Nuclear is in many ways a government power grab. Nuclear requires massive financial appropriations via public tax funding over decades. The operation of Nuclear power plants is highly centralized and specialized, removing the ability of repair, upgrade, and modifications from common citizens and placing it solely in the hands of expert government nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians. Solar and batteries are a decentalized solution that more directly benefits owners and local regions with much greater capital efficiency than nuclear.
You are spot on Sam, nukes are just huge money pits. Recent perovskite solar cell developments from Sydney and Korea allowing the capture of infrared energy will improve their cost efficiency greatly vs other power generation modalities.
In Ontario, who has had nuclear for years, the big issue is disposing of the spent fuels. Nobody wants them buried near them ( including me). Solar + batteries make so much sense. You are quite right.
I live in a country where it's cloudy/rainy around 300 days per year. In summer we generate our electricity from solar but in winter, at best 5-10% so we need nuclear....
@@jsanders100 Belgium. We haven't got more than 4-5 days of sun since last November and very few wind though we have a lot of wind generation capacities too. Some weeks ago we even had to switch on natural gas power plants because it was cold and we had almost zero renewables and the nuclear was at 100%
Firstly BASELOAD IS NOT SUPPLY, its actually load, the clue is in the name. Its a concept created to suit inflexible generators like coal steam plant. Without steam plant we can forget about baseload, we just need enough power and availability to balance the grid second be second. Australia has practically no baseload because of home solar, someone will have to pay for the Nuclear plant while it isn't receiving revenue so that it pays back its loans. Nuclear makes no sense. Engineering with Rosie" did a good video on it.
Oh? "According to available data, nuclear energy costs significantly less in China compared to the United States, with China building nuclear plants at roughly one-third the cost per kilowatt compared to the US due to factors like government support, streamlined supply chains, and lower labor costs; in China, the cost per kilowatt is around $2,500 - $3,000, while in the US it is significantly higher, often exceeding $6,000 per kilowatt. " (GoogleAI) And.... China is starting the construction of a developmental thorium MSR which will drive costs down even further as these reactor are ambient pressure reactors with higher temperature outputs (better efficiency). These reactors can be built in a factory and shipped to their site. "The Chinese Academy of Sciences’ environmental-impact report states that the molten-salt reactor core will be 3 meters in height and 2.8 meters in diameter. It will operate at 700 °C and have a thermal output of 60 MW, along with 10 MW of electricity." (spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor#:~:text=China's%20demo%20reactor%20could%20breed%20nuclear%20fuel%20from%20rare%20earth%20waste&text=After%20a%20half%2Dcentury%20hiatus,reactor%20in%20the%20Gobi%20Desert. The race is on for thorium molten salt reactors.
Because it's only cheap to produce, moving that power around, controlling it, storing it and making a profit off of it is what they don't want to talk about.
We're all paying for the end of life of some coal stations, and for the transition to a new regime. It'll get cheaper - but nuclear... Oh boy you don't know expensive yet!
In Pennsylvania, we have had and still do, the most nukes, along with the state of Illinois. 11 nukes at 6 sites and Pennsylvania 8 nuke reactors at 4 sites All these reactors must shut down for 2 to 3 months for refueling every 24 months. Spent uranium fuel rods are removed and fresh ones installed. This is the production of nuclear waste, a growing National Security threat as well as public health problem. The intermittent production of electricity means plants are developed in pairs of reactors so one can be refueled without crashing the base load. The battery solution is more economic and NOT intermittent due to 100% utilization of the capital investment.
I wonder which country would build it, not been answered yet but it would have to be France or China. France would want payment in advance after the submarine debacle and do conservatives want Chinese reactors?
these guys told us 20Mb/s internet speed was all we would ever need.....live on TV. They are just being brain dead arseholes. How do you argue with an idiot? This is politics at its absolute worst imaginable.
Grid operators love nuclear and I’m certain they are behind this. But it won’t go the way they think. If Australia invests heavily in nuclear it will only accelerate the move to rooftop solar. Grid electricity prices will go up and consumers will find that it’s cheaper to generate their own low cost power with home solar panels and batteries. A similar change happened in Pakistan. The utilities invested in more coal plants, the cost of electricity from the grid went up, many consumers invested in home solar, the loss of customers drove up grid power costs even further, and this encouraged even more households to generate their own solar power. Here is a VOA report on this topic: ruclips.net/video/Ui34YZ4gJfU/видео.htmlsi=AfAXoP3QLfKYjH64
Renewables are a no-brainer for most of Australia. When real storage solutions are available (right now storage is still hokey) they will not have enough installed renewables (solar) installed to keep up. Get solar on every home, forget big corporate pv plants.
Batteries are the solution now and a totally viable I have one and if the government would let me have more so,at I would get a second. Utilities also love battle its make the network easier to drive it’s like going from a manual to an automatic. The batteries make load following g to control the frequency and voltage very easy indeed.
@Chris-ei5fz I have solar and an EV, my utility only supports Tesla power wall to be connected to the grid, that is a deal breaker, F-elon/Tesla. I am committed to Enphase and just waiting for release of their V2H solution. Batteries are still on pricey side and technically some are very dangerous and require ideal conditions to work properly which is not a proper thing for mainstream, only early adopters can afford to go that route so no they are not ready for mainstream yet. Solar and grid tie is ready for mainstream. I had a PV system for 18 years, I completely replaced it with new and plan to put the old SunPower panels on a different portion of my roof in the future. 18 years ago the weakness was inverters and except for enphase most inverters are still not ready for mainstream. You shouldn't have to mess with inverter for 20 years.
@@thereplacementfordisplacement The dangerous batteries were withdrawn and none are available here (it was from a manufacturer that has had continual problems worldwide). I don't know whether there is any ban on exporting from your home but why would you give your power away? I also doubt that your utility would restrict the battery supplier to Tesla and I am with Endeavour Energy (retailer AGL) and was able to have my batteries connected to the grid if I wanted.
If you want to see how rediculous new nuclear power is, look at Hinkley point C in the UK, years late, way over budget and will generate the most expensive electricity.
Yeah, that's why Finland has just opened a nuclear plant and so has sunny Qatar in the desert, because there just stupid I guess and Australia is smarter than the rest of the world.
@@pauld3327 That project has huge overruns but that is bad management. If the Chinese had direct control of the construction rather than a combined French/Chinese operation I suspect it would have been more successful.
I lived in Aussie when Abbot was PM, they loved coal and Scomo thought big batteries were big bananas. Its no surprise Dutton thinks nuclear is the way to go, they hate aussie battlers.
Some of the biggest problems with nuclear is disposal of spent & contaminated waste as well as decommission cost at end of life of Plant. It costs billions and takes years to complete.
We need to separate industrial needs from household and small business. Dutton has given the game away on this, domestic customers and paying more for electricity to give cheap electricity to industrial users.
you need to think again... a big enough battery can do any amount of storage........you will never have to supply 100% of energy at peak for a day... we have a solar wind grid and batteries. Just oversupply alternatives and have plenty of batteries.
It doesn't have to, local production and storage solves domestic and small business needs it's heavy industry that is the problem, perhaps they should buy their own nuclear plant.
no battery needs to power australia 24/7. Batteries dont generate power, they store power. The libs decided to build the worlds biggest battery, the Snowy mountains scheme 2. It was supposed to cost $2b according to the same geniuses who propose nuclear power. Its now $12b and still not due for completion for another couple of years. Its the same geniuses that said copper wire was all we would ever need for the " internet". If for no other reason, these clowns want to destroy australia. Maybe unreal1, you need to reassess and look at the assumptions in your figures cause your logic aint too bright with that statement already.
And I thought we Americans were insane when it comes to EV,, solar, and batteries vc nukes, and fossil fuels (we are). It's nice to know that we have company in Australia.
Yeah sure, that's why Microsoft is going to get the Three Mile island nuclear plant up and running and take all of it's power, why don't they just use renewables instead?
My understanding is they propose demand that can be varied. Excess energy when available is used to create wealth (maybe steel - I dunno) and then when domestic demand is high those industries are throttled back. I hate the idea of us using nuclear.
Within ten years building solar will be like laying carpet or turf, cheap, quick and easy. The industry is still with gums, no teeth yet, its not even crawling yet.
We need to shift our mindset from focusing on base load power to incorporating variable load and battery storage. For example, we can leverage data centers and AI training to dynamically adjust demand, matching the supply from solar and wind energy, and using batteries. Instead of thinking in terms of base load, we should consider it as a way to manage excess generation and usage.
Besides cost, which is huge, the biggest reason why it is incredibly irresponsible to expand nuclear in Australia is the same problem we have in the US. From Google AI... "Australia doesn't have a clear national approach to the permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The facility at Lucas Heights is nearing capacity." Insane to add even more high level waste to this virtually unsolvable problem! Just up the coast from me in Maine the high level nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) from a long decommissioned and disassembled nuclear power plant (that I worked at briefly in the late 90s) still sits onsite with NO plan whatsoever to do anything with it. They have to hire 24x7 security to watch the casks sit there and rust, and will have to for DECADES & CENTURIES to come. Completely insane but that is our normal.
They should be incentivizing demand-driven V2L with real-time pricing, and build out a whole bunch of V2L charging stations all over the place where it makes sense
France is still planning to build 6 new EPR2 reactors starting 2027, with an option of build 8 more. There was a recent auditor report saying that their finance plans needs more work. Was this what you were referring too?
Just insane plan to start nuclear in a sunny country, when solar+wind+batteries improve each year and get cheaper as well. Just crazy expensive as no nuclear built plan stays within budget makes it even worse.
The problem is that it DOESN'T get cheaper, the more renewables the more expensive power gets, prices have quadrupled since the pursuit of renewable energy started.
Nuclear can do district heating cheaper than anything, pipes are the big expense ,less than 1 cent / kwh thermal, save more than electric cars will Molten salt can store heat from summer for winter, at @5 cents maybe
Australia has a massive advantage when it comes to energy .................it's the big shiny think in the sky pouring down free energy, massive amounts of land to put collectors and batteries so obviously you need to build Nuclear power stations 🤨you can worry about the risks and possible nuclear disaster's later
I think it would be helpful to share the source of the French government saying nuclear it was a mistake. I would like to be able to share this with others
Friend's Nissan leaf battery was down to less than 50% in 5 years, longevity will vary according to design and QC. I don't support the LNP, I think you are the one who has bias on this one.
You just said we have a high debt to GDP..so we don't have any money... simultaneously you think Australians will spend $360 billion on CERs🤣 And how do solar farms make money when the energy they create is given away for free?
Plus you need to add in another 10,000 k's of transmission lines, masses of upgrades to local infrastructure to apply 2 way power to a system that was only ever built for one direction of power flow. Then there's the huge local upgrades required to send the power to the thousands of fast chargers that will be needed for the estimated growth of EV's, which Mobil found out when they got a grant from the Aus government to install fast chargers. . Then there's the simple fact that Companies spending billions on wind and solar farms are NOT in it for the environment or too make things cheaper, they are there to recoup their investment and make a profit.
Is more than nuclear is worst project to manager than arranging the Olympics. Over budget, delayed significant and will be under benefits. Read “how big things get done” and you will understand why Australia will fail on this mega project
This is the key point. Many in the west say building a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a windfarm, large scale solar, a dam, a road, a bridge, a tunnel, new power lines, lithium batteries just cost too much. Let's find an alternative. The alternative will ALWAYS be competence. China in their 40 year modernization has focused on competence. They have built ALL of these things at scale with reasonable costs. All of the new nuclear generating capacity in China started from French and US designs. They focused on implementation, repeatability and scale to drive costs down. They have been repeating this pattern for nearly thirty years now. They partnered, studied, improved and iterated. This is how mastery is achieved. Wanna learn to play the piano? Take some lessons, practice, experiment and improve. Resist the urge to start over with a new instrument every six months.
These useless nuclear containment dome can make great battery storage rooms with preexisting grid connection and if a battery fire starts, they will starve it of oxygen making it easier to handle and cause less damage to the surrounding area.
CATL grid batteries have no degradation for the first 5 years, will likely last 10-15 years minimum. In that time, longer life span/higher density batteries will be developed and it'll be cost effective to replace units likely before they come to the end of their life anyway.
Clever people have diversification in their investment portfolio; economies should have diversity in their sources of energy I cannot see renewables powering intense industries in Australia in the short term; Australia continues to progress to an almost 100% service economy, seeing it's intense industries dwindle away So perhaps Australia doesn't need nuclear
I would measure my merchandise selling. I did send you some money, but it was hard to do. I had to figure it out. It took me a long time get rid of as much unnecessary stuff as possible to . Have people donate to you. Test for like a week or so see which one brings you money.
They may want a nuclear expertise/resources supply chain, for possible future development of nuclear weapons, so economic costs do not matter. Australia is getting nuclear submarines, and has had tensions with China, which is a nuclear power.
Loads of flawed arguments in this video. Cheapest power bills I ever had were significantly based on nuclear generation. These giant batteries are not true baseload, since they normally only store enough to back up for 1 day at most. Pumped hydro would be better, but the public hates it. Aus is probably the best place on earth for nuclear. Tesla is motivated by profits to spread propaganda. Rooftop solar can't work for every power hungry element in a major city.
Tesla: Please don't build nuclear because we want to sell you billions in battery storage. You literally can't be more obvious. It would be like the landlord at your local pub advising you not to become sober. Ok, maybe an exaggeration, but I think the comparison still holds.
Actually Australia now is hitting a golden spot to go full solar, with grid scale batteries becoming available and dropping in price. Lots of sun, lots of space (unlike many northern EU economies) and near China for delivery of solar panels without shipping them around the world. The EU invested too much, much too early (solar capacity at 4 USD and 2 USD per Watt with 20 years grid-feed warranties at high prices per kWh) and totally uncoordinated. I really don´t see the problem of asking several universities with dedicated students and professors to analyse, plan, propose, check integrated solutions with 20 year plans. Investment cost, maintenance, replacement provisions, energy needs for EVs and AI etc. - and than for the Government to give on top a 20 year warranty to the consumer for consumer prices evolution and the legal framework for installing their own solar on the rooftop. All data is available, go for it. The only restriction I see is: the same as You don´t invest all money in one stock only, energy is so important for our lives that You don´t make Yourself 90% dependable of one energy source type only, there must be a backup.
If EU hadn't invested "too soon", you wouldn't have any solar at all! Because then the prices would not have been combative enough to eg. coal. So it is EU's "fault" that you have any of it today, dummkopf! You know, that somebody have to be first movers, before anything becomes well priced.😂 Btw. Northern Europe have lots of space to put solar on. To go fully solar, we (Denmark) would only need to use about 4% of our farming area, minus that put on buildings and city spaces as parking lots. And, do you know, that we also have our own solar cell producers in EU? And the (pardon my danish) dumb argument, about not sailing around the world don't fly - because You import other things from the other side of the world as well. Actually You import over 25% of your imports from Europe and the Americas (USA, Canada, Mexico ect.). If any, Australia are so dependent on China that when Mr. Xi says jump, you say, "How high"? 😉
@@IQueDK It´s been sometime that I took off the pink glasses You still have on. And Denmark has something called Wintertime too. You too should know that Europe is done with the impossibly high energy prices self-induced crisis. When Mr. Xi says jump, Europeans - they first kowtow, than jump over the cliff!
You are wrong. Duke Power’s Oconee Nuclear Station (US) 3 Units were built on time and on budget. It’s been generating 3600 MW dependably for almost 50 years. I’m all for solar but get your facts straight.
Solar cost 10 cent Wp. 50 dollar a panel of 500 Wp. Hinckley Point Nucleaire UK cost going to 50 Billion. You can buy a Billion Solar Panels for that Money. 500 Billion Wp. That is in Australia with solar SRI 2 a Production of 1000 Billion kWh Every Year. For Free. Solar is for Free.👍👍👍
Thank you for Reminding me - "Disinformation is already 'Inside the Gates'." (We are in a heap of Trouble, Ladies and Gentlemen. {Hope your Dear Wife is doing somewhat better than "As well as could be expected."})
Don't get me wrong nuclear is a beast in making cheap electricity in my opinion a nation should have atleast 50% of its electricity running on nuclear while the rest is all renewable nuclear should play as the backbone of high demand places. But that does not mean to put all eggs in one basket.
WRONG. Nuclear is by far the most expensive way to make electricity. Look up the levelled cost of energy and compare it to solar and battery combination.
It'll be on par if not worse to when Tasmania was connected to the national energy grid in circa 2005. ever since than our prices here have become more expensive when we should have remained disconnected from the grid. If Tas just slapped up more solar and upgraded the gens at hydrodams and it pumped hydro we could EASILY run the state without connecting to the NEM. I won't disagree that nuclear energy had majorly important roles to play between 1940 and early 2000s but with how good solar and hydro alone are (Not including wind or wave gens) there is simply no need to build nuclear reactors leading into 2030. Didn't dutton want like 6 of these things? Goodluck that'll end up easily costing 30+bn and the money will have to be made back someway, either by abolishing feed in tariff or energy price increases or both combined with other higher taxes. it's a dumb idea and i can bet you dutton has vested interest in this .
Nuclear is in many ways a government power grab. Nuclear requires massive financial appropriations via public tax funding over decades. The operation of Nuclear power plants is highly centralized and specialized, removing the ability of repair, upgrade, and modifications from common citizens and placing it solely in the hands of expert government nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians. Solar and batteries are a decentalized solution that more directly benefits owners and local regions with much greater capital efficiency than nuclear.
I totally agree. Solar and batteries and wind
Pumped storage, tidal, current... the list goes on.
You are spot on Sam, nukes are just huge money pits. Recent perovskite solar cell developments from Sydney and Korea allowing the capture of infrared energy will improve their cost efficiency greatly vs other power generation modalities.
In Ontario, who has had nuclear for years, the big issue is disposing of the spent fuels. Nobody wants them buried near them ( including me). Solar + batteries make so much sense. You are quite right.
waste is no where closer to solved than 100 years ago.
Same problem in the US. So I commented the same as you. Madness!
I live in a country where it's cloudy/rainy around 300 days per year. In summer we generate our electricity from solar but in winter, at best 5-10% so we need nuclear....
What country?
@@jsanders100 Belgium. We haven't got more than 4-5 days of sun since last November and very few wind though we have a lot of wind generation capacities too. Some weeks ago we even had to switch on natural gas power plants because it was cold and we had almost zero renewables and the nuclear was at 100%
Yes there is a case for Nuclear is some places, better than burning gas but somewhere on what is called the "sun belt".
Firstly BASELOAD IS NOT SUPPLY, its actually load, the clue is in the name. Its a concept created to suit inflexible generators like coal steam plant. Without steam plant we can forget about baseload, we just need enough power and availability to balance the grid second be second.
Australia has practically no baseload because of home solar, someone will have to pay for the Nuclear plant while it isn't receiving revenue so that it pays back its loans.
Nuclear makes no sense. Engineering with Rosie" did a good video on it.
When one has idiotic opportunistic politicians as for Dutton, pain is guaranteed.
And he will do 100% tax on EVs due to national security. But that is US security not ours.
@@Romerso1 Something to fear yes.
Solar farms should be a slam dunk for Australia ... prices are falling for panels and storage. The day of big nuke is over.
Oh? "According to available data, nuclear energy costs significantly less in China compared to the United States, with China building nuclear plants at roughly one-third the cost per kilowatt compared to the US due to factors like government support, streamlined supply chains, and lower labor costs; in China, the cost per kilowatt is around $2,500 - $3,000, while in the US it is significantly higher, often exceeding $6,000 per kilowatt. " (GoogleAI)
And.... China is starting the construction of a developmental thorium MSR which will drive costs down even further as these reactor are ambient pressure reactors with higher temperature outputs (better efficiency). These reactors can be built in a factory and shipped to their site.
"The Chinese Academy of Sciences’ environmental-impact report states that the molten-salt reactor core will be 3 meters in height and 2.8 meters in diameter. It will operate at 700 °C and have a thermal output of 60 MW, along with 10 MW of electricity." (spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor#:~:text=China's%20demo%20reactor%20could%20breed%20nuclear%20fuel%20from%20rare%20earth%20waste&text=After%20a%20half%2Dcentury%20hiatus,reactor%20in%20the%20Gobi%20Desert.
The race is on for thorium molten salt reactors.
Need to figure out how to recycle the panels at their end of use.
@@Islamisthecultofsinthat’s already sorted. 🤷🏻♂️
Why does all this cheap green energy always lead to higher electricity bills?
Because it's only cheap to produce, moving that power around, controlling it, storing it and making a profit off of it is what they don't want to talk about.
Agreed. Solar and wind always end up being very expensive
@@pauld3327 No they don't but retailers may be profiting at your expense.
We're all paying for the end of life of some coal stations, and for the transition to a new regime. It'll get cheaper - but nuclear... Oh boy you don't know expensive yet!
In Pennsylvania, we have had and still do, the most nukes, along with the state of Illinois. 11 nukes at 6 sites and Pennsylvania 8 nuke reactors at 4 sites
All these reactors must shut down for 2 to 3 months for refueling every 24 months. Spent uranium fuel rods are removed and fresh ones installed. This is the production of nuclear waste, a growing National Security threat as well as public health problem.
The intermittent production of electricity means plants are developed in pairs of reactors so one can be refueled without crashing the base load.
The battery solution is more economic and NOT intermittent due to 100% utilization of the capital investment.
Together, these 2 states provide over 20% the nuclear power production of electricity in the USA.
20% of nuclear fleet, not 20% of overall electricity produced.
How can anybody build nuclear today? This is so expensive.
I wonder which country would build it, not been answered yet but it would have to be France or China. France would want payment in advance after the submarine debacle and do conservatives want Chinese reactors?
these guys told us 20Mb/s internet speed was all we would ever need.....live on TV. They are just being brain dead arseholes. How do you argue with an idiot? This is politics at its absolute worst imaginable.
Grid operators love nuclear and I’m certain they are behind this. But it won’t go the way they think.
If Australia invests heavily in nuclear it will only accelerate the move to rooftop solar. Grid electricity prices will go up and consumers will find that it’s cheaper to generate their own low cost power with home solar panels and batteries.
A similar change happened in Pakistan. The utilities invested in more coal plants, the cost of electricity from the grid went up, many consumers invested in home solar, the loss of customers drove up grid power costs even further, and this encouraged even more households to generate their own solar power. Here is a VOA report on this topic:
ruclips.net/video/Ui34YZ4gJfU/видео.htmlsi=AfAXoP3QLfKYjH64
But your tax still goes to pay for nuclear power plants and the obsolete nuclear submarines which we get by 2040 if ever.
@@Romerso1 Yes your tax will be used for it.
Love you, dude! Tony S said it. Legislative Capture. Same here in the US.
Renewables are a no-brainer for most of Australia. When real storage solutions are available (right now storage is still hokey) they will not have enough installed renewables (solar) installed to keep up. Get solar on every home, forget big corporate pv plants.
Batteries are the solution now and a totally viable I have one and if the government would let me have more so,at I would get a second. Utilities also love battle its make the network easier to drive it’s like going from a manual to an automatic. The batteries make load following g to control the frequency and voltage very easy indeed.
@Chris-ei5fz I have solar and an EV, my utility only supports Tesla power wall to be connected to the grid, that is a deal breaker, F-elon/Tesla. I am committed to Enphase and just waiting for release of their V2H solution. Batteries are still on pricey side and technically some are very dangerous and require ideal conditions to work properly which is not a proper thing for mainstream, only early adopters can afford to go that route so no they are not ready for mainstream yet. Solar and grid tie is ready for mainstream. I had a PV system for 18 years, I completely replaced it with new and plan to put the old SunPower panels on a different portion of my roof in the future. 18 years ago the weakness was inverters and except for enphase most inverters are still not ready for mainstream. You shouldn't have to mess with inverter for 20 years.
@@thereplacementfordisplacement The dangerous batteries were withdrawn and none are available here (it was from a manufacturer that has had continual problems worldwide). I don't know whether there is any ban on exporting from your home but why would you give your power away? I also doubt that your utility would restrict the battery supplier to Tesla and I am with Endeavour Energy (retailer AGL) and was able to have my batteries connected to the grid if I wanted.
If you want to see how rediculous new nuclear power is, look at Hinkley point C in the UK, years late, way over budget and will generate the most expensive electricity.
Yeah, that's why Finland has just opened a nuclear plant and so has sunny Qatar in the desert, because there just stupid I guess and Australia is smarter than the rest of the world.
But there is not much sun in the UK in the winter when you need to heat your home.
@@pauld3327 That project has huge overruns but that is bad management. If the Chinese had direct control of the construction rather than a combined French/Chinese operation I suspect it would have been more successful.
I lived in Aussie when Abbot was PM, they loved coal and Scomo thought big batteries were big bananas. Its no surprise Dutton thinks nuclear is the way to go, they hate aussie battlers.
Some of the biggest problems with nuclear is disposal of spent & contaminated waste as well as decommission cost at end of life of Plant. It costs billions and takes years to complete.
On this one I absolutely agree with you 👌💯❤️
There is no decrease in base load demand...it's gone up..
We need to separate industrial needs from household and small business. Dutton has given the game away on this, domestic customers and paying more for electricity to give cheap electricity to industrial users.
more alternatives, more batteries... not rocket science
No battery can power Australia 24/7. 27 GIGA Watts is need for every hour, NO battery can supple 27 Giga Watts per hour.
you need to think again... a big enough battery can do any amount of storage........you will never have to supply 100% of energy at peak for a day... we have a solar wind grid and batteries. Just oversupply alternatives and have plenty of batteries.
It doesn't have to, local production and storage solves domestic and small business needs it's heavy industry that is the problem, perhaps they should buy their own nuclear plant.
no battery needs to power australia 24/7. Batteries dont generate power, they store power. The libs decided to build the worlds biggest battery, the Snowy mountains scheme 2. It was supposed to cost $2b according to the same geniuses who propose nuclear power. Its now $12b and still not due for completion for another couple of years. Its the same geniuses that said copper wire was all we would ever need for the " internet". If for no other reason, these clowns want to destroy australia. Maybe unreal1, you need to reassess and look at the assumptions in your figures cause your logic aint too bright with that statement already.
It's not as if Tesla is a neutral party in this, or have an unbiased CEO
No doubt, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Also Tesla is not the only battery supplier for these projects.
And I thought we Americans were insane when it comes to EV,, solar, and batteries vc nukes, and fossil fuels (we are). It's nice to know that we have company in Australia.
The only way that these power plants would make sense is if they have absolutely massive AI Farms but even then solar would still be enough so...
Even that doesnt make senee now. Today amazon release DeepSeek on Sagemaker... no new bug AI infra or power required. Job done. 30x less power. Lolz!
Yeah sure, that's why Microsoft is going to get the Three Mile island nuclear plant up and running and take all of it's power, why don't they just use renewables instead?
My understanding is they propose demand that can be varied. Excess energy when available is used to create wealth (maybe steel - I dunno) and then when domestic demand is high those industries are throttled back.
I hate the idea of us using nuclear.
Nuclear is a solution when you want U238 to make plutonium..to make weapons. High temp water reactors do that.
Within ten years building solar will be like laying carpet or turf, cheap, quick and easy. The industry is still with gums, no teeth yet, its not even crawling yet.
I believe the reason countries are pursuing nuclear is to employ nuclear scientists because you can't build nuclear expertise overnight.
It will have to be Chinese.
You can GIVE everyone solar and a battery for 250 billion. Ot you could pay 350 billion for 15% of power from nuclear.
We need to shift our mindset from focusing on base load power to incorporating variable load and battery storage. For example, we can leverage data centers and AI training to dynamically adjust demand, matching the supply from solar and wind energy, and using batteries. Instead of thinking in terms of base load, we should consider it as a way to manage excess generation and usage.
Besides cost, which is huge, the biggest reason why it is incredibly irresponsible to expand nuclear in Australia is the same problem we have in the US. From Google AI...
"Australia doesn't have a clear national approach to the permanent disposal of nuclear waste.
The facility at Lucas Heights is nearing capacity."
Insane to add even more high level waste to this virtually unsolvable problem!
Just up the coast from me in Maine the high level nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) from a long decommissioned and disassembled nuclear power plant (that I worked at briefly in the late 90s) still sits onsite with NO plan whatsoever to do anything with it. They have to hire 24x7 security to watch the casks sit there and rust, and will have to for DECADES & CENTURIES to come. Completely insane but that is our normal.
Viking, you can always use more power. now, 2 GW is very small for nuclear. one reactor will be at least 1 GW. so you mean building 2 reactors?
They should be incentivizing demand-driven V2L with real-time pricing, and build out a whole bunch of V2L charging stations all over the place where it makes sense
France is still planning to build 6 new EPR2 reactors starting 2027, with an option of build 8 more. There was a recent auditor report saying that their finance plans needs more work. Was this what you were referring too?
They can throttle a nuclear plant. They run them at full power because the power generated is cheaper.
CHEAPER IT IS NOT.
@@paulc6766 I mean for the nuclear reactor. Full power produces cheaper electricity for it not compared to other sources of power.
Just insane plan to start nuclear in a sunny country, when solar+wind+batteries improve each year and get cheaper as well.
Just crazy expensive as no nuclear built plan stays within budget makes it even worse.
The problem is that it DOESN'T get cheaper, the more renewables the more expensive power gets, prices have quadrupled since the pursuit of renewable energy started.
Nuclear can do district heating cheaper than anything, pipes are the big expense ,less than 1 cent / kwh thermal, save more than electric cars will
Molten salt can store heat from summer for winter, at @5 cents maybe
If you are thinking of using waste water for heating it is good use of a resource but no use for Australia.
Australia has a massive advantage when it comes to energy .................it's the big shiny think in the sky pouring down free energy, massive amounts of land to put collectors and batteries so obviously you need to build Nuclear power stations 🤨you can worry about the risks and possible nuclear disaster's later
Song - David Rovics - The Biggest Windmill.
I think it would be helpful to share the source of the French government saying nuclear it was a mistake. I would like to be able to share this with others
Friend's Nissan leaf battery was down to less than 50% in 5 years, longevity will vary according to design and QC. I don't support the LNP, I think you are the one who has bias on this one.
Fibber, the battery would be replaced under warranty well before 5 years if the SOH got that low that early.
👍👍👍
You just said we have a high debt to GDP..so we don't have any money... simultaneously you think Australians will spend $360 billion on CERs🤣
And how do solar farms make money when the energy they create is given away for free?
Plus you need to add in another 10,000 k's of transmission lines, masses of upgrades to local infrastructure to apply 2 way power to a system that was only ever built for one direction of power flow.
Then there's the huge local upgrades required to send the power to the thousands of fast chargers that will be needed for the estimated growth of EV's, which Mobil found out when they got a grant from the Aus government to install fast chargers. .
Then there's the simple fact that Companies spending billions on wind and solar farms are NOT in it for the environment or too make things cheaper, they are there to recoup their investment and make a profit.
Is more than nuclear is worst project to manager than arranging the Olympics. Over budget, delayed significant and will be under benefits. Read “how big things get done” and you will understand why Australia will fail on this mega project
This is the key point. Many in the west say building a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a windfarm, large scale solar, a dam, a road, a bridge, a tunnel, new power lines, lithium batteries just cost too much. Let's find an alternative. The alternative will ALWAYS be competence. China in their 40 year modernization has focused on competence. They have built ALL of these things at scale with reasonable costs. All of the new nuclear generating capacity in China started from French and US designs. They focused on implementation, repeatability and scale to drive costs down. They have been repeating this pattern for nearly thirty years now. They partnered, studied, improved and iterated. This is how mastery is achieved. Wanna learn to play the piano? Take some lessons, practice, experiment and improve. Resist the urge to start over with a new instrument every six months.
And how much uranium is accessible?
These useless nuclear containment dome can make great battery storage rooms with preexisting grid connection and if a battery fire starts, they will starve it of oxygen making it easier to handle and cause less damage to the surrounding area.
Don’t listen to him he wants to sell short lived batteries
CATL grid batteries have no degradation for the first 5 years, will likely last 10-15 years minimum. In that time, longer life span/higher density batteries will be developed and it'll be cost effective to replace units likely before they come to the end of their life anyway.
Clever people have diversification in their investment portfolio; economies should have diversity in their sources of energy
I cannot see renewables powering intense industries in Australia in the short term; Australia continues to progress to an almost 100% service economy, seeing it's intense industries dwindle away
So perhaps Australia doesn't need nuclear
Dont let economics get in the way of political spin.
I would measure my merchandise selling. I did send you some money, but it was hard to do. I had to figure it out. It took me a long time get rid of as much unnecessary stuff as possible to . Have people donate to you. Test for like a week or so see which one brings you money.
They may want a nuclear expertise/resources supply chain, for possible future development of nuclear weapons, so economic costs do not matter. Australia is getting nuclear submarines, and has had tensions with China, which is a nuclear power.
💯💯💯💯💯 no 🧠er!.............🇨🇦😎
Loads of flawed arguments in this video. Cheapest power bills I ever had were significantly based on nuclear generation. These giant batteries are not true baseload, since they normally only store enough to back up for 1 day at most. Pumped hydro would be better, but the public hates it. Aus is probably the best place on earth for nuclear. Tesla is motivated by profits to spread propaganda. Rooftop solar can't work for every power hungry element in a major city.
They want to hurt consumers. They dont Care.
Tesla: Please don't build nuclear because we want to sell you billions in battery storage. You literally can't be more obvious. It would be like the landlord at your local pub advising you not to become sober. Ok, maybe an exaggeration, but I think the comparison still holds.
Co2 redox might be cheaper, unlimited storage possible
Some nuclear to close all coal is good. In Europe we may be don’t have enough sun and wind 12 months round. Australia may be different
Actually Australia now is hitting a golden spot to go full solar, with grid scale batteries becoming available and dropping in price. Lots of sun, lots of space (unlike many northern EU economies) and near China for delivery of solar panels without shipping them around the world. The EU invested too much, much too early (solar capacity at 4 USD and 2 USD per Watt with 20 years grid-feed warranties at high prices per kWh) and totally uncoordinated. I really don´t see the problem of asking several universities with dedicated students and professors to analyse, plan, propose, check integrated solutions with 20 year plans. Investment cost, maintenance, replacement provisions, energy needs for EVs and AI etc. - and than for the Government to give on top a 20 year warranty to the consumer for consumer prices evolution and the legal framework for installing their own solar on the rooftop. All data is available, go for it. The only restriction I see is: the same as You don´t invest all money in one stock only, energy is so important for our lives that You don´t make Yourself 90% dependable of one energy source type only, there must be a backup.
If EU hadn't invested "too soon", you wouldn't have any solar at all! Because then the prices would not have been combative enough to eg. coal. So it is EU's "fault" that you have any of it today, dummkopf! You know, that somebody have to be first movers, before anything becomes well priced.😂
Btw. Northern Europe have lots of space to put solar on. To go fully solar, we (Denmark) would only need to use about 4% of our farming area, minus that put on buildings and city spaces as parking lots. And, do you know, that we also have our own solar cell producers in EU? And the (pardon my danish) dumb argument, about not sailing around the world don't fly - because You import other things from the other side of the world as well. Actually You import over 25% of your imports from Europe and the Americas (USA, Canada, Mexico ect.). If any, Australia are so dependent on China that when Mr. Xi says jump, you say, "How high"? 😉
@@IQueDK It´s been sometime that I took off the pink glasses You still have on. And Denmark has something called Wintertime too. You too should know that Europe is done with the impossibly high energy prices self-induced crisis. When Mr. Xi says jump, Europeans - they first kowtow, than jump over the cliff!
You are wrong. Duke Power’s Oconee Nuclear Station (US) 3 Units were built on time and on budget. It’s been generating 3600 MW dependably for almost 50 years. I’m all for solar but get your facts straight.
Solar cost 10 cent Wp. 50 dollar a panel of 500 Wp. Hinckley Point Nucleaire UK cost going to 50 Billion. You can buy a Billion Solar Panels for that Money. 500 Billion Wp. That is in Australia with solar SRI 2 a Production of 1000 Billion kWh Every Year. For Free. Solar is for Free.👍👍👍
Mate we are fckd😂
somebody’s getting paid on and off…
I used to vote lib. They lost me over dumb energy policy and importing US style devisive tactics years ago.
Thank you for Reminding me - "Disinformation is already 'Inside the Gates'." (We are in a heap of Trouble, Ladies and Gentlemen. {Hope your Dear Wife is doing somewhat better than "As well as could be expected."})
Commentasaurus rex
Ah, it may be dumb, but (and this is the important part) someone will make off of it. And really, does anything else matter? >
Don't get me wrong nuclear is a beast in making cheap electricity in my opinion a nation should have atleast 50% of its electricity running on nuclear while the rest is all renewable nuclear should play as the backbone of high demand places. But that does not mean to put all eggs in one basket.
Nuclear is the best option ,no doubt
WRONG. Nuclear is by far the most expensive way to make electricity. Look up the levelled cost of energy and compare it to solar and battery combination.
Australia cannot afford nuclear power it would bankrupt the hole country
@@elephantintheroom5678
Look up where?
Both AEMO and the CSIRO reports are a deceptive and dishonest joke.
It'll be on par if not worse to when Tasmania was connected to the national energy grid in circa 2005. ever since than our prices here have become more expensive when we should have remained disconnected from the grid.
If Tas just slapped up more solar and upgraded the gens at hydrodams and it pumped hydro we could EASILY run the state without connecting to the NEM.
I won't disagree that nuclear energy had majorly important roles to play between 1940 and early 2000s but with how good solar and hydro alone are (Not including wind or wave gens) there is simply no need to build nuclear reactors leading into 2030.
Didn't dutton want like 6 of these things? Goodluck that'll end up easily costing 30+bn and the money will have to be made back someway, either by abolishing feed in tariff or energy price increases or both combined with other higher taxes.
it's a dumb idea and i can bet you dutton has vested interest in this .
Don't claim its mathematically insane Sam....you have NFI....🤣
Very sad.
Please please please please use audio track in hindi language we face huge problem 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
This video is the best thing that has happened to us in a long time. Now we have a new way to spend time together🍭