Some politicians have shares in the renewable companies - no wonder they don't want to change when it affects their hip pocket !!!!!!!!!! Stuff the good of Australia !!!!!!!!!!!!
@@richardwilcox5988 some people will never learn, it's better to keep their mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and REMOVE all doubt!!!
@@justlikeredwine people like you need to pull your heads out of the ground and stop hugging trees and stop thinking Albo and his lying minsters know better then other countries that already have nuclear energy.
@@justlikeredwine• Wow! another ABC stooge that only listens to Labor propaganda... what are you doing watching sky news channel, you should switch channels before you are converted.
@@justlikeredwine Don't tell us you actually Believe "Cassanova" Bowen. You would believe him IF he told you the Earth was Flat. Sky Channel actually Disproves Everything the Socialists try to tell us. BUT only a HALFWIT would actually believe them.
Nuclear moving forward immediately. It's so obvious. I am just a normal technical Engineering kinda guy of 62 years. I am increasingly alarmed about the naivety of our elected representatives. Start building yesterday, be the best at it.
I live in the LaTrobe Valley, I have seen station after station dropped, and nothing put in to replace it. We once had a thriving economy, in the top 10 Shires in the nation, now the LV is all but dead, an economic wasteland compared to it prior self. Political ignorance has ruined a once great part of Australia, we're sitting on a coal field, but can not utilise it.
@@justlikeredwine I don't give a stuff about the destructive and useless renewables! All I know is that with wind turbines needing 6 monthly maintenance and regular 18-20 year full replacement at ever increasing cost. The solar panels need regular maintenance and will need replacing every 14 years,( unless they get destroyed by hail). Then there's the transportation costs to get the old ones and deliver the replacements, transportation to the landfill site, which will need to be hundreds of hectares in size with the risk of the turbines leaking oil into the underground water channels. Therefore these windmills and mirrors will be a forever, NEVERENDING cost to not only this generation but all future generations. And this doesn't take into consideration the total destruction of our farmlands, forests and animal habitats. I'm so glad I spent 5 years travelling in and around Australia, driving all the desert tracks, working on a cattle station in the Kimberly's and another in the Gulf before they dunked ruined this country with the destructive and ugly mirrors and windmills!!!
@@edwardbec9844 ongoing? We haven't even started. There is no way the cheapest form of energy is going anywhere. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build. Small-scale nuclear reactors are at least 10 years away still and despite the lies that sky tells you, there are none up and running. You keep parroting things you don't understand. By the time a reactor is built, it is likely that nuclear fusion will be viable. And that will make any nuclear fission reactor obsolete. No business would invest in such redundant technology
@@motorsportfreak1 not really. France had to turn reactors off due to a lack of water and lack of qualified people to maintain their reactors. Nuclear power is a fanciful idea that is far too expensive and is not commercially viable.
@@gregbuckenara8063 does anyone at sky have a PhD in nuclear fission? No. So what credentials do you have to question my questioning of the unqualified? Did you read the report?
There was just ONE new reactor construction start outside China last year and only TWO so far this year (IAEA reactor database) IEA data shows that 85% of global energy investment is going to new energy technologies and only 1% to nuclear. Nuclear generated less power globally last year than nearly 2 decades ago with capacity lost due to closures exceeding new capacity coming online. Nuclear is going nowhere.
@@ironmaidens6663 - "I wouldn't be so sure on that." So where's your evidence/data to back that up? Per the IAEA's PRIS database, construction starts in 2024 so far (accessed today, last update as at 2024-10-01): Country _ _ Reactor Name _ _ _ Model _ _ _ _ Construction Start Egypt _ _ _ _ EL DABAA-4 _ _ _ VVER-1200 _ _ _ _ 23 Jan 2024 China _ _ _ _ ZHANGZHOU-3 _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 22 Feb 2024 Russia _ _ _ LENINGRAD 2-3 _ VVER V-491 _ _ _ _14 Mar 2024 China _ _ _ _ LIANJIANG-2 _ _ _CAP1000 _ _ _ _ _ 26 Apr 2024 China _ _ _ _ XUDAPU-2 _ _ _ _ _CAP1000 _ _ _ _ _17 Jul 2024 China _ _ _ _ NINGDE-5 _ _ _ _ _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 28 Jul 2024 China _ _ _ _ SHIDAOWAN-1 _ _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 28 Jul 2024 It seems there are 2 reactor construction starts outside China so far this year. All reactors are either Russian (VVER V-491, VVER-1200) or Chinese (HPR1000, CAP1000) designs. Do you really think Russian &/or Chinese nuclear technologies would be politically acceptable here in Australia? Could you please explain that one for us? I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor tech options would only be: * Westinghouse AP-1000; * Framatome/EDF EPR; * KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000 And these have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - 20+ years! Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. These are inconvenient truths that the nuclear boosters like you ignore.
@@dpitt1516 The report wasn't written by nuclear physicists. You should read the report. It's not even that hard. Ironically, your question is the best example of why nuclear in Australia won't work. We don't have any nuclear physicists here. And none of our politicians making the decisions are nuclear. Physicists. Sky News certainly are not physicists in any way shape or form. In fact, sky News have disdained for the scientific community and science at Large. The insinuation that I shouldn't be commenting because I don't have a PHD in nuclear physics just goes to show how futile it is to listen to sky News.
Bowen & Albo are befuddled with this. They cant understand why people are waking up to the facts instead of believing their lies. Hilarious to watch these two clows in action.
I am not surprised at all that this has happened simply because Labor keeps talking about stopping climate change while Europe, the UK, Canada and the US are talking about lowering CO2 emissions. The difference in communication is obvious because by pushing the emergency, end of the world climate change alarmism, it gives Labor the implicit authority to play roughshod over voters by expedient implementation of its ideology without having to give any regard to democratic processes. In other words, it is a licence to rule by decree under the pretence that we are in a climate emergency rather than adopt the more rational and more difficult narrative of the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
@@ohasis8331 Isn't it amazing, past generations have also fussed with the climate and after enough people do this, it becomes group think and finally a religion that can't be questioned or discussed. Disinformation will ban any point made that does not fit the narrative of the woke Left.
I loved it when people said that having a nuclear power plant near them would ruin their property values. So people went to Lucas Heights residents and asked them if having the Lucas Height nuclear reactor next door to them has ruined their property values making them the cheapest suburb in Sydney. They said you must by kidding the properties here are just as expensive as they are in the rest of Sydney. Bowen only pushes his renewables baby because he's in bed with Bandt and billionaires who've spent a lot of money on renewables. For him there's probably a job waiting for him on their boards after he leaves politics. If our politicians aren't ready for nuclear power then they're not ready for nuclear submarines.
The CSIRO needs to stay in their lane! Stick to their knitting! Their says it all: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation. There is nothing in that to do with economics nor finance and investment. And for a political party to hang all their counter arguments on such incredibly flawed modelling shows they are either complete idiots, or they are trying to pull the pull the woo over our eyes so their "mates" get all the kickbacks etc.
@@peterremkes9376 A 10 year old child would be able within 10 minutes of googling find numbers that make a mockery of the corrupt Woke Marxist imaginary of the once but no longer revered CSIRO.
@@peterremkes9376There is plenty of proof that CSIRO and AEMO figures are completely incorrect and have been jiggered to support Labor’s Ideology, do some of your own research and don’t depend on politicians to give you real data, except maybe you can use Labor lies as a measure, because we know everything they say is a LIE, so if they something is true, we know it is false.
Just wait for the day when Albogreasy says to Dimwit Bowen ......... "I've decided we're going to go Nuclear as part of the mix, oh and can you go out to the press room and let everyone know please"
It’s a shame the average person is so bad at dealing with big numbers. Community wide infrastructure is expensive if you look at it as a single number but let’s say the total cost is $100B that’s only $3333 per person assuming our population hits 30m by the time it’s built. That’s not substantially different to the cost of delivery of new services to a new house or installing solar panels etc and inline with projects like the NBN. It’s certainly a better spend than the $15b Victoria is currently spending for a 9km railway from one side of the city to the other that most Victorians will be lucky to use more than twice a year. If we want cheaper and reliable electricity that doesn’t involve a huge environmental impact to install it, as well as an energy source with enough guts to power the industries we need to make things and therefore keep jobs here and charge our future EV fleet, nuclear is the only choice. Even at 20 years it will still be faster than other energy sources and it could be quicker if we actually just got started instead of spending years talking about it. The idea that it’s ok for somewhere like Iran to use Australian uranium to power their country but not ok for us to do so because it’s not safe just makes no sense at all
If the A.L.P. (Arithmetic-Lacking Party) could care about the cost, or even bother to count properly, they might not have saddled us with a nearly $2 TRILLION (i.e. two million, million) External Debt. Union goons and meatheads are good with a monkey wrench; but arithmetic...not so much.
Andrew Pratt - "Even at 20 years it will still be faster than other energy sources and it could be quicker if we actually just got started instead of spending years talking about it." Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. A machine without energy is a sculpture. A worker/person without energy/food is a corpse. No energy; no economy. Russia is largely dominating the international market as a nuclear technology supplier, for seven different countries, including four each in China, India, Egypt and Türkiye, two in Bangladesh, and one each in Iran and Slovakia. It is uncertain to what extent these projects will be impacted by the various layers of sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor technology options would only be: • Westinghouse AP-1000; • Framatome/EDF EPR; • KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000 And there are now multiple examples around the world that have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia, as an inexperienced nuclear power country, won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - I’d suggest it would take 20+ years! Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests it would take at least 20 years to ‘go nuclear’ in Australia. I'd suggest the Russian VVER & Chinese HPR1000 (export version of Hualong One) designs would be politically untenable for Australia. Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies: 𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia); 𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, IEEFA's 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴); 𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
I can't understand why they won't even look at Nuclear power as part of our energy system. We need a mixture of energy sources. You will never see net zero its a pipe dream.
I am sure that new generation nuclear plants will end up lasting longer in time or at least can be refurbished easier and recycled in a better way. Nuclear just makes so much sense as will electric cars when batteries become safer and easier to recycle with cheaper energy from nuclear base load power. It is a no brainer, but sadly Labor has a severe lack of this.
@KF-bj3ce - "I am sure that new generation nuclear plants will end up lasting longer in time or at least can be refurbished easier and recycled in a better way." Evidence/data? It seems to me you are engaging in wishful thinking. Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies: 𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia); 𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, IEEFA's 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴); 𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue). Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Once we got nuclear powerstations around Australia, socalled renewables will never be renewed once they need to be replaced after thère 😊20year life runs out....
hopefully when nuclear finally is approved Labor will not be around to stuff up the choosing of the best type. Or a leader like Turnbull who chose Subs ( that Libs cancelled but still cost us millions) and Hydro that proved disastrous to our economy
PAKISTAN, 6 YEARS TO BUILD, ACP1000, 1100MWe.... HUALONG ONE PWR POWER PLANT...60 YEAR LIFE.... $2.7 BILLION USD ACCORDING TO BLOOMBERG.... PAKISTAN IS RANKED 88 IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, 250 MILLION PEOPLE.... AUSTRALIA IS RANKED 20 WITH 26 MILLION... AND WE CAN'T BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS... AUSTRALIA ????
Hey, MR. CAPS LOCK MAN, we've been through this before 11 days ago. Do you really think Russian &/or Chinese nuclear technology would be politically acceptable here in Australia? Could you please explain that one for us? MR. CAPS LOCK MAN - "PAKISTAN, 6 YEARS TO BUILD, ACP1000, 1100MWe..." That's a false premise. The evidence/data indicates it took at least: * 𝟭𝟮-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟭 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵; * 𝟭𝟬+ 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟮 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟭-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟯; and * 𝟭𝟰-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗦𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟭 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵. KANUPP-1, and CHASNUPP-1 through -4 are pre-Fukushima event reactor designs. On 19 Sep 2024, the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2024 (𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙2024) was published. On page 60, included: """ 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥 67 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 2014-2023-𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 37 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 9.9 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 (𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘛𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 3), 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 9.4 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 2013-2022. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 10 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 3. """ The IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen BEFORE the first concrete pour milestone can even happen. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.9 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units. Australia, as an inexperience nuclear power country, would likely take longer - I'd suggest 20+ years. Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests it would take at least 20 years to ‘go nuclear’ in Australia. I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor tech options would only be: * Westinghouse AP-1000; * Framatome/EDF EPR; * KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000 And these have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - 20+ years! I'd suggest the Russian VVER V-428 & Chinese HPR1000 (export version of Hualong One) designs would be politically untenable for Australia. Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. These are inconvenient truths that the nuclear boosters ignore.
It's no use talking about costs until we get Dutton's estimated costs. Until then all we have is the CSIRO numbers. So maybe you should spend a lot more energy in pressing Peter Dutton to release his numbers. Only then can we compare and see if it's applicable to Australia. Labor's stance is well known, we are still guessing whether the Liberals actually have a workable plan. Just saying they got one just doesn't cut it.
Peter Dutton still hasn't answered the key questions about how many nuclear power plants there would be, how much would they cost, when they would be built, and which technologies would be used. The moment he does so would reveal the Coalition's nuclear 'policy' is a mirage. Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe's commentary was published in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 on 10 Aug 2024 (edition 512) headlined 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀. Ian Lowe wrote: """ 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦, 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 2015 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘺𝘦-𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 $41 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘦. 𝘕𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘈𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦. """
I wouldn't believe anything the CSIRO says. They always follow the money. They will do what ever the people who are paying them, so that they keep getting paid
I am no expert here but from the bit of research I have done I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear is a form of renewable energy. It does not rely on continued input of coal or gas to generate energy and more efficient than wind or solar that depends on the vagaries of nature to work. The day we begin generating our power using nuclear will be a red letter day indeed.
@popeyebob9007 - "I am no expert here but from the bit of research I have done I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear is a form of renewable energy." Nope. Nuclear fission technologies rely on finite nuclear fuels. They are not renewable. Nuclear fuels are only going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically and monetarily) to extract and process into a useable form. Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, world uranium ore production hasn't met world demand since about 2015. High-grade uranium ores are only going to get scarcer and more expensive. See the Energy Watch Group's report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand. And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive to produce uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come. See the Nuclear Energy Agency's 2015 report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns.
Seriously the report is two pages long and concludes with it might reduce electricity prices in conjunction with renewables. Chris tell us how much Vogtle 3 & 4 cost and how long they took to construct.
@Martinoconnor-du6lc As highlighted in my question if you provide an answer to my question I will happily provide an answer to the cost of the latest build wind farm in the US. I await your detailed costing of Vogtle 3 and 4, over to you.
@polarbear7255 what a crock the report specifically mentions Vogtle 3 and 4. How can I cherry pick data from the report that Credin references? OMG just comedy gold. Hilarious.
our costs could be offset by ramping up our mining of uranium and gas production. Industries that are booming around the world and our Labor gov't is too blind to see, or should I say stupid
talking about Texas, why not the huge failure of wind when they had a huge winter storm the froze the turbines, the gas and had huge power outage that costs hundreds of lives. If they didn't have nuclear and coal, the disaster would have been much much worse
The problems of nuclear is the costs associated with decommissioning, what to do about high level nuclear waste, the ballooning cost of building a nuclear reactor and the time it takes to build a nuclear reactor. How much would a reactor cost well its going to be a lot more than they would have you believe. Olkiluoto 3 is an example of just how expensive they can be. 20 billion aus dollars. Keep in mind that this began back in 2005 thats 20 years ago when fuel was cheaper. Also keep in mind that Oliluto 3 was built using cheaper labour. Apparently the Bavaria mafia became involved and forced the welders to work cheaply whilst threating their families. Which begs the question what would the real price have been? Then there is the problem with high level nuclear waste. The U.S has 90 thousand tons of this waste. The costs of maintenance are severe. U.S nuclear waste storage is 7.5 billion annually or more. Also realise that high level nuclear waste may need to be managed for another million years. Yes 1 million years. The time it takes to build a reactor are long. Olkiluoto 3 took 18 years.
My belief is that Climate has always been changing sometimes we have hot summers and sometimes not I have been on this planet for 83 years and noticed how it keeps changing How do these politicians think 🤔 they can play GOD and stop the climate cycle 👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹
Thanks to Orano's world-leading industrial-scale technologies, almost 96% of the spent fuel used in nuclear reactors for power generation or research purposes can be recycled. So much for that Argument.😂
@@micko.g3258 that's really rich given you're listening to sky news. I could tell you your opinion on any number of issues because you're literally incapable of thinking for yourself. I can also tell your highest level of education is high school
It’s called hating Australia by certain politicians.
Some politicians have shares in the renewable companies - no wonder they don't want to change when it affects their hip pocket !!!!!!!!!! Stuff the good of Australia !!!!!!!!!!!!
Bowen has not a clue.
Will Elbow's proposed misinformation bill call him out?
Will Bowen call usa liars???
or, will bobblehead buffoon Bowen accuse the U S of A of "misinformation" or "disinformation"???😮😂😂😂
@@LouSimpson-vn5wn will you read the report?
How is the report relevant?
@@Peter-p5u8t you didn't read the report did you?
Sheep
So when does the upper echelon of the Australian labor party/ vicpoll get jailed for treason???????
Right after you do.
@@justlikeredwine well done cupcake 🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@justlikeredwine how’s life eating your mums stinky cont everyday??????
@@richardwilcox5988 typical response from a weak snowflake
@@richardwilcox5988 some people will never learn, it's better to keep their mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and REMOVE all doubt!!!
Bowen fails once again...
Cannot blame Dutton for this one, its all on the clown Bowen
Nothing new about that.
@@userjoe4321 how did he fail? Have you read the report?
Sky has just fed you lies and you believed it all
@@justlikeredwine people like you need to pull your heads out of the ground and stop hugging trees and stop thinking Albo and his lying minsters know better then other countries that already have nuclear energy.
@@justlikeredwine Grow a Brain Idiot.
Surprise surprise surprise
Bowen is proved WRONG !!!
We all knew this
NOW HERES PROOF !!!
black out bowen is on the same level as a flat earther
@@batmanlives6456 have you read the report?
Or did you believe the liars at sky?
@@justlikeredwine• Wow! another ABC stooge that only listens to Labor propaganda... what are you doing watching sky news channel, you should switch channels before you are converted.
@@justlikeredwine Don't tell us you actually Believe "Cassanova" Bowen. You would believe him IF he told you the Earth was Flat. Sky Channel actually Disproves Everything the Socialists try to tell us. BUT only a HALFWIT would actually believe them.
@@justlikeredwinereport from the states….
US dept of energy
Nuclear moving forward immediately. It's so obvious. I am just a normal technical Engineering kinda guy of 62 years. I am increasingly alarmed about the naivety of our elected representatives. Start building yesterday, be the best at it.
I live in the LaTrobe Valley, I have seen station after station dropped, and nothing put in to replace it. We once had a thriving economy, in the top 10 Shires in the nation, now the LV is all but dead, an economic wasteland compared to it prior self.
Political ignorance has ruined a once great part of Australia, we're sitting on a coal field, but can not utilise it.
I'm more concerned about the high numbers of low-level IQs that keep voting for them
The trouble is they won't start building it. They'll get foreigners to build it and own it for Australian ownership is to be discouraged.
Can we stop calling them renewables too, they are intermittents needing regular replacement.
Exactly and at a NEVERENDING, FOREVER cost!!
@@SueNicholls-95 Ruinables?
Unreliables?
@@SueNicholls-95so you don't understand power generation
YES just like Albo and his clowns
@@justlikeredwine I don't give a stuff about the destructive and useless renewables! All I know is that with wind turbines needing 6 monthly maintenance and regular 18-20 year full replacement at ever increasing cost. The solar panels need regular maintenance and will need replacing every 14 years,( unless they get destroyed by hail). Then there's the transportation costs to get the old ones and deliver the replacements, transportation to the landfill site, which will need to be hundreds of hectares in size with the risk of the turbines leaking oil into the underground water channels. Therefore these windmills and mirrors will be a forever, NEVERENDING cost to not only this generation but all future generations. And this doesn't take into consideration the total destruction of our farmlands, forests and animal habitats. I'm so glad I spent 5 years travelling in and around Australia, driving all the desert tracks, working on a cattle station in the Kimberly's and another in the Gulf before they dunked ruined this country with the destructive and ugly mirrors and windmills!!!
Chris Ulhman makes perfect sense always. I have read his work for a long time, and he has never been afraid to say it like it is!
@@kirkc4696 you're a sheep. Read the report. It's irrelevant when it comes to Australia
Scrap the idea of sharing renewables with Nuclear, just go Nuclear full stop! No more destructive fans and mirrors!!
@@SueNicholls-95 so the report is wrong?
@@justlikeredwine Renewables will be replaced sooner or later with ongoing nuclear power construction
@@edwardbec9844 ongoing? We haven't even started. There is no way the cheapest form of energy is going anywhere. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build. Small-scale nuclear reactors are at least 10 years away still and despite the lies that sky tells you, there are none up and running.
You keep parroting things you don't understand. By the time a reactor is built, it is likely that nuclear fusion will be viable. And that will make any nuclear fission reactor obsolete. No business would invest in such redundant technology
@@justlikeredwine YES.
@@gregbuckenara8063 but sky said it was proof labor was wrong. So labor are right and sky is wrong
I want my gas and coal back and not controlled by Labor crap and not controlled by overseas corporations
One thing for sure Airbus Albo and Black out Bowen will definitely leave behind a legacy,a broken country full of radicals 😢
Sadly that is correct.
Just look at Asia, Europe they all nuclear and increasing nuclear
Clearly, you appear to be regurgitating BS. Nuclear is only expanding in China. On a global scale, nuclear is shrinking.
Per 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙2024, Key Insights on page 19:
"""
𝙉𝙚𝙩 𝘿𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙉𝙪𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝘾𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙮 - 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙄𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙍𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝘽𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙬 2021
ɚ 𝘐𝘯 2023, 5 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 (5 𝘎𝘞) 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 5 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 (6 𝘎𝘞), 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘺 1 𝘎𝘞 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺.
ɚ 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 2.2 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 2021 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2019.
ɚ 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺’𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 9.2 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 9.1 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘧 17.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 1996.
ɚ 𝘈𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘥-2024, 408 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 367 𝘎𝘞 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳, 30 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2002-𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬-34 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘛𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦.
ɚ 𝘉𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 2004-2023, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 102 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 104 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦: 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 49 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢; 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 51 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘴.
"""
And on page 20:
"""
𝙎𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙒𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙙𝙙 𝙃𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙨, 𝙉𝙪𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙎𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙨
𝘐𝘯 2023, 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘜𝘚$623 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯, 27 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘺 73 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 51 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 460 𝘎𝘞 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1 𝘎𝘞 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 50 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴.
𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙖 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 200 𝘎𝘞 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 1 𝘎𝘞 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳; 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 578 𝘛𝘞𝘩 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘺 40 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴, 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘱𝘶𝘵.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙀𝙪𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 44 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 40 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 721 𝘛𝘞𝘩, 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 588 𝘛𝘞𝘩. 𝘈𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘨𝘢𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 19 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳.
"""
@@motorsportfreak1 not really. France had to turn reactors off due to a lack of water and lack of qualified people to maintain their reactors. Nuclear power is a fanciful idea that is far too expensive and is not commercially viable.
@@justlikeredwine Since when have you had CREDENTIALS regarding Nuclear Science. Or are you a TYPICAL Left Winger/ Socialist.
@@gregbuckenara8063 does anyone at sky have a PhD in nuclear fission?
No.
So what credentials do you have to question my questioning of the unqualified?
Did you read the report?
Fantastic reporting by Chris. He is an excellent journalist.
Albo & Bobo...got it so wrongo!! Ffs the subs ok but wrong for pwr ...😂
@@peterbarnhoorn7879 did you believe a sky news report?
You are legitimately a sheep
Thats going to hurt labor, show who has investments un green energy, look at all the tax money lining there pockets
*their. You definitely aren't up to discussing nuclear when you can't even speak English
@@justlikeredwine
I smell a Spelling Nazi Labor Voting Greenie.
Farkwit 👈
Thank you Chris.
About time we had some information about what other countries are doing for their people. Thanks Peta.
🇦🇺
This anti nuclear hysteria will be short lived as nuclear is the only viable option, if you want affordable, reliable power without the emissions.
There was just ONE new reactor construction start outside China last year and only TWO so far this year (IAEA reactor database)
IEA data shows that 85% of global energy investment is going to new energy technologies and only 1% to nuclear. Nuclear generated less power globally last year than nearly 2 decades ago with capacity lost due to closures exceeding new capacity coming online.
Nuclear is going nowhere.
@@tassied12 I wouldn't be so sure on that.
@@tassied12 You forgot to mention that China also completes 2 new Coal Fired power Stations every week.
@@ironmaidens6663 tell us all how you didn't read the report.
@@ironmaidens6663 - "I wouldn't be so sure on that."
So where's your evidence/data to back that up?
Per the IAEA's PRIS database, construction starts in 2024 so far (accessed today, last update as at 2024-10-01):
Country _ _ Reactor Name _ _ _ Model _ _ _ _ Construction Start
Egypt _ _ _ _ EL DABAA-4 _ _ _ VVER-1200 _ _ _ _ 23 Jan 2024
China _ _ _ _ ZHANGZHOU-3 _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 22 Feb 2024
Russia _ _ _ LENINGRAD 2-3 _ VVER V-491 _ _ _ _14 Mar 2024
China _ _ _ _ LIANJIANG-2 _ _ _CAP1000 _ _ _ _ _ 26 Apr 2024
China _ _ _ _ XUDAPU-2 _ _ _ _ _CAP1000 _ _ _ _ _17 Jul 2024
China _ _ _ _ NINGDE-5 _ _ _ _ _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 28 Jul 2024
China _ _ _ _ SHIDAOWAN-1 _ _ HPR1000 _ _ _ _ _ 28 Jul 2024
It seems there are 2 reactor construction starts outside China so far this year. All reactors are either Russian (VVER V-491, VVER-1200) or Chinese (HPR1000, CAP1000) designs.
Do you really think Russian &/or Chinese nuclear technologies would be politically acceptable here in Australia? Could you please explain that one for us?
I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor tech options would only be:
* Westinghouse AP-1000;
* Framatome/EDF EPR;
* KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000
And these have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - 20+ years!
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
These are inconvenient truths that the nuclear boosters like you ignore.
Albo hates NOOKLYAR
Nookylar
Noook-leear 😂😂😂😂
As do his mates in the Greens. With fanatical and completely irrational fervour.
Nucular by bowen he cannot even pronouce it right.😅😅😅
Labor of course didn't do its sums properly yet again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@dpitt1516 no sheep. It is you who didn't do the sums. How can you believe sky news?
@@justlikeredwine Probably because I'm not a nuclear physicist ARE YOU !!!!!!!
@@dpitt1516 The report wasn't written by nuclear physicists. You should read the report. It's not even that hard.
Ironically, your question is the best example of why nuclear in Australia won't work. We don't have any nuclear physicists here.
And none of our politicians making the decisions are nuclear. Physicists. Sky News certainly are not physicists in any way shape or form. In fact, sky News have disdained for the scientific community and science at Large. The insinuation that I shouldn't be commenting because I don't have a PHD in nuclear physics just goes to show how futile it is to listen to sky News.
Those retards can’t count they’re still using an abacus.
@@dpitt1516saucer of milk for aisle 3.
Bowen & Albo are befuddled with this. They cant understand why people are waking up to the facts instead of believing their lies. Hilarious to watch these two clows in action.
I am not surprised at all that this has happened simply because Labor keeps talking about stopping climate change while Europe, the UK, Canada and the US are talking about lowering CO2 emissions.
The difference in communication is obvious because by pushing the emergency, end of the world climate change alarmism, it gives Labor the implicit authority to play roughshod over voters by expedient implementation of its ideology without having to give any regard to democratic processes. In other words, it is a licence to rule by decree under the pretence that we are in a climate emergency rather than adopt the more rational and more difficult narrative of the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
A movie coming out about Al Gore & his lies
CO2 emissions!
That's always a good laugh for those of us who have career backgrounds in meteorology/climatology.
And yet, climate has been changing continuously since the beginning of the earth.
@@ohasis8331 Isn't it amazing, past generations have also fussed with the climate and after enough people do this, it becomes group think and finally a religion that can't be questioned or discussed. Disinformation will ban any point made that does not fit the narrative of the woke Left.
When are people going to wake up carbon is oxygen don’t need solar or wind turbine
But it’s all about the clown shoes according to Bowen
I loved it when people said that having a nuclear power plant near them would ruin their property values. So people went to Lucas Heights residents and asked them if having the Lucas Height nuclear reactor next door to them has ruined their property values making them the cheapest suburb in Sydney. They said you must by kidding the properties here are just as expensive as they are in the rest of Sydney. Bowen only pushes his renewables baby because he's in bed with Bandt and billionaires who've spent a lot of money on renewables. For him there's probably a job waiting for him on their boards after he leaves politics. If our politicians aren't ready for nuclear power then they're not ready for nuclear submarines.
Chris Bowen has always been out of step
Bowen should now step down. He has been misleading us and he knows it.
didn't realise that bowen had any arguments period ! the guy is misinformed.
Instead of going in one ear and out the other like most things, maybe this report will stick in Bowen's brain?
The report is flawed. You don't understand the first thing about nuclear
@@justlikeredwine explain???
@@justlikeredwine Actually I know more than most about nuclear and a lot more than lamb brain Chris Bowen.
What brain?????
@@ThatGuy-ze5kk I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you in the manner to which you are accustomed
Bowen is a danger to this country, please put Labor and Greens last on the ballot paper.
Poor old Chris Bowen. He isn’t even smart enough to realise how out of touch with reality he is.
Nothing wrong with coal😊
Ideology versus science and engineering, why are we even having this debate? Because common sense left the room!
The CSIRO needs to stay in their lane! Stick to their knitting! Their says it all: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation. There is nothing in that to do with economics nor finance and investment. And for a political party to hang all their counter arguments on such incredibly flawed modelling shows they are either complete idiots, or they are trying to pull the pull the woo over our eyes so their "mates" get all the kickbacks etc.
Bowen and the CSIRO are no longer fit for service .
C. BOWEN HAS NO IDEAABUT PEEK POWER ARE OUR ENERGY NEEDS
Snake mouth and WANKENEASY 😎😎🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don't forget carpet muncher Benny Wong and Dim Jim Snake Chalmer.😂😅
Dim Jim and Ping pong Wong 😂
In just a few years the average Australian family will be paying $8,000+ annually for expensive unreliable renewable electricity.
Chris Bowen has no idea, he is so far out of his depth he is dangerous.
Bowen down to anybody !
Wait, what. Are you suggesting our paid public servants Albo, Bowen and the CSIRO would dare to lie to the Australian public?!?
Would they get prosecuted if the Lord forbid the misinfo bill becomes a thing? Oh wait.
Well as long as Dutton refuses to release his costings, the CSIRO numbers are the only ones we have. It's up to Dutton to prove them wrong.
@@peterremkes9376 A 10 year old child would be able within 10 minutes of googling find numbers that make a mockery of the corrupt Woke Marxist imaginary of the once but no longer revered CSIRO.
@@peterremkes9376 - "..the CSIRO numbers are the only ones we have."
Nope. There are more sources that corroborate the findings of the CSIRO/AEMO's 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24 report that nuclear is much more expensive, including the highly regarded 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, and now IEEFA's 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴.
On 20 Sep 2024, IEEFA published a report by Johanna Bowyer & Tristan Edis titled 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴. Page 22 shows actual project costs shown in Figure 6: Overnight capital cost of international plants compared with CSIRO GenCost (AU$/kW):
* Czech Republic's twin APR-1000 design at Dukovany: _ 14,901 (KHNP won tender to build)
* Finland's EPR design for OLKILUOTO-3: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15,195 (now operational)
* USA's AP-1000 design for VOGTLE-3 & -4: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _16,575 (both now operational)
* France's EPR design for FLAMANVILLE-3: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _16,954 (completing construction phase)
* UK's EPR-1750 design for HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2: _ _ _27,500 (completion est. early 2030s)
* CSIRO/AEMO's GenCost low 2023: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8,655
* CSIRO/AEMO's GenCost high 2023: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _8,655
* CSIRO/AEMO's GenCost low 2050: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7,462
* CSIRO/AEMO's GenCost high 2050: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _7,541
IEEFA's LCOE assumptions include:
* O&M costs, fuel costs, efficiency and discount rates: used CSIRO LCOE assumptions;
* Economic lifetime: An economic lifetime of 60 years was used rather than CSIRO’s assumption of 30 years;
* Capacity factor: IEEFA assumed that nuclear in Australia would achieve a capacity factor of 92.7% reflecting the Coalition’s expectation (based on the performance of plants in the US).
On page 24, is shown Figure 7: LCOE of various nuclear power plants in Australian context (AU$/MWh):
* Czech Republic's twin APR-1000 design at Dukovany: _ 197 (pre-construction)
* USA's AP-1000 design for VOGTLE-3 & -4: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _220 (both units operational)
* Finland's EPR design for OLKILUOTO-3: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 250 (operational)
* France's EPR design for FLAMANVILLE-3: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _266 (completing construction phase)
* UK's EPR-1750 design for HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2: _ _ _346 (completion est. early 2030s)
* USA's NuScale SMR design for UAMPS project: _ _ _ _ _ _289 (project cancelled)
Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies:
𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia);
𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17);
𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and
𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
@@peterremkes9376There is plenty of proof that CSIRO and AEMO figures are completely incorrect and have been jiggered to support Labor’s Ideology, do some of your own research and don’t depend on politicians to give you real data, except maybe you can use Labor lies as a measure, because we know everything they say is a LIE, so if they something is true, we know it is false.
nuclear power is incredibly underrated!
The labor government arguing about the benefits of renewable energy whilst businesses are closing or leaving Australia.
Just wait for the day when Albogreasy says to Dimwit Bowen ......... "I've decided we're going to go Nuclear as part of the mix, oh and can you go out to the press room and let everyone know please"
Renewerables already cost one necular plant EV also on their way out. Dont see these useless vehicles outside cities
There you go then. Bowen talking, dribbling out of his backside as usual......as we see & hear daily now.
If only every voting aged Aussie watch Credlin, the country wouldn't be so screwed up.
OMFG.
He knows he's wrong,he is working for a different paymaster very effectively by the way!
A check of shareholder registers might prove interesting.
Bowen is a waste of good oxygen
It’s a shame the average person is so bad at dealing with big numbers. Community wide infrastructure is expensive if you look at it as a single number but let’s say the total cost is $100B that’s only $3333 per person assuming our population hits 30m by the time it’s built. That’s not substantially different to the cost of delivery of new services to a new house or installing solar panels etc and inline with projects like the NBN. It’s certainly a better spend than the $15b Victoria is currently spending for a 9km railway from one side of the city to the other that most Victorians will be lucky to use more than twice a year. If we want cheaper and reliable electricity that doesn’t involve a huge environmental impact to install it, as well as an energy source with enough guts to power the industries we need to make things and therefore keep jobs here and charge our future EV fleet, nuclear is the only choice. Even at 20 years it will still be faster than other energy sources and it could be quicker if we actually just got started instead of spending years talking about it. The idea that it’s ok for somewhere like Iran to use Australian uranium to power their country but not ok for us to do so because it’s not safe just makes no sense at all
If the A.L.P. (Arithmetic-Lacking Party) could care about the cost, or even bother to count properly, they might not have saddled us with a nearly $2 TRILLION (i.e. two million, million) External Debt. Union goons and meatheads are good with a monkey wrench; but arithmetic...not so much.
Andrew Pratt - "Even at 20 years it will still be faster than other energy sources and it could be quicker if we actually just got started instead of spending years talking about it."
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
A machine without energy is a sculpture.
A worker/person without energy/food is a corpse.
No energy; no economy.
Russia is largely dominating the international market as a nuclear technology supplier, for seven different countries, including four each in China, India, Egypt and Türkiye, two in Bangladesh, and one each in Iran and Slovakia. It is uncertain to what extent these projects will be impacted by the various layers of sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.
I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor technology options would only be:
• Westinghouse AP-1000;
• Framatome/EDF EPR;
• KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000
And there are now multiple examples around the world that have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia, as an inexperienced nuclear power country, won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - I’d suggest it would take 20+ years!
Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests it would take at least 20 years to ‘go nuclear’ in Australia.
I'd suggest the Russian VVER & Chinese HPR1000 (export version of Hualong One) designs would be politically untenable for Australia.
Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies:
𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia);
𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, IEEFA's 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴);
𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and
𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
It is then time to but Chris Bowen to bed, but no bed time story this time please.
I can't understand why they won't even look at Nuclear power as part of our energy system. We need a mixture of energy sources. You will never see net zero its a pipe dream.
Because they have too much money invested in all of this rubbish. Trillions of dollars.
Vote our Labor liberals greens teals ENOUGH OF BULL SHIT ENOUGH
Casanova Bowen! Everything he touches......he f#@ks! Great words by Ray Hadley 😂
With this in mind, would you accept the government's proposed truth and mis/disinformation bill.
I am sure that new generation nuclear plants will end up lasting longer in time or at least can be refurbished easier and recycled in a better way. Nuclear just makes so much sense as will electric cars when batteries become safer and easier to recycle with cheaper energy from nuclear base load power. It is a no brainer, but sadly Labor has a severe lack of this.
@KF-bj3ce - "I am sure that new generation nuclear plants will end up lasting longer in time or at least can be refurbished easier and recycled in a better way."
Evidence/data? It seems to me you are engaging in wishful thinking.
Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies:
𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia);
𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17, IEEFA's 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴);
𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and
𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Bowen 😂😂😂 continues to be an absolute waste of fresh air
Once we got nuclear powerstations around Australia, socalled renewables will never be renewed once they need to be replaced after thère 😊20year life runs out....
Coal $10 per MwH
its over for Bowen
hopefully when nuclear finally is approved Labor will not be around to stuff up the choosing of the best type. Or a leader like Turnbull who chose Subs ( that Libs cancelled but still cost us millions) and Hydro that proved disastrous to our economy
It would be CHEAPER if it Was only Nuclear or Coal.
Just stay out of United States business. Keep to your own.
Why?
It won’t matter to Bowen what anyone says he always looks like he’s a screw loose, a little man with a bit of power
are these the same banks that curtailed finance to fossil fuel projects
PAKISTAN, 6 YEARS TO BUILD, ACP1000, 1100MWe.... HUALONG ONE PWR POWER PLANT...60 YEAR LIFE.... $2.7 BILLION USD ACCORDING TO BLOOMBERG.... PAKISTAN IS RANKED 88 IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, 250 MILLION PEOPLE.... AUSTRALIA IS RANKED 20 WITH 26 MILLION... AND WE CAN'T BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS... AUSTRALIA ????
Quite so...but we outrank Pakistan in the idiocy of our Luddite Leftard imbeciles running the joint - our idiots are FAR dumber than their idiots!
Hey, MR. CAPS LOCK MAN, we've been through this before 11 days ago. Do you really think Russian &/or Chinese nuclear technology would be politically acceptable here in Australia? Could you please explain that one for us?
MR. CAPS LOCK MAN - "PAKISTAN, 6 YEARS TO BUILD, ACP1000, 1100MWe..."
That's a false premise. The evidence/data indicates it took at least:
* 𝟭𝟮-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟭 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵;
* 𝟭𝟬+ 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟮 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟭-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗞𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟯; and
* 𝟭𝟰-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗦𝗡𝗨𝗣𝗣-𝟭 𝘂𝗽-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵.
KANUPP-1, and CHASNUPP-1 through -4 are pre-Fukushima event reactor designs.
On 19 Sep 2024, the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2024 (𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙2024) was published. On page 60, included:
"""
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥 67 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 2014-2023-𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 37 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 9.9 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 (𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘛𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 3), 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 9.4 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 2013-2022. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 10 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 3.
"""
The IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen BEFORE the first concrete pour milestone can even happen.
Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.9 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units.
Australia, as an inexperience nuclear power country, would likely take longer - I'd suggest 20+ years.
Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests it would take at least 20 years to ‘go nuclear’ in Australia.
I'd suggest Australia's large-scale reactor tech options would only be:
* Westinghouse AP-1000;
* Framatome/EDF EPR;
* KEPCO APR-1400 & perhaps the APR-1000
And these have demonstrated they take 15-20+ years to get up-and-running from scratch. Australia won't be any quicker, and more likely will be slower - 20+ years!
I'd suggest the Russian VVER V-428 & Chinese HPR1000 (export version of Hualong One) designs would be politically untenable for Australia.
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? It seems to me pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
These are inconvenient truths that the nuclear boosters ignore.
It's no use talking about costs until we get Dutton's estimated costs. Until then all we have is the CSIRO numbers. So maybe you should spend a lot more energy in pressing Peter Dutton to release his numbers. Only then can we compare and see if it's applicable to Australia. Labor's stance is well known, we are still guessing whether the Liberals actually have a workable plan. Just saying they got one just doesn't cut it.
Peter Dutton still hasn't answered the key questions about how many nuclear power plants there would be, how much would they cost, when they would be built, and which technologies would be used. The moment he does so would reveal the Coalition's nuclear 'policy' is a mirage.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe's commentary was published in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 on 10 Aug 2024 (edition 512) headlined 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀. Ian Lowe wrote:
"""
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦, 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 2015 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘺𝘦-𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 $41 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘦. 𝘕𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘈𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦.
"""
I wouldn't believe anything the CSIRO says. They always follow the money. They will do what ever the people who are paying them, so that they keep getting paid
Bowen likes the sound of his OWN VOICE! 🤬❤️🇦🇺🦘
I am no expert here but from the bit of research I have done I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear is a form of renewable energy. It does not rely on continued input of coal or gas to generate energy and more efficient than wind or solar that depends on the vagaries of nature to work. The day we begin generating our power using nuclear will be a red letter day indeed.
@popeyebob9007 - "I am no expert here but from the bit of research I have done I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear is a form of renewable energy."
Nope. Nuclear fission technologies rely on finite nuclear fuels. They are not renewable.
Nuclear fuels are only going to get increasingly more expensive (energetically and monetarily) to extract and process into a useable form.
Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, world uranium ore production hasn't met world demand since about 2015. High-grade uranium ores are only going to get scarcer and more expensive. See the Energy Watch Group's report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand.
And thorium has no fissile isotopes, so establishing a self-sustaining thorium/²³³U fuel cycle is dependent on an increasingly scarcer and more expensive to produce uranium/plutonium fuel cycle for decades to come.
See the Nuclear Energy Agency's 2015 report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.
The evidence/data I see indicates that nuclear energy is on a path to ever diminishing (energetic and monetary) returns.
Blah Blah Blither Blither
Seriously the report is two pages long and concludes with it might reduce electricity prices in conjunction with renewables. Chris tell us how much Vogtle 3 & 4 cost and how long they took to construct.
tell us how much wind and solar cost? i won't get an answer because you liebor sucks don't have one.
@Martinoconnor-du6lc As highlighted in my question if you provide an answer to my question I will happily provide an answer to the cost of the latest build wind farm in the US. I await your detailed costing of Vogtle 3 and 4, over to you.
@@polarbear7255 All you have provided is worthless personal opinion. I simply asked about the construction details and costs of a couple of PWRs.
@polarbear7255 what a crock the report specifically mentions Vogtle 3 and 4. How can I cherry pick data from the report that Credin references? OMG just comedy gold. Hilarious.
@@polarbear7255 Zero data, zero sense. Bucketloads of worthless personal opinion, always entertaining.
our costs could be offset by ramping up our mining of uranium and gas production. Industries that are booming around the world and our Labor gov't is too blind to see, or should I say stupid
And nuclear without renewables? Whats that cost? Kess again ill bet
LOOK WHAT HAPPEN TO GERMANY BECAUSE OFF RENEWABLES THERE ECONOMY NOSEDIVED!!😢😢
talking about Texas, why not the huge failure of wind when they had a huge winter storm the froze the turbines, the gas and had huge power outage that costs hundreds of lives. If they didn't have nuclear and coal, the disaster would have been much much worse
No right channel audio.
What great news just like winning the lotto what you gonna do now he’s gone for all money so yeah tell your story walking boofhead
The problems of nuclear is the costs associated with decommissioning, what to do about high level nuclear waste, the ballooning cost of building a nuclear reactor and the time it takes to build a nuclear reactor.
How much would a reactor cost well its going to be a lot more than they would have you believe.
Olkiluoto 3 is an example of just how expensive they can be.
20 billion aus dollars.
Keep in mind that this began back in 2005 thats 20 years ago when fuel was cheaper.
Also keep in mind that Oliluto 3 was built using cheaper labour.
Apparently the Bavaria mafia became involved and forced the welders to work cheaply whilst threating their families.
Which begs the question what would the real price have been?
Then there is the problem with high level nuclear waste.
The U.S has 90 thousand tons of this waste.
The costs of maintenance are severe.
U.S nuclear waste storage is 7.5 billion annually or more.
Also realise that high level nuclear waste may need to be managed for another million years.
Yes 1 million years.
The time it takes to build a reactor are long.
Olkiluoto 3 took 18 years.
Haha
Bowen the bullshit artist…he is having a major lend of all of us…Bowen the Energy Enemy of Australia.
The energy portfolio is way beyond the comprehension of Bowens tiny brain.
My belief is that Climate has always been changing sometimes we have hot summers and sometimes not I have been on this planet for 83 years and noticed how it keeps changing How do these politicians think 🤔 they can play GOD and stop the climate cycle 👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹
Woke is the brand of stupidity
Coal is the future. Cheap, beautiful black coal.
Hey blackout bowen, stick yuh windmills were the sun dont shine???
What on earth is the US doing telling Australians what to do.
Ahhh P Credlin, dual accolades - the woman that brought down Prime Minister T Abbott AND Australia's greatest wine mum. . .
How predictable are retarded leftard such as yourself Resort to person attacks because of the actual true facts...
Sun is FREE vs Nuclear is disposal is for eternity!
Thanks to Orano's world-leading industrial-scale technologies, almost 96% of the spent fuel used in nuclear reactors for power generation or research purposes can be recycled.
So much for that Argument.😂
Making solar panels is dirty and disposal of them is even more so. If just buried in the ground, they can poison the soil forever.
Nothing is free Buddy. You still need alot of gear and money to make power out of the sun.
How to tell us you know Jack shit!!! 😂😂
that big yellow thing in the sky is a nuclear reactor.
How is credlin still on air? She is a danger to road users.
So what you doing here then. Go back to your Bias Liebor ABC that should suit you
She's only a danger to Labor shills.
Open your eyes sheepy,
idiot
@@micko.g3258 that's really rich given you're listening to sky news. I could tell you your opinion on any number of issues because you're literally incapable of thinking for yourself.
I can also tell your highest level of education is high school
Cancell csiro for lies on costing. Then hold ball less bowen to account. Jail for domestic terrorism terrorism.
Bowen is a goose
Ball less bowen