Happy New Year from the Cleaning Up team and welcome to Season 14! We've got tonnes of great guests in the pipeline, and a few very special projects coming up. Tune in every Wednesday at 6pm for new episodes. For all the latest from the show, subscribe to our newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
Thank you Michael and Bryony. Cleaning Up is amazing! I watch all your shows now. I've been waiting for this one for a while, haha. I liked the one with Azeem Azhar. If I had a spare small amount of cash, only about 2k, not a lot, but an investment I can lose that can go towards supporting our greener energy future, our future electrification, would you be able to make any suggestions? perhaps a fund for small caps or start ups? Thanks in advance for any advice.
Well this was useful to know what the green washing talking points are gonna be I don't think the hosts actually buy that Trump's EPA pick believes that "oh, climate change is real but the amount of heating doesn't matter that much and we need to get rid of poverty" - while also working for the admin that will cut food stamps, social security and Medicare. He doesn't believe it. You guys know he doesn't believe it and we know that you know. This is the American FREE SPEECH™ You can say whatever you want - but will only be given a platform (hi Bloomberg) if you repeat the talking points and never threaten economic power
@@PierrelafayeedneyPierre, thanks so much for your kind words. I don't give investment advice though - I'm good at building business and sorting trends, but there's a lot more to successful investment than that - timing, valuation, luck...
21:30 Australia is a completely oil importing dependent country. Aussie dollar is falling. Making oil more expensive. Its a great time to own an EV in Australia, because ive decoupled from the oil pump, and get my fuel for free off my solar panels.
Last year I got an EV & a solar system. My power bill has more than halved, my energy use as 5x, my tyranny of distance has reduced, my standard of living has improved. In grateful that I live in Oz and can get a solar system that would cost 5x in the US. My cost of production is 0.6 cents kWh for the next 9 years. Looking to get a battery next year. Why is nuclear even considered?
@@kasmstamps1897 nuclear is considered because the sun does not shine during night and wind is not dependable. Maybe austriala can do without but most country wont
Strange that the Musk/Tesla phrase "machine that builds the machine" isn't more of a global discussion. Machines that use electricity to build renewable electricity generators that lower the cost of electricity and manufacturing vs. Fossil fuel extraction machines that only get more operationally expensive as cheapest producing fields dry up, exploration costs go up as new sources get harder to find and extraction machinery manufacturing costs go up. Electrostate vs. Petrostate is well put.
"everybody knows the ship is sinking, everybody knows the captain lied ..." "The rich get reached the poor stay poor, that's how it goes, and everybody knows", Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows
Did I get my wires crossed? No one in Australia is talking about repowering. The coal generators are so old they would have to be essentially rebuilt anyway. I would be shocked if repowering was more cost effective than just building new nuclear. And building new nuclear is expensive enough already.
This was one of THE best discussions I ever heard about nuclear and while comparing it the talks in German election battles seem like kindergarten sandbox fights. I personally switched from being opposed to nuclear and now regret the German reactors were turned off far before their EOL - at the same time I have to agree to Michael's position here: Nuclear isn't the best approach to manage Dunkelflaute as we are talking about a few weeks/year here. Which reactor can run economically at that load percentage? For Germany we would need another 40 GW of nuclear even if we still ran our 20 GW reactors from 2010. (we had about 15 GW max hydro + biomass, and max load 75 GW in 2024). Most of them would run in load follow though and would have to compete against the currently planned 160 GW large scale batteries most of the time. I doubt if Merz really plans to put 2 back on line, his party could have done this while they were in power up until 2021, right now it looks like some election strategy. But to end this on a positive note: The Efuels position lost ground in the discussion (subjectively) - I heard it less and less. Many people fell for using HVO instead though :/
Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably, but the absolute gem was the Winston Churchill story of the stolen pepper pot. "If you portray yourself as a fellow offender and not as an accuser, the psychological dynamic changes." Henceforth I will always admit that I burn coal, oil and gas, and I'm trying to stop.
40:00 Geothermal is not dependent on weather. 3:00 About US blocking AI chips export to China. There is already a Chinese AI chip that is pretty close to NVidia's. Also, China has not countered with its own export bans yet but it produces 75% of the high-purity silicon needed to make chips. China & Russia produce 72% of the Titanium sponge. China produces 98% of the Gallium. The US banned companies with government contracts from using Huawei chips but it also has issued an exemption to the US Army every year because there is no other source of the chip that the army needs. So the US's ban on exporting AI chips to China will only last as long as the Chinese government allows it.
Having a single, or predominantly so, technology for electricity generation doesn't necessarily cause a problem, the UK ran quite happily on coal with a little bit of hydro, and did so for many years, before nuclear came along. However, with increasing inflexible nuclear in the generation mix we needed to add some flexibility, which I suspect is why Dinorwig was built. Having one technology for generation is perfectly alright as long as you have multiple generation sources, the generation can be ramped up and down fairly quickly and easily without huge cost implications and the fuel can be stored in vast quantities for very long periods of time. The only real problem with coal is pollution, and in particular the CO2. If CO2 wasn't a global warming gas we may well have built more coal generation instead of Hinckley C. The real solutron for mitigating intermittent renewables, especially during extended dunkelflaute periods, would be a viable seasonal storage technology. Based on the Royal Society energy storage report, very long term storage equivalent to about a month's worth of annual demand, probably less than 5% in a typical year, should be able to meet the UK's worst case conditions with a suitable mix of solar and wind. I suspect that it would also be cheaper than nuclear backup, even if it is based on storing hydrogen in Salt caverns. However, I believe there are probably much better and than using hydrogen. @CleaningUpPod I'm with you, Michael, on nuclear. The usual modus operandi for businesses, especially those in the private sector, with expensive equipment is generally to operate it at the maximum realistic capacity factor, unless someone's prepared to pay you to do otherwise. To keep the cost of nuclear generation down once you've built it you really need it to be running it at the highest capacity factor available, there's no real point in turning it down just so you can use wind and solar you might just as well build less solar and wind. In fact, with high levels of nuclear in the system you also need some flexible on demand capability, possibly storage, because you will need to ramp generation up and down quickly at times. Because the marginal cost of nuclear is so small the cost of electricity is mostly due to the capital and financing costs so, to be viable it needs to generate the same amount of revenue each year which is almost independent from the amount of electricity generated. Economically, nuclear basically displaces wind and solar rather than supporting them.
The best reason to do nuclear is because that's how we develop nuclear power stations and undirected or lightly directed research is how we improve science and technology. But we should clear up some of our planning issues in the UK though without compromising safety. I don't see an reason to build any nuclear station as long as it is expected to be an incremental improvement over previous reactors.
Michael it’s not the 4 year cycle in the USA, it’s the Quarterly Reporting system. Light Capital companies, no emphasis education. We can all be baristas and you do not need infrastructure.
43:15 Why is methanol production able to be switched off without thermal cycling punishment? Presumably this is true only for e-methanol production, since gasifiers require high temperatures?
Nuclear is baseload, has to be on all the time. That is a problem for it as a backup to weather dependant renewables. It would be lovely if you could have it turned off, and then just turn it on when the weather is bad for renewables. But it has to be on all the time. Good point about industry demand being able to be turned off during Daunkenflaute. Australia is wrong for nuclear.
With regard to nuclear in Australia, I would say it would probably not a bad idea to watch Aussie engineer Rosie Barnes' episode of her 'Engineering With Rosie' RUclips channel titled: "Four reasons why nuclear power is a dumb idea for Australia" ruclips.net/video/H_47LWFAG6g/видео.htmlsi=yD4qX30b1UAOpyLY Regardless of whether Australia should be allowed to build nuclear or not, there is probably little economic sense in it. They don't suffer from any significant dunkelflaute like we do in northern Europe and they get twice as much insolation as we do in the UK and their peak generation probably correlates reasonably well with peak demand, i.e. for powering air conditioning systems. The amount of long-term storage they require is probably very minimal and I very much doubt whether it would justify nuclear when solar is dirt cheap. I wouldn't be at all surprised that for practically all domestic use most homes were able to go completely off grid, considering the plummeting cost and increasing performance of batteries (LiFePO4 UK retail cost ≈$75/KWh & 8,000 cycles = 1.04p/KWh + BoP etc.)
It is not just about oil vs electric. Look at how China has progressed in the last 30 years. Ie; Chinese trains travelling at 200+ mph and US? And for that matter UK. It is Regan and Thatcher who called then a backward looking economy.
Michael is an investment advisor and he's very much focused on returns in the immediate market. The *value* of nuclear to the *system* (not to the investor) will become very apparent, when we get to 80% + clean energy. Anyone who thinks that storage, alone, can solve the dunkelflaute problem, is either being disingenuous (for example by quoting *capacity* without a *time* value of storage) or doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem. Julia Pyke kept pushing Michael on this very point, and he simply didn't have an answer. But I do agree with Micheal on 'all of the above'. The constant RE vs Nuclear debate is a false binary, mostly propagated by covert climate deniers.
Thanks guys, great debate. I agree totally with Bryony Worthington. She has a very comprehensively well thought out position. Michael's position is too much based on unsupported opinions. Claiming we can fully compensate for dankelflaut by demand adjustment is simply moving deficiencies in energy generation costs to users. Productivity and the economy as a whole would suffer.
I don't claim that. I believe we'll end up using unabated gas for a week or two of Dunkelflaute per year. The ultras will whine and moan, but the cost of eliminating those last 2-4% of emissions will be so exorbitant that we'll simply never decide it's worth it.
I don't think she does. The nuclear tribe love to talk about the whole system picture, but then completely fail to detail how nuclear, that can't ramp (it needs to run almost full throttle to be economic), can solve the dunkelflaute problem economically. Sure, use nuclear in Europe that have deep winter peaks for the baseload, But here in Australia we don't have deep winters, nor dunkelflaute and so nuclear makes no sense here, contrary to Bryony's claim.
@rockinrobstar81 As someone who has powered my home for over twenty five years purely on solar PV and wind, I can assure you Australian dankelflaut is a thing. It can happen anytime but usually occurs in late winter with up to ten days straight where renewables output is just 20% of rated output. By day four of such events local storage batteries are depleted and it is generators on. These events typically occur once a year but sometimes up to three times a year. Just occasionally they don't happen at all. At a national grid level, pumped storage such as Snowy Hydro 2 (350GWhr at the 2GW rate, cost $13bn) compensates for such episodes. Each such project is the equivalent of a mid sized nuclear power plant. The trouble is modelling shows that to provide the necessary assurance with a 100% renewables solution, ten such projects are needed by 2050. So far only 2 have been approved. One of the other more promising pumped hydro projects (Burdekin) has been cancelled, a disgraceful decision IMO that must be reversed. Setting that aside the issue is operationally and environmentally acceptable sites. The problem is lack of substantial rivers and sites offering the needed elevation and volume at a feasible cost. Having had a look at the issue I can only see about five 'good' sites in eastern Australia including Marinus and Snowy2. This includes Burdekin. I think we should go ahead and build all five. To make up for the five missing projects we should use nuclear. The nuclear component would constitute about 30% of the needed generation capacity by 2050. The balance could then be safely provided by renewables backed by the five mega storage projects. Chemical batteries would cover transition periods for example from wind and solar to hydro and/or nuclear and vice versa. The nuclear would be scaled for the fixed baseload. The rest would be set up to handle the minute to minute variable load including peak demands such as heat waves etc. I am inclined to Labor view points but in this case I think the Coalition proposal for seven nuclear plants of various sizes is about right. To convince me otherwise, Labor would have to announce funding for eight large scale pumped hydro projects to including something to cover WA and SA. I just don't see that happening.
Min. 40:25: 'Sorry Miss Worthington, *you are spreading complete myths!* Germany still *has got enough conventional generation capacity to be completely independent!* There is absolutely *no need* for polish coal to come in! However! Gas and coal is *expensive!* And nearly always it is cheaper to get electricity from somewhere else - mostly Scandinavia! Polish coal just like german coal is subject to limitations by European CO2-certificates and cannot be cheaper than german coal.
Technical speaking China is powered by coal with 60% of its electricity coming from coal fired powered plants. The US in contrast is a natural gas powered state with NG replacing coal and accounting for about 50% of electricty.
34min in where is the Uranium going to come from for the West for all these Nuclear power stations as I believe Iran is the only country with good reserves?
There are ample uranium reserves about 4,000 years with fuel recycling. More using the thorium cycle and extraction from seawater. The general idea is to use fission until fusion is available. At that point fuel reserves equal the life of the planet
Happy New Year from the Cleaning Up team and welcome to Season 14! We've got tonnes of great guests in the pipeline, and a few very special projects coming up. Tune in every Wednesday at 6pm for new episodes. For all the latest from the show, subscribe to our newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
Thank you Michael and Bryony. Cleaning Up is amazing! I watch all your shows now. I've been waiting for this one for a while, haha. I liked the one with Azeem Azhar. If I had a spare small amount of cash, only about 2k, not a lot, but an investment I can lose that can go towards supporting our greener energy future, our future electrification, would you be able to make any suggestions?
perhaps a fund for small caps or start ups? Thanks in advance for any advice.
Well this was useful to know what the green washing talking points are gonna be
I don't think the hosts actually buy that Trump's EPA pick believes that "oh, climate change is real but the amount of heating doesn't matter that much and we need to get rid of poverty" - while also working for the admin that will cut food stamps, social security and Medicare.
He doesn't believe it. You guys know he doesn't believe it and we know that you know.
This is the American FREE SPEECH™
You can say whatever you want - but will only be given a platform (hi Bloomberg) if you repeat the talking points and never threaten economic power
@@PierrelafayeedneyPierre, thanks so much for your kind words. I don't give investment advice though - I'm good at building business and sorting trends, but there's a lot more to successful investment than that - timing, valuation, luck...
Thanks for replying. And thanks again for your channel/podcast. Looking forward to season 14!
it is nice to hear two people with differing view actually listening to each other.
21:30 Australia is a completely oil importing dependent country. Aussie dollar is falling. Making oil more expensive. Its a great time to own an EV in Australia, because ive decoupled from the oil pump, and get my fuel for free off my solar panels.
Same, & zero fossil fuels in the shed too, with an electric mower, (& no engine oil for topping up!)
@guringai my electric mower died. I'm back to using a petrol mower, but I need to get a new electric mower.
Last year I got an EV & a solar system. My power bill has more than halved, my energy use as 5x, my tyranny of distance has reduced, my standard of living has improved.
In grateful that I live in Oz and can get a solar system that would cost 5x in the US. My cost of production is 0.6 cents kWh for the next 9 years. Looking to get a battery next year.
Why is nuclear even considered?
@kasmstamps1897 .
Yea, spot on!
@@kasmstamps1897 nuclear is considered because the sun does not shine during night and wind is not dependable. Maybe austriala can do without but most country wont
Strange that the Musk/Tesla phrase "machine that builds the machine" isn't more of a global discussion. Machines that use electricity to build renewable electricity generators that lower the cost of electricity and manufacturing vs. Fossil fuel extraction machines that only get more operationally expensive as cheapest producing fields dry up, exploration costs go up as new sources get harder to find and extraction machinery manufacturing costs go up.
Electrostate vs. Petrostate is well put.
Tariffs on solar PV and EVs is bad for progress on electrification maybe delaying a decade
"everybody knows the ship is sinking, everybody knows the captain lied ..."
"The rich get reached the poor stay poor, that's how it goes, and everybody knows",
Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows
Did I get my wires crossed? No one in Australia is talking about repowering. The coal generators are so old they would have to be essentially rebuilt anyway. I would be shocked if repowering was more cost effective than just building new nuclear. And building new nuclear is expensive enough already.
Michael should have a glass of red with every episode :)
Hah! Andsome of the spiciest bits got edited out :-)
This was one of THE best discussions I ever heard about nuclear and while comparing it the talks in German election battles seem like kindergarten sandbox fights.
I personally switched from being opposed to nuclear and now regret the German reactors were turned off far before their EOL - at the same time I have to agree to Michael's position here: Nuclear isn't the best approach to manage Dunkelflaute as we are talking about a few weeks/year here. Which reactor can run economically at that load percentage?
For Germany we would need another 40 GW of nuclear even if we still ran our 20 GW reactors from 2010. (we had about 15 GW max hydro + biomass, and max load 75 GW in 2024). Most of them would run in load follow though and would have to compete against the currently planned 160 GW large scale batteries most of the time.
I doubt if Merz really plans to put 2 back on line, his party could have done this while they were in power up until 2021, right now it looks like some election strategy.
But to end this on a positive note: The Efuels position lost ground in the discussion (subjectively) - I heard it less and less. Many people fell for using HVO instead though :/
Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably, but the absolute gem was the Winston Churchill story of the stolen pepper pot. "If you portray yourself as a fellow offender and not as an accuser, the psychological dynamic changes." Henceforth I will always admit that I burn coal, oil and gas, and I'm trying to stop.
South America even riper to transition to 100% renewables than Africa as it has food surpluses but great for Hydro, Solar & Wind with battery storage!
40:00 Geothermal is not dependent on weather. 3:00 About US blocking AI chips export to China. There is already a Chinese AI chip that is pretty close to NVidia's. Also, China has not countered with its own export bans yet but it produces 75% of the high-purity silicon needed to make chips. China & Russia produce 72% of the Titanium sponge. China produces 98% of the Gallium. The US banned companies with government contracts from using Huawei chips but it also has issued an exemption to the US Army every year because there is no other source of the chip that the army needs. So the US's ban on exporting AI chips to China will only last as long as the Chinese government allows it.
A great conversation as always...I so enjoyed the 'exchange of views' on nuclear😂 have a great break on 'Cleaning up' plus all the subscribers.😊
Having a single, or predominantly so, technology for electricity generation doesn't necessarily cause a problem, the UK ran quite happily on coal with a little bit of hydro, and did so for many years, before nuclear came along. However, with increasing inflexible nuclear in the generation mix we needed to add some flexibility, which I suspect is why Dinorwig was built. Having one technology for generation is perfectly alright as long as you have multiple generation sources, the generation can be ramped up and down fairly quickly and easily without huge cost implications and the fuel can be stored in vast quantities for very long periods of time. The only real problem with coal is pollution, and in particular the CO2. If CO2 wasn't a global warming gas we may well have built more coal generation instead of Hinckley C.
The real solutron for mitigating intermittent renewables, especially during extended dunkelflaute periods, would be a viable seasonal storage technology. Based on the Royal Society energy storage report, very long term storage equivalent to about a month's worth of annual demand, probably less than 5% in a typical year, should be able to meet the UK's worst case conditions with a suitable mix of solar and wind. I suspect that it would also be cheaper than nuclear backup, even if it is based on storing hydrogen in Salt caverns. However, I believe there are probably much better and than using hydrogen.
@CleaningUpPod
I'm with you, Michael, on nuclear. The usual modus operandi for businesses, especially those in the private sector, with expensive equipment is generally to operate it at the maximum realistic capacity factor, unless someone's prepared to pay you to do otherwise.
To keep the cost of nuclear generation down once you've built it you really need it to be running it at the highest capacity factor available, there's no real point in turning it down just so you can use wind and solar you might just as well build less solar and wind. In fact, with high levels of nuclear in the system you also need some flexible on demand capability, possibly storage, because you will need to ramp generation up and down quickly at times.
Because the marginal cost of nuclear is so small the cost of electricity is mostly due to the capital and financing costs so, to be viable it needs to generate the same amount of revenue each year which is almost independent from the amount of electricity generated.
Economically, nuclear basically displaces wind and solar rather than supporting them.
Renewables are the ONLY long term solution to energy! EU should invest in North African States and build interconnections and even a gas line??
The best reason to do nuclear is because that's how we develop nuclear power stations and undirected or lightly directed research is how we improve science and technology. But we should clear up some of our planning issues in the UK though without compromising safety. I don't see an reason to build any nuclear station as long as it is expected to be an incremental improvement over previous reactors.
Michael it’s not the 4 year cycle in the USA, it’s the Quarterly Reporting system. Light Capital companies, no emphasis education. We can all be baristas and you do not need infrastructure.
43:15 Why is methanol production able to be switched off without thermal cycling punishment? Presumably this is true only for e-methanol production, since gasifiers require high temperatures?
Please make a separate episode on biofuels. I wish there was a "biomass ladder" similar to your "hydrogen ladder".
Nuclear is baseload, has to be on all the time. That is a problem for it as a backup to weather dependant renewables. It would be lovely if you could have it turned off, and then just turn it on when the weather is bad for renewables. But it has to be on all the time.
Good point about industry demand being able to be turned off during Daunkenflaute.
Australia is wrong for nuclear.
And now LA is on fire 🔥 again, but don't let that stop you. Keep on debating 🤔
With regard to nuclear in Australia, I would say it would probably not a bad idea to watch Aussie engineer Rosie Barnes' episode of her 'Engineering With Rosie' RUclips channel titled: "Four reasons why nuclear power is a dumb idea for Australia"
ruclips.net/video/H_47LWFAG6g/видео.htmlsi=yD4qX30b1UAOpyLY
Regardless of whether Australia should be allowed to build nuclear or not, there is probably little economic sense in it. They don't suffer from any significant dunkelflaute like we do in northern Europe and they get twice as much insolation as we do in the UK and their peak generation probably correlates reasonably well with peak demand, i.e. for powering air conditioning systems. The amount of long-term storage they require is probably very minimal and I very much doubt whether it would justify nuclear when solar is dirt cheap. I wouldn't be at all surprised that for practically all domestic use most homes were able to go completely off grid, considering the plummeting cost and increasing performance of batteries (LiFePO4 UK retail cost ≈$75/KWh & 8,000 cycles = 1.04p/KWh + BoP etc.)
I know Rosie well - I'm fact she has been on the show!
It is not just about oil vs electric. Look at how China has progressed in the last 30 years. Ie; Chinese trains travelling at 200+ mph and US? And for that matter UK. It is Regan and Thatcher who called then a backward looking economy.
I'm with Michael on nuclear. All speed to the governments LDES project and their plan for 22 GW of storage fy the end of the decade.
Michael is an investment advisor and he's very much focused on returns in the immediate market. The *value* of nuclear to the *system* (not to the investor) will become very apparent, when we get to 80% + clean energy. Anyone who thinks that storage, alone, can solve the dunkelflaute problem, is either being disingenuous (for example by quoting *capacity* without a *time* value of storage) or doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem. Julia Pyke kept pushing Michael on this very point, and he simply didn't have an answer. But I do agree with Micheal on 'all of the above'. The constant RE vs Nuclear debate is a false binary, mostly propagated by covert climate deniers.
@@enemyofthestatewearein7945 Continent-wide (and beyond) UHV grid.
Thanks guys, great debate. I agree totally with Bryony Worthington. She has a very comprehensively well thought out position. Michael's position is too much based on unsupported opinions. Claiming we can fully compensate for dankelflaut by demand adjustment is simply moving deficiencies in energy generation costs to users. Productivity and the economy as a whole would suffer.
I don't claim that. I believe we'll end up using unabated gas for a week or two of Dunkelflaute per year. The ultras will whine and moan, but the cost of eliminating those last 2-4% of emissions will be so exorbitant that we'll simply never decide it's worth it.
I don't think she does. The nuclear tribe love to talk about the whole system picture, but then completely fail to detail how nuclear, that can't ramp (it needs to run almost full throttle to be economic), can solve the dunkelflaute problem economically. Sure, use nuclear in Europe that have deep winter peaks for the baseload, But here in Australia we don't have deep winters, nor dunkelflaute and so nuclear makes no sense here, contrary to Bryony's claim.
@rockinrobstar81 As someone who has powered my home for over twenty five years purely on solar PV and wind, I can assure you Australian dankelflaut is a thing. It can happen anytime but usually occurs in late winter with up to ten days straight where renewables output is just 20% of rated output. By day four of such events local storage batteries are depleted and it is generators on.
These events typically occur once a year but sometimes up to three times a year. Just occasionally they don't happen at all.
At a national grid level, pumped storage such as Snowy Hydro 2 (350GWhr at the 2GW rate, cost $13bn) compensates for such episodes. Each such project is the equivalent of a mid sized nuclear power plant.
The trouble is modelling shows that to provide the necessary assurance with a 100% renewables solution, ten such projects are needed by 2050. So far only 2 have been approved. One of the other more promising pumped hydro projects (Burdekin) has been cancelled, a disgraceful decision IMO that must be reversed.
Setting that aside the issue is operationally and environmentally acceptable sites. The problem is lack of substantial rivers and sites offering the needed elevation and volume at a feasible cost.
Having had a look at the issue I can only see about five 'good' sites in eastern Australia including Marinus and Snowy2. This includes Burdekin.
I think we should go ahead and build all five. To make up for the five missing projects we should use nuclear.
The nuclear component would constitute about 30% of the needed generation capacity by 2050. The balance could then be safely provided by renewables backed by the five mega storage projects. Chemical batteries would cover transition periods for example from wind and solar to hydro and/or nuclear and vice versa.
The nuclear would be scaled for the fixed baseload. The rest would be set up to handle the minute to minute variable load including peak demands such as heat waves etc.
I am inclined to Labor view points but in this case I think the Coalition proposal for seven nuclear plants of various sizes is about right. To convince me otherwise, Labor would have to announce funding for eight large scale pumped hydro projects to including something to cover WA and SA. I just don't see that happening.
And round and round we go. Great debate but! Nothing changes I think think Xi and Putin have had the best effects 🤔 Isn't that funny 🤔 🎉
Americans will still be using fossil fuels when the Chinese are teleporting. 😂
Teleporting citizens to torture chambers problably
"VAST tracts of land"
To save Australian wildlife habitat I would be happy to pay a premium for small footprint nuclear, but not for the other 'green' alternatives.
Makes sense, what with Australia being even more crowded than Hong Kong.
Min. 40:25: 'Sorry Miss Worthington, *you are spreading complete myths!* Germany still *has got enough conventional generation capacity to be completely independent!* There is absolutely *no need* for polish coal to come in!
However! Gas and coal is *expensive!* And nearly always it is cheaper to get electricity from somewhere else - mostly Scandinavia! Polish coal just like german coal is subject to limitations by European CO2-certificates and cannot be cheaper than german coal.
5:11 the emotional ones are the Democrats. They are also very autocratic in their nature, suffering from a superiority complex.
Technical speaking China is powered by coal with 60% of its electricity coming from coal fired powered plants. The US in contrast is a natural gas powered state with NG replacing coal and accounting for about 50% of electricty.
34min in where is the Uranium going to come from for the West for all these Nuclear power stations as I believe Iran is the only country with good reserves?
There are ample uranium reserves about 4,000 years with fuel recycling. More using the thorium cycle and extraction from seawater. The general idea is to use fission until fusion is available. At that point fuel reserves equal the life of the planet