Excellent presentation sir. I’ve been telling people exactly this for years and getting told i know nothing or I’m employed by the nuclear industry! But you are 💯 correct. The first principles physics that settled the argument for me was specific energy. People who say batteries are the answer don’t have a clue about their extremely poor specific energy especially compared to fossil fuels. Then you compare that to uranium and there is absolutely no contest. Nuclear is the future of energy and it always has been. Richard Rhodes was on the money when he described anti nuclearism as primarily political. Once people understand the science it’s a non argument. But again your presentation was excellent. Especially the breakdown into cost, security, reliability and environmental impact. 👍
You spoke reasonably well but the content of your presentation won't stand the test of time. If you have the relevant qualifications I encourage you to keep working on them.
@@damiandormer7868 I am sure he said he got the data from available sources provided by the Government. I’d be interested to know specifically why you say this? I’d like to study some alternative data that backs up your claim if you have it. I’m saying this purely out of curiosity, not to cause an argument.
So why believe this guy over the others? There's so much BS out there, I don't know how anyone can tell what the truth is. So I suggest you agree with him because he is aligned with your chosen ideology. But from where I sit, left or right, renewables or fossil, you all just seem to be opposite sides of the same coin.
This presentation should be encouraged viewing in all schools, universities and homes to give a balance to the left wing propaganda currently being served.
It is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎 And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^ Not to mention he didn't comment on how technological progress/ inflation will affect costs in his model. 👀 Given his seeming bias, a renewable scenario might be cheaper than he claims. 🤷❤️ It seems a better 20 years goal for Australia is energy coming from 60% nuclear, 30-35% from the renewables & storage technologies, and 5-10% of classical fossil fuel generation, to cover for unusual variability in demand. Credentials: I studied electrical engineering in my home Slovenia, with emphasis on power generation, transmission & regulation. I follow it with a passion, and also invest in companies connected to it on the stock market. Greetings & Love 🙏❤️
@@elektrotehnik94 taking nothing away from your knowledge sir , but you also are making some assumptions there , for a start rarely do things get cheaper , if renewables can get cheaper , so may fossils , in Australia , we already know for fact that we are being screwed for gas we already have masses of , which is being sold off to other countries cheap while we pay a premium for our own gas ! 😂 , secondly what works in one country does not necessarily work in another, Australia is a gigantic country, , to run power from renewables all over the country for thousands of kilometres is never going to be a winner. But I agree it never pays to put all your eggs in one basket , which our current government wants to do.
@@mikldude9376 No worries sir. ❤️ Things often do get "fundamentally" cheaper, once we discount the effect of inflation. 🙃 This is engineering & scaling of production 101 (basics). You might want to google search it & read up on it. It's truly fascinating stuff. 👍❤️
Simple engineering tells you he is wrong. He gives a totally wrong renewable situation and goes nuclear. Nuclear AND distant renewables both must have the grid. The $TRILLIONS national electrical grid AND the grid must have $100sBILLIONS cashflow. 247 for 365 days to get cheap $kWh supply prices. So EV owners will have a problem as imported petroleum is phased out and the EV owners want maximum economic benefit from their parked vehicles. 🤔
Carbon offset marketers have been advocating that carbon emissions should factor in downstream health costs from climate change and pollution. It’s clear that the health costs associated with financial stress should be accounted for in renewables.
Missing is also the internalization of costs of nuclear waste. So, the presented calculation is not comprehensive and hence not valid for any decision making.
How about the unreliability of the current iterations of so-called renewables? You ask why I call then so-called? Because in their current forms, what is being called renewable is unable to produce more of itself.
@iareid8255 co2 is literally the gas of life. Those who want to tax it can only be ignorant or evil. I'm currently leaning in the direction of them being actively evil.
Absolutely wonderful to highlight that "Energy Security is National Security" I remember the early 80s and NSW had power rationing where businesses had to shut for 1 day a week in the Sydney basin... The state government then built all the coal plants the ones they want to close now. Trading reliability and security off for the worst power is madness. Australia needs Reliable and Secure power for the future and security of a future Australia.
Nuclear is the elephant in the room for that. Modern modular reactors tick all the boxes. Good luck any enemy knocking out your system when there are hundreds of small reactors distributed throughout your country.
Great demo, YES energy density and cost over time is critical. There is no such thing as net zero, or even sustainability as per the current social agenda. In life normally the correct answer to complex questions is the simplest one.
It is not difficult to debunk the "renewables" debacle that Labor is pursuing. This presentation makes it quite clear what is terrible disaster Labor is taking us towards. Even if Gerard's analysis is not quite right in the detail (as he points out re economic discounting) the difference between "renewables" and nuclear is so very large. Agree - keep the coal/gas on until we can turn on the nuclear plants. A little, maybe 20%, wind and solar would probably be positive in the mix.
Coal burning is a problem but it's humans that drive cars, use planes, ships and power sky scrapers. It's humans who damage themselves with mono crops that need pesticides and feed cattle. Humans need to change their wasteful ways and choose simpler life styles.
@@iareid8255Wind and solar are fine at small case, I.e. use at home for backup/supplemental power. It makes absolutely no sense for grid scale power generation.
We can't keep burning fossil fuels, their impact is cumulative. Nuclear has left it's run to late and we now need to deploy renewables. If nuclear makes sense for the replacement of some renewables in 20 years then get cracking now, but you can't keep burning and accumulating greenhouse gases. We're already way over the carbon budget.
Finally! Somebody talking about how much the costs are for every man woman and child - $95,000 per person. But, half the people don't work - too old, too young, etc. The real cost per TAX PAYER is at least double, closer to $200,000 per tax payer!!
Responsible leaders understand that "we can not afford to turn off anything until we're ready to turn something better on." Will the left leaning politicians Australia has ever come to this crucial understanding? We all can pray that they do before they shut down everything as their present path is showing.
I would love to see the slide sources of data on your calculations Gerard and the assumptions made on the models as it is very compelling argument you are making. Thanks!
After that comment I kept watching to see exactly how ridiculous the presentation would get and I was not disappointed 😂 Turns out he's not a student of engineering, finance, chemistry, or history.
Something that is always forgotten: You can’t charge batteries while proving load at the same time. You can either use solar/wind to supply the grid OR you can charge batteries for night time. Thus, you need to have twice as many solar panels and wind turbines to achieve this.
Even with just the renewables currently built in Oz there's already an excess, and wholesale electricity prices often go negative during the day... even with wind and solar curtailed. It's a lucky country. Infrastructure for storing that excess, and releasing it later is feverishly being built.
@@chrisking7603 The key word in your sentence is "often", how often is often happening and what happens when it isn't often enough? It needs to be guaranteed.
Fantastic presentation mate , others have also been saying much of what was said in this very good presentation in not so many words . A lot of it is common sense , destroying masses of bird and animal habitat and probably even some farmer land and pristine land to install masses of solar panels, bird killing wind turbines and thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to give us part time power is utter lunacy. I can only come to either of two conclusions , our politicians are just that dumb they thought having only masses of renewables was a good idea , or alternatively, they thought they could get on the vote gravy train by whipping up false net zero rhetoric for their own gain . Either way , they need a dam good wake up call , thank you for your great presentation sir.
Nuclear has 247 cashflow demand. The GRID has a bigger cashflow demand. When the sunshines and sets the rooftop PV and EVs v2g oversized battery stops all the customers grid electricity demand. Stops customers cashflow. "WTF do we do now" ? 😮 Said the nuclear owners and the grid owners. But the grid owner's screamed loudest.
Yeah I spoke with an engineer at a coal power plant and he told me that the way the grid is set up the coal power stations are ramping up and down to keep the hertz I believe he said at the right wavelength because the solar in the grid isn’t constant. He said this has a huge amount of wear on the plants assets unlike the time before solar made this impact on the grid.
@joshdrougas7419 I was told that switch yards have huge resistors that heat up and can be switched on as a temporary load, and then quickly turned off as the grid needs more electricity. Or switched on as the generators ramp up to the peak loads and then are switched off progressively to match grid demand. Just huge heaters.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Yeah I’m not a 100% sure possibly over a less immediate timeframe when there’s huge fluctuations of power generated that’s the way this engineer made it sound that the power stations basically acted like big batteries
@joshdrougas7419 I think that they had a number of strategies, just my comment, it is interesting. I heard an interesting expression. 'Empty suites' people without experience and education speaking like professionals. Like a medical doctor speaking confidently about construction engineering. Or a lawyer giving electrician trades advice or brain surgery advice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but must disclose their expertise or limitations. RUclips experts that give part answers can be dangerously misleading. Just another comment. Hahaha.
Total agree Nuclear is by far the cleanest, densest and most equitable option…. Except the AU tech lag… just why we don’t refine aluminium, steel, etc here is because we have eschewed the tech for cheap plunder for over 50 years. AU had the energy capacity and capability for YEARS before the green revolution happened but few politicians were brave/smart enough to culture/nurture such a natural instinct in this nation… We were downplayed as Quarry workers and Sheepherders and still are.. The political bloodsucking of the Australian people appears to be blatantly apparent with the selling of resources without reward, except to the weilders of the pen who will want for nothing upon political retirement… it is a bloody disgrace…😔😔😔
Let's look forward to a future where we can export green steel, at a premium made with green hydrogen, made from electricity that would otherwise go to waste when there's excess as its wholesale price goes negative. Then there's all the onshore production of steel derivatives. Oz just filling ships with ore and coal for lean margins should be a thing of the past.
@@chrisking7603 This leaderless/aimless/visionfree future will eventuate as Australians blood is being sucked dry and sold to the lowest deity …. This beautiful country deserves better.
Peter Costello was right about population decline. 2 children for the parents and 1 for the country. Worldwide under 40 year olds are too few for a stable future. Tony Abbott was right about CO2 emissions worldwide is Australia's problem. Coal is dirt cheap for Australia. And Australia's economy can be broken before climate impacts. Climate destabilisation is also the death of Australia's economy. Sahara Desert latitudes and Australia's latitudes are the same. But, Australia's population can not migrate into the cooler latitudes of the Great Southern Ocean 🙄 🤔 😕 Dirt cheap electric vehicles for all warming latitudes is the key to dirt cheap electricity.
Economic growth via population increase has served societies well... but it's exponential in nature and not sustainable in an environment of limited resources. World population couldn't be at the level it is now without synthetic fertiliser. That is to say, technology has permitted overpopulation... and how far can one keep relying on that in this messed-up world?
So much money spent in the last few decades on O&G ... Many countries would go broke not to continue... Doesn't mean the same can't be done for renewables .... Patience and not being chaotic or critical is one approach to get there...
Nuclear has 247 cashflow demand. The GRID has a bigger cashflow demand. When the sunshines and sets the rooftop PV and EVs v2g oversized battery stops all the customers grid electricity demand. Stops customers cashflow. "WTF do we do now" ? 😮 Said the nuclear owners and the grid owners. But the grid owner's screamed loudest. 😮😮😮😮😮
= A mere 3 million vehicles (number of Toyotas registered in Oz) plugged into the grid, each supplying a meagre 10kW each (slow charge rate). If all generation went offline, no grid batteries including hydro, no interstate support, yes the peak could be supplied entirely by vehicle batteries. Think how much those car owners could be earning while saving the world. The technology has existed for years now, the hurdles have been standardisation and local regulatory issues.
@@chrisking7603 How long before those vehicle batteries run flat? People need to learn the difference between GW and GW/hour. If there is a cyclone or a really bad storm the grid often goes out sometimes for a few days then if people need to get away their cars will not be able to take them or will be running out of energy clogging the roads.
@@thedave7760 There's a lot of possibilities for disasters, and it's fruitless to try and enumerate how different types are dealt with. OP stated there's no battery in existence that could supply the grid in the unlikely event that all generation wasn't accessible. (Possibly something like the Carrington event) Anyway, it's useful to point out distributed vehicle batteries could easily supply the GW, and GWh to power the grid for some days. Details of actual event ignored, a small electric vehicle battery like 50kWh could power an average home for five days. Bigger batteries or lesser states of charge having their relative outcomes.
Their answer to the energy crisis is a vision that we somehow go through an ‘energy descent’ or ‘de-growth’ period and then live a frugal ‘low carbon footprint’ life. It’s only wealthy people that indulge this fantasy, they can afford the insane cost of all of the appliances and house features required to be comfortable with this ‘frugal’ life, and would be happy to condemn a large portion of our population to abject poverty. The people that would be poverty stricken by a ‘de-growth’ scenario will be shamed, ridiculed and deplored in the same way anti-lockdown protesters were during the coov years.
Australia is building a very expensive renewable grid, backed up by very expensive gas and very expensive hydro. That makes sense. Coal is the cheapest form of energy on the planet.
The people talking on ARC should be in our government they make sense and would turn us around instead of woke division we would have a great economy cheaper living and a better country we are 1 percent of carbon Chi na 28 percent Russia and India high as well stop breaking our country and listen to common sense
The theory is good (and there is a lot of fuel), but they are too untested to roll out at large scale. Currently, large conventional nuclear plants provide MUCH cheaper power than smaller nuclear power plants, even more so than SMRs. We definitely need micro reactors and thorium SMRs in future - but for the next 20 years or so, it's going to be conventional nuclear.
Liquid salt reactors are a great idea. The concept is robust and they have been tested. However the internal recycling of chemicals (the kidney of the plant) is difficult and scaling up is problematic. Unlikely to be cheapest in the short term. Australia should be researching and developing this for the future. SMRs are a different tech. The appeal is the short time frame. However, they are optimised for shipping. They are not the best solution for grid scale. A few to address the current energy drought would be sensible. There are several large scale nuclear plant designs that would serve our needs well. The best short term solution would be to increase capacity in coal and gas and then roll out a robust nuclear fleet with a full suite of support services and local supply chain industries.
Choosing the best nuclear technology, then repeating builds using the same design served France well. Learning from that, a bunch of differing technologies would be an expensive path. With Gen4 in existence already, it might be wise to skip Gen3 designs entirely instead of being behind the pack. Without all the legacy, it might be easier for Oz to localise fast breeder technology (and potentially export it).
That's a bit more professional than political, at last. Nearest thing to Australian energy policy and Ideology would tell a story like Sinbad the Sailor, reformed pirate. Vital to our interests is an informed democratic population who understands technology is a matter of thinking techniques than what we've been used to stuck half in half out of the Stone Age. A 10⁶ difference in energy density-intensity is possible, but unfooling ourselves requires inverting the education system from a hidebound autocratic honor structure to actually applied intellectual capability. There's lots of it about, this presentation is a very good example, thank you.
10:59 please clarify the cost per Australian person of the renewable or renewable plus gas option. I think you said $95k each. For noting, I think 2trillion divided by 27million people is $13.5k each
Yes nuclear power is the only way for a secure future. Others in the world are doing this, but because of political ideology we in Australia are prevented from doing so.
Does talk about solar and wind only in large commercial businesses? If solar and wind had domestic ( on roof) input, how would change his views? Remember, the technology for individual house uses is improving each week.
I live in Northern California and have solar panels. Daily output varies greatly between summer and winter. Average daily output in summer is about 55 kwh and about 6 during the winter.
It's actually a lot worse than this. He forgot something. While you're getting electricity from wind and solar, you're using it, you can't charge batteries. So you need one full duplicate copy of all solar and wind infrastructure to charge the batteries, and that's just for another day of storage. Every day of extra stored electricity you want, you need a full complement of wind and solar to generate that electricity ahead of time. So if you want to prepare for five days without solar and wind, you need to multiply everything in the left-hand stack by five. And now you need batteries that can hold the charge and run a grid for a week or two, and those don't exist. So the column on the left is many times higher than shown.
Don't forget EV vehicle to grid/home. After years of stumbling over standards, it's starting to roll out now. By far the biggest battery people are likely to own, a small car can power a house for days. The picture isn't gloomy for Oz, as existing solar can substantially produce on dull days.
Great presentation but I would say that gas prices in Europe were going up in the summer/autumn 2021 before the Ukraine invasion by Russia in Feb 22. It was probably caused originally by economies going back to work after covid shutdowns and supplies not being able to keep up. The invasion kept supplies restricted and prices up. Our own Ed Milliband will bust this country if he has his way.
Nuclear power may be cleaner energy, but do we really need nuclear power stations and all the costs that will be passed on to the consumers? Estimated grids of pricing are not necessarily true. We’ve lived off grid with solar panels for the last seven years. Nothing is plugged into the system of the government or the energy companies. If you learn how to look after your batteries and don’t let them go to more than halfway empty, the life of them is extended. We’ve never run out of power. As long as solar is set up properly you’ll have plenty of electricity.❤
@@Goestohollywood-l8x @ really, give me a break lol For you edification: The Philosopher's Stone was a Medieval theory that transmutation of elements was possible via said stone. Nobody ever had one since it was imaginary, but everyone hoped and thought it existed so that they could transmute lead into gold and become rich. What is the point in using such references if you do not comprehend its origins, it’s the same as mixing metaphors, sound stupid and negates meaning.
Electric vehicles can drive for 1 hr and park for 23hrs every day. Sun up and sun down. EVs v2g big batteries grid connected automatically 23hrs every day. Batteries protect the existing national grid. 20million vehicles and 20million buildings with rooftop PV and 20years to 100% customers self supplied. No new grid capacity needed. Nuclear needs massive grid capacity expansion construction. 10 times nuclear plant costs. Nuclear needs government disaster insurance and Government PPP, and Government guaranteed cash flows, and Government guaranteed profits, and Government guaranteed monopoly. Nuclear needs 247 cashflow for 20years to break even and 60years before end of life demolition costs are accumulated. Worldwide nuclear electricity generation plants have the same cost demand, but 9,000million people. Military defence budgets will explode Worldwide. 😳 Add those costs aswell.
The government can limit the expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and electricity is generated by structuring power purchase agreements (PPAs) with a "pay-as-you-go" model, wherein payments commence only when the plant supplies electricity to the grid. The developer or operator bears the financing burden during construction through private investment or loans. Once operational, the government purchases electricity based on actual generation, mitigating financial risk and incentivizing private sector investment while ensuring taxpayer funds are spent only on delivered services. This approach fosters efficient risk allocation, encourages project completion, and maintains accountability through performance monitoring outlined in the PPA. Light Water Reactors (LWRs) have a fuel efficiency of 0.5-1%, while Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) can achieve up to 98% fuel efficiency.
Surely we could structure royalties and taxes on resources mined from our country to fund power stations generating power from nuclear then we have ownership of the asset and it can generate further profit for our country if it can be made so cheaply because we have vast deposits of uranium we should be able to invest our revenue from royalties into infrastructure to sell directly to other foreign markets
Online processing of salty fuel is still in its infancy. Fast breeder Gen4 reactors exist, and can burn their transuranic "waste". Cooled by sodium, lead, or Helium they aren't prone to pump failure.
Tiresome how non-experts continue to present on topics they're passionate about, but have little targeted knowledge. Keep politics out of it and allow market forces to guide the best outcome. The crux of this presentation is some pretty graphs based, as often is the case, selectively chosen data that supports the presenter's point of view, neglecting a bigger picture.
We need our population to continue to decline. We need to change lifestyle to suit work and non-work periods. Old people can still work in offices and shops. Lots Part-time and flexible work hours.
Just wondering, where does rooftop solar fit into all of this? I pay 1/3 of my previous energy bill with rooftop solar. Does installing solar panels on roof tops take up extra land?
Some of the numbers seemed to come from dark southern regions. For instance everything nuclear was very interesting. Might as well have used 80 year life spans for solar while you are pulling out those numbers. Where did you get such low numbers for battery storage? Oh never mind. The take away should be that governments should get the **** out and let us choose what is most economical. Government needs to stop all subsidies and taxes on power or else our economies will continue to decline.
The title of this video is silly of course everything can be powered with renewable energy.. I know my home ran on it for more than ten years... Your problems begin in not investing in enough of it... and then blaming the technology for not planning well enough.
Renewables don’t generate the high yields needed in a short amount of time to meet the needs of big industry. Which no matter how you look at it big industry is needed to maintain a standard of living and just the needs of the global population from anything like car manufacturing to medicinal manufacturing to agricultural production
@joshdrougas7419 What nonsense, high yields crap... are you trying to say a couple of hundred megawatts from a wind farm is not as good as a couple of hundred megawatts from some fossil source...idiotic suggestion! If you do not invest enough in storage and generation and try to sabotage renewable energy reliability that way your on the right track and should get the expected failed outcome. But it is not the energy source that failed its the dick heads involved that are the failures, don't confuse the two!
@joshdrougas7419 Hi, you seem to be making a statement the 100 mega watts generated from renewable energy sources is some how different to 100 mega watts from fossils... I could not disagree more! There is nothing wrong with going 100% renewable energy for big manufacturing applications... The problems is when you have fossil lobby groups deciding how best to make it look like their energy is the only game in town, and undermine renewable energy production. It is easy to build an energy infrastructure that fails, all you have to do is design it so it only just meets demand, and sooner or latter a transmission line will fail or something and it falls over, just like they did to South Australia...
@@apollo8352 You could do it with enough battery storage but alumina refineries require 10,500,000,000 joules to make one ton of alumina the average house uses 77,580,000 in a day and you can imagine in Australia for the month of September 2024 1,353 thousand metric tonnes was produced so it’s a big difference in power houses and powering industry there simply isn’t the battery storage to store that sort of power and that’s only one industry
@joshdrougas7419 Ok here is some free info... we already have a number of pumped hydro installations good for hundreds of megawatt hours of electricity and there are more being built. Besides which lets say you must have say one megawatt of electricity from renewable energy continuously....do I build a single one megawatt wind generator? or do I build several one megawatt wind generators? do I locate them all in the same location or would I get more reliable energy if I had lots of one megawatt wind generators located at very many wind locations? You see if you do not skimp on money of course it can be made reliable.... China see's that with their Extra High Voltage Belt and Road International DC power grid... start connecting wind and solar and hydro in from all around the world and I'm sure you could run an aluminium smelter....or two. But what you do not want to do is burn up gas reserves that cost about $90 per megawatt hour for the gas to extract and pass it on to the Aluminium smelter at $4 per megawatt hour... as they do in Frustralia.....especially considering they have dwindling east coast gas reserves. The break even cost for fossil coal burning electricity is $16per megawatt hour... Yet the government is happy to let businesses fold under high energy costs, but then do stupid things like give Aluminium companies almost free electricity... beggars belief!
Australian promoters are pushing base load only. A physical limit. Fact not fiction. The economic limit is the capital cost and the cashflow over max kWh. For minimum $kWh. Economic fact not fiction France went nuclear electricity energy for survival when the oil embargo hit their economy. Ontario has shut down 4 of its 8 reactors at one plant because of efficiency in electricity use. 1970 demand predictions have not worked out. Government price control subsidies are ineffect. [ ] First no electricity in South Australia blackouts was a huge bummer. [ ] Second renewables would not work for the entire state ofSouthAustralia, lights could not be kept on, but still nuclear promoters are wrong. [ ] Third expensive electricity is just a moment in time as the full system is built out. Grid owners are squeezing the maximum out of the last kWh from the grid supply electricity. My deal is feed-in 5cents kWh and my supply 50cents kWh, and I use only 7kwh daily avg.before any rooftop on my roof. Nuclear promoters want more export of uranium ore yellowcake to pay for the nuclear world electricity generation industries. Coal export replacement. But 80% of the world's population live in dictatorships. Even dirt poor North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles. Poo Tin Man is threatened nuclear weapons use as he destroyed 700,000 of his young men. And destroyed his neighbour's children and their families. Nuclear promoters are simply fabulous 👌 👏 👍 😍
Systematic reviews have shown free-ranging domestic cats, and windows kill more than a billion birds in US alone. The effect of turbines is three orders of magnitude less. There's other risks like habitat disturbance, and pollution affecting birds' food sources. Turbines kill... but not to the extent that some proclaim.
Wow you have an answer for everything don't you Chris. If all this tech works so well then why can't they build a renewable grid on some small island somewhere and demonstrate how this might work on a larger scale? The answer is simple it is too complex and too expensive and too unreliable. If we are to build a 100% renewable grid by 2050 then in the next 25 years we will need to mine and refine the same amount of copper as humans have mined since we began mining copper. How do you propose we do that without using fossil fuels for the energy required? and that is just the copper it is similar for other materials needed like concrete and other metals. It is staggering what would be required.
@@thedave7760 Hi Dave. Thanks for taking time to reply. I only have answers for some things. There's a lot of misconceptions being promulgated at the moment, and some simple fact checking sometimes leads to a deservingly appropriate reply. I avoid directing my replies towards particular persons, as that finger-pointy nonsense is the the fallback of those that have a hard time debate the actual complex issues. Some people would rather follow a hero with plausible arguments, rather than fact-check and put into perspective what is being said.
@@thedave7760 Regarding copper, I haven't heard that its supply is a likely limiting factor of concern. Do you have researched information, or just an opinion?
@@thedave7760 Electrowinning of many metals is the better option for reduction from ore because chemical processing generates more waste to be dealt with. This is particularly convenient when there is potential for a significant proportion from recycled sources... they can be just chucked into the pot. Aluminium has been refined this way for yonks, but now also lanthanides having elements useful in permanent magnets because of high recycling rates of batteries. This energy can be co-generated... particularly attractive if nearby and cheap.
@@thedave7760 There's an excellent example of a long-running microgrid at Coral Bay in Western Australia. Many WA communities are totally reliant on expensive diesel deliveries, turning off generators some times to save costs. Coral Bay kept the generators as backup, but in 2007 had wind turbines installed, and a massive flywheel driving an inverter. The renewable penetration has been averaging around 80% - a big saving. They're now getting some big batteries with higher capacity than the flywheel, which is EOL. This will allow for deeper renewable penetration. The fossils are still there for backup, and some might say eventually unnecessary. For me, net zero can include a small proportion of fossils as long as there's compensation elsewhere.
What absolute bs. Forgets basic physics. A comparison is if we mine 1kg coal or mine 1kg Silicon. We burn the the 1kg of coal in a power station in 0.01 sec. It provide energy of 2.5kWh - powers a 1 bar heater for 2 hours. In comparison if we mine 1kg of silicon, we get 9g silicon per wafer, or 6.5 watts per wafer. With 72 wafers per panel that is about 650g silicon per panel . So 1kg silicon makes about 1.5 panels. Take the panels on sale today at 440W each. With 1 hour of sunlight = 0.68kWh. With 4.1 hours per day average we will generate 2.8kWh per day. * Either 1 kg of silicon or 1kg of coal, we get 2.5kW of energy. * The cost of coal is $80 per tonne. The cost of silicon is about the same. But the fuel for the panel for the next 40 years is free. We have a billion year warranty at least, and probably for the next 6 billion years * The waste from the coal is 2.2kg CO₂ plus methane, mercury, uranium and thorium. The solar panel is fully recyclable. * The lifecycle carbon analysis for cost is over 1000 gCO₂/kWh versus 38 * The energy produced by the silicon over 40 years is over 40,646kWh In conclusion, energy from 1kg silicon is 16,200 more than the energy of coal. Batteries enable time shifting of electricity 90% efficiently. Electricity is not wasted. When you have IEA and everyone else saying it is also the cheapest, why does Gerard ignore them and others? 🤔
I don’t think there’s no place for solar but the energy needed for large industry cannot be provided by renewables. Possibly the development of hydrogen may be able to play a part. But the actual raw material needed to build battery storage for the grid and to also link up new solar farms to the grid that would need huge amounts of copper and other materials it would be more environmentally sensible to use the current grid we have by continuing solar panels on houses and if an upgrade to power stations is needed to be built in areas where current coal power exists
@joshdrougas7419 that's false information put out by lying fossil fuel industry. If you have spent time looking at the claims and see who is the source of truth... Tell me. Why do the largest consumers of electricity in Australia committed to ppa with some of largest producers? They have done the homework.
@@joshdrougas7419 "energy needed for large industry cannot be provided by renewables.” This statement is not science based. Nor economics. Just a belief system. You see if 1 panel is 700W and it generates 4.1 hours per day, that's 2.8kWh. So if you need 5.6kWh, you need 2 panels 5.6MWh, 2,000. 5.6TWh, 2 million. Really, really simple. There is no penalty for size. At US $1/W installed (based on $0.10/W panel price), do the maths. No surprises. Fast to deploy.
The denser the source, the cleaner the source? That's simply ridiculous. This is talk that makes a lot of biased assumptions in favour of nuclear power, such as that it lasts three times longer than anything else. I'm not against nuclear power but this man's arguments for it don't stack up. He missed out too many important issues, such as grid flexibility and interconnectors.
Is challenging to produce Geothermal energy. One of them is large transmission line needed to transport to the east coast. Also deep drilling required through hard rocks.
Realistically we don’t have much problem with sizemic activity in Australia so we would be a good candidate for nuclear. The biggest negative I see with Australia taking on nuclear is that our pollies all want to line their pockets and sell out the Australian people thus likely meaning nuclear should be a cheap option but it should also be the case currently as we have big deposits of coal and gas yet still pay top dollar
I know that the idea to have the power plants for nuclear built close to existing coal power stations would mean minimal upgrades to infrastructure also often the current stations exist in industrial areas which would be using the bulk of the power generated and if nuclear could deliver cost effective power could lead to a huge economic boost in these hubs
@@joshdrougas7419 I see. I can only speak for Germany, the target is to be CO2 neutral by 2045. If we wanted to generate 80% electricity with nuclear we would have to build 72 plants by then. Looking at all the delays worldwide of current nuclear projects including the cost explosions plus the bureaucratic hurdles and difficulties to find suitable locations I got huge doubts that such a scenario could ever be achieved. Also we already are at 50 to 60 percent intermittent renewables. Adding unflexible nukes to the current mix wouldn’t do any good and cause economic losses to either renewables or nukes depending on which is preferred.
@ I’m sure it’s a completely different situation Germany is in. In Australia we lack economic diversity and complexity we used to have a highly skilled workforce here and exceptional higher education. However year after year manufacturing companies aren’t able to keep the doors open. I hope that we will get real leadership in government because government policy could make some huge reforms that could make Australia an economic superpower. If our government actually taxed and claimed royalties for our resources we could reinvest that money into something like nuclear power and infrastructure to then sell on directly to other markets
I do not think your costings for Batteries and Solar are correct, Batteries cost $150 kwh and are rapidly decreasing. Solar panels cost ~ $50 kwh working on a 5 multiplier of the panel's output. Yes, we need a capacity factor for Solar of maybe 2 or 3 but solar panels do generate 20% of rated energy when 10/10 cloud cover. I run my 100-acre farm on Solar and batteries, my electricity is cheap, reliable, and excessive. Yes we are relying on imports from China, ideally, locally made products would be better.
Did he talk about Solar farms mixed with pasture farms. E.g sheep farms with solar within the padock with no reduction in grass available for the sheep to eat?
The gentleman presented well but strangely omitted a couple of important factors. Firstly he forgot to factor in the cost of climate change. As an example, the 2022 Northern Rivers floods cost Australia $9.6 Billion and were the 4th most expensive natural disaster in the world in that year. The 2019 bushfires were estimated by economists to have cost between $78 and $88 Billion in property loss and economic losses and nearly 80% of Aussies were affected in some way. He also failed to mention the recent IPCC report which speaks to the urgency of reducing emissions NOW to reduce the locking in of irreversible climate triggers and their consequences. Nuclear, if built would be doing well to be constructed and running by mid to late 2040s. By then the damage to our climate is locked in.
The damage is already locked in. The only smart way to go is ration, reduce, slow down, prioritise the use of increasingly scarce resources. Nah, not what he's about - he's weaving myths.
The main issue here is that all electric systems - let's take a main board circuit - uses a power source combined with accumulators - a form of storing energy and regulating energy flow. The introduction of grid batteries is an improvement that most don't comprehend it's utility - also, it alows for energy trading between sources that fuels economically the incentives for cheaper power production from many sources.
Solar is the cheapest way to get power. We just need battery advances to catch up exciting times for mankind ahead. Forget about the politics cost will always dictate the market
Why does everyone need a car….? Reduce the number of cars, invest in public traffic. Reduce the speed of traveling: sail, use blimps etc. Think about a new system.
The Golden Rule of Engineering is solved the right problem. Customers need dirt-cheap electricity, rooftop PV and their v2g EV oversized battery which is parked 23hrs every day and all night long. The grid owners know that their $TRILLIONS national grid asset needs 10% return on investment, ROI, $110BILLON cashflow. This cashflow comes from the CUSTOMERS. Is the government going to ban rooftop PV ?????? And ban v2g Electric vehicles ???? Customers will only want to maximise the CAPACITY FACTOR of their energy investment. Which is good business practice. Or do the CUSTOMERS go offgrid ??? 20million vehicles in Australia.. 😮😮😮 in 20years at least 2,000gWh storage. DAILY. 😊😊😊😊😊 So when the sunshines and sets customers can save, no grid electricity costs.$100sBILLIONS. Tax-free savings. Save $100sBILLIONS on no imported petroleum, Tax-free. Save $100sBILLIONS on gas heating and cooking and hotwater tax-free. No new generation construction and no new grid capacity construction. SAVE $357BILLION on nuclear construction. Most non-engineers do not understand that Australian latitudes are the same as the Sahara Desert but south of the equator. Most construction engineers can read maps. 😊😊😊 Most engineers know that rooftop PV panels shade 😎 hot roofs and reduces air-conditioning loads. Tax-free more savings. Warming latitudes will need more shade. Grid owners are terrified. But can adapt Grid owners can take cheap feed-in electricity from 'self supplying' customers and supply heavy industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels. Nuclear owners are scared witless and want government built PPP arrangements and government garrenteed monopolies and government garrenteed profits for 60 years or more. Government taxpayers money 💰 I note that the speaker only spoke about wind and more grid construction, this is "bait and switch" logic.
This is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎 And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^ Greetings & Love, from SLovenia 🙏❤️
We are only few % now and its causing issues with the 50Hz balance., wind and solar cannot provide clean sinusoidal 50hz power,,,, shit gunna start blowing up soon.
Okay, there needs to be at least another starting graph - measuring the speed at which the current rooftop solar adoption rate, which is now somewhere between 30-40%, arrives at the tipping point where solar and battery consumers disconnecting from the grid because of a better product at a much cheaper price render the grid unstable to the point where it becomes a stranded asset.
And that right there is the problem. That is the point Australia deindustrialises and living standards decline. That was the comment of somebody who doesn’t understand the complexity of the energy problem. Watch the presentation again and go read about EROEI. Then realise the specific energy of uranium is so incredibly large that you’re going to realise that batteries are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Nuclear is just better. The physics doesn’t lie.
This is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎 And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^ Not to mention he didn't comment on how technological progress/ inflation will affect costs in his model. 👀 Given his seeming bias, a renewable scenario might be cheaper than he claims. 🤷❤️ It seems a better 20 years goal for Australia is energy coming from 60% nuclear, 30-35% from the renewables & storage technologies, and 5-10% of classical fossil fuel generation, to cover for unusual variability in demand. Credentials: I studied electrical engineering in my home Slovenia, with emphasis on power generation, transmission & regulation. I follow it with a passion, and also invest in companies connected to it on the stock market. Greetings & Love 🙏❤️
We're not going to get those advances in the next 20 years. It takes time to find real, workable answers and then implement them. His numbers are correct.
And obviously you don,t want to admit to the truth, why do you think that after 2.5 years Bowen has still never released any costings on his energy plan to anyone. I wonder what sort of a kickback he is getting for all these subsidies that we the taxpayers are providing to these offshore wind and solar owners which is why our power bills have trebled
Australia grid electricity is 10% of Australia’s TOTAL ENERGY used. Nuclear promoters are pushing maximum UTILIZATION and UTILIZATION FACTOR of 97% France UTILIZATION is 70% because it has to throttle back and load follow. Too many reactors. France has major problems with it electricity supply and buys imported electricity. Stress fractures and other matters. Plutonium production was part of the going nuclear decision and the oil embargo in the 70s. Australian grid demand goes from over 100% down to 20%. Load sheading of excess demand by the public or industrial customers to avoid blackouts. Bushfire and heavy winds have broken the grid. Rapid demand fall blackouts. Empty suits are everywhere. Out of town experts with empty briefcases. Why do the ignorant speak so loud, because they are ignorant, empty, and they do not know. Earth dam builders, medical doctor with youtube videos, physics academic, nuclear mechanics who think they are infrastructure construction contractors or grid owners, politicians who will over promise a safe world now they have lost control of government. Nuclear promoters say BASELOAD electricity, the BOTTOM 20% of grid demand. But this is 20% of 10% of Australia’s total energy useage. Nuclear promoters want a nuclear Australia but only offer 2% as their clean energy future. Give me an opportunity to buy my own v2g EV and dirt cheap rooftop PV electricity. I will maximise my investment in the EV parked 23hrs every day and all night long. Maximise my investment UTILIZATION FACTOR. The grid will beg for me and millions and millions and millions of customers to stay grid connected and provide feedin dirt cheap electricity. 247 dirt cheap electricity. Battery technologies and production will get to dirt cheap batteries. Dirt cheap battery replacement if ever needed. Recycling plants are still waiting for modern batteries with battery management to reach a reasonable degradation level to scrap. To the nuclear promoters I say, FMD, GMAB, 'piss in the other pocket' and keep me warm with your wet dreams. Yes very unprofessional, but they might notice the black humour.
Sorry but this clown is costing bases on one plant, as we know the nuclear option only replace a individual coal plant, as the turbines themselves don't change just the boiling of water to drive the steam turbines. and there are several of them. My point is that the Nuclear and coal analysis appears to be based upon an individual plant, which would produce the same amount of energy. Is the renewable option just based in output of an individual plant or the whole grid. if the whole grid is taken into consideration, then he needs to times his coal and Nuclear options as such, eg; Victoria & Sydney would double the cost that he has making the renewable less.
Just a mention that hydro / pumped hydro is not in your graph - that because it will blow your chart away: less expensive than nuclear to build / maintain - less expertise required, works mostly all year and nights, excess energy that now is not produced (the leave the overflow opened so it will not blow the dam) can be used to store into batteries - night production can be stored for day use, and don't forget - the most short part to create value from energy is crypto mining - that can be done 24/7 or on cheap energy. The smart grid needs to be smart, with the introduction of Ai, this can be done much better than ever imagined if the right engineers are working on it.
@@buildmotosykletist1987batteries are always the most expensive if they're not naturally occurring (or at least easily refinable) sources. LFTR addresses the 'nuclear waste' issue, both current (current nuclear waste becomes fuel) and future, because the end product is not nearly as hazardous as current nuclear power stations. The caveat (at least one) is that there currently are no lftrs in operation that I'm aware of.
@buildmotosykletist1987 I know. But in the spirit of offering a profitable solution to a nonexistent problem I thought I'd offer up something that should work.
Why is the maintenance of existing grid network not added into the cost. Also if the end user stores their own power in car / house batteries isn’t that free?
That's for the home user. We are talking about grid scale power here. i.e Create power and transport to the home. He already added the transmission in there.
Why did you ignore a gas for a separate comparison? Appreciate you including 39b for the storage costs but you didn't explain how nuclear waste storage costs never end and in a thousand years they will still be paying for todays energy use. If you want to talk about the debt to future generations then at least explain they will forever be paying for your 'cheap' energy source.
What is this never ending nonsense? Spent fuel is stored in dry casks. The cask gets replaced every century or so. What is the most radioactive element in spent fuel? CS137 and I131. Half life? 30 years. So in 300-500 years… say 1000 years to appease everyone, you can safely handle spent fuel. It is still solid. You can hold it in your hand after 300 years. Would you eat it? No. Would you eat natural U238? No. So the cost of storage of spent fuel is minimal and the volume of it for the amount of energy produced is tiny. That spent fuel is also your future fuel and will be reprocessed for use again. Remember: the more radioactive something is- the faster it decays. Nuclear waste is a solved engineering problem and it has been for decades.
Thanks for having me ARC - it was a privilege to speak on your stage!
Slip of the tongue @11.00 - I should have said 95 thousand- not million!
Excellent presentation sir. I’ve been telling people exactly this for years and getting told i know nothing or I’m employed by the nuclear industry! But you are 💯 correct.
The first principles physics that settled the argument for me was specific energy. People who say batteries are the answer don’t have a clue about their extremely poor specific energy especially compared to fossil fuels. Then you compare that to uranium and there is absolutely no contest.
Nuclear is the future of energy and it always has been.
Richard Rhodes was on the money when he described anti nuclearism as primarily political. Once people understand the science it’s a non argument.
But again your presentation was excellent. Especially the breakdown into cost, security, reliability and environmental impact.
👍
Thanks @polarbear7255 - so pleased that you found it valuable!
Thank you. Your presentation was brilliant and factual. Now you only have to convince the PM and his supporters.
You spoke reasonably well but the content of your presentation won't stand the test of time. If you have the relevant qualifications I encourage you to keep working on them.
@@damiandormer7868 I am sure he said he got the data from available sources provided by the Government. I’d be interested to know specifically why you say this? I’d like to study some alternative data that backs up your claim if you have it. I’m saying this purely out of curiosity, not to cause an argument.
A MUST - For everyone to view❤🎉
Why isn't this type of information being discussed and debated on mainstream media?
Simple. Labor governments don't want to accept the facts and they are in denial.
Because then the journo’s would have to actually *know* something, and they don’t like that.
Because it's incorrect.
One od the graf's showed around 2.6 trillion reasons why.
Because Money talks and they are greedy Politicians which therefore it all needs to be kept from our ears . I hope people wake up soon.
This makes me realise what fools these Labour idealogues like Bowen are.
Let's stop this madness now!
So why believe this guy over the others? There's so much BS out there, I don't know how anyone can tell what the truth is. So I suggest you agree with him because he is aligned with your chosen ideology. But from where I sit, left or right, renewables or fossil, you all just seem to be opposite sides of the same coin.
This presentation should be encouraged viewing in all schools, universities and homes to give a balance to the left wing propaganda currently being served.
The entire education system is devoted to left wing indoctrination not rational thought
It is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎
And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^
Not to mention he didn't comment on how technological progress/ inflation will affect costs in his model. 👀 Given his seeming bias, a renewable scenario might be cheaper than he claims. 🤷❤️
It seems a better 20 years goal for Australia is energy coming from 60% nuclear, 30-35% from the renewables & storage technologies, and 5-10% of classical fossil fuel generation, to cover for unusual variability in demand.
Credentials: I studied electrical engineering in my home Slovenia, with emphasis on power generation, transmission & regulation. I follow it with a passion, and also invest in companies connected to it on the stock market.
Greetings & Love 🙏❤️
@@elektrotehnik94 taking nothing away from your knowledge sir , but you also are making some assumptions there , for a start rarely do things get cheaper , if renewables can get cheaper , so may fossils , in Australia , we already know for fact that we are being screwed for gas we already have masses of , which is being sold off to other countries cheap while we pay a premium for our own gas ! 😂
, secondly what works in one country does not necessarily work in another, Australia is a gigantic country, , to run power from renewables all over the country for thousands of kilometres is never going to be a winner.
But I agree it never pays to put all your eggs in one basket , which our current government wants to do.
@@mikldude9376 No worries sir. ❤️
Things often do get "fundamentally" cheaper, once we discount the effect of inflation. 🙃
This is engineering & scaling of production 101 (basics). You might want to google search it & read up on it.
It's truly fascinating stuff. 👍❤️
Simple engineering tells you he is wrong.
He gives a totally wrong renewable situation and goes nuclear.
Nuclear AND distant renewables both must have the grid.
The $TRILLIONS national electrical grid AND the grid must have $100sBILLIONS cashflow. 247 for 365 days to get cheap $kWh supply prices.
So EV owners will have a problem as imported petroleum is phased out and the EV owners want maximum economic benefit from their parked vehicles. 🤔
@TheGerardHolland: This is one of the finest presentations I have seen on this complex issue. thanks 👍
@@Elusive-lr4xj Nice presentation: nevertheless yielding misleading conclusions based on dodgy logic.
What an amazing and switched on young man. There IS hope for our species.
Carbon offset marketers have been advocating that carbon emissions should factor in downstream health costs from climate change and pollution. It’s clear that the health costs associated with financial stress should be accounted for in renewables.
Missing is also the internalization of costs of nuclear waste. So, the presented calculation is not comprehensive and hence not valid for any decision making.
How about the unreliability of the current iterations of so-called renewables?
You ask why I call then so-called? Because in their current forms, what is being called renewable is unable to produce more of itself.
A carbon tax is wrong and bad. CO2 is not pollution and it's stupid and shortsighted to tax it.
@iareid8255 co2 is literally the gas of life. Those who want to tax it can only be ignorant or evil. I'm currently leaning in the direction of them being actively evil.
@@ThePierroful I believe it was factored in. Go and run it again please to convince yourself.
Absolutely wonderful to highlight that "Energy Security is National Security"
I remember the early 80s and NSW had power rationing where businesses had to shut for 1 day a week in the Sydney basin... The state government then built all the coal plants the ones they want to close now.
Trading reliability and security off for the worst power is madness.
Australia needs Reliable and Secure power for the future and security of a future Australia.
Nuclear is the elephant in the room for that. Modern modular reactors tick all the boxes. Good luck any enemy knocking out your system when there are hundreds of small reactors distributed throughout your country.
The ongoing falling prices of some generation technologies make isolated microgrids so much more affordable nowadays... particularly in remote areas.
Great demo, YES energy density and cost over time is critical. There is no such thing as net zero, or even sustainability as per the current social agenda. In life normally the correct answer to complex questions is the simplest one.
Well, that's a philosophy... but life is untidy. Just dig into the messiness of DNA.
It is not difficult to debunk the "renewables" debacle that Labor is pursuing. This presentation makes it quite clear what is terrible disaster Labor is taking us towards. Even if Gerard's analysis is not quite right in the detail (as he points out re economic discounting) the difference between "renewables" and nuclear is so very large. Agree - keep the coal/gas on until we can turn on the nuclear plants. A little, maybe 20%, wind and solar would probably be positive in the mix.
Coal burning is a problem but it's humans that drive cars, use planes, ships and power sky scrapers. It's humans who damage themselves with mono crops that need pesticides and feed cattle. Humans need to change their wasteful ways and choose simpler life styles.
Phil,
I entirely agree except the quantity of wind and solar should be zero, they are second and third rate generators respectively.
Yep, what is cheap now won't be that cheap later. Renewable sure hide this very well.
@@iareid8255Wind and solar are fine at small case, I.e. use at home for backup/supplemental power. It makes absolutely no sense for grid scale power generation.
We can't keep burning fossil fuels, their impact is cumulative. Nuclear has left it's run to late and we now need to deploy renewables. If nuclear makes sense for the replacement of some renewables in 20 years then get cracking now, but you can't keep burning and accumulating greenhouse gases. We're already way over the carbon budget.
Isn’t it a shame our government does not have the welfare of its people as a priority? Instead of their own questionable ideals, “narcissistic “
Very good presentation explaining difficult concepts very well. Thank you
Good lord this presentation should be screened on to the sails of the opera house
Finally! Somebody talking about how much the costs are for every man woman and child - $95,000 per person. But, half the people don't work - too old, too young, etc. The real cost per TAX PAYER is at least double, closer to $200,000 per tax payer!!
Responsible leaders understand that "we can not afford to turn off anything until we're ready to turn something better on." Will the left leaning politicians Australia has ever come to this crucial understanding? We all can pray that they do before they shut down everything as their present path is showing.
I would love to see the slide sources of data on your calculations Gerard and the assumptions made on the models as it is very compelling argument you are making. Thanks!
Stone into Gold? It was Lead into Gold. Go Nuclear or go home.
If you're pro net-zero and anti nuclear, you're pro mass starvation.
@@wheel-man5319
Anti humanist is the term Dr Rob Zubrin used in his book ‘the merchants of despair’ but you are of course 💯 correct.
After that comment I kept watching to see exactly how ridiculous the presentation would get and I was not disappointed 😂 Turns out he's not a student of engineering, finance, chemistry, or history.
Something that is always forgotten: You can’t charge batteries while proving load at the same time.
You can either use solar/wind to supply the grid OR you can charge batteries for night time.
Thus, you need to have twice as many solar panels and wind turbines to achieve this.
Even with just the renewables currently built in Oz there's already an excess, and wholesale electricity prices often go negative during the day... even with wind and solar curtailed.
It's a lucky country. Infrastructure for storing that excess, and releasing it later is feverishly being built.
@@chrisking7603 The key word in your sentence is "often", how often is often happening and what happens when it isn't often enough? It needs to be guaranteed.
Fantastic presentation mate , others have also been saying much of what was said in this very good presentation in not so many words .
A lot of it is common sense , destroying masses of bird and animal habitat and probably even some farmer land and pristine land to install masses of solar panels, bird killing wind turbines and thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to give us part time power is utter lunacy.
I can only come to either of two conclusions , our politicians are just that dumb they thought having only masses of renewables was a good idea , or alternatively, they thought they could get on the vote gravy train by whipping up false net zero rhetoric for their own gain .
Either way , they need a dam good wake up call , thank you for your great presentation sir.
Nuclear has 247 cashflow demand.
The GRID has a bigger cashflow demand.
When the sunshines and sets the rooftop PV and EVs v2g oversized battery stops all the customers grid electricity demand.
Stops customers cashflow.
"WTF do we do now" ? 😮
Said the nuclear owners and the grid owners.
But the grid owner's screamed loudest.
Yeah I spoke with an engineer at a coal power plant and he told me that the way the grid is set up the coal power stations are ramping up and down to keep the hertz I believe he said at the right wavelength because the solar in the grid isn’t constant. He said this has a huge amount of wear on the plants assets unlike the time before solar made this impact on the grid.
@joshdrougas7419 I was told that switch yards have huge resistors that heat up and can be switched on as a temporary load, and then quickly turned off as the grid needs more electricity.
Or switched on as the generators ramp up to the peak loads and then are switched off progressively to match grid demand.
Just huge heaters.
@@stephenbrickwood1602
Yeah I’m not a 100% sure possibly over a less immediate timeframe when there’s huge fluctuations of power generated that’s the way this engineer made it sound that the power stations basically acted like big batteries
@joshdrougas7419 I think that they had a number of strategies, just my comment, it is interesting.
I heard an interesting expression.
'Empty suites' people without experience and education speaking like professionals.
Like a medical doctor speaking confidently about construction engineering.
Or a lawyer giving electrician trades advice or brain surgery advice.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but must disclose their expertise or limitations.
RUclips experts that give part answers can be dangerously misleading.
Just another comment.
Hahaha.
Total agree
Nuclear is by far the cleanest, densest and most equitable option…. Except the AU tech lag… just why we don’t refine aluminium, steel, etc here is because we have eschewed the tech for cheap plunder for over 50 years.
AU had the energy capacity and capability for YEARS before the green revolution happened but few politicians were brave/smart enough to culture/nurture such a natural instinct in this nation…
We were downplayed as Quarry workers and Sheepherders and still are..
The political bloodsucking of the Australian people appears to be blatantly apparent with the selling of resources without reward, except to the weilders of the pen who will want for nothing upon political retirement… it is a bloody disgrace…😔😔😔
Let's look forward to a future where we can export green steel, at a premium made with green hydrogen, made from electricity that would otherwise go to waste when there's excess as its wholesale price goes negative.
Then there's all the onshore production of steel derivatives. Oz just filling ships with ore and coal for lean margins should be a thing of the past.
@@chrisking7603
This leaderless/aimless/visionfree future will eventuate as Australians blood is being sucked dry and sold to the lowest deity …. This beautiful country deserves better.
Brilliant
Have these figures/study been peered reviewed? And if so, by whom?
Great explanation.
Current government has to bugger off!!
Peter Costello was right about population decline.
2 children for the parents and 1 for the country.
Worldwide under 40 year olds are too few for a stable future.
Tony Abbott was right about CO2 emissions worldwide is Australia's problem.
Coal is dirt cheap for Australia. And Australia's economy can be broken before climate impacts.
Climate destabilisation is also the death of Australia's economy.
Sahara Desert latitudes and Australia's latitudes are the same.
But, Australia's population can not migrate into the cooler latitudes of the Great Southern Ocean 🙄 🤔 😕
Dirt cheap electric vehicles for all warming latitudes is the key to dirt cheap electricity.
Economic growth via population increase has served societies well... but it's exponential in nature and not sustainable in an environment of limited resources. World population couldn't be at the level it is now without synthetic fertiliser. That is to say, technology has permitted overpopulation... and how far can one keep relying on that in this messed-up world?
5:14 "Make before break", one of the most important principles in engineering.
From Scotland - we had free energy - until England nicked it. (a bit like our oil)
So much money spent in the last few decades on O&G ... Many countries would go broke not to continue... Doesn't mean the same can't be done for renewables .... Patience and not being chaotic or critical is one approach to get there...
Nuclear has 247 cashflow demand.
The GRID has a bigger cashflow demand.
When the sunshines and sets the rooftop PV and EVs v2g oversized battery stops all the customers grid electricity demand.
Stops customers cashflow.
"WTF do we do now" ? 😮
Said the nuclear owners and the grid owners.
But the grid owner's screamed loudest. 😮😮😮😮😮
And now we are on the handcart to hell. Please use the energy resources we have to make Australia great again
And this doesn’t cover how we synchronise all these green power generators without physical mass
There is no such battery capacity in existence to store energy for our grid demand. East Coast baseload afternoon peak is 30+ GW
= A mere 3 million vehicles (number of Toyotas registered in Oz) plugged into the grid, each supplying a meagre 10kW each (slow charge rate).
If all generation went offline, no grid batteries including hydro, no interstate support, yes the peak could be supplied entirely by vehicle batteries. Think how much those car owners could be earning while saving the world.
The technology has existed for years now, the hurdles have been standardisation and local regulatory issues.
@@chrisking7603 How long before those vehicle batteries run flat?
People need to learn the difference between GW and GW/hour.
If there is a cyclone or a really bad storm the grid often goes out sometimes for a few days then if people need to get away their cars will not be able to take them or will be running out of energy clogging the roads.
@@thedave7760 There's a lot of possibilities for disasters, and it's fruitless to try and enumerate how different types are dealt with. OP stated there's no battery in existence that could supply the grid in the unlikely event that all generation wasn't accessible. (Possibly something like the Carrington event) Anyway, it's useful to point out distributed vehicle batteries could easily supply the GW, and GWh to power the grid for some days. Details of actual event ignored, a small electric vehicle battery like 50kWh could power an average home for five days. Bigger batteries or lesser states of charge having their relative outcomes.
Unsustainable very expensive renewables 😂😂😂
They'll be no lights caust you can't afford the power bills
The intellectuals pushing hard for the "green transition" know the math.
So why do they pretend otherwise?
Their answer to the energy crisis is a vision that we somehow go through an ‘energy descent’ or ‘de-growth’ period and then live a frugal ‘low carbon footprint’ life. It’s only wealthy people that indulge this fantasy, they can afford the insane cost of all of the appliances and house features required to be comfortable with this ‘frugal’ life, and would be happy to condemn a large portion of our population to abject poverty. The people that would be poverty stricken by a ‘de-growth’ scenario will be shamed, ridiculed and deplored in the same way anti-lockdown protesters were during the coov years.
@@findingthereal9052You poor thing. Buck up.
Australia is building a very expensive renewable grid, backed up by very expensive gas and very expensive hydro. That makes sense. Coal is the cheapest form of energy on the planet.
Fantastic explanation
We have free electricity back 1800 Alites rewrote history just for them. Oil gas greed.
The people talking on ARC should be in our government they make sense and would turn us around instead of woke division we would have a great economy cheaper living and a better country we are 1 percent of carbon Chi na 28 percent Russia and India high as well stop breaking our country and listen to common sense
Wealth can flee, they aren't going to pay for this. It's a completely unachievable goal
Small modular reactors using thorium fluoride salt................no safety issues or waste issues...............and cant be used for weapons.
The theory is good (and there is a lot of fuel), but they are too untested to roll out at large scale. Currently, large conventional nuclear plants provide MUCH cheaper power than smaller nuclear power plants, even more so than SMRs. We definitely need micro reactors and thorium SMRs in future - but for the next 20 years or so, it's going to be conventional nuclear.
Liquid salt reactors are a great idea. The concept is robust and they have been tested. However the internal recycling of chemicals (the kidney of the plant) is difficult and scaling up is problematic. Unlikely to be cheapest in the short term. Australia should be researching and developing this for the future.
SMRs are a different tech. The appeal is the short time frame. However, they are optimised for shipping. They are not the best solution for grid scale. A few to address the current energy drought would be sensible.
There are several large scale nuclear plant designs that would serve our needs well.
The best short term solution would be to increase capacity in coal and gas and then roll out a robust nuclear fleet with a full suite of support services and local supply chain industries.
Choosing the best nuclear technology, then repeating builds using the same design served France well. Learning from that, a bunch of differing technologies would be an expensive path. With Gen4 in existence already, it might be wise to skip Gen3 designs entirely instead of being behind the pack. Without all the legacy, it might be easier for Oz to localise fast breeder technology (and potentially export it).
Produce appliances that have longer life span. That you only need to buy 1 washing machine every 20 years. This would mean less need to manufacture.
That's a bit more professional than political, at last.
Nearest thing to Australian energy policy and Ideology would tell a story like Sinbad the Sailor, reformed pirate.
Vital to our interests is an informed democratic population who understands technology is a matter of thinking techniques than what we've been used to stuck half in half out of the Stone Age.
A 10⁶ difference in energy density-intensity is possible, but unfooling ourselves requires inverting the education system from a hidebound autocratic honor structure to actually applied intellectual capability. There's lots of it about, this presentation is a very good example, thank you.
10:59 please clarify the cost per Australian person of the renewable or renewable plus gas option. I think you said $95k each. For noting, I think 2trillion divided by 27million people is $13.5k each
Ask Chris Bowen to sneeringly critique these numbers and provide testable verification of his alternatives
why don't we see intelligent debate about power? I don't have a spare $90M to pay for power
Yes nuclear power is the only way for a secure future.
Others in the world are doing this, but because of political ideology we in Australia are prevented from doing so.
Since when has rational thought crept into the equation?
Damn.
It’s not $95m each, but $95,000 each
Does talk about solar and wind only in large commercial businesses? If solar and wind had domestic ( on roof) input, how would change his views?
Remember, the technology for individual house uses is improving each week.
I live in Northern California and have solar panels. Daily output varies greatly between summer and winter. Average daily output in summer is about 55 kwh and about 6 during the winter.
@@rayshepherd2479 Fortunately Oz doesn't see snow and excessively short days.
It's actually a lot worse than this. He forgot something. While you're getting electricity from wind and solar, you're using it, you can't charge batteries. So you need one full duplicate copy of all solar and wind infrastructure to charge the batteries, and that's just for another day of storage. Every day of extra stored electricity you want, you need a full complement of wind and solar to generate that electricity ahead of time. So if you want to prepare for five days without solar and wind, you need to multiply everything in the left-hand stack by five. And now you need batteries that can hold the charge and run a grid for a week or two, and those don't exist. So the column on the left is many times higher than shown.
Also required gas peaking for emergency. Which will be heavily utilized at night or cold winter!
Don't forget EV vehicle to grid/home. After years of stumbling over standards, it's starting to roll out now. By far the biggest battery people are likely to own, a small car can power a house for days. The picture isn't gloomy for Oz, as existing solar can substantially produce on dull days.
Don't use this presentation's graphs as a basis for extrapolation... they're skewed to support an agenda.
@@chrisking7603 And your figures are just totally pure with no other agenda.
Great presentation but I would say that gas prices in Europe were going up in the summer/autumn 2021 before the Ukraine invasion by Russia in Feb 22. It was probably caused originally by economies going back to work after covid shutdowns and supplies not being able to keep up. The invasion kept supplies restricted and prices up. Our own Ed Milliband will bust this country if he has his way.
The cost of climate change was not added to coal.
Lets see what the market does then. May the most cost effective energy provider win!
Nuclear power may be cleaner energy, but do we really need nuclear power stations and all the costs that will be passed on to the consumers? Estimated grids of pricing are not necessarily true. We’ve lived off grid with solar panels for the last seven years. Nothing is plugged into the system of the government or the energy companies. If you learn how to look after your batteries and don’t let them go to more than halfway empty, the life of them is extended. We’ve never run out of power. As long as solar is set up properly you’ll have plenty of electricity.❤
Cost of cleaning solar panels.
Lead into gold, not stone into gold. Just sayin 😅😊
@@Goestohollywood-l8x @ really, give me a break lol
For you edification:
The Philosopher's Stone was a Medieval theory that transmutation of elements was possible via said stone. Nobody ever had one since it was imaginary, but everyone hoped and thought it existed so that they could transmute lead into gold and become rich.
What is the point in using such references if you do not comprehend its origins, it’s the same as mixing metaphors, sound stupid and negates meaning.
@@Andrew-mv2qbIt wouldn't make you rich anyways. The law of supply and demand would kick in, causing the value of gold to plummet.
26 Trillion divides by 26 million is 95 million?? Wth how is that even possible for each individual to pay that much??
He means $96k each
@@grantbuttenshawThank you. 👍❤️
Nobody correcting the presenter, with him making such a big mistake - not good. 👎
Back to school for all of you. 26T / 26M = 1M
@@vicmangion5169 Yes. 🏆
Incorrect info anyways; but now at least math checks out on the incorrect info. 👍
@vicmangion5169 lucky it's NOT 26 trillion then! Got your glasses on?
Electric vehicles can drive for 1 hr and park for 23hrs every day.
Sun up and sun down.
EVs v2g big batteries grid connected automatically 23hrs every day.
Batteries protect the existing national grid.
20million vehicles and 20million buildings with rooftop PV and 20years to 100% customers self supplied.
No new grid capacity needed.
Nuclear needs massive grid capacity expansion construction. 10 times nuclear plant costs.
Nuclear needs government disaster insurance and Government PPP, and Government guaranteed cash flows, and Government guaranteed profits, and Government guaranteed monopoly.
Nuclear needs 247 cashflow for 20years to break even and 60years before end of life demolition costs are accumulated.
Worldwide nuclear electricity generation plants have the same cost demand, but 9,000million people.
Military defence budgets will explode Worldwide. 😳 Add those costs aswell.
What a jumbled word salad. Try better.
The government can limit the expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and electricity is generated by structuring power purchase agreements (PPAs) with a "pay-as-you-go" model, wherein payments commence only when the plant supplies electricity to the grid. The developer or operator bears the financing burden during construction through private investment or loans. Once operational, the government purchases electricity based on actual generation, mitigating financial risk and incentivizing private sector investment while ensuring taxpayer funds are spent only on delivered services. This approach fosters efficient risk allocation, encourages project completion, and maintains accountability through performance monitoring outlined in the PPA.
Light Water Reactors (LWRs) have a fuel efficiency of 0.5-1%, while Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) can achieve up to 98% fuel efficiency.
Surely we could structure royalties and taxes on resources mined from our country to fund power stations generating power from nuclear then we have ownership of the asset and it can generate further profit for our country if it can be made so cheaply because we have vast deposits of uranium we should be able to invest our revenue from royalties into infrastructure to sell directly to other foreign markets
Online processing of salty fuel is still in its infancy. Fast breeder Gen4 reactors exist, and can burn their transuranic "waste". Cooled by sodium, lead, or Helium they aren't prone to pump failure.
Tiresome how non-experts continue to present on topics they're passionate about, but have little targeted knowledge. Keep politics out of it and allow market forces to guide the best outcome.
The crux of this presentation is some pretty graphs based, as often is the case, selectively chosen data that supports the presenter's point of view, neglecting a bigger picture.
We need our population to continue to decline. We need to change lifestyle to suit work and non-work periods. Old people can still work in offices and shops. Lots Part-time and flexible work hours.
LOL ROFL.
Just wondering, where does rooftop solar fit into all of this? I pay 1/3 of my previous energy bill with rooftop solar. Does installing solar panels on roof tops take up extra land?
Some of the numbers seemed to come from dark southern regions. For instance everything nuclear was very interesting. Might as well have used 80 year life spans for solar while you are pulling out those numbers. Where did you get such low numbers for battery storage? Oh never mind. The take away should be that governments should get the **** out and let us choose what is most economical. Government needs to stop all subsidies and taxes on power or else our economies will continue to decline.
Doesn't help his cause when he gets it so very wrong on Alchemy - The Stone is the end result. It is lead that is turned to gold.
The SIMPLE ANSWER IS
GREEN ENERGY
CANNOT AT THIS STAGE MEET CHEAP SUSTAINABLE ENERGY.
THE TECH IS NOT
GOOD ENOUGH
"YET"
Chris Bowen doesn't have the brain power to understand any of this. Although it has been explained in succinctly using every day language.
Huge environmental story on decommissioning wind too. The concrete footings and blades. Crazy
The energy to build a turbine and concrete paid back in 6 months. Then for 50 years zip. All paid back
No it's fairly straightforward actually. Especially compared to nuclear plants & spent fuel.
& you didn't even cover the EV scam ?
The title of this video is silly of course everything can be powered with renewable energy.. I know my home ran on it for more than ten years... Your problems begin in not investing in enough of it... and then blaming the technology for not planning well enough.
Renewables don’t generate the high yields needed in a short amount of time to meet the needs of big industry. Which no matter how you look at it big industry is needed to maintain a standard of living and just the needs of the global population from anything like car manufacturing to medicinal manufacturing to agricultural production
@joshdrougas7419 What nonsense, high yields crap... are you trying to say a couple of hundred megawatts from a wind farm is not as good as a couple of hundred megawatts from some fossil source...idiotic suggestion!
If you do not invest enough in storage and generation and try to sabotage renewable energy reliability that way your on the right track and should get the expected failed outcome. But it is not the energy source that failed its the dick heads involved that are the failures, don't confuse the two!
@joshdrougas7419 Hi, you seem to be making a statement the 100 mega watts generated from renewable energy sources is some how different to 100 mega watts from fossils... I could not disagree more! There is nothing wrong with going 100% renewable energy for big manufacturing applications...
The problems is when you have fossil lobby groups deciding how best to make it look like their energy is the only game in town, and undermine renewable energy production.
It is easy to build an energy infrastructure that fails, all you have to do is design it so it only just meets demand, and sooner or latter a transmission line will fail or something and it falls over, just like they did to South Australia...
@@apollo8352
You could do it with enough battery storage but alumina refineries require 10,500,000,000 joules to make one ton of alumina the average house uses 77,580,000 in a day and you can imagine in Australia for the month of September 2024 1,353 thousand metric tonnes was produced so it’s a big difference in power houses and powering industry there simply isn’t the battery storage to store that sort of power and that’s only one industry
@joshdrougas7419 Ok here is some free info... we already have a number of pumped hydro installations good for hundreds of megawatt hours of electricity and there are more being built.
Besides which lets say you must have say one megawatt of electricity from renewable energy continuously....do I build a single one megawatt wind generator? or do I build several one megawatt wind generators? do I locate them all in the same location or would I get more reliable energy if I had lots of one megawatt wind generators located at very many wind locations? You see if you do not skimp on money of course it can be made reliable.... China see's that with their Extra High Voltage Belt and Road International DC power grid... start connecting wind and solar and hydro in from all around the world and I'm sure you could run an aluminium smelter....or two.
But what you do not want to do is burn up gas reserves that cost about $90 per megawatt hour for the gas to extract and pass it on to the Aluminium smelter at $4 per megawatt hour... as they do in Frustralia.....especially considering they have dwindling east coast gas reserves. The break even cost for fossil coal burning electricity is $16per megawatt hour... Yet the government is happy to let businesses fold under high energy costs, but then do stupid things like give Aluminium companies almost free electricity... beggars belief!
Australian promoters are pushing base load only.
A physical limit. Fact not fiction.
The economic limit is the capital cost and the cashflow over max kWh. For minimum $kWh.
Economic fact not fiction
France went nuclear electricity energy for survival when the oil embargo hit their economy.
Ontario has shut down 4 of its 8 reactors at one plant because of efficiency in electricity use.
1970 demand predictions have not worked out.
Government price control subsidies are ineffect.
[ ] First no electricity in South Australia blackouts was a huge bummer.
[ ] Second renewables would not work for the entire state ofSouthAustralia, lights could not be kept on, but still nuclear promoters are wrong.
[ ] Third expensive electricity is just a moment in time as the full system is built out.
Grid owners are squeezing the maximum out of the last kWh from the grid supply electricity.
My deal is feed-in 5cents kWh and my supply 50cents kWh, and I use only 7kwh daily avg.before any rooftop on my roof.
Nuclear promoters want more export of uranium ore yellowcake to pay for the nuclear world electricity generation industries.
Coal export replacement.
But 80% of the world's population live in dictatorships. Even dirt poor North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles.
Poo Tin Man is threatened nuclear weapons use as he destroyed 700,000 of his young men.
And destroyed his neighbour's children and their families.
Nuclear promoters are simply fabulous 👌 👏 👍 😍
Nobody is ready yet to here we have to learn to live with less
Systematic reviews have shown free-ranging domestic cats, and windows kill more than a billion birds in US alone. The effect of turbines is three orders of magnitude less. There's other risks like habitat disturbance, and pollution affecting birds' food sources. Turbines kill... but not to the extent that some proclaim.
Wow you have an answer for everything don't you Chris. If all this tech works so well then why can't they build a renewable grid on some small island somewhere and demonstrate how this might work on a larger scale? The answer is simple it is too complex and too expensive and too unreliable.
If we are to build a 100% renewable grid by 2050 then in the next 25 years we will need to mine and refine the same amount of copper as humans have mined since we began mining copper. How do you propose we do that without using fossil fuels for the energy required?
and that is just the copper it is similar for other materials needed like concrete and other metals.
It is staggering what would be required.
@@thedave7760 Hi Dave. Thanks for taking time to reply. I only have answers for some things. There's a lot of misconceptions being promulgated at the moment, and some simple fact checking sometimes leads to a deservingly appropriate reply. I avoid directing my replies towards particular persons, as that finger-pointy nonsense is the the fallback of those that have a hard time debate the actual complex issues. Some people would rather follow a hero with plausible arguments, rather than fact-check and put into perspective what is being said.
@@thedave7760 Regarding copper, I haven't heard that its supply is a likely limiting factor of concern. Do you have researched information, or just an opinion?
@@thedave7760 Electrowinning of many metals is the better option for reduction from ore because chemical processing generates more waste to be dealt with. This is particularly convenient when there is potential for a significant proportion from recycled sources... they can be just chucked into the pot. Aluminium has been refined this way for yonks, but now also lanthanides having elements useful in permanent magnets because of high recycling rates of batteries. This energy can be co-generated... particularly attractive if nearby and cheap.
@@thedave7760 There's an excellent example of a long-running microgrid at Coral Bay in Western Australia. Many WA communities are totally reliant on expensive diesel deliveries, turning off generators some times to save costs. Coral Bay kept the generators as backup, but in 2007 had wind turbines installed, and a massive flywheel driving an inverter. The renewable penetration has been averaging around 80% - a big saving. They're now getting some big batteries with higher capacity than the flywheel, which is EOL. This will allow for deeper renewable penetration. The fossils are still there for backup, and some might say eventually unnecessary. For me, net zero can include a small proportion of fossils as long as there's compensation elsewhere.
What absolute bs. Forgets basic physics.
A comparison is if we mine 1kg coal or mine 1kg Silicon.
We burn the the 1kg of coal in a power station in 0.01 sec. It provide energy of 2.5kWh - powers a 1 bar heater for 2 hours.
In comparison if we mine 1kg of silicon, we get 9g silicon per wafer, or 6.5 watts per wafer. With 72 wafers per panel that is about 650g silicon per panel . So 1kg silicon makes about 1.5 panels. Take the panels on sale today at 440W each. With 1 hour of sunlight = 0.68kWh. With 4.1 hours per day average we will generate 2.8kWh per day.
* Either 1 kg of silicon or 1kg of coal, we get 2.5kW of energy.
* The cost of coal is $80 per tonne. The cost of silicon is about the same. But the fuel for the panel for the next 40 years is free. We have a billion year warranty at least, and probably for the next 6 billion years
* The waste from the coal is 2.2kg CO₂ plus methane, mercury, uranium and thorium. The solar panel is fully recyclable.
* The lifecycle carbon analysis for cost is over 1000 gCO₂/kWh versus 38
* The energy produced by the silicon over 40 years is over 40,646kWh
In conclusion, energy from 1kg silicon is 16,200 more than the energy of coal.
Batteries enable time shifting of electricity 90% efficiently. Electricity is not wasted.
When you have IEA and everyone else saying it is also the cheapest, why does Gerard ignore them and others? 🤔
I don’t think there’s no place for solar but the energy needed for large industry cannot be provided by renewables. Possibly the development of hydrogen may be able to play a part. But the actual raw material needed to build battery storage for the grid and to also link up new solar farms to the grid that would need huge amounts of copper and other materials it would be more environmentally sensible to use the current grid we have by continuing solar panels on houses and if an upgrade to power stations is needed to be built in areas where current coal power exists
@joshdrougas7419 that's false information put out by lying fossil fuel industry. If you have spent time looking at the claims and see who is the source of truth...
Tell me. Why do the largest consumers of electricity in Australia committed to ppa with some of largest producers? They have done the homework.
@@joshdrougas7419 "energy needed for large industry cannot be provided by renewables.”
This statement is not science based. Nor economics. Just a belief system.
You see if 1 panel is 700W and it generates 4.1 hours per day, that's 2.8kWh.
So if you need 5.6kWh, you need 2 panels
5.6MWh, 2,000.
5.6TWh, 2 million.
Really, really simple.
There is no penalty for size.
At US $1/W installed (based on $0.10/W panel price), do the maths. No surprises. Fast to deploy.
The denser the source, the cleaner the source? That's simply ridiculous.
This is talk that makes a lot of biased assumptions in favour of nuclear power, such as that it lasts three times longer than anything else.
I'm not against nuclear power but this man's arguments for it don't stack up.
He missed out too many important issues, such as grid flexibility and interconnectors.
just ask yourselves "who's paying this guy?"
A typical head in the sand response.
Or, is it true?
Its free after set up, wave power would shojld be pursued.
The next ten might be more realavent fhan some long ago.
No assessment of geothermal ??
Expensive & rare.
Geodynamics tried a couple of decades ago in the Cooper Basin. Too challenging geology and it was abandoned.
Is challenging to produce Geothermal energy. One of them is large transmission line needed to transport to the east coast. Also deep drilling required through hard rocks.
Great presentation! There is no future without nuclear power.
Cost of the Fukushima aftermath till 2022 approximately 83 billion USD, still ongoing.
Realistically we don’t have much problem with sizemic activity in Australia so we would be a good candidate for nuclear. The biggest negative I see with Australia taking on nuclear is that our pollies all want to line their pockets and sell out the Australian people thus likely meaning nuclear should be a cheap option but it should also be the case currently as we have big deposits of coal and gas yet still pay top dollar
I guess the problem lies in the wrong assumption that one would never have to renew the current grid if all went for nuclear....
I know that the idea to have the power plants for nuclear built close to existing coal power stations would mean minimal upgrades to infrastructure also often the current stations exist in industrial areas which would be using the bulk of the power generated and if nuclear could deliver cost effective power could lead to a huge economic boost in these hubs
@@joshdrougas7419 I see. I can only speak for Germany, the target is to be CO2 neutral by 2045. If we wanted to generate 80% electricity with nuclear we would have to build 72 plants by then. Looking at all the delays worldwide of current nuclear projects including the cost explosions plus the bureaucratic hurdles and difficulties to find suitable locations I got huge doubts that such a scenario could ever be achieved. Also we already are at 50 to 60 percent intermittent renewables. Adding unflexible nukes to the current mix wouldn’t do any good and cause economic losses to either renewables or nukes depending on which is preferred.
@
I’m sure it’s a completely different situation Germany is in. In Australia we lack economic diversity and complexity we used to have a highly skilled workforce here and exceptional higher education. However year after year manufacturing companies aren’t able to keep the doors open. I hope that we will get real leadership in government because government policy could make some huge reforms that could make Australia an economic superpower. If our government actually taxed and claimed royalties for our resources we could reinvest that money into something like nuclear power and infrastructure to then sell on directly to other markets
I do not think your costings for Batteries and Solar are correct, Batteries cost $150 kwh and are rapidly decreasing. Solar panels cost ~ $50 kwh working on a 5 multiplier of the panel's output. Yes, we need a capacity factor for Solar of maybe 2 or 3 but solar panels do generate 20% of rated energy when 10/10 cloud cover. I run my 100-acre farm on Solar and batteries, my electricity is cheap, reliable, and excessive. Yes we are relying on imports from China, ideally, locally made products would be better.
Did he talk about Solar farms mixed with pasture farms. E.g sheep farms with solar within the padock with no reduction in grass available for the sheep to eat?
What have sheep got to do with the costings of energy???
The gentleman presented well but strangely omitted a couple of important factors. Firstly he forgot to factor in the cost of climate change. As an example, the 2022 Northern Rivers floods cost Australia $9.6 Billion and were the 4th most expensive natural disaster in the world in that year. The 2019 bushfires were estimated by economists to have cost between $78 and $88 Billion in property loss and economic losses and nearly 80% of Aussies were affected in some way.
He also failed to mention the recent IPCC report which speaks to the urgency of reducing emissions NOW to reduce the locking in of irreversible climate triggers and their consequences.
Nuclear, if built would be doing well to be constructed and running by mid to late 2040s. By then the damage to our climate is locked in.
The damage is already locked in. The only smart way to go is ration, reduce, slow down, prioritise the use of increasingly scarce resources. Nah, not what he's about - he's weaving myths.
The main issue here is that all electric systems - let's take a main board circuit - uses a power source combined with accumulators - a form of storing energy and regulating energy flow. The introduction of grid batteries is an improvement that most don't comprehend it's utility - also, it alows for energy trading between sources that fuels economically the incentives for cheaper power production from many sources.
Specific energy of batteries compared to uranium says you’re wrong.
Solar is the cheapest way to get power. We just need battery advances to catch up exciting times for mankind ahead. Forget about the politics cost will always dictate the market
The name of this channel reeks of disinfo.
Why does everyone need a car….? Reduce the number of cars, invest in public traffic. Reduce the speed of traveling: sail, use blimps etc.
Think about a new system.
Did he talk about Singapore and the burning of the countries' rubbish to get electricity and discharge clean air?
The Golden Rule of Engineering is solved the right problem.
Customers need dirt-cheap electricity, rooftop PV and their v2g EV oversized battery which is parked 23hrs every day and all night long.
The grid owners know that their $TRILLIONS national grid asset needs 10% return on investment, ROI, $110BILLON cashflow.
This cashflow comes from the CUSTOMERS.
Is the government going to ban rooftop PV ??????
And ban v2g Electric vehicles ????
Customers will only want to maximise the CAPACITY FACTOR of their energy investment.
Which is good business practice.
Or do the CUSTOMERS go offgrid ???
20million vehicles in Australia.. 😮😮😮 in 20years at least 2,000gWh storage. DAILY. 😊😊😊😊😊
So when the sunshines and sets customers can save, no grid electricity costs.$100sBILLIONS. Tax-free savings.
Save $100sBILLIONS on no imported petroleum, Tax-free.
Save $100sBILLIONS on gas heating and cooking and hotwater tax-free.
No new generation construction and no new grid capacity construction. SAVE $357BILLION on nuclear construction.
Most non-engineers do not understand that Australian latitudes are the same as the Sahara Desert but south of the equator.
Most construction engineers can read maps. 😊😊😊
Most engineers know that rooftop PV panels shade 😎 hot roofs and reduces air-conditioning loads. Tax-free more savings.
Warming latitudes will need more shade.
Grid owners are terrified. But can adapt
Grid owners can take cheap feed-in electricity from 'self supplying' customers and supply heavy industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels.
Nuclear owners are scared witless and want government built PPP arrangements and government garrenteed monopolies and government garrenteed profits for 60 years or more.
Government taxpayers money 💰
I note that the speaker only spoke about wind and more grid construction, this is "bait and switch" logic.
This is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎
And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^
Greetings & Love, from SLovenia 🙏❤️
We are only few % now and its causing issues with the 50Hz balance., wind and solar cannot provide clean sinusoidal 50hz power,,,, shit gunna start blowing up soon.
Wrong!
Clean water is!
And then food!
You have neither of those without reliable energy.
Okay, there needs to be at least another starting graph - measuring the speed at which the current rooftop solar adoption rate, which is now somewhere between 30-40%, arrives at the tipping point where solar and battery consumers disconnecting from the grid because of a better product at a much cheaper price render the grid unstable to the point where it becomes a stranded asset.
And that right there is the problem. That is the point Australia deindustrialises and living standards decline.
That was the comment of somebody who doesn’t understand the complexity of the energy problem.
Watch the presentation again and go read about EROEI.
Then realise the specific energy of uranium is so incredibly large that you’re going to realise that batteries are a complete and utter waste of money and resources.
Nuclear is just better. The physics doesn’t lie.
This is good viewing, but it talks about a 100% renewable scenario, not a 80% scenario. 🙃👎
And that last 20% is where almost all the over-the-top crazy costs lie. ^^
Not to mention he didn't comment on how technological progress/ inflation will affect costs in his model. 👀 Given his seeming bias, a renewable scenario might be cheaper than he claims. 🤷❤️
It seems a better 20 years goal for Australia is energy coming from 60% nuclear, 30-35% from the renewables & storage technologies, and 5-10% of classical fossil fuel generation, to cover for unusual variability in demand.
Credentials: I studied electrical engineering in my home Slovenia, with emphasis on power generation, transmission & regulation. I follow it with a passion, and also invest in companies connected to it on the stock market.
Greetings & Love 🙏❤️
We're not going to get those advances in the next 20 years. It takes time to find real, workable answers and then implement them. His numbers are correct.
@socratesrocks1513 OK.
@@socratesrocks1513His numbers are probably ridiculously low. At least for 'renewables'.
Oh man, what a bunch of BS, it hurts to watch this crap.
And obviously you don,t want to admit to the truth, why do you think that after 2.5 years Bowen has still never released any costings on his energy plan to anyone. I wonder what sort of a kickback he is getting for all these subsidies that we the taxpayers are providing to these offshore wind and solar owners which is why our power bills have trebled
Australia grid electricity is 10% of Australia’s TOTAL ENERGY used.
Nuclear promoters are pushing maximum UTILIZATION and UTILIZATION FACTOR of 97%
France UTILIZATION is 70% because it has to throttle back and load follow.
Too many reactors.
France has major problems with it electricity supply and buys imported electricity.
Stress fractures and other matters.
Plutonium production was part of the going nuclear decision and the oil embargo in the 70s.
Australian grid demand goes from over 100% down to 20%. Load sheading of excess demand by the public or industrial customers to avoid blackouts. Bushfire and heavy winds have broken the grid. Rapid demand fall blackouts.
Empty suits are everywhere.
Out of town experts with empty briefcases.
Why do the ignorant speak so loud, because they are ignorant, empty, and they do not know.
Earth dam builders, medical doctor with youtube videos, physics academic, nuclear mechanics who think they are infrastructure construction contractors or grid owners, politicians who will over promise a safe world now they have lost control of government.
Nuclear promoters say BASELOAD electricity, the BOTTOM 20% of grid demand.
But this is 20% of 10% of Australia’s total energy useage.
Nuclear promoters want a nuclear Australia but only offer 2% as their clean energy future.
Give me an opportunity to buy my own v2g EV and dirt cheap rooftop PV electricity.
I will maximise my investment in the EV parked 23hrs every day and all night long.
Maximise my investment UTILIZATION FACTOR.
The grid will beg for me and millions and millions and millions of customers to stay grid connected and provide feedin dirt cheap electricity. 247 dirt cheap electricity.
Battery technologies and production will get to dirt cheap batteries. Dirt cheap battery replacement if ever needed.
Recycling plants are still waiting for modern batteries with battery management to reach a reasonable degradation level to scrap.
To the nuclear promoters I say, FMD, GMAB, 'piss in the other pocket' and keep me warm with your wet dreams.
Yes very unprofessional, but they might notice the black humour.
Sorry but this clown is costing bases on one plant, as we know the nuclear option only replace a individual coal plant, as the turbines themselves don't change just the boiling of water to drive the steam turbines. and there are several of them.
My point is that the Nuclear and coal analysis appears to be based upon an individual plant, which would produce the same amount of energy. Is the renewable option just based in output of an individual plant or the whole grid. if the whole grid is taken into consideration, then he needs to times his coal and Nuclear options as such, eg; Victoria & Sydney would double the cost that he has making the renewable less.
Just a mention that hydro / pumped hydro is not in your graph - that because it will blow your chart away: less expensive than nuclear to build / maintain - less expertise required, works mostly all year and nights, excess energy that now is not produced (the leave the overflow opened so it will not blow the dam) can be used to store into batteries - night production can be stored for day use, and don't forget - the most short part to create value from energy is crypto mining - that can be done 24/7 or on cheap energy.
The smart grid needs to be smart, with the introduction of Ai, this can be done much better than ever imagined if the right engineers are working on it.
Hydro is great, but much of Australia lacks the water volume and surety it requires. It should be included though.
He included 'Pumped Hydro'. If it's cheap why has 'Snowy 2.0' tripled it's cost ? The truth is that pumped hydro is the most expensive.
@@buildmotosykletist1987batteries are always the most expensive if they're not naturally occurring (or at least easily refinable) sources.
LFTR addresses the 'nuclear waste' issue, both current (current nuclear waste becomes fuel) and future, because the end product is not nearly as hazardous as current nuclear power stations.
The caveat (at least one) is that there currently are no lftrs in operation that I'm aware of.
@@wheel-man5319 : Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem and it's getting cheaper all the time.
@buildmotosykletist1987 I know. But in the spirit of offering a profitable solution to a nonexistent problem I thought I'd offer up something that should work.
Why is the maintenance of existing grid network not added into the cost.
Also if the end user stores their own power in car / house batteries isn’t that free?
That's for the home user. We are talking about grid scale power here. i.e Create power and transport to the home. He already added the transmission in there.
Why did you ignore a gas for a separate comparison? Appreciate you including 39b for the storage costs but you didn't explain how nuclear waste storage costs never end and in a thousand years they will still be paying for todays energy use. If you want to talk about the debt to future generations then at least explain they will forever be paying for your 'cheap' energy source.
What is this never ending nonsense? Spent fuel is stored in dry casks. The cask gets replaced every century or so. What is the most radioactive element in spent fuel?
CS137 and I131. Half life? 30 years. So in 300-500 years… say 1000 years to appease everyone, you can safely handle spent fuel. It is still solid. You can hold it in your hand after 300 years. Would you eat it? No. Would you eat natural U238? No.
So the cost of storage of spent fuel is minimal and the volume of it for the amount of energy produced is tiny.
That spent fuel is also your future fuel and will be reprocessed for use again.
Remember: the more radioactive something is- the faster it decays.
Nuclear waste is a solved engineering problem and it has been for decades.