14:44 Wind and solar are absolutely incompatible with uranium-fired power. The goal of wind-and-solar promoters is to reach a state of permanent-blackout.
31:51 Wind-and-solar have the *_greatest_* waste-problem. Uranium-fired power has the *_least_* waste-problem. The reason is simple: uranium is *_dense,_* and wind-and-solar are *_diffuse._*
If the labor party was serious about energy supply they would lift the ban on nuclear energy. Then these questions these labor hacks would be able would be answered
Will Shackel still does not understand the entire economic/social/security/industrial/atmospheric benefits of a nuclear power industry which can be far greater than all other existing sources of electrical energy generation and distribution. With nuclear power true carbon neutrality can be achieved and even a NETT NEGATIVE effect upon atmospheric carbon levels. In addition it could even vastly improve our country's balance of payments and export volumes across the entire spectrum of agriculture and manufacturing. To achieve a real NETT ZERO we need electrical power generation at levels beyond our current plans or the existing grid. Rather then adding additional generation to the grid in peak times it is better to simply balance the load demand between the consumer requirements and the remaining "COST/balance load" users. Cost users are government run desalination plants, (drought proofing the country or even greening it to provide more agricultural land as well as the water input for a synthetic oil industry that uses the waste biological carbon from increased agriculture and water the excess electricity generation). This synthetic hydrocarbon fuel would be carbon neutral because the atmospheric carbon cycle is closed. The main benefit would be to citizens who can drive ICE cars, use IC Air travel and Standard carbon fuel burning maritime transport FOREVER if necessary. Renewable power systems are fraught with high cost, short MTBF, large ecological footprint, lack of local manufacturing support, and a degree of fragility in harsh environments. The current electrical power generation model is over a century old and the idea of generating just enough to meet peak demand is based upon the maximum efficiency of a thermal power generation plant. A nuclear plant can be run at maximum efficiency with the excess power generated being used for environmental and societal needs which of course can be regulated through load shedding which is what the industrial and domestic customers suffer from when the grid is operating over its maximum capacity. As for the idea of a few massive power stations supplying our electricity needs, it is fine for the initial conversion of the existing power stations but from there the country would greatly benefit from large numbers of SMRs "MESHED" across the country which would massively decrease the requirement and cost of the "Poles and wires" which are effectively a redundant requirement, (DEAD MONEY/COST) with a fully meshed electricity grid system. (The mesh approach is best explained using the cellular phone service distribution model).
Uranium is dense but the grid to the customers is dispersed. I million km to 20million customers. The grid value at replacement cost or expansion costs is at $millions km. $TRILLIONS but is limited to transmitting only 25gW. This is only 10% of Australia’s total energy useage. Nuclear can not ramp down and load follow the grid demand. So nuclear promoters are saying only 2% of Australia’s energy usage can be possible as the grid ramps down 80%. Distant renewables have grid maximum limitations of 25gW Blackouts can be caused by over supply and under demand. Rooftop PV on the 20million roofs and the replacement of the 20million vehicles with battery vehicles, EVs, with v2g and their oversized battery and parked 23hrs every day is a perfect combination that can protect the national electrical grid. The grid itself is a $ TRILLIONS investment that the owners need customers $100sBILLIONS cashflow every year. Customers abandoning the grid electricity is a disaster for the owners and investors. This is the real problem. A small bit of nuclear electricity is an economic disaster and has no benefit stopping CO2 emissions worldwide and in Australia. Distant renewables have the same economic problem. Grid owners are terrified of lost cashflow and so increasing electricity costs to their remaining customers.
38:54 38:59 There should be an instant, permanent ban on *_all_* grid-tied wind-and-solar.
14:44 Wind and solar are absolutely incompatible with uranium-fired power. The goal of wind-and-solar promoters is to reach a state of permanent-blackout.
31:51 Wind-and-solar have the *_greatest_* waste-problem.
Uranium-fired power has the *_least_* waste-problem.
The reason is simple: uranium is *_dense,_* and wind-and-solar are *_diffuse._*
The only thing denser than nuclear energy is the Albo Labor government!
Australia should expand its national grid capacity to the 20million users as only 10% of Australia’s energy usage is grid electricity.
Happy days. 😊
If the labor party was serious about energy supply they would lift the ban on nuclear energy. Then these questions these labor hacks would be able would be answered
Will Shackel still does not understand the entire economic/social/security/industrial/atmospheric benefits of a nuclear power industry which can be far greater than all other existing sources of electrical energy generation and distribution.
With nuclear power true carbon neutrality can be achieved and even a NETT NEGATIVE effect upon atmospheric carbon levels. In addition it could even vastly improve our country's balance of payments and export volumes across the entire spectrum of agriculture and manufacturing.
To achieve a real NETT ZERO we need electrical power generation at levels beyond our current plans or the existing grid. Rather then adding additional generation to the grid in peak times it is better to simply balance the load demand between the consumer requirements and the remaining "COST/balance load" users. Cost users are government run desalination plants, (drought proofing the country or even greening it to provide more agricultural land as well as the water input for a synthetic oil industry that uses the waste biological carbon from increased agriculture and water the excess electricity generation). This synthetic hydrocarbon fuel would be carbon neutral because the atmospheric carbon cycle is closed.
The main benefit would be to citizens who can drive ICE cars, use IC Air travel and Standard carbon fuel burning maritime transport FOREVER if necessary.
Renewable power systems are fraught with high cost, short MTBF, large ecological footprint, lack of local manufacturing support, and a degree of fragility in harsh environments.
The current electrical power generation model is over a century old and the idea of generating just enough to meet peak demand is based upon the maximum efficiency of a thermal power generation plant.
A nuclear plant can be run at maximum efficiency with the excess power generated being used for environmental and societal needs which of course can be regulated through load shedding which is what the industrial and domestic customers suffer from when the grid is operating over its maximum capacity.
As for the idea of a few massive power stations supplying our electricity needs, it is fine for the initial conversion of the existing power stations but from there the country would greatly benefit from large numbers of SMRs "MESHED" across the country which would massively decrease the requirement and cost of the "Poles and wires" which are effectively a redundant requirement, (DEAD MONEY/COST) with a fully meshed electricity grid system. (The mesh approach is best explained using the cellular phone service distribution model).
Uranium is dense but the grid to the customers is dispersed.
I million km to 20million customers.
The grid value at replacement cost or expansion costs is at $millions km.
$TRILLIONS but is limited to transmitting only 25gW.
This is only 10% of Australia’s total energy useage.
Nuclear can not ramp down and load follow the grid demand.
So nuclear promoters are saying only 2% of Australia’s energy usage can be possible as the grid ramps down 80%.
Distant renewables have grid maximum limitations of 25gW
Blackouts can be caused by over supply and under demand.
Rooftop PV on the 20million roofs and the replacement of the 20million vehicles with battery vehicles, EVs, with v2g and their oversized battery and parked 23hrs every day is a perfect combination that can protect the national electrical grid.
The grid itself is a $ TRILLIONS investment that the owners need customers $100sBILLIONS cashflow every year.
Customers abandoning the grid electricity is a disaster for the owners and investors.
This is the real problem.
A small bit of nuclear electricity is an economic disaster and has no benefit stopping CO2 emissions worldwide and in Australia.
Distant renewables have the same economic problem.
Grid owners are terrified of lost cashflow and so increasing electricity costs to their remaining customers.