What would the cost to the end user (me) be? That’s what I want to know. I’m all for nuclear power, however, I want to know what it will cost me. I’m currently paying more for gas than electricity, and the gas is only used to heat up the hot water in my building - no gas appliances at all! Ridiculously expensive. So what could I expect my bill to look like in 20 years time when nuclear energy is powering (in part or in full) the grid? Thank you
Which design should Australia adopt? How should this be implement into Australia eg single reactor as part of R&D before the big one. Smaller but many to allow redundancy.
Yeah, they've also disabled 'Closed Captions' so I guess they did not want people "listening" to what they had to say. Or, the person posting this may have sabotaged the journalist? Who knows.
Dutton wanted a policy that requires nobody to do anything immidiately, especially him. The regulatory process to start a nuclear industry provides him with years of talk talk without having to produce anything meaningful. The perfect policy for a party that wants to look progressive while safely allowing nothing to change.
Finding it difficult to get past the propaganda you’ve been fed for a long time, en? It’s okay… when you mature it gets easier to use critical thinking.
@@WinsomeMcDonald-n9m Anti vaxx and anti 5G followers love Trump. The liberals don't fit that genre. Try looking at the facts - is your electricity bill getting cheaper? Mine isn't - and I have rooftop solar.
I'm about as progressive as it gets, but nuclear is a no brainer. I have no idea why my fellow progressives are so hellbent on cherry picking renewable data whilst ignoring the true cost of a total renewable energy grid (impossible with our current technology).
Grown up in Cape Town South Africa with a Nuclear power station built in 8 years commissioned in 1984 still operating today nobody grown extra arm or were born with 3 eyes Don't let people that invested their money into renewables bull you
That was built so South African military could get weapons-grade plutonium. The same reason why the US, UK, France, USSR and China hot nuclear 70 years ago... Basically subsidised by the military. Meanwhile....the existing South African government can't keep the lights on in the second biggest city...🙄
It will be the first target in any attack. Lethal consequences. What’s the cost of trying to protect the nuclear plant. Not to mention the 10000+ year timeframe involved with any issues/attack/accident.
"Journalist" does say the coalitions plan is 44% cheaper, "Journalist" does NOT say the coalitions plan produces 40% less power. Transparent cheerleading. get some standards
No the journalist said a report done by the coalition said it is 44% cheaper. He also quoted the CSIRO report as well. He is letting you decide which report to believe in. In no way did he say which report is right.
Units 2 and 3 in Onagawa, Japan were built in 3 years. And if you're wondering if they cut any safety corners: the Onagawa plant was closer to the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake and was hit with a higher magnitude quake and bigger tsunami, and yet there was no disaster there. They safely shut the units down, and have been cooling their heels every since waiting for the go-ahead to start them back up.
There is a difference between building the first power station and the 30th. Japan has over 30 now. Also Japan can Fix and fill giant 20 m sink hole in the middle of the city in 24 hours. In Australia it takes 1 year (and counting) to build a 1 lane bridge over a 2 meter creek. (I drive around it every day). Nuclear will not be built in Australia in the next 30 years, even if every citizen and politician agreed on it today.
Nobody has 82% renewable only. ALP is cheerleading an experiment and that is dumb. LNP are proposing up to 42% nuclear and the rest renewable and gas. CSIRO are claiming 100% nuke comparison... misinformation at its finest 😂
@@awc900 We all know (or should know) the Nuclear policy is a scam. Here Ch7 are allowing distrust toward an important national institution without any form of scrutiny, & thats just one example.. The whole segment was a total con job.. Please don't fall for garbage reporting like this & demand proper context!
"Full Time Economy on Part Time Power" Childish simplistic sound bite which erroneously twists how energy systems work. Simplistic Explanations for Simplistic Minds.
Keep using gas and coal and plant more vegetation to absorb the CO2. I suggest bamboo and hemp, fast growing plants that have many practical applications.
I'm sorry but that doesn't work. To offset 1 ton of emissions, we need to plant 30-45 trees. So, in order to absorb all 40 billion annual tons of CO², we need to plant 1.5 trillion trees per year. So we need to create an Amazon Rainforest every year in order to achieve this. And that doesn't account for future growth or offsetting previous emissions.
@ no we don’t. We only need to plant the trees once, and once they grow they only absorb more and more CO2. Plus they will grow bigger and faster the more CO2 is provided to them. In the Jurassic period the CO2 was many times higher than today, and the forest and other vegetation flourished. And hotter air holds more moisture, so when it finally cools on the mountain ranges more rain would fall.
@@Robert-xs2mv Well still, trillions are needed to make this work. Currently, only 30% of our carbon emissions are captured by trees. If we want to make it 100%, we need to plant 10 trillion more. And just as before, this doesn't account for future growth and past emissions. There are also other problems with this plan, such as limited land, artificial ecosystems dying out, increased risks of wildfires, strain on freshwater supplies and much more. Also trees take decades to mature and absorb all that carbon. They are a good long term solution but will solve nothing short term. And no, invasive fast growing plants will not solve that.
@@Robert-xs2mv We agree to disagree, but just so you know, solutions to such a complex issue are not simple. Have a great 2025. And I hope we both see beyond our perspective. (Yes that means I agree that the figures are idiotic, google is just fucking with me and giving me contradicting evidence)
What an incredibly one-sided perspective on the proposed nuclear energy plan for Australia. Committing such a significant amount of funding-most of which would come from debt-to a power generation source that won’t produce energy for 10-20 years seems impractical. Instead, the same investment could be directed towards renewable energy solutions like wind and solar, paired with battery storage systems, distributed nationwide where energy is most needed. These options avoid the issue of nuclear waste, which requires secure storage for thousands of years. Unlike nuclear waste, batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels can be recycled into new materials. Additionally, the risks associated with nuclear energy, such as disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl, are simply unacceptable. Let’s prioritize safer, more sustainable solutions.
@@olivierb9716 We need to access enough batteries to cover the peak periods, which are only a few hours a day, and the periods when there is insufficient generation from wind, solar and hydro. Consumer Energy Resources such as home and car batteries (soon to be connected for 2 way charging/export) will likely cover most of what is required, subject to incentives to connect being provided to the asset owners. For eg. Between my EV and my house battery I have over 70kWh of stored energy, so if motivated to do so, I could provide up to half of it to the grid, and still have enough for my commute and my all-electric house.
@@olivierb9716 Wind turbine recycling/re-use is still a fledgling industry, but there are new turbines being trialled in Europe that are made of wood (LVL), for easier re-use at end of first life. Solar panels are crushed and the valuable materials removed for re-use, the balance (and the concrete) is used as road base and concrete paths, etc. Google it. You will be impressed.
Nuclear fuel can actually be recycled, around 95% of the fuel rod can be recycled more accurately it gets refined removing the elements that have formed from the fission
So we should keep deforestation going to put in all these solar and wind farms? And what do we do at night time when solar doesn't work? Batteries hold so little power for the price.
@Stonecutter1004 solar and wind farms are not placed in untouched native forests. Solar farms are generally placed on grazing paddocks where cattle can use them for shade, it does not degrade the usability of the farm land
@@Ausfailia tell that to the people of Oberon... Grass also needs sun to grow, more shade means it'll grow slower, so more land needed to feed the same number of cows or sheep. There's no free energy unfortunately.
@@Stonecutter1004 the solar panels do not cover the grass all day long. They're spaced out and the sun moves throughout the day, allowing grass to grow under the solar panels
@@Ausfailia have a look at grass that grows in mostly shade compared to mostly sun. Totally different. Grass in the sun can grow so much faster and thicker than shaded grass, and with animals eating it and trampling on it, depleted grass will grow back slower or even die. Think of it like this, why do farmers go to great expense to chop down all the trees to grow grass? And keep roos and deer of their property? They need every blade of grass they can get. Not to mention before winter when they cut it all up and roll it into bails to get through the winter because the shorter days and colder weather means less feed. I'm all for solar, but it should be on rooftops and unusable areas, and it shouldn't be our only option because it's unreliable and limits our future economic growth. We need huge power for this booming AI field. Look at how closely Bill Gates is investigating nuclear, he knows the potential and he needs the energy for the future. Consider the fact that to get most of our steel in Australia, we ship iron ore overseas and then ship it all the way back. This is so highly inefficient, we should be doing it all here. We can't because we can't afford the energy. If we can create cheap energy, like they do in China, we will be able to afford more industries here.
The only way I’ll accept nuclear in Australia is if it is 100% privately owned, operated and most importantly, FUNDED. If it’s so bloody good why has not a single nuclear power plant turned a profit anywhere in the world? If it’s so cost effective then why hasn’t a private company built one off their own dollar? The one in Wyoming has only just broken ground and is already predicted to cost over $6billion AUD to build. Watch that blow out to $20 billion in 10 years while still not operating. Batteries are getting better every day and Australia own the majority of the battery metals market.
But you're O'K with China taking the CO2 hit to make Australia look good, hypocrites in full swing. The lifetime of Solar panels is about 6 years (their output is about 45% after that and declines haphazardly) and wind turbines are even less, batteries using full cycle will last much less than 10 years. Renewables have cost Australia so much in their race to make it work, turning reliable coal power off, there is no mention of replacing the system every 6 -10 years (hidden as maintenance). Good idea, get Woolworths or Coles to build Renewables or Nuclear power systems for Australia so they can do what they do best. As is usual, those who frequent anything to do with mainstream media it's either left or right bias.
@@raycap Where did you read that about the 6 years Solar Panel life. Absolutely not true from my personal experience. (I am a Electrical Engineer) I don't see much degradation after 10 years on my panels unless you have a really poor brand. It is just magic. No maintenance required, no moving parts, just hose down the dust once a year. They just work beautifully after 10 years producing almost free electricity. Zero problems. Companies would not invest into solar farms if they spoil in 6 years and lose money. My AI search says the following: Solar panels, which are quite popular due to their efficiency and reliability, typically come with a product warranty of 10-12 years. This warranty covers manufacturing defects. Additionally, they usually offer a performance warranty for 25 years, which guarantees that the panels will still produce a certain percentage (usually around 80-85%) of their original capacity after 25 years. That’s a long time to soak up sunshine and lower your electricity bills!
@@raycap couldn’t care less what china does. I do care what OUR government does with OUR money though. As far as the rest of that hogwash. You’re grossly misinformed or just straight ignorant. Solar is the obvious next step. Nuclear is obviously not.
" if its so bloody good, why hasnt a nuclear company anywhere in the world turned a profit.." --->French energy giant EDF on Friday, February 16, unveiled a net profit of €10 billion ($10.8 billion) and cut its massive debt by increasing nuclear production after problems forced some plants offline. EDF hailed an "exceptional" year
@@ferkeap It's not really about nuclear power. It's about sabotaging investment in the renewable power industry in Australia. The fossil fuel industry here wants to ramp up exploitation of resources but their overseas clients are decreasing their fossil fuel use. That's probably why they are suggesting SMALL MODULAR nuclear plants which have never been commercially built before. It will give the maximum delay and maximise fossil fuel profits. CSIRO
Fun fact. All night long. 14,000 miles per year 8,760 hours per year 1.6mph or 38miles per day. 23hrs parked every day and all night long. EVs with v2g will have a massive battery at home all night long. Rooftop PV all day long. No grid electricity 24hrs daily. 247. 365 SHTTSNPANTS feelings for the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid owners. All year long for decades and decades and decades. You can polish the nuclear turd all day long it will still be the turd. Maths is a language few speak. And adjectives do not add up. 😮
@acotrel1 what a stupid comment. He is thinking of our long term future not short term ideological views of the current government. It's a simple question no one will answer. If many other countries are going nuclear why not us?
So many still living in the past that nuclear power in Australia can be another disaster like Chernobyl … Nuclear power plants is the cleanest power in the world…and many progress countries have nuclear power plants…labour do not want to have nuclear power plants because of the electricity company do not want to stop the money flows to them…its time for Australia to have Nuclear power plant to start manufacturing back in Australia and make Australian to have jobs availability
Have you forgotten about Fukushima? Today the fallout of that is still causing a string of problems. Why open ourselves to such risks when there are safer alternatives? Until we are able to achieve nuclear fusion, we shouldn't be exposing ourselves and our descendants to an uncertain nuclear-stricken future.
And also Australia is one of the biggest uranium producers in the world, have access to world’s best nuclear technology (Japanese, American, French, British, German and possibly even Russian or Chinese when it comes to civilian nuclear technology) and have access to a workforce that can either be retrained, untrained or imported. Australia going nuclear is long overdue.
@@abcabc-m1qhalf of my country (Italy) is more radioactive than Fukushima, what risk are you talking about? Statistically the risk is extremely low, you’re confusing risk with your subjective opinion of what risk is. You’re more at risk from driving than an airplane for example, but there’s not as many people who fear cars as they do flying
@@filipporiva1864 Mate, aren't you aware of long-term health implications of exposure to high background radiation? By the way, why do you say that Italy is more radioactive than Fukushima?
@@abcabc-m1q I do, I study nuclear engineering and studied radio protection. There’s long term effects only at high doses above 100mSv, at lower doses there’s no model to predict the health effects. Fukushima never reached high background radiation doses. The LNT (Linear no threshold) model is highly discouraged for use in epidemiological studies according to the ICRP (international committee on radio protection) exactly because of what happened in Fukushima, those people would’ve received a dose equivalent to a CT scan and the evacuation was unnecessary and killed more people than the radiation would ever do. I say that Italy is more radioactive because we have many villages built with tuft which are highly radioactive vulcanic rocks and I know a guy who visits them with a gamma spectrometer and also visited Fukushima and always find a higher hourly dose rate in the villages. Also in general any city with many stone building like Rome is highly radioactive, he also found a higher dose in the Vatican.
If this was really about giving Australians cheaper electricity, other methods would be better utilised such as hydropower and wind turbines and solar.
@@8equa1sD If you mean I rely on the advice and expertise of those vocationally involved in the energy supply sector, then yes your statement would be correct. On my own though, just like you and most everyone else, all I would have is what could be totally inadequate opinions. If you think that is unreasonable, see if you can get @marcusmadrid to provide evidence for his claims. Good luck.............."of course". 😂
You don't know much about any of these technologies do you? Hydro-power: Australia does not have enough dams to make this viable. We're also prone to drought, so we'll have to choose: drinking water, or electricity. Solar: good solution, we've been installing plenty. But they don't work at night, or on cloudy days. Wind: Australia doesn't have many mountainous landscapes to have wind farms, so production would be extremely weather again. You could put them out at sea, but upkeep would be horrendous.
Australia 🇦🇺 will benefit from more Nuclear ☢️ energy power plants. Canada 🇨🇦 Poland 🇵🇱 Mexico 🇲🇽 Brazil 🇧🇷 Indonesia 🇮🇩 and South Korea 🇰🇷 are building nuclear atomic power stations too
3rd option, lift the moratorium on Nuclear. But government doesn't build it, or provide incentives. If it's indeed cheaper, companies will invest and it will be cost competitive with renewables. Btw, our electicity demand is growing so more transmission will be required for any option apart from rooftop solar/home batteries so don't put your finger on the scale with that argument.
its only cheaper in the long run. the upfront costs are too high for people to be willing to invest. Imagine this: you need to buy boots for your job. one pair is $20, one pair is $100. the cheap boots will only last you one year but the expensive pair will last you 10 years. per year, the expenive pair is half the price but the upfront cost is too high to justify it.
Lifting the moratorium is playing into the hands of the advocates. The laws that the wise elders signed into existence were designed to prevent exactly what the nuclear pundits are pushing for. The abolishment of the moratorium shall mark the beginning of the end of this beautiful land.
Adelaide Australia is the worlds 1st off grid capital running on solar and batteries. It's been done, rinse and repeat. Batteries can be made here in QLD. Get the CSIRO involved and have a worlds best, for a change.
No it's not .... Nowhere in the world is runing 200% renewables Adelaide still runs its desil generators when it has to n it also has extensions lines for electricity into Victoria and nsw.... Do your research b4 making yourself look stupid by parroting lies
Is sunny louden a work experience journalist? Well I hope so, because in his ‘investigating’ he some how missed some incredibly obvious issues with Dutton ‘plan’. Like how our coal stations will be out of service before nuclear is online, like how Dutton plan will supply less energy than we use now, really less energy in 25 years time? And how the lack of expertise in Australia will surely lead to massive cost and time blowouts. How the time frames depend on SMR, which currently don’t exist.. should I keep going. @sunnyloudon you are an embarrassment to your profession. Maybe you are better suited to hosting games shows than journalism, you clearly can’t keep up.
"SMR which doesnt exist...." Google: ROLLS ROYCE SMR read, learn, then post back brain engaged. Ps RR has signed for poland and tcheque SMR they will have before oz.
How about asking Bowen what is he going to do when the obsolete coal power stations shut down and not enough wind turbines and solar panels have been put into use to cover the short fall.
Obviously the ban should be lifted, and after that, the government should stay out of it as much as possible and let the economics of the most efficient energy source dominate the market.
Just imagine if GovCo went localised storage rather than bulk storage, the amount of money spend on NP could easily put 50kwh+ of storage on every private solar system, this would reduce the load on the grid immensely and could also be used to balance the grid.
Over the 50-80 years life span of a nuclear power station, its 1/4 the price and generates 60-70%+ of baseload power generation at a significant lower cost and no additional energy investments in poles and wires. It also a much lower carbon footprint
Insanely wrong misinformation. Solid Fuel Fission is one of the most expensive forms of Electric Generation currently being commercialized. This is not even accounting for the decommissioning and cleanup cost of the site. This form of NPP is not financially viable, let alone affordable.
You are mistaken. The 'life span' is 25-30 years before major maintenance is required. A single 1,100 MW reactor costs US $6 billion-that’s equivalent to AUS $1,500 for every person in Melbourne! We would need to build 3, by the way.... Also keep in mind, the newest installations (Vogtle, Hinkley C) were additional reactors built by teams with existing experience-skilled engineers, builders, and workers already in place. Despite their expertise, the projects still went over budget and over schedule. What makes us think we could achieve better results?
baseload is a consequence of power stations that can't turn off. Remove those "always on" generators and there is no "baseload" to accomodate. SA has periods of zero demand (from generators) when rooftop solar exceeds all needs. That's an example of no "baseload". The other states will hit the same scenario in the next few years.
@ what a pile of nonsense South Australia is operating with the help of diesel generators and Victoria’s coal powered power stations. With out that SA would have regular outages. To make SA an all renewables state it needs massive battery storage (which it can not afford) and pumped hydro which it can not do. The world trend in every successful renewable energy country is 40% renewables and 60% from nuclear/coal/gas. Even California is now turning on more nuclear power stations. It can not afford to keep replacing wind turbines every 6-12 years
Nuclear power has become incredibly safe to operate to the point where any form of disaster/mishap is extremely remote, compared with other energy industries like coal for example. Countries like Germany are kicking themselves for decommissioning their nuclear reactors. France is currently selling their nuclear energy to other nations.
@@patrickmaclean1524 Those countries are in different circumstances compared to Australia- they already have the framework, support and infrastructure for nuclear energy, and are lot less suitable for solar energy, for example. The CSIRO evaluation points this out.
@ I understand that at this current time, we do not yet have the infrastructure to support such a network. However, I believe we should still invest the resources into a nuclear energy industry as it is a very, very long term solution to providing stable energy which will add to the renewable system. In a step in the right direction if we want to fully transition away from fossil fuel usage. Better late than never.
@@ugthump2753 Well said mate. The nuclear pundits are ignoring common-sense and pushing for a dangerous technology simply because they're going to reap monetary windfalls from the implementation (at the expense of us taxpayers).
@@ugthump2753the infrastructure is identical to coal plants. Heat water, spin a turbine. The only difference is how you heat the water… after you have steam, there is no difference in infrastructure.
Wiring renewables up to the grid is a more complex problem than going nuclear. Should be part of the mix. And what about the elephant in the room: China, the supplier of almost all solar panels and the rare earths for batteries and turbines. Is it wise to rely on them in this world of tariffs and trade wars?
If we wanted nuclear power we should have started building it 20years ago. These plants take decades to build. Im all for nuclear but this conversation is 20 years too late. We should be taxing the door or of gas and coal exports to fund these projects.
To keep the lights on in 10 years from now most of us will have their own solar on the roof and a EV car with V2G (vehicle to grid) or a battery. We won’t need anybody else to keep the lights on. We will make my own electricity. No more price gouging. Almost freeee. 😀 EVs, Battery's and solar will be dirt cheap with prices coming down rapidly. But the price gougers and dumb politician hate the idea since it is not centralized and not anymore under their thumb. Nuclear is a really dumb idea wasting your tax money. By the time they are up everybody has there own Solar / Battery electricity and nuclear is not needed anymore….or be price gouged. Don’t vote Dutton. Wind, Solar, Battery's and pumped hydro will be enough for industry.
The loss of centralised control is a big no-no for the powers-that-be. A truly optimal solution will always ensure the individual units are self-reliant, and once that has been achieved, they can contribute excess energy through a moderated and managed platform to support those that are not capable of self-reliance. This ensures the establishment of a robust and scalable model that has longevity.
If nuclear energy was so much cheaper and profitable then Australian would have built it 30-40 years ago at the height if cold war when almost every country had easy access to nuclear energy! This is a magnificent scheme by infrastructure corporations to steal taxpayers money for the next 20 years for nothing!
Take note of what is going on overseas in relation to the data industry (microsoft, Google, Amazon etc,) which is a strategy towards small nuclear plants/ small modular reactors (SMR). The reason is partly due to renewable power not being able to meet the increasing demand for the foreseeable future in those base countries as well as transmission and reliability issues in renewables etc.. Seems Labor and the greens politicians are so much smarter than your average international tech engineers and academics though. Just import more from green industry (wash) China their mantra.
Even if labour was serious about or current electricity grid ,which they are not ,our coal fired power stations are barely hanging in there due to lack of funding ,they will still sell our coal to China India etc ,we need cheap clean power On tap
Nuclear is the cheapest, most productive and efficient "clean" energy source. But it requires significant up front investment as well as overcoming political hurdles to implement.
It ISN'T the cheapest energy source. It isn't clean, either. Committing such a significant amount of funding-most of which would come from debt-to a power generation source that won’t produce energy for 10-20 years seems impractical. Instead, the same investment could be directed towards renewable energy solutions like wind and solar, paired with battery storage systems, distributed nationwide where energy is most needed.
The only problem which causes partial or full meltdowns in nuclear reactors last I checked was actually just plain HUMAN ERROR. So as long as operators have been well trained enough to be vigilant on the job, we’ll all be fine
Problem with gencost is in the title. It’s cost of generation and NOT the cost of your electricity bill. Transmission lines will cost billions of billions, destroy environments and farms. We don’t actually possess the storage technology, let alone the capability to build it. Adelaide has one of the biggest batteries on the planet, without supply it lasts 30-45 minutes. Globally, statistically, no one lives there. Sydney or Melbourne = impossible. We DON’T have the technology for such large scale power storage. Not anywhere on the planet. Blackout Bowen is driving us off a cliff. Choices are keep coal or build nuclear. My vote is for nuclear.
@@robhaitch5544 So What, no-one lives there. Vistra moss in California is one of the biggest in the world is more than 10 times larger than SA, it lasts 4 hours. Refer to my previous comment, we don't possess the technology yet. We will I am sure, we just don't right now. This is why switching off nuclear (Germany) and even coal in some jurisdictions is ridiculous until we actually have the technology. The technology needs to designed, then be scaled, then been commericialised and then we need to ensure we have the necessary resources. The general public has next to no understanding of the complexity of power storage, energy generation and energy grids. Renewables are not THE answer. They are part of the mix but until we get a quantum leap in energy storage it will remain a part of the solution, not the the solution.
I live in Slovakia, small EU country. We don't have more than 7 million people and have 2 nuclear power plants 70 km apart and I live somewhere in the middle I have absolutely no fear and absolutely don't think about it. They both are the single most important pillar of our economy
Slovakia has a developed nuclear industry but your reactors are getting old and will need extensive and very costly upgrades (as they are doing in Canada with their 40 year old plants). It is not the safety of nuclear that worries me it is the cost and time it takes to build. The Mochovce 3 plant, commissioned last year, took 14 years to finish even though you first started the build in 1987. The cost will be about $A12 billion for two 0.5 GW reactors once Mochovce 4 is finished. The cost and timeframe is just too much.
@andrewjoy7044 we need 2 months just to repair a manhole cover, no wonder we were building nuclear plant so long. I have no doubts it can be done much more quickly and cost effective.
@lindam.1502 This is a list of all the commercial nuclear reactors in the European Union and in Europe, with operational status. The list only includes civilian nuclear power reactors used to generate electricity for a power grid. All commercial nuclear reactors use nuclear fission. As of May 2021, there are 180 operable power reactors in Europe, with a combined electrical capacity of 159.36 GW.[1] There are currently 8 power reactors under construction in Europe.[2] goto wikipedia.. Ffs, you are part of the problem.
@mfn1311 I'm saving $4500/year compared to 2021 by going fully electric, EV, rooftop solar, no gas. Did it out of my own pocket and did it now. Funding nuclear means our taxes pay for it. Money is taken from other areas like health and education to build it, and then we have to pay to run it. It's far cheaper to just to go with renewables now.
@davidunwin7868 well done, you're wealthy. Nuclear means a clean, reliable grid for everyone instead of just those who can afford to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Blackout Bowen comparing storage of water in dams with storage of power in batteries is totally ludicrous, You cannot run major industries like refineries, mines etc on batteries. .
@@lindam.1502 Have you ever been near a coal mine in your life. A single Bucyrus 8750 dragline uses as much power as a large regional town. There are over 100 draglines in Australia. It is physically impossible to run a single dragline off battery power let alone 100. Hydro pumped renewable energy in Qld & NSW is a pipe dream - it will never happen!
The only people suggesting nuclear is not a good fit for Australia have significant investment in renewables. Every example of renewable energy around the world is under pinned by nuclear. French & US nuclear reactors can be built in less than 3 -4 years.
Electrical Engineer here The least expensive form of electricity is from hydroelectric power plants, less than 1 cent a kilowatt-hour. Solar and wind power are the second least expensive at less than 2 cents a kilowatt-hour by 2030 less than one cent a kilowatt-hour. By 2035 electricity from solar and wind will be free just a monthly service charge. Coal and natural gas power are the third least expensive at 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. Nuclear power weather fission or fusion are the most expensive form of electricity at 10 cents kilowatt-hour. Fusion power really does work today, sometimes called cold fusion, but it is not politically acceptable. Scaling up cold fusion power plants are much cheaper to build and much safer with no nuclear waste to deal with. But cold fusion power plants will still be more expensive than coal and natural gas power plants. Cold fusion powered super-sized cruise ships and super-sized ships for shipping containers, crude oil and (LNG) Liquefied Natural Gas ships would greatly benefit global shipping. Why I prefer solar and wind power along with some battery backup. Solar and wind power are what we call intermittent or veritable power supplies. Opponents of solar and wind power often refer to it as expensive and unreliable. But the electrical engineers know the truth. There is a mathematical formula used to make reliable solar and wind power along with battery storage. In each metropolitan area, you need to know the peak power consumption. Your great Australian Outback can generate many terawatts of 24/7 reliable electricity. Australia should build a 10000 square mile 100 by 100 miles solar farm and 2 square miles battery backup farm. This and offshore floating wind farms. This means no rate increases and a gross surplus of electricity. With a new generation of Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries that are much safer, last much longer, and guarantee reliable 24/7 electricity. In wind power I prefer floating offshore wind turbines because wind power offshore is stronger and more consistent than onshore wind. When offshore wind turbines are spread out over a wide geographic area intermittent and veritable power output are greatly reduced. There is a statistic known as capacity factor. Onshore land-based wind turbines capacity factor in the best locations is 33%. This means that a land- based wind turbine only produces on average 33% of the name plate capacity of the wind turbine. A GE 3.6-megawatts land-based wind turbine only produces an average of 1.188 megawatts of electricity. The exact same GE 3.6-megawatt wind turbine on a floating offshore platform has a capacity factor of 67%. This means that the exact same GE wind turbine will produce 2.412 megawatts of electricity. But offshore floating wind turbine has one big trick. An offshore floating wind turbine can scale up to 48 megawatts with a capacity factor of 67% so your average power output is 32.160 megawatts. Offshore wind turbine fan blades are max at 200 meters long. No land-based wind turbine can scale up this large. Your average metropolitan area uses 3 gigawatts of electricity peak consumption. When taking capacity factor into account to a have reliable source of electricity you need 4 to 5 times greater electricity from floating wind turbines than peak power consumption. 4 48 megawatts offshore wind turbines week manufacturing on a dry dock than towed to sea and connecting the electrical and fiber optical cables. Less than ten years Australia will have more electricity than it can use. 18 hours of batteries storage will be needed at the power substation level. Every 11 and 22 years there will be a very brief loss of power no matter how many floating offshore wind turbines you have online. Meaning Australia needs a national electric grid. Living here in the United States every week I can see and measure the reliability of having a national electric grid. Backup batteries will keep the power grid stable during such events. Solar power and battery backup on all homes, and commercial building rooftops parking lot canopies and a few 10,000 square mail solar power farms with battery backup in the deserts will greatly stabilize the power grid. Of course, solar power farms with backup batteries must be 4 to 5 times greater than peak power consumption. This will be the lowest cost and reliable electricity for Australia. Technical design errors What Australia is going through are the same type of power failures that Florida and Texas were going through. It’s a very poorly designed electrical system in which power inverters from solar and wind farms and homes line frequency was synchronized to the incoming power grid. A rule in electrical engineering is that you never synchronize your power inverters to an incoming power grid. Power inverters and utility generators are always synchronized to an atomic clock. What this means is when power was lost from the incoming power grid the community would also lose power. In Florida and Texas laws were passed requiring that all power inverters for solar and wind power and utility generators be synchronized to WWVB or WWVH for Hawaii radio station atomic clock or global positioning satellites. Each (GPS) satellite has 4 synchronized atomic clocks that are also synchronized to the other 72 (GPS) satellites and ground based atomic clocks. So, if you have a grid power failure your local power grid becomes a micro grid power will remain on, and the residents would not know if there were a major power grid failure. Australia does not have national atomic clock radio station or national power grid this greatly improves electric power reliability. The national power grid should be three phased 768 kilovolts 50Hz.this high voltage national grid will reduce electrical power losses in electricity transmission. Global positioning satellites was invented by an African American woman. The one big advantage that electric power from solar and wind power inverters is that the power frequency has the stability of an atomic clock. So, both electricity demand and supply can be wildly fluctuating so long as electricity supply is always greater than demand power line frequency will always be stable as an atomic clock. On the other hand, electric power from hydro-electric, coal or natural gas fired, nuclear power both fission and fusion power plants that use mechanical generators that power frequency will fluctuate depending on supply and demand. This is why you must constantly adjust the throttle up and down to achieve frequency stability and to synchronize to an atomic clock. In the analog audio worlds, the old analog tape recorders had a specification called wow and flutter. 'Wow' describes slow fluctuations in pitch caused by inconsistencies in the rotational speed of the mechanical generator machinery. Flutter is a more rapid pitch variation that's usually the result of imperfections in the generator gears itself. These problems do not exist on power inverters frequency stability is always guaranteed when synchronized to an atomic clock. Small modular nuclear power plant will be too costly Small modular nuclear reactors are uneconomical. Your classic 750-megawatt nuclear reactor is much more economical at a wholesale price of 12 cents a kilowatt hour. Small modular nuclear reactors are much more expensive to operate although smaller nuclear reactors are much safer to operate but cost more to operate such as 20 to 24 cents a kilowatt hour wholesale price. These smaller modular nuclear reactors will fail the economic test and are too costly to operate. Hydro, solar, and offshore wind power will be below 1 penny a kilowatt hour wholesale price. Your classic standard nuclear power plant Promoters of nuclear power are low balling the cost of new nuclear power plants. I see this all over the world and in my home country United States the latest example is in the state of Georgia. A corporation called the Southern Company built a twin nuclear power plants that caused a massive rate increase for its customers. Every time I see promoters of nuclear power; they will tell bald face lies in your face claiming your electricity rates will go down when as soon as they their contract to build a twin classis nuclear power plants massive rate increase will follow. This is the oldest bait and switch scam that politicians will fall for it every time because they are taking massive bribes to except it. This is why their will be no new nuclear power plants built in the United States. An offshore floating wind turbine will last over 50 years. Keep in mind a floating wind turbine can be rebuilt and refurbished, and it will last another 50 years repair in a drydock. Every 20 years the bearings will be replaced, and an oil change every year for the latest single bearing wind turbine. Capital costs are included in the rates with a 10-year mortgage. Mortgage and maintenance costs are included in the rate base. There will be no rate increase with wind solar power with battery backup. It’s the rate payers really pay for the capital cost. Rate payers are the collateral and paying for the mortgage or capital cost. Choosing nuclear power will be a big increase electricity rates for rate payers’ years before nuclear power plants construction starts. The permitting process will be about 5 years and construction time 10 years. Maybe twice or 4-times the rate increase before any nuclear power plant produces its first kilowatt to the grid. Would you pay $2.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon for gasoline I would rather pay $2.00 a gallon for gasoline.
One thing is for sure that we need the cheapest most reliable power we can because it will effect the cost of everything we manufacture, produce or build and weather companies want to invest in Australia. Wake up! We need nuclear in the mix. We have the largest reserve of uranium in the world. We have had a nuclear reactor at Lucas heights in Sydney for over 60 years without incident. We are already far behind most other developed countries.
"Lucas heights in Sydney for over 60 years without incident" That is NOT a NPP and has zero pressurized coolant to cause problems. That is comparing Apples and Oranges. Top Fuel Dragster is nothing like a stock Toyota Corolla. Yet your political agenda wants to brainwash the masses into thinking that.
Isn't safety the top priority that should be considered over and above other factors such as cost and reliability? What are the safeguards for managing contingencies and the waste from the processes? Please don't turn Australia into a toxic wasteland using nascent technology that hasn't been industrially proven yet. Spare a thought for our future generations.
I love how you didn't show the people out there like myself who have solar and batteries installed that haven't paid a cent for there electricity since they got it installed. My solar and battery install has taken my bills from $4000 a year in 2019 to zero and in that time I have paid for the install from those savings, so now I am basically getting free electricity. If you'd like to come interview me, I'd be happy to tell the country about my journey in your next story on this matter... What is needed is more incentives for people to install home solar and batteries and see how most people can live not having to pay an electricity bill, the $4000 + in saving each year makes a big difference, now to get rid of my gas appliances as the price of gas these days is highway robbery :( Yes some nuclear in the mix in the future may be a good idea, but the time to build and the cost to generate will always be a sticking point...
Come on!! Stop spreading lies! Only people like you can afford this renewable idiocy. What about the majority that don’t have the cash to flash a solar and battery system. If labor and the greens are serious about saving the planet why not provide every home free solar panels and storage batteries . We could save the world this way.
Since installing solar, most of our "bills" have been credits, and the last bill was 91 cents. This video was just cheerleading for Dutton, as someone else said in a comment. There was no mention of wind power working 24x7 or hydro. The choice was presented as nuclear (stated as "nooclear"; apparently I live in the USA now) or solar plus batteries. No mention of the fact that solar provides 60% to 70% of daytime needs right now. No mention that renewable get curtailed at night because coal can't be throttled. The presentation didn't even pretend to be balanced.
Good for you, but you’re forgetting that a country doesn’t only have homes, industries need energy, considering those introducing some nuclear in the mix will always be more convenient than not
I believe in hindsight maybe we should of invested in this technology 20 years ago. We want all things now electrical and we forecast the majority of our future daily routine will be electric. To use a single clean power option is just ignorant. We need the mix and stop putting all of our eggs in one basket.
Follow the money…. Do you think labor will want to risk all the deals they have done ‘renewable’ energy companies over nuclear? It’s not about what’s the most appropriate way to generate electricity it’s all about the money
Great video Kyle. Whilst I’d love to live on a planet that is 100% powered by renewable energy, until such time as the government has a plan on how to get to that point, I’m keen on all other alternatives. Nuclear, in my mind, is the way to go. Also, would like to see the definition of “renewable energy” adjusted. Not sure why replacing thermal coal with wood pellets is viewed as a step in the right direction.
If one overlooks the significant gaps in the Coalition's energy plans and accepts a 40% smaller grid, several key issues arise: Industrial Energy Use The Coalition assumes a 45% decrease in industrial energy use by 2030, which is unlikely given the increased demand from electric vehicles (EVs) and home electrification. Grid Capacity and Reliability The plan to replace coal plants with nuclear energy may not meet the increased demand, potentially leading to a vulnerable and unstable grid. Economic and Practical Feasibility The assumption of reduced industrial energy use contradicts current trends, making the plan economically and practically unfeasible.
The grid would be smaller because if you reduce the amount of renewable energy as a percentage of overall power production, you reduce the amount of infrastructure required. You’re aware that renewable energy as a replacement for thermal power requires the grid to increase capacity by 300%? Well if you lower the amount of renewable energy, you have a proportional reduction in the required grid capacity. Actually, EV demand has flattened- people prefer hybrids (don’t refer to extended trends as they mislead - you need to look at the past 12-18 months). EVs have terrible resale, require a significant amount of changes to property to accommodate, whilst having little to no emissions benefits over a hybrid when compared with the same lifecycle, given the greater upstream emissions required. Nuclear power is the most stable form of power generation in the world, so you should walk back on that point. If you read the proposed energy mix, renewables still make up over 50% of power production, it’s just not 83% as the ALP are attempting. Instead, it’s an energy mix (renewables for cost savings, nuclear and gas for stability). You should look further into the infrastructure requirements that come with 83% renewables. East coast will need 10,000km of new transmission to support that approach. Think that’s going to be cheap or fast to build?
here's a question. if batteries deteriorate over the ten year maximum cycle, how many batteries will it take to keep the lights on? considering that the batteries storage reduces every time it is charged. Also. second question. if an EV requires up to 21 hours to recharge on a standard 240 volt power cable or 3 to 5 hours on a 3phase power connection. how much will it cost to replace the entire power grid to supply 3phase power to 90% of homes that the energy minister thinks that Australians will replace their cars with an EV. third question. an EV has an average range of 350km. that's if it is driven on a flat road without any climate situations like wind .heat. frost. and that's the maximum distance before you add any luggage or additional passengers. forth question. do you really think that all Australians believe in net zero? or are you delusional like the labor government?
I installed solar this year. My cost of production is 0.6 cents per kWh. I'm using 5x more power than before. I'm exporting twice as much as use. My EV charges just fine on granny charger. And I live in a regional area. And on benefits. This is my reality. I intend to get a battery next year too.
@@kasmstamps1897 well don't go to work then as your EV wont charge at night. and if you have an EV. why do you need to install a battery? you are driving one. your cost of production is the cost of your system divided by the number of years your system has been running for. if you are only getting 0.6 cents per kwh. then you are getting ripped off as I get 0.7 cents per kwh. my system has been running for 11 years, made in Germany. with a life span of 25 years. When I break even for the cost I will let you know. my system coast $4000.00, WA subsidies. we get everything for half price. I will get back to you in ten years! that's when my solar system would have paid for its self.
@blizzard5657 your maths a bit off 4k for solar system and you haven't made it back in 11 years? My solar system paid for itself in less than 3 years and whatever extra I get out of it is free money
Sure, except that CSIRO is a Govt institution, funded, managed and manipulated by, . . . the politicians. So go and look for independent advice, from multiple sources. Find the common threads.
Convenient, isn’t it, how he used the criticised Gencost report from last year, instead of the updated one released a week and a half ago that addressed the criticisms of its predecessor by allowing for the 60 year life span of a nuclear station as well as the cost of additional transmission lines for renewables and found that nuclear was still 1.5 - 2.5 times more expensive. Shoddy “journalism “ at its finest.
Frankly a mature science educator wouldn't do silly stuff like kissing the walls of the containment units. That was the surest sign that it's just a show that's driven by financial incentives.
The updated report you're talking about is a draft report for next years 2024-25 GenCost report - so stakeholders can address the criticisms. Although it may contain updates you're referring to, it is not CSIRO's final word on the matter. Therefore, the presenter has used the latest final report, which is is GenCost 2023-24 Final Report.
I’m a labor supporter and I’m not against nuclear power in fact I’ve supported the idea since the early 90s.if we don’t go nuclear we need to increase our budgets into technological research into batteries as lithium batteries are to dangerous with thermal runaway dangers.
We buy 99% of batteries from overseas. I don't think relying on imported batteries as a source of energy is a good idea for a nation. No matter how good the research is done in Australia the production would be in other countries.
The payback of 30 years seems fair as 60 years is too long and can you imagine the technological development in batteries and other tech, needed to be started 20 years ago but coalition were still arguing that climate change wasn't real.
Cheaper? Based on what metric? A battery is not a replacement for a power station. It’s good for a short burst to fill in gaps in energy production. It cannot provide sustained power for national consumption. Cleaner? You’re joking right? Have you the slightest idea how batteries are made? Where the materials come from? What countries like China do to produce them? Oh and please walk me through the recycling process - I’m really curious to see how that’s going to work. Can we make and plug in a battery quickly? Yes. Is it cheaper? No, because you’re comparing an apple with an orchard.
@@kasmstamps1897 Not a chance. A battery is not a replacement for a power station. They're a leaking bucket that degrades severely over time. Also, I asked you to walk us through the recycling process. We should be focusing on the overall condition of our environment, so bringing forward an option that trades one negative impact for another, isn't really a great solution.
@@Darkfite Overall condition of environment. On a personal note I've installed solar this year. Next year intend to install a battery. The dole only goes so far. But I can go alot further now in my EV. 10000 km for $200 charging. My solar cost of production is 0.6 cents per kWh for 9 years. After that is a bonus (not much I know) but better than paying 25-55cents kWh. I paid my tax upfront.
I love these old timers using Chernobyl as the reason for not wanting Nuclear. If they spent the 5 minutes rather than spent yapping on about it you'd learn that the disaster was 100% caused by the USSR covering up safety aspects of the disaster and having a faulty system then trying to cover it up.
What about Fukushima then? The Japanese are releasing radioactive water into the ocean as we speak.... and will be for many years. They can't think of any way to get rid of it.
What a disgraceful lopsided report.🙄 None of the issues were highlighted... Where do we get the skilled workforce? Where do we get the skilled industry? Where do we get the enriched uranium to run them..when even the US buys it from Russia? The UK has had a nuclear energy industry for 70 years and their 3.6mW Hinkley C reactor which is already at a nuclear reactor site has cost them $92 billion and just Victoria will need at two of them. The plan to place them at coal power station sites won't work either. There's simply not enough water supply in all those areas. France had to shut down one of their reactors due to drought....so what will we do. The LNP have a track record of failing to properly cost and plan big infrastructure as they're too worried about getting political donations from their fossil fuel donors. John Howard and the LNP allowed the overseas owned gas companies to sign long-term deals with China Sth Korea and Japan to supply OUR gas without price increases so they could get big donations. This has crippled our manufacturing due to higher gas prices and cost the Australian public both jobs and money. Then there's the deal they did with the French for submarines, which they later cancelled costing us $500 million for nothing only to buy US submarines which will be 50 year old designs when we finally get them for an undisclosed price. Lets not also forget the Snowy 2.0 project that was planned without adequate soil testing, making a $4 billion project cost at least $12 billion and 5 years late. With that track record building 7x nuclear reactors on time and on budget will be a financial disaster that our kids and their kids will be paying off forever. Plus they'll have that radioactive waste to look after for 100,000 years. A time thats so long...we don't even know how the Pyramids were built 5000 years ago....so how do we control something that needs care for 20x as long. This is a distraction to keep renewable energy investment down...to keep the LNP donations from the gas and coal industry flowing as long as possible.
Well said mate! Any politician that comes to power next is not interested in saving Australia! They will pretend to do good but we all know the billions of dollars of cost blowout will be paid by taxpayers like you and me for no product or service! 🧐
Cobblers! France has 56 electric generating nuclear power stations- world leader in the tech.. All homegrown.b Local jobs.. The nuclear electricity runs their high speed rail network the TGV ( google it.. ) Rolls Royce makes SMR reacters, and is building them in poland, and tcheque. France enriches uranium, aswell-COGEMA france has recycling plants at la hague, in france. France shut one reacter once in its operational life due to water shortage ( i/was there) usa enriches uranium- for their military and civilian. Oakridge, and other plants. Google: Rolls Royce SMR. Once again, luddite australia still with the steam engine. Toot toot! CHUFF CHUFF CHUFF 🚂🚃🚃🚃 50 years behind!
I'll never understand the antagonism between wind/solar and nuclear. They're both trying to achieve the same thing, and yet the former treats the latter in the same way they treat fossil fuels. Does it boil down to a competition for resources, in your mind? To me, it seems that anyone pushing for 100% wind and solar is inadvertently advocating for a baseload provided by gas and coal.
You missed One Big thing there, I don't want "Light Water Uranium Reactors", which Do require enriched Specific Uranium to run them, I want "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors" which are cheaper to build, 500% safer than Uranium reactors and we Can run Them on old Waste Fuel rods from all over the World for nearly Nothing and Use 90 % of the Powdered fuel instead of 10 % of fragile Uranium Pellets. Which means you have 80 % less waste and it has a much lower Radioactive signature.
Maybe I'm thinking. Until LNP can convince their oligarch cronies to invest in nuclear power (including training of a skilled workforce). Australian taxpayers simply can't afford it?
I really do not understand why people are so freaked out by nuclear energy. I don’t think they know how many nuclear reactors are safely being run every day and I don’t just mean big power plants every submarine the United States has produced in the last 30 years as a nuclear powered submarine. The modern aircraft carrier has four nuclear reactors in it for power and maneuverability. These are mobile nuclear reactors that are taken into battle because they’re safe and here are all of these idiots complaining like we haven’t had this shit figured out for years and years.
Exactlty. When I lived in Tokyo I I used 4 pieces of fluorescent lights and 10 LED light bulbs in my apartment. When I turn all of them on the room is brighter than the daytime. Whereas in Australia there are only two light bulbs in my room. And the cost is the same for each month.
It is because the Labour Government is NOT getting all the Costings to the One place to do an Actual side by side Full costing, they have used Flawed Numbers to cost Nuclear, and they are only talking ONE type of Nuclear "Light Water Uranium Reactors" like France has, and Is EXPORTING to so many other countries around it, like Russia Had, like Germany Has but not being used. The Better Nuclear that China is now trialling is "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors", which is Cheaper to build, 500 % safer and you can't Make PLUTONIUM from these reactors. Also the Gen cost report Doesn't Cost in the 1.2 to 1.5 TRILLION Dollars worth of poles and wires to connect All the Wind and solar farms to the grid, and Also that wind turbines last about 20 years each at Best, and Nuclear lasts at Least 60 to 80 years, AND we have access to enough Waste Nuclear fuel to Run Thorium Reactors for 100 years with no fuel input cost.
Cold latitude nuclear was because of the crazy nuclear neighbour, the USSR nuclear and massive military in half of Europe. Plutonium was needed. Cold latitude countries went to military nuclear Australia's 14gW nuclear idea is 4tonnes of plutonium every year. Will Australia sell its plutonium ??? France supersized it's nuclear electricity fleet in the 70s as their military was short on petroleum for rapid response. EVs with v2g batteries and rooftop PV sound extremely good. 80% of the world's population live in dictatorships. 80% of the world's population live in warm latitudes.
Can AI talk to the Australian opposition leader about the stupidity of nuclear grid electricity vs rooftop dirt-cheap PV and v2g EVs massive battery. Australia has Sahara Desert latitudes. 8,000 billions m² of sunshine. Australia's coldest city is in warmer latitudes than the south of France. France only went to nuclear electricity generation plants for the military plutonium and nuclear weapons against the crazy nuclear neighbour, Russia's USSR. And its massive Iron Curtain armies.
Nuclear waste gets less toxic over time.. yes.. depending on the isotope between 30 and 24000 year half-life. Meaning after that period, it will be half as radioactive as when it started. Nuclear was a good idea 40-50 years ago, now its a waste of time.
My mate worked their in the 80s we went swimming behind Lucas heights and rode motor bikes in and around their plenty of fish ate plenty he assured me no problems I'm still alive
Nuclear is not the cheapest source of power, that is coal. Nuclear is the cheapest always on zero emissions technology. SA runs on solar and wind but only by taking baseload power from coal plants in other states and hydro from Tasmania. The concept of runnning any portion of the grid from batteries for any sustained period of time is an impossibility. Batteries generate nothing, they can store power but even today, batteries are the most expensive form of energy we have.
Stop with the wacky absurd nonsense. All you have done is confidently show your IGNORANCE. Energy storage is NOT just about Battery Cells. The most established form of Energy storage is PUMP HYDRO. Bath County Pump Hydro has a daily cycle of about 10 GigaWatt Hour. We just need to develop other forms of mechanical energy storage that does not using falling water. That very much can store a massive amount of energy that sustain the National Grid many hours.
@@Neojhun because that's cheap.... QLD just had about ~2 weeks of cloudy still days, so glad we didn't have to sit in darkness thanks to coal! you are the only one that is sounding whacky.
Incredible. A 20-minute story on Australia's energy transition without talking about the climate crisis. Without the context of why we're transitioning, the debate is very easily manipulated. The climate crisis threatens all life on this planet, and it is here and now. Large-scale changes to our way of life are urgently needed. It is very clear that the nuclear option is a slower method to decarbonise our energy supply. Delay means death.
Not just that. Using nuclear to solve the climate crisis is akin to trying to put out a bushfire with cooking oil. It's just going to result in a much bigger climate calamity in the future.
Yes, Australia needs nuclear power stations. Yes, we need them now, but we can't get them that quickly. We will need interim solutions and fossil fuel is all there is. Renewables is a piece part solution that cannot solve the problem of mainstream base load power. So, coal, would be cheap and quick, or gas, would be clean and quick, except, we don't have any gas any more, and we can't get any quickly, for a sensible price. So, looks like coal is all there is, or nothing, for the immediate future, until nuclear can come on line. Time for Australia to join the grown ups of the world. We are going to join anyway, we have nuclear powered submarines on order, so lets just get on with it.
The real question me thinks, is can you convince enough politicians in 2024/25-2030, to really go to bat for a long term issue requiring long term, costly, serious-maintenance solutions, both materially and politically. We're literally talking energy paradigm shift national investments here. Can you convince enough politicians, to put something hard, complicated, unglamourous, that doesn't pull headlines regularly - ahead of or at minimum at equal priority - with their next individual and party (re)election campaign? Not for a few weeks, months or years, but decades. I'm not saying these kinds of politicians do not still/already exist. Of course they do. But they do not persist, or at least do not execute on those critical traits - in big enough numbers to get us over the line at this moment. Going Nuclear doesn't solve everything. But it is a tried, tested, matured solution (we wouldn't be building 60s/70s/80s type nuclear plants in the 202s and -30s - Nuclear has come a looong way since those reactors and plants were built) that exists right now. That is available if we choose it. And it could provide ample energy including covering the insane increase in demand for electric that transitioning away from fossil fuels will create. Long term it can also make energy cheaper, because nuclear output high and lows is when you want it, not whenever the sun and climate says so. No vast energy storage needed. You can, if some local condition makes it favorable - but it's not an inherent necessity.
Happy to take any questions here
What would the cost to the end user (me) be? That’s what I want to know. I’m all for nuclear power, however, I want to know what it will cost me. I’m currently paying more for gas than electricity, and the gas is only used to heat up the hot water in my building - no gas appliances at all! Ridiculously expensive. So what could I expect my bill to look like in 20 years time when nuclear energy is powering (in part or in full) the grid? Thank you
Are you a scientist..? ? ?
Which design should Australia adopt? How should this be implement into Australia eg single reactor as part of R&D before the big one. Smaller but many to allow redundancy.
Kylehill Who pays your wage...? ? ?
How much did the LNP drop in your back pocket.. ? ? ?
PLEASE TURN DOWN THE MUSIC- IT IS OVERWHELMING THE MESSAGE
TURN OFF *
lol, typical commercial media: overblown everything
Yeah, they've also disabled 'Closed Captions' so I guess they did not want people "listening" to what they had to say. Or, the person posting this may have sabotaged the journalist? Who knows.
Irritating loud background music
Dutton wanted a policy that requires nobody to do anything immidiately, especially him. The regulatory process to start a nuclear industry provides him with years of talk talk without having to produce anything meaningful. The perfect policy for a party that wants to look progressive while safely allowing nothing to change.
Exactly! Never ever trust any politician! 🧐
Well if you vote for labor then there will be no policy being made towards having nuclear power.
The main risk is when they actually make something change.
Authorised by P. Duttton, Liberal Party, Canberra.
America's got Donald Trump Australia has Peter Dutton, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and its not Megan's fault willie
Finding it difficult to get past the propaganda you’ve been fed for a long time, en? It’s okay… when you mature it gets easier to use critical thinking.
@@WinsomeMcDonald-n9m Anti vaxx and anti 5G followers love Trump. The liberals don't fit that genre. Try looking at the facts - is your electricity bill getting cheaper? Mine isn't - and I have rooftop solar.
@@Chumpess_X It is funny when people cite 'critical thinking' as being necessary when they support the Liberal party propaganda machine.....
I'm about as progressive as it gets, but nuclear is a no brainer. I have no idea why my fellow progressives are so hellbent on cherry picking renewable data whilst ignoring the true cost of a total renewable energy grid (impossible with our current technology).
Grown up in Cape Town South Africa
with a Nuclear power station built in 8 years commissioned in 1984 still operating today nobody grown extra arm or were born with 3 eyes
Don't let people that invested their money into renewables bull you
Don't let people that invested their money into nuclear bull you...!
@@michaelnorth3666only 1 wants to ban the other.
Are you financially vested in nuclear technology?
Tell us about the reliability of the grid in South Africa, you know 3 hours a day on a good day.
That was built so South African military could get weapons-grade plutonium.
The same reason why the US, UK, France, USSR and China hot nuclear 70 years ago...
Basically subsidised by the military.
Meanwhile....the existing South African government can't keep the lights on in the second biggest city...🙄
i still cannot fathom why anyone would ever consider voting for the LNP
It will be the first target in any attack. Lethal consequences. What’s the cost of trying to protect the nuclear plant. Not to mention the 10000+ year timeframe involved with any issues/attack/accident.
Per international regulations NPPs containment needs to withstand and take safety procedures in case of military attacks.
It's just insane how often Australian politicians just plane suck.
huh? they suck aeroplane fumes? Spelling matters champ.
Not everyone can be as perfect as you are, we apologise for making a simple spelling mistake your greatness @PFay
"Journalist" does say the coalitions plan is 44% cheaper, "Journalist" does NOT say the coalitions plan produces 40% less power. Transparent cheerleading. get some standards
40% less,,, RUBBISH. Go study electrical theory,, start first with OHMs law
No the journalist said a report done by the coalition said it is 44% cheaper. He also quoted the CSIRO report as well. He is letting you decide which report to believe in. In no way did he say which report is right.
Music is fine as a bumper but not throughout the entire video.
Rubbish video content, totally unbalanced.
NO.!!!.
Units 2 and 3 in Onagawa, Japan were built in 3 years. And if you're wondering if they cut any safety corners: the Onagawa plant was closer to the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake and was hit with a higher magnitude quake and bigger tsunami, and yet there was no disaster there. They safely shut the units down, and have been cooling their heels every since waiting for the go-ahead to start them back up.
Don't think the Japanese experience is what we want replicated here. The latest reactors in Europe take decades.
There is a difference between building the first power station and the 30th. Japan has over 30 now. Also Japan can Fix and fill giant 20 m sink hole in the middle of the city in 24 hours. In Australia it takes 1 year (and counting) to build a 1 lane bridge over a 2 meter creek. (I drive around it every day).
Nuclear will not be built in Australia in the next 30 years, even if every citizen and politician agreed on it today.
@@shanedk what takes japan 3 years, will take australia 23 years.
@@Poorlineforeva google: rolls royce smr
Hit return.
Read..
Learn.
@@Poorlineforeva Why not? Do you LIKE things being massively overpriced and taking 7 times longer than they should?
Nuclear is fine, but Australia is spread out, gets tons of sun and has lithium... Why not just have a ton of solar/batteries???
Because for some folks, there's a lot more money to be made through the nuclear adoption route.
@@abcabc-m1qYou sure love believing in your delusions
Bcos the power lines would take decades to build.
@@jonsimmons4150 not if the batterys are spread amongst the population, if anything it will help the grid.
@st170ish "when the sun dont shine, and the wind dont blow"
- you will pull start your genny in the backyard..
Short answer, "no". Longer answer, "hell no".
This isn't reporting.. This is Coalition cheerleading..
Nobody has 82% renewable only. ALP is cheerleading an experiment and that is dumb. LNP are proposing up to 42% nuclear and the rest renewable and gas. CSIRO are claiming 100% nuke comparison... misinformation at its finest 😂
@@petermcmanus8424 💯💯💯
Well you could hardly stomach Casanova Bowen cheerleading.
@@awc900 We all know (or should know) the Nuclear policy is a scam. Here Ch7 are allowing distrust toward an important national institution without any form of scrutiny, & thats just one example.. The whole segment was a total con job.. Please don't fall for garbage reporting like this & demand proper context!
Oh shucks, reality doesn't match with your preconceived opinions, reality must be wrong.
It is about time that we had adults running Australia, instead of a bunch of childish clowns.
I guess so, Albo sure isn’t great but can you even imagine how bad things would be if we still had the LNP 😂
"Full Time Economy on Part Time Power" Childish simplistic sound bite which erroneously twists how energy systems work. Simplistic Explanations for Simplistic Minds.
ah yes the guy that says wind farms are ugly wants to build nuclear waste dumps - yeah right
All I see is clown after clown
Keep using gas and coal and plant more vegetation to absorb the CO2.
I suggest bamboo and hemp, fast growing plants that have many practical applications.
I'm sorry but that doesn't work. To offset 1 ton of emissions, we need to plant 30-45 trees. So, in order to absorb all 40 billion annual tons of CO², we need to plant 1.5 trillion trees per year. So we need to create an Amazon Rainforest every year in order to achieve this. And that doesn't account for future growth or offsetting previous emissions.
@ no we don’t. We only need to plant the trees once, and once they grow they only absorb more and more CO2.
Plus they will grow bigger and faster the more CO2 is provided to them. In the Jurassic period the CO2 was many times higher than today, and the forest and other vegetation flourished. And hotter air holds more moisture, so when it finally cools on the mountain ranges more rain would fall.
@@Robert-xs2mv Well still, trillions are needed to make this work. Currently, only 30% of our carbon emissions are captured by trees. If we want to make it 100%, we need to plant 10 trillion more. And just as before, this doesn't account for future growth and past emissions.
There are also other problems with this plan, such as limited land, artificial ecosystems dying out, increased risks of wildfires, strain on freshwater supplies and much more. Also trees take decades to mature and absorb all that carbon. They are a good long term solution but will solve nothing short term. And no, invasive fast growing plants will not solve that.
@ we just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t accept your argument, or the frankly idiotic, figures.
Have a great 2025, and keep burning that coal
@@Robert-xs2mv We agree to disagree, but just so you know, solutions to such a complex issue are not simple. Have a great 2025. And I hope we both see beyond our perspective. (Yes that means I agree that the figures are idiotic, google is just fucking with me and giving me contradicting evidence)
What an incredibly one-sided perspective on the proposed nuclear energy plan for Australia. Committing such a significant amount of funding-most of which would come from debt-to a power generation source that won’t produce energy for 10-20 years seems impractical. Instead, the same investment could be directed towards renewable energy solutions like wind and solar, paired with battery storage systems, distributed nationwide where energy is most needed. These options avoid the issue of nuclear waste, which requires secure storage for thousands of years.
Unlike nuclear waste, batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels can be recycled into new materials. Additionally, the risks associated with nuclear energy, such as disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl, are simply unacceptable. Let’s prioritize safer, more sustainable solutions.
what number s of batterries do you need??? i'm curious
wind turbine can be recycled??? solor the same??? wich parts??? the concrete?? the glass fiber???
@@olivierb9716 We need to access enough batteries to cover the peak periods, which are only a few hours a day, and the periods when there is insufficient generation from wind, solar and hydro. Consumer Energy Resources such as home and car batteries (soon to be connected for 2 way charging/export) will likely cover most of what is required, subject to incentives to connect being provided to the asset owners. For eg. Between my EV and my house battery I have over 70kWh of stored energy, so if motivated to do so, I could provide up to half of it to the grid, and still have enough for my commute and my all-electric house.
@@olivierb9716 Wind turbine recycling/re-use is still a fledgling industry, but there are new turbines being trialled in Europe that are made of wood (LVL), for easier re-use at end of first life. Solar panels are crushed and the valuable materials removed for re-use, the balance (and the concrete) is used as road base and concrete paths, etc. Google it. You will be impressed.
Nuclear fuel can actually be recycled, around 95% of the fuel rod can be recycled
more accurately it gets refined removing the elements that have formed from the fission
The LNPs costings are not accurate, its a fantasy not a plan
So we should keep deforestation going to put in all these solar and wind farms? And what do we do at night time when solar doesn't work? Batteries hold so little power for the price.
@Stonecutter1004 solar and wind farms are not placed in untouched native forests. Solar farms are generally placed on grazing paddocks where cattle can use them for shade, it does not degrade the usability of the farm land
@@Ausfailia tell that to the people of Oberon... Grass also needs sun to grow, more shade means it'll grow slower, so more land needed to feed the same number of cows or sheep. There's no free energy unfortunately.
@@Stonecutter1004 the solar panels do not cover the grass all day long. They're spaced out and the sun moves throughout the day, allowing grass to grow under the solar panels
@@Ausfailia have a look at grass that grows in mostly shade compared to mostly sun. Totally different. Grass in the sun can grow so much faster and thicker than shaded grass, and with animals eating it and trampling on it, depleted grass will grow back slower or even die. Think of it like this, why do farmers go to great expense to chop down all the trees to grow grass? And keep roos and deer of their property? They need every blade of grass they can get. Not to mention before winter when they cut it all up and roll it into bails to get through the winter because the shorter days and colder weather means less feed. I'm all for solar, but it should be on rooftops and unusable areas, and it shouldn't be our only option because it's unreliable and limits our future economic growth. We need huge power for this booming AI field. Look at how closely Bill Gates is investigating nuclear, he knows the potential and he needs the energy for the future. Consider the fact that to get most of our steel in Australia, we ship iron ore overseas and then ship it all the way back. This is so highly inefficient, we should be doing it all here. We can't because we can't afford the energy. If we can create cheap energy, like they do in China, we will be able to afford more industries here.
The only way I’ll accept nuclear in Australia is if it is 100% privately owned, operated and most importantly, FUNDED.
If it’s so bloody good why has not a single nuclear power plant turned a profit anywhere in the world?
If it’s so cost effective then why hasn’t a private company built one off their own dollar?
The one in Wyoming has only just broken ground and is already predicted to cost over $6billion AUD to build. Watch that blow out to $20 billion in 10 years while still not operating.
Batteries are getting better every day and Australia own the majority of the battery metals market.
But you're O'K with China taking the CO2 hit to make Australia look good, hypocrites in full swing. The lifetime of Solar panels is about 6 years (their output is about 45% after that and declines haphazardly) and wind turbines are even less, batteries using full cycle will last much less than 10 years. Renewables have cost Australia so much in their race to make it work, turning reliable coal power off, there is no mention of replacing the system every 6 -10 years (hidden as maintenance).
Good idea, get Woolworths or Coles to build Renewables or Nuclear power systems for Australia so they can do what they do best.
As is usual, those who frequent anything to do with mainstream media it's either left or right bias.
@@raycap Where did you read that about the 6 years Solar Panel life. Absolutely not true from my personal experience. (I am a Electrical Engineer) I don't see much degradation after 10 years on my panels unless you have a really poor brand. It is just magic. No maintenance required, no moving parts, just hose down the dust once a year. They just work beautifully after 10 years producing almost free electricity. Zero problems. Companies would not invest into solar farms if they spoil in 6 years and lose money.
My AI search says the following: Solar panels, which are quite popular due to their efficiency and reliability, typically come with a product warranty of 10-12 years. This warranty covers manufacturing defects. Additionally, they usually offer a performance warranty for 25 years, which guarantees that the panels will still produce a certain percentage (usually around 80-85%) of their original capacity after 25 years. That’s a long time to soak up sunshine and lower your electricity bills!
@@raycap couldn’t care less what china does. I do care what OUR government does with OUR money though.
As far as the rest of that hogwash. You’re grossly misinformed or just straight ignorant. Solar is the obvious next step. Nuclear is obviously not.
" if its so bloody good, why hasnt a nuclear company anywhere in the world turned a profit.."
--->French energy giant EDF on Friday, February 16, unveiled a net profit of €10 billion ($10.8 billion) and cut its massive debt by increasing nuclear production after problems forced some plants offline. EDF hailed an "exceptional" year
..Australia has the majority of metals to make simple things, like... Cars..
Oh! Wait!....
Dutton has nothing to offer, so he restarted the nuclear debate.
Let the other party start supporting nuclear as well, nuclear energy is right to also use.
💯 Anyone who thinks Dutton believes any of his own BS for a second is a fool. This nothing more than a point of difference political con job.
@@ferkeap It's not really about nuclear power. It's about sabotaging investment in the renewable power industry in Australia. The fossil fuel industry here wants to ramp up exploitation of resources but their overseas clients are decreasing their fossil fuel use. That's probably why they are suggesting SMALL MODULAR nuclear plants which have never been commercially built before. It will give the maximum delay and maximise fossil fuel profits.
CSIRO
Fun fact. All night long.
14,000 miles per year
8,760 hours per year
1.6mph or 38miles per day.
23hrs parked every day and all night long.
EVs with v2g will have a massive battery at home all night long.
Rooftop PV all day long.
No grid electricity 24hrs daily. 247. 365
SHTTSNPANTS feelings for the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid owners.
All year long for decades and decades and decades.
You can polish the nuclear turd all day long it will still be the turd.
Maths is a language few speak.
And adjectives do not add up. 😮
@acotrel1 what a stupid comment. He is thinking of our long term future not short term ideological views of the current government. It's a simple question no one will answer. If many other countries are going nuclear why not us?
I love the idea of nulclear power but we should of started developement back in the 8ps/90s
The best time to go nuclear was yesterday, the second best time is today
70s.
So many still living in the past that nuclear power in Australia can be another disaster like Chernobyl … Nuclear power plants is the cleanest power in the world…and many progress countries have nuclear power plants…labour do not want to have nuclear power plants because of the electricity company do not want to stop the money flows to them…its time for Australia to have Nuclear power plant to start manufacturing back in Australia and make Australian to have jobs availability
Have you forgotten about Fukushima? Today the fallout of that is still causing a string of problems. Why open ourselves to such risks when there are safer alternatives? Until we are able to achieve nuclear fusion, we shouldn't be exposing ourselves and our descendants to an uncertain nuclear-stricken future.
And also Australia is one of the biggest uranium producers in the world, have access to world’s best nuclear technology (Japanese, American, French, British, German and possibly even Russian or Chinese when it comes to civilian nuclear technology) and have access to a workforce that can either be retrained, untrained or imported.
Australia going nuclear is long overdue.
@@abcabc-m1qhalf of my country (Italy) is more radioactive than Fukushima, what risk are you talking about? Statistically the risk is extremely low, you’re confusing risk with your subjective opinion of what risk is. You’re more at risk from driving than an airplane for example, but there’s not as many people who fear cars as they do flying
@@filipporiva1864 Mate, aren't you aware of long-term health implications of exposure to high background radiation? By the way, why do you say that Italy is more radioactive than Fukushima?
@@abcabc-m1q I do, I study nuclear engineering and studied radio protection. There’s long term effects only at high doses above 100mSv, at lower doses there’s no model to predict the health effects. Fukushima never reached high background radiation doses. The LNT (Linear no threshold) model is highly discouraged for use in epidemiological studies according to the ICRP (international committee on radio protection) exactly because of what happened in Fukushima, those people would’ve received a dose equivalent to a CT scan and the evacuation was unnecessary and killed more people than the radiation would ever do.
I say that Italy is more radioactive because we have many villages built with tuft which are highly radioactive vulcanic rocks and I know a guy who visits them with a gamma spectrometer and also visited Fukushima and always find a higher hourly dose rate in the villages. Also in general any city with many stone building like Rome is highly radioactive, he also found a higher dose in the Vatican.
If this was really about giving Australians cheaper electricity, other methods would be better utilised such as hydropower and wind turbines and solar.
That's the lie you see, renewable look cheap short term and yet long term are more expensive and less reliable.
@@marcusmadrid6225 Becasue you know of course. 😂
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye because you know otherwise of course. 😂
@@8equa1sD If you mean I rely on the advice and expertise of those vocationally involved in the energy supply sector, then yes your statement would be correct. On my own though, just like you and most everyone else, all I would have is what could be totally inadequate opinions.
If you think that is unreasonable, see if you can get @marcusmadrid to provide evidence for his claims. Good luck.............."of course". 😂
You don't know much about any of these technologies do you?
Hydro-power: Australia does not have enough dams to make this viable. We're also prone to drought, so we'll have to choose: drinking water, or electricity.
Solar: good solution, we've been installing plenty. But they don't work at night, or on cloudy days.
Wind: Australia doesn't have many mountainous landscapes to have wind farms, so production would be extremely weather again. You could put them out at sea, but upkeep would be horrendous.
Australia 🇦🇺 will benefit from more Nuclear ☢️ energy power plants. Canada 🇨🇦 Poland 🇵🇱 Mexico 🇲🇽 Brazil 🇧🇷 Indonesia 🇮🇩 and South Korea 🇰🇷 are building nuclear atomic power stations too
3rd option, lift the moratorium on Nuclear. But government doesn't build it, or provide incentives. If it's indeed cheaper, companies will invest and it will be cost competitive with renewables. Btw, our electicity demand is growing so more transmission will be required for any option apart from rooftop solar/home batteries so don't put your finger on the scale with that argument.
its only cheaper in the long run. the upfront costs are too high for people to be willing to invest. Imagine this: you need to buy boots for your job. one pair is $20, one pair is $100. the cheap boots will only last you one year but the expensive pair will last you 10 years. per year, the expenive pair is half the price but the upfront cost is too high to justify it.
@@ShadowSlith789the cost is extremely easy to justify, the problem is that some people are $motivated$ to keep the status quo.
I'm on board with lifting the moratorium, but not government funding it. Let it stand on its own if it really is cheaper.
Lifting the moratorium is playing into the hands of the advocates. The laws that the wise elders signed into existence were designed to prevent exactly what the nuclear pundits are pushing for. The abolishment of the moratorium shall mark the beginning of the end of this beautiful land.
No investor will touch it and the Coalition know that. Hence, it must be taxpayer funded.
Hearing anyone from any Australian government party talking about transparency is just absolutely laughable 🤣🤣
Voyager space craft is still working after 50 years in deep space
How safe is that
Australia needs both renewables solar as well as nuclear
that's Dutton's plan.
In one simple word, yes.
Adelaide Australia is the worlds 1st off grid capital running on solar and batteries. It's been done, rinse and repeat. Batteries can be made here in QLD. Get the CSIRO involved and have a worlds best, for a change.
No it's not ....
Nowhere in the world is runing 200% renewables Adelaide still runs its desil generators when it has to n it also has extensions lines for electricity into Victoria and nsw....
Do your research b4 making yourself look stupid by parroting lies
"Batteries can be made in QLD..."
Ok, lets start simple then with..
Cars..
Oh!.. Wait! 😂
Just remember Adelaide has no heavy industry or a population of 7 million
@@Blong52 don't confuse him or shatter his brainwashed delusional with facts lol
@@kirrendowsett CSIRO? never heard of them.. Some world beating setup then...
Is sunny louden a work experience journalist? Well I hope so, because in his ‘investigating’ he some how missed some incredibly obvious issues with Dutton ‘plan’. Like how our coal stations will be out of service before nuclear is online, like how Dutton plan will supply less energy than we use now, really less energy in 25 years time? And how the lack of expertise in Australia will surely lead to massive cost and time blowouts. How the time frames depend on SMR, which currently don’t exist.. should I keep going. @sunnyloudon you are an embarrassment to your profession. Maybe you are better suited to hosting games shows than journalism, you clearly can’t keep up.
"SMR which doesnt exist...."
Google: ROLLS ROYCE SMR
read, learn, then post back brain engaged.
Ps RR has signed for poland and tcheque SMR they will have before oz.
How about asking Bowen what is he going to do when the obsolete coal power stations shut down and not enough wind turbines and solar panels have been put into use to cover the short fall.
Obviously the ban should be lifted, and after that, the government should stay out of it as much as possible and let the economics of the most efficient energy source dominate the market.
Just imagine if GovCo went localised storage rather than bulk storage, the amount of money spend on NP could easily put 50kwh+ of storage on every private solar system, this would reduce the load on the grid immensely and could also be used to balance the grid.
Over the 50-80 years life span of a nuclear power station, its 1/4 the price and generates 60-70%+ of baseload power generation at a significant lower cost and no additional energy investments in poles and wires. It also a much lower carbon footprint
Insanely wrong misinformation. Solid Fuel Fission is one of the most expensive forms of Electric Generation currently being commercialized. This is not even accounting for the decommissioning and cleanup cost of the site. This form of NPP is not financially viable, let alone affordable.
Im just here for the debate!
You are mistaken. The 'life span' is 25-30 years before major maintenance is required. A single 1,100 MW reactor costs US $6 billion-that’s equivalent to AUS $1,500 for every person in Melbourne! We would need to build 3, by the way.... Also keep in mind, the newest installations (Vogtle, Hinkley C) were additional reactors built by teams with existing experience-skilled engineers, builders, and workers already in place. Despite their expertise, the projects still went over budget and over schedule. What makes us think we could achieve better results?
baseload is a consequence of power stations that can't turn off. Remove those "always on" generators and there is no "baseload" to accomodate.
SA has periods of zero demand (from generators) when rooftop solar exceeds all needs. That's an example of no "baseload". The other states will hit the same scenario in the next few years.
@ what a pile of nonsense South Australia is operating with the help of diesel generators and Victoria’s coal powered power stations.
With out that SA would have regular outages.
To make SA an all renewables state it needs massive battery storage (which it can not afford) and pumped hydro which it can not do.
The world trend in every successful renewable energy country is 40% renewables and 60% from nuclear/coal/gas.
Even California is now turning on more nuclear power stations.
It can not afford to keep replacing wind turbines every 6-12 years
Nuclear power has become incredibly safe to operate to the point where any form of disaster/mishap is extremely remote, compared with other energy industries like coal for example. Countries like Germany are kicking themselves for decommissioning their nuclear reactors. France is currently selling their nuclear energy to other nations.
@@patrickmaclean1524 Those countries are in different circumstances compared to Australia- they already have the framework, support and infrastructure for nuclear energy, and are lot less suitable for solar energy, for example. The CSIRO evaluation points this out.
@ I understand that at this current time, we do not yet have the infrastructure to support such a network. However, I believe we should still invest the resources into a nuclear energy industry as it is a very, very long term solution to providing stable energy which will add to the renewable system. In a step in the right direction if we want to fully transition away from fossil fuel usage. Better late than never.
@@ugthump2753 Well said mate. The nuclear pundits are ignoring common-sense and pushing for a dangerous technology simply because they're going to reap monetary windfalls from the implementation (at the expense of us taxpayers).
@@ugthump2753the infrastructure is identical to coal plants. Heat water, spin a turbine. The only difference is how you heat the water… after you have steam, there is no difference in infrastructure.
Wiring renewables up to the grid is a more complex problem than going nuclear. Should be part of the mix. And what about the elephant in the room: China, the supplier of almost all solar panels and the rare earths for batteries and turbines. Is it wise to rely on them in this world of tariffs and trade wars?
If we wanted nuclear power we should have started building it 20years ago. These plants take decades to build. Im all for nuclear but this conversation is 20 years too late. We should be taxing the door or of gas and coal exports to fund these projects.
First thing that comes to mind? Reliable, base load power that actually wirks and is already successfully used by almost every modern economy
Funny. The first thing that comes to my mind is how dangerous radioactive waste is. Maybe it's just how different our priorities are in life.
So successfully used it is being decommissioned? It also requires A LOT of water.
To keep the lights on in 10 years from now most of us will have their own solar on the roof and a EV car with V2G (vehicle to grid) or a battery. We won’t need anybody else to keep the lights on. We will make my own electricity. No more price gouging. Almost freeee. 😀
EVs, Battery's and solar will be dirt cheap with prices coming down rapidly.
But the price gougers and dumb politician hate the idea since it is not centralized and not anymore under their thumb. Nuclear is a really dumb idea wasting your tax money. By the time they are up everybody has there own Solar / Battery electricity and nuclear is not needed anymore….or be price gouged. Don’t vote Dutton.
Wind, Solar, Battery's and pumped hydro will be enough for industry.
The loss of centralised control is a big no-no for the powers-that-be. A truly optimal solution will always ensure the individual units are self-reliant, and once that has been achieved, they can contribute excess energy through a moderated and managed platform to support those that are not capable of self-reliance. This ensures the establishment of a robust and scalable model that has longevity.
If nuclear energy was so much cheaper and profitable then Australian would have built it 30-40 years ago at the height if cold war when almost every country had easy access to nuclear energy! This is a magnificent scheme by infrastructure corporations to steal taxpayers money for the next 20 years for nothing!
Take note of what is going on overseas in relation to the data industry (microsoft, Google, Amazon etc,) which is a strategy towards small nuclear plants/ small modular reactors (SMR). The reason is partly due to renewable power not being able to meet the increasing demand for the foreseeable future in those base countries as well as transmission and reliability issues in renewables etc.. Seems Labor and the greens politicians are so much smarter than your average international tech engineers and academics though. Just import more from green industry (wash) China their mantra.
Renewable is the most expensive form to generate electricity.
It takes massive amounts of energy to build, install, and recycle the collectors!
Even if labour was serious about or current electricity grid ,which they are not ,our coal fired power stations are barely hanging in there due to lack of funding ,they will still sell our coal to China India etc ,we need cheap clean power On tap
Nuclear is the cheapest, most productive and efficient "clean" energy source. But it requires significant up front investment as well as overcoming political hurdles to implement.
It ISN'T the cheapest energy source. It isn't clean, either. Committing such a significant amount of funding-most of which would come from debt-to a power generation source that won’t produce energy for 10-20 years seems impractical. Instead, the same investment could be directed towards renewable energy solutions like wind and solar, paired with battery storage systems, distributed nationwide where energy is most needed.
YES, I hope so. The only methodology of unbroken base load energy, if you reject coal & gas.
The only problem which causes partial or full meltdowns in nuclear reactors last I checked was actually just plain HUMAN ERROR. So as long as operators have been well trained enough to be vigilant on the job, we’ll all be fine
Problem with gencost is in the title. It’s cost of generation and NOT the cost of your electricity bill. Transmission lines will cost billions of billions, destroy environments and farms. We don’t actually possess the storage technology, let alone the capability to build it. Adelaide has one of the biggest batteries on the planet, without supply it lasts 30-45 minutes. Globally, statistically, no one lives there. Sydney or Melbourne = impossible. We DON’T have the technology for such large scale power storage. Not anywhere on the planet.
Blackout Bowen is driving us off a cliff.
Choices are keep coal or build nuclear. My vote is for nuclear.
The SA "big battery" you refer to is now old and considered a little one these days. It's not even the biggest battery in SA these days.
@@robhaitch5544 So What, no-one lives there. Vistra moss in California is one of the biggest in the world is more than 10 times larger than SA, it lasts 4 hours. Refer to my previous comment, we don't possess the technology yet. We will I am sure, we just don't right now. This is why switching off nuclear (Germany) and even coal in some jurisdictions is ridiculous until we actually have the technology. The technology needs to designed, then be scaled, then been commericialised and then we need to ensure we have the necessary resources. The general public has next to no understanding of the complexity of power storage, energy generation and energy grids. Renewables are not THE answer. They are part of the mix but until we get a quantum leap in energy storage it will remain a part of the solution, not the the solution.
I live in Slovakia, small EU country. We don't have more than 7 million people and have 2 nuclear power plants 70 km apart and I live somewhere in the middle I have absolutely no fear and absolutely don't think about it.
They both are the single most important pillar of our economy
Slovakia has a developed nuclear industry but your reactors are getting old and will need extensive and very costly upgrades (as they are doing in Canada with their 40 year old plants). It is not the safety of nuclear that worries me it is the cost and time it takes to build. The Mochovce 3 plant, commissioned last year, took 14 years to finish even though you first started the build in 1987. The cost will be about $A12 billion for two 0.5 GW reactors once Mochovce 4 is finished. The cost and timeframe is just too much.
@andrewjoy7044 we need 2 months just to repair a manhole cover, no wonder we were building nuclear plant so long.
I have no doubts it can be done much more quickly and cost effective.
@lindam.1502 This is a list of all the commercial nuclear reactors in the European Union and in Europe, with operational status. The list only includes civilian nuclear power reactors used to generate electricity for a power grid. All commercial nuclear reactors use nuclear fission. As of May 2021, there are 180 operable power reactors in Europe, with a combined electrical capacity of 159.36 GW.[1] There are currently 8 power reactors under construction in Europe.[2] goto wikipedia..
Ffs, you are part of the problem.
The music is truly awful and overused. Takes away from the argument and adds zero* value to the story.
I’m voting Nuclear
Nuclear is a proven source of clean, reliable energy and we absolutely need to lift the ban and consider it alongside renewables.
@@tyronedlisle4412 nuclear fetish fantasy..? ? ?
@@tyronedlisle4412 consider it in 20 years, and with your grand kids paying for it.
@@davidunwin7868paying with what? The fact they’re getting more energy?
@mfn1311 I'm saving $4500/year compared to 2021 by going fully electric, EV, rooftop solar, no gas.
Did it out of my own pocket and did it now.
Funding nuclear means our taxes pay for it. Money is taken from other areas like health and education to build it, and then we have to pay to run it. It's far cheaper to just to go with renewables now.
@davidunwin7868 well done, you're wealthy. Nuclear means a clean, reliable grid for everyone instead of just those who can afford to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Blackout Bowen comparing storage of water in dams with storage of power in batteries is totally ludicrous, You cannot run major industries like refineries, mines etc on batteries. .
Hydro dams are storage devices. As are batteries. Refineries and mines CAN be run from renewables, and storage.
@@lindam.1502 Have you ever been near a coal mine in your life. A single Bucyrus 8750 dragline uses as much power as a large regional town. There are over 100 draglines in Australia. It is physically impossible to run a single dragline off battery power let alone 100. Hydro pumped renewable energy in Qld & NSW is a pipe dream - it will never happen!
The only people suggesting nuclear is not a good fit for Australia have significant investment in renewables.
Every example of renewable energy around the world is under pinned by nuclear.
French & US nuclear reactors can be built in less than 3 -4 years.
Electrical Engineer here
The least expensive form of electricity is from hydroelectric power plants, less than 1 cent a kilowatt-hour. Solar and wind power are the second least expensive at less than 2 cents a kilowatt-hour by 2030 less than one cent a kilowatt-hour. By 2035 electricity from solar and wind will be free just a monthly service charge. Coal and natural gas power are the third least expensive at 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. Nuclear power weather fission or fusion are the most expensive form of electricity at 10 cents kilowatt-hour. Fusion power really does work today, sometimes called cold fusion, but it is not politically acceptable. Scaling up cold fusion power plants are much cheaper to build and much safer with no nuclear waste to deal with. But cold fusion power plants will still be more expensive than coal and natural gas power plants. Cold fusion powered super-sized cruise ships and super-sized ships for shipping containers, crude oil and (LNG) Liquefied Natural Gas ships would greatly benefit global shipping.
Why I prefer solar and wind power along with some battery backup. Solar and wind power are what we call intermittent or veritable power supplies. Opponents of solar and wind power often refer to it as expensive and unreliable. But the electrical engineers know the truth. There is a mathematical formula used to make reliable solar and wind power along with battery storage. In each metropolitan area, you need to know the peak power consumption.
Your great Australian Outback can generate many terawatts of 24/7 reliable electricity. Australia should build a 10000 square mile 100 by 100 miles solar farm and 2 square miles battery backup farm. This and offshore floating wind farms. This means no rate increases and a gross surplus of electricity. With a new generation of Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries that are much safer, last much longer, and guarantee reliable 24/7 electricity.
In wind power I prefer floating offshore wind turbines because wind power offshore is stronger and more consistent than onshore wind. When offshore wind turbines are spread out over a wide geographic area intermittent and veritable power output are greatly reduced. There is a statistic known as capacity factor. Onshore land-based wind turbines capacity factor in the best locations is 33%. This means that a land- based wind turbine only produces on average 33% of the name plate capacity of the wind turbine. A GE 3.6-megawatts land-based wind turbine only produces an average of 1.188 megawatts of electricity. The exact same GE 3.6-megawatt wind turbine on a floating offshore platform has a capacity factor of 67%. This means that the exact same GE wind turbine will produce 2.412 megawatts of electricity. But offshore floating wind turbine has one big trick. An offshore floating wind turbine can scale up to 48 megawatts with a capacity factor of 67% so your average power output is 32.160 megawatts. Offshore wind turbine fan blades are max at 200 meters long. No land-based wind turbine can scale up this large. Your average metropolitan area uses 3 gigawatts of electricity peak consumption. When taking capacity factor into account to a have reliable source of electricity you need 4 to 5 times greater electricity from floating wind turbines than peak power consumption. 4 48 megawatts offshore wind turbines week manufacturing on a dry dock than towed to sea and connecting the electrical and fiber optical cables. Less than ten years Australia will have more electricity than it can use. 18 hours of batteries storage will be needed at the power substation level. Every 11 and 22 years there will be a very brief loss of power no matter how many floating offshore wind turbines you have online. Meaning Australia needs a national electric grid. Living here in the United States every week I can see and measure the reliability of having a national electric grid. Backup batteries will keep the power grid stable during such events. Solar power and battery backup on all homes, and commercial building rooftops parking lot canopies and a few 10,000 square mail solar power farms with battery backup in the deserts will greatly stabilize the power grid. Of course, solar power farms with backup batteries must be 4 to 5 times greater than peak power consumption. This will be the lowest cost and reliable electricity for Australia.
Technical design errors
What Australia is going through are the same type of power failures that Florida and Texas were going through. It’s a very poorly designed electrical system in which power inverters from solar and wind farms and homes line frequency was synchronized to the incoming power grid. A rule in electrical engineering is that you never synchronize your power inverters to an incoming power grid. Power inverters and utility generators are always synchronized to an atomic clock. What this means is when power was lost from the incoming power grid the community would also lose power. In Florida and Texas laws were passed requiring that all power inverters for solar and wind power and utility generators be synchronized to WWVB or WWVH for Hawaii radio station atomic clock or global positioning satellites. Each (GPS) satellite has 4 synchronized atomic clocks that are also synchronized to the other 72 (GPS) satellites and ground based atomic clocks. So, if you have a grid power failure your local power grid becomes a micro grid power will remain on, and the residents would not know if there were a major power grid failure. Australia does not have national atomic clock radio station or national power grid this greatly improves electric power reliability. The national power grid should be three phased 768 kilovolts 50Hz.this high voltage national grid will reduce electrical power losses in electricity transmission. Global positioning satellites was invented by an African American woman.
The one big advantage that electric power from solar and wind power inverters is that the power frequency has the stability of an atomic clock. So, both electricity demand and supply can be wildly fluctuating so long as electricity supply is always greater than demand power line frequency will always be stable as an atomic clock.
On the other hand, electric power from hydro-electric, coal or natural gas fired, nuclear power both fission and fusion power plants that use mechanical generators that power frequency will fluctuate depending on supply and demand. This is why you must constantly adjust the throttle up and down to achieve frequency stability and to synchronize to an atomic clock. In the analog audio worlds, the old analog tape recorders had a specification called wow and flutter. 'Wow' describes slow fluctuations in pitch caused by inconsistencies in the rotational speed of the mechanical generator machinery. Flutter is a more rapid pitch variation that's usually the result of imperfections in the generator gears itself. These problems do not exist on power inverters frequency stability is always guaranteed when synchronized to an atomic clock.
Small modular nuclear power plant will be too costly
Small modular nuclear reactors are uneconomical. Your classic 750-megawatt nuclear reactor is much more economical at a wholesale price of 12 cents a kilowatt hour. Small modular nuclear reactors are much more expensive to operate although smaller nuclear reactors are much safer to operate but cost more to operate such as 20 to 24 cents a kilowatt hour wholesale price. These smaller modular nuclear reactors will fail the economic test and are too costly to operate. Hydro, solar, and offshore wind power will be below 1 penny a kilowatt hour wholesale price.
Your classic standard nuclear power plant
Promoters of nuclear power are low balling the cost of new nuclear power plants. I see this all over the world and in my home country United States the latest example is in the state of Georgia. A corporation called the Southern Company built a twin nuclear power plants that caused a massive rate increase for its customers. Every time I see promoters of nuclear power; they will tell bald face lies in your face claiming your electricity rates will go down when as soon as they their contract to build a twin classis nuclear power plants massive rate increase will follow. This is the oldest bait and switch scam that politicians will fall for it every time because they are taking massive bribes to except it. This is why their will be no new nuclear power plants built in the United States.
An offshore floating wind turbine will last over 50 years. Keep in mind a floating wind turbine can be rebuilt and refurbished, and it will last another 50 years repair in a drydock. Every 20 years the bearings will be replaced, and an oil change every year for the latest single bearing wind turbine. Capital costs are included in the rates with a 10-year mortgage. Mortgage and maintenance costs are included in the rate base. There will be no rate increase with wind solar power with battery backup. It’s the rate payers really pay for the capital cost. Rate payers are the collateral and paying for the mortgage or capital cost. Choosing nuclear power will be a big increase electricity rates for rate payers’ years before nuclear power plants construction starts. The permitting process will be about 5 years and construction time 10 years. Maybe twice or 4-times the rate increase before any nuclear power plant produces its first kilowatt to the grid. Would you pay $2.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon for gasoline I would rather pay $2.00 a gallon for gasoline.
One thing is for sure that we need the cheapest most reliable power we can because it will effect the cost of everything we manufacture, produce or build and weather companies want to invest in Australia. Wake up! We need nuclear in the mix. We have the largest reserve of uranium in the world. We have had a nuclear reactor at Lucas heights in Sydney for over 60 years without incident. We are already far behind most other developed countries.
"Lucas heights in Sydney for over 60 years without incident" That is NOT a NPP and has zero pressurized coolant to cause problems. That is comparing Apples and Oranges.
Top Fuel Dragster is nothing like a stock Toyota Corolla. Yet your political agenda wants to brainwash the masses into thinking that.
The UAE built 4 reactors at the cost of US$5B ea or US$20B each. The first one was online in 7 years, the last one was online in 12 years.
Isn't safety the top priority that should be considered over and above other factors such as cost and reliability? What are the safeguards for managing contingencies and the waste from the processes? Please don't turn Australia into a toxic wasteland using nascent technology that hasn't been industrially proven yet. Spare a thought for our future generations.
I love how you didn't show the people out there like myself who have solar and batteries installed that haven't paid a cent for there electricity since they got it installed. My solar and battery install has taken my bills from $4000 a year in 2019 to zero and in that time I have paid for the install from those savings, so now I am basically getting free electricity.
If you'd like to come interview me, I'd be happy to tell the country about my journey in your next story on this matter...
What is needed is more incentives for people to install home solar and batteries and see how most people can live not having to pay an electricity bill, the $4000 + in saving each year makes a big difference, now to get rid of my gas appliances as the price of gas these days is highway robbery :(
Yes some nuclear in the mix in the future may be a good idea, but the time to build and the cost to generate will always be a sticking point...
Come on!! Stop spreading lies! Only people like you can afford this renewable idiocy. What about the majority that don’t have the cash to flash a solar and battery system. If labor and the greens are serious about saving the planet why not provide every home free solar panels and storage batteries . We could save the world this way.
@DavidMayfield27 I'm saving $4500 per year by going all electric including EV. Bills have never been cheaper.
Since installing solar, most of our "bills" have been credits, and the last bill was 91 cents. This video was just cheerleading for Dutton, as someone else said in a comment. There was no mention of wind power working 24x7 or hydro. The choice was presented as nuclear (stated as "nooclear"; apparently I live in the USA now) or solar plus batteries. No mention of the fact that solar provides 60% to 70% of daytime needs right now. No mention that renewable get curtailed at night because coal can't be throttled. The presentation didn't even pretend to be balanced.
Good for you, but you’re forgetting that a country doesn’t only have homes, industries need energy, considering those introducing some nuclear in the mix will always be more convenient than not
$4000 a year. Are you running a server farm? 😂
I believe in hindsight maybe we should of invested in this technology 20 years ago. We want all things now electrical and we forecast the majority of our future daily routine will be electric. To use a single clean power option is just ignorant. We need the mix and stop putting all of our eggs in one basket.
Follow the money…. Do you think labor will want to risk all the deals they have done ‘renewable’ energy companies over nuclear? It’s not about what’s the most appropriate way to generate electricity it’s all about the money
Great video Kyle.
Whilst I’d love to live on a planet that is 100% powered by renewable energy, until such time as the government has a plan on how to get to that point, I’m keen on all other alternatives. Nuclear, in my mind, is the way to go.
Also, would like to see the definition of “renewable energy” adjusted. Not sure why replacing thermal coal with wood pellets is viewed as a step in the right direction.
If one overlooks the significant gaps in the Coalition's energy plans and accepts a 40% smaller grid, several key issues arise:
Industrial Energy Use
The Coalition assumes a 45% decrease in industrial energy use by 2030, which is unlikely given the increased demand from electric vehicles (EVs) and home electrification.
Grid Capacity and Reliability
The plan to replace coal plants with nuclear energy may not meet the increased demand, potentially leading to a vulnerable and unstable grid.
Economic and Practical Feasibility
The assumption of reduced industrial energy use contradicts current trends, making the plan economically and practically unfeasible.
The grid would be smaller because if you reduce the amount of renewable energy as a percentage of overall power production, you reduce the amount of infrastructure required. You’re aware that renewable energy as a replacement for thermal power requires the grid to increase capacity by 300%? Well if you lower the amount of renewable energy, you have a proportional reduction in the required grid capacity.
Actually, EV demand has flattened- people prefer hybrids (don’t refer to extended trends as they mislead - you need to look at the past 12-18 months). EVs have terrible resale, require a significant amount of changes to property to accommodate, whilst having little to no emissions benefits over a hybrid when compared with the same lifecycle, given the greater upstream emissions required.
Nuclear power is the most stable form of power generation in the world, so you should walk back on that point. If you read the proposed energy mix, renewables still make up over 50% of power production, it’s just not 83% as the ALP are attempting. Instead, it’s an energy mix (renewables for cost savings, nuclear and gas for stability).
You should look further into the infrastructure requirements that come with 83% renewables. East coast will need 10,000km of new transmission to support that approach. Think that’s going to be cheap or fast to build?
here's a question. if batteries deteriorate over the ten year maximum cycle, how many batteries will it take to keep the lights on? considering that the batteries storage reduces every time it is charged. Also. second question. if an EV requires up to 21 hours to recharge on a standard 240 volt power cable or 3 to 5 hours on a 3phase power connection. how much will it cost to replace the entire power grid to supply 3phase power to 90% of homes that the energy minister thinks that Australians will replace their cars with an EV. third question. an EV has an average range of 350km. that's if it is driven on a flat road without any climate situations like wind .heat. frost. and that's the maximum distance before you add any luggage or additional passengers. forth question. do you really think that all Australians believe in net zero? or are you delusional like the labor government?
I installed solar this year. My cost of production is 0.6 cents per kWh.
I'm using 5x more power than before. I'm exporting twice as much as use. My EV charges just fine on granny charger. And I live in a regional area. And on benefits.
This is my reality. I intend to get a battery next year too.
@@kasmstamps1897 well don't go to work then as your EV wont charge at night. and if you have an EV. why do you need to install a battery? you are driving one. your cost of production is the cost of your system divided by the number of years your system has been running for. if you are only getting 0.6 cents per kwh. then you are getting ripped off as I get 0.7 cents per kwh. my system has been running for 11 years, made in Germany. with a life span of 25 years. When I break even for the cost I will let you know. my system coast $4000.00, WA subsidies. we get everything for half price. I will get back to you in ten years! that's when my solar system would have paid for its self.
@blizzard5657 your maths a bit off 4k for solar system and you haven't made it back in 11 years? My solar system paid for itself in less than 3 years and whatever extra I get out of it is free money
Politicians thinking they know better than the CSIRO is laughable, how insulting to the people at the CSIRO.
Sure, except that CSIRO is a Govt institution, funded, managed and manipulated by, . . . the politicians. So go and look for independent advice, from multiple sources. Find the common threads.
Do we need it? No, not really. We've got centuries worth of coal and that's cheaper. Should we have it? Hell yes!
Convenient, isn’t it, how he used the criticised Gencost report from last year, instead of the updated one released a week and a half ago that addressed the criticisms of its predecessor by allowing for the 60 year life span of a nuclear station as well as the cost of additional transmission lines for renewables and found that nuclear was still 1.5 - 2.5 times more expensive. Shoddy “journalism “ at its finest.
Frankly a mature science educator wouldn't do silly stuff like kissing the walls of the containment units. That was the surest sign that it's just a show that's driven by financial incentives.
The updated report you're talking about is a draft report for next years 2024-25 GenCost report - so stakeholders can address the criticisms. Although it may contain updates you're referring to, it is not CSIRO's final word on the matter. Therefore, the presenter has used the latest final report, which is is GenCost 2023-24 Final Report.
Make this Politician personally liable
If there is a cost blowout
Then they will scrap this
Nuclear Power very quickly
To many Lobbyists on this show
I’m a labor supporter and I’m not against nuclear power in fact I’ve supported the idea since the early 90s.if we don’t go nuclear we need to increase our budgets into technological research into batteries as lithium batteries are to dangerous with thermal runaway dangers.
We buy 99% of batteries from overseas. I don't think relying on imported batteries as a source of energy is a good idea for a nation. No matter how good the research is done in Australia the production would be in other countries.
@ I didn’t realise that we bought most our batteries from overseas thanks for the info.
The payback of 30 years seems fair as 60 years is too long and can you imagine the technological development in batteries and other tech, needed to be started 20 years ago but coalition were still arguing that climate change wasn't real.
Smart country
The time span to get nuclear up and running (profitably?) can be related to definite advancement in solar storage batteries
Batteries will be cheaper, cleaner and ready before the first nuclea environmental report is ready.
Cheaper? Based on what metric? A battery is not a replacement for a power station. It’s good for a short burst to fill in gaps in energy production. It cannot provide sustained power for national consumption. Cleaner? You’re joking right? Have you the slightest idea how batteries are made? Where the materials come from? What countries like China do to produce them? Oh and please walk me through the recycling process - I’m really curious to see how that’s going to work.
Can we make and plug in a battery quickly? Yes. Is it cheaper? No, because you’re comparing an apple with an orchard.
Come on mate! Batteries last for 10 years and then need to be replaced. Do your research, please.
Big batteries are coming. And they are getting cheaper. And they will manage baseload power.
@@kasmstamps1897 Not a chance. A battery is not a replacement for a power station. They're a leaking bucket that degrades severely over time. Also, I asked you to walk us through the recycling process.
We should be focusing on the overall condition of our environment, so bringing forward an option that trades one negative impact for another, isn't really a great solution.
@@Darkfite
Overall condition of environment.
On a personal note I've installed solar this year. Next year intend to install a battery.
The dole only goes so far. But I can go alot further now in my EV. 10000 km for $200 charging.
My solar cost of production is 0.6 cents per kWh for 9 years. After that is a bonus (not much I know) but better than paying 25-55cents kWh.
I paid my tax upfront.
Yes Australia must have nuclear power plants for supplying Hot and cold for healthy future generations of engineering Australia
You're Australian, it's pronounced nyoo-clea, not noo-clear. Liquid vowels, people, are we forgetting them as a nation?!
Nook-yu-lar 😂
Toh-may-toh / tah-mah-toh 😉
what about the nation before australie??? courtney, seems very english, not south hemisphere
Labor Logic
Nuclear subs Great Idea
Nuclear Power Bad Idea
I love these old timers using Chernobyl as the reason for not wanting Nuclear. If they spent the 5 minutes rather than spent yapping on about it you'd learn that the disaster was 100% caused by the USSR covering up safety aspects of the disaster and having a faulty system then trying to cover it up.
What about Fukushima then? The Japanese are releasing radioactive water into the ocean as we speak.... and will be for many years. They can't think of any way to get rid of it.
the cause isn't the concern, it's the consequences of a failure that makes it prohibitively expensive to mitigate.
What a disgraceful lopsided report.🙄
None of the issues were highlighted...
Where do we get the skilled workforce?
Where do we get the skilled industry?
Where do we get the enriched uranium to run them..when even the US buys it from Russia?
The UK has had a nuclear energy industry for 70 years and their 3.6mW Hinkley C reactor which is already at a nuclear reactor site has cost them $92 billion and just Victoria will need at two of them.
The plan to place them at coal power station sites won't work either.
There's simply not enough water supply in all those areas.
France had to shut down one of their reactors due to drought....so what will we do.
The LNP have a track record of failing to properly cost and plan big infrastructure as they're too worried about getting political donations from their fossil fuel donors.
John Howard and the LNP allowed the overseas owned gas companies to sign long-term deals with China Sth Korea and Japan to supply OUR gas without price increases so they could get big donations.
This has crippled our manufacturing due to higher gas prices and cost the Australian public both jobs and money.
Then there's the deal they did with the French for submarines, which they later cancelled costing us $500 million for nothing only to buy US submarines which will be 50 year old designs when we finally get them for an undisclosed price.
Lets not also forget the Snowy 2.0 project that was planned without adequate soil testing, making a $4 billion project cost at least $12 billion and 5 years late.
With that track record building 7x nuclear reactors on time and on budget will be a financial disaster that our kids and their kids will be paying off forever.
Plus they'll have that radioactive waste to look after for 100,000 years.
A time thats so long...we don't even know how the Pyramids were built 5000 years ago....so how do we control something that needs care for 20x as long.
This is a distraction to keep renewable energy investment down...to keep the LNP donations from the gas and coal industry flowing as long as possible.
Well said mate! Any politician that comes to power next is not interested in saving Australia! They will pretend to do good but we all know the billions of dollars of cost blowout will be paid by taxpayers like you and me for no product or service! 🧐
Cobblers!
France has 56 electric generating nuclear power stations- world leader in the tech..
All homegrown.b
Local jobs..
The nuclear electricity runs their high speed rail network the TGV ( google it.. )
Rolls Royce makes SMR reacters, and is building them in poland, and tcheque.
France enriches uranium, aswell-COGEMA france has recycling plants at la hague, in france.
France shut one reacter once in its operational life due to water shortage ( i/was there)
usa enriches uranium- for their military and civilian. Oakridge, and other plants.
Google: Rolls Royce SMR.
Once again, luddite australia still with the steam engine. Toot toot! CHUFF CHUFF CHUFF 🚂🚃🚃🚃 50 years behind!
I'll never understand the antagonism between wind/solar and nuclear. They're both trying to achieve the same thing, and yet the former treats the latter in the same way they treat fossil fuels. Does it boil down to a competition for resources, in your mind? To me, it seems that anyone pushing for 100% wind and solar is inadvertently advocating for a baseload provided by gas and coal.
You missed One Big thing there, I don't want "Light Water Uranium Reactors", which Do require enriched Specific Uranium to run them, I want "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors" which are cheaper to build, 500% safer than Uranium reactors and we Can run Them on old Waste Fuel rods from all over the World for nearly Nothing and Use 90 % of the Powdered fuel instead of 10 % of fragile Uranium Pellets. Which means you have 80 % less waste and it has a much lower Radioactive signature.
@@scottcarr3264You want magic beans.
In the mid nineties electricity generation from nuclear was 17%.
Now it's 9%.
Sound economic reasons for that.
Maybe I'm thinking. Until LNP can convince their oligarch cronies to invest in nuclear power (including training of a skilled workforce). Australian taxpayers simply can't afford it?
I really do not understand why people are so freaked out by nuclear energy. I don’t think they know how many nuclear reactors are safely being run every day and I don’t just mean big power plants every submarine the United States has produced in the last 30 years as a nuclear powered submarine. The modern aircraft carrier has four nuclear reactors in it for power and maneuverability. These are mobile nuclear reactors that are taken into battle because they’re safe and here are all of these idiots complaining like we haven’t had this shit figured out for years and years.
Let Engineers do comprehensive trade studies comparing Nuke and 100%green
Germany hits 63% renewables in 2024 as battery storage almost doubles
They can argue about it as they ration or run out of electricity. Why a nation producing 1% of world's CO2 is so hysterical about CO2 is crazy to me.
Exactlty. When I lived in Tokyo I I used 4 pieces of fluorescent lights and 10 LED light bulbs in my apartment. When I turn all of them on the room is brighter than the daytime. Whereas in Australia there are only two light bulbs in my room. And the cost is the same for each month.
It is because the Labour Government is NOT getting all the Costings to the One place to do an Actual side by side Full costing, they have used Flawed Numbers to cost Nuclear, and they are only talking ONE type of Nuclear "Light Water Uranium Reactors" like France has, and Is EXPORTING to so many other countries around it, like Russia Had, like Germany Has but not being used. The Better Nuclear that China is now trialling is "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors", which is Cheaper to build, 500 % safer and you can't Make PLUTONIUM from these reactors. Also the Gen cost report Doesn't Cost in the 1.2 to 1.5 TRILLION Dollars worth of poles and wires to connect All the Wind and solar farms to the grid, and Also that wind turbines last about 20 years each at Best, and Nuclear lasts at Least 60 to 80 years, AND we have access to enough Waste Nuclear fuel to Run Thorium Reactors for 100 years with no fuel input cost.
Grow more bamboo and hemp, fast growing plants that are useful for a variety of purposes, absorbing all the CO2 from the abundant cheap gas and coal.
"nation producing 1% of world's CO2" LOL that is just wrong. We are a massive exporter of Fossil Fuels.
Every😅ne else knows it’s n😅t about what you produce, it’s about what you consume.
Cold latitude nuclear was because of the crazy nuclear neighbour, the USSR nuclear and massive military in half of Europe.
Plutonium was needed.
Cold latitude countries went to military nuclear
Australia's 14gW nuclear idea is 4tonnes of plutonium every year.
Will Australia sell its plutonium ???
France supersized it's nuclear electricity fleet in the 70s as their military was short on petroleum for rapid response.
EVs with v2g batteries and rooftop PV sound extremely good.
80% of the world's population live in dictatorships.
80% of the world's population live in warm latitudes.
Can AI talk to the Australian opposition leader about the stupidity of nuclear grid electricity vs rooftop dirt-cheap PV and v2g EVs massive battery.
Australia has Sahara Desert latitudes.
8,000 billions m² of sunshine.
Australia's coldest city is in warmer latitudes than the south of France.
France only went to nuclear electricity generation plants for the military plutonium and nuclear weapons against the crazy nuclear neighbour, Russia's USSR. And its massive Iron Curtain armies.
They never spoke about cost for Woodside and chevron when they built those plants
too expensive - will make my power bill more expensive. renewables are so cheap and cost me no money
Nuclear waste gets less toxic over time.. yes.. depending on the isotope between 30 and 24000 year half-life. Meaning after that period, it will be half as radioactive as when it started. Nuclear was a good idea 40-50 years ago, now its a waste of time.
Coal waste never decays and stays toxic for eternity instead, choose your “devil”
Australia doesn't want nuke electricity but wants nuke submarines. Seem hypocritical.
We don't want nuke submarines.
Seems, it is blatant hypocrisy.
I rather see the country spend the $600 billion on nuclear power plants than submarines, by a massive margin .
It’s not Australia doesn’t want nuclear it’s just that no one trust Dutton with it lol
We don't want any of them. We can't AFFORD any of that.
@@navajojohn9448 tbf we do need something to stop a full scale invasion by 2027
people in Sydney allready have been living near a nuclear reactor since the 50s so what is the difference in putting in nuclear stations
Lucas's Heights nuclear reactor is small and mainly for medical reasons.
My mate worked their in the 80s we went swimming behind Lucas heights and rode motor bikes in and around their plenty of fish ate plenty he assured me no problems I'm still alive
@peterdodd5425 is that why now you have no hair...?
Yes. Let's get on with it.
Nuclear power and chance to use your Australian accent. This is the perfect news story
Nuclear is not the cheapest source of power, that is coal. Nuclear is the cheapest always on zero emissions technology. SA runs on solar and wind but only by taking baseload power from coal plants in other states and hydro from Tasmania. The concept of runnning any portion of the grid from batteries for any sustained period of time is an impossibility. Batteries generate nothing, they can store power but even today, batteries are the most expensive form of energy we have.
Stop with the wacky absurd nonsense. All you have done is confidently show your IGNORANCE.
Energy storage is NOT just about Battery Cells. The most established form of Energy storage is PUMP HYDRO. Bath County Pump Hydro has a daily cycle of about 10 GigaWatt Hour. We just need to develop other forms of mechanical energy storage that does not using falling water. That very much can store a massive amount of energy that sustain the National Grid many hours.
@@Neojhun because that's cheap.... QLD just had about ~2 weeks of cloudy still days, so glad we didn't have to sit in darkness thanks to coal! you are the only one that is sounding whacky.
Good fair report
While Australia debates it India and China just help the increased use of coal make a new world record. Plus last year was a record year.
Incredible. A 20-minute story on Australia's energy transition without talking about the climate crisis. Without the context of why we're transitioning, the debate is very easily manipulated.
The climate crisis threatens all life on this planet, and it is here and now. Large-scale changes to our way of life are urgently needed. It is very clear that the nuclear option is a slower method to decarbonise our energy supply. Delay means death.
Grow up, the world isn't gonna end in 5 years
Not just that. Using nuclear to solve the climate crisis is akin to trying to put out a bushfire with cooking oil. It's just going to result in a much bigger climate calamity in the future.
@Alphacuremom55 thanks, but I'll take the advice of leading scientists
@@Alphacuremom55 It may become unliveable for many.
The government would be better off Subsidising batteries for domestic use
Yes, Australia needs nuclear power stations. Yes, we need them now, but we can't get them that quickly. We will need interim solutions and fossil fuel is all there is. Renewables is a piece part solution that cannot solve the problem of mainstream base load power. So, coal, would be cheap and quick, or gas, would be clean and quick, except, we don't have any gas any more, and we can't get any quickly, for a sensible price. So, looks like coal is all there is, or nothing, for the immediate future, until nuclear can come on line. Time for Australia to join the grown ups of the world. We are going to join anyway, we have nuclear powered submarines on order, so lets just get on with it.
The real question me thinks, is can you convince enough politicians in 2024/25-2030, to really go to bat for a long term issue requiring long term, costly, serious-maintenance solutions, both materially and politically. We're literally talking energy paradigm shift national investments here. Can you convince enough politicians, to put something hard, complicated, unglamourous, that doesn't pull headlines regularly - ahead of or at minimum at equal priority - with their next individual and party (re)election campaign? Not for a few weeks, months or years, but decades.
I'm not saying these kinds of politicians do not still/already exist. Of course they do. But they do not persist, or at least do not execute on those critical traits - in big enough numbers to get us over the line at this moment.
Going Nuclear doesn't solve everything. But it is a tried, tested, matured solution (we wouldn't be building 60s/70s/80s type nuclear plants in the 202s and -30s - Nuclear has come a looong way since those reactors and plants were built) that exists right now. That is available if we choose it. And it could provide ample energy including covering the insane increase in demand for electric that transitioning away from fossil fuels will create. Long term it can also make energy cheaper, because nuclear output high and lows is when you want it, not whenever the sun and climate says so. No vast energy storage needed. You can, if some local condition makes it favorable - but it's not an inherent necessity.