Coalition's Plan for Nuclear Reactor Locations | Ebony Bennett on ABC News Breakfast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2024
- "I think it's very different to talk about nuclear energy in the abstract compared to the idea of having one in your backyard and all the concerns that come along with that"
"Nuclear electricity is amongst the most expensive to build."
"We're still in the middle of a crisis where people are really struggling to make ends meet. The idea of doubling your electricity costs not going to be a pleasant one for most households."
- Deputy Director Ebony Bennett on ABC News Breakfast
Sign up to get our latest analysis sent to you via our fortnightly newsletter!
📧 theaus.in/newsletter
Help us make more videos like this by becoming a supporter:
❤️ theaus.in/donateYT
Place them all in Dickson. Dudton’s own electorate.
I live in Dickson, and id be fine with it but i still think its a waste of time and money. plus no one else here would have a bar of it. there is plenty of room around Samsonvale dam that's owned by some pretty wealthy people.
@@joshsmyth130 It’s a complete waste of time Josh. Nuclear energy is past tense.
New nuclear reactor sites- 1- Toorak 2-Vaucluse 3- Tenerife 4- Unley Park 5-Peppermint Grove 6- Battery Point 7- Canberra CBD.
get real get thorium
@@Rosco451 Expensive and a lot of fking around...we got no time.
It's the only part of their ethos they can say out loud in opposition. Because we all know the rest of it.
Wrong assumption. Please elaborate.
@@andrewgartlan5003 privatise cut anything give money to lobbyists war and smear about sums up duttons LNP. And fear.
WHenever the Libs/cohort talk their annual dribbling points like this, we all need to learn to collectively turn our backs as they start to talk. Please stop giving them attention
Neuclear waste, the gift that keeps on giving. 🤩
nuclear waste can be recycled, and the amount is small compared to the power output. but what is not talked about is solar panel and disposal when its retired after 15 to 20 years and what damage that does the environment.
@@scubaaddict yes radioactive waste is ok but old solar panels are downright scary. Doh 🤪
@@beesplaining1882 Solar waste poses not only a serious risk to the environment, but also to human health; it contains cadmium and lead which are known to cause cancer, neurological and cardiovascular problems. nuclear waste poses less risk as its smaller and locked away. so wont end on the local refuse dump.
@@scubaaddict ok. Thanks.
thorium is BRILLIANT
As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs.
Well, I am sure politicians can build cheaper and better “nukelar” reactors then are currently available on the planet because of inexhaustible quantities of Bulshittium. They have exclusive rights to. (Excellent for construction, particularly in the clouds, near perfect temperature and radioactive shielding etc.) As for gas, stop all extraction it is obviously cheaper to just import so no subsidies needed for that either. Perhaps some minerals could be obtained overseas too if we really need some…for all I can see we might as well skip them and just buy final products..and again save billions. Glad to hear about batteries production here, it is a bit of a low blow to show me the footage of electric motorcycles as I have been trying to find one for last seven years at least. I do not ask for much, 100 kilometres range and 100 kilometres speed. However, for some reason I can’t get one, not to mention that 18 650 battery if you can find any around here cost about $34 which is significantly more expensive than $4.20 which I used to pay when I was able to order them on eBay. So, long story short if you can direct me to the ever wise politician who is responsible for these crimes I would appreciate the information. By the way, thank you but I am curious….what went wrong? How come you are allowing people to voice their opinion? You can not maintain even basic censorship/dictatorship now?
Molten salts and SMR's are able burn spent uranium. There is entire supply ecosystem here. Not a band using toxic battery-operated toys and tools. Not withstanding the maths: p=v*i (Power = Volts x Current). Renewables have a part to play but certainly not this one size fits all approach. And not all of Australia is the same as inner Sydney! 🤠
Wow that was brilliant! You went mad at absolutely everyone and everything! … and I thought I was getting old and grumpy;)
Take Care
@@andrewgartlan5003 Hindsight is insight is foresight! Had a gutful of lying lobbyists. Proper scientists have been culled! Time for real science to speak up. 🤠
@@wikindog another dutton duffer
I don't know which parts of this are sarcasm as a matter of fact nothing you say here makes any sense, good god man get a grip of yourself
Copenhagen Atomics is developing a thorium based molten salt reactor with the same footprint as a 40 foot shipping container, which delivers 100 MW thermal energy per unit and is expected to reach an electricity price (LCoE) below $20/MWh in a mass manufacturing scenario.
There is heaps of space in down town Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth to construct Nuclear Reactors. And that is where all the water is, so no problem there, is there? When it comes to Lithium: Why don't any western governments process Lithium ores? It is a toxic nightmare of poisons and blights on ground water, where there is no down-stream industry to mitigate the pollution that that industry makes.
Asses gasses led continuing destruction.
Well said, only bought governments would force the community to pay far higher power prices. Just delay for more fossil fuels
Poor assumptions. Nuclear is cheaper over the TVO infrastructure lifespan. It also isn’t affected as much by severe weather events, which I believe we are to expect.
More research if you are interested in doing your best to understand the real world option and not just treating this important issue as a team sport.
@andrewgartlan5003 I can tell you are living in the past by your rude words. Say what you want, it won't change nuclear is far more expensive and proven by no private company worldwide would ever force high prices on their customers, only bought governments do that. Stop spreading misinformation please, it's just not helpful and makes you move further from reality.
@@andrewgartlan5003 that is complete bs tell that to tokyo duffer
The reason to use these old coal fired power plants is due to the cooling system and power distribution infrastructure being compatible with a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear is the best stable baseload option by far if we discount Geothermal with recent generations of reactors showing they are as safe and far more efficient when it comes to usage of fuel. Fuel rods that are spent can be stored locally at the power station for several decades before being transported deep underground in a seismically stable area. Shafts are lined with a substance that expand when it comes into contact with water on the off-chance of an earthquake damaging the storage facility.
Also the mining jobs from coal would be transferrable to nuclear.
Whilst the power plants would be expensive the fuel is cheap. By using existing infrastructure the cost of the construction and cost of electricity is also lowered. Long term Nuclear power plants provide more economical benefit than other forms of energy.
An Expert in Finance knows the Price of goods and services to Customers, but does so by ignoring the Cost of Production of Extraction to the sustainability of the total Environment.
If the First Law of Thermodynamics is to be believed and can be a trusted counter to the actual costs of believing Control Fraud propaganda, Nuclear Power Generation is absolutely required to protect the planet Earth.
Nuclear reactors will be built on the site of existing coal plants. These are a long way from people, because coal plants produce a huge amount of dangerous air pollution. The people who live nearest will welcome the nuclear power plants because they will bring jobs and follow through business, as well as being safer and cleaner than the coal plants.
true, but the fact is we don't need it because solar/wind is cheaper per mW and faster to build. I'm interested if gas plants could be converted to hydrogen, the idea of hydrogen vehicles is daft because they need like four times the area of storage for fuel tanks so its pretty much just going to be useable for trucks but its not like petrol/diesel is going anywhere for at least another couple decades.
@@ChristmasCrustacean1 solar and wind is cheaper, but is variable and so needs very expensive storage. When you add in this cost, and also the need for overcapacity to "charge" the storage, nuclear ends up being cheaper than renewables. The ideal is a mix of solar, wind, nuclear and hydro. Green hydrogen is very expensive now, but with R&D will probably eventually become the fuel of choice for heavy freight, mining and ag vehicles, etc. ICE will still be around in 100 years, but mainly in hybrid systems so very low emissions.
@@jinnantonix4570 I'm not anti nuclear, just anti fission. we should hold off and wait for fusion.
@@ChristmasCrustacean1 we can't hold off when coal plants are closing. Renewables alone cannot replace them.
@@jinnantonix4570 Renewables absolutely can, Brazil is bigger than Australia and has 9 times our population. They're managing just fine on mostly renewables and nuclear is just 2% of their power generation, we can get by with renewables until fusion is ready.
$8.5 Billion for a 24*7 output, Compared to 12billion for a gravity battery that doesn't create one electron of itself in fact wastes 20% of the energy it stores. $8.5B sounds like a bargain and negligible transmission costs if you just swing it over from a defunct coal station.
The bottom line is are you going to believe the lnp. Or actual qualified experts who work at the CSIRO.
yeah like how the LNP FTTN NBN plan was originally meant to cost 29 billion, actually cost 51 billion and was intentionally outdated at the word of Murdoch when the ALP plan for FTTH would have been 37 billion and better and was eventually quietly re-adopted by the the LNP in 2020 when our internet infrastructure was struggling with everyone WFH.
haha ha duffer
GET 6+ while itz cheap+
1 4 each state
Australians have an insurmountable barrier of towards the idea of Not In my Backyard mentality. Only if they can overcome that then Nuclear is possible.
So are you prepared to pay twice as much for your electricity as you drink to the nuclear reactor over your back fence?
@@MrJonnywarren1985 if you take into account that solar panel need to replaced every 15 to 20 years, new transmission lines and waste disposal of then, then compare that over 80 years ( life expectancy of a nuclear plant), the solar is 2x more expensive that nuclear.
@@scubaaddict so you're saying that the comprehensive costing that the CSIRO did just completely forgot those details... Please.
@@MrJonnywarren1985 watch Nuclear expert responds to Gencost report claim nuclear power is 2x expensive than renewables, its an interesting look at it.
@@scubaaddict source, trust me bro.
A lot of very poorly informed comments about the nuclear option. I suppose due to the long term ban even the CSIRO doesn’t seem to know a lot but also doesn’t seem to want to do anything but push their employers narrative. Integrity in science, as in so many sectors in Australia, seems lost.
What, because you say so?
The Gencost calculated LCOE for nuclear assuming an economic life of 30 years, (see Apx Table B.9 Data assumptions for LCOE calculations). Yet any nuclear plant built in Australia would have a life of at least 60, and with refit possibly 100 years. Further, the report goes to great lengths to explain that all committed energy storage and transmission projects completed prior to 2030 are not included in the costs. Deceitful? The pricing around SMRs is also disingenuously cherry picked from a single 2018 document "SMR roadmap, Canadian Nuclear Association", rather than on the projected costs for real SMRs like the Terrapower Natrium being built now in the US. Besides it is more likely Australia would opt for conventional models like the GE-Hitachi BRWX 300MW reactor which is purpose built for replacing retiring coal plants.
@@brycehamilton4903 The Gencost calculated LCOE for nuclear assuming an economic life of 30 years, (see Apx Table B.9 Data assumptions for LCOE calculations). Yet any nuclear plant built in Australia would have a life of at least 60, and with refit possibly 100 years. Further, the report goes to great lengths to explain that all committed energy storage and transmission projects completed prior to 2030 are not included in the costs. Deceitful? The pricing around SMRs is also disingenuously cherry picked from a single 2018 document "SMR roadmap, Canadian Nuclear Association", rather than on the projected costs for real SMRs like the Terrapower Natrium being built now in the US. Besides it is more likely Australia would opt for conventional models like the GE-Hitachi BRWX 300MW reactor which is purpose built for replacing retiring coal plants.
…which a 17 YO debunked.
I used to enjoy watching the ABC before they become the Labour Party’s mouthpiece.
when did that happen jennet, ida and speers all members of the honary LNP
@flodjod you sure you’ve been watching the same Insiders since Speers has taken over? Hardly LNP, he’s a suck up to the Albo way. As with Ferguson and Karvelas’ Q&A amongst others, it appears to be the ABC now way (including the lack of the flag on Australia Day)
Can’t comment on the other two.