@@acomputer121 " Nuclear is not dispatchable" - that's not what Gemini says. "is nuclear power dispatchable ?: Yes, nuclear power is considered a dispatchable source of electricity."
Batteries don’t last forever, you should also look at the cost of renewables for an 80-100 year period. The batteries and solar panels might need to be replace 3 or 4 times while nuclear will not.
They sure as heck don't, and don't play well when it's too cold or hot. Further, Liion chemistry batteries are a potential fire hazard, and require specialized storage for safety. Lastly, if we go all in on Liion batteries for home storage, that demand will detract from the availability of batteries for EV production.
@junctionroadparklandsvlog5035 incorrect, sales are down because consumers are now aware of true running costs and horrendous resale values. Its a bitter pill to swallow for you, but swallow it, you must...
Yes, get a National Advertisement Plan happening, we all should be told the TRUTH, not "Fobbed off" with Political BS. Once the Information is Out there and people can "digest" it, then have a Referendum on it, because at the end of the day, WE the People are Paying for it.
Winton power - 250 hectares. 85mw PEAK capacity. While yes, the renewable plan can use dual use land. I understand the effects are still being studied to this day. I think the use for wind generation has more prospects that solo solar, purely because you can use power from the grid to turn the blade. However the guys running the grid may correct me. If you could stop the flow of steam over a turbine then use power from the grid to turn the generator then you have a sink for the excess power from the grid. Sparky’s may correct me….
I've had dealings with two wind generation companies and one proposed transmission line company who want to use my farm land and I can tell you they have all been dishonest beyond belief. I'm not surprised that thier costings are dishonest.
The wind generation companies are burying spent blades beside the towers. They are also walking away from wind generation sites the world over with no remediation. One site near me was showing lead poisoning in beef entering markets. It turns out that they bought towers from Vietnam that were painted with lead based paint and it entered the environment that the cows were grazing. Ask yourself why the wind companies enforce a strict secrecy clause with the host landholders? I have had one these clauses put onto myself by pacific hydro. A company that is no longer.
@@yt.personal.identification so I’m tipping you don’t own a farm that these people are destroying and don’t care about. They are also companies from overseas and guess where the subsidies and profits go? The crowlands wind generation site is now owned by the Chinese but hey that may have changed again as these sites a bought and sold relentlessly. The Ararat site has had three owners since being in operation. If they were honest and working to an industry standard set by an Australian governing body their credibility amongst rural communities might be different. My farm has to meet the requirements of several governing bodies. One neighbour told me that their family wants to sell their land with towers on it because they now realise they will be responsible for demolition when the overseas company walks away. Another farm nearby is for sale with towers on it and I asked the real estate agent about it and he said the contract for the demolition was to vague to understand. Renewable energy probably does have a place to top up the grid but the renewable industries business model has no place in small rural communities and family farms. Just remember it is not a farmers responsibility to provide you with food and it is not our responsibility to donate our assets so you can have power. Our sole responsibility is to look after our families, livestock, assets and meet our financial commitments. I have told the transmission line company that if they want to use my land they can take us to compulsory accusation and put us landholders all on a level playing field. I suppose at least coal is organic unlike fibre glass.
You definitely nail it 👏👏👏 thank you It’s definitely time to go nuclear ⚛️🇦🇺 How much does renewables cost from 2050 to 2124 considering next gen nuclear can last 80 to 100 years?
@@lindam.1502 And unreliables don't last much past 15 years without yearly costly maintenance and then needing to be replaced at the end of their cycle and starting all over again
@@lindam.1502 France is spending $80B refurbishing their 40 year old plants. Considering they power a $4T economy, that's is like a car's 10,000km service, no big deal. Way cheaper than "intermittent" renewables.
@@lindam.1502Yes lefty, solar wont last 30 seconds in a hail storm, wind about 0.02 seconds from a lightning strike, wind farms & transmission lines are known to start some of the worst bushfires. A wind turbine caught on camera 2 days ago in VIC was on fire & threw itself to pieces as they do starting fires all around, how much does a rampant bushfire cost the state and possibly human life? New Nuclear Reactor designs are for 60-100+ years with many benefits for nation & industry building. Renewables are just a wasteful Labor scam that get in the way of real national energy production that is coal, gas, oil, nuclear. Renewables will be an expensive failure to our grid reliability, economy, environment & ecology, to support an agenda & ideology based on a climate lie & an unattainable net zero goal, it is a bottomless money bucket. 1 degree C in 200 years is not a crisis, coral is not bleaching, it is flourishing, islands are not sinking, they’re actually rising, Albo & Labor is the only crisis we wont get through if they have another term to finish us off as a 3rd world country.
Correct first one will cost a crap tonne. Only way to get on time is do an exclusion of Australian workplace laws, get overseas labour, build demountable houses for construction staff. CFMEU will make it unfeasible.
@@georgewhite6800 solar can last up to 40-50 years. Has 85% nameplate efficiency after 25 years. Wind last up to 25 years. You can build utility scale solar or wind farm in just few weeks to months. A nuclear power plant takes up to 9 years even in a country like France.
Just a small point, as I have experience in costing justifying major capital projects. Extending the economic life from 30 years to 60 years doesn’t impact present costs and returns to any degree. The present value of future dollars is insignificant past 25 to 30 years, so that is why economic models don’t calculate past this point.
Agreed - the c.f. has a bigger impact. However, Lazard used an 80 year lifetime and a 90%?95%? c.f. in their model. It shows that the CSIRO is putting their thumb on the scale when they are so far out of the financial mainstream.
@@factnotfiction5915 Maybe. I’m in favour of having nuclear power in the mix, even at double the price. Having that reliable base load is important and worth paying extra for to achieve a reliable mix. I think many folk are missing this point
There are a few costs omitted from the nuclear side. 1) the cost of integrating 1.1GW NPPs into the Australian Grid. Only four of the sites proposed by Dutton are ‘plug n play’ for 1.1 GW sized generators. The other sites require massive grid connection upgrades. 2) the cost of 1.1 GW of backup generation capability to cover a unit going off-line for planned maintenance & unplanned outages. Added to that is the upgrades to the entire transmission network to shift such large amounts of power from 1 State to another to cover those off-line periods. 3) refurbishment costs for a reactor to achieve a 60+ year lifespan. The reactor vessel itself may last for 60+ years, but the generation, cooling & control systems need extensive refurbishment &/or replacement several times to achieve that lifespan. That’s one of the reasons for CSIRO’s 30 year lifespan. Apart from the reactor vessel & the building itself, the NPP needs to be gutted & rebuilt for a reliable life beyond that age. 4) the cost of sustaining the grid until the full fleet of NPPs could be on-line. More than 60% of Australia’s aging C-F power plants will reach end of equipment life before even the first NPP could be commissioned. Just keeping one C-F power station going for 2 years is costing the NSW Govt (ie taxpayers) $450Million. Keeping the entire fleet going would cost in excess of $16Billion. And $Billions more if there were major equipment failures from those plants being pushed well beyond their designed lifespan. If, instead of paying $16Billion+ just to keep worn out C-F power stations going for just over a decade, that money was used to install RE with a 30 year lifespan then nuclear would be redundant. Which leads to … 5) overstating the capacity factor in a high RE grid. During periods of favourable conditions for RE generation nuclear, with the higher operational cost, wouldn’t be able to compete & would have to scale back output. Ie reduce its capacity factor. This is already occurring in France where NPPs have been completely temporarily shut down because of the high amount of cheap solar power in the grid. This is why using the historical capacity factors for nuclear is misleading & the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is valid. Now of course, RE could be curtailed so nuclear can continue. But that creates the insane situation of higher electricity costs as free electricity is being turned off for power with a much higher cost of production.
thanks. I am sure there will be other cogent criticism. I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear irrelevant for modern Australia. Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste. Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it isn't). Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@BrettBurnardStokes I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear *inevitable* for modern Australia. _"Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste"_ Agreed. The toxic solar cell materials and wind turbine forever landfills are a growing nightmare. On the other hand, the tiny footprint of nuclear waste, particularly in a country as immense as Australia, with vast patches where no one lives (and no, I do not consider a town of 50 in a 100,000 square mile area inhabited). Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it IS). Consider the veracity of any claim that unreliables are low carbon (they aren't). Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, llike heavy metals from solar mines leaching into the waterways.
There certainly is. The chosen sites are not relevant. They are duttons pick. He has no jurisdiction over the global nuclear requirements. Water is the number one word. that is why nukes are all on large reservoirs or sea shores.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 the 5th point is made worse with more nuclear as more NPPs would have to be temporarily turned off when abundant cheap solar floods the grid with power. That or the threshold at which cheap power is curtailed & electricity consumers forced to buy more expensive nuclear power would be lower. Today, solar is literally eating the economic lunch of C-F power stations. It won’t be any different for NPPs. They’ll lose money during the day too - unless cheaper RE has its hands tied behind its back. BTW, nothing lasts for 60+ years without maintenance. Especially safety critical control systems. Mechanical things wear out as well. That’s why plant & equipment has scheduled maintenance. And just like your car, some services are bigger than others.
I sat through the 2024 ISP webinar, and also noted the CER, consumer energy resources which is a huge chunk of assumed storage that was not costed, just a burden put on consumers. The ISP went on to suggest that if CER weren't available, then it would only cost $4billion to replace it with grid scale storage, seemed ludicrously under quoted to me, so thankyou for raising awareness of this. The environmental and social impact of rolling out renewables along the great dividing range is wholly unacceptable. If this is to be done then put the solar and wind farms much further west where it wont impact people, high value ecosystems or food production.
@yt.personal.identification yes, let's see that then, charted against the burden to the taxpayer of all other energy sources, vs the gwh and co2 produced for each type
Thanx for that information Nuclear is and will be always be needed. Look at why Labor are hell bent on renewables. Superfunds industry based are run by Labor and unions they invest in renewables to get subsidies then Superfunds donate to the Unions then Unions donate to fund Labor at Elections Follow the Money $$$$$$$
Apparently destroying vast tracks of forests, forest species and our great birds, farms and ocean habitats has zero value! It disgusts me! Time to tie myself to a bulldozer, at almost 70!
This may sound convincing to someone unfamiliar with the issue, but nuclear, while an excellent power source, does not solve the power generation problems Australia faces. The biggest issue we have to deal with is dispatchable power. Nuclear cannot be ramped up and down as demand shifts in a very similar way to how renewables can't be ramped up and down as needed. Both renewables and nuclear need dispatchable generation such as gas, hydro, or batteries. Implying nuclear obviates the need for additional transmission, storage, and dispatchable generation is either misleading or ignorant.
Some one veiwing this knows their stuff. As an added fact, in 2023 510 GW was added to the world generating capacity from renewables. ! GW was added in 2023 by nuclear after 7 new plants were commissioned and 6 old ones decommissioned.
@@andrewjoy7044 we have 33 gigs of installed wind capacity and sometime get 300 Mw's, 510 Gigs here would probable give 500 Mw's I watched tasmania this week. they have had no wind. Burning gas and running hydro that they have a lot of.
@@johnk-pc2zx Not really adequate ramping for purpose. In brief, most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.
All that time, and they still haven't built the ling term waste management facility they have known they need, for that entire 60 years. You must remember that message from the 70s. Still not fixed.
The correct title is 'Nuclear and Unreliables: What will it cost?' There is no 'vs', you cannot compare them, they are not the same product, and you will always need dispatchable baseload power generation. Just go all in on the one that doesn't leech efficiencies from the other while claiming to be cheaper and cleaner by leveraging laughable bookkeeping.
Exactly, how people think solar and wind with batteries will power our economy. Large mining companies, manufacturing plants, rail and industry require full load power. Imagine running an electric furnace to smelt copper off the solar and wind grid. The furnace would be dead within the year People dont think about mich other than tvs or air-conditioning. Imagine transferring all our fuel usage into electrical energy, wouldn't be enough copper to run it all.
Well said: Nuclear OR Unreliables (OR Coal). What is not understandable. I have no understanding of why Aust keeps farting around with this issue. THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION. The endless circles and debate as if it is so mysterious. Politicians should stay out of science and follow the advice. Serious subject - funny background music and over acting of voice and body expressions. Why??? Aust get serious.
Baseload for what? Factories keep shutting down, and most mines generate their own because electricity prices are too high. How much power did that recently closed aluminium smelter use? The grid is dead. It died sometime around 2006, shortly after privatisation.
Levelised cost is the punch line. I used to say base load, but after a conversation with a CST company director, I realised it's a BS term used by coal industry. We just need dispatchable power. -Ken
Nuclear is not dispatchable is the issue, and additional grid firming will also be required with nuclear due to the slow responsiveness of nuclear plants. Nuclear and renewables both face very similar problems of requiring additional dispatchable generation such as gas or hydro, or storage such as pumped hydro or batteries
If only the grifters in Canberra could comprehend any info in this video, than we wouldn't be having any of these issues now. I feel like the longer and longer we wait to actually get a nuclear project off the ground (if ever) it will be too late. Imagine if all this discussion was settled in the 70s or even 80s. Australia could of had nuclear for at least 30 years by now.
@@GrahamLea i just looked it up. To quote and credit Wikipedia.... The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) is an Australian think tank founded in 1976 by Greg Lindsay.[4][5] The CIS specialises in public policy research and publishes material in areas such as economics, education, culture and foreign policy. Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] However, it has also hosted Labor prime ministers and politicians,[9] and often also criticises the Liberal Party's policies.[10][11][12] Also The CIS is funded by donations, membership subscriptions, and book and event sales from individuals, companies and charitable trusts. It does not accept government funding.
Very, very well done. A couple of other factors to reinforce your argument. The capacity factor for solar globally is 10-31, wind is, on average, about 25. I heard a UK wind/solar developer recently state that the industry plans for a 4x overbuild because of these poor capacity factor numbers. Both wind and solar have a design lifespan of 25 years. The current actual lifespan for wind turbines + blades is 7 years. In the US, grid scale solar panels, as of a recent 60-minute report, are replaced on average every 5 years.
@@johnc6786 That's pretty rich coming from Dutton who has never questioned the GenCost report from its first inception in 2019 under the Liberal Party, not when he was opposed to large-scale nuclear in 2023, not when all the other sources corroborated CSIRO on the costing of SMRs with his initial 'let's go nuclear' beer-coaster, I mean, policy... but only when after he got cozy with Gina Rinehart who is all for nuclear that he suddenly decided that the CSIRO doesn't really know anything, because... reasons.
I work in the energy industry. This is nonsense and very typical of the CIS doing back of the envelope calculations without understanding the full context. On the lifespan: 30 years is appropriate. It’s not pretending that they won’t work after that, but that investors will be looking for return within that timeframe. Because that’s what will determine whether the investment will be made or not. Similarly, wind and solar lifespans are pegged at 20 years when they go on just fine for many more after that. In the capacity factor: US capacity factors are irrelevant because every energy market is different - different generation fleets, different demand patterns. GenCost’s capacity factors are based on the Australian energy market and they are driven by demand. Energy demand is increasingly flexible and generators that are capable of putting out constant supply are unable to because of this. On the storage: they are double-counting. GenCost assesses ‘firmed’ renewables. This includes the cost of sufficient storage, allocated to each project. Cherry picking a few expensive storage projects and adding them up is double counting as they are already factored into GenCost renewables. On the transmission: sure, these are driven by changes in demand and supply of which growth in renewables is one factor. But there are other factors including weather and storm impact. More interconnections are needed regardless of the precise makeup of the generation fleet. On the integration of distributed batteries: these are privately owned by households and businesses, their investment cost is not recouped through the energy market, so their cost is not included. People will buy them anyway, and they are not only used for firming large scale renewables but also for private benefit. So it is correct not to include them in GenCost. The CIS is either ignorant or is deliberately sowing misinformation for political purposes. Their comment at the end suggests at least the latter, if not both.
Frances main nuclear energy company, the EDF, is indebted with over 54 billion dollars. So much for the cost effectiveness, and that in a country that is extremely pro-nuclear energy AND that heavily subsidies it.
Mostly mismagement. EDF is forced to sell most of its eletricity at a loss to competitors, who only after that sell eletricity to consumers. Also France had anti nuclear policies
Actually, in 2023 they posted a net of 10 billion Euros, but had to import a lot of power in 2022; to protect the consumer the government sold the imported power at a loss - a government who think it's worthwhile trying to minimise the effect on the cost of living. Since the nuclear part of EDF is 100% government owned, they can do that.
Write to your local member of Federal HoR and your Senators and tell them your pissed about the transition. Demand a new approach that includes nuclear. Also request that the legislative ban on nuclear power be repealed, poste haste.
The main thing to remember is cost of unrenewables that last 12 to 20 years depending on Quality versus Nuclear that is PROVEN to last 80 years and more . Nuclear will give constant reliability .
What garbage propaganda. from corrupt industry and politicians. Its cash grab. It will take 20 year to build and have tripple cost over run> Just like the two SMR nuclear projects that have had overruns and one is cancelled cause of blowout. Solar and batteries can be done in 3 months and make a profit. Nuclear needs base load and wont be available for 10 years, if that, it will have government blowout politicians will leave and new ones will cancel the project lose $billions while the old corrupt polies will get lucrative jobs in energy like they do in gas,,.
@@pietervaneeden2370 There is a lot of BS about renewables. EG. Solar panels only last 25 to 30 years. The fact is that solar panels are warranted for 25 to 30 years but do the calculations on panel degradation, providing there is no overheating and /or moisture ingress, in 100 years, a panel will lose 50% of its capacity. That is a 400w panel will be a 200w panel. The beauty of solar panels is that they have no moving parts. It's also important to understand that technology is always changing and improving. If a new panel come along with greater efficiency such a perovskite, why wouldn't people upgrade even if their panels are still under warranty.
The CSIRO either needs defunding or an anti-corruption case lodged!!! After the CSIRO’s initial report on Nuclear was debunked by many individuals, it calls to question the integrity or aptitude of this organisation.
It was a monumental CSIRO blunder. They decided to venture into something their chief admitted they knew very little about viz. electricity generation. So the farmed it out to a "contractor", whose expertise wasn't any better than CSIRO. So he went to the Internet and came up with the dog's-breakfast, wildly inaccurate and incomplete report. On the basis of CSIRO's previous good reputation, Albanese and Bowen thought this was manna from Heaven. However Labor needs the Greens preferences so facts matter little to them..
It wasn't debunked - its just that when it comes to the future no one actually knows and other people wish to make different assumptions hence get different figures. Now what is worth noting is CSIRO figures came in very close to Lazards LCOE for Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Power is a well established and well known generation method with well established cost structures. I would trust Lazards to get this right.
All that is included in maintenence and the costs would really dependent. Generally speaking they are somewhat low to store in short term. Long term storage is expensive af but you can recycle nuclear waste. Now include waste from renewables like wind and solar to
Comparing nuclear to renewables is comparing apples and pears. Nuclear is stable, reliable, controllable and long lived. Renewables are none of those things and require an enormous amount of infrastructure to connect their widely spaced and remote sources of intermittent generation.
I love how we call windmills and solar panels that once past their short operating window will form the most appalling, polluting landfill 'renewables'.
If the EU wants to designate nuclear as a renewable too, then the waste it leaves behind would also make nuclear as strange option to be called ""renewable".
Yeah but it’s not a renewable. It’s a finite resource which is highly toxic in a concentrated form and the cost of reprocessing the spent fuel after 15 or so years pushes nuclear out of the race. Most countries don’t reprocess because of this cost but decide to pile up the waste which is completely untreatable and left for future generations to deal with.
@@johnc6786 No. Seawater uranium is "renewable" (as it's replenished by rivers). Fissile U235 is not renewable. Non-fissile U238 is breedable to fissile Pu239. Fissile is what we want (for use as fuel).
In fairness for the storage costs you're comparing old technology (pumped hydro) against best case nuclear (in countries with established nuclear industries). You should be factoring in the fact that we have basically no nuclear industry (apart from ansto). So its going to be on the high end for cost 100%
Yes, it's going to be so expensive to bring in experts from overseas and develop an industry in Australia - let's keep our status as a third world country, keep sending all our materials overseas for manufacture and be happy shearing sheep.
@@bnielsen56 or we could tax our resource industries properly and use that money to develop manufacturing and value added industries? We don't need nuclear to do that
A system dependent on nuclear needs less water then one dependent on renewables. As for waste. The volume of nuclear waste is very small. Of wich, 98% can be recycled and doesn't last more then 300 years. Also, the radiation get drasticly reduced and becomes basicly harmless by that time. Of the remaining 2% only ONE element lasts 100,000 years and that can be safely stored underground
@@passdasalt The universe where you need a sh1t ton of hydro + pumped hydro. Also solar pannels need to be cleanned. All in all a system dependent re uses more water and is more dependent on rainfall. Also, wind speeds are projected to decrease and high temperatures will affect solar power production to. So not only is a 100%Re system very dependent on rainfall but on ideal weather, to
@@joaquimbarbosa896 lol pumped hydro recirculates the water. Rain cleans solar panels. Meanwhile, a nuclear plant uses millions of litres per day. Look it up.
@@passdasalt And if there is no water...guess what happens to pumped hydro? Also pumped hydro heavely demands more dams wich on themselfs can reduce river flow and increase evaporation drasticly. And rain cleans solar pannels...sometimes. Like with eletricity you need it done at precise times, and rain doesn't come when you want it to. Furthermore, you forgot the crucial detail of hydro. If you do not have lots of hydro, not only would ie be impossible to run a grid on wind solar and storage, but it would also reduce the storage itself. So again, more water usage and more dependent on rainfall
New Nuclear is the key to a clean and cheap energy future!! Great work getting the facts to the general public, they need to know what is really going on!! Australia can easily have a nuclear renaissance and will be all the better for it!
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational, Rob Fer? Pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. Meanwhile, most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology. The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures. Per the IAEA's PRIS data, as at 24 Jul 2024, there are 59 reactors with a combined capacity of 61.637 GWₑ under construction. It's not enough to keep up with projected retirements over the next ten years. Per the 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙-2023, the age of the world's nuclear fleet, as at mid-2023: * Reactor age 0-10 years: _ _ _ 71 units * Reactor age 11-20 years: _ _ 30 units * Reactor age 21-30 years: _ _ 41 units * Reactor age 31-40 years: _ 154 units * Reactor age 41-50 years: _ _ 98 units * Reactor age 51 years & over: 13 units * 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟯𝟭.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿: _ 𝟰𝟬𝟳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘀 There are no reactors designed for an 80-100 year operating lifespan. Until recently nuclear reactors have been designed for an operating life of 40 years. Some reactors in some countries have had their operating lifespans extended out to 50 or 60 years. More recent reactor designs (e.g. AP-1000, EPR) have a 60 year lifespan. The oldest operating reactor is BEZNAU-1 in Switzerland, which was first connected to the grid on 17 Jul 1969 and full commercial operations commencing on 9 Dec 1969. Nuclear is going backwards... Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies: 𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia); 𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17); 𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
@@GeoffMiell The only thing that is slowing down and stopping new nuclear reactors being built quickly and cheaply is all the anti nuclear rhetoric, red tape and regulations that have been used for decades by "bad-faith" actors and useful idiots to artificially stop nuclear power moving forward. All of which is predicated on disinformation, propaganda and lies, that have always been holding nuclear power back from reaching its full potential. Take for instance, The Lazard metric - LCOE ( Levelized Cost Of Energy ) It is not a complete metric of competitiveness, as it lacks representation of the value provided to the apparatus. It fails to capture many real world cost for the totality of a given systems. Look at just one point from a handful. E.g. the variability of wind and solar PV at higher penetration rates. The intermittency of the systems is never factored in when giving an apples to apples comparison for renewables vs nuclear, this can be very easily visualised with the use of a so called "duck curve" graph. This is without even looking at the cost for all the transmission lines, storage and rebuilding costs, that would inevitably be needed for a large scale renewable network over a prolonged period of time. That number of "20 years" to build a nuclear power plant you say, comes with the huge caveat that nuclear power is currently being hamstrung by many factors constraining and restricting its full deployment. Countries like China, Korea ,France, Japan and the UAE have all shown nuclear power plants can be built cheaply and quickly. With the Mean time to construct a nuclear power around the world being 7.5 years. In fact take just Japan and the UAE and that number drops to around an average of just 3 years. Showing just what can be done when the will is there to do it! Even the USA back in the day, built power plants with speed and efficiency. Now im not saying new nuclear doesn't need to up it's game when it comes to building more quickly and cheaply. But these are both problems that can easily be over come if the political will and commitment is there to do so. They are by no means a deal breaker for weather new nuclear should be used.
@@robfer5370 - "Countries like China, Korea ,France, Japan and the UAE have all shown nuclear power plants can be built cheaply and quickly." China SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to become operational from scratch. The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR was US$6,000 (AU$9,200) per kilowatt, three times higher than early cost estimates and 2-3 times higher than the cost of China’s larger Hualong reactors per kilowatt. France FLAMANVILLE-3 reactor project is likely to take more than 18-years to become operational from scratch. Experts have put FLAMANVILLE-3's price tag currently at around €13.2 billion, or over AU$21 billion. Japan OHMA: Construction since 07 May 2010; construction time (CT) so far 14y 02m 27d+ SHIMANE-3: Under construction since 24 Oct 2006; CT so far 17y 09m 10d+ UAE has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit. Some estimates suggest the all up cost with finance is $US34 billion, or around AU$51 billion. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-with 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021. ICYMI/FYI, the IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen BEFORE the first concrete pour milestone can even happen. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units.
@@robfer5370 - "In fact take just Japan and the UAE and that number drops to around an average of just 3 years. Showing just what can be done when the will is there to do it!" Where are these civil power reactors anywhere in the world that have demonstrated they can be constructed "around an average of just 3 years"? I think you don't have a clue how long it actually takes to get a civil nuclear power generator unit up-and-running from scratch. Short construction times are the exceptions. The quickest construction durations (excluding pre-project implementation processes + commissioning) in recent times are in China for: TIANWAN-5 (Chinese-designed ACPR-1000 reactor): 4.6 years TIANWAN-6 (Chinese-designed ACPR-1000 reactor): 4.7 years These are part of an 8 reactor unit project at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, which began in 1992 with a nuclear cooperation agreement between Russia and China. See the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022.
@@GeoffMiell "There are no reactors designed for an 80-100 year operating lifespan." All PWRs are designed for 100+ year operating lifespans, actually.
Thanks for your work on this critical subject. The Labour Party needs to wake up. I voted Labour last election but based on Nuclear Energy and its critical role in environmental sustainability, I will be voting for the Liberal/National Coalition in the next election.
No, the gov is awake. They know full well what they are implementing. Regardless of who is in power, they will continue along the path their employers the elites, WEF etc.
Show me where a nuclear reactor has been built on time, at cost anywhere in the world, in the last 20 years in a country with no established nuclear industry?
*_"The UAE_* has embarked upon a nuclear power programme in close consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with huge public support. "It accepted a $20 billion bid from a South Korean consortium to build four commercial nuclear power reactors, total 5.6 GWe, by 2020 at Barakah. *_"Unit 1 of the country's first nuclear power plant was connected to the grid in August 2020,_* followed by unit 2 in September 2021, unit 3 in October 2022, and unit 4 in March 2024."
Were disposal of wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar panels factored into the costs? And the human and environmental costs of building them in the first place counted?
Were the same factors considered in the nuclear model?? I didn't see anything about nuclear waste management or fallout. Don't get me wrong, if these factors are addressed i will seriously consider nuclear but the scrutiny applied to current "renewables" should be more than applied to nuclear also.
Our current grid to support rooftop solar with prices plummeting and even going into the negative. The grid was never designed to have so much power feeding back into it. As you mentioned the true cost of renewables is the storage. Renewables aren't a new idea both America and Germany have failed to produce a that runs on renewables only and this is because of the large cost of storage
Coal powered stations can be converted at half the price and our uranium resources have been sold underpriced since the seventies, we need a particle accelerator to be able to support the hydrogen market that is not completely honest in what is involved in being able to actually store hydrogen so it doesn't leech through the container at a molecular level
James Hansen says Renewables need Nuclear whilst a tax on Carbon & pollution is needed with this tax given back to the public. If the Greens do this I will vote for them. Not one second before.
One point i would like to see explored more is the environmental impact of wind power, after reading of the Guga hunt on the isle of Lewis (the community has been asked to sign off on an estimated 200 birds a year being killed by a offshore wind farm), i became curious about how much damage these farms do. German studies ( and you know the Germans, very efficient) have shown massive disruption to insect populations in regions with windfarms " a single turbine located in the temperate zone might kill about 40 million insects per year." An inconvenient truth perhaps but one i would like to see more discussion on.
It's not just the environmental issue, but the ecological issue where recycling, the 6000 ton concrete and steel foundations for the wind turbines need to be removed once they reach the end of their life every 20 years. In Ireland the wind turbines installed there don't even last 20 years but the gearboxes on the nacelles are failing already after 7 years resulting tin expensive repairs. The wind turbine blade edges degrade well before the 20 year mark which ruins the efficiency and if the wind is blowing more than 12 m/s, the blades need to be feathered making the turbines useless. In France we see the wind turbines turned off when there are strong winds.
Greenpeace states that more wildlife will be killed by pollution and climate change than by wind turbines We are looking for improvement not perfection
@@lindam.1502 Ehm, the shiploads of concrete is once per 80 years. Vs once per *20* years for wind. Wind & solar also require maintenance - lubricants, washing panels, replacing blades, horribly expensive due to the dispersed nature of renewables. Face it, wind & solar are neither practical nor cheap. Only advantage is subsidy harvesting.
Excellent work. The CSIRO was misleading leading by putting solar and wind without storage on the same graph as nuclear, coal and gas which can run 24/7.
I think nuclear is better than gas and coal. However, does the study consider the cost of securing all the nuclear waste for thousands of years? I would also think that large scale batteries would be cheaper than the water storage. If there are distributed independent systems with solar and battery, you do not need large transmission lines. From any new nuclear, they would also need to build transmission lines. Just to consider.
Nuclear waste is very small in volume, 98% can be recycled and loses its radiation in less then 300 years. Only 1 element lasts that long and that can be safely stored underground. Also depending on where you build you would need new transmission BUT far less then any Re dominated grid
The other myth that needs to be addressed is the one about nuclear being water intensive. I mean, is that why the Chinese are building reactors in the desert?
Liberal party front Zoe Hilton did the maths. She ignored the fact that Australia has no nuclear supply, operations and support ecosystem/infrastrucutre. And that without doing anything (almost downing tools on renewables) Australia will get to 50% renewables by 2027/2028. Also French nuclear runs at 53% which is what happens when you have high penetration nuclear you get low utilisation / low capacity factor.
Though I take STRONG ISSUE with the background graphic of DVD/books/blur the actual delivery and facts and.... how this is done, is excellent. I'll watch this again to just take notes.
Another consideration should be the source of financing. While it does not impact return numbers, it can significantly impact scale and size numbers. A nuclear power plant is always a government project, even if operated by a P&U company. However, a significant portion of solar is either funded by private companies or citizens. Therefore, if the cost of a nuclear power plant is spent on solar subsidies, the private funding can multiply its benefit. In other terms if the return on a nuclear plant is the same as solar, then with 50% subsidy for house solar and batteries would generate twice as much power as the private sector would be willing to fund as much as the government. While nuclear is better than gas and coal, I feel that the real concern of politicians may be whether there would be a centralized or decentralized energy system. The former can easily be taxed and controlled, while the later makes citizens independent from their government in terms of the energy economy.
Apart from the fact that most Australians do not have the budget or possibility of providing their own energy - either due to living in apartments or renting, for example, the amount of storage required to be independent and cover the 70% average downtime or renewables is not economic. Also, while the solar panels might be funded, it's the need for storage that needs the government involvement, not least for land acquisition for pumped hydro projects. Realistically, if the main infrastructure is paid for through taxes, and the 'fuel' is zero cost (as renewables ideologues like to claim) then the power supplied should be free, right?
@@bnielsen56 "due to living in apartments" - this is 10% of population. If the fuel is zero cost (which is true) the bill will be only 20% less. Because the bill contains retailers (middleman), distribution cost, taxes etc etc
@@alexmag5735 Conveniently left out renters... and while you can claim the fuel is 'free', you need to ensure no shade, cleaning cost, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, control, monitoring, development...and these costs surpass the current cost of electricity - so prices for solar will increase at the consumer, not decrease, because the current infrastructure is not fit for purpose. But the main issue is discussing oranges and apples - you can't compare nuclear with solar+batteries. Having said all that, the reason for the debate is BS anyway. Real scientists know that cutting carbon emissions will not affect the climate in anyone's lifetime.
I have been using solar panels for 15 years and I’m on my third system. They only last about 5 years before they are degraded so badly they produce half the electricity they are supposed to
User-P, if you’ve been through 3 sets of solar panels in 15 years then you must either be buying shit elcheapo panels or they’re being damaged by trees (sap), wildlife, etc. Good panels are warranted for 10 years & usually last 20-25 years before output noticeably drops off. Commercial grade panels will last 25 -30 years.
@@markboscawen8330 Good panels have a warranty of 25 years guaranteeing at least 80% new capacity. There is nothing stopping them being used for another 25 years but at a reduced capacity. Commercial solar farms usually replace panels early usually because the latest panels are far more efficient and can therefore produce more electricity than the panels they installed 15 to 20 years ago. The used panels can be sold and reused on small scale off grid installations. This guy must have bought some pretty crappy panels!
For me, when considering nuclear, its the waste and the possibility of fallout which are the most important factors. It perplexes me that the entities promoting nuclear use don't focus more on addressing these 2 critical factors. The possible worst case scenario "end games" should always be taken into account when dealung with something that can have such devastating effects on the environment if not planned for correctly. And not only do theae factors play a considerable part in evaluating the actual projected costs of a nuclear system but also if communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate.
Based on the number of GWh produced vs accidents/lives lost/environmental impact of other energy generation methods, Nuclear is by far the safest. If you have peer-reviewed and authenticated evidence to the contrary, please present it here. "If communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate." I agree with the quoted statement. Feel free to research this on your own.
@@craigspender1710 I don't think you comprehended my concern properly. I didn't mention anything about safety. So for your benefit i'll present my concerns more clearly as follows: 1. What do we do with the radioactive waste? 2. In the case of fallout, what is the containment plan?? Your "peer reviewed, authenticated" reponse can also be presented here... unlike your irrelevant retort about my concerns that you also failed to provide. Regardless, i believe you feel i am anti-nuclear. On the contrary. I think it has a very important part to play in the make-up of whatever our energy needs are. However, radioactive materials and nuclear fallout are no joke and all aspects of its functioning should be very seriously considered from inception, through the life span AND breakdown before implementation. Too many govt projects are rushed through or used as political footballs instead of actually creating viable solutions both economically AND environmentally. What ends up being produced is either an inferior product or environmental disaster both of which are undesirable financial outcomes. (NBN and Snowy Hydro 2.0 come to mind immediately) Having said that, i'd also like to apply the same scrutiny to renewables projects, not just in terms of the waste and recycling but "end of life" plant shut down processes and the true environmental costs. In short, the real question is what ARE ALL the REAL costs in everything we do??
Add in land cost and environmental impacts and the ISP is clearly bonkers. Their plan also relies on significant roof top solar as part of the system. Will home owners be forced to replace their their roof top solar every 20 years or so to stop the system collapsing?
Disappointingly no mention of nuclear waste management costs. Stanford University estimate $8-27 billion to store current level of spent fuel in the US for the next 100 years. That's ~$270M+ per year. With an estimate of $200-600 additional created per year...
Nuclear being non dispatchable in a dispatchable designed grid is an anti-pattern - so as such it should warrant an exceptionally low capacity factor - not a high one! Nuclear doesn't want to scale up and down rapidly - you need firming for that - so forget what other grids are doing - if they are dispatchable based designs - giving nuclear a high capacity factor means you are saying everything else (which is uber cheap to run - Solar PV and Wind) has to switch off if otherwise it would mean nuclear would have to produce less. So is you turn the cost paradigm for a firmed dispatchable based grid that has been designed to operate this way on its head - sure you can give nuclear an unrealistic capacity factor - or you can say it can compete in the free market with what is out there. In France last week 3 nuclear reactors had to shut down because renewables pushed prices negative - nuclear can never do that. Sudies have shown nuclear requires firming in a modern grid - same as renewables - so shifting distribution, advanced grid function costs and firming onto only nuclear's opponents is rather dis-honest, biased analysis. So if you assume it can last forever and be given preferred capacity priority - you can price it anyway you wish - but that is realistic. So long as it is tiny you could try and set it to having a larger capacity factor - but is a free market to big into - nuclear can't compete with a generation source thas basically a zero marginal cost to operate. The world wide supply of Uranium for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years of supply left according to a Google search. Nuclear pundits say but we can invent Thorium or fast breeder reactors to re-vitalise spent Uranium fuel or extract it from the Oceans - but point to where this can be done - anywhere in the world - it is pie in the sky. So as a resource becomes scarce - its price rises astronomically - basic enconomics. Plus its byproducts can have huge national security and terror implications... Nuclear seems a smoke screen to extend coal and gas. Globally the world is shutting down more reactors than are built - at enormous cost. In China - one of the big 3 nuclear nations renewables are outgrowing nuclear at a rate of six to one last year and climbing. You want a level playing field - assign the same capacity to all generation sources... overbuild renewables and firming and export what energy you don't need or consume it in new business models riding on the back of near limitlessly free energy. Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper each year - there were bids for firmed renewables under $30 / MWh last year overseas; nuclear simply can't compete against a generation source that needs to buy no fuel ever.
"The world wide supply of Uranium..." 75 trillion tonnes. "...for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years..." Replacing all fuels, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW, 75 trillion tonnes of uranium is 10 billion years' worth. "Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper every year..." Infinite-cost is not *_"cheaper"_* than infinite-cost. Wind and solar remain infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
@@aliendroneservices6621 google search was what provided the 90 years of confirmed supply - versus pie in the sky manufacturing Uranium technology figures which are unproven. Not sure why you introduced infinities into this discussion - but as a pure mathematican I will play if you have anyhing sightful to drop - but I have never, ever seen anyone try and bring infinities into an energy conversation - so this could be good! The key point is nuclear still needs firming and is an anti-pattern to dispatchables - that is the elephant in the room...
@@aliendroneservices6621 Google is your friend Estimates of the amount available range from 9 to 22 million tonnes of uranium, though the 2022 edition of the Red Book tabulates only about 9.3 million tonnes. Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association The figures in the Trillions make estimaes about how much are in the Oceans if a way to extract it could be concieved that was viable, financially affordable and politically achievable. So it is a Unicorn figure - it doesn't exist until it is proven achievable. The bigger point is nuclear baseload is a total anti-pattern to a firmed dispatchables designed grid - rip out everything that has been achieved by industries, regulators, home owners with PV etc and start again because someone wants to wind the clock back 60 years to design an expensive baseload - that doesn't handle dsitributed variable generation and demand. It's akin to saying make all cars illegal and we will have coal giant trains that are unstoppable going from every city centre to todays modern population centres. Nuclear is going backwards around the world and firmed dispatchables are storming ahead - China is a brilliant example of that - see how its renewals outgrow nuclear six to one...
Energy in Australia should be 'free' , after the cost of the necessary reactors are paid for. We could also circumvent some of that initial investment cost by reprocessing and/or enriching uranium here.
Biased to the core!!! No costings about handling, transportation, and storage of Nuclear waste products at all for I dunno 1000 years+. I guess that will be free of charge? And where will it all go? Dutton's bush retreat maybe? Possibility of failures like Nine Mile Island and Chernobyl, nah, never happen here cos we build things to last and with great quality. Refer to "Site Inspections," the yt channel, to see the great quality of workmanship we have in this land, and it's just for domestic homes!!! Leaky reactors anyone? Get over the furphy of Nuclear power for goodness sake. The future is wind, solar, and electric batteries. The sun shines on Oz from East coast to west coast for many hours during a day, enough to power everything. I'm no greenie or leftie or conservative, but a realist to see it. Get over your biases people, the world is changing.
Realist? That's a laugh. How much solar do you get at night? Even the best estimates for renewables is 30% output for installed capacity - so you need to build about 4 times the installed capacity to fulfill demand; even then, you need all that storage because it may be too much or too little at any moment. And that's not taking into account the increase in power requirements in the future. Delusional.
@@bnielsen56 Yes mate.... DELUSIONAL. Don't believe ALL the BS Murdoch and his lackeys spew out daily. God gave you a brain. Try using it once in a while. You may surprise yourself.
You omitted the network management costs of ever increasing complexity in the market. Who owns the electrons in those batteries is just one of those questions?
Renewables added + 510GW last year and nuke accomplished -1.7GW. Nuke is dead. Its contribution being cut in half in the last 30 years. AU is 35 yrs to late to play with hopeless nuke.
Not a particularly convincing video. Anyone know why they're so obsessed with the fact that batteries and pumped hydro 'don't produce electricity' ? The relevance of this isn't really clear. Also, the part about new nuclear "being built to last 60-100 years"... Does this mean it actually will last that long? And that we won't, in the meantime, just give up on it because wind and solar will be even more competitive?
Remove the non-stop background torturing noise and re-upload. “In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
Battery and solar collector technology is developing that quickly that only a brave or foolish person would bet against it. Dispersed small scale generation needs less grid wires. It is less vulnerable to external attack or internal stuff up. The latest electric vehicles can both collect and distribute the electricity back into the house. Much is made of battery fires. The most recent developments in battery materials make this very unlikely. Battery energy densities are improving each year. Given the enormous differences in climate, comparing Finland's needs to Australia's needs is a mugs game. A nuclear reactor to develop our own nuclear deterrent would be advisable if the United States nuclear umbrella continues to have holes in it. The Australian government should export uranium, make a tidy profit and save us all a lot of taxes. We need to stop giving our holes in the ground away to tax dodging foreigners.
@@gravitaslost Solar is making wind look expensive and the gap is widening. Public servants take forever to catch up. There is a possible solar technology ahead that will be 60 times better than solar panels. If you compare a Model T Ford to a 1960's Ford muscle car it illustrates potential progress. Super computing technology is helping a lot with researching battery materials. I am impressed by people smarter than me with a few billion dollars in private research money backing them.
@@KuriosDiogenesJar Plenty of 'game changing' technologies ... zero games changed. We have the solution, we've had it for decades, Luddites have blocked its use and are now largely the same people crying about the climate change for which they are directly responsible. Billionaires are heavily investing in nuclear technological advancements too both fission and fusion, they'll spunk money at anything it's not a sign of intelligence just a desire to make more money.
I suppose reading about it is out of the question? But I suggest you take a look at France, as their cooling pools are just reaching capacity after 50 years of production. A typical pool holds several thousand cubic metres of water, so roughly Olympic sized. There's no radioactivity at the top of the pool, even though the water cover is only about 2 metres.
Scrutiny eh? AU$92 billion for the Hinkley Point C reactor (3.2GW total) in the UK but we can build a 1GW reactor for AU$8.7 billion? SMRs were being proposed here because it was thought they could be sited at existing coal fired plants to save on transmission costs. Going down the route of a few large nuclear plants instead of multiple SMRs would reintroduce pretty much all of the additional transmission costs of renewables. Nuclear is a non-starter.
I am pro nuclear but it seems this doesn’t account for nuclear fuel refinery infrastructure. I understand that we have uranium mines but there is more infrastructure required
I'd love to understand why Australians are against developing industries - it's a stereotype that Aussies are lazy, but I'm starting to see where that comes from.
What a load of crap! Australia's cost problems with electricity has very little do with the cost of generation of electricity. Our cost problems come from poor political decisions and por demographics. Any privatised and/centralised generation of electricity will just be another poor decision.
i have been an electrician over 20 year been in the renewable sector over 15 years i have been saying for 15 years nuclear power is the only option. for the grid but if the cost is over $20 k to connect to the grid go off grid in my opinion there is one and only one argument for no nuclear and it is the plant could blow up . very very low chance but is enough for me to live no where near one . but if they build it in your back yard i will vote yes great video
Well, the plant cannot have a nuclear explosion, but yes, it might have a steam explosion. Unless of course you're using a Gen IV air-cooled reactor which doesn't rely on high-pressure water as a coolant (thus no steam).
@@factnotfiction5915 never say never . There is always a possibility. I live 5 km from a coal fire plant . If it was nuclear I would move (lol in 25 years when it's finished 👍😜)
Finland very recently commissioned a new nuclear reactor for power generation, they were then able to reduce electricity costs by 75%.
Subsidies is the reason.
@@GordonSeal source?
@@GordonSeal Source please?
@@wyattfamily8997 Finland also has large scale hydro for dispatchable power, Australia does not. Nuclear is not dispatchable
@@acomputer121 " Nuclear is not dispatchable" - that's not what Gemini says. "is nuclear power dispatchable ?: Yes,
nuclear power is considered a dispatchable source of electricity."
Batteries don’t last forever, you should also look at the cost of renewables for an 80-100 year period. The batteries and solar panels might need to be replace 3 or 4 times while nuclear will not.
They sure as heck don't, and don't play well when it's too cold or hot.
Further, Liion chemistry batteries are a potential fire hazard, and require specialized storage for safety.
Lastly, if we go all in on Liion batteries for home storage, that demand will detract from the availability of batteries for EV production.
@@johnc6786 EV sales are dropping anyway, so no issue there 😂
@@UberMick That is completely false. EV sales are up 23% and you fell for the media lies
@junctionroadparklandsvlog5035 incorrect, sales are down because consumers are now aware of true running costs and horrendous resale values. Its a bitter pill to swallow for you, but swallow it, you must...
@@UberMick That is completely false EV sales increased by 23%, And you are peddling blatant lies.
Thanks for your research, the general public need to know the facts, great work
Every Australian needs to see this!
Yes, get a National Advertisement Plan happening, we all should be told the TRUTH, not "Fobbed off" with Political BS. Once the Information is Out there and people can "digest" it, then have a Referendum on it, because at the end of the day, WE the People are Paying for it.
Build nuclear! Instead of destroying native forests and natural habitats for our precious endangered wildlife!! A
They still have to mine Uranium you know.
Winton power - 250 hectares. 85mw PEAK capacity. While yes, the renewable plan can use dual use land. I understand the effects are still being studied to this day.
I think the use for wind generation has more prospects that solo solar, purely because you can use power from the grid to turn the blade. However the guys running the grid may correct me.
If you could stop the flow of steam over a turbine then use power from the grid to turn the generator then you have a sink for the excess power from the grid. Sparky’s may correct me….
@spaceforrest NO... stop lying. we can use thorium, which is far more abundant "you know".
Yes !
I've had dealings with two wind generation companies and one proposed transmission line company who want to use my farm land and I can tell you they have all been dishonest beyond belief.
I'm not surprised that thier costings are dishonest.
What? So you trust the nuclear industry to deal with the waste?
50 years and still no long term waste storage facility anywhere.
Let me guess. Origin-al sin.
The wind generation companies are burying spent blades beside the towers.
They are also walking away from wind generation sites the world over with no remediation.
One site near me was showing lead poisoning in beef entering markets. It turns out that they bought towers from Vietnam that were painted with lead based paint and it entered the environment that the cows were grazing.
Ask yourself why the wind companies enforce a strict secrecy clause with the host landholders? I have had one these clauses put onto myself by pacific hydro. A company that is no longer.
@@stevenstart8728 At least it isn't nuclear waste being left like that.
We can be thankful of that.
@@yt.personal.identification so I’m tipping you don’t own a farm that these people are destroying and don’t care about. They are also companies from overseas and guess where the subsidies and profits go?
The crowlands wind generation site is now owned by the Chinese but hey that may have changed again as these sites a bought and sold relentlessly. The Ararat site has had three owners since being in operation.
If they were honest and working to an industry standard set by an Australian governing body their credibility amongst rural communities might be different. My farm has to meet the requirements of several governing bodies.
One neighbour told me that their family wants to sell their land with towers on it because they now realise they will be responsible for demolition when the overseas company walks away.
Another farm nearby is for sale with towers on it and I asked the real estate agent about it and he said the contract for the demolition was to vague to understand.
Renewable energy probably does have a place to top up the grid but the renewable industries business model has no place in small rural communities and family farms.
Just remember it is not a farmers responsibility to provide you with food and it is not our responsibility to donate our assets so you can have power. Our sole responsibility is to look after our families, livestock, assets and meet our financial commitments.
I have told the transmission line company that if they want to use my land they can take us to compulsory accusation and put us landholders all on a level playing field.
I suppose at least coal is organic unlike fibre glass.
Wind and Solar is an absolute waste of bloody money!! Well done, keep fighting the fight
@@robinmasters2530 lol.
Can you send a copy of this to all politicians
...you bet they'd listen?!
No.
But the lobby groups are pushing hard.
What is the long term waste solution?
Leave it to tax payers?
They're making more money off thr renewables scam. They wouldn't budge. Then they have jobs lined up with the fossil fuels companies for good measure.
You need to make sure politicians know how to read and understand english.
@@noordhup They are hearing from the lobby group regularly
You definitely nail it 👏👏👏
thank you It’s definitely time to go nuclear ⚛️🇦🇺
How much does renewables cost from 2050 to 2124 considering next gen nuclear can last 80 to 100 years?
Nuclear WON’T last more than 30 years without significant money spent for upgrades and repairs.
@@lindam.1502 And unreliables don't last much past 15 years without yearly costly maintenance and then needing to be replaced at the end of their cycle and starting all over again
@@lindam.1502 France is spending $80B refurbishing their 40 year old plants. Considering they power a $4T economy, that's is like a car's 10,000km service, no big deal. Way cheaper than "intermittent" renewables.
@@lindam.1502Yes lefty, solar wont last 30 seconds in a hail storm, wind about 0.02 seconds from a lightning strike, wind farms & transmission lines are known to start some of the worst bushfires.
A wind turbine caught on camera 2 days ago in VIC was on fire & threw itself to pieces as they do starting fires all around, how much does a rampant bushfire cost the state and possibly human life?
New Nuclear Reactor designs are for 60-100+ years with many benefits for nation & industry building.
Renewables are just a wasteful Labor scam that get in the way of real national energy production that is coal, gas, oil, nuclear.
Renewables will be an expensive failure to our grid reliability, economy, environment & ecology, to support an agenda & ideology based on a climate lie & an unattainable net zero goal, it is a bottomless money bucket. 1 degree C in 200 years is not a crisis, coral is not bleaching, it is flourishing, islands are not sinking, they’re actually rising, Albo & Labor is the only crisis we wont get through if they have another term to finish us off as a 3rd world country.
@@lindam.1502
Don’t harass me I am a Labor voter voting nuclear
Since when has any large scale project in this country arrived on time and on budget? Are we factoring that in, too?
Correct first one will cost a crap tonne. Only way to get on time is do an exclusion of Australian workplace laws, get overseas labour, build demountable houses for construction staff. CFMEU will make it unfeasible.
That's where renewables win. You can build a solar farm in weeks compared to a nuclear power plant in 6-10 years.
@@JSM-bb80u yeah those same solar panels that need replacing every thirty years of not completely wiped out by hail 🤡
@@JSM-bb80uthat may be but you have to rebuild wind and solar about every 15 years,, "poor man pays twice " comes to mind here.
@@georgewhite6800 solar can last up to 40-50 years. Has 85% nameplate efficiency after 25 years.
Wind last up to 25 years.
You can build utility scale solar or wind farm in just few weeks to months.
A nuclear power plant takes up to 9 years even in a country like France.
Just a small point, as I have experience in costing justifying major capital projects. Extending the economic life from 30 years to 60 years doesn’t impact present costs and returns to any degree. The present value of future dollars is insignificant past 25 to 30 years, so that is why economic models don’t calculate past this point.
Agreed - the c.f. has a bigger impact.
However, Lazard used an 80 year lifetime and a 90%?95%? c.f. in their model. It shows that the CSIRO is putting their thumb on the scale when they are so far out of the financial mainstream.
@@factnotfiction5915 Maybe. I’m in favour of having nuclear power in the mix, even at double the price. Having that reliable base load is important and worth paying extra for to achieve a reliable mix. I think many folk are missing this point
Well yes, DCF and npv faill to account for the very real value of long-lived projects.
@@johnk-pc2zx Yes, I agree. Not everything needs (or should) to be translated to economic return.
There are a few costs omitted from the nuclear side.
1) the cost of integrating 1.1GW NPPs into the Australian Grid.
Only four of the sites proposed by Dutton are ‘plug n play’ for 1.1 GW sized generators. The other sites require massive grid connection upgrades.
2) the cost of 1.1 GW of backup generation capability to cover a unit going off-line for planned maintenance & unplanned outages.
Added to that is the upgrades to the entire transmission network to shift such large amounts of power from 1 State to another to cover those off-line periods.
3) refurbishment costs for a reactor to achieve a 60+ year lifespan.
The reactor vessel itself may last for 60+ years, but the generation, cooling & control systems need extensive refurbishment &/or replacement several times to achieve that lifespan. That’s one of the reasons for CSIRO’s 30 year lifespan. Apart from the reactor vessel & the building itself, the NPP needs to be gutted & rebuilt for a reliable life beyond that age.
4) the cost of sustaining the grid until the full fleet of NPPs could be on-line.
More than 60% of Australia’s aging C-F power plants will reach end of equipment life before even the first NPP could be commissioned. Just keeping one C-F power station going for 2 years is costing the NSW Govt (ie taxpayers) $450Million. Keeping the entire fleet going would cost in excess of $16Billion. And $Billions more if there were major equipment failures from those plants being pushed well beyond their designed lifespan.
If, instead of paying $16Billion+ just to keep worn out C-F power stations going for just over a decade, that money was used to install RE with a 30 year lifespan then nuclear would be redundant. Which leads to …
5) overstating the capacity factor in a high RE grid.
During periods of favourable conditions for RE generation nuclear, with the higher operational cost, wouldn’t be able to compete & would have to scale back output. Ie reduce its capacity factor. This is already occurring in France where NPPs have been completely temporarily shut down because of the high amount of cheap solar power in the grid. This is why using the historical capacity factors for nuclear is misleading & the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is valid.
Now of course, RE could be curtailed so nuclear can continue. But that creates the insane situation of higher electricity costs as free electricity is being turned off for power with a much higher cost of production.
thanks.
I am sure there will be other cogent criticism.
I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear irrelevant for modern Australia.
Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste.
Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it isn't).
Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@BrettBurnardStokes
I encourage everyone to look beyond the economics, and the timing, both of which make nuclear *inevitable* for modern Australia.
_"Consider the inevitable toxic social and health effects, and the forever waste"_
Agreed. The toxic solar cell materials and wind turbine forever landfills are a growing nightmare.
On the other hand, the tiny footprint of nuclear waste, particularly in a country as immense as Australia, with vast patches where no one lives (and no, I do not consider a town of 50 in a 100,000 square mile area inhabited).
Consider the veracity of any claim that nuclear is low carbon (it IS).
Consider the veracity of any claim that unreliables are low carbon (they aren't).
Consider the real risk of catastrophic pollution, llike heavy metals from solar mines leaching into the waterways.
A new reactor has a 60 years lifespan by default, or even 70 years depending on what you chose.
The 5th point can be solved by having more nuclear
There certainly is. The chosen sites are not relevant. They are duttons pick. He has no jurisdiction over the global nuclear requirements. Water is the number one word. that is why nukes are all on large reservoirs or sea shores.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 the 5th point is made worse with more nuclear as more NPPs would have to be temporarily turned off when abundant cheap solar floods the grid with power. That or the threshold at which cheap power is curtailed & electricity consumers forced to buy more expensive nuclear power would be lower.
Today, solar is literally eating the economic lunch of C-F power stations. It won’t be any different for NPPs. They’ll lose money during the day too - unless cheaper RE has its hands tied behind its back.
BTW, nothing lasts for 60+ years without maintenance. Especially safety critical control systems. Mechanical things wear out as well. That’s why plant & equipment has scheduled maintenance. And just like your car, some services are bigger than others.
I sat through the 2024 ISP webinar, and also noted the CER, consumer energy resources which is a huge chunk of assumed storage that was not costed, just a burden put on consumers.
The ISP went on to suggest that if CER weren't available, then it would only cost $4billion to replace it with grid scale storage, seemed ludicrously under quoted to me, so thankyou for raising awareness of this.
The environmental and social impact of rolling out renewables along the great dividing range is wholly unacceptable. If this is to be done then put the solar and wind farms much further west where it wont impact people, high value ecosystems or food production.
Sun power is already making wind expensive in the Australian climate.
You should see the burden of nuclear waste management for the taxpayer
@yt.personal.identification yes, let's see that then, charted against the burden to the taxpayer of all other energy sources, vs the gwh and co2 produced for each type
@@jimsaq Cool.
Can you price a long-term storage facility that has known to be needed for 60 years but still doesn't exist.
Go!
@@jimsaq When the capacity of a nuclear generator is reached, how easy is it to scale up?
Thanx for that information Nuclear is and will be always be needed.
Look at why Labor are hell bent on renewables. Superfunds industry based are run by Labor and unions they invest in renewables to get subsidies then Superfunds donate to the Unions then Unions donate to fund Labor at Elections
Follow the Money $$$$$$$
Absolute crap - follow the money on nuclear and it directly links to this RW think-tank, the hypocrisy is next level
Exactly,.... Corruption In Politics.
Doesn't factor in the cost to the environment too. By removing the forests that convert co2 to oxygen they will never achieve their net zero.
With less Co2, we'll have no rainforests or enough oxygen for life to continue
Apparently destroying vast tracks of forests, forest species and our great birds, farms and ocean habitats has zero value! It disgusts me! Time to tie myself to a bulldozer, at almost 70!
Are you this clueless? You think the CSIRO doesn't account for aggregates,? Your cooked
@@michaelsouthwell5429 Did they account for them?
But, but Nuclear is a naughty word!?!? 😂😂
Love this. So simple. So straight forward. Anti Nuclear Sentiment is so hallow and silly. Great job.
This may sound convincing to someone unfamiliar with the issue, but nuclear, while an excellent power source, does not solve the power generation problems Australia faces.
The biggest issue we have to deal with is dispatchable power. Nuclear cannot be ramped up and down as demand shifts in a very similar way to how renewables can't be ramped up and down as needed.
Both renewables and nuclear need dispatchable generation such as gas, hydro, or batteries.
Implying nuclear obviates the need for additional transmission, storage, and dispatchable generation is either misleading or ignorant.
Some one veiwing this knows their stuff. As an added fact, in 2023 510 GW was added to the world generating capacity from renewables. ! GW was added in 2023 by nuclear after 7 new plants were commissioned and 6 old ones decommissioned.
@@andrewjoy7044 we have 33 gigs of installed wind capacity and sometime get 300 Mw's, 510 Gigs here would probable give 500 Mw's I watched tasmania this week. they have had no wind. Burning gas and running hydro that they have a lot of.
Its necessities for storage and dispatchable generation are a small fraction of what you'd need with wind and solar
Nuclear ramps fine. Keep up.
@@johnk-pc2zx Not really adequate ramping for purpose. In brief, most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.
I'm 60 years old and been shouting this for years, current "green" concepts are BS
Old man shouts at clouds
All that time, and they still haven't built the ling term waste management facility they have known they need, for that entire 60 years.
You must remember that message from the 70s.
Still not fixed.
@@genebrowne3138idiot….
That’s you….shouts at the clouds.
Excellent absolutely excellent. Great video full of true information…
Thanks for that…
The correct title is 'Nuclear and Unreliables: What will it cost?' There is no 'vs', you cannot compare them, they are not the same product, and you will always need dispatchable baseload power generation. Just go all in on the one that doesn't leech efficiencies from the other while claiming to be cheaper and cleaner by leveraging laughable bookkeeping.
Exactly, how people think solar and wind with batteries will power our economy. Large mining companies, manufacturing plants, rail and industry require full load power. Imagine running an electric furnace to smelt copper off the solar and wind grid. The furnace would be dead within the year
People dont think about mich other than tvs or air-conditioning. Imagine transferring all our fuel usage into electrical energy, wouldn't be enough copper to run it all.
Well said: Nuclear OR Unreliables (OR Coal). What is not understandable.
I have no understanding of why Aust keeps farting around with this issue. THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION.
The endless circles and debate as if it is so mysterious. Politicians should stay out of science and follow the advice.
Serious subject - funny background music and over acting of voice and body expressions. Why??? Aust get serious.
Baseload for what? Factories keep shutting down, and most mines generate their own because electricity prices are too high. How much power did that recently closed aluminium smelter use? The grid is dead. It died sometime around 2006, shortly after privatisation.
Levelised cost is the punch line.
I used to say base load, but after a conversation with a CST company director, I realised it's a BS term used by coal industry. We just need dispatchable power.
-Ken
Nuclear is not dispatchable is the issue, and additional grid firming will also be required with nuclear due to the slow responsiveness of nuclear plants.
Nuclear and renewables both face very similar problems of requiring additional dispatchable generation such as gas or hydro, or storage such as pumped hydro or batteries
If only the grifters in Canberra could comprehend any info in this video, than we wouldn't be having any of these issues now. I feel like the longer and longer we wait to actually get a nuclear project off the ground (if ever) it will be too late. Imagine if all this discussion was settled in the 70s or even 80s. Australia could of had nuclear for at least 30 years by now.
... and a technology leader too! It's sad that Oz chooses to take the path NOKIA took with smart phones!
The grifters in Canberra made this video. Look up CIS. It’s basically just Liberal Party advertising.
@@GrahamLea i just looked it up. To quote and credit Wikipedia....
The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) is an Australian think tank founded in 1976 by Greg Lindsay.[4][5] The CIS specialises in public policy research and publishes material in areas such as economics, education, culture and foreign policy. Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] However, it has also hosted Labor prime ministers and politicians,[9] and often also criticises the Liberal Party's policies.[10][11][12]
Also
The CIS is funded by donations, membership subscriptions, and book and event sales from individuals, companies and charitable trusts. It does not accept government funding.
As a scientist, I’m so glad I’ll be around to see this energy transition lunacy debunked.
Very, very well done. A couple of other factors to reinforce your argument. The capacity factor for solar globally is 10-31, wind is, on average, about 25. I heard a UK wind/solar developer recently state that the industry plans for a 4x overbuild because of these poor capacity factor numbers. Both wind and solar have a design lifespan of 25 years. The current actual lifespan for wind turbines + blades is 7 years. In the US, grid scale solar panels, as of a recent 60-minute report, are replaced on average every 5 years.
And all this garbage is made in Chyna, and we, the suckers, enrich them. Every 25 years. Repeat business; how grand!
Send a copy of this presentation to the Canberra Club incompetent ideologists
They'll ignore it if possible, debunk if necessary, or defame the author or sponsor.
They certainly won't deal with the facts, just reframe. 😢😢
@@johnc6786 That's pretty rich coming from Dutton who has never questioned the GenCost report from its first inception in 2019 under the Liberal Party, not when he was opposed to large-scale nuclear in 2023, not when all the other sources corroborated CSIRO on the costing of SMRs with his initial 'let's go nuclear' beer-coaster, I mean, policy... but only when after he got cozy with Gina Rinehart who is all for nuclear that he suddenly decided that the CSIRO doesn't really know anything, because... reasons.
I work in the energy industry. This is nonsense and very typical of the CIS doing back of the envelope calculations without understanding the full context.
On the lifespan: 30 years is appropriate. It’s not pretending that they won’t work after that, but that investors will be looking for return within that timeframe. Because that’s what will determine whether the investment will be made or not. Similarly, wind and solar lifespans are pegged at 20 years when they go on just fine for many more after that.
In the capacity factor: US capacity factors are irrelevant because every energy market is different - different generation fleets, different demand patterns. GenCost’s capacity factors are based on the Australian energy market and they are driven by demand. Energy demand is increasingly flexible and generators that are capable of putting out constant supply are unable to because of this.
On the storage: they are double-counting. GenCost assesses ‘firmed’ renewables. This includes the cost of sufficient storage, allocated to each project. Cherry picking a few expensive storage projects and adding them up is double counting as they are already factored into GenCost renewables.
On the transmission: sure, these are driven by changes in demand and supply of which growth in renewables is one factor. But there are other factors including weather and storm impact. More interconnections are needed regardless of the precise makeup of the generation fleet.
On the integration of distributed batteries: these are privately owned by households and businesses, their investment cost is not recouped through the energy market, so their cost is not included. People will buy them anyway, and they are not only used for firming large scale renewables but also for private benefit. So it is correct not to include them in GenCost.
The CIS is either ignorant or is deliberately sowing misinformation for political purposes. Their comment at the end suggests at least the latter, if not both.
Frances main nuclear energy company, the EDF, is indebted with over 54 billion dollars. So much for the cost effectiveness, and that in a country that is extremely pro-nuclear energy AND that heavily subsidies it.
Yes EDF is a debt bomb
but hey they have the atomic bomb !!!
And they sank the Rainbow Warrior.
Mostly mismagement. EDF is forced to sell most of its eletricity at a loss to competitors, who only after that sell eletricity to consumers. Also France had anti nuclear policies
Actually, in 2023 they posted a net of 10 billion Euros, but had to import a lot of power in 2022; to protect the consumer the government sold the imported power at a loss - a government who think it's worthwhile trying to minimise the effect on the cost of living. Since the nuclear part of EDF is 100% government owned, they can do that.
Write to your local member of Federal HoR and your Senators and tell them your pissed about the transition. Demand a new approach that includes nuclear. Also request that the legislative ban on nuclear power be repealed, poste haste.
Nuclear. There IS no realistic comparison.
The main thing to remember is cost of unrenewables that last 12 to 20 years depending on Quality versus Nuclear that is PROVEN to last 80 years and more . Nuclear will give constant reliability .
Crap.
What garbage propaganda. from corrupt industry and politicians. Its cash grab. It will take 20 year to build and have tripple cost over run> Just like the two SMR nuclear projects that have had overruns and one is cancelled cause of blowout. Solar and batteries can be done in 3 months and make a profit. Nuclear needs base load and wont be available for 10 years, if that, it will have government blowout politicians will leave and new ones will cancel the project lose $billions while the old corrupt polies will get lucrative jobs in energy like they do in gas,,.
@@markdavid7564how come?
@@pietervaneeden2370 There is a lot of BS about renewables. EG. Solar panels only last 25 to 30 years. The fact is that solar panels are warranted for 25 to 30 years but do the calculations on panel degradation, providing there is no overheating and /or moisture ingress, in 100 years, a panel will lose 50% of its capacity. That is a 400w panel will be a 200w panel. The beauty of solar panels is that they have no moving parts.
It's also important to understand that technology is always changing and improving. If a new panel come along with greater efficiency such a perovskite, why wouldn't people upgrade even if their panels are still under warranty.
The CSIRO either needs defunding or an anti-corruption case lodged!!! After the CSIRO’s initial report on Nuclear was debunked by many individuals, it calls to question the integrity or aptitude of this organisation.
It was a monumental CSIRO blunder. They decided to venture into something their chief admitted they knew very little about viz. electricity generation. So the farmed it out to a "contractor", whose expertise wasn't any better than CSIRO. So he went to the Internet and came up with the dog's-breakfast, wildly inaccurate and incomplete report. On the basis of CSIRO's previous good reputation, Albanese and Bowen thought this was manna from Heaven. However Labor needs the Greens preferences so facts matter little to them..
It wasn't debunked - its just that when it comes to the future no one actually knows and other people wish to make different assumptions hence get different figures.
Now what is worth noting is CSIRO figures came in very close to Lazards LCOE for Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Power is a well established and well known generation method with well established cost structures. I would trust Lazards to get this right.
What about the nuclear waste? Storage? Transport? Cost?
All that is included in maintenence and the costs would really dependent. Generally speaking they are somewhat low to store in short term. Long term storage is expensive af but you can recycle nuclear waste.
Now include waste from renewables like wind and solar to
They hide all that information in books. Try looking it up - France would be a good place to start.
Outstanding vid, thanks for the data dump!
Brilliant! THIS is the sort of comparison that I have been waiting to hear.
It's like saying,will we stick with the square wheel,or chop off the corners and see if it rolls better.
Finland reduced electricity costs by 75%. How? By commissioning a new nuclear reactor for power generation. Not Wind and Solar.
Thank you CIS. for doing the math's.
As it seems no governments own a calculator anymore.
Comparing nuclear to renewables is comparing apples and pears.
Nuclear is stable, reliable, controllable and long lived. Renewables are none of those things and require an enormous amount of infrastructure to connect their widely spaced and remote sources of intermittent generation.
I love how we call windmills and solar panels that once past their short operating window will form the most appalling, polluting landfill 'renewables'.
If the EU wants to designate nuclear as a renewable too, then the waste it leaves behind would also make nuclear as strange option to be called ""renewable".
@@spaceforrest I don't think the definition of "renewable" should be changed, but instead change the focus from "renewables" to "clean energy".
They're renewable because you have to keep renewing them.
@@mephisto212 On the other hand, fossil fuels don't need to be renewed. Amrite, guys?
Nuclear is classified as a renewable energy source, the EU decided that. On this occasion I don’t think I care to disagree.
Yeah but it’s not a renewable. It’s a finite resource which is highly toxic in a concentrated form and the cost of reprocessing the spent fuel after 15 or so years pushes nuclear out of the race. Most countries don’t reprocess because of this cost but decide to pile up the waste which is completely untreatable and left for future generations to deal with.
The EU also put burning wood down as a renewable, which is hilarious, lol.
@@ts757arse Well, trees are a natural resource that are renewed.
Even U235 is renewable with the use of a breeder reactor.
Or develop a Thorium fuel cycle reactor (in the fullness of time).
@@johnc6786 No. Seawater uranium is "renewable" (as it's replenished by rivers). Fissile U235 is not renewable. Non-fissile U238 is breedable to fissile Pu239.
Fissile is what we want (for use as fuel).
In fairness for the storage costs you're comparing old technology (pumped hydro) against best case nuclear (in countries with established nuclear industries). You should be factoring in the fact that we have basically no nuclear industry (apart from ansto). So its going to be on the high end for cost 100%
Pumped hydro is by far the best storage method
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Pity it doesn't actually produce any power.
Yes, it's going to be so expensive to bring in experts from overseas and develop an industry in Australia - let's keep our status as a third world country, keep sending all our materials overseas for manufacture and be happy shearing sheep.
@@bnielsen56 Because its storage...?
@@bnielsen56 or we could tax our resource industries properly and use that money to develop manufacturing and value added industries? We don't need nuclear to do that
How much if you factor in radioactive storage facilities and maintenance for 100,000 years?
What about water use?
A system dependent on nuclear needs less water then one dependent on renewables.
As for waste. The volume of nuclear waste is very small. Of wich, 98% can be recycled and doesn't last more then 300 years. Also, the radiation get drasticly reduced and becomes basicly harmless by that time. Of the remaining 2% only ONE element lasts 100,000 years and that can be safely stored underground
@@joaquimbarbosa896 In what universe do renewables use more water than nuclear?
You have lost all credibility.
@@passdasalt The universe where you need a sh1t ton of hydro + pumped hydro. Also solar pannels need to be cleanned.
All in all a system dependent re uses more water and is more dependent on rainfall.
Also, wind speeds are projected to decrease and high temperatures will affect solar power production to. So not only is a 100%Re system very dependent on rainfall but on ideal weather, to
@@joaquimbarbosa896 lol pumped hydro recirculates the water. Rain cleans solar panels. Meanwhile, a nuclear plant uses millions of litres per day. Look it up.
@@passdasalt And if there is no water...guess what happens to pumped hydro? Also pumped hydro heavely demands more dams wich on themselfs can reduce river flow and increase evaporation drasticly.
And rain cleans solar pannels...sometimes. Like with eletricity you need it done at precise times, and rain doesn't come when you want it to. Furthermore, you forgot the crucial detail of hydro. If you do not have lots of hydro, not only would ie be impossible to run a grid on wind solar and storage, but it would also reduce the storage itself. So again, more water usage and more dependent on rainfall
New Nuclear is the key to a clean and cheap energy future!! Great work getting the facts to the general public, they need to know what is really going on!!
Australia can easily have a nuclear renaissance and will be all the better for it!
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational, Rob Fer? Pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have.
Meanwhile, most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology.
The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures.
Per the IAEA's PRIS data, as at 24 Jul 2024, there are 59 reactors with a combined capacity of 61.637 GWₑ under construction. It's not enough to keep up with projected retirements over the next ten years.
Per the 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙-2023, the age of the world's nuclear fleet, as at mid-2023:
* Reactor age 0-10 years: _ _ _ 71 units
* Reactor age 11-20 years: _ _ 30 units
* Reactor age 21-30 years: _ _ 41 units
* Reactor age 31-40 years: _ 154 units
* Reactor age 41-50 years: _ _ 98 units
* Reactor age 51 years & over: 13 units
* 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟯𝟭.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿: _ 𝟰𝟬𝟳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘀
There are no reactors designed for an 80-100 year operating lifespan.
Until recently nuclear reactors have been designed for an operating life of 40 years. Some reactors in some countries have had their operating lifespans extended out to 50 or 60 years. More recent reactor designs (e.g. AP-1000, EPR) have a 60 year lifespan. The oldest operating reactor is BEZNAU-1 in Switzerland, which was first connected to the grid on 17 Jul 1969 and full commercial operations commencing on 9 Dec 1969.
Nuclear is going backwards...
Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies:
𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia);
𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17);
𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and
𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue).
@@GeoffMiell The only thing that is slowing down and stopping new nuclear reactors being built quickly and cheaply is all the anti nuclear rhetoric, red tape and regulations that have been used for decades by "bad-faith" actors and useful idiots to artificially stop nuclear power moving forward. All of which is predicated on disinformation, propaganda and lies, that have always been holding nuclear power back from reaching its full potential.
Take for instance, The Lazard metric - LCOE ( Levelized Cost Of Energy ) It is not a complete metric of competitiveness, as it lacks representation of the value provided to the apparatus. It fails to capture many real world cost for the totality of a given systems.
Look at just one point from a handful. E.g. the variability of wind and solar PV at higher penetration rates. The intermittency of the systems is never factored in when giving an apples to apples comparison for renewables vs nuclear, this can be very easily visualised with the use of a so called "duck curve" graph. This is without even looking at the cost for all the transmission lines, storage and rebuilding costs, that would inevitably be needed for a large scale renewable network over a prolonged period of time.
That number of "20 years" to build a nuclear power plant you say, comes with the huge caveat that nuclear power is currently being hamstrung by many factors constraining and restricting its full deployment. Countries like China, Korea ,France, Japan and the UAE have all shown nuclear power plants can be built cheaply and quickly. With the Mean time to construct a nuclear power around the world being 7.5 years.
In fact take just Japan and the UAE and that number drops to around an average of just 3 years. Showing just what can be done when the will is there to do it!
Even the USA back in the day, built power plants with speed and efficiency.
Now im not saying new nuclear doesn't need to up it's game when it comes to building more quickly and cheaply. But these are both problems that can easily be over come if the political will and commitment is there to do so. They are by no means a deal breaker for weather new nuclear should be used.
@@robfer5370 - "Countries like China, Korea ,France, Japan and the UAE have all shown nuclear power plants can be built cheaply and quickly."
China
SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to become operational from scratch. The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR was US$6,000 (AU$9,200) per kilowatt, three times higher than early cost estimates and 2-3 times higher than the cost of China’s larger Hualong reactors per kilowatt.
France
FLAMANVILLE-3 reactor project is likely to take more than 18-years to become operational from scratch. Experts have put FLAMANVILLE-3's price tag currently at around €13.2 billion, or over AU$21 billion.
Japan
OHMA: Construction since 07 May 2010; construction time (CT) so far 14y 02m 27d+
SHIMANE-3: Under construction since 24 Oct 2006; CT so far 17y 09m 10d+
UAE has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit. Some estimates suggest the all up cost with finance is $US34 billion, or around AU$51 billion.
Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-with 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021.
ICYMI/FYI, the IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen BEFORE the first concrete pour milestone can even happen.
Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units.
@@robfer5370 - "In fact take just Japan and the UAE and that number drops to around an average of just 3 years. Showing just what can be done when the will is there to do it!"
Where are these civil power reactors anywhere in the world that have demonstrated they can be constructed "around an average of just 3 years"? I think you don't have a clue how long it actually takes to get a civil nuclear power generator unit up-and-running from scratch.
Short construction times are the exceptions. The quickest construction durations (excluding pre-project implementation processes + commissioning) in recent times are in China for:
TIANWAN-5 (Chinese-designed ACPR-1000 reactor): 4.6 years
TIANWAN-6 (Chinese-designed ACPR-1000 reactor): 4.7 years
These are part of an 8 reactor unit project at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, which began in 1992 with a nuclear cooperation agreement between Russia and China.
See the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022.
@@GeoffMiell "There are no reactors designed for an 80-100 year operating lifespan."
All PWRs are designed for 100+ year operating lifespans, actually.
Rather, unrealistic cost analysis. Here are ten projects by costs and output over the last 10 years.
1. **Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4**
- Capacity: 2.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 45.0 billion
2. **Hinkley Point C**
- Capacity: 3.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 42.0 billion
3. **Taishan Units 1 and 2**
- Capacity: 3.50 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 21.0 billion
4. **Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant**
- Capacity: 5.60 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 36.0 billion
5. **Olkiluoto 3**
- Capacity: 1.60 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 27.0 billion
6. **Fangchenggang Units 3 and 4**
- Capacity: 2.36 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 9.0 billion
7. **Shin Kori Units 4 and 5**
- Capacity: 2.80 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 15.0 billion
8. **Kakrapar Unit 3**
- Capacity: 0.70 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 3.0 billion
9. **Kairos Power Hermes Reactor**
- Capacity: 0.20 GW
- Estimated Cost: AUD 0.9 billion
Thanks for your work on this critical subject. The Labour Party needs to wake up. I voted Labour last election but based on Nuclear Energy and its critical role in environmental sustainability, I will be voting for the Liberal/National Coalition in the next election.
No, the gov is awake. They know full well what they are implementing. Regardless of who is in power, they will continue along the path their employers the elites, WEF etc.
Bowen's head just exploded
Wouldn't that be good!
It didn't because he didn't understand it
Pro Tip? No one puts music behind the narration anymore. It is distracting.
Their called renewables because you have to keep renewing them, forever
Yes, and it's called Net Zero, because that's how much effect the billions spent will have on the climate.
Show me where a nuclear reactor has been built on time, at cost anywhere in the world, in the last 20 years in a country with no established nuclear industry?
Korea
@@craigspender1710if we were looking at the Korean made reactor that might be fine. I don't think that's who are lobbying in Canberra right now
*_"The UAE_* has embarked upon a nuclear power programme in close consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with huge public support.
"It accepted a $20 billion bid from a South Korean consortium to build four commercial nuclear power reactors, total 5.6 GWe, by 2020 at Barakah.
*_"Unit 1 of the country's first nuclear power plant was connected to the grid in August 2020,_* followed by unit 2 in September 2021, unit 3 in October 2022, and unit 4 in March 2024."
@@chriswarren-smith62 I answered a question. Who says we're not looking at all options???
@@craigspender1710 hopefully they are. but surely there's already some wheeling and dealing going on behind closed doors. don't trust any of them.
CSIRO cannot add up
Well I think you answered your own question, they cannot steal that much money through nuclear
Were disposal of wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar panels factored into the costs? And the human and environmental costs of building them in the first place counted?
Were the same factors considered in the nuclear model?? I didn't see anything about nuclear waste management or fallout.
Don't get me wrong, if these factors are addressed i will seriously consider nuclear but the scrutiny applied to current "renewables" should be more than applied to nuclear also.
@@spaceforrest 1 kg of nuclear uranium is the same amount of energy as 2.7 million kg of coal. one solar panel is 20kg
Brilliant simple as it needs to be and very facutial without the political spin doctoring and deliberate omissions
Our current grid to support rooftop solar with prices plummeting and even going into the negative. The grid was never designed to have so much power feeding back into it.
As you mentioned the true cost of renewables is the storage. Renewables aren't a new idea both America and Germany have failed to produce a that runs on renewables only and this is because of the large cost of storage
Coal powered stations can be converted at half the price and our uranium resources have been sold underpriced since the seventies, we need a particle accelerator to be able to support the hydrogen market that is not completely honest in what is involved in being able to actually store hydrogen so it doesn't leech through the container at a molecular level
James Hansen says Renewables need Nuclear whilst a tax on Carbon & pollution is needed with this tax given back to the public. If the Greens do this I will vote for them. Not one second before.
Never ever vote for the GREENS 😳😳😳😳😳
A clear explanation. Why is the government ignoring the facts? Glenn
One point i would like to see explored more is the environmental impact of wind power, after reading of the Guga hunt on the isle of Lewis (the community has been asked to sign off on an estimated 200 birds a year being killed by a offshore wind farm), i became curious about how much damage these farms do.
German studies ( and you know the Germans, very efficient) have shown massive disruption to insect populations in regions with windfarms " a single turbine located in the temperate zone might kill about 40 million insects per year."
An inconvenient truth perhaps but one i would like to see more discussion on.
It's not just the environmental issue, but the ecological issue where recycling, the 6000 ton concrete and steel foundations for the wind turbines need to be removed once they reach the end of their life every 20 years. In Ireland the wind turbines installed there don't even last 20 years but the gearboxes on the nacelles are failing already after 7 years resulting tin expensive repairs. The wind turbine blade edges degrade well before the 20 year mark which ruins the efficiency and if the wind is blowing more than 12 m/s, the blades need to be feathered making the turbines useless. In France we see the wind turbines turned off when there are strong winds.
@@Ernst12😂 Don’t consider for a moment that nuclear plants require shiploads of concrete and require constant maintenance.
Greenpeace states that more wildlife will be killed by pollution and climate change than by wind turbines
We are looking for improvement not perfection
@@lindam.1502 An absolute pittance compared to what nuclear produces vs. the weather dependent nonsense. Get real.
@@lindam.1502 Ehm, the shiploads of concrete is once per 80 years. Vs once per *20* years for wind. Wind & solar also require maintenance - lubricants, washing panels, replacing blades, horribly expensive due to the dispersed nature of renewables.
Face it, wind & solar are neither practical nor cheap. Only advantage is subsidy harvesting.
Excellent work. The CSIRO was misleading leading by putting solar and wind without storage on the same graph as nuclear, coal and gas which can run 24/7.
You have to understand the term LCOE to understand why you can put them on the same graph.
I think nuclear is better than gas and coal. However, does the study consider the cost of securing all the nuclear waste for thousands of years? I would also think that large scale batteries would be cheaper than the water storage. If there are distributed independent systems with solar and battery, you do not need large transmission lines. From any new nuclear, they would also need to build transmission lines. Just to consider.
Nuclear waste is very small in volume, 98% can be recycled and loses its radiation in less then 300 years. Only 1 element lasts that long and that can be safely stored underground. Also depending on where you build you would need new transmission BUT far less then any Re dominated grid
Completely unbiased. Very convincing.
The other myth that needs to be addressed is the one about nuclear being water intensive. I mean, is that why the Chinese are building reactors in the desert?
Liberal party front Zoe Hilton did the maths. She ignored the fact that Australia has no nuclear supply, operations and support ecosystem/infrastrucutre. And that without doing anything (almost downing tools on renewables) Australia will get to 50% renewables by 2027/2028. Also French nuclear runs at 53% which is what happens when you have high penetration nuclear you get low utilisation / low capacity factor.
You have to at least double the $38 billion, as it is a quote, and we all know how big projects go
Maybe we could...you know...just learn from the mistakes commited in previous big projects...
@@joaquimbarbosa896 What makes you think they were mistakes??
Though I take STRONG ISSUE with the background graphic of DVD/books/blur the actual delivery and facts and.... how this is done, is excellent. I'll watch this again to just take notes.
Another consideration should be the source of financing. While it does not impact return numbers, it can significantly impact scale and size numbers. A nuclear power plant is always a government project, even if operated by a P&U company. However, a significant portion of solar is either funded by private companies or citizens. Therefore, if the cost of a nuclear power plant is spent on solar subsidies, the private funding can multiply its benefit. In other terms if the return on a nuclear plant is the same as solar, then with 50% subsidy for house solar and batteries would generate twice as much power as the private sector would be willing to fund as much as the government.
While nuclear is better than gas and coal, I feel that the real concern of politicians may be whether there would be a centralized or decentralized energy system. The former can easily be taxed and controlled, while the later makes citizens independent from their government in terms of the energy economy.
Apart from the fact that most Australians do not have the budget or possibility of providing their own energy - either due to living in apartments or renting, for example, the amount of storage required to be independent and cover the 70% average downtime or renewables is not economic. Also, while the solar panels might be funded, it's the need for storage that needs the government involvement, not least for land acquisition for pumped hydro projects. Realistically, if the main infrastructure is paid for through taxes, and the 'fuel' is zero cost (as renewables ideologues like to claim) then the power supplied should be free, right?
@@bnielsen56 "due to living in apartments" - this is 10% of population.
If the fuel is zero cost (which is true) the bill will be only 20% less. Because the bill contains retailers (middleman), distribution cost, taxes etc etc
@@alexmag5735 Conveniently left out renters... and while you can claim the fuel is 'free', you need to ensure no shade, cleaning cost, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, control, monitoring, development...and these costs surpass the current cost of electricity - so prices for solar will increase at the consumer, not decrease, because the current infrastructure is not fit for purpose. But the main issue is discussing oranges and apples - you can't compare nuclear with solar+batteries. Having said all that, the reason for the debate is BS anyway. Real scientists know that cutting carbon emissions will not affect the climate in anyone's lifetime.
I have been using solar panels for 15 years and I’m on my third system. They only last about 5 years before they are degraded so badly they produce half the electricity they are supposed to
User-P, if you’ve been through 3 sets of solar panels in 15 years then you must either be buying shit elcheapo panels or they’re being damaged by trees (sap), wildlife, etc.
Good panels are warranted for 10 years & usually last 20-25 years before output noticeably drops off. Commercial grade panels will last 25 -30 years.
@@markboscawen8330 Good panels have a warranty of 25 years guaranteeing at least 80% new capacity. There is nothing stopping them being used for another 25 years but at a reduced capacity. Commercial solar farms usually replace panels early usually because the latest panels are far more efficient and can therefore produce more electricity than the panels they installed 15 to 20 years ago. The used panels can be sold and reused on small scale off grid installations.
This guy must have bought some pretty crappy panels!
If they last 5 years why do you keep buying them ? Or maybe its all made up cos no one else believes you.
For me, when considering nuclear, its the waste and the possibility of fallout which are the most important factors.
It perplexes me that the entities promoting nuclear use don't focus more on addressing these 2 critical factors.
The possible worst case scenario "end games" should always be taken into account when dealung with something that can have such devastating effects on the environment if not planned for correctly.
And not only do theae factors play a considerable part in evaluating the actual projected costs of a nuclear system but also if communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate.
Lol.
Based on the number of GWh produced vs accidents/lives lost/environmental impact of other energy generation methods, Nuclear is by far the safest. If you have peer-reviewed and authenticated evidence to the contrary, please present it here. "If communicated to the public honestly will go a long way to either winning them over (or not) or provide impetus to create improved solutions if the current processes are inadequate." I agree with the quoted statement. Feel free to research this on your own.
"too cheap to meter" they said ...
"nuclear is safe and clean" they say, even after Fukushima and Chernobyl and Sellafield/Windscale.
@@craigspender1710
I don't think you comprehended my concern properly. I didn't mention anything about safety.
So for your benefit i'll present my concerns more clearly as follows:
1. What do we do with the radioactive waste?
2. In the case of fallout, what is the containment plan??
Your "peer reviewed, authenticated" reponse can also be presented here... unlike your irrelevant retort about my concerns that you also failed to provide.
Regardless, i believe you feel i am anti-nuclear. On the contrary. I think it has a very important part to play in the make-up of whatever our energy needs are. However, radioactive materials and nuclear fallout are no joke and all aspects of its functioning should be very seriously considered from inception, through the life span AND breakdown before implementation.
Too many govt projects are rushed through or used as political footballs instead of actually creating viable solutions both economically AND environmentally.
What ends up being produced is either an inferior product or environmental disaster both of which are undesirable financial outcomes. (NBN and Snowy Hydro 2.0 come to mind immediately)
Having said that, i'd also like to apply the same scrutiny to renewables projects, not just in terms of the waste and recycling but "end of life" plant shut down processes and the true environmental costs.
In short, the real question is what ARE ALL the REAL costs in everything we do??
Add in land cost and environmental impacts and the ISP is clearly bonkers. Their plan also relies on significant roof top solar as part of the system. Will home owners be forced to replace their their roof top solar every 20 years or so to stop the system collapsing?
I love this… what I’ve been screaming for a decade now…, ever since I learn a weeeee bit about the different kinds of nuclear…
Great great vid🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Disappointingly no mention of nuclear waste management costs.
Stanford University estimate $8-27 billion to store current level of spent fuel in the US for the next 100 years. That's ~$270M+ per year. With an estimate of $200-600 additional created per year...
Nuclear being non dispatchable in a dispatchable designed grid is an anti-pattern - so as such it should warrant an exceptionally low capacity factor - not a high one! Nuclear doesn't want to scale up and down rapidly - you need firming for that - so forget what other grids are doing - if they are dispatchable based designs - giving nuclear a high capacity factor means you are saying everything else (which is uber cheap to run - Solar PV and Wind) has to switch off if otherwise it would mean nuclear would have to produce less. So is you turn the cost paradigm for a firmed dispatchable based grid that has been designed to operate this way on its head - sure you can give nuclear an unrealistic capacity factor - or you can say it can compete in the free market with what is out there.
In France last week 3 nuclear reactors had to shut down because renewables pushed prices negative - nuclear can never do that. Sudies have shown nuclear requires firming in a modern grid - same as renewables - so shifting distribution, advanced grid function costs and firming onto only nuclear's opponents is rather dis-honest, biased analysis.
So if you assume it can last forever and be given preferred capacity priority - you can price it anyway you wish - but that is realistic. So long as it is tiny you could try and set it to having a larger capacity factor - but is a free market to big into - nuclear can't compete with a generation source thas basically a zero marginal cost to operate. The world wide supply of Uranium for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years of supply left according to a Google search. Nuclear pundits say but we can invent Thorium or fast breeder reactors to re-vitalise spent Uranium fuel or extract it from the Oceans - but point to where this can be done - anywhere in the world - it is pie in the sky. So as a resource becomes scarce - its price rises astronomically - basic enconomics. Plus its byproducts can have huge national security and terror implications...
Nuclear seems a smoke screen to extend coal and gas. Globally the world is shutting down more reactors than are built - at enormous cost. In China - one of the big 3 nuclear nations renewables are outgrowing nuclear at a rate of six to one last year and climbing.
You want a level playing field - assign the same capacity to all generation sources... overbuild renewables and firming and export what energy you don't need or consume it in new business models riding on the back of near limitlessly free energy.
Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper each year - there were bids for firmed renewables under $30 / MWh last year overseas; nuclear simply can't compete against a generation source that needs to buy no fuel ever.
"The world wide supply of Uranium..."
75 trillion tonnes.
"...for the worlds current consumption rates is only 90 years..."
Replacing all fuels, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW, 75 trillion tonnes of uranium is 10 billion years' worth.
"Firmed renewables are still becoming cheaper every year..."
Infinite-cost is not *_"cheaper"_* than infinite-cost. Wind and solar remain infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
@@aliendroneservices6621 google search was what provided the 90 years of confirmed supply - versus pie in the sky manufacturing Uranium technology figures which are unproven.
Not sure why you introduced infinities into this discussion - but as a pure mathematican I will play if you have anyhing sightful to drop - but I have never, ever seen anyone try and bring infinities into an energy conversation - so this could be good!
The key point is nuclear still needs firming and is an anti-pattern to dispatchables - that is the elephant in the room...
@@aliendroneservices6621 Google is your friend
Estimates of the amount available range from 9 to 22 million tonnes of uranium, though the 2022 edition of the Red Book tabulates only about 9.3 million tonnes.
Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association
The figures in the Trillions make estimaes about how much are in the Oceans if a way to extract it could be concieved that was viable, financially affordable and politically achievable. So it is a Unicorn figure - it doesn't exist until it is proven achievable.
The bigger point is nuclear baseload is a total anti-pattern to a firmed dispatchables designed grid - rip out everything that has been achieved by industries, regulators, home owners with PV etc and start again because someone wants to wind the clock back 60 years to design an expensive baseload - that doesn't handle dsitributed variable generation and demand.
It's akin to saying make all cars illegal and we will have coal giant trains that are unstoppable going from every city centre to todays modern population centres.
Nuclear is going backwards around the world and firmed dispatchables are storming ahead - China is a brilliant example of that - see how its renewals outgrow nuclear six to one...
Renewables need renewing every 15 to 20 years.
Where are you going to get the water requirements for these plants? And the waste?
Diablo Canyon uses seawater.
Where do you think the water comes from for coal fired power stations?
And what is the likelihood that those additional costs for solar and wind will come in on budget?
Great video, but you forgot to add in the cost of the solar installations and wind turbines.
Energy in Australia should be 'free' , after the cost of the necessary reactors are paid for.
We could also circumvent some of that initial investment cost by reprocessing and/or enriching uranium here.
@@andrewwhite1065 I think you didn’t do so well at school and basic math is a problem for you.
Biased to the core!!! No costings about handling, transportation, and storage of Nuclear waste products at all for I dunno 1000 years+. I guess that will be free of charge? And where will it all go? Dutton's bush retreat maybe?
Possibility of failures like Nine Mile Island and Chernobyl, nah, never happen here cos we build things to last and with great quality. Refer to "Site Inspections," the yt channel, to see the great quality of workmanship we have in this land, and it's just for domestic homes!!! Leaky reactors anyone?
Get over the furphy of Nuclear power for goodness sake. The future is wind, solar, and electric batteries. The sun shines on Oz from East coast to west coast for many hours during a day, enough to power everything. I'm no greenie or leftie or conservative, but a realist to see it. Get over your biases people, the world is changing.
Realist? That's a laugh. How much solar do you get at night? Even the best estimates for renewables is 30% output for installed capacity - so you need to build about 4 times the installed capacity to fulfill demand; even then, you need all that storage because it may be too much or too little at any moment. And that's not taking into account the increase in power requirements in the future. Delusional.
@@bnielsen56 Yes mate.... DELUSIONAL. Don't believe ALL the BS Murdoch and his lackeys spew out daily. God gave you a brain. Try using it once in a while. You may surprise yourself.
amazing, thanks for the laughs.
Why didn't you include transmission for the hypothetical nuclear reactors? Unless you are thinking of transmitting all those Gigawatts wirelessly!
They will be built on the site of existing coal plants.
Saying pumped hydro is wrong for starters.
You omitted the network management costs of ever increasing complexity in the market. Who owns the electrons in those batteries is just one of those questions?
Renewables added + 510GW last year and nuke accomplished -1.7GW. Nuke is dead. Its contribution being cut in half in the last 30 years.
AU is 35 yrs to late to play with hopeless nuke.
Great video
Not a particularly convincing video.
Anyone know why they're so obsessed with the fact that batteries and pumped hydro 'don't produce electricity' ?
The relevance of this isn't really clear.
Also, the part about new nuclear "being built to last 60-100 years"... Does this mean it actually will last that long?
And that we won't, in the meantime, just give up on it because wind and solar will be even more competitive?
Remove the non-stop background torturing noise and re-upload.
“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
Battery and solar collector technology is developing that quickly that only a brave or foolish person would bet against it. Dispersed small scale generation needs less grid wires. It is less vulnerable to external attack or internal stuff up. The latest electric vehicles can both collect and distribute the electricity back into the house. Much is made of battery fires. The most recent developments in battery materials make this very unlikely. Battery energy densities are improving each year. Given the enormous differences in climate, comparing Finland's needs to Australia's needs is a mugs game. A nuclear reactor to develop our own nuclear deterrent would be advisable if the United States nuclear umbrella continues to have holes in it. The Australian government should export uranium, make a tidy profit and save us all a lot of taxes. We need to stop giving our holes in the ground away to tax dodging foreigners.
Lol. #ComedyGold
@@gravitaslost Solar is making wind look expensive and the gap is widening. Public servants take forever to catch up. There is a possible solar technology ahead that will be 60 times better than solar panels. If you compare a Model T Ford to a 1960's Ford muscle car it illustrates potential progress. Super computing technology is helping a lot with researching battery materials. I am impressed by people smarter than me with a few billion dollars in private research money backing them.
@@KuriosDiogenesJar Plenty of 'game changing' technologies ... zero games changed. We have the solution, we've had it for decades, Luddites have blocked its use and are now largely the same people crying about the climate change for which they are directly responsible. Billionaires are heavily investing in nuclear technological advancements too both fission and fusion, they'll spunk money at anything it's not a sign of intelligence just a desire to make more money.
I want know how much nuclear waste is generated, how often, and where / how is it disposed of? Don’t get me wrong, I want nuclear
It would depend on the reactor itself
@@joaquimbarbosa896 no ballpark figure?
I suppose reading about it is out of the question? But I suggest you take a look at France, as their cooling pools are just reaching capacity after 50 years of production. A typical pool holds several thousand cubic metres of water, so roughly Olympic sized. There's no radioactivity at the top of the pool, even though the water cover is only about 2 metres.
Scrutiny eh?
AU$92 billion for the Hinkley Point C reactor (3.2GW total) in the UK but we can build a 1GW reactor for AU$8.7 billion?
SMRs were being proposed here because it was thought they could be sited at existing coal fired plants to save on transmission costs. Going down the route of a few large nuclear plants instead of multiple SMRs would reintroduce pretty much all of the additional transmission costs of renewables.
Nuclear is a non-starter.
The only issue with Nuclear power is NIMBYs, and there are a huge number of these in Oz
Who will store the waste?
Really interesting video. 90% nuclear grid! that's exceptional
Now this is Truth Telling!!!
Bravo, excelent analysis!
Nice, relaxed presentation. And … I couldn’t help notice that the presenter only had 2 eyes.
I am pro nuclear but it seems this doesn’t account for nuclear fuel refinery infrastructure. I understand that we have uranium mines but there is more infrastructure required
I'd love to understand why Australians are against developing industries - it's a stereotype that Aussies are lazy, but I'm starting to see where that comes from.
This info should have been put out there years ago and reinforced daily
What a load of crap! Australia's cost problems with electricity has very little do with the cost of generation of electricity. Our cost problems come from poor political decisions and por demographics. Any privatised and/centralised generation of electricity will just be another poor decision.
Total crap.
Yes our electricity shouldn't of ever been privatised retailers are taking advantage of everyone !
Why does this country not look at GEOTHERMAL ENERGY??? Cheap clean as lasts for ever bit of a no brainer really
i have been an electrician over 20 year been in the renewable sector over 15 years
i have been saying for 15 years nuclear power is the only option. for the grid
but if the cost is over $20 k to connect to the grid go off grid
in my opinion there is one and only one argument for no nuclear and it is the plant could blow up .
very very low chance but is enough for me to live no where near one . but if they build it in your back yard i will vote yes
great video
Well, the plant cannot have a nuclear explosion,
but yes, it might have a steam explosion.
Unless of course you're using a Gen IV air-cooled reactor which doesn't rely on high-pressure water as a coolant (thus no steam).
@@factnotfiction5915 never say never . There is always a possibility. I live 5 km from a coal fire plant . If it was nuclear I would move (lol in 25 years when it's finished 👍😜)
I can imagine Blackout Bowen making up a lie to cover every one of these truths.
Very smart and very nice looking. A nuclear combination.