Does Nuclear Power Stack up Economically? | Q+A
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- Does nuclear power generation stack up economically?
Panellists: Minister for Emergency Management and Agriculture Murray Watt, Nationals Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie, NSW Leader of the Opposition Mark Speakman, Pastor & CEO, Wayside Chapel Jon Owen and Professorial Fellow in Sport, University of Canberra Tracey Holmes.
For more from Q+A, click here: www.abc.net.au/qanda
Follow us on Twitter: / qanda
Like us on Facebook: / abcqanda
Q+A is a television discussion program that focuses mostly on politics but ranges across all of the big issues that set Australians thinking, talking and debating.
It is driven by interaction: Q+A provides a rare opportunity for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national public forum and Q+A is broadcast live so that not only the studio audience but also the wider audience can get involved.
We aim to create a discussion that is constructive, that reflects a diverse range of views and that provides a safe environment where people can respectfully discuss their differences.
It’s impossible to represent every view on a single panel or in one audience but we’re committed to giving participants a fair go.
In order to be as inclusive and diverse as possible, the program is presented from a range of locations around the country and all Australians are encouraged to get involved through social media as well as by joining the audience.
This is an official Australian Broadcasting Corporation UA-cam channel.
Should do your research nuclear waste can now be recycled now.
In fact there are companies already doing doing.
Plus you really need to take into account the emissions that go into the gathering of materials and manufacturing of renewables.
Plus also look at life span of renewables compared to Nuclear.
Have to also remember the required land needed for renewable to be housed as well as the fact they are very heavy reliant on weather conditions to operate at the required level.
I'd suggest people start googling the facts for themselves.
Cause both sides of this political debate is completely flawed.
One more little piece of information no one seems to give a straight answer on how much is it going to cost to set Australia on 100% renewables.
That number has changed multiple times over the last few years. From a couple of billion to hundreds of billions to probably over a trillion now.
Renewables are great on a small scale hasn't really been viable on a large scale.
With a population of 26 million people and growing. It's a very tall order to expect renewables to pull that weight alone.
Umm the person asking should go to Canada and ask them.
I'd love to see what happens when she does.
Every place where nuclear power is deployed requires huge government support. Also Australia has much better renewable energy resources and our energy requirements have a much more even annual profile.
Nuclear in Australia is a red herring pushed by the fossil fuel industry.
Nuclear power is a viable option in many other countries, but in this country it is ridiculous when we have access to the amount of cheap natural renewable energy sources that we do. Not only is it cheaper than fossil fuel sources, it doesn't take decades to build like nuclear, and is much more easily scalable. It also doesn't produce the toxic waste either. Nuclear is not a serious proposal here.
@@kyledesilva1589 I'd even argue that nuclear isn't a good option for the countries that have them. The people it benefits the most are the billionaires that own them. Do we really need to do that?
The host isn't biased at all...
Life span solar cells 10 to 20 years wind turbine 20 to 25 years, do you think green energy will get cheaper. Cost of energy is the major driver of overall inflation. The other issue in Australia is the ridiculous cost of commercial and private rent.
Those 2 alone make it very, difficult to manufacture in Australia. Yes. wages are high because everything else we buy is more expensive than in most other countries.
When energy was abundant, it was cheap.
When land was readily available and not being snapped up by cashed-up foreigners or locked up by governments, it was cheap.
If you want Australians to have more children to work in manufacturing then make the basics affordable, energy and accommodation, the rest will follow.
The nuke stations will go where the existing coal ones are . It will be comparatively easy to get social licence to just build another power station where the old one was versus thousands and thousands of hectares for solar and wind farms and then thousands and thousands more for the transmission lines
The CSIRO gen cost is utterly discredited. They have been exposed as missing out all the costs for transmission etc.
You do realize that all electricity generation requires transmission.
@@dogzdigital you do realise that the nukes can be placed where the EXISTING lines are
@@kingsleysmith7893 I studied Mechatronic Engineering, I'm guessing I understand electricity transmission far better than you do. The thing about nuclear power plants is that generally people don't like them any where near where they live, so their is a very good chance they are going to be in the middle of nowhere.
@@dogzdigital they’ve actually said they are going to be placed on the existing sites. No new sites required, unlike the thousands and thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines for renewables and the thousands and thousands of hectares of land the renewables require.
@@kingsleysmith7893 No one has plans to put nuclear reactors on existing sites, their are literally no plans for nuclear reactors in Australia. I personally think nuclear reactors would be awesome, but all of the modelling does actually indicate that they are not an economically viable option for Australia. Regardless of the costings, a nuclear plant would take far too long to build. There is also not a single politician in Australia that possesses the political capital to have it built anywhere near a population center.
That Lady from the National Party
has no idea!
Cheap Energy from Nuclear Power
LOL
Q@A What a joke.
Why can we build solar and wind farms in years, but nuclear takes decades?
The logic simply doesn’t stacks up!
It actually only takes about 3-4 years to build a nuclear facility. Where it takes the most time is in it's safety procedures and testing that can take 5-6 years or more depending on the reactor.
That can be extended by years if there are any changes or building delays and issues in the testing phase.
@@sarajjackson5677 that sounds about right.
But we need much better off taking up Nicola Tesla free energy that is all around us up.
But that means the authorities, government, loses control, which suits neither capitalist nor communist regimes.
The reality is nuclear energy has been spoken about and considered for more than 50 years. It's not going to be cheaper according to the studies that have been done and until the technology evolves its a high risk endeavour.
Waste from power plants is also a major issue for the countries that have nuclear power plants. It's dangerous, has to be heavily guarded and has a very long half-life.
And waste in the form of CO2 is not?
Or the recycling of windmills and solar panels is not a problem either?
Nonsense, information taking without the full consideration of context.
@@Robert-xs2mv fossil fuels are a problem and we definitely need to change but the technology for solar panels manufacture and recycling in addition to the higher efficiency have meant they become carbon negative now. Similar progress is being made with wind and other energy generation technologies.
Ultimately we need a range of solutions but we haven't got nuclear power already and investing extreme amounts of money into the current nuclear technology isn't practical. The decades of work it would take to get a reactor operational will lead to huge costs and ultimately we all end up paying for it. If progress is made on some of the newer reactor technologies that are both safer but more importantly lower waste then it might be more practical but they seems to be a long way off.
@@lukek8357I don’t know where ur getting ur info mate, but I think you need to do some more research.
The biggest expense & danger regarding nuclear is bureaucracy, politics & protests.
China has a new Thorium MSR in operation for a year now that took 5yrs to build, US has built one in 21 months supposedly (Light water), Japan built one in 3.5 years, it doesn’t have to take that long to build a reactor, which is one of the greater costs, time & interest rates on borrowings for it while protests & bureaucracy & politics hold up progress & increase costs.
Nuclear is the way forward. The waste is relatively small & there are ways of storing it safely for a very long time, so that really is not an issue.
There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding nuclear power and this is another problem because people fear what they know nothing about, which is understandable, but basic nuclear physics should be taught in second grade & people would come to realise the potential benefits it has to offer with education and proper understanding.
There are quite a number of designs for different reasons, but the new stage 4 reactors are quite safe and power dense base load.
Govt wants to destroy thousands of acres of Victorian high country for Wind power, beautiful country, home to many protected species including Koala’s, so thats not really environmentally friendly is it? They want to deforest for solar pv farms & spend billions on green power which could be used to Aquire nuclear power while we still have enough economy for it.
@@evil17 @evil17 I have watched and read a fair bit about the newer technology. I agree that Thorium and Sodium are likely to be more of an option in the future if Australia was to go down that road but the technology is still relatively new and unfortunately Australia is rarely keen on new technology that hasn't been tested over time especially when there are significant risks. The regulatory hurdles are also a major issue and likely to take decades to overcome especially around storage and disposal of waste. Cost will be a concern because we don't have a nuclear industry here to support it. The level of qualifications and expertise required would require huge investments and significant take time.
The last time I saw some estimates the cost for a nuclear power station the ultimate cost of electricity to the consumer wasn't going to be cheaper either.
I think Nuclear Power in Australia is kinda like the East Coast High Speed Rail and other infrastructure projects that have been talked about for decades and often get a lot of attention in the media but ultimately never financially stack up or never get enough public support to actually make any headway.
@@lukek8357 if that is the case, we will have to keep burning fossil fuels then to keep the lights on, my understanding is that most nuclear can/does reduce final power costs.
Hats off to China for their implementation (hate to say) and hope it all goes well as a potential model for many of the new future reactors. They say a 2” ball of thorium is enough to power a house for a lifetime, sounds impressive.
While I do like the solar & wind green ideology idea, it does have its share of issues & expense without base load requirements, which we need. Hydro is good as it gives us water storage as well as solar power storage at peak times, but it also takes time & is expensive due to protests & bureaucracy.
Something we do need to do is get rid of the nuclear ban first, & then the two major parties & greens from politics & tax payers money. Cheers
Wow Bridget McKenzie is quite the cow.