One of the biggest threats to a nuclear reactor being built on-time and on-budget in Australia are the unions... the politicians can be replaced (and thoroughly need to be!)
If it wasn't for the unions, you wouldn't have the 8 hour day. If it wasn't for the unions you'd work for minimum wage. Believe it or not Australia has everything it needs to build anything it wants. Theirs just no political will.
@@Milpile1 unions haven't done anything for me or my industry during my 56 year lifetime except make me pay more taxes to support their bloodsucking members wages
@@Milpile1 If it wasn't for the unions, the stimulant trade would have been stopped years ago, high-rise buildings could be completed in a single year instead of five, cost a third of what they do (or less) and we might even have useful people in parliament house, cut the bulltish, some of us really do know better.
Australia needs coal Not toxic radioactive waste that costs a fortune to store and always grows and gets worse and costs more and more to store as time goes on! Nuclear is a costly continuous threat to everything and a straight up swindle of the public.
And will continue to be destroyed unfortunately. People are already taking notice. But take into account that the great divide is the only place that makes sense in terms of enough wind for them to go and that they want thousands more of them to meet Bowens insane targets. The worlds 4th longest mountain range after the Andes, Rockies and Himalayas. Imagine trying to desecrate any of those instead. Where are the greenies on this?
One can only hope the chair person understands the answers to the questions he is asking. Based on his reputation and past performance it is doubtful however kudos to him for asking them even though he repeatedly attempts to cut the responses short. This is a positive sign and hopefully it results in further discussion and decision making.
The only reason you would ignore the possibility of nuclear power is due to ideology not facts. The existing grid can be utilised and improved to enable wind and solar to work when it does and the Nuclear or Clean Coal/Gas power stations should be the backup. As for battery backup the only one that would even work is the hydro pump/Turbine setup which is not idea due to the loss factor. Battery backup has a ten year replacement cost that exceeds Nuclear power.
My understanding is, with nuclear they never shut off. IF that's the situation, then why wouldn't you flip it and have wind & solar as the possible back-up?
Renewables always add cost to the grid, since they can go to zero output at any time and need 100% backup from reliable generation. Nuclear baseload, with Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine generators for peak load is the most sensible choice. Molten salt reservoir reactors, which can quickly ramp up output to cover peaks, would be best all round.
@@WilliamBlinky Because unfortunately we can't control the weather to make solar and wind kick in at the times it is needed. The reason we can't use them as backup is the same reason we cannot use them to supply 100% of our power. Nuclear cannot be turned on and off, but it can be adjusted to a degree
I agree with you comment that "Nuclear or Clean Coal/Gas power stations should be the backup." I think a lot of people out there THINK that nuclear under Dutton's plan will supply ALL of Australia's electricity - ain't gonna happen. As to your comment "Battery backup has a ten year replacement cost that exceeds Nuclear power." ... there is nothing to support that assertion. And I contend that something being replaced after 10 or 20 or 40 years with NEW, BETTER technology is a good thing, the "silver lining", especially in comparison to nukes which are basically a decision to throw all your money at one technology that will last 80 or 100 years. What happens to nukes if something better comes along? Fusion, or Thorium, or a quantum leap in renewables? Would you choose a television now and say "that'll be good for 80 years"?
There are only four types of power generation that works, coal, gas, hydro & nuclear. Solar and wind will never supply power at peak periods which are mostly after dark. Battery storage may sound good but will only supply power for minutes not hours.
@ yeah it’s a fact batteries aren’t big enough to even come close to powering major power thirsty industrial site and I think they are kinda bad for the environment because they deteriorate so quickly becoming less and less capable of storing their original capacity
The way the QLD ALP representativr just dismissed the destruction of the Great Dividing Range was discussing and really shows the attitude of the ALP. Bugger the environment, we are saving the planet.
As someone undecided about nuclear v renewables, i think it should come down to cost and environmental benefits. Problem with nuclear will be the huge delays before it would come on line. Renewables and grid level storage technologies have progressed incredibly in just 5 years, and costs per unit are decreasing, so how far would it go in the next 10? This would still be far in advance of any nuclear. Moreover we are at the climate tipping point NOW and need to act NOW, not give the fossil fuel industries a excuse to continue polluting for the next 15 years plus. I want to see accurate cost comparisons between the technologies that look at the lifetime costs, in $ and emissions/ environmental costs. Another cost i hear used against renewables is grid expansion however i see huge benefits in doing that anyway as mitigation and redundancy for communities against the regular extreme weather events we are seeing now and that will likely increase in frequency in future. Unfortunately for me the coalition has gone down the misinformation path too many times in recent years that the onus is on them to come clean with facts and show they are not puppets of the Murdoch press and fossils fuels industry.
@@mikefitzpatrick6618 the Government makes so much money in tax receipts from Coal via Corp and Income tax that they are considering carefully how to manage it out in a way that doesn’t negatively impact income, and job losses from a large, historically loyal voter base for labor.
I have one point to make.. Computers are changing the issues .. Fact. A.I. and Quantum computing is if you care to look at this subject. One Company. can use a massive amount .. (One Gig ) Look This is a very serrious issue.. If we are to maintain Australia to stay up with the World. We need. to manufacture product.. For us to Close our Eye's. Because of fears.. One should look at the fears of not having Nuclear power.. Either that or go back to Gas and Coal.. Because if we Don't . No international company will invest in Australia if we don't have POWER.. We must look at Australia's Future needs RIGHT NOW! we are a CONTINENT NATION.. for us to open the Nation and provide work and new Towns. Sewerage systems. Fresh water systems, Manufacturing, Train Transport across the Nation.. ( There are no Elector Planes?? ). Hospitals require power.. AS I have said, Computing is moving forward, If we are to have E.V's (which i think is stupid for a nation this size). Just think on this. We are just 27-8 million people in a Nation Continent Larger than the best part of western Europe! That require Power for much more than I have out lined.. Food production.. WE MUST STOP WITH THE FEAR, AND THE DISINFORMATION.. IF A NATION DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD ….. IT FALLS BEHIND.. DO WE RELY ON OTHER NATIONS THAT ARE REALLY NOT NECESSARYLY OUR FRIENDS. WE HAVE THE FUELS HERE !
I was about to mention MSR’s. I’ve also seen a documentary about Small Modular Reactors built in Banks of ten, suspended above a deep coolant pool failsafe device. So if in the rare event a runaway reaction starts in one SMR, it can be released into the pool of coolant and the other SMRs will be disconnected and automatically removed to a safe distance on rails. It’s unbelievable how safe this technology is compared to the designs of the 60s and 70s that people are scared of
@ I understand there are two reasons., we have progressed past low temp(therefore low efficiency) pressurised water rectors .. burn low usable solid uranium fuelled pallets.. 1- the USN paid all the up front costs for Westinghouse to it in a submarine.. 2- uranium n water.. easy fir making plutonium.. Thorium etc.. do make uranium..😥 so no $$$$ from USN etc
This fallacy about abundant space, wind and sun is continually wheeled out but is a demonstrably flawed argument. The destruction of the great divide illustrates this perfectly. Why are the wind generators there. Because that is the only place on mainland east coast that has adequate wind for generation. The fact that we have lots of space just means our generators are further away from where the power is used causing inefficiencies and additional transmission cost.
But it's 2% of the power of a 1GW power reactor. Completely different engineering challenge. 50 times the fuel load for a start -or- you run it at much higher, and technically challenging, power and radioactivity level.
@ Size is not the issue. It is the number and type of Safety Instrument Loops that are pertinent. In this regard OPAL is more complex than a simple PWR water boiler.
@@lenphil9875 How much time did you spend in Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami? I arrived about a week after the incident and was there for three months. You want to know what the people in the towns and cities said? “Why the f##k are we being forced to evacuate…?”
Australia is one of the few countries with nuclear material and knowledge that has not built nuclear weapons. But Australia is buying AUKUS USA nuclear submarines and massive weapons systems. Yes, the sunniest continent on the planet can not do renewables and has to go to nuclear electricity, "FMD, and call me Shirley."
Australia has built a NATIONAL ELECTRICAL GRID over 14decades. It handles only 10% of Australia’s total energy, 90% of Australia’s energy usage is fossil fueled. The Australian electricity grid is 1million km and $1million per km. It is a $TRILLIONS investment asset. More grid capacity is $TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS. And decades and decades and... Morons ignore the real grid costs constraints on economical 100% clean electricity to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear electricity needs 247 cashflow. The grid needs 10times more cashflow 247. Grid construction costs to millions and millions of customers is 10times generation construction costs.
A great opportunity for Australia to adopt proven technologies from Canada, France, USA or Korea. With The CANDU reactor (800+ MW) offered in four packs being the most sensible owing to the lack of heavy forged components and very stable supply chain for the reactor technology with active construction and re-tube/refurbishments projects in Canada - a well respected partner country.
America wanted Australia to go nuclear in the 80s and we didn't. It has nothing to do with the Americans and everything to do with people in Australia with a particular left ideology not wanting it
Yay! Let's get nuclear energy in Australia because the cost and unreliability of the current system isn't high enough! Honestly I don't care about nuclear energy or the current system, I live in the metropolitan suburbs and have no need for either! I get all the energy I need and then some from the sun! I'm never without energy regardless of what the grid is doing. But what I don't want is to be down wind of a nuclear power plant! It's nothing more than a man made steam engine and like all machines made by humans, they are prone to failure! And you can't simply walk in with your garden hose to stop it! I didn't see see any of the pro nuclear energy people who are commenting here put up a hand to volunteer for Japan to be the person who goes into the failed nuclear reactor to do whatever was needed to be done! Japan chose nuclear energy over every other option and basically made their own bed and now no one wants to sleep in it! No other industrie in human history has lied so much! The actual amount of death, pain and suffering caused by anything nuclear related will be forever unknown, to think that people have suffered and died and never received what they deserved all because the reputation of nuclear anything is more important than the life of a human! For those who want nuclear energy, there's plenty of them around the world, the door is open and you are more than welcome to leave at any time!
Study the SMR bank failsafe designs. It may change your mind. I’m pro-renewables myself, but I was convinced by how far this technology has come along. I watched a presentation from the ARC conference into deaths per gigawatt hour from Nuclear and it was extremely low. The amount of deaths from cancer via Australian coal makes Nuclear look like a pillow fight.
The sad part is that we have experts in the field but those asking the questions are nothing more than numpty's , the first guy couldn't get around using tested systems , the fact that we only need small reactors dotted around all exampled by how many times he had Mr Irwin repeat himself. The second guy was more interested in Scotland's woes and miseries and third guy , smug little numpty that he was , was quite happy to have the GDR decimated as long as his tourist numbers were stacking up...while not understanding the short lifespan of a windmill or the fact that percentage-wise they produce SFA. I live next to a windfarm and I can tell you that on any given day 30% of them are not working > at least 7 out of 33. The fact that Dutton is only placating nuclear for political gain is even sadder.
More like $350 Billion. If we are looking at Hinkley C in the UK, it’s 15 years. So close to your estimate but not quite. Unfortunately, the cost to expand the grid to handle distribution for fully renewable power sources by 2050 would be over $1 Trillion - a number of Transmission and Distribution engineering companies can provide the estimated range. I’ve seen a presentation on the topic by an expert on the economics of Grid construction and maintenance. So the difference is at least $650 billion to the tax payer and the cost then gets passed on to the consumer, who then pays again. I’d love 100% renewables but I’m also a realist.
4 nuclear plants were built in UAE at the cost of US$20 Billion (so US$5 Billion each). The average nuclear plant built in the last 2 decades was US$8 Billion. The additional poles and wires cost of solar and wind in Australia is well over US$1.8 TRILLION !
Also, to be clear - my estimate of $350 Billion includes construction of seven plants, cost over-runs, the inclusion of a Union based construction workforce and EBA’s into the mix, the building from scratch of a new industry, broadening of the regulatory environment, the building of a new security system and nuclear military police force, the introduction of new engineering and science skills, the commercial development and integration into the energy retail sector, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, plus full salaries for the entire workforce to be fully integrated and operational by 2050. Even in this case, it will still be far, far less than the cost of going to full-renewables by 2050, and the tax payer has to pay twice for it. Upfront capex, then capex recovery via either tax subsidies or line-item billing - increased energy bills until the debt is paid down to build the energy grid and battery systems to cover the entirety of Australia’s power consumption.
@@Cyberpunk9000 : I'm reasonably sure it will cost substantially less than $350B. The UAE built 4 for US$20B, we are building only 3. The O'heads of running and maintaining, etc, will be a lot less than $335B.
The _only_ way nuclear power would stay cheap, is if the state governments _owned_ them, not the government pay for them, then sell them off ala every damn coal power station. That is what happened with coal stations, and i have no doubt governments would do they same thing...
This is my problem with nuclear it could be cheap but will it be may as well just keep coal going if it won’t actually be cheaper to go nuclear I just think someone somewhere is just seeing dollar signs in a new project and service provided
Basically my understanding of a reactor to generate power the heat generated by a nuclear reaction creates steam to turn a turbine instead of a boiler heated by the burning of coal it would just be a proper understanding of the process of the particular design such as understanding of the importance of the reactor being cooled as it is functioning and pressure limits not being exceeded
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Nonsense, that is like saying your lawn mower engine could power a locomotive. The opal reactor is designed to irradiate isotopes, not produce heat. 'Like all the others'? No expert said that. There are so many types of reactor, some are vastly different from each other.
Yes but on an existing nuclear site and for rational medical and research reasons. Any new proposed nuclear power plant in Aus would face HUGE environmental, Nimbi , political and public resistance.....regardless of capital and decommission costs, legal and skills issues...AND the time required...by which all the coal plants will be dead😮
80% of the world's population live in warm latitudes. Yes Australia is in Sahara Desert latitudes in the south of the equator. Germany has had complicated politics. Nuclear electricity needs 247 demand and cashflow so when the sunshines and the sunsets rooftop PV and BVs oversized battery means Nuclear 247 demand is broken. This is an economic problem. The national grid has the same 247 cashflow problem but 10times bigger because it is a 10times bigger investment. This one economic fact is totally ignored by all the experts with non grid expertise. They are just spurts. Hahaha.
Fit for purpose involves debating the cost to get in the cost to stay in and the cost to get out. Those that debate the alleged efficacy of nuclear ignore that no country with a mix of different classes of generator are producing power cheaper that Australia.
My estimate based on reading a few right and left leaning studies on this from energy economists show it will be over $1 Trillion to get to true net-zero. I’ve worked in the UK Nuclear Industry and I’d estimate $350B to set up and operate all of the infrastructure and supporting industries for 7 reactors. Sellafield, the largest and most dangerous nuclear waste reprocessing and disposal site in Europe was built on 1950s technology, when nuclear waste disposal wasn’t fully developed as a practical scientific and engineering process, never mind the fact that no nuclear waste disposal industry even existed at that time. They placed the rods into cooling ponds and disposal was an after thought. That mistake is forecast to cost the UK tax payer $100 Billion+. So we can safely assume that it will cost significantly less than that to safely decommission advanced designed, modern plants in Australia contracted to next-Gen reprocessing and disposal industries. For arguments sake, let’s say it’s half at $50 Billion. That’s still $600 Billion less than recovering the cost of going to true Net Zero. There would have to be a massive change in Government enforced energy subsidies to the public, and semi or full de-privatisation of the energy sector to facilitate such a wide ranging and vast commitment to run at a loss to keep prices low until the Capex is paid off. The left-wing think tank estimates trillions to achieve net zero - more than the right wing think tank paper I studied. The numbers just don’t add up I’m afraid to say, and I want 100% renewables as quickly as we can get them.
We shouldn't build first of a kind yet we're talking about SMRs which are still prototypes - and we're not going to use navy reactors. We can build to time and budget as long as the government and the public aren't involved. Why would anyone fund a sub-300MW reactor instead of a gas turbine?
We're trying to address the concerns over cost and budget overruns. Early adoption sounds like a good idea if you're talking about a smartphone that doesnt cost billions and take years to build. You want a proven design since the surrounding architecture is going to be bespoke. My follow up question would be When will the designs be considered 'proven' from an economic perspective?
AGR and Magnox were chosen because of the ability to conduct online refuelling; intended for Plutonium production; given both were coupled with reprocessing at Sellafield (Magnox and THORP reprocessing plants) We would not choose a graphite moderated or gas cooled reactor in 2024.
Not sure why SMRs are always talked about but not MSRs. We should be seriously considering getting reactors from Moltex or one of the other MSR companies. I don't want to build your grandfathers nuclear - a reactor only marginally competitive with coal.
Name the current operating SMR and its cost? No, can't because it doesn't exist. Name a nuclear power plant built on time and at budget in a country similar to Australia in size and political and economic strength. I can't do that because, once again, non existant. Reality sucks but go ahead and defend the indefesable.
the reactor in every submarine that has them, are smr's , so are the ones in aircraft carriers , there even a handfull of russian ice breakers running around with a smr powering them, so they do exist , just specialized and sized for aplication but a standard size , say 300mw can be built very quickly by any of the above sources its just mass production that needs to happen in this endeavour
@@paulwoods1950 SMRs have existed since the 1950s and they have been plugged into the grid to provide power to homes since about the 1960s, they are called nuclear submarine engines, if you don't believe me Google it
@@peterolsen9131I was about to say the same thing. This technology has been around for decades. It’s a shame to read someone say “defend the indefensible” without knowing how the technology has been proven and applied in environments that are arguably much more difficult to deploy and run than a static site connected to a power grid.
Australia can do major projects again but there needs to be political will on both sides. Im all in favour of wind solar and tidal but you need a base load source.
Tidal has been totally debunked. It's been tried over a dozen times and failed in every trial. The last one was destroyed before it was activated. Do a search for the Canadian tidal generator. There's a video here on YT.
If Very one in Australia turned their power off at once . The power grid will go bang, no more substations . We have free. Energy they just want let it happen.
Glad we are having genuine discussion about this :)
It would be nice if politicians listened to experts and did what is best for Australia instead of playing politics.
why would they, they only listended to experts when it was fine to lock us down!
The politics would be representing their constituents wouldn't it?
@@skip181sg : Not at the moment. This Labor government does NOT represent their constituents as shown by the 'Voice'.
@ Ave what does the majority of Australians think about Nuclear?
Even the Labour party cannot argue about these Facts....Except of course Bowen
labour does not let that stupid bowen out anymore thank god
They hate the fact they can’t find any negatives in in his evidence.
This is far too logical and clear cut, exactly the kind of thing Labor will find fault with.
One of the biggest threats to a nuclear reactor being built on-time and on-budget in Australia are the unions... the politicians can be replaced (and thoroughly need to be!)
Absolutely dead right
Nailed it, that's why Labor are so confident it's going to take us twice as long, they have union traitors on it, just like the docks during war time
If it wasn't for the unions, you wouldn't have the 8 hour day. If it wasn't for the unions you'd work for minimum wage. Believe it or not Australia has everything it needs to build anything it wants. Theirs just no political will.
@@Milpile1 unions haven't done anything for me or my industry during my 56 year lifetime except make me pay more taxes to support their bloodsucking members wages
@@Milpile1 If it wasn't for the unions, the stimulant trade would have been stopped years ago, high-rise buildings could be completed in a single year instead of five, cost a third of what they do (or less) and we might even have useful people in parliament house, cut the bulltish, some of us really do know better.
Australia needs nuclear power
Australia needs coal Not toxic radioactive waste that costs a fortune to store and always grows and gets worse and costs more and more to store as time goes on! Nuclear is a costly continuous threat to everything and a straight up swindle of the public.
Do our elected representatives actually listen to these very important issues
Don't think they do. They just follow the party line. They don't represent the people they only represent the party line
@@lynntaylor2804 Yeah and the party line is whatever the vibe is with their donors and the voters who dont have jobs
Graham Perrett did not like being told about the Great Dividing Range being destroyed by wind towers
And will continue to be destroyed unfortunately. People are already taking notice. But take into account that the great divide is the only place that makes sense in terms of enough wind for them to go and that they want thousands more of them to meet Bowens insane targets. The worlds 4th longest mountain range after the Andes, Rockies and Himalayas. Imagine trying to desecrate any of those instead. Where are the greenies on this?
One can only hope the chair person understands the answers to the questions he is asking. Based on his reputation and past performance it is doubtful however kudos to him for asking them even though he repeatedly attempts to cut the responses short. This is a positive sign and hopefully it results in further discussion and decision making.
If he is cutting short the answers, then his role is to discredit rather than question the facts
He didn’t argue or defend the comment about the destruction of the great dividing range with wind construction did he 🤔
25:02 - clearly qualified to be on the panel of an inquiry into nuclear energy.
😂
Always good to hear from a well educated and a professional on a subject unlike a non education activists who only seems educated on ideology.
it would be interesting to see Albo discuss the issue with Mr Irwin.
Ha Ha Ha Not educated enough.
The only reason you would ignore the possibility of nuclear power is due to ideology not facts. The existing grid can be utilised and improved to enable wind and solar to work when it does and the Nuclear or Clean Coal/Gas power stations should be the backup. As for battery backup the only one that would even work is the hydro pump/Turbine setup which is not idea due to the loss factor. Battery backup has a ten year replacement cost that exceeds Nuclear power.
My understanding is, with nuclear they never shut off. IF that's the situation, then why wouldn't you flip it and have wind & solar as the possible back-up?
@@WilliamBlinkyvery good point...
Renewables always add cost to the grid, since they can go to zero output at any time and need 100% backup from reliable generation. Nuclear baseload, with Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine generators for peak load is the most sensible choice. Molten salt reservoir reactors, which can quickly ramp up output to cover peaks, would be best all round.
@@WilliamBlinky Because unfortunately we can't control the weather to make solar and wind kick in at the times it is needed. The reason we can't use them as backup is the same reason we cannot use them to supply 100% of our power. Nuclear cannot be turned on and off, but it can be adjusted to a degree
I agree with you comment that "Nuclear or Clean Coal/Gas power stations should be the backup." I think a lot of people out there THINK that nuclear under Dutton's plan will supply ALL of Australia's electricity - ain't gonna happen.
As to your comment "Battery backup has a ten year replacement cost that exceeds Nuclear power." ... there is nothing to support that assertion. And I contend that something being replaced after 10 or 20 or 40 years with NEW, BETTER technology is a good thing, the "silver lining", especially in comparison to nukes which are basically a decision to throw all your money at one technology that will last 80 or 100 years.
What happens to nukes if something better comes along? Fusion, or Thorium, or a quantum leap in renewables? Would you choose a television now and say "that'll be good for 80 years"?
good to see, hear and good discussion in this space from the people that have already been there done that
This proves to me I simply can't trust the Labour party and there obvious misinformation on this topic.
Agreat positive discussion = well done to all involved.
Keep plugging away even the zealots might wake up one day.
There are only four types of power generation that works, coal, gas, hydro & nuclear.
Solar and wind will never supply power at peak periods which are mostly after dark. Battery storage may sound good but will only supply power for minutes not hours.
How reliable is your mobile phone battery a good look at the continuing cost of renewables
@@joshdrougas7419 : Look at the South Australian 'Big Battery', it can only supply 30,000 homes for "minutes".
@ yeah it’s a fact batteries aren’t big enough to even come close to powering major power thirsty industrial site and I think they are kinda bad for the environment because they deteriorate so quickly becoming less and less capable of storing their original capacity
The way the QLD ALP representativr just dismissed the destruction of the Great Dividing Range was discussing and really shows the attitude of the ALP. Bugger the environment, we are saving the planet.
As someone undecided about nuclear v renewables, i think it should come down to cost and environmental benefits. Problem with nuclear will be the huge delays before it would come on line. Renewables and grid level storage technologies have progressed incredibly in just 5 years, and costs per unit are decreasing, so how far would it go in the next 10? This would still be far in advance of any nuclear. Moreover we are at the climate tipping point NOW and need to act NOW, not give the fossil fuel industries a excuse to continue polluting for the next 15 years plus. I want to see accurate cost comparisons between the technologies that look at the lifetime costs, in $ and emissions/ environmental costs. Another cost i hear used against renewables is grid expansion however i see huge benefits in doing that anyway as mitigation and redundancy for communities against the regular extreme weather events we are seeing now and that will likely increase in frequency in future.
Unfortunately for me the coalition has gone down the misinformation path too many times in recent years that the onus is on them to come clean with facts and show they are not puppets of the Murdoch press and fossils fuels industry.
Why do we keep voting sportspeople into politics, and think they have some competence?
Have to wonder if the Politician asking questions actually understands the answers ????
He might be taking notes for ??? Is there anyone intelligent enough in the Labor party?
@@judycorbett4462 I think we all know the answer to that question based on this video
If you ask Australians they would answer if you ask a politician they would pay their mates millions over the next few years and not make a decision
@@mikefitzpatrick6618 the Government makes so much money in tax receipts from Coal via Corp and Income tax that they are considering carefully how to manage it out in a way that doesn’t negatively impact income, and job losses from a large, historically loyal voter base for labor.
I have one point to make.. Computers are changing the issues .. Fact. A.I. and Quantum computing is if you care to look at this subject. One Company. can use a massive amount .. (One Gig ) Look This is a very serrious issue.. If we are to maintain Australia to stay up with the World. We need. to manufacture product.. For us to Close our Eye's. Because of fears.. One should look at the fears of not having Nuclear power.. Either that or go back to Gas and Coal.. Because if we Don't . No international company will invest in Australia if we don't have POWER..
We must look at Australia's Future needs RIGHT NOW! we are a CONTINENT NATION.. for us to open the Nation and provide work and new Towns. Sewerage systems. Fresh water systems, Manufacturing, Train Transport across the Nation.. ( There are no Elector Planes?? ). Hospitals require power.. AS I have said, Computing is moving forward, If we are to have E.V's (which i think is stupid for a nation this size). Just think on this. We are just 27-8 million people in a Nation Continent Larger than the best part of western Europe! That require Power for much more than I have out lined.. Food production..
WE MUST STOP WITH THE FEAR, AND THE DISINFORMATION.. IF A NATION DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD ….. IT FALLS BEHIND.. DO WE RELY ON OTHER NATIONS THAT ARE REALLY NOT NECESSARYLY OUR FRIENDS. WE HAVE THE FUELS HERE !
Surely ambient pressure molten salt is far safer than water coolant.., and of course Aussie can do it
I was about to mention MSR’s. I’ve also seen a documentary about Small Modular Reactors built in Banks of ten, suspended above a deep coolant pool failsafe device. So if in the rare event a runaway reaction starts in one SMR, it can be released into the pool of coolant and the other SMRs will be disconnected and automatically removed to a safe distance on rails. It’s unbelievable how safe this technology is compared to the designs of the 60s and 70s that people are scared of
@
I understand there are two reasons., we have progressed past low temp(therefore low efficiency) pressurised water rectors .. burn low usable solid uranium fuelled pallets..
1- the USN paid all the up front costs for Westinghouse to it in a submarine..
2- uranium n water.. easy fir making plutonium..
Thorium etc.. do make uranium..😥 so no $$$$ from USN etc
Matt Burnell MP big questions form a ex KFC worker
😂
Wow you could hear a pin drop when he mentioned the dividing range
This fallacy about abundant space, wind and sun is continually wheeled out but is a demonstrably flawed argument. The destruction of the great divide illustrates this perfectly. Why are the wind generators there. Because that is the only place on mainland east coast that has adequate wind for generation. The fact that we have lots of space just means our generators are further away from where the power is used causing inefficiencies and additional transmission cost.
And the OPAL reactor facility is FAR MORE COMPLEX than a simple water boiling power station reactor.
But it's 2% of the power of a 1GW power reactor. Completely different engineering challenge. 50 times the fuel load for a start -or- you run it at much higher, and technically challenging, power and radioactivity level.
@ Size is not the issue. It is the number and type of Safety Instrument Loops that are pertinent. In this regard OPAL is more complex than a simple PWR water boiler.
@@wt29 : No. Watch the video again, I don't want to repeat what he said.
Said no one at Fukushima
@@lenphil9875 How much time did you spend in Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami? I arrived about a week after the incident and was there for three months. You want to know what the people in the towns and cities said?
“Why the f##k are we being forced to evacuate…?”
The 2 ALP members are clueless compared to Ted Obrien
Australia is training nuclear scientists and sending them overseas where they are in big demand.
Mind.. any Gen 4 reactor is better than current base load power production
States and Territories could draft enabling legislation and have it passed in less than a week if they put their minds to it.
Perrett showing a clear bais!
Australia is one of the few countries with nuclear material and knowledge that has not built nuclear weapons.
But Australia is buying AUKUS USA nuclear submarines and massive weapons systems.
Yes, the sunniest continent on the planet can not do renewables and has to go to nuclear electricity, "FMD, and call me Shirley."
Australia has built a NATIONAL ELECTRICAL GRID over 14decades.
It handles only 10% of Australia’s total energy, 90% of Australia’s energy usage is fossil fueled.
The Australian electricity grid is 1million km and $1million per km.
It is a $TRILLIONS investment asset.
More grid capacity is $TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS.
And decades and decades and...
Morons ignore the real grid costs constraints on economical 100% clean electricity to replace fossil fuels.
Nuclear electricity needs 247 cashflow.
The grid needs 10times more cashflow 247.
Grid construction costs to millions and millions of customers is 10times generation construction costs.
Obviously you would not employ the guy with the bead to work for you. Full of excuses. Could of started by now and on its way
A great opportunity for Australia to adopt proven technologies from Canada, France, USA or Korea. With The CANDU reactor (800+ MW) offered in four packs being the most sensible owing to the lack of heavy forged components and very stable supply chain for the reactor technology with active construction and re-tube/refurbishments projects in Canada - a well respected partner country.
Ted talks economics and ignores the 'economic elephant in the room," the cost of more grid to stop fossil fueled CO2 emissions.
Ted is all spurt.
should have built these 50 years ago, the US won't let you because you would gain independence
America wanted Australia to go nuclear in the 80s and we didn't. It has nothing to do with the Americans and everything to do with people in Australia with a particular left ideology not wanting it
Yay! Let's get nuclear energy in Australia because the cost and unreliability of the current system isn't high enough!
Honestly I don't care about nuclear energy or the current system, I live in the metropolitan suburbs and have no need for either! I get all the energy I need and then some from the sun! I'm never without energy regardless of what the grid is doing.
But what I don't want is to be down wind of a nuclear power plant! It's nothing more than a man made steam engine and like all machines made by humans, they are prone to failure! And you can't simply walk in with your garden hose to stop it!
I didn't see see any of the pro nuclear energy people who are commenting here put up a hand to volunteer for Japan to be the person who goes into the failed nuclear reactor to do whatever was needed to be done! Japan chose nuclear energy over every other option and basically made their own bed and now no one wants to sleep in it!
No other industrie in human history has lied so much! The actual amount of death, pain and suffering caused by anything nuclear related will be forever unknown, to think that people have suffered and died and never received what they deserved all because the reputation of nuclear anything is more important than the life of a human!
For those who want nuclear energy, there's plenty of them around the world, the door is open and you are more than welcome to leave at any time!
Study the SMR bank failsafe designs. It may change your mind. I’m pro-renewables myself, but I was convinced by how far this technology has come along. I watched a presentation from the ARC conference into deaths per gigawatt hour from Nuclear and it was extremely low. The amount of deaths from cancer via Australian coal makes Nuclear look like a pillow fight.
The sad part is that we have experts in the field but those asking the questions are nothing more than numpty's , the first guy couldn't get around using tested systems , the fact that we only need small reactors dotted around all exampled by how many times he had Mr Irwin repeat himself. The second guy was more interested in Scotland's woes and miseries and third guy , smug little numpty that he was , was quite happy to have the GDR decimated as long as his tourist numbers were stacking up...while not understanding the short lifespan of a windmill or the fact that percentage-wise they produce SFA. I live next to a windfarm and I can tell you that on any given day 30% of them are not working > at least 7 out of 33. The fact that Dutton is only placating nuclear for political gain is even sadder.
Let’s have a genuine discussion about the COST shall we. Half a trillion? 20 years to build?
More like $350 Billion. If we are looking at Hinkley C in the UK, it’s 15 years. So close to your estimate but not quite. Unfortunately, the cost to expand the grid to handle distribution for fully renewable power sources by 2050 would be over $1 Trillion - a number of Transmission and Distribution engineering companies can provide the estimated range. I’ve seen a presentation on the topic by an expert on the economics of Grid construction and maintenance. So the difference is at least $650 billion to the tax payer and the cost then gets passed on to the consumer, who then pays again. I’d love 100% renewables but I’m also a realist.
4 nuclear plants were built in UAE at the cost of US$20 Billion (so US$5 Billion each).
The average nuclear plant built in the last 2 decades was US$8 Billion.
The additional poles and wires cost of solar and wind in Australia is well over US$1.8 TRILLION !
BTW: Why didn't you watch the video? I'm curious, thanks.
Also, to be clear - my estimate of $350 Billion includes construction of seven plants, cost over-runs, the inclusion of a Union based construction workforce and EBA’s into the mix, the building from scratch of a new industry, broadening of the regulatory environment, the building of a new security system and nuclear military police force, the introduction of new engineering and science skills, the commercial development and integration into the energy retail sector, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, plus full salaries for the entire workforce to be fully integrated and operational by 2050. Even in this case, it will still be far, far less than the cost of going to full-renewables by 2050, and the tax payer has to pay twice for it. Upfront capex, then capex recovery via either tax subsidies or line-item billing - increased energy bills until the debt is paid down to build the energy grid and battery systems to cover the entirety of Australia’s power consumption.
@@Cyberpunk9000 : I'm reasonably sure it will cost substantially less than $350B. The UAE built 4 for US$20B, we are building only 3. The O'heads of running and maintaining, etc, will be a lot less than $335B.
The _only_ way nuclear power would stay cheap, is if the state governments _owned_ them, not the government pay for them, then sell them off ala every damn coal power station.
That is what happened with coal stations, and i have no doubt governments would do they same thing...
This is my problem with nuclear it could be cheap but will it be may as well just keep coal going if it won’t actually be cheaper to go nuclear I just think someone somewhere is just seeing dollar signs in a new project and service provided
We have a medical isotope producing reactor. That is not a nuclear power station. Like saying you've put a bandaid on, you can be a surgeon.
Lucus Heights Reactor commissioned in the 1950's
Basically my understanding of a reactor to generate power the heat generated by a nuclear reaction creates steam to turn a turbine instead of a boiler heated by the burning of coal it would just be a proper understanding of the process of the particular design such as understanding of the importance of the reactor being cooled as it is functioning and pressure limits not being exceeded
A steam turbine could be connected to the opal reactor and it would produce power. As THE expert said, it's a nuclear reactor like all the others.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Nonsense, that is like saying your lawn mower engine could power a locomotive. The opal reactor is designed to irradiate isotopes, not produce heat. 'Like all the others'? No expert said that. There are so many types of reactor, some are vastly different from each other.
@@lenphil9875 : I suggest you watch the video. That is contradicted by the expert.
We have a grid problem.
Nuclear promoters say exactly that.
Yes but on an existing nuclear site and for rational medical and research reasons. Any new proposed nuclear power plant in Aus would face HUGE environmental, Nimbi , political and public resistance.....regardless of capital and decommission costs, legal and skills issues...AND the time required...by which all the coal plants will be dead😮
I'd be happy to put a micro-reactor of 2-5MW in my garage..... Would do wonders for my power bills :P
I suggest you watch the video again but this time LISTEN.
80% of the world's population live in warm latitudes.
Yes Australia is in Sahara Desert latitudes in the south of the equator.
Germany has had complicated politics.
Nuclear electricity needs 247 demand and cashflow so when the sunshines and the sunsets rooftop PV and BVs oversized battery means Nuclear 247 demand is broken.
This is an economic problem.
The national grid has the same 247 cashflow problem but 10times bigger because it is a 10times bigger investment.
This one economic fact is totally ignored by all the experts with non grid expertise.
They are just spurts. Hahaha.
Fit for purpose involves debating the cost to get in the cost to stay in and the cost to get out. Those that debate the alleged efficacy of nuclear ignore that no country with a mix of different classes of generator are producing power cheaper that Australia.
My estimate based on reading a few right and left leaning studies on this from energy economists show it will be over $1 Trillion to get to true net-zero. I’ve worked in the UK Nuclear Industry and I’d estimate $350B to set up and operate all of the infrastructure and supporting industries for 7 reactors. Sellafield, the largest and most dangerous nuclear waste reprocessing and disposal site in Europe was built on 1950s technology, when nuclear waste disposal wasn’t fully developed as a practical scientific and engineering process, never mind the fact that no nuclear waste disposal industry even existed at that time. They placed the rods into cooling ponds and disposal was an after thought. That mistake is forecast to cost the UK tax payer $100 Billion+. So we can safely assume that it will cost significantly less than that to safely decommission advanced designed, modern plants in Australia contracted to next-Gen reprocessing and disposal industries. For arguments sake, let’s say it’s half at $50 Billion. That’s still $600 Billion less than recovering the cost of going to true Net Zero. There would have to be a massive change in Government enforced energy subsidies to the public, and semi or full de-privatisation of the energy sector to facilitate such a wide ranging and vast commitment to run at a loss to keep prices low until the Capex is paid off. The left-wing think tank estimates trillions to achieve net zero - more than the right wing think tank paper I studied. The numbers just don’t add up I’m afraid to say, and I want 100% renewables as quickly as we can get them.
We shouldn't build first of a kind yet we're talking about SMRs which are still prototypes - and we're not going to use navy reactors.
We can build to time and budget as long as the government and the public aren't involved.
Why would anyone fund a sub-300MW reactor instead of a gas turbine?
There are SMR's working now so as the expert pointed out we would be the fast adopters of proven designs. The GE-Hitachi project sounds ideal.
We're trying to address the concerns over cost and budget overruns. Early adoption sounds like a good idea if you're talking about a smartphone that doesnt cost billions and take years to build. You want a proven design since the surrounding architecture is going to be bespoke. My follow up question would be When will the designs be considered 'proven' from an economic perspective?
AGR and Magnox were chosen because of the ability to conduct online refuelling; intended for Plutonium production; given both were coupled with reprocessing at Sellafield (Magnox and THORP reprocessing plants) We would not choose a graphite moderated or gas cooled reactor in 2024.
Absolutely not. It would be the equivalent of buying a fax machine to send texts.
Not sure why SMRs are always talked about but not MSRs. We should be seriously considering getting reactors from Moltex or one of the other MSR companies. I don't want to build your grandfathers nuclear - a reactor only marginally competitive with coal.
There are no commercially operating MSR. We must however continue that research as it is very promising.
We should have gone Nuclear 40 years ago.
Hmmmmm.... nobody asked about three eyed fish.
Name the current operating SMR and its cost? No, can't because it doesn't exist. Name a nuclear power plant built on time and at budget in a country similar to Australia in size and political and economic strength. I can't do that because, once again, non existant. Reality sucks but go ahead and defend the indefesable.
Have you watched all the videos from "Nuclear for Australia"? You might learn something.
the reactor in every submarine that has them, are smr's , so are the ones in aircraft carriers , there even a handfull of russian ice breakers running around with a smr powering them, so they do exist , just specialized and sized for aplication but a standard size , say 300mw can be built very quickly by any of the above sources its just mass production that needs to happen in this endeavour
@@paulwoods1950 SMRs have existed since the 1950s and they have been plugged into the grid to provide power to homes since about the 1960s, they are called nuclear submarine engines, if you don't believe me Google it
@@peterolsen9131I was about to say the same thing. This technology has been around for decades. It’s a shame to read someone say “defend the indefensible” without knowing how the technology has been proven and applied in environments that are arguably much more difficult to deploy and run than a static site connected to a power grid.
Why didn't you watch the video? He answers both those as there are 2 operational SMR's and a 3rd was approved for construction yesterday.
Australia can do major projects again but there needs to be political will on both sides.
Im all in favour of wind solar and tidal but you need a base load source.
Tidal has been totally debunked. It's been tried over a dozen times and failed in every trial. The last one was destroyed before it was activated. Do a search for the Canadian tidal generator. There's a video here on YT.
If Very one in Australia turned their power off at once . The power grid will go bang, no more substations . We have free. Energy they just want let it happen.
No, that is obviously wrong.