Nuclear expert responds to Gencost report claim nuclear power is 2x expensive than renewables
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- ✍️ SIGN OUR PETITION TO LIFT THE NUCLEAR BANS IN AUSTRALIA:
www.nuclearfor...
Captions AI generated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT NUCLEAR FOR AUSTRALIA:
Nuclear for Australia is Australia's largest campaign for nuclear energy. Our aim is to disseminate information about nuclear energy to help advance and inform the debate.
Nuclear for Australia is a registered charity. The organisation is proudly non partisan and is currently chaired by the former CEO of ANSTO and nuclear science advocate, Dr Adi Paterson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW OUR SOCIALS:
• Instagram: / nuclearforaustr. .
• Facebook: www.facebook.c....
• Twitter: / nuclearforaus
• UA-cam: / @nuclearforaustralia
• TikTok: / nuclearforaus. .
✍️Sign our petition: nuclearforaustralia.com/petition
Donate: nuclearforaustralia.com/factsnotpolitics
Uranium mined in Roxby, enriched in Whyalla, nuclear station at port Augusta, waste stored in Maralinga
Are you gonna ask the people of Pt. Augusta first. Do you understand one of the problems now or are you just going to tell them, you're getting one, like it or not. Brave government who'll do that.
@peterremkes9376 they had one, the labor government blew it up. Largest employer in the northern area. So close to the largest consumer, Roxby Downs. This is the issue, no one actually has any guts to make decisions. Id live there, work there. Its called progress
peter - the same amount of people living Port Augusta as Altona Victoria no one asked me if I could put giant 50 house apartment buildings up and down the main street then half the parking put parking metres in block The Esplanade with a mini park and subdivide almost every house block in the neighbourhood so what's your point. - robberlin build it in my backyard my boys and I will work in it for the rest of our lives
The reason Australia has no waste depository is because of ignorant objectors.
NIMBY's!
We do have one and its perfect. Sandy Ridge in WA run by Tellus. Tellus are also looking at a place in the NT specifically for this.
we had one that was almost complete in SA and Kimba I think. Then the local unemployed indigenous people made the government close it down.
We must have!… because apparently we’re taking back waste from nuclear we sell to France.🤷♂️
Good to see some pushback on CSIRO's reports that misconstrue the importance of nuclear versus other power technologies - we need more education on the real situation.
What is the real situation.
Here is the real situation:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_cost_of_energy
@@johnpeters4214The real situation is that more debate and research needs to be conducted instead of taking the CSIRO as absolute gospel.
@@rawnet101LOL, do you take Wikipedia as 100% correct. Now that's funny.
The CSIRO either completely balled-up their nuclear report and/or was under external coercion! #Labor #Bowen
Thankfully many smart Australians picked up on the flaws in their data and the CSIRO has since “revised” the report… and now it seems nuclear is more cost effective and quicker to build, than originally reported!🤷♂️🤦🏻♂️
…now imagine if the CSIRO’s data set for renewable energy was corrected and applied to their revised Nuclear report!?!?
I am absolutely gobsmacked that their ABC had a segment that was not left, green dogma. This one must have slipped under their radar.
Yes, it escaped
I was thinking exactly the same, ABC not being totally negative- weird
They call these segments loss leaders.
And Paul Culliver's treatment of the argument was actually very balanced, inquisitive and fair. I don't think he'll last long with the ABC!
@@razorback0z That's because their leaders are usually at a loss to tell the truth.
Finland has just opened a new nuclear power station even the greenies are supporting it. Clean energy. No ugly windmills covering valuable arable land.
Yes, the Olkiluoto Reactor 3 has just been connected to the grid - 13 years *AFTER* the planned date (it was scheduled to be commissioning by 2010), and the cost has *quadrupled* (from 3 billion euros to 11 billion euros).
OL3 is *NOT* the poster child you think it is.....
@@matthewwadwell6100 Will generate green electricity for the next 80 years . The capital cost is irrelevant .
@@stewatparkpark2933 *NO* currently operating nuclear reactor will last for 80 years. *NONE!*
The longest current designs are licensed for is 40 years, with an option to extend to 60 years.
Similar to SMR's, the idea that a 80 year lifespan is a *_theoretical_* idea....
@@matthewwadwell6100 spot on, they talk crap these nuclear sickos.
@@matthewwadwell6100 The Surry nuclear power plant in Virginia USA has been licenced to operate to 80 years. It's not there yet, but has been approved to that age. Another 9 are going through the process to extend their licences to 80 years. Material science researchers estimate that new alloy materials used could see nuclear plants able to operate for up to 120 years. Net zero needs nuclear.
About time real questions are asked of real learned people by, and I’m impressed, by the ABC no less.
Be careful this isn’t attacked as misinformation/disinformation…
When has the cost of ANYTHING ever been of the slightest concern to the communist Australian Labor party when it comes to implementing their communist ideology ???
People still don't get it! Power poverty is the real agenda! Their plan is for a Zimbabwe-like failed state.
Communist..?! What are you smoking?
Nothing and yes, they are communists.
I mean LNP only worry about the cost of the money going to their corporate donors or people in their marginal seats.
@@froggy0162socialist 😉
the proof is in the pudding, look at other countries at 10-14c/kWh
10c a kwh is around the mark for average wholesale elec price. And in manitoba canada the retail price is in the order of 16c per kwh. Whereas in south australia retail is average 45c a kwh. Were getting screwed and its not in the generation
@@davefoord1259 3 main components to retail electricity prices. Cost of generation, transmission & retailer fees.
In South Australia the cost of generation is frequently very low or even negative when RE output is high. But as it occasionally is very high for short periods as the whole RE system isn’t finished yet, retailers put in a contingency to make sure they don’t get caught out. The closer the RE gen system gets to complete, the lower the contingency costs on power bills.
Additionally, transmission costs are very high because SA has a relatively low population density. Further exacerbated by having to have major lines go around the Gulf. Costs which would be part of South Australian household & business’ power bills no matter what the source of generation.
@@markboscawen8330 so sa power networks is the one who buys elec from the generators then charges the retailers based on meter readings on individual properties. Is that not correct?
You also need to factor in energy sovereignty. Australia has 30% of known uranium deposits. Which means we could be energy independent for centuries and not subject to foreign wars or the whims of communist dictatorships.
Actually we can’t have energy sovereignty unless we also do the fuel processing here. However, the amount of fuel rods that would be used by Australia would be so low that a processing plant could never warrant the cost. Nuclear power generation as a % of global energy production isn’t predicted to rise significantly. So it’s not a growth market that can be easily cracked & processing costs amortised across global sales.
Then comes the issue of maintaining the reactor itself. The core reactor components won’t be made here so we always be reliant on an overseas OEM for critical spare parts.
So, as we ultimately have to rely on third party countries, nuclear power will not provide complete energy sovereignty for Australia.
Is this REALLY from Australian ABC.?......what's going on, real factual reporting! Must have subcontracted the whole thing.
Remove the ban on nuclear power and let the market decide on a level playing field.
Elsewhere in the world there is no nuclear ban, and yet a vast majority of new power production has been in the form of renewables, as nuclear power is *_expensive_* - just as the Finns!
@@matthewwadwell6100 Explain to mew how a solar (which only operates 30% of the time) or wind (40%) can provide power for 100% of the time?
Even if there was no overlap (there is) that means being WITHOUT power production for at least 30% of the time.
Sorry, it does not work.
And once you factor in power storage and transmission lines, wind and solar are LESS cost effective than nuclear.
And that is BEFORE you take into account that wind and solar have a lifespan of only 20 years where nuclear has a lifespan of 60-80 years.
Sorry, but try dealing in FACTS.
@@lokai7914 And yet Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay have 100% of their energy supply from renewables.
Norway is at 99%, Luxembourg is at 89%, and New Zealand, Denmark, and Brazil are all around 80%.
So your claim that _"it does not work"_ is *obviously* incorrect - as it has been *proven* to work......
Perhaps you need to look beyond your bubble, and into the real world!
@@matthewwadwell6100 Those countries are using hydro and geothermal resources .
A level,playing field would also require subsidies to be withdrawn from renewables.
Finally a balanced review of CSIRO work. It astounds me they continue to cobble together rubbish reports on this subject.
Nonsense. CSIRO produces high quality and transparent coatings. You’re welcome to produce your own if you think it’s better - be sure to describe your methods and assumptions.
So the last nuclear report contained obvious flaws and misinformation, a CSIRO joke. A simple but accurate way to look at the question is to examine which countries have chosen and use nuclear and get their costs. Or are they all fools?
The Australian govt always does things its own way...just look at, well, everything really...the Collins class submarines - had to be modified to Australian specs, the nuclear subs...same thing - need many "modifications" to meet Australian specs...and by the time they are delivered, the subs will need to go in for refit to get the latest updated tech etc. It's pathetic. Same thing with nuclear power stations. I agree...look at what other countries with exiting nuclear expertise/costs etc...but no...Australian govts have to do it their way and not learn from the mistakes/lessons from others.
There's big money in pushing the green energy dogma because of the death cult peddling the idea to them.
When the money dries up or the people get fed up, they'll go back to toting coal is best but not nuclear because the people running this country are friends with the foreigners who own the chain of supply of coal/gas/petrol.
Plain and simple its an agenda. Theyve sold themselves to be world leaders in green energy, we see ourselves as special, just a different special than what we appear
@@martinscrapp7166 It's true. The submarines had to have windscreen wipers fitted that could cope with Australian conditions.
Biy worse than fools..........
Called renewables as they have to be renewed every 15 - 20 years.
Someone needs to do the figures on what would be the real cost, and if no government funding was provided.
Just like they've done for solar and wind?
You could have a look at the recently completed Finish reactor - which was 4 times over budget (11 billion euros verse the planned 3 billion euros) and took three times longer to build (15 years, verse 5 years) than originally planned!
At the moment, aside from China, building new nuclear reactors is a story of cost overruns and delays.....
@matthewwadwell6100 : Nuclear power brings down electricity prices by 75% in Finland.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 As I have pointed out in another post, the cost decrease is almost certainly due to other factors (such as spring runoff causing an excess of hydro) - as OL-3 is *over 2.5 times the operating cost* of OL-1 and OL-2.....
@@matthewwadwell6100 : And as I pointed out your desperation is amusing.
Everyone is worried about nuclear waste and yet not a peep about renewable waste eg. solar panels and wind turbines that can’t be re-cycled. Already there are 10s of thousands of acres of these things and they haven’t even scratched the surface of what’s required.
Majority of solar panels and wind rotors probably bought from China too.
You're 100% correct. When the tsunami of used turbines and panels swamps our toxic waste dumps the next couple of decades, more and more people will wake up
What a treat from their ABC. We had a real nuclear expert interviewed in an objective and fair way. What, I wonder would His Nibs, the smug, oracular Bowen make of it?
My goodness, an ABC guy who actually engages in good faith and poses questions his audience wants answered . He doesn’t rudely interrupt his guest, and doesn’t assume malign intent motivates his interviewee. Well done sir, chapeau.
Sarah 'Hopkins' Ferguson would be apoplectic!
Well, @midnightspares, Gas is not "clean energy". It certainly has the appearance of being clean, at the point of burning. However, it comes out of the ground with a huge amount of carbon dioxide in it. That is then stripped off and the clean stuff sent to be burned.
On an International level, Australia, as a gas producer, wears the cost of all that carbon dioxide even if the "clean gas" is burned in Japan or China, or where ever.
Any plan to rely on "clean gas" is just another political con job. All Australian reports say that nuclear is:
uneconomic Tell that to Finland and France with their cheap electricity and high reliance on nuclear;
takes too long to build and become operative; well the United Arab Emirates went from concept to production in 12 years. Of course, Australia would not be as capable and would take three times as long; why?
In the eighty year life of a nuclear plant, how many times would we have to renew all of the infrastructure (solar panels, windmills and batteries). Is that why its called "renewable energy"?
The majority of gas fields in Australia do not have "hugh" amounts of co2, ie "sour gas". Co2 in ch4 (pure or sweet natural gas). Sour gas is corrosive to steel and hence and hence has thicker pipe and operations checks. The majority is sweet gas.
Excellent comment - Australia used to be a nation of 'can do's' willing to back themselves - now it's always reasons why we're not allowed to do things. It's an insidious mindset that's undermining a great nation.
but...but...you can't destroy Australia, if you allow Nuclear Power stations to be built........
Plants eat all the CO2 .
@@stewatparkpark2933 I don't care what side of the CO2 debate you are on - the reality is that in order to progress human development to ALL of humanity and build a closed resource/recycling economy, we need 4 - 8 time MORE energy than we have at present. The only technology that has the potential to meet that requirement is nuclear.
The renewable aspect of wind and solar is that it requires frequent replacement.
How could Finland build nuclear for 9 billion dollars supplying 1/3 of the country. Our pumped hydro by Turnbull will cost (May be more if ever finished) is 12 billion. It produces power for couple hours, for fraction of NSW.
Your underestimating its green credentials where nuclear renders large parts of the country uninhabitable after it blows up. Why do you think Germany just shut down all nuke power stations.
How could the federal government make so many mistakes when comparing the cost of nuclear power with renewables ? I think they compared apples with lemons. This is the numeracy problem we face
Does the Nuclear Expert know that Australia will be in shared blackouts forever if we don't have a backup power source, "SORRY BOSS CAN'T COME IN TODAY MY EV DIDN'T CHARGE DUE TO OUR BLACKOUT TIME" solar with batteries and wind farms just wont cut it
Your totally underestimating the power of solar and wind with battery tech to create base load stability.
@@andretorben9995 I can see it here at home with 6.9 kwt system and 10 kwt battery when the sun goers down I use electric oven, electric A/C, TV, plus 2 fridges and 1 chest freezer, in the morning I am down to 18% as long as I turn most things off, DONT TELL ME THE WHOLE OF AUSTRALIA CAN RUN THEIR HOUSES, EV CARS, INDUSTRY FROM THIS STUPID NO BACK UP POWER SUPPLY, If my house in winter can't run all day off solar and batteries there is fat chance Australia can run on this insane idea
@@andretorben9995 You obviously know nothing of the scale of storage needed for renewables to be even 70 or 80% of our usage.
When the government is involved it turns to crap
Funny that !!!
Nuclear power plants last 50/80 years
Solar would have to be replaced many times in this timeframe
So how do you figure solar/ wind is cheaper
And solar/ wind is unreliable!!!
Thank you for making this important discussion available. Cheers.
On what planet are there Solar Panels that are 30 years old producing their maximum output? Hell, Id be impressed if they were generating 25% of their original output..
Do they add the cost of battery storage to the price too?
Why wont the LNP tell us where they want to put all these nuclear reactors ?
NOT IN MY BACK YARD !!! 😂
Why has most other countries have it.....Because its inexpensive, reliable & it works !!!
This Tony Irwin talks a Hell of a Lot of Sense
There is a reason why he is an Associate Professor at the Dept of Nuclear Physics at ANU. He was previously a reactor operator and manager in the UK, he was the commissioning manager at the OPAL reactor and has 40+ years experience in nuclear power reactor operations. Unlike our politicians, he knows his stuff.
Outstanding! ABC fact checkers must have had a melt down ;)
As a ex-Shift Manager of the OPAL Nuclear Reactor (2009 to 2021), and as someone who personally knew Tony Irwin when he was the Reactor Manager of the OPAL Reactor - I feel that there is a few factors that need to be considered.
The first is that Tony is _currently_ a technical director of small modular reactor company (SMR Nuclear Technology) - so while this means that he is an expert (such as one exists on SMR's - as *none* have yet been built), it also means that he is *not* unbiased.
The next, is that even when you consider the other facts (such as capacity factor) - at *_best_* nuclear is (as Tony put it) _"the same"_ as solar.
Then you'll note that Tony does *NOT* advocate for *wide spread* use of nuclear - the only reference Tony uses for the amount of nuclear power to be built in Australia is for the final "10%" to be nuclear instead of gas.
And lastly, Tony mentions burning waste in a Fast Neutron Reactor - not mentioning that there has only been ~20 fast neutron reactors ever built, and that only ~7 of them are still running (and only *2* of these are of a commercial scale). So rely on fast neutron reactors to handle high level waste is *incredibly* optimistic.....
So - to summarise, too much of the nuclear plan relies on *unproven* technologies - *NOT* something to bet billions of dollars on when we have a viable alternative......
There are hundreds of SMRs in naval ships and submarines .
@@stewatparkpark2933 Your ignorance is astounding!
You are confusing Small Reactors, with Small *_MODULAR_* Reactors.
And ship born reactors are NOT small, with the reactors powering the latest US aircraft carriers producing over 750 MW! (And the submarines reactor producing over 200 MW - which is on the *extreme* edge of the definition of "small"....)
Please look into what a Small *Modular* Reactor is, before responding!
@@matthewwadwell6100 Same thing basically .
@@stewatparkpark2933 Only if you consider a thousand papercuts to be _"the same"_ as a 12 inch knife wound to the heart.
However, most *educated* people would agree that they are *TOTALLY* different!
The Americans have been building SMR's since 1955 and putting them in aircraft carriers and submarines - get real
You would put in a series of SMRs on each existing site, making each site expandable, and relocatable, also minimising initial capital cost, as the systems are grown.
To an economist, the CSIRO Gencost report is a poor example of comparative cost analysis. As Irwin correctly says, CSIRO left out nuclear from their otherwise comprehensive cost analysis. I guess they are singing for their govt. funding supper? Given the significant global share of nuclear in global power, (from memory the PRC alone is building ~20 new nuclear power stations), CSIRO has ignored 'The Elephant in the Room'. Due to this omissionj, their report is partial and biased and Irwin is correct to criticise this. In doing so, CSIRO cloud the issue for Joe Public. As a Quango, they have no right to engage in politics. Shame on your proud tradition CSIRO.
The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity methodology to calculate energy system costs. This is a deliberate attempt to keep from Australians Australians the extra costs that variable renewable energy triggers elsewhere in the market.
CSIRO Gen Report does not recognise the real value of baseload generation from gas, coal or nuclear, which can consistently produce electricity on demand, whereas renewables simply cannot,”
The truth will always be any system built on baseload generation, like gas, coal, or nuclear, will always be significantly less expensive than one reliant on variable renewable energy
Australians have every right to demand that Chris Bowen and the CSIRO not continue to hide behind discredited numbers, rather than being honest
In fact, I think that GenCost report is not only deficient on the issues discussed in the video but it should have been done using NPV and IRR type analysis using 20-year calculation periods representing the life of wind and PV solar and concatenated calculation periods with proper salvage value assessments including recycling, environmental restoration and so on. Further, a discount rate in real-terms should be used so that any project and technology risks can be baked into the cost. The current costing is hardly useful because the revenue per market segment is missing which means that fundamental questions whether the costs of the overall system can allow electricity prices that are affordable and cheap enough so as not to distort the discretionary spending of consumers on other parts of the economy.
The most serious flaw however is the fact that no 'what-if' testing has been included on projected costs and revenues in real-terms. This means that individual NPV risk assessments on constituent parts of the total system infrastructure (that is per system, per state, per node, per interconnect arrangements and so on) as a result of estimation errors of projected costs and revenues cannot not be assessed in terms of economic viability.
In my view, the current costing is superficial, misleading, and ineffective in assessing the project viability taking into account the time value of money, the financial requirement of the investors, and the financial risks of constituent part of the project, as well as ensure that the costs/revenues are such that the overall build stacks up with realistic revenue and electricity pricing levels.
With due respect, the shallow and inadequate costing done by CSIRO would not be acceptable for project viability assessments in the private sector. We have the tools and the knowledge today to do this job properly so there is no excuse for substandard work considering the billions of dollars that may be potentially misallocated before the penny drops that the entire scheme is economically unviable. The sloppiness of costing in the public sector is largely responsible for the endless cost blowouts, project delays and waste of taxpayers' money through botched projects.
CSIRO is a research agency, why are they in charge of doing such costings. It would seem logical to use a proper power systems consulting team whose business is power.
Your headline is wrong, France had the cheapest energy in Europe and after the green push costs increased not decreased.!
CSIRO says mobile phone radiation towers are perfectly fine to put right next to a childs bedroom...so i trust their reports about as far as i can throw them
Solar during the day feeding batteries + ramped down nuclear power. Night time batteries feeding the grid supplemented by nuclear power. It's a win win.
If CSIRO say nuclear is twice the cost and it’s actually half, then CSIRO are 400% out. Impressive.
But they still get government money to produce this crap. The first rule of consultancy is to give your client what he wants - then you get paid and the next job. In this case Paul Graham (the lead CSIRO consultant) is an economist and his side kick a renewal energy specialist - what we need is a few engineers on the task
Just ask the Japanese how much it costs.
If one is built on the site of a coal or gas powerhouse the only cost is construction of the reactor.
In Australia that cost would be at least 150 billion dollars and take between 25 to 30 years, unless we buy the power station from China, then up and running in 12 months.
@@andretorben9995 actually.
It would be first ordered from France cost 300 million but get canceled and then bought from China
About US$500billion and still going to cleanup Fukushima
@andretorben9995 : Actually as estimated by the CSIRO a nuclear reactor would cost $8B. You are only out by $142B.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 . Unfortunately I think that a trillion won’t be enough is Labor and the Greens are involved.
My solar panels were degraded after only five years and had to be replaced
I've had panels since 1995. The early ones only lasted 2 to 7 years but have gradually improved. I expect the next ones to actually pay for themselves if we get 12 years from them. One problem is the increasing number of panels that fail totally in the first year or two. Getting a replacement is not easy, they make you work hard hoping youll give up I reckon.
A great interview. If CSIRO was interested in providing accurate information why don’t they speak to people like this? Shouldn’t be too hard to find his phone number.
One thing that isnt mentioned is when nuclear high level waste is recycled, the half life and time the waste stays radio active is reduced.
B*^&$%^T a half life cannot be reduced.
@@stevejones9062 Radiotoxicity reduction - If you recycle your fuel in fast-neutron reactors, you can transmute the waste nuclides from ones with 10,000-year half-lives to ones with 200-year half-lives, reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of your waste.
@@scubaaddict Which is a nice way of saying that the level of toxic radiation will be reduced by half in only 200 years. Brilliant!
@@harukinzaphod and considering all the waste in total for the USA since that started using nuclear and the fact they dont recycle only fills a football stadium with 5 metre deep is nothing and can be safely buried. with recycling its greatly reduced.
I find the alarm over nuclear waste issue somewhat absurd - radioactive ore bodies (natural uranium and thorium) have been in place for 4.5Bn years since the earth was formed - they are NOT protected, ground water flows through trhem and they decay into radium., radon etc in exactly the same way as high level nuclear waste. Spent fuel from a reactor is very toxic when initially removed but decays by 99.9% over 50 years and is down to natural levels (i.e as the original unprotected ore) after about 300 years. However, nuclear waste when sequestered in a repository is:
1. Vitrified (embedded in glass)
2. Put in heavy casks
3. Surrounded with clay (i.e impervious material)
4. Buried 300 meters underground
THIS IS FAR BETTER PROTECTED THAN THE ORE FROM WHICH IT ORIGINATED
To me if someone (in the distant future) wishes to break through all the barriers to get into the repository/casks and then cjips off a bit of glass with a tasty bit of waste in it and grinds it up and eats it (ingesting and inhaling are the only ways it would harm you) then the deserve all they would possibly get (more likely they would just crap it out with no harm). Please can we get real over the potential harm coming from a waste material that after 300 years is no worse than unprotected uranium ore (pitchblend) that's been in the ground (unprotected) for ever!
Why was the report produced by major engineering companies in Australia who benefit from the renewable sector. Should this report have been produced independently so that there is no bias?
The CSIRO was destroyed many years ago as they appointed politicians and friends of politicians to the top jobs and stopped having career scientists and engineers involved in any real decision making. its now just another mouthpiece for the government of the day. Both Labor and Liberals have caused this.
If you are not going to have gas or coal. Your only option is nuclear until fusion energy is refined. If we close the coal and gas power generators, and do not have a Nuclear system, we will have the elderly dying from cold in winter and people developing illnesses due to heat.
Congrats Paul Culliver for presenting an alternate view on ABC radio. Do you still have a job?
Give Blackout Bowen the "BIRD" he is a pretender the same as his most unfortunate boss.
Tony Irwin has forgotten the fact that Renewables are Replaceables at Taxpayer Expense EVERY 7 to 10 Years. Windmills AND Solar Panels depreciating both mechanically and through a Photovoltaic Cell degradation. Not including Hail Storms or Gearbox Breakages. Guess how much 50 Years worth of your Replaceables will cost Australian Taxpayers? NPV and FPV. You tell us Tony. Fact is,it is NINE TIMES cost of Four Nuclear SMR's.
Have to present all the facts, frequency control is supplied by batteries in a solar grid, and a renewable grid is solar, wind and batteries. Some locations would also have wave energy, and there is also pumped hydro as well as various other storage systems. The grid is a system, that is either driven by consumables or renewables. Coal, gas and Nuclear are consumables and most of the others are renewable. With renewables you have a mix of capital and construction costs amortised over the life of the system plus maintenance. with consumables you have those costs and the cost of fuel to run it all. Then at end of life there's disposal which for coal has always been born by the tax payer instead of the company making the money of the plant and there are a lot of them. With nuclear there's used fuel storage and disposal and the entire plant core is radioactive at the end and needs to be treated in a similar fashion to the fuel waste and at great expense. Also coal and gas should be costed with 100% operational costs of sequestering carbon from combustion, and the carbon from fuel production. Nuclear gets off lightly except there's carbon from fuel disposal. basically none of these things should be tax payer funded, the cost should be in the supply charge.
When all of these costs are factored in, renewables comes out on top.
You manipulate the inputs to get the result you want, just like GenCost. It doesnt make it true or even realistic.
If you can name one country where real electricity costs have gone down, or even stayed generally the same as more renewable are added to the grid to "replace" fossil fuels, then please, educate us.
Then you can explain why the states and countries with the most Nuclear power generation also have the cheapest prices compared to their neighbours.
But does it make power cheaper for the people? Thats the real question.
Nuclear power is the way forward. There is no way that renewables can match the power output of a Nuclear station without significant environmental impact, like clearing huge land areas for solar farms or wind farms.
It boils down to the fact that Nuclear doesnt provide the profit to big business that gas, coal and renewables do because the mining industry doesnt have to supply it, and mining companies provide significant contributions to political parties for campaigning and policy making
But if we had enough nuclear plants to power the nation why would we need the part time sources of energy like wind and solar????
Exactly .
Oh dear, that’s not supporting the present narrative and all the lies and bullshit we’re currently being fed 😂😂😂
Why didn't Irwin note his involvement in the company SMR Nuclear Technology? Disgraceful. Disgrace that Irwin didn't make that acknowledgement, disgrace that the ABC didn't make that acknowledgement, disgrace that Nuclear for Australia didn't make that acknowledgement.
Doesn't change the laws of physics .
Disgraceful that the companies that contributed to the writing of the gencost report are all beholden to Wind and Solar...
Great information Tony. Well done.
CSIRO use to be a respected, impartial organisation providing quality advice to government.
It is a total disgrace and should be defunded.
What an interesting knowledgeable guy. How come the government never allow open and honest discussion on these subjects. Peter Dutton should roll this guy out in the MSM. For the muppets that still watch and believe the hype of the current planks running the country.
Hi Paul, sorry to hear of your sudden departure from ABC. What are your future plans?
Regardless, nuclear is 24/7, renewables cannot match that. What value can be put on reliability?
WHOLE OF SYSTEM COSTING NEEDED!!!
In Australia youd be looking at at least 150 billion to build and 25 years.
@@andretorben9995 way cheaper than $1.5 Trillion for renewables that won't work. And 25 years is propaganda. 10 years for first electrons and 15 for fleet completion.
@@andretorben9995 still be faster and cheaper that wind/solar at $1.5T as per Net Zero Australia report.
And Tony’s position is nuclear and he’s obviously looking to support that.
What's your point ?
GenCost is bought and paid for by Wind and Solar companies making a fortune right now... what's your point?
@@stewatparkpark2933 the point is no one fact checked his comments. He may be a "nuclear expert" but he clearly doesnt do economics as his comments regarding capacity factor and its effect on the cost are plain wrong, and the load following comments are misleading.
One aspect is the cost, but a far more important aspect is that nuclear is a first rate generation technology, wind is third rate and solar fourth rate. In other words, you cannot really compare them..
Agree, also comparing solar farms (expensive) with rooftop solar is just plain silly.
Solar costs twice as much as nuclear. What of wind costs?
We just don't have much wind in Australia. It is never going to be that large percentage wise. Plus when they are built they are a terrible thing to do to the environment.
Then what about the terrible cost of disposal of solar and wind?
@@davexb6595 Lots of wind in the mornington peninsula, problem is that all the millionaires counter-petitioned to stop the building of turbines out in the water near their properties, wouldn't want to devalue those millionaires now would we? after all we can just build those turbines near a farmer and inconvenience him instead.
@@Rexhunterj At sea the wind turbines fail even quicker. In land they are failing prematurely due to the gear boxes.
Renewables cost five times as much as nuclear. But if Austraia went nuclear, what are all those Chinese solar panel, Li-ion battery and wind farm manufacturers going to do when they miss out on the trillions of dollars promised them by Comrades anthony albanese and christopher bowen ??? Invade, Russian style ???
Solar is the cheapest form of electricty. We need lots more. We could send solar power from Perth to Sydney because of the time difference so Sydney gets power at night and it would arrive very quickly becuase electricity travels faster than light.
Don't forget waste burning nuclear reactors, along with thorium reactors in development. Walk away passive safety.
no one seems to be monitoring Copenhagen atomics or what the CAS have achieved in the gobi desert.
Load following by throttling steam to the turbines? Might work for minutes at a time but where does all the energy from the reactor go if you need to reduce output most of the day and at least some of the night. Prolonged significant reductions in output are not made in French practice, it has an adverse effect on the reactor. Some dodgy claims here Mr Irwin.
The Natrium reactor uses Molten salt as the buffer between the reactor and the turbine. The reactor operates at full bore (it doesn't have to but it produces cheap electricity) and the molten salt drives the turbines. You can store the molten salt (in a large insulated container) and flex this heat storage to the turbines
Share this far and wide.
Can't the CSIRO and Nuclear for Australia come together and resolve where they agree and disagree and then make the calculations public.
The claim at 2:07 that the Gencost report doesn't take into account the capacity factor is claiming that it is based upon solar producing power 24hrs per day rather than about 6hrs per day. Either the CSIRO or Tony Irwin would appear to be grossly confused or straight out lying, therefore it would good if they could get together and explain who is right and who is wrong.
Japanese technology waterless nuclear reactors producing red nitrogen in the dry country is the most sensible way forward, we could build them at Olympic dam or outside of any city far from any seaboard.
Add grid, storage and 'backup' coal/gas and renewables become far more expensive.
Ask the Australians how their cheap 13bilion Snowy 2 water storage is doing😁
The Coalition did the costing on that. Now ask the Coalition on the costing of nuclear and then multiply it by the same factor.
@@harukinzaphod Labor could kill the project any time they want....but they haven't.
@@cerealport2726 Project is about half completed and half the revised budget spent. What do you do? Walk away after spending $6bn with nothing of value or spend the remainder and have something of value? It is pretty much reached the point of no return.
I think we should wait for Fusion, it’s only 10 years away 😳
Actually it's only 50 years away and has been 50 years away for over 50 years.
BTW, that does not mean we should not be doing the research. Even if we don't get there the side benefits from other tech pays for it.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 yes I forgot, it’s always 50 years away.
@@5milessep : Until it's not 50 years away. My point was it's not there yet and is an unknown time away. Does not mean the research should stop.
:-)
@@buildmotosykletist1987 I totally agree with you, they need to continue the research and hopefully we’ll have it at some point 👍
Where was Tony Irwin ten or twenty years ago?. Great question on nuclear waste why haven’t we set an industry to store this waste. We could start with all the waste from Japan. CSIRO synrock technology could work. But why now? The current crop of neo liberals had ten years to start a community discussion on nuclear but did nothing. This is purely a political issue. Just rubbish.
thank you prof irwin.
How does the insurance work when things go pear shaped. Owner pays, insurer pays, or people pay?
That is entirely down to nuclear reactor design. Low energy output, long fuel life, pulsing fan turbine reactors could be mass produced and produce much cheaper energy, the cheapest energy on the planet.
Blatant deceit from Nuclear for Australia.
its 1500 times cheaper than replacing renewables every 5 or 6 years
From the report
"The historical longevity of large‐scale nuclear has led many stakeholders to suggest it should have
a longer amortisation period even though there is little evidence presented that private financing
would be comfortable with that risk. A sensitivity case where the amortisation period for large
scale nuclear was increased from 30 years to 40 years was calculated. This results in a cost
reduction for large‐scale nuclear of between $9/MWh and $16/MWh. While significant, this does
not appear sufficient to change its competitive position."
All modern reactors are designed to load follow. Absolute BS.
They vent the steam straight into the condensers bypassing the turbine . . Pretty simple .
19 of the G20 are insane. 1 knows better.
Never Believed anything from CSIRO
So don't like science then?
@@malcolmduncan3047 : CSIRO is a religion no science involved.
A 300 SMR is not buyable because the US has abandoned the project because of rising costs.
As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs.
What are the arguments against small modular reactors?
In addition to the waste and proliferation problems, small modular reactors will not be built and operating in time to be an effective climate solution. Canada's climate targets involve decreasing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050.1 Apr 2024
Perhaps all the Nuclear supporters can explain why the first NuScale Nuclear project in the US was cancelled. Was it because it was simply too expensive and not financially viable.
It has not been canceled.
We’ll put the nuclear plant in your back yard then? And of course a Nuclear fanboy is going to promote nuclear, duh 🙄
Interesting report, well worth the community having this discussion irrespective of the governments effort to stifle debate…why Bowen is so afraid and passing out random criticisms when he has no training or background i will never understand, unless it’s just politics.
So why does France use N/ power. One plant in 7 years is possible (without Union labor)
The private sector will do it I think. Trouble is greed will then step in, over cost per KWH.
If we are recommending honariums for extreme valour in the face of a ruthless enemy, on the Victoria Cross level, can someone who has the power to do so please recommend Tony for the Order of Australia, at the very least, for "Truth to Power", accurate precision information.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
We still mine and sell uranium to the overseas market and the deal was that we HAVE to store the waste.Waste can be recycled (doing it in France) based,just on what this guy has said 🧐🧐🧐🧐 follow the money.No matter what the government decides,it’s not about YOUR quality of life.Dick Smith,would have money to burn,when he says for his own home,one of his home batteries is stuffed with the other one on the way out,10 grand a pop.Who can afford that 🤓🤓🤓
This the facts of a new nuclear technology, Dual Fluid Reactor:
Costs for prototype and serial production
All information and cost estimates in the following sections are based on solid and publicly available sources as far as they concern existing technologies. The figures on Dual Fluid were thoroughly elaborated by the authors. All sources and calculations are available on request. The development costs for the prototype of a DF300 reactor amount to approximately 6 billion US$ (time horizon: approx. 8 years). Including the manufacturing facility for serial production, a grand total in double-digit billions will be required (total time horizon: 13 to 14 years). A higher capital outlay would accelerate the prototype development to approximately 6 years and series production to 8 years. Development of the DF1500 model
with its fuel recycling system (the pyrochemical processing unit, PPU) will require investments again in the low double-digit billion range. It is planned to finance this development from the revenues generated from the first DF300 sales.
Here is an idea instead of using uranium use thorium it is safer more abundant and the waste is cleaner the only down side is you can't make bombs out of refined thorium. Since we don't need to make bombs that should not be a problem. The only reason why uranium was chosen for power is it can make bombs and to refine uranium for bombs and power grade uranium is only 10% less work than weapons grade because the way enrichment works.
Not true - Thorium is only fertile it is NOT fissionable. Thorium is transmuted (using enriched uranium) in a "thorium reactor" into uranium233 which a very fissionable (and better bomb material than uranium235/Plutonium). If you want proliferation, then thorium reactor (and uranium 233) are your solution. It's also easy the extract (and hide) U233 from the fission products of a molten salt thorium reactor.
This would be worth having a referendum on! Instead of a yes or no vote.
Lifetime of solar ain't 30 years, it's closer to ten years. The lifetime of nuclear is well beyond thirty years, say up to seventy years but beyond seventy is possible. People forget that the solar panels are made on China and certain exaggerations will occur.
2:10 Strange argument about the efficiency of solar (26%) vs (nuclear 95%) of converting input energy into electricity. Its comparing apples to to oranges. The sun's energy is there whether you use it or not, its inexhaustible and free, doesn't matter if you dont use it efficiently. BTW gasoline engines are only about 20%, efficient, coal and diesel about 40%. Makes me wonder, why is a nuclear plant much more efficient compared to a coal fired plant, both just use heat to boil the water.
The point is that you need 4 times as many panels to reach 100% of their theoretical output .
@@stewatparkpark2933 That's just the cost ($) per kW output, its already taken into account. Was just thinking, maybe coal fire can't help losing a lot of heat with the exhaust fumes, nuclear doesn't have that problem.
A comment on load following - why would you? The assumption is that you have to prioritize the use of solar. But this only makes sense if solar is competing with coal. However, if solar is competing with nuclear, there is no emission advantage in using solar.
If there is too much solar, then you can just open the switch, and the solar panels don't care that they are not generating. However, the steam turbines from the nuclear plant not only provide energy, but by producing synchronous AC power, they stabilize the grid.
The advantage is that solar is waaaay cheaper - so why would you load shed cheap solar to replace with expensive nukes…?
@@froggy0162 Let's say the nuclear plant can supply 1 GW for $50/MWh. It can do that day and night, all year round.
And let's say the solar farm can provide power 500 MW at $10/MWh, in summer, for about 8 hrs in the day.
And let's say demand is 1250 MW.
Do you let the solar farm deliver 500MW, because it is cheaper, and load shed from the nuclear plant so it only delivers 750MW?
The nuclear fuel is consumed at the same rate, so there is no cost saving if it sheds load. So it may as well supply energy at $5/MWh. Or $2/MWh. It doesn't make any difference to its costs.
But if you insist on using all the solar, then the nuclear plant will just have to charge more for the energy it supplies when the sun is not shining. If it never had to load shed, perhaps it could supply at $40/MWh, all day, all year.
why did CSIRO ddi this way because they make it political and not the actual solution
If nuclear is so good, why don't we have a whole host of 'developers' beating a path down to Canberra to build oodles of generators...from what I understand it's not viable (profitable)
And the biggest hurdle is finding a site (sites) to build them.
The pollies have been dithering for 40 years on how to deal with the miniscule amount of waste from the Lucas heights reactor, and it's still not resolved.
Brave be the Party that nominates where they're going to go, because they will lose all the seats (and probably government) for miles around.
Don't say build it out in the boonies, as the power needs to be generated near population centres, otherwise transmission losses will be too great.
And the elephant in the room is the fossil fuel lobby are putting this misinformation up to delay the onset of renewables.
I have nothing against nuclear power in itself, but if we go down this path all I can see is a black hole of taxpayer subsidies to reactors, when renewables will make them unviable.
no one would be building renewables if they weren't a bottomless pit of government subsidies. It's not a level playing field at all.
Firstly, Nuclear power generation has been banned in Australia since 1998, so it's hardly surprising that no developer has been beating any paths down to Canberra to sell something that is illegal to do.
Secondly, you seem to forget that more than 30 other countries have adopted nuclear power, and there's no reports of any major issues, in fact Finland has the cheapest power prices in Europe, whilst Germany, which has spent around $500 billion chasing the renewables dream, is floundering, with high power prices slowly undermining their Industrial capacity.
The bottom line is that nuclear is a proven, working technology supplying cheap reliable electricity, while there is NO country in the world that can say that using wind and solar.
Are you willing to gamble on Australia's power needs and economic stability on an unproven system, simply for the sake of ego?
@@SaintKimbo With the economy failing as it is, it is increasingly obvious that it isn't about doing what is best for Australia, but rather, doing what will damage the economy and lifestyle the most.
It's very clear that a lot of anti-nuclear activists hate Australia, and hate (certain colours of) humans, on top of not having any science or engineering educational or professional background. I am not sure that using sound engineering and economic reasons, as well as evidence, will ever sway such ignorant fanatics. There are, however, plenty of reasonable people who could be swayed, even if they keep their mouths shut to avoid being actively harassed by the anti-nuclear zealots. The "engineers" that do support renewables are generally in that heavily subsidised and protected industry, so are naturally biased, on top of having questionable abilities as engineers.
Then, of course, factor in the infantile "my party is better than yours" mentality when it comes to politics, where people on the left, and the right will never vote for anything other than "their party" no matter the horrendous policies they propose.
South Korea was mentioned as a reference for bulls and operating costs…
BUT
Korea has 26 plants, twice Australia’s population in an area less than Victoria
No idea how you get to those cost levels in Australia…. Will never be able to scale to a ‘fleet’ like Korea has done
Excess production during low demand is being used in other countries for Bitcoin mining. Win/win solution.