrable flaws which not only make it 'a bad idea' but make it a non-starter in terms of meeting Australia's energy needs.
they may have flaws but i can gaurentee you they are by far the most realistic option, if you actually knew anything about solar and wind development and farmers in australia i can tell you that its an net positive.
whole lot of nothin' being said here.
Perhaps you should go to a wind farm and see where they’re located, how many roads are built to them, their longevity, the destruction to pristine areas where wind farms are built. Windfarms are far worse than nuclear for impact to the environment. I think you need to do some genuine research.
I don't see the problem, everyone knows you just have to press the button that lands on 'moe' if something goes wrong.
So far the only argument has been "oh, but it's expensive!" and sure. Nuclear plants cost a shitload to build, heaps to keep up to scratch and demand a higher class of better paid worker. What all that cost buys us though, is clean and ABUNDANT power. Power that is not impacted by the weather, does not rely on location and begins the process of opening up more electrically demanding advancements. Green power is great and it might cost less. But is it going to produce the same output as those seven plants? Are we just going to write off the space those fields and fields of solar panels and wind turbines need?
Is there any reason besides expense not to roll with nuclear power?
Did you watch the entire video? Did you miss the bit about using it as an excuse to not invest in renewables and continue to prop up our coal generators for another decade?
The issue is that 7 reactors isn't going to produce the amount of power Dutton is claiming unless these are magical nuclear reactors.
I think nuclear power is an important part of humanity's future. That doesn't mean build nuclear power plants where they're not needed. It can't be that hard to understand
We don't need it. It won't be terrible to have, but why have it when we already have something else that works
(edit: I mean this to be an informative discussion, so if I come across as accusatory or confrontational please let me know)
@patrickwastie5 to answer your question directly: because we don't always have something else that works.
By "important part" I mean that reconfiguring coal power plants to run nuclear power or even building new, small plants is a tool in our tool belt. Especially in areas that can't meet all their needs with local renewables and that we don't yet have the grid infrastructure to transmit power to from other areas.
I imagine Australia is not one of these scenarios, so I'm not disagreeing with Jordies😇
@@patrickwastie5 I typed out a reply, but idk where it went. The gist of my answer was that it's a better temporary power source than coal/gas, and in various places world-wide there is a need for a temporary solution while grid infrastructure is upgraded so that areas without plentiful renewable energy can have power transmitted to them. Also mentioned that this probably doesn't apply very well to Australia and as such I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the video at all. Hope I make sense😇
We can keep coal for a few more decades, after all, fusion is only 30 years away.
Australia doesn't need nuclear power.
The little piece of hair or fluff on Jordies' chin really kept me engaged for the whole video. The anticipation of him eventually wiping it off between shots but never giving in... bravo!
ITS EXPENSIVE!!!! Stupid take. Everyone in ontario gets over half their electricity from nuclear power. Your electricity cost literally double what ours does.
I support Nuclear as well and I wish we had it here in Australia for a multitude of reasons, but this is one of those situations where the person delivering the good idea is a massive reason to run the fuck away from it.
Anyone familiar with this channel knows that practically everythying the LNP says is for the benefit of either the Minerals or Business Council lobbyist group. A light breeze can blow away the thin covers their policies have. If we were serious about Nuclear, we'd have done it 25 years ago. If we were going to do it today i'd say we do it like how the european ITER project has gone, in that they've used a $2b steady yearly budget to build a single reactor/facility worth $45b.
A single reactor. Situated a favorable place and built with minimal weight on the budget over a consistent time period. Used as a Test-and-Learn excercise on how to properly build the things as we also start up the immense amounts of associated industries and training the skillsets that is needed to support and run them. Once its online, _then_ you can think about building the other 6 this fucked up LNP fantasy project is proposing, not everything all at once.
Renewables will never stop no matter how much the LNP bitches and moans about it and denies the reality of the situation. The coal plants don't get any younger, their turbines arent failing any less frequently and the noise surrounding their problems only gets louder and louder. Do any of the big energy companies even care about what the LNP wants in this area? As far as I know the ones still running coal plants are doing so begrudgingly and only with huge subsidies as they do everything in their power to eject themselves from it and move to renewables.
I recall the LNP basically begging AGL (?) to keep a failing coal plant open and they all but told the libs to get fucked. None of them are invested in Nuclear because it doesnt exist here, and the prospect of limping along those ancient turbines for the next 2 or 3 decades while waiting on their "investment" in this nuclear fantasyland to happen. That doesn't sound appealing at all when they can instead spend a year on a solar/wind build and start pulling in money after a year or two.
Nuclear is the most expensive upfront cost, its true, but it produces the cheapest energy, also the claim that nuclear will work at 90% capacity all the time is reasonable, since nuclear is taken as BASELINE of total energy usage
problem with renewables is the cost of cleanup and footprint, nobody counts the recycling into any calculation because its too early in the technology
the future is having nuclear and renewables with batteries for nights and coal/gas as backup
having whole grid made by renewables is stupid since you can't control how much energy you will generate
You think the recycling costs are gonna be more than having to store nuclear waste for a thousand years
"the future is having nuclear and renewables with batteries for nights and coal/gas as backup"
Why do you need nuclear in the setup in your mind?
Renewables + batteries with Gas backup is the plan, just unclear why you think Nuclear has to be part of this setup.
@@jason2mateusing gas to make up the difference raises the cost of power. Unless you have a different pricing system compared to the UK. Besides, we really need to ween off gas since it is no where near as clean as what we previously thought and the fugitive emissions have worse impact on the climate than CO2
I work at ANSTO, bruv we don't even have the engineering base to keep that reactor running. The generation that built it are retiring out or moving on and nobody can replace them. nobody goes to uni to study nuclear engineering and waste disposal etc. So regardless of if this get through we have a minimum 5 year wait for someone to get a degree in engineering and then another 10 years before they are ARPANSA certified. so call it a cool 15 years before we can even start the design phase.
Absolute joke hey, I can’t believe Australia/csiro decommissioned our test/ research facility
It might be worth watching the military’s program for qualifying personnel to work on nuke boats.
Without knowing the details, I think you would agree the power generation is more complex on a Virginia than at Lucas Heights.
I suspect that might distort your qualification timeline.
Its a chicken and egg situation because if there's no nuclear industry, then there's no incentive to study nuclear engineering and if there's no experts its difficult to maintain a nuclear industry. At first it will simply be necessary to hire foreign experts.
Not really arguing for or against nuclear but it concerns me that jordies didn't seem to understand or consider renewables availability issue. Yes on paper its the most cost effective per megawatt BUT its full capacity is not available 24/7 like coal or nuclear. Yes renewables are good and should be used as part of the system but you cant rely solely on them, at least not yet. They only produce power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and energy storage methods like batteries or pumped hydro are so expensive that they are only ever used as a small buffer but could never run large portions of the network for any long periods of time. So simply comparing mwh per dollar without considering the actual demand and availability at different times of day is in itself massively deceptive. Yes CSIRO may be a leader in scientific analysis but if all they are told is calculate mwh per dollar then no matter how accurate the math and data is then its effectively garbage cause it doesnt consider the real world time varying power supply/demands.
@@deadline546 wouldn't it be great if they did a whole report focusing on different factors to consider instead of just the cost per mWh? But sadly we only have this one graph from an executive summary. /s
Whats in the 'AUKUS' deal about the waste generated from subs we will never get but still have to deal with the uk's and the us's waste from said subs? Pretty clever.
This is closer to why LNP are pushing nuclear
Yes it's about distracting & disrupting renewables & strengthening need to keep using gas & coal for longer
But there's likely pressure from UK & USA interests that want Australia to increase mining uranium, handle nuclear waste, provide nuclear fuel, sell Australia overpriced reactors & allow USA troops stationed in Northern Australia easier access to nuclear materials
When did the conversation change from: "We need to decarbonise regardless of the cost of the transition (including transmission, infrastructure etc)." to "We know nuclear is the cleanest form of energy... buttttttt its too expensive?!"?
Nobody is immune to propaganda.
Nuclear isn't clean, it requires heavy mining and produces nuclear waste. Cleanest form of energy is wind and solar. You don't have to mind a fuel source for those.
@ guy hasn’t looked into cobalt mining before clearly…
@@PandaKnight52most uneducated response I've heard. Obviously you haven't heard of rare earth minerals required for renewables before hey? Oh and as a side note China pretty much has a monopoly on those, you know what we do have though?... A butt load of uranium and thorium.
@@PandaKnight52 Yikes someone isn't aware of the PERMANENT damage done during lithium mining required for solar.
Anyone who thinks Dutton is going to build reactors has been conned,he has never had any intention to build reactors,time will prove this
Start today and Dutton will be dead of old age by the time it provides energy to the grid. It’s not his future or that of his children. It’s his grandchildren and mine who will experience the consequences of his (in)decision
i was going to defend nuclear but i dont want to be gay
Why has gay come back as an insult now
@@JohnBrown-fy2fg Because its funny, gay
@@JohnBrown-fy2fg it never left
@@oatdilemma6395 just say the quiet part out loud and say fa*
@@oatdilemma6395 just say the quiet part out loud and say f**
Its not gonna matter if Dutton is wrong; the parochial Australian populous will vote for them anyway... short memories.
It's all just to keep the LNPs corruption hidden!
I'm not Australian but it's true that y'all should do nuclear power. Sorry jordies.
too expensive mate. We have aging coal plants that need replacing NOW, replacing them with renewables within the next 5-8 years will mean we have a majority renewables grid anyway.
if your not australian of course you wouldnt care if australian energy costs more
I am aussie, I'd love nuke, I'm one of the sweaty nerds mentioned at the start of the video. But the libs will find a way to fuck it up. Fuck ups are traditionally something you want to keep away from any kind of nuclear.
@@jamzy9But it is already the most expensive in the world. Since we are going Renewables 😂😂😂
th-cam.com/video/PAsgm1DDRh4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=KojJaIz0aeKi71nM
I'm Australian and you're right.
Yeah Nuclear is expensive but it doesnt put significant drain on the grid on a rainy day. Renewables are supplemental power and cannot effectively maintain what is needed for large scale grids. I would absolutely love if renewables worked on a larger scale but for it to work out you would need to maintain thousands of massive batteries and at times get lucky with windy and sunny days. It is great for a personal backups but it cant reliably support large scale current draw.
What a load of bollocks.
The above is absolutely correct. I have worked on a large number of solar farms, wind farms, and snowy hydro projects (I am a geotech engineer). The amount of higher ups that I have spoken to all agree that the grid cannot be sustained by renewables alone, and that the driving factor behind most renewable projects is the ability to buy energy when price is low and sell when it is high; (I mean we live in a capitalist country so making more money is literally the entire purpose of our economy) to pretend it is all for the environment is to have your head in the sand.
This guy gets what FJ does not.
@@peteft123 Think about the environment impact of having large solar, wind and hydro farms. A 1,000-megawatt plant is 75x smaller than a 1,000-megawatt solar photovoltaic plant and 360x smaller than wind farm. So which one is better for the environment
@@iamahand2312 do you even know where they place these solar and wind farms in the first place hint: its starts with "F" and ends in 'R'
Could it be much worse then pushing solar then in the end charging the home owner to give our extra power back to the grid ? 😂
I hadn't heard about this so I decided to search it up and correct me if I'm wrong but its a decision made by the AEMC which is up for state governments to decide. So I didn't know about this because I'm in Queensland and our state government decided not to charge for it. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't seem to affect me.
If you get a battery then the power won't go to the grid.
@PandaKnight52 batteries still aren't viable financially last I checked. They're getting there slowly though
@aoikk9966 I'm in communist Victoria myself
@@RaditzAusgrow up.
4:45 absolute legend mentioned.
I love nuclear, not even for anything to do with the carbon footprint, it's just insanely efficient and far safer with modern technology. Given that Australia has a lot of Uranium reserves and doesn't experience things like Tsunamis, Australia seems primed for Nuclear energy. But given mining is a huge industry, fat chance unfortunately.
We can’t even enrich our own uranium.
Nuclear energy will be built by taxpayers, sold off to private organisations and then they’ll recoup their investment… through higher prices
Renewables are more efficient and safer. Having Uranium reserves means nothing, it still needs to be purchased from a mining company and refined, all we would save is part of the shipping costs.
@@CG-dd9tb renewable are technically less safe due to the deaths in construction since they are often installed in high places
oh also they should nationalise mining but thats a whole other thing
11:00 never trust anyone talking about nuclear that says "nucular".
$0.331Trilion could pay for every home in Australia to have 15kwh Solar system with batteries and still have change. That would give every home free power and still sell power to the grid.
Yeah except your solar panels will only last maximum 20 years. The batteries even less.
Nuclear will last even longer up to 60 - 80 years.
We will be paying for panels and batteries over and over again
@@maffdiva Yep but you have not taken into account the fuel and despoil of the nuclear wast. The $0.331Trilion is only to build not to run. Note I have worked in power generation and project risk for meany years and can comfortably say Dutton plan is never going to proceed in Australia. The tec needs to become much cheaper. Further Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life not 60 - 80 years. Also in today dollars it cost around $4 billion to decommissioning of such facilities typically takes around 15 to 20 years. There is no economic scenario that nuclear works at present. Duttons plain is dead in the water. I hope this helps.
The amount of cobalt and lithium mining required would destroy Australia though, and in the end would be far worse for the environment
Wait but Nuclear Power is actually really good though.
Side note: Tallow fat is unhealthy too, not only because fat is bad for you, but animals concentrate toxins in their body fat like dioxins, PFAS etc.
The switch from tallow to seed oils was just trading one excessive poison for another.
Sure and covid vaccines cause deep vein thrombosis
False tallow animal fat is a healthier option to oils your body isn't built for
Holy shit I hadn't heard RFK's voice before. He sounds like an engine struggling to tick over.
But if Voldemort gets to split the atom how could our pollies sell our coal and fracked gas overseas for 1/3 of what we pay domestically?
I was smart enough to work at a nuclear power plant and if nuclear was economically viable I'd be all for it. In fact if they want to pay me at least $400,000 per year, moving cost and such I'd go back to it for five years. But unfortunately it's just too damn expensive and yes Dutton's figures are bull. Another reason why they may be wanting to bring in a civilian nuclear industry is without it it's very hard to have nuclear within the military, not bombs but ships and subs powered by it.
nuclear is the future peanut
60yrs ago muppet boy.
It might be but I would eat my hat if Dutton was the guy to actually introduce the changes required.
@@sloancroftstop living in the past flop
If Australia cannot maintain something as simple as coal fired power stations how on earth is Australia ever going to manage Nuclear energy?
it can be engineered to be bomb proof if development funding isn't cut, we're spending a bunch on nuclear submarines that'll be Docking in major cities
YeH I'm still pro nuclear and not sure it's fair to say that's a neckband take lol but in Australia there are plenty of places to make hydro wind and more importantly SOLAR if that was implemented properly with efficient solar farms and everything, that's lower risk, cheaper (and anything the liberals party in aus claim they'll do they will not.. it's a scam lol)
So basically I'd like to see this start with renewables when we talking about Australia but I would love it if places like top EU member states could work on a better solution for combination of nuclear and renewables and the tech can get even cheaper, more efficient with waste and have better protocols for dispersing of the waste. All of this tech has moved on so so far from the soviet plants fgs haha. Wasn't chernobyl that (XXXX) type reactor? Absolutely insane to even think about doing that.
And yet, it could work so damn well. Along with the dams.
But places like Germany are starting to dig up coal again thanks to energy shortage from Russia while we get fucked over by the us for oil pipelines (wonder who sabotaged NS2 HMMMMM)
BASICALLY I think this totally depends on the country but. With very careful footing - which the common man in Australia doesn't seem to be blessed with, albeit you lot are legends, I just worry about incompetence
This is also why I'd be apprehensive about a Nuclear plant in the UK because I'm just not sure our infrastructure can keep up
Which do you think is more realistic?
a) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain a few nuclear power plants?
b) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain an area of solar panels 57 times larger than Melbourne city?
ie.
- Australia uses 188.60 TWh of power per year.
- 1 Acre of solar panels produces 351 MWh of electrical energy per year. 351 MWh => 0.000351 TWh
- The area of solar panels required to power all of Australia: 188.60 / 0.000351 => 537321.94 Acres => 2,174.46 Km²
- Melbourne City Size: 37.7 km²
- Number of 'Melbourne Citys worth of solar panels' required 2174.46 / 37.7 => 57
Hi papa politics. Unrelated; I'm gay.
Remember that desiccated grass skeletons you were grossed out by? Yeah? That's related to coal power. ❤ Love you papa politics.
Rumour - Peter Dutton was door knocking optometrists in his electorate trying to find a set of 3 eyed glasses for the 3 eyed fish to enhance his forward vision.
Start of the video is over a minute of a pissed off Australian man yelling at me for doing literally nothing. Love it 😂
Which do you think is more realistic?
a) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain a few nuclear power plants?
b) The government being able to manufacture/install/maintain an area of solar panels 57 times larger than Melbourne city?
ie.
- Australia uses 188.60 TWh of power per year.
- 1 Acre of solar panels produces 351 MWh of electrical energy per year. 351 MWh => 0.000351 TWh
- The area of solar panels required to power all of Australia: 188.60 / 0.000351 => 537321.94 Acres => 2,174.46 Km²
- Melbourne City Size: 37.7 km²
- Number of 'Melbourne Citys worth of solar panels' required 2174.46 / 37.7 => 57
He's suggested the Latrobe valley (mining towns) where I live as a site.
We live on a fault line.
lmao xD
Yes so many earthquakes
Thats your fault (line)
To be fair, modern nuclear plants wouldn't meltdown after an earthquake, but they could break and waste tonnes of money. So maybe not deadly, but still extremely stupid.
If a nuclear bomb explodes, an area of a few dozen square miles is irradiated for a week. If a nuclear bomb explodes on a nuclear power plant, an area of HUNDREDS of square miles is irradiated for like A THOUSAND YEARS. This extreme amplification of the danger of nuclear weapons (or even just large conventional explosives) is a very strong argument against nuclear power, but I rarely see it discussed.
No.
- When a nuclear bomb explodes, it releases intense radiation immediately, but the area affected by radiation does not remain irradiated for just a week. The initial blast releases significant amounts of ionizing radiation, but long-term radiation from a nuclear explosion (like fallout) can last for years or even decades, depending on the yield and other factors.
- If a nuclear power plant were to explode (which is highly unlikely due to multiple safety systems), it would not result in a widespread irradiation of hundreds of square miles for a thousand years. The Chernobyl exclusion zone for instances is a mere 19 miles. A nuclear power plant is not capable of producing the kind of massive, widespread radioactive contamination seen in nuclear bomb explosions.
nuclear red herring, all in service of the coal industry, Howard gurning in delight at wedging his opposition that’s all he cared about as the atmosphere changes, and that was 2006 and we’re still stuck here politically
Nuclear has never proven cheaper and cannot ever be. Not only is the process & supply-chain more expensive, it is **immune to competition** for the simple fact that not any company can obtain permission to build & operate a nuclear power station to compete with the incombent... Nuclear is 100% vendor lock-in and the station cannot be shut down quickly so there are long - long - long legal commitments made on behalf of tax payers. Apart from horrible costs and obvious risks and hazards, Nuclear should not be selected for another likely fact. Nuclear is really being floated to aid Government & Corporate AI programs... Once it is installed, vast data centres will use the energy to run large scale AI farms. Security surrounding both the Nuclear Plant and DC Operator will be extremely high. It will create the basis of a locked down area civilians cannot see what is happening. The likely operators will be Microsoft, Google or Amazon who do not have the best interests of Australians in mind... This will not end well. Stick to improving conventional and renewable energy mix and create more competition.
Agree on the Amazon Google and Microsoft demand for data centres and AI. They are already funding and lobbying for alternative energy sources but specifically nuclear. Google NuScale
Cost. Cost is really an interesting one. It is very easy to say "well it costs less" but does it really?
Nuclear plants can survive 80, sometimes 100 years. That's a long time for a power plant to operate.
"Obvious risks and hazards" are demonstrably false. In terms of safety, Nuclear is on par with solar and better than the entire rest of energy sources - yes, more people have died from . It does not irradiate the environment, like many strive to point out, and modern designs with modern response systems can prevent most accidents from occurring, and any accidents that do occur, are very very unlikely to impact anyone. In terms of pollution, it is *better* than any other power source and that is *including* collection of materials (including Uranium/Plutonium & others), construction, and operation over the lifetime of the plants.
Finally, you're talking about combatting climate change.
If you really want to say "well it pollutes quite a lot less than most other energy sources but it costs more," great, you'll have a little bit more money as the country faces harsher weather, rising sea levels and massive loss of food & water supplies.
@@ViscusTH-cam I think you are answering someone else as I did not discuss any of these points. You seem to be regurgitating a copy & paste argument... LOL. I hope you are not a bot. But as to what you have said, its kind of silly anyway as most gas, or coal plants have a designed lifespan of 50 years and can more readily be upgraded as new technology becomes available. The same with hydro... The cost of a replacement is a fraction of a nuclear plant which are stuck with obsolete tech after just 20 years.
Our rooftop solar has produced 40.3 MWh hours we have consumed 20.1 MWh . What we realy need is more energy storage . 😉
Electricity in this country is expensive because we don't have an east coast domestic gas reservation scheme which means we're having to compete with international markets (unlike WA which hasn't suffered the huge price increases).
If the Libs don't advocate for gas reservation they're not serious about lowering your power bills.
Nope. Renewables plus storage is way cheaper to build and run than gas.
@nordic5490 We need cheap gas to manufacturer renewables.
Not a supporter of the liberals. One thing I haven't seen discussed is that the original report that Labor's energy plan was based on (on the ALP website) indicated that, under Labor's plan, we would achieve total net zero in around 120 years. So far, we have undershot the projection and are currently not expected to meet the 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 outlined in Labor's platform document.
The reality is, we can barely build enough uninsulated paper houses/apartments for us to live in, let alone reconstruct our entire electrical infrastructure, replace every car on the roads, replace existing energy generation whist expanding it to meet growing demand.
Nuclear is certainly not the answer for Australia because we didn't invest in the knowledge to build & manage it. That said, the technology will play a major role in the transition to renewables in the future.
Given we aren't going to invest in it now AND we are not going to meet our energy requirements for the future - it's very possible we will be buying gen 4 reactors from China in a couple of decades as electricity becomes the new oil.
The uptake of renewables is exponential, not linear. We’ll hit our climate goals faster than you realise.
Also, not having invested in nuclear know-how isn’t the reason why it’s not viable. The USA and UK have been investing since the 1940s and they still can’t do it.
We can't build or maintain ANYTHING. You think we're gonna be able to keep a million solar panels in working order? Fuck no. Those are gonna fall apart the second any half decent freak global warming storm rolls over and suddenly we're firing up the coal plants again. Just because we lack the knowledge Right Now does not mean it's impossible to develop. In time time it takes to build those nuclear plants we could easily incentivize people to get educated and have a stable pool of trained workers ready.
We will meet the 82% powered by renewables by 2030 with the current projections of the project slated. Carbon reduction is something different but includes power.
I am sure that the report is out of date of cherry picking to high heaven.
@@PandaKnight52 it was actually on the ALP website. I'm trying to dig it up but I'm failing to find it (credible, I know 😅).
IIRC they were going to be net zero of the emissions we had in 2008. I believe they simplified to a 60% reduction in today's emissions by 2050, as is on the ALP website.
Renewables make up 5% of our energy mix rn. We certainly won't increase the amount of renewable power to 70%+ before 2030 (5 years)
Though emissions do not exactly equate to energy generation and being mindful of energy vs electricity.
If we doubled our renewables that would meet 82% of our electricity, which is 10% of our energy. That's a target that we'd have hit with or without Labor's intervention.
@@CG-dd9tb I too believe adoption of renewable will be exponential and it will increase with better/cheaper technologies.
Looking at the historical data from Wikipedia on Australia's energy mix (which isn't the same as emissions), we can expect to be net zero in 150 years lol.
Initiatives like Labor's do draw investment into renewable technologies and that has to increase the growth, but the amount we need to cover is still unfathomable.
I haven't done the numbers though. Would be interesting to put a dollar figure on exactly how many solar panels and batteries Australia needs to go net zero.
Two important aspects are that Nuclear power works through the night and at still wind. Renewables will require back up for nights. Furthermore, nuclear power takes up almost no space. Wind takes up ~100x as much space for the same amount of power and solar ~20x. The cost of building a reactor is also inflated due to slow construction procedures. Japan does this in 4 years with proper planning and they make reactors at ~$7/MWh.
Posting links is sketch so, source: just trust me bro. Or just look into it
Still not a proper plan though
Petition to add Nuclear Dutton as a playable civ in Civ VII.
Why is it during drought we were able to get legislation that mandated water tanks on new builds but now during a cost of living crisis where power keeps going up we don't mandate solar pannels and battery walls on new builds
Well I guess the main reason is because it wont really be that effective at reducing Australia's carbon footprint.
ie.
- Australia only accounts for a tiny sliver of global carbon emissions to begin with and only 10-15% of Australia's carbon footprint comes from residential homes.
- Solar/wind is an inappropriate technology to supply energy for cities (cant produce baseload power, intermittent, large area required, energy storage on this scale require geological features .etc)
Other reasons include
- Mandating solar panels and batteries would increase the cost of homes.
- Lack of manufacturing capacity for adoption of solar/battery technology at-scale.
- Ecological disasters resulting from large-scale solar/battery manufacturing.
- The fact solar panels and batteries wear-out and need to be replaced.
What should happen instead:
- Gradual consumer-led adoption of solar as the technology improves and becomes more affordable / easier to produce (most likely mediated by technological advances in batteries such as graphene or metal-air batteries).
As a dude that's been watching the Australian energy transition for well over a decade, I'm dismayed by the response by both parties. The public communications are clear that none of them really understand anything beyond the executive summary of the reports they're given. The Labor approach embeds gas generation forever, the Libs approach replaces coal with nuclear. In reality, we'll end up with nuclear eventually... At the very least, remove the ban, and see what the market will offer. Just kicking the can further down the road to our grandkids to fix because we couldn't put party politics aside.
this is one of the most politically driven times in all of history, aint shit getting done in this country for the next 50-100 years at best.
And chances are the only reason we'll kick into gear is because of societal degradation to the point of crisis. Especially in comparison with other countries as they out-work us in the coming century.
We won't end up with nuclear eventually it is a dying industry. Labor approach only relies on gas when everything else isn't happening it's called redundancy. But you can turn off a gas power plant. You can't with a nuclear one.
We don't have a spot to store nuclear waste that we do have, (stuff from the medical nuclear reactor in Sydney), where are we going to put that? Sites that were nuclear reactors that reach end of life still can't be used cause everything is radioactive.
@@PandaKnight52 Do you think that gas will be around forever? It is already a dwindling, finite resource. Once its gone, its gone - and if we're still alive as a species after its contribution to climate change, then there's not much left to fall back on...
cancu explain the drawbacks of the cirso study and why its not obvious to just choose renewables as they are cheaper.
@@stephanmorel8979 Renewables are cheaper as long as you don't have to rely on them completely. It's not the CSIRO study that's wrong imho, but the fact that the terms hand-wave over the fact that gas generation must always be present. It will never be a fossil fuel free grid.
"We don't wamt nuclear energy in Australia"
Lucas Heights: Labor, we exist
Have Ted O'Brien and Scott Morrison been seen in the same room together? Sus.
I'm only at 3:20 and I already disagree with Jordan on 2 "points" seed oils and nuclear. But that's only based on pre conceived assumptions based on what I've seen. While I'm all for nuclear (if done right) duttons version is unplanned and also the least efficient version of nuclear. Seed oils are still less healthy than animal fats. But not to say, both are still bad for ya, just one give you high cholesterol and heart attacks
To touch back on nuclear. They're safer, cleaner and WAYYYYY more efficient
Also a big BUT, nuclear just isn't viable for Australian. It's too late for us, it'd be too expensive for us. In other countries it may be the cheapest and most efficient, but for us. It'd cost more than we'd get back. Because we simply lack the infrastructure
Nah man nuclear power is tight mate