@@davmac6148 Yeh and the doctors and the police and the defence forces and the universities and the Barristers and the brewers , oh maybe not the brewers🤣🤣🤣🤣.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@Didigetitwrong you do realize this is the same Allegedly respected Organization .. by whom I don't know CSIRO that advocated for Australians to stop eating Beef and Instead Eat Bugs .. just like the WEF UN stated to combat alleged Climate change and reduce emissions levels for net zero so tell me what level of Parts Per Million of CO2 is acceptable? No one at the WEF UN UNIPCC nor The CSIRO will state a Level.. Why is that ?
Why would they put there credibility on the line to say something that's not true. Remember that the lnp was the one that sold of the power generator to private enterprise. The same companies that are say Nuclear not viable and no bank will back them in Australia.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@wpb1395 And they have also underestimated the cost of renewables as well, in fact a lot of their costings in the Gencost report only factored what an investor would pay, and all the transmission was a sunk cost in other words it was already installed, well no it will still be an ongoing grind until well past 2050 if they continue on this path. We will always need some type of power station(s) whether it be coal, gas or nuclear (if it gets a foot in the door) for firming as this trajectory for renewables including batteries will not run a modern grid.
@@johnnywarbo Renewable get cheaper every year, nuclear gets more expensive. They said the same about solar as about batteries i.e. it will never be a big art of the grid. Here's the kicker. All the right wingers who hate big govt want the govt to pay 10s of billions for extremely expensive nuclear and miss that solar now produces 20 one gigawatts of peak power (i.e. 20 nuclear plants) and much of that the govt hasn't had to pay for, it's just individuals with rooftop solar.
When you need to build a battery the size of Sydney for Sydney to keep power going then you have no right to speak about renewables and saving the planet
@morgan696manning imagine converting all combustion engine energy to electrical energy and then combined with losses generating this en masse daily and delivering to trucking companies let alone domestic consumers. Theres a reason these calculations havent been done, they result in a dead system
@@katb7921we are nowhere near tech advanced for battery power only so others are needed for 100y at least since we can't store it at all on a scale needed that's why solar is getting more expensive for homeowners specially ones that bought into the lies are now paying the power grid to store solar power, they make it's all a scam and the real science hidden then say we need off shore wind farms that's going to destroy so much land
The planet is fine it's humanity that's screwed and it's not from the climate, it's from the Davos puppets like Albo and Starmer and their psychotic masters.
What is the environmental cost of digging up all the metals needed for the transition to zero? How big is the quarry and what is the environmental cost of digging it?
@@briananderson7285and Chinese cheap labour for now. Replacing in 15 years who knows? Nuclear fuel 5% of total cost won’t blow out or be scarce in 20 years
I glad to see David Littleproud is using his education, with all his extensive knowledge about power generation. I thought that the nuclear power was going to be 5% from what they have said. And most of the rest would be coal and gas.
What Nuclear technitians would that be? I think the LNP are using consultants not technitians. Remembet when Mr Dutton went to Collie in WA and said everyone there welcomed nuclear energy when he hadn't spoken to anyone but the public officials, dangerous times.
I hope you're not suggesting littlefella & duttare the experts. We are now 5 months from the election that they want us to decide on nuclear energy, and they still haven't given us the full costing, after promising us it would be out 3 months ago.
@@jimmartin9704Yes and no agreement on Nuclear from any of the states. Hopefully they can talk Labour out of a plethaside on lifting the nuclear ban before the election.😂😂😂😂
@@jimmartin9704 not sure I've seen Upgrade Albo and Blackout Bowen's renewable fantasy costing either. They just keep installing more and more with no end in sight so spare us the BS!
@Toadie-t9u They did it years ago,got it totally wrong, like turdble snowy hydro2.0, totally fucked that up too. No bullshit, dutton said in an interview with Sky News/ Courier Mail bush summit in Townsville on the 23 of August that it will be released in a few weeks. Like all politicians, there all full of shit
What's the political affiliation and voting intention behind the people who make such reports in government departments? That's what we should be asking!
Pfizer, CSIRO. Scientists will agree with whoever funds them. Renewables mean continual $$$ a never ending pit. Making investors very rich and deals with politicians. And Australian citizens get to have load shedding
Remember when scientists were saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. They were paid for by the tobacco companies. Same principle applies to the climate alarmists.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@damienasmr922 Tell me I'm wrong. Try telling me things aren't more expensive in Australia. eg. Nuclear subs are going to cost $268billion. How bout showing some facts...
@@wpb1395 Westinghouse and General electric can build an off the shelf nuclear power system. Get a fixed price contract then any blow out is on the main contractor. Other countries can do it.
All for nuclear but how about we build a new coal plant, with todays technology, how efficient and clean one would operate, compare emissions of a new motor vehicle to one made in the 50s
My solution is to let customers sign up for green or traditional energy. Charge accordingly. The green energy will be cheaper most days 8am - 4pm but dearer at night depending on wind, battery, and hydro. Traditional will be fixed price. There is no need to get nuclear. We have more coal than we can ever use before other affordable technologies arrive. Overhaul existing power stations if reasonable to do so.
Known from a repair experience with CSIRO is that they find it hard to know the difference between ionising radiation and ionising radio waves. Both of which have two different effects and different international warning symbols.
There is nowhere near enough copper being mined worldwide to build this renewable system with the EVs etc. The number of real-world reasons that make renewables impossible is extreme.
How much copper do you think goes into an electric car only about 4 times more than a regular car and about on par with the amount used in a house electrical system so not that crazy
@@lewistreloar2312 The transition to renewable energy significantly increases the demand for copper. Renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles, require four to six times more copper per installed megawatt (MW) compared to conventional power sources. This means that as we shift towards renewable energy, the demand for copper will rise substantially. In 2023, the total global copper production from mines was estimated to be around 22 million metric tons. However, the growing demand for copper in renewable energy technologies is expected to outpace supply. There are many other electronics that also require huge amounts of copper. It is not green nor good for the environment.
They never want to talk about the 10,000km of transmission lines for expensive unreliable renewable energy. Solar farms and wind farms being required to be replaced after 20 years.
Those transmission line are specifically mentioned in the ISP. At least one of them was authorised by Angus Taylor and Scott Morrison. Solar panels are warranted for 30 years, and continue to provide power after that. The oldest wind turbine in Australia was recently retired after 40 years of service.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time. Much solar is local to the end user (the household) storage through batteries will be the same. Plus, nuclear plants wouldn't be located in cities - there's too much resistance, they will be a long way from anywhere.
@@footbruno. Futbrah… misinformation. 20 years but the global average before replacing then is only 17 years. They are absolutely no good after 40 years… they are no good after 25 years. 2% degradation per year Futbrah… by 25 years thats 50% of their nameplate capacity gone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your propaganda. Must be an election coming… all you renewables zealots and labor trolls seem to have multiplied! Did you breed with tassied12? 😂😂😂😂 The desperation is apparent… the laborgreenalliance know they are in deep sh!t…. The people are sick of the woke far left.. A correction is coming…😂
@footbru yeah, lets design on your statistics shall we?? So from what you are saying, solar panels will last for 30 years? Delivering the power required to run our cities on electric energy not fossil fuels, you are dreaming. Do you know the amount of energy required to move from ICE engines to electrical? Im not sure you do...
Nuclear is investing in national infrastructure that is proven to deliver cheaper electricity to consumers. My question to the renewable zealots still stands: At what percentage of grid generation do intermittent renewables start to lower consumer electricity prices?
They already do. The AEMO has acknowledged this in numerous public statements as the cost of fossil fuels increased substantially after the Ukraine war, what keep the increases to a minimum was the much cheaper cost of renewable energy.
@@pwillis1589 AEMO also said they cannot guarantee that renewables will provide the cheapest form of electricity... you can't pick and choose when to listen to them!
Coal and gas Australia's made of the stuff, properly managed and maintained Coal and gas fired power stations are efficient, reliable,cost-effective and clean.
@@dfor50 Yes we did I remember numerous blackouts and power failures in Sydney back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Coal plants broke down all the time. Burning fossils fuels is affecting our atmosphere. This is not my opinion it is the overwhelming scientific data.
Not concerned re cost. The main issue is reliable base load power that nuclear delivers. And cheap too, once the plants are constructed. Check prices in nuclear powered France. Lowest in the world.
EDF the wholly owned nuclear energy corporation in France is €50 billion in debt because the French government subsidises the cost of electricity . Don’t believe me research it yourself. The cost of electricity in France is not the lowest in the world, that claim is demonstrably factually incorrect. Swedens electricity is half the cost of France.
@@pwillis1589pure deflection and desperation PW… typical of you. Even CSIRO is now getting desperate… the cope from you renewables zealots is absolutely pathetic. 😂😂😂
Little man Baseload electricity is 20% of grid electricity, which is 10% of Australia’s energy is grid electricity 20% x 10% of Australia's fossil fueled energy 2% f.... all of Australia's fossil fueled energy The other 98% don't need your 2%. And the worldwide CO2 emissions is little Australia's biggest problem. Tony Abbott said this a decade ago.
There is no secret to costs of reactor construction and running costs. New reactors are starting up every year around the world. There no secret that the current generation of manufacturers cost of construction and completion, including training and maintenance. Our close neighbours the South Korean companies are the forefront of modern reactor construction.
Did the CSIRO factor in the cost of permanent cost of damage to the environment? And recycling or reclamation of renewable farms & all those transmission lines, or otherwise replacement and maintenance costs? The CSIRO is a damn disgrace & no longer fit for purpose. Mitch, QLD.
@@Waynothebrute - Wrong. I can't handle the bald-faced lies. Why wouldn't other countries ignore base-load power options in favour of 100% cheap & clean solar & wind? Destruction of native forest is not factored in, it's worth nothing to these demonic ideologues. Check the facts.
CSIRO lost the plot many years ago, when they started receiving money for comment, live a long time and us old enough will remember the same rubbish repeated over and over
They forget to add the cost of 28,000 kms of transmission lines approx $500-600 billion dollars plus cost of transformers and distribution centres. So this makes nuclear at 10-15 billion a reactor very cheap in comparison.
Until CSIRO fully costs the expansion/upgrading of the transmission and distribution network and the additional 'firming' generation all needed to support a majority renewable generation network, then it is simply a waste of time and somewhat misleading. I would even go as far to say that CSIRO is becoming politicised.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@wpb1395 Given renewables only deliver their rated capacity 30% of the time then 70% of the time they would be contributing to the grid. And produce that power cheaper than the expensive 100% gas backup generation AEMO's ISP relies on and CSIRO does not cost. Nuclear also would have a role to play in firming that renewables can not provide.
@@ivanf6938 Solar is producing so much power during the day now, that power has to be often 'spilled'. Coal plants need to run to stay ticking over. We don't have a power production problem, we have a power storage problem. More and more solar is coming online every day as it gets cheaper. Storage is getting cheaper, too. Batteries dropped 20% in price this year. Nuclear gets more expensive every year.
@@wpb1395😂😂 what about the winter months and other periods during the year when there is heavy cloud cover and much shorter daylight hours. Stop parroting Bowen.
@@wpb1395😂😂😂 and how long are the batteries able to provide the power requirements. They don't last very long at all and don't claim advances that don't yet exist.
We as a nation have to piss off the "renewables" and build 3 nuclear plants on the east side of Australia with one new age coal power plant for each state and the NT. Western and south Australia and Tasmania to get a gas plant as a second source should be more than enough to cover current and future power needs.
They are you cretin!! They’re saying that nuclear power isn’t going to be cost effective as the stupid Dutton liberals say!! They’re not political they’re stating facts!! I don’t want nuclear anywhere near me! Maybe they can build in your backyard if you think it’s a great idea!! Duh!!
9 Trillion lol, more like 20-30 trillion depending on whether you want up to half of Australia to go back to the 1800's whenever we get more than two weeks of little sun and no wind. Australia will be bankrupt by then and a new generation of idiots will be screaming about the world constantly ending.
The best way to resolve this nuclear cost debate is simple - lift the ban on nuclear power. Then the industry will determine what the true cost is. It will then be economics that decide the outcome instead of political grandstanding.
This woman is asking extremely good questions. Little man is deflecting all over the place. He reminds me of a friend who would try and dazzle a young woman at a bar with nonsense 🤔 🙄
Didn't rely or believe the first report the CSIRO did on this - Why should we believe them now ????????? I would rather nuclear experts have their say ...................................
Have a listen to ADI Paterson, ex CEO of ANSTO, the only nuclear facility in this country. The man has credibility as this is his bread and butter. Does the CSIRO now have nuclear qualified personnel because in previous reports issued by them, they did not have any nuclear experts involved.
If they have not included ALL costs, it's not a fair comparison. No assuming that battery storage will be provided by householders at their own expense, no assuming that the extensive transmission network is free, or not counting the gas turbines that might need to run for months when there is cloud and no wind (for instance like the last week in Sydney). No question nuclear is very expensive, but at least make a fair comparison ffs.
One thing no one talks about in this whole nuclear energy discussion is that a part of a nuclear energy ramp-up should also be developing nuclear weapons for Australia Australia should, in conjunction with nuclear energy, arm itself with a sensible limited array of nuclear weapons It is folly to sit here thinking we can rely on other countries like the US to protect us or to think that other nations will act sensibly towards us at all times Developing our nuclear power industry should also incorporate a sensible development of our nuclear weapons capability
CSIRO and Labor focus on cost but this is flawed. Reliability should be the major factor to consider. Would you buy a product that is less reliable because it is cheaper, when you absolutely need the product to work on demand 24/7? Proponents of Nuclear should argue primarily on logic not on cost, and shoot down Labor's bs objections.
Absolutely. Been saying that for years. The IEA even stated that you can’t use LCOE to compare intermittent variable energy to dispatchable baseload generation. It is simply not accurate, especially when making planning predictions or modelling for regions or whole countries. Hence Gencost did exactly that… Gencost is a scam…. Yet it drives policies because it tells ecomarxists what they want to hear.
What would you rather have?? We have to do something now to try and rectify the situation!! It’s all big businesses and governments that prosper from fossil fuels and nuclear!!
@@carol-annesomerville7880 Big business and nuclear? But the plan is government (taxpayer) ownership. Besides nuclear keep consumer prices low and allows operations to still turn a profit will zero emissions and less environmental impact than wind and solar.
@ Are you for real? Less impact?? Wow! You mustn’t know anything about nuclear energy! Where’s the nuclear waste going to be put?? If you like it so much then put it in your backyard!! Less impact, my ass!! Plus, the energy companies will still find a way to slug us in our pockets!! We’ll never get cheap energy again no matter from what!!
Nuclear also will lower our defense budget because once you have a nuclear industry its easy to quickly make a nuclear bomb if the situation arises, as Iran has shown.
The timing of this report must bring into question the neutrality of the CSIRO. The coalition is releasing their report this week and it looks as if the CSIRO is intent on undermining it.
Nuclear grid electricity needs 247 full demand and full cash flow demand. For 60 years. Renewables on rooftops, PV panels will get cheaper, and v2g EVs with massive daily FREE storage and parked 23hrs every day will break the nuclear economics. Nuclear promoters rabbit on about the modern technologies and then STFU about the rooftop PV technology and its no need for GRID ELECTRICITY. In Australia, 20 million buildings with a small 6.6kW rooftop can totally outperform grid generation. EVs with v2g oversized battery are on the production line. In the millions. Elon Musk is creating new production technologies. Elon Musk is creating robotic technologies. Ford has moved to EV technologies. 110 years ago, horse meat was cheap when the Ford model T production line started.
The nuclear pundits should first clarify how the waste from the SMR processes will be handled/stored. If this cannot be properly managed, there's no point in talking about cost or reliability.
Clearly renewable is the most expensive energy U get just look at the power bills sky rocket . The more renewables the higher my power bill gets . The proof is right there
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
The Bowen report. Who in Bobbleheads office has contacted another energy minister in another country and asked how much their Nuclear plant was to build and what are you paying for energy. With over 400 Nuclear plants around the world there should be over 400 costings associated with Nuclear commissioning's and running costs on Bobbleheads desk. Lets see the costings and see if Nuclear is 2.5x more expensive than renewables. Don't forget to add in the 28,000 kilometres of NEW transmission lines, the thousands of kilometres of NEW access roads, maintenance, end of life disposal costings, unusable land, land acquisitions, dividends, destruction of over 1 million Hectares of flora and fauna, ongoing weed eradication, no fly zones, disruption to aircraft radio transmissions including military, compensation for disruption and feel good payments. Bowen will never tell the truth and will never give costings, he is so far down the rabbit hole he is beginning to believe his own lies.
As the only way the grid can transmit more electricity into every building is by increasing the voltage, and lowering the current. Say, 1,000volts to every home's transformer. Forget home batteries. Forget rooftop PV. Grid 25gW can step up to 100gW or more and increase voltage out of the nuclear electricity plants.
Renewables have a 10-20 year life span with degraded performance as they age with heavy reliance on imported material and don't have the rotational inertia to keep a grid in sync Nuclear can be mostly made from local materials including the fuel to run it
Australia’s population had doubled every thirty or so years since 1900. Has CSIRO included the doubling of the installation to account for a population that is doubling every thirty years into account? I bet not.
No mention of limiting EV charging either! EV chargers can use as much power as 100 houses. No, no, let's not use our washing machines and clothes driers..🤬
Over here in WA Labor is going hell for broke buying land off farmers and ripping down huge areas of Forrest to install transmission lines. These areas of deforestation are 100 metres wide and go for hundreds of kilometres. A bit like the way the Labor party blew up coal/gas power stations so that common sense could not reverse labor’s mess.
For god sake get the latest generation of coal power plant tech and build some of them. You can easily do carbon capture as well. There cheap reliable power.
They are going to live up to their international commitment, it's not our international commitment! That's why I won't vote for any of the major parties. Dutton has already reneged on the immigration commitment! Vote Labor and it's a train wreck, vote LNP and it's a slow train wreck.
Nuclear needs 247 cashflow, but most cashflow will stop every day and so nuclear economics that needs constant years of cashflow and years of stable low interest rates has a disastrous outlook for financiers. And owners. And Grid owners. This is a basic physics problem. The extreme density of uranium energy needs the grid and millions of cashflow customers. The grid has millions of cashflow customers and their rooftop energy and their batteries. The grid does not need the 247 extremely density of nuclear energy. Everywhere you can see daylight When the daylight shines the nuclear economics does work. Illinois EnergyProf Economics of Nuclear Reactor UA-cam video. 14 May 2019 For economic insight on nuclear electricity generation plants VS natural gas generation construction. Illinois EnergyProf The Future of Lithium-ion Batteries UA-cam video 25 March 2022 He should do one on National Grid Construction Economics.
Indicative costing comparisons have been available from overseas for decades. Overall, nuclear is around half the total cost of renewables. Comparisons here are not based on total cost. This information is widely published and available. Renewable costs must include short life span, and disposal. It cannot work at scale
@carol-annesomerville7880 Not really. If you live in Sydney, you could walk past Lucas Heights, which has been there many decades. Carry a banana and you will get more radiation from it than the plant. Nextdoor would be fine
@ And where are they going to put nuclear waste?? I don’t live in Sydney anymore but I know all about Lucas Heights as my uncle worked there. If you like nuclear then put your hand up to put it in your backyard along with Dutton! How ridiculous!!
All these accusations against the CSIRO and claims of assumptions yet the federal coalition opposition won’t release a detailed policy or their nuclear energy costings. They criticise the government without their own detailed costed alternative policy being available. Laughably they even blamed the government last for them not releasing their costed policy. How much will the renewables cost that will supplement their nuclear.
Industrial distant PV renewables and batteries can be relocated onto millions of rooftops. Try that with a nuclear power plant when nobody wants grid electricity in the future.
@arroeducarlion4990 yep. If the Chinese population crashes, and Russian population crashes and European population crashes then CO2 emissions may not be a problem. Happy days. 😊 Cheap coal will be perfect.
What escapes me is the simple irrefutable fact the amount of "C" in the planet has remained constant, albeit in it's various forms, since the planet was formed (a closed loop). So how come, now an excess means the end of life as we know it?
The whole issue is the long term cost of maintaining the nuclear waste. You can’t just dump the nuclear waste anywhere and forget about it. You have to take care of the nuclear waste for decades, if not centuries, and pay the whole time. That’s why nuclear costs so much.
@@abcabc-m1q Am I a bot to you am i? Care to have a discussion on the facts of nuclear energy? If you hang your argument on Gencost then you need to broaden your horizons….
Again, energy prices are tied to gas for which we should be accessing domestic supply, not competing in the international market. Thats increased energy costs by 3x during this war time even though the gas is from our own country. We have so much solar in the grid now that nuclear would sit idle 50% of the time, we can still use fossil fuels for now for on demand energy and reach net 0 by the target time still as we build panels and batteries to support more reliable renewable energy and less reliance on fossil fuels. Our grid also needs to be upgraded as it was never initially built for high load two way transfer
The grid exists for addition of nuclear generation, they are only replacing the current coal generators. Everything is in place. No special seperate specific transmission infrastructure which renewables require to be built.
According to Littleproud the sun revolves around the earth. That remains true omly if you refuse to look into a telescope. Ignore the facts if they don't suit your argument is the Coalition's policy.
The transmission line costs are because we will need a hundredfold more renewable sites than what one nuclear power station can provide (Nuclear power is in the GigaWatts range). And the nuclear power stations will reuse existing transmission lines, if she doesn’t understand that then perhaps a job with the CSIRO await her.
Also land will be put to other productive uses and not be wasted and unusable by carpeting the land with solar panels and windmills with their unsustainably huge enviro footprint and extra land required for unneeded corridors of transmission lines 28000km not required for nuclear
@@carol-annesomerville7880 Don’t try that on me love…. I know the science. I live 3km from a coal fired station now and would much rather it was nuclear. Statistically 150x safer than coal and zero emissions. Ever visited a coal fired power station? I suggest you do. Then go visit OPAL and prepare to be humbled and amazed.
@@carol-annesomerville7880 Here's an idea: how about we put the wind turbines in your backyard instead? Oh wait, you might complain about the noise or the visual pollution. Or better yet, let's install solar panels on every inch of your roof, and when they're not producing enough power in the winter, you can just sit in the dark, smugly satisfied knowing you're free of all those "hypocritical" nuclear risks. But let's talk about hypocrisy-while you're so quick to point fingers, are you willing to live without the electricity that powers your life? Because if we don't embrace stable, reliable, and increasingly safe nuclear energy, we'll be relying on fossil fuels even longer. Or are you content with coal plants, which are far more deadly and environmentally damaging, as long as they're not in your backyard? Nuclear power, with its stringent safety regulations, has one of the lowest death rates per unit of energy produced. But sure, let's ignore that in favour of fear-mongering. Finally, you are an IDIOT!
There is a whole management layer of the CSIRO that need to be given their marching orders.
@@warwickchristian5682 because they don't say what you want to hear? Best leave the science to the grownups
@@Poorlineforevaat least you are consistent if nothing else!
@@Poorlineforeva No, not what I want to hear. What I am hearing from them that they support Bowen, person who has less knowledge than you.
@@Poorlineforeva typical lefty..resort to smears and putdown ..who is the child here?
Yep, march right back to your Chinese masters!
CSIRO must go we cannot afford BS
CSIRO poeticized zealots for green scam
they are a paid for comment take no notice of the plebs
@@davmac6148 Yeh and the doctors and the police and the defence forces and the universities and the Barristers and the brewers , oh maybe not the brewers🤣🤣🤣🤣.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@Didigetitwrong you do realize this is the same Allegedly respected Organization .. by whom I don't know CSIRO that advocated for Australians to stop eating Beef and Instead Eat Bugs .. just like the WEF UN stated to combat alleged Climate change and reduce emissions levels for net zero so tell me what level of Parts Per Million of CO2 is acceptable? No one at the WEF UN UNIPCC nor The CSIRO will state a Level.. Why is that ?
Destroying huge amount of the Great dividing range, for an unattainable, unreliable dream .
Example/s?
@@EducationWillSetYouFreeThe proposed WGEH Project in south-east WA will span over 2.29 million hectares.
@EducationWillSetYouFree Just go to any sites for wind turbines on great dividing range it's open knowledge.
@@EducationWillSetYouFree ua-cam.com/video/2j9Bo5pCeEE/v-deo.htmlsi=eZHz5ymOJpo8XTam
@@EducationWillSetYouFree ua-cam.com/video/oAbpKd5C12U/v-deo.htmlsi=jksIjqTVzcqRA5mk
Give the CSIRO ALDI bag's full of money they'll say anything
CSIRO are now Green Religious Zealots
:( yeah seems like it..
ALDI bags would not be big enough..........
Why would they put there credibility on the line to say something that's not true. Remember that the lnp was the one that sold of the power generator to private enterprise. The same companies that are say Nuclear not viable and no bank will back them in Australia.
CSIRO no longer scientific !
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@wpb1395 And they have also underestimated the cost of renewables as well, in fact a lot of their costings in the Gencost report only factored what an investor would pay, and all the transmission was a sunk cost in other words it was already installed, well no it will still be an ongoing grind until well past 2050 if they continue on this path. We will always need some type of power station(s) whether it be coal, gas or nuclear (if it gets a foot in the door) for firming as this trajectory for renewables including batteries will not run a modern grid.
Complete Sense Is Ruled Out
@@wpb1395 50% of the time? Are you saying the sun is going to hit those solar panels 50% of the time?
lol.
@@johnnywarbo Renewable get cheaper every year, nuclear gets more expensive. They said the same about solar as about batteries i.e. it will never be a big art of the grid. Here's the kicker. All the right wingers who hate big govt want the govt to pay 10s of billions for extremely expensive nuclear and miss that solar now produces 20 one gigawatts of peak power (i.e. 20 nuclear plants) and much of that the govt hasn't had to pay for, it's just individuals with rooftop solar.
When you need to build a battery the size of Sydney for Sydney to keep power going then you have no right to speak about renewables and saving the planet
What on earth are you going on about?
@morgan696manning imagine converting all combustion engine energy to electrical energy and then combined with losses generating this en masse daily and delivering to trucking companies let alone domestic consumers. Theres a reason these calculations havent been done, they result in a dead system
@@robberlin2230😂😂😂 have you been taking lessons from Kamala Harris ?
@@katb7921we are nowhere near tech advanced for battery power only so others are needed for 100y at least since we can't store it at all on a scale needed that's why solar is getting more expensive for homeowners specially ones that bought into the lies are now paying the power grid to store solar power, they make it's all a scam and the real science hidden then say we need off shore wind farms that's going to destroy so much land
The planet is fine it's humanity that's screwed and it's not from the climate, it's from the Davos puppets like Albo and Starmer and their psychotic masters.
Imagine if Australia didnt have the greens party. How awesome it would be.
No watermelons or ecomarxists? Freaking awesome!
Don't forget the Teals. That's where the renewables should be set up!
they used to be called the Communist party but figured that name would deter people
@@ProudAussie23 watermelon party!
We'd be the richest country in the world with the lowest energy prices in the world
What is the environmental cost of digging up all the metals needed for the transition to zero? How big is the quarry and what is the environmental cost of digging it?
No such thing as renewable. Where do they think the materials come from?
@Ray-p4j Yep takes a lot of coal, gas, oil ,fuels to mine,transport, refine ,transport produce ,transport and install ,,,,wash rinse repeat.
@@briananderson7285and Chinese cheap labour for now.
Replacing in 15 years who knows?
Nuclear fuel 5% of total cost won’t blow out or be scarce in 20 years
CSIRO has lost all credibility
Just because their science doesn't align with your feelings, doesn't mean they are wrong. How bout you write a report and show where they are wrong.
I do not think you will get a reply.
@@wpb1395 same as ABC they say what the master say what the master states to say!
I glad to see David Littleproud is using his education, with all his extensive knowledge about power generation. I thought that the nuclear power was going to be 5% from what they have said. And most of the rest would be coal and gas.
@@madddevil1 are you a keyboard scientist...?
I'll listen to Nuclear technicians before I'll listen to those idiots at CSIRO.
What Nuclear technitians would that be? I think the LNP are using consultants not technitians.
Remembet when Mr Dutton went to Collie in WA and said everyone there welcomed nuclear energy when he hadn't spoken to anyone but the public officials, dangerous times.
I hope you're not suggesting littlefella & duttare the experts.
We are now 5 months from the election that they want us to decide on nuclear energy, and they still haven't given us the full costing, after promising us it would be out 3 months ago.
@@jimmartin9704Yes and no agreement on Nuclear from any of the states.
Hopefully they can talk Labour out of a plethaside on lifting the nuclear ban before the election.😂😂😂😂
@@jimmartin9704 not sure I've seen Upgrade Albo and Blackout Bowen's renewable fantasy costing either. They just keep installing more and more with no end in sight so spare us the BS!
@Toadie-t9u
They did it years ago,got it totally wrong, like turdble snowy hydro2.0, totally fucked that up too.
No bullshit, dutton said in an interview with Sky News/ Courier Mail bush summit in Townsville on the 23 of August that it will be released in a few weeks. Like all politicians, there all full of shit
What's the political affiliation and voting intention behind the people who make such reports in government departments? That's what we should be asking!
Pfizer, CSIRO. Scientists will agree with whoever funds them. Renewables mean continual $$$ a never ending pit. Making investors very rich and deals with politicians. And Australian citizens get to have load shedding
Same as this Sky Channel.
Remember when scientists were saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. They were paid for by the tobacco companies. Same principle applies to the climate alarmists.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
If any scientists were on a payroll, it would be oil and gas subsidised. There's no real money in climate science.
Is that the talking point you've been ordered to regurgitate?
@@damienasmr922 Tell me I'm wrong. Try telling me things aren't more expensive in Australia. eg. Nuclear subs are going to cost $268billion. How bout showing some facts...
@@wpb1395 Westinghouse and General electric can build an off the shelf nuclear power system. Get a fixed price contract then any blow out is on the main contractor. Other countries can do it.
Who is CSRIO donors?
Spot on!
China and the WEF
CSIRO is funded by the Commonwealth government and they are doing what they need to do to continue its’ funding.
@@rickjohnson2165🎉🎉
Someone gets it!!!
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
taxpayers
The CSIRO is no longer creditable....
All for nuclear but how about we build a new coal plant, with todays technology, how efficient and clean one would operate, compare emissions of a new motor vehicle to one made in the 50s
Yes
My solution is to let customers sign up for green or traditional energy. Charge accordingly. The green energy will be cheaper most days 8am - 4pm but dearer at night depending on wind, battery, and hydro. Traditional will be fixed price. There is no need to get nuclear. We have more coal than we can ever use before other affordable technologies arrive. Overhaul existing power stations if reasonable to do so.
Put the wind and soar monstrosities in Teal and watermelon seat areas@@warrenklein7817
Known from a repair experience with CSIRO is that they find it hard to know the difference between ionising radiation and ionising radio waves. Both of which have two different effects and different international warning symbols.
Computer modeling isnt science.
There is nowhere near enough copper being mined worldwide to build this renewable system with the EVs etc. The number of real-world reasons that make renewables impossible is extreme.
How much copper do you think goes into an electric car only about 4 times more than a regular car and about on par with the amount used in a house electrical system so not that crazy
@@lewistreloar2312 The transition to renewable energy significantly increases the demand for copper. Renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles, require four to six times more copper per installed megawatt (MW) compared to conventional power sources. This means that as we shift towards renewable energy, the demand for copper will rise substantially.
In 2023, the total global copper production from mines was estimated to be around 22 million metric tons. However, the growing demand for copper in renewable energy technologies is expected to outpace supply.
There are many other electronics that also require huge amounts of copper.
It is not green nor good for the environment.
They never want to talk about the 10,000km of transmission lines for expensive unreliable renewable energy. Solar farms and wind farms being required to be replaced after 20 years.
Those transmission line are specifically mentioned in the ISP. At least one of them was authorised by Angus Taylor and Scott Morrison.
Solar panels are warranted for 30 years, and continue to provide power after that.
The oldest wind turbine in Australia was recently retired after 40 years of service.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
Much solar is local to the end user (the household) storage through batteries will be the same.
Plus, nuclear plants wouldn't be located in cities - there's too much resistance, they will be a long way from anywhere.
@@footbruno. Futbrah… misinformation.
20 years but the global average before replacing then is only 17 years.
They are absolutely no good after 40 years… they are no good after 25 years.
2% degradation per year Futbrah… by 25 years thats 50% of their nameplate capacity gone.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.
Must be an election coming… all you renewables zealots and labor trolls seem to have multiplied!
Did you breed with tassied12? 😂😂😂😂
The desperation is apparent… the laborgreenalliance know they are in deep sh!t…. The people are sick of the woke far left..
A correction is coming…😂
@footbru yeah, lets design on your statistics shall we?? So from what you are saying, solar panels will last for 30 years? Delivering the power required to run our cities on electric energy not fossil fuels, you are dreaming. Do you know the amount of energy required to move from ICE engines to electrical? Im not sure you do...
28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. Bowen doesn't mention the thousands of kilometres of new access roads.
Nuclear is investing in national infrastructure that is proven to deliver cheaper electricity to consumers.
My question to the renewable zealots still stands:
At what percentage of grid generation do intermittent renewables start to lower consumer electricity prices?
Great Question 👍
They already do. The AEMO has acknowledged this in numerous public statements as the cost of fossil fuels increased substantially after the Ukraine war, what keep the increases to a minimum was the much cheaper cost of renewable energy.
@@pwillis1589 South Australia has 80% renewables and has the highest energy cost in the whole of Australia.
@@dfor50 Hanz needs to defent his position even though hilarous!
@@pwillis1589 AEMO also said they cannot guarantee that renewables will provide the cheapest form of electricity...
you can't pick and choose when to listen to them!
Coal and gas Australia's made of the stuff, properly managed and maintained Coal and gas fired power stations are efficient, reliable,cost-effective and clean.
Your statement flies in direct opposition to the overwhelming amount of scientific research and data.
@@pwillis1589 We never had grid problems when we were wholly served by coal.
@pwillis1589 Biased, new wave religious cult ,the world is going to end in 12 years......
@@pwillis1589 We have 400 years of gas under our feet .... go and research that, (l mean actual research Google and the CSIRO, BOM are not research).
@@dfor50 Yes we did I remember numerous blackouts and power failures in Sydney back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Coal plants broke down all the time. Burning fossils fuels is affecting our atmosphere. This is not my opinion it is the overwhelming scientific data.
Not concerned re cost. The main issue is reliable base load power that nuclear delivers. And cheap too, once the plants are constructed. Check prices in nuclear powered France. Lowest in the world.
EDF the wholly owned nuclear energy corporation in France is €50 billion in debt because the French government subsidises the cost of electricity . Don’t believe me research it yourself. The cost of electricity in France is not the lowest in the world, that claim is demonstrably factually incorrect. Swedens electricity is half the cost of France.
@@pwillis1589pure deflection and desperation PW… typical of you. Even CSIRO is now getting desperate… the cope from you renewables zealots is absolutely pathetic. 😂😂😂
@@pwillis1589 But Germany buys electricity off France. It can't be too bad.
@@pwillis1589 Sure Hanz, tell us that the world is flat we will believe that!
Reliable means every house had solar and battery, don't trust the flaky grid.
Little man
Baseload electricity is
20% of grid electricity, which is
10% of Australia’s energy is grid electricity
20% x 10% of Australia's fossil fueled energy
2% f.... all of Australia's fossil fueled energy
The other 98% don't need your 2%.
And the worldwide CO2 emissions is little Australia's biggest problem.
Tony Abbott said this a decade ago.
There is no secret to costs of reactor construction and running costs. New reactors are starting up every year around the world. There no secret that the current generation of manufacturers cost of construction and completion, including training and maintenance. Our close neighbours the South Korean companies are the forefront of modern reactor construction.
Coal is cheap.
Has the CSIRO been bought by the labor party?
Did the CSIRO factor in the cost of permanent cost of damage to the environment? And recycling or reclamation of renewable farms & all those transmission lines, or otherwise replacement and maintenance costs? The CSIRO is a damn disgrace & no longer fit for purpose. Mitch, QLD.
Its a gen cost report. By definition its generation cost only. So no it doesnt consider anything else
It has all been factored in. You just cannot handle the truth Mitch.
@@Waynothebrute - Wrong. I can't handle the bald-faced lies. Why wouldn't other countries ignore base-load power options in favour of 100% cheap & clean solar & wind? Destruction of native forest is not factored in, it's worth nothing to these demonic ideologues. Check the facts.
@@Waynothebrute have you read it wayno?
@@mitchmccarron8337 Are you a keyboard scientist...?
CSIRO lost the plot many years ago, when they started receiving money for comment, live a long time and us old enough will remember the same rubbish repeated over and over
Sky receives money for comment.
csiro is like the ABC now. No credibility
You do not know how to believe the truth.
They forget to add the cost of 28,000 kms of transmission lines approx $500-600 billion dollars plus cost of transformers and distribution centres. So this makes nuclear at 10-15 billion a reactor very cheap in comparison.
Littleproud has more credence and knowledge than Blackout will ever have.
Until CSIRO fully costs the expansion/upgrading of the transmission and distribution network and the additional 'firming' generation all needed to support a majority renewable generation network, then it is simply a waste of time and somewhat misleading.
I would even go as far to say that CSIRO is becoming politicised.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
@@wpb1395 Given renewables only deliver their rated capacity 30% of the time then 70% of the time they would be contributing to the grid. And produce that power cheaper than the expensive 100% gas backup generation AEMO's ISP relies on and CSIRO does not cost. Nuclear also would have a role to play in firming that renewables can not provide.
@@ivanf6938 Solar is producing so much power during the day now, that power has to be often 'spilled'. Coal plants need to run to stay ticking over. We don't have a power production problem, we have a power storage problem. More and more solar is coming online every day as it gets cheaper. Storage is getting cheaper, too. Batteries dropped 20% in price this year. Nuclear gets more expensive every year.
@@wpb1395😂😂 what about the winter months and other periods during the year when there is heavy cloud cover and much shorter daylight hours. Stop parroting Bowen.
@@wpb1395😂😂😂 and how long are the batteries able to provide the power requirements. They don't last very long at all and don't claim advances that don't yet exist.
We as a nation have to piss off the "renewables" and build 3 nuclear plants on the east side of Australia with one new age coal power plant for each state and the NT.
Western and south Australia and Tasmania to get a gas plant as a second source should be more than enough to cover current and future power needs.
30 years away for Nuclear. forget it.
@@dex6851 30 years away.
CSIRO seem to have trouble in reporting consistent costings I have heard so many different stories I give no credibility to this mob
How about the CSIRO stick to doing science and leave the politics to the professional liars.
They are you cretin!! They’re saying that nuclear power isn’t going to be cost effective as the stupid Dutton liberals say!! They’re not political they’re stating facts!! I don’t want nuclear anywhere near me! Maybe they can build in your backyard if you think it’s a great idea!! Duh!!
Or Blackout . who they are writing the figures and fairytale for.
@@TruthWarrior1 Like You...???
@ is that your best? “Like you uhu uhu”.
Liar I am not and while I have had a keen interest in the sciences my whole life it isn’t my job.
@@TruthWarrior1 are you a keyboard scientist.?🤣😅🤣😂
Can we take all politicians aside and teach them to say nuclear.!
7 to 9 trillion to reach Net Zero by 2050 using renewables.
9 Trillion lol, more like 20-30 trillion depending on whether you want up to half of Australia to go back to the 1800's whenever we get more than two weeks of little sun and no wind. Australia will be bankrupt by then and a new generation of idiots will be screaming about the world constantly ending.
Keep going. Far more than that. And for what? O.04% of atmosphere is carbon. 😆
@@ZELJKO472It'll be an endless money pit.
It is impossible. Resources cannot be mined in time. Climate crisis is a hoax. Ask Al Gore.
won't happen as Aus will be bankrupted by 2035 saddled with unserviceable debt
When Sarah Ferguson believes the CSIRO Report has merit you have got to wonder how she holds down the current job with the ABC Broadcaster.
Why is that Les?
The best way to resolve this nuclear cost debate is simple - lift the ban on nuclear power. Then the industry will determine what the true cost is. It will then be economics that decide the outcome instead of political grandstanding.
Bad move that. The BIG organisations will walk all over you. Cant you see that is why it is banned.
If its so terrible lift the moratorium
Why are we arguing about costs
Shouldn’t we be looking at reliability
Mate, we should be looking at safety first, not costs or reliability.
This woman is asking extremely good questions.
Little man is deflecting all over the place.
He reminds me of a friend who would try and dazzle a young woman at a bar with nonsense 🤔 🙄
He's doing a bad job at that, I might add.
Didn't rely or believe the first report the CSIRO did on this - Why should we believe them now ????????? I would rather nuclear experts have their say ...................................
Nuclear experts called the early iterations Gencon!
Are you a bot that is just blindly pushing the nuclear agenda?
Have a listen to ADI Paterson, ex CEO of ANSTO, the only nuclear facility in this country. The man has credibility as this is his bread and butter. Does the CSIRO now have nuclear qualified personnel because in previous reports issued by them, they did not have any nuclear experts involved.
The CSIRO? Nuclear experts? Nuclear experience? Listen to Dr Patterson?
Nope. On all accounts!
Great comment Sir 👍
@@bradnelson4778 CEO of ANSTO. He would not say anything else would he? This is his bread and butter. Car Salesman, yes it is a great car.
LAUGHING ,, just a new style of manipulating data to fit an agenda ,, it's rather boring
If they have not included ALL costs, it's not a fair comparison. No assuming that battery storage will be provided by householders at their own expense, no assuming that the extensive transmission network is free, or not counting the gas turbines that might need to run for months when there is cloud and no wind (for instance like the last week in Sydney). No question nuclear is very expensive, but at least make a fair comparison ffs.
One thing no one talks about in this whole nuclear energy discussion is that a part of a nuclear energy ramp-up should also be developing nuclear weapons for Australia
Australia should, in conjunction with nuclear energy, arm itself with a sensible limited array of nuclear weapons
It is folly to sit here thinking we can rely on other countries like the US to protect us or to think that other nations will act sensibly towards us at all times
Developing our nuclear power industry should also incorporate a sensible development of our nuclear weapons capability
That type of technology has yet to be suitable for powering a whole city of a million people
CSIRO and Labor focus on cost but this is flawed. Reliability should be the major factor to consider. Would you buy a product that is less reliable because it is cheaper, when you absolutely need the product to work on demand 24/7? Proponents of Nuclear should argue primarily on logic not on cost, and shoot down Labor's bs objections.
@@alang4292 30 years away. What ya gunna do in the meantime. Yes, Renewables and Coal. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Hahaha... CSIRO with LCOE method again. Tell them to use LFSCOE
Absolutely. Been saying that for years. The IEA even stated that you can’t use LCOE to compare intermittent variable energy to dispatchable baseload generation. It is simply not accurate, especially when making planning predictions or modelling for regions or whole countries.
Hence Gencost did exactly that… Gencost is a scam…. Yet it drives policies because it tells ecomarxists what they want to hear.
Why is the CSIRO doing a report on nuclear? Who commissioned the report on Nuclear? CSIRO management now saying don't bite the hand that feeds you!
GenCost says it all. It’s the cost to generators not to consumers. We will be paying for renewables for years to come through our bills?! 🤯
Cheap to build… generates expensive electricity. System costs are a thing… but not if you ignore them… ahem… CSIRO! 😂
What would you rather have?? We have to do something now to try and rectify the situation!! It’s all big businesses and governments that prosper from fossil fuels and nuclear!!
@@carol-annesomerville7880
Big business and nuclear? But the plan is government (taxpayer) ownership.
Besides nuclear keep consumer prices low and allows operations to still turn a profit will zero emissions and less environmental impact than wind and solar.
@ Are you for real? Less impact?? Wow! You mustn’t know anything about nuclear energy! Where’s the nuclear waste going to be put?? If you like it so much then put it in your backyard!! Less impact, my ass!! Plus, the energy companies will still find a way to slug us in our pockets!! We’ll never get cheap energy again no matter from what!!
Ahh the CSLIERO
Conflict of interest!!!!
Nuclear also will lower our defense budget because once you have a nuclear industry its easy to quickly make a nuclear bomb if the situation arises, as Iran has shown.
Thank god,
An adult discussion and not continuing down a path destined for failure.
You have my vote liberals 🙌
The timing of this report must bring into question the neutrality of the CSIRO. The coalition is releasing their report this week and it looks as if the CSIRO is intent on undermining it.
If you've ever worked in a federal bureaucracy you'll know that they're infested with leftist cultists that don't bite the hand that feeds them.
The reverse could be said. The LNP will not proceed with nuclear, been in for nine years had there chance. Whats changed.
Children the world is not coming to an end , enjoy your life
Nuclear grid electricity needs 247 full demand and full cash flow demand. For 60 years.
Renewables on rooftops, PV panels will get cheaper, and v2g EVs with massive daily FREE storage and parked 23hrs every day will break the nuclear economics.
Nuclear promoters rabbit on about the modern technologies and then STFU about the rooftop PV technology and its no need for GRID ELECTRICITY.
In Australia, 20 million buildings with a small 6.6kW rooftop can totally outperform grid generation.
EVs with v2g oversized battery are on the production line. In the millions.
Elon Musk is creating new production technologies.
Elon Musk is creating robotic technologies.
Ford has moved to EV technologies.
110 years ago, horse meat was cheap when the Ford model T production line started.
When technology makes wind farms and solar panels redundant, who will clean up the landfill mess across our country?😮
The nuclear pundits should first clarify how the waste from the SMR processes will be handled/stored. If this cannot be properly managed, there's no point in talking about cost or reliability.
Just how inept the CSIRO have been over lays 3 years.
Rubbish Lefty, you dont like the truth.
Clearly renewable is the most expensive energy U get just look at the power bills sky rocket . The more renewables the higher my power bill gets . The proof is right there
Most expensive means most profitable for certain interests.
If anything, CSIRO has radically underestimated the cost of a nuclear plant. Hinkley C in the UK cost closer to $60billion Australian and it wasn't on a greenfield site. Never mind that Australia produces so much solar during the day now that a reactor would be sitting idle for 50% of the time.
Large scale nuclear can just slip into the exiting grid not need for new lines
The Bowen report. Who in Bobbleheads office has contacted another energy minister in another country and asked how much their Nuclear plant was to build and what are you paying for energy. With over 400 Nuclear plants around the world there should be over 400 costings associated with Nuclear commissioning's and running costs on Bobbleheads desk. Lets see the costings and see if Nuclear is 2.5x more expensive than renewables. Don't forget to add in the 28,000 kilometres of NEW transmission lines, the thousands of kilometres of NEW access roads, maintenance, end of life disposal costings, unusable land, land acquisitions, dividends, destruction of over 1 million Hectares of flora and fauna, ongoing weed eradication, no fly zones, disruption to aircraft radio transmissions including military, compensation for disruption and feel good payments. Bowen will never tell the truth and will never give costings, he is so far down the rabbit hole he is beginning to believe his own lies.
It has all been done for you but you would not believe it any way. Just like the rest on Sky.
As the only way the grid can transmit more electricity into every building is by increasing the voltage, and lowering the current.
Say, 1,000volts to every home's transformer.
Forget home batteries.
Forget rooftop PV.
Grid 25gW can step up to 100gW or more and increase voltage out of the nuclear electricity plants.
Yet again, the CSIRO doing the Government's bidding.😊
CSIRO is as reputable as the ABC nowadays. Imagine being on this side of history and putting your name to that report. Oh well😊
Twice the price, I call BS.
Even if it was twice the price its still worth it for power 24hrs per day, every day for 80 years.
Renewables have a 10-20 year life span with degraded performance as they age with heavy reliance on imported material and don't have the rotational inertia to keep a grid in sync
Nuclear can be mostly made from local materials including the fuel to run it
Australia’s population had doubled every thirty or so years since 1900. Has CSIRO included the doubling of the installation to account for a population that is doubling every thirty years into account? I bet not.
RENEWABLES cannot meet our energy demands.
No mention of limiting EV charging either! EV chargers can use as much power as 100 houses. No, no, let's not use our washing machines and clothes driers..🤬
Australia is in the Sahara Desert latitudes.
Cold latitudes solutions are stupid.
Over here in WA Labor is going hell for broke buying land off farmers and ripping down huge areas of Forrest to install transmission lines. These areas of deforestation are 100 metres wide and go for hundreds of kilometres. A bit like the way the Labor party blew up coal/gas power stations so that common sense could not reverse labor’s mess.
For god sake get the latest generation of coal power plant tech and build some of them. You can easily do carbon capture as well. There cheap reliable power.
What else would you expect from a corrupt organization.
They are going to live up to their international commitment, it's not our international commitment! That's why I won't vote for any of the major parties. Dutton has already reneged on the immigration commitment! Vote Labor and it's a train wreck, vote LNP and it's a slow train wreck.
CSIRO just got a pay raise
Nuclear needs 247 cashflow, but most cashflow will stop every day and so nuclear economics that needs constant years of cashflow and years of stable low interest rates has a disastrous outlook for financiers.
And owners.
And Grid owners.
This is a basic physics problem.
The extreme density of uranium energy needs the grid and millions of cashflow customers.
The grid has millions of cashflow customers and their rooftop energy and their batteries.
The grid does not need the 247 extremely density of nuclear energy.
Everywhere you can see daylight
When the daylight shines the nuclear economics does work.
Illinois EnergyProf
Economics of Nuclear Reactor
UA-cam video.
14 May 2019
For economic insight on nuclear electricity generation plants VS natural gas generation construction.
Illinois EnergyProf
The Future of Lithium-ion Batteries
UA-cam video
25 March 2022
He should do one on
National Grid Construction Economics.
What a pile-on! CSIRO are a respected entity world wide. I'm a NIMBY and I suspect many others are too. Too risky for me.
Indicative costing comparisons have been available from overseas for decades. Overall, nuclear is around half the total cost of renewables. Comparisons here are not based on total cost. This information is widely published and available. Renewable costs must include short life span, and disposal. It cannot work at scale
Well, if you want nuclear so much, let’s build near you! I bet you’d change your mind then!!
@carol-annesomerville7880 Not really. If you live in Sydney, you could walk past Lucas Heights, which has been there many decades. Carry a banana and you will get more radiation from it than the plant. Nextdoor would be fine
@ And where are they going to put nuclear waste?? I don’t live in Sydney anymore but I know all about Lucas Heights as my uncle worked there. If you like nuclear then put your hand up to put it in your backyard along with Dutton! How ridiculous!!
All these accusations against the CSIRO and claims of assumptions yet the federal coalition opposition won’t release a detailed policy or their nuclear energy costings. They criticise the government without their own detailed costed alternative policy being available. Laughably they even blamed the government last for them not releasing their costed policy. How much will the renewables cost that will supplement their nuclear.
Industrial distant PV renewables and batteries can be relocated onto millions of rooftops.
Try that with a nuclear power plant when nobody wants grid electricity in the future.
Not if all the required resources such as copper become even more rare due to over production of what is still infant solar tech
@arroeducarlion4990 yep.
If the Chinese population crashes, and Russian population crashes and European population crashes then CO2 emissions may not be a problem.
Happy days. 😊
Cheap coal will be perfect.
What escapes me is the simple irrefutable fact the amount of "C" in the planet has remained constant, albeit in it's various forms, since the planet was formed (a closed loop).
So how come, now an excess means the end of life as we know it?
The whole issue is the long term cost of maintaining the nuclear waste. You can’t just dump the nuclear waste anywhere and forget about it. You have to take care of the nuclear waste for decades, if not centuries, and pay the whole time. That’s why nuclear costs so much.
Snowy 2.0 2billion budget now 15billion 😮😮😮😮😮😮
The CSIRO is about as credible as the ABC.
CSIRO, works for the Government, so supports Government policies and directives regardless of how senseless they are.
At least little proud seems to live somewhat in reality. Maybe they arent all completely insane.
Like the BoM, CSIRO will say whatever Bowen tells them to say.
I would trust the CSIRO before a guy who cant even say the word Nuclear.
You got that right mate. Also I think there are tonnes of bots in all nuclear-related videos that are pushing for nuclear agenda.
@@abcabc-m1q
Am I a bot to you am i?
Care to have a discussion on the facts of nuclear energy?
If you hang your argument on Gencost then you need to broaden your horizons….
Again, energy prices are tied to gas for which we should be accessing domestic supply, not competing in the international market. Thats increased energy costs by 3x during this war time even though the gas is from our own country. We have so much solar in the grid now that nuclear would sit idle 50% of the time, we can still use fossil fuels for now for on demand energy and reach net 0 by the target time still as we build panels and batteries to support more reliable renewable energy and less reliance on fossil fuels. Our grid also needs to be upgraded as it was never initially built for high load two way transfer
The grid exists for addition of nuclear generation, they are only replacing the current coal generators. Everything is in place. No special seperate specific transmission infrastructure which renewables require to be built.
not part of the conversation... thorium nuclear reactors are much safer than uranium ones. Why is no one talking about this?
Can ANYONE explain why you would have nuclear baseload next to intermittent? Pretty dumb.
According to Littleproud the sun revolves around the earth. That remains true omly if you refuse to look into a telescope. Ignore the facts if they don't suit your argument is the Coalition's policy.
What a retarded comment. Nothing constructive to add?
Exo marxist? Checks out.
Farmers would love radioactive pollution ?
Yes, let's listen to the politician's rather than our prime scientific organisation.
The transmission line costs are because we will need a hundredfold more renewable sites than what one nuclear power station can provide (Nuclear power is in the GigaWatts range). And the nuclear power stations will reuse existing transmission lines, if she doesn’t understand that then perhaps a job with the CSIRO await her.
Also land will be put to other productive uses and not be wasted and unusable by carpeting the land with solar panels and windmills with their unsustainably huge enviro footprint and extra land required for unneeded corridors of transmission lines 28000km not required for nuclear
@@info88w11💯 Sir… it’s almost like physics, engineering and logic are things… the CSIRO and the laborgreenalliance should try them….
Let’s build the nuclear plants near you guys and let’s see how you handle it!! Hypocritical!
@@carol-annesomerville7880
Don’t try that on me love…. I know the science. I live 3km from a coal fired station now and would much rather it was nuclear.
Statistically 150x safer than coal and zero emissions.
Ever visited a coal fired power station? I suggest you do.
Then go visit OPAL and prepare to be humbled and amazed.
@@carol-annesomerville7880 Here's an idea: how about we put the wind turbines in your backyard instead? Oh wait, you might complain about the noise or the visual pollution. Or better yet, let's install solar panels on every inch of your roof, and when they're not producing enough power in the winter, you can just sit in the dark, smugly satisfied knowing you're free of all those "hypocritical" nuclear risks.
But let's talk about hypocrisy-while you're so quick to point fingers, are you willing to live without the electricity that powers your life? Because if we don't embrace stable, reliable, and increasingly safe nuclear energy, we'll be relying on fossil fuels even longer. Or are you content with coal plants, which are far more deadly and environmentally damaging, as long as they're not in your backyard?
Nuclear power, with its stringent safety regulations, has one of the lowest death rates per unit of energy produced. But sure, let's ignore that in favour of fear-mongering. Finally, you are an IDIOT!