Update: Between recording and releasing Vogtle Unit 4 began operation, about twice as slow and twice as expensive as planned, but at least completed! www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61963 And at 02:29:00 I should have said 2007 (not 2017) was the date that EDF announced people would be cooking their 2017 Christmas turkeys with Hinkley-sourced electricity.
@@waywardgeologist2520 Every western nuclear project carried out over the last 20 years (Hinkley C, Olkiluoto, Sumner, Vogtle, Flamanville) has had major blowouts in budgets and timeframes. These have all been in countries with long experience in nuclear, unlike Australia. A big problem has been the extra safety requirements brought on by 9/11 and Fukishima.
Thank you Rosie. Your presentation educated me a lot. Meeting future challenges is something I think we all need to understand, rather than basing our position on opinion without adequate evidence. I had heard about the Hinkley C plant; but that was years ago. It is interesting, and not a little damning, that it is still not in operation, while the cost overrun keeps increasing. *As a total amateur* I have also thought that the locations for nuclear plants would be more of a problem for Australia than at least some other countries. We have a generally dry country. Certainly all the major centres have to be careful to provide water for their people. But nuclear seems to need a lot of water, that seems to me to place any plants somewhere near the coast. But the coast, especially the east coast, is largely occupied, often with major tourist attractions. That seems to make nuclear the most likely technology to encounter huge opposition from existing occupants of all the desirable sites for these plants. And who would want to live or holiday near a nuclear power station? Another objection is related to those small plants. What is not mentioned by those who are in favour of them is how many would be needed to be useful. Unless I misunderstand something, the relatively low power output would mean at least one per medium town, and probably several for all the major centres, and a LOT for Sydney and Melbourne. This just makes the location issue all the more difficult, yet still means a major electricity grid upgrade. I am really keen to know if I understand these issues correctly. A friend thinks he knows everything about nuclear, and yet he brushes over these issues, as well as almost all the problems you talked to. For instance he has never mentioned the problems with cycling reactors, or how they need to operate with other power generation to match the demand.
@@tassied12 Every eastern project outside Japan (completed in the last 20 years) was completed in an average time of 10 years or less. At this rate, in 10-15 years the East will overtake the West in nuclear technology and gain an advantage, as has already happened with a share of 2/3 to 3/4 of all types of renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids
@@John.0z Study the technologies of nuclear power plant reactors of generations 3+ and 4, especially generation 4. They require less water (especially gas-cooled), 4th generation reactors can regulate power from 80 to 100% up to 50 times a year (every week) or better. The goal is to achieve adjustments of 4th generation reactors 200-300 times a year so that they can be used as reactors in France, but with a reduction in fuel waste and an increase in refueling time from 12 to 24 months, which will increase the load factor. Fast neutron reactors, especially those with lead or lead-bismuth coolants, can process nuclear fuel used in other countries into new nuclear fuel (MOX/REMIX) with a coefficient of no worse than 0.5. Some have a replacement rate above 1, meaning they produce more fuel than they consume. This allows nuclear fuel to be used more than 2 times without the need to extract fresh uranium from mines. Thorium reactors can become renewable if the process for producing uranium 235 from thorium is sufficiently developed. This processes is called nuclear cycle closure. Reactors using recycled or purified fuel are considered the first step, partially closing the nuclear cycle.
The French are not pinching themselves, they are building 6 new and planned 8 more nuclear power plants. It should be noted that they currently have 96 reactors - some of them are undergoing modernization and renovation.
1. France has seen several periods recently where simply reducing the capacitance of their nuclear reactor fleet hasn't been enough to accommodate the flood of renewable energy into the grid and France has actually needed to TURN OFF some reactors... and this is a country with, comparatively, smaller renewables installed and a slower uptake. 2. Unlike wind and solar which incur minimal losses if they either reduce capacitance or supply to the grid at low or zero spot prices, nuclear's cost per MWh rise significantly as capacitance drops because the costs of fuel, staff, operations and maintenance are still incurred pretty much the same whether it is dispatching 90% of its output or 60%. 3. France has already walked back a bunch of their 'New Nuclear' ambition talk in their future energy policy after push-back from both renewables industry and expert analysis who pointed out that while France might push further into nuclear generation there' no stopping CHEAPER renewable energy being exported from neighbouring common market EU nations which French nuclear will have to compete against. 4. France IS extending the life of some reactors... but others which were slated for extension have instead been scheduled for shutdown because of the aforementioned realities that are beginning to set in as well as other situations such as: 5. France was forced to re-nationalise their nuclear energy utility EdF because MOST of the work being done on France's nuclear reactors recently, i.e. 2022, was taking more than half the fleet offline for extensive periods to remove corroded metal. An act that has caused the company to post a -$18.2 billion dollar loss and raise it's EXISTING debt to over $50 billion. Thus the government stepping in to bail it out. 6. France has scrapped its current work on Small Modular Reactors and, ostensibly, will start redesigning from scratch. France is already overdue to deliver the one reactor it is building, Flamanville, by 11 years (it was only meant to take 9 to build, so now it is at 18) and it isn't expected to join the grid until 2026. Other reactors that were meant to have started construction in that intervening time have been postponed. I would say that nuclear isn't in exactly as rosy a position in even all-in-on-nuclear France as you think it is.
@@aliendroneservices6621 What percentage of the maximum output of a generator it is adding to the electrical grid at a particular time. For example, in France, if they ran all their reactors at their maximum it would be more than demand in France for certain times of day - especially during the midday when renewables are adding to the grid - so they deliberately either slow the nuclear reaction (control rods) or they vent steam without running it through a turbine. The reactor then produces as little as 60% of its rated maximum. The trouble is that the costs to operate don't drop very much when producing only 60% capacitance compared to what they would cost to produce energy at 90-95% capacitance. This makes the electricity more expensive per MWh. They have to do it though because otherwise they are expending uranium, running up wear on the turbines that required maintenance for every given number of hours of operation and so on... all while selling more expensive nuclear energy at the same time that very cheap solar and wind energy is entering the grid and meeting demand. This is why by ~2035 when we've got a LOT more renewables in the grid and coal is gone that nuclear would be, as Rosie points out in the video, a poor fit to meet out off-peak demands.
I know this won't change your mind...but... 1. Nuclear is too slow to deploy. This is correct if you do it like the USA and UK - ie. badly. The median time to build a new nuclear plant in the USA is 91 months (about 7.5 years) and the Vogtle 4 plant which finally came online this year has taken years of extra time and it’s a textbook case of how not to build a major infrastructure project. Of the 100 or so nuclear plants in the USA each one is custom built with almost no economies of scale, and the regulatory environment is totally stifling the industry. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In Japan the median time to build a nuclear plant is only 52 months - only 4 months longer than a gas fired plant. China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035 and you can bet they will be on time in in budget because they are mass produced. 2. By 2033 90% of Australia’s power will come from renewables. OK…so where do you get the power when the sun doesn’t shine (like at night) or the wind doesn’t blow? You need as much RELIABLE power generation as you have renewables. Nuclear is a great option. In fact...don't even bother with the solar and wind - you don't need them if you have nuclear. You say “it doesn’t play nicely with wind and solar”. Well what else are you going to use for clean, safe, reliable base load? Coal? Gas? I appreciate your Point 4 that there's no baseload in Australia. But just phase out solar and wind and you'll see the baseload reappear. And you get all that land back! There is an easy solution. Solar panels and wind turbine wear out quickly. As they do so, match their withdrawal with an increase in nuclear. In a couple of decades you’ll have most of your energy coming from clean, safe, reliable nuclear. Modern nuclear plants do have the ability to turn down or up. And some of the latest reactors use molten salt energy storage as a cheaper, less polluting way to store energy vs batteries. Did you know that since Germany closed its nuclear program they estimate that an additional 1,100 deaths occur every year and $12 billion in additional costs are incurred because they turned to coal to fill in the gaps with the resulting drop in air quality? If it comes down to a choice between unreliable renewables and reliable nuclear guess which one is the best option? 3. Nuclear is expensive? Well it is if you just count the LCOE as you have done. And what does the LCOE ignore? It ignores the fact that wind and solar only work between 30-40% of the time compared to nuclear working >90% of the time. It ignores the fact that wind and solar take up so much space they need to be located in remote areas away from population centres. The cost of the transmission lines to reach those people is typically not included in LCOE (in contradiction to what you say here). Also there are no bonus points for nuclear being reliable. So the LCOE for nuclear actually includes a subsidy for unreliable energy sources like wind and solar. The USA has some of the most expensive nuclear in the world because of their suffocating regulatory environment. Even they are predicting a 40% reduction in the LCOE of nuclear by 2030. China and Russia account for 87% of the nuclear reactor construction business. The LCOE for nuclear in those countries is already way lower than the average. 4. I do accept your points that “Australia is different” but surely you still have nighttime, right? And rather than millions of people paying for solar panels on their rooftops why not just generate the power in a few central locations? If you get it right (ie. not like USA and UK and more like China and Russia) you will have cheap, safe, reliable, clean power for ever. So when those old solar panels are being shipped out to landfill just chuck a few more fuel rods on the barbie 😊 I don’t know if Australia is genuinely different. I do know that, by 2030, China will have developed a world leading export business in nuclear plant production. I’m hoping a chunk of that will include thorium plants too. The rest of the world will be waking up to the opportunity we threw away.
@bbasmdc - "In Japan the median time to build a nuclear plant is only 52 months - only 4 months longer than a gas fired plant." Then you should be able to specify the reactor units you are referring to. Why have you left that bit out, @bbasmdc? And then you would need to add-in the pre-implementation time. Per IAEA's PRIS database, Japan has only 2 reactors that are STILL listed as under construction: Reactor Unit _ Construct Start Date _ Commence Full Ops _ Construct to Operate OHMA: _ _ _ _ _07 May 2010 _ _ _ _ _ Under Construction _ 14y, 03 months, 15 days+ SHIMANE-3: _ 24 Oct 2006 _ _ _ _ _ Under Construction _ 17y, 09 months, 29 days+ But these don't include the duration times of their pre-implementation phases. Thus, these reactors are likely to take 2+ decades to get up-and-running from scratch. @bbasmdc - "China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035 and you can bet they will be on time in in budget because they are mass produced." It seems you've made stuff up. Evidence/data indicates something very different to what you claim. Per the IAEA's PRIS data, as at 20 Aug 2024, China has 27 units with a combined capacity of 28,501 MWₑ under construction. Per WNA, 37 reactor units are currently being planned. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2023, per Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022: Reactor Unit _ Expected Construction Time _ Actual Construction Time FUQING-5: _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5.6 years FUQING-6: _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.0 years HONGYANHE-5: _ _ _5.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.2 years HONGYANHE-6: _ _ _5.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.8 years SHIDAO BAY-1-1: _ _ 4.8 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9.1 years SHIDAO BAY-1-2: _ _ 4.8 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 years TIANWAN-1: _ _ _ _ _ 4.6 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.6 years TIANWAN-2: _ _ _ _ _ 4.7 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.7 years Short construction times are the exceptions. Only 2 out of 8 reactors constructed on time in China for reactors started up in the period 2020-2022. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-with 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units. Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. @bbasmdc - "And what does the LCOE ignore?" See Lazard LCOE v17, page 9, suggests the midpoint unsubsidized LCOE for the USA's VOGTLE-3 & -4 units is 𝗨𝗦$𝟭𝟵𝟬/𝗠𝗪𝗵 ≈ 𝗔𝗨$𝟮𝟴𝟭/𝗠𝗪𝗵. See Note 4, which includes: total capacity ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$31.5 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60 - 80 years. @bbasmdc - "...you will have cheap, safe, reliable, clean power for ever." Fantasy! Finite nuclear fuels are only ever going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically & monetarily) to produce in a useable form. Finite high-grade uranium ores are inadequate to sustain long-term a so-called “nuclear renaissance”. Thorium lacks any fissile isotope.
@@GeoffMiell I don't make things up. However your last comment does show a lack of understanding, on the one hand of the abundance of both uranium and thorium. There are literally thousands of years supply of these elements on the planet. And on the other hand "Thorium lacks any fissile isotope"...yeah, great way to blow your credibility. I suggest you do some reading on how the thorium fuel cycle works.
@@bbasmdc - "I don't make things up." Your claim: "China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035..." is a made-up fantasy. @bbasmdc - "However your last comment does show a lack of understanding, on the one hand of the abundance of both uranium and thorium. There are literally thousands of years supply of these elements on the planet." Clearly, you lack basic understanding and are apparently 'energy blind'. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆. Club of Rome member Ugo Bardi published a book in 2014 titled 𝘌𝘟𝘛𝘙𝘈𝘊𝘛𝘌𝘋: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘐𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵. The Club of Rome published a TH-cam video on 10 Jun 2014 as part of their promotions. The Voiceover from the 3¾ minute mark says: "𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮. 𝙀𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙙. 𝙏𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 2005 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2008, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴. 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙪𝙢 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚." th-cam.com/video/u_Y29DqzWkc/w-d-xo.html Nuclear fuels are only going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically and monetarily) to extract and process into a useable form. Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, world uranium ore production hasn't met world demand since about 2015. High-grade uranium ores are only going to get scarcer and more expensive. See the Energy Watch Group's report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand. And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive to produce uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come. See the Nuclear Energy Agency's 2015 report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns.
We are also allies with the USA and all the solar panels come from China. China is currently surrounding Taiwan. Wonder what is going to happen next? They are also banking on the rapid development of batteries to provide baseload with renewables. All made in China.
Australia is the world's leading exporter of coking coal. Coal supplied 62.6 per cent of electricity to the National Electricity Market in Australia in 2022-23. The coal industry employed around 48,000 in 2023. Australia's coal exports have added on average $44 billion a year to national income. Nuclear threatens Australia's coal industry.
There is no intense hatred for nuclear in Australia, the fact is it just doesn’t make sense and isn’t fit for purpose here (as explained in the video). The hatred people have is for the misinformation that is spread by politicians and billionaires that we need it when their sole purpose is to extend the life of the coal mining multinational corporations
@@farlicgarts only BHP is engaged in both coal and uranium mining though, and only at the Olympic Dam mine. How would it even "extend the operation of mining companies", like what you are accusing? Please elaborate.
@@ianhomerpura8937apologies, the coal industry is who benefits the most from the talk of potential nuclear power plants, they know it’ll be (at best) 15 years before one even opens so that guarantees their future for a few more decades. That’s only if one gets built, given the fact that the LNP are the main supporters of it and also the main party receiving donations from coal companies any person with half a brain would understand they both stand to benefit from delays to any power source other than coal
Great summary of the energy situation in Australia. Here in the US nuclear was originally marketed as "too cheap to meter." I agree the cost and timeframe to build new nuclear power plants makes then unlivable in most situations. Having said that I think prematurely shutting down existing plants until renewables are in place is/was a huge mistake.
Maybe the problem was just incompetence in building them? In Europe French nuclears are the only thing keeping electricity at sensible prices, last year when they shut them for maintenance the whole continent felt the price increase, especially places with highest amount of renewables
@@kostas9088 No, US reactors were built with the weapons programme top of mind. They needed reactors that were fairly dirty, and it's why fast breeders (that France uses to reprocess fuel to use those short lived nucleotides for energy) also don't exist in the USA. High prices and long build times for new reactors are largely a result of stupid and fragmented planning and EIS rules (as is the case in much of Europe), not issues with the technology. And they're not nearly as bad as people make out. Sabine Hossenfelder had a great video on that not long ago.
In just the three years leading up to 2019 several states in America needed to shell-out $15 BILLION worth of tax-payer bailouts and grants to nuclear facilities which were at risk of financial insolvency. The companies who owned them - or in some cases acquired them - set about spending millions of dollars directly lobbying politicians to secure these massive windfalls and then the cost of that was passed onto consumers with state fees, levies and tariffs on their bills, making them pay for nuclear regardless. As I've seen it put in other places by other people - and hinted at in Reason 4 of Rosie's video - the incompatibility of base-load, always-on nuclear with frequent over-supply from renewables into the grid means that at the very least Solar and Wind are 'eating Nuclear's lunch' on a regular basis, hollowing out any space for profitable operation during the mid-day, and often nibbling at Nuclear's other meals, especially with increasing amounts of storage carrying over renewable energy into the greatest peak-demand of the early evening.
@@kostas9088even France is having problems with their nuclear fleet. They are all about the same vintage and will need replacing about the same time - and the maintenance has not been as good lately as earlier in their lifetimes. They have also been having problems with the recent very hot Summers in Europe drying up rivers that they need for cooling. And France’s newest reactor at Flamanville is 12 years late and 10 billion Euros over budget.
"there is no such thing as baseload power in australia anymore" - you are getting alot of info from OpenNEM (which is an amazing resource btw), and that clearly shows a relatively constant (with dips in the middle of the day), so how do we not have a baseload? our baseload is coal, and in tasmania it is hydro. there is always coal being burned on our grid. nuclear would fit here. and in parts where renewables do sometimes do 100%, nuclear power plants could do stuff like diverting 100% of their thermal energy into desalination.
@@michaelwhimpey7651 This is a valid point, but if our grid will be 90% renewable before the reactors are implemented (which means we will have periods when solar and wind far exceed demand, as given by her example of the SA grid) why not use renewables to produce hydrogen or pump hydro? Especially given they will be cheaper for the hydrogen companies to purchase. This isn't even mentioning that the baseload can't be switched off, which means it will constantly compete with wind and solar in low-demand periods to sell its energy to hydro and hydrogen. Whilst they effectively compete with themselves (hydro and hydrogen) in high demand periods. It makes practical sense, but economic sense?
@@ThatJay283 If the price goes negative (supply exceeding demand) during most days then I think it's fair to say we don't have a baseload power requirement but I see your point. However it's only going to get worse as more renewables are built and soon renewables will supply 100% of power needs at some time of most days. That's what we need to plan for in the future.
@@montywraith7019 That is a big construction project and yet another unproven technology though. Snowy Hydro 2 is a good idea, but look at the cost blowouts and problems there - and we still don't know when it will be online. It is looking more like a nuclear plant every day;-)
@@montywraith7019 Mainly because of one of the interesting facts that are consistently ignored. Renewables are inconsistent, both on a daily basis and over the seasons. If you need to cover a fixed demand (such as powering a pumped hydro during recharge), then you have to have MANY times the raw GWH required so that you can guarantee enough is available for the recharge. Do the figures, you need MULTIPLE 1 GWH solar farms to be assured of year round 1 GW of power supply to a battery or pumped installation. Plus they HAVE to be geographically dispersed so large bad weather doesn't affect them all. Really, this episode has dropped Rosie's credibility for me a lot. She's just regurgitated the same half-truths as so many others have.
When you agree to have the most harmful radioactive waste buried in your yard, and your neighbors think it a great idea, people might pay attention to you.
the $$ needed to develop and install nuclear is enough to construc CAES , compres air + solar or wind ,the low overall return can be used as hot water and cold for air conditioner,
i agree with alot of the greens party views, but nuclear is not one of them. as i am slowly realizing just how much harm the greens has caused to the decarbonisation of our energy sector (like LITERALLY being the reason nuclear is banned, we only have 1 reactor operating here because of them), i am getting more and more mixed feelings about them. like, if the greens really cared so much about zero emissions (like they do with protecting our amazing native forests), then they wouldn't be so blindly opposed to a clean and safe energy source that is nuclear. even if it was too slow and expensive (which it is not), it still should not be banned.
Also without Nuclear we would need a lot more dams for hydro-power/pumped hydro-storage and/or lots of minerals dug from the ground for costly battery storage, both of which the greens would also consider unacceptable.
The Greens in Scotland supported the construction of the wind turbine power grid. The Government then had to admit they cut down 15 MILLION trees to do so. Following the completion, it was then discovered that the turbines on occasion would freeze, so they installed GAS HEATERS to enable them to operate. All this was HIDDEN from the citizens. The theory was obviously attractive, the reality has done irreparable harm to the Scottish eco system. So much for "saving the planet", "wokery without REAL science is IDIOCY.
Oh! OMG.. How deluded you are.. The so called greens are terrorists. Backing in the removal of Forests. the leveling of state forest mountain tops to place wind and solar.. CHECK FOR YOURSELF ! The amount of area the Queensland Labor Government has already started clearing and how much more there is to go.. Was this really all about CO2?? Because the very thing that removes the CO2 … TREES, SHRUBS, GRASSES, FOREST.. IS BEING REMOVED FOR YOUR SO CALLED FREE ENERGY.. FUNNY HOW THE POWER BILLS ARE RISING? AND THE COST TO THE NATION FOR IDEALS THAT ARE FALLING DOWN AS WE SPEAK.. NO HYDROGEN!! WE HAVE NO MEANS OF HYDRO FROM LARGE RIVERS.. OUR LANDS DO NOT SUIT THAT! THERE IS NO PLANS FOR 24/7 POWER.. LIFE SPAN 15-18 YEARS WITHOUT DAMAGE.. AUSTRALIA DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER SOURCE OF FIRES.. RESENTLY A WIND TURBINE BURNT IN THE BUSH. LUCKILY IT WAS NIGHT AND IT WAS MINUS 12.8 DEGREES CELCIUS. FROSTA ND SNOW ON THE GROUND…. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH TWO BUSH FIRES HERE IN QUEENSLAND .. NO I DID NOT SET THEM. MY BROTHER NEALY LOST THE HOUSE HE WAS BUILDING AT NEAR FINISH STAGE.. WHEN A FIRE STORM RIPPED THROUGH.. TAKING $7000.00 WORTH OF TIMBER. NEEDED OF STAIRS AND BALCONY RAILINGS…. A FIRE STORM IS A FIRE TORNADO RUNNING OF THE OILS AND GASES FROM THE EXPLODEDING TREES.. I HOPE NONE OF YOU SEE SUCH A THING. BIRDS SUCKED INTO IT!
The Greens stopped nuclear in Germany, and now that the Russian gas pipeline to Germany has been destroyed Germany is using coal power from Poland and nuclear energy from France to supply it's needs. Though they have renewables they have no way to deal with the long periods of time when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Another great video by Rosie! One small addition to the European countries overview: Slovakia (not Slovenia, folks often confuse it like Austria and Australia lol), generates nearly 60% from Nuclear and 14% from Hydro, with some pumped hydro storage. Relatively clean mix with nearly zero renewables. Renewable transition is starting here only now, which will be more important as nuclear plants age and are turned off. I hope no more new reactors, not for safety concerns, but exactly for reasons Rosie mentioned - for economics and time aspect!
Great Video. You failed to mention the most egregious issue with atomic power. No one will insure it. Every atomic power plant operates with a waiver of liability from the government. So when it melts down causing a multi billion dollar environmental catastrophe, the taxpayers are on the hook. Private profits - public risk. It really is a bad deal.
Hydro is vastly more likely to cause huge damages. With current tech, Chernobyl style catastrophe is simply impossible, and has been for decades. The damages at Fukushima were caused by the tsunami. The issues with nuclear were a drop of water in comparison. But it makes for impressive headlines, which is all media really cares about, regardless of how much it skews perceptions. All this is completely irrelevant in a system where there's financial free trade, the consequences of which are several orders of magnitude worse when a catastrophe happens there.
@@MadNumForce nuclear construction costs are so high because failure is unacceptable. But economic failure is built in to the central generation because it is constrained by the cost of new grid capacity construction costs. Nuclear is an economic dead end to replacing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. We need x5 to x7 more electricity with no fossil fuels.
I'm all for nuclear but also all for all forms of clean energy. Whatever funds we've got available, we should probably go for what's most effective for us but also clean regardless of wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, etc.
Exactly Rosie's point. It is just that solar, wind and storage happens to be the cheapest and nuclear the dearest for Australia (as well as taking far too long to arrive here). She notes that may not be true for every country - internationally nuclear has its place. Though I reckon with each new price fall in panels and batteries even that place is getting smaller.
but there was little to no research it was just here is stat and my opinion on stat what we dont need baseline power cause right now solar can cover it oh well lest just forget rapid technology developmen then
Brilliance in one video about this issue and calls out the numpty politicians who keep blabbing on about this without actually knowing anything about it. Thank you for this summary, Rosie! It's just what the ignorant masses need to hear.
This video will age poorly when it becomes obvious that Australia is unable to get 82% renewable generation by 2030 relying on very large buildout of VRE. The CSIRO gencost report showing that cost for VRE only increases by a very small margin for higher and higher shares of VRE will also be shown to be farical. NUCLEAR is the answer for anyone who cares about decarbonising power as quickly as possible, even in Australia. The infatuation with VRE is a cancer on our society. (And to be fair, it’s fine to modest levels of penetration, but going all-in and expecting it to deliver the lions share of electricity is woefully ignorant.)
@@matster77 Complete garbage. Did you not get Rosie's point that conventional nuclear can ONLY do "baseline" (ie running at daily minimum demand levels) and in a mostly-but-not-completely renewable grid baseline is negative? Solar generation often exceeds 100% of demand on sunny days. Nuclear plants, like all large steam turbine plants, hate being turned on and off (thermal shock) - and their accountants REALLY hate them being turned off (idle capital). This is exactly why our remaining coal plants are becoming uneconomic, quite apart from CO2 issues.
@@matster77 I think so. The share of renewable energy in the form of solar panels and wind turbines is >50% without other base generation, even thermal power plants using hybrid or renewable fuels - greenwashing Ponies, unicorns and butterflies, other dreams of little girls as an attempt to cover up money laundering.
@@kenoliver8913 The industry hates being shut down. If more than 50% of electrical generation comes from wind and solar, this will shut down the industry. Countries whose industry can operate 2 shifts a day or around the clock will receive an undeniable advantage over other countries, whose operating mode will depend only on the sun and wind
Same. I came away from watching this thinking, "makes sense". Then it occurred to me to compare other factors, such as how much mining will be required to replace the broken solar panels during the lifetime of a hypothetical uranium power plant.
Rosie’s arguments against are threadbare. Nuclear remains safest and most affordable way to deliver decarbonised and reliable power, so long as you commit to picking one design and building lots of them.
Honestly, as an Australian, I'm for Nuclear, but this was a very informative video and well put together. I've always had an open mind to things, so even if Nuclear isn't a viable option for Australia specifically, I am hoping it becomes a bigger consideration in the coming future for other countries.
One thing you should talk about in your next video is the point many people make that solar panels and wind turbines will need to be replaced. How often will this happen, and what are they prone to damage in hail storms? Will batteries be required and how often will they need replacing? What of the environmental impact of the minerals that make up this technology? If they do need replacing, will this have a different environmental impact? Cheers
@@ADHD55 but strip mining for coal is fine? Maybe compare the areas needed to be mined for coal vs anything else, you might be surprised how small lithium mines actually are in comparison. Also, coal mining is rinse and repeat. Lithium mining actually goes into making something vs coal which is just burnt.
@@steve_787 lithium mining is extremely toxic and water intensive, all green energy critical minerals produce toxic run offs thats hazardous and very difficult to remove, also all these green materials will be massivly imported from china further polluuting the climate and the world, we do not need giga tons of solar panels and wind turbines in land fill , just to import more from china, we need clean energy and clean nuclear
@@ADHD55 You are comparing mountains to molehils. Many more resources are consumed supplying consumables (uranium, coal, gas) than in building generation such as wind and solar which consume nothing in generating power each day. Coal ash makes up nearly 20% of Australia's entire waste stream. Solar panels and wind turbines will not necessarily go to landfill at end of life. Vestas can already recycle about 90% of turbine components. Solar Recovery Corporation is recycling solar panels in Australia.
@@tassied12 I'm sorry but statistics of usage and recycling of solar panels in Europe shows that average lifetime before triple the internal resistance of solar panels is 10-12 years, then it'll must be heated to restore the contacts resistance. Wind generators have at least 4 average repair cycles in every 15 years. At least half of them needs one time to replace moving parts, including blades
The largest battery maker in the world (CATL) has dropped its battery prices by over 25% just in the last 12 months and says it expects them to be another 50% lower by the end of 2025. The price fall has been so sharp that planners around the world (including Australia) are now figuring they will need less pumped storage and overbuild than they'd calculated just a couple of years ago. This points to a real problem with the transition to renewables - the relative costs of the components of the grid are changing so fast that any plans track a moving target. The consequent uncertainty hurts investment. Nuclear doesn't have that problem - already expensive, it is just getting steadily more expensive relative to everything else. Not long ago I would have agreed with Rosie that nuclear made zero sense for Australia (and increasingly so) but is going to be needed for some countries. I now think batteries are getting so cheap that they will seriously endanger even this niche. It is not the greenies killing nuclear worldwide but the beancounters.
@@BarbarraBaycompared to all fossil fuel alternatives? Yes, vastly “cleaner”. The data is extremely clear. See Dr Saul Griffiths two books, he presents the data very clearly. Personally I’d say a mix of closed-loop pumped hydro and batteries is best mix alongside solar and wind. Could batteries use less extracts resources? Absolutely, the good news is that’s exactly what is happening with the technology development. Not because it is greener, but because it is cheaper. Checkout the latest CATL announcements on their battery technology. It’s cheaper, greener and higher density. Do we need innovations in recycling of batteries? Yes, this is also happening and not as hard as most people think. You can’t beat the learning curve of renewables, particularly solar and batteries. It’s insanely fast with the scale it is being done at. Nuclear has a role in the energy mix, but not a leading one in most nations. And not at all in Australia.
Lithium is not the answer. All lithium batteries components are limited in the world. This boom can stop suddenly and prices can get up as they are dropped.
Pumped hydro as back up is thirty to fifty times more cost effective than big batteries. If we go all renewables Australia will need ten to fifteen pumped hydro storages on the scale of Snowy Hydro 2 (a project that despite cost overruns is still highly cost effective). Ten such pumped hydro plants would cost around $150-200bn. To do the job using big batteries like Hornsdale, the Victoria Big Battery or the Collie battery, around one thousand such installations are required. At around $1bn each, they would cost around $1tr. You could buy about fifty large nuclear power plants for this amount of money.
I live in the UK. Have you any thoughts on how long it will be before sufficient storage could be practical so that the UK could run on wind and solar? What approach do you think is most likely to work well enough? I understand well enough that battery power can do a lot to stabilise the grid against short term variations, but that doesn't seem close to the energy density needed to deal with seasonal variations.
Wind and solar are not reliable. They may be 'cheap' because there is virtually no market for electricity that only works when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
@@Withnail1969Coal is hugely subsidised by being allowed to use our air as a sewer for free. But even without that renewables are now cheaper - 10 times than cheaper a decade ago and 100 times cheaper than 40 years ago. Catch up with the times grandpa.
Hey Rosie, devil's advocate here. Couldn't it also be argued that long duration storage is a critical enabler for renewable energy ?. AEMO's 2024 draft ISP optimal deployment path indicates that 77% (44 GW) of total storage capacity in 2050 will be provided by consumer energy resources. As best I can tell, these costs are not included in the $200B NPV cost for the grid transition - hopefully I'm wrong. I agree with your conclusion, however managing the level of storage capacity on the grid to maintain it's stability and availability looks to be a significant challenge which should be costed appropriately, so that technology selection is done on an equivalent basis. I've no doubt many within the power industry will see nuclear as a far easier option from an operational perspective.
> I've no doubt many within the power industry will see nuclear as a far easier option from an operational perspective.< Of greater concern in the electric generating biz is achieving the lowest cost for the next hour. They have talented people who can work near miracles and it would be nice to make their jobs easier but it is cost that drives their operational decisions.
You didn't mention that Dutton wants to extend the life of the coal plants until modular nuclear reactors can be installed. This means adding many extra years of coal burning until a technology that doesn't exist yet gets invented. It looks to me like Dutton doesn't actually care about nuclear, and just wants more coal burnt instead of installing renewables.
Every manager listens to his consultants. Germany shows that it's need to triple energy prices without any nuclear or coal to achieve fast wind and solar generation. Do you want the same way? No industry, just agriculture and services?
@@MihailG5541 Seems you don't know anything about Australia. Our economy is almost entirely based on agriculture, mining and services already. We have very little industry.
@@SocialDownclimber In other comments they wrote that they want to see Australia as a developed country where they can independently smelt steel, aluminum and products from them. How is this possible without a stable schedule for generating electricity on at least an 8-hour cycle?
@@MihailG5541 You don't seem to understand that Australia has lost a large percdntage of it's industry because it can't compete with with some other countries on labour costs. Energy generation is the least thing Australia needs to worry about if it was to try resurrecting a larger industry base. It's a pointless exercise if your products are too expensive.
@@dukeofvoid6483 wouldn't it be more energy efficient in the grand scheme of things to produce the vehicles in Norway itself and run them on Norwegian oil?
Hi Rosie, I enjoy your objective and enthusiastic input to your posts. I have worked in the power industry for over 50 years 15 of which were in the UK nuclear sector. I have just retired, from an experimental biomass installation of 299 Mw, and, up to recently would have agreed that the nuclear age was short and has now passed. However I urge you to research a company called Copenhagen Atomics, who are developing a new Thorium Molten Salt reactor which is small, portable and a by product is Ammonia which is a relatively safe and convenient way to transport Hydrogen which could be used to power aircraft, heavy plant and machinery. I have much more to write, but not sure if this platform can accommodate long exchanges
That may turn out to be a good product, but it's still very much in development. They could be decades away from becoming commercially viable, if they do at all.
@ the CSIRO GenCost Report is the supposed reputable one but it only analyses generation costs of various options (and does the nuclear estimate badly). It doesn’t look at the cost to bring the output to the consumer. The proper analysis needs to be a whole of system life-cycle cost and then we will have some accurate facts on which to base decisions.
Politics is not about choosing the smartest solution, it's about getting the voters and financial support. Mr Dutton is very well aware that his plan is stupid but as long as it gets him voters (for example people that do not like solar panels and windmills because of esthetic reasons) and support by the nuclear industry, he is fine with it. I think a better way to prevent nuclear in Australia might be to make solar and wind energy systems more beautiful or put them in places where people don't see them.
@peterarmstrong8613 that would be a waste of time - Mr Dutton has been deriding CSIRO and AEMO, as has his shadow energy minister Ted O'Brien. I think Dutton's energy policy is positioned to support a political narrative about Australia's security. Dutton is an enthusiastic supporter of a nuclear submarine fleet and increased defence capability. The pitch for a nuclear powered electricity grid is that 'renewables are risky' - setting up an argument for the 2025 federal election that the LNP offer a secure future enabled by nuclear power , reducing dependency on China which supplies 80+% of renewable energy infrastructure. The reality is that voters have little understanding of the costs involved, and are more easily swayed by emotive arguments than facts.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 This is greenwashing. Ponies, unicorns and butterflies, other dreams of little girls as an attempt to cover up money laundering. > "to make solar and wind energy systems more beautiful or put them in places where people don't see them."
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 solar roof tiles will inevitably be beautiful and cheap. They haven't gotten very far yet, but lots of pv roof tile companies are popping up now, most importantly in China. It's just a matter of a decade or so that we have tiles that are so good that they'll take over from conventional roofs. Eventually siding will also be pv, and some windows. PV technology will change dramatically by 2050.
Have to disagree with some of your points. 1. South Korea and Japan both have a history of building plants in 5 years. Why not learn from your neighbours. 2. Nuclear provides grid inertia which renewables and even batteries struggle to replicate. The Australian grid gets that from its coal fleet running in grid support even when the charts show '100%' solar. 3. The amount of energy storage required for a fully renewable system is staggering and Australia is nowhere near ready for it nor on course to be. The added cost of changing the grid to accommodate distributed generation, plus storage massively shift the LCOE. Looking at the worst cases of construction management and projecting on those costs are the same cheap tricks as from the anti renewable crowd. The data shows that managing a grid on solely renewables is incredibly expensive once you lose the stability provided by large plants. Our technology is currently insufficient to completely mimic the effects on a national scale.
@@BigBlueMan118 I'm not sure how to read your comment, are you saying that it's fine, you just have to put up with grid instability and the cost of massive storage or you're saying those problems only appear at 90%? In any event, you're wrong. Grid stability and management becomes a problem even at low levels with fossil plants running on idle as background support and stabilising. A major grid overhaul is required in Australia in any event, but we don't have the technology to be purely wind and solar without massive amounts of hydro and storage, with black start being notoriously problematic.
@@LudvigIndestrucable My point was to nip the framing you are going for in the bud entirely: you are deliberately trying to frame the discussion around a 100% renewable grid, which is far more difficult and expensive than a 96%-99% renewable grid complimented by other sources. Basically all grids across the globe are dependant on peaker plants (fossil fuels) to step in during spikes in demand or events where several sources are simultaneously offline. To the extent they aren't, they are dominated by massive hydro. So why expect wind & solar grids to function at 100% without fossil peaker plants if it hasn't been achieved by any existing systems either except for a few grids dominated by massive hydro? Short-term storage sources using utility and residential are growing massively anyway and are proving fairly economic plus will continue improving a lot over the next few years as we approach high levels of renewables. Additional transmission infrastructure can be considered an investment in decentralisation too.
@@BigBlueMan118 ah, then it's quite simple, you're just wrong. We do not have the storage technology to manage a 96% renewables grid (unless hydro) without larger plants (non-peaker) running for grid stability and smoothing. The reason for advocating the nuclear as base load, isn't because renewables can't generate enough it's because we currently need large spinning masses of steel to manage grids and it's easier to switch renewables off and on, supported with a manageable bit (but still huge) of storage. Even peaker plants don't provide the grid stability of large GW scale steam turbines.
@@BigBlueMan118 in case you're tempted to still insist on >90% renewables, to store 1 day's worth of electricity, assuming average demand of 30GW would be 720GWh, that alone should disabuse you of the notion, then include that such technology isn't capable of managing a grid. It's not just a question of power and storage, it's an incredibly complicated interplay of different components and rapid changes. Renewables and storage do not supply energy in the most conducive way to support a grid, something you and Rosie either don't know or are willfully choosing to ignore. We can't keep running our turbines on fossil fuels, but the only alternative contenders are nuclear and geothermal.
One other point missed in these debates is the half assed way this transition has been managed has caused Australian energy prices to rise putting many businesses out of work. What is the flow on effect in 2 generations time with rising unemployment?
Contrary to my fellow Swiss Greens, I'm not against nuclear as a concept in Switzerland but Australia is so vast and with so much potential for renewals that I agree with you. The unpredictability of nuclear stations construction time and upfront cost is pretty scary alongside the "slight" issue of nuclear waste. I'm personally against traditional reactors in Switzerland but I would like to see modular thorium reactors explored and properly analysed for use here. My fellow greens are entirely against nuclear in Swiss territory but then forget that we buy a lot of energy from France (nuclear) and Germany (fossil). A bit of "not in my backyard" syndrome.
While I totally buy that it doesn't make sense in Australia, it's remarkable to me, just how destructive to the environment legacy Green organizations have been, between NIMBYism from the Sierra Club in California, to successful anti-Nuclear campaigns in Germany and Australia, "Green" organisations are some of the largest causes of GHG emissions in the world... They are usually conservative before anything, and focus on aesthetically "green" (I mean, the extreme is the argument that the suburbs are green because they have lots of grass, but really every legacy green person I've heard of cites "I want there to be nature I can drive to left in the world" as a motivation), policies rather than actual environmental harms.
The Sierra Club in the US pushes back against any new hydrocarbon electric generation. As a result, outdated coal plants are kept running when the alternative is new combined-cycle natural gas generation. CCNG is not great either, but it is dispatchable and can be shut off and restarted on short notice. The nuke industry promotes "firm" power but the generating companies need dispatchable power.
These are compelling justifications indeed. Though, at least a hat tip is due to emerging technologies that are in no way restricted to this new vogue for small modular reactors.
These still require the mentioned laws & regulations, are likely even more expensive since one loses the economies of scale, and they still solve a non existent problem. 🤷
@@mael1515 we gain another economy of scale, i.e. faster mass production. If a doubling of installed base lowers cost with 15%, and an SMR is 1/4 the size, then there are two more doublings there compared to large plants. Also smaller cores are easier to passively cool, leading to simplified designs.
@@jesan733 i don't understand your logic and math and physics disagree. Lower volume means relatively more outside materials. Simpler design, yes, but much lower efficiency during electricity production.
@@mael1515 if it was up to physics, nuclear would be dirt cheap. From a first principles perspective, a nuclear plant is like a coal plant with halved fuel cost and no emissions. But we both know that's not the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that regulation has piled on excessive labor hours to nuclear due to overblown safety concerns and an unfortunate but ubiquitous western governance philosophy. Thus the challenge for nuclear construction and operation is NOT to reduce materials weight or optimize efficiency, but to convince regulatory agencies to accept lower regulatory burdens and to blaze a trail through the regulation that it's left with so that less hours need to be spent. E.g. NuScale has done this in a clever way, and the NRC has accepted e.g. an emergency planning zone that extends only to the plant boundary and not 10 miles out, and it has accepted that it is passively safe so that backup power doesn't need to be nuclear-certified. And it has modularized in such a way that critical reactor components can be factory produced and shipped to site. It both reduces regulatory burdens and makes it easy to handle much of the regulation that remains by centralizing crucial production.
Bill Rookyard . Here are all the figures, it's a long read but has every cost, including Transmission. Bowen states that nuclear is too expensive, so let's look at some real numbers to see just how wrong he is :- It's quite long, and involves some maths, but if you read it through to the end, I expect you might more clearly see the true cost comparison of wind and solar versus nuclear for similar duration. The Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE is adjacent to where the latest COP28 was held, so let's compare the cost of that facility with the wind, solar and storage option for Australia. The Barakah nuclear power station took 10 years from start to full commissioning, it has 4 reactors each of 1.4GWe and each costing AUD10 billion. So.. 5.6GWe and AUD40 billion cost. It uses sea water cooling, so there's little demand on fresh water supplies. In fact, the waste heat can be utilised to desalinate seawater and, given our various governments' aversion to building dams, that's a distinct advantage. Each reactor has a capacity factor of 93%, so the plant can deliver 45,622GWh per year. The largest wind farm in Australia with a published actual capacity factor is the Coopers Gap Wind Farm in Queensland, with a plated capacity of 450 MW and a cost of $850 million. It has a capacity factor of 25% so can produce 990GWh per year. By comparison you would require 48 of those wind farms to have an equal yearly output to the Barakah power station. 48 x $850m = $40.8 billion The largest solar farm in Australia is the Western Downs farm in Qld, at 400MW, $600 million cost and a capacity factor of 24%, so can produce 876GWh per year. By comparison you would require 52 of those solar farms to have an equal yearly output to just one Barakah power station. 52 x $600m = $31.2 billion. At first glance it looks like wind is comparable and solar is cheaper, but that's just an illusion. The nuclear plant will be in operation for at least 60 years so the establishment cost is fixed at $40B plus a bit for refuelling and general maintenance - allow another $16B over that 60 years - total cost is $56B. The wind and solar farms will have been replaced twice in that time, so that's $122.4B and $93.6B respectively for similar duration. - excluding inflation, disposal, etc. Of course the above costs account for only 5.6GW of a grid that typically draws around 5 times that at evening peak, so all nuclear becomes $280B, All wind is $612B, all solar is $458B - 50% wind and solar would still be $535B or 92% dearer than the nuclear option, and that's just the cost of the generators. As all of these farms are necessarily spread out across the country, the huge added cost of transmission infrastructure - none of which would be required for nuclear, must also be included in costings - currently estimated at $100B, but guaranteed to go much ‐ much higher - (the CSIRO conveniently omitted this and storage in their most recent Gencost report - they've recently admitted this omission). Add that $100B to the RE above and you're now at $635B. But wait, there's more... Those wind and solar farms will not produce consistently like the nuclear plant, so let's consider storage of at least the same capacity of just one single nuclear plant... The Mooroobool battery in Victoria has an instantaneous power of 300MW, cost $300M and has a capacity of 450MWh, so it can provide 300MW for just 1.5 hours till dead flat. So you're going to need 19 of those batteries to have an equivalent instantaneous capacity as one nuclear plant, but you will need 150 of them to provide the same output for a 12 hour night of a low wind event. 150 X $300m = $45 billion - that's more than the establishment cost of one nuclear power station. The entire East coast NEM area recently suffered a wind drought for almost a fortnight during which wind generation was as low as 96MW, or just 1.2% of plated capacity - when that occurs, storage alone will be available to keep the lights on at night. Typical NEM evening 3 hour peak demand is around 27GW tapering off to 20GW overnight the sun has gone down so there's no solar, and wind is almost non-existent. So.. you now need to supply the entire East coast NEM area from storage alone. Just 1 hour of that peak demand will require an instantaneous 27GW :- that's 90 of those big batteries, but they can only do that for 1.5 hours till dead flat, so you need 180 of them to cover the 3 hour peak. You still have 9 hours of night to go at - let's be generous and say an average of just 17GW.. 17GW X 9hrs = 153GWh. Remember that the first 180 batteries are all depleted, so now you need another :- 153GWh ÷ 450MWh = 340 batteries. Total batteries is now 520 @ $300 million = $156 billion. Now you have to add that $156B to the RE costs above, and you're at $156B + $635B = $791B. That's not the end of our costs though:- Grid battery life expectancy is 8 to 10 years, so they will be replaced 5 times in the 60 year life of the nuclear plant :- $156B x 5 = $780B plus inflation. Add that to the $791B and it's now a whopping $1.571 Trillion That's about 6 times dearer than the nuclear option, and almost exactly the cost projection that Net Zero Australia put forward in its report. What about community batteries? East coast NEM night time instantaneous demand is normally around 20GW with a 3 hour peak around 6pm of 27GW. A typical large community battery has 500KWh storage - so 13hrs minimum at - let's be generous again and go with that 17GW average = 221,000,000 KWh of energy requirement. 221,000,000 ÷ 500 = 442,000 community batteries at a cost of around $1 million each, or $442 billion total - all of which will require recharging the following day and replacing in 10 years. Think you can do it with EV battery back up via V2G technology? If you were to drain say 30KWh from each EV connected to the grid, that 221,000,000KWh overnight load would require 7.4 million EVs, all of which would require recharging next day. How many EV owners are going to be willing to sacrifice their battery life by depleting them so heavily for that fortnight? What about hydro? - the biggest hydro storage in Australia is the Snowy scheme - if all of its 9 power stations have all of their 33 turbines running flat out, they can generate only 4GW. Add the 2.6GW maximum from Tasmania, Wivenhoe's 0.5GW and the 2GW of Snowy 2 pumped Hydro - if it ever gets built at a cost estimate so far of $12B and counting, and you're still way short of the typical NEM instantaneous evening peak of 27GW that's required to avoid blackouts or, as AEMO prefer to call them... Load shedding. Drought conditions frequently restrict how much generating capacity our hydro can manage. Is pumped hydro going to save us? They're just another form of even more expensive battery, you always get less energy out than you put in and, just like those batteries, it has to be recharged by the renewables that are struggling to even supply the grid. Granted.... The generation and storage would be a combination of all of those things mentioned plus a few others, but the total costs will change very little (batteries are the cheapest and most efficient option), and will still be orders of magnitude higher than would be the case for nuclear, and would take up vast swathes of land - A 1GW nuclear power station occupies just 3.5sq km. For similar annual generation capacity, a wind farm will occupy 800sq km, and a solar farm will occupy 200sq km. Add the purchase or lease of that land to the costs. At some stage Bowen will be dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation, it's just a matter of how much pain he will put us through before then.
What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? Where are the long-term gas supplies coming from? Australia's east coast gas market (including Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas & SA) has 2P developed gas reserves-to-production (R/P) of only 9.4 years plus 2P undeveloped gas R/P of 8.6 years. 18 years remaining at best of gas supplies at year-2023 production rate. See the AEMO's 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘖𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 - 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 2024: 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢’𝘴 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 document shows in Figure 26 (on page 47). If one cannot find any economically extractable gas, then one cannot produce it. And even if some were found, how does that sit amongst the overall scheme of things as far as global gas reserves and production rates exist? For perspective, per the Energy Institute's 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘌𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 2024, on page 37, in year-2023, Natural gas Production: #1 USA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1,035.3 Gm³ _ _ _ 25.5% global share in 2023 #2 Russian Federation: _ _586.4 Gm³ _ _ _ 14.4% #3 Iran: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _251.7 Gm³ _ _ _ _6.2% #4 China: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 234.3 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 5.8% #5 Canada: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 190.3 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 4.7% #6 Qatar: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 181.0 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 4.5% #7 Australia: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 151.7 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 3.7% #8 Norway: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 116.6 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.9% #9 Saudi Arabia: _ _ _ _ _ _ 114.1 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.8% 10 Algeria: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _101.5 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.5% TOTAL WORLD: _ _ _ _ _ _4,059.2 Gm³ As a gas producer, Australia is a minnow compared with USA & Russia. US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren earlier this year. On when the US shale gas decline is likely, Art Berman said: "𝘐’𝘮 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘹 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦." th-cam.com/video/rv85LTMO8TQ/w-d-xo.html Global fossil methane gas supplies are only going to get scarcer and more expensive. Many coal-fired plants in Australia are approaching their use-by dates. Extending their lives means worsening reliability and rising energy costs. Building new coal-fired plants that will only last until nuclear arrives (20+ years) is a ludicrous economic proposition. And then there's the worsening climate. The Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards a climate incompatible for human civilisation before the end of this century. Burning more fossil fuels means making that situation happen sooner. A vote for the Coalition is a vote for blackouts, rising energy costs, and ultimately civilisation collapse. Why would anyone vote for politicians and policies facilitating their own & their family's future suffering?
I'm rabid pro-nuclear. I would like a SMNR under my bed. I can't see anything with which to disagree with about this video. Thank you Rosie for a new perspective. In the 20 years that it will take to build new_nuclear in oz how many of the solar panels and wind turbines will need to be replaced? What will be the cost of replacing those solar panels and [hard to recycle wind turbines]?
Most solar panels will still be working in 20 years. They're usually guaranteed to have something like 80% of their original power after 20 years. And they're mostly glass and aluminium, which are easy to recycle. Similarly wind turbines last about 20 years, and it's just the blades that are hard to recycle. The steel tower and copper/iron generator are easy, and the majority of the mass.
@@michaelmccluskey2044 When you say "It's definitely not true that solar panels are easy to recycle" what do you mean. I trust you are not proposing it can't be done. Solar panels are being recycled already on a commercial scale. I have read about solar panel recycling forecast to become a 50 billion dollar global industry by 2050.
using the current rate of renewable install to project out 10 years and claim 90% of australias power will be renewable doesnt make sense. There are already times that the grid cant handle much more soloar + wind during the day and the issue of power at night wont be getting solved any time soon. Batteries are still FAR too expensive to provide power for the entire grid overnight. The only batteries currently installed act as buffers to smooth out small surges in demand, not to provide prolonged periods of large scale power. This will not change quick enough to meet 90% renewables in 10 years. Much of the demand not being met by coal will be met with new / ramped up gas power.
What I gather from this is that if Australia had already built nuclear, like 20 years ago, then they might not have had to build as much wind and solar now to meet their baseload, and could perhaps have invested more in storage to meet variable load instead. But that's not what happened and there's no point in doing it anymore, since there is no more unmet baseload. Even if that had happened, ultimately wind and solar would've been phased in to replace nuclear, as they're a cheaper way per kWh to meet baseload.
we didn't though. we build 6 in nsw in total and shut them down because of fear. then they got banned. also that just false. the more investment a technology receives the cheaper its cost becomes. we really didn't invent in nuclear we just looked at it then people got scared and ran. the cost o nuclear will come down as the technology develops. like it did with solar and wind.
Spot on. As it happens thirty years ago I was arguing for just this with my greeny friends - but I know nuclear's time has now well and truly passed, at least in Australia.
"no more unmet baseload"??? Did you know that recently at one point the sum total of all wind power in Australia equalled what two diesel generators could produce? The baseload-unmet claim is rubbish. joannenova.com.au/2024/06/20-billion-in-wind-power-across-australia-can-only-guarantee-as-much-power-as-two-diesel-generators/
Thanks for this Rosie, which I will now share. Unfortunately it's become increasingly popular to politicise major infrastructure decisions in Australia - the ensuing ideological battle then generates sub-optimal outcomes. It happened with the NBN and we're on track to see the same thing happen with the transition to net zero.
Unfortunately that's not just a problem in Australia. We here in Canada, and our southern neighbors the USA both have the same problem. I'm not sure how this plays out in Europe, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is the same story there. Asia? Who knows?
Rosie, Quote from the introduction:- "But what if this ban were lifted? Should we then embrace nuclear for our energy future? The answer, quite simply, is no. It's a dumb idea for Australia. And I'm not just throwing around words here; there are solid reasons behind this bold claim. Four, to be precise: it's too slow, it doesn't play nicely with wind and solar, it's too expensive and it solves problems that we don't have in Australia. " What is wrong is wind and solar, they meet none of the criteria for a stable, reliable and economic source of grid supplied electrcity, that is both practical, and technical. How is nuclear slow? slow to do what specifically? Also sensible costings done in the U.K. using company accounts show that wind and solar are as costly as nuclear and far less useful and reliable. Apart from construction and operational cost of renewables they are short lived, output deteriorates steadily as they age and become uneconomic to operate after 20 to 25 years depending on location. It is necessary to run a duplicate source of generation to make up for intermittency and the lack of inertai, reactive power and short circuit currnet levels. also they can't do a black start on a failed grid made more likely by too much renewable capacity being grid connected. Nuclear is not Australia's only option for power, you have abundant coal reserves and mines to dig it up. Specifically dump renewables, they are dead end and cannot support any country, they are a metaphorical millstone around the countries neck. And no it is impossible to run 100% renewables intermittency kills that dead beside all the lack of technical requirements. Exactly what engineering have you studied???
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Geoff, that is the problem, the government state that they want to shut down what could be reliable and economic source of electricity and substitue unrealiable expensive wind and solar. Owners of coal plant sthat are still running will pare operational expenditure to the bone and only do minimal maintence, which impacts reliability. Nuclear is the only non CO2 emitting genertation type that works and is available but time to build them is a problem. A lot of time is spent fighting lawfare from thegreens, adding a lot of time and cost to such projects. For Australia new coal plants would be far quicker and cheaper, but agin the greens won't allow them. Esentially between a rock and a hard place.
@@iareid8255 - "...they want to shut down what could be reliable and economic source of electricity..." Coal-fired power in Australia is becoming increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run. Most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology. The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures. Very few coal-fired generator units around the world are still operational beyond 50 years. The more renewables there are in the electricity grid system the less economically viable coal-fired plants become. AEMO's expected closures of coal-fired generator units in NEM (assumed use-by date range 40-50 years after commissioning): Site Name (state) _ _ Capacity (MW) _ Use-by Date Range _ _Expected closure year Eraring (NSW): _ _ _ _ _ 4x 720 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2022 - 2034 _ _ _ _ _ 2027 (possibly 2029) Callide B (QLD): _ _ _ _ 2x 350 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2028 - 2038 _ _ _ _ _ 2028 Yallourn W (VIC): _ 2x 360 + 2x 380 _ _ _ 2013 - 2034 _ _ _ _ _ 2028 Vales Point B (NSW): _2x 660 _ _ _ _ _ _ _2018 - 2028 _ _ _ _ _ 2033 Bayswater (NSW): _ _ _4x 660 _ _ _ _ _ _ _2025 - 2036 _ _ _ _ _ 2033 Gladstone (QLD): _ _ _ _6x 280 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2016 - 2026 _ _ _ _ _ 2035 Loy Yang A (VIC): _ 3x 560 + 1x 530 _ _ _ 2024 - 2038 _ _ _ _ _ 2035 Tarong (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ _4x 350 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2024 - 2036 _ _ _ _ _ 2037 Mt Piper (NSW): _ _ _ _ _2x 730 _ _ _ _ _ _2032 - 2043 _ _ _ _ _ 2040 Kogan Creek (QLD): _ _ _1x 750 _ _ _ _ _ _2047 - 2057 _ _ _ _ _ 2042 Stanwell (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ _4x 635 _ _ _ _ _ 2033 - 2046 _ _ _ _ _ 2043-46 Loy Yang B (VIC): _ _ _ _ 2x 535 _ _ _ _ _ _2033 - 2046 _ _ _ _ _ 2046 Millmerran (QLD): _ _ _ _ 2x 440 _ _ _ _ _ _2042 - 2052 _ _ _ _ _ 2051 Callide C (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ 2x 460 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2041 - 2051 _ _ _ _ _ Not Disclosed @iareid8255 - "Esentially between a rock and a hard place." I'd suggest our current energy security situation has been decades in the making by a succession of poor energy policies by both the Coalition and Labor governments at state and federal jurisdictions. A vote for the Coalition is a vote for blackouts and civilisation collapse.
Before I say anything else, the conservative party in Australia is a joke, and they don't actually care about nuclear. They're just floating the idea as a way to avoid actually doing anything. You can tell because if they were serious they wouldn't be talking about SMRs at all. The conversation needs to be between the adults, with the slightly more than half of the Labor and Greens that support nuclear (in a nominal sense) talking to the slightly less than half that oppose it. The rest should be ignored, they're not serious. 1. Nuclear power is actually faster to build than wind or solar in terms of years per GWe per site. And that's just based on recent, Western nuclear builds, not, say, Barakah. So if nuclear is slow, everything else is worse. And rather fortunately, the space for nuclear in 10 years will be the existing renewable that needs to be retired. Since renewables have a very short lifespan compared to nuclear, and since there's already so much of it, well... it's no problem to phase nuclear in by just not replacing some renewable capacity when it's retired. And importantly, this is going to be the case for as long as there is a significant renewable sector. So no matter how long nuclear takes, if the economics are right, it'll fit right in. 2. Is a list of problems with wind and solar. That's not an argument against nuclear, it's an argument against wind and solar. And nuclear doesn't need a dispatchable source... because it is a dispatchable source. Nuclear is capable of power ramping at least as well as coal, and generally better. A little dispatchable storage for grid smoothing is helpful, but not required. In any event, showing that duck curve at 5:24 illustrates the firming needs that come with high penetrance. And firming is expensive. The LCOE chart at 5:51 shows data from two reviews that both*, unless I'm mistaken, exclude conventional reactors. SMRs are expensive, and are as far as I can tell a bad option for anyone to push in the current environment. They may come into their own some day, and cool if they do, but until then the focus should be on what we know works. And with conventional reactors, the LCOE is FAR lower than what is displayed there. Additionally, the chart excludes firming costs, which as I mentioned, are very high, but we'll get to that in the next section. *CSIRO definitely excludes them, I'm having trouble finding the BNW LCOE report. But what I saw suggested it was meant to be comparable to CSIRO as a rebuttal, which I understand to mean it also focuses on SMRs. 3. The simple fact is that once you include firming costs, nuclear power is cheaper. Depending on how it's financed, nuclear might be cheaper than the firming costs of renewables alone. And most LCOE reports tell you to be wary of this. For instance, the EIA report that you show at 6:24 includes an explicit warning to not directly compare LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies. I trust you missed that warning as you were reading the report, and didn't ignore it to do the thing the explicitly said not to do. At 6:31 you show CSIRO's LCOE figure, unfortunately CSIRO very badly misrepresents their source for firming costs. For instance at 6:50 you show a page from Lazard's, and scrolling down just a bit from there you'd find their firming estimates of USD70/MWh and USD100/MWh, respectively. 4.1. The duck curve again. That's not a good thing. Covering all of the demand in the middle of the day and none at night drives baseload suppliers out of business while shifting the diurnal load onto peakers... which are more expensive and ultimately results in HIGHER total costs. By not requiring solar power to provide sufficient storage to act as baseload, you are effectively providing them a massive hidden subsidy. With respect to Dunkelflaute, did I hear you say 'across the *whole* Australian grid'? I don't doubt that it's rare to have no winds in Perth and Sydney, but you're not sending power between them. Of course the paper referenced is only looking at the eastern half of the country. And while you have grid connections from Adelaide to Cairns, supplying all of the needs of the north from the south is not exactly efficient. What's more, the paper suggests that some periods of 60 days might be expected to see 30% reductions in production across the entire grid. So a necessary 40% overcapacity to maintain grid stability. Lower than many countries perhaps, but definitely not something you can just ignore. And the answer given: Really expensive plants you almost never use. 4.2. You reference off-shore wind and rooftop solar, which completely defeats the entirety of the economics point! Rooftop solar is far more expensive (not to mention far more dangerous) than commercial scale solar, as is offshore wind. You can either have this point, or point 3. You can't have both. Also... 'some of them have high population density' Yeah, and despite what simple math would tell you... so does Australia. Obviously if you just divide the population of Australia by the surface area you get a very small number, but Australia has urbanization rates of ~85%. Nearly the entire population lives in a very small area. 90% live in 0.22% of the country, or ~1383 people per km². If the urbanized part of Australia was it's own country, it would be the 11th densest in the world. This is important, because those densely populated cities right next to the coast are ideal for nuclear power. All of that said, the most important thing in the video is the end: End the ban! I don't think either one of us would be mad to be wrong and see a faster clean energy transition, regardless of the tech that makes it happen.
@Crispr_CAS9 - "1. Nuclear power is actually faster to build than wind or solar in terms of years per GWe per site. And that's just based on recent, Western nuclear builds, not, say, Barakah." Nope. Data/evidence I see indicates otherwise... See my earlier comments at: th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxzYp07vdqodHE3DKZ4AaABAg See also the "World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2023", particularly the section on NUCLEAR POWER VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPLOYMENT, from pages 411 through 430. Nuclear fission technologies also rely on finite fuel sources. It seems to me there are inadequate quantities of high-grade uranium ores to sustain a so-called “nuclear renaissance” in the longer-term. The Energy Watch Group produced a 2013 report titled "Fossil and nuclear fuels - the supply outlook", which included Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand, showing global uranium production peaking around: * year-2020 from Reasonable Assured Resources (RAR) with extraction costs below $80/kgU; * year-2030 from RAR with extraction costs below $130/kgU; and * year-2040 from RAR + Inferred Resources with extraction costs below $260/kgU. Without an adequate fuel supply to last the operational lives of nuclear plants (50-60 years) then the nuclear plants will become very expensive sculptures. Nuclear power plants can be around for many decades to perhaps over a century; well over a decade or perhaps two to get-up-and-running, then operational for perhaps up to several decades, and then perhaps more decades to fully decommission. I'd suggest one aspect that's probably not being considered for the locations of any new nuclear plants is the increasing threat of accelerating and relentless sea level rise (SLR). See my earlier reply to @nigelkempson8746 at: th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgwhFbImrWdxBiYDhzN4AaABAg.A3FJrOVsa0tA40cVvzqyQR
@@GeoffMiell "Nope. Data/evidence I see indicates otherwise..." The largest Western solar installations are all in the US (Gemini, Copper Mountain, Mount Signal, Solar Star, and Desert Sunlight), with numbers consistent with the largest Australian installations (Western Downs and New England). These had an average build rate of 21.6 years per GWe per site. The largest Western on shore wind installations (MacIntyre Herries, Markbygden, Alta, Fosen Vind, and Western Spirit) had an average build rate of 8.2 years per GWe per site, although most of these are not actually single sites but a collection of independent projects that only share a final transmission point. The most recent Western nuclear installations (Vogtle, Flamanville, Oikiluoto, and Hinkley C) are being built at a rate of 7.8 years per GWe per site. Solar: 21.6 y/GWe/site Wind: 8.2 y/GWe/site Nuke: 7.8 y/GWe/site By the way, you can break that down between single unit and dual unit builds, at 11.3y/GWe/site for single and 4.4y/GWe/site for dual. And it's even better for 3-4 unit builds. Barakah (not Western so not included above) was built at a rate of 2.1 y/GWe/site. So... yeah, based on the data nuclear is faster in years/GWe/site terms. "See my earlier comments at" That link does not take me to a thread with your comments. Not sure why. "See also the "World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2023"" In spite of its name, WNISR is actually an anti-nuclear propaganda outfit. Referencing it would be like me referencing World Nuclear Association. I've read their 2023 report, it spends a lot of time saying 'look how much capacity has been added for everything else!', which... yeah. Nuclear has received very little money over the past several decades, so very little has been added. Lots of money has gone to renewables, so lots have been added. That doesn't really say anything about where money 'should' be going, unless you assume capitalists are honest and politicians are smart. If there are specific numbers you want me to address feel free to be more specific. "Nuclear fission technologies also rely on finite fuel sources." That's true, but there is enough uranium to run the entire planet's electrical demand at the current level for over a million years, and enough thorium for another 4-5 million. I'm as pessimistic as anyone about fusion, but even I think we'll get there in a few thousand. This requires sea water uranium, which is currently around $600/kgU, but this price is primarily constrained by the lack of industrial scale production of the polymers used. "See my earlier reply to @nigelkempson8746 at:" This link also did not work. Fortunately I was able to find it using the username. I see that it is primarily referencing James Hansen. So let me quote him: "The opposition to nuclear power is truly insane"
Thank you for making it so clear on your first point. Lack of expertise is a real killer. I work in the semiconductor research side of Aus and lack of expertise in semiconductor manufacturing is why we find it so hard to scale. Just as we have to import talent to scale semiconductor manufacturing, we will have to pay a very high import premium for nuclear power expertise in both construction and operation.
The UAE had no nuclear expertise and bought reactors from a South Korean consortium. Seems like the perfect real world example. May be spend two minutes comparing the costs, capacity and capacity factors of UAE nuclear verse Snowy Hydro 2.0?
Because nuclear power suits right-wing lobbyists. It allows a small number of rich people to milk huge government investment, and then control the means of production.
Nuclear is not a dumb idea, it is as potential solution to a very serious problem. The problem is that no matter how you look at it, the potential of renewables in the Australian energy economy is constrained by various factors which I wont list here, but suffice to say they involve scaling the last 40% of energy production. This results in a huge gap in providing abundant, clean, affordable safe energy that both ensures maintenance of living standards but also provides for economic growth particularly in industry. By my calculation the gap is about 15-20GW of on line capacity and if made up of renewables, would require around 2,000GWhrs of backup storage. This is fairly conservative, the former Cheif Scientist, Alan Finkel has noted that given the energy intensiveness of the Australian economy this figure could be much, much higher. There are two options on offer for filling the gap. From the Labor Party it is gas. This is the cheap and cheerful option. The power stations are small and not very visible in the environment, out of sight out of mind so to speak. While this is better than coal, it is not that much better, it still creates huge amounts of green house gas. The risk is if Australia is still using huge amounts of gas in 2050 (as is planned), net zero targets wont be met. This could be a huge economic risk to the country if our energy intensive exports get taxed by others. The Coalition option is nuclear to fill the gap. They have not spelled out the exact nature of their program but it seems to be based around a 'Rolls Royce' SMR solution. It appears they will seek to fill the 'gap' using nuclear (30-40% of total) with the rest coming from mainly wind and solar backed by pumped storage and batteries to account for variability thus allowing the nuclear plants to run at constant output. Given the Coalition will certainly come to power over the next decade, the question is not so much whether nuclear will be used, but what is the best option. Having looked at the problem closely I do not believe an SMR only option is suitable for Australia. In my view Australia should join forces with Canada and build three fully standardised Darlington scale Candu 9 plants (3-4GW rated). One each of these would be built in the Illawarra, Latrobe Valley and Geelong regions. These would be supplemented by 1GW SMR based plants (likely 2-3 reactors each) based at Kwinana Strategic Industrial Zone southwest of Perth, the Whyalla-Port Pirie industrial zone of South Australia, and the Gladstone industrial zone of central Queensland. Australia's nuclear reactor preferences should be for systems like Candu that minimise waste and are essentially peaceful, posing minimal risk of proliferation. Waste should be disposed of in a secure Commonwealth controlled site already used for nuclear waste, Maralinga and Montebello Island spring to mind but there are very likely other sites in the Woomera defence precinct that could be used with a very high level of safety and security. Something of this nature would ensure Australia's energy independence and economic security far into the future with a zero emmissions environment.
We need nothing like that level of backup storage. Please check out Dr Rosie's interview with David Osmond who has been tracking Australia's grid demand over the last 2 years and matching it against actual renewable output, extrapolated to 5% overcapacity. With just 24GW/120GWh (5 hours of storage) on top of our existing hydro we can easily get to 98% renewable generation based on existing output profiles.
@@tassied12 did David Osmond answer the questions about base generator and phase oscillations? How can whole electricity network be stable without high power generation? (at least 3-6 GW). I think that it looks like something different from the electricity science, if the system decentralised at all.
1. Base load means base LOAD. It is the load which is always there. Peak load may be 36GW late in the afternoon, but it drops to 18GW at night, and never gets much below that. If you want to provide that power at night from solar, you need storage capable of delivering more than 18 GW for up to 12 hours. 2. It would be silly to try to ramp nuclear up and down to meet demand. You let it run at constant output, and curtail solar or wind when there is too much of it. There is no difference in the emissions whether you curtail solar or curtail nuclear. So turn of the one which is unreliable. 3. We keep installing solar, but we already have the situation where energy companies have to pay people with roof top solar the feed-in tariff even when the wholesale price is negative because of too much solar. It is only a matter of time before they drop the hammer. 4. Building nuclear is slow, but building the transmission network to move renewable energy to where it is needed will also be very slow, and will have a much greater environmental impact. It may never happen. 5. It is an article of faith that we will have fully transitioned to renewables by 2035. The indications are that the transition is slowing down, not accelerating as required to meet the target.
As a recovering nuclear advocate, let me just say that: 1. Grid scale batteries are way more capable than I initially thought. I would look at the scale of pumped hydro dams and think "that could never be stored in batteries", not intuitively comprehending that chemical battery storage is nearly a thousand times denser than gravitational storage with water, and that a cities' energy needs for multiple days can fit into a small warehouse. Keep in mind that it's engineers, not hippies, that are installing these storage systems. They have the forethought to install enough capacity to meet demand during extreme circumstances, and the systems are probably underrated if anything. So yes, battery storage can definitely meet demand at night (also the demand isn't a constant 18 GW, that might be the evening peak but it falls rapidly as people go to bed and turn things off). 2. If demand drops below supply, and you don't have any wind turbines or panels that can be disconnected, you have a problem. If the reactor is cranking out power, that power has to go somewhere, or else equipment will begin to be damaged. If you added enough wind and solar to be able to curtail what you needed to, it would be a majority of the power. Then you have to ask yourself why a nuclear plant is being operated just to pick up the occasional slack of a mostly renewable grid, when battery storage could do the same thing for a lot cheaper and the same or better reliability. 3. The "problem" of too much solar capacity isn't one. If there's too much power on the grid, we either need to divert some of it to storage, or power down a coal plant, and the latter is hard to do intermittently. 4. The cost and time of upgrading power grids to use distributed renewable generation is less of an issue than is immediately obvious. Power transmission systems around the world are in need of upgrades, in some cases decades overdue. Replacing most of the transmission system will happen within the next two decades to ensure reliable power access (and prevent wildfires). The additional cost of upgrading the system while it's being replaced is a small add-on to the total cost. Upgrading to a renewable-capable grid has a lot of benefits, mainly the increased reliability of a distributed system with many generation and storage points. That is to say, the total cost reported is often misleading because the majority of that figure is for critically necessary repairs, and the additional cost of upgrading the system provides more reliability and cheaper electricity access in the long-term. 5. Not sure which indications you're referring to. Most renewable development took a dip during the pandemic, but both wind and solar and globally increasing in their rates of deployment, as are new battery storage systems. I too think 2035 for 100% seems off, but even at the current rate of about 3% growth per year would put Australia near 100% within the next 20 years. The point remains that by the time a new nuclear plant is put online, the grid landscape, and price of electricity to compete with, will be dramatically different and probably not in favor of nuclear. I love nuclear. I love the physics behind it, I love learning about new reactor designs. But the hard sober truth is that, as an energy source, it only makes practical sense in niche cases. It's always the most expensive option up front, it takes a very long time to recoup it's investment, and it takes a very long time to actually bring a reactor online (even at the optimistic end, and most places that want to "get into" nuclear energy don't have the domestic expertise and resources needed to build quickly or economically). The main use case for nuclear is in wealthy countries with limited space and non-energy exporting neighbors. And if those places want to build nuclear, then great! It's an ultra-low carbon energy source that helps the world reach net zero emissions
Who wants solar to provide night time power? LOL oh. I had a thought. If every house was to install a battery that replentished at a low cost during high power production we will not need huge storage facilities. #baseloadnolonger
@jasonrhl There's a lot of good ways to reduce baseload that are pretty affordable. For instance, 70% of household energy use is for heating and cooling, either spaces or water. Heating and cooling capacity is energy that can easily be stored in low-cost phase change materials like ice for cooling or molten sales for heating. There's a lot of things we use that use big gobs of power for super short periods of time, like microwave ovens, that could benefit from low-cost, high current draw batteries like lead acid. The general idea of spreading out large loads into small power draws throughout the day can massively reduce the amount of baseload battery storage we actually need.
@@Spencergolde i would still disagree with this. nuclear is still in an infancy. we have an understanding of how it works but haven't invested any money into it due to fear. infact legislation like the one she provided directly contributes to the high cost of nuclear. its a circular argument. nuclear is to expensive but we wont invest in nuclear to make it cheaper and will go out of our way to ban its development. solar and wind where in the same boat 20-30 years ago where people say it was to expensive now its not extremely expensive but it never had to get around lawmakers who would ban the technology for no reason. in total the arguments she made are completely circular nuclear is to expensive because we wont invest in making it cheaper.
Great video Rosie. As a energy trader in the NEM looking after a large number of wind, solar and battery assets, I can’t help to think of the issues related to increased system security that arise with a decrease in system inertia. A natural byproduct of the displacement of old coal fleets. Perhaps this could be addressed as a point to consider when discussing nuclear in your next video?
Hey did I once talk to you at a conference in Melbourne? Your face looks familiar! I did talk a little bit about inertia in a video I made last year about SA's energy transition. I thought they were on a path to not needing much/any physical inertia? But you'd be on top of that more than me, please correct me if I'm wrong!
I never understood this "it takes too long" mindset? Its literally just the government & companies saying they're procrastinators. If it takes a long time RIGHT NOW will always be the best time to start planning. Renewables aren't reliable enough to guarantee a future, nuclear is!
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. Something to think about: A machine without energy is a sculpture. A worker without energy (food) is a corpse. No energy, no economy. See/hear economist Steve Keen on the origins of energy blindness. th-cam.com/video/lrMWSkzrMYg/w-d-xo.html
Well, that's not surprising considering how much the information is hidden. Google the expected output from a nuc plant? Easy. Try to do the same for solar? Not so easy. a 1GW nuc plant will produce 1 GW 24/7 for 90+% of the year. A 1GW solar farm will NEVER produce 1 GW and will function for maybe 30% of the day? For something like 60% of the year?
@@brettbridger362 - "Try to do the same for solar? Not so easy." I'd suggest you are not trying. See Open Electricity. Brett Bridger - "1GW nuc plant will produce 1 GW 24/7 for 90+% of the year." Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. And plans to build and construct many nuclear power plants don't necessarily translate to producing electricity. On 5 Feb 2024, M.V. Ramana said in his presentation: "𝘚𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘥 2000𝘴, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2005 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘈𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 30 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘢𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩... 𝘈𝘯𝘥 15, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘩, 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘺 2021, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘖𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳 $9 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘺𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘰, 𝘪𝘯, 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘩... 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 $4 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 $35 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘴." th-cam.com/video/K9lYV8r_exc/w-d-xo.html
The UK relied on France's EDF for its new Hinckley point C as the skills to build new power stations are pretty scarce. Plus the price agreed for power from it is way more expensive at £100 a Mwh+inflation than other forms of generation.
Yes, nuclear is expensive compared to other sources if you are being simplistic (ie just looking at LCOE, or strike-price). But nuclear brings the *overall* generation cost down. Unlike Australia, Britain has long dark winters, regular week long DunkelFlaute, expensive land, limited hydro, and no geothermal. A small amount of base load (maybe 20%) dramatically reduces the amount of (expensive) storage needed for a renewable-only solution. None of Rosie's points are killers for Britain.
Here in NZ we were told to cut power usage this morning, or face power cuts. An early morning cold snap while the sun was not shining and the wind was not blowing, meant they had to ramp up coal and gas fired generation and potentially lacked the capacity to keep up.
A nuclear power station would help that wouldnt your NZ government is even more backwards then Australias when it comes to Nuclear .Its the only option to stop climate change its the only option to save us average people from outrageous energy bills . The average Canadian pays less then half as much for energy then Aussies or kiwis why because they have a nuclear power capacity. Uneducated people here the word Nuclear and go all funny when it's actually the safest most efficient way to produce energy.
@@spectrum1324 I'm guessing that's your default response to everything. First it was that Wind and Solar would never be viable. Now that it is viable but is still growing, the goal post has now moved. Because we've never experienced disruption with coal and oil, whether it be power capacity or hitting your pocket leaving you with no option but to pay. I wager the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for those who don't have a short memory and are not shortsighted.
@@gemelwalters2942 when did i say never be viable I know its a viable option but not one to run an entire gird its good as extra power on top of a decent base line. you would have to be crazy everything were talking about is based on replacing an entire industry with renewables like solar and wind. the goal post hasn't move it is not viable to replace the entire system. period. infact the inability to look into the long-term is something you seem to be exhibiting as you aren't thinking of the economic disadvantages brought on by the removal or coal and how that will hit our economy. you aren't looking at the storage and distribution of solar and the cost of storing electricity and aren't looking at how nuclear could develop to be a much better technology than solar if it gets funding. you just see oh big number small cost that's great. not great if that small cost requires increase cost in every other sector of life now is it
I have a few comments but they are all harsher on nuclear than you were. -Nuclear needs huge amounts of water. Because of the relatively low thermal efficiency it needs even more than modern supercritical coal or combined cycle natural gas. Droughts are a significant concern for Australia. Can do dry cooling, but that adds cost and reduces efficiency, and Australia's air temperatures are probably some of the worst to attempt this. Can site the plants on the coast and cool from ocean water, but that leaves them vulnerable to natural disasters and sea level rise. -Places with a lot of existing nuclear are facing costs for needed renovations and safety upgrades because in eg US or France the fleet is quite old. Most originally licensed for 40 years, a lot of the safety upgrades kick in with license extensions to 60 years. Even with an existing reactor these can be uneconomical vs renewables. -I think you are too generous to nuclear for cold climates. Canada has a ton of wind resources, and the wind is generally stronger in winter. Solar is also not as bad as you'd think because low air temperatures increase PV efficiency significantly.
Interesting analysis. One thing I'd add, relevant to points 2 and 4, is that the availability of nuclear baseload can completely offset more flexible sources of renewable baseload or storage, filling them even when extra capacity from other renewables is not available and freeing them to be used purely for peaking and backfill, which can add a ton of capacity availability for those purposes even if it's not nuclear itself that's providing it. Hydro for example is often used for baseload itself, since the water flow is usually continuous and it's very cheap renewable power -- having nuclear as well means your hydro becomes silly to use for baseload, and can be used on-demand instead, with the reservoir serving as a giant battery. That said, I totally understand how it might not be necessary or even make sense in Australia.
Great video, Rosie! What we also need to look at very seriously in Australia is how to build more energy-efficient homes, which account for about a third of energy use. Our ridiculous glorified cardboard tents with gigantic single-glazed windows and doors are an embarrassment. Energy saving is a completely alien concept to many Australians, who love to whinge about 1000-dollar power bills while leaving the lights on in every room and setting their A/C thermostat to 16 degrees just to survive the more frequent heatwaves.
I agree that nuclear has substantial problems, but i think you markedly downplay the cost of new transmission lines and energy storage. Both wind and solar energy is much cheaper to generate that all other sources of power. But retail and business are not concerned about the cost of energy generation. They are interested in the cost and reliability of energy delivery. A lot of businesses must run 24 hrs/ day 365 days per year. That means we need at least one week [ and preferably several weeks ] of energy storage. This is very expensive.
We need much less storage than that. Refer to Dr Rosie's interview with David Osmond who has been matching grid demand against renewable output over the last 2 years
We have to remember the end goal is to stop global warming so it’s probably not a great idea to build machines whose exclusive task is to make heat and to boil water. I’m sure it’s only a very small effect in the grand scheme of things but every little bit counts. this was a great video.
There is one source of energy that is never ever talked about. It is called Negawatts and it means the energy you can obtain through user efficiencies, conservation and lifestyle changes. I would love to see someone do a video on that source of energy!!!
There might be a few valid criticisms here. I would counter with some thoughts. Firstly most of the panels will be made in china to a poor quality. At the very best the solar and wind farms last 20 years, instead of 60 to 80 like nuclear plants. Funny how you don't mention this considering the wind and solar projects still aren't cheap in this country. And they will have to be rebuilt 4 times over to match the longevity of a nuclear plant. Due to the vast dispersion of wind and solar assets maintenance and transmission will also be harder. Solar panels are subject to hail damage. You might also want to study how the wind projects kill many avian and aquatic species of wild life. If we had started 40 years ago and had a nuclear industry. We would have the technical expertise and the projected overruns would be as much of an issue.
Question: does the energy transition forecasting you're using take into account the possibility of moving to electric transportation? A huge increase in energy demand could justify a nuclear baseload.
What do you mean? If all the current transportation fuelled by gasoline is moved to electric, the total yearly energy demand will be way higher... Or maybe you meant if you have an EV in your garage, it can be hooked up to your house to manage your personal load? That wouldn't matter, the totally yearly energy demand for the whole country is still higher
@@hyperplastic In my opinion, with the share of electric cars and plug-in hybrids in the energy system of a large country or continent exceeding 25%, there will be an acute shortage of generation and significant investments and donations will be required from the state and private companies for the development of public electric transport and dedicated lanes for urban electric transport, including joint used taxis or two-wheeled electric vehicles
In the USA, a lot of electricity is used to refine motor fuel. Our Dept of Energy claims that almost 6kWh of electricity is used to refine one US gallon of gasoline. 6kWh of electricity will move a small sedan about 20 miles. One gallon of gasoline will move the same small sedan about 40 miles. About half the electricity for powering the electric fleet will come from Not refining oil. A wee bit will also come from there being fewer gas stations and fewer tanker trucks delivering fuel.
@hyperplastic I belive what he means is that every electric car has a battery that is usually oversized for your average everyday commute. Therefore increasing the amount of electric cars adds a consumer to the grid that is price driven, and able to match its demand to availability, thus reducing the need for firm generation.
Peter Dutton said that he will be getting experts from overseas, which ones are likely to be sought out and which nation/s would benefit the most financially? What is not being addressed adequately is the natural volatility and our natural disasters impact we are living with at this time, and what that would be like if we had nuclear plants and reactors here? Also when we have horrible fire situations or excessive heat, that melts sprinkler systems and releases its own fire weather storms and fire winds situation, like in 2019 burns for six months, what that would mean if we had nuclear here? What I would like to see is the safety factors addressed, along with the nuclear waste factor. Other than that, its a good informative video, thankyou.🎉
nuclear is actually super safe. its just gunna cost more then renewables, like wayyyy more. and on top of that will take super long to implement, like 2040 in the most optimistic of circumstances. Also this is most likley a political stunt by dutton and the LNP to distract australians and muddy the waters so to speak. dutton couldnt organise a ham sandwich, how the hell is he gunna build 7 reactors in any given amount of time? unlikley
It would be interesting to know what your projections are for grid demand with transportation being electrified. Would it change the economic conditions for nuclear? Also with Australia going for nuclear submarines would it help to have nuclear facilities?
If Austrialia tried to charge vehicles at night that will be an issue due to needing to displace solar power from day to night, which is why daytime workplace charging rather then nighttime charging should made the norm. Having nuclear submarines is irrelivent to nuclear power, the nuclear technology and fuel in the subs is being provided by the UK so Australian navy just needs to maintain what they buy.
Electrified transport can solve some of the wind+solar grid problems untill the demand of 12-13%. Used batteries must be used in public transport, railways and in industry, services, utility companies for high-powered storages. But grids development are too expensive. Because of that, electric vehicles must use the same network as al other electric transport. It's twice cheaper.
Could you do a video on why or why not build a west-east HVDC line across Australia which would allow for solar in the west to solve the sunset demand peak in the east?
I'm against destroying the ecology of a large amount of the remnant vegetation on top of the Great Dividing Range for windmills (with supporting roads), power lines and pumped hydro.
@@lynndonharnell422 An issue with ranges is it is a place where birds hangout, particularly particularly birds like wedge tail eagles that gets their uplift there. We can't just plonk down windmills be anywhere. They should only be sited in locations where the risk to wild life is minimal.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855 are you trying to suggest the "waste" is an "Easily solvable problem," but cannot find a singe example of where it has been solved, anywhere on Earth? ....you sound like, perhaps, you are a nuclear advocate, regardless of logic... ie., a nuclear cultist...
@@Naturalook I just think that the storage sites, like Onkola in Finland, are a good enough solution. Those storage sites should be build for all of the spent fuel. But I'm not a nuclear cultist as I think that nuclear energy is not worth the hassle when renewables+transmission+storage provide cheaper, more simple, and safer options. I am a fanboy of nuclear fusion though. But that is more a fascination with the sciene and technology behind it. I actually don't think that fusion will ever be cheaper than wind and solar.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855' fair enough, I am a 'fanboy,' too, by those measures... I always first gotta say... ...but it's way more expensive then simpler alternative... but toward the permanent solutions; I only see spot-locations that have viable long-term sequester, like in the 10.s of thousands of years... When you add the all in, and then think, the number of plants is to be thousands of times increased... It's just numbers, and when those numbers are put into dollars, it's easy, "NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS NO PLACE IN OUR FUTURE!!!"
Really great video!!! Perhaps put your camera light metering mode to wide, or some spot on the wall, now it seemed to adjust the lighting based on where precisely you were in the image.
Pump hydro has been cheaper overseas but this was a failed project, Australia isn't great at these kind of projects relying on international expertise/tools. Imagine how bad a nuclear plant would be.
@@evil17 What do you mean "hype"? What is contraversial about the subject? What do you mean "if it has any bases of reality at all"? What do you know about the topic to be making such comments?
Good video. It is a NO to nuclear power plants IN AUSTRALIA. Not a NO to nuclear everywhere. Fun fact: here in Italy we voted twice against nuclear power generation with referendums. Now that wind farm projects are being proposed, local people protest against them. They're taller than a skyscraper, they need deep foundation to be set in an area, they discourage tourism, they kill birds, etc... It's a NIMBY no. I wonder how we should produce electricity after saying no almost to everything able to do it cleanly.
Would you rather wait 20 years to see that nuclear get built for ~369% of original cost (like Finland's just opened reactor) and all the while being charged not just for its construction but also for the operation of expensive gas-fired or decrepit over-extended coal-burners filling the gap? I mean, the video points out that 0.1% of Australia's land area could meet the needed space for Solar to power our entire demand... and it's not like there's not THOUSANDS of square miles of totally uninhabited lying around, right? Oh, wait. And that's just with the efficiency of today's panels. The panels we are using today are already orders of magnitude more efficient than ones from even 10 years ago. By 2040 we'll actually need quite a bit less surface area of solar panels to create the same supply.
Current warranties on solar panels are 20 years and more. I retired some old panels due to natural disaster and space needed on the roof. They still put out 75% although 50% beyond old warranty. The new panels are very good.
@@logofreetv The intermittent one is better if it still meets our needs, is cheaper and we can get it now instead of 20 years from now. Right now it is growing increasingly common for renewables to match demand during the 11am to 2 pm peak of solar when combined with wind. On more days each year the wholesale market price of electricity, the 'spot price', goes NEGATIVE during certain times of the day. And that's just now, here in 2023-2024. By the time any nuclear arrives the room in the grid for a high-capacitance only generator that can't peak when needed or be shaped when not needed will be almost useless. France is, even now, turning off reactors completely on a more and more frequent basis because of demand being met by renewables and operating a reactor when demand is already met means using uranium, wear on turbines that require interval maintenance, staff to operate and fees to dispatch the energy to the grid... only to have to PAY someone to take it if the spot price goes negative thanks to even more excess supply over and above demand. By the time nuclear could even optimistically arrive in Australia the notion of any 90% capacitance fleet of reactors in our grid would be utterly non-sensical. Nuclear is a solution that exists to a problem that is NOT the one we have. Rosie pointed it out quite bluntly, nuclear is NOT complementary with VRE. So you can 'rather' it all you like but the closer we get to 2040 when these reactors would be meant to arrive the worse and worse the economic, logistic and technical case for their presence would become.
Thanks for that Rosie. I liked the video. A few things I don't think are fair when talking about renewables - for one - they cost shift. Sure renewables are cheap but that is because they don't have any storage. They are like an internet service provider who may or may not be able to show you Netflix when you get home who can do it cheaper than one that guarantees supply. Sure we can hook more renewables up together and do pumped hydro but the costs of better grids and storage should really be put on renewables - you expect those who sell services to be able to do it whenever a customer wants - and storage should be costed into renewable generation. That would bring the cost of renewables way up. As for permits - we are seeing renewables also find it hard to get permits and pumped hydro seems to be as nebulous as nuclear - it just isn't happening fast enough. Also you talk about no baseload - if we do what the Finkel report says, then we need (IIRC) 12 times the generation capacity that we have at the moment to be non carbon emitting. The new green generation system will need the production of green Hydrogen, the powering of electric cars, and the powering of aluminium production. Surely there will be huge amounts of constant requirement for electricity that a baseload power can provide with clever switching on and off of large loads when required (as aluminium production does now) I am not a nuclear zealot (I am a greenie Physics teacher) and I love seeing turbines and solar everywhere, but it is not me we have to get going green. It is those who don't think like me. But I would vote for anyone who can get our emissions down and more importantly show other countries how to do it cheaply. I love the reef and find it hard to watch it die. But I have lived off renewables for 6 years of my life on my boats. I know the pitfalls of small scale renewables and also the simplicity of arguments that has greater renewable generation without some form of storage. Renewables are not as cheap as they are made to be because they don't do the same job as gas or coal or even nuclear.
Rosie calls to abandon all public transport and choose a car for everyone! And a flying car against airplanes! And a boat for everyone against passenger ships! Let's start green washing under the green flags! )) Very emotional, but very strange video.
So, nuclear is not necessary in Australia (despite some models showing that a 50% nuclear and 50% solar/wind mix is the ONLY way to get off using fossil fuels for electricity in Australia)? I guess that means that Australia is going to keep its thermal Coal power stations active, or switch to Gas peaker power stations instead, and overall grid electricity costs are just going to keep going up? That's assuming Australia doesn't want to have occasional grid failures and rolling blackouts. Solar and wind will only be viable as the primary power contributors if ultra cheap, reliable, government funded/mandated grid scale backup systems can be used. (The economics of grid backup are weird and simply don't work for private providers, other than at a small capacity scale with no competition.) Australia simply doesn't have enough mountains or water to use Hydro at sufficient scale for this (although every bit helps); we need other types of backup systems. The video left out one other advantage of nuclear power: a lot less waste, and a lot lower environmental impact. Nuclear power plants tend to last 60 years or more; solar and wind systems only about 20 years. Those solar and wind systems also need to cover a lot more area to provide similar power levels, so there is a lot more of them - and they also need more power transmission lines over much longer distances. All of this needs to be replaced more or less every 20 years, and the old panels/windmill blades go into landfill. New panels and turbines need to be manufactured (usually in China), using very high temperature processes (currently mostly coal-powered), using materials mined somewhere, digging up huge amounts of rock. Yes, there is at least a decent energy return on investment in Australia - but it's not free, and currently still requires a fossil fuel infrastructure to keep replacing and expanding that solar and wind power energy system. It's unclear how cheap or easy that will be if oil starts running out or its use is restricted in more countries. (Uranium mining, processing, and eventual disposal has a lot of warts too, nothing is perfect, but you need a LOT less of it to keep the lights on.)
Nope. By the time the first nuclear power station is built here in Oz, installed renewables will already be 80-90% of all power generation - with no ongoing fuel costs and very little maitenance costs. How will expensive to run, to insure, to fuel, to maintain, to insure, nukes compete then ? Thermal coal will all be turned of within 10yrs due to the shear cost of fuel and maintenance. It might cost >$1B to refurbish a coal plant every 12yrs, and no Ozzie finance institution will lend that money for a dying industry - they have already made that clear. 1in 3 homes here in Oz have rooftop solar fitted, and as installation costs keep dropping, the installation of solar is accelerating. This will be 50% of all home will have roof top solar soon. Storage batteries are plummeting in price, with the worlds bigeest battery manufacturer, CATL, announcing this week that it will release a new hybrid sodium / lithium battery, that has good storage density, works at -20°C, at a new absurdly low price per kwhr. Battery prices will dive over the next 10yrs. Nukes and coal and gas cannot compete.
@@nordic5490 IF grid scale battery prices decline, that's GREAT. It will still take a government initiative to install enough, as it is not currently economically viable to run battery backup systems as a private entity. Likewise, the cheap solar rooftop power is great for home owners. It's just a problem for everyone else. People living in town centers (multi-unit dwellings) are dependent on the grid, and even standalone homes need a grid connection in case their solar system goes down. So, the problem is how to keep the grid power system going. Some of that will be wind power - not solar because utilities can't make any money because there is so much competition. The problem is who will supply power when solar and wind are (rarely) not available (or insufficient). Hopefully those government funded battery systems will be able to cover this - because private entities can't make any money if their asset is simply idle most of the time. That's why grid power is currently becoming much more expensive in Australia, because Coal power plants have to charge higher prices to compensate for their lower capacity factor - which means that the people living in cities (and of course any industrial businesses) have to pay much higher prices to subsidize the home owners' ability to connect to the grid.
@@davidbarry6900 voices like "we'll all have sooar power at the roofs" looks like "we'll abandon all public transport, railways, airplanes, ships! Everyone must have own car and private airplane and a boat!" ))) I'm kidding but it looks so annoying and crazy when "green experts" from the bedroom thoughts that they found an excellent decision ))
@@nordic5490 I'm also curious just how practical it is to charge electric vehicles from rooftop solar, especially given that most people USE their cars during the daytime. This implies that, if we are to move away from ICE vehicles in future, we need a strong electricity grid to power those vehicles, either at the office or at night. Doubling home battery backup systems to do it with home solar seems overly expensive (charge by day, charge the car at night, use the grid for your own power needs?). So, back to grid solar and massive grid storage solutions - or include some nuclear and a lot less battery backup. Australia will likely keep its coal and/or Gas thermal power plants at least until 2050 though, unless there is real commitment to rolling out grid storage faster.
Brilliant points on negatives of nuclear, but i would have liked to have seen the points juxtaposed against the challenges of energy storage for renewables in Australia as well as I believe that this also presents far more challenges than most would expect
Purchasing land and building 28,000 kms of new infrastructure will cost $$$ Trillions, replacing existing coal-fired power stations will cost billions, replacing renewables every 15 years will cost billions. Nuclear power stations are not replaced for 60-80 years. So no.....
None of the reasons you give are inherent in the technology. In the 60's and 70's we were able to build NPP's - many of which still operate today with zero harm - on time and on budget, at a cost equivalent to or less than coal power. All that changed since then is an irrational overblown fear of radiation that has lead us to impose excessive costs and fiscal risks onto nuclear power - and then you use this as a circular argument to say we should not use it. There are a number of nations that have seen through this scam - and are happily investing in new NPP projects - and will soon enough leave Australia choking on the dust of expensive, over complex renewables.
Nope, not true at all. By the time the first nuclear power station is built here in Oz, installed renewables will already be 80-90% of all power generation - with no ongoing fuel costs and very little maitenance costs. How will expensive to run, to insure, to fuel, to maintain, to insure, nukes compete then ?
In fact the rest of the world is not heading to nuclear. From the IAEA reactor database there was just ONE new reactor construction start outside China last year. Global nuclear capacity last year went backwards with capacity lost due to closures exceeding new capacity coming online
@@nordic5490 I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and have worked in heavy industrial automation most of my working life - almost five decades now. To keep the point simple; operating a stable grid with inherently complex, intermittent renewable sources and non-spinning batteries (with massive high powered electronics) comes with a lot more risk and costs than it's proponents imagine. This is already playing out in Germany. I am under no illusions that nuclear power is a serious engineering undertaking requiring proper analysis and design standards - I only wish the same rigor was applied by the renewables crowd to their proposals. If you are sincerely interested in the best path froward on funding and insuring nuclear power - search on "Gordian Knot Jack Devanney". A very experienced engineer who brings a lifetime of deep understanding of building and working in hazardous industry to this problem.
@@nordic5490 > "with very little maintenance costs for decentralised wind and solar generation" ??? WTF??? Are you sure you've been connected to any type of renewables??? Just maintenance of the on-grid inverters and repairing of the panels which have triple internal resistance can triple your maintenance costs. For wind generation it's more complex processes.
@@nordic5490 Renewables have ZERO chance of being 80-90% in Australia. Not even 10% now (the claims of 36-40% are nameplate, not actual consistent output) The cost of transmission lines and power management would be prohibitive.
Great video. Here in Europe there's a massive rise in support for nuclear - often because of some of the reasons you specify towards the second half of the video. However, the cost overruns, the scheduling, the legality, the liability... the sheer length of time it takes to bring them online? Honestly, I don't even think it's worth the effort here in the UK either. Especially not when you consider our somewhat calamitous history with politics, corporations, foreign-owned providers, and safety - none of which are a good mix when it comes to nuclear (or any other large scale industry for that matter, but it's amplified when there's the extra special spicy sauce flying around).
Your European support for nuclear is ultimatly from the same thing, rightwing parties deciving the public as a means to derail renewables without overtly denying climate change.
1 kg of coal runs a washing machine from 6 hours. Available 24/7 1 kg of oil runs a washing machine for 9 hours. Available 24/7 1 kg of renewables runs a washing machine for less than 1 hour. Available only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shinning. Nominally 30% of the time in Australia. 1 kg of Uranium runs a washing machine for 2000 years. Available 24/7. WARNING - The washing machine may not last 2000 years. I wonder which energy source makes sense.
@@CharlesGregory Interesting comment. Last time I saw a solar panel and a wind turbine they didn’t float away in the breeze because they had weight that could be measured.
Now if only we could build that 0 kg nuclear power plant and solve the 100.000 year radiation problem. And my washing machine, dishwasher and all of the other electric stuff runs just fine on my 400 kg of solar panels.
@@SolAce-nw2hf I have solar on my roof and it totally fails before the sun even sets which makes it useless. When the wind stops which is often then it too is totally useless. Nuclear does not care what the weather is doing because it just works 24/7. Read a book on how the radiation problem has been 100% solved and then work out why the toxins in your solar panels are toxic forever and there is no way of recycling it. At least nuclear waste has a half life but renewables toxins are forever.
Thinking of running Australia on wind and sunshine is a really dumb idea' it would be interesting too know where your going to store all the renewable electricity when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow' it would be interesting to know how much has the price of electricity as come down since going with wind and solar.
Storage is the issue. Once you go past a grid with more than 50-60% renewables you have to commit ever larger resources to storage. At 100% renewables Australia would have to invest around $180m in pumped hydro projects. If you sought to do it with chemical big batteries it would be about $1tr. You could mix and match for something in between. Australia's two governing parties have looked at overcoming the storage problem. The Coalition has opted to go nuclear, Labor has chosen to ignore the problem altogether and go gas (hoping no one will notice). Given the Coalition will certainly be back in power in five years, nuclear it is. The only issue is what type? I am not sure I am convinced by their infatuation with a Rolls Royce solution.
@@jimgraham6722 You're forgetting political survivalism. 'Of course the policy we ran on for years was great for getting votes from our base whom we plied relentlessly with it... but actually delivering on it once we're in power is an entirely different kettle of fish. We were perfectly aware of the facts and data that stood at odds with our plan but we deliberately underplayed the downsides and overplayed the benefits to avoid getting hammered in debates over technicalities rather than winning points on ideology. Now that we're in, years later, the actual prospect of going ahead with this scheme is less palatable than ever and could even see us lose the next election if we end up throwing endless money down a hole with year after year of over-runs and blow-outs. But we can't just do a 180 flip-flop... so endless committees, reviews, planning, consultations, poorly run tenders, string vendors along, delay and eventually it'll fall through. With any luck we can blame our opponents obvious refusal to do anything to help us as the reason it didn't work.' Even if Dutton gets in an election or two from now the most Australia will ever see is more Morrison-style 'announce everything, deliver nothing' and 'funding, funding, funding'. If renewables work out even close to what most actual science and engineering based modelling says and a largely stable ~90% renewable grid takes shape by 2032-35 then Dutton will get the benefit of that rollout working while not hanging an Albatross around his neck by changing his mind like he did from 2023 when he publicly spoke against large-scale nuclear.
@@jimgraham6722 Technology & Safety of Heat / Power Storage are improving rapidly , and prices are dropping rapidly as well . Rosie should be able to recommend the Storage system best for Australia . Over 70% of the land in Australia are Desert . Australia should Install the Solar Panels in Desert areas where possible and generate a lot of cheap electricity so as to enable Australia to become competitive in other industries .
As Paul Keating once said "You should always back the horse of self interest". This is exactly what we are seeing in this video. If Rosie was a real engineer she would see that the renewable dream is a scam, the only thing renewable about wind and solar is you have to keep renewing them. By the time 2050 rolls around the windmills being planted today will be being replaced for the second time, the cost keeps rolling on. An inconvenient fact is that there is not enough known copper reserves in the world to complete the goal of 100% renewables anytime. You could say Rosie is right about one thing, and that is we don't need nuclear, because we have plenty of coal still in the ground to last for 100's of years. The global warming catastrophe is way over blown and it still hasn't been proven that humans are the direct cause of climate change. The world is not boiling, go outside and have a look.
@krshil5373 - "The world is not boiling, go outside and have a look." Earth had the two hottest days on record and the weather is acting like it. th-cam.com/video/e5babdQYKV8/w-d-xo.html Meanwhile, leading Australian climate scientist Dr Joëlle Gergis takes a timely look at Australia's perilous future in a warming world, recorded at an event at Gleebooks in Sydney on Tuesday, 4 Jun 2024. "𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵." - Dr Joëlle Gergis Hear the ABC RN podcast titled 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗹 - 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, published 25 Jun 2024, duration 52 minutes. I'd suggest you read: * Quarterly Essay (issue 94), 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘭: 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢'𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, by Dr Joëlle Gergis. th-cam.com/video/qb5WYE5DJas/w-d-xo.html * 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 published a paper by Timothy Lenton 𝘦𝘵. 𝘢𝘭. on 22 May 2023, titled 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴. * The 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 (𝘗𝘕𝘈𝘚) published a paper on 9 Oct 2023 titled 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, by Daniel J. Vecellio, Qinqin Kong, W. Larry Kenney and Matthew Huber * 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘵: 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵, by Jeff Goodell. th-cam.com/video/NMNhGnSLhIQ/w-d-xo.html * 𝘖𝘹𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 journal published on 2 Nov 2023 a paper titled 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, by James E Hansen 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. How many disasters does it take to wake people up? Adapting to climate change won't be possible in some parts of Australia. @krshil5373 - "An inconvenient fact is that there is not enough known copper reserves in the world to complete the goal of 100% renewables anytime." Evidence/data?
@@GeoffMiellAustralia could go net-zero right now, and it would have zero effect on climate. If there were *_not_* a climate crisis, the best course of action would be *_to rapidly increase power-consumption._* If there *_were_* a climate crisis, then the best course of action would be *_to rapidly increase power-consumption._* The best course of action is the same in the two scenarios, and therefore any discussion of possible climate-crises is moot.
@@aliendroneservices6621 - "Australia could go net-zero right now, and it would have zero effect on climate." In 2024, the Climate Change Authority reported that emissions generated from the use of Australia's coal and gas overseas amount to approximately three times those generated domestically, accounting for around 4 per cent of global emissions. What Australia does matters. @aliendroneservices6621 - "If there were not a climate crisis..." It's not if. We're deep in the climate crisis. This is a planetary emergency. th-cam.com/video/JaboF3vAsZs/w-d-xo.html I'd suggest you read: * Quarterly Essay (issue 94), 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘭: 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢'𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, by Dr Joëlle Gergis. th-cam.com/video/qb5WYE5DJas/w-d-xo.html * 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 published a paper by Timothy Lenton 𝘦𝘵. 𝘢𝘭. on 22 May 2023, titled 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴. * The 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 (𝘗𝘕𝘈𝘚) published a paper on 9 Oct 2023 titled 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, by Daniel J. Vecellio, Qinqin Kong, W. Larry Kenney and Matthew Huber * 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘵: 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵, by Jeff Goodell. th-cam.com/video/NMNhGnSLhIQ/w-d-xo.html How many disasters does it take to wake people up? Adapting to climate change won't be possible in some parts of Australia.
However there is a political green type of thing that the party is helping combat the warming and so on. There is no doubt that we are warming, in Australia, and here in NZ. I am 77 and have lived and loved both places, believe me, we are warming up!
With no economic method to store power, renewables only help to decrease the total consumption of fossil fuels, they do not replace coal or other burning power plants. There is no renewable system that can operate without other power plants.
You're not right. Power plants on renewable fuels can generate stable energy as "traditional" generation. Biogas other biofuels (pellets, waste), spirits, ammonia, hydrogen, combined gas (methane + 20-30% of hydrogen) can be used as usual power plants. But it's not so cheap
@@MihailG5541 the biofuels might one day become a useful alternative to fossil fuels, but there has never been a renewable fuel created by a renewable fuel. Every biofuel is planted and harvested with fossil fuels, fertilized with chemicals and converted from plant matter into fuels using grid power (also based on fossils fuels) and transported by fossil fueled vehicles. I can imagine a future nuclear grid with bio-fuels for off grid power and vehicles.
@@jsbrads1 in all countries that i had been I saw that biofuels is the fastest way to energy transition between coal and renewables. Especially in domestic or public heat and cooking. Nuts waste, sunflower waste, gardens cutting and elephant grass are the source for production for pellets. And so on
@@MihailG5541 direct burning of organic matter isn’t a transition (I support it) but it is a regression. It is practical for home heating… maybe. But only poor people in undeveloped countries use it for cooking in real numbers. Gas is just so much more practical. The satellite picture of Haiti and Dominican Republic shows desolate ground where Haitians clear cut all growth for cooking while the flourishing green DR where people use gas.
@@jsbrads1 there's no other way when the gas prices triple for 5 years. Because of that I'll repeat more and more: learn lessons of history, especially about tge Great depression and another crisises.
Hi Rosie. This new uncosted so called policy by Peter Dutton on nuclear power is more than just confusing. They are targeting power stations to be built where coal power stations are. The policy just says build and plug it in. I am pretty sure it is not as easy as that. The lines there can distribute power but can they also receive power for emergencies. Surely those power lines will also have to be seriously upgraded. Are more thoughts correct. If anyone with knowledge of the issue could advise it would help understand . Cheers. PS great information Rosie.
You're right that nuclear power plants need electricity to keep them cool even after they are shut down in emergencies. For emergencies I think it's more likely there would be on-site generators since power lines could be cut by storms, bushfires, or even earthquakes or terrorist actions.
This video was made to try and find reasons why we do not need nuclear. Perhaps looking at the topic more objectively would have been more socially responsible. The viability of renewables was overstated and the values of nuclear severely understated. Very disappointing discussion with insufficient data.
There is very little support for nuclear in the energy sector in Australia. It is viewed as a poor fit for our grid. The Chief Engineer at AEMO told a recent parliamentary enquiry into nuclear that they were looking for more dispatchable generation, and not generation with the output profile of nuclear. The Australian Energy Council is the peak body for Australia's electricity generators. This from their website: "Current nuclear plant is not agile enough to deal with rapid rises and falls in supply and demand; It cannot ‘fast start’ like pumped hydro, gas-fired peaking plants, and batteries."
Great video but please in your next video can you include the cost of decommissioning the plant - and also the cost of waste storage for thousands of years - let alone the environmental impact they have. These factors should be included in all types of energy infrastructure being proposed. Once the clean up/storage costs are included, Nuclear in any form only makes sense to the companies building them as they walk away from the plant/waste when at the end of it’s working life and the tax payer picks up the bill. Great channel!
All countries with fast nuclear reactors can recycle at least 50% of used nuclear fuel to mixed nuclear fuel + 3% of nuclear waste + cleaned materials with very low level of radiation and chemical activity, lower than fresh uranium from the mines. There's at least 30 examples of triple usage of regenerated nuclear fuel.
@@robsengahay5614 What's that? > "Once the clean up/storage costs are included, Nuclear in any form only makes sense to the companies building them as they walk away from the plant/waste when at the end of it’s working life and the tax payer picks up the bill" In my opinion, this is the biggest lie that could be told about nuclear energy
Those points apply to Germany as well even though some people don't want to realize it. Germany is at almost 60% renewable at the moment and growing. New plants would be finished at a time they couldn't be possibly integrated to the grid.
What Germany did wrong was the decommissioning of existing nuclear power plants. When they shut them off their CO2 emissions went high. Fun fact: Germany is considered a green champion, but it emits more CO2 per kWh produced than many other European countries (France is way better), because it relies still on coal.
They don’t apply to Germany, far from it.. Unlike Australia, Germany already had perfectly functioning nuclear power plants, there was absolutely no good reason for closing them down, the decision to phase out nuclear was largely fueled by political reasons, it had nothing to do with economics or safety. It was totally possible to extend the life of those plants if one would have really wanted to. A highly renewable system would be a nightmare for Germany, a system like that would require huge amounts of natural gas to fill in the gaps left by renewables and prevent blackouts from happening. Adding more renewables and firming them up with storage wouldn’t change things very much, it’s possible it could even make things worse. High amounts of variable renewables would mean there would be periods where gas generation would not be needed (possibly most of the year) and other periods (Dunkelflaute) where most, if not all, generation would need to come from gas and imports. Factor in that electricity demand will more than double in the future and you get A LOT of gas plants working at extremely low capacity factors. Public subsidies would also be needed to keep those plants open when gas generation isn’t needed, under this scenario electricity prices would simply skyrocket. A 30-40% of electricity coming from variable renewables is the maximum you should aim for, go beyond that and you’ll run into issues, having to export it when you have too much, curtailing it, or storing it in batteries, are just some of the issues you encounter as you try to incorporate more renewables into the grid. Electricity prices in Germany will continue to rise as more renewables are added, families industries will struggle more and more if you keep going down this path. You guys are still in time to backtrack.
@@gianmarconeri6733 yes you should really look into the data. Most of the things you mention are already proven wrong. First the already existing nuclear plants. If they were so cheap and already paid for, why did no electricity provider want to keep them? They were all quite happy to shut them down. They were built in the 80s with a planned liferime of 30-40 years. It would be possible to maintain them well and run them a few more years, but by law they would have to be upgraded to the current safety requirements. No provider wanted to do that unless receiving heavy subsidies. Electricity prices skyrocketed since the Ukraine war but came down recently to pre war levels and are expected to be low in the future. This is why nuklear would be sold at a loss on the energy market. The german grid doesn‘t stop at its borders and the exchange of electricity within the continent is a benefit for all. Importing and exporting is part of a renewable energy market. Dunkelflaute is not an issue currently in the worat days of the year renewable don‘t make 0% but rather 20% and capacity is increasing. There will be a time were you will have too much output and turn down wind and solar generation but overbuilding is probably cheaper than backup generation. There are also around 10GW biogas generation which are currently running as base load. They could easily be retrofitted with gas and heat storage and a 4 times bigger generator and you would have all the backup power you need for the dunkelflaute. Much cheaper than keeping nuclear running. And also we had still 3 Plants running a little over 4 GW we addded 15GW solar only last year. Yes not the same hours in solar and nuclear but still we added much more TWh in solar and wind each year than those 3 plants could contribute they are simply insignificant, expensive to run and noone wanted to keep funding them with public money. Thats why they could be easily switched off and Rosies points still apply for Germany as well. Just slightly modified numbers concerning area. Here it might be 2-4% but most of that area will be double use like farming below a windfarm or rooftop solar
FALSE. Indeed, the fact you singled out Germany as an example suggests an ideological agenda, because Germany has had an ideologically motivated anti-nuclear movement since Chernobyl in 1986. Germany has instead relied on cheap Russian Natural Gas, but have recently been reluctantly forced to replace this with relatively expensive LNG, both of which are fossil fuels. Germany also continues to use significant amounts of Coal, (including Lignite) which has some of the highest CO2 emissions. The cost of boycotting Nuclear Power has been higher emissions overall, contributing to Climate Change. By contrast, neighboring France avoided both these problems by opting for Nuclear Power in the 1970-80s resulting in much lower CO2 emissions than Germany over the last ~40 years. France's mistake was to partially follow Germany's lead, by not building new reactors to replace the old ones, which they're now regretting...
Thanks, Rosie! Please send this link to our misinformed politicians. Peter's proposal of buying "off the rack" modular reactors is about as valid as proposing to build our own fusion reactor..... neither are in commercial existence and both are "only 10 years away"....
Attempting to rely on 80%+ renewables is equally a dumb idea. No other industrialised country would attempt such folly. Plus the massive infrastructure (transmissions lines, inverters, rectifiers and batteries) to hook up and stabilise remote solar and wind turbine arrays, leads to huge service charges being generated even when these areas are not producing energy. These charges cannot be ameliorated so it is erroneous to say that the more renewables in the system, the cheaper the price for business and consumers when exactly the opposite is really the case.
No you can’t say that. That’s being logical and reasonable. People like Rosie function on emotion and nuclear bad no matter what. Much better to have massive fields of turbines and solar panels breaking all the time.
Exactly, the LCoS does not account for many transmission/storage aspects despite being heavily subsidized. Even if Australia does not invest in reactor development right this moment, every country stands to benefit from developing nuclear engineering because countries that do have this infrastructure can deliver cheap nuclear reactors in short amounts of time. For instance, every Hualong One (AP-1000 variation) in China in recent years have been deployed in 6 years or less for under 4B USD for a 1000 MWe unit, many of which are developed in combined units for cheaper per unit.
@@apacheslim It is cheaper to deploy Solar and to a lesser extent wind, particularly in the developing world like CN/India where the infrastructure is very good and the subsidies are even larger - for instance, Badla Solar Farm has a 2.2GWe nameplate capacity for 2.5B. The problem is nameplate capacity for solar/wind is not the annual generation due to capacity factor, which is at most 30-35% for solar and less for wind. Copper Mountain Solar facility in California is a 1.8B USD/800MWe nameplate capacity farm but it generates less energy than a 200MWe natural gas plant annually. Typical nuclear units can generate 6000GWh per 1GWe nameplate capacity, compared with only about 1500GWh from a 1GWe solar farm and wind is worse; not to mention off-site storage and transmission costs to get it to the people and sell the energy to the people. In the US, Vogtle and V.C. Summer were the first commissioned nuclear plants planned to be built since the 70s, the lack of experience, infrastructure, and overpromises in managing such a project resulted in cost overruns and delays, it isn't an inherent problem with nuclear as seen in Chinese and Korean nuclear industries. In Australia, even though a third of the energy is generated on solar/wind, only a fraction of it can be used because of the aforementioned distribution and storage issues, about 80% still run on fossil fuels. Generating the power is very easy and cheap for renewables, it's more about getting it to the people and selling it.
"nuclear does not play nicely with solar & wind" - yes. nuclear power does not load follow nearly as efficiently as other options (like coal and hydro), which means it won't be able to dip as much (like what OpenNEM shows) as much as coal and hydro do already when renewables are at peak. however, this doesn't really matter, because if we divert that energy somewhere else that is useful, such as desalination or pink hydrogen, the grid nuclear contribution can dip whilst having the reactor itself stay at a flat power level (which is best for efficiency) whilst still doing something useful.
Another point that is rarely considered by the general public for nuclear power generation, is security. If anyone bothers to explore and educate themselves enough, to be able to build a checklist of pros and cons regarding nuclear power plants, one of the topics that is a standard feature in such checklists, is the security requirements of the nuclear power plants. Security has always been an important feature of nuclear power plants, but in recent decades it has greater significance in an era of increased occurences of terrorism events. The general public don't seem to consider this matter. But I am sue it is a topic on the mind of people vocationally involved in the energy sector.
Of course it's an issue, but it's not a significant driver of cost, really. Also, nuclear is a very hard and complex target for terrorists to take on, and it seems the trend is that terrorists go for increasingly softer targets utilizing less operational difficulty.
@@jesan733 Yes that is more than fair and grounded commentary on the securty aspect. But I only raised the point to highlight of how all too often, the general public assess the pros and cons of nuclear energy very narrowly. Which I suppose could be said of many things. I can't remember where I stumbled upon it, but there was a general pros and cons checklist for nuclear energy at an energy sector related Web site, that I read a couple of years ago. It had around twenty or so items listed on the pros and cons sides. Several of which I certainly hadn't considered before. There is a lot of push lately for nuclear energy by some people, who don't really understand the the topic entirely. Cheers
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye maybe, but not sure VRE advocates tend to understand the topic better. In general, I think we wouldn't have this conversation, and nuclear wouldn't have even the little traction it has, if VRE+storage was a fully adequate and economically viable solution with only some scaling left to do. The momentum of VRE is enormous, yet there are clear difficulties to manage the intermittence. Why is the UK building nuclear? Why is China? Cheers.
@@jesan733 I agree on all that. Caveat- just my opinion. Obviously we are dealing with systemic change in the energy sector and RE development and innovation is happening at an ever growing pace. Undoubtedly, energy sector experts fully understood the variability of RE from the get go. They new it would need suitable operating environments as well as complimentary storage in various forms, to result in a fully viable system. Storage is obviously playing catch up to the generation side for now. But then we also have the futuristic proposals around the concept of a global grid with HVDC undersea interconnections to leverage the suitable operating environment aspect. There is already isolated examples of this happening, for example the Morocco-UK X-Links Power Project is underway. The whole energy transition situation is very dynamic and the general public should be careful not to be caught holding outdated assumptions. For now though, if nuclear energy is the best overall option within the energy transition aims, given specific country circumstances, then I am sure the energy sector experts would be recommending so and it will likely proceed.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye I think the global grid solution is quite costly and the Ukraine war sadly must make us question the resilience and geostrategic wisdom of pursuing it. The fates of Nordstream and Balticconnector are quite disconcerting, and I think that one reason that Ukraine isn't given the means to win the war is that Russia would sever every subsea cable and pipeline it can find around Europe before giving up. I would say energy experts are recommending nuclear to a great extent, and there are plenty plans around the world. Problem is politicians in democratic countries often have little incentives to facilitate and push through controversial projects that will benefit the public 10 years from now when the next election is up in 3 years and the one after that in 7 years.
And the white elephant that is always in the room: there is still no storage solution for Nuclear waste (radioactive fuel waste, old reactor parts, etc) in Australia. And in the 21st century, sending our waste off short for other countries to deal with is not an option.
Fast nuclear reactors or 4th generation reactors are the answers to all of your questions. They can process all the mentioned materials and reduce their radioactivity to a level lower than that of fresh uranium from the mine. Moreover, 4th generation reactors can recycle more than half of the used fuel into new hybrid (Mixed MOX/REMIX) fuel and reuse it without mining new uranium
So yeah let's continue extracting tons of tossic material for renewable construction (arsenic, gallium) that you also need to store somewhere (see bautou lake) instead of a much little volume of nuclear waste... Please search an image of the nuclear waste storage in france or switz or idk and look at how 50 years of nuclear production can stay in such a little area
between 30-40% current energy is from renewable sources across Australia and our electricity bill is up 20-30%? hmm 🤔also taken into account that yeah nuclear wont help current generation, but come 30 Years from now when Solar panels have expired required to be replaced. what's that going to cost? Vs 60-80 year life span of a nuclear plant. Solar averaging 26% energy efficiency ( as stated completely dependent on weather and environment) Nuclear 85-95% efficiency 🤔 yes currently we do have high use of renewables. but if we went nuclear. we could decrease the need. infrastructure is already there if you reuse retired coal station for nuclear sites. which would reduce cost . food for thought
the high prices are because we are in a transition period, and having to pay fossil fuel operators to stay operating even when we don't need their power. Add in corporations taking profit for shareholders, and that can explain the higher power prices. Also, Australia's deals with gas exporters means that east coast gas generators pay international rates for our own gas.
The modular nature of wind and solar means that you can swap in new for old without disruption. With their high learning rate, the new will be an improvement on the old. Latest solar modules from Maxeon are guaranteed for 40 years.
@@springlockedmasks3071 Australia has plenty of low quality land suited to use by solar. As well as that the use of solar and wind does not block the land for other uses. Australia's largest solar farm shares its land with 6,000 sheep.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Update: Between recording and releasing Vogtle Unit 4 began operation, about twice as slow and twice as expensive as planned, but at least completed! www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61963
And at 02:29:00 I should have said 2007 (not 2017) was the date that EDF announced people would be cooking their 2017 Christmas turkeys with Hinkley-sourced electricity.
The design wasn’t finished before the construction started, which is part of the reason for construction delays and cost overruns.
@@waywardgeologist2520 Every western nuclear project carried out over the last 20 years (Hinkley C, Olkiluoto, Sumner, Vogtle, Flamanville) has had major blowouts in budgets and timeframes. These have all been in countries with long experience in nuclear, unlike Australia.
A big problem has been the extra safety requirements brought on by 9/11 and Fukishima.
Thank you Rosie. Your presentation educated me a lot. Meeting future challenges is something I think we all need to understand, rather than basing our position on opinion without adequate evidence.
I had heard about the Hinkley C plant; but that was years ago. It is interesting, and not a little damning, that it is still not in operation, while the cost overrun keeps increasing.
*As a total amateur* I have also thought that the locations for nuclear plants would be more of a problem for Australia than at least some other countries. We have a generally dry country. Certainly all the major centres have to be careful to provide water for their people. But nuclear seems to need a lot of water, that seems to me to place any plants somewhere near the coast. But the coast, especially the east coast, is largely occupied, often with major tourist attractions. That seems to make nuclear the most likely technology to encounter huge opposition from existing occupants of all the desirable sites for these plants. And who would want to live or holiday near a nuclear power station?
Another objection is related to those small plants. What is not mentioned by those who are in favour of them is how many would be needed to be useful. Unless I misunderstand something, the relatively low power output would mean at least one per medium town, and probably several for all the major centres, and a LOT for Sydney and Melbourne. This just makes the location issue all the more difficult, yet still means a major electricity grid upgrade.
I am really keen to know if I understand these issues correctly. A friend thinks he knows everything about nuclear, and yet he brushes over these issues, as well as almost all the problems you talked to. For instance he has never mentioned the problems with cycling reactors, or how they need to operate with other power generation to match the demand.
@@tassied12 Every eastern project outside Japan (completed in the last 20 years) was completed in an average time of 10 years or less.
At this rate, in 10-15 years the East will overtake the West in nuclear technology and gain an advantage, as has already happened with a share of 2/3 to 3/4 of all types of renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids
@@John.0z Study the technologies of nuclear power plant reactors of generations 3+ and 4, especially generation 4.
They require less water (especially gas-cooled), 4th generation reactors can regulate power from 80 to 100% up to 50 times a year (every week) or better.
The goal is to achieve adjustments of 4th generation reactors 200-300 times a year so that they can be used as reactors in France, but with a reduction in fuel waste and an increase in refueling time from 12 to 24 months, which will increase the load factor.
Fast neutron reactors, especially those with lead or lead-bismuth coolants, can process nuclear fuel used in other countries into new nuclear fuel (MOX/REMIX) with a coefficient of no worse than 0.5. Some have a replacement rate above 1, meaning they produce more fuel than they consume. This allows nuclear fuel to be used more than 2 times without the need to extract fresh uranium from mines.
Thorium reactors can become renewable if the process for producing uranium 235 from thorium is sufficiently developed.
This processes is called nuclear cycle closure.
Reactors using recycled or purified fuel are considered the first step, partially closing the nuclear cycle.
The French are not pinching themselves, they are building 6 new and planned 8 more nuclear power plants. It should be noted that they currently have 96 reactors - some of them are undergoing modernization and renovation.
1. France has seen several periods recently where simply reducing the capacitance of their nuclear reactor fleet hasn't been enough to accommodate the flood of renewable energy into the grid and France has actually needed to TURN OFF some reactors... and this is a country with, comparatively, smaller renewables installed and a slower uptake.
2. Unlike wind and solar which incur minimal losses if they either reduce capacitance or supply to the grid at low or zero spot prices, nuclear's cost per MWh rise significantly as capacitance drops because the costs of fuel, staff, operations and maintenance are still incurred pretty much the same whether it is dispatching 90% of its output or 60%.
3. France has already walked back a bunch of their 'New Nuclear' ambition talk in their future energy policy after push-back from both renewables industry and expert analysis who pointed out that while France might push further into nuclear generation there' no stopping CHEAPER renewable energy being exported from neighbouring common market EU nations which French nuclear will have to compete against.
4. France IS extending the life of some reactors... but others which were slated for extension have instead been scheduled for shutdown because of the aforementioned realities that are beginning to set in as well as other situations such as:
5. France was forced to re-nationalise their nuclear energy utility EdF because MOST of the work being done on France's nuclear reactors recently, i.e. 2022, was taking more than half the fleet offline for extensive periods to remove corroded metal. An act that has caused the company to post a -$18.2 billion dollar loss and raise it's EXISTING debt to over $50 billion. Thus the government stepping in to bail it out.
6. France has scrapped its current work on Small Modular Reactors and, ostensibly, will start redesigning from scratch. France is already overdue to deliver the one reactor it is building, Flamanville, by 11 years (it was only meant to take 9 to build, so now it is at 18) and it isn't expected to join the grid until 2026. Other reactors that were meant to have started construction in that intervening time have been postponed.
I would say that nuclear isn't in exactly as rosy a position in even all-in-on-nuclear France as you think it is.
"[France] currently [has] 96 reactors..."
France currently has:
56 operable reactors;
1 reactor under construction;
14 reactors shut down.
@@KentRigeI1. What is *_"capacitance"?_*
@@aliendroneservices6621 What percentage of the maximum output of a generator it is adding to the electrical grid at a particular time. For example, in France, if they ran all their reactors at their maximum it would be more than demand in France for certain times of day - especially during the midday when renewables are adding to the grid - so they deliberately either slow the nuclear reaction (control rods) or they vent steam without running it through a turbine. The reactor then produces as little as 60% of its rated maximum.
The trouble is that the costs to operate don't drop very much when producing only 60% capacitance compared to what they would cost to produce energy at 90-95% capacitance. This makes the electricity more expensive per MWh. They have to do it though because otherwise they are expending uranium, running up wear on the turbines that required maintenance for every given number of hours of operation and so on... all while selling more expensive nuclear energy at the same time that very cheap solar and wind energy is entering the grid and meeting demand.
This is why by ~2035 when we've got a LOT more renewables in the grid and coal is gone that nuclear would be, as Rosie points out in the video, a poor fit to meet out off-peak demands.
I know this won't change your mind...but...
1. Nuclear is too slow to deploy. This is correct if you do it like the USA and UK - ie. badly. The median time to build a new nuclear plant in the USA is 91 months (about 7.5 years) and the Vogtle 4 plant which finally came online this year has taken years of extra time and it’s a textbook case of how not to build a major infrastructure project. Of the 100 or so nuclear plants in the USA each one is custom built with almost no economies of scale, and the regulatory environment is totally stifling the industry.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. In Japan the median time to build a nuclear plant is only 52 months - only 4 months longer than a gas fired plant.
China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035 and you can bet they will be on time in in budget because they are mass produced.
2. By 2033 90% of Australia’s power will come from renewables. OK…so where do you get the power when the sun doesn’t shine (like at night) or the wind doesn’t blow? You need as much RELIABLE power generation as you have renewables. Nuclear is a great option. In fact...don't even bother with the solar and wind - you don't need them if you have nuclear.
You say “it doesn’t play nicely with wind and solar”. Well what else are you going to use for clean, safe, reliable base load? Coal? Gas? I appreciate your Point 4 that there's no baseload in Australia. But just phase out solar and wind and you'll see the baseload reappear. And you get all that land back!
There is an easy solution. Solar panels and wind turbine wear out quickly. As they do so, match their withdrawal with an increase in nuclear. In a couple of decades you’ll have most of your energy coming from clean, safe, reliable nuclear.
Modern nuclear plants do have the ability to turn down or up. And some of the latest reactors use molten salt energy storage as a cheaper, less polluting way to store energy vs batteries.
Did you know that since Germany closed its nuclear program they estimate that an additional 1,100 deaths occur every year and $12 billion in additional costs are incurred because they turned to coal to fill in the gaps with the resulting drop in air quality?
If it comes down to a choice between unreliable renewables and reliable nuclear guess which one is the best option?
3. Nuclear is expensive? Well it is if you just count the LCOE as you have done. And what does the LCOE ignore? It ignores the fact that wind and solar only work between 30-40% of the time compared to nuclear working >90% of the time. It ignores the fact that wind and solar take up so much space they need to be located in remote areas away from population centres. The cost of the transmission lines to reach those people is typically not included in LCOE (in contradiction to what you say here). Also there are no bonus points for nuclear being reliable. So the LCOE for nuclear actually includes a subsidy for unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.
The USA has some of the most expensive nuclear in the world because of their suffocating regulatory environment. Even they are predicting a 40% reduction in the LCOE of nuclear by 2030.
China and Russia account for 87% of the nuclear reactor construction business. The LCOE for nuclear in those countries is already way lower than the average.
4. I do accept your points that “Australia is different” but surely you still have nighttime, right? And rather than millions of people paying for solar panels on their rooftops why not just generate the power in a few central locations? If you get it right (ie. not like USA and UK and more like China and Russia) you will have cheap, safe, reliable, clean power for ever.
So when those old solar panels are being shipped out to landfill just chuck a few more fuel rods on the barbie 😊
I don’t know if Australia is genuinely different. I do know that, by 2030, China will have developed a world leading export business in nuclear plant production. I’m hoping a chunk of that will include thorium plants too. The rest of the world will be waking up to the opportunity we threw away.
@bbasmdc - "In Japan the median time to build a nuclear plant is only 52 months - only 4 months longer than a gas fired plant."
Then you should be able to specify the reactor units you are referring to. Why have you left that bit out, @bbasmdc? And then you would need to add-in the pre-implementation time.
Per IAEA's PRIS database, Japan has only 2 reactors that are STILL listed as under construction:
Reactor Unit _ Construct Start Date _ Commence Full Ops _ Construct to Operate
OHMA: _ _ _ _ _07 May 2010 _ _ _ _ _ Under Construction _ 14y, 03 months, 15 days+
SHIMANE-3: _ 24 Oct 2006 _ _ _ _ _ Under Construction _ 17y, 09 months, 29 days+
But these don't include the duration times of their pre-implementation phases. Thus, these reactors are likely to take 2+ decades to get up-and-running from scratch.
@bbasmdc - "China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035 and you can bet they will be on time in in budget because they are mass produced."
It seems you've made stuff up. Evidence/data indicates something very different to what you claim.
Per the IAEA's PRIS data, as at 20 Aug 2024, China has 27 units with a combined capacity of 28,501 MWₑ under construction.
Per WNA, 37 reactor units are currently being planned.
Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2023, per Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022:
Reactor Unit _ Expected Construction Time _ Actual Construction Time
FUQING-5: _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5.6 years
FUQING-6: _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.0 years
HONGYANHE-5: _ _ _5.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.2 years
HONGYANHE-6: _ _ _5.5 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.8 years
SHIDAO BAY-1-1: _ _ 4.8 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9.1 years
SHIDAO BAY-1-2: _ _ 4.8 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 years
TIANWAN-1: _ _ _ _ _ 4.6 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.6 years
TIANWAN-2: _ _ _ _ _ 4.7 years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.7 years
Short construction times are the exceptions. Only 2 out of 8 reactors constructed on time in China for reactors started up in the period 2020-2022.
Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-with 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021.
Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units.
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
@bbasmdc - "And what does the LCOE ignore?"
See Lazard LCOE v17, page 9, suggests the midpoint unsubsidized LCOE for the USA's VOGTLE-3 & -4 units is 𝗨𝗦$𝟭𝟵𝟬/𝗠𝗪𝗵 ≈ 𝗔𝗨$𝟮𝟴𝟭/𝗠𝗪𝗵. See Note 4, which includes: total capacity ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$31.5 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60 - 80 years.
@bbasmdc - "...you will have cheap, safe, reliable, clean power for ever."
Fantasy! Finite nuclear fuels are only ever going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically & monetarily) to produce in a useable form. Finite high-grade uranium ores are inadequate to sustain long-term a so-called “nuclear renaissance”. Thorium lacks any fissile isotope.
@@GeoffMiell I don't make things up. However your last comment does show a lack of understanding, on the one hand of the abundance of both uranium and thorium. There are literally thousands of years supply of these elements on the planet. And on the other hand "Thorium lacks any fissile isotope"...yeah, great way to blow your credibility. I suggest you do some reading on how the thorium fuel cycle works.
@@bbasmdc - "I don't make things up."
Your claim: "China is building 150 new nuclear plants by 2035..." is a made-up fantasy.
@bbasmdc - "However your last comment does show a lack of understanding, on the one hand of the abundance of both uranium and thorium. There are literally thousands of years supply of these elements on the planet."
Clearly, you lack basic understanding and are apparently 'energy blind'.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆.
Club of Rome member Ugo Bardi published a book in 2014 titled 𝘌𝘟𝘛𝘙𝘈𝘊𝘛𝘌𝘋: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘐𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵. The Club of Rome published a TH-cam video on 10 Jun 2014 as part of their promotions. The Voiceover from the 3¾ minute mark says:
"𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮.
𝙀𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙙.
𝙏𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 2005 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2008, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴. 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.
𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙪𝙢 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚."
th-cam.com/video/u_Y29DqzWkc/w-d-xo.html
Nuclear fuels are only going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically and monetarily) to extract and process into a useable form.
Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, world uranium ore production hasn't met world demand since about 2015. High-grade uranium ores are only going to get scarcer and more expensive. See the Energy Watch Group's report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand.
And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive to produce uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come.
See the Nuclear Energy Agency's 2015 report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.
The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns.
We are also allies with the USA and all the solar panels come from China. China is currently surrounding Taiwan. Wonder what is going to happen next?
They are also banking on the rapid development of batteries to provide baseload with renewables. All made in China.
I don't get Australia and its intense hate against nuclear energy, given its immense uranium reserves. Use it.
Australia is the world's leading exporter of coking coal. Coal supplied 62.6 per cent of electricity to the National Electricity Market in Australia in 2022-23. The coal industry employed around 48,000 in 2023. Australia's coal exports have added on average $44 billion a year to national income. Nuclear threatens Australia's coal industry.
@@rpinarreta time for Australia to fully develop its uranium industry then.
There is no intense hatred for nuclear in Australia, the fact is it just doesn’t make sense and isn’t fit for purpose here (as explained in the video). The hatred people have is for the misinformation that is spread by politicians and billionaires that we need it when their sole purpose is to extend the life of the coal mining multinational corporations
@@farlicgarts only BHP is engaged in both coal and uranium mining though, and only at the Olympic Dam mine. How would it even "extend the operation of mining companies", like what you are accusing? Please elaborate.
@@ianhomerpura8937apologies, the coal industry is who benefits the most from the talk of potential nuclear power plants, they know it’ll be (at best) 15 years before one even opens so that guarantees their future for a few more decades. That’s only if one gets built, given the fact that the LNP are the main supporters of it and also the main party receiving donations from coal companies any person with half a brain would understand they both stand to benefit from delays to any power source other than coal
Great summary of the energy situation in Australia. Here in the US nuclear was originally marketed as "too cheap to meter." I agree the cost and timeframe to build new nuclear power plants makes then unlivable in most situations. Having said that I think prematurely shutting down existing plants until renewables are in place is/was a huge mistake.
Maybe the problem was just incompetence in building them? In Europe French nuclears are the only thing keeping electricity at sensible prices, last year when they shut them for maintenance the whole continent felt the price increase, especially places with highest amount of renewables
@@kostas9088 No, US reactors were built with the weapons programme top of mind. They needed reactors that were fairly dirty, and it's why fast breeders (that France uses to reprocess fuel to use those short lived nucleotides for energy) also don't exist in the USA. High prices and long build times for new reactors are largely a result of stupid and fragmented planning and EIS rules (as is the case in much of Europe), not issues with the technology. And they're not nearly as bad as people make out. Sabine Hossenfelder had a great video on that not long ago.
In just the three years leading up to 2019 several states in America needed to shell-out $15 BILLION worth of tax-payer bailouts and grants to nuclear facilities which were at risk of financial insolvency. The companies who owned them - or in some cases acquired them - set about spending millions of dollars directly lobbying politicians to secure these massive windfalls and then the cost of that was passed onto consumers with state fees, levies and tariffs on their bills, making them pay for nuclear regardless.
As I've seen it put in other places by other people - and hinted at in Reason 4 of Rosie's video - the incompatibility of base-load, always-on nuclear with frequent over-supply from renewables into the grid means that at the very least Solar and Wind are 'eating Nuclear's lunch' on a regular basis, hollowing out any space for profitable operation during the mid-day, and often nibbling at Nuclear's other meals, especially with increasing amounts of storage carrying over renewable energy into the greatest peak-demand of the early evening.
@@kostas9088even France is having problems with their nuclear fleet. They are all about the same vintage and will need replacing about the same time - and the maintenance has not been as good lately as earlier in their lifetimes. They have also been having problems with the recent very hot Summers in Europe drying up rivers that they need for cooling. And France’s newest reactor at Flamanville is 12 years late and 10 billion Euros over budget.
i think shes being convservative with the timeframe it would take to build new nuclear stations. 20 years at least
"there is no such thing as baseload power in australia anymore" - you are getting alot of info from OpenNEM (which is an amazing resource btw), and that clearly shows a relatively constant (with dips in the middle of the day), so how do we not have a baseload? our baseload is coal, and in tasmania it is hydro. there is always coal being burned on our grid. nuclear would fit here. and in parts where renewables do sometimes do 100%, nuclear power plants could do stuff like diverting 100% of their thermal energy into desalination.
yes, and also producing red hydrogen, and powering pumped hydro.
@@michaelwhimpey7651 This is a valid point, but if our grid will be 90% renewable before the reactors are implemented (which means we will have periods when solar and wind far exceed demand, as given by her example of the SA grid) why not use renewables to produce hydrogen or pump hydro? Especially given they will be cheaper for the hydrogen companies to purchase. This isn't even mentioning that the baseload can't be switched off, which means it will constantly compete with wind and solar in low-demand periods to sell its energy to hydro and hydrogen. Whilst they effectively compete with themselves (hydro and hydrogen) in high demand periods. It makes practical sense, but economic sense?
@@ThatJay283 If the price goes negative (supply exceeding demand) during most days then I think it's fair to say we don't have a baseload power requirement but I see your point. However it's only going to get worse as more renewables are built and soon renewables will supply 100% of power needs at some time of most days. That's what we need to plan for in the future.
@@montywraith7019 That is a big construction project and yet another unproven technology though. Snowy Hydro 2 is a good idea, but look at the cost blowouts and problems there - and we still don't know when it will be online. It is looking more like a nuclear plant every day;-)
@@montywraith7019 Mainly because of one of the interesting facts that are consistently ignored. Renewables are inconsistent, both on a daily basis and over the seasons. If you need to cover a fixed demand (such as powering a pumped hydro during recharge), then you have to have MANY times the raw GWH required so that you can guarantee enough is available for the recharge. Do the figures, you need MULTIPLE 1 GWH solar farms to be assured of year round 1 GW of power supply to a battery or pumped installation. Plus they HAVE to be geographically dispersed so large bad weather doesn't affect them all. Really, this episode has dropped Rosie's credibility for me a lot. She's just regurgitated the same half-truths as so many others have.
This video is completely biased towards facts and evidence.
That's right! She never factored in the flat earth!!!
@@ceeemm1901 Exactly! And if global warming is so real, how come there's still winter!!?
Agreed! Outrageous for 2024! She also spoke with a smile, was happy and not enraged… 😅
When you agree to have the most harmful radioactive waste buried in your yard, and your neighbors think it a great idea, people might pay attention to you.
the $$ needed to develop and install nuclear is enough to construc CAES , compres air + solar or wind ,the low overall return can be used as hot water and cold for air conditioner,
i agree with alot of the greens party views, but nuclear is not one of them. as i am slowly realizing just how much harm the greens has caused to the decarbonisation of our energy sector (like LITERALLY being the reason nuclear is banned, we only have 1 reactor operating here because of them), i am getting more and more mixed feelings about them. like, if the greens really cared so much about zero emissions (like they do with protecting our amazing native forests), then they wouldn't be so blindly opposed to a clean and safe energy source that is nuclear. even if it was too slow and expensive (which it is not), it still should not be banned.
Also without Nuclear we would need a lot more dams for hydro-power/pumped hydro-storage and/or lots of minerals dug from the ground for costly battery storage, both of which the greens would also consider unacceptable.
The Greens in Scotland supported the construction of the wind turbine power grid. The Government then had to admit they cut down 15 MILLION trees to do so. Following the completion, it was then discovered that the turbines on occasion would freeze, so they installed GAS HEATERS to enable them to operate. All this was HIDDEN from the citizens. The theory was obviously attractive, the reality has done irreparable harm to the Scottish eco system. So much for "saving the planet", "wokery without REAL science is IDIOCY.
Oh! OMG.. How deluded you are.. The so called greens are terrorists. Backing in the removal of Forests. the leveling of state forest mountain tops to place wind and solar.. CHECK FOR YOURSELF ! The amount of area the Queensland Labor Government has already started clearing and how much more there is to go.. Was this really all about CO2?? Because the very thing that removes the CO2 … TREES, SHRUBS, GRASSES, FOREST.. IS BEING REMOVED FOR YOUR SO CALLED FREE ENERGY.. FUNNY HOW THE POWER BILLS ARE RISING? AND THE COST TO THE NATION FOR IDEALS THAT ARE FALLING DOWN AS WE SPEAK.. NO HYDROGEN!! WE HAVE NO MEANS OF HYDRO FROM LARGE RIVERS.. OUR LANDS DO NOT SUIT THAT!
THERE IS NO PLANS FOR 24/7 POWER.. LIFE SPAN 15-18 YEARS WITHOUT DAMAGE.. AUSTRALIA DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER SOURCE OF FIRES.. RESENTLY A WIND TURBINE BURNT IN THE BUSH. LUCKILY IT WAS NIGHT AND IT WAS MINUS 12.8 DEGREES CELCIUS. FROSTA ND SNOW ON THE GROUND…. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH TWO BUSH FIRES HERE IN QUEENSLAND .. NO I DID NOT SET THEM. MY BROTHER NEALY LOST THE HOUSE HE WAS BUILDING AT NEAR FINISH STAGE.. WHEN A FIRE STORM RIPPED THROUGH.. TAKING $7000.00 WORTH OF TIMBER. NEEDED OF STAIRS AND BALCONY RAILINGS….
A FIRE STORM IS A FIRE TORNADO RUNNING OF THE OILS AND GASES FROM THE EXPLODEDING TREES.. I HOPE NONE OF YOU SEE SUCH A THING. BIRDS SUCKED INTO IT!
The Greens stopped nuclear in Germany, and now that the Russian gas pipeline to Germany has been destroyed Germany is using coal power from Poland and nuclear energy from France to supply it's needs. Though they have renewables they have no way to deal with the long periods of time when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
@@andrewvaughan4256 so nuclear does not need minerals dug up from the ground? you must be kidding!
Another great video by Rosie! One small addition to the European countries overview: Slovakia (not Slovenia, folks often confuse it like Austria and Australia lol), generates nearly 60% from Nuclear and 14% from Hydro, with some pumped hydro storage. Relatively clean mix with nearly zero renewables. Renewable transition is starting here only now, which will be more important as nuclear plants age and are turned off. I hope no more new reactors, not for safety concerns, but exactly for reasons Rosie mentioned - for economics and time aspect!
Isn't hydro a member of "team renewable"?
@@hartmutholzgraefe Yes but environmentally very unfriendly.
Great Video. You failed to mention the most egregious issue with atomic power. No one will insure it. Every atomic power plant operates with a waiver of liability from the government. So when it melts down causing a multi billion dollar environmental catastrophe, the taxpayers are on the hook. Private profits - public risk. It really is a bad deal.
In France all Nuclear power plants are state owned and the electricity is heavily subsidized. So cheap electricity is paid with higher taxes.
Hydro is vastly more likely to cause huge damages. With current tech, Chernobyl style catastrophe is simply impossible, and has been for decades. The damages at Fukushima were caused by the tsunami. The issues with nuclear were a drop of water in comparison. But it makes for impressive headlines, which is all media really cares about, regardless of how much it skews perceptions. All this is completely irrelevant in a system where there's financial free trade, the consequences of which are several orders of magnitude worse when a catastrophe happens there.
@@MadNumForce nuclear construction costs are so high because failure is unacceptable.
But economic failure is built in to the central generation because it is constrained by the cost of new grid capacity construction costs.
Nuclear is an economic dead end to replacing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
We need x5 to x7 more electricity with no fossil fuels.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 u need brains like the Scarecrow.
Indeed
@@MihailG5541 wow that's emotional 😢
I'm all for nuclear but also all for all forms of clean energy. Whatever funds we've got available, we should probably go for what's most effective for us but also clean regardless of wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, etc.
Exactly Rosie's point. It is just that solar, wind and storage happens to be the cheapest and nuclear the dearest for Australia (as well as taking far too long to arrive here). She notes that may not be true for every country - internationally nuclear has its place. Though I reckon with each new price fall in panels and batteries even that place is getting smaller.
will you be willing to pay for the extra cost of nuclear compared to renewables?
I was waiting for a carefully researched and balanced video to come out on the Nuclear power debate in Australia, and you delivered Rosie. Thank you.
but there was little to no research it was just here is stat and my opinion on stat
what we dont need baseline power cause right now solar can cover it oh well lest just forget rapid technology developmen then
Ok. Well, you have changed my mind. Thanks. Looking forward to seeing more of your content.
No criticism here. I have looked at a lot of Rosie's articles & she is always well researched and rock solid. --Well done.
Brilliance in one video about this issue and calls out the numpty politicians who keep blabbing on about this without actually knowing anything about it. Thank you for this summary, Rosie! It's just what the ignorant masses need to hear.
This video will age poorly when it becomes obvious that Australia is unable to get 82% renewable generation by 2030 relying on very large buildout of VRE.
The CSIRO gencost report showing that cost for VRE only increases by a very small margin for higher and higher shares of VRE will also be shown to be farical.
NUCLEAR is the answer for anyone who cares about decarbonising power as quickly as possible, even in Australia.
The infatuation with VRE is a cancer on our society.
(And to be fair, it’s fine to modest levels of penetration, but going all-in and expecting it to deliver the lions share of electricity is woefully ignorant.)
@@matster77 Complete garbage. Did you not get Rosie's point that conventional nuclear can ONLY do "baseline" (ie running at daily minimum demand levels) and in a mostly-but-not-completely renewable grid baseline is negative? Solar generation often exceeds 100% of demand on sunny days. Nuclear plants, like all large steam turbine plants, hate being turned on and off (thermal shock) - and their accountants REALLY hate them being turned off (idle capital). This is exactly why our remaining coal plants are becoming uneconomic, quite apart from CO2 issues.
@@matster77 Thorium reactions with anti-corrosive casing ftw
LERN safire project looks sick too!!!!
@@matster77 I think so. The share of renewable energy in the form of solar panels and wind turbines is >50% without other base generation, even thermal power plants using hybrid or renewable fuels - greenwashing
Ponies, unicorns and butterflies, other dreams of little girls as an attempt to cover up money laundering.
@@kenoliver8913 The industry hates being shut down.
If more than 50% of electrical generation comes from wind and solar, this will shut down the industry.
Countries whose industry can operate 2 shifts a day or around the clock will receive an undeniable advantage over other countries, whose operating mode will depend only on the sun and wind
I love nuclear and am hugely biased in its favor, but I have to agree with you here.
Same. I came away from watching this thinking, "makes sense". Then it occurred to me to compare other factors, such as how much mining will be required to replace the broken solar panels during the lifetime of a hypothetical uranium power plant.
@@recklessrogesthen you would also have to consider the mining for nuclear fuel.
@@mael1515 True, but uranium fuel has great power density 🙂
@@GreyDeathVaccine true, after it has been concentrated with huge effort.
Rosie’s arguments against are threadbare.
Nuclear remains safest and most affordable way to deliver decarbonised and reliable power, so long as you commit to picking one design and building lots of them.
Honestly, as an Australian, I'm for Nuclear, but this was a very informative video and well put together. I've always had an open mind to things, so even if Nuclear isn't a viable option for Australia specifically, I am hoping it becomes a bigger consideration in the coming future for other countries.
One thing you should talk about in your next video is the point many people make that solar panels and wind turbines will need to be replaced. How often will this happen, and what are they prone to damage in hail storms? Will batteries be required and how often will they need replacing? What of the environmental impact of the minerals that make up this technology? If they do need replacing, will this have a different environmental impact? Cheers
@@ADHD55 but strip mining for coal is fine? Maybe compare the areas needed to be mined for coal vs anything else, you might be surprised how small lithium mines actually are in comparison. Also, coal mining is rinse and repeat. Lithium mining actually goes into making something vs coal which is just burnt.
@@steve_787 lithium mining is extremely toxic and water intensive, all green energy critical minerals produce toxic run offs thats hazardous and very difficult to remove, also all these green materials will be massivly imported from china further polluuting the climate and the world, we do not need giga tons of solar panels and wind turbines in land fill , just to import more from china, we need clean energy and clean nuclear
@@ADHD55 You are comparing mountains to molehils. Many more resources are consumed supplying consumables (uranium, coal, gas) than in building generation such as wind and solar which consume nothing in generating power each day. Coal ash makes up nearly 20% of Australia's entire waste stream.
Solar panels and wind turbines will not necessarily go to landfill at end of life. Vestas can already recycle about 90% of turbine components. Solar Recovery Corporation is recycling solar panels in Australia.
@@tassied12 I'm sorry but statistics of usage and recycling of solar panels in Europe shows that average lifetime before triple the internal resistance of solar panels is 10-12 years, then it'll must be heated to restore the contacts resistance.
Wind generators have at least 4 average repair cycles in every 15 years.
At least half of them needs one time to replace moving parts, including blades
@@MihailG5541 I think you need to supply some references. There are plenty of examples of solar panels still performing well after 30+ years.
The largest battery maker in the world (CATL) has dropped its battery prices by over 25% just in the last 12 months and says it expects them to be another 50% lower by the end of 2025. The price fall has been so sharp that planners around the world (including Australia) are now figuring they will need less pumped storage and overbuild than they'd calculated just a couple of years ago. This points to a real problem with the transition to renewables - the relative costs of the components of the grid are changing so fast that any plans track a moving target. The consequent uncertainty hurts investment. Nuclear doesn't have that problem - already expensive, it is just getting steadily more expensive relative to everything else.
Not long ago I would have agreed with Rosie that nuclear made zero sense for Australia (and increasingly so) but is going to be needed for some countries. I now think batteries are getting so cheap that they will seriously endanger even this niche. It is not the greenies killing nuclear worldwide but the beancounters.
So you believe batteries are "clean"?
@@BarbarraBaycompared to all fossil fuel alternatives? Yes, vastly “cleaner”. The data is extremely clear. See Dr Saul Griffiths two books, he presents the data very clearly.
Personally I’d say a mix of closed-loop pumped hydro and batteries is best mix alongside solar and wind.
Could batteries use less extracts resources? Absolutely, the good news is that’s exactly what is happening with the technology development. Not because it is greener, but because it is cheaper. Checkout the latest CATL announcements on their battery technology. It’s cheaper, greener and higher density.
Do we need innovations in recycling of batteries? Yes, this is also happening and not as hard as most people think.
You can’t beat the learning curve of renewables, particularly solar and batteries. It’s insanely fast with the scale it is being done at.
Nuclear has a role in the energy mix, but not a leading one in most nations. And not at all in Australia.
Lithium is not the answer.
All lithium batteries components are limited in the world.
This boom can stop suddenly and prices can get up as they are dropped.
All over the world wind and solar power installations has just only 3% of battery backups, but 12% of hydro backup and 25% of fossil fuels backup.
Pumped hydro as back up is thirty to fifty times more cost effective than big batteries.
If we go all renewables Australia will need ten to fifteen pumped hydro storages on the scale of Snowy Hydro 2 (a project that despite cost overruns is still highly cost effective). Ten such pumped hydro plants would cost around $150-200bn.
To do the job using big batteries like Hornsdale, the Victoria Big Battery or the Collie battery, around one thousand such installations are required. At around $1bn each, they would cost around $1tr.
You could buy about fifty large nuclear power plants for this amount of money.
I live in the UK. Have you any thoughts on how long it will be before sufficient storage could be practical so that the UK could run on wind and solar? What approach do you think is most likely to work well enough? I understand well enough that battery power can do a lot to stabilise the grid against short term variations, but that doesn't seem close to the energy density needed to deal with seasonal variations.
All I can say is, remove the subsidies from all power generators and see which comes out cheapest and most reliable
These things can be calculated without removing subsidies.
Wind and solar are not reliable. They may be 'cheap' because there is virtually no market for electricity that only works when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
The answer is coal. It's always been coal. Thats why China is continuing to build new power stations.
@@Withnail1969Coal is hugely subsidised by being allowed to use our air as a sewer for free. But even without that renewables are now cheaper - 10 times than cheaper a decade ago and 100 times cheaper than 40 years ago. Catch up with the times grandpa.
@@zen1647 The pollution is bad but the benefits more than make up for it. The whole area I live in only exists becasue of coal.
Hey Rosie, devil's advocate here.
Couldn't it also be argued that long duration storage is a critical enabler for renewable energy ?. AEMO's 2024 draft ISP optimal deployment path indicates that 77% (44 GW) of total storage capacity in 2050 will be provided by consumer energy resources. As best I can tell, these costs are not included in the $200B NPV cost for the grid transition - hopefully I'm wrong.
I agree with your conclusion, however managing the level of storage capacity on the grid to maintain it's stability and availability looks to be a significant challenge which should be costed appropriately, so that technology selection is done on an equivalent basis.
I've no doubt many within the power industry will see nuclear as a far easier option from an operational perspective.
Yes you are wrong.
@@johnpeters4214 where are they detailed please , and what is the CER NPV ?
> I've no doubt many within the power industry will see nuclear as a far easier option from an operational perspective.<
Of greater concern in the electric generating biz is achieving the lowest cost for the next hour. They have talented people who can work near miracles and it would be nice to make their jobs easier but it is cost that drives their operational decisions.
Nuclear is so expensive that you could build insane amounts of battery storage for the same money to solve the intermittency of renewables entirely.
True, however I think the resources that would be used for Nuclear could be better used for storage solutions, of which there are many.
You didn't mention that Dutton wants to extend the life of the coal plants until modular nuclear reactors can be installed. This means adding many extra years of coal burning until a technology that doesn't exist yet gets invented.
It looks to me like Dutton doesn't actually care about nuclear, and just wants more coal burnt instead of installing renewables.
Didn't want to mention that as I was trying my hardest to make this video non political 😂
Every manager listens to his consultants.
Germany shows that it's need to triple energy prices without any nuclear or coal to achieve fast wind and solar generation.
Do you want the same way?
No industry, just agriculture and services?
@@MihailG5541 Seems you don't know anything about Australia. Our economy is almost entirely based on agriculture, mining and services already. We have very little industry.
@@SocialDownclimber In other comments they wrote that they want to see Australia as a developed country where they can independently smelt steel, aluminum and products from them.
How is this possible without a stable schedule for generating electricity on at least an 8-hour cycle?
@@MihailG5541 You don't seem to understand that Australia has lost a large percdntage of it's industry because it can't compete with with some other countries on labour costs. Energy generation is the least thing Australia needs to worry about if it was to try resurrecting a larger industry base. It's a pointless exercise if your products are too expensive.
Australia hates nuclear yet is the 4th largest exporter of uranium. What a joke.
better out then in.
@@davidrochow9382 shame energy is only fundamental to human civilisation.
It’s obvious that you didn’t watch the video jackass
Norway is a major oil exporter and has more EVs than anywhere else. The 'joke' is called basic common sense.
@@dukeofvoid6483 wouldn't it be more energy efficient in the grand scheme of things to produce the vehicles in Norway itself and run them on Norwegian oil?
Hi Rosie, I enjoy your objective and enthusiastic input to your posts. I have worked in the power industry for over 50 years 15 of which were in the UK nuclear sector. I have just retired, from an experimental biomass installation of 299 Mw, and, up to recently would have agreed that the nuclear age was short and has now passed. However I urge you to research a company called Copenhagen Atomics, who are developing a new Thorium Molten Salt reactor which is small, portable and a by product is Ammonia which is a relatively safe and convenient way to transport Hydrogen which could be used to power aircraft, heavy plant and machinery. I have much more to write, but not sure if this platform can accommodate long exchanges
That may turn out to be a good product, but it's still very much in development. They could be decades away from becoming commercially viable, if they do at all.
Thorium reactors dont really work. They are good to make clickbait TH-cam videos and that's about all.
So, let’s start by removing the ban on nuclear power. Then, if a proper analysis shows it is worthwhile in some parts of Australia it can be built.
A proper analysis by whom? I've seen quite a few analyses by reputable organisations that say it is not worthwhile.
@ the CSIRO GenCost Report is the supposed reputable one but it only analyses generation costs of various options (and does the nuclear estimate badly). It doesn’t look at the cost to bring the output to the consumer. The proper analysis needs to be a whole of system life-cycle cost and then we will have some accurate facts on which to base decisions.
Dear Rosie, could you please visit Mr Dutton and Sky News with this information. They need to be educated.
Politics is not about choosing the smartest solution, it's about getting the voters and financial support. Mr Dutton is very well aware that his plan is stupid but as long as it gets him voters (for example people that do not like solar panels and windmills because of esthetic reasons) and support by the nuclear industry, he is fine with it.
I think a better way to prevent nuclear in Australia might be to make solar and wind energy systems more beautiful or put them in places where people don't see them.
@peterarmstrong8613 that would be a waste of time - Mr Dutton has been deriding CSIRO and AEMO, as has his shadow energy minister Ted O'Brien.
I think Dutton's energy policy is positioned to support a political narrative about Australia's security. Dutton is an enthusiastic supporter of a nuclear submarine fleet and increased defence capability. The pitch for a nuclear powered electricity grid is that 'renewables are risky' - setting up an argument for the 2025 federal election that the LNP offer a secure future enabled by nuclear power , reducing dependency on China which supplies 80+% of renewable energy infrastructure.
The reality is that voters have little understanding of the costs involved, and are more easily swayed by emotive arguments than facts.
Wow, great presentation @rosie. I love the way you lay out the arguments logically without bias
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 This is greenwashing. Ponies, unicorns and butterflies, other dreams of little girls as an attempt to cover up money laundering.
> "to make solar and wind energy systems more beautiful or put them in places where people don't see them."
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 solar roof tiles will inevitably be beautiful and cheap. They haven't gotten very far yet, but lots of pv roof tile companies are popping up now, most importantly in China. It's just a matter of a decade or so that we have tiles that are so good that they'll take over from conventional roofs. Eventually siding will also be pv, and some windows. PV technology will change dramatically by 2050.
Have to disagree with some of your points.
1. South Korea and Japan both have a history of building plants in 5 years. Why not learn from your neighbours.
2. Nuclear provides grid inertia which renewables and even batteries struggle to replicate. The Australian grid gets that from its coal fleet running in grid support even when the charts show '100%' solar.
3. The amount of energy storage required for a fully renewable system is staggering and Australia is nowhere near ready for it nor on course to be. The added cost of changing the grid to accommodate distributed generation, plus storage massively shift the LCOE.
Looking at the worst cases of construction management and projecting on those costs are the same cheap tricks as from the anti renewable crowd.
The data shows that managing a grid on solely renewables is incredibly expensive once you lose the stability provided by large plants. Our technology is currently insufficient to completely mimic the effects on a national scale.
You can get to around 98% renewables with very few of the problems you mention with massive storage, transmission and instability.
@@BigBlueMan118 I'm not sure how to read your comment, are you saying that it's fine, you just have to put up with grid instability and the cost of massive storage or you're saying those problems only appear at 90%?
In any event, you're wrong. Grid stability and management becomes a problem even at low levels with fossil plants running on idle as background support and stabilising. A major grid overhaul is required in Australia in any event, but we don't have the technology to be purely wind and solar without massive amounts of hydro and storage, with black start being notoriously problematic.
@@LudvigIndestrucable My point was to nip the framing you are going for in the bud entirely: you are deliberately trying to frame the discussion around a 100% renewable grid, which is far more difficult and expensive than a 96%-99% renewable grid complimented by other sources. Basically all grids across the globe are dependant on peaker plants (fossil fuels) to step in during spikes in demand or events where several sources are simultaneously offline. To the extent they aren't, they are dominated by massive hydro. So why expect wind & solar grids to function at 100% without fossil peaker plants if it hasn't been achieved by any existing systems either except for a few grids dominated by massive hydro?
Short-term storage sources using utility and residential are growing massively anyway and are proving fairly economic plus will continue improving a lot over the next few years as we approach high levels of renewables. Additional transmission infrastructure can be considered an investment in decentralisation too.
@@BigBlueMan118 ah, then it's quite simple, you're just wrong.
We do not have the storage technology to manage a 96% renewables grid (unless hydro) without larger plants (non-peaker) running for grid stability and smoothing.
The reason for advocating the nuclear as base load, isn't because renewables can't generate enough it's because we currently need large spinning masses of steel to manage grids and it's easier to switch renewables off and on, supported with a manageable bit (but still huge) of storage.
Even peaker plants don't provide the grid stability of large GW scale steam turbines.
@@BigBlueMan118 in case you're tempted to still insist on >90% renewables, to store 1 day's worth of electricity, assuming average demand of 30GW would be 720GWh, that alone should disabuse you of the notion, then include that such technology isn't capable of managing a grid. It's not just a question of power and storage, it's an incredibly complicated interplay of different components and rapid changes. Renewables and storage do not supply energy in the most conducive way to support a grid, something you and Rosie either don't know or are willfully choosing to ignore.
We can't keep running our turbines on fossil fuels, but the only alternative contenders are nuclear and geothermal.
One other point missed in these debates is the half assed way this transition has been managed has caused Australian energy prices to rise putting many businesses out of work. What is the flow on effect in 2 generations time with rising unemployment?
Contrary to my fellow Swiss Greens, I'm not against nuclear as a concept in Switzerland but Australia is so vast and with so much potential for renewals that I agree with you. The unpredictability of nuclear stations construction time and upfront cost is pretty scary alongside the "slight" issue of nuclear waste. I'm personally against traditional reactors in Switzerland but I would like to see modular thorium reactors explored and properly analysed for use here. My fellow greens are entirely against nuclear in Swiss territory but then forget that we buy a lot of energy from France (nuclear) and Germany (fossil). A bit of "not in my backyard" syndrome.
While I totally buy that it doesn't make sense in Australia, it's remarkable to me, just how destructive to the environment legacy Green organizations have been, between NIMBYism from the Sierra Club in California, to successful anti-Nuclear campaigns in Germany and Australia, "Green" organisations are some of the largest causes of GHG emissions in the world...
They are usually conservative before anything, and focus on aesthetically "green" (I mean, the extreme is the argument that the suburbs are green because they have lots of grass, but really every legacy green person I've heard of cites "I want there to be nature I can drive to left in the world" as a motivation), policies rather than actual environmental harms.
The Sierra Club in the US pushes back against any new hydrocarbon electric generation. As a result, outdated coal plants are kept running when the alternative is new combined-cycle natural gas generation. CCNG is not great either, but it is dispatchable and can be shut off and restarted on short notice. The nuke industry promotes "firm" power but the generating companies need dispatchable power.
These are compelling justifications indeed. Though, at least a hat tip is due to emerging technologies that are in no way restricted to this new vogue for small modular reactors.
'new vogue' ... SMRs have been nuclear fission industry spin since the 90s...
These still require the mentioned laws & regulations, are likely even more expensive since one loses the economies of scale, and they still solve a non existent problem. 🤷
@@mael1515 we gain another economy of scale, i.e. faster mass production. If a doubling of installed base lowers cost with 15%, and an SMR is 1/4 the size, then there are two more doublings there compared to large plants. Also smaller cores are easier to passively cool, leading to simplified designs.
@@jesan733 i don't understand your logic and math and physics disagree. Lower volume means relatively more outside materials.
Simpler design, yes, but much lower efficiency during electricity production.
@@mael1515 if it was up to physics, nuclear would be dirt cheap. From a first principles perspective, a nuclear plant is like a coal plant with halved fuel cost and no emissions. But we both know that's not the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that regulation has piled on excessive labor hours to nuclear due to overblown safety concerns and an unfortunate but ubiquitous western governance philosophy. Thus the challenge for nuclear construction and operation is NOT to reduce materials weight or optimize efficiency, but to convince regulatory agencies to accept lower regulatory burdens and to blaze a trail through the regulation that it's left with so that less hours need to be spent.
E.g. NuScale has done this in a clever way, and the NRC has accepted e.g. an emergency planning zone that extends only to the plant boundary and not 10 miles out, and it has accepted that it is passively safe so that backup power doesn't need to be nuclear-certified. And it has modularized in such a way that critical reactor components can be factory produced and shipped to site. It both reduces regulatory burdens and makes it easy to handle much of the regulation that remains by centralizing crucial production.
Bill Rookyard .
Here are all the figures, it's a long read but has every cost, including Transmission.
Bowen states that nuclear is too expensive, so let's look at some real numbers to see just how wrong he is :-
It's quite long, and involves some maths, but if you read it through to the end, I expect you might more clearly see the true cost comparison of wind and solar versus nuclear for similar duration.
The Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE is adjacent to where the latest COP28 was held, so let's compare the cost of that facility with the wind, solar and storage option for Australia.
The Barakah nuclear power station took 10 years from start to full commissioning, it has 4 reactors each of 1.4GWe and each costing AUD10 billion.
So.. 5.6GWe and AUD40 billion cost.
It uses sea water cooling, so there's little demand on fresh water supplies. In fact, the waste heat can be utilised to desalinate seawater and, given our various governments' aversion to building dams, that's a distinct advantage.
Each reactor has a capacity factor of 93%, so the plant can deliver 45,622GWh per year.
The largest wind farm in Australia with a published actual capacity factor is the Coopers Gap Wind Farm in Queensland, with a plated capacity of 450 MW and a cost of $850 million.
It has a capacity factor of 25% so can produce 990GWh per year.
By comparison you would require 48 of those wind farms to have an equal yearly output to the Barakah power station.
48 x $850m = $40.8 billion
The largest solar farm in Australia is the Western Downs farm in Qld, at 400MW, $600 million cost and a capacity factor of 24%, so can produce 876GWh per year.
By comparison you would require 52 of those solar farms to have an equal yearly output to just one Barakah power station.
52 x $600m = $31.2 billion.
At first glance it looks like wind is comparable and solar is cheaper, but that's just an illusion.
The nuclear plant will be in operation for at least 60 years so the establishment cost is fixed at $40B plus a bit for refuelling and general maintenance - allow another $16B over that 60 years - total cost is $56B.
The wind and solar farms will have been replaced twice in that time, so that's $122.4B and $93.6B respectively for similar duration. - excluding inflation, disposal, etc.
Of course the above costs account for only 5.6GW of a grid that typically draws around 5 times that at evening peak, so all nuclear becomes $280B, All wind is $612B, all solar is $458B - 50% wind and solar would still be $535B or 92% dearer than the nuclear option, and that's just the cost of the generators.
As all of these farms are necessarily spread out across the country, the huge added cost of transmission infrastructure - none of which would be required for nuclear, must also be included in costings - currently estimated at $100B, but guaranteed to go much ‐ much higher - (the CSIRO conveniently omitted this and storage in their most recent Gencost report - they've recently admitted this omission).
Add that $100B to the RE above and you're now at $635B.
But wait, there's more... Those wind and solar farms will not produce consistently like the nuclear plant, so let's consider storage of at least the same capacity of just one single nuclear plant...
The Mooroobool battery in Victoria has an instantaneous power of 300MW, cost $300M and has a capacity of 450MWh, so it can provide 300MW for just 1.5 hours till dead flat.
So you're going to need 19 of those batteries to have an equivalent instantaneous capacity as one nuclear plant, but you will need 150 of them to provide the same output for a 12 hour night of a low wind event.
150 X $300m = $45 billion - that's more than the establishment cost of one nuclear power station.
The entire East coast NEM area recently suffered a wind drought for almost a fortnight during which wind generation was as low as 96MW, or just 1.2% of plated capacity - when that occurs, storage alone will be available to keep the lights on at night.
Typical NEM evening 3 hour peak demand is around 27GW tapering off to 20GW overnight the sun has gone down so there's no solar, and wind is almost non-existent.
So.. you now need to supply the entire East coast NEM area from storage alone.
Just 1 hour of that peak demand will require an instantaneous 27GW :- that's 90 of those big batteries, but they can only do that for 1.5 hours till dead flat, so you need 180 of them to cover the 3 hour peak.
You still have 9 hours of night to go at - let's be generous and say an average of just 17GW..
17GW X 9hrs = 153GWh.
Remember that the first 180 batteries are all depleted, so now you need another :-
153GWh ÷ 450MWh = 340 batteries.
Total batteries is now 520 @ $300 million = $156 billion.
Now you have to add that $156B to the RE costs above, and you're at $156B + $635B = $791B.
That's not the end of our costs though:-
Grid battery life expectancy is 8 to 10 years, so they will be replaced 5 times in the 60 year life of the nuclear plant :-
$156B x 5 = $780B plus inflation.
Add that to the $791B and it's now a whopping $1.571 Trillion
That's about 6 times dearer than the nuclear option, and almost exactly the cost projection that Net Zero Australia put forward in its report.
What about community batteries?
East coast NEM night time instantaneous demand is normally around 20GW with a 3 hour peak around 6pm of 27GW.
A typical large community battery has 500KWh storage - so 13hrs minimum at - let's be generous again and go with that 17GW average = 221,000,000 KWh of energy requirement.
221,000,000 ÷ 500 = 442,000 community batteries at a cost of around $1 million each, or $442 billion total - all of which will require recharging the following day and replacing in 10 years.
Think you can do it with EV battery back up via V2G technology?
If you were to drain say 30KWh from each EV connected to the grid, that 221,000,000KWh overnight load would require 7.4 million EVs, all of which would require recharging next day.
How many EV owners are going to be willing to sacrifice their battery life by depleting them so heavily for that fortnight?
What about hydro? - the biggest hydro storage in Australia is the Snowy scheme - if all of its 9 power stations have all of their 33 turbines running flat out, they can generate only 4GW.
Add the 2.6GW maximum from Tasmania, Wivenhoe's 0.5GW and the 2GW of Snowy 2 pumped Hydro - if it ever gets built at a cost estimate so far of $12B and counting,
and you're still way short of the typical NEM instantaneous evening peak of 27GW that's required to avoid blackouts or, as AEMO prefer to call them... Load shedding.
Drought conditions frequently restrict how much generating capacity our hydro can manage.
Is pumped hydro going to save us?
They're just another form of even more expensive battery, you always get less energy out than you put in and, just like those batteries, it has to be recharged by the renewables that are struggling to even supply the grid.
Granted.... The generation and storage would be a combination of all of those things mentioned plus a few others, but the total costs will change very little (batteries are the cheapest and most efficient option), and will still be orders of magnitude higher than would be the case for nuclear, and would take up vast swathes of land - A 1GW nuclear power station occupies just 3.5sq km.
For similar annual generation capacity, a wind farm will occupy 800sq km, and a solar farm will occupy 200sq km.
Add the purchase or lease of that land to the costs.
At some stage Bowen will be dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation, it's just a matter of how much pain he will put us through before then.
We should be building our nuclear power plants for 2050, not for 2030...
What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational?
Where are the long-term gas supplies coming from? Australia's east coast gas market (including Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas & SA) has 2P developed gas reserves-to-production (R/P) of only 9.4 years plus 2P undeveloped gas R/P of 8.6 years. 18 years remaining at best of gas supplies at year-2023 production rate.
See the AEMO's 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘖𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 - 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 2024: 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢’𝘴 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 document shows in Figure 26 (on page 47).
If one cannot find any economically extractable gas, then one cannot produce it. And even if some were found, how does that sit amongst the overall scheme of things as far as global gas reserves and production rates exist?
For perspective, per the Energy Institute's 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘌𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 2024, on page 37, in year-2023, Natural gas Production:
#1 USA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1,035.3 Gm³ _ _ _ 25.5% global share in 2023
#2 Russian Federation: _ _586.4 Gm³ _ _ _ 14.4%
#3 Iran: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _251.7 Gm³ _ _ _ _6.2%
#4 China: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 234.3 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 5.8%
#5 Canada: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 190.3 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 4.7%
#6 Qatar: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 181.0 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 4.5%
#7 Australia: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 151.7 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 3.7%
#8 Norway: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 116.6 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.9%
#9 Saudi Arabia: _ _ _ _ _ _ 114.1 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.8%
10 Algeria: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _101.5 Gm³ _ _ _ _ 2.5%
TOTAL WORLD: _ _ _ _ _ _4,059.2 Gm³
As a gas producer, Australia is a minnow compared with USA & Russia.
US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren earlier this year. On when the US shale gas decline is likely, Art Berman said:
"𝘐’𝘮 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘹 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦."
th-cam.com/video/rv85LTMO8TQ/w-d-xo.html
Global fossil methane gas supplies are only going to get scarcer and more expensive.
Many coal-fired plants in Australia are approaching their use-by dates. Extending their lives means worsening reliability and rising energy costs. Building new coal-fired plants that will only last until nuclear arrives (20+ years) is a ludicrous economic proposition.
And then there's the worsening climate. The Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards a climate incompatible for human civilisation before the end of this century. Burning more fossil fuels means making that situation happen sooner.
A vote for the Coalition is a vote for blackouts, rising energy costs, and ultimately civilisation collapse. Why would anyone vote for politicians and policies facilitating their own & their family's future suffering?
Again someone that forgets system costs of renewables, a full renewable grid will be much more expensive than nuclear (deminishing returns)
Can you provide evidence? Im sure you can make a video as well
OMG Rosie, 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 Very Angry comment. LOL
🤣🤣🤣
😂
I'm rabid pro-nuclear. I would like a SMNR under my bed. I can't see anything with which to disagree with about this video. Thank you Rosie for a new perspective.
In the 20 years that it will take to build new_nuclear in oz how many of the solar panels and wind turbines will need to be replaced? What will be the cost of replacing those solar panels and [hard to recycle wind turbines]?
Most solar panels will still be working in 20 years. They're usually guaranteed to have something like 80% of their original power after 20 years. And they're mostly glass and aluminium, which are easy to recycle. Similarly wind turbines last about 20 years, and it's just the blades that are hard to recycle. The steel tower and copper/iron generator are easy, and the majority of the mass.
Newer generations of wind turbines are built with recycling in mind.
@@robinbennett5994 It's definitely not true that solar panels are easy to recycle, but all your other points are valid.
@@michaelmccluskey2044 its also not feasable to recycle it, so they end up in landfills/eternal storage anyway, just like nuclear waste.
@@michaelmccluskey2044 When you say "It's definitely not true that solar panels are easy to recycle" what do you mean. I trust you are not proposing it can't be done.
Solar panels are being recycled already on a commercial scale. I have read about solar panel recycling forecast to become a 50 billion dollar global industry by 2050.
using the current rate of renewable install to project out 10 years and claim 90% of australias power will be renewable doesnt make sense. There are already times that the grid cant handle much more soloar + wind during the day and the issue of power at night wont be getting solved any time soon. Batteries are still FAR too expensive to provide power for the entire grid overnight. The only batteries currently installed act as buffers to smooth out small surges in demand, not to provide prolonged periods of large scale power. This will not change quick enough to meet 90% renewables in 10 years. Much of the demand not being met by coal will be met with new / ramped up gas power.
What I gather from this is that if Australia had already built nuclear, like 20 years ago, then they might not have had to build as much wind and solar now to meet their baseload, and could perhaps have invested more in storage to meet variable load instead. But that's not what happened and there's no point in doing it anymore, since there is no more unmet baseload. Even if that had happened, ultimately wind and solar would've been phased in to replace nuclear, as they're a cheaper way per kWh to meet baseload.
we didn't though. we build 6 in nsw in total and shut them down because of fear. then they got banned. also that just false. the more investment a technology receives the cheaper its cost becomes. we really didn't invent in nuclear we just looked at it then people got scared and ran. the cost o nuclear will come down as the technology develops. like it did with solar and wind.
Spot on. As it happens thirty years ago I was arguing for just this with my greeny friends - but I know nuclear's time has now well and truly passed, at least in Australia.
"no more unmet baseload"???
Did you know that recently at one point the sum total of all wind power in Australia equalled what two diesel generators could produce? The baseload-unmet claim is rubbish.
joannenova.com.au/2024/06/20-billion-in-wind-power-across-australia-can-only-guarantee-as-much-power-as-two-diesel-generators/
Thanks for this Rosie, which I will now share.
Unfortunately it's become increasingly popular to politicise major infrastructure decisions in Australia - the ensuing ideological battle then generates sub-optimal outcomes.
It happened with the NBN and we're on track to see the same thing happen with the transition to net zero.
Unfortunately that's not just a problem in Australia. We here in Canada, and our southern neighbors the USA both have the same problem.
I'm not sure how this plays out in Europe, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is the same story there. Asia? Who knows?
@@jimthain8777 It's the same everywhere. Stupid politicians chasing votes with spin...facts and reality be damned.
Thank you Rosie for once again putting the facts in front of all of us. Now we just need the numb nuts to actually listen!!!
Rosie,
Quote from the introduction:-
"But what if this ban were lifted? Should we then embrace nuclear for our energy future? The answer, quite simply, is no. It's a dumb idea for Australia. And I'm not just throwing around words here; there are solid reasons behind this bold claim. Four, to be precise: it's too slow, it doesn't play nicely with wind and solar, it's too expensive and it solves problems that we don't have in Australia. "
What is wrong is wind and solar, they meet none of the criteria for a stable, reliable and economic source of grid supplied electrcity, that is both practical, and technical.
How is nuclear slow? slow to do what specifically? Also sensible costings done in the U.K. using company accounts show that wind and solar are as costly as nuclear and far less useful and reliable.
Apart from construction and operational cost of renewables they are short lived, output deteriorates steadily as they age and become uneconomic to operate after 20 to 25 years depending on location. It is necessary to run a duplicate source of generation to make up for intermittency and the lack of inertai, reactive power and short circuit currnet levels. also they can't do a black start on a failed grid made more likely by too much renewable capacity being grid connected.
Nuclear is not Australia's only option for power, you have abundant coal reserves and mines to dig it up.
Specifically dump renewables, they are dead end and cannot support any country, they are a metaphorical millstone around the countries neck.
And no it is impossible to run 100% renewables intermittency kills that dead beside all the lack of technical requirements.
Exactly what engineering have you studied???
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Geoff,
that is the problem, the government state that they want to shut down what could be reliable and economic source of electricity and substitue unrealiable expensive wind and solar. Owners of coal plant sthat are still running will pare operational expenditure to the bone and only do minimal maintence, which impacts reliability.
Nuclear is the only non CO2 emitting genertation type that works and is available but time to build them is a problem. A lot of time is spent fighting lawfare from thegreens, adding a lot of time and cost to such projects.
For Australia new coal plants would be far quicker and cheaper, but agin the greens won't allow them.
Esentially between a rock and a hard place.
@@iareid8255 - "...they want to shut down what could be reliable and economic source of electricity..."
Coal-fired power in Australia is becoming increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run.
Most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology.
The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures.
Very few coal-fired generator units around the world are still operational beyond 50 years. The more renewables there are in the electricity grid system the less economically viable coal-fired plants become.
AEMO's expected closures of coal-fired generator units in NEM (assumed use-by date range 40-50 years after commissioning):
Site Name (state) _ _ Capacity (MW) _ Use-by Date Range _ _Expected closure year
Eraring (NSW): _ _ _ _ _ 4x 720 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2022 - 2034 _ _ _ _ _ 2027 (possibly 2029)
Callide B (QLD): _ _ _ _ 2x 350 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2028 - 2038 _ _ _ _ _ 2028
Yallourn W (VIC): _ 2x 360 + 2x 380 _ _ _ 2013 - 2034 _ _ _ _ _ 2028
Vales Point B (NSW): _2x 660 _ _ _ _ _ _ _2018 - 2028 _ _ _ _ _ 2033
Bayswater (NSW): _ _ _4x 660 _ _ _ _ _ _ _2025 - 2036 _ _ _ _ _ 2033
Gladstone (QLD): _ _ _ _6x 280 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2016 - 2026 _ _ _ _ _ 2035
Loy Yang A (VIC): _ 3x 560 + 1x 530 _ _ _ 2024 - 2038 _ _ _ _ _ 2035
Tarong (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ _4x 350 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2024 - 2036 _ _ _ _ _ 2037
Mt Piper (NSW): _ _ _ _ _2x 730 _ _ _ _ _ _2032 - 2043 _ _ _ _ _ 2040
Kogan Creek (QLD): _ _ _1x 750 _ _ _ _ _ _2047 - 2057 _ _ _ _ _ 2042
Stanwell (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ _4x 635 _ _ _ _ _ 2033 - 2046 _ _ _ _ _ 2043-46
Loy Yang B (VIC): _ _ _ _ 2x 535 _ _ _ _ _ _2033 - 2046 _ _ _ _ _ 2046
Millmerran (QLD): _ _ _ _ 2x 440 _ _ _ _ _ _2042 - 2052 _ _ _ _ _ 2051
Callide C (QLD): _ _ _ _ _ 2x 460 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2041 - 2051 _ _ _ _ _ Not Disclosed
@iareid8255 - "Esentially between a rock and a hard place."
I'd suggest our current energy security situation has been decades in the making by a succession of poor energy policies by both the Coalition and Labor governments at state and federal jurisdictions.
A vote for the Coalition is a vote for blackouts and civilisation collapse.
Before I say anything else, the conservative party in Australia is a joke, and they don't actually care about nuclear. They're just floating the idea as a way to avoid actually doing anything. You can tell because if they were serious they wouldn't be talking about SMRs at all. The conversation needs to be between the adults, with the slightly more than half of the Labor and Greens that support nuclear (in a nominal sense) talking to the slightly less than half that oppose it. The rest should be ignored, they're not serious.
1. Nuclear power is actually faster to build than wind or solar in terms of years per GWe per site. And that's just based on recent, Western nuclear builds, not, say, Barakah. So if nuclear is slow, everything else is worse. And rather fortunately, the space for nuclear in 10 years will be the existing renewable that needs to be retired. Since renewables have a very short lifespan compared to nuclear, and since there's already so much of it, well... it's no problem to phase nuclear in by just not replacing some renewable capacity when it's retired. And importantly, this is going to be the case for as long as there is a significant renewable sector. So no matter how long nuclear takes, if the economics are right, it'll fit right in.
2. Is a list of problems with wind and solar. That's not an argument against nuclear, it's an argument against wind and solar. And nuclear doesn't need a dispatchable source... because it is a dispatchable source. Nuclear is capable of power ramping at least as well as coal, and generally better. A little dispatchable storage for grid smoothing is helpful, but not required. In any event, showing that duck curve at 5:24 illustrates the firming needs that come with high penetrance. And firming is expensive.
The LCOE chart at 5:51 shows data from two reviews that both*, unless I'm mistaken, exclude conventional reactors. SMRs are expensive, and are as far as I can tell a bad option for anyone to push in the current environment. They may come into their own some day, and cool if they do, but until then the focus should be on what we know works. And with conventional reactors, the LCOE is FAR lower than what is displayed there. Additionally, the chart excludes firming costs, which as I mentioned, are very high, but we'll get to that in the next section.
*CSIRO definitely excludes them, I'm having trouble finding the BNW LCOE report. But what I saw suggested it was meant to be comparable to CSIRO as a rebuttal, which I understand to mean it also focuses on SMRs.
3. The simple fact is that once you include firming costs, nuclear power is cheaper. Depending on how it's financed, nuclear might be cheaper than the firming costs of renewables alone. And most LCOE reports tell you to be wary of this. For instance, the EIA report that you show at 6:24 includes an explicit warning to not directly compare LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies. I trust you missed that warning as you were reading the report, and didn't ignore it to do the thing the explicitly said not to do. At 6:31 you show CSIRO's LCOE figure, unfortunately CSIRO very badly misrepresents their source for firming costs. For instance at 6:50 you show a page from Lazard's, and scrolling down just a bit from there you'd find their firming estimates of USD70/MWh and USD100/MWh, respectively.
4.1. The duck curve again. That's not a good thing. Covering all of the demand in the middle of the day and none at night drives baseload suppliers out of business while shifting the diurnal load onto peakers... which are more expensive and ultimately results in HIGHER total costs. By not requiring solar power to provide sufficient storage to act as baseload, you are effectively providing them a massive hidden subsidy.
With respect to Dunkelflaute, did I hear you say 'across the *whole* Australian grid'? I don't doubt that it's rare to have no winds in Perth and Sydney, but you're not sending power between them. Of course the paper referenced is only looking at the eastern half of the country. And while you have grid connections from Adelaide to Cairns, supplying all of the needs of the north from the south is not exactly efficient. What's more, the paper suggests that some periods of 60 days might be expected to see 30% reductions in production across the entire grid. So a necessary 40% overcapacity to maintain grid stability. Lower than many countries perhaps, but definitely not something you can just ignore. And the answer given: Really expensive plants you almost never use.
4.2. You reference off-shore wind and rooftop solar, which completely defeats the entirety of the economics point! Rooftop solar is far more expensive (not to mention far more dangerous) than commercial scale solar, as is offshore wind. You can either have this point, or point 3. You can't have both.
Also... 'some of them have high population density' Yeah, and despite what simple math would tell you... so does Australia. Obviously if you just divide the population of Australia by the surface area you get a very small number, but Australia has urbanization rates of ~85%. Nearly the entire population lives in a very small area. 90% live in 0.22% of the country, or ~1383 people per km². If the urbanized part of Australia was it's own country, it would be the 11th densest in the world. This is important, because those densely populated cities right next to the coast are ideal for nuclear power.
All of that said, the most important thing in the video is the end: End the ban! I don't think either one of us would be mad to be wrong and see a faster clean energy transition, regardless of the tech that makes it happen.
@Crispr_CAS9 - "1. Nuclear power is actually faster to build than wind or solar in terms of years per GWe per site. And that's just based on recent, Western nuclear builds, not, say, Barakah."
Nope. Data/evidence I see indicates otherwise...
See my earlier comments at: th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxzYp07vdqodHE3DKZ4AaABAg
See also the "World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2023", particularly the section on NUCLEAR POWER VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPLOYMENT, from pages 411 through 430.
Nuclear fission technologies also rely on finite fuel sources. It seems to me there are inadequate quantities of high-grade uranium ores to sustain a so-called “nuclear renaissance” in the longer-term.
The Energy Watch Group produced a 2013 report titled "Fossil and nuclear fuels - the supply outlook", which included Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand, showing global uranium production peaking around:
* year-2020 from Reasonable Assured Resources (RAR) with extraction costs below $80/kgU;
* year-2030 from RAR with extraction costs below $130/kgU; and
* year-2040 from RAR + Inferred Resources with extraction costs below $260/kgU.
Without an adequate fuel supply to last the operational lives of nuclear plants (50-60 years) then the nuclear plants will become very expensive sculptures.
Nuclear power plants can be around for many decades to perhaps over a century; well over a decade or perhaps two to get-up-and-running, then operational for perhaps up to several decades, and then perhaps more decades to fully decommission. I'd suggest one aspect that's probably not being considered for the locations of any new nuclear plants is the increasing threat of accelerating and relentless sea level rise (SLR).
See my earlier reply to @nigelkempson8746 at: th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgwhFbImrWdxBiYDhzN4AaABAg.A3FJrOVsa0tA40cVvzqyQR
@@GeoffMiell "Nope. Data/evidence I see indicates otherwise..." The largest Western solar installations are all in the US (Gemini, Copper Mountain, Mount Signal, Solar Star, and Desert Sunlight), with numbers consistent with the largest Australian installations (Western Downs and New England). These had an average build rate of 21.6 years per GWe per site.
The largest Western on shore wind installations (MacIntyre Herries, Markbygden, Alta, Fosen Vind, and Western Spirit) had an average build rate of 8.2 years per GWe per site, although most of these are not actually single sites but a collection of independent projects that only share a final transmission point.
The most recent Western nuclear installations (Vogtle, Flamanville, Oikiluoto, and Hinkley C) are being built at a rate of 7.8 years per GWe per site.
Solar: 21.6 y/GWe/site
Wind: 8.2 y/GWe/site
Nuke: 7.8 y/GWe/site
By the way, you can break that down between single unit and dual unit builds, at 11.3y/GWe/site for single and 4.4y/GWe/site for dual. And it's even better for 3-4 unit builds. Barakah (not Western so not included above) was built at a rate of 2.1 y/GWe/site. So... yeah, based on the data nuclear is faster in years/GWe/site terms.
"See my earlier comments at" That link does not take me to a thread with your comments. Not sure why.
"See also the "World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2023"" In spite of its name, WNISR is actually an anti-nuclear propaganda outfit. Referencing it would be like me referencing World Nuclear Association. I've read their 2023 report, it spends a lot of time saying 'look how much capacity has been added for everything else!', which... yeah. Nuclear has received very little money over the past several decades, so very little has been added. Lots of money has gone to renewables, so lots have been added. That doesn't really say anything about where money 'should' be going, unless you assume capitalists are honest and politicians are smart. If there are specific numbers you want me to address feel free to be more specific.
"Nuclear fission technologies also rely on finite fuel sources." That's true, but there is enough uranium to run the entire planet's electrical demand at the current level for over a million years, and enough thorium for another 4-5 million. I'm as pessimistic as anyone about fusion, but even I think we'll get there in a few thousand.
This requires sea water uranium, which is currently around $600/kgU, but this price is primarily constrained by the lack of industrial scale production of the polymers used.
"See my earlier reply to @nigelkempson8746 at:" This link also did not work. Fortunately I was able to find it using the username. I see that it is primarily referencing James Hansen. So let me quote him: "The opposition to nuclear power is truly insane"
Thank you for making it so clear on your first point. Lack of expertise is a real killer. I work in the semiconductor research side of Aus and lack of expertise in semiconductor manufacturing is why we find it so hard to scale. Just as we have to import talent to scale semiconductor manufacturing, we will have to pay a very high import premium for nuclear power expertise in both construction and operation.
The UAE had no nuclear expertise and bought reactors from a South Korean consortium. Seems like the perfect real world example. May be spend two minutes comparing the costs, capacity and capacity factors of UAE nuclear verse Snowy Hydro 2.0?
Not sure why this is a thing in Australia due to the cost and ease of installing wind and solar
Because of the Fossil Fuel Lobby.
Because nuclear power suits right-wing lobbyists. It allows a small number of rich people to milk huge government investment, and then control the means of production.
@@Aermydachfossil fuel lobby?! Doesn't make much sense, does it? Nuclear has also a powerful lobby though.
It’s cheap as long as you only want power occasionally. Forget reliable power if this farcical infatuation with VRE continues.
Its a thing because we are lead by muppets. Career politicians without any sense of reality out there.
Nuclear is not a dumb idea, it is as potential solution to a very serious problem.
The problem is that no matter how you look at it, the potential of renewables in the Australian energy economy is constrained by various factors which I wont list here, but suffice to say they involve scaling the last 40% of energy production.
This results in a huge gap in providing abundant, clean, affordable safe energy that both ensures maintenance of living standards but also provides for economic growth particularly in industry.
By my calculation the gap is about 15-20GW of on line capacity and if made up of renewables, would require around 2,000GWhrs of backup storage. This is fairly conservative, the former Cheif Scientist, Alan Finkel has noted that given the energy intensiveness of the Australian economy this figure could be much, much higher.
There are two options on offer for filling the gap.
From the Labor Party it is gas. This is the cheap and cheerful option. The power stations are small and not very visible in the environment, out of sight out of mind so to speak. While this is better than coal, it is not that much better, it still creates huge amounts of green house gas. The risk is if Australia is still using huge amounts of gas in 2050 (as is planned), net zero targets wont be met. This could be a huge economic risk to the country if our energy intensive exports get taxed by others.
The Coalition option is nuclear to fill the gap. They have not spelled out the exact nature of their program but it seems to be based around a 'Rolls Royce' SMR solution. It appears they will seek to fill the 'gap' using nuclear (30-40% of total) with the rest coming from mainly wind and solar backed by pumped storage and batteries to account for variability thus allowing the nuclear plants to run at constant output.
Given the Coalition will certainly come to power over the next decade, the question is not so much whether nuclear will be used, but what is the best option.
Having looked at the problem closely I do not believe an SMR only option is suitable for Australia. In my view Australia should join forces with Canada and build three fully standardised Darlington scale Candu 9 plants (3-4GW rated).
One each of these would be built in the Illawarra, Latrobe Valley and Geelong regions.
These would be supplemented by 1GW SMR based plants (likely 2-3 reactors each) based at Kwinana Strategic Industrial Zone southwest of Perth, the Whyalla-Port Pirie industrial zone of South Australia, and the Gladstone industrial zone of central Queensland.
Australia's nuclear reactor preferences should be for systems like Candu that minimise waste and are essentially peaceful, posing minimal risk of proliferation. Waste should be disposed of in a secure Commonwealth controlled site already used for nuclear waste, Maralinga and Montebello Island spring to mind but there are very likely other sites in the Woomera defence precinct that could be used with a very high level of safety and security.
Something of this nature would ensure Australia's energy independence and economic security far into the future with a zero emmissions environment.
We need nothing like that level of backup storage.
Please check out Dr Rosie's interview with David Osmond who has been tracking Australia's grid demand over the last 2 years and matching it against actual renewable output, extrapolated to 5% overcapacity. With just 24GW/120GWh (5 hours of storage) on top of our existing hydro we can easily get to 98% renewable generation based on existing output profiles.
@@tassied12 did David Osmond answer the questions about base generator and phase oscillations?
How can whole electricity network be stable without high power generation? (at least 3-6 GW).
I think that it looks like something different from the electricity science, if the system decentralised at all.
1. Base load means base LOAD. It is the load which is always there. Peak load may be 36GW late in the afternoon, but it drops to 18GW at night, and never gets much below that. If you want to provide that power at night from solar, you need storage capable of delivering more than 18 GW for up to 12 hours.
2. It would be silly to try to ramp nuclear up and down to meet demand. You let it run at constant output, and curtail solar or wind when there is too much of it. There is no difference in the emissions whether you curtail solar or curtail nuclear. So turn of the one which is unreliable.
3. We keep installing solar, but we already have the situation where energy companies have to pay people with roof top solar the feed-in tariff even when the wholesale price is negative because of too much solar. It is only a matter of time before they drop the hammer.
4. Building nuclear is slow, but building the transmission network to move renewable energy to where it is needed will also be very slow, and will have a much greater environmental impact. It may never happen.
5. It is an article of faith that we will have fully transitioned to renewables by 2035. The indications are that the transition is slowing down, not accelerating as required to meet the target.
As a recovering nuclear advocate, let me just say that:
1. Grid scale batteries are way more capable than I initially thought. I would look at the scale of pumped hydro dams and think "that could never be stored in batteries", not intuitively comprehending that chemical battery storage is nearly a thousand times denser than gravitational storage with water, and that a cities' energy needs for multiple days can fit into a small warehouse. Keep in mind that it's engineers, not hippies, that are installing these storage systems. They have the forethought to install enough capacity to meet demand during extreme circumstances, and the systems are probably underrated if anything. So yes, battery storage can definitely meet demand at night (also the demand isn't a constant 18 GW, that might be the evening peak but it falls rapidly as people go to bed and turn things off).
2. If demand drops below supply, and you don't have any wind turbines or panels that can be disconnected, you have a problem. If the reactor is cranking out power, that power has to go somewhere, or else equipment will begin to be damaged. If you added enough wind and solar to be able to curtail what you needed to, it would be a majority of the power. Then you have to ask yourself why a nuclear plant is being operated just to pick up the occasional slack of a mostly renewable grid, when battery storage could do the same thing for a lot cheaper and the same or better reliability.
3. The "problem" of too much solar capacity isn't one. If there's too much power on the grid, we either need to divert some of it to storage, or power down a coal plant, and the latter is hard to do intermittently.
4. The cost and time of upgrading power grids to use distributed renewable generation is less of an issue than is immediately obvious. Power transmission systems around the world are in need of upgrades, in some cases decades overdue. Replacing most of the transmission system will happen within the next two decades to ensure reliable power access (and prevent wildfires). The additional cost of upgrading the system while it's being replaced is a small add-on to the total cost. Upgrading to a renewable-capable grid has a lot of benefits, mainly the increased reliability of a distributed system with many generation and storage points. That is to say, the total cost reported is often misleading because the majority of that figure is for critically necessary repairs, and the additional cost of upgrading the system provides more reliability and cheaper electricity access in the long-term.
5. Not sure which indications you're referring to. Most renewable development took a dip during the pandemic, but both wind and solar and globally increasing in their rates of deployment, as are new battery storage systems. I too think 2035 for 100% seems off, but even at the current rate of about 3% growth per year would put Australia near 100% within the next 20 years. The point remains that by the time a new nuclear plant is put online, the grid landscape, and price of electricity to compete with, will be dramatically different and probably not in favor of nuclear.
I love nuclear. I love the physics behind it, I love learning about new reactor designs. But the hard sober truth is that, as an energy source, it only makes practical sense in niche cases. It's always the most expensive option up front, it takes a very long time to recoup it's investment, and it takes a very long time to actually bring a reactor online (even at the optimistic end, and most places that want to "get into" nuclear energy don't have the domestic expertise and resources needed to build quickly or economically). The main use case for nuclear is in wealthy countries with limited space and non-energy exporting neighbors. And if those places want to build nuclear, then great! It's an ultra-low carbon energy source that helps the world reach net zero emissions
Who wants solar to provide night time power? LOL oh. I had a thought. If every house was to install a battery that replentished at a low cost during high power production we will not need huge storage facilities. #baseloadnolonger
@jasonrhl There's a lot of good ways to reduce baseload that are pretty affordable. For instance, 70% of household energy use is for heating and cooling, either spaces or water. Heating and cooling capacity is energy that can easily be stored in low-cost phase change materials like ice for cooling or molten sales for heating. There's a lot of things we use that use big gobs of power for super short periods of time, like microwave ovens, that could benefit from low-cost, high current draw batteries like lead acid. The general idea of spreading out large loads into small power draws throughout the day can massively reduce the amount of baseload battery storage we actually need.
@@Spencergolde i would still disagree with this. nuclear is still in an infancy. we have an understanding of how it works but haven't invested any money into it due to fear. infact legislation like the one she provided directly contributes to the high cost of nuclear. its a circular argument. nuclear is to expensive but we wont invest in nuclear to make it cheaper and will go out of our way to ban its development. solar and wind where in the same boat 20-30 years ago where people say it was to expensive now its not extremely expensive but it never had to get around lawmakers who would ban the technology for no reason.
in total the arguments she made are completely circular nuclear is to expensive because we wont invest in making it cheaper.
There's that professor from university of Illinois who lectures on all the facts about nuclear power. He's good but my attention span is weak .😊
Great video Rosie. As a energy trader in the NEM looking after a large number of wind, solar and battery assets, I can’t help to think of the issues related to increased system security that arise with a decrease in system inertia. A natural byproduct of the displacement of old coal fleets. Perhaps this could be addressed as a point to consider when discussing nuclear in your next video?
Hey did I once talk to you at a conference in Melbourne? Your face looks familiar!
I did talk a little bit about inertia in a video I made last year about SA's energy transition. I thought they were on a path to not needing much/any physical inertia? But you'd be on top of that more than me, please correct me if I'm wrong!
Curious to know about this too.
I never understood this "it takes too long" mindset? Its literally just the government & companies saying they're procrastinators. If it takes a long time RIGHT NOW will always be the best time to start planning. Renewables aren't reliable enough to guarantee a future, nuclear is!
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Something to think about:
A machine without energy is a sculpture.
A worker without energy (food) is a corpse.
No energy, no economy.
See/hear economist Steve Keen on the origins of energy blindness.
th-cam.com/video/lrMWSkzrMYg/w-d-xo.html
Well, that's not surprising considering how much the information is hidden. Google the expected output from a nuc plant? Easy. Try to do the same for solar? Not so easy. a 1GW nuc plant will produce 1 GW 24/7 for 90+% of the year. A 1GW solar farm will NEVER produce 1 GW and will function for maybe 30% of the day? For something like 60% of the year?
@@brettbridger362 - "Try to do the same for solar? Not so easy."
I'd suggest you are not trying. See Open Electricity.
Brett Bridger - "1GW nuc plant will produce 1 GW 24/7 for 90+% of the year."
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
And plans to build and construct many nuclear power plants don't necessarily translate to producing electricity. On 5 Feb 2024, M.V. Ramana said in his presentation:
"𝘚𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘥 2000𝘴, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2005 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘈𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 30 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘢𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩... 𝘈𝘯𝘥 15, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘩, 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘺 2021, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘖𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳 $9 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘺𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘰, 𝘪𝘯, 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘩... 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 $4 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 $35 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘴."
th-cam.com/video/K9lYV8r_exc/w-d-xo.html
I found this clip after listening to you on shirtloads of science. You have a new subscriber. Love your work!
“One thing we are not short of in Australia is space. I can see why nuclear would be interesting for Canada…” made me do a double-take ;)
Yep. Shoulda been "Two things we are not short of in Australia are space AND SUNSHINE. I can see why nuclear would be interesting for Canada..."
The UK relied on France's EDF for its new Hinckley point C as the skills to build new power stations are pretty scarce. Plus the price agreed for power from it is way more expensive at £100 a Mwh+inflation than other forms of generation.
The initial price not the total one. You should look at the lifecycle price of nuclear plants. Considerably cheaper than renewables.
@@salahidin That's interesting. Could you quote your source? I'd like to look at the data. Thanks.
124.65£/MWh atm
Yes, nuclear is expensive compared to other sources if you are being simplistic (ie just looking at LCOE, or strike-price). But nuclear brings the *overall* generation cost down. Unlike Australia, Britain has long dark winters, regular week long DunkelFlaute, expensive land, limited hydro, and no geothermal. A small amount of base load (maybe 20%) dramatically reduces the amount of (expensive) storage needed for a renewable-only solution. None of Rosie's points are killers for Britain.
@@salahidin "Considerably cheaper than renewables." - 😂LOL, those vocationally involved in energy sector assessment would beg to differ with you.
Here in NZ we were told to cut power usage this morning, or face power cuts.
An early morning cold snap while the sun was not shining and the wind was not blowing, meant they had to ramp up coal and gas fired generation and potentially lacked the capacity to keep up.
A nuclear power station would help that wouldnt your NZ government is even more backwards then Australias when it comes to Nuclear .Its the only option to stop climate change its the only option to save us average people from outrageous energy bills . The average Canadian pays less then half as much for energy then Aussies or kiwis why because they have a nuclear power capacity. Uneducated people here the word Nuclear and go all funny when it's actually the safest most efficient way to produce energy.
reasons to build nuclear
@@spectrum1324 Totally agree.
@@spectrum1324 I'm guessing that's your default response to everything. First it was that Wind and Solar would never be viable. Now that it is viable but is still growing, the goal post has now moved. Because we've never experienced disruption with coal and oil, whether it be power capacity or hitting your pocket leaving you with no option but to pay. I wager the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for those who don't have a short memory and are not shortsighted.
@@gemelwalters2942 when did i say never be viable I know its a viable option but not one to run an entire gird its good as extra power on top of a decent base line. you would have to be crazy everything were talking about is based on replacing an entire industry with renewables like solar and wind.
the goal post hasn't move it is not viable to replace the entire system. period. infact the inability to look into the long-term is something you seem to be exhibiting as you aren't thinking of the economic disadvantages brought on by the removal or coal and how that will hit our economy. you aren't looking at the storage and distribution of solar and the cost of storing electricity and aren't looking at how nuclear could develop to be a much better technology than solar if it gets funding. you just see oh big number small cost that's great. not great if that small cost requires increase cost in every other sector of life now is it
I have a few comments but they are all harsher on nuclear than you were.
-Nuclear needs huge amounts of water. Because of the relatively low thermal efficiency it needs even more than modern supercritical coal or combined cycle natural gas. Droughts are a significant concern for Australia. Can do dry cooling, but that adds cost and reduces efficiency, and Australia's air temperatures are probably some of the worst to attempt this. Can site the plants on the coast and cool from ocean water, but that leaves them vulnerable to natural disasters and sea level rise.
-Places with a lot of existing nuclear are facing costs for needed renovations and safety upgrades because in eg US or France the fleet is quite old. Most originally licensed for 40 years, a lot of the safety upgrades kick in with license extensions to 60 years. Even with an existing reactor these can be uneconomical vs renewables.
-I think you are too generous to nuclear for cold climates. Canada has a ton of wind resources, and the wind is generally stronger in winter. Solar is also not as bad as you'd think because low air temperatures increase PV efficiency significantly.
Like the one off the coast of california which uses sea water?
Interesting analysis. One thing I'd add, relevant to points 2 and 4, is that the availability of nuclear baseload can completely offset more flexible sources of renewable baseload or storage, filling them even when extra capacity from other renewables is not available and freeing them to be used purely for peaking and backfill, which can add a ton of capacity availability for those purposes even if it's not nuclear itself that's providing it. Hydro for example is often used for baseload itself, since the water flow is usually continuous and it's very cheap renewable power -- having nuclear as well means your hydro becomes silly to use for baseload, and can be used on-demand instead, with the reservoir serving as a giant battery. That said, I totally understand how it might not be necessary or even make sense in Australia.
Really love the argument angle that nuclear solves a lot of problems Australia doesn't have. Great thinking Rosie!
I agree with everything said except the biggest problem in Australia. The biggest problem in this country are NIMBYs. Where would you put it?
If the NUMBYs are crying about wind turbines 15km out to see, you can just imagine what they would be like if you tried to build Nuclear
Just add a transmission problem on top of a NIMBY problem 🤣
So true, the only benefit too nuclear would be the schadenfraude I would feel seeing the national party pushing this to their constituents.
Roof!!
Great video, Rosie! What we also need to look at very seriously in Australia is how to build more energy-efficient homes, which account for about a third of energy use. Our ridiculous glorified cardboard tents with gigantic single-glazed windows and doors are an embarrassment. Energy saving is a completely alien concept to many Australians, who love to whinge about 1000-dollar power bills while leaving the lights on in every room and setting their A/C thermostat to 16 degrees just to survive the more frequent heatwaves.
❤ totally with you
I agree that nuclear has substantial problems, but i think you markedly downplay the cost of new transmission lines and energy storage. Both wind and solar energy is much cheaper to generate that all other sources of power. But retail and business are not concerned about the cost of energy generation. They are interested in the cost and reliability of energy delivery.
A lot of businesses must run 24 hrs/ day 365 days per year. That means we need at least one week [ and preferably several weeks ] of energy storage. This is very expensive.
You're wrong about the need for weeks of energy storage to achieve consistent supply. Have you been paying attention to her videos?
We need much less storage than that. Refer to Dr Rosie's interview with David Osmond who has been matching grid demand against renewable output over the last 2 years
We have to remember the end goal is to stop global warming so it’s probably not a great idea to build machines whose exclusive task is to make heat and to boil water. I’m sure it’s only a very small effect in the grand scheme of things but every little bit counts. this was a great video.
There is one source of energy that is never ever talked about. It is called Negawatts and it means the energy you can obtain through user efficiencies, conservation and lifestyle changes. I would love to see someone do a video on that source of energy!!!
Negawatts won't power *_data-centers._*
no. just build moar solar!
Candles
@@jimgraham6722
Right!!! Try heating your house in Canada in December through March with Candles.
There might be a few valid criticisms here. I would counter with some thoughts. Firstly most of the panels will be made in china to a poor quality. At the very best the solar and wind farms last 20 years, instead of 60 to 80 like nuclear plants. Funny how you don't mention this considering the wind and solar projects still aren't cheap in this country. And they will have to be rebuilt 4 times over to match the longevity of a nuclear plant. Due to the vast dispersion of wind and solar assets maintenance and transmission will also be harder. Solar panels are subject to hail damage. You might also want to study how the wind projects kill many avian and aquatic species of wild life.
If we had started 40 years ago and had a nuclear industry. We would have the technical expertise and the projected overruns would be as much of an issue.
Question: does the energy transition forecasting you're using take into account the possibility of moving to electric transportation? A huge increase in energy demand could justify a nuclear baseload.
Electric mobility will probably lower the need for baseload. Do you own an EV?
What do you mean? If all the current transportation fuelled by gasoline is moved to electric, the total yearly energy demand will be way higher...
Or maybe you meant if you have an EV in your garage, it can be hooked up to your house to manage your personal load? That wouldn't matter, the totally yearly energy demand for the whole country is still higher
@@hyperplastic In my opinion, with the share of electric cars and plug-in hybrids in the energy system of a large country or continent exceeding 25%, there will be an acute shortage of generation and significant investments and donations will be required from the state and private companies for the development of public electric transport and dedicated lanes for urban electric transport, including joint used taxis or two-wheeled electric vehicles
In the USA, a lot of electricity is used to refine motor fuel. Our Dept of Energy claims that almost 6kWh of electricity is used to refine one US gallon of gasoline. 6kWh of electricity will move a small sedan about 20 miles. One gallon of gasoline will move the same small sedan about 40 miles. About half the electricity for powering the electric fleet will come from Not refining oil. A wee bit will also come from there being fewer gas stations and fewer tanker trucks delivering fuel.
@hyperplastic I belive what he means is that every electric car has a battery that is usually oversized for your average everyday commute. Therefore increasing the amount of electric cars adds a consumer to the grid that is price driven, and able to match its demand to availability, thus reducing the need for firm generation.
Spot on!
Peter Dutton said that he will be getting experts from overseas, which ones are likely to be sought out and which nation/s would benefit the most financially?
What is not being addressed adequately is the natural volatility and our natural disasters impact we are living with at this time, and what that would be like if we had nuclear plants and reactors here?
Also when we have horrible fire situations or excessive heat, that melts sprinkler systems and releases its own fire weather storms and fire winds situation, like in 2019 burns for six months, what that would mean if we had nuclear here?
What I would like to see is the safety factors addressed, along with the nuclear waste factor.
Other than that, its a good informative video, thankyou.🎉
nuclear is actually super safe. its just gunna cost more then renewables, like wayyyy more. and on top of that will take super long to implement, like 2040 in the most optimistic of circumstances. Also this is most likley a political stunt by dutton and the LNP to distract australians and muddy the waters so to speak. dutton couldnt organise a ham sandwich, how the hell is he gunna build 7 reactors in any given amount of time? unlikley
It would be interesting to know what your projections are for grid demand with transportation being electrified. Would it change the economic conditions for nuclear? Also with Australia going for nuclear submarines would it help to have nuclear facilities?
If Austrialia tried to charge vehicles at night that will be an issue due to needing to displace solar power from day to night, which is why daytime workplace charging rather then nighttime charging should made the norm. Having nuclear submarines is irrelivent to nuclear power, the nuclear technology and fuel in the subs is being provided by the UK so Australian navy just needs to maintain what they buy.
Yes, particularly in training qualified nuclear engineers and technicians.
Electrified transport can solve some of the wind+solar grid problems untill the demand of 12-13%.
Used batteries must be used in public transport, railways and in industry, services, utility companies for high-powered storages.
But grids development are too expensive.
Because of that, electric vehicles must use the same network as al other electric transport.
It's twice cheaper.
Could you do a video on why or why not build a west-east HVDC line across Australia which would allow for solar in the west to solve the sunset demand peak in the east?
Strategically, it's not a bad idea but the economics are difficult. It would be a good deal cheaper to build a nuclear plant at each end.
I'm against destroying the ecology of a large amount of the remnant vegetation on top of the Great Dividing Range for windmills (with supporting roads), power lines and pumped hydro.
@@lynndonharnell422 An issue with ranges is it is a place where birds hangout, particularly particularly birds like wedge tail eagles that gets their uplift there.
We can't just plonk down windmills be anywhere. They should only be sited in locations where the risk to wild life is minimal.
YOU NEVER TALKED ABOUT DEALING WITH THE WASTE!!!
But the video was about why nuclear is a dumb ideal for Australia. Not about easily solvable problems.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855 are you trying to suggest the "waste" is an "Easily solvable problem," but cannot find a singe example of where it has been solved, anywhere on Earth? ....you sound like, perhaps, you are a nuclear advocate, regardless of logic... ie., a nuclear cultist...
@@Naturalook I just think that the storage sites, like Onkola in Finland, are a good enough solution. Those storage sites should be build for all of the spent fuel. But I'm not a nuclear cultist as I think that nuclear energy is not worth the hassle when renewables+transmission+storage provide cheaper, more simple, and safer options.
I am a fanboy of nuclear fusion though. But that is more a fascination with the sciene and technology behind it. I actually don't think that fusion will ever be cheaper than wind and solar.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855' fair enough, I am a 'fanboy,' too, by those measures... I always first gotta say... ...but it's way more expensive then simpler alternative... but toward the permanent solutions; I only see spot-locations that have viable long-term sequester, like in the 10.s of thousands of years... When you add the all in, and then think, the number of plants is to be thousands of times increased... It's just numbers, and when those numbers are put into dollars, it's easy, "NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS NO PLACE IN OUR FUTURE!!!"
dump it into the sea
Really great video!!!
Perhaps put your camera light metering mode to wide, or some spot on the wall, now it seemed to adjust the lighting based on where precisely you were in the image.
I have not even changed a single setting on this camera since I bought it 😬🫣 I promise I will do that... Sometime
@@EngineeringwithRosiehaha nice
I guess Rosie has never heard of Snowy 2.0... otherwise she might revise her claim that nuclear power leads the pack in construction cost overruns.
Pump hydro has been cheaper overseas but this was a failed project, Australia isn't great at these kind of projects relying on international expertise/tools. Imagine how bad a nuclear plant would be.
you said it .. 20y in the game and not much has happen in emissions stakes. how long do we have?
I would not lose any sleep over climate change hype, it is a very controversial subject, if it has any bases of reality at all.
well banks lend out 30 yr mortgages for shore front properties, so you still have 30 yrs lol
@@evil17 What do you mean "hype"?
What is contraversial about the subject?
What do you mean "if it has any bases of reality at all"?
What do you know about the topic to be making such comments?
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye Nothing that guy was just a run of the mill climate denier, just report them for misinformation.
Good video. It is a NO to nuclear power plants IN AUSTRALIA. Not a NO to nuclear everywhere.
Fun fact: here in Italy we voted twice against nuclear power generation with referendums. Now that wind farm projects are being proposed, local people protest against them. They're taller than a skyscraper, they need deep foundation to be set in an area, they discourage tourism, they kill birds, etc...
It's a NIMBY no. I wonder how we should produce electricity after saying no almost to everything able to do it cleanly.
In Italy? Solar panels on every roof. Then you can sell to Germany when the nuclear conservatives there get their much-loved dunkelflaute.
@@benoithudson7235 and huge batteries in every shed and apartment.
@@jesan733even the smallest electric cars have more than enough energy storage for residence
@@justseifert that's not true in the slightest.
@@jesan733 do you have proof that it's not true?
I would sooner look a nuclear power station than hundreds of wind turbines and miles of solar panels which needs replacing every 10 to 15 years
Would you rather wait 20 years to see that nuclear get built for ~369% of original cost (like Finland's just opened reactor) and all the while being charged not just for its construction but also for the operation of expensive gas-fired or decrepit over-extended coal-burners filling the gap?
I mean, the video points out that 0.1% of Australia's land area could meet the needed space for Solar to power our entire demand... and it's not like there's not THOUSANDS of square miles of totally uninhabited lying around, right? Oh, wait. And that's just with the efficiency of today's panels. The panels we are using today are already orders of magnitude more efficient than ones from even 10 years ago. By 2040 we'll actually need quite a bit less surface area of solar panels to create the same supply.
Current warranties on solar panels are 20 years and more. I retired some old panels due to natural disaster and space needed on the roof. They still put out 75% although 50% beyond old warranty. The new panels are very good.
@@KentRigeI Why are you comparing a 24/7 power source to an intermittent one and claiming the intermittent one is better? I'd much rather nuclear.
@@logofreetv
The intermittent one is better if it still meets our needs, is cheaper and we can get it now instead of 20 years from now. Right now it is growing increasingly common for renewables to match demand during the 11am to 2 pm peak of solar when combined with wind. On more days each year the wholesale market price of electricity, the 'spot price', goes NEGATIVE during certain times of the day.
And that's just now, here in 2023-2024. By the time any nuclear arrives the room in the grid for a high-capacitance only generator that can't peak when needed or be shaped when not needed will be almost useless. France is, even now, turning off reactors completely on a more and more frequent basis because of demand being met by renewables and operating a reactor when demand is already met means using uranium, wear on turbines that require interval maintenance, staff to operate and fees to dispatch the energy to the grid... only to have to PAY someone to take it if the spot price goes negative thanks to even more excess supply over and above demand.
By the time nuclear could even optimistically arrive in Australia the notion of any 90% capacitance fleet of reactors in our grid would be utterly non-sensical. Nuclear is a solution that exists to a problem that is NOT the one we have. Rosie pointed it out quite bluntly, nuclear is NOT complementary with VRE.
So you can 'rather' it all you like but the closer we get to 2040 when these reactors would be meant to arrive the worse and worse the economic, logistic and technical case for their presence would become.
Thanks for that Rosie. I liked the video. A few things I don't think are fair when talking about renewables - for one - they cost shift. Sure renewables are cheap but that is because they don't have any storage. They are like an internet service provider who may or may not be able to show you Netflix when you get home who can do it cheaper than one that guarantees supply. Sure we can hook more renewables up together and do pumped hydro but the costs of better grids and storage should really be put on renewables - you expect those who sell services to be able to do it whenever a customer wants - and storage should be costed into renewable generation. That would bring the cost of renewables way up. As for permits - we are seeing renewables also find it hard to get permits and pumped hydro seems to be as nebulous as nuclear - it just isn't happening fast enough.
Also you talk about no baseload - if we do what the Finkel report says, then we need (IIRC) 12 times the generation capacity that we have at the moment to be non carbon emitting. The new green generation system will need the production of green Hydrogen, the powering of electric cars, and the powering of aluminium production. Surely there will be huge amounts of constant requirement for electricity that a baseload power can provide with clever switching on and off of large loads when required (as aluminium production does now)
I am not a nuclear zealot (I am a greenie Physics teacher) and I love seeing turbines and solar everywhere, but it is not me we have to get going green. It is those who don't think like me. But I would vote for anyone who can get our emissions down and more importantly show other countries how to do it cheaply. I love the reef and find it hard to watch it die. But I have lived off renewables for 6 years of my life on my boats. I know the pitfalls of small scale renewables and also the simplicity of arguments that has greater renewable generation without some form of storage. Renewables are not as cheap as they are made to be because they don't do the same job as gas or coal or even nuclear.
Rosie calls to abandon all public transport and choose a car for everyone! And a flying car against airplanes! And a boat for everyone against passenger ships!
Let's start green washing under the green flags!
))
Very emotional, but very strange video.
So, nuclear is not necessary in Australia (despite some models showing that a 50% nuclear and 50% solar/wind mix is the ONLY way to get off using fossil fuels for electricity in Australia)? I guess that means that Australia is going to keep its thermal Coal power stations active, or switch to Gas peaker power stations instead, and overall grid electricity costs are just going to keep going up? That's assuming Australia doesn't want to have occasional grid failures and rolling blackouts.
Solar and wind will only be viable as the primary power contributors if ultra cheap, reliable, government funded/mandated grid scale backup systems can be used. (The economics of grid backup are weird and simply don't work for private providers, other than at a small capacity scale with no competition.) Australia simply doesn't have enough mountains or water to use Hydro at sufficient scale for this (although every bit helps); we need other types of backup systems.
The video left out one other advantage of nuclear power: a lot less waste, and a lot lower environmental impact. Nuclear power plants tend to last 60 years or more; solar and wind systems only about 20 years. Those solar and wind systems also need to cover a lot more area to provide similar power levels, so there is a lot more of them - and they also need more power transmission lines over much longer distances. All of this needs to be replaced more or less every 20 years, and the old panels/windmill blades go into landfill. New panels and turbines need to be manufactured (usually in China), using very high temperature processes (currently mostly coal-powered), using materials mined somewhere, digging up huge amounts of rock. Yes, there is at least a decent energy return on investment in Australia - but it's not free, and currently still requires a fossil fuel infrastructure to keep replacing and expanding that solar and wind power energy system. It's unclear how cheap or easy that will be if oil starts running out or its use is restricted in more countries. (Uranium mining, processing, and eventual disposal has a lot of warts too, nothing is perfect, but you need a LOT less of it to keep the lights on.)
Nope. By the time the first nuclear power station is built here in Oz, installed renewables will already be 80-90% of all power generation - with no ongoing fuel costs and very little maitenance costs. How will expensive to run, to insure, to fuel, to maintain, to insure, nukes compete then ?
Thermal coal will all be turned of within 10yrs due to the shear cost of fuel and maintenance. It might cost >$1B to refurbish a coal plant every 12yrs, and no Ozzie finance institution will lend that money for a dying industry - they have already made that clear.
1in 3 homes here in Oz have rooftop solar fitted, and as installation costs keep dropping, the installation of solar is accelerating. This will be 50% of all home will have roof top solar soon.
Storage batteries are plummeting in price, with the worlds bigeest battery manufacturer, CATL, announcing this week that it will release a new hybrid sodium / lithium battery, that has good storage density, works at -20°C, at a new absurdly low price per kwhr.
Battery prices will dive over the next 10yrs. Nukes and coal and gas cannot compete.
@@nordic5490 IF grid scale battery prices decline, that's GREAT. It will still take a government initiative to install enough, as it is not currently economically viable to run battery backup systems as a private entity.
Likewise, the cheap solar rooftop power is great for home owners. It's just a problem for everyone else.
People living in town centers (multi-unit dwellings) are dependent on the grid, and even standalone homes need a grid connection in case their solar system goes down. So, the problem is how to keep the grid power system going. Some of that will be wind power - not solar because utilities can't make any money because there is so much competition. The problem is who will supply power when solar and wind are (rarely) not available (or insufficient). Hopefully those government funded battery systems will be able to cover this - because private entities can't make any money if their asset is simply idle most of the time. That's why grid power is currently becoming much more expensive in Australia, because Coal power plants have to charge higher prices to compensate for their lower capacity factor - which means that the people living in cities (and of course any industrial businesses) have to pay much higher prices to subsidize the home owners' ability to connect to the grid.
@@davidbarry6900 voices like "we'll all have sooar power at the roofs" looks like "we'll abandon all public transport, railways, airplanes, ships! Everyone must have own car and private airplane and a boat!"
)))
I'm kidding but it looks so annoying and crazy when "green experts" from the bedroom thoughts that they found an excellent decision ))
@@nordic5490 I'm also curious just how practical it is to charge electric vehicles from rooftop solar, especially given that most people USE their cars during the daytime. This implies that, if we are to move away from ICE vehicles in future, we need a strong electricity grid to power those vehicles, either at the office or at night. Doubling home battery backup systems to do it with home solar seems overly expensive (charge by day, charge the car at night, use the grid for your own power needs?). So, back to grid solar and massive grid storage solutions - or include some nuclear and a lot less battery backup. Australia will likely keep its coal and/or Gas thermal power plants at least until 2050 though, unless there is real commitment to rolling out grid storage faster.
Brilliant points on negatives of nuclear, but i would have liked to have seen the points juxtaposed against the challenges of energy storage for renewables in Australia as well as I believe that this also presents far more challenges than most would expect
Yes this is a major shortcoming in these videos. You can’t trash talk over a 200% blow out in a nuclear project and ignore a 500% blowout in Snowy 2.0
Purchasing land and building 28,000 kms of new infrastructure will cost $$$ Trillions, replacing existing coal-fired power stations will cost billions, replacing renewables every 15 years will cost billions. Nuclear power stations are not replaced for 60-80 years. So no.....
Finland recently commissioned a new nuclear power station then immediately REDUCED electricity prices by 75%.
@@wyattfamily8997 At the expense of the government, which is on the hook for the higher cost of the NPP which went billions over it's projected cost.
None of the reasons you give are inherent in the technology. In the 60's and 70's we were able to build NPP's - many of which still operate today with zero harm - on time and on budget, at a cost equivalent to or less than coal power. All that changed since then is an irrational overblown fear of radiation that has lead us to impose excessive costs and fiscal risks onto nuclear power - and then you use this as a circular argument to say we should not use it.
There are a number of nations that have seen through this scam - and are happily investing in new NPP projects - and will soon enough leave Australia choking on the dust of expensive, over complex renewables.
Nope, not true at all. By the time the first nuclear power station is built here in Oz, installed renewables will already be 80-90% of all power generation - with no ongoing fuel costs and very little maitenance costs. How will expensive to run, to insure, to fuel, to maintain, to insure, nukes compete then ?
In fact the rest of the world is not heading to nuclear. From the IAEA reactor database there was just ONE new reactor construction start outside China last year. Global nuclear capacity last year went backwards with capacity lost due to closures exceeding new capacity coming online
@@nordic5490 I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and have worked in heavy industrial automation most of my working life - almost five decades now. To keep the point simple; operating a stable grid with inherently complex, intermittent renewable sources and non-spinning batteries (with massive high powered electronics) comes with a lot more risk and costs than it's proponents imagine. This is already playing out in Germany.
I am under no illusions that nuclear power is a serious engineering undertaking requiring proper analysis and design standards - I only wish the same rigor was applied by the renewables crowd to their proposals.
If you are sincerely interested in the best path froward on funding and insuring nuclear power - search on "Gordian Knot Jack Devanney". A very experienced engineer who brings a lifetime of deep understanding of building and working in hazardous industry to this problem.
@@nordic5490 > "with very little maintenance costs for decentralised wind and solar generation"
???
WTF???
Are you sure you've been connected to any type of renewables???
Just maintenance of the on-grid inverters and repairing of the panels which have triple internal resistance can triple your maintenance costs.
For wind generation it's more complex processes.
@@nordic5490 Renewables have ZERO chance of being 80-90% in Australia. Not even 10% now (the claims of 36-40% are nameplate, not actual consistent output) The cost of transmission lines and power management would be prohibitive.
No IDEA!!
Great video. Here in Europe there's a massive rise in support for nuclear - often because of some of the reasons you specify towards the second half of the video. However, the cost overruns, the scheduling, the legality, the liability... the sheer length of time it takes to bring them online? Honestly, I don't even think it's worth the effort here in the UK either. Especially not when you consider our somewhat calamitous history with politics, corporations, foreign-owned providers, and safety - none of which are a good mix when it comes to nuclear (or any other large scale industry for that matter, but it's amplified when there's the extra special spicy sauce flying around).
Your European support for nuclear is ultimatly from the same thing, rightwing parties deciving the public as a means to derail renewables without overtly denying climate change.
Nuclear generation was lost with all of their knowledge.
That's the main reason for long delays
@@MihailG5541 Absolute crap. Nuclear energy has been in place and in development ever since it was first created.
1 kg of coal runs a washing machine from 6 hours. Available 24/7
1 kg of oil runs a washing machine for 9 hours. Available 24/7
1 kg of renewables runs a washing machine for less than 1 hour. Available only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shinning. Nominally 30% of the time in Australia.
1 kg of Uranium runs a washing machine for 2000 years. Available 24/7. WARNING - The washing machine may not last 2000 years.
I wonder which energy source makes sense.
What sort of inane phrase is "1kg of renewables"?
@@CharlesGregory Interesting comment. Last time I saw a solar panel and a wind turbine they didn’t float away in the breeze because they had weight that could be measured.
Now if only we could build that 0 kg nuclear power plant and solve the 100.000 year radiation problem.
And my washing machine, dishwasher and all of the other electric stuff runs just fine on my 400 kg of solar panels.
@@SolAce-nw2hf I have solar on my roof and it totally fails before the sun even sets which makes it useless. When the wind stops which is often then it too is totally useless. Nuclear does not care what the weather is doing because it just works 24/7. Read a book on how the radiation problem has been 100% solved and then work out why the toxins in your solar panels are toxic forever and there is no way of recycling it. At least nuclear waste has a half life but renewables toxins are forever.
@@NeutronStar-r7r Anyone with half a brain can see how ridiculously stupid it is to compare the weight of fuel with the weight of a power station.
Thinking of running Australia on wind and sunshine is a really dumb idea' it would be interesting too know where your going to store all the renewable electricity when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow' it would be interesting to know how much has the price of electricity as come down since going with wind and solar.
Storage is the issue.
Once you go past a grid with more than 50-60% renewables you have to commit ever larger resources to storage. At 100% renewables Australia would have to invest around $180m in pumped hydro projects. If you sought to do it with chemical big batteries it would be about $1tr. You could mix and match for something in between.
Australia's two governing parties have looked at overcoming the storage problem.
The Coalition has opted to go nuclear, Labor has chosen to ignore the problem altogether and go gas (hoping no one will notice).
Given the Coalition will certainly be back in power in five years, nuclear it is. The only issue is what type? I am not sure I am convinced by their infatuation with a Rolls Royce solution.
@@jimgraham6722
You're forgetting political survivalism.
'Of course the policy we ran on for years was great for getting votes from our base whom we plied relentlessly with it... but actually delivering on it once we're in power is an entirely different kettle of fish. We were perfectly aware of the facts and data that stood at odds with our plan but we deliberately underplayed the downsides and overplayed the benefits to avoid getting hammered in debates over technicalities rather than winning points on ideology. Now that we're in, years later, the actual prospect of going ahead with this scheme is less palatable than ever and could even see us lose the next election if we end up throwing endless money down a hole with year after year of over-runs and blow-outs. But we can't just do a 180 flip-flop... so endless committees, reviews, planning, consultations, poorly run tenders, string vendors along, delay and eventually it'll fall through. With any luck we can blame our opponents obvious refusal to do anything to help us as the reason it didn't work.'
Even if Dutton gets in an election or two from now the most Australia will ever see is more Morrison-style 'announce everything, deliver nothing' and 'funding, funding, funding'. If renewables work out even close to what most actual science and engineering based modelling says and a largely stable ~90% renewable grid takes shape by 2032-35 then Dutton will get the benefit of that rollout working while not hanging an Albatross around his neck by changing his mind like he did from 2023 when he publicly spoke against large-scale nuclear.
Check Tesla Battery Storage projects in California in case you want to learn more in this area .
@@chopinmack5418 CA as a state likely has three times the capacity for pumped storage that Australia has as a country.
@@jimgraham6722 Technology & Safety of Heat / Power Storage are improving rapidly , and prices are
dropping rapidly as well . Rosie should be able to recommend the Storage system best for Australia .
Over 70% of the land in Australia are Desert . Australia should Install the Solar Panels in Desert areas
where possible and generate a lot of cheap electricity so as to enable Australia to become competitive
in other industries .
As Paul Keating once said "You should always back the horse of self interest". This is exactly what we are seeing in this video. If Rosie was a real engineer she would see that the renewable dream is a scam, the only thing renewable about wind and solar is you have to keep renewing them. By the time 2050 rolls around the windmills being planted today will be being replaced for the second time, the cost keeps rolling on. An inconvenient fact is that there is not enough known copper reserves in the world to complete the goal of 100% renewables anytime. You could say Rosie is right about one thing, and that is we don't need nuclear, because we have plenty of coal still in the ground to last for 100's of years. The global warming catastrophe is way over blown and it still hasn't been proven that humans are the direct cause of climate change. The world is not boiling, go outside and have a look.
@krshil5373 - "The world is not boiling, go outside and have a look."
Earth had the two hottest days on record and the weather is acting like it.
th-cam.com/video/e5babdQYKV8/w-d-xo.html
Meanwhile, leading Australian climate scientist Dr Joëlle Gergis takes a timely look at Australia's perilous future in a warming world, recorded at an event at Gleebooks in Sydney on Tuesday, 4 Jun 2024.
"𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵." - Dr Joëlle Gergis
Hear the ABC RN podcast titled 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗹 - 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, published 25 Jun 2024, duration 52 minutes.
I'd suggest you read:
* Quarterly Essay (issue 94), 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘭: 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢'𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, by Dr Joëlle Gergis.
th-cam.com/video/qb5WYE5DJas/w-d-xo.html
* 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 published a paper by Timothy Lenton 𝘦𝘵. 𝘢𝘭. on 22 May 2023, titled 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴.
* The 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 (𝘗𝘕𝘈𝘚) published a paper on 9 Oct 2023 titled 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, by Daniel J. Vecellio, Qinqin Kong, W. Larry Kenney and Matthew Huber
* 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘵: 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵, by Jeff Goodell.
th-cam.com/video/NMNhGnSLhIQ/w-d-xo.html
* 𝘖𝘹𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 journal published on 2 Nov 2023 a paper titled 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, by James E Hansen 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭.
How many disasters does it take to wake people up?
Adapting to climate change won't be possible in some parts of Australia.
@krshil5373 - "An inconvenient fact is that there is not enough known copper reserves in the world to complete the goal of 100% renewables anytime."
Evidence/data?
@@GeoffMiellAustralia could go net-zero right now, and it would have zero effect on climate.
If there were *_not_* a climate crisis, the best course of action would be *_to rapidly increase power-consumption._*
If there *_were_* a climate crisis, then the best course of action would be *_to rapidly increase power-consumption._*
The best course of action is the same in the two scenarios, and therefore any discussion of possible climate-crises is moot.
@@aliendroneservices6621 - "Australia could go net-zero right now, and it would have zero effect on climate."
In 2024, the Climate Change Authority reported that emissions generated from the use of Australia's coal and gas overseas amount to approximately three times those generated domestically, accounting for around 4 per cent of global emissions. What Australia does matters.
@aliendroneservices6621 - "If there were not a climate crisis..." It's not if. We're deep in the climate crisis. This is a planetary emergency.
th-cam.com/video/JaboF3vAsZs/w-d-xo.html
I'd suggest you read:
* Quarterly Essay (issue 94), 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘭: 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢'𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, by Dr Joëlle Gergis.
th-cam.com/video/qb5WYE5DJas/w-d-xo.html
* 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 published a paper by Timothy Lenton 𝘦𝘵. 𝘢𝘭. on 22 May 2023, titled 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴.
* The 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 (𝘗𝘕𝘈𝘚) published a paper on 9 Oct 2023 titled 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, by Daniel J. Vecellio, Qinqin Kong, W. Larry Kenney and Matthew Huber
* 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘵: 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵, by Jeff Goodell.
th-cam.com/video/NMNhGnSLhIQ/w-d-xo.html
How many disasters does it take to wake people up?
Adapting to climate change won't be possible in some parts of Australia.
However there is a political green type of thing that the party is helping combat the warming and so on. There is no doubt that we are warming, in Australia, and here in NZ. I am 77 and have lived and loved both places, believe me, we are warming up!
With no economic method to store power, renewables only help to decrease the total consumption of fossil fuels, they do not replace coal or other burning power plants. There is no renewable system that can operate without other power plants.
You're not right.
Power plants on renewable fuels can generate stable energy as "traditional" generation.
Biogas other biofuels (pellets, waste), spirits, ammonia, hydrogen, combined gas (methane + 20-30% of hydrogen) can be used as usual power plants.
But it's not so cheap
@@MihailG5541 the biofuels might one day become a useful alternative to fossil fuels, but there has never been a renewable fuel created by a renewable fuel. Every biofuel is planted and harvested with fossil fuels, fertilized with chemicals and converted from plant matter into fuels using grid power (also based on fossils fuels) and transported by fossil fueled vehicles.
I can imagine a future nuclear grid with bio-fuels for off grid power and vehicles.
@@jsbrads1 in all countries that i had been I saw that biofuels is the fastest way to energy transition between coal and renewables.
Especially in domestic or public heat and cooking.
Nuts waste, sunflower waste, gardens cutting and elephant grass are the source for production for pellets.
And so on
@@MihailG5541 direct burning of organic matter isn’t a transition (I support it) but it is a regression. It is practical for home heating… maybe. But only poor people in undeveloped countries use it for cooking in real numbers. Gas is just so much more practical. The satellite picture of Haiti and Dominican Republic shows desolate ground where Haitians clear cut all growth for cooking while the flourishing green DR where people use gas.
@@jsbrads1 there's no other way when the gas prices triple for 5 years.
Because of that I'll repeat more and more: learn lessons of history, especially about tge Great depression and another crisises.
Hi Rosie. This new uncosted so called policy by Peter Dutton on nuclear power is more than just confusing. They are targeting power stations to be built where coal power stations are. The policy just says build and plug it in. I am pretty sure it is not as easy as that. The lines there can distribute power but can they also receive power for emergencies. Surely those power lines will also have to be seriously upgraded. Are more thoughts correct. If anyone with knowledge of the issue could advise it would help understand . Cheers. PS great information Rosie.
You're right that nuclear power plants need electricity to keep them cool even after they are shut down in emergencies.
For emergencies I think it's more likely there would be on-site generators since power lines could be cut by storms, bushfires, or even earthquakes or terrorist actions.
This video was made to try and find reasons why we do not need nuclear. Perhaps looking at the topic more objectively would have been more socially responsible.
The viability of renewables was overstated and the values of nuclear severely understated.
Very disappointing discussion with insufficient data.
There is very little support for nuclear in the energy sector in Australia. It is viewed as a poor fit for our grid. The Chief Engineer at AEMO told a recent parliamentary enquiry into nuclear that they were looking for more dispatchable generation, and not generation with the output profile of nuclear.
The Australian Energy Council is the peak body for Australia's electricity generators. This from their website:
"Current nuclear plant is not agile enough to deal with rapid rises and falls in supply and demand; It cannot ‘fast start’ like pumped hydro, gas-fired peaking plants, and batteries."
The irony of your perspective is quite amusing.
Great video but please in your next video can you include the cost of decommissioning the plant - and also the cost of waste storage for thousands of years - let alone the environmental impact they have. These factors should be included in all types of energy infrastructure being proposed. Once the clean up/storage costs are included, Nuclear in any form only makes sense to the companies building them as they walk away from the plant/waste when at the end of it’s working life and the tax payer picks up the bill. Great channel!
All countries with fast nuclear reactors can recycle at least 50% of used nuclear fuel to mixed nuclear fuel + 3% of nuclear waste + cleaned materials with very low level of radiation and chemical activity, lower than fresh uranium from the mines.
There's at least 30 examples of triple usage of regenerated nuclear fuel.
@@MihailG5541How does that comment address the point the OP was making?
@@robsengahay5614 The point is that the last sentence ("nuclear power plants are profitable only without recycling waste") is a lie
@@MihailG5541 But that sentence wasn’t there.
@@robsengahay5614 What's that?
> "Once the clean up/storage costs are included, Nuclear in any form only makes sense to the companies building them as they walk away from the plant/waste when at the end of it’s working life and the tax payer picks up the bill"
In my opinion, this is the biggest lie that could be told about nuclear energy
Those points apply to Germany as well even though some people don't want to realize it. Germany is at almost 60% renewable at the moment and growing. New plants would be finished at a time they couldn't be possibly integrated to the grid.
What Germany did wrong was the decommissioning of existing nuclear power plants. When they shut them off their CO2 emissions went high. Fun fact: Germany is considered a green champion, but it emits more CO2 per kWh produced than many other European countries (France is way better), because it relies still on coal.
They don’t apply to Germany, far from it.. Unlike Australia, Germany already had perfectly functioning nuclear power plants, there was absolutely no good reason for closing them down, the decision to phase out nuclear was largely fueled by political reasons, it had nothing to do with economics or safety. It was totally possible to extend the life of those plants if one would have really wanted to.
A highly renewable system would be a nightmare for Germany, a system like that would require huge amounts of natural gas to fill in the gaps left by renewables and prevent blackouts from happening. Adding more renewables and firming them up with storage wouldn’t change things very much, it’s possible it could even make things worse. High amounts of variable renewables would mean there would be periods where gas generation would not be needed (possibly most of the year) and other periods (Dunkelflaute) where most, if not all, generation would need to come from gas and imports. Factor in that electricity demand will more than double in the future and you get A LOT of gas plants working at extremely low capacity factors. Public subsidies would also be needed to keep those plants open when gas generation isn’t needed, under this scenario electricity prices would simply skyrocket.
A 30-40% of electricity coming from variable renewables is the maximum you should aim for, go beyond that and you’ll run into issues, having to export it when you have too much, curtailing it, or storing it in batteries, are just some of the issues you encounter as you try to incorporate more renewables into the grid.
Electricity prices in Germany will continue to rise as more renewables are added, families industries will struggle more and more if you keep going down this path. You guys are still in time to backtrack.
@@gianmarconeri6733 It's already done. They shut them down .building new one take decades.
@@gianmarconeri6733 yes you should really look into the data. Most of the things you mention are already proven wrong. First the already existing nuclear plants. If they were so cheap and already paid for, why did no electricity provider want to keep them? They were all quite happy to shut them down. They were built in the 80s with a planned liferime of 30-40 years. It would be possible to maintain them well and run them a few more years, but by law they would have to be upgraded to the current safety requirements. No provider wanted to do that unless receiving heavy subsidies. Electricity prices skyrocketed since the Ukraine war but came down recently to pre war levels and are expected to be low in the future. This is why nuklear would be sold at a loss on the energy market. The german grid doesn‘t stop at its borders and the exchange of electricity within the continent is a benefit for all. Importing and exporting is part of a renewable energy market. Dunkelflaute is not an issue currently in the worat days of the year renewable don‘t make 0% but rather 20% and capacity is increasing. There will be a time were you will have too much output and turn down wind and solar generation but overbuilding is probably cheaper than backup generation. There are also around 10GW biogas generation which are currently running as base load. They could easily be retrofitted with gas and heat storage and a 4 times bigger generator and you would have all the backup power you need for the dunkelflaute. Much cheaper than keeping nuclear running. And also we had still 3 Plants running a little over 4 GW we addded 15GW solar only last year. Yes not the same hours in solar and nuclear but still we added much more TWh in solar and wind each year than those 3 plants could contribute they are simply insignificant, expensive to run and noone wanted to keep funding them with public money. Thats why they could be easily switched off and Rosies points still apply for Germany as well. Just slightly modified numbers concerning area. Here it might be 2-4% but most of that area will be double use like farming below a windfarm or rooftop solar
FALSE.
Indeed, the fact you singled out Germany as an example suggests an ideological agenda, because Germany has had an ideologically motivated anti-nuclear movement since Chernobyl in 1986.
Germany has instead relied on cheap Russian Natural Gas, but have recently been reluctantly forced to replace this with relatively expensive LNG, both of which are fossil fuels. Germany also continues to use significant amounts of Coal, (including Lignite) which has some of the highest CO2 emissions. The cost of boycotting Nuclear Power has been higher emissions overall, contributing to Climate Change.
By contrast, neighboring France avoided both these problems by opting for Nuclear Power in the 1970-80s resulting in much lower CO2 emissions than Germany over the last ~40 years. France's mistake was to partially follow Germany's lead, by not building new reactors to replace the old ones, which they're now regretting...
Thanks, Rosie! Please send this link to our misinformed politicians.
Peter's proposal of buying "off the rack" modular reactors is about as valid as proposing to build our own fusion reactor..... neither are in commercial existence and both are "only 10 years away"....
Another excellent episode with a clear presentation of the issues - I love the bullet points to engage visual as well as auditory learning. 👏👏
Attempting to rely on 80%+ renewables is equally a dumb idea. No other industrialised country would attempt such folly. Plus the massive infrastructure (transmissions lines, inverters, rectifiers and batteries) to hook up and stabilise remote solar and wind turbine arrays, leads to huge service charges being generated even when these areas are not producing energy. These charges cannot be ameliorated so it is erroneous to say that the more renewables in the system, the cheaper the price for business and consumers when exactly the opposite is really the case.
No you can’t say that. That’s being logical and reasonable. People like Rosie function on emotion and nuclear bad no matter what. Much better to have massive fields of turbines and solar panels breaking all the time.
Exactly, the LCoS does not account for many transmission/storage aspects despite being heavily subsidized. Even if Australia does not invest in reactor development right this moment, every country stands to benefit from developing nuclear engineering because countries that do have this infrastructure can deliver cheap nuclear reactors in short amounts of time. For instance, every Hualong One (AP-1000 variation) in China in recent years have been deployed in 6 years or less for under 4B USD for a 1000 MWe unit, many of which are developed in combined units for cheaper per unit.
@@rubbles2206 how much would it
Cost to do the same with wind and solar?
You need lots of transmission infrastructure regardless of the generator.
@@apacheslim It is cheaper to deploy Solar and to a lesser extent wind, particularly in the developing world like CN/India where the infrastructure is very good and the subsidies are even larger - for instance, Badla Solar Farm has a 2.2GWe nameplate capacity for 2.5B. The problem is nameplate capacity for solar/wind is not the annual generation due to capacity factor, which is at most 30-35% for solar and less for wind. Copper Mountain Solar facility in California is a 1.8B USD/800MWe nameplate capacity farm but it generates less energy than a 200MWe natural gas plant annually. Typical nuclear units can generate 6000GWh per 1GWe nameplate capacity, compared with only about 1500GWh from a 1GWe solar farm and wind is worse; not to mention off-site storage and transmission costs to get it to the people and sell the energy to the people. In the US, Vogtle and V.C. Summer were the first commissioned nuclear plants planned to be built since the 70s, the lack of experience, infrastructure, and overpromises in managing such a project resulted in cost overruns and delays, it isn't an inherent problem with nuclear as seen in Chinese and Korean nuclear industries.
In Australia, even though a third of the energy is generated on solar/wind, only a fraction of it can be used because of the aforementioned distribution and storage issues, about 80% still run on fossil fuels. Generating the power is very easy and cheap for renewables, it's more about getting it to the people and selling it.
"nuclear does not play nicely with solar & wind" - yes. nuclear power does not load follow nearly as efficiently as other options (like coal and hydro), which means it won't be able to dip as much (like what OpenNEM shows) as much as coal and hydro do already when renewables are at peak. however, this doesn't really matter, because if we divert that energy somewhere else that is useful, such as desalination or pink hydrogen, the grid nuclear contribution can dip whilst having the reactor itself stay at a flat power level (which is best for efficiency) whilst still doing something useful.
Nuclear is simply far too expensive.
Another point that is rarely considered by the general public for nuclear power generation, is security. If anyone bothers to explore and educate themselves enough, to be able to build a checklist of pros and cons regarding nuclear power plants, one of the topics that is a standard feature in such checklists, is the security requirements of the nuclear power plants.
Security has always been an important feature of nuclear power plants, but in recent decades it has greater significance in an era of increased occurences of terrorism events. The general public don't seem to consider this matter. But I am sue it is a topic on the mind of people vocationally involved in the energy sector.
Of course it's an issue, but it's not a significant driver of cost, really. Also, nuclear is a very hard and complex target for terrorists to take on, and it seems the trend is that terrorists go for increasingly softer targets utilizing less operational difficulty.
@@jesan733 Yes that is more than fair and grounded commentary on the securty aspect. But I only raised the point to highlight of how all too often, the general public assess the pros and cons of nuclear energy very narrowly. Which I suppose could be said of many things.
I can't remember where I stumbled upon it, but there was a general pros and cons checklist for nuclear energy at an energy sector related Web site, that I read a couple of years ago. It had around twenty or so items listed on the pros and cons sides. Several of which I certainly hadn't considered before.
There is a lot of push lately for nuclear energy by some people, who don't really understand the the topic entirely.
Cheers
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye maybe, but not sure VRE advocates tend to understand the topic better. In general, I think we wouldn't have this conversation, and nuclear wouldn't have even the little traction it has, if VRE+storage was a fully adequate and economically viable solution with only some scaling left to do. The momentum of VRE is enormous, yet there are clear difficulties to manage the intermittence. Why is the UK building nuclear? Why is China? Cheers.
@@jesan733 I agree on all that.
Caveat- just my opinion.
Obviously we are dealing with systemic change in the energy sector and RE development and innovation is happening at an ever growing pace. Undoubtedly, energy sector experts fully understood the variability of RE from the get go. They new it would need suitable operating environments as well as complimentary storage in various forms, to result in a fully viable system. Storage is obviously playing catch up to the generation side for now. But then we also have the futuristic proposals around the concept of a global grid with HVDC undersea interconnections to leverage the suitable operating environment aspect. There is already isolated examples of this happening, for example the Morocco-UK X-Links Power Project is underway. The whole energy transition situation is very dynamic and the general public should be careful not to be caught holding outdated assumptions.
For now though, if nuclear energy is the best overall option within the energy transition aims, given specific country circumstances, then I am sure the energy sector experts would be recommending so and it will likely proceed.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye I think the global grid solution is quite costly and the Ukraine war sadly must make us question the resilience and geostrategic wisdom of pursuing it. The fates of Nordstream and Balticconnector are quite disconcerting, and I think that one reason that Ukraine isn't given the means to win the war is that Russia would sever every subsea cable and pipeline it can find around Europe before giving up.
I would say energy experts are recommending nuclear to a great extent, and there are plenty plans around the world. Problem is politicians in democratic countries often have little incentives to facilitate and push through controversial projects that will benefit the public 10 years from now when the next election is up in 3 years and the one after that in 7 years.
A really cogent argument. Good job.
And the white elephant that is always in the room: there is still no storage solution for Nuclear waste (radioactive fuel waste, old reactor parts, etc) in Australia. And in the 21st century, sending our waste off short for other countries to deal with is not an option.
What is *_Deep Isolation?_*
@@aliendroneservices6621 Where is the waste storage facility in Australia ?? Are you claim this exists already ? Where ?
It's a whole continent.
Fast nuclear reactors or 4th generation reactors are the answers to all of your questions.
They can process all the mentioned materials and reduce their radioactivity to a level lower than that of fresh uranium from the mine.
Moreover, 4th generation reactors can recycle more than half of the used fuel into new hybrid (Mixed MOX/REMIX) fuel and reuse it without mining new uranium
So yeah let's continue extracting tons of tossic material for renewable construction (arsenic, gallium) that you also need to store somewhere (see bautou lake) instead of a much little volume of nuclear waste... Please search an image of the nuclear waste storage in france or switz or idk and look at how 50 years of nuclear production can stay in such a little area
between 30-40% current energy is from renewable sources across Australia and our electricity bill is up 20-30%? hmm 🤔also taken into account that yeah nuclear wont help current generation, but come 30 Years from now when Solar panels have expired required to be replaced. what's that going to cost? Vs 60-80 year life span of a nuclear plant.
Solar averaging 26% energy efficiency ( as stated completely dependent on weather and environment)
Nuclear 85-95% efficiency 🤔
yes currently we do have high use of renewables. but if we went nuclear. we could decrease the need.
infrastructure is already there if you reuse retired coal station for nuclear sites. which would reduce cost .
food for thought
the high prices are because we are in a transition period, and having to pay fossil fuel operators to stay operating even when we don't need their power. Add in corporations taking profit for shareholders, and that can explain the higher power prices. Also, Australia's deals with gas exporters means that east coast gas generators pay international rates for our own gas.
South Australia is majority renewables >75% and has the lowest energy prices in the country.
Rosie rocks! ❤🎉😊
Aww 🤩
By 16.5 years before nuclear arrives is just in time to replace all the defunct solar and windmills.
The modular nature of wind and solar means that you can swap in new for old without disruption. With their high learning rate, the new will be an improvement on the old.
Latest solar modules from Maxeon are guaranteed for 40 years.
@@tassied12 swap in being the words. How much land are we willing to let go to net zero. Coal, gas and nuclear plants don't take up much room.
@@springlockedmasks3071 Australia has plenty of low quality land suited to use by solar.
As well as that the use of solar and wind does not block the land for other uses. Australia's largest solar farm shares its land with 6,000 sheep.
@@tassied12 th-cam.com/video/BxH4yY_9WPI/w-d-xo.html
@@springlockedmasks3071 That is all you have, a link to an online media hit piece attempting to discredit a CSIRO report. FO!
Blah, blah, blah…nonsense