Winton power - 250 hectares. 85mw PEAK capacity. While yes, the renewable plan can use dual use land. I understand the effects are still being studied to this day. I think the use for wind generation has more prospects that solo solar, purely because you can use power from the grid to turn the blade. However the guys running the grid may correct me. If you could stop the flow of steam over a turbine then use power from the grid to turn the generator then you have a sink for the excess power from the grid. Sparky’s may correct me….
Batteries don’t last forever, you should also look at the cost of renewables for an 80-100 year period. The batteries and solar panels might need to be replace 3 or 4 times while nuclear will not.
They sure as heck don't, and don't play well when it's too cold or hot. Further, Liion chemistry batteries are a potential fire hazard, and require specialized storage for safety. Lastly, if we go all in on Liion batteries for home storage, that demand will detract from the availability of batteries for EV production.
@junctionroadparklandsvlog5035 incorrect, sales are down because consumers are now aware of true running costs and horrendous resale values. Its a bitter pill to swallow for you, but swallow it, you must...
Very, very well done. A couple of other factors to reinforce your argument. The capacity factor for solar globally is 10-31, wind is, on average, about 25. I heard a UK wind/solar developer recently state that the industry plans for a 4x overbuild because of these poor capacity factor numbers. Both wind and solar have a design lifespan of 25 years. The current actual lifespan for wind turbines + blades is 7 years. In the US, grid scale solar panels, as of a recent 60-minute report, are replaced on average every 5 years.
@@acomputer121 " Nuclear is not dispatchable" - that's not what Gemini says. "is nuclear power dispatchable ?: Yes, nuclear power is considered a dispatchable source of electricity."
Correct first one will cost a crap tonne. Only way to get on time is do an exclusion of Australian workplace laws, get overseas labour, build demountable houses for construction staff. CFMEU will make it unfeasible.
@@georgewhite6800 solar can last up to 40-50 years. Has 85% nameplate efficiency after 25 years. Wind last up to 25 years. You can build utility scale solar or wind farm in just few weeks to months. A nuclear power plant takes up to 9 years even in a country like France.
Just a small point, as I have experience in costing justifying major capital projects. Extending the economic life from 30 years to 60 years doesn’t impact present costs and returns to any degree. The present value of future dollars is insignificant past 25 to 30 years, so that is why economic models don’t calculate past this point.
Agreed - the c.f. has a bigger impact. However, Lazard used an 80 year lifetime and a 90%?95%? c.f. in their model. It shows that the CSIRO is putting their thumb on the scale when they are so far out of the financial mainstream.
@@factnotfiction5915 Maybe. I’m in favour of having nuclear power in the mix, even at double the price. Having that reliable base load is important and worth paying extra for to achieve a reliable mix. I think many folk are missing this point
You definitely nail it 👏👏👏 thank you It’s definitely time to go nuclear ⚛️🇦🇺 How much does renewables cost from 2050 to 2124 considering next gen nuclear can last 80 to 100 years?
@@lindam.1502 And unreliables don't last much past 15 years without yearly costly maintenance and then needing to be replaced at the end of their cycle and starting all over again
@@lindam.1502 France is spending $80B refurbishing their 40 year old plants. Considering they power a $4T economy, that's is like a car's 10,000km service, no big deal. Way cheaper than "intermittent" renewables.
@@lindam.1502Yes lefty, solar wont last 30 seconds in a hail storm, wind about 0.02 seconds from a lightning strike, wind farms & transmission lines are known to start some of the worst bushfires. A wind turbine caught on camera 2 days ago in VIC was on fire & threw itself to pieces as they do starting fires all around, how much does a rampant bushfire cost the state and possibly human life? New Nuclear Reactor designs are for 60-100+ years with many benefits for nation & industry building. Renewables are just a wasteful Labor scam that get in the way of real national energy production that is coal, gas, oil, nuclear. Renewables will be an expensive failure to our grid reliability, economy, environment & ecology, to support an agenda & ideology based on a climate lie & an unattainable net zero goal, it is a bottomless money bucket. 1 degree C in 200 years is not a crisis, coral is not bleaching, it is flourishing, islands are not sinking, they’re actually rising, Albo & Labor is the only crisis we wont get through if they have another term to finish us off as a 3rd world country.
I've had dealings with two wind generation companies and one proposed transmission line company who want to use my farm land and I can tell you they have all been dishonest beyond belief. I'm not surprised that thier costings are dishonest.
The wind generation companies are burying spent blades beside the towers. They are also walking away from wind generation sites the world over with no remediation. One site near me was showing lead poisoning in beef entering markets. It turns out that they bought towers from Vietnam that were painted with lead based paint and it entered the environment that the cows were grazing. Ask yourself why the wind companies enforce a strict secrecy clause with the host landholders? I have had one these clauses put onto myself by pacific hydro. A company that is no longer.
@@yt.personal.identification so I’m tipping you don’t own a farm that these people are destroying and don’t care about. They are also companies from overseas and guess where the subsidies and profits go? The crowlands wind generation site is now owned by the Chinese but hey that may have changed again as these sites a bought and sold relentlessly. The Ararat site has had three owners since being in operation. If they were honest and working to an industry standard set by an Australian governing body their credibility amongst rural communities might be different. My farm has to meet the requirements of several governing bodies. One neighbour told me that their family wants to sell their land with towers on it because they now realise they will be responsible for demolition when the overseas company walks away. Another farm nearby is for sale with towers on it and I asked the real estate agent about it and he said the contract for the demolition was to vague to understand. Renewable energy probably does have a place to top up the grid but the renewable industries business model has no place in small rural communities and family farms. Just remember it is not a farmers responsibility to provide you with food and it is not our responsibility to donate our assets so you can have power. Our sole responsibility is to look after our families, livestock, assets and meet our financial commitments. I have told the transmission line company that if they want to use my land they can take us to compulsory accusation and put us landholders all on a level playing field. I suppose at least coal is organic unlike fibre glass.
The correct title is 'Nuclear and Unreliables: What will it cost?' There is no 'vs', you cannot compare them, they are not the same product, and you will always need dispatchable baseload power generation. Just go all in on the one that doesn't leech efficiencies from the other while claiming to be cheaper and cleaner by leveraging laughable bookkeeping.
Exactly, how people think solar and wind with batteries will power our economy. Large mining companies, manufacturing plants, rail and industry require full load power. Imagine running an electric furnace to smelt copper off the solar and wind grid. The furnace would be dead within the year People dont think about mich other than tvs or air-conditioning. Imagine transferring all our fuel usage into electrical energy, wouldn't be enough copper to run it all.
Well said: Nuclear OR Unreliables (OR Coal). What is not understandable. I have no understanding of why Aust keeps farting around with this issue. THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION. The endless circles and debate as if it is so mysterious. Politicians should stay out of science and follow the advice. Serious subject - funny background music and over acting of voice and body expressions. Why??? Aust get serious.
Baseload for what? Factories keep shutting down, and most mines generate their own because electricity prices are too high. How much power did that recently closed aluminium smelter use? The grid is dead. It died sometime around 2006, shortly after privatisation.
Levelised cost is the punch line. I used to say base load, but after a conversation with a CST company director, I realised it's a BS term used by coal industry. We just need dispatchable power. -Ken
Nuclear is not dispatchable is the issue, and additional grid firming will also be required with nuclear due to the slow responsiveness of nuclear plants. Nuclear and renewables both face very similar problems of requiring additional dispatchable generation such as gas or hydro, or storage such as pumped hydro or batteries
There are a few costs omitted from the nuclear side. 1) the cost of integrating 1.1GW NPPs into the Australian Grid. Only four of the sites proposed by Dutton are ‘plug n play’ for 1.1 GW sized generators. The other sites require massive grid connection upgrades. 2) the cost of 1.1 GW of backup generation capability to cover a unit going off-line for planned maintenance & unplanned outages. Added to that is the upgrades to the entire transmission network to shift such large amounts of power from 1 State to another to cover those off-line periods. 3) refurbishment costs for a reactor to achieve a 60+ year lifespan. The reactor vessel itself may last for 60+ years, but the generation, cooling & control systems need extensive refurbishment &/or replacement several times to achieve that lifespan. That’s one of the reasons for CSIRO’s 30 year lifespan. Apart from the reactor vessel & the building itself, the NPP needs to be gutted & rebuilt for a reliable life beyond that age. 4) the cost of sustaining the grid until the full fleet of NPPs could be on-line. More than 60% of Australia’s aging C-F power plants will reach end of equipment life before even the first NPP could be commissioned. Just keeping one C-F power station going for 2 years is costing the NSW Govt (ie taxpayers) $450Million. Keeping the entire fleet going would cost in excess of $16Billion. And $Billions more if there were major equipment failures from those plants being pushed well beyond their designed lifespan. If, instead of paying $16Billion+ just to keep worn out C-F power stations going for just over a decade, that money was used to install RE with a 30 year lifespan then nuclear would be redundant. Which leads to … 5) overstating the capacity factor in a high RE grid. During periods of favourable conditions for RE generation nuclear, with the higher operational cost, wouldn’t be able to compete & would have to scale back output. Ie reduce its capacity factor. This is already occurring in France where NPPs have been completely temporarily shut down because of the high amount of cheap solar power in the grid. This is why using the historical capacity factors for nuclear is misleading & the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is valid. Now of course, RE could be curtailed so nuclear can continue. But that creates the insane situation of higher electricity costs as free electricity is being turned off for power with a much higher cost of production.
thanks. I am sure there will be other cogent criticism. I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear irrelevant for modern Australia. Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste. Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it isn't). Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@BrettBurnardStokes I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear *inevitable* for modern Australia. _"Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste"_ Agreed. The toxic solar cell materials and wind turbine forever landfills are a growing nightmare. On the other hand, the tiny footprint of nuclear waste, particularly in a country as immense as Australia, with vast patches where no one lives (and no, I do not consider a town of 50 in a 100,000 square mile area inhabited). Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it IS). Consider the veracity of any claim that unreliables are low carbon (they aren't). Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, llike heavy metals from solar mines leaching into the waterways.
There certainly is. The chosen sites are not relevant. They are duttons pick. He has no jurisdiction over the global nuclear requirements. Water is the number one word. that is why nukes are all on large reservoirs or sea shores.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 the 5th point is made worse with more nuclear as more NPPs would have to be temporarily turned off when abundant cheap solar floods the grid with power. That or the threshold at which cheap power is curtailed & electricity consumers forced to buy more expensive nuclear power would be lower. Today, solar is literally eating the economic lunch of C-F power stations. It won’t be any different for NPPs. They’ll lose money during the day too - unless cheaper RE has its hands tied behind its back. BTW, nothing lasts for 60+ years without maintenance. Especially safety critical control systems. Mechanical things wear out as well. That’s why plant & equipment has scheduled maintenance. And just like your car, some services are bigger than others.
Thanx for that information Nuclear is and will be always be needed. Look at why Labor are hell bent on renewables. Superfunds industry based are run by Labor and unions they invest in renewables to get subsidies then Superfunds donate to the Unions then Unions donate to fund Labor at Elections Follow the Money $$$$$$$
Apparently destroying vast tracks of forests, forest species and our great birds, farms and ocean habitats has zero value! It disgusts me! Time to tie myself to a bulldozer, at almost 70!
I sat through the 2024 ISP webinar, and also noted the CER, consumer energy resources which is a huge chunk of assumed storage that was not costed, just a burden put on consumers. The ISP went on to suggest that if CER weren't available, then it would only cost $4billion to replace it with grid scale storage, seemed ludicrously under quoted to me, so thankyou for raising awareness of this. The environmental and social impact of rolling out renewables along the great dividing range is wholly unacceptable. If this is to be done then put the solar and wind farms much further west where it wont impact people, high value ecosystems or food production.
@yt.personal.identification yes, let's see that then, charted against the burden to the taxpayer of all other energy sources, vs the gwh and co2 produced for each type
Liberal party front Zoe Hilton did the maths. She ignored the fact that Australia has no nuclear supply, operations and support ecosystem/infrastrucutre. And that without doing anything (almost downing tools on renewables) Australia will get to 50% renewables by 2027/2028. Also French nuclear runs at 53% which is what happens when you have high penetration nuclear you get low utilisation / low capacity factor.
If only the grifters in Canberra could comprehend any info in this video, than we wouldn't be having any of these issues now. I feel like the longer and longer we wait to actually get a nuclear project off the ground (if ever) it will be too late. Imagine if all this discussion was settled in the 70s or even 80s. Australia could of had nuclear for at least 30 years by now.
@@GrahamLea i just looked it up. To quote and credit Wikipedia.... The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) is an Australian think tank founded in 1976 by Greg Lindsay.[4][5] The CIS specialises in public policy research and publishes material in areas such as economics, education, culture and foreign policy. Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] However, it has also hosted Labor prime ministers and politicians,[9] and often also criticises the Liberal Party's policies.[10][11][12] Also The CIS is funded by donations, membership subscriptions, and book and event sales from individuals, companies and charitable trusts. It does not accept government funding.
Frances main nuclear energy company, the EDF, is indebted with over 54 billion dollars. So much for the cost effectiveness, and that in a country that is extremely pro-nuclear energy AND that heavily subsidies it.
Mostly mismagement. EDF is forced to sell most of its eletricity at a loss to competitors, who only after that sell eletricity to consumers. Also France had anti nuclear policies
Actually, in 2023 they posted a net of 10 billion Euros, but had to import a lot of power in 2022; to protect the consumer the government sold the imported power at a loss - a government who think it's worthwhile trying to minimise the effect on the cost of living. Since the nuclear part of EDF is 100% government owned, they can do that.
Hey Zoe, great video. Another thing to consider is the waist in 30 or so years with all the batteries, wind turbine blades and solar panels all going to landfill. The cost on the land required to bury the waist. An also the amount of land required for the solar and wind farms, new transmission lines for all the current and planned grids.
Yes, get a National Advertisement Plan happening, we all should be told the TRUTH, not "Fobbed off" with Political BS. Once the Information is Out there and people can "digest" it, then have a Referendum on it, because at the end of the day, WE the People are Paying for it.
The main thing to remember is cost of unrenewables that last 12 to 20 years depending on Quality versus Nuclear that is PROVEN to last 80 years and more . Nuclear will give constant reliability .
What garbage propaganda. from corrupt industry and politicians. Its cash grab. It will take 20 year to build and have tripple cost over run> Just like the two SMR nuclear projects that have had overruns and one is cancelled cause of blowout. Solar and batteries can be done in 3 months and make a profit. Nuclear needs base load and wont be available for 10 years, if that, it will have government blowout politicians will leave and new ones will cancel the project lose $billions while the old corrupt polies will get lucrative jobs in energy like they do in gas,,.
@@pietervaneeden2370 There is a lot of BS about renewables. EG. Solar panels only last 25 to 30 years. The fact is that solar panels are warranted for 25 to 30 years but do the calculations on panel degradation, providing there is no overheating and /or moisture ingress, in 100 years, a panel will lose 50% of its capacity. That is a 400w panel will be a 200w panel. The beauty of solar panels is that they have no moving parts. It's also important to understand that technology is always changing and improving. If a new panel come along with greater efficiency such a perovskite, why wouldn't people upgrade even if their panels are still under warranty.
All that time, and they still haven't built the ling term waste management facility they have known they need, for that entire 60 years. You must remember that message from the 70s. Still not fixed.
@@yt.personal.identification Yes “they” did. Yucca was built in US, killed by malevolent govt officials. Finland now has permanent storage facility. Ho can you not know that?
@@Nill757 Yes, Finland has their own storage for just themselves, still under construction. Stating that others failed to make anything while recognising the need just supports my point. Why did the tone make it seem that you were disagreeing while you proved my point?
This may sound convincing to someone unfamiliar with the issue, but nuclear, while an excellent power source, does not solve the power generation problems Australia faces. The biggest issue we have to deal with is dispatchable power. Nuclear cannot be ramped up and down as demand shifts in a very similar way to how renewables can't be ramped up and down as needed. Both renewables and nuclear need dispatchable generation such as gas, hydro, or batteries. Implying nuclear obviates the need for additional transmission, storage, and dispatchable generation is either misleading or ignorant.
Some one veiwing this knows their stuff. As an added fact, in 2023 510 GW was added to the world generating capacity from renewables. ! GW was added in 2023 by nuclear after 7 new plants were commissioned and 6 old ones decommissioned.
@@andrewjoy7044 we have 33 gigs of installed wind capacity and sometime get 300 Mw's, 510 Gigs here would probable give 500 Mw's I watched tasmania this week. they have had no wind. Burning gas and running hydro that they have a lot of.
@@johnk-pc2zx Not really adequate ramping for purpose. In brief, most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.
Thank you so much for presenting the perspective of full facts. The public at large cannot articulate this and feel depressed and at the mercy of big biz controlled corrupt government.
Our home has 6.6kWh solar and a 10kW battery and now have nearly all low power devices in the home. We consume an average of 174kWh a month (including charging the EV.) We push into the grid an average of 410kWh into the grid each month. The NET power for our home is negative. With a second battery we could live off grid, though winter would be harder, it "should" be doable. We should ALL be looking at reducing our usage.
Nuclear being non dispatchable in a dispatchable designed grid is an anti-pattern - so as such it should warrant an exceptionally low capacity factor - not a high one! Nuclear doesn't want to scale up and down rapidly - you need firming for that - so forget what other grids are doing - if they are dispatchable based designs - giving nuclear a high capacity factor means you are saying everything else (which is uber cheap to run - Solar PV and Wind) has to switch off if otherwise it would mean nuclear would have to produce less. So is you turn the cost paradigm for a firmed dispatchable based grid that has been designed to operate this way on its head - sure you can give nuclear an unrealistic capacity factor - or you can say it can compete in the free market with what is out there. In France last week 3 nuclear reactors had to shut down because renewables pushed prices negative - nuclear can never do that. Sudies have shown nuclear requires firming in a modern grid - same as renewables - so shifting distribution, advanced grid function costs and firming onto only nuclear's opponents is rather dis-honest, biased analysis. So if you assume it can last forever and be given preferred capacity priority - you can price it anyway you wish - but that is realistic. So long as it is tiny you could try and set it to having a larger capacity factor - but is a free market to big into - nuclear can't compete with a generation source thas basically a zero marginal cost to operate. The world wide supply of Uranium for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years of supply left according to a Google search. Nuclear pundits say but we can invent Thorium or fast breeder reactors to re-vitalise spent Uranium fuel or extract it from the Oceans - but point to where this can be done - anywhere in the world - it is pie in the sky. So as a resource becomes scarce - its price rises astronomically - basic enconomics. Plus its byproducts can have huge national security and terror implications... Nuclear seems a smoke screen to extend coal and gas. Globally the world is shutting down more reactors than are built - at enormous cost. In China - one of the big 3 nuclear nations renewables are outgrowing nuclear at a rate of six to one last year and climbing. You want a level playing field - assign the same capacity to all generation sources... overbuild renewables and firming and export what energy you don't need or consume it in new business models riding on the back of near limitlessly free energy. Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper each year - there were bids for firmed renewables under $30 / MWh last year overseas; nuclear simply can't compete against a generation source that needs to buy no fuel ever.
"The world wide supply of Uranium..." 75 trillion tonnes. "...for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years..." Replacing all fuels, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW, 75 trillion tonnes of uranium is 10 billion years' worth. "Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper every year..." Infinite-cost is not *_"cheaper"_* than infinite-cost. Wind and solar remain infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
@@aliendroneservices6621 google search was what provided the 90 years of confirmed supply - versus pie in the sky manufacturing Uranium technology figures which are unproven. Not sure why you introduced infinities into this discussion - but as a pure mathematican I will play if you have anyhing sightful to drop - but I have never, ever seen anyone try and bring infinities into an energy conversation - so this could be good! The key point is nuclear still needs firming and is an anti-pattern to dispatchables - that is the elephant in the room...
@@aliendroneservices6621 Google is your friend Estimates of the amount available range from 9 to 22 million tonnes of uranium, though the 2022 edition of the Red Book tabulates only about 9.3 million tonnes. Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association The figures in the Trillions make estimaes about how much are in the Oceans if a way to extract it could be concieved that was viable, financially affordable and politically achievable. So it is a Unicorn figure - it doesn't exist until it is proven achievable. The bigger point is nuclear baseload is a total anti-pattern to a firmed dispatchables designed grid - rip out everything that has been achieved by industries, regulators, home owners with PV etc and start again because someone wants to wind the clock back 60 years to design an expensive baseload - that doesn't handle dsitributed variable generation and demand. It's akin to saying make all cars illegal and we will have coal giant trains that are unstoppable going from every city centre to todays modern population centres. Nuclear is going backwards around the world and firmed dispatchables are storming ahead - China is a brilliant example of that - see how its renewals outgrow nuclear six to one...
I love how we call windmills and solar panels that once past their short operating window will form the most appalling, polluting landfill 'renewables'.
If the EU wants to designate nuclear as a renewable too, then the waste it leaves behind would also make nuclear as strange option to be called ""renewable".
For me, when considering nuclear, its the waste and the possibility of fallout which are the most important factors. It perplexes me that the entities promoting nuclear use don't focus more on addressing these 2 critical factors. The possible worst case scenario "end games" should always be taken into account when dealung with something that can have such devastating effects on the environment if not planned for correctly. And not only do theae factors play a considerable part in evaluating the actual projected costs of a nuclear system but also if communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate.
Based on the number of GWh produced vs accidents/lives lost/environmental impact of other energy generation methods, Nuclear is by far the safest. If you have peer-reviewed and authenticated evidence to the contrary, please present it here. "If communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate." I agree with the quoted statement. Feel free to research this on your own.
@@craigspender1710 I don't think you comprehended my concern properly. I didn't mention anything about safety. So for your benefit i'll present my concerns more clearly as follows: 1. What do we do with the radioactive waste? 2. In the case of fallout, what is the containment plan?? Your "peer reviewed, authenticated" reponse can also be presented here... unlike your irrelevant retort about my concerns that you also failed to provide. Regardless, i believe you feel i am anti-nuclear. On the contrary. I think it has a very important part to play in the make-up of whatever our energy needs are. However, radioactive materials and nuclear fallout are no joke and all aspects of its functioning should be very seriously considered from inception, through the life span AND breakdown before implementation. Too many govt projects are rushed through or used as political footballs instead of actually creating viable solutions both economically AND environmentally. What ends up being produced is either an inferior product or environmental disaster both of which are undesirable financial outcomes. (NBN and Snowy Hydro 2.0 come to mind immediately) Having said that, i'd also like to apply the same scrutiny to renewables projects, not just in terms of the waste and recycling but "end of life" plant shut down processes and the true environmental costs. In short, the real question is what ARE ALL the REAL costs in everything we do??
A system dependent on nuclear needs less water then one dependent on renewables. As for waste. The volume of nuclear waste is very small. Of wich, 98% can be recycled and doesn't last more then 300 years. Also, the radiation get drasticly reduced and becomes basicly harmless by that time. Of the remaining 2% only ONE element lasts 100,000 years and that can be safely stored underground
@@passdasalt The universe where you need a sh1t ton of hydro + pumped hydro. Also solar pannels need to be cleanned. All in all a system dependent re uses more water and is more dependent on rainfall. Also, wind speeds are projected to decrease and high temperatures will affect solar power production to. So not only is a 100%Re system very dependent on rainfall but on ideal weather, to
@@joaquimbarbosa896 lol pumped hydro recirculates the water. Rain cleans solar panels. Meanwhile, a nuclear plant uses millions of litres per day. Look it up.
@@passdasalt And if there is no water...guess what happens to pumped hydro? Also pumped hydro heavely demands more dams wich on themselfs can reduce river flow and increase evaporation drasticly. And rain cleans solar pannels...sometimes. Like with eletricity you need it done at precise times, and rain doesn't come when you want it to. Furthermore, you forgot the crucial detail of hydro. If you do not have lots of hydro, not only would ie be impossible to run a grid on wind solar and storage, but it would also reduce the storage itself. So again, more water usage and more dependent on rainfall
The CSIRO either needs defunding or an anti-corruption case lodged!!! After the CSIRO’s initial report on Nuclear was debunked by many individuals, it calls to question the integrity or aptitude of this organisation.
It was a monumental CSIRO blunder. They decided to venture into something their chief admitted they knew very little about viz. electricity generation. So the farmed it out to a "contractor", whose expertise wasn't any better than CSIRO. So he went to the Internet and came up with the dog's-breakfast, wildly inaccurate and incomplete report. On the basis of CSIRO's previous good reputation, Albanese and Bowen thought this was manna from Heaven. However Labor needs the Greens preferences so facts matter little to them..
It wasn't debunked - its just that when it comes to the future no one actually knows and other people wish to make different assumptions hence get different figures. Now what is worth noting is CSIRO figures came in very close to Lazards LCOE for Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Power is a well established and well known generation method with well established cost structures. I would trust Lazards to get this right.
On top of these costs for renewables is the cost of deforestation for solar and wind or building it off shore. Then theses farms does not include rehabilitation or recycling at the end of their life span unlike other mining projects which has a funds to fix the environment afterwards.
Thanks for your work on this critical subject. The Labour Party needs to wake up. I voted Labour last election but based on Nuclear Energy and its critical role in environmental sustainability, I will be voting for the Liberal/National Coalition in the next election.
No, the gov is awake. They know full well what they are implementing. Regardless of who is in power, they will continue along the path their employers the elites, WEF etc.
You know, I recall a representative from the union of people who worked at power stations ( can't recall the name) on ( cough ) Sky News, saying their members would be happy to run nuclear power stations.
@@johnc6786 That's pretty rich coming from Dutton who has never questioned the GenCost report from its first inception in 2019 under the Liberal Party, not when he was opposed to large-scale nuclear in 2023, not when all the other sources corroborated CSIRO on the costing of SMRs with his initial 'let's go nuclear' beer-coaster, I mean, policy... but only when after he got cozy with Gina Rinehart who is all for nuclear that he suddenly decided that the CSIRO doesn't really know anything, because... reasons.
Those are government costs. By the time they are completed, multiply all of those costs by at least three, maybe four, to get the true cost. This will bankrupt the country.
Yeah but it’s not a renewable. It’s a finite resource which is highly toxic in a concentrated form and the cost of reprocessing the spent fuel after 15 or so years pushes nuclear out of the race. Most countries don’t reprocess because of this cost but decide to pile up the waste which is completely untreatable and left for future generations to deal with.
@@johnc6786 No. Seawater uranium is "renewable" (as it's replenished by rivers). Fissile U235 is not renewable. Non-fissile U238 is breedable to fissile Pu239. Fissile is what we want (for use as fuel).
Look nuclear proponents love to can the csiro report but the fact is they cant find a separate study which shows nuclear is cheaper. Whereas the 2024 Lazard LCOE report also foums nuclear more expensive. There is no study saying muclear is cheaper
Laughable - the carbon ideologists say we have to spend, spend to cut carbon, but as soon as there's a solution they don't like, it has to be cheaper, cheaper. Just sit back and watch how other countries leave you behind.
@@bnielsen56 ah so you agree nuclear is not cheaper. Which is fine except that Dutton has chosen to pull the wool over Aussie eyes that nuclear is cheaper. Dutton has stooped mighty low to peddle this lie
@@SparksWillCry Ha, ha - you think there's a link between generation cost and power bills! Why don't you check places that have high nuclear (like France) and high 'renewables' (like California) and check the reality of your nonsense - they are the same (US$0.4/kWh), but spot energy price for nuclear in France is US$0.12/kWh - so about 25% of the end user cost. If you want low power bills, use coal, because with virtually no carbon output relative to the rest of the world, cutting emissions in Australia is a nonsense only ignorant people swallow - Australia is normally a net sink! If you are really so gullible as to think cutting CO2 will 'stabilise the climate' do a google search for how long it would take if CO2 production was stopped worldwide - it's measured in centuries. Get an education and keep useless ideology out of the energy market.
If more grid nuclear electricity, then that means more grid capacity construction. The grid has a massive footprint and a massive economic footprint. TRILLIONS footprint. Nuclear promoters are deafening silent about the outside of the compact nuclear plant.
Were disposal of wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar panels factored into the costs? And the human and environmental costs of building them in the first place counted?
Were the same factors considered in the nuclear model?? I didn't see anything about nuclear waste management or fallout. Don't get me wrong, if these factors are addressed i will seriously consider nuclear but the scrutiny applied to current "renewables" should be more than applied to nuclear also.
Another consideration should be the source of financing. While it does not impact return numbers, it can significantly impact scale and size numbers. A nuclear power plant is always a government project, even if operated by a P&U company. However, a significant portion of solar is either funded by private companies or citizens. Therefore, if the cost of a nuclear power plant is spent on solar subsidies, the private funding can multiply its benefit. In other terms if the return on a nuclear plant is the same as solar, then with 50% subsidy for house solar and batteries would generate twice as much power as the private sector would be willing to fund as much as the government. While nuclear is better than gas and coal, I feel that the real concern of politicians may be whether there would be a centralized or decentralized energy system. The former can easily be taxed and controlled, while the later makes citizens independent from their government in terms of the energy economy.
Apart from the fact that most Australians do not have the budget or possibility of providing their own energy - either due to living in apartments or renting, for example, the amount of storage required to be independent and cover the 70% average downtime or renewables is not economic. Also, while the solar panels might be funded, it's the need for storage that needs the government involvement, not least for land acquisition for pumped hydro projects. Realistically, if the main infrastructure is paid for through taxes, and the 'fuel' is zero cost (as renewables ideologues like to claim) then the power supplied should be free, right?
@@bnielsen56 "due to living in apartments" - this is 10% of population. If the fuel is zero cost (which is true) the bill will be only 20% less. Because the bill contains retailers (middleman), distribution cost, taxes etc etc
@@alexmag5735 Conveniently left out renters... and while you can claim the fuel is 'free', you need to ensure no shade, cleaning cost, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, control, monitoring, development...and these costs surpass the current cost of electricity - so prices for solar will increase at the consumer, not decrease, because the current infrastructure is not fit for purpose. But the main issue is discussing oranges and apples - you can't compare nuclear with solar+batteries. Having said all that, the reason for the debate is BS anyway. Real scientists know that cutting carbon emissions will not affect the climate in anyone's lifetime.
All that is included in maintenence and the costs would really dependent. Generally speaking they are somewhat low to store in short term. Long term storage is expensive af but you can recycle nuclear waste. Now include waste from renewables like wind and solar to
Not a particularly convincing video. Anyone know why they're so obsessed with the fact that batteries and pumped hydro 'don't produce electricity' ? The relevance of this isn't really clear. Also, the part about new nuclear "being built to last 60-100 years"... Does this mean it actually will last that long? And that we won't, in the meantime, just give up on it because wind and solar will be even more competitive?
GenCost Report page 72 Figure 5-3. They state here (and above) that the integration costs for all projects after 2023 are included, which still puts renewables ahead of nuclear (i.e. cheaper). Am I missing something? It seems like they've already included your integration / storage costs for renewables?
Yes, you are missing something. The fact that what the consumer will be paying has no direct link to the 'cost' of production of renewable energy, but smart meters (coming soon whether you like it or not) will allow very high costs - based on maximum draw, not total power consumed - due to the poor control available to suppliers to match demand with renewables. It should be obvious that base load nuclear will be a replacement for coal fired stations, giving a lower cost to the consumer. Compare California cost of electricity (52% renewables) - 34 cents/kWh to Illinois (50% nuclear) - 17 cents/kWh. California energy regulator quote: "about 10 years ago, prices started rising quickly, above the rate of inflation, driven in part by costly startup investments in renewable energy and the transmission lines needed to connect new solar projects to the grid."
Except that 1. Based on the latest cost estimates from the order just placed by Czechia and inserting Australian labour costs it is not A$8.6bn/GW, it is $18-20bn, and nuclear projects never have cost overruns do they? 2. Based on the average of the last six reactors actually built in the West by countries with 60 years of building experience the average cost including inflation to 2024 is A$23bn/GW 3. Based on nuclear output just this year in France, Britain, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and Belgium. Actual nuclear output varies between 30 and 100% of rated capacity and outages are much longer so nuclear actually needs 2-10 times much storage as wind and solar. For example the fall in nuclear power in France in 2022 was the equivalent of 430 Snowy IIs 4. Based on real delivery times in Korea and Europe and real times to clear all the legislative hurdles the first reactor might be operating by 2045 5. Korea which has a heavy electrical industry 15 times the size of ours and has been building reactors for 50 years and completes one every two years. Do you somehow think we can match that? Even one every four years means 12% nuclear share by 2085 6. As the consequences of a trip caused by the collapse of a transmission tower are much more severe for a nuclear plant than a coal or wind plant, our existing transmission to the power stations has to be replaced and duplicated 7. Nuclear plants use 1.3-120 times as much water as coal plants, where will the water come from?
1. What's the cost overrun on Snowy Hydro - so far... 2. And they're BUILDING THEM - because they are not stupid ideologues. 3. Solar and wind output is unreliable and MAXIMUM 30% availability. 4. Better get started then. 5. Let's buy from Korea and learn, despite Australians hating producing anything. 6. Should be underground, in my opinion, but why not suffer because it's cheaper? 7. 120 times - reference please, as they should use similar amounts to coal fired: "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe study from 2019 put nuclear energy from at an average of about 2.4 liters per kilowatt-hour, counting all types of cooling systems. An ordinary coal plant was about the same, but a coal plant that captured its carbon dioxide was far higher. And natural gas in a combined cycle system was a little lower.
Peter Farley, something else to add to your list: 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. It seems available global supplies of high-grade uranium ores are insufficient to sustain a so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the longer-term. Where are the adequate quantities of nuclear fuels coming from in the near future to keep all these nuclear power plants operational? Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods perhaps? That's much more expensive and much more difficult to handle from a radiological perspective. Or extract uranium from seawater? That's currently experimental at best, there's nothing available at large-scale so far, and it's much more expensive to extract compared with current ore extraction methods. And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come. The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns. And nuclear technologies will leave a toxic waste legacy that will long outlast any energy benefits gained - an intergenerational issue.
@@GeoffMiell The earth's crust contains 75 trillion tonnes of uranium, which is 10 billion years' worth, replacing all fuels with uranium and burning it at the current all-fuels burn-rate of 20 terawatts.
One point i would like to see explored more is the environmental impact of wind power, after reading of the Guga hunt on the isle of Lewis (the community has been asked to sign off on an estimated 200 birds a year being killed by a offshore wind farm), i became curious about how much damage these farms do. German studies ( and you know the Germans, very efficient) have shown massive disruption to insect populations in regions with windfarms " a single turbine located in the temperate zone might kill about 40 million insects per year." An inconvenient truth perhaps but one i would like to see more discussion on.
It's not just the environmental issue, but the ecological issue where recycling, the 6000 ton concrete and steel foundations for the wind turbines need to be removed once they reach the end of their life every 20 years. In Ireland the wind turbines installed there don't even last 20 years but the gearboxes on the nacelles are failing already after 7 years resulting tin expensive repairs. The wind turbine blade edges degrade well before the 20 year mark which ruins the efficiency and if the wind is blowing more than 12 m/s, the blades need to be feathered making the turbines useless. In France we see the wind turbines turned off when there are strong winds.
Greenpeace states that more wildlife will be killed by pollution and climate change than by wind turbines We are looking for improvement not perfection
@@lindam.1502 Ehm, the shiploads of concrete is once per 80 years. Vs once per *20* years for wind. Wind & solar also require maintenance - lubricants, washing panels, replacing blades, horribly expensive due to the dispersed nature of renewables. Face it, wind & solar are neither practical nor cheap. Only advantage is subsidy harvesting.
Though I take STRONG ISSUE with the background graphic of DVD/books/blur the actual delivery and facts and.... how this is done, is excellent. I'll watch this again to just take notes.
I work in the energy industry. This is nonsense and very typical of the CIS doing back of the envelope calculations without understanding the full context. On the lifespan: 30 years is appropriate. It’s not pretending that they won’t work after that, but that investors will be looking for return within that timeframe. Because that’s what will determine whether the investment will be made or not. Similarly, wind and solar lifespans are pegged at 20 years when they go on just fine for many more after that. In the capacity factor: US capacity factors are irrelevant because every energy market is different - different generation fleets, different demand patterns. GenCost’s capacity factors are based on the Australian energy market and they are driven by demand. Energy demand is increasingly flexible and generators that are capable of putting out constant supply are unable to because of this. On the storage: they are double-counting. GenCost assesses ‘firmed’ renewables. This includes the cost of sufficient storage, allocated to each project. Cherry picking a few expensive storage projects and adding them up is double counting as they are already factored into GenCost renewables. On the transmission: sure, these are driven by changes in demand and supply of which growth in renewables is one factor. But there are other factors including weather and storm impact. More interconnections are needed regardless of the precise makeup of the generation fleet. On the integration of distributed batteries: these are privately owned by households and businesses, their investment cost is not recouped through the energy market, so their cost is not included. People will buy them anyway, and they are not only used for firming large scale renewables but also for private benefit. So it is correct not to include them in GenCost. The CIS is either ignorant or is deliberately sowing misinformation for political purposes. Their comment at the end suggests at least the latter, if not both.
Coal powered stations can be converted at half the price and our uranium resources have been sold underpriced since the seventies, we need a particle accelerator to be able to support the hydrogen market that is not completely honest in what is involved in being able to actually store hydrogen so it doesn't leech through the container at a molecular level
On 17 Jul 2024, the Czech government announced that KNHP had submitted the winning bid to build at least two, and possibly four 1,000 MWₑ reactor units, which set the cost per APR-1000 reactor unit at $8.6 billion. Sadly for nuclear advocates, that figure is in $US. Converted to $AU, it’s 12.8 billion, around 50 per cent more than the CSIRO/AEMO's 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 estimate. The LCOE, even on the most favorable assumptions, will exceed $225/MWh. Czechia is offering a brownfield site, at no additional cost. The new plants will replace existing Soviet-era reactors at Dukovany. By contrast, under Dutton’s nuclear proposal, the costs of any nuclear plants in Australia would need to include the compulsory acquisition of existing sites, from mostly unwilling vendors. The Czechia nuclear project cost (US$8.6 billion/GWₑ) and duration (tender process started 2020 though to target date for electricity generation in 2038) are so far estimates/expectations, yet to be demonstrated. Meanwhile, there are multiple examples over the last 2 decades actually demonstrating higher LCOEs, like the USA's VOGTLE-3 & -4 units, per 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, for a total capital cost of ~$31.5 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60 - 80 years, at US$190/MWh ≈ AU$281/MWh. VOGTLE-3 has demonstrated it took around 17 years to get up-and-running (from Southern Nuclear's formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006 to full commercial operations on 31 Jul 2023), and yet to be fully operational VOGTLE-4 will have taken around 18 years. Even under the favorable conditions of a brownfield site and an established nuclear industry, new nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and far too slow to get-up-and-running. What keeps the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational?
Disappointingly no mention of nuclear waste management costs. Stanford University estimate $8-27 billion to store current level of spent fuel in the US for the next 100 years. That's ~$270M+ per year. With an estimate of $200-600 additional created per year...
Considering that Australia has large deposits of uranium we should be able to produce it at a reasonable cost unless like gas etc the government sub it out to an overseas company.
@@pederjohansen2029 You don't gather very well, do you? I am very much in favour of nuclear. I would have thought my comment unambiguous, but here we are.
@@Diponty Clarify your supposition, Dippy. Nuclear reactors are not a pre-requisite for the production of nuclear weapons, matter of fact, a fast-spectrum reactor is the only way to safely and permanently dispose of nuclear weapons while generating useful energy.
@@AximandTheCursedI'm sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were questioning the cost. I have listened to enough podcasts and seen enough reports to know that nuclear energy is both safe and long lasting. Again sorry.
Great presentation. It's time to open your eyes,👀Labour. I hope there is an early election so we can vote out Anthony Albanese's Labour party and bring in Peter Dutton's Liberals to expedite this critical transition to secure our reliable base load and our energy future.
Our current grid to support rooftop solar with prices plummeting and even going into the negative. The grid was never designed to have so much power feeding back into it. As you mentioned the true cost of renewables is the storage. Renewables aren't a new idea both America and Germany have failed to produce a that runs on renewables only and this is because of the large cost of storage
To anyone who believes in Nuclear from watching this video, read my comment. I will respond. The CIS partnered with other think tanks including the Institute of Public Affairs and Liberty Works, conservative lobby group Advance and fossil fuel companies to coordinate the No campaign during the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. CIS is also based on Classical Liberalism. While the CIS claims to be independent, it is frequently associated with conservative and libertarian viewpoints. The Insitute of Public Affairs and Liberty Works are both Right Wing Conservative think tanks. These groups are funded by Fossil Fuel amongst other Conservative Groups. So, this video is just pushing Right Wing and Fossil Fuel misinformation. The pumped hydro does produce electricity, that is their first lie. Australia’s pumped hydro systems are designed to produce electricity. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) works by using two water reservoirs at different elevations. During periods of low electricity demand, excess energy from the grid or renewable sources like wind and solar is used to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. When electricity demand is high, the stored water is released back down through turbines to generate electricity. As of March 2023, there are a total of 93 operating nuclear reactors at 56 nuclear power plants located in 28 US states. The United States has the world's largest fleet, with 93 operating reactors. Nuclear power accounts for 19% of America's electricity. The UAE built a Nuclear reactor and it ended up costing $20 billion USD. 8 reactors for Australia will produce 8 GWH, and Australia uses 265.5 Terawatts per year, or 265,500 Gigawatts per year. I don't see how 7 or 8 are going to be useful to supply less than 1% of Australia's needs. Globally, around 10% of electricity comes from nuclear power. As of 2023, Global renewable energy sources provided about 30% of the world’s electricity. And this video has fudged the figures on Nuclear and Renewables. There are a lot more costs involved than just building a Nuclear power plant. A special storage facility will need to be built to store the fuel waste to hold it for thousands of years. Special transport to remove the fuel waste from the plant to the storage facility. Removing the old coal fired plants, rehabilitating the land, and compensating the owners of those plants as they own the land. One plant uses 25 to 30 tins of Uranium every year. AMEO and CSIRO have both put building Renewables at $122 Billion. This video is full of so many errors and has basically lied.
"8 reactors for Australia will produce 8 GWH, and Australia uses 265.5 Terawatts per year, or 265,500 Gigawatts per year. I don't see how 7 or 8 are going to be useful to supply less than 1% of Australia's needs. " Given that a nuclear reactor has capacity factor of over 90%, the figure is over 60 terawatts or around 25% of Australia's electricity demand.. "The UAE built a Nuclear reactor and it ended up costing $20 billion USD. ". The figure is about $30 billion USD for 5.6 gigawatts of power generation, which equates to a bit under $8 billion AUD per gigawatt. You might also like to consider the massive environmental destruction that commercial wind and solar entails, projected to be an area several times that of Tasmania. With reasoning skills like yours it is no wonder that you support wind and solar.
@@billmeredith7848 You have shown you have no idea. 5.6GW means 20 reactors to produce 112GW. Still well short of requirements. To produce 60 Terawatts would require 17,520 reactors. Nuclear generation equates to $8 billion per GW. Solar Power: The cost to produce 1 GW of solar power can range from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. This includes the cost of solar panels, inverters, installation, and other associated expenses. Onshore Wind: The cost for onshore wind projects is typically between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion per GW. This includes the cost of wind turbines, installation, and maintenance. Offshore Wind: Offshore wind projects are generally more expensive, with costs ranging from $2.5 billion to $3 billion per GW. The higher cost is due to the complexity of installing turbines at sea and the associated infrastructure. Hydropower: The cost for hydropower can vary widely based on the size and location of the project, but it generally ranges from $1 billion to $2 billion per GW. Way less than Nuclear. And Renewables do not cause massive environmental damage, that is just a lie. With the lack of understanding the facts shows you have not really done any research and just bleating the same crap as the video.
30 years is the "economic" lifespan of nuclear power stations. That is, the bank that lends the money wants it paid back in 30 years and that is why electricity bills will go up. It's possible that they will last longer than 30 years but the only data we have is that the oldest nuclear plant in operation is 50 yrs old. The average is 35 years old. Many of this age require very expensive maintenance. In the USA, many nuclear owners want the government to take over their running as the owners can't make money out of them. In the cost calculations, it is usually assumed that they will produce electricity 24/7 and can SELL electricity 24/7 (capcity factor). In a market dominated by renewables, their capacity factor will be nowhere near 100% as the wholesalers won't want to buy expensive nuclear when they can buy cheap renewables. As renewables increasingly dominate the Australian market, the opportunity for nuclear to sell their electricity will decrease. Cheaper to do as AEMO suggests, use gas plants to fill in when renewables are not available. The modelling based on the last 14 years of weather shows that the gas plants will only be required to generate
Great post and very informative this is imo the way to go we have a vast open landscape with desert and not much else why wouldn't you utilize that land for solar for cheap free electricity These Nuclear power plants will be paid by taxpayers, then we the consumers taxpayers will fitting the bill to maintain them and who will dictate the pricing in the end ??
Please put a graph showing 'a market dominated by renewables'! Even California, the state with most 'renewables', relies mainly on nuclear and fossil fuel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File:California_electricity_generation_by_source_2001-2020.png. Where can I get what you're smoking?
@@bnielsen56 Can't give you a graph but the words in this link are pretty simple. South Australia's electricity supply is currently 70% renewables (zero hydro) and will soon be 100%. www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/energy-grid-and-supply/our-electricity-supply-and-market
It's not true that energy storage doesn't produce electricity. It stores energy made during daylight for release during the night. New energy systems are emerging. Put all the cards on the table and let the market decide.
Gee, who would have thought that a group with close ties to the Liberal Party would come out with a TH-cam clip like this, not giving the critics of nuclear power the chance to debate them? Crikey, not me!😂
The government wont allow any debate. They are desperately trying to shut it down. On orders from those with renewables interests and close ties with the Labor party and their Teal cheer squad. The numbers quoted are in the public realm. And they barely scratch the surface. The cost of consumer provided generation alone relied on by AEMO to power the country's future that they don't include in the cost of the unicorn 100% renewable system dream justifies nuclear all by itself.
In fairness for the storage costs you're comparing old technology (pumped hydro) against best case nuclear (in countries with established nuclear industries). You should be factoring in the fact that we have basically no nuclear industry (apart from ansto). So its going to be on the high end for cost 100%
Yes, it's going to be so expensive to bring in experts from overseas and develop an industry in Australia - let's keep our status as a third world country, keep sending all our materials overseas for manufacture and be happy shearing sheep.
@@bnielsen56 or we could tax our resource industries properly and use that money to develop manufacturing and value added industries? We don't need nuclear to do that
those 8 nuclear plants would only supply around 20% of Australias energy needs. plus they would also need transmission lines, waste treatment plans (nuclear waste remains radioactive for 100 000years, loads n loads of water for cooling, willing communitys to live near them. and huge contributions from the tax payers to get it off the ground
That 20% number does not take into account the growth needed in electricity supply over the next 20 to 30 years. The growth needs to account for (a) population increases and (b) replacement of fossil fuels used in light & heavy vehicles as well as agricultural and mining machinery. 20% is quickly and easily eroded to well under 10%…
It can provide district heating. Furthermore it will use less water (and be less dependent on weather) then a 100% RE grid. Also, it can use wastewater to. About the waste, wich seams to be everyone's "gotcha" here, only 1 element lasts that long. Nuclear waste in itself is of very small volume, 98% of it can be recycled and loses its radiation in less then 300 years
Awesome... Dutton's going to pull them out of the loading dock of Gina Rinehart's yacht or jet tomorrow, right? Wait, you mean we'd have to build them 2 or 3 at a time - under the most optimistic circumstances - to arrive in mid to late 2030 - assuming there's no delays like, well, every reactor being built in France, the UK and the US, established, technically proficient nuclear operators - and they'll arrive AFTER the coal generators will all be shutdown? Meaning we'll not only need to spend money building these reactors - that most definitely won't go massively over-budget like every reactor being built in France, the UK and... is there an echo in here? - but we'll need to spend more money building some kind of generation (probably gas) to fill the gap between coal shuttering and Dutton's FIRST reactors arriving around 2035 (more like 2045) which will supply... a minute fraction of what we need now, let alone then. What a fantastic plan... too bad Dutton, wait no, Scomo, wait no, I mean Turnbull, wait no, I mean Abbott didn't start it a decade ago so we'd actually see a reactor come on in time to replace outgoing coal. What did they do instead? Stuffed around for 9 years while generation left the grid but wasn't replaced by anything except rooftop solar! There are economic realities beyond 'a reactor costs X dollars, so well buy Y amount of them instead' when the ENTIRE world has built a grand total of 120 reactors in the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (while shutting down 115 in the same period) with a majority of them being built by China alone. Want to increase the output of a solar or wind farm? Lay in more panels or turbines, done. Need more nuclear... wait 10-15 years from breaking ground.
Not in 2022, as they had several reactors down for maintenance issues and had to import expensive power. Rather than pass that on to consumers, EDF (gov't owned) took the hit. They are looking at ways to allow flexible output by producing useful 'byproduct' when energy demand is low (such as desalination), rather than turning off reactors.
Write to your local member of Federal HoR and your Senators and tell them your pissed about the transition. Demand a new approach that includes nuclear. Also request that the legislative ban on nuclear power be repealed, poste haste.
What a load of crap! Australia's cost problems with electricity has very little do with the cost of generation of electricity. Our cost problems come from poor political decisions and por demographics. Any privatised and/centralised generation of electricity will just be another poor decision.
Excellent work. The CSIRO was misleading leading by putting solar and wind without storage on the same graph as nuclear, coal and gas which can run 24/7.
Energy in Australia should be 'free' , after the cost of the necessary reactors are paid for. We could also circumvent some of that initial investment cost by reprocessing and/or enriching uranium here.
The other myth that needs to be addressed is the one about nuclear being water intensive. I mean, is that why the Chinese are building reactors in the desert?
You haven't factored in the cost to store and maintain nuclear waste and the impact of land value around nuclear plants let alone the fact that it takes 15 years to build a si gle plant based on SMR technology that is not even commercially available at present. Good luck building 30 something SMR's in the time it takes to solve the problem more immediately with proven technology that is firmed by battery storage and brings down energy costs sooner.
Scrutiny eh? AU$92 billion for the Hinkley Point C reactor (3.2GW total) in the UK but we can build a 1GW reactor for AU$8.7 billion? SMRs were being proposed here because it was thought they could be sited at existing coal fired plants to save on transmission costs. Going down the route of a few large nuclear plants instead of multiple SMRs would reintroduce pretty much all of the additional transmission costs of renewables. Nuclear is a non-starter.
Build nuclear! Instead of destroying native forests and natural habitats for our precious endangered wildlife!! A
They still have to mine Uranium you know.
Winton power - 250 hectares. 85mw PEAK capacity. While yes, the renewable plan can use dual use land. I understand the effects are still being studied to this day.
I think the use for wind generation has more prospects that solo solar, purely because you can use power from the grid to turn the blade. However the guys running the grid may correct me.
If you could stop the flow of steam over a turbine then use power from the grid to turn the generator then you have a sink for the excess power from the grid. Sparky’s may correct me….
@spaceforrest NO... stop lying. we can use thorium, which is far more abundant "you know".
Yes !
@@siloporcen We can use thorium but to ramp up to thorium reactors is a 40 year timeline. Uranium is current technology.
Thanks for your research, the general public need to know the facts, great work
Batteries don’t last forever, you should also look at the cost of renewables for an 80-100 year period. The batteries and solar panels might need to be replace 3 or 4 times while nuclear will not.
They sure as heck don't, and don't play well when it's too cold or hot.
Further, Liion chemistry batteries are a potential fire hazard, and require specialized storage for safety.
Lastly, if we go all in on Liion batteries for home storage, that demand will detract from the availability of batteries for EV production.
@@johnc6786 EV sales are dropping anyway, so no issue there 😂
@@UberMick That is completely false. EV sales are up 23% and you fell for the media lies
@junctionroadparklandsvlog5035 incorrect, sales are down because consumers are now aware of true running costs and horrendous resale values. Its a bitter pill to swallow for you, but swallow it, you must...
@@UberMick That is completely false EV sales increased by 23%, And you are peddling blatant lies.
Very, very well done. A couple of other factors to reinforce your argument. The capacity factor for solar globally is 10-31, wind is, on average, about 25. I heard a UK wind/solar developer recently state that the industry plans for a 4x overbuild because of these poor capacity factor numbers. Both wind and solar have a design lifespan of 25 years. The current actual lifespan for wind turbines + blades is 7 years. In the US, grid scale solar panels, as of a recent 60-minute report, are replaced on average every 5 years.
And all this garbage is made in Chyna, and we, the suckers, enrich them. Every 25 years. Repeat business; how grand!
Finland very recently commissioned a new nuclear reactor for power generation, they were then able to reduce electricity costs by 75%.
Subsidies is the reason.
@@GordonSeal source?
@@GordonSeal Source please?
@@wyattfamily8997 Finland also has large scale hydro for dispatchable power, Australia does not. Nuclear is not dispatchable
@@acomputer121 " Nuclear is not dispatchable" - that's not what Gemini says. "is nuclear power dispatchable ?: Yes,
nuclear power is considered a dispatchable source of electricity."
Since when has any large scale project in this country arrived on time and on budget? Are we factoring that in, too?
Correct first one will cost a crap tonne. Only way to get on time is do an exclusion of Australian workplace laws, get overseas labour, build demountable houses for construction staff. CFMEU will make it unfeasible.
That's where renewables win. You can build a solar farm in weeks compared to a nuclear power plant in 6-10 years.
@@JSM-bb80u yeah those same solar panels that need replacing every thirty years of not completely wiped out by hail 🤡
@@JSM-bb80uthat may be but you have to rebuild wind and solar about every 15 years,, "poor man pays twice " comes to mind here.
@@georgewhite6800 solar can last up to 40-50 years. Has 85% nameplate efficiency after 25 years.
Wind last up to 25 years.
You can build utility scale solar or wind farm in just few weeks to months.
A nuclear power plant takes up to 9 years even in a country like France.
Just a small point, as I have experience in costing justifying major capital projects. Extending the economic life from 30 years to 60 years doesn’t impact present costs and returns to any degree. The present value of future dollars is insignificant past 25 to 30 years, so that is why economic models don’t calculate past this point.
Agreed - the c.f. has a bigger impact.
However, Lazard used an 80 year lifetime and a 90%?95%? c.f. in their model. It shows that the CSIRO is putting their thumb on the scale when they are so far out of the financial mainstream.
@@factnotfiction5915 Maybe. I’m in favour of having nuclear power in the mix, even at double the price. Having that reliable base load is important and worth paying extra for to achieve a reliable mix. I think many folk are missing this point
Well yes, DCF and npv faill to account for the very real value of long-lived projects.
@@johnk-pc2zx Yes, I agree. Not everything needs (or should) to be translated to economic return.
You definitely nail it 👏👏👏
thank you It’s definitely time to go nuclear ⚛️🇦🇺
How much does renewables cost from 2050 to 2124 considering next gen nuclear can last 80 to 100 years?
Nuclear WON’T last more than 30 years without significant money spent for upgrades and repairs.
@@lindam.1502 And unreliables don't last much past 15 years without yearly costly maintenance and then needing to be replaced at the end of their cycle and starting all over again
@@lindam.1502 France is spending $80B refurbishing their 40 year old plants. Considering they power a $4T economy, that's is like a car's 10,000km service, no big deal. Way cheaper than "intermittent" renewables.
@@lindam.1502Yes lefty, solar wont last 30 seconds in a hail storm, wind about 0.02 seconds from a lightning strike, wind farms & transmission lines are known to start some of the worst bushfires.
A wind turbine caught on camera 2 days ago in VIC was on fire & threw itself to pieces as they do starting fires all around, how much does a rampant bushfire cost the state and possibly human life?
New Nuclear Reactor designs are for 60-100+ years with many benefits for nation & industry building.
Renewables are just a wasteful Labor scam that get in the way of real national energy production that is coal, gas, oil, nuclear.
Renewables will be an expensive failure to our grid reliability, economy, environment & ecology, to support an agenda & ideology based on a climate lie & an unattainable net zero goal, it is a bottomless money bucket. 1 degree C in 200 years is not a crisis, coral is not bleaching, it is flourishing, islands are not sinking, they’re actually rising, Albo & Labor is the only crisis we wont get through if they have another term to finish us off as a 3rd world country.
@@lindam.1502
Don’t harass me I am a Labor voter voting nuclear
I've had dealings with two wind generation companies and one proposed transmission line company who want to use my farm land and I can tell you they have all been dishonest beyond belief.
I'm not surprised that thier costings are dishonest.
What? So you trust the nuclear industry to deal with the waste?
50 years and still no long term waste storage facility anywhere.
Let me guess. Origin-al sin.
The wind generation companies are burying spent blades beside the towers.
They are also walking away from wind generation sites the world over with no remediation.
One site near me was showing lead poisoning in beef entering markets. It turns out that they bought towers from Vietnam that were painted with lead based paint and it entered the environment that the cows were grazing.
Ask yourself why the wind companies enforce a strict secrecy clause with the host landholders? I have had one these clauses put onto myself by pacific hydro. A company that is no longer.
@@stevenstart8728 At least it isn't nuclear waste being left like that.
We can be thankful of that.
@@yt.personal.identification so I’m tipping you don’t own a farm that these people are destroying and don’t care about. They are also companies from overseas and guess where the subsidies and profits go?
The crowlands wind generation site is now owned by the Chinese but hey that may have changed again as these sites a bought and sold relentlessly. The Ararat site has had three owners since being in operation.
If they were honest and working to an industry standard set by an Australian governing body their credibility amongst rural communities might be different. My farm has to meet the requirements of several governing bodies.
One neighbour told me that their family wants to sell their land with towers on it because they now realise they will be responsible for demolition when the overseas company walks away.
Another farm nearby is for sale with towers on it and I asked the real estate agent about it and he said the contract for the demolition was to vague to understand.
Renewable energy probably does have a place to top up the grid but the renewable industries business model has no place in small rural communities and family farms.
Just remember it is not a farmers responsibility to provide you with food and it is not our responsibility to donate our assets so you can have power. Our sole responsibility is to look after our families, livestock, assets and meet our financial commitments.
I have told the transmission line company that if they want to use my land they can take us to compulsory accusation and put us landholders all on a level playing field.
I suppose at least coal is organic unlike fibre glass.
The correct title is 'Nuclear and Unreliables: What will it cost?' There is no 'vs', you cannot compare them, they are not the same product, and you will always need dispatchable baseload power generation. Just go all in on the one that doesn't leech efficiencies from the other while claiming to be cheaper and cleaner by leveraging laughable bookkeeping.
Exactly, how people think solar and wind with batteries will power our economy. Large mining companies, manufacturing plants, rail and industry require full load power. Imagine running an electric furnace to smelt copper off the solar and wind grid. The furnace would be dead within the year
People dont think about mich other than tvs or air-conditioning. Imagine transferring all our fuel usage into electrical energy, wouldn't be enough copper to run it all.
Well said: Nuclear OR Unreliables (OR Coal). What is not understandable.
I have no understanding of why Aust keeps farting around with this issue. THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION.
The endless circles and debate as if it is so mysterious. Politicians should stay out of science and follow the advice.
Serious subject - funny background music and over acting of voice and body expressions. Why??? Aust get serious.
Baseload for what? Factories keep shutting down, and most mines generate their own because electricity prices are too high. How much power did that recently closed aluminium smelter use? The grid is dead. It died sometime around 2006, shortly after privatisation.
Levelised cost is the punch line.
I used to say base load, but after a conversation with a CST company director, I realised it's a BS term used by coal industry. We just need dispatchable power.
-Ken
Nuclear is not dispatchable is the issue, and additional grid firming will also be required with nuclear due to the slow responsiveness of nuclear plants.
Nuclear and renewables both face very similar problems of requiring additional dispatchable generation such as gas or hydro, or storage such as pumped hydro or batteries
Outstanding vid, thanks for the data dump!
Brilliant! THIS is the sort of comparison that I have been waiting to hear.
Wind and Solar is an absolute waste of bloody money!! Well done, keep fighting the fight
@@robinmasters2530 lol.
There are a few costs omitted from the nuclear side.
1) the cost of integrating 1.1GW NPPs into the Australian Grid.
Only four of the sites proposed by Dutton are ‘plug n play’ for 1.1 GW sized generators. The other sites require massive grid connection upgrades.
2) the cost of 1.1 GW of backup generation capability to cover a unit going off-line for planned maintenance & unplanned outages.
Added to that is the upgrades to the entire transmission network to shift such large amounts of power from 1 State to another to cover those off-line periods.
3) refurbishment costs for a reactor to achieve a 60+ year lifespan.
The reactor vessel itself may last for 60+ years, but the generation, cooling & control systems need extensive refurbishment &/or replacement several times to achieve that lifespan. That’s one of the reasons for CSIRO’s 30 year lifespan. Apart from the reactor vessel & the building itself, the NPP needs to be gutted & rebuilt for a reliable life beyond that age.
4) the cost of sustaining the grid until the full fleet of NPPs could be on-line.
More than 60% of Australia’s aging C-F power plants will reach end of equipment life before even the first NPP could be commissioned. Just keeping one C-F power station going for 2 years is costing the NSW Govt (ie taxpayers) $450Million. Keeping the entire fleet going would cost in excess of $16Billion. And $Billions more if there were major equipment failures from those plants being pushed well beyond their designed lifespan.
If, instead of paying $16Billion+ just to keep worn out C-F power stations going for just over a decade, that money was used to install RE with a 30 year lifespan then nuclear would be redundant. Which leads to …
5) overstating the capacity factor in a high RE grid.
During periods of favourable conditions for RE generation nuclear, with the higher operational cost, wouldn’t be able to compete & would have to scale back output. Ie reduce its capacity factor. This is already occurring in France where NPPs have been completely temporarily shut down because of the high amount of cheap solar power in the grid. This is why using the historical capacity factors for nuclear is misleading & the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is valid.
Now of course, RE could be curtailed so nuclear can continue. But that creates the insane situation of higher electricity costs as free electricity is being turned off for power with a much higher cost of production.
thanks.
I am sure there will be other cogent criticism.
I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear irrelevant for modern Australia.
Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste.
Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it isn't).
Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@BrettBurnardStokes
I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear *inevitable* for modern Australia.
_"Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste"_
Agreed. The toxic solar cell materials and wind turbine forever landfills are a growing nightmare.
On the other hand, the tiny footprint of nuclear waste, particularly in a country as immense as Australia, with vast patches where no one lives (and no, I do not consider a town of 50 in a 100,000 square mile area inhabited).
Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it IS).
Consider the veracity of any claim that unreliables are low carbon (they aren't).
Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, llike heavy metals from solar mines leaching into the waterways.
A new reactor has a 60 years lifespan by default, or even 70 years depending on what you chose.
The 5th point can be solved by having more nuclear
There certainly is. The chosen sites are not relevant. They are duttons pick. He has no jurisdiction over the global nuclear requirements. Water is the number one word. that is why nukes are all on large reservoirs or sea shores.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 the 5th point is made worse with more nuclear as more NPPs would have to be temporarily turned off when abundant cheap solar floods the grid with power. That or the threshold at which cheap power is curtailed & electricity consumers forced to buy more expensive nuclear power would be lower.
Today, solar is literally eating the economic lunch of C-F power stations. It won’t be any different for NPPs. They’ll lose money during the day too - unless cheaper RE has its hands tied behind its back.
BTW, nothing lasts for 60+ years without maintenance. Especially safety critical control systems. Mechanical things wear out as well. That’s why plant & equipment has scheduled maintenance. And just like your car, some services are bigger than others.
Thanx for that information Nuclear is and will be always be needed.
Look at why Labor are hell bent on renewables. Superfunds industry based are run by Labor and unions they invest in renewables to get subsidies then Superfunds donate to the Unions then Unions donate to fund Labor at Elections
Follow the Money $$$$$$$
Absolute crap - follow the money on nuclear and it directly links to this RW think-tank, the hypocrisy is next level
Exactly,.... Corruption In Politics.
Australia needs to make two small thorium reactors.
Doesn't factor in the cost to the environment too. By removing the forests that convert co2 to oxygen they will never achieve their net zero.
Apparently destroying vast tracks of forests, forest species and our great birds, farms and ocean habitats has zero value! It disgusts me! Time to tie myself to a bulldozer, at almost 70!
Are you this clueless? You think the CSIRO doesn't account for aggregates,? Your cooked
@@michaelsouthwell5429 Did they account for them?
What about construction costs for roads, stands for wind generators and maintenance of the roads and power lines.
I sat through the 2024 ISP webinar, and also noted the CER, consumer energy resources which is a huge chunk of assumed storage that was not costed, just a burden put on consumers.
The ISP went on to suggest that if CER weren't available, then it would only cost $4billion to replace it with grid scale storage, seemed ludicrously under quoted to me, so thankyou for raising awareness of this.
The environmental and social impact of rolling out renewables along the great dividing range is wholly unacceptable. If this is to be done then put the solar and wind farms much further west where it wont impact people, high value ecosystems or food production.
Sun power is already making wind expensive in the Australian climate.
You should see the burden of nuclear waste management for the taxpayer
@yt.personal.identification yes, let's see that then, charted against the burden to the taxpayer of all other energy sources, vs the gwh and co2 produced for each type
@@jimsaq Cool.
Can you price a long-term storage facility that has known to be needed for 60 years but still doesn't exist.
Go!
@@jimsaq When the capacity of a nuclear generator is reached, how easy is it to scale up?
Liberal party front Zoe Hilton did the maths. She ignored the fact that Australia has no nuclear supply, operations and support ecosystem/infrastrucutre. And that without doing anything (almost downing tools on renewables) Australia will get to 50% renewables by 2027/2028. Also French nuclear runs at 53% which is what happens when you have high penetration nuclear you get low utilisation / low capacity factor.
If only the grifters in Canberra could comprehend any info in this video, than we wouldn't be having any of these issues now. I feel like the longer and longer we wait to actually get a nuclear project off the ground (if ever) it will be too late. Imagine if all this discussion was settled in the 70s or even 80s. Australia could of had nuclear for at least 30 years by now.
... and a technology leader too! It's sad that Oz chooses to take the path NOKIA took with smart phones!
The grifters in Canberra made this video. Look up CIS. It’s basically just Liberal Party advertising.
@@GrahamLea i just looked it up. To quote and credit Wikipedia....
The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) is an Australian think tank founded in 1976 by Greg Lindsay.[4][5] The CIS specialises in public policy research and publishes material in areas such as economics, education, culture and foreign policy. Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] However, it has also hosted Labor prime ministers and politicians,[9] and often also criticises the Liberal Party's policies.[10][11][12]
Also
The CIS is funded by donations, membership subscriptions, and book and event sales from individuals, companies and charitable trusts. It does not accept government funding.
The Centre for Independent Studies is as independent as the Insitute of Public Affairs, and as 'liberal' as the Liberal Party - THEY ARE NOT !
Rather, unrealistic cost analysis. Here are ten projects by costs and output over the last 10 years.
1. **Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4**
- Capacity: 2.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 45.0 billion
2. **Hinkley Point C**
- Capacity: 3.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 42.0 billion
3. **Taishan Units 1 and 2**
- Capacity: 3.50 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 21.0 billion
4. **Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant**
- Capacity: 5.60 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 36.0 billion
5. **Olkiluoto 3**
- Capacity: 1.60 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 27.0 billion
6. **Fangchenggang Units 3 and 4**
- Capacity: 2.36 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 9.0 billion
7. **Shin Kori Units 4 and 5**
- Capacity: 2.80 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 15.0 billion
8. **Kakrapar Unit 3**
- Capacity: 0.70 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 3.0 billion
9. **Kairos Power Hermes Reactor**
- Capacity: 0.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 0.9 billion
Frances main nuclear energy company, the EDF, is indebted with over 54 billion dollars. So much for the cost effectiveness, and that in a country that is extremely pro-nuclear energy AND that heavily subsidies it.
Yes EDF is a debt bomb
but hey they have the atomic bomb !!!
And they sank the Rainbow Warrior.
Mostly mismagement. EDF is forced to sell most of its eletricity at a loss to competitors, who only after that sell eletricity to consumers. Also France had anti nuclear policies
Actually, in 2023 they posted a net of 10 billion Euros, but had to import a lot of power in 2022; to protect the consumer the government sold the imported power at a loss - a government who think it's worthwhile trying to minimise the effect on the cost of living. Since the nuclear part of EDF is 100% government owned, they can do that.
Okay? Government services shouldn't be based on profit.
And? What do you thing the toxic solar panels, container size battiers and wind BS cost....fairdinkum
Hey Zoe, great video. Another thing to consider is the waist in 30 or so years with all the batteries, wind turbine blades and solar panels all going to landfill. The cost on the land required to bury the waist. An also the amount of land required for the solar and wind farms, new transmission lines for all the current and planned grids.
Every Australian needs to see this!
Yes, get a National Advertisement Plan happening, we all should be told the TRUTH, not "Fobbed off" with Political BS. Once the Information is Out there and people can "digest" it, then have a Referendum on it, because at the end of the day, WE the People are Paying for it.
It's like saying,will we stick with the square wheel,or chop off the corners and see if it rolls better.
The main thing to remember is cost of unrenewables that last 12 to 20 years depending on Quality versus Nuclear that is PROVEN to last 80 years and more . Nuclear will give constant reliability .
Crap.
What garbage propaganda. from corrupt industry and politicians. Its cash grab. It will take 20 year to build and have tripple cost over run> Just like the two SMR nuclear projects that have had overruns and one is cancelled cause of blowout. Solar and batteries can be done in 3 months and make a profit. Nuclear needs base load and wont be available for 10 years, if that, it will have government blowout politicians will leave and new ones will cancel the project lose $billions while the old corrupt polies will get lucrative jobs in energy like they do in gas,,.
@@markdavid7564how come?
@@pietervaneeden2370 There is a lot of BS about renewables. EG. Solar panels only last 25 to 30 years. The fact is that solar panels are warranted for 25 to 30 years but do the calculations on panel degradation, providing there is no overheating and /or moisture ingress, in 100 years, a panel will lose 50% of its capacity. That is a 400w panel will be a 200w panel. The beauty of solar panels is that they have no moving parts.
It's also important to understand that technology is always changing and improving. If a new panel come along with greater efficiency such a perovskite, why wouldn't people upgrade even if their panels are still under warranty.
I'm 60 years old and been shouting this for years, current "green" concepts are BS
Old man shouts at clouds
All that time, and they still haven't built the ling term waste management facility they have known they need, for that entire 60 years.
You must remember that message from the 70s.
Still not fixed.
@@genebrowne3138idiot….
That’s you….shouts at the clouds.
@@yt.personal.identification Yes “they” did. Yucca was built in US, killed by malevolent govt officials. Finland now has permanent storage facility. Ho can you not know that?
@@Nill757 Yes, Finland has their own storage for just themselves, still under construction.
Stating that others failed to make anything while recognising the need just supports my point.
Why did the tone make it seem that you were disagreeing while you proved my point?
As a scientist, I’m so glad I’ll be around to see this energy transition lunacy debunked.
Completely unbiased. Very convincing.
Can you send a copy of this to all politicians
...you bet they'd listen?!
No.
But the lobby groups are pushing hard.
What is the long term waste solution?
Leave it to tax payers?
They're making more money off thr renewables scam. They wouldn't budge. Then they have jobs lined up with the fossil fuels companies for good measure.
You need to make sure politicians know how to read and understand english.
@@noordhup They are hearing from the lobby group regularly
Great video
This may sound convincing to someone unfamiliar with the issue, but nuclear, while an excellent power source, does not solve the power generation problems Australia faces.
The biggest issue we have to deal with is dispatchable power. Nuclear cannot be ramped up and down as demand shifts in a very similar way to how renewables can't be ramped up and down as needed.
Both renewables and nuclear need dispatchable generation such as gas, hydro, or batteries.
Implying nuclear obviates the need for additional transmission, storage, and dispatchable generation is either misleading or ignorant.
Some one veiwing this knows their stuff. As an added fact, in 2023 510 GW was added to the world generating capacity from renewables. ! GW was added in 2023 by nuclear after 7 new plants were commissioned and 6 old ones decommissioned.
@@andrewjoy7044 we have 33 gigs of installed wind capacity and sometime get 300 Mw's, 510 Gigs here would probable give 500 Mw's I watched tasmania this week. they have had no wind. Burning gas and running hydro that they have a lot of.
Its necessities for storage and dispatchable generation are a small fraction of what you'd need with wind and solar
Nuclear ramps fine. Keep up.
@@johnk-pc2zx Not really adequate ramping for purpose. In brief, most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.
Thank you so much for presenting the perspective of full facts. The public at large cannot articulate this and feel depressed and at the mercy of big biz controlled corrupt government.
Our home has 6.6kWh solar and a 10kW battery and now have nearly all low power devices in the home.
We consume an average of 174kWh a month (including charging the EV.)
We push into the grid an average of 410kWh into the grid each month.
The NET power for our home is negative. With a second battery we could live off grid, though winter would be harder, it "should" be doable.
We should ALL be looking at reducing our usage.
Nuclear being non dispatchable in a dispatchable designed grid is an anti-pattern - so as such it should warrant an exceptionally low capacity factor - not a high one! Nuclear doesn't want to scale up and down rapidly - you need firming for that - so forget what other grids are doing - if they are dispatchable based designs - giving nuclear a high capacity factor means you are saying everything else (which is uber cheap to run - Solar PV and Wind) has to switch off if otherwise it would mean nuclear would have to produce less. So is you turn the cost paradigm for a firmed dispatchable based grid that has been designed to operate this way on its head - sure you can give nuclear an unrealistic capacity factor - or you can say it can compete in the free market with what is out there.
In France last week 3 nuclear reactors had to shut down because renewables pushed prices negative - nuclear can never do that. Sudies have shown nuclear requires firming in a modern grid - same as renewables - so shifting distribution, advanced grid function costs and firming onto only nuclear's opponents is rather dis-honest, biased analysis.
So if you assume it can last forever and be given preferred capacity priority - you can price it anyway you wish - but that is realistic. So long as it is tiny you could try and set it to having a larger capacity factor - but is a free market to big into - nuclear can't compete with a generation source thas basically a zero marginal cost to operate. The world wide supply of Uranium for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years of supply left according to a Google search. Nuclear pundits say but we can invent Thorium or fast breeder reactors to re-vitalise spent Uranium fuel or extract it from the Oceans - but point to where this can be done - anywhere in the world - it is pie in the sky. So as a resource becomes scarce - its price rises astronomically - basic enconomics. Plus its byproducts can have huge national security and terror implications...
Nuclear seems a smoke screen to extend coal and gas. Globally the world is shutting down more reactors than are built - at enormous cost. In China - one of the big 3 nuclear nations renewables are outgrowing nuclear at a rate of six to one last year and climbing.
You want a level playing field - assign the same capacity to all generation sources... overbuild renewables and firming and export what energy you don't need or consume it in new business models riding on the back of near limitlessly free energy.
Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper each year - there were bids for firmed renewables under $30 / MWh last year overseas; nuclear simply can't compete against a generation source that needs to buy no fuel ever.
"The world wide supply of Uranium..."
75 trillion tonnes.
"...for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years..."
Replacing all fuels, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW, 75 trillion tonnes of uranium is 10 billion years' worth.
"Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper every year..."
Infinite-cost is not *_"cheaper"_* than infinite-cost. Wind and solar remain infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
@@aliendroneservices6621 google search was what provided the 90 years of confirmed supply - versus pie in the sky manufacturing Uranium technology figures which are unproven.
Not sure why you introduced infinities into this discussion - but as a pure mathematican I will play if you have anyhing sightful to drop - but I have never, ever seen anyone try and bring infinities into an energy conversation - so this could be good!
The key point is nuclear still needs firming and is an anti-pattern to dispatchables - that is the elephant in the room...
@@aliendroneservices6621 Google is your friend
Estimates of the amount available range from 9 to 22 million tonnes of uranium, though the 2022 edition of the Red Book tabulates only about 9.3 million tonnes.
Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association
The figures in the Trillions make estimaes about how much are in the Oceans if a way to extract it could be concieved that was viable, financially affordable and politically achievable. So it is a Unicorn figure - it doesn't exist until it is proven achievable.
The bigger point is nuclear baseload is a total anti-pattern to a firmed dispatchables designed grid - rip out everything that has been achieved by industries, regulators, home owners with PV etc and start again because someone wants to wind the clock back 60 years to design an expensive baseload - that doesn't handle dsitributed variable generation and demand.
It's akin to saying make all cars illegal and we will have coal giant trains that are unstoppable going from every city centre to todays modern population centres.
Nuclear is going backwards around the world and firmed dispatchables are storming ahead - China is a brilliant example of that - see how its renewals outgrow nuclear six to one...
I love how we call windmills and solar panels that once past their short operating window will form the most appalling, polluting landfill 'renewables'.
If the EU wants to designate nuclear as a renewable too, then the waste it leaves behind would also make nuclear as strange option to be called ""renewable".
@@spaceforrest I don't think the definition of "renewable" should be changed, but instead change the focus from "renewables" to "clean energy".
They're renewable because you have to keep renewing them.
@@mephisto212 On the other hand, fossil fuels don't need to be renewed. Amrite, guys?
@@vijayendranvijay457😂😂😂😂
So in other words, the CSIRO report is not really accurate?
Excellent absolutely excellent. Great video full of true information…
Thanks for that…
For me, when considering nuclear, its the waste and the possibility of fallout which are the most important factors.
It perplexes me that the entities promoting nuclear use don't focus more on addressing these 2 critical factors.
The possible worst case scenario "end games" should always be taken into account when dealung with something that can have such devastating effects on the environment if not planned for correctly.
And not only do theae factors play a considerable part in evaluating the actual projected costs of a nuclear system but also if communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate.
Lol.
Based on the number of GWh produced vs accidents/lives lost/environmental impact of other energy generation methods, Nuclear is by far the safest. If you have peer-reviewed and authenticated evidence to the contrary, please present it here. "If communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate." I agree with the quoted statement. Feel free to research this on your own.
"too cheap to meter" they said ...
"nuclear is safe and clean" they say, even after Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@craigspender1710
I don't think you comprehended my concern properly. I didn't mention anything about safety.
So for your benefit i'll present my concerns more clearly as follows:
1. What do we do with the radioactive waste?
2. In the case of fallout, what is the containment plan??
Your "peer reviewed, authenticated" reponse can also be presented here... unlike your irrelevant retort about my concerns that you also failed to provide.
Regardless, i believe you feel i am anti-nuclear. On the contrary. I think it has a very important part to play in the make-up of whatever our energy needs are. However, radioactive materials and nuclear fallout are no joke and all aspects of its functioning should be very seriously considered from inception, through the life span AND breakdown before implementation.
Too many govt projects are rushed through or used as political footballs instead of actually creating viable solutions both economically AND environmentally.
What ends up being produced is either an inferior product or environmental disaster both of which are undesirable financial outcomes. (NBN and Snowy Hydro 2.0 come to mind immediately)
Having said that, i'd also like to apply the same scrutiny to renewables projects, not just in terms of the waste and recycling but "end of life" plant shut down processes and the true environmental costs.
In short, the real question is what ARE ALL the REAL costs in everything we do??
How much if you factor in radioactive storage facilities and maintenance for 100,000 years?
What about water use?
A system dependent on nuclear needs less water then one dependent on renewables.
As for waste. The volume of nuclear waste is very small. Of wich, 98% can be recycled and doesn't last more then 300 years. Also, the radiation get drasticly reduced and becomes basicly harmless by that time. Of the remaining 2% only ONE element lasts 100,000 years and that can be safely stored underground
@@joaquimbarbosa896 In what universe do renewables use more water than nuclear?
You have lost all credibility.
@@passdasalt The universe where you need a sh1t ton of hydro + pumped hydro. Also solar pannels need to be cleanned.
All in all a system dependent re uses more water and is more dependent on rainfall.
Also, wind speeds are projected to decrease and high temperatures will affect solar power production to. So not only is a 100%Re system very dependent on rainfall but on ideal weather, to
@@joaquimbarbosa896 lol pumped hydro recirculates the water. Rain cleans solar panels. Meanwhile, a nuclear plant uses millions of litres per day. Look it up.
@@passdasalt And if there is no water...guess what happens to pumped hydro? Also pumped hydro heavely demands more dams wich on themselfs can reduce river flow and increase evaporation drasticly.
And rain cleans solar pannels...sometimes. Like with eletricity you need it done at precise times, and rain doesn't come when you want it to. Furthermore, you forgot the crucial detail of hydro. If you do not have lots of hydro, not only would ie be impossible to run a grid on wind solar and storage, but it would also reduce the storage itself. So again, more water usage and more dependent on rainfall
Great presentation - thanks for getting this out
The CSIRO either needs defunding or an anti-corruption case lodged!!! After the CSIRO’s initial report on Nuclear was debunked by many individuals, it calls to question the integrity or aptitude of this organisation.
It was a monumental CSIRO blunder. They decided to venture into something their chief admitted they knew very little about viz. electricity generation. So the farmed it out to a "contractor", whose expertise wasn't any better than CSIRO. So he went to the Internet and came up with the dog's-breakfast, wildly inaccurate and incomplete report. On the basis of CSIRO's previous good reputation, Albanese and Bowen thought this was manna from Heaven. However Labor needs the Greens preferences so facts matter little to them..
It wasn't debunked - its just that when it comes to the future no one actually knows and other people wish to make different assumptions hence get different figures.
Now what is worth noting is CSIRO figures came in very close to Lazards LCOE for Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Power is a well established and well known generation method with well established cost structures. I would trust Lazards to get this right.
On top of these costs for renewables is the cost of deforestation for solar and wind or building it off shore. Then theses farms does not include rehabilitation or recycling at the end of their life span unlike other mining projects which has a funds to fix the environment afterwards.
Thanks for your work on this critical subject. The Labour Party needs to wake up. I voted Labour last election but based on Nuclear Energy and its critical role in environmental sustainability, I will be voting for the Liberal/National Coalition in the next election.
No, the gov is awake. They know full well what they are implementing. Regardless of who is in power, they will continue along the path their employers the elites, WEF etc.
You know, I recall a representative from the union of people who worked at power stations ( can't recall the name) on ( cough ) Sky News, saying their members would be happy to run nuclear power stations.
Send a copy of this presentation to the Canberra Club incompetent ideologists
They'll ignore it if possible, debunk if necessary, or defame the author or sponsor.
They certainly won't deal with the facts, just reframe. 😢😢
@@johnc6786 That's pretty rich coming from Dutton who has never questioned the GenCost report from its first inception in 2019 under the Liberal Party, not when he was opposed to large-scale nuclear in 2023, not when all the other sources corroborated CSIRO on the costing of SMRs with his initial 'let's go nuclear' beer-coaster, I mean, policy... but only when after he got cozy with Gina Rinehart who is all for nuclear that he suddenly decided that the CSIRO doesn't really know anything, because... reasons.
Those are government costs. By the time they are completed, multiply all of those costs by at least three, maybe four, to get the true cost. This will bankrupt the country.
Nuclear is classified as a renewable energy source, the EU decided that. On this occasion I don’t think I care to disagree.
Yeah but it’s not a renewable. It’s a finite resource which is highly toxic in a concentrated form and the cost of reprocessing the spent fuel after 15 or so years pushes nuclear out of the race. Most countries don’t reprocess because of this cost but decide to pile up the waste which is completely untreatable and left for future generations to deal with.
The EU also put burning wood down as a renewable, which is hilarious, lol.
@@ts757arse Well, trees are a natural resource that are renewed.
Even U235 is renewable with the use of a breeder reactor.
Or develop a Thorium fuel cycle reactor (in the fullness of time).
@@johnc6786 No. Seawater uranium is "renewable" (as it's replenished by rivers). Fissile U235 is not renewable. Non-fissile U238 is breedable to fissile Pu239.
Fissile is what we want (for use as fuel).
Look nuclear proponents love to can the csiro report but the fact is they cant find a separate study which shows nuclear is cheaper. Whereas the 2024 Lazard LCOE report also foums nuclear more expensive. There is no study saying muclear is cheaper
Laughable - the carbon ideologists say we have to spend, spend to cut carbon, but as soon as there's a solution they don't like, it has to be cheaper, cheaper. Just sit back and watch how other countries leave you behind.
@@bnielsen56 ah so you agree nuclear is not cheaper. Which is fine except that Dutton has chosen to pull the wool over Aussie eyes that nuclear is cheaper. Dutton has stooped mighty low to peddle this lie
@@SparksWillCry Shock, horror - an Aussie politician lied - somethings that 's never happened before! Seriously, switch to decaf.
@@bnielsen56 ok so we agree. Nuclear is more expensive than Renewables and will put up our power bills
@@SparksWillCry Ha, ha - you think there's a link between generation cost and power bills! Why don't you check places that have high nuclear (like France) and high 'renewables' (like California) and check the reality of your nonsense - they are the same (US$0.4/kWh), but spot energy price for nuclear in France is US$0.12/kWh - so about 25% of the end user cost. If you want low power bills, use coal, because with virtually no carbon output relative to the rest of the world, cutting emissions in Australia is a nonsense only ignorant people swallow - Australia is normally a net sink! If you are really so gullible as to think cutting CO2 will 'stabilise the climate' do a google search for how long it would take if CO2 production was stopped worldwide - it's measured in centuries. Get an education and keep useless ideology out of the energy market.
Nuclear. There IS no realistic comparison.
If more grid nuclear electricity, then that means more grid capacity construction.
The grid has a massive footprint and a massive economic footprint.
TRILLIONS footprint.
Nuclear promoters are deafening silent about the outside of the compact nuclear plant.
Were disposal of wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar panels factored into the costs? And the human and environmental costs of building them in the first place counted?
Were the same factors considered in the nuclear model?? I didn't see anything about nuclear waste management or fallout.
Don't get me wrong, if these factors are addressed i will seriously consider nuclear but the scrutiny applied to current "renewables" should be more than applied to nuclear also.
@@spaceforrest 1 kg of nuclear uranium is the same amount of energy as 2.7 million kg of coal. one solar panel is 20kg
Another consideration should be the source of financing. While it does not impact return numbers, it can significantly impact scale and size numbers. A nuclear power plant is always a government project, even if operated by a P&U company. However, a significant portion of solar is either funded by private companies or citizens. Therefore, if the cost of a nuclear power plant is spent on solar subsidies, the private funding can multiply its benefit. In other terms if the return on a nuclear plant is the same as solar, then with 50% subsidy for house solar and batteries would generate twice as much power as the private sector would be willing to fund as much as the government.
While nuclear is better than gas and coal, I feel that the real concern of politicians may be whether there would be a centralized or decentralized energy system. The former can easily be taxed and controlled, while the later makes citizens independent from their government in terms of the energy economy.
Apart from the fact that most Australians do not have the budget or possibility of providing their own energy - either due to living in apartments or renting, for example, the amount of storage required to be independent and cover the 70% average downtime or renewables is not economic. Also, while the solar panels might be funded, it's the need for storage that needs the government involvement, not least for land acquisition for pumped hydro projects. Realistically, if the main infrastructure is paid for through taxes, and the 'fuel' is zero cost (as renewables ideologues like to claim) then the power supplied should be free, right?
@@bnielsen56 "due to living in apartments" - this is 10% of population.
If the fuel is zero cost (which is true) the bill will be only 20% less. Because the bill contains retailers (middleman), distribution cost, taxes etc etc
@@alexmag5735 Conveniently left out renters... and while you can claim the fuel is 'free', you need to ensure no shade, cleaning cost, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, control, monitoring, development...and these costs surpass the current cost of electricity - so prices for solar will increase at the consumer, not decrease, because the current infrastructure is not fit for purpose. But the main issue is discussing oranges and apples - you can't compare nuclear with solar+batteries. Having said all that, the reason for the debate is BS anyway. Real scientists know that cutting carbon emissions will not affect the climate in anyone's lifetime.
What about the nuclear waste? Storage? Transport? Cost?
All that is included in maintenence and the costs would really dependent. Generally speaking they are somewhat low to store in short term. Long term storage is expensive af but you can recycle nuclear waste.
Now include waste from renewables like wind and solar to
They hide all that information in books. Try looking it up - France would be a good place to start.
Not a particularly convincing video.
Anyone know why they're so obsessed with the fact that batteries and pumped hydro 'don't produce electricity' ?
The relevance of this isn't really clear.
Also, the part about new nuclear "being built to last 60-100 years"... Does this mean it actually will last that long?
And that we won't, in the meantime, just give up on it because wind and solar will be even more competitive?
GenCost Report page 72 Figure 5-3. They state here (and above) that the integration costs for all projects after 2023 are included, which still puts renewables ahead of nuclear (i.e. cheaper). Am I missing something? It seems like they've already included your integration / storage costs for renewables?
Yes, you are missing something. The fact that what the consumer will be paying has no direct link to the 'cost' of production of renewable energy, but smart meters (coming soon whether you like it or not) will allow very high costs - based on maximum draw, not total power consumed - due to the poor control available to suppliers to match demand with renewables. It should be obvious that base load nuclear will be a replacement for coal fired stations, giving a lower cost to the consumer. Compare California cost of electricity (52% renewables) - 34 cents/kWh to Illinois (50% nuclear) - 17 cents/kWh. California energy regulator quote: "about 10 years ago, prices started rising quickly, above the rate of inflation, driven in part by costly startup investments in renewable energy and the transmission lines needed to connect new solar projects to the grid."
Except that
1. Based on the latest cost estimates from the order just placed by Czechia and inserting Australian labour costs it is not A$8.6bn/GW, it is $18-20bn, and nuclear projects never have cost overruns do they?
2. Based on the average of the last six reactors actually built in the West by countries with 60 years of building experience the average cost including inflation to 2024 is A$23bn/GW
3. Based on nuclear output just this year in France, Britain, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and Belgium. Actual nuclear output varies between 30 and 100% of rated capacity and outages are much longer so nuclear actually needs 2-10 times much storage as wind and solar. For example the fall in nuclear power in France in 2022 was the equivalent of 430 Snowy IIs
4. Based on real delivery times in Korea and Europe and real times to clear all the legislative hurdles the first reactor might be operating by 2045
5. Korea which has a heavy electrical industry 15 times the size of ours and has been building reactors for 50 years and completes one every two years. Do you somehow think we can match that? Even one every four years means 12% nuclear share by 2085
6. As the consequences of a trip caused by the collapse of a transmission tower are much more severe for a nuclear plant than a coal or wind plant, our existing transmission to the power stations has to be replaced and duplicated
7. Nuclear plants use 1.3-120 times as much water as coal plants, where will the water come from?
1. What's the cost overrun on Snowy Hydro - so far... 2. And they're BUILDING THEM - because they are not stupid ideologues. 3. Solar and wind output is unreliable and MAXIMUM 30% availability. 4. Better get started then. 5. Let's buy from Korea and learn, despite Australians hating producing anything. 6. Should be underground, in my opinion, but why not suffer because it's cheaper? 7. 120 times - reference please, as they should use similar amounts to coal fired: "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe study from 2019 put nuclear energy from at an average of about 2.4 liters per kilowatt-hour, counting all types of cooling systems. An ordinary coal plant was about the same, but a coal plant that captured its carbon dioxide was far higher. And natural gas in a combined cycle system was a little lower.
Peter Farley, something else to add to your list:
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.
It seems available global supplies of high-grade uranium ores are insufficient to sustain a so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the longer-term. Where are the adequate quantities of nuclear fuels coming from in the near future to keep all these nuclear power plants operational?
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods perhaps? That's much more expensive and much more difficult to handle from a radiological perspective.
Or extract uranium from seawater? That's currently experimental at best, there's nothing available at large-scale so far, and it's much more expensive to extract compared with current ore extraction methods.
And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come.
The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns.
And nuclear technologies will leave a toxic waste legacy that will long outlast any energy benefits gained - an intergenerational issue.
@@GeoffMiell The earth's crust contains 75 trillion tonnes of uranium, which is 10 billion years' worth, replacing all fuels with uranium and burning it at the current all-fuels burn-rate of 20 terawatts.
@@aliendroneservices6621 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.
One point i would like to see explored more is the environmental impact of wind power, after reading of the Guga hunt on the isle of Lewis (the community has been asked to sign off on an estimated 200 birds a year being killed by a offshore wind farm), i became curious about how much damage these farms do.
German studies ( and you know the Germans, very efficient) have shown massive disruption to insect populations in regions with windfarms " a single turbine located in the temperate zone might kill about 40 million insects per year."
An inconvenient truth perhaps but one i would like to see more discussion on.
It's not just the environmental issue, but the ecological issue where recycling, the 6000 ton concrete and steel foundations for the wind turbines need to be removed once they reach the end of their life every 20 years. In Ireland the wind turbines installed there don't even last 20 years but the gearboxes on the nacelles are failing already after 7 years resulting tin expensive repairs. The wind turbine blade edges degrade well before the 20 year mark which ruins the efficiency and if the wind is blowing more than 12 m/s, the blades need to be feathered making the turbines useless. In France we see the wind turbines turned off when there are strong winds.
@@Ernst12😂 Don’t consider for a moment that nuclear plants require shiploads of concrete and require constant maintenance.
Greenpeace states that more wildlife will be killed by pollution and climate change than by wind turbines
We are looking for improvement not perfection
@@lindam.1502 An absolute pittance compared to what nuclear produces vs. the weather dependent nonsense. Get real.
@@lindam.1502 Ehm, the shiploads of concrete is once per 80 years. Vs once per *20* years for wind. Wind & solar also require maintenance - lubricants, washing panels, replacing blades, horribly expensive due to the dispersed nature of renewables.
Face it, wind & solar are neither practical nor cheap. Only advantage is subsidy harvesting.
Though I take STRONG ISSUE with the background graphic of DVD/books/blur the actual delivery and facts and.... how this is done, is excellent. I'll watch this again to just take notes.
I work in the energy industry. This is nonsense and very typical of the CIS doing back of the envelope calculations without understanding the full context.
On the lifespan: 30 years is appropriate. It’s not pretending that they won’t work after that, but that investors will be looking for return within that timeframe. Because that’s what will determine whether the investment will be made or not. Similarly, wind and solar lifespans are pegged at 20 years when they go on just fine for many more after that.
In the capacity factor: US capacity factors are irrelevant because every energy market is different - different generation fleets, different demand patterns. GenCost’s capacity factors are based on the Australian energy market and they are driven by demand. Energy demand is increasingly flexible and generators that are capable of putting out constant supply are unable to because of this.
On the storage: they are double-counting. GenCost assesses ‘firmed’ renewables. This includes the cost of sufficient storage, allocated to each project. Cherry picking a few expensive storage projects and adding them up is double counting as they are already factored into GenCost renewables.
On the transmission: sure, these are driven by changes in demand and supply of which growth in renewables is one factor. But there are other factors including weather and storm impact. More interconnections are needed regardless of the precise makeup of the generation fleet.
On the integration of distributed batteries: these are privately owned by households and businesses, their investment cost is not recouped through the energy market, so their cost is not included. People will buy them anyway, and they are not only used for firming large scale renewables but also for private benefit. So it is correct not to include them in GenCost.
The CIS is either ignorant or is deliberately sowing misinformation for political purposes. Their comment at the end suggests at least the latter, if not both.
And what is the likelihood that those additional costs for solar and wind will come in on budget?
But, but Nuclear is a naughty word!?!? 😂😂
Love this. So simple. So straight forward. Anti Nuclear Sentiment is so hallow and silly. Great job.
Coal powered stations can be converted at half the price and our uranium resources have been sold underpriced since the seventies, we need a particle accelerator to be able to support the hydrogen market that is not completely honest in what is involved in being able to actually store hydrogen so it doesn't leech through the container at a molecular level
On 17 Jul 2024, the Czech government announced that KNHP had submitted the winning bid to build at least two, and possibly four 1,000 MWₑ reactor units, which set the cost per APR-1000 reactor unit at $8.6 billion. Sadly for nuclear advocates, that figure is in $US. Converted to $AU, it’s 12.8 billion, around 50 per cent more than the CSIRO/AEMO's 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 estimate. The LCOE, even on the most favorable assumptions, will exceed $225/MWh.
Czechia is offering a brownfield site, at no additional cost. The new plants will replace existing Soviet-era reactors at Dukovany. By contrast, under Dutton’s nuclear proposal, the costs of any nuclear plants in Australia would need to include the compulsory acquisition of existing sites, from mostly unwilling vendors.
The Czechia nuclear project cost (US$8.6 billion/GWₑ) and duration (tender process started 2020 though to target date for electricity generation in 2038) are so far estimates/expectations, yet to be demonstrated.
Meanwhile, there are multiple examples over the last 2 decades actually demonstrating higher LCOEs, like the USA's VOGTLE-3 & -4 units, per 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, for a total capital cost of ~$31.5 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60 - 80 years, at US$190/MWh ≈ AU$281/MWh.
VOGTLE-3 has demonstrated it took around 17 years to get up-and-running (from Southern Nuclear's formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006 to full commercial operations on 31 Jul 2023), and yet to be fully operational VOGTLE-4 will have taken around 18 years.
Even under the favorable conditions of a brownfield site and an established nuclear industry, new nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and far too slow to get-up-and-running.
What keeps the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational?
Disappointingly no mention of nuclear waste management costs.
Stanford University estimate $8-27 billion to store current level of spent fuel in the US for the next 100 years. That's ~$270M+ per year. With an estimate of $200-600 additional created per year...
Considering that Australia has large deposits of uranium we should be able to produce it at a reasonable cost unless like gas etc the government sub it out to an overseas company.
Nuclear: A comparative bargain at 8.7 billion per Gigawatt!
BS. I gather you didn't listen. I gather you would rather destroy the environment for the unreliables.
@@pederjohansen2029 You don't gather very well, do you? I am very much in favour of nuclear. I would have thought my comment unambiguous, but here we are.
@@AximandTheCursed Nuclear war???
@@Diponty Clarify your supposition, Dippy. Nuclear reactors are not a pre-requisite for the production of nuclear weapons, matter of fact, a fast-spectrum reactor is the only way to safely and permanently dispose of nuclear weapons while generating useful energy.
@@AximandTheCursedI'm sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were questioning the cost. I have listened to enough podcasts and seen enough reports to know that nuclear energy is both safe and long lasting. Again sorry.
Gas price has exploded as international demand increased
Uranium ore price may explod.
Bowen's head just exploded
Wouldn't that be good!
It didn't because he didn't understand it
So well communicated. Thank you!
Great presentation. It's time to open your eyes,👀Labour. I hope there is an early election so we can vote out Anthony Albanese's Labour party and bring in Peter Dutton's Liberals to expedite this critical transition to secure our reliable base load and our energy future.
Our current grid to support rooftop solar with prices plummeting and even going into the negative. The grid was never designed to have so much power feeding back into it.
As you mentioned the true cost of renewables is the storage. Renewables aren't a new idea both America and Germany have failed to produce a that runs on renewables only and this is because of the large cost of storage
To anyone who believes in Nuclear from watching this video, read my comment. I will respond.
The CIS partnered with other think tanks including the Institute of Public Affairs and Liberty Works, conservative lobby group Advance and fossil fuel companies to coordinate the No campaign during the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum.
CIS is also based on Classical Liberalism. While the CIS claims to be independent, it is frequently associated with conservative and libertarian viewpoints. The Insitute of Public Affairs and Liberty Works are both Right Wing Conservative think tanks. These groups are funded by Fossil Fuel amongst other Conservative Groups. So, this video is just pushing Right Wing and Fossil Fuel misinformation.
The pumped hydro does produce electricity, that is their first lie. Australia’s pumped hydro systems are designed to produce electricity. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) works by using two water reservoirs at different elevations. During periods of low electricity demand, excess energy from the grid or renewable sources like wind and solar is used to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. When electricity demand is high, the stored water is released back down through turbines to generate electricity.
As of March 2023, there are a total of 93 operating nuclear reactors at 56 nuclear power plants located in 28 US states. The United States has the world's largest fleet, with 93 operating reactors. Nuclear power accounts for 19% of America's electricity.
The UAE built a Nuclear reactor and it ended up costing $20 billion USD.
8 reactors for Australia will produce 8 GWH, and Australia uses 265.5 Terawatts per year, or 265,500 Gigawatts per year. I don't see how 7 or 8 are going to be useful to supply less than 1% of Australia's needs.
Globally, around 10% of electricity comes from nuclear power. As of 2023, Global renewable energy sources provided about 30% of the world’s electricity.
And this video has fudged the figures on Nuclear and Renewables. There are a lot more costs involved than just building a Nuclear power plant. A special storage facility will need to be built to store the fuel waste to hold it for thousands of years. Special transport to remove the fuel waste from the plant to the storage facility. Removing the old coal fired plants, rehabilitating the land, and compensating the owners of those plants as they own the land. One plant uses 25 to 30 tins of Uranium every year.
AMEO and CSIRO have both put building Renewables at $122 Billion. This video is full of so many errors and has basically lied.
"8 reactors for Australia will produce 8 GWH, and Australia uses 265.5 Terawatts per year, or 265,500 Gigawatts per year. I don't see how 7 or 8 are going to be useful to supply less than 1% of Australia's needs. " Given that a nuclear reactor has capacity factor of over 90%, the figure is over 60 terawatts or around 25% of Australia's electricity demand.. "The UAE built a Nuclear reactor and it ended up costing $20 billion USD. ". The figure is about $30 billion USD for 5.6 gigawatts of power generation, which equates to a bit under $8 billion AUD per gigawatt. You might also like to consider the massive environmental destruction that commercial wind and solar entails, projected to be an area several times that of Tasmania. With reasoning skills like yours it is no wonder that you support wind and solar.
@@billmeredith7848 You have shown you have no idea.
5.6GW means 20 reactors to produce 112GW. Still well short of requirements. To produce 60 Terawatts would require 17,520 reactors.
Nuclear generation equates to $8 billion per GW.
Solar Power: The cost to produce 1 GW of solar power can range from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. This includes the cost of solar panels, inverters, installation, and other associated expenses.
Onshore Wind: The cost for onshore wind projects is typically between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion per GW. This includes the cost of wind turbines, installation, and maintenance.
Offshore Wind: Offshore wind projects are generally more expensive, with costs ranging from $2.5 billion to $3 billion per GW. The higher cost is due to the complexity of installing turbines at sea and the associated infrastructure.
Hydropower: The cost for hydropower can vary widely based on the size and location of the project, but it generally ranges from $1 billion to $2 billion per GW.
Way less than Nuclear.
And Renewables do not cause massive environmental damage, that is just a lie.
With the lack of understanding the facts shows you have not really done any research and just bleating the same crap as the video.
Thank you CIS. for doing the math's.
As it seems no governments own a calculator anymore.
30 years is the "economic" lifespan of nuclear power stations. That is, the bank that lends the money wants it paid back in 30 years and that is why electricity bills will go up. It's possible that they will last longer than 30 years but the only data we have is that the oldest nuclear plant in operation is 50 yrs old. The average is 35 years old. Many of this age require very expensive maintenance. In the USA, many nuclear owners want the government to take over their running as the owners can't make money out of them. In the cost calculations, it is usually assumed that they will produce electricity 24/7 and can SELL electricity 24/7 (capcity factor). In a market dominated by renewables, their capacity factor will be nowhere near 100% as the wholesalers won't want to buy expensive nuclear when they can buy cheap renewables. As renewables increasingly dominate the Australian market, the opportunity for nuclear to sell their electricity will decrease. Cheaper to do as AEMO suggests, use gas plants to fill in when renewables are not available. The modelling based on the last 14 years of weather shows that the gas plants will only be required to generate
Great post and very informative this is imo the way to go we have a vast open landscape with desert and not much else why wouldn't you utilize that land for solar for cheap free electricity These Nuclear power plants will be paid by taxpayers, then we the consumers taxpayers will fitting the bill to maintain them and who will dictate the pricing in the end ??
Please put a graph showing 'a market dominated by renewables'! Even California, the state with most 'renewables', relies mainly on nuclear and fossil fuel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File:California_electricity_generation_by_source_2001-2020.png. Where can I get what you're smoking?
@@bnielsen56 Can't give you a graph but the words in this link are pretty simple. South Australia's electricity supply is currently 70% renewables (zero hydro) and will soon be 100%. www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/energy-grid-and-supply/our-electricity-supply-and-market
It's not true that energy storage doesn't produce electricity. It stores energy made during daylight for release during the night. New energy systems are emerging. Put all the cards on the table and let the market decide.
Gee, who would have thought that a group with close ties to the Liberal Party would come out with a TH-cam clip like this, not giving the critics of nuclear power the chance to debate them? Crikey, not me!😂
The government wont allow any debate. They are desperately trying to shut it down. On orders from those with renewables interests and close ties with the Labor party and their Teal cheer squad. The numbers quoted are in the public realm. And they barely scratch the surface. The cost of consumer provided generation alone relied on by AEMO to power the country's future that they don't include in the cost of the unicorn 100% renewable system dream justifies nuclear all by itself.
In fairness for the storage costs you're comparing old technology (pumped hydro) against best case nuclear (in countries with established nuclear industries). You should be factoring in the fact that we have basically no nuclear industry (apart from ansto). So its going to be on the high end for cost 100%
Pumped hydro is by far the best storage method
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Pity it doesn't actually produce any power.
Yes, it's going to be so expensive to bring in experts from overseas and develop an industry in Australia - let's keep our status as a third world country, keep sending all our materials overseas for manufacture and be happy shearing sheep.
@@bnielsen56 Because its storage...?
@@bnielsen56 or we could tax our resource industries properly and use that money to develop manufacturing and value added industries? We don't need nuclear to do that
Excellent, well done.
those 8 nuclear plants would only supply around 20% of Australias energy needs. plus they would also need transmission lines, waste treatment plans (nuclear waste remains radioactive for 100 000years, loads n loads of water for cooling, willing communitys to live near them. and huge contributions from the tax payers to get it off the ground
That 20% number does not take into account the growth needed in electricity supply over the next 20 to 30 years. The growth needs to account for (a) population increases and (b) replacement of fossil fuels used in light & heavy vehicles as well as agricultural and mining machinery. 20% is quickly and easily eroded to well under 10%…
It can provide district heating. Furthermore it will use less water (and be less dependent on weather) then a 100% RE grid. Also, it can use wastewater to.
About the waste, wich seams to be everyone's "gotcha" here, only 1 element lasts that long. Nuclear waste in itself is of very small volume, 98% of it can be recycled and loses its radiation in less then 300 years
Awesome... Dutton's going to pull them out of the loading dock of Gina Rinehart's yacht or jet tomorrow, right?
Wait, you mean we'd have to build them 2 or 3 at a time - under the most optimistic circumstances - to arrive in mid to late 2030 - assuming there's no delays like, well, every reactor being built in France, the UK and the US, established, technically proficient nuclear operators - and they'll arrive AFTER the coal generators will all be shutdown? Meaning we'll not only need to spend money building these reactors - that most definitely won't go massively over-budget like every reactor being built in France, the UK and... is there an echo in here? - but we'll need to spend more money building some kind of generation (probably gas) to fill the gap between coal shuttering and Dutton's FIRST reactors arriving around 2035 (more like 2045) which will supply... a minute fraction of what we need now, let alone then.
What a fantastic plan... too bad Dutton, wait no, Scomo, wait no, I mean Turnbull, wait no, I mean Abbott didn't start it a decade ago so we'd actually see a reactor come on in time to replace outgoing coal. What did they do instead? Stuffed around for 9 years while generation left the grid but wasn't replaced by anything except rooftop solar! There are economic realities beyond 'a reactor costs X dollars, so well buy Y amount of them instead' when the ENTIRE world has built a grand total of 120 reactors in the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (while shutting down 115 in the same period) with a majority of them being built by China alone. Want to increase the output of a solar or wind farm? Lay in more panels or turbines, done. Need more nuclear... wait 10-15 years from breaking ground.
How’s the nuclear power grid going in France 🇫🇷 atm are they able to on sell their extra capacity to other countries?
Not in 2022, as they had several reactors down for maintenance issues and had to import expensive power. Rather than pass that on to consumers, EDF (gov't owned) took the hit. They are looking at ways to allow flexible output by producing useful 'byproduct' when energy demand is low (such as desalination), rather than turning off reactors.
Write to your local member of Federal HoR and your Senators and tell them your pissed about the transition. Demand a new approach that includes nuclear. Also request that the legislative ban on nuclear power be repealed, poste haste.
How long do those batteries last?
You have to at least double the $38 billion, as it is a quote, and we all know how big projects go
Maybe we could...you know...just learn from the mistakes commited in previous big projects...
@@joaquimbarbosa896 What makes you think they were mistakes??
Brilliant simple as it needs to be and very facutial without the political spin doctoring and deliberate omissions
thank you! we need more elightened women telling other women about the plus side of nuclear and the down of renewables
Believing the CSIRO is a stretch.
What a load of crap! Australia's cost problems with electricity has very little do with the cost of generation of electricity. Our cost problems come from poor political decisions and por demographics. Any privatised and/centralised generation of electricity will just be another poor decision.
Total crap.
Yes our electricity shouldn't of ever been privatised retailers are taking advantage of everyone !
Excellent work. The CSIRO was misleading leading by putting solar and wind without storage on the same graph as nuclear, coal and gas which can run 24/7.
You have to understand the term LCOE to understand why you can put them on the same graph.
Energy in Australia should be 'free' , after the cost of the necessary reactors are paid for.
We could also circumvent some of that initial investment cost by reprocessing and/or enriching uranium here.
@@andrewwhite1065 I think you didn’t do so well at school and basic math is a problem for you.
The other myth that needs to be addressed is the one about nuclear being water intensive. I mean, is that why the Chinese are building reactors in the desert?
You haven't factored in the cost to store and maintain nuclear waste and the impact of land value around nuclear plants let alone the fact that it takes 15 years to build a si gle plant based on SMR technology that is not even commercially available at present. Good luck building 30 something SMR's in the time it takes to solve the problem more immediately with proven technology that is firmed by battery storage and brings down energy costs sooner.
Embarrassing. If it takes 15 years, what do you think will be available by then in the SMR field?
Well I think you answered your own question, they cannot steal that much money through nuclear
Scrutiny eh?
AU$92 billion for the Hinkley Point C reactor (3.2GW total) in the UK but we can build a 1GW reactor for AU$8.7 billion?
SMRs were being proposed here because it was thought they could be sited at existing coal fired plants to save on transmission costs. Going down the route of a few large nuclear plants instead of multiple SMRs would reintroduce pretty much all of the additional transmission costs of renewables.
Nuclear is a non-starter.
Wind and solar will not supply base load power and batteries are only ok for a short top up, and then require recharging. As per computer UPS systems.
Nuclear 'waste' is just more fuel for non war reactors.
What is the cost of waste management?
What is the solution to long term waste storage?
Anyone?
Legit responses only.
They have no idea 😁
@@alexmag5735 Leave the clean up to future tax payers after the profits have been extracted
@@alexmag5735😂😂😂😂