I am currently on a cruise ship circumnavigating Australia. A couple of nights ago, we shared our evening meal with a wonderful gentleman in his 80s. He was a retired British Navy nuclear submarine engineer, specializing in the nuclear reactors on board. Fascinating conversation. He didn't have 3 eyes or green skin, despite spending his whole naval career caring for nuclear reactors. However he had a very broad Scottish accent!! I have personally realized for many years that nuclear power is essential for the future. I absolutely hated local council signs on the side of our roads declaring "Nuclear Free Zone". Well done, Will.
Great introduction Will. There certainly is broad public support for nuclear energy. It’s Politicians that keep driving the anti nuclear rhetoric through scaremongering and misinformation. Maintain the pressure Will, politicians will change, the physics will not.
Rip into the zealots Will. When Xi says other leaders should be like UPGRADE ALBO that tells me he is not leading this country for Aussies, treasonous.
Well articulated. Will. Good to see the younger generation, your generation getting behind energy policy and why nuclear needs to be an important component of the energy mix. Not to mention nuclear assisting with de-carbonising. For a country that has been a world leader in many fields, it seems incomprehensible that our government is desperately trying to shut this debate down and remain in the pockets of the renewables industry. When you stick your head in the sand that simply leaves your ar$e exposed. Keep up this important work Will. Cheers
Will I think you are amazing for an 18 year old to have researched nuclear and now campaigning for Australia to go forward with cheaper energy.Congratulations on graduating.Australia needs politicians to think like you.
Will is smarter than the whole Labor government. He also makes Greta look like an angry cry baby which relies on spoilt emotion rather than the practical empirical facts the Will works with. He is a gem.
Well said 🎉🎉 Right here ladies and gentlemen is the difference between reality and politics. Will lives in reality and presents facts, while our professional politicians can only present emotional senseless rhetoric. I would like to see unemployment rise with politicians. They are not for the people, they are only there for themselves.
well done mate. one point when asked about the grid upgrades for nuclear you could of said it would be less then cost of linking in renewables, considering that replacing coal with nuclear would be done mostly at sights with pre existing grid connections and any upgradesshould simply replace what is there without the need for taking more land. as for the NIMBY's discount their power they'll shut up quick, but only doit for people that perexist planing for the nuclear plant, to stop people cashing in.
The fact is that as nuclear takes up a tiny fraction of land and as you rightly pointed out they wouldn't need thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines and could be mostly be on existing power plant sites. There would be a relatively small number of people affected by going down this path. There are thousands of landowners who have signed up for renewables in Australia that will receive generous annual payments for hosting renewables each and every year of the life of the infrastructure. We are paying for that through our taxes and electricity bills. The cost if decommissioning, dismantling, disposal and recycling is potentially the responsibility of the landowners to negotiate with the developers. This is not happening, there is little transparency in this industry. Will the landowners ultimately be forced to declare bankruptcy? Will the councils have to foot the bill? The likely scenario is the the regions will not only bare the burden of thousands of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, thousands of containers of BESS backup, thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines, countless extra substations, countless holes in the ground to quarry materials for road base and to make concrete, but they will want extra land for landfill as well as recycling centres for the materials that are not easily recycled. How is any of this sustainable? What will become of the wildlife? Our region is teeming with native wildlife yet it's been turned into an energy zone.
I think this child needs to extend his reading, particularly about renewable energy, and not an old 20th century technology. In other words, he is irrelevant.
The first solar cells were in the experimental stages in the late 1800's. It took until the 1950's for them to be introduced on a small scale commercially and the push began in earnest in the late 1990's. The have improved slightly in regards to capacity factor in that time but they just can't seem to get the sun to cooperate so the best they can do here in sunny Australia is to produce energy at twenty percent of their rated capacity on average over a year. Wind, as a way of producing useful energy or driving machinery has been around for hundreds of years and though significant engineering has gone into them in the past thirty years or so they too only work in this case if the wind is blowing. I can only speak for NSW because the government report put out regarding the average wind levels was in regards to this state. There are in fact hardly any areas in NSW that are suitable for wind turbines and this particular report made this blatantly clear. Of course they realised the huge gaffe they had made and reissued the report with different parameters. The fact is in a different report put out by the AEMO the total output from wind turbines across Australia was just thirty percent of nameplate capacity on average over a year. Wind and solar are not new technology and building more and more of it will not give you more energy. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining you don't get any energy at all. Nuclear, coal and gas power plants have been engineered to provide power twenty four hour a day and many improvements on these technologies have occurred over the decades. They provide this power without the need for renewables. Renewables cannot possibly provide power twenty four hours a day without the need for coal, gas or diesel backup. Renewables are parasitic and it makes no sense to try to power a nation on the lowest density form of energy on the planet. And to have a dual system in place using higher density forms of energy on standby to supplement renewables is ludicrous.
Renewables so far have cost $640 billion, and we are nowhere near net zero, and they also need replacing every 20 years. Even if Nuclear costs $100 billion, it last 80 years and can achieve net zero. Please tell us how renewables is the best option. Albo promised us the cheapest option! When will it become the cheapest option.
Here is some reading for you. US government energy report shows nuclear power is 37% cheaper than renewables, see ruclips.net/video/RIH9gdNEHlE/видео.html Report available here: liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ As for the cost of renewables, according to www.aer.gov.au/.../annual-electricity-consumption..., we collectively used about 190TWHrs in 2022-2023. I don't know what the mix will be of solar panels and wind turbines so I will run the numbers for both. So if we used 400W solar panels only with a capacity factor of 25%, we need about 51,000,000 panels. Indicative prices to build a solar farm are about USD$1m/MW. Since we are using 400W panels, that is 2500 panels per MW or USD$20.4bn to install all those panels. Since a solar panel lasts 20 years, we would have to replace 2,550,000 solar panels per year or about 127,500 panels a week, or USD$51m per week. If we only used 2MW wind turbines at a capacity factor of 35%, we would need about 135,500 wind turbines. Indicative costs are USD$3m per turbine to install or USD$406.5bn. Since a wind turbine also lasts 20 years, we would have to replace 6775 wind turbines a year or about 130 wind turbines a week or USD$390m/week. That must be what Chris Bowen means when he says "a boon in green jobs". Next question is if we use a 50/50 split between panels and turbines what is it going to cost for 25,500,000 solar panels and 67,750 wind turbines? For the solar panels, it is USD$10.2bn plus $USD203bn for the wind turbines. Now let's run some numbers on storage, for each days storage we would need to store 520.55 Gigawatt-hours. If we used Tesla's MegaPak batteries at 3.9MWHrs each, we would need 133,448 MegaPaks per days storage, at USD$1.3m each. So two weeks storage would be USD$2,400bn. Since MegaPaks last at best 20 years, that means we would have to replace 6672 Megapaks per year or 133 MegaPaks per week or USD$173m of batteries per week. So all up using a 50/50 mix of solar panels and wind turbines, that comes in at USD$2,613bn up front for the initial build plus USD$383.5m PER WEEK, steady state and that is excluding the cost of the new grid.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
This 18yr old makes more sense than all those in front of him.
I am currently on a cruise ship circumnavigating Australia. A couple of nights ago, we shared our evening meal with a wonderful gentleman in his 80s. He was a retired British Navy nuclear submarine engineer, specializing in the nuclear reactors on board. Fascinating conversation. He didn't have 3 eyes or green skin, despite spending his whole naval career caring for nuclear reactors. However he had a very broad Scottish accent!!
I have personally realized for many years that nuclear power is essential for the future. I absolutely hated local council signs on the side of our roads declaring "Nuclear Free Zone".
Well done, Will.
Great introduction Will. There certainly is broad public support for nuclear energy. It’s Politicians that keep driving the anti nuclear rhetoric through scaremongering and misinformation. Maintain the pressure Will, politicians will change, the physics will not.
Broad public support for it being sited a long way away. It will never get up it's just too expensive and dangerous.
Keep going mate, terrific effort!
Congrats on graduating Will and congrats on a brilliant speech. I think things will change come the next election. Keep up the great fight.
Well done Will.
Thanks Will for all your hard work and insight in bringing this to the people, you are amazing.
Rip into the zealots Will. When Xi says other leaders should be like UPGRADE ALBO that tells me he is not leading this country for Aussies, treasonous.
Well articulated. Will. Good to see the younger generation, your generation getting behind energy policy and why nuclear needs to be an important component of the energy mix. Not to mention nuclear assisting with de-carbonising. For a country that has been a world leader in many fields, it seems incomprehensible that our government is desperately trying to shut this debate down and remain in the pockets of the renewables industry. When you stick your head in the sand that simply leaves your ar$e exposed. Keep up this important work Will. Cheers
Go Will your a little champion
Will I think you are amazing for an 18 year old to have researched nuclear and now campaigning for Australia to go forward with cheaper energy.Congratulations on graduating.Australia needs politicians to think like you.
Will is smarter than the whole Labor government. He also makes Greta look like an angry cry baby which relies on spoilt emotion rather than the practical empirical facts the Will works with.
He is a gem.
Well said 🎉🎉
Right here ladies and gentlemen is the difference between reality and politics. Will lives in reality and presents facts, while our professional politicians can only present emotional senseless rhetoric.
I would like to see unemployment rise with politicians.
They are not for the people, they are only there for themselves.
Nice work, just compare this well balanced, pragmatic and educated response compared to Bowens waffle and nonsense.
Will! For PM please! A
Throw OUT Labor because this kid with much more sense than that idiot called Bowen
The big question is the water requirements and the impact on the environment.
HEAR HEAR 👏👏👏
He has more intelligence than the entire Labor cabinet.
Black out Bowen.....fingers in ears.....blah blah blah blah.
well done mate. one point when asked about the grid upgrades for nuclear you could of said it would be less then cost of linking in renewables, considering that replacing coal with nuclear would be done mostly at sights with pre existing grid connections and any upgradesshould simply replace what is there without the need for taking more land.
as for the NIMBY's discount their power they'll shut up quick, but only doit for people that perexist planing for the nuclear plant, to stop people cashing in.
The fact is that as nuclear takes up a tiny fraction of land and as you rightly pointed out they wouldn't need thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines and could be mostly be on existing power plant sites. There would be a relatively small number of people affected by going down this path.
There are thousands of landowners who have signed up for renewables in Australia that will receive generous annual payments for hosting renewables each and every year of the life of the infrastructure. We are paying for that through our taxes and electricity bills. The cost if decommissioning, dismantling, disposal and recycling is potentially the responsibility of the landowners to negotiate with the developers. This is not happening, there is little transparency in this industry. Will the landowners ultimately be forced to declare bankruptcy? Will the councils have to foot the bill? The likely scenario is the the regions will not only bare the burden of thousands of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, thousands of containers of BESS backup, thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines, countless extra substations, countless holes in the ground to quarry materials for road base and to make concrete, but they will want extra land for landfill as well as recycling centres for the materials that are not easily recycled.
How is any of this sustainable? What will become of the wildlife? Our region is teeming with native wildlife yet it's been turned into an energy zone.
Good on you kid
You have a brain that is thoughtful and diverse
Unlike so may cauliflowers running around
If you voted Labor better have a good look at yourself as your not on the side of common sense rather extremist dangerous views
So what was their answer?
Go look at the full hour long video. It's on the same channel.
I think this child needs to extend his reading, particularly about renewable energy, and not an old 20th century technology. In other words, he is irrelevant.
I think you need to take your own advice!!
The first solar cells were in the experimental stages in the late 1800's. It took until the 1950's for them to be introduced on a small scale commercially and the push began in earnest in the late 1990's. The have improved slightly in regards to capacity factor in that time but they just can't seem to get the sun to cooperate so the best they can do here in sunny Australia is to produce energy at twenty percent of their rated capacity on average over a year.
Wind, as a way of producing useful energy or driving machinery has been around for hundreds of years and though significant engineering has gone into them in the past thirty years or so they too only work in this case if the wind is blowing. I can only speak for NSW because the government report put out regarding the average wind levels was in regards to this state. There are in fact hardly any areas in NSW that are suitable for wind turbines and this particular report made this blatantly clear. Of course they realised the huge gaffe they had made and reissued the report with different parameters. The fact is in a different report put out by the AEMO the total output from wind turbines across Australia was just thirty percent of nameplate capacity on average over a year.
Wind and solar are not new technology and building more and more of it will not give you more energy. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining you don't get any energy at all. Nuclear, coal and gas power plants have been engineered to provide power twenty four hour a day and many improvements on these technologies have occurred over the decades. They provide this power without the need for renewables. Renewables cannot possibly provide power twenty four hours a day without the need for coal, gas or diesel backup. Renewables are parasitic and it makes no sense to try to power a nation on the lowest density form of energy on the planet. And to have a dual system in place using higher density forms of energy on standby to supplement renewables is ludicrous.
Renewables so far have cost $640 billion, and we are nowhere near net zero, and they also need replacing every 20 years. Even if Nuclear costs $100 billion, it last 80 years and can achieve net zero. Please tell us how renewables is the best option. Albo promised us the cheapest option! When will it become the cheapest option.
Here is some reading for you. US government energy report shows nuclear power is 37% cheaper than renewables, see ruclips.net/video/RIH9gdNEHlE/видео.html
Report available here: liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/
As for the cost of renewables, according to www.aer.gov.au/.../annual-electricity-consumption..., we collectively used about 190TWHrs in 2022-2023. I don't know what the mix will be of solar panels and wind turbines so I will run the numbers for both.
So if we used 400W solar panels only with a capacity factor of 25%, we need about 51,000,000 panels. Indicative prices to build a solar farm are about USD$1m/MW. Since we are using 400W panels, that is 2500 panels per MW or USD$20.4bn to install all those panels. Since a solar panel lasts 20 years, we would have to replace 2,550,000 solar panels per year or about 127,500 panels a week, or USD$51m per week.
If we only used 2MW wind turbines at a capacity factor of 35%, we would need about 135,500 wind turbines. Indicative costs are USD$3m per turbine to install or USD$406.5bn. Since a wind turbine also lasts 20 years, we would have to replace 6775 wind turbines a year or about 130 wind turbines a week or USD$390m/week. That must be what Chris Bowen means when he says "a boon in green jobs".
Next question is if we use a 50/50 split between panels and turbines what is it going to cost for 25,500,000 solar panels and 67,750 wind turbines? For the solar panels, it is USD$10.2bn plus $USD203bn for the wind turbines.
Now let's run some numbers on storage, for each days storage we would need to store 520.55 Gigawatt-hours. If we used Tesla's MegaPak batteries at 3.9MWHrs each, we would need 133,448 MegaPaks per days storage, at USD$1.3m each. So two weeks storage would be USD$2,400bn. Since MegaPaks last at best 20 years, that means we would have to replace 6672 Megapaks per year or 133 MegaPaks per week or USD$173m of batteries per week. So all up using a 50/50 mix of solar panels and wind turbines, that comes in at USD$2,613bn up front for the initial build plus USD$383.5m PER WEEK, steady state and that is excluding the cost of the new grid.