What to do about the energy transition? | Alan Finkel and Aidan Morrison
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Alan Finkel, former Chief Scientist of Australia, and Aidan Morrison Director of Energy at the Centre for Independent Studies discuss the energy transition, tackling the question of whether the current efforts should be redoubled, or whether a rethink is required.
Australia stands at a fork in the road. The current plan to transition to a system dominated by wind and solar is encountering headwinds, with infrastructure investments facing unexpected social, economic, and environmental challenges. Are we still on the optimal path to net-zero? Are we on a viable one?
As Alan said, "It's been a long time since I've had to convince an audience that climate change is real" so it is clear we are making progress in public discourse. However, with climate change is happening faster than we even expected it to, we urgently need a solution. But of the four options for clean energy we have handicapped ourselves by only accepting wind and solar. No one is talking about hydro and nuclear has been banned in Australia.
If we are to effectively tackle climate change, we need to have very good reason to take any clean energy source off the table and out of the conversation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centreforindependentstudies
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/
In other words, the real problem is that Australians are extremely conservative and parochial and can't (or don't want to) comprehend the big picture.
@@budawang77 people don’t think about electricity beyond their home and more recently their car. Additionally they don’t understand the connection between prosperity and energy.
@@handlethejandalnonsense
Agree with Alan,
The situation is potentially existential. Collapse is already happening in some parts of the world and are very likely to spread. Australia must act in making itself both secure and part of the solution.
When it comes to nucleAr technology three or four standardised Canadian developed CANDU power stations, comparable to Canada's Darlington Nuclear Power Station would solve Australia's base load problem, which amounts to about 25% of total power needed.
CANDUs are a reliable, mature technology and lend themselves to lower tech manufacturing. They have a very good safety record, are proliferation resistant and can burn a mix of nuclear fuels including low enriched uranium, waste from other reactors, and thorium, a metal Australia has in abundance. Their main downside is the initial added cost of loading them with heavy water.
Existential? No, it's not. We don't even know if it is occurring, caused by man, or if we could (should) do anything about it. The only thing for sure is that climate alarmists are running wild.
@jimgraham6722 Yes I think CANDU (heavy water, unenriched uranium, or even the Clean Core thorium HALEU) is a good match, just like in Canada.
The heavy water cost is far more predictable than other aspects of nuclear construction. One might argue that the lead times and a build program might enable Australia to develop their own heavy water manufacturing capability, so is money circulating around the economy. The heavy water plant might even be a good fit for solar thermal, for added credentials.
@@asabriggs6426 I attended the opening ceremony for the US's most recently approved "fail safe" NPP. A contingent from the Indian Government was present. The company announced the purchase of three identical plants and an option for two more.
Existential to modern society. agree. If one pandemic and a small war in Europe upended our economies and supply chains imagine what global coastal flooding will do. The question is not if but when and will we be dependant on foreign jurisdictions or will we be self reliant.
Aidan’s presentation is spot on. How we’ve not taken account of so many costs in looking at the “Transition”.
We MUST look at the present costs vs the alleged benefits way down the line.
So if the last kW sold dictates the electricity price should we bypass the whole VRE vs nuclear debate as reframe the conversation as what is the second cheapest source of electricity to complement VRE's? Then the question should be: is it better to have gas peaking and batteries or nuclear to complement VRE's?
(For context Gencost (Apx Table B.10) puts peaking gas LCOE (20% load) at between $138 - $296 /MWh and nuclear LCOE at $136 - $252 /MWh. So with the ISP's plan to have peaking gas run at 5% then the gas supplied electricity is most certainly going to be a lot more expensive than having nuclear in the mix.)
gas/batteries vs nuclear:
Environmentally: nuclear beats gas and batteries on emissions and mining
Flexibility: gas wins
Price volatility: nuclear wins as uranium is such a small component of the cost
Compatibility with heavy industry*: nuclear is the only player as it trumps gas on emissions (and firmed VRE's on cost predictability)
*For me the most important. As Aidan notes cement, steel, and global transport are the most daunting items on the decarb list and if Australia is not able to be price competitive with solutions then we are surrendering these most important decarb challenges to developing countries who may not share the same urgency and/or means as us to to prioritise.
So if nuclear ticks most of the boxes then when it's bought online the regulator will have good rational to prioritise nuclear's contribution to the grid to negate the need for peaking gas. VRE's will be curtailed in the interest of long-term electricity prices and for environmental impact reasons.
Then with all this stable nuclear electricity the economy (inc. green exports) will thrive and electricity rebates and the cost of living crises will be a distant memory.
Agree
LCOE per MWH is very difficult for Gas Turbine Peakers cos how much will they ever produce. Better to think like this. We build 15GW of Gas Turbine Peakers and we will never have to worry about a Supply Gap again and we can reach 90%+ renewables with that model.
That's exactly the crux of the problem. The renewable crowd is fixated on an arbitrary renewable target at the cost of all else. The target should be sustainably low carbon electricity AND low as practicable electricity prices. The cost of electricity impacts every single aspect of our economy. Electricity prices are a fundamental input to our economic productivity and competitiveness. Cheap electricity (not to be confused with cheap capex) is the best economic stimulation that a government can deliver, it increases our competitiveness across the board allows an economy to thrive.
Australia is currently a wealthy country, we should be aiming for the Rolls Royce solution. VRE's are great for developing countries as some electricity is better than no electricity but we need the best electricity in order to sustain our prosperity and contribute meaningfully to the global decarb project. Global warming will be expensive and we will need every dollar we can generate to get through.
00:01 PUBLIC CHANNEL* Educate on Money * Credit * Debt & Politics * Keep it Simple ! Ham Radio Operator VK3GFS is following this great content 73s Frank 1:29:10
Aidan Morrison is the probably the best energy analyst in Australia. He knows more about the energy needs of Australia than AEMO and CSIRO combined. Aidan leaves Finkel in the dust when assessing the future of energy.
@@shaunbooth1836 he’s a right wing puppet of the fossil fuel industry. He lacks any unbiased knowledge of the clean energy transition and is trapped by an archaic dogma. The facade of knowledge is not the same as industry experts and scientists.
18:54 we build a wind farm and reduce the risk of global warming? isn't Australia 1% of global emissions
Believe it or not, we're not the only country trying to solve climate change.
@@infinityubs what about the gas and coal we export that is burnt overseas. Does that count?
@@budawang77 > Believe it or not, we're not the only country trying to solve climate change.
Unlike France which decarbonized their electricity decades back with nuclear, and is now working on their other emissions sectors.
@@factnotfiction5915 France indeed generates much of its electricity from nuclear. However, they built their nuclear plants a long ago when wind and solar were not viable technologies. France was and still is a more technologically advanced country than Australia with deep expertise in nuclear physics. Australia has no existing nuclear industry and would have an enormous challenge to build the required scientific and industrial capability almost from scratch.Despite its success with nuclear, France is planning to reduce its reliance on nuclear. Turns out nuclear reactors are not that reliable.
I can comprehend the big picture in one hundred years, if technology is not continually improved. The Liberal Party has totally stuffed science in Australia.
Well yes, they banned nuclear power....fucking bananas!
Totally predictable, should have started sooner, it's going to hurt a lot, never believe 'the best', prepare for the worst.
Wind turbines and solar panels are rebuildable not renewable,require huge amount s of coal for their production. You won't smelt aluminium with rebuildables
Aluminium smelting isn’t a huge percentage of our emissions 🤦♀️
@lindam.1502 seems like you're missing the point, aluminium is only one consideration, many industries require significant energy inputs that renewables alone can't deliver.
Solar energy is cheap if you have low cost capital and if you use the electricity to produce green hydrogen, for cooling buildings or charging EVs when the sun shines. There are plenty of applications where solar energy is cheap, but it is much too expensive for base-load electricity.
Way less expensive than nuclear ☢️
Aiden Morrison, seems to forget that the power of electricity, is being controlled by the many, not the greedy few. Roof Top Solar is definitely empowering for the individual, there are individuals who are able to make very good use of sharing their power generation.
Australians are sick of the privatisation that is the true source of high power prices. Amusingly Nuclear power would be government owned because private business doesn't want the risk. Grid forming inverter technology continues to change the way 'baseload@ power is thought of ! More balance is needed in this debate.
Rooftop solar empowers a certain class of people who own a home - and can afford the upfront installation. Poorer people like me in an apartment have no such opportunities - but privileged home owners can buy into the roof-top business which is partly subsidized by the state - and in the USA are guaranteed a certain resale price, whether or not the electricity provider needs the power or not. That raises prices for everybody else who can't afford that luxury. People tend not just to "share" their surplus - they tend to sell it.
@@pascalbercker7487. Not buying a Submarine would allow all Australian households to be part of the transition 👍
Aiden Morrison avoids mentioning the cost of Nuclear Waste. The longer he spoke the more it seems he is supported by legacy power sources.
The cost of nuclear waste is quite low. In the US, it has been set at 0.1 cents / kWh (decimal place is correct), collected at the time of generation.
Clearly not a large % issue for costs.
@@factnotfiction5915, your not including the security which in the USA particularly has escalated since 9/11, no one mentions this !
@@RichardCostello-wj8gy you spoke of nuclear waste, not security - typical
however, AGAIN the cost of the security is borne by the plant operator, so that is INCLUDED in the electricity price
We need Saul Griffiths, to be part of this debate ! Saul is already getting on with the job !
@@RichardCostello-wj8gy Saul is excellent. One smart guy.
Which job is getting on with? His book The Big Switch is very poorly informed and plain wrong in places so which job?
We need Simon Michaux and real number crunching, not pie in the sky ideas.
Why do I get the impression that Aidan is a gun for hire for big nuclear industrial interests?
Because he is.
That is not how Aiden became involved in understanding and calling out the (deliberate) errors and omissions in both AEMO's ISP and CSIRO's GenCosts. Literally someone asked Aidan to look into them both and it all grew from there.
Why is Aidan pro-nuclear? Because he is a Physicist and nuclear makes total sense to anyone wanting reliable, abundant, clean power.
Who cares? If you really want CO2 reduction, why would you care if he worked for nuclear interests?
I don't care if he's paid by Satan himself. He brings strong arguments.
@@johnk-pc2zx Really? Dr Finkel was much more convincing and clearly far more experienced and knowledgeable.
With nuclear no one ever talks about the stable society required to look after the waste for 100000 years. Is that factored in to EROEI. If the whole world goes to nuclear there is enough reserves of uranium for 80 years and it doesn't address transport freight,only electrickity.
Where does the 100k years come from? What is the risk threshold? How much should we value 1 life in 100k years versus 100 years versus today? Would we be better off spending money on healthcare, sanitation and education elsewhere in the world today with the economic impact generated by nuclear, or by changing the risk thresholds of the nuclear repository?
"Hurry up and approve my renewables projects so I can make a fortune. I don't care about the dying birds, I need my money now! I'll be dead soon!"
- Alan Finkel
More birds 🦅 are killed by pollution and climate change than turbines 🤦♀️
In Europe it’s a straight line up and to the right: The more the amount of RE in the economy, the more the cost of electricity.
It’s simply wrong to say the Renewables are “cheap”. They’re not. Australia is the same. We’ve gone from cheap-ish electricity to amongst the highest in the world.
Let’s go nuclear.
@@peterforsythe3643 Not true our electricity prices are the absolute average in the world, do your research before making BS claims.
In September 2023, French people (non business rates) paid on average 27.2 cents per kWh, compared to 46.5 in the UK, 37.9 in Germany and 34.9 in the Netherlands. Italy and Spain rank lower at 23.9 and 19.4 respectively.
Wrong 😑 AEMO credits renewables for bringing down the wholesale cost of electricity over Summer: Victoria and parts of NSW are getting 6% price cuts for their wholesale electricity, it’s up to the retailers to pass them on.
Australia should embrace fossil fuels while benefitting from alternative energy sources when and if it is economically feasible. Climate change is a baseless argument. CO2, as a culprit, was pulled out of a hat. The notion that climate change, if it could be determined to occur and was caused by humans, is the result of CO2 is absurd.
Don't try to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
Dr Finkel's arguments were weaker than expected for a person of his statue.
@@user-rq2do4wg1b were you watching the same presentation?
@@Carbonalternatives"17:09 quoting Hugh Mackay the BHP Chief Economist "The cure to high prices is high prices" ... not a great argument as that can also be applied to the nuclear learning curve!
Starting any discussion with "the question of climate change is settled and therefore..." is absurd.
Certainly NOT an open discussion.
You cannot solve the Base load energy problem you solve nothing. Use Gas-based energy as a transition to Nuclear.
Stop Snowy 2.0 now.
as outrageously expensive as it is I think the argument for completing is is very similar to the argument for nuclear. Large capex but extremely long and dependable life, pumped hydro also has a long history of working hand in hand with nuclear
@handlethejandal Thank you for your comment. "In the long run, we will all be dead." In my opinion, both arguments rely, at least in part, on the man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming scam, and are inadequate for a finite economy. If there is made a sound economic case for nuclear against coal, then I will accept that.
Why is Australia becoming a third world country and being forced to keep our resources in the ground? Use them to make Australia a rich and powerful nation.
How short-sighted are you? Can you not see the wildfires caused by climate change already, also in Australia? How much hotter would you like it to be? Many countries are also already fighting with rising sea levels, others with extended droughts, a "storm of the century" every year or likewise floodings of a century every year but you just want to keep going as if nothing had happened? Seriously?
@@PEdulis Climate Alarmism is a mental illness.
@@PEdulisyou can't be serious you poor brainwashed soul
Australia is not being forced to keep it resources in the ground, it basically gives it away to foreign countries
Short term solution will only make it worse because it’s not fixing d root issue
Aidans speech was an insult to Alan Finkels deep knowledge, industry experience and intelligence. It was devoid of any common sense and so biased towards maintaining the status quo. Carbon reduction targets are urgent due to delaying the energy transition and climate denial of the coalition.
You will struggle to find a sensible person who thinks rooftop solar is the worst option. You need to broaden your thinking and expand your circle of influence. We didn’t do nuclear because coal was cheaper and we won’t do nuclear because renewables are cheaper and getting cheaper. You need to rethink your ideology as it’s trapped you into a narrowing path and dogma. 1:03:07
He said rooftop solar was most expensive not worst. You should support legalising nuclear so we can get to net 0
@@danielmaher964You really don't understand the big picture, Siberia need nuclear power, Australia doesn't we all get to net zero or none of do. Your 20 century competitive thing will ensure mankind will fail.
Trashing and undermining someone’s argument is not an insult. Finkel is a sold out liar.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 it wasn’t a sensible argument but uniformed rant.
@@danielmaher964 can he please explain how rooftop solar is the most expensive form of energy? 3.76 million systems producing around 3.75GW of electricity. That’s a lot of households making a bad financial decision. You cannot be serious.
Alan has always been a snake oil salesman when it comes to climate.
As an engineer his first question should be “is there a problem?”.
That would have saved him wasting his time with the rest of his climate spiel.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 are you a climate change denier?
@@Carbonalternativesno, the climate always changes, I’m a realist. The AGW hypothesis is bunk. There is NO EVIDENCE man is influencing global temperature. NONE bar fabrications based on spurious data and modelling.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 you cannot be serious. Yes, climate changes occur naturally but the link between rising Co2e emissions and warming is irrefutable. To take the opposite position is denying the facts.
@@Carbonalternativesyour appeal to authority is worthless. CO2 levels are the result of temperature changes, they are not the driver.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 🤯😂👌🏻