The guy from CSIRO openly admits that they don’t want to produce independent analysis and conclusions whilst allowing others to critique their modelling (which is the scientific method by the way), their goal is to support AEMO. This is not acceptable, if they don’t want to do the analysis properly, independently and welcome criticism then don’t do it at all. A true scientist would be ashamed of work like this.
This was argued in Federal Parliament. CSIRO didn't have any experts and outsourced the report to a third-party. The third-party didn't have any experience and Googled the research assumptions. The CSIRO didn't release the latest report and calculations are secret. It's embarrassing 😂😅😅😅😅
Did the same with carbon dioxide . The two B.S. science papers they tabled to parliament question time were withdrawn , senator Roberts caught them out. The papers were from the IPCC and never held up to scrutiny.
None of this is by incompetence at all CSIRO have been given their orders and they're clearly not working for the good of the people What exactly are they working toward???
These videos are so good. This government has made a mistake by assuming that the public aren't interested in a nuanced debate about complex issues like energy policy.
The Govt aren't assuming anything they are trying to obfuscate the things they are doing in order to grift our public money into other peoples accounts. Lying by omission to make their mates richer so they and their families will all get lovely jobs when they leave office.
@@AquaMarine1000 Ha ha ha - That's FUNNY. Should have saved it for 01 January 2025! Have you not realised that Agendas and commitments to the so called "United" nations takes absolute priority over Australia?
Yes - the general public are so familiar with the complexities of energy generation and distribution. So glad Joe Bloggs from down the pub will decide on Australia's energy future because after-all, he watch a video done by someone who compares a grid scale battery with the battery in a mobile phone so he is all over it. I mean even you said this video is good!
My big question is why do we refer to the weather dependent sources as "renewables"? They're very energy intensive to mine their raw materials to build, and much of the monstrosities will end up as landfill at the end of their life. Just what does "renewable" refer to when describing them? Let's start being honest and call them "Weather dependent generation". Nuclear, like coal and gas, can provide constant, stable generation day or night, wind or calm. Last point to make, is sufficient nuclear plants could be placed where the coal plants they replace exist, right where the existing infrastructure is ready to go. As for cost, we don't even have half as many weather dependent generators required to keep the lights on, if we were to shut down coal and gas tomorrow, and how much have they cost so far?
Intermittent is a far more accurate description for wind and solar power. There is nothing renewable about wind and solar generation. It’s a sinkhole for tax dollars.
So when the LNP get in they need to commission an independent audit of both CSIRO and AEMO. The audit needs to determine if both organisations have acted independently and their calculations are accurate. If it is found that they have been influenced by Bowen and Labor to produce inaccurate reports then the staff involved need to be terminated and Bowen prosecuted for fraud and misinformation. Both CSIRO and AEMO are tainted and can no longer be trusted.
This is because of the disconnect between upper management and frontline. Upper management come to their departmental heads and say "Okay figure this out" - then these heads pass this on to relevant teams which lean on them to produce the results either that upper management wants; think that upper management wants - or serve their own interests. Often, you will find a sociopath or two holding up the whole thing up; other times these departments do exactly what they are told.
it's not the CSIRO it's what they were asked to do so selective data could be manipulated no different to what's happening with the Buget selective numbers eying of the Future fund
Definitely a good idea , but you can guarantee answers will not come back in a hurry and could take years . As far as nuclear goes , you only have to look at many countries that already have them , one in particular I saw in a video they built 3 state of the art big reactors in 10 years , as much as I'd like to think we would do the same here , I know we are up to the task , but red tape in Australia for everything is just soul destroyingly slow. But you can guarantee , the roll out of all this renewable BS will take years too , however , my feeling is that due to the very nature of how renewable work , as time goes on and population grows( currently at an unsustainable rate) , the renewable hardware will continue to increase for decades to come . Another little twinkling of a thought in my grey matter , follow the money , these companies installing the wind mills , was there a tender process , or did some minister magically suddenly get an apiphony we must use company X , and did the minister get any nice little under the counter kick backs ? Politics is dirty , and we see all manner of funds usually after the fact get donated to politicians and political partys.
You’re 100% right! *But a half-witted dope needs only to get the , *(facts), from all the other countries and their coatings etc too sort out the truth. So why even waste the public’s purse on the “clearly obvious facts in hand already with an inquiry”. *Just send them straight to the courts and let them sort them out! *And while their doing that; Send the “so-called fact checkers at the ABC”, to court for spreading misinformation also!
So to paraphrase the CSIRO commentator: The CSIRO doesn’t want to make their figures accurate because that could put them at odds with another participant in this game of fiction {AEMO} which also puts out false sets of data. Is anybody surprised by this absurd logic?
fixed like the promises they made using selective data destroying a credible body is the moto feed the suckers with more BS via the ABC with more disinformation and misinformation
I think that they're not boofheads. Rather, I think they have all invested in this green future and must therefore issue results based on the current ideology and associated Narrative. Jellyfish Boofheads...😅😅😅
_I think we can write off the CSIRO as a complete waste of space in the nuclear generation debate._ Not only the nuclear generation debate. The CSIRO is more interested in promoting the LGBTQ agenda than anything else.
They’ve underestimated the lifespan of a nuclear plant and seriously overestimated the lifespan of both solar and wind and completely overlooked the fact that renewables are only an intermittent form of generation. The other big flaw is the figures quoted for renewables are always based manufacturers theoretical ratings and not on actual generating figures that are considerably lower. I’m old enough to remember when the CSIRO was respected around the world and its scientists were amongst the best, these days they are a politicised organisation sadly lacking in the skills and disciplines it once had.
@ every 40-60 years is closer to the correct figure, the quoted 30 years in the report is ridiculous and another glaring error in the calculations.the other glaring error was that solar panels will last for 25 years and wind turbines for 30, those claims are pure fantasy
Why 60 year life used for Nuclear? The US DoE says 80 year life or more. GenCost: Renewables are listed as 30 year life. Real-life figures are much less. Off-shore Wind probably less again. Was storm damage to solar and wind gens included? Renewables will have maint and repair teams across hundreds? of sites around the country + ships for off-shore M&R. Nuclear will have M&R teams on 7 sites. Was every X years the recycling of every solar panel, battery, wind gen included? Can everything be recycled or some of it is dropped into an open pit?
@jss2889 They look to be very much still in devt. Their life is measured in cycles and this varies wildly depending source, energy density low so they will take up more space than current.
Didnt the CSIRO suppoert the old Safe and Effective also, makes me wonder if the CSIRO are political in nature. Effective NOT Safe now proven dangerous
Every Government Department is political. Their first order of business is: 1) Secure their Budget. 2) Increase their Staffing levels.* 3) Roll over and spout the Government narrative. * Increasing the staffing levels means the fat cats in their department get fatter. 🤑🤑🤑
Putting a reactor on the site of an existing power station would cost about 3 billion USD at most if the costs for the current construction of reactors in South Korea is anything to go by, and construction would take about a year for site site preparation and infrastructure . The building of the reactors and commissioning would take five years or less especially if more than one reactor was ordered for more than one site. What really blows out the time and cost is over zealous regulatory nonsense and legal battles from special interest groups funded by tax payers but controlled by foreign vested interests usually socialist political groups
we could get it down to 2-4 years(from paying to producing power) if we got the reactors from companies that are planning to build the reactors in factories/shipyards, so its even faster and probably cheaper
@ . Actually I factored that in in my estimate. I was stating the maximum times if things were done correctly and without interference. The building of the physical reactor components doesn’t take very much time, about equivalent to building the haul of a submarine. What takes the time is quality control, testing and the final commissioning. But being able to mass produce key components would shave several years off the building process.
S.Korea 3 billion USD. and 6 years???? unrealistic for Australian conditions better to average the S.Korea USA costs and time "Vogtle Units 3 & 4 took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost"
One of the major flaws in the Government's (and CSIRO's modelling as well) is assuming stable rare earth prices. Except, as the government demonstrates repeatedly, the piecemeal nature in which projects are conducted, there's no prospects of securing enough rare earths to meet the projected demand required by renewables. "Firmed renewables" is a bit of a step down from the loft promises of 'net zero'. There's also the cost fallacy - if pure fiscal cost was our metric we should just keep burning coal - but its not because the costs from the externalities represent an extreme risk far above and beyond the fiscal cost of what we are fronting for new generation. "Firming" as we have it now and as has been underway since 2007, now only generates about 10% of our energy. The rest is gas oil and coal. Yet, the Government's Plan (Gas, essentially); only manages to shave some of the cost off by maintaining most of the risk by maintaining emissions. It defeats the point of the exercise entirely. This seems even more obscene when you consider that nuclear generation solves both the emissions and demand problems. The government's plan still retains energy insecurity and the export of large numbers of fossil fuels to other countries. There's a second more insidious fallacy involved here that undermines the relationship with the taxpayer. That's that the facility needs to turn a profit or even break even. Ultimately, it does not need to do that - it just needs to provide electricity to Australian homes and businesses. A lot of the current modelling looks at the break-even time before the plant has earned enough money as it cost. This is entirely unnecessary - and it represents a double billing of the populace. The Australian people are already paying for the generators in cash with their income taxes (there are no other tax bases) - and they will pay for the energy on their bills. An attempt to recoup costs of either transformation is essentially billing the Australian taxpayer twice. The problem with the unquestioning assumption of these projections by media and ALP supporters is that there's no notion of how much these things "should" cost - it's just an arbitrary "this figure is too costly"; but it's completely wrongheaded. The costs need to be modelled against what an Australia that can only afford to power half the country produces versus one that is fully powered. Regardless of how much power we produce, people will use it. We have spent the past decade fuel burning megatonnes of coal to power crypto-currency mining. The same thing will continue into the future with AI/LLMs - regardless of whether these things work or not. Much like a highway, one you build it, it will fill to capacity.
Australia should be a power house (pun intended) of power. Gas, Nuclear, wind and solar. We could have the lowest cost of any country and smelt our own resources here.
II read through the entire gencost report. Thank you for pointing out these deficiencies. A couple more of note: Gencost models all nuclear projects as "greenfield" with no infrastructure in place (transmission facilities, roads, etc.). In reality, all nuclear plants would be built on existing coal sites. They basically modelled Australian construction workers as "lazy and incompetent", being unable to even come close to capabilities of other countries when building nuclear plants. The renewable storage pricing was only for a few hours. In reality, a few days of storage would be needed. They made a gesture towards costing this, but then discounted it because is was too expensive! They didn't correctly model the enormous amount of overbuild and spillage required to achieve timely storage replenishment with a 95%+ renewable grid. In my opinion, the current electricity market pricing/bidding system is broken. It allows renewables to bid in at negative prices and capture the market and make coal/nuclear appear over priced because they aren't able to operate at peak capacity and efficiency. Bidding into the market should be for GUARANTEED deliver of the amount of energy bid, and over longer periods. This would force renewable sources to include storage etc. into their supply costs and stop this burden from unfairly tainting the cost of "reliable" generation.
Great comment. As someone who works in the electricity industry I’ve also long thought the pricing mechanism is fundamentally flawed and needs a complete overhaul - it is destroying the reliability of our grid.
CIS has never been unbiased regardless of their name. This report and the CSIROs miss a huge factor that swings the costs wildly in favour of renewables. Individual households make up a huge proportion of the nation's power generation and storage. With V2L and a soon to be approved V2G the growing EV fleet will join the growing home battery fleet to give us all the storage we need. This will eliminate much of the grid upgrade cost and require fewer large batteries. What's extremely disappointing with both the Liberals and Labor is that they have turned what should be left to scientists into a political football. We need our power needs solved and to do it in a carbon neutral way and we need politicians to keep their grubby paws and snouts out of it.
And no mention to the 430,000 plus square Kms of Australian farmland and forests destroyed by "renewable". Nor any mention of the wildlife that lose their homes. Where are the Greens on this?
The real issues are the horrendous capital costs, depreciation, maintenance and unreliability. Mr Bowen belongs in a psychiatric hospital if he really believes what he is saying.
@@torrespearls381 fascinating. Not sure why you respect the ‘analysis’ of CIS that’s primarily funded by coal and gas special interest as opposed to the government. Not saying you shouldn’t be critical of government agencies and their output, but why disregard a potential bias for absolutely confirmed bias?
@@6braceface Cheers mate, but I'm allowed my view and I trust these people more than the Labor party with their blinkered view of energy . Now I don't know you so please just troll someone else. Face to face I'll yarn but not type.
@ I’m not saying you aren’t allowed to have an opinion. I’m saying that your opinion is misinformed and you should consider further research. I’m not ‘trolling’ you, simply engaging in a discussion which you prompted on a public forum. Have a lovely day
The CSIRO has over estimated nuclear cost Understated the life of same while not factoring the inflation cost of replacing the wind and solar 3 if not 4 times in the life of nuclear plant Also no cost add for road upgrade to accommodate long loads or transmission lines 😮
Compelling evidence I see suggests it would not matter how much nuclear technologies cost-even if they were magically free, and they are demonstrably and most certainly not-because nuclear technologies are demonstrably too slow to deploy from scratch to save us from blackouts, rising energy prices and the worsening climate crisis. Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will likely be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we would wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? That's the urgent conversation Australia needs to have. See my Submission (#066) & Supplementary Submission (#066.1) to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. See the PROOF transcript of the public hearing on 11 Dec 2024, conducted by the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, from page 8.
It's a damn shame the scientists at the CSIRO have been forced to forget their basic training/education by the politicians. The fundamental principles as a scientist is you must release your data for peer review and analysis and repeatability tests by others. This report has politicians grubby little fingers all over it.
Brilliant presentation. At some point Bowen is going to have to concede that not everyone is going to sit by and accept his lies while he destroys our country. He needs to provide answers to these concerns.
Like all bureaucrats the CSIRO appears to be full of activists. My question is, given renewables are not providing cheaper power, where will we get power from?
The grid to connect green energy by wind and solar costs $1.9 million per km by 28,000 kms of power lines equals about $560 billion plus the cost of transformers and distribution plus the cost of batteries plus solar panels plus wind generators which last between 10- 25 years, batteries 10 years, plus cost of pumped hydro, plus cost of wave or tidal power generation plus thermal, plus maintenance of grid and equipment, plus replacements, we are headed towards a trillion dollars. 4-5 times the cost of nuclear
CSIRO's capacity factors for baseload are wrong as they do not consider batteries as electron-neutral and therefore an overnight source of demand for nuclear or coal. As batteries are required to shift daytime solar generation for use in the evening, this means that there is battery demand overnight to be filled by based load coal/nuclear. The batteries will then discharge in the morning before filling again at midday from solar PV. Hence the 53% to 89% factors, based on historical, are too low for a future grid with large scale batteries. As an alternative, if there is a "capacity factor" for coal /nuclear based on historic levels because of intertemporal vagaries, then the same factor should be applied to batteries (and solar, wind) as well because otherwise you be selectively applying a "real world friction" such that the report was no longer technology neutral. Of course, it could be argued that "slippage" costs are effectively a capacity factor for renewables, but then, to be consistent, you would need to use similar slippage rates for baseload coal / nuclear. On a more subtle level, given the rapid and large drop in the capital costs for renewables it would be sensible to delay increased renewable capacity until the cost drops. A lowest electricity cost path would be to extend existing technology and implement renewables when they are cheaper. This would also free up resources (workers, materials, capital) for other uses such as (a) the Brisbane Olympics; (b) civic infrastructure (eg transport, medical, educational); (c) regional development (to share the opportunity of immigrants more widely). This is probably outside CSIRO's remit, but it is unclear how you continue to provide a price incentive for solar given the "duck curve" (more an economic than science question). Early solar generators faced incentive prices at midday because they were relatively small scale in grid-wide generation, but given rooftop PV and additional solar farms, then the daytime price will move to below full cost (given marginal cost of zero) without a large amount of daytime battery demand. So, CSIRO's scientific justification of small battery storage requirements may be correct, but it is unclear how the market pricing incentives will deliver this outcome. I guess without seeing the CSIRO numbers in detail we'll never know but there is a real risk that CSIRO's scientific equilibrium is not an available economic one. Finally, the report should be explicit that it does not describe in any way the technology pathway for the lowest cost electricity for Australians. By not making this explicit and by allowing the report to be used, again, by politicians as justification for the choice of renewables over other options (eg life extensions, brownfield expansions), CSIRO has further damaged the credibility of experts, elected governments and their bureaucracy.
One thing that has not been mentioned which is absolutely a game-changer in regards to nuclear energy - the requirement of huge volumes of water. Where is this coming from - and at what cost to the environment and other water user's requirements?
Ocean... Environmental cost of pumping say 40m3/s/reactor of slightly warmer water than it enters must be enormous (sarcasm). Same thing is needed for coal to BTW.
@@msxcytb You can't use salt water in a thermal generator. Coal has similar water requirements per MW but if the coal plant runs out of water it shuts off. If the nuclear plant runs out of water it melts down - even if it's shut down at the time
There are easy ways to assess costs. Nuclear exists overseas, coal exists, and renewables exists. Look at those, and I will hazard a guess they show renewables cause more trouble for the grid than they can benefit. We also already know how long things last. I can't see how the CSIRO can get these figures. I also think that if they are taxpayer funded, they should be accountable to the taxpayer for errors or lies.
The fact that the CSIRO receives upto 1/3 of its funding from gas companies, and is open about being partners with renewables manufacturers and and gas companies clearly shows they are incredibly biased on this topic and cant be trusted.
_With homes in the future becomes solar with own battery storage._ Batteries will work for things requiring little power, like lights. But batteries are woefully inadequate for heating and cooling.
One of the biggest issue is the amount of Firming required by renewables and how much deliberate under estimation of this firming is being reported. They are planning for hours of firming when it will take weeks of storage to run a renewables grid.
Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] SHOCK
It doesn’t help that they quoted on small modular nuclear reactors and not full scale nuclear power stations which is what we actually need. What we also need is a full scale sovereign nuclear processing industry which means we could manufacture nuclear rods and sell them to the world rather than purchasing them after shipping our raw materials to those countries in the first instance but I suppose AUKUS now prevents us from doing so.
CSIRO and AEMO, when comparing renewables and nuclear, do not take into account the billions of dollars to purchase millions of acers of land, billions of dollars for the grid connections and the billion of dollars every 25-30 years (or less) to dump all the old solar panels and wind blades to land fill.
Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed to last about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60-year operating life. . The cost of refurbishing a nuclear reactor can vary depending on the reactor and the scope of the work. For example, the Darlington Nuclear Refurbishment Project in Ontario, Canada, cost an estimated $12.8 billion.
This is just about nuclear v's black coal v's renewables generated electricity? Why hasn't the the 7 x reactor builds been put into the costings v's the renewables transformation of the electricity grid? It's like its been deliberately left out of maths.
What cost did the CSIRO place on the destruction of our environment will all these solar and wind turbines and the cost of wastage , bet not added to final costing
The price of wind, solar, and grid storage batteries is plummeting down cheaper and cheaper every year. Wind and Batteries are are paid for by investment companies. Solar is paid for by investors and hundreds of thousands of home owners that recognize what a good deal it is to make your own power. TAX payers pay for nuclear... Why do you want Dutton's higher Taxes???
It is not that simple unfortunately. How does the working class afford the kit? They are more reliant on the traditional grid than inner city elites, like Teal voters. Retail electricity prices are escalating rapidly and will continue to do so.
Lead by example, CIS members should therefore invest all their money in building Australian 1st Nuclear powerplant. Then list the profitable Nuke company on the ASX.
Synchronous condenser is a power factor compensator. Power factor is a measure of how much reactive load on the network. This type of load is primarily due to induction motors primarily from air conditioners, refrigeration, fans, big industrial motors etc. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of and significant power factor issues with either solar, wind or nuclear generation.
Buronga substation will be one of the largest and most sophisticated substations in the southern hemisphere and includes five phase-shifting transformers, two synchronous condensers and four shunt reactors. No doubt these costs are swept under the carpet in Gen Cost analysis.
This is a real concern for me. There must be some legal precedence somewhere as Australians must have all the facts to make informed decisions at the next election. How can the CSIRO and the government get away with this?
So lets ad one more factor. Solar PV and batteries getting cheaper is due to dumping prices and production from China, the country that is "not entirely" democratic and bit adversarial toward for example Australia. What will happen if one torpedo/rocked/ other type of Chinese gun will be fired toward for example Taiwan with solar PV and batteries prices? Right at the moment western countries are practically waging trade war with China, but the PVs (so loved by politicians, and not to much concerned about reality population) are the last to be subject of tariffs/embargoes. That is only if China is not starting true wars. Is it good idea to model your country energy future on "partner" like China?
CSIRO Gencost Report does not consider the many federal/state subsidies of RE and "cost of living adjustments" due to higher power prices, the compensation payments to farmers for the new grid and for the PV/wind mill and battery fields, the so-called curtailment costs when industry is getting paid to reduce its energy consumption as RE cnnot supply the shortfall and the payments to keep coal going longer, like $225 mio./year for Eraring as RE cannot be built fast enough. Plus the CSIRO does not have any economists or engineers and is reliant on AEMO's ISP report.
The big thing about nuclear is if it goes poorly it's expensive, but not for very long. Georgian power bills rose to pay for Vogtle 3 and 4, yet are still lower than average. Why? Vogtle 1 and 2 were built a long time ago. They were expensive too, except now they're not. The running cost for amortized nuclear is much less than maintaining a wind/solar/battery grid. Effectively you cannot really go wrong with nuclear in the long run It might be cheaper to build mostly wind and solar. But the best case scenario has significant difficulty in matching the long term economic scenario for nuclear. At a minimum developing both assets and shifting your system to one or the other depending on cost trajectories makes much more sense than maintaining a ban
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will likely be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we would wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? That's the urgent conversation Australia needs to have. Building a nuclear power plant is no guarantee that it will generate electricity. VC SUMMER-2 & -3 in South Carolina were both abandoned in 2017 with estimated costs at around US$9.8 billion, which South Carolina households continue to pay for in their electricity bills. See my Submission (#066) & Supplementary Submission (#066.1) to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. See the PROOF transcript of the public hearing on 11 Dec 2024, conducted by the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, from page 8.
Yes indeed. The risk of going NPP route is that project will take long and somewhat over the optimistic budget (it may also go smoother and cheaper because there is nothing inherently slow and expensive in technology). The risk of going with Solar and wind is blackouts, constant replacements, sending money to China(west is already kinda at economical war with China and it may turn out uglier in an instant), high price anyways and paying SOMEONE for gas backup which may be affordable now, but in perspective of 30,40,80years who knows. Properly made and maintained NPP after 60 years of service will be making ultra cheap power with perspective of perhaps tens of more years still. And spent fuel will have 95% of energy still inside to be used someday as greatest fuel resource ever. 10-15years of build is not looking that bad with all that in mind.
When do you know that the Narrative is at odds with the truth? When the calculation data is not available for public scrutiny. Who is getting the big future ROI here?
You wish! Just have to look at our friends in England to see how Nuclear is going In January 2024, EDF announced that it estimated that the final cost would be £31-35 billion (2015 prices, excluding interim interest), £41.6-47.9 billion in 2024 prices, with Unit 1 becoming operational in 2029-2031
@@ikt123 yes crappy on site builds and legal battle are know to cost way more then it should, it is why we should go the factories/shipyard built reactor route and ship the finished reactor to the site which would take about 2-4 years and would have little to no cost over runs coz they are standardized designs built in a production line!
The debate is a good exercise in obfuscation leading to 'he says she says'. Its a bit like 'climate change' where we hear 'experts' sum up and simplify large sums of data. What the general public needs is a slow lesson breaking down the key elements in costing to see whats going on.
The cost of batteries is decreasing rapidly. New battery technology is being developed. This will further reduce costs for renewables. If nuclear is the future where are the private investprs?
_New battery technology is being developed._ They're already near their full potential. Lithium is the best element for batteries. All we hear nowadays are pie-in-the-sky stories about new _break-though_ developments which never eventuate. It's illogical to use speculative future developments as if they were certainties. Banking on the future is always gambling.
@@grasonicus The LNP talks about SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) There is not one operating anywhere. That is gambling. Lithium sulfur batteries are working as are others. There is not one reactor working in the world today that does not require subsidies from the taxpayer. In Ontario the nuclear power is subsidised to the tune of $8 billion. Not very economical.
@@grasonicus lithium is the best element *for energy density*, which is irrelevant for grid scale storage. The cost curve for batteries is still coming down. I do agree we should be careful making assumptions about unproven battery chemistries, but there's working tech out there that can definitely beat lithium on cost per MWh once it reaches economies of scale
@@ndazza _but there's working tech out there that can definitely beat lithium on cost per MWh once it reaches economies of scale_ So, you're still building your case on non-existent batteries.
@@johnmarshall9415 _There is not one reactor working in the world today that does not require subsidies from the taxpayer._ The case is, _Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries, however, it is taxed because production costs are so low._ and _Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back in many places due to the rapidly increasing cost to consumers. Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some, increasingly controversial, direct subsidies._ You said: _Lithium sulfur batteries are working as are others._ Despite that, there's *not one town in the world with a population over 3000 relying solely on wind and/or solar.* You also said: _The LNP talks about SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) There is not one operating anywhere._ I told Nuclear Australia that focussing on SMRs is stupid. But there are two working SMRs in the world: _Russia ; The Akademik Lomonosov, the world's first floating nuclear power plant, began commercial operation in May 2020. It produces energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. China: The HTR-PM, a pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, was connected to the grid in 2021._
Sure looks like Bowen wrote the recommendations page for the Gencost report first, and only then did CSIRO juggle a carefully selected set of assumptions to come up with the politically desired result. What happened to the CSIRO we used to admire?
the actual enviromental cost of wind and solar is way worse than they actually disclose they need to actualy need to be open and honest with the actual environmental cost of both as long term options
The Centre for "independent" Studies is not independent. You are an organisation founded by the Liberal Party, and funded by for profit organisations, many of whom donate to the LNP, and profit from their policies. How does being paid for by mining corporations make you "independent"? I'll trust the ACTUALLY independent scientists at the CSIRO, thank-you very much!😂.
When the wind is blowing and the sun shining these generators must supply enough energy to power the grid PLUS enough energy to charge battery banks. This means that the generators must be at least twice the generating capacity of existing power stations.
_What else was lost was the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant._ And the cost of dealing with old solar panels and wind-turbine blades and other paraphernalia.
I wonder if the CSIRO figures included replacing renewable generators every 5 years or so due to high wind damage similar to the resent events in Wales.
Both LNP and ALP and Zoe are ignoring that mums and dads rooftop PV will create a massive DUCK CURVE of no grid demand daily. Even Wharehouses and office buildings and factories and..shopping centres and schools and hospitals and.... 20million roofs in Australia. All with PV panels and all grid connected. All grid customers. 20million vehicles in Australia and most EVs in 20years. Most parked 23hrs every day and all night long. This will be about 2,000gWh of massive FREE ELECTRICITY STORAGE daily. I bet v2g EVs technology will develop decades before nuclear electricity gets near being available. UTILIZATION of individual electricity energy investment will preceed grid electricity energy supply. If nuclear needs solar supply to turn off and so mums and dads supply is to turn off, the mums and dads might rely on their dirt cheat rooftop PV electricity, their 3cents kWh electricity and use their v2g EVs massive battery all night long. Millions of mums and dads and homes might not switch the grid back on. This is when the SHTTSNPANTS effect hits the owners of the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid. SHTTSNPANTS effect also hits the government owners of the new nuclear plants. SHTTSNPANTS is the feeling you get when you have no money, no cashflow from millions and millions and millions of customers who own a roof with a PV and have an EV parked 23hrs daily. The Illinois EnergyProf explains nuclear electricity generation plant construction and TIMELINES and DEBT and CASHFLOWS over decades. If permanent cashflow and no interruption to cashflow. 247 cashflow. The ignorant should look at his video. The Professor has NOT TALKED about the $TRILLIONs national grid and its $100sBILLIONS in cashflow demand. The Professor has only talked about the $6BILLION nuclear electricity plant construction vs a gas peaker plant and their TIMELINE and DEBY and CASHFLOWS. The big advantage of rooftop PV and v2g EVs is the TAX FREE SAVINGS in a big CAPITAL GAINS TAX FREE all electric home too the HIGH MARGINAL TAX PAYERS. These are the earliest technology adopters. These are the LNP voters who will be torn between massive government taxpayers funding of massive nuclear power plants and government mandated use of grid electricity and massive tax breaks. And the poor slow adopters who will need Government assistance. I bet Zoe Hilton will tell us about grid cashflow and more about the SHTTSNPANTS effect in her next video. Edit. A business friend, and a friend of the LNP saves $10,000 a quarter with his warehouse rooftop PV. And saves at his home with rooftop PV and a home battery. High marginal tax savings, tax free savings. My supply is 50cents kWh Feed in is 5cents kWh. My income is low, my marginal tax is low, my grid supply is costs are high. As more grid customers leave the grid and the grid costs remain fixed I will turn lights off and reduce my grid demand. Nuclear has to use the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid. Distant renewables have to use the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid. Rooftop PV and 2nd hand v2g EVs are getting cheaper.
More people will do what I've done, get your own batteries and disconnect from the grid. I for one am sick and tired of our government (both major parties) running our country for the benefit of the multinationals. Cheers Jon
@jondavies-nc6gb electricity is a mystery to the majority. The majority need plug and play electricity. EVs with v2g battery and selfplug-in will be perfect. Early adopters will soon trade in their first EVs, and much cheaper, massive batteries will be parked in many homes.
If the CSIRO had difficulty getting the costs correct for nuclear, it's because no-one has successfully built a nuclear reactor in the last decade without costs and time to build blowing out massively. And the small modular reactors that Dutton proposes currently do not exist and may never exist. That makes accurate costing a bit tough. Meanwhile, solar, wind, batteries and other storage continue to get cheaper and more effective every year.
there no economical battery that can last a night that can handle grid night time demand, if renewables was at near 100% let alone over 50%...thats the kicker they don't price in coz solar doesn't work at night so u have to cover the complete demand with batteries!
@@murraykeir1745 would Japan about 20years ago be good enough? 4years from the start of pouring concrete to connection to grid with modern BWRs is darn impressive IMHO
The last Liberal venture into the energy market was Snowy 2.0 $2 billion was what they promised it would cost and completed by 2024. The project is currently expected to be fully operational by the end of 2028 cost $12 billion +, so excuse me if I doubt Peter Dutton and the Liberal parties figures, the only thing that tops the cost over runs and missed deadlines of building nuclear reactors, is Olympic Infrastructure. Which we will all see with the Brisbane games. Anyway after reading many of the comments below, it looks like there will plenty of takers keen to line up for the Kool Aid supplied by Mr Dutton and co. Good luck with that. Cheers Jon
The guy from CSIRO openly admits that they don’t want to produce independent analysis and conclusions whilst allowing others to critique their modelling (which is the scientific method by the way), their goal is to support AEMO. This is not acceptable, if they don’t want to do the analysis properly, independently and welcome criticism then don’t do it at all. A true scientist would be ashamed of work like this.
100%
Sadly the CSIRO is about as unbiased and credible as the ABC nowadays.
Agree
What are some examples of their bias? Genuine question
@@Ferwail They appear to be biased in favour of renewables above all else and repeatedly try to downplay any advantages of nuclear.
@@awc900 Appearances can be deceiving, especially if you are wearing blinkers.
@@TomAllen-r8w Unfortunately blinkers seem to be standard issue at the CSIRO just like the ABC.
This was argued in Federal Parliament. CSIRO didn't have any experts and outsourced the report to a third-party. The third-party didn't have any experience and Googled the research assumptions. The CSIRO didn't release the latest report and calculations are secret. It's embarrassing 😂😅😅😅😅
Did the same with carbon dioxide . The two B.S. science papers they tabled to parliament question time were withdrawn , senator Roberts caught them out.
The papers were from the IPCC and never held up to scrutiny.
then promised to fix the power bills and budget and they are fixing us all
What did the lNP do to bring down the cost of living in thief 9 years of office … nothing !!!
no embarrassing, INCOMPETENT!
None of this is by incompetence at all CSIRO have been given their orders and they're clearly not working for the good of the people What exactly are they working toward???
These videos are so good.
This government has made a mistake by assuming that the public aren't interested in a nuanced debate about complex issues like energy policy.
Engineering not policy should take front and centre.
The Govt aren't assuming anything they are trying to obfuscate the things they are doing in order to grift our public money into other peoples accounts. Lying by omission to make their mates richer so they and their families will all get lovely jobs when they leave office.
bought to you by the liberal party
@@AquaMarine1000 Ha ha ha - That's FUNNY. Should have saved it for 01 January 2025!
Have you not realised that Agendas and commitments to the so called "United" nations takes absolute priority over Australia?
Yes - the general public are so familiar with the complexities of energy generation and distribution. So glad Joe Bloggs from down the pub will decide on Australia's energy future because after-all, he watch a video done by someone who compares a grid scale battery with the battery in a mobile phone so he is all over it. I mean even you said this video is good!
My big question is why do we refer to the weather dependent sources as "renewables"? They're very energy intensive to mine their raw materials to build, and much of the monstrosities will end up as landfill at the end of their life. Just what does "renewable" refer to when describing them? Let's start being honest and call them "Weather dependent generation". Nuclear, like coal and gas, can provide constant, stable generation day or night, wind or calm. Last point to make, is sufficient nuclear plants could be placed where the coal plants they replace exist, right where the existing infrastructure is ready to go. As for cost, we don't even have half as many weather dependent generators required to keep the lights on, if we were to shut down coal and gas tomorrow, and how much have they cost so far?
Intermittent is a far more accurate description for wind and solar power. There is nothing renewable about wind and solar generation. It’s a sinkhole for tax dollars.
They are called renewables because they need to be renewed so often. They should be called replaceables.
Unreliables.
Fair weather energy producers.
So when the LNP get in they need to commission an independent audit of both CSIRO and AEMO. The audit needs to determine if both organisations have acted independently and their calculations are accurate. If it is found that they have been influenced by Bowen and Labor to produce inaccurate reports then the staff involved need to be terminated and Bowen prosecuted for fraud and misinformation. Both CSIRO and AEMO are tainted and can no longer be trusted.
Spot on. And you can be sure that they have been paid off.
This is because of the disconnect between upper management and frontline. Upper management come to their departmental heads and say "Okay figure this out" - then these heads pass this on to relevant teams which lean on them to produce the results either that upper management wants; think that upper management wants - or serve their own interests.
Often, you will find a sociopath or two holding up the whole thing up; other times these departments do exactly what they are told.
it's not the CSIRO it's what they were asked to do so selective data could be manipulated no different to what's happening with the Buget selective numbers eying of the Future fund
Definitely a good idea , but you can guarantee answers will not come back in a hurry and could take years .
As far as nuclear goes , you only have to look at many countries that already have them , one in particular I saw in a video they built 3 state of the art big reactors in 10 years , as much as I'd like to think we would do the same here , I know we are up to the task , but red tape in Australia for everything is just soul destroyingly slow.
But you can guarantee , the roll out of all this renewable BS will take years too , however , my feeling is that due to the very nature of how renewable work , as time goes on and population grows( currently at an unsustainable rate) , the renewable hardware will continue to increase for decades to come .
Another little twinkling of a thought in my grey matter , follow the money , these companies installing the wind mills , was there a tender process , or did some minister magically suddenly get an apiphony we must use company X , and did the minister get any nice little under the counter kick backs ?
Politics is dirty , and we see all manner of funds usually after the fact get donated to politicians and political partys.
You’re 100% right! *But a half-witted dope needs only to get the , *(facts), from all the other countries and their coatings etc too sort out the truth. So why even waste the public’s purse on the “clearly obvious facts in hand already with an inquiry”. *Just send them straight to the courts and let them sort them out! *And while their doing that; Send the “so-called fact checkers at the ABC”, to court for spreading misinformation also!
So to paraphrase the CSIRO commentator: The CSIRO doesn’t want to make their figures accurate because that could put them at odds with another participant in this game of fiction {AEMO} which also puts out false sets of data. Is anybody surprised by this absurd logic?
Ever since Neville Rand ruined the CSIRO, it has been a mouthpiece for whichever piper calls the tune.
I think you mean Neville Wran,but that was a long time ago.He was Premier when the Darling Harbour precinct was built.
And those pipers are called Origin Energy and Australia Pacific LNG, the two companies with the most to lose from Australia going nuclear.
@@lloydsingline340 YUP!
I think we can write off the CSIRO as a complete waste of space in the nuclear generation debate. Boofheads.
fixed like the promises they made using selective data destroying a credible body is the moto feed the suckers with more BS via the ABC with more disinformation and misinformation
I think that they're not boofheads. Rather, I think they have all invested in this green future and must therefore issue results based on the current ideology and associated Narrative. Jellyfish Boofheads...😅😅😅
_I think we can write off the CSIRO as a complete waste of space in the nuclear generation debate._
Not only the nuclear generation debate. The CSIRO is more interested in promoting the LGBTQ agenda than anything else.
@@jimhealy4890 Yes, that's a better insight.
CSIRO, tell the bloody truth. Just release the modeling data so we the public can make our own judgment.
Not releasing them and inconsistencies pointed in this video already tells us a lot.
It will not happen until people get fired or publishing BS. - and this goes for journalists.
@@iancormie9916 BS and clickbait!
They’ve underestimated the lifespan of a nuclear plant and seriously overestimated the lifespan of both solar and wind and completely overlooked the fact that renewables are only an intermittent form of generation. The other big flaw is the figures quoted for renewables are always based manufacturers theoretical ratings and not on actual generating figures that are considerably lower.
I’m old enough to remember when the CSIRO was respected around the world and its scientists were amongst the best, these days they are a politicised organisation sadly lacking in the skills and disciplines it once had.
And what about nuclear plant refurbishment every 20 to 30 years at a tremendous cost? It has to be stopped and basically rebuilt. $billion.
@ every 40-60 years is closer to the correct figure, the quoted 30 years in the report is ridiculous and another glaring error in the calculations.the other glaring error was that solar panels will last for 25 years and wind turbines for 30, those claims are pure fantasy
Money can buy you any science you want these days
Especially when backed by Shell and BHP.
@@stevimoss since solar and wind is just security for selling gas forever it all makes sense
Why 60 year life used for Nuclear? The US DoE says 80 year life or more.
GenCost: Renewables are listed as 30 year life. Real-life figures are much less. Off-shore Wind probably less again. Was storm damage to solar and wind gens included?
Renewables will have maint and repair teams across hundreds? of sites around the country + ships for off-shore M&R. Nuclear will have M&R teams on 7 sites.
Was every X years the recycling of every solar panel, battery, wind gen included? Can everything be recycled or some of it is dropped into an open pit?
Sodium ion batteries are like 35 years
Csiro forgets most ppl know lucas Heights has been operating for 60yrs so caught out on a lie straight away
@jss2889 They look to be very much still in devt. Their life is measured in cycles and this varies wildly depending source, energy density low so they will take up more space than current.
@@leslieafflick4650 Opal reactor started in 2006..19. yrs
@@TheHsan22 ua-cam.com/video/1K4WOWWba1M/v-deo.html
Didnt the CSIRO suppoert the old Safe and Effective also, makes me wonder if the CSIRO are political in nature. Effective NOT Safe now proven dangerous
Every Government Department is political.
Their first order of business is:
1) Secure their Budget.
2) Increase their Staffing levels.*
3) Roll over and spout the Government narrative.
* Increasing the staffing levels means the fat cats in their department get fatter. 🤑🤑🤑
Putting a reactor on the site of an existing power station would cost about 3 billion USD at most if the costs for the current construction of reactors in South Korea is anything to go by, and construction would take about a year for site site preparation and infrastructure . The building of the reactors and commissioning would take five years or less especially if more than one reactor was ordered for more than one site. What really blows out the time and cost is over zealous regulatory nonsense and legal battles from special interest groups funded by tax payers but controlled by foreign vested interests usually socialist political groups
And also Govs have some tools to offer low cost financing for strategic infra- if most of the NPP costs seem to be in financing due to delays
we could get it down to 2-4 years(from paying to producing power) if we got the reactors from companies that are planning to build the reactors in factories/shipyards, so its even faster and probably cheaper
@ . Actually I factored that in in my estimate.
I was stating the maximum times if things were done correctly and without interference.
The building of the physical reactor components doesn’t take very much time, about equivalent to building the haul of a submarine.
What takes the time is quality control, testing and the final commissioning.
But being able to mass produce key components would shave several years off the building process.
you forgot to mention the incumbent power vested interests of mining and oil, as well. so so socialist as pure kleptocracy capitalism.
S.Korea 3 billion USD. and 6 years????
unrealistic for Australian conditions
better to average the S.Korea USA costs and time
"Vogtle Units 3 & 4 took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost"
One of the major flaws in the Government's (and CSIRO's modelling as well) is assuming stable rare earth prices.
Except, as the government demonstrates repeatedly, the piecemeal nature in which projects are conducted, there's no prospects of securing enough rare earths to meet the projected demand required by renewables.
"Firmed renewables" is a bit of a step down from the loft promises of 'net zero'. There's also the cost fallacy - if pure fiscal cost was our metric we should just keep burning coal - but its not because the costs from the externalities represent an extreme risk far above and beyond the fiscal cost of what we are fronting for new generation. "Firming" as we have it now and as has been underway since 2007, now only generates about 10% of our energy. The rest is gas oil and coal.
Yet, the Government's Plan (Gas, essentially); only manages to shave some of the cost off by maintaining most of the risk by maintaining emissions. It defeats the point of the exercise entirely. This seems even more obscene when you consider that nuclear generation solves both the emissions and demand problems. The government's plan still retains energy insecurity and the export of large numbers of fossil fuels to other countries.
There's a second more insidious fallacy involved here that undermines the relationship with the taxpayer. That's that the facility needs to turn a profit or even break even. Ultimately, it does not need to do that - it just needs to provide electricity to Australian homes and businesses. A lot of the current modelling looks at the break-even time before the plant has earned enough money as it cost. This is entirely unnecessary - and it represents a double billing of the populace. The Australian people are already paying for the generators in cash with their income taxes (there are no other tax bases) - and they will pay for the energy on their bills. An attempt to recoup costs of either transformation is essentially billing the Australian taxpayer twice.
The problem with the unquestioning assumption of these projections by media and ALP supporters is that there's no notion of how much these things "should" cost - it's just an arbitrary "this figure is too costly"; but it's completely wrongheaded. The costs need to be modelled against what an Australia that can only afford to power half the country produces versus one that is fully powered.
Regardless of how much power we produce, people will use it. We have spent the past decade fuel burning megatonnes of coal to power crypto-currency mining. The same thing will continue into the future with AI/LLMs - regardless of whether these things work or not. Much like a highway, one you build it, it will fill to capacity.
well said, on all counts. you make great points,
@@anaryl Hear, hear.
Australia should be a power house (pun intended) of power. Gas, Nuclear, wind and solar. We could have the lowest cost of any country and smelt our own resources here.
II read through the entire gencost report.
Thank you for pointing out these deficiencies.
A couple more of note:
Gencost models all nuclear projects as "greenfield" with no infrastructure in place (transmission facilities, roads, etc.). In reality, all nuclear plants would be built on existing coal sites.
They basically modelled Australian construction workers as "lazy and incompetent", being unable to even come close to capabilities of other countries when building nuclear plants.
The renewable storage pricing was only for a few hours. In reality, a few days of storage would be needed. They made a gesture towards costing this, but then discounted it because is was too expensive!
They didn't correctly model the enormous amount of overbuild and spillage required to achieve timely storage replenishment with a 95%+ renewable grid.
In my opinion, the current electricity market pricing/bidding system is broken. It allows renewables to bid in at negative prices and capture the market and make coal/nuclear appear over priced because they aren't able to operate at peak capacity and efficiency.
Bidding into the market should be for GUARANTEED deliver of the amount of energy bid, and over longer periods. This would force renewable sources to include storage etc. into their supply costs and stop this burden from unfairly tainting the cost of "reliable" generation.
Great comment. As someone who works in the electricity industry I’ve also long thought the pricing mechanism is fundamentally flawed and needs a complete overhaul - it is destroying the reliability of our grid.
CIS has never been unbiased regardless of their name. This report and the CSIROs miss a huge factor that swings the costs wildly in favour of renewables. Individual households make up a huge proportion of the nation's power generation and storage. With V2L and a soon to be approved V2G the growing EV fleet will join the growing home battery fleet to give us all the storage we need. This will eliminate much of the grid upgrade cost and require fewer large batteries.
What's extremely disappointing with both the Liberals and Labor is that they have turned what should be left to scientists into a political football.
We need our power needs solved and to do it in a carbon neutral way and we need politicians to keep their grubby paws and snouts out of it.
And no mention to the 430,000 plus square Kms of Australian farmland and forests destroyed by "renewable". Nor any mention of the wildlife that lose their homes.
Where are the Greens on this?
The real issues are the horrendous capital costs, depreciation, maintenance and unreliability.
Mr Bowen belongs in a psychiatric hospital if he really believes what he is saying.
they don't care, as its not in their electorate, The 'save the trees' slogan died many years ago.
Thank you Centre fot Independent Studies. No honesty from the government agencies.
Are you being sarcastic?
@@6braceface No.
@@torrespearls381 fascinating. Not sure why you respect the ‘analysis’ of CIS that’s primarily funded by coal and gas special interest as opposed to the government. Not saying you shouldn’t be critical of government agencies and their output, but why disregard a potential bias for absolutely confirmed bias?
@@6braceface Cheers mate, but I'm allowed my view and I trust these people more than the Labor party with their blinkered view of energy . Now I don't know you so please just troll someone else. Face to face I'll yarn but not type.
@ I’m not saying you aren’t allowed to have an opinion. I’m saying that your opinion is misinformed and you should consider further research. I’m not ‘trolling’ you, simply engaging in a discussion which you prompted on a public forum. Have a lovely day
The CSIRO has over estimated nuclear cost
Understated the life of same while not factoring the inflation cost of replacing the wind and solar 3 if not 4 times in the life of nuclear plant
Also no cost add for road upgrade to accommodate long loads or transmission lines 😮
I think you mean underestimated if you look at costs of nuclear rolllouts in Western democratic countries with labour rights.
@whatsyamaksud
Have a look at
Gerrard Holland
True cost of wind and solar
From th I R C
The old Hazelwood site in the Latrobe Valley is perfect.
It has everything needed.
The major problem is that it’s called Gen-cost. It only focuses on the generating cost, not the SYSTEM cost.
Compelling evidence I see suggests it would not matter how much nuclear technologies cost-even if they were magically free, and they are demonstrably and most certainly not-because nuclear technologies are demonstrably too slow to deploy from scratch to save us from blackouts, rising energy prices and the worsening climate crisis.
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will likely be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we would wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? That's the urgent conversation Australia needs to have.
See my Submission (#066) & Supplementary Submission (#066.1) to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.
See the PROOF transcript of the public hearing on 11 Dec 2024, conducted by the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, from page 8.
It's a damn shame the scientists at the CSIRO have been forced to forget their basic training/education by the politicians. The fundamental principles as a scientist is you must release your data for peer review and analysis and repeatability tests by others. This report has politicians grubby little fingers all over it.
Brilliant presentation. At some point Bowen is going to have to concede that not everyone is going to sit by and accept his lies while he destroys our country. He needs to provide answers to these concerns.
Someone needs to switch off CSIRO'S lights, there using too much energy on BS.
Sack the CEO and board of CSIRO. Have a enquiry into these people and held responsible for their lies. Disgraceful 🤬🤬🤬
_Sack the CEO and board of CSIRO._
Better still, totally defund them.
Like all bureaucrats the CSIRO appears to be full of activists.
My question is, given renewables are not providing cheaper power, where will we get power from?
They haven't shut down coal yet for a reason.
Listening to Paul Graham’s waffle is enough to send any rational person into a deep funk. Our taxes fund this drivel.
The grid to connect green energy by wind and solar costs $1.9 million per km by 28,000 kms of power lines equals about $560 billion plus the cost of transformers and distribution plus the cost of batteries plus solar panels plus wind generators which last between 10- 25 years, batteries 10 years, plus cost of pumped hydro, plus cost of wave or tidal power generation plus thermal, plus maintenance of grid and equipment, plus replacements, we are headed towards a trillion dollars. 4-5 times the cost of nuclear
Good video
CSIRO's capacity factors for baseload are wrong as they do not consider batteries as electron-neutral and therefore an overnight source of demand for nuclear or coal. As batteries are required to shift daytime solar generation for use in the evening, this means that there is battery demand overnight to be filled by based load coal/nuclear. The batteries will then discharge in the morning before filling again at midday from solar PV. Hence the 53% to 89% factors, based on historical, are too low for a future grid with large scale batteries.
As an alternative, if there is a "capacity factor" for coal /nuclear based on historic levels because of intertemporal vagaries, then the same factor should be applied to batteries (and solar, wind) as well because otherwise you be selectively applying a "real world friction" such that the report was no longer technology neutral. Of course, it could be argued that "slippage" costs are effectively a capacity factor for renewables, but then, to be consistent, you would need to use similar slippage rates for baseload coal / nuclear.
On a more subtle level, given the rapid and large drop in the capital costs for renewables it would be sensible to delay increased renewable capacity until the cost drops. A lowest electricity cost path would be to extend existing technology and implement renewables when they are cheaper. This would also free up resources (workers, materials, capital) for other uses such as (a) the Brisbane Olympics; (b) civic infrastructure (eg transport, medical, educational); (c) regional development (to share the opportunity of immigrants more widely).
This is probably outside CSIRO's remit, but it is unclear how you continue to provide a price incentive for solar given the "duck curve" (more an economic than science question). Early solar generators faced incentive prices at midday because they were relatively small scale in grid-wide generation, but given rooftop PV and additional solar farms, then the daytime price will move to below full cost (given marginal cost of zero) without a large amount of daytime battery demand. So, CSIRO's scientific justification of small battery storage requirements may be correct, but it is unclear how the market pricing incentives will deliver this outcome. I guess without seeing the CSIRO numbers in detail we'll never know but there is a real risk that CSIRO's scientific equilibrium is not an available economic one.
Finally, the report should be explicit that it does not describe in any way the technology pathway for the lowest cost electricity for Australians. By not making this explicit and by allowing the report to be used, again, by politicians as justification for the choice of renewables over other options (eg life extensions, brownfield expansions), CSIRO has further damaged the credibility of experts, elected governments and their bureaucracy.
Also what about data centres for A.I.
Can not work on a sinwave power source. Coal or Nuclear!
One thing that has not been mentioned which is absolutely a game-changer in regards to nuclear energy - the requirement of huge volumes of water. Where is this coming from - and at what cost to the environment and other water user's requirements?
Ocean... Environmental cost of pumping say 40m3/s/reactor of slightly warmer water than it enters must be enormous (sarcasm). Same thing is needed for coal to BTW.
@@msxcytb You can't use salt water in a thermal generator. Coal has similar water requirements per MW but if the coal plant runs out of water it shuts off. If the nuclear plant runs out of water it melts down - even if it's shut down at the time
Gencost, all about generation costs (for the investor) but no cost for transmission, (us).
Totally awesome breakdown Zoe. LOVE YOUR WORK.
Can you release the extent of your financial support from coal industry lobbyists?
It's a secret
There are easy ways to assess costs.
Nuclear exists overseas, coal exists, and renewables exists.
Look at those, and I will hazard a guess they show renewables cause more trouble for the grid than they can benefit.
We also already know how long things last.
I can't see how the CSIRO can get these figures.
I also think that if they are taxpayer funded, they should be accountable to the taxpayer for errors or lies.
The cost of wind and solar will be almost double in 20 years.
Material demand and scarcity will determine this
The fact that the CSIRO receives upto 1/3 of its funding from gas companies, and is open about being partners with renewables manufacturers and and gas companies clearly shows they are incredibly biased on this topic and cant be trusted.
CSIRO are as trustworthy as the Bureau of Maybeology
CSIRO is propaganda mashine , pri paid saince to do dirty job for Labor government, definitely. 🙏💯💪🇦🇺⛪️🙌🎄😃👢 11:23
True. Never mind that CIS is funded by coal, gas and mining interest groups. Pull ya head in.
What is the decommissioning cost of nuclear?
It's about 1% of the total lifecycle cost, unless you simply put a chainlink fence around it and delay it indefinitely.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Yes exactly- delay, and constant complain tactics, spreading fear can escalate any task into infinite time and money.
With homes in the future becomes solar with own battery storage. Then we will produce a majority of the power and wont need the grid.
_With homes in the future becomes solar with own battery storage._
Batteries will work for things requiring little power, like lights. But batteries are woefully inadequate for heating and cooling.
What about the storms with renewables
Great analysis
One of the biggest issue is the amount of Firming required by renewables and how much deliberate under estimation of this firming is being reported.
They are planning for hours of firming when it will take weeks of storage to run a renewables grid.
Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies,[6] hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party.[7][8] SHOCK
Who would you trust to build and cost a nuclear power station a CSIRO fool or an engineer
It’s great to listen to some unbiased truths
Fire that guy and get CSIRO to focus on science. Get the costing done by an independent body
Excellent video, well done.
All we need to do is copy SA ,as they are around a yr or 2 been fully 100% green !!!!!!!!!!!
This is making news around the world .
Go SA
SA power is the highest in country.. and the price is not close... and this after SA deleted thier industry.😮😢.
It doesn’t help that they quoted on small modular nuclear reactors and not full scale nuclear power stations which is what we actually need. What we also need is a full scale sovereign nuclear processing industry which means we could manufacture nuclear rods and sell them to the world rather than purchasing them after shipping our raw materials to those countries in the first instance but I suppose AUKUS now prevents us from doing so.
CSIRO and AEMO, when comparing renewables and nuclear, do not take into account the billions of dollars to purchase millions of acers of land, billions of dollars for the grid connections and the billion of dollars every 25-30 years (or less) to dump all the old solar panels and wind blades to land fill.
Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed to last about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60-year operating life.
.
The cost of refurbishing a nuclear reactor can vary depending on the reactor and the scope of the work. For example, the Darlington Nuclear Refurbishment Project in Ontario, Canada, cost an estimated $12.8 billion.
Nuclear
The centre for independent studies is a political think tank.
Do I truest CIS or CSIRO? I go with the CSIRO. So don't we need transmission lines with nuclear? Funny.
CSIRO is negotiable to the highest bidder $$$$.
More like Centre for Independent Studies. You blind dummy.
This is just about nuclear v's black coal v's renewables generated electricity? Why hasn't the the 7 x reactor builds been put into the costings v's the renewables transformation of the electricity grid? It's like its been deliberately left out of maths.
You guys are doing important work, please keep it up.
Do you factor in the replacement cycle for wind, in the UK the offshore replacement rate is far higher than initial estimated?
What cost did the CSIRO place on the destruction of our environment will all these solar and wind turbines and the cost of wastage , bet not added to final costing
The price of wind, solar, and grid storage batteries is plummeting down cheaper and cheaper every year.
Wind and Batteries are are paid for by investment companies.
Solar is paid for by investors and hundreds of thousands of home owners that recognize what a good deal it is to make your own power.
TAX payers pay for nuclear... Why do you want Dutton's higher Taxes???
I think you have forgotten the Millions of dollars of tax relief and subsidies given to renewables by government which are paid for by us
It is not that simple unfortunately. How does the working class afford the kit? They are more reliant on the traditional grid than inner city elites, like Teal voters. Retail electricity prices are escalating rapidly and will continue to do so.
Also, who manufactures them. Oh, are adversaries. What would all this cost if we had to make them?
Shocking
The sheer fact that they won’t release their calculations says all you need to know. If it was accurate and legit they would show it to the world.
If you get Government funding. The report will say what Labor needs to hear
Lead by example, CIS members should therefore invest all their money in building Australian 1st Nuclear powerplant. Then list the profitable Nuke company on the ASX.
Synchronous condenser is a power factor compensator. Power factor is a measure of how much reactive load on the network. This type of load is primarily due to induction motors primarily from air conditioners, refrigeration, fans, big industrial motors etc. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of and significant power factor issues with either solar, wind or nuclear generation.
Buronga substation will be one of the largest and most sophisticated substations in the southern hemisphere and includes five phase-shifting transformers, two synchronous condensers and four shunt reactors. No doubt these costs are swept under the carpet in Gen Cost analysis.
We need more specific reports like this. We have to put both sides under the scope to seek truth.
Forgot to add, thanks Zoe and CIS. Wow we are being taken for fools by the people we pay and trust.
This is a real concern for me. There must be some legal precedence somewhere as Australians must have all the facts to make informed decisions at the next election. How can the CSIRO and the government get away with this?
So lets ad one more factor. Solar PV and batteries getting cheaper is due to dumping prices and production from China, the country that is "not entirely" democratic and bit adversarial toward for example Australia. What will happen if one torpedo/rocked/ other type of Chinese gun will be fired toward for example Taiwan with solar PV and batteries prices? Right at the moment western countries are practically waging trade war with China, but the PVs (so loved by politicians, and not to much concerned about reality population) are the last to be subject of tariffs/embargoes. That is only if China is not starting true wars. Is it good idea to model your country energy future on "partner" like China?
Ignoring nuclear will be a huge mistake.
CSIRO Gencost Report does not consider the many federal/state subsidies of RE and "cost of living adjustments" due to higher power prices, the compensation payments to farmers for the new grid and for the PV/wind mill and battery fields, the so-called curtailment costs when industry is getting paid to reduce its energy consumption as RE cnnot supply the shortfall and the payments to keep coal going longer, like $225 mio./year for Eraring as RE cannot be built fast enough.
Plus the CSIRO does not have any economists or engineers and is reliant on AEMO's ISP report.
Rhetorical question: How well do Solar Panels and/or Wind Turbines hold up when exposed to cyclones, hail storms, thunderstorms?
The big thing about nuclear is if it goes poorly it's expensive, but not for very long. Georgian power bills rose to pay for Vogtle 3 and 4, yet are still lower than average. Why? Vogtle 1 and 2 were built a long time ago. They were expensive too, except now they're not. The running cost for amortized nuclear is much less than maintaining a wind/solar/battery grid. Effectively you cannot really go wrong with nuclear in the long run
It might be cheaper to build mostly wind and solar. But the best case scenario has significant difficulty in matching the long term economic scenario for nuclear. At a minimum developing both assets and shifting your system to one or the other depending on cost trajectories makes much more sense than maintaining a ban
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will likely be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we would wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? That's the urgent conversation Australia needs to have.
Building a nuclear power plant is no guarantee that it will generate electricity. VC SUMMER-2 & -3 in South Carolina were both abandoned in 2017 with estimated costs at around US$9.8 billion, which South Carolina households continue to pay for in their electricity bills.
See my Submission (#066) & Supplementary Submission (#066.1) to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.
See the PROOF transcript of the public hearing on 11 Dec 2024, conducted by the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, from page 8.
Yes indeed. The risk of going NPP route is that project will take long and somewhat over the optimistic budget (it may also go smoother and cheaper because there is nothing inherently slow and expensive in technology). The risk of going with Solar and wind is blackouts, constant replacements, sending money to China(west is already kinda at economical war with China and it may turn out uglier in an instant), high price anyways and paying SOMEONE for gas backup which may be affordable now, but in perspective of 30,40,80years who knows. Properly made and maintained NPP after 60 years of service will be making ultra cheap power with perspective of perhaps tens of more years still. And spent fuel will have 95% of energy still inside to be used someday as greatest fuel resource ever. 10-15years of build is not looking that bad with all that in mind.
When do you know that the Narrative is at odds with the truth? When the calculation data is not available for public scrutiny. Who is getting the big future ROI here?
CSIRO just dropped another load of what falls out the back of a Bull.
You wish! Just have to look at our friends in England to see how Nuclear is going
In January 2024, EDF announced that it estimated that the final cost would be £31-35 billion (2015 prices, excluding interim interest), £41.6-47.9 billion in 2024 prices, with Unit 1 becoming operational in 2029-2031
@@ikt123 yes crappy on site builds and legal battle are know to cost way more then it should, it is why we should go the factories/shipyard built reactor route and ship the finished reactor to the site which would take about 2-4 years and would have little to no cost over runs coz they are standardized designs built in a production line!
@@ikt123 France CHEAPEST electric in Europe ( Nuclear) ,, USA new builds coming online in droves.
And Chris Bowen is Wallowing in it.
unfortunately not enough people in Australia will see this to make a difference.
The debate is a good exercise in obfuscation leading to 'he says she says'. Its a bit like 'climate change' where we hear 'experts' sum up and simplify large sums of data. What the general public needs is a slow lesson breaking down the key elements in costing to see whats going on.
The cost of batteries is decreasing rapidly. New battery technology is being developed. This will further reduce costs for renewables. If nuclear is the future where are the private investprs?
_New battery technology is being developed._
They're already near their full potential. Lithium is the best element for batteries. All we hear nowadays are pie-in-the-sky stories about new _break-though_ developments which never eventuate.
It's illogical to use speculative future developments as if they were certainties. Banking on the future is always gambling.
@@grasonicus The LNP talks about SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) There is not one operating anywhere. That is gambling. Lithium sulfur batteries are working as are others. There is not one reactor working in the world today that does not require subsidies from the taxpayer. In Ontario the nuclear power is subsidised to the tune of $8 billion. Not very economical.
@@grasonicus lithium is the best element *for energy density*, which is irrelevant for grid scale storage. The cost curve for batteries is still coming down. I do agree we should be careful making assumptions about unproven battery chemistries, but there's working tech out there that can definitely beat lithium on cost per MWh once it reaches economies of scale
@@ndazza _but there's working tech out there that can definitely beat lithium on cost per MWh once it reaches economies of scale_
So, you're still building your case on non-existent batteries.
@@johnmarshall9415 _There is not one reactor working in the world today that does not require subsidies from the taxpayer._
The case is, _Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries, however, it is taxed because production costs are so low._ and _Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back in many places due to the rapidly increasing cost to consumers. Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some, increasingly controversial, direct subsidies._
You said: _Lithium sulfur batteries are working as are others._ Despite that, there's *not one town in the world with a population over 3000 relying solely on wind and/or solar.*
You also said: _The LNP talks about SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) There is not one operating anywhere._
I told Nuclear Australia that focussing on SMRs is stupid. But there are two working SMRs in the world: _Russia ; The Akademik Lomonosov, the world's first floating nuclear power plant, began commercial operation in May 2020. It produces energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. China: The HTR-PM, a pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, was connected to the grid in 2021._
Any chance of a review of the Nuclear plan put forward by the opposition?
Sure looks like Bowen wrote the recommendations page for the Gencost report first, and only then did CSIRO juggle a carefully selected set of assumptions to come up with the politically desired result. What happened to the CSIRO we used to admire?
Never allow the Bank Manager go unsupervised into the Vault 🤔
short answer - if Chris Bowen pushes something don't believe it. Long answer, if Chris Bowen pushes something don't believe it.
the actual enviromental cost of wind and solar is way worse than they actually disclose they need to actualy need to be open and honest with the actual environmental cost of both as long term options
The Centre for "independent" Studies is not independent. You are an organisation founded by the Liberal Party, and funded by for profit organisations, many of whom donate to the LNP, and profit from their policies. How does being paid for by mining corporations make you "independent"? I'll trust the ACTUALLY independent scientists at the CSIRO, thank-you very much!😂.
When the wind is blowing and the sun shining these generators must supply enough energy to power the grid PLUS enough energy to charge battery banks. This means that the generators must be at least twice the generating capacity of existing power stations.
Great insights - although I suspect Spent Fuel Rod storage is not included in the gen cost storage.......
So the CSIRO changed the previous report under the threat of having its funding cut.
What else was lost was the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant.
_What else was lost was the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant._
And the cost of dealing with old solar panels and wind-turbine blades and other paraphernalia.
I wonder if the CSIRO figures included replacing renewable generators every 5 years or so due to high wind damage similar to the resent events in Wales.
Both LNP and ALP and Zoe are ignoring that mums and dads rooftop PV will create a massive DUCK CURVE of no grid demand daily.
Even Wharehouses and office buildings and factories and..shopping centres and schools and hospitals and....
20million roofs in Australia.
All with PV panels and all grid connected.
All grid customers.
20million vehicles in Australia and most EVs in 20years.
Most parked 23hrs every day and all night long.
This will be about 2,000gWh of massive FREE ELECTRICITY STORAGE daily.
I bet v2g EVs technology will develop decades before nuclear electricity gets near being available.
UTILIZATION of individual electricity energy investment will preceed grid electricity energy supply.
If nuclear needs solar supply to turn off and so mums and dads supply is to turn off, the mums and dads might rely on their dirt cheat rooftop PV electricity, their 3cents kWh electricity and use their v2g EVs massive battery all night long.
Millions of mums and dads and homes might not switch the grid back on.
This is when the SHTTSNPANTS effect hits the owners of the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid.
SHTTSNPANTS effect also hits the government owners of the new nuclear plants.
SHTTSNPANTS is the feeling you get when you have no money, no cashflow from millions and millions and millions of customers who own a roof with a PV and have an EV parked 23hrs daily.
The Illinois EnergyProf explains nuclear electricity generation plant construction and TIMELINES and DEBT and CASHFLOWS over decades.
If permanent cashflow and no interruption to cashflow. 247 cashflow.
The ignorant should look at his video.
The Professor has NOT TALKED about the $TRILLIONs national grid and its $100sBILLIONS in cashflow demand.
The Professor has only talked about the $6BILLION nuclear electricity plant construction vs a gas peaker plant and their TIMELINE and DEBY and CASHFLOWS.
The big advantage of rooftop PV and v2g EVs is the TAX FREE SAVINGS in a big CAPITAL GAINS TAX FREE all electric home too the HIGH MARGINAL TAX PAYERS.
These are the earliest technology adopters.
These are the LNP voters who will be torn between massive government taxpayers funding of massive nuclear power plants and government mandated use of grid electricity and massive tax breaks.
And the poor slow adopters who will need Government assistance.
I bet Zoe Hilton will tell us about grid cashflow and more about the SHTTSNPANTS effect in her next video.
Edit.
A business friend, and a friend of the LNP saves $10,000 a quarter with his warehouse rooftop PV. And saves at his home with rooftop PV and a home battery.
High marginal tax savings, tax free savings.
My supply is 50cents kWh
Feed in is 5cents kWh.
My income is low, my marginal tax is low, my grid supply is costs are high.
As more grid customers leave the grid and the grid costs remain fixed I will turn lights off and reduce my grid demand.
Nuclear has to use the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid.
Distant renewables have to use the $TRILLIONS national electrical grid.
Rooftop PV and 2nd hand v2g EVs are getting cheaper.
More people will do what I've done, get your own batteries and disconnect from the grid. I for one am sick and tired of our government (both major parties) running our country for the benefit of the multinationals. Cheers Jon
@jondavies-nc6gb electricity is a mystery to the majority.
The majority need plug and play electricity.
EVs with v2g battery and selfplug-in will be perfect.
Early adopters will soon trade in their first EVs, and much cheaper, massive batteries will be parked in many homes.
wow I am confused why are people building some many grid size batteries.
If the CSIRO had difficulty getting the costs correct for nuclear, it's because no-one has successfully built a nuclear reactor in the last decade without costs and time to build blowing out massively. And the small modular reactors that Dutton proposes currently do not exist and may never exist. That makes accurate costing a bit tough. Meanwhile, solar, wind, batteries and other storage continue to get cheaper and more effective every year.
there no economical battery that can last a night that can handle grid night time demand, if renewables was at near 100% let alone over 50%...thats the kicker they don't price in coz solar doesn't work at night so u have to cover the complete demand with batteries!
@@murraykeir1745 would Japan about 20years ago be good enough? 4years from the start of pouring concrete to connection to grid with modern BWRs is darn impressive IMHO
The last Liberal venture into the energy market was Snowy 2.0 $2 billion was what they promised it would cost and completed by 2024. The project is currently expected to be fully operational by the end of 2028 cost $12 billion +, so excuse me if I doubt Peter Dutton and the Liberal parties figures, the only thing that tops the cost over runs and missed deadlines of building nuclear reactors, is Olympic Infrastructure. Which we will all see with the Brisbane games. Anyway after reading many of the comments below, it looks like there will plenty of takers keen to line up for the Kool Aid supplied by Mr Dutton and co. Good luck with that. Cheers Jon
Graham Paul. What a piece of work.