Decoding NUCLEAR Spin - What’s the REAL Story on the Cost of Nuclear?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2024
- Our pathetic politicians have shamefully put the interests of Australia second to political point scoring, game playing and spin. Without cheap reliable energy we have no energy security or military security. Our Energy guru Ben Beattie and our Economics expert Scott Pelto untangle the lies.
Bangladesh just started producing electricity from a nuclear power plant and they a third world country why can’t Australia afford 6 power stations!!!
Africa has better internet than Australia we are behind many 3rd world countries it seems and declining daily.
Don't need it we have coal and gas.
@@peteseed5383yes and 95%* is sold internationally where it is used to produce energy.
* feel free to correct this figure.
personally i have solar and battery because i didn't trust the government would fix this mess. we had a blackout not so long ago in our area and we didn't notice.
they keep talking about solar on homes, but the grid can't handle all the power homes produce. i really don't know what they've been trying to prove screwing up this hard.
What wasn't discussed is the cost of renewables has to be repeated about every 20 years when everything needs replacing.
Modern reactors are very likely to last 100 years.
Less than $20b per reactor for nuclear so are we building 30 reactors to get to Bowen's $600b or shouldn't he be trusted to run a chook raffle on a Friday night.
I'd be in favour of building all nuclear and scrapping renewables because where is the sense in building and paying for two systems because one is intermittent
Decommissioning nuclear is a nightmare you should look at to be unbiased. Coal and gas beat both options.
He mention Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at 1.3 GW per reactor, $17b.
Rough calculation .... to get 50 GW, you'd need 40 reactors ... 40 x 17 = $680b
@@footbruStill less than half of the 1.5 trillion what Labor want to spend in the next 5 years
Another major unnecessary cost with renewables are the 28,000 kms of bushfire starting HV grid transmission lines that scar and destroy more protected & environmental areas.
Forget the renewables scam and just go nuclear, cheaper, reliable, better for growing industries & nation.
The real nightmare is the millions of tons of pollutants created by coal and gas that have just been pumped into the atmosphere and forgotten.
Remember global warming.
Do you worry about the hundreds of X-ray clinics and their decommissioning?
Let's have a serious discussion.
Small nuclear reactors have been used to safely power nuclear submarines for decades and they go for 30 years without needing to replenish their fuel.
Nuclear fission should be used as a stepping stone until nuclear fusion or some other green alternative can be developed, which can provide consistent and reliable base load power.
No country using SMR is sharing their tech, especially the sub reactors, so that is a pipe dream.
@@ianian9078
Look at MSR and see who and why they are going that way
@@justintoeverything nuclear is not green or net zero.
@@peteseed5383 I hate to burst your bubble but neither is solar or wind at this stage 😂
@@justintoeverything no bubble burst. I 100% agree.
Ask Bill Gates he's building one in Idaho right now pretty sure he's across the figures.
exactly, and he says Australia should focus on renewables.
so you all want to know how a Nuclear power station works! Non of you know how a coal fired station works so why would you be interested in nuclear
Saying 'other countries have it' as your argument doesn't provide any insight into why Australia should invest in nuclear. Given that Nuclear generated energy is more expensive than renewable in those countries, what's the benefit for Australia to spend so much money on the generation of 5-10% of our energy requirement? Needs to be more convincing to beat out the current firmed renewable + gas plan.
> Saying 'other countries have it' as your argument doesn't provide any insight into why Australia should invest in nuclear.
Agreed.
> Needs to be more convincing to beat out the current firmed renewable + gas plan.
Ben Beattie pointed out Bowen's $121 billion amount was committed planning, not total plan need for his vision. I believe neither the CSIRO nor AEMO reports give total plan numbers - then they slam the Coalitions nuclear plan as being 'uncosted'!
> Given that Nuclear generated energy is more expensive than renewable in those countries
Yes, nuclear generation is more expensive, BUT!!!! total system costs are lower!
This is because the costs of generation are not the total system costs. In the US, generation is 60% (per EIA) of total system costs. In Australia 40% (per AEMO) of total system costs.
The remainder is transmission, distribution, firming, etc.
Nuclear total system costs are lower because you don't need much new transmission/distribution, and you don't need much firming (because nuclear is predictable, thus easier to design/build those systems).
Wind/solar total system costs are likely higher because you need a LOT of new transmission (or you can't geographically balance the country's weather-dependent generation). You need a LOT of new distribution for rooftop solar. You need a LOT of storage (battery, hydro, whatever) for intermittency mitigation.
Thus, if wind/solar cheap - and everything else is expensive (and it is) - it doesn't matter so much that wind/solar are 'cheap'.
Thus, empirically, nuclear France has lower _retail_ rates than VRE Germany.
Thus, empirically, nuclear Illinois has lower _retail_ rates than VRE California.
etc, etc, etc - the wholesale rates aren't that interesting.
> benefit for Australia to spend so much money on the generation of 5-10% of our energy requirement?
Bowen mooted $750 billion AUD for nuclear. If you build a fleet of NPPs, the cost per reactor will drop due to learning and standardization. So, the first few, very expensive, the last few, not so much.
KEPCO sold the UAE 5.6 GW of nuclear for $25 billion USD = $27.5 billion AUD = $5 billion AUD / GW
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
which implies 153 GW nuclear @ $750 billion AUD (for a demand of 35 GW per the program!)
Alternatively, given 35 GW at Barakah prices = $175 billion AUD for 35 GW of dispatchable 24/7 nuclear
(vs $121 billion AUD for a non-full plan of intermittent weather-dependent wind/solar)
In short, the _real_ numbers are a lot better for nuclear and a bit worse for VRE than CSIRO/AEMO/Bowen are stating.
If only they were interested in an actual look at the issue, as opposed to grandstanding and, as the commentator says, misrepresentations. The other point - it wouldn't stand as a basic business plan is just so totally correct - it doesn't have internal consistency, let alone appears correct in aggregate, that it is just hard to take these reports seriously.
Great to get some solid info on this topic!
The price of electricity COULD be irrelevant. I was thinking about pricing yesterday, and something occurred to me - I imagine everyone already realised this.
Dutton has proposed to nationalise energy production, so the price of electricity can be anything the government of the day chooses. That applies mainly to Duttons' nuclear plan, because he proposes to made all other energy production redundant.
So he can set the price. He could make it FREE. And he could justify this by pointing to defence and other areas of government spending, where there is no expectation of profit or even cost recovery. Absolutely no reason why electricity couldn't be the same. Industry could receive heavily subsidised electricity (it would be nice if they paid their taxes in exchange lol).
It goes against all conservative philosophies, but when he proposed to build the reactors, he basically abandoned all that anyway.
Dentist drills and Open Heart Surgery powered by peddling patients.
Here we go, government builds.
Like the little boy saying " I will pay for it, you just give me the money "
Nuclear subs about time.
Nuclear electricity economically insane.
With 20million EVs parked 23hrs every day and all night long selfplug-in and trickle currents 23/7 grid electricity will need big government legislation banning rooftop PV and EVs customers self supply.
When talking about the cost of nuclear power, i never hear anyone say that in comparison to weather dependant forms of generation, nuclear will deliver its capacity 24/7.
@@adrianbrazier5422 coal and gas already doing that at a lower cost, more safely.
The current electrical generation and distribution model was designed in the 19th century. The three problems with the old model are; Large capacity remote generation which gives the risk of power outages if a single generator is taken off line or a HV powerline is damaged. Secondly the current model requires rapid response generating capacity being able to provide for Peak power loads during peak demand which can be taken off line when the demand decreases. Finally finally because the entire system is designed around a peak power demand bringing new power plants on line lags seriously behind the peak demand. Having a power GRID of a number of linked HV distribution systems across vast distances brings very high distribution costs whereas the use of power capacity generation distributed across the country and MESHED together reduces the power losses and cost attributable to HV transmission systems. With a large number of SMRs providing excess generating capacity rather than balancing the power system by adding or subtracting generators the network could be balanced by switching STATE environmental services loads. Loads such as desalination could drought proof Australia as well as providing environmental inflows, and if Fossil fuels remain a requirement for long haul transport coal, water, and electricity can be used to synthesize crude oil for domestic consumption. SMRs would be ideal if distributed around the country generating power where it is to be consumed, (this would equate to less transmission losses and lower costs. Australians are an inventive lot that has lead the world in many areas and electrical power MESH technology could be the next advance in electrical power technology.
yup SMRs could solve alot of problems, industrial heat being one, which in turn could provide power into the system as well.
I want to see a fair dinkum estimate of the cost of renewables, including the required transmission lines, required battery storage, rates for the large amount of land occupied, and ongoing maintenance of the massive installed amount of plant. You need a whole system cost to compare.
And the forecast replacement timeframes and replacement costs 🤔
@@simonpeel7490 I LIKE the fact that renewables have to be replaced. They will be replaced with better and better.
@@paulwary you should want a fair dinkum cost of all options. This would include decommissioning and waste recycling and storage. Nuclear is off the charts, coal and gas in this country have no competition.
@@peteseed5383 I do want to see costs on all options. Trouble is, industry advocates or ideologues will give their own preferred tech little scrutiny, yet apply different standards to the competition. Decommisionng is expensive I am sure, but after how long, and after how much energy has been produced? The volume of waste is quite small for nuclear. and there are several options to deal with it. The area taken up by nuclear plant is tiny compared to that of wind and solar, and it lasts far longer in operation. Fast breeder reactors can also burn most of the most dangerous waste, so that is an option too. I just want to hear the full story, not scaremongering. If you are serious about dealing with climate change, you must consider the highest density energy source we can utilise.
@@paulwary thanks for the respectful reply. You are correct with trying to find costings for nuclear and renewables almost like their trying to hide something. Lifespan currently is 30 to 50 years decommissioning is around one to two billion but that does not include securing , monitoring and cleanup of storage which off the US costings and degradation rates till unnecessary could be that again .Recycling waste is expensive which is why countries don't bother. Unrecycled high level waste is deadly for half a million years. Probably why just the UK alone admitted to dumping 70 000 tonnes of it in the ocean and despite there so called ban Japan has permission and is releasing it into the ocean at present. Logically carbon would be safer to release IMHO.
It's not enough to have capacity. You have to have *capacity when it's needed.*
Brilliant discussion. Thanks for this.
There was a brown out here on Thursday morning. A taste of the future, no doubt.
EXPERTS that all we hear from our Govt's but we never see them in a debate. Great you had these two guys on giving us real information. We had enough of "the science"and experts" during the COVID BS
So when will it be legislated that all new roofing must be integrated solar collectors?
I am pro nuclear but Australia has a terrible record for building anything technical on budget. Amything that involves a process has large overruns. We basically have no expertise.
We have no expertise because scum politicians have continued to sell us out and keep this country in its backward ways.
thats why we should just buy SMRs from overseas that were built in factories/shipyards, tho it would be better if we built our own factories/shipyards that could build SMRs and sell them overseas but alas :/
Hire the Koreans, train up your guys on the 1st reactor, expand from there.
@@bencoad8492 Just point out the shop where we can buy SMR's.
Thumbs down if you don’t see why it’s your problem
Ye we spent 5bl on a water treatment plant that we don't need or use in vic
25gW fossil fueled generation is 600gWh per day max.
This is only 15% of all Australian energy consumption.
SMRs 300mW × 80 = 24gW
$2billion × 80 = $160billion.
This is baby arithmetic.
15% to 100% is x7 $160B = $1.12TRILLION.
For 100% electric Australia by nuclear generators.
PLUS extra grid capacity $TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS 😮
A wise man once said, you miss 100 percent of shots that you don’t take!
A bad lesson to learn re solar wind wanking water batteries etc, is no different from an equivalent nuclear spend
Build four plants if that’s what it take to reduce costs
If they suck then at the very least they operate 24/7
Cook dinner for 1$ or don’t cook dinner for 90 cents
Here in Australia we are silly fools if we don't develop and utilise nuclear power generation technology and industry, for our base load energy generation and utilisation needs.
I am fed up with listening to the decades and decades of leftist propergander, that has uninformed and emotively demonised nuclear power generation and utilisation, as some sort of out of control boogeyman!
I am not against the ongoing research and development of renewable energy generation and utilisation, however these are peripherals that can't provide the base load of energy for the power grid, presently only nuclear, and fossil fuels can do this.
And we can do this cheaply, we have some of the biggest deposits of appropriate fissionable radioactive material in the world.
We could also develop a hugely lucrative export trade, in this sort of radioactive material.
This ubiquitous barrage of Net Zero is an extremely impractical Net BS leftist propergander!
As James Lindsay has said, "the communists don't know how". The communists only know how to tear down and destroy!
So why do I only get 8 c/ kWh when it’s as good as any other supply?
Why Stop at only 20 minutes . Why !
Grid electricity is a dead duck, an economic dead duck.
Generation is a $BILLIONS problem.
The national electrical grid is a $TRILLIONS infrastructure that needs $100BILLIONs cashflows per year.
More grid capacity is more $TRILLIONS in grid construction.
EV big batteries parked 23hrs every day and all night long and rooftop PV will easily beat grid electricity supply.
Grid supply to buildings will not be needed.
The only thing that will protect grid cashflow will be making PV and EV illegal.
Grid costs are fixed costs shared over millions and millions of customers.
Grid makes dirt cheap electricity very expensive electricity.
My feed-in 5cents, grid supply is 50cents kWh.
These morons have no idea how much cashflow the grid infrastructure investment needs.
LNP and ALP are both morons on this grid matter.
Cold latitudes solutions are not warm latitudes solutions
Unfortunately this is a very deceptive presentation based on what is NOT said as much as what is said. The guests critique the subsidising of renewables while making no mention of the current annual $14Billion subsidies given to fossil fuel companies. They also do not mention that nuclear power is state subsidised in every country in which it is used and does not stack up without state subsidy. The biggest silence is around the fact that the IPCC has told us that irreversible climate tipping points will be reached this decade and nuclear power would be lucky to be operating here by the late 2030s.
Sure nuclear should be part of the mix. Start building it now, but not at the expense of reducing the ramping up of renewables to save us from the looming climate catastrophe that’s on our doorstep. And definitely don’t use the distant probability of nuclear reactors operating across Australia as an excuse to prolong the disastrous extension of fossil fuel usage.
So if nuclear is viable why does Dutton need it to be state owned?
Why would we have critical infrastructure by foreigners.
This is a good question - one argument would be "because it is unattractive to investors since it is less profitable (i.e. lower cost to the consumer)".
The generation companies LOVE renewables because when the renewable supply is sparse and the gas peaking plants must fill the shortfall, they can make their entire year profit in a single day...
When the spot price peaks, the dollars fall from heaven - why would they ever want to change that?
45bl
Cheaper than a destination water plant, of which are mothballed and not in use.
Or even a desalination plant 😂
Like the UN. UNclear..................👆
Let's get Russia to build one if we want cost-effective, reliable, safe power stations. Russia is the only country in the world that recycles nuclear rods and makes them reusable again. With Canada, we end up paying triple due to corruption and in the end, we end up paying Russia for recycling our rods anyway, so why don't we get the best of the best in the beginning.
So does France.
@@killcat1971 you better recheck your info)
Pumped Hydro seems absurd to me. And wasteful. Nuclear yes 👍
Offshore wind, yes, one 16MW turbine can power 170,000 homes!
Pumped hydro is specifically for regulating short term excess or shortage to help keep the grid stable. It’s an alternative to gas generators
@@paulwary One idea was to use excess power from nuclear reactors (such as overnight) to produce Hydrogen, then use that to run turbines in peak demand.
@@killcat1971 Seems reasonable, or thermal storage as molten salt or hot sand. Both renewables and nuclear needs quickly dispatchable energy storage, so we should be building it regardless.
Upvote just because you can pronounce nuclear correctly.
Thanks
I just watched Chernobyl… like 2 days ago. It was crazy!
It was caused by communism/socialism - a system that values sucking up to the bosses and ignoring problems rather than pointing things out and being driven by commercial imperatives. The technology has advanced just a tiny bit since then.
repeat after me "Chernobyl is a 70 year old system..." do we build anything thats based on a 70 design if there are better and newer designs... no we don't...
I think the disaster in Chernobyl was based on human error not technology error.
No human error possible in the Australian government? Feels like we see it every day
So what 🤷♂️ got nothing to do with our current discussions
Solar plus battery storage is the cheapest form of energy. The market will decide.
I have solar & battery, and it's not cheap. Also there is no battery known to mankind that can power Australia at night. We need at least 7 days reserve power without a base load supply.
😂😂 that they will
so no one discusses the cost for long term HLW storage? Is that due to off setting costs by the plan since the 80s of Australia accepting all the worlds waiting HLW that is already leaking? Safe? Nah its contained just search on tritium leaks, they happen al the time but contained to site. Well thats if they ignore ground water.
the cost (in the US) of HLW storage is 0.1 US cents/kWh (decimal is correct)
the fee is collected at generation and placed into an escrow fund to eventually pay for the wast disposal
@@factnotfiction5915 thanks for at least trying to give info, but where did that amount come from? goa.gov report said in 2021 that US paid about $9 billion a year to operators for storage since they havent created a permanent solution. The amount is increasing each year.
@@factnotfiction5915 thanks for trying to at least discuss the issue, US gov report in 2021 was paying $9 billion (billion is correct) to plant operators for storage since they havent created a permanent solution. So that amount doesnt show on your power bill. Tried to link the goa gov site, but curious where you got that info from? Was it from the nuclear industry trying to down lay the actual cost to tax payers?
@@ianian9078 > Was it from the nuclear industry trying to down lay the actual cost to tax payers?
No - the US government made a contract with these operators, you (the utility) pay us (the govt) this money, and we (the govt) take care of the waste. Now, you may or may not agree with the terms, but the point being is that some bean counter thought this was fair.
Of course, given that the government _hasn't_ taken the waste, the government has to pay a penalty. Because the government is led by politicians, not businessmen, the can keeps getting kicked down the road. But that is about stupidity, not the cost of waste removal.
Other pay-as-you-go schemes charge in the similar range - it just isn't that expensive to dig a big hole and drop canisters in it.
Although you didn't ask about decommissioning, I found this so will chuck it in gratis:
www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning/finan-assur.html
The waste funds current balance is $48 billion USD
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/FY23%20-%20NWF%20Annual%20Financial%20Report%20Summary.pdf
I believe one of these links off this WIkipedia page is quite well structured, but I can't seem to find the original that I liked quickly.
Anyway, this isn't a bad primer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act
In 2024, China continues to build a significant number of new coal-fired power stations. Data indicates that China started construction on approximately 70.2 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity in 2023, which marks an increase from previous years and contrasts sharply with global trends where new coal construction is decreasing. Why because they need it to produce solar and wind tech for the suckers of the world.
They are also leading the world in new nuclear technology.
@@killcat1971 The Chinese government makes thing happen, the Australian government looks around and wonders what happened. The Chinese will dominate every profitable sector of the world economy at the cost of western jobs.
@@joelG1272 We3ll it helps that you can basically do whatever the hell you want.
@@killcat1971 Just to clarify I am not a fan of the CCP, just the opposite, but they are ahead of the curv in technology. Atomic energy is going to be base load everywhere else in the world except Australia.
we have had the coldest year both winter and summer, questioning the climate change crap, not getting hotter.
If a colder year than average in one location is proof enough for you that global warming does not exist, just wait for the next hot summer - I'm sure you will agree with us then ;)
Thanks for this discussion and in particular the graphs which help with overall perspective.
A couple of questions: no discussion of geothermal or wave ?? No discussion of lessening demand via urban planning and housing construction codes ( eg double glazing, verandahs , materials etc)?
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Coal and gas. No real competition in a dry country full of both natural resources.
Not mentioned is that once a nuclear power station is running, it becomes a money printing machine - vast amounts of electrical energy are produced from tiny amounts of fuel. Such power stations are a long term investment; I believe they take about 20 years from construction start to get to that point thus the need for initial government ownership and probably later, sale.
Nuclear all the way
Medium Wind Turbines (100 kW to 1 MW):
Foundation size: 10-15 meters in diameter.
Concrete volume: 100-300 cubic meters.
Concrete weight: 240-720 tonnes.
So x 1000 wind turbines = 720,000 tones of concrete
producing the cement required for 720 tonnes of concrete would emit approximately 81,000 kg (or 81 tonnes) of CO2. x 1000
=81000 tones of c02
This estimate includes the emissions from the cement production process but does not account for additional emissions from transporting materials and mixing the concrete.
Then there is the steel, and fiber glass.
Renewables are not very green, they have a short life span, green energy is about multinational corporations making money.
The governments talk about trickle down economy, and this is also true for political parties, donations, jobs after politics insider trading.
China is building coal fired power stations, and 26 new nuclear power stations they are not that stupid to rely on wind and solar the pedal to they rest of the world. Germany is building new LNG terminals. Germany even classified natural gas as bridging source of energy and most likely will be around for 20 years to come.
I've read that nuclear cold fusion has already been developed - and on a very small scale.
Lets look at the facts, the country that produces 80% to 90% of the worlds renewable hardware is also the largest emitter of carbon, they selling this hardware to the world and is also by far building the most new coal fired power stations as well as the most nuclear reactors. Green energy mandates is more about manufacturing counties making huge profits.
lest ask Chat GTP 4 who is building new reactors.
As of June 2024, there are 59 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide. China leads with 25 reactors, followed by India with 7, and Turkey and Russia each having 4 reactors under construction. Other countries with ongoing nuclear projects include Bangladesh, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, among others.
China is building 25 why the have huge amounts of open space for wind arms and solar, they make the turbines and solar, they still use most of the worlds coal fired power stations. Because they are not stupid like most western countries, they know they cannot produce enough reliable power from renewables.
Detective of Money Politics is following this very informative content VK3GFS 73s Frank
Nuclear Fusion will be the better option if nuclear is to be used for power generation.
However, it will be at least another 10 years before a workable real nuclear fusion power plant will be in reality.
Modular nuclear reactors for power generation/retro fit Colin's class submarines/possibly a all-purpose RAN barge ship and ice breaker instead of continuous leases from Russia/ Tasmania leased a nuclear powered ice breaker for a while until someone noticed the ship didn't take on fuel for its own use ?
It will be longer than that. Probably a lot longer. They still have not got anywhere near a break-even point in test reactors, let alone the large excess of energy required, let alone engineering a real one.