Also, just remember that much of the huge transmission infrastructure needed for transmitting intermittent renewables will constantly be operating at very low capacity but will need to be built for intermittent high capacity spikes to load balance between regions. If Vital infrastructure is necessary but is barely used, it depicts a cost inefficiency that will inflate the overall price of the system.
Australia has sun. It can be self-sufficient with solar & storage alone. Already I have 9kWh of panels & once I get an EV - I can disconnect from the power grid the same way that I disconnected from the comms grid a decade ago. It is 15 years since I had a land line. In 15 years water & sewage will be the only infrastructure anybody needs.
@@imankhandaker6103It's not an issue about suburban or regional households. They can and should put 10GW of solar on the roof. If you live in eastern Australia within 100km of the coast also make sure you have a big battery (50KWhrs) to address the ten or so successive sunless, windless days we encounter every 24 months or so. However, the main issue is about the inner cities, export replacement, CBDs, apartments, industry and transport. That will require between 66% and 70% of the total energy needed in Australia in a post 2050 GHG constrained world. If this demand is not fully addressed the economy will collapse. No one will escape that pain. When you do the sums Australia will need at least 64GW to maintain living standards. A plausible breakdown is household rooftop PV (+batteries,) 20GW, grid scale renewables plus grid level long storage 28GW, nuclear 16GW. The main issue is the grid scale long storage. That will require five or six more pumped storage projects on the scale of Snowy Hydro2/Marinus Link/Battery of the Nation. Two or three possibilities have been identified but we need more.
You fail to acknowledge that you are talking about Distant Solar farms PLUS the Electric Grid. Aidan spoke about this grid economic problem. He said that even cost free electricity from distant renewables that needed the grid had very much the same customer supply costs $kWh as fossil fueled central generator electricity. He was and is absolutely right. He said that everyone overlooks the grid costs to the customers. Have you seen that video ? Robert Parker, the president of the Australian Nuclear Association, has also said that grid costs must be considered in locating Nuclear electricity powerstations. Robert refers to the $km. $1millions km construction costs. Have you seen his video ? Both are Decouple videos and also a presentation hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs, Robert Parker of Nuclear for Climate Australia. And president of Australian Nuclear Association. For nuclear electricity to be economical it must produce 247 for 60years to 100years. Also see, Illinois EnergyProf Economics of Nuclear Reactor UA-cam video. 14 May 2019 My point is that if nuclear does not operate 247 then it will be a massive economic mess. Nuclear must produce DIRT CHEAP electricity to sell into the grid 247. That is why base load nuclear is the nuclear promoters proposal, continuous 247 operation. My point is that the grid is 10times more expensive investment, and needs 10times bigger cashflow from the millions and millions and millions customers. So 2 parts of the grid both need cashflow 247, so that the $kWh supply rate is kept reasonably cheap to the customers. [ ] The nuclear generators must supply dirt cheap electricity to the grid 247 for economic reasons. And operational reasons. [ ] The grid must have customers cashflow 247 from reasonably priced electricity, $kWh. The grid itself is the key to understanding our clean electric future. The grid investor's investment must have cash flow in proportion to the size of the VALUE of the investment. $km x km = $Total value. The Capacity of the grid, the amount of electricity kWh the grid can carry with out overheating gives the $km. Electricity is the most expensive energy to transmit or transport. MORE electricity means MORE grid capacity, MORE grid construction at $km for the entire national grid. Remember Fossil fuels are dirt cheap because of their high energy density. And so have remained the dominant energy source. So we have the problems [ ] Expanding the existing national electric grid CAPACITY is stupendously expensive. And will take decades of construction time. [ ] Maintaining grid cashflow to the grid 'owners ', the grid investors is absolutely critical because of the size of the investment and the value of the infrastructure to society, the millions and millions and millions of customers. As customers find massive savings combing V2G EVs oversized battery parked 23hrs daily and PV rooftops then grid supply is not needed when the sunshines and when the sunsets. This will be a massive impact on the grid cashflow and the central generator's cashflow, grid electricity can crash. This is the biggest problem for future nuclear. Customers with no grid costs, no grid electricity costs,no grid electricity demand, and by selfsupplying. Basically OFFGRID in the suburbs. Modern technology in warming latitudes.
Good point. The SA Victoria interconnector does work at high capacity though, shuffling power both directions. The SA NSW interconnection is likely to follow suit. I say that because of the way weather patterns generally track West to East... windy-ness and sunny-ness. Plenty of opportunities to insert a substation for distributed generation. Also, extending focus beyond current energy generation is needed as decarbonisation of steel and fertiliser production will favour distributed generation... ideally co-generation.
Australia has a robust uranium mining industry, workers in the uranium mining industry might be interested in pushing for nuclear power adoption in Australia.
The problem is, it just doesn't take a whole lot of miners to mine uranium (unlike coal). The world-wide production of uranium ore is about 56,000 tons (thousands) annually (Australia and everyone else). That is 10% of global electricity. Australia alone mines 503,000,000 tons of coal (millions) spread over 50,000 jobs.
You can't just tajke the Uranium out of the ground and throw it into a nuclear reactor. It goes through some processing and fabrication which are done in only a few places in the world.
It isn't a political issue its just a matter of reality. That reality is that to maintain living standards post 2050 we will need all the energy we can get. Australia's Gencost energy supply modelling out to 2050 is very unconvincing. It leaves most of the renewables costs particularly energy storage and transmission out of the equation and discounts the needs of transport and industry. Australia could do worse than partner with Canada on nuclear energy. 4*4GW (16GW total) Darlington scale CANDU6 plants would go most of the way to solving Australia's energy supply problems in a post green house gas era. This would still require 48GW of renewables including storage, but with nuclear meeting the baseload this would be a much more manageable proposition.
Aidan Morrison was right about the French submarine investment being a waste of national wealth. Only nuclear submarines had the capacity to achieve the military objectives. There was a fundamental error in the French submarines solution. Fortunately, the government listened and pivoted to the nuclear submarines and paid off the French, and ended the contracts. Aidan correctly highlighted the grid costs as being the huge majority costs of grid electricity. My understanding is that the EV, Electric Vehicles, will add to grid electricity demand and Australia has 20million vehicles. 20years to all new electric vehicles at 1million per year. Most vehicles mileage is 10,000 miles or 16,000km yearly. 10,000 hours per year (8,760) means most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day. EV batteries are for the long drive or weekly top up. EV batteries are oversized for 23hrs parking every day. And daily top-up. EV oversized battery are massive, and available, for FREE storage every day. 20million EVs and 20million PV rooftop systems can easily out perform the existing national 25gW fossil fueled electricity generation plant. Full UTILIZATION of nuclear electricity generation plants VS the full UTILIZATION by the customer's 'NO GRID' electricity generation and storage. Dirt cheap electricity. Customer's advantage is savings from : No grid electricity costs. No imported petroleum costs. No gas heating and cooking and hotwater costs. Free electricity storage, 23hrs every day. $0 Feed-in 5cents kWh to the grid or day trading electricity with the grid. Shaded rooftops lower energy costs. Warming latitudes, less heating. $10,000 tax free savings every year to the customer. I think that the customers becomes the most important part of our clean electric future. I think that the grid owners will partner up with the customers as the customer UNLOADS the national grid and industrial customers move AWAY from fossil fuels and TO grid electricity. The grid owners benefits will be maintained cashflow and no new grid capacity construction. Customer's benefit will be grid backup in times of customers own plant failure and some cashflow from the grid to the small customer. Remember millions and millions and millions of customers. Nuclear power plants cashflow will never eventuate. Government money for construction and profit garrentees and disaster insurance will never happen.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Ever heard of Swedish Gotland class, Stirling Electric submarines? The $100 million submarine that successfully sunk the $ 6 billion aircraft-carrier flagship of the US Navy - the Ronald Reagan? It is not something they advertise - Google it.
The cost of fueling a nuclear power plant is very low for the electricity produced. It is second only to hydropower in the incremental cost of electricity, Some loss in efficiency for passive shutdown cooling and steam storage for fast peaking back up of wild AC from solar and wind generated electricity has little overall cost. It would still likely be cheaper to just make all the electricity efficiently with nuclear power designed for efficiency without steam storage than to backup wind and solar generated electricity. A typical steam cycle can not be used for quick response peaking applications.
Is it possible to understand who is paying for this research? There is too much secrecy in corporate activities. We must get an idea of the vested interests involved. This is true of all the viewpoints in this debate. As far as i can see energy costs started rising shortly after energy was privatised.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 According to the Australia Institutes research ("Electricity and privatisation: what happened to those promises?") privatisation started in 1995 and from 1995 to 2012 energy prices rose 170% - productivity in the energy sector fell 25% while productivity across all workers (in Aus) increased by 33%
This is my thoughts, build nuclear power station but one only as a guide and see if it is right idea just see cost.? The power we get from it be great to,we have heels of coal all we have to do is figure out how to neutralise the waste from coal chimney that's smarter.
Energy Australia will pay 7c/kWh for daytime solar feed in and charge $34c/kWh to supply... with current overheads. Add $330B for nuclear & $4B for transmission wires... cost is est $8500 per person plus cost blowouts, interest, EA overheads. All hospitals rely on battery backup (UPS) for essential services during backouts.
people do not understand that the grid itself has a large cost to the customer. That is seen in my 5cents kWh feedin and 50cents kWh supply. But if all your energy comes off your roof and you stop gas heating etc, and petroleum purchases and grid supply electricity usage then the benefits to the customers just gets better. Grid owners are terrified of this. The suggestion that the grid may have to turn off rooftop PV with higher feedin causing grid destabilisation is a worry that customers may not turn the grid back on. Just leave the grid turned off until the customer needs a little more to top off the home battery now and again. As the grid cost itself are fixed, costs will need to be shared with fewer customers. 4million rooftop PV today, EVs being charged from home, v2g Australian Standards are being developed. More and bigger rooftop PV being installed. 10, 13, 17kW systems. People are trading in their old EVs for newer ones. The v2g features will stimulate more trade-ins. Selfplug-in selfparking will add to the v2g. When 20million 6.6kW rooftop PV then the customers will generate 660gWh. This is more than the fossil fueled 600gWh daily maximum possible. Actually, the avg demand is only 400gWh. I bet the grid owners will do a deal with rooftop PV customers and sign up heavy industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels. Same grid, more customers, less central generation, less distant renewables. Customers with an EV parked at home every day will have the v2g EV as a massive home battery backup. Customers who can plug in at work will do the same. Trickle all day long. 23hrs every day. 😊
@@JollyOldCanuck That's where batteries, pumped hydro and possibly hydrogen come in. And wind to some extent. Battery prices have fallen dramatically and are still falling. Australia is on track for cheap and low emissions electricity with wholesale prices already decreasing. Nuclear will lock in higher prices for decades to come.
@@budawang77 A grid combining solar and wind for energy generation and pumped hydro and batteries for storage is going to be more expensive and less flexible than nuclear power. Hydrogen isn't necessarily environmentally friendly, most hydrogen is a byproduct of oil and gas extraction with green hydrogen production being an energy intensive process that can only be achieved profitably in certain regions of the world, e.g., Quebec is a green hydrogen hub because it produces an insane amount of cheap electricity through hydro-electric dams.
@@JollyOldCanuckSolar or wind only may be less flexible. But when you add batteries the whole equation changes. We don't need hydrogen. Batteries are enough. LFP batteries has become much cheaper. They are getting even cheaper. According projections battery prices would decline by 50% next year.
Uranium is not cheap but I suppose when compared to coal, oil and gas energy, it is. Current prices are historically high and they are likely to increase due to geopolitics and increasing nuclear developments globally. Just like oil, demand will increase and supply may not keep pace which will drive up the price. I see only higher and higher prices for Uranium going forward. This was an interesting presentation! Thanks for posting.
Uranium is extremely cheap compared to coal. (Dec 2024 prices in USD) 1 ton coal costs about $132 and produces about as much energy as 10 grams of uranium. 1 ton of uranium costs about $154,000 and, given the above conversion factor, produces 100,000x more energy than the ton of coal. So the cost of uranium per coal-energy-equivalent (vs per ton) is $1.54 - i.e. 85x cheaper than coal. Now prices may be off a bit depending on coal grade, and uranium fuel processing, etc, but the general point is that the uranium is super-cheap compared to coal, and you would have to move a lot of decimal points to change that conclusion.
Benefits rooftop PV. Tutorial 6 V2G EV oversized battery, parked 23hrs daily. PV cheaper than windows $m² installed. Free electricity storage, 23hrs every day. $0 Day trading electricity with the grid for money. $2,000 ??? No imported petroleum savings. $3,000 2nd vehicle petroleum savings. $3,000 No grid electricity savings. $2,000 No gas heating and cooking and hotwater savings. $2,000 Shaded rooftops lower energy costs. Warming latitudes, less heating. When the sunshines all grid customers, yes.
A greater challange was touched but not developed in regards to our economy. The social capital/skills are the basis of a country's ability to prosper or decline. The broader the skills base in our society the greater our ability to recover from any crisis. Unfortunately with the mining industry dominating our economy we are rapidly losing our breadth and depth of our skills base. We need to be spending money on re-shoring industry to Australia and providing the cheapest energy possible to drive that forward. We have made a huge mistake in our current government focus and spending. Australia contributes 1.4% of CO2 to the worlds atmosphere. It is an unrealistic utopian goal to pursue anything but the cheapest energy source to produce it and supply it at the cheapest price to all consumers. That will encourage all levels of industry from the private single person right through to very large companies to be productive. It will also expand our social capital/skills spread and depth, plus generate more empolyment, making our nation much more resilient.
Canadian healthcare is actually in really bad shape. We are ranking 10/11 according to a study by CWF, US being last. Australia is third, I wouldn’t have used that analogy… I’m not sure why you would say that without checking it first. Anyways onwards to the main event.
If Australia rushes into nuclear, we may miss the dual chance of standardising on Gen4 reactors that avoid water cooling, and sticking to a common technology like France, with economies of scale.
CO2 emissions climate change and nuclear promoters are saying 2% reduction because the national grid is too fragile and lightweight and unstable. Australia's energy is only 10% electric and nuclear promoters are saying only 10% x 20% = 2%. Dutton is a little lightweight waste of space. ALP is heavy weight and looking at Australia's 100% energy. v2g 20million vehicles is 2,000gWh daily storage PV 20million rooftops is 660gWh daily new customer electricity. All customer financed from existing customers budgets. Grid upgrade is strategically brilliant. Customers Benefits. Imported petroleum tax-free savings. $3,000 to $5,000 per vehicle per year. Import priced Australian gas tax-free savings in all electric homes. Heating, cooking, hotwater. $2,000 per year Grid's expensive electricity is not needed, tax-free savings. My 50cents kWh supply is a massive disincentive to millions of customers. Grid is free to supply industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels to clean electricity. GRID OWNERS do not have to build more grid capacity. $TRILLIONS savings no new construction. benefits.
The LOW efficiency of silicon solar panels, combined with high energy required to process the silicon, combined with the real-world degradation profile of silicon subjected to the very solar radiation that is the fundamental input to the conversion to electricity - those factors and more mean that solar panels (and same for wind) will never return more energy than was required to build and install them. Fundamentally solar is NOT scalable, and as mentioned here, and seen in California and Texas now - all is well when the sun shines, the instantaneous cost of power sometimes goes negative, and then as night falls, the grid is stressed to the point of breaking, to make up for the lost power.
He is right that the existing experience with water-based reactors keeps costs and planning predictable, but I can't help but desire the benefits of a homogenous liquid fuel, high operating temperature, low pressure and better fuel burnup which an MSR can provide.
Wow! Hocus pocus air independent high pressure steam tekamanology at greater than 3million megaJoules of energy per kilo plus the growth in sthn hemisphere engineering skillset, stacks up.
so his speach is mostly anti-renewable; therefor : ... nuclear . Honnestly there really isn't much about pro nuclear, except that electricty from 40 year old nuclear plant is cheaper then brand new windturbine. It's lobbyist at his finest, i m neither pro nuclear nor anti, they probably will have a place beside renewable, but i don't think they are better, just simply part of a more resillient diversified grid, contrary to what he seem to imply, i really don't think nuclear is cheaper. It shouldn't be nuclear or renewable ; it should be lot of renewable paired with some nuclear
@@jayareaytee Didn't you watch? "Renewable" is a vague blanket buzz term which encompasses many different, diverse and complex systems each with their own costing and structure difficulties. Hydroelectric power is generally the cheapest dispatchable power source.
@@nolan4339 yeah and pumped hydro powered by renewable (solar and wind ) is the cheapest by far. I think there is this weird focus on Ontario as a nuclear utopia, when there are other Canadian provinces that use renewables and have cheaper electricity. South Australia is a perfect example. They almost have 100% renewable in the grid backed by firming batteries and they have some of the cheapest electricity in Australia.
Dutton and his LNP lackies accuse Labors spending as excessive and the root cause of inflation. How is spending $300 billion dollars of taxpayers money, plus propping up the coal and gas industry and not reducing the cost of power going to help ? People need to put some serious thought into this.
CIS, I am Glad Your Trying to be Independent. However, Where is the SOLAR ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH Australia can Pay Attention to ?. Where is the TIDAL ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?. Where is the WAVE ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?. Where is the GEO-THERMAL ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?.
All this discussion is a total waste of time when you eventually come to realise we have solved fusion nuclear energy. Research "The Safire Reactor" and realise all of its enormous advantages-any size, cheap and ultimately safe on any scale.. Please start demanding it!
Just confused jumble of ????? Let me tell you some medical facts, I am a Construction Engineer and obviously well qualified to give medical advice. 😮😊😊😊😊
@jetnavigator yeah chernobyl & Fukushima never happened. And think tanks of greedy rich global terrorust fascists don't control media & government - violating democracy. Advancing the rich by stealing from, exploiting & persecuting everybody else. Police are not going to protect you leeches from the violence you create.
@jetnavigator I live in New Zealand, highest rate of skin cancer killing people on the planet due to ozone hole above us. I miss the months of cold frosty mornings of autumn & winter. And the constant whining of people in power that we now don't have enough water for everybody & it must be metered & us peasants charged for how much we use. $$$$$ so we have to pay to water the vegetable gardens we need to grow food in order to survive. As we don't earn enough to have food security. People denied shelter & food security eventually going to come after the terrorists that deprive them their civil rights & basic necessities of life.
Muppets, I’ll stick to my solar and batteries thanks. The sun is free you can’t beat that. And then my battery powers my house overnight and enough left over to export to the grid. I make money!
Grid cashflow. Tutorial 5 The grid wants customers cashflow and dirt cheap electricity. The customers can supply dirt cheap electricity. New industrial grid customers, moving away from fossil fuels, can now supply CASHFLOW to the grid. Nuclear dirt cheap electricity only if 247 demand. Nuclear needs 60years of 247 cashflow. In 10years, oversized battery EVs and PV rooftops in the millions will be the end of nuclear electricity cashflow. Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day and all night long. V2G selfparking selfplug-in EVs
Also, just remember that much of the huge transmission infrastructure needed for transmitting intermittent renewables will constantly be operating at very low capacity but will need to be built for intermittent high capacity spikes to load balance between regions. If Vital infrastructure is necessary but is barely used, it depicts a cost inefficiency that will inflate the overall price of the system.
Australia has sun. It can be self-sufficient with solar & storage alone. Already I have 9kWh of panels & once I get an EV - I can disconnect from the power grid the same way that I disconnected from the comms grid a decade ago. It is 15 years since I had a land line.
In 15 years water & sewage will be the only infrastructure anybody needs.
@@imankhandaker6103It's not an issue about suburban or regional households. They can and should put 10GW of solar on the roof. If you live in eastern Australia within 100km of the coast also make sure you have a big battery (50KWhrs) to address the ten or so successive sunless, windless days we encounter every 24 months or so.
However, the main issue is about the inner cities, export replacement, CBDs, apartments, industry and transport. That will require between 66% and 70% of the total energy needed in Australia in a post 2050 GHG constrained world. If this demand is not fully addressed the economy will collapse. No one will escape that pain.
When you do the sums Australia will need at least 64GW to maintain living standards. A plausible breakdown is household rooftop PV (+batteries,) 20GW, grid scale renewables plus grid level long storage 28GW, nuclear 16GW.
The main issue is the grid scale long storage. That will require five or six more pumped storage projects on the scale of Snowy Hydro2/Marinus Link/Battery of the Nation. Two or three possibilities have been identified but we need more.
You fail to acknowledge that you are talking about Distant Solar farms PLUS the Electric Grid.
Aidan spoke about this grid economic problem.
He said that even cost free electricity from distant renewables that needed the grid had very much the same customer supply costs $kWh as fossil fueled central generator electricity.
He was and is absolutely right.
He said that everyone overlooks the grid costs to the customers.
Have you seen that video ?
Robert Parker, the president of the Australian Nuclear Association, has also said that grid costs must be considered in locating Nuclear electricity powerstations.
Robert refers to the $km. $1millions km construction costs.
Have you seen his video ?
Both are Decouple videos and also a presentation hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs, Robert Parker of Nuclear for Climate Australia. And president of Australian Nuclear Association.
For nuclear electricity to be economical it must produce 247 for 60years to 100years.
Also see,
Illinois EnergyProf
Economics of Nuclear Reactor
UA-cam video.
14 May 2019
My point is that if nuclear does not operate 247 then it will be a massive economic mess.
Nuclear must produce DIRT CHEAP electricity to sell into the grid 247.
That is why base load nuclear is the nuclear promoters proposal, continuous 247 operation.
My point is that the grid is 10times more expensive investment, and needs 10times bigger cashflow from the millions and millions and millions customers.
So 2 parts of the grid both need cashflow 247, so that the $kWh supply rate is kept reasonably cheap to the customers.
[ ] The nuclear generators must supply dirt cheap electricity to the grid 247 for economic reasons. And operational reasons.
[ ] The grid must have customers cashflow 247 from reasonably priced electricity, $kWh.
The grid itself is the key to understanding our clean electric future.
The grid investor's investment must have cash flow in proportion to the size of the VALUE of the investment. $km x km = $Total value.
The Capacity of the grid, the amount of electricity kWh the grid can carry with out overheating gives the $km.
Electricity is the most expensive energy to transmit or transport.
MORE electricity means MORE grid capacity, MORE grid construction at $km for the entire national grid.
Remember Fossil fuels are dirt cheap because of their high energy density. And so have remained the dominant energy source.
So we have the problems
[ ] Expanding the existing national electric grid CAPACITY is stupendously expensive. And will take decades of construction time.
[ ] Maintaining grid cashflow to the grid 'owners ', the grid investors is absolutely critical because of the size of the investment and the value of the infrastructure to society, the millions and millions and millions of customers.
As customers find massive savings combing V2G EVs oversized battery parked 23hrs daily and PV rooftops then grid supply is not needed when the sunshines and when the sunsets.
This will be a massive impact on the grid cashflow and the central generator's cashflow, grid electricity can crash.
This is the biggest problem for future nuclear.
Customers with no grid costs, no grid electricity costs,no grid electricity demand, and by selfsupplying.
Basically OFFGRID in the suburbs.
Modern technology in warming latitudes.
Good point.
The SA Victoria interconnector does work at high capacity though, shuffling power both directions. The SA NSW interconnection is likely to follow suit. I say that because of the way weather patterns generally track West to East... windy-ness and sunny-ness.
Plenty of opportunities to insert a substation for distributed generation. Also, extending focus beyond current energy generation is needed as decarbonisation of steel and fertiliser production will favour distributed generation... ideally co-generation.
@@nolan4339 If only someone could invent a battery, to store electrical power? One day ... some day.
Loved the lecture!
Really great discussion
Australia has a robust uranium mining industry, workers in the uranium mining industry might be interested in pushing for nuclear power adoption in Australia.
We have 1/3 of the world’s uranium! Should a no brainer to use nuclear….
The problem is, it just doesn't take a whole lot of miners to mine uranium (unlike coal).
The world-wide production of uranium ore is about 56,000 tons (thousands) annually (Australia and everyone else).
That is 10% of global electricity.
Australia alone mines 503,000,000 tons of coal (millions) spread over 50,000 jobs.
You can't just tajke the Uranium out of the ground and throw it into a nuclear reactor. It goes through some processing and fabrication which are done in only a few places in the world.
@@santoshrathod123 Depends on the type of reactor, Canadian CANDU reactors use unenriched uranium as fuel.
It isn't a political issue its just a matter of reality. That reality is that to maintain living standards post 2050 we will need all the energy we can get.
Australia's Gencost energy supply modelling out to 2050 is very unconvincing. It leaves most of the renewables costs particularly energy storage and transmission out of the equation and discounts the needs of transport and industry.
Australia could do worse than partner with Canada on nuclear energy. 4*4GW (16GW total) Darlington scale CANDU6 plants would go most of the way to solving Australia's energy supply problems in a post green house gas era. This would still require 48GW of renewables including storage, but with nuclear meeting the baseload this would be a much more manageable proposition.
Aidan Morrison was right about the French submarine investment being a waste of national wealth.
Only nuclear submarines had the capacity to achieve the military objectives.
There was a fundamental error in the French submarines solution.
Fortunately, the government listened and pivoted to the nuclear submarines and paid off the French, and ended the contracts.
Aidan correctly highlighted the grid costs as being the huge majority costs of grid electricity.
My understanding is that the EV, Electric Vehicles, will add to grid electricity demand and Australia has 20million vehicles.
20years to all new electric vehicles at 1million per year.
Most vehicles mileage is 10,000 miles or 16,000km yearly.
10,000 hours per year (8,760) means most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day.
EV batteries are for the long drive or weekly top up.
EV batteries are oversized for 23hrs parking every day. And daily top-up.
EV oversized battery are massive, and available, for FREE storage every day.
20million EVs and 20million PV rooftop systems can easily out perform the existing national 25gW fossil fueled electricity generation plant.
Full UTILIZATION of nuclear electricity generation plants VS the full UTILIZATION by the customer's 'NO GRID' electricity generation and storage. Dirt cheap electricity.
Customer's advantage is savings from :
No grid electricity costs.
No imported petroleum costs.
No gas heating and cooking and hotwater costs.
Free electricity storage, 23hrs every day. $0
Feed-in 5cents kWh to the grid or day trading electricity with the grid.
Shaded rooftops lower energy costs.
Warming latitudes, less heating.
$10,000 tax free savings every year to the customer.
I think that the customers becomes the most important part of our clean electric future.
I think that the grid owners will partner up with the customers as the customer UNLOADS the national grid and industrial customers move AWAY from fossil fuels and TO grid electricity.
The grid owners benefits will be maintained cashflow and no new grid capacity construction.
Customer's benefit will be grid backup in times of customers own plant failure and some cashflow from the grid to the small customer.
Remember millions and millions and millions of customers.
Nuclear power plants cashflow will never eventuate.
Government money for construction and profit garrentees and disaster insurance will never happen.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Ever heard of Swedish Gotland class, Stirling Electric submarines? The $100 million submarine that successfully sunk the $ 6 billion aircraft-carrier flagship of the US Navy - the Ronald Reagan? It is not something they advertise - Google it.
Too many ads, absolutely annoys when you listening to a podcast and 5mins of ads pop in every 10mins
Try replay media catcher, dload all your yt and many other site videos to watch at your whim add free.
Pay for UA-cam premium or pay by watching ads…either way you gotta pay.
The cost of fueling a nuclear power plant is very low for the electricity produced. It is second only to hydropower in the incremental cost of electricity, Some loss in efficiency for passive shutdown cooling and steam storage for fast peaking back up of wild AC from solar and wind generated electricity has little overall cost. It would still likely be cheaper to just make all the electricity efficiently with nuclear power designed for efficiency without steam storage than to backup wind and solar generated electricity. A typical steam cycle can not be used for quick response peaking applications.
Is it possible to understand who is paying for this research? There is too much secrecy in corporate activities. We must get an idea of the vested interests involved. This is true of all the viewpoints in this debate. As far as i can see energy costs started rising shortly after energy was privatised.
Actually at first 'costs' came down quite a lot in the late 80's and 90's. That's a search worth doing.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 According to the Australia Institutes research ("Electricity and privatisation: what happened to those promises?") privatisation started in 1995 and from 1995 to 2012 energy prices rose 170% - productivity in the energy sector fell 25% while productivity across all workers (in Aus) increased by 33%
Lowering CO2 emissions is irrelevant.
Great Plant food, more production per Ha, or even backyard garden
CK is a legend. Nice
Thankyou
This is my thoughts, build nuclear power station but one only as a guide and see if it is right idea just see cost.?
The power we get from it be great to,we have heels of coal all we have to do is figure out how to neutralise the waste from coal chimney that's smarter.
Energy Australia will pay 7c/kWh for daytime solar feed in and charge $34c/kWh to supply... with current overheads. Add $330B for nuclear & $4B for transmission wires... cost is est $8500 per person plus cost blowouts, interest, EA overheads.
All hospitals rely on battery backup (UPS) for essential services during backouts.
people do not understand that the grid itself has a large cost to the customer.
That is seen in my 5cents kWh feedin and 50cents kWh supply.
But if all your energy comes off your roof and you stop gas heating etc, and petroleum purchases and grid supply electricity usage then the benefits to the customers just gets better.
Grid owners are terrified of this.
The suggestion that the grid may have to turn off rooftop PV with higher feedin causing grid destabilisation is a worry that customers may not turn the grid back on.
Just leave the grid turned off until the customer needs a little more to top off the home battery now and again.
As the grid cost itself are fixed, costs will need to be shared with fewer customers.
4million rooftop PV today, EVs being charged from home, v2g Australian Standards are being developed.
More and bigger rooftop PV being installed. 10, 13, 17kW systems.
People are trading in their old EVs for newer ones.
The v2g features will stimulate more trade-ins.
Selfplug-in selfparking will add to the v2g.
When 20million 6.6kW rooftop PV then the customers will generate 660gWh.
This is more than the fossil fueled 600gWh daily maximum possible.
Actually, the avg demand is only 400gWh.
I bet the grid owners will do a deal with rooftop PV customers and sign up heavy industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels.
Same grid, more customers, less central generation, less distant renewables.
Customers with an EV parked at home every day will have the v2g EV as a massive home battery backup.
Customers who can plug in at work will do the same. Trickle all day long. 23hrs every day. 😊
I have lived in Aust for about 4 decades. My estimate is, Aust needs about 4 centuries to decide, so no worries.
To state the obvious: Australia is far better endowed with solar potential than Canada.
Australia is still bound by solar's biggest drawback, lack of energy production at night time.
@@JollyOldCanuck That's where batteries, pumped hydro and possibly hydrogen come in. And wind to some extent. Battery prices have fallen dramatically and are still falling. Australia is on track for cheap and low emissions electricity with wholesale prices already decreasing. Nuclear will lock in higher prices for decades to come.
@@budawang77 A grid combining solar and wind for energy generation and pumped hydro and batteries for storage is going to be more expensive and less flexible than nuclear power. Hydrogen isn't necessarily environmentally friendly, most hydrogen is a byproduct of oil and gas extraction with green hydrogen production being an energy intensive process that can only be achieved profitably in certain regions of the world, e.g., Quebec is a green hydrogen hub because it produces an insane amount of cheap electricity through hydro-electric dams.
@@JollyOldCanuckbatteries getting cheaper every year.
@@JollyOldCanuckSolar or wind only may be less flexible. But when you add batteries the whole equation changes. We don't need hydrogen. Batteries are enough. LFP batteries has become much cheaper. They are getting even cheaper. According projections battery prices would decline by 50% next year.
0:04:30
Absolutely beggaring that we must default to calling the use of these figures "mistakes".
New fuel pellets using thorium burns more fuel material leaving less waste.
Uranium is not cheap but I suppose when compared to coal, oil and gas energy, it is. Current prices are historically high and they are likely to increase due to geopolitics and increasing nuclear developments globally. Just like oil, demand will increase and supply may not keep pace which will drive up the price. I see only higher and higher prices for Uranium going forward.
This was an interesting presentation! Thanks for posting.
Uranium is extremely cheap compared to coal.
(Dec 2024 prices in USD)
1 ton coal costs about $132 and produces about as much energy as 10 grams of uranium.
1 ton of uranium costs about $154,000 and, given the above conversion factor, produces 100,000x more energy than the ton of coal.
So the cost of uranium per coal-energy-equivalent (vs per ton) is $1.54 - i.e. 85x cheaper than coal.
Now prices may be off a bit depending on coal grade, and uranium fuel processing, etc, but the general point is that the uranium is super-cheap compared to coal, and you would have to move a lot of decimal points to change that conclusion.
New tech reduces temperatures 600 degrees to melt aluminum.
Benefits rooftop PV. Tutorial 6
V2G EV oversized battery, parked 23hrs daily.
PV cheaper than windows $m² installed.
Free electricity storage, 23hrs every day. $0
Day trading electricity with the grid for money. $2,000 ???
No imported petroleum savings. $3,000
2nd vehicle petroleum savings. $3,000
No grid electricity savings. $2,000
No gas heating and cooking and hotwater savings. $2,000
Shaded rooftops lower energy costs.
Warming latitudes, less heating.
When the sunshines all grid customers, yes.
Who are the top 10 Funders for CIS?
You don't seem to be very transparent
A greater challange was touched but not developed in regards to our economy.
The social capital/skills are the basis of a country's ability to prosper or decline. The broader the skills base in our society the greater our ability to recover from any crisis. Unfortunately with the mining industry dominating our economy we are rapidly losing our breadth and depth of our skills base. We need to be spending money on re-shoring industry to Australia and providing the cheapest energy possible to drive that forward. We have made a huge mistake in our current government focus and spending.
Australia contributes 1.4% of CO2 to the worlds atmosphere. It is an unrealistic utopian goal to pursue anything but the cheapest energy source to produce it and supply it at the cheapest price to all consumers. That will encourage all levels of industry from the private single person right through to very large companies to be productive. It will also expand our social capital/skills spread and depth, plus generate more empolyment, making our nation much more resilient.
Canadian healthcare is actually in really bad shape. We are ranking 10/11 according to a study by CWF, US being last. Australia is third, I wouldn’t have used that analogy… I’m not sure why you would say that without checking it first. Anyways onwards to the main event.
Dirty coal is only good for fly ash used in cement production.
Get rid of of stupid high pressure reactors, it cost so much to stop the fun that happens when cooling fails
If Australia rushes into nuclear, we may miss the dual chance of standardising on Gen4 reactors that avoid water cooling, and sticking to a common technology like France, with economies of scale.
CO2 emissions climate change and nuclear promoters are saying 2% reduction because the national grid is too fragile and lightweight and unstable.
Australia's energy is only 10% electric and nuclear promoters are saying
only 10% x 20% = 2%.
Dutton is a little lightweight waste of space.
ALP is heavy weight and looking at Australia's 100% energy.
v2g 20million vehicles is 2,000gWh daily storage
PV 20million rooftops is 660gWh daily new customer electricity.
All customer financed from existing customers budgets.
Grid upgrade is strategically brilliant.
Customers Benefits.
Imported petroleum tax-free savings.
$3,000 to $5,000 per vehicle per year.
Import priced Australian gas tax-free savings in all electric homes. Heating, cooking, hotwater.
$2,000 per year
Grid's expensive electricity is not needed, tax-free savings.
My 50cents kWh supply is a massive disincentive to millions of customers.
Grid is free to supply industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels to clean electricity.
GRID OWNERS do not have to build more grid capacity.
$TRILLIONS savings no new construction. benefits.
Australia has sun.
The LOW efficiency of silicon solar panels, combined with high energy required to process the silicon, combined with the real-world degradation profile of silicon subjected to the very solar radiation that is the fundamental input to the conversion to electricity - those factors and more mean that solar panels (and same for wind) will never return more energy than was required to build and install them. Fundamentally solar is NOT scalable, and as mentioned here, and seen in California and Texas now - all is well when the sun shines, the instantaneous cost of power sometimes goes negative, and then as night falls, the grid is stressed to the point of breaking, to make up for the lost power.
Yes, and plenty of economically illiterate people who cannot do math, just like every other place.
He just said MSR only had 4 years experience, and they were given a chance.
That argument refutes itself.
Argument from ignorance!
He is right that the existing experience with water-based reactors keeps costs and planning predictable, but I can't help but desire the benefits of a homogenous liquid fuel, high operating temperature, low pressure and better fuel burnup which an MSR can provide.
Wow! Hocus pocus air independent high pressure steam tekamanology at greater than 3million megaJoules of energy per kilo plus the growth in sthn hemisphere engineering skillset, stacks up.
so his speach is mostly anti-renewable; therefor : ... nuclear . Honnestly there really isn't much about pro nuclear, except that electricty from 40 year old nuclear plant is cheaper then brand new windturbine. It's lobbyist at his finest, i m neither pro nuclear nor anti, they probably will have a place beside renewable, but i don't think they are better, just simply part of a more resillient diversified grid, contrary to what he seem to imply, i really don't think nuclear is cheaper.
It shouldn't be nuclear or renewable ; it should be lot of renewable paired with some nuclear
Australia could not run "some" Nuclear cost effectively. No scare = No Cost Efficiencies
lol. Second cheapest… what’s the first? Huh???
Hydro power
@@nolan4339 so renewable power.
@@jayareaytee Didn't you watch? "Renewable" is a vague blanket buzz term which encompasses many different, diverse and complex systems each with their own costing and structure difficulties. Hydroelectric power is generally the cheapest dispatchable power source.
@@nolan4339 yeah and pumped hydro powered by renewable (solar and wind ) is the cheapest by far. I think there is this weird focus on Ontario as a nuclear utopia, when there are other Canadian provinces that use renewables and have cheaper electricity. South Australia is a perfect example. They almost have 100% renewable in the grid backed by firming batteries and they have some of the cheapest electricity in Australia.
Hydro
Dutton and his LNP lackies accuse Labors spending as excessive and the root cause of inflation. How is spending $300 billion dollars of taxpayers money, plus propping up the coal and gas industry and not reducing the cost of power going to help ? People need to put some serious thought into this.
GO COAL, CO2 IS A GREAT PLANT FOOD!!!
Where all the money government wasted on ,Australia want our resources back
CIS,
I am Glad Your Trying to be Independent.
However,
Where is the SOLAR ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH Australia can Pay Attention to ?.
Where is the TIDAL ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?.
Where is the WAVE ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?.
Where is the GEO-THERMAL ENERGY EXPERT SPEECH, Australia can Pay Attention to ?.
All this discussion is a total waste of time when you eventually come to realise we have solved fusion nuclear energy. Research "The Safire Reactor" and realise all of its enormous advantages-any size, cheap and ultimately safe on any scale.. Please start demanding it!
I'm STILL waiting for my compensation cheque from Chernobyl.
Well, if you're still waiting, you must still be alive and kicking.
Have you tried reaching out to the soviets?
Just confused jumble of ?????
Let me tell you some medical facts, I am a Construction Engineer and obviously well qualified to give medical advice. 😮😊😊😊😊
This guy isn't a doctor in anything to do with nuclear.. True obfuscation
He had the story Liberals want to hear
Abe he has a podcast..... So must be real
Neither was Helen Caldicott - but people listened to her anti-nuclear drivel.
Monbiot & Hedges talk about this corrupt proliferation of think tanks such as yours. At least you identify yourselves.
Moonbat.
It's not "decarbonising", it's deindustrialising. Not a single catastrophic climate alarmist prediction has come true.
@@jetnavigator maggot
@jetnavigator yeah chernobyl & Fukushima never happened. And think tanks of greedy rich global terrorust fascists don't control media & government - violating democracy. Advancing the rich by stealing from, exploiting & persecuting everybody else. Police are not going to protect you leeches from the violence you create.
@jetnavigator I live in New Zealand, highest rate of skin cancer killing people on the planet due to ozone hole above us.
I miss the months of cold frosty mornings of autumn & winter. And the constant whining of people in power that we now don't have enough water for everybody & it must be metered & us peasants charged for how much we use. $$$$$ so we have to pay to water the vegetable gardens we need to grow food in order to survive. As we don't earn enough to have food security.
People denied shelter & food security eventually going to come after the terrorists that deprive them their civil rights & basic necessities of life.
Muppets, I’ll stick to my solar and batteries thanks. The sun is free you can’t beat that. And then my battery powers my house overnight and enough left over to export to the grid. I make money!
Grid cashflow. Tutorial 5
The grid wants customers cashflow and dirt cheap electricity.
The customers can supply dirt cheap electricity.
New industrial grid customers, moving away from fossil fuels, can now supply CASHFLOW to the grid.
Nuclear dirt cheap electricity only if 247 demand.
Nuclear needs 60years of 247 cashflow.
In 10years, oversized battery EVs and PV rooftops in the millions will be the end of nuclear electricity cashflow.
Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day and all night long. V2G selfparking selfplug-in EVs