Coalition Push For Nuclear Power Despite CSIRO Report
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2024
- A new report by the CSIRO has found that a large-scale nuclear plant will take nearly 20 years to build, cost up to $16 billion and will produce electricity at twice the price of renewables. But the opposition remains determined to back it.
Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie explains why.
#AusPol #NuclearPower #RenewableEnergy
The Project should look around the world, Is this channel a paid Labour Advert ?
Yes, it's a Coalition partner to the ABC!
At all the flawed designs being used commercially? The rest of world has abandoned the design truly modern Nuclear Power Plants. Investments and State backing has dried up. Soo you clearly have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Nuclear. All you care about is domestic politics.
Almost certainly..🇦🇺
Ahh yes the rest of world where they use outdated terrible reactor designs for Commercial Power Plants. ALMOST all commercial Nuclear Power Plants are Solid Fuel Water Boilers. This is a flawed outdated design which should not have been built in the past 3 decades. You have no clue about the nuclear engineering aspects, just pushing political agenda.
Around the world where nuclear already exists or isn't suitable for Australia. Do you even think?
The CSIRO report is flawed
How so?
@@santoshrathod123just ask professor Tim Flannary - our esteemed "chief Climate change scientist" who once predicted we would never see rain again and that we need to spend billions on a desalination plant to "save the planet" due to extreme heat and no rain. He probably got his information from the same organisation. That was money well spent wasn't it? I wonder how many social housing and hospitals could have been build with those billions instead!
@@santoshrathod123 It is flawed because the Gencost report does not include the cost of all the transmission as the CSIRO and AEMO assumes that this will all be paid for by 2030 and that in itself makes renewables look like the cheapest form of energy, if you don't believe then read the report.
@@johnnywarbo
It also assumes nuclear is 30yrs, not 60yrs and didn't account for the replacement of all the renewables.
@@johnnywarbo wrong, refer to section 'Addition of integration costs for variable renewables in 2023'. They've been included in the analysis.
Much cheaper to build new coal fired powerplants in Qld. and sell the electricity cheaper to the public. If other states wanted the electricity they could buy it at a price profitable to the Qld. Government. Which hopefully would mean powerplants pay for themselves reasonably quickly. State government might make hundreds of millions of dollars selling electricity to other states. Otherwise businesses will shut down all along the east coast of Australia because electricity will be to expensive for them.
If only the common sense path were an option people would tolerate.
Those who pay piper call the tune ABC CSIRO .
Poorer countries like India have 22 muclear reactors in operation, 8 on the build, even Philippines is seeking nuclear energy, Australia is left in the dust for decades on nuclear.
I would like CSIRO , so called top Australian science institution to tell us where did India go wrong, where did Philippines go wrong?? These are fundamental common sense Q Australians should ask??
India isn't poor, it has the 5th largest GDP in the world lol
Perhaps you should look up photos of radiation contamination burns from Long Island. Go visit Northern Europe where contaminated people all have cancer from Chernobyl & grab a broom & help the Japanese clean up radiation from their recant natural disasters.
@@santoshrathod123Maybe you can tell that the 100's of millions of Indians living in poverty!
@@dominictucci6030 5th largest GDP in the world ya clown
Umm Phillipines has had a shell of a nuclear plant for a decade. The containment building was mostly completed. Philippines is a particularly bad case.
The report cost base is totally wrong. Solar needs to be replaced each 20 years, Nuclear plant lasts 80 years.
Because they have an agenda
@@Robert-cu9bm whats the agenda? Nuclear plants also need funding to extend them beyong their usual life.
Even if it costing was wrong, which its not , a Reactor may last 80 years, and even if it was more affordable to start up, which its not, , the massive amounts of water used to cool the reactor is polluted from day 1 , and the deadly waste created by the reactor, may remain lethal to all living things for at least 24, 180 years .
You really think a team of the smartest people in our society failed to incorporate depreciation into their model, knowing how politically sensitive this issue was?
@@br3089
They have very little highly radioactive waste.
And there cost on whole system is cheaper than renewables, that's why when more nuclear is added prices go down and when more renewables is added prices go up.
The woke CSIRO will say anything the woke climate labor cultists tell it to say.I'll be voting for the coalition and nuclear power.
the data changes on demand depending on how much funding you promise them
Ah yes, the 'everything I don't like is woke and bad' proposition. Definitely no cult-like behaviour being exhibited here at all. We should all just collectively stop believing in this 'woke' reality, that'll really show it.
I ll be voting One Nation .
Time taken to build a lot of nuclear power plants is often around 22 years I believe. As opposed to around 5 years probably for a coal fired powerplant. Could run the coal fired powerplants for around 17 years if both started to be built today before nuclear power-plant was ready to start up. Plenty of time to stuff things up if building a nuclear powerplant in Australia.
@@brettcrawford8878 last korean build , 4 reactors , 56 months...
Nuclear has driven down cost of energy in every other OECD country that has it... end of debate..
I know people who are dying from sever contamination related cancers from the Chernobyl melt down, where whole villages are filled with contaminated people & they don't give a toss about the savings because their lives have been destroyed by Nuclear Power.
@@stevenhart9004 "sever contamination" way to spell good!
While ignoring the cost of decommission or god forbid a disaster.
@@stevenhart9004
Ok so we don't get Russians to build interior nuclear for us.
Let's get the French who have a flawless record
No , I understand France has a huge knock on effect problem with water used to cool all their reactors.there SO MANY opportunity costs to using Nuclear. end of debate ?
Only reason its so expensive is because of labor opposition, trying to prop up their windmill/solar masters.
WEF Sustainable Economic goal Masters...👍🇦🇺
Is this the same CSIRO staffed by labor appointees?
they were in power for 9 years... whys this just a discussion now?
@ReddRubble
Since Labor started destroying our standard of living in the name of propping up the respewables scam.
@@arclux Makes zero sense, they clearly are positioning this as a must for Australia. They haven't said anything about it due to Labor's plan for renewables. If they love it so much, why did they stay silent for it for the 9 years they were in power? They could have started building 7 years ago and we'd be halfway there.
@ReddRubble
Because it was a taboo subject for 60 years. Popular support for the nuke boats showed a shift in the public's attitude. Combined with the practical failures of renewables, increasing energy costs & obvious gaslighting from labor & the greens, the public are now in a position to support it.
@@ReddRubble because the greenies wouldnt let them , the moratorium, the scaremongering, we would be nuclear right now if turnball and his rich mates went the nuclear route and all green tape , red tape , & protestors would have dissapeared, and all red carpets rolled out for it to happen
Australia's CSIRO rushes in and plays Chis Bowens White Knight after Energy market operator AEMO dumps on Bowen and warns delays in transmission projects and rushed retirement of coal generators risk blackouts in NSW, Vic and SA
Renewables work sporadically and have to be replaced every 20yrs and can't be fully recycled where are we going put all the toxic rubbish
What a bunch of absurd nonsense.
Why not just refit your coal-fired plants with nuclear reactors? That would massively save on costs right there. Also, any nuclear plants you build will be online for decades, compared to solar and wind that require much more maintenance and eventual replacement. You also can't get over the problem that solar and wind are variable in the amount of power they produce, meaning there may be times they can't generate enough power to meet demand, which is what happened in Germany.
Because those type of Nuclear Reactors are a horrible flawed design. Solid Fuel Water Boilers are a fundamental broken design that should not be used for commercial use.
CSRIO is obviously not getting those lobbying $$$s lol
Why not....? if it's making me paying cheaper electricity bill. We have resources underneath the soil anyway.
In 15 to 20 yrs???
@@gingertom56will we not need electricity in 20yrs?
Because it's horrifically expensive and all current Commercial NPP designs are flawed. You asked that rhetorical question intentionally not knowing the facts.
@@Robert-cu9bm You ignored that is about the timeline to get an NPP running if we started to design one now. 17 Years from plans to Critical is a damn good achievement.
I suspect that, like 'The Project', the CSIRO are completely ideologically captured.. & not at all impartial. This will come as no surprise to those of you with critical thinking skills...🇦🇺
Sure I would love to have a Nuclear Power Plant in our back yard. Just not a Solid Fuel Water boiler. That's like daily commuting in a FlatHead Ford in 2024. FYI There are many many designs of power generating nuclear reactors. All current commercial ones in use are terrible designs.
According to the ABC they say 8.5B - and channel 10 says 16B - whats real - whats not.
The blind public is so happy for the unfund plan.
Bridget McKenzie cites the UK but fails to note that the latest UK cost estimate is A$45 BILLION per reactor!!!
And yet they're still bringing more online. 🤔
Im all for renewables but the problem about renewables it doesn't power everything like refrigerators 24 7 and renewables need to be reliable if it is going to power the supermarkets refrigerator in blackouts
My 8 secondhand panels do.
I think you will find most shopping centres are all solar during the day.
Bunnings as well.
that’s how they can make money through the scam.
I’m surprised that the comment section is open.
Bridget McKenzie citing UAE. It is an autocracy. That saved them many years. Costs about $15 billion per reactor in the UAE, far far more in Australia due to labour costs.
About time you woke up mate. if nuclear is so expensive and wind and solar are so cheap, why do all the G20 nations, along with 50 other countries all have and build nuclear? Fact is, the nations with lots of wind and solar are the ones with the world's most expensive electricity prices. The real truth of wind and solar is that it is very expensive and is not financially viable. If they were, then there would not be the need for massive government money subsidising all of those wind and solar projects around the world.
Ok, so the UAE (a tiny country as cited in the video), without a deep history of engineering and science (in opposition to Australia), with all the inefficiencies of an autocracy (in opposition to Australia's democracy), with all the CYA (in opposition to Australia's transparency) can build these reactors quickly and efficiently (costing US$ 24.4 billion for 4 reactors to provide 5600 MWe per Wikipedia) - and you believe Australia cannot?
A lot of confidence you have in Australia!
Nuclear takes a long time to build. I dont care what the tech is, lets the free markwt decide. Without subsidies i doubt nuclear is cost effective.
*Wish I could afford solar panels and a battery*
Solar Panels is the cheap part, it's the batteries and adequate capacity which is expensive.
we've know this for ages though, most countries with nuclear power have them because they built the majority years ago when it was cheaper than renewables. if we built nuclear 2 decades or more ago, it may have worked, now its just too late and not worth it
Yes good point 👉 we've the boat.
Nothing has changed. Wind and solar are not cheap, they are expensive. Every nation that has large scale wind and solar has the most expensive electricity prices in the world. There is a reason every G20 nation has nuclear and why India and China have a big nuclear building programme. If wind and solar was cheap, why does it always get massive government taxpayer money to subsidise it? Isn't that all obvious enough to you?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Dear god...the way she debated is an embarrassment... her only argument is "other countries have nuclear so what's the big deal". Makes you wonder what kind of under the table deal they struck to make public fools of themselves to this extent.
You should wonder what deals are done for wind and solar mate. Every single project, all around the world, for wind and solar can only exist via massive public money given in subsidies by governments. Id wind and solar are so great and so cheap, why do they need artificial fiscal help to make them viable? Follow the money: every COP meeting sees hundreds of private jets carrying the world's elite, wealthiest individuals and corporations. Wake up!
5:33 UAE is oil rich country of course it will have money to set it up but that’s not the same thing with Australia for some reason our government like to sell out our our own natural gas and our own land to Israel, England, Russia and so forth not just gas mines when the biggest Coal minds in Queensland owned by India not Australia we couldn’t make more money if that’s actually stayed in Australia’s hand that Coal mine
We actually have enough of our own oil reserves to supply our domestic needs.
@@arclux?Where?
In Australia we have already had catastrophes relating to Nuclear energy. Aborigines knew some areas around Kakadu as Sick Country. There is an area of Sick Country that was mined for Uranium right beside Aboriginal cultural areas in Kakadu. A minor flood some years ago, overflowed silt ponds in the Uranium mine & Uranium was leaked in high volumes into the Kakadu wetland contaminating vast areas of World Heritage.
Mining for Uranium is going ahead in Australia and supplying the world. Your claim is meaningless with regard to the power debate. If we mine Uranium, then we should also use it. If not, is anybody calling for mine closures?
Keep rid of this terrible bais program called the project
Poor Bridget McKenzie, she probably knows as well as everyone else that Dutton's nuclear plan is a dud.
I gather, the "everyone else" you refer to are not EVERY G20 nation apart from Australia, as well as the other 50 nations currently building/evolving plans to build nuclear. Your "everyone else" are the duds who do no critical thinking on this topic and do not see that the nations with the most expensive electricity prices in the world are those who have gone big on wind and solar. I invite you to guess what the nations who have the cheapest power prices use to generate power....
The coalition says all sorts of things none of which should be taken seriously
It seems you mirror them.
I don’t think it’s safe to have a nuclear power plant in Australia why our temperature is average to 50°C also how are you supposed to cool the rods one thing for sure, I don’t want my drinking supply to cool down nuclear rods plus where we go dump the nuclear waste plus I do not want a nuclear power plant close to any beaches or shorelines because one thing for sure I don’t want the fish to have three eyes seriously these politicians never watch The Simpsons never learned from the Fukushima or Chernobyl nuclear incident
I appreciate the opinion of someone who learnt how nuclear power stations operate from The Simpson's.
@@arclux not just from The Simpsons also looking through history of disaster every meltdown and also every human cost from nuclear waste and nuclear disaster just look at the history books for example Madame Keary she discovered nuclear material and how she died nuclear poisoning couple years ago Fukushima earthquake/tsunami total nuclear power plant /meltdown Chernobyl in the 80s and lot of people that caught in the Chernobyl incident came back with cancer & birth defects so they can be positive with nuclear nuclear medicine but the majority it’s that’s why I don’t like the idea of nuclear in Australia because once we are disaster with bushfires and now because this is so fragile we really don’t want to screw it up and get the third eye or actual limb there’s also records of fish with three eyes and Argentina when nuclear powerplants located
@@arclux my god they are so scared and mis-informed , its as frightening as they think nuclear is
You know it's not safe to drive or fly ?
That Simpsons episode should be screened in Parliament to shut down Duttons folly
5:55 the same environmental concerns aren't around nuclear energy?
6:26 neither does Nuclear.