'Game-changer': Expert weighs in on Coalition's energy plan
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ธ.ค. 2024
- ANSTO former CEO Adrian Paterson discusses the potential for developing a nuclear industry in Australia, emphasising its reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to renewable energy.
Mr Paterson noted that the Coalition's proposed nuclear policy is a "game-changer" and provides a realistic plan for developing a nuclear industry in Australia.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced details of his ambitions for Australia’s energy future, including 38 per cent of the nation’s power to come from nuclear energy by 2050.
According to an analysis by Frontier Economics, the cost of the Opposition’s nuclear plan will be $331 billion compared to Labor’s $595 billion renewables-only policy.
“It's very different, I think, to the types of plans that we're seeing that are coming in particular around the renewables that we're seeing running all over the country … it contextualised the fact that 100 per cent renewables, is not being done anywhere else in the world,” Mr Paterson told Sky News Business Editor Ross Greenwood.
“So we're trying to do something that's really difficult and impossible. But in fact, with the reactors that are proposed, they're going into sites where there already are power plants. We'll be keeping coal, but we will be adding nuclear.
“And in fact, the long term is that we'll have lower carbon. But the most important thing for the average electricity user is that the price will come down over time as we build the nuclear. We will have a shorter grid and we'll have more reliable electricity because the cost won't go into building a big new grid.”
Thank you Sir for your expert analysis.
Great interview!!.
Please get this Gentleman back to give the Public the information imparted by the Experts in their field.
Thank you.
Simple gas coal and nuclear but no Bowen in the mix
One of the most intelligent reports I've seen and heard. Well done.
This guy is amazing. Met him on a plane recently.
This is what adults discussing Australia's future sounds like.
This is what thieves sound like
@troyjohnston7454 No, thieves are what the stupid socialists Jacinta Allen, Tim Pallas and Lily D'Ambrosio are in Victoria taxing the crap out of hard-working Victorians are with their anti Gas woke ideology are!!
Dr Adi is the man 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The CSIRO is regretfully politicised and will report what it thinks will appeal to Progressive Ideologues...
The Gencost has been prepared consistently for years, even during the time of the coalition. Hardly politicised. Renewables costs are dropping significantly whereas nuclear cost continue upwards.
@@peterking8564 I do not dispute that the "Gencost" has been produced for years - so put that to one side.
That does not mean that the results are not politicised.
The increases in nuclear costs are primarily 'regulatory driven' whether those are health and safety costs or the costs to overcome numerous regulatory hurdles including getting legislations changed.
Well paid off muppets
CSIRO has no real world credibility in this space, they don't know how to build major infrastructure or project manage on a large scale moreover, if they were financially sharp they wouldn't work for CSIRO. CSIRO has been horribly politicised - few want to work there.
Sadly you're correct. The CSIRO is about as unbiased as the ABC nowadays and that's being kind.
Compare Dr Adrian Paterson to Blackout Bowen. Intelligent vs knucklehead.
Not like he would be biased towards Nuclear do you think?
@@oldbloke204he'd be a lot more honest than the crap coming from the government sponsored CSIRO who'd say anything, to please the clown Bowen, to keep their funding!
@@oldbloke204 People with vast experience are always biased--unlike Blackout Bowen whose only experience with renewables is based on fantacy and politics.
@@jackfrost2146 So why don't they bring on people not biased towards Nuclear for a balanced view?
I won't be voting for it.
@@oldbloke204 And Labor's biases are? I'll give you a hint, we are the only modern economy not doing nuclear
The labor party. The party of road blocks to common sense. Vote 1 lnp for the right path for Australia.,
Nope. Vote minor freedom parties first. All of them above LNP. Preferential voting system
Follow the money the rich are making money out for renewables , otherwise they wouldn’t be living near coast
The private sector is nt queueing up to build nuclear. The mug taxpayer is on the hook for the lot.
Totally agree
Keeping all three, renewable, coal, and nuclear I think is smart.
And gas.
As the Chris Uhlmann report on net zero stated EIGHT HUNDRED years of coal in the ground in Victoria
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Gas is methane.
If you have the others you don't need a sometime producer. Solar and wind is ridiculous for an economy.
@@creditelectric : Nope. Check again. But how is that relevant ?
We had nuclear power before we came to Australia, nothing wrong with it.. Oh that was 1970
You like this?
Medical research nuclear reactor operated in Sydney since 1958, Lucas Hts, still going.
@foxbatbent Nuclear, love it. Have a look at NS Savannah. Been on that as a kid . Nuclear is also safer than coal.
Try about 1956 at Lucas Heights in Sydney where residents are more than happy to live within sight of a nuclear reactor!
@@chuckmaddison2924 Sounds good. Not as scary as people have imagined. Maybe they watch too much Simpson with the 3 eye fish. 🤣
i hve listened to this Dr before , very clever , knows his stuff❤ and best of all he made Dan Repacholi look uninformed and ignorant
I live overseas, my elecricity comes from a nuclear reactor 30km down the road. Dirt cheap electricity.
Most Australians are bed wetters .
How old is that reactor? More than 15 years? The capital costs have been paid down, so finally you get cheap power.
@@keepitreal2902 So the capitol costs of renewables will have to be paid of in 15 to 20 years. Then replaced again. Meanwhile nuclear had another 60 year working life. Thank you for confirming that Nuclear is the cheapest option.
@@Tallus-on9xx There are none who are as blind as those who will not see
Remember folks it's a fine line between governing and dictating.
You decide 🇦🇺 Australia.
Dictating
Dictating
Is Bowen listening to this guy , could learn something ,,, hehe but wont cause his is Labor , & is deaf dumb & blind , no wounder they don't want nuclear, just want us to keep paying higher bills
Yeah, he support the extension of coals now.
Would the people prefer keeping the money with the people and spend money on making all houses self sufficient bringing down power bills if not eliminating them or
Build nuclear power plants for foreign provider's to over charge the people over and over again for infrastructure the people paid for all for the benefit of shareholders profits
Like the NBN Youre being scammed..
Would the people prefer keeping the money with the people and spend money on making all houses self sufficient bringing down power bills if not eliminating them or
Build nuclear power plants for foreign provider's to over charge the people over and over again for infrastructure the people paid for all for the benefit of shareholders profits
Like the NBN Youre being scammed..
There you go and CSIRO is not in bed with Albanezy CSIRO is Politized
where do you think they get their funding from? Never bite the hand that feeds you.
This man is brilliant Aussies need listen
Does the Coalition need to gain control of the Senate in order that the bans be lifted?
Yep. Hence why it will never happen.
@EducationWillSetYouFree Wouldn't be too sure about that. People aren't stupid.
The states will be sure to throw a spanner in the works!
@@aclifford652 👍
The Boss in Canberra can overrule the States.
If Dutton has a majority in the Parliament, I believe he then has control of the Senate.....would like to be proven correct here?
Labor are flower power people
Very flaky
No, they are unicorn farts and fairy dust people 🙂
Gerbil power in little cages comes to mind.
I think pond slime would be a better description!
More like elite assholes slickers
Good interview with someone that is both knowledgeable and has done it.
Did you hear what he just said? $600 BILLION dollars is Labour Party’s costing plan too “initially”, just too set up renewables-*(WITHOUT), the cost too replace it all every 10-20yrs…….Which in turn will be about $300 Billion dollars “more” costs to the consumer every 20yrs in best scenario! LNP costing ,”even if it will initially cost the same as Labour’s renewable crap”, will last 80-100 years without needing replacing! I mean really; *(Do you really even have too think about which one is cheaper, and more sustainable, & cost effective in the long run)! Mmmmmmm……
Exactly mate. Most people don't even watch and listen to the clip, or they won't accept what someone like Adi is saying
you didnt factor in the 1 trillion plus for new power lines to get renewables to the grid
And they pay for themselves in 12 months how long does it take to pay a nuclear plant?
Renewables are 95 % recyclable.
@AndrewMitchell001 all those transmission lines at the old coal fired plant will have to be replaced in 15 20 yrs.
Howlong does it take to pay off a nuclear plant.
Eroupe had to back off all their plants last summer because their rivers and lakes were too hot for cooling the plants.
They are not high lighting these facts.
@@terryquarton2523 The carbon payback period is around 5-12 months, not the cost of the system being paid for.
Anyone notice how solar is powered by a nuclear reaction of the sun. LOL 😂 just saying
What's wrong with just gas and Coal very cheap and very reliable.
We will need coal and gas no matter what the other decisions are.
Coal and nuclear are the best for netzero.
Net zzzero is a con job a scam and an ilusion Nuclear is the way to go !
Just coal
we are paying the price for coal through natural disasters like floods and bushfires. Is coal really cheap? Insurance prices are rising in Australia every year due to natural disasters. Think about the hidden costs of coal. Burning coal releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than other fossil fuels, which contributes to global warming , climate change and ill health.
@@BonitaLizzy 100%. I hear you. Just remember the fossil fuelers likely had sad upbringings and the damage is done. They don't even care about the environment for their future family.
@BonitaLizzy
Bahahahaha
That's Hilarious.
And before there was Coal Fired Stations and Natural Disasters Happened
What do you blame for them. 😂
Here's hoping Dr Paterson is put in charge of building our 7 reactors or at the very least is heavily involved.
If nuclear is so bad why is it being used for medical reasons? Just asking for a friend.
It's not bad, it's just expensive and time consuming to establish. Compared to renewables it's a snail in a race with a cheetah.
@keepitreal2902 : On average a nuclear plant costs $8B. The poles and wires for renewables will cost $1.5 TRILLION !
The average nuclear plant is built in 7 or 8 years. No renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years and none are expected before 2035 and that time frame is doubtful.
@buildmotosykletist1987 Your "facts" are fanciful. Lets us first dispense with your assertion that no renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years:
1. Wind Projects:
Silverton Wind Farm (NSW): Completed in 2019, with a capacity of 200 MW.
Mount Emerald Wind Farm (QLD): Delivered 180 MW in 2019.
Willogoleche Wind Farm (SA): Contributed 119 MW in 2019.
2. Solar Farms:
Darling Downs Solar Farm (QLD): A 110 MW large-scale solar project completed in 2019.
Daydream Solar Farm (QLD): A 150 MW project delivered in the same year.
Numurkah Solar Farm (VIC): A 100 MW solar farm that supports both local and industrial needs.
Australia has added over 27 utility-scale battery projects as of 2023, with a combined capacity exceeding 5 GW. This includes projects like the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, known for stabilizing the grid and supporting renewable integration.
Over 4 million Australian rooftops now feature solar panels, collectively contributing significant capacity and reducing reliance on the grid.
As for your claim about nuclear:
The typical build time and cost of nuclear reactors in Western countries vary significantly based on factors such as design, regulatory frameworks, and construction practices.
Build Time:
Construction times for new nuclear reactors in Western countries generally range from 5 to 10 years for standardized projects. However, the total time from project initiation to completion can extend to 10-15 years, considering planning, permitting, and licensing stages.
In cases of first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects or where delays occur, such as in the U.S. and Europe, construction has taken 15+ years. For instance, Finland's Olkiluoto-3 reactor took 17 years from start to finish.
Costs:
The cost of building nuclear plants in Western countries is generally high, ranging from $6,000 to $12,000 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity. For example:
The UK’s Hinkley Point C is estimated at $25-30 billion AUD for 3.2 GW capacity.
The U.S. Vogtle plant's new reactors are costing approximately $30 billion USD for 2.2 GW capacity.
The overnight construction cost (excluding financing) of recent projects is about $7,000-10,000 per kW, but total costs often escalate due to delays and financing issues.
In short, you are wrong in every respect.
"No renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years"???
What are you talking about?
@@marklawler3633 He's a fact free zone
With our enormous uranium stocks its unbelievable that we're still having this debate.
Instead of burning coal we should be selling it - we have very high quality coal and its worth enough to significantly offset the cost of introducing nuclear.
We need nuclear anyway, to build civil nuclear industries, to provide the right manufacturing and education base needed to have nuclear powered subs.
Plus it doesn't have the issues with synchronisation and inertia that renewables have, and doesn't need an expensive fragile grid to support it.
Plus we can power pumped hydro off-peak, which means we need to burn less gas for ramping purposes.
Welcome to the 21st. Century, " black- out " B .
Bring it on
8:30 We most certainly CAN ignore the CSIRO report. It's nonsense.
Excelent news. Lets get going.
If private industry was responsible for building out of nuclear, it would be done in half the time and half the cost.
Thank you Dr Paterson, for giving a clear and precise set of details on why renewables alone cannot work, and why, a strong robust base load supply has to be developed. What a sharp contrast from the buffoons and uninformed wannabe grid designers who insist that we need renewables only. Your contributing dialogue is greatly appreciated. We need a balanced mix of energy supply sources, Dutton has clearly taken his time to research a complex topic that he is not expert on, and he has come up with a clever solution. Now, all we need to is get Albo, Bowen and Chalmers out of that mix.
I can't see the 50% renewables being sustainable, it will shift to predominantly baseload over time.
At last some common sense!
REMOVE BOWEN.
Ahh yes we can buy nuclear energy for the 10-20 million new "Australians" from India that will be living in the country by that time.
Vote for the "Australia first" candidates.
Bro, gotta say, your dedication to your dislike of India and Indian people is unparalleled 🥤🍿 Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone turn their hatred towards a specific country into a fcking hobby 😂
And what a great country it will be (without the nuclear aspect, of course).
@@EducationWillSetYouFreeYes my sons will herd many goats and be free of education
@@EducationWillSetYouFree If Indians were capable of building or maintaining a "great country" they'd be able to do it in India. It will not be great, it will be miserable.
If nuclear is so wonderful and financially viable, allow private enterprise to build them, don’t use public money. I bet if you did this, no private money would come forward to do it.
I will put my money into nuclear.i live in Hunter Valley .Build it baby😅
Refreshing reality!😊
So Snowy 2.0 was budgeted for $2 billion and now up to $12 billion. So what will the nuclear reactor budgeted for $331 billion stretch to by 2040.
I don't think so. Tunnelling brings a whole different technical level to jobs. The locations are existing coal plants. The grid is also existing.
Anything labour proposes is always criticised by Sky it’s predictable What a stupid biased news service These big data companies are controlling the world at what cost
Thank you for explaining something so complex in an easy to understand way. This should be our future make Australia Great Again.
I did something for myself and installed solar (solar company did the installation). When I get a battery next year I'll have energy independence.
So mr Expert, how is the nuclear plan in ten years going to bring the cost of living down next year. Please explain
Some good point's about the real costing figures Labor has left out.
Also the amount of energy needed for future A.I.
In order to fully support the Coalition’s nuclear policy I need to know how much I will save in electricity costs. Until they provide this information I remain sceptical on the basis “If you don’t know, vote No.”
You may not save too much initially because the system needs to be setup properly, but the long term benefit will be enormous. The savings will be inter-generational and will be best felt by your kids and grandkids. The proposed nuclear/renewables mix will take eight to ten years to develop once the coalition gets into government, but then the advantages will come. So it really depends on how old you are now, whether you will actually get benefits. But you need to ask yourself the question - do I vote for the party that wants to continue down the road of developing inefficient and unreliable renewables or vote for a new government which wants to develop proven electricity efficiency and reduce emissions, which will in turn improve productivity and economics for Australia. Do you want to remain part of the problem or contribute to being part of the solution?
I would rather sink my Tax money into a future with Nuclear, which has been proven and refined so much rather than an inconsistent Renewables. The renewable energy infrastructure just isnt good enough and technology itself isnt good enough to keep up with everything nowadays
I put $$$ into installing solar. I'm using 5x what I used before, paying half as much and still exporting more than I use (even though the system is export limited). And I paid tax upfront.
@kasmstamps1897 If we add Nuclear to the grid not only would we get such clean and pure energy, it wouldn't matter how much you use because the prices would plummet. I hear you though
@@cheflazy but nuclear wouldn't happen and be online within 30 years. It's just a distraction for fossil fuels imo.
"It's just the vibe" is no longer enough for ordinary folks who can't afford this wind and solar pipe-dream. What's the difference between base-load power like nuclear and wind/solar? 1. We need China for all wind/solar, including battery storage - but we have all capabilities and skills to utilise nuclear technology for base-load power. 2. Base-load power stations can be positioned where the grid can already use them. Solar/Wind means destruction of native forests & wildlife, and no plan for recycling or replacement. Mitch, Australia.
I installed some solar and my energy bill has so far halved and I'm using 5x power. Next year I'll be adding a battery which will completely negate my current bill.
And on a national grid, there are multiple big battery projects that will come online in couple of years which will smooth out the supply.
I think the nuclear option is just a smoke screen for fossil fuels.
Adi has forgotten more than Bowen will ever know
Spread the good news everyone that the market operators can do nuclear much ,much cheaper than renewables which have never worked anywhere and require huge taxpayers subsidies.
I think the good news is that big batteries are getting installed.
@@kasmstamps1897 Batteries don't make any energy. They store some energy which is very finite.
where can one find the report/plan?
Australia building 7 nuclear plants under the watchful eye of the CFMEU - no way will the costs blow out!
Brilliant - and makes so much sense!
There is another important consideration with the two options. Labors energy plan not only costs 250 billion more, it only produces part time power. Sun has to be shining or wind blowing, or both. The nuclear power will provide 24/7 365 per year regardless of weather of time of day. So even if it cost more then labors plan, it's still the better option.
Unless there's a drought and they run out of water, which is increasingly likely thanks to climate change.
@@CraigHarvey climate change causes it to rain, haven't you been watching the floods on the telly?, climate change causes the droughts when the left needs it for its narratives.
@@CraigHarvey If we run out of water it will be because of ramping up the population which labor is also doing, and building no new water infrastructure......or housing for the that matter. You should stop worrying about climate change, it's all BS. The future under lefty woke rule is one of increased homelessness, poverty, frequent blackouts, power restrictions, high prices, and yeah, probably run out of water too.
@@CraigHarvey That is a false claim
@@shanecollie5177 what's false, that nuclear power plants us millions of litres of water a day or that Australia, the driest inhabited continent experiences droughts?
If Nuclear is so cost competitive then I ask this
1. Why is TEPCO in Japan functionally insolvent
2. Why is KEPCO in Korea functionally insolvent
3. Why is EDF in France functionally insolvent
4. Why Is it not proposed to have the private sector build and operate these plants in a competitive market
You’re all smoking crack !!
Its great to listen to some facts from a real energy expert who supports the industrial sector rather then Bowen who doesn’t give a stuff about those that work in industries that consume a lot of energy
CHEAPEST does NOT equal best. Would Australia build the CHEAPEST bridge? The CHEAPEST Opera House? NO, we want the best. Nuclear is the best form of energy, a legacy nation building project for Australia.
I think solar and battery is the best form of energy. Once I get a battery I'll have energy independence. Combine that with an EV I'll have transport independence as well. Living in a regional area will reduce the tryanny of distance.
The scale needed for power generation while a profit is made means it will cost more, the dust needs to settle over the estimated costs, I don't trust Duttons prediction & these enormous complex engineering projects always seem to run over budget with the so called adults in charge.
Great interview why can't we get him and bowen on your show to have a debate i think all ausies would love to see it happen this person knows his stuff 😊
Perhaps Mr Paterson would give us his views on the Japanese, Fukushima nuclear power plant, meltdown.Despite modern technologies 13 years on they are still unable to locate the estimated 880 tons of melted highly radioactive waste.(the Corium)With an estimated 30/40 years to clean up our Pacific ocean remains under threat of becoming a radioactive soup.
Have you seen !that! in your newspaper lately.
The biggest problem is logic and common sense does not apply to politics
I would like to hear more balanced discussions. I want to hear about the area saved as in the sites planned as opposed to the area space taken up by wind and solar
Just replace existing coal with new modern coal, that was the original plan and still the obvious choice.
Labor always forget to include the cost of the new transmission lines which will blow the plan out of the water.
South Australia and Denmark both run on 100% renewables. In other words no Coal or Nuclear (Too slow, too expensive, too toxic)
Where I live in the US nuclear will never be built (never say never) because many in the MSM say its dangerous and wind and solar is much safer. But the point is electric demand is growing and the ban on nuclear will be something our politicians will come to regret down the road. Germany is thinking about the end to nuclear in the next few years, not sure if they are really going to do it, even though many plants are in the stages of shutdown.
Mught as well find a bloke who says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer
Nuclear on its own is fine.👍
Solar and wind needs firming , fine for domestic but not industrial nations.☹️
We will need 5x more energy by 2050
Not enough toxic metals for solar and wind to meet the demand
Any cogent response from 'Blackout' Bowen to this energy expert? 😮
The thing with solar power is this.
ALREADY too much solar power is generated at peak solar to the extent that people are being CHARGED for the power they put onto the grid. If even more solar panels are installed the distribution system could collapse.
I see no one talking about the management and storage of excess solar power.
Dozens of projects in the pipeline for big batteries. They are coming (some are already here).
A really big factory is nearly complete in China, Oz expecting deliveries late Q1 2025.
Is very difficult to integrate a lot of big batteries into existing power distribution network Reason is the power distribution is like a tree with the trunk at the power station Even now it is very difficult to send power from the secondary 240V network back to the higher voltage primary network
Ignorant but a brave man to go on sky Australia as an expert host when Alan Jones was sky's example of yesterday's expert host
Ouch! 😂
You cross dressers are ramping up your propaganda
Must be an election looming😂😂😂
Game changer my arse. Electricity is distributed to people's homes as alternating current 240 V 50 Hz. What the hell is this so-called doctor talking about? It doesn't matter how you generate electricity as long as when it arrives it meets Australian standards suitable for your home appliances. Otherwise it could trip circuit breakers blow up your appliances and even cause a fire.
South Africa has 2 nuclear reactors, they generate 5% of their electricity needs. If it is so cheap you could imagine they'd be building them all over the country. Especially when you consider South Africa has a population of 60 million. Australia's population is 26 million, Peter Dutton wants to build 7 nuclear reactors, it just doesn't make economic sense. "South Africa's plan for new nuclear power have been scaled back, new builds are now considered unlikely. Due to increased capacity costs." Oh dear.
Australia is not going 100% renewables, renewable target is to have 82% electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Once again the doctor is uninformed.
We also need new HELE coal plants as well and also to scrap all intermittent power projects .
An Opal research reactor is not seen as a threat to the rest but larger U235 reactor have plutonium as a biproduct that can be used to produce Nuclear weapons. This makes Australia a Nuclear power and an automatic target in any conflict even if is only against any our of or allies.
Harvest Electricity from the Atmosphere, Tesla
Free Energy ... Simple
Thank you Ross
Definitely no to nuclear
We won't be getting Meta and Google AI Data Centres anytime soon. Australia only has a tiny population (domestic demand) and submarine ocean cables would all require significant bandwidth upgrades.
What is the lifespan of these plants? Can spent rods be reused?
Haha oh my god this guy has no idea. There are soooo many holes in the report. Even based on these ridiculous assumptions in the model the cumulative carbon emissions through the nuclear plan are multiples higher than the renewables plan. That's not even mentioning that it wouldn't be decarbonising transport or residential gas. This guy should be ashamed
Bravo and spot on
There you have it, a LEFTY specialist endorses a grid with nuclear power for Australia
And won't destroy thousands of hectares of forest and farmland.
I hope that this is a sign of a more fact based discussion, as the initial name calling dies down. As we learn more about nuclear, the better it looks. While as we learn more about renewables, the worse it looks. More facts please.
False information.
He doesn't know that we have 40,000km of transmission and 850,000 km of distribution.
The extra transmission is 10,000 over 25 years. 6,000 is already under construction. He says we need to double transmission.
Either he is ignorant. Or deceptive. Or ill-informed.
Ignores other countries.
Even IEA says Australia should not pursue nuk.
Like older politicians, should retire to his vegetables.
bowen would lose any debate about nuclear power generation with a garden slug!
That is a lot of money to generate 4 percent of electricity from nuclear.
Many of the nuclear plants proposed are near prime agricultural land or near critical mineral mines.
The cost of nuclear could rise to 600 Billion dollars. Thats a lot of dollars for 4 percent of electricity,
Mr Dutton will raise the electricity prices by $1000 per household.
The nuclear plants wont be starting till another 10 years,
Why would tax payers fund this project? As no energy company is going to fund nuclear project, tax payers will have to fund it.
Australia's grid is currently 40 percent renewable.
Base load nuclear power will displace household solar and existing solar owners will lose money.
There cant be both renewables and nuclear.
How will the cost of nuclear be passed to consumers? Why does Dutton not answer this?
The world is adding more solar and wind everyday.
Does Dutton think people are stupid to believe him ?
There is no advantage for nuclear. The massive costs of running coal mines for another 10 years while nuclear starts in 2035 will lead to more natural disasters through floods and bushfires. The Australian community will be paying for higher insurance prices due to natural disasters. Look at the floods in Queensland and bushfires in Victoria. Is it not visible. Bad deeds like coal mines lead to bad outcomes.
They don't seem to have a problem with nuclear submarines!
Its called synchronous generation. Once the generator is brought up to operating speed, it has a DC voltage applied to stator,,, this locks the electric fields to a 50hz cycle, critical for the grid. Windmills and solar panels disrupt this. An electric grid shouldn't really have these 2 types of very different electricity generation. Renewable source electricity is very poor quality,, similar to a petrol generator,,, the output fluctuates in voltage, sine wave and frequency.
Big batteries smooth this out. More are coming.
But but but … the Teal MP Nuclear energy expert, Allegra Spender ( apt surname ! ) , disagrees ?
After reading and understanding the expert energy report over coffee …
How about a referendum at the next election 🤔
Think of the high paying jobs great for the country!
Yes yes and please yes 👍
It will take some time for power prices to drop.
Mine has dropped this year. I'm using 5x the power for half the cost. And I send more back to the grid than I use.
😎 .
@@kasmstamps1897 you are generating your own energy and putting back into the grid is practically pointless because the return is 4c or less a kWh.
If you work night shift or are retired it would work out ok but if you work during the day its not as beneficial.
As for going to batteries, that just mean more outlay to recoup.
@@TruthWarrior1
My cost of generation is 0.6cents per kWh for the next 9 years (anything after that is going to the next system). And my feed in tariff is more like 6.5cents per kWh. So definitely worth it. Saving for a battery and intend to get one next year. Slow going while on benefits but if some investments mature, with any luck I'll be kicked off benefits (yeah).
Rewards for investing today to spend later.
The cost of power will be reduced.
Now if th3ir was e er a lie to be told it was that one.
How can I trust someone who can arrogantly state this.?
My cost of power has reduced. I'm using 5x more and my bill is half.
My cost of production is 0.6cents kWh and I get 6cents as a feed in tariff.
Next year intend to get a household battery. I'm in the process of reducing my fixed expenses (on benefits so watching the pennies).
Its so dam obvious.....fusion also needs investment here, the usa may well have Fusion plants within 5 years
Wake up Australian
Appreciate the detailed breakdown! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
SCAM ALERT.
Radiation is forever, Dutton isn't.
You are obviously a pessimist.
How many gigawatts does Lucas's heights put out zip zero.
Snowy 2.0 NBN 200 million dollar carparks zero?
By the time these reactors are built the transmission lines will need replacing the LNP don't tell you that.
What are you on about. Lucas heights isn’t for power generation.
@@paulveenings6861
Research reactor mate. Not electricity generation.
@@polarbear7255 sorry, should have been isn’t. Fat fingers again 🙂
So everybody in Aus is ok with taxes going up.?. Because neither Aus Political party will never be able to afford to build these plants without taxes going up, or bringing in foroun investment. And i will guarantee if foroun investment is used there will never be cheap electricity. Want matter if its renewables or nuclear
I paid tax when my solar was installed. I'm using 5x the power and my bill has halved.