Lots of ‘misinformation’ surrounding nuclear energy: James Morrow
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- Sky News host James Morrow says there is a lot of “misinformation” out there surrounding nuclear energy.
“There was a fascinating piece in the AFR this week which talked about the different ways in which CSIRO … appear to have gotten it wrong on things like the longevity of nuclear power plants, the cost of them and the efficiency of which they operate,” Mr Morrow said.
“Engineers Australia … cancelled a talk by an engineer about what nuclear can do to help us meet our carbon targets.”
Mr Morrow was joined by Page Research Centre CEO Gerard Holland to discuss nuclear energy.
I worked for a twin-reactor nuclear facility back in the 90s. Even back then, they had a 50 year lifespan and only refueled every 18-24 months (depending on the age of the reactor). I can only imagine the improvements they've made on the design since then. The biggest expenditure for the facility was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US). I do believe a regulatory authority should be placed on them, but the government sees them as a cash cow, leveraging $millions in fines even for minor incidents unrelated to safety. They are an excellent source of energy otherwise.
Lots of misinformation surrounding renewable energy also.
Bowen’s manifesto. “In my studies of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.”
CSIRO has abandoned scientific credibility for political expediency and government funding. They either need to be re-staffed, or abolished altogether as they have ceased to be of value to the nation.
Or independently audited.
Like all Australian quangos, the CSIRO has become politicised and has lost much of its respectability and influence.
@@KIA-MIA-POW Shame.
Not even remotely true
The CSIRO had the same findings in their reports under the LNP. So obviously it's not political
Economics don't change much after 30 years
There's more misinformation about renewable energy, which is a valid option to using fossil fuels
I agree that RE is a valid option to fossil fuels, but then, so is nuclear.
Renewables are cheap and reliable is the biggest myth.
Csiro, bawawaa... should be defunded along with the abc
Hear! Hear!
CSIRO are not expert in financial analysis or nuclear power. Long tern Nuclear provides the lowest cost energy production. Moreover, it stimulates engineering innovation and science whilst also providing large scale base load energy delivery. In fact, LTO Nuclear is the lowest cost long term energy producer at 32 USD/MWh, onshore wind comes in at 50 USD/MWh, off-shore wind is a whopping 88 USD/MWh, utility scale solar is 56 USD/MWh and run of river hydro is around 68 USD/MWh (Source: IEA, 2020, median prices). We need to deal with facts not left wing fantasy.
Look at a country like Sweden, ~ 30% of its current electricity generation comes from nuclear and in November 2023 the government announced plans to construct two large-scale reactors by 2035 and the equivalent of 10 new reactors, including small modular reactors, by 2045.
How about Finland, here nuclear energy plays a key role in Finland’s energy sector. Nuclear amounted to 33% of total electricity generation in 2021, and this figure has risen to more than 40% with the start of commercial operations at the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in May 2023 - the first new nuclear plant in Europe in 15 years.
Add to this, Australia has some of the worlds largest uranium resources and is currently the third largest producer of uranium behind Canada and Kazakhstan.
LTO nuclear power is an entirely misleading cost benchmark. This is for electricity from life-extended nuclear plants built at last century prices where the capital costs have been fully written off, and where the operator is typically a regulated utility with low funding costs and no competition.
Now run the LCOEs for a privately funded, new build, FOAK nuclear plant in a competitive energy market like Australia with lots of renewables. You'll have to assume much lower capacity factors, a shorter economic life and higher discount rates. Then you'll understand why CSIRO came up with the numbers it did. And then you can explain it all to the LNP and Sky News.
Horses for courses.
The very valid point that CSIRO makes in GenCost, and seems to get glossed over in all these discussions, is that any new power source must operate within the constraints of the total system. This means the cost calculations will vary a lot from country to country depending on local factors.
Nuclear has very high up-front capital expenses and relies on long term operation at near full capacity (around 90%) to spread those capital costs and achieve a low cost per MWh. Australia is a sunny country with the highest market penetration of rooftop solar in the world. We are adding 2-3 GW of solar to our rooftops EACH YEAR, the equivalant capacity of a couple of nuclear plants. This is hollowing out daytime demand and the utilisation rates of our baseload generators. Our coal plants, since the closure of Liddell, have been operating at utilisation rates around 60%. At those sorts of rates, the economics of nuclear falls over.
If nuclear is going to be viable in Australia, you are going to have to tell the 3 million + households that have installed rooftop solar that they will have to cut back on its use - good luck with that.
@@tassied12 That applies to any energy delivery system and there will be no impact on rooftop solar.
@@gibbonsdp Its an absolute fact of life - thats why its an important metric and thats why its used. This is simple EU countries such as Finland and Sweden have significantly upped their nuclear capacity (1) because it is reliable (2) its long term (3) provides base load power (4) ensures energy sovereignty. In the case of Australia we have indefinite nuclear resources. We can have complete energy independence without chinese made solar panels and batteries (with large quantities of deleterious elements) plus avoid the horrific blight of giant wind farms.
@@VK6AB- The duck curve is happening in Australia due to the rise of rooftop and utility solar.
This disrupts the economics of nuclear because there is insufficient demand to cover its optimum operational mode ie continuous operation at > 90%.
This is only going to get worse over time and is closing the window on the viability of nuclear in this country
Thorium reactor. No rod no melt down the no radioactive waste! Throum cannot be used as Nike weapons. Truly clean energy unlike wind snd solar
Good solution. Only problem is that they don"t exist commercially in the real world. Much research is still needed before they become a commercial reality.
Nuclear is a very dangerous technology. Not only is it extremely expensive to build, it is expensive to operate and expensive to deal with the waste.
In Germany, they are worried about a nuclear waste dump leaking radioactive material into the earth and poisoning the water. In far eastern Russia, there is a nuclear power plant leaking radioactive material into China 1,600 times greater than the upper threshold limit, that has forced an entire city to be evacuated.
What are we going to use until 2045 for power until the nukes get switched on?
Reliable Coal
@@BanFreakLefties Callide. Also they tend to have a lot of unscheduled maintenance and when the coal store flood,. that's a problem too. Droughts are no good if you need water for cooling.
@@BanFreakLefties in the USA and Australia coal can't compete with renewables and need government money to keep going.
@@rattusfinkus In the USA, natural gas easily out competes renewables, fracking has produced so much they are flaring off huge amounts of it because we don't have enough pipelines to make use of it. We don't have pipelines because of the leftist idealogs.
@@rattusfinkus renewables are nothing but government money... around 1 trillion dollars of it!!!
Stop talking, start doing, I'm so sick of what the people want, you didn't ask me, I want cheaper energy, food, rent, just build it or let the people decide
Until the laws are changed all we can do is talk about it. If you voted for either Liberal or Labour you're part of the problem.
@quietackshon Exactly lab and lib and anything greenish will not and have never put the needs of Australia and it's people before their idoligies.
Because of left v right, tribalism and fighting over everything and anything nothing will happen. Protest every day, protests and arguing about everything you literally cannot get 10 people to agree on anything then the political party play let's hate on the 'others' so we can get power
@@quietackshon and if you voted for anyone other than the LNP then you put Labor in power!!!
That's what happens with the coalition
They have no policies at all
Unfit for government
Maybe the word should be disinformation
Too right there is, Bucky. It's ALL coming from the extreme right wing.
BUTT WUTT ABOAT DAVAYE ALUTTA PROUD HE'S STILL ALUTTA PROUD 👋😳
The big lie is nuclear is cheaper, pff. But of course here on Sky we always question the science and economical facts.
Nuclear France has prices about half that of Wind/Solar Germany.
Nuclear Illinois has prices about a third that of Wind/Solar California.
Wind/solar are only 'cheap' if you are looking at the marginal costs. In a world where you are comparing dispatchable generation to dispatchable generation, that works. Comparing dispatchable generation to intermittent generation doesn't work - because the total system costs (extra transmission, extra storage, extra assets) are not being accounted for.
So, in the real world, where TOTAL system costs MUST be accounted for, France & Illinois have lower electricity rates than Germany & California with their 'cheap' wind/solar.
And you think Australia could build reactors at a cost effective price. The investors don't think so. Then you have uranium processing, management and safe disposal with storage, security for a 1000 years. Right. Google Hinkley point C. See what it cost the British to build a new reactor through EDF. This is why Duttons not putting any figures on the table and why investors aren't interested.
The World Nuclear Association says that nuclear is not economically feasible in grids with more than 30% renewables. Nuclear will go broke in Australia
propaganda. champ.
@@positivepawpaw7564 it's true. Many other energy experts agree that renewables reduce baseload capacity factors to the point where they go broke
@@positivepawpaw7564 why would the World Nuclear Association put that out as propaganda?
@@positivepawpaw7564 champ
And even the LNP's favourite right-wing think-tank, the Centre for Independent Studies, admits that nuclear in Australia could not be built with private capital. So much for the LNP's claim that it would not need taxpayer support.
Chris Brown is a net zero zealot spruiking rubbish 😂
Lol..
Coming soon to Fox Sport
🎣 for the radio active 3 eye fish.....☢️
😆😆😆.... always a great belly laugh at sky Australia
Doomsday Cultists suffer from👇
The illusory truth effect, also known as the illusion of truth, describes how when we hear the same false information repeated again and again, we often come to believe it is true. Troublingly, this even happens when people should know better-that is, when people initially know that the misinformation is false.
SEEK HELP. 😆
ABC is a better comedy show!
You should write for The Simpsons.