More misinformation from CSIRO on Nuclear
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Energy Minister Chris Bowen loves going on and on about how renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear energy and the media loves repeating the message. But where does Minister Bowen get this from? It all comes from the CSIRO’s annual GenCost report, in which they collaborate with the Australian Energy Market Operator to update the cost estimates of new-build electricity generation, storage and hydrogen production with (they claim) a strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement.
This report estimates the cost a private investor would face for each generation technology, including wind, solar, coal, gas and many more… just not large-scale nuclear reactors. The CSIRO decided to exclude large-scale nuclear from their analysis and instead only present the costs for small modular reactors (or SMRs). This might seem a bit odd given that large-scale nuclear is a proven technology used in over 30 countries worldwide, while SMR technology is still under development.
Let's dive in and find out why the CSIRO decided to exclude large-scale nuclear.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centreforindependentstudies
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/
What do you think of nuclear power for Australia?
It's ludicrous that Australia would call itself a modern country when it's clearly run by Luddites. Unreliables are not scalable with the current technologies, the only countries that can produce them at the claimed low costs are basically using slave labour and they actually increase energy costs by leaching efficiencies from reliable generators. When they reach a critical mass they will collapse the grid due to the inherent instabilities they introduce. But hey, we're saving the planet, just not for the humans, and especially not for The Poors.
I think we have children running the country who think if they keep on repeating the lies it will become true.
We should be developing a uranium enrichment plant given Australia possesses a large percentage of the worlds uranium, so we maximise value adding activities. At the same time we should be exploring use of nuclear power and ideally lead the charge on SMRs. But sadly it all sounds impossible at the moment.
Could you please reference or cite a LCOE study that has nuclear power cheaper than wind or solar. Thanks.
@CISAus - Well, we have ample uranium reserves, same as for quality coal & natural gas, so obviously we need to lock it up and throw away these advantages, and instead fund China & child slave labour to export all of our "emissions".. Or - well - the exact opposite? Duh!
I have zero confidence in anything at all that Bowen claims to know about. Therefore when he waffles-on about nuclear being the most expensive option by a long way, I start to think 'what ever Bowen says makes the complete opposite more likely to be the truth'.
Spot on
Correct
If wind power paid for its energy storage system (like Snowy-3), it would triple the price.
Wind is getting a free ride on gas power backup. Worse than that, it is making gas power more expensive, because gas cannot generate 24/7. If you have to shut down your ‘factory’ 40% of the time, it hugely increases the costs.
R
But they are happy to waste billions on other dodgy projects...
It's all about destabilizing our quality of life,for the worse.
Chris Bowen and the CSIRO should be charged with negligence!
And incompetence
How about fraud
Both have lost credibility now. The CSIRO needs to go the way of the ABC and restructured or closed down. That way we can afford nuclear generated electricity.
In that case the scumbags who posted this video should ALSO be charged with negligence or lying or BOTH.
At no point does she actually mention anything about the actual costs or give any details of them.
I am in favor of Australia having nuclear power, but NOBODY needs BULLSHlT and DISHONESTY no matter where its coming from. Sure the clown from CSIRO is moronic to say the least, but she's just as bad and just as misleading.
FYI - I am an engineer and we do know the costs of nuclear, because there's been enough plants built in recent years to give us those costs. We know the benefits and the issues.
*BECAUSE WE'RE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO DO THE WORK*
And I can assure you of one thing we are getting damn tired of having to re-explain everything every time someone posts a pile of crap like this and after every time a politician or one of their assistants speaks complete crap.
They will. We will subpoena you to provide evidence.
Thanks....interesting. Its strange how Australia has the largest deposit of uranium in the world and exports large amounts for use as energy in other countries.
SA had a royal commission to investigate how to cash in on its uranium. Result - only waste storage would be profitable.
@@elizabethcooke8998 Because of Russia dumping uranium and plutonium from dismantled weapons on the market, depressing prices.
@@elizabethcooke8998it doesn’t need to cash in, it only needs to replace coal for long term domestic energy generation.
Renewables still need to be renewed too often.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Oddly enough mate, the uranium and plutonium from inside nuclear weapons is completely fucking different from what we can dig up in Arnhem Land.
@@tsubadaikhan6332 You mean, one is *_fissile,_* whereas the other is *_fissile?_*
The CSIRO dude's attitude and the fact's you've highlighted make this a major news story. Can't beleive that dude has such a job. Manipulation of science. Thanks for the clip.
Mmmm. Not what you know, as obviously that isn’t much in the nuclear areana!
Relax, this video is lying to you. It's just a bunch of neo-liberal lies.
How about the clown in this video?
At no point does she actually mention anything about the actual costs or give any details of them.
I am in favor of Australia having nuclear power, but NOBODY needs BULLSHlT and DISHONESTY no matter where its coming from. Sure the clown from CSIRO is moronic to say the least, but she's just as bad and just as misleading.
FYI - I am an engineer and we do know the costs of nuclear, because there's been enough plants built in recent years to give us those costs. We know the benefits and the issues.
*BECAUSE WE'RE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO DO THE WORK*
And I can assure you of one thing we are getting damn tired of having to re-explain everything every time someone posts a pile of crap like this and after every time a politician or one of their assistants speaks complete crap.
Exactly the same as all the covid information.
That dude from the CSIRO wasn’t even in the meeting -he said he had some notes from the meeting
Chris Bowen has also found brains are very expensive and that's why he hasty purchased any for himself yet.
😂😂😂
Love this.
He's not intelligent enough to know he's not smart!🤭🤭
They wre faulty. Yes
There is no accountability both in the government and in the public service. Integrity no longer exists
This is a long read, but to break it into parts would break these connections The UN forbids all UN Member Country Government Politician Puppets from building sustainable Power supplies China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea ignore the UN Climate Change orders referring to support their Countries! Remember that in Australia the Labor/Gang-greens and LNP have signed us all up to these Globalist MONSERS UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030 to have their Global Government installed through the Continued Collaboration of participating UN Member country Government Politician TRAITORS by 2030! Private property Ownership is not Sustainable, Houses, Units Farms, Cars, Utes Motorbikes, and trucks! all land will become uninhabited government land patrolled by their AI drones, and all currency will be programmable digital currency connected to your phone and your Carbon Passport and their Facial and ambulatory recognition AI systems, in their future Plan for us all, Global Citizens will rent all their needs from the Global Government in their Great Reset planned world, WEF=WHO=EU=UN controls most of the WEST UN Member country's Government politician TRAITORS, the same as in Australia, the UN Climate Change UN Puppets pushing the UN agenda 2030 is this Labor bloke Chris Bowen (this bloke is either very stupid or a dedicated UN Puppet TRAITOR, he can't truly believe the Replaceable nonsense he's pushing? the unsustainable use of the worlds raw Materials on it own makes these replaceable energy things just an absurd impossibility these billions of Replacable things only supply 17 % of global energy and in the next 20 years just these things must be replaced, sure the WEF+EU+UN+WHO know they will never have to be successful, by 2030 the Great reset will make not need that enormas amount of power the we need today because if their Plans for the Global population succeed Human Population will already be in dramatic decline. the same as this bloke Anthony Albo-sleezy and this Bowen Bloke do NOT understand what CO2 even does? They can be called TRAITORS of course, or are they just dummies? And yet these unconscionable dummies are constantly pushing the WEF=EU=UN=WHO Climate Change nonsense! CO2 is the only reason there is any life on this planet! Why is CO2 so important for all carbon-based life on this planet, even now, CO2 is in the lowest 10% of geological history with only 400 ppm in today's atmosphere, what if in one hundred years we could somehow increase CO2 in the atmosphere to 500 ppm? The effects would be that the planet would be much greener. All agriculture would grow healthier needing far less water. THIS IS AGAINST THE GLOBALIST MONSTERS PLAN FOR YOUR FUTURE: the Globalist MONSTERS plan is for a massive global HUMAN population reduction, using Vaccines and mRNA/GMO mass-produced by the Globalist MONSTERS in their HUGE Farms,( The Globalist Monster Dr Billy Goats is now the largest private farmland owner in the USA, not producing food?) During this time of their GREAT RESET, they are creating Food shortages by their UN-controlled Puppet POLITICIAN TRAITORS legislating against Farmers and even the veggie garden in your backyard! Also, the removal of cash is essential in their global plan! Changing money to digital with a central Control centre using AI to watch every transaction! And just like the purpose of EV production, so the Globalist MONSTERS can turn it off, say a wrong word in their “Great Reset” and now you see it is gone!!!! Who will you complain to after your savings have been stolen? You will get nothing from the UN-controlled Government Politician TRAITORS! Except an internment is one of their future think-right facilities!
CSIRO are too quiet on apologising for stuffing up
How did CSRIO ever get to be a consultant expert on Energy?
Plebs acquiesce that's why
They got bought out by the highest bidder.
The CSIRO has morphed into the "communist scientific industry research organisation"
Bought out by government funding. Therefore "encouraged" to promote whatever the government policy happens to be, even if they have to fudge the numbers somewhat.
This video is lying to you.
This is why people have no trust in science anymore. Science used to be about facts and not politics. Scientists don't understand that now the public doesn't trust them on medical advice, energy, or the climate, well done team, your ability to do good has been dissolved!
There is no Science anymore, it's just Government funded propaganda
Difference on the emphasis on $cience and SCIENCE
@@RAM_845
I have no problems with Private Sector Funding science
The problem is, when Government comes in & uses Coercion
@@andrewkerr5296 my point exactly
partly true....the facts are Bullshit baffles brains and Ex-sperts think that a 5min read makes them qualified to give scientific opinions and people are too lazy to check the facts.
Bowen gets must kick backs from chinese solar panels
Someone's definately getting kickbacks down the line
One “could” surmise that the CSIRO depend on government funding, therefore, would be more likely to submit a “report” that is heavily biased and agrees with government agenda, in order to secure future funding increases ?
That’s the real issue , they absolutely rely on funding from the government, thus will wag its tail and obey the directives given to them.
Universities are no different, all the studies and research are funded by someone or an organisation and the studies and research are skewered to reflect their benefactors beliefs and ideology.
An independent scientist is an outsider and considered a conspiracy theorist or worse , not a real scientist
Their cost findings were much the same under an LNP government.
You need to dig a bit more about CSIRO and GISERA and the links to the gas industry. Here's a good start - ua-cam.com/video/-uXo7wtGW7M/v-deo.html
@@MickAngelhere Would you simpletons like to explain how they've been there through both governments since 1949, it's only now, through right wing ignorance and modern science deniers, do they see a world recognised science Institute as being "influenced by government", you people are first class 1diots....
@@gibbonsdp Exactly, the simpletons here are so ignorant it's embarrassing....
I have seen electricity bills go up at the same rate as they have expanded weather-dependent electricity production and closed fully functioning nuclear power plants.
We dont have nuclear plants here so none have been shut down. Plenty of coal plants have been closed down and more will go as time goes by. Cant complete with solar wind and peak load gas
This is a long read, but to break it into parts would break these connections The UN forbids all UN Member Country Government Politician Puppets from building sustainable Power supplies China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea ignore the UN Climate Change orders referring to support their Countries! Remember that in Australia the Labor/Gang-greens and LNP have signed us all up to these Globalist MONSERS UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030 to have their Global Government installed through the Continued Collaboration of participating UN Member country Government Politician TRAITORS by 2030! Private property Ownership is not Sustainable, Houses, Units Farms, Cars, Utes Motorbikes, and trucks! all land will become uninhabited government land patrolled by their AI drones, and all currency will be programmable digital currency connected to your phone and your Carbon Passport and their Facial and ambulatory recognition AI systems, in their future Plan for us all, Global Citizens will rent all their needs from the Global Government in their Great Reset planned world, WEF=WHO=EU=UN controls most of the WEST UN Member country's Government politician TRAITORS, the same as in Australia, the UN Climate Change UN Puppets pushing the UN agenda 2030 is this Labor bloke Chris Bowen (this bloke is either very stupid or a dedicated UN Puppet TRAITOR, he can't truly believe the Replaceable nonsense he's pushing? the unsustainable use of the worlds raw Materials on it own makes these replaceable energy things just an absurd impossibility these billions of Replacable things only supply 17 % of global energy and in the next 20 years just these things must be replaced, sure the WEF+EU+UN+WHO know they will never have to be successful, by 2030 the Great reset will make not need that enormas amount of power the we need today because if their Plans for the Global population succeed Human Population will already be in dramatic decline. the same as this bloke Anthony Albo-sleezy and this Bowen Bloke do NOT understand what CO2 even does? They can be called TRAITORS of course, or are they just dummies? And yet these unconscionable dummies are constantly pushing the WEF=EU=UN=WHO Climate Change nonsense! CO2 is the only reason there is any life on this planet! Why is CO2 so important for all carbon-based life on this planet, even now, CO2 is in the lowest 10% of geological history with only 400 ppm in today's atmosphere, what if in one hundred years we could somehow increase CO2 in the atmosphere to 500 ppm? The effects would be that the planet would be much greener. All agriculture would grow healthier needing far less water. THIS IS AGAINST THE GLOBALIST MONSTERS PLAN FOR YOUR FUTURE: the Globalist MONSTERS plan is for a massive global HUMAN population reduction, using Vaccines and mRNA/GMO mass-produced by the Globalist MONSTERS in their HUGE Farms,( The Globalist Monster Dr Billy Goats is now the largest private farmland owner in the USA, not producing food?) During this time of their GREAT RESET, they are creating Food shortages by their UN-controlled Puppet POLITICIAN TRAITORS legislating against Farmers and even the veggie garden in your backyard! Also, the removal of cash is essential in their global plan! Changing money to digital with a central Control centre using AI to watch every transaction! And just like the purpose of EV production, so the Globalist MONSTERS can turn it off, say a wrong word in their “Great Reset” and now you see it is gone!!!! Who will you complain to after your savings have been stolen? You will get nothing from the UN-controlled Government Politician TRAITORS! Except an internment is one of their future think-right facilities!
They could have dropped a nuclear power station in on the site of the former Hazelwood coal station - all the infrastructure for power distribution, cooling etc. was there. All the government really needs to do is drop the ban on nuclear energy.
Problem is, most Australians are absolutely brainwashed and ignorant on the topic of nuclear energy. No party would ever touch it. It's pretty sad
Who would pay for it and when would it arrive?
@@peterfarley8328 It'd cost a lot and probably take at least 10 years. The money being spent on Snowy 2.0 would be more than enough. My view is that the commonwealth has ignored energy policy for much too long and we basically have to keep coal stations running for decades to avoid blackouts. The fear of nuclear energy is working against the interests of Australians and the ban should be dropped.
SMR's - or at least the ones being developed by Rolls Royce - are based on technologies already existing in military shipping (aircraftcarriers and submarines, for instance). If they were too expensive then navies around the world wouldn't be buying them.
When you build a $3billion nuclear submarine you don't have to worry about the cost of power.
Have you seen the Military budget of the US?
@@elizabethcooke8998 I never mentioned the US.
@@gibbonsdp Do you not?
Yeah because they're going to put a large Nuclear reactor on a ship 😅
Thank you! Science without truth is not science.
The Hinkley nuclear plant in the UK is now 10 years over time and 50 billion over budget. Similar problems in the USA with new nuclear builds.
You have to build 4 or 5 of a single type in order to scale the learning curve to bring costs down to reasonable levels and you have to build them consecutively with a large retention of workforce. This is the lesson of nuclear builds. So yeah, if you build 5 x 1.4GW reactors the last three could be built for 7-8 billion AUD per reactor. Some recent builds in the US were more like 16 billion AUD per reactor but that is because they didn't build 5 or more consecutively.
One pumped hydro battery project in Queensland has been costed at $15 billion. Just for 24 hours of power for some of the state. Somebodies numbers are flakey.
@@infohighgatehouse7366 Other types of storage are possible too like compressed air in mines. These are being built.
@@shanewilson2484There is already 5 EPR's being build or ready and opposite has happened.
@@Rehunauris Continuous builds one after the other by the same construction teams in the same country as happened in UAE. If stop construction for years it doesn't count. The important thing is keeping much the same suppliers and much the same workforce for the year of knocking out the 5. When you lose experience and supply chains you are efffed. France built more than 30 reactors between 1977 and 1987. If you efff around with a variety of designs and you allow major discontinuity in workforce and supply chains you are screwed. That is why more of smaller reactors may work better if you can build many with the same caveats I mentioned, but you lose some economies of scale.
Even Japan which suffered a disaster at Fukushima is reinvesting in nuclear energy.
Japan doesn't have room for large scale wind and solar.
@@SimonShaws Yes that is true
A "disaster" in which how many people died or were injured? Is it more of a disaster than the number of people currently being killed by air pollution or will die from climate change?
@@martynsymons I don't understand the point of your response. Japan's embracing nuclear energy is a good thing.
@@simongross3122 Was hinting that the concept of it being a disaster is more of a media beat-up than the truth and there are other groups a bit flexible with the facts around nuclear power too.
We should have gone Nuclear 40 years ago.
Instead vested interests spent all that time terrifying Australian young people about nuclear war and made the spurious connection to energy generation, lodging it firmly the hearts and minds of Gen X & most of us can't overcome that conditioning, especially when the evidence of its superiority as an answer to clean energy concerns is being deliberately withheld (again by vested interests).
Find out who it was that failed in this debacle and drag them in front of the courts. If they are found guilty of this cover up or whatever one wants to call it , they need to have the full power of the law come down upon them. Perhaps even make them pay for these idiotic renewables that we are wasting billions $ on.
We're glad you have spoken up. There will be a team in your neighbourhood soon to evaluate a site for employing a small reactor nearby. Of course no-one has ever had one before but we like your bravado.
That would be the succession of Coalition Energy Ministers
I'm an engineer. I live on math. Did the report go into the modern gen 5 reactor designs? The fast neutron reactors that can burn nuclear waste? That other countries will pay us to take their waste? Or the fact that the new reactors burn something around 97% of the energy available in the fuel. The waste from them is a fraction of the waste generated by the old designs and doesn't need to be stored anywhere near as long. Or that the new high temperature liquid sodium reactors can take the hydrogen from sea water and combine it with carbon scrubbed from the atmosphere and produce hydrocarbons ( petroleum ).
Making hydrocarbons out of sea water and carbon dioxide via existing sodium plants? Is anyone doing it?
Is this the Fischer-Tropsch process?
@@youbigtubership based on it. You use potassium permaganate to absorb the carbon. And then recombine it in the catalyst.
I also am an engineer who was around when nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter" Nobody has considered the cost of Gen IV or Gen V reactors because no-one has built a commercial Gen V or even Gen IV reactor. Even though lab models were built in the 60's and commercial products promised in the eighties, still none in operation.
Great imagination for an e n g i n e e r
@@FernandoWINSANTO what part was imagined?
damn girl, smashed it in this piece!
Just take a quick look at Hinckley C and Sizewell C, currently being built in the UK. For power generating capacity of about 3.5 times, say, the Callide plant, the build cost of these two stations is somewhere north of AU$150bn. Now, if anyone can show that to be the most efficient and economical generating option for Australia, I'm happy to listen.
If wind power paid for its energy storage system (like Snowy-3), it would triple the price.
Wind is getting a free ride on gas power backup. Worse than that, it is making gas power more expensive, because gas cannot generate 24/7. If you have to shut down your ‘factory’ 40% of the time, it hugely increases the costs.
R
The CSIRO used to have credibility!!!!
A long time ago.
A very very long time ago.
When was that?? I lived around the corner from their centre for atmospheric research, my neighbour 'worked' there. Biggest pack of Flexi time bludgers you'll ever see, they all have a parasitic mindset that pollutes their research
So did the ABC, all the institutions are infiltrated by Marxists.
Not anymore….just another Government controlled bunch of politicised activists masquerading as ‘scientists’
I don’t know whether nuclear is appropriate for Australia because it’s still not been properly assessed. It IS expensive, but it has some unique benefits. Modern plants are very safe, and have lower radiation in use than coal fired plants. Even with the high profile nuclear accidents, the number of people estimated killed by nuclear is very small compared to other sources, like coal. My understanding is that Australia still has large reserves of uranium, but it goes to France (?) for enrichment. If you believe the risks of climate change are dire (I do), it’s crazy that nuclear is not even on the table. And if you believe prof Simon Michaux’s estimates of the raw materials required for a zero-carbon economy, we’re unlikely to make much headway unless all options are seriously considered.
Send this to Mr Chris Bowen...
when we want to deal with climate change, we need everything available to us, that does include nuclear.
if the Gencost report is cherrypicking on the things they like, rather than looking at what we need to do, then that report is not worth the paper it's written on.
What is 'climate change'? What constitutes 'climate change? Please provide an example of 'climate change' in the modern era (since 1880), because the World Meteorological Organization has never acknowledged one.
What meteorological variables/phenomena are used to categorise and classify the world's climates (Polar, Temperate, Tropical, Tundra, Arid Zone, and Mediterranean).
@@tombradshaw5164 milankovitch cycles
I never voted for the CSRIO
Fantastic post! That we don’t have affordable, clean and abundant nuclear energy in Australia simply defies reason.
When will the Centre for Independent Studies publish their funding?
Nuclear is safe and clean . Less deaths from nuclear than coal.
It's cheap for the customer.
Australia is just a few decades behind.
Where is nuclear power cheap? The French nuclear power industry is in debt to the tune of €60 billion.
No, Bowen and Labor are behind. Bowen is getting better kickbacks from green energy companies. And the CSIRO.....you cannot take them seriously. They are not a team of independent scientists. They have an agenda and make the "science" suit their agenda.
@pwillis1589 I have my father in laws belt from the USS OMAHA a Los Angeles class Nuke sub. Launched in 1976 and decommissioned 1995. From what I understand it had enough fuel to go for another 10 years. That's cheap running.
@chuckmaddison2924 The problem is, that technology is top secret and will never be shared with private industry, and it is not cheap.
@pwillis1589 Australia has a serious problem of not keeping up with the rest of the world. And would cost a bit more to get started. Technology, if I was the US President I would have a problem sharing technology with Australia due to Albo and his love affair with China.
All I know is the price of electricity dropped by allot in Finland when the built their last nuclear power station.
Nothing to do with nuclear (over 10 years late and billions over budget) but increased use of wind.
"Renewables" have CREATED the HIGH ENERGY prices.
There is zero evidence of your claim. In fact the reverse is true.
Allan Fels just said oil and gas companies are price gouging.
@@elizabethcooke8998 👍
@@keepitreal2902 the fact that your greenwashing people. Wind Turbines NEED diesel engines to START the things, Solar Panels are hard to recycle as are Lithium Ion Batteries as they pose a huge fire risk when damaged especially in an EV.
@@RAM_845 No, wind turbines do NOT use diesel engines to start them. That is misinformation. On EV battery fires, there are far more petrol and diesel engine fires than EV fires. You conveniently neglected to mention those. Lithium battery recycling rates can be 95% of material recovery (see CSIRO research). Solar panels are now 99% recoverable (see We Recycle Solar). Any other imaginary objections you can point to?
Always known Bowen was "not correct' with his nuclear claim.
Our science organisations are also directly responsible for the planning failures that contributed to the consequences of the northern NSW floods
4:18 "This question of wether it is appropriate for Australia." ... The whole point is that you present the costings to THEN decide if itt is appropriate. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT. You don't decide if it is appropriate before conducting the study - that's anti-science.
The South Australian Labor party wanted to build nuclear power stations on the outskirts of Port Augusta and Scott Morrison opposed it that was years ago!!! Instead he was banging on about Hydro power in NSW and how that would benefit SA somehow????
@@user-ds2ej3wn8p Link? The nuclear power ban was introduced through an Greens amendment in 1998. For the SA govt have introduced nuclear power, that ban would have to have been overturned. With the Greens and Labor controlling the senate, exactly how do you propose that would have happened?
I thought I was the only one that notice the report only included costs for SMRs, now I know this video was made, I can stop sound like a broken record. And she gets a lot my hits then me. Thank you,
I just LOVE how we have a nuclear ban in Australia, but since 1958 we've had a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights...READ ON...
In 1958 Australia opened its first (and only) nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, a southern suburb of Sydney. The nuclear reactor produces neutrons, subatomic particles found in the nucleus of all atoms, through the process of fission - the splitting of a large atom, such as uranium, into two smaller ones.
Thank you for bringing this to light. These scientist activists need to be brought to account. Nuclear is the way forward for low cost reliable energy.
Where is nuclear low cost? Lowest cost form of energy production is solar and it's also fastest to build.
@@Rehunauris Solar does not provide a base-load power its a supplement only. Solar power is heavily subsidised which is why it is cheap. Plus no one factors in the disposal costs of the toxic panels once they past their use by date - convenient I think. Fastest to build? Coal fired power stations are the cheapest and fastest to build if that is your criteria. Nuclear is cheapest if you take into account cost and production over the lifetime of a nuclear facility. Building it on a closed facility like the Hazelwood coal facility would save even more and make it quicker.
As everywhere else , here in Australia they’re plenty of corrupt politicians/bureaucrats more than happy to waste taxpayers money!
And dont we know it Ten years of it from the LNP
Thank you for this video
Thank you CIS for bringing some truth out regarding the Aust Govt’s biased negative reporting around nuclear energy.
I'm glad I found your channel - finally some truth telling
If this is all true - and I have no reason to doubt it - why are the Libs asleep at the wheel and do not use these arguments in parliament arguing the case? In high school we discussed nuclear energy and our teachers even organised a visit to a nuclear reactor - that was back in 1978(!) somewhere in Europe. This country still has four reactors today, generating 40% of the total energy. 56% is hydro, the rest is a mix of oil, gas and a few solar panels. The fact Australia forty-five years later still can not even DISCUSS the nuclear option as part of an energy mix is embarrassing. The pros & cons have been debated at nauseum for decades and are understood. Time to grow up Australia.
More to the point, why are the Libs agitating for nuclear now when they did nothing about it whilst they were in power?
LNP are Gina Reinhardt simps and only mention nuclear as an excuse to not go renewables and really they just want coal for another 50 years.
you have to build them consecutively with a large retention of workforce. This is the lesson of nuclear builds. So yeah, if you build 5 x 1.4GW reactors the last three could be built for 7-8 billion AUD per reactor. Some recent builds in the US were more like 16 billion AUD per reactor but that is because they didn't build 5 or more consecutively.
You have to build 4 or 5 of a single type in order to scale the learning curve to bring costs down to reasonable levels and you have to build them consecutively with a large retention of workforce. This is the lesson of nuclear builds. So yeah, if you build 5 x 1.4GW reactors the last three could be built for 7-8 billion AUD per reactor. Some recent builds in the US were more like 16 billion AUD per reactor but that is because they didn't build 5 or more consecutively.
The reason the Libs appear to be asleep is that with Labor and the Greens running a disinformation campaign, even having a rational debate is almost impossible. Bowen and many of his colleagues are heavily invested in renewables (both emotionally and financially) and in Bowen's case specifically, he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see beyond his own narcissistic opinion. At the last election, I had a "discussion" with a Greens candidate regarding nuclear. It was like talking to a 3 year-old. Lots of feelings and tantrums, no facts.
How is anyone able to make informed decisions when this incompetence from the CSIRO is allowed to occur? The place needs to be investigated.
This is a right wing propaganda site, well done, you've been sucked in....
more spin from another Trumpty flooding the zone with shit either a no-brainer or a paid propgandist...shut down the abc CSIRo anything progressive so we can all have big fat neo -con party
I thought the CSIRO was a professional organisation, obviously those days are long gone.
You guys were way too kind. The answer is that they started with a conclusion they wanted to reach and then found a way to make the data support it. Trust "The Science(TM)". This is how they create "The Science(TM)" and it's a very lucrative industry, not just in Australia, but worldwide.
All the Radioactive waste ever made has never been disposed of safely. It's a Murphy to think its safe or viable in anyway.
Radioactive waste is an ancient bugbear, now an enormous amount of the spent rods are reprocessed and the radioactive materials used again. Low level waste is relatively harmless and manageable
Bullshit why then is it having to be stored in bunkers and dumped at sea
Hows the large scale reactor in England going?
You have to build 4 or 5 of a single type in order to scale the learning curve to bring costs down to reasonable levels and you have to build them consecutively with a large retention of workforce. This is the lesson of nuclear builds. So yeah, if you build 5 x 1.4GW reactors the last three could be built for 7-8 billion AUD per reactor. Some recent builds in the US were more like 16 billion AUD per reactor but that is because they didn't build 5 or more consecutively.
There is no solution to safe storage for used nuclear fuel.
Excellent reporting ! More please. This non Nuclear mindset is a bad joke.
The problem is quite simple nuclear could be an "asset" for the people of Australia.
Most renewables are never-ending Money Pits lining the pockets of multinational companies and more than lightly kickbacks going to political parties and politicians.
like the NBN was supposed to be before the LNP messed it up.
@@Linda-on9qb Relevance?
Relevance? That the LNP will sell it or stuff it up like everything else they touch is pretty relevant. @@craigspender1710
Blackout Bowen has buried his head in the sand. The minister for clusters…….
That's right. I mean overpaying an estimated $13 billion of taxpayer money to firms whose earnings went up during the pandemic, rather than down! Wasted $5.5billion on the French Submarine contracts fiasco, $2 billion on Robodebt clusterf*ck and $20.8bn on consultants and outsourcing public service in the final year in office, and
gave $4m to an organisation accused of “extreme religious practices” - including exorcisms and gay conversion ! Oh, wait!! Which f*ckwit did that?
Everything ive read about nuclear power generation makes it sound like the absolute best idea for us here in Australia, especially considering our abundance of uranium.
Do yourself a favour and do some research on Hinkley Point C and the decommissioning of Sellafield in the UK. The cost of both is eyewatering. Large scale nuclear costs have to include decommissioning costs which are astronomical. Also we can't find anywhere to put the small amounts of waste we generate at Lucas Heights now so where would we put the waste from a large scale reactor?
I guestimate that the cost of a totally new nuclear reactor site would be on par with that of a new coal fired site.
All most all the control technology is the same as well as the generators and transmission systems.
The unique factors are the reactors themselves, the radioactive materials handling and the special sealed heat exchangers and waste management. Operating costs should be significantly lower than a coal plant so any discrepancy in cost between coal and nuclear would quickly be repaid.
That however is the cost of a completely new site, most coal plants that are being closed could easily be converted to nuclear only requiring the construction of the reactors.
A nuclear site will cost more than a coal plant to build
Sorry, you did say that the costs would even out, my bad
@@chrispekel5709 . I never thought they would be equal but when you’re talking tens of billions the difference of a few billions doesn’t mean much.
My guess is that a refurbished coal plant converted to nuclear would actually cost much less than the solar and wind equivalent.
Just a Quick Question, Where is the money for this video coming from ?
3 guesses, but only 1 will probably be required.😮
NZer here. I think Australia is very well-suited for a few nuclear power plants.
You have *lots* of space (mind you, the small modular reactors being made now need very little anyway) and your geology is perfect - very few earthquakes, unlike NZ.
I'd like to see a nuclear power plant here too but quakes are the "fly in the ointment".
Maybe one near Palmerston North would be ok - that would be one of the more geologically-stable parts of the country.
Actually, it should be possible (with tech like base-isolation) to build a very quake-resistant modular-reactor nuclear plant now.
I think some small reactors can even fit in shipping containers now.
Something that size should not be difficult to make quake-resistant.
Put it some distance from the coast (to remove tsunami risk), throw base-isolators on it and it should be fine!
Mr. Bowen is always happy to entertain any misinformation which aligns with his narrative.
I think all humans are guilty of that one
There is nothing independent about the centre for independent studies. Some entertainment value to be sure, but don’t believe a word of it. Ask who funds them.
Meanwhile the mega rich and our tax dollars are funding specialised training for “climate journalists”.
For example : The “Oxford Climate Journalism Network”; “Covering Climate Now” and the list goes on …
How about just spilling the beans?
There was supposed to be nuclear power stations built on the outskirts of Port Augusta by the SA government.
Mr Paul Graham the demeanour of a schoolboy after been dragged into the principals office.
Let’s also get this straight - the Govt of the day when this assessment was done, the 10 year LNP Govt, was the major stakeholder when it comes to changing Australia’s energy mix and they are the people who pay the employees of the CSIRO. That Govt was too busy fulfilling its responsibilities to subsidise and promote its fossil fuel donors to spend any time thinking about nuclear power. It is only since they entered opposition that they have suddenly become nuclear energy advocates.
One other minor issue is that of nuclear waste. Based on discussions Australians have had around nuclear waste to date, no one seems keen to have the dump in their state, let alone anywhere near their region. As yet there are no firm proposals around where the waste from the nuclear reactors in our AUKUS subs will go once they reach end of life.
As a country, it truly is an embarrassment just how ignorant the general population is. The amount of waste from newer generation reactors is so small that the really dangerous stuff will take up less than the space in a small warehouse - and that's from multiple reactors running for decades. In a country the size of Australia...
@@chrispekel5709 Okay, so your suburb sounds like a great place to set up the warehouse. I think you should start canvassing the neighbours and take a proposal to the Government. You may make a few bucks out of it.
@@chrisburnett4742 Hahaha. Sounds good to me! Unlike most, I'm reasonable, practical, and know what the risks are. However - it doesn't make a lick of sense to store it in the inner city when 95% of the continent is uninhabited. Feel free to put it near my empty rural block, don't care
A LNP government could never seriously pursue Nuclear while in government. Every lefty-loony would be marching up and down every high street in the country. Then the cheer squad at the ABC, left wing media, the social media keyboard warriors, GetUp, the Unions and the usual overseas billionaire funding would kick in. As we have seen on other issues they turn their mind to. No, it is far more satisfying putting a logical case for it from opposition and watch Labor squirm. It would be near impossible for them to backflip on 40 years of anti-nuclear stance and denial. This one is a vote winner.
On a side note. If you make laws to make nuclear waste recycling required, then you end up with material that is safe within 300 years.
I also think you could easily make a safe space for storage of this material somewhere near the middle of Australia, because it is the most geologically stable country on the planet, and most it's population centres are on the coast.
Wow, did that guy go to Uni?
He probably did considering he's a Muppet
Please advise if you receive funding from any entity with an interest in nuclear...
They don’t divulge their funding.
Weather dependent energy technologies are useless without backup power. This cost is never ever included in these comparisons and thus its all bogus. The complicated and expensive grid modifications and additions required are generally not included either.
Centre for Independent Lobbying?
Centre for Right Wing Misinformation and Propaganda
The recent Senate estimates hearings revealed how little the CSIRO understands about the Snowy Hydro project. Totally frightening.
No it didn't, it highlights just how ignorant and gullible you lot are...
The simple fact is that commercial SMRs don't exist. There are zero in operation or even contracted for construction outside Russia and China.
While the estimated first of a kind (FOAK) cost of a well-executed nuclear construction project is ~$6,200 per kW, recent nuclear construction projects in the U.S. have had overnight capital costs over $10,000 per kW.
Old information, - I suspect from Wikipedia. You state "there are zero in operation or even contracted for construction outside Russia and China". The IAEA states: "There are currently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China and Russia, and several existing and newcomer nuclear energy countries are conducting SMR research and development." The EU has stated (7/2/24) that Nuclear Energy is strategic to realising 2040 carbon reduction targets and SMRs are an integral part of that strategy. India too is well advanced in development of SMRs and with so may countries looking to deploy various SMR technologies, the economies-of-scale required to reduce costs will undoubtedly be met.
every nuclear submarine and battle ship has one or several - cars used to be only affordable to the rich
@@Pacdoc-oz Nuclear submarine reactors use highly enriched uranium, stuff they make weapons, and militaries dont care about economics.
Great job.thanks.
Sad to see the CSIRO being run by political science but not surprising
LOL....this sounds like a Anti SMR hit piece. Facts are, Nuclear is a excellent form of energy. And SMR's are a excellent option. Large Nuclear sites are near impossible to build, as the regulations are off the charts. And billions of power lines are needed. SMR's are simple, and can be build where they are needed with minimum power lines. SMR's have many company building them. And the technology and safety is excellent. And the costs per unit will reduce as time goes on.
OH! You mean like the power-towers and powerlines all over the countryside to distribute wind power? Chris Bowens building the future failure.🤑
The CSIRO is a science organisation. It does not release misinformation. As the man said. There is little scope for large scale nuclear generation. Nuclear power generation has very high startup and maintenance costs.
Sit and watch the renewables path cost just as much
you talk as if a scientist is like the Pope, infallible. There are good, bad, incompetent and evil scientists, fact.
Good, straight forward reporting. Very refreshing.
More then likely, worried about all the kick backs their getting from solar and wind. same old, same old. Bring on the farmers
Renewables like wind and solar will at best produce as much energy as we currently do with fossil fuels, but it will be more expensive. Nuclear power is about producing so much inexpensive energy that we eradicate poverty and war worldwide. With enough cheap energy, no problem is unsolvable. Nuclear is about lifting all of mankind up. If you actually want to manage climate change, nuclear is the only way to go. Renewable energy is about maintaining the status quo and keeping power in the hands of the current ruling class.
@jasoncassell "...wind and solar will at best produce as much energy as we currently do with fossil fuels..."
They won't even do that. Wind and solar *_require_* fossil-fuels. They can't *_replace_* anything.
"...but it will be more expensive."
Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
Says who?
@@aliendroneservices6621 Rubbish mate, stop speaking sh1t
Why lie, you do know how easy it is to refute your fantasy , ignorance is NOT the answer.. ?
looks like csiro should have their funding cut as well , as honesty and non bias isnt in our whos best interest
NO they should NOT have their funding cut they should be doing as they are mandated.
The question you and everyone else should be asking is why CSIRO hired an economist in the first place?
The "SIR" in the middle of CSIRO stands for Science and Industrial Research so WTF are they hiring economists for especially ones this incompetent.
I'm an engineer and absolutely furious with CSIRO.
This helps NOBODY.
Australia need an inquiry into the advice provided by the CSIRO on Climate Action, Nuclear Power, Desalination Plants and the kyboshing of irrigation schemes including the Bradfield System.
A fantastic breakdown of this soap opera. Thanks. Its a pitty that we have idiots managing this issue.
Australian politicians are the most expensive cost to the Australian people
You may also want to explain why the CSIRO and AMEO in the GEN cost report neglected the cost of connecting renewables to the grid allowing the government to think that they are the cheapest form of energy.
Because the cost of connecting renewables to the grid depends on where you put them. That cost is covered in AEMO's network plan.
@@gibbonsdp Sorry to say but you are wrong and you should read the Gen Cost Report 2022/2023 from the CSIRO or make it easier watch Miltechntac and he will explain how we are being misled.
@@gibbonsdp Sorry you have got that wrong they did provide that information and if you want to read the 2022/2023 report you will see this or watch Miltechntac and it will be explained.
@@gibbonsdp No it is not covered by AEMO as well.
Not just the cost, its the lead time
A very good summary.
If the labor government is allowed to be involved in any implementation of nuclear power, it will be hugely expensive. They'll make sure of it.
Thank you for your in-depth political opinion. 🙄
LNP showed with the submarine deal that they should never be allowed back in office. (also LNP failed to even HAVE AN ENERGY POLICY for 10 years)
@@Linda-on9qb I agree that the submarine deal was rubbish under the libs and is still rubbish under labor. However, labor in general is far worse at managing the economy and our country's wealth than the libs ever were. If the only choices are the coalition and labor, I'll choose the coalition.
@@simongross3122 That economic management crap is a laughable lie. I'm 60 years old, not once in my lifetime has the coalition handed Labor an economy in better shape than the one they inherited. This is just the last 40 years... "1983 - Malcolm Fraser & the LNP hand over to Labor an economy ranked 20th in the world.
1996 - Paul Keating & Labor hand over to LNP an economy ranked 6th in the world.
2007 - John Howard & the LNP hand back an economy that had slipped back to the 10rh place in the World.
2013 - Julia Gillard & Labor hand over to the LNP THE BEST PERFORMING economy in the world... placed 1st.
2015 - Malcolm Turnbull & the LNP preside over an economy that had slipped back to 10th in the World, last in the OECD and deteriorating. Now somewhere around 19th place
There is no doubt that Labor are better at managing the Economy.
All this is in the Governments own archives, the IMF and the world bank also did a study on the worlds top economies in the last 100 years and came to the exact same conclusion with Australia. All easily found with a simple search, that is if you really are interested in the facts.
Bowen is a puppet
Imagine if we found out that our weather data was being manipulated…
Imagine if we found out that the amount of data they're collecting has been growing massively over the past century, and now imagine if the majority of that data is collated from weather stations inside cities...which are ever growing heat sinks. I wonder what your data would look like?
Cool story lady! 😅
So, why doesn't the private market argue for it? Because no one wants to pay for the long build time.
Because Nuclear is still illegal in Australia. It's that simple.
It's all about who's paying who to recommend wind factories and solar deserts.
This was only ever about rechanneling money from one resource to another.
I'm not sure how CSIRO got involved.
Kickbacks more than likely.
Pro-nucleat lobby sure hates market economy and prefers nuclear socialism.
It takes 10 years to build a reactor, you can get a lot of solar and wind built in that time.
Use our excellent coal and gas to maintain our economy and built thorium and uranium and plutonium reactors for ourselves and for export. We have much of the world supply of ores of both of them and should not export them overseas rather than using them here
Global boiling is barking mad nonsense, fake and delusional.
No proof-of-concept. There isn't a single country in the world running 50+% on wind and/or solar.
Yes. So much solar and wind can be built in that time that all the existing solar & wind generators will be in landfill by that time. Sustainable? Pfft.
the average build time is 6- 8 years globally. If they convert an existing coal plant it will be much less and most of the infrastructure is there already.
some one reminded me of my first point.
My repost is:
We have Australian nuclear promoters wanting Australia to go 'clean' nuclear electricity and ignore that the world CO2 emissions is Australia's problem.
Ontop of Australia getting nuclear submarines, 'because the world is becoming more peaceful '.
Ontop of USA leaving NATO and European countries developing their own nuclear weapons.
One gigawatt nuclear electricity generator plant can make enough weapons material in one year.
Australia will lose its trading partners and its overseas suppliers of manufactured goods, including steel and white goods and vehicles and its buyers of food crops and .....
I might raise the point that SMR's have been successfully used in Naval vessels for many years, so the only problem with an SMR is deciding on which model and going forth with it. Rolls Royce has perfect versions for Australia.
Soooo r we to follow the money as usual who’s funding this study I suppose we can’t ask that question have we not learned from past mistakes
Or better still, just drop the CSIRO.
The experts got it wrong. Why am I not surprised?
Great video. The gencost report had more holes in it than my favourite old t shirt
If you want the truth "Follow the money."
We have 2 mass psychoses in operation in association with a massive fraud. The Climate Delusion and the Energy Transition Delusion associated with Climate Fraud (the massive misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources into uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects).
apparently my pro-nukes comment got deleted , yt again ?
Brilliant reporting.
Thanks, a lot of this is publicly known. Globally the cost of nuclear is variable, but generally, based on sale cost per GWH, it is much cheaper than solar and wind. Although direct comparisons are difficult as unrecyclables do not produce dispatchable power.
typical bowen