Decoding NUCLEAR Spin - What’s the REAL Story on the Cost of Nuclear? 

Bangladesh just started producing electricity from a nuclear power plant and they a third world country why can’t Australia afford 6 power stations!!!

personally i have solar and battery because i didn't trust the government would fix this mess. we had a blackout not so long ago in our area and we didn't notice. they keep talking about solar on homes, but the grid can't handle all the power homes produce. i really don't know what they've been trying to prove screwing up this hard.

Small nuclear reactors have been used to safely power nuclear submarines for decades and they go for 30 years without needing to replenish their fuel. Nuclear fission should be used as a stepping stone until nuclear fusion or some other green alternative can be developed, which can provide consistent and reliable base load power.

What wasn't discussed is the cost of renewables has to be repeated about every 20 years when everything needs replacing. Modern reactors are very likely to last 100 years. Less than $20b per reactor for nuclear so are we building 30 reactors to get to Bowen's $600b or shouldn't he be trusted to run a chook raffle on a Friday night. I'd be in favour of building all nuclear and scrapping renewables because where is the sense in building and paying for two systems because one is intermittent

Ask Bill Gates he's building one in Idaho right now pretty sure he's across the figures.

so you all want to know how a Nuclear power station works! Non of you know how a coal fired station works so why would you be interested in nuclear

When talking about the cost of nuclear power, i never hear anyone say that in comparison to weather dependant forms of generation, nuclear will deliver its capacity 24/7.

I want to see a fair dinkum estimate of the cost of renewables, including the required transmission lines, required battery storage, rates for the large amount of land occupied, and ongoing maintenance of the massive installed amount of plant. You need a whole system cost to compare.

Dentist drills and Open Heart Surgery powered by peddling patients.

Brilliant discussion. Thanks for this.

The current electrical generation and distribution model was designed in the 19th century. The three problems with the old model are; Large capacity remote generation which gives the risk of power outages if a single generator is taken off line or a HV powerline is damaged. Secondly the current model requires rapid response generating capacity being able to provide for Peak power loads during peak demand which can be taken off line when the demand decreases. Finally finally because the entire system is designed around a peak power demand bringing new power plants on line lags seriously behind the peak demand. Having a power GRID of a number of linked HV distribution systems across vast distances brings very high distribution costs whereas the use of power capacity generation distributed across the country and MESHED together reduces the power losses and cost attributable to HV transmission systems. With a large number of SMRs providing excess generating capacity rather than balancing the power system by adding or subtracting generators the network could be balanced by switching STATE environmental services loads. Loads such as desalination could drought proof Australia as well as providing environmental inflows, and if Fossil fuels remain a requirement for long haul transport coal, water, and electricity can be used to synthesize crude oil for domestic consumption. SMRs would be ideal if distributed around the country generating power where it is to be consumed, (this would equate to less transmission losses and lower costs. Australians are an inventive lot that has lead the world in many areas and electrical power MESH technology could be the next advance in electrical power technology.

So if nuclear is viable why does Dutton need it to be state owned?

EXPERTS that all we hear from our Govt's but we never see them in a debate. Great you had these two guys on giving us real information. We had enough of "the science"and experts" during the COVID BS

Why Stop at only 20 minutes . Why !

Thumbs down if you don’t see why it’s your problem

I am pro nuclear but Australia has a terrible record for building anything technical on budget. Amything that involves a process has large overruns. We basically have no expertise.

So when will it be legislated that all new roofing must be integrated solar collectors?

Saying 'other countries have it' as your argument doesn't provide any insight into why Australia should invest in nuclear. Given that Nuclear generated energy is more expensive than renewable in those countries, what's the benefit for Australia to spend so much money on the generation of 5-10% of our energy requirement? Needs to be more convincing to beat out the current firmed renewable + gas plan.

Like the UN. UNclear..................👆

so no one discusses the cost for long term HLW storage? Is that due to off setting costs by the plan since the 80s of Australia accepting all the worlds waiting HLW that is already leaking? Safe? Nah its contained just search on tritium leaks, they happen al the time but contained to site. Well thats if they ignore ground water.

Cheaper than a destination water plant, of which are mothballed and not in use.

I just watched Chernobyl… like 2 days ago. It was crazy!

Thanks

Solar plus battery storage is the cheapest form of energy. The market will decide.

Let's get Russia to build one if we want cost-effective, reliable, safe power stations. Russia is the only country in the world that recycles nuclear rods and makes them reusable again. With Canada, we end up paying triple due to corruption and in the end, we end up paying Russia for recycling our rods anyway, so why don't we get the best of the best in the beginning.

Upvote just because you can pronounce nuclear correctly.

Pumped Hydro seems absurd to me. And wasteful. Nuclear yes 👍 Offshore wind, yes, one 16MW turbine can power 170,000 homes!

In 2024, China continues to build a significant number of new coal-fired power stations. Data indicates that China started construction on approximately 70.2 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity in 2023, which marks an increase from previous years and contrasts sharply with global trends where new coal construction is decreasing. Why because they need it to produce solar and wind tech for the suckers of the world.

Thanks for this discussion and in particular the graphs which help with overall perspective. A couple of questions: no discussion of geothermal or wave ?? No discussion of lessening demand via urban planning and housing construction codes ( eg double glazing, verandahs , materials etc)?

Not mentioned is that once a nuclear power station is running, it becomes a money printing machine - vast amounts of electrical energy are produced from tiny amounts of fuel. Such power stations are a long term investment; I believe they take about 20 years from construction start to get to that point thus the need for initial government ownership and probably later, sale.

Coal and gas. No real competition in a dry country full of both natural resources.

I've read that nuclear cold fusion has already been developed - and on a very small scale.

Medium Wind Turbines (100 kW to 1 MW): Foundation size: 10-15 meters in diameter. Concrete volume: 100-300 cubic meters. Concrete weight: 240-720 tonnes. So x 1000 wind turbines = 720,000 tones of concrete producing the cement required for 720 tonnes of concrete would emit approximately 81,000 kg (or 81 tonnes) of CO2. x 1000 =81000 tones of c02 This estimate includes the emissions from the cement production process but does not account for additional emissions from transporting materials and mixing the concrete. Then there is the steel, and fiber glass. Renewables are not very green, they have a short life span, green energy is about multinational corporations making money. The governments talk about trickle down economy, and this is also true for political parties, donations, jobs after politics insider trading. China is building coal fired power stations, and 26 new nuclear power stations they are not that stupid to rely on wind and solar the pedal to they rest of the world. Germany is building new LNG terminals. Germany even classified natural gas as bridging source of energy and most likely will be around for 20 years to come.

we have had the coldest year both winter and summer, questioning the climate change crap, not getting hotter.

Nuclear all the way

Nuclear Fusion will be the better option if nuclear is to be used for power generation. However, it will be at least another 10 years before a workable real nuclear fusion power plant will be in reality.

Lets look at the facts, the country that produces 80% to 90% of the worlds renewable hardware is also the largest emitter of carbon, they selling this hardware to the world and is also by far building the most new coal fired power stations as well as the most nuclear reactors. Green energy mandates is more about manufacturing counties making huge profits. lest ask Chat GTP 4 who is building new reactors. As of June 2024, there are 59 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide. China leads with 25 reactors, followed by India with 7, and Turkey and Russia each having 4 reactors under construction. Other countries with ongoing nuclear projects include Bangladesh, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, among others. China is building 25 why the have huge amounts of open space for wind arms and solar, they make the turbines and solar, they still use most of the worlds coal fired power stations. Because they are not stupid like most western countries, they know they cannot produce enough reliable power from renewables.