Video

Way to go Bill Gates! Solving the energy and climate change crisis by reusing nuclear wastes and cutting down our carbon dioxide footprint.

What I didn't hear was when the project would be up and running. Not likely before 2030 and that's only if they are able to demonstrate that all the innovations work out of the gate, which is unlikely. There is a huge unknown to make this viable in the long run and show the fuel efficiency and re-use they are hoping for. The "Traveling Wave" phenomena it depends on is theoretical and never been demonstrated as far as I know. This is what is supposed to allow reusing spent fuel and burn off the fissionable byproducts that are so harmful to the environment.

SMRs allow installing small reactors, ostensibly one at a time, and immediately setting it up (plant was set up during reactor build) and proofing the reactor then putting it online. Plant may first go online in a year instead of 5-10 years. Reactor building will iteratively improve. Clunkers can be taken offline and fixed on site or at factory. Revenue starts in a fifth of the time of a built onsite reactor.

Hey Chris Bowen!!! did you watch this??

23:40 This guy put a chart on the board, and pointed at it, and said this means that you can pay 10 Trillion dollars for a nuke plant and it will still be cost effective, because of this chart here. The presenter skipped all the content and the modeling and the intellectual aspect of this presentation, and after skipping the logic, he came to the conclusion that nuclear was always worth it even if it costs overrun for 40 years. Thats is patently not true, so clearly his logic is flawed. Now that we have established that this man is a shill for the nuclear industry, watch the video again and you will see it.

Using any radioactive element to generate electrical energy is short-sighted. Waste is always created and that waste is almost impossible to clean up - leaving radioactive exposure and considerable expense to future generations. Never is the total cost calculated or divulged. Not one nuclear site has ever been returned to housing or farmland. So stop being short-sighted - think about the thousands of decommissioned sites dotting the globe in 300 years time. Think of the future generations cursing you as they spend countless billions on clean up. All for what? - A couple of decades of expensive electricity and the boost of egos of those who say "if we *can* do, we *should* do it" without even considering the disaster their actions will cause in the future.

The corporates are scared because they are losing the monopoly due to renewables. Nuclear was banned for a very good reason and has served Australia well. Don’t make this huge mistake

The way the world has allowed nuclear fission tech to stagnate for the last 30 years is criminal.

The current minister wouldn't know if a locomotive travelled out of his backside.

I am unsure we should be talking about building nuclear power plants when there is a lot of talk about a world war. An explosion at a coal power station is a serious matter, an explosion at a nuclear power plant is wide spread devastation.

can thorium be used as a fuel source, waiting w/ anticipation for atrium to come on line

Argentina has been building a SMR since 1984. Come back to us when it is completed. NuScale cannot get anyone to buy their product due to massive estimated cost overruns. Only a fool would want to be the FOAK guinea pig.

Anyone with a genuine interest will use Hinkley Point C as a reference as to what we can expect. A private public partnership, wildly behind schedule with a blown budget and delivering expensive power. Plus the taxpayer will be paying for storing the waste… No thanks.

Agree. A waste of money. There is an obvious alternative. Since we know the seas are boiling, we only need to install turbines on beaches. Once we make the Earth cool again we can switch back to coal and gas. When we make the oceans boil again we switch back to the beach turbines. However I can’t still work out why I could swim this morning without getting third degree burns. I’ll leave that up to the experts.

Very interesting job. I worked as control room operator for 18 years in a power plant then I became shift supervisor.

czcams.com/video/H7cRQ_hbHWw/video.htmlsi=UWtuIjyYxEyYEzkr

We are not being treated as Australians very well by Labour and the Greens. On the cost of nuclear power. Wind and solar is making a lot of money for lobbyists in Canberra. If you want information on nuclear power , you do not go to wind and solar developers for information.

HOW TO CRASH AN ENGINEERING PRESENTATION IN THE FIRST MINUTES: Claiming a 'belief' in man made climate change based on two dives on the Barrier Reef, 19 years apart. "The colours don't seem as vivid, and my husband agrees"...therefore man made climate change MUST be real. Everything that follows this is suspect, from an engineers pov.

What will be the price for the legacy of radioactive waste ? The biggest destroyer of our environment is lack of acceptance of responsibility for end of life of facilitites and products . Our global system is finite - NOT open ended..

Good talk. Could probably be triple the duration or more to fully explore the data presented.

It like your part way to a Molten Salt Reactor, it great your getting rid of the water out of the nuclear part, but you are still using fuel rods? What will be your uranium burn efficiency? Is it still only 1% with the other 99% of the uranium being contaminated and requires 20,000 years of specialised storage? How will you source the right type of uranium so you can use it to contaminant the low grade uranium especially if you're reactor catches on, you will probably need something similar to a Molten Salt Reactor to make more of high grade uranium that this reactor can't make for it's self. Sadly we might have to buy better safer reactor from China because of the bureaucratic red tape against the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. There might be a statue someday of Alvin Weinberg standing in china next to the prototype reactor, you can use your own imagination as to what possible statue gesture is used in the direction of Richard Nixon gravesite.

Power Cost Paradox: What does the moron say? I don't know, ask Chris Bowen... FYI - LCOE is a comparison tool only. It is used to compare dissimilar projects (technology, lifespan, start date, etc.). I have always used real LRMC to build long run cost curves and screen projects. NPV models are the only tool for bankable projects. The current debate on net zero system technology is stupid. The Government is either dangerously ignorant or dangerously deceitful. The cost of standalone solar/wind is clearly lowest, but standalone solar/wind can not produce reliable supply. Get them to produce a robust 'levelised system cost of energy' and the falacy will be exposed. Additionally, the Federal opposition has wedged itself into a corner by declaring the number and location of reactor sites. They should have just declared that nuclear must be considered, with locations and timings driven by the system need. We do not need a proscriptive answer, but options. The Phd work you have cited is an excellent study.

The most viable energy shsolutionsave not been touched on. Solutions that are free,super-cheap and infinite, have been shelved under the "Invention Secrecy Act 1951" Said inventions have been used by Nikola Tesla in the past and are currently being used by Corporate Olgarchs such as DARPA. Every energy solution considered has a price tag which enriches the super-rich and plummets the common people further into debt slavery.SO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN TO DR STEVEN GREER on PBD Podcast TITLED,"They'll Erase You" (watch to the end) and look up the INVENTION SECRECY ACT 1951. 🙏 This is best watched with subtitles.

Re carbon credit scam, SCRAP IT !!

Certainly appreciated this presentation of Nuclear Energy. Very informative and well researched. Now it’s time to move in a positive and constructive approach to bring nuclear energy for Australia.

No doubt everything's good with this, Chris and Mark are doing a great teaching job for Decouple. Recovering a viable basic knowledge of QM-TIME Actuality from the political poisoning of the Australian Education anti thinking industry is the obvious problem.

Energy resilience, product it where I use it - solar on my roof, how many km2 of roof area is there in Australia

What are the disadvantages of SMR reactors? However, they also take longer to build, have higher capital costs so are harder to finance, and are arguably becoming too complex. Different conditions at different nuclear sites also reduce the potential to replicate designs, which also adds costs.18 Oct 2021 What are the problems with SMRs? With a roll-out of SMRs, skills will be needed for factory work, on-site construction, and plant operation. Deploying SMRs without concurrent supply chain development could hinder deployment and increase costs As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs

-ve wholesale prices occur because coal fired stations cannot be turned off. By the time whole sale prices go negative utility wind and solar have long left the market. The coal fired stations have no option, they are stuck, paying to output what no-one needs. This is why they will not last, "base load" can no longer survive in a market that requires flexible generation, that also goes for Nuclear. That is why the French nuclear plants are having their lunch eaten. Poor liberals not a STEM trained person amounts them, and the poor suckers believed this.

1) A nuclear reactor does not last 100 years. 2) A nuclear plant is not flexible like batteries or gas. 3) The coal plants will be gone before the first nuclear plant. 4) There is no longer a base load. Rubbish in, rubbish out, you have a model. Poor Liberals. No STEM training and they believe this guff.

Very impressed, a master class in miss representing data.

Oh dear so much miss information, and the Liberals believed. Poor Suckers.

So what happens to the waste? What about the plant in 80yrs time? Let's not mention that. How convenient.

0:22 Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is still following this very important and informative content cheers Frank a 70 year old man and running a "Public CZcams channel" can now see a great compelling solution for energy efficiency one word WOW ! 😊 2:39 4:42 10:24

Sodium fast reactors are notoriously dangerous, there are only 2 in existence on the whole planet. This is a BAD IDEA.

Australia had manufacturing when there was cheap power, labour and raw materials. We know have 1 out of 3. There will be no competing manufacturing of any size in Australia unless at the least we return to cheap power. Even in Tasmania which is 95% hydro the price of power has risen 600% since 1995 while the cost has barely changed.

so what exactly is the base load power required in Australia and where are the strategic load regions. Transmssion os the key and no one is discussing this. Better get the act together folks instead of politisising the private electricity supply in Australia! it does not work - we need a national strategy with State owned systems and transmission/planning.

That was excellent.

Now the yankees will also have their own Chernobyl

kinda unrelated, but I think it's time to revert element names like Sodium to Natrium, Potassium to Kalium, etc.

These small MMR's in My Opinion could only be useful in Remote Locations .. Military Bases , Mining sites even some remote towns that still use Diesel Generators so its a big no to MMR's taking existing Coal Fired Power stations locations they aren't Big enough to Replace what is being Blown Up this also goes for state governments and energy providers placing a 500 Mega Watt Battery explodes into flames and its gone where once stood a 2 GigaWatt Coal Stations the mind boggles at the Ineptitude of these people ..

The government can limit the expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and generating electricity 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.

I do wonder where on the Grubb curve SMRs actually are, given the issues NuScale had after the filming of the video. I agree with the premise that trying to replace base-load with renewables is an expensive game to play, so some thing low/no carbon to do so will reduce the overbuild game. Most people in Australia are close to the coast, and Korea are world leaders in nuclear and ship-building. Floating offshore gigawatt scale nuclear just over 12 nautical miles off the coast would be a good bet; reduced siting issues, manufactured by experts in factory conditions at the largest scale possible.

very interesting and highlights the issues and explains to the layman how the renewable only or majority approach increases the cost. Think there has been too much propaganda and people thing renewables is free energy. Maybe if its off grid, but once you connect it to the grid the cost of it greatly increases. Think more people should watch this.

Nuclear energy, especially the AP1000 construction, was so over budget and so delayed that Westinghouse went bankrupt. I'm surprised the speaker failed to mention that.

At approx 8:36 mark its stated Australia could get to its first production plant for $5B ….. May I ask in what realm?? The UK building it first plant in 30 years is expected to come in at $59B or more than 10x your fantasy South Korea I agree builds them way more cost effectively but they build fleets of them You’re smoking crack if you think in Australia you can do it at $5 with no industry no experience no workforce Inertia is the biggest issue in Australia for nuclear and doubt you’ll ever overcome that

Yep very clear whe from toilet duck advice toilet duck nuclear is totaly not needed only brainless people like to play with fire.

Muito interessante...

Evolução, gostaria tradução em português do Brasil

The government can limit the expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and generating electricity 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.