Coalition unveil Australia's potential nuclear future
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Coalition's plans to build seven nuclear reactors nationwide if they get voted into power have been met with backlash by the states.
But will it really happen?
#Auspol #Coalition #NuclearPower
Why the hell would you build nuclear plants in areas with a lack of fresh water reservoirs (to cool down the plants)
The new generation reactors don't require as much cooling and sea water can be used.
Because there's no plan, it's all announcement.
@@arclux these site are MILES from Seawater
@apizone1
We use metric here. The proposed sites that aren't adjacent to the coast are close to large reservoirs. The coal fired plants they are replacing required a water source as well.
@@arclux The new reactors are unproven technology in Australian environment.
Start today
'its time for an adult conversation' yeah sure Peter, like Climate Action was ignored for 20 years on your watch.
Which was a good thing
I know a great spot for the nuclear waste - Dutton's backyard.
Nuclear is not expensive.
Lets just talk about costs in kWh per hour, because that is what we the consumer pays.
France which generates 70% of their electricity from nuclear reactors charges A$0.32 cents per kWh.
Thats after all the construction and the facilities are producing 24/7 electricity.
In Australia we generate approximately 70% of our electricity from coal and gas and depending in what state we live in are charged from $0.25 cents per kWh up to a sky high $0.45 cents per kWh.
So try and tell me that nuclear is more expensive.
Lets just talk about costs in kWh per hour, because that is what we the consumer pays.
France is currently proposing 6-8 new reactors and worldwide there are proposals for approximately 300 reactors.
Please stop being rational and calling on reason, it doesn't help in a scaremongering campaign.
If australia moves to nuclear energy it is a direct refutation of the entirety of the greens political party and their enviro-fascisim hence they ahve to double down. I have no idea why labour is jeopardising manufacturing and construction jobs by making aus uncompetitive globally.
Nuclear Power Stations - what is possible - The new power stations will be funded during the building and commissioning stages by the Taxpayer.
Once de-bugging is completed, and they are operational and profitable - The LNP could sell them at a discount to private investors.
Once the life is expired and the Nuclear Power Station needs to be decommissioned - an expensive loss making activity - the Taxpayer will possibly be required to stump up the decommissioning and fuel disposal costs. This is what is possible!
Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020, remaining materially unchanged since 2019. From that you can estimate the costs of renewables and battery storage Vs nuclear to meet that demand. It's nothing close to one trillion dollars as the opposition claims.
If you think about it from a common sense perspective, if you or I were to buy a solar and battery system, that system would be expected to pay itself off after 15-20 years. So essentially it costs $0 over about 20 years. A nuclear reactor takes decades to build and during that money investment you get nothing back and no electricity, then after all that time you have to put heaps of money into maintaining it, staff to run it, storing the waste safely, and digging the fuel from the ground. So how on Earth could nuclear possibly be cheaper? Solar and batteries you install and they just churn away without needing much maintenance, and get energy free from the sky. This also agrees with CSIRO's report saying nuclear is significantly more expensive.
@@mattl1250 Read the gencost report yourself, then comment back here.
The majority of the trillion dollar cost is the grid to connect solar and wind farms. ANd that is literally to rewire the entire grid becuase it is not designed to flow electricity all which way across the state.
Gencost states something like 8-17 billion per nuclear reactor, that is percentages compared to rewiring the grid...
@@benjaminvagg8514 Already have, nuclear makes no sense.
@@benjaminvagg8514 It doesn't matter how much you spend on getting solar/batteries working, because they pay themselves off due to basically 0 maintenance costs, and getting free energy from the sky. Any nuclear reactor we start building now will be a paperweight by the time it releases due to advancements in battery and solar tech, and then will have ongoing waste disposal costs that cost more than the reactor itself, staffing costs, material/maintenance costs. Regardless, the grid will need to be built up due to huge uptake of rooftop solar, which will only get more popular as solar prices plummet.
Anyone who is not brainwashed by LNP propaganda can use a little bit of logic to see nuclear makes no sense here. Not to mention it would make 0 impact on electricity prices for at least 16 years, when we have an energy issue NOW. We we will need to solve NOW with renewables anyway because they're cheaper than gas and coal. So overall LNP are either completely delusional or just biding time for their mining mates.
How long will it take for the other boot to drop ?
Should’ve announced an Australian space agency instead
Why?
Nuclear is a must it brought down Finland's electricity prices
Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
22 solar panels a day (6:33)? Surely we can do better than that?!
I've seen hundreds set up in fields already, it's clumsy and they look like total garbage.
Does anyone actually watch that show?
Can’t climb the rock any more-sounds like a great place to store the waste!
Polical party donation working very well here.
Yes. It seems the fossil fuel industry is tightening the screw on those who comply.
@@user-ny3vn2zh8m I doubt it, if you think this society could have been built without hydrocarbons feel free to enlighten me.
@@nasigoreng553 you doubt the fossil fuel industry gives political donations and gets subsidies and compliance in return?
Do I think the modern world could have been built without the use of fossil fuels? No. What is your point?
Hey The Project, All wind and solar farms haven't been consulted to the community before they're proposed, that's called community consultation, if you hadn't realised the bit of a hoorah in the countryof late, it is that, the elecorates that don't want solar and wind have to pay for solar and wind; without community consultation. So you have established but both opposition and current government policy on energy don't involve community consultation... That uniquely defeats the curren renewables policy as it afflicts more communities as it has more communities to consult.
Now for the Gencost report: it states that wind and solar are only 25% energy producing forthe designed capacity and need to be renewed every 20 years. No wind and solar farm in the world has zero working expenses and zero maintenance, yet doesn't fully calculate that, ie doesn't account that reestablishment of new soalr and wind farms on existing ones could cost the same or more in the future and has no cost of decommission of the old panels and turbines, particularly the blades.
Gencost compares this performance and lack of attributed costs to nuclear power stations that nuclear stations establishment costs should only be attributed to 20 years of their life (they have been going for nearly 50 years in every other country) and that nuclear power stations only run at 25% capacity like soalr and wind farms... Can anyone see that the Gencost report is nonsense? or is it that the The Project can't?
Nuclear Waste Facility
Folks - is there any truth in the rumour? that Australia's new Nuclear Waste Facility will located at:
Unit 3 - 199 Gympie Road Strathpine Queensland 4500
Please advise well in advance - so I can purchase the correct PPE!
Am not a Project viewer and think I've had my fill of this subject matter for today but have to note, Bridget McKenzie would be a funny character over beers 👍
what is snowy hydro costing
Probably $20 billion if it ever gets finished?
Another good question for the Liberals.
Imagine the cost blow outs on seven $8.5 B reactors!
@@zen1647 It would still be far cheaper than the projected $1.2-1.5 trillion for the renewables plan wouldn't it?
Nuclear power will not make electricity more expensive.
Trillions of dollars already spent of the supposed "Renewables" and globally we have made a dent of 2-4%
Spouting of about the cost of nuclear power this way is a clear obfuscation of facts.
So many spinoff technologies are available with nuclear and building then as big as possible is one of best ways to get out of energy poverty.
If we keep going the way we are going the cost will blow out and has anyway that would have paid for nuclear power plants in Australia years ago.
As usual we are painted with the usual talent of uneducated folk reaching for their desire to see themselves as the fifth estate.
If the coalition's vision of nuclear power is anything like their NBN roll-out, it wouldn't power an electric scooter.
The NBN was always going to be a waste of money and farce. They inherited KRudd’s lemon.
Decades too late
It's never too late. But yeah, it would have been cheaper to do, say, 2 decades ago
Are they going to give us NUCULAR (not nuclear) power??? Like Chris Bowen and so many others say the word 😂😂😂
The Coalition clown show knows no bounds..
You should probably read the gencost report yourself.
Voldemort for prime minister
I think the Coalition needs to get of the meth pipe I reckon.
I'd love to know how they're getting to the estimate of $1.2-$1.5trillion for Labor's energy plan. Just an absolutely outrageous number.
Aren't you the slightest bit suspicious though that the current government won't release the costings for it's full system that its in the process of building?
@@richarddobson4marrickvilleabout as suspicious as not releasing the nuclear costings 😂
@@matthewmcdonald6283 Difference is Labour is literally the sitting government and is actively implementing their plan. The nuclear proposal is still just that; a proposal. They're not the same thing.
@@wtfire sorry I was being sarcastic. Labor’s plan is both much more cost effective and anchored in something we call reality.
Extra transmission, distribution, energy storage infrastructure.. The solar/wind costs are just at the point of generation, not the full system's costs. It's a sneaky little trick
about time they take about 10 years to break even but after that the power unit price falls dramatically leaves solar and for dead
Government owned electricity? Do you trust them? They are supposed to be a capitalists. So is it not commercially viable is that why the tax payers have to foot the bill?
Something stinks.
Not having one in my backyard...you?
@@user-ny3vn2zh8m nuclear power is the national party push, they are nationalists, australia first, but aghast we cant say that any more.
Good move will have cheap power get rid of wind turbines
Cheap?!? I'm from Atlanta Georgia. We added two new reactors to an existing site. It was 20 billion dollars and it took 20 years to build. Environmental lawyers and lawsuits from local residents delayed the project. It won't lower your bill…. Trust me it'll take 40 years but for you see 5% percent decrease.
Zero evidence it will deliver cheap power lol these things cost billions to make and cost even more to run
@@santoshrathod123 You're right let's blanket the country in panels and windmills and pray for a strong gust of wind 🙏🙏🙏
@@wtfire Why don't you learn soething about the wind and solar rollout instead of making ridiculous statements like that.
Political suicide.
One sided news
Cheap?!? I'm from Atlanta Georgia. We added two new reactors to an existing site. It was 20 billion dollars and it took 20 years to build. Environmental lawyers and lawsuits from local residents delayed the project. It won't lower your bill…. Trust me it'll take 40 years but for you see 5% percent decrease. And they don't even have a plan where to permanently store the nuclear waste water, and the spent fuel rods.
Bit like ABC only ever reports also
If you are looking unbiased journalism you have come to the wrong place.
Can't handle truth. Cry.
Potato Head is corrupt.
Albosleezy is taking the unmarked envelopes as well.
Blah! Blah!. .....
@@Nathan-ry3yu Another dope
snow white and the seven dwarves
Nuclear is not expensive.
Lets just talk about costs in kWh per hour, because that is what we the consumer pays.
France which generates 70% of their electricity from nuclear reactors charges A$0.32 cents per kWh.
Thats after all the construction and the facilities are producing 24/7 electricity.
In Australia we generate approximately 70% of our electricity from coal and gas and depending in what state we live in are charged from $0.25 cents per kWh up to a sky high $0.45 cents per kWh.
So try and tell me that nuclear is more expensive.
Lets just talk about costs in kWh per hour, because that is what we the consumer pays.
France is currently proposing 6-8 new reactors and worldwide there are proposals for approximately 300 reactors.
Amen
The bigger the nuclear power station the better.
This is incorrect, France and Australia have the same cost of household energy per kwh, it's 0.28 USD per kwh in France, and the same price here. If you look at the largest reactor in Canada the cost per kwh is still higher than renewables even assuming a lifespan until 2050. Nuclear makes no sense from all of the evidence.
That being said though I wouldn't be opposed to trialing a small modular reactor first to see how it goes, because it's a gamble to use a technology that's not widely used by anyone else yet