Addressing some of Labor's claims on cost of nuclear
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- Senator Fawcett speaks with James Morrow on Paul Murray Live regarding the cost of nuclear energy.
Read the OECD-NEA report: www.oecd-nea.o...
Watch Senator Fawcett's recent speech on the GenCost and cost of nuclear energy: • Former Experimental Te...
Keep up to date with Senator Fawcett's work:
Facebook: / senatorfawcett
Instagram: / senatorfawcett
Website: senatorfawcett...
*Your feedback is welcome, but please be respectful of others. Profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments will be deleted.
It is so expensive says Albo, but he has never been able to explain why over 30 countries have been running it for decades.
You could base a financial analysis on the CSIRO GenCost report appendix table data. I did and compared the Large Nuclear APR1400 to Solar PV with Hydrogen storage for 21days and Wind with hydrogen storage for 21 days (Batteries are more expensive according to CSIRO). The Nuclear plant was cheapest by a long way. Nuclear would lower the cost of electricity. The Solar/Wind/Hydrogen would double or triple the cost based on CSIRO GenCost data and assumptions. I have a physic degree and MBA.
the exact point thats proven to be around the world where nuclear reactors have come online. Unfortunately too many people fall for the BS and dodge tactics when ALP talk about nuclear.
Gen Cost is a fabrication of ideology.
Complete BS
Finland commissioned a new nuclear power plant just a few weeks ago, electricity prices dropped by 75% just days later.
Good effort doing that.
That checks out Sir. Observational data from all over the world would back that up. Countries with nuclear on the grid consistently have cheaper electricity than those without.
My current price from AGL is $0.47 per kWh peak & $0.35 per kWh off peak $0.31 per kWh for shoulder, plus $1.035 per day delivery supply charge. I am still waiting for the $275 reduction in cost. Since the election cost have only gone up.
Is AGL slowly but surely transferring a portion of infrastructure into your name under the guise of a "delivery" charge?
Perhaps you can consider the same sort of charge back to your local council for water etc
Good job Fawcett.
FINLAND commissioned a new nuclear facility just a few weeks ago, the price of electricity dropped by 75% just days later. FACT.
ad hoc ergo propter hoc
Care to name the plant and reactor? My info says the latest reactor (Olkiluoto 3) started generation in 2023. It cost over A$13 billion to build and construction took 14 years longer than predicted. This was for an additional reactor not a green field construction.
The latest nuclear power station in Finland was commissioned in 2022/23.
Nuclear power in Finland contributes 30% of the total electricity.
Even if it was free (which it''s not - it had substantial cost and time over runs) it could not make power prices drop 75%
You are being fed fossil fuel disinformation.
@@TH-camStephen-re2xd
Surely you have research skills. It took me 10 seconds to verify that a reactor started producing power in April and prices of electricity dropped a whopping 75%
@@garysheppard4028
Utter biassed garbage.
It's fact. That extra energy coming to the system from the new reactor meant that price pressure dropped amazingly. From over €200 to about €65.
If Albo says it is so ….
You can guarantee it is not!!!
Nuclear as part of the grid
Nuclear can't just be used as backup to intermittent renewables. That would make it not cost effective. Nuclear has to be the main source of energy. 7 plants to start with then double it. 2 in each capital at least
Not true. These days it's a fine vacancies act. Finland have 30% nuclear but the power price dropped dramatically.
Just Albo and Labor lies
Not in this case however.
For Australia coal fired power plants are the cheapest option, followed by nuclear.
We should withdraw from the ridiculous Paris Accord and use the most economical energy, transportation and agricultural resources available.
There is no utility in climate action.
@@johngeier8692 The most economical form of transport is walking followed by pushbikes.Modern society is based on waste and excess consumption. Super heated houses instead of warm clothes, the list of madness is endless.We are a society of strangers with no purpose. You speak of utility yet don't practice yourself I imagine.
@@amraceway how we choose to heat our homes should be governed by thermodynamics not politics. If a person wants a warm house rather than warm clothes that should be their choice, the technology exists to make that economical and environmentally friendly, it's only the green political cult that gets in the way of it.
Once again we hear that pumped hydro is a power source comparabe with nuclear. One is a storage and the other is a generator. Try getting a proper EXPERT !
Anthony Albanese is a loose expensive and not so responsible cannon. All so true and just look at the last 40 Years, industry running out of Australia at light speed.
The question should be "why is energy so expensive compared to other countries".
Name one piece of public infrastructure construction that has been outsourced to a private company that has not gone way over budget and taken way longer to build than forecast.
The Hinckley Point nuclear build in England is a typical example, way behind and 3 times over budget and rising.
Hydro is base load. Nuclear needs transmission lines just as renewables. The electric transition will require uprated power lines whether the energy comes from renewables or nuclear.
The Olkiluoto 3 (OL3), Europe’s first new nuclear plant in 16 years, began operating in April and is capable of meeting up to 15 per cent of the country’s power demand. Nuclear made up a third of Finland’s total electricity generation in 2021.
Average spot electricity prices in the country fell to €60.55 ($65.69) per megawatt hour in April from €245.98 per megawatt hour in December, a decrease of 75.38 per cent, according to Nord Pool, a physical electricity exchange.
Furphy. Logical fallacy - look up "ad hoc ergo propter hoc".
Just ask yourself one question - why was the electricity price so high in Finland in after Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Ha! Just found this quote:
"Pekka Salomaa, Director of Energy Markets at Energiateollisuus ry, highlights the significant changes in the Finnish electricity system. "The growth in wind power has been the most critical factor influencing these price variations," Salomaa explains." from an article 2 January 2024 in the Helsinki Times.
@@footbru too bad you've got no idea what his implication is!!??
You're rather sad if you think he said wind power is lowering the cost.
Seriously mate!!!
I only hope that we, as Australians, plan to build Generation 4or5 reactors and not old technology Gen3 reactors. It is important to understand that each generation of reactor only builds on what is currently in use, thus the safety concerns of new technology, should be greatly reduced. Considering that Gen 4and 5 reactors are able to consume
nuclear waste as fuel, a new industry should be started, in Australia, to convert the waste into fuel for future consumption in Australia and overseas.
The Liberals announced a $200 million "interconnection fund" as part of the election promise. The $2.3 billion Project EnergyConnect link was approved in 2021. Liberal leader Steven Marshall before the election argued that a interconnector to New South Wales would add to the “affordable reliable baseload” the state could access “when it’s not windy or sunny” in South Australia. This reflected the party’s unconvinced position - later to change - about South Australia's move to renewable energy.
Not concerned with what labor has to say, its what AI tells me that is of more concern. For start, their chosen vendor doesn't have the best available product.
So we should take notice of the American James Morrow, Senator Fawcett or Paul Murray. Give us a break.
Not Labor's claims, hard cold fact. It's not going to happen.
When nuclear is such a huge topic on our agenda, I really cannot stand it when people cannot say nuclear.
It IS NOT NUKULAR!!
New clear. New clear new clear.
Say that 10 times and you'll pronounce nuclear correctly.
Wow. Obviously focussed on the important issues. Gonna correct our grammar, too?
This guy is cherry picking figures. Canada generates only 16% of its electricity from nuclear. 60% is from Hydro. Why do we have to fact check everything a politician says?
Being an effective liar is part of the job description.
@@johngeier8692name mate. That's been Bowen's modus operandi. This guy is speaking the truth. I've checked it.
@@jamesgreig5168 based on your other comments I doubt it
A citation is required, and until the source/s is/are revealed and proved, your statement will be classified as blatant lying.
@@garystrahan4601 15 percent
Nuclear energy produces about 15 percent of Canada's electricity. The CNSC has a team of technical experts and onsite inspectors to ensure that rigorous oversight of plant operation is maintained, in order to protect the public and the environment. Ontario's three nuclear facilities typically produce about 60 percent of the province's electricity.
The 'shelf life' of the radioactive waste, and WHERE to put it safely, should be the ONLY thing required in any debate concerning Nuclear energy....no more..!!
The world of motorists has been employed by ALL oil companies by removing OPEC waste products (petroleum) for over a hundred years.
The gases such as carbon monoxide escaping into the atmosphere, will be insignificant compared to the danger of nuclear waste..!!
and considering 96% of nuclear waste can be recycled and used and recycled and used. its the gift that keeps on giving, and the process of recycling makes the 4% half life less, so its radio active for a lot less.
When:
(a) a reputable scientific authority shows proof to challenge CSIRO's conclusions and
(B) The private sector (y'know, the one the LNP has said for decades can run enterprises much better than the govt) comes to the party and says they agree that we should go nuclear and stumps up the cost.
Then I'll accept that what the LNP says is legit and not just their usual obstructionism and fossil-fuel financed delaying tactics.
> (a) a reputable scientific authority shows proof to challenge CSIRO's conclusions
MIT has done that
> (a) a reputable scientific authority shows proof to challenge CSIRO's conclusions
also, not a scientific authority, but a financial authority, Lazard, has show very different conclusions to CSIRO
Seen the cost of the top ten nuclear accidents. ? That's aside from the health costs. As always, nuclear is just too much trouble.
now compare the amount of deaths from nuclear vs wind turbines. nuclear turns out safer.
@@scubaaddict sure. Send me the source. Last time I looked, wind turbine exclusion zones were not hundreds of kilometres for 1000 years.
February 22, 1993, a nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan had a high pressure steam accident kill a worker and injure two others.
On March 11, 2011, the Tohoku earthquake and ensuing tsunami caused the drowning deaths two workers in the basement of Fukushima Daiichi checking for post-earthquake damage.
On June 27, 1985, the Balakovo power plant in Russia had a steam accident that killed fourteen workers.
On February 6, 1974, Leningrad 1 nuclear power plant in Russia suffered a coolant leak that led to the deaths of three people.
On January 5, 1976, two workers at the Jaslovské Bohunice power plant in Czechoslovakia died from CO2 asphyxiation during fuel replacement.
On September 18, 1976, two workers at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant in Michigan. died of asphyxiation from argon gas used to support welding on stainless steel piping.
On July 27, 1972, two workers were fatally scalded at Surry Nuclear Plant in Virginia.
On June 2, 1978, two workers perished in a fall at Byron Nuclear Plant in Illinois.
On April 19, 1985, an employee fell to his death at River Bend Nuclear Plant in Louisiana.
On January 13, 1986, two divers were drawn into the intake pipe of the cooling system at Crystal River Nuclear Plant in Florida, and killed.
On December 9, 1986, a steam explosion in Unit 2 of Surry Nuclear Plant in Virginia killed four workers.
On August 9, 2004, a steam pipe break at reactor 3 of Mihama Nuclear Plant in Japan killed five workers.
On July 16, 1971, at Quad Cities nuclear plant in Illinois, a worker was electrocuted by a live cable -- he later died from his injuries.
On July 27, 1988, at Comanche Peak nuclear plant in Texas, a worker was electrocuted while performing maintenance in a battery charger room.
On October 15, 1990, a worker fell to his death at Crystal River Nuclear Plant in Florida.
On March 31, 2013, a generator in the non-nuclear area of Arkansas Nuclear One fell and killed one worker.
On September 13, 1988, a worker was electrocuted at Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant in Burlington, Kansas.
On October 14, 1987, a worker was electrocuted at Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant in Burlington, Kansas.
On September 30, 1999, two facility technicians at Tokaimura Nuclear Plant were exposed to fatal levels of radiation after a criticality accident.
On September 18, 2008, a man was electrocuted while conducting maintenance at Monticello Nuclear Plant in Minnesota.
On November 14, 2019, a diver perished conducting maintenance at La Salle Generating Station in Marseilles.
@@MikeJones-mz5ig Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die - only every 33 years would someone die
Did you take note of the years those accidents happened.
Technology has advance since those years.
Fukushima was caused by a tsunami, flooding emergency generators that were meant to power pumps for cooling water after the plant detected an earthquake automatically shut down the reactor.
spin doctor. nuclear is very very expensive. Any person the street can see that.
Net Zero is prohibitively costly, impractical and totally unnecessary.
Nuclear should be legal in Australia, however, new coal fired power plants should be built if these are the cheapest solution.
We need to stop wasting taxpayers money and resources on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects.
But intelligent people who use facts see it differently. Nuclear brings down the price of electricity.
FACT!!