Effect of Nuclear Energy on Total System Electricity Costs. 

there was mistake to let him say the facts - it will not happen again -

Question- How scale a fleet in Australia when UK at 67M people in 245,000 SqKm South Korea at 52M people in 100,000 SqKm And Australia is 26M people in 7.7M SqKm ?? Can’t build enough before we have many

​@@skip181sgSmall Modular Reactors might be the solution

@@pauld3327 They’re not They actually work out even more expensive as you add more

​@@skip181sgthat is misleading because even though Australia has a small population on a large land mass most of those people are concentrated in much smaller areas

@@thefleecer3673 which is still way larger than Korea with less population 7 ain't a fleet It's a flotilla

Yes ludicrously stupid.

NuScale cannot get backers. Nobody can afford NuScale.

Don't forget NuScale don't actually exist anymore and either do SMRs.

My research indicates that as at today, ThorCon is negotiating to build one (1) demonstration plant in Indonesia that they hope to be ready by 2030 IF they get licensing approval and the agreement from the Indonesian Govt. So this is all fairy dust at the moment. Let's see where they get to in 2030. In the meantime we should be getting on with building the renewables fleet in the AEMO Plan to replace our retiring coal fired boilers.

Lobbyists and sales reps have no interest in charging crazy $ for nuclear in Australia. We have all the gas we need for baseload, but we are flogging that off for bugger all cash. We could be making the same $$$ as Qatar and Norway for our gas.

Superannuation funds are investing in the green dream. Tax payer funded subsidies are making the green dream profitable. So effectively the tax payers are making the superannuation funds profitable. Biggest scam ever

So how's that NuScale SMR deployment coming?

30 minutes misrepresenting data. Very Very impressed.

@@politics102 your name gives up your bias.

Don’t call them ‘rewewables’ and call them what they really are,- ‘weather dependent intermittents’. Keep ‘renewables’ for hydro schemes, such as Niagara, Igua Su, Kariba, Aswan, etc which really are 100% reliable 24/7/365. Wind is only 40% reliable, solar 30%,- pure madness by incompetent people. Who is going to finance a gas generator which will be used only 60% of the time?

And new types of nuclear plants which currently don't exist. "Fast ramp nuclear" would be great, but so would "clean coal". BTW: Did the speaker mention storage even once?

@@travcollier No.He certainly didn't mention how nuclear generation requires storage as much as variable renewable generation to maximize viability and provide peaking capacity.

@@bluecedar7914 I was more thinking about variable renewables + storage as the point of comparison, but now that you mention it... yeah, nuclear can't really follow the demand curve any better. It is more predictable to be sure, but it isn't quite so simple to just turn on or ramp up nuclear plants as you need them.

@@travcollier you are not quite there. The nuclear plants can run a steam bypass, same as coal plants, and drop out generation and ramp it up within seconds.

​@@bluecedar7914nuclear doesnt require storage. Thats another fallacy. They still run steam powered generator same as a coal plant. Whoever is telling you this crap has no idea what they are talking about!

ever heard of a site called lucas heights , belive it or not australia is one of the leading countries on nuclear , we already have everything in place including the work force and staff at coal power stations can be retrained as to run both are very much the same

This is stupid 25million Australians need extra electricity and no fossil fuels. If nuclear cost nothing and supplied the heat for free the extra turbines and generators and transmission lines and distribution networks capacities the costs would be horrendously expensive. 400 SMRs according to Alan Finkel and the nuclear promoters, would need 3shifts every day including holidays sick leave annual leave training days weekends. These workers would be high quality and expensive. Monkeys can install rooftop PV and Australia has 20million roofs. Decades and decades before nukes can make an impact. Government will have to ban cheap rooftop PV electricity and home charging of EV and the using of their big batteries to run the home. 😊😊😊😊

Why stay with 3rdcGen. suspect High press water reactors when you can follow Indonesia's example of using 5th Gen. 500MWe ThorCon liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium berilium Fluoride salt burner reactors at less than half the cost of the modular NuScale?

@@stephenbrickwood1602 physics disagrees with your statement

@@polarbear7255 good morning. I think vested interests disagree. In Australia for example. ☆Vested interests. Grid owners have a $TRILLION asset that is RENTED by the electricity customers. 5cents feedin vs 50cents invoiced. Electricity is DIRT cheap. Fossil fueled generation owners have $BILLIONS assets that make the $TRILLION grid asset, valuable. Distant renewables electricity and nuclear electricity both need the grid. And make the grid valuable. Rooftop solar PV and EV big batteries do not need the grid. We have a problem. VESTED INTEREST problem. 1,Grid owners, $TRILLION infrastructure. 2,fossil fuel owners, 3,distant renewables owners, 4,nuclear owners, 5,nuclear promoters, 6,central generation plant owners, 7,governments Garrentees locked in for 60years 😕🫤😟😮😱🥴 8,But not green hydrogen, unless they align with all the above. Unhappy 🙁 days, A little fossil fuels used in mid winter weeks is nothing. Petroleum feedstock to petrochemical industry will continue. Natural gas is cheaper.

Do you mean the world should use nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels??

To replace fossil fuels we need: 1) Electro fuels 2) Electro chemicals 3) Electro plastics We can only do a few Electro fuels (Ethanol and Ammonia) and so far not in high volume. Over the next 50-100 years the electro chemistry needed could in theory replace oil. Nuclear would be a large portion, but so will solar thermal and legacy PV. No wind...bird killers. I just want low cost fuel for myself to use in house and seaplane to travel the world. I can use oil too. I would triple the CO2 if I could, so I am not against CO2. I am looking for energy INDEPENDENCE for me and all people of the world to stop the control freaks from going to war and get Arabs to have a day job. That will force the price of oil to near production costs of ~$1.5/gal gasoline, or close to $1/gal from solar thermal. Three sources of fuel: 1) RE, 2) Corn/bio, 3) oil ... Let them compete. CO2 capture with fuel making will give CO2 a positive price and the CO2 scam will be over. No CO2 passports or taxes. @@stephenbrickwood1602

In short, flood the world with nuclear made fuel at $1.5 to 2/gallon. My solar thermal fuel making will be $1/gal. I can then use nuclear fuel coming back from a long trip overseas. Fly out with home made fuel and then use nuclear fuel at the higher price. Local flying will be all home made at $1/gal. I want solar thermal fuel making to be INDEPDENDENT from nuclear as nuclear will likely be controlled in some way by crazy globalists. @@stephenbrickwood1602

@@seaplaneguy1 I am happy to say we are on the same page. I should have asked when you were born. I nearly we t to the Vietnam War, my father fought WW2 in New Guinea, he was going to the Middle East but, Australia pulled our army back and focused on the Japanese Army to our north. And then the Korea War and friends fathers went. And the USA friend Uncle Stalin threatened the West's peace, stole the nuclear weapons technology, and built his own weapons. 80% of the world's population is in dictatorships, and 80% of the world's population live in warm latitudes. For 75 years, the nuclear threat has existed and is still used. Self-destruction by old men at the end of their lives is still part of the Dictators culture. Dictatorships are led by the biggest killers in their country. The USA has protected the world from Dictators, yes I know I am pushing the envelope here. Hahaha. But the military defence budget is exploding here in Australia, and to pay for it, we sell coal and other things to China. I also know that rooftop PV is cheaper than windows $/m2 I also know that selfparking EVs with big batteries will be parked 23 hours every at buildings connected to the existing national electric grid. Selfparking EV like home robotic vacuum cleaners will plug into the grid, but will day trade electricity for profit. Trickle charge on the existing national electric grid. Rooftop PV will trickle feed the grid. Basically, the grid will be UNLOADED from the loads of millions of buildings and at the same time fed electricity from EVs and rooftop PV during the day and EV and big batteries at night. The national electrical grid TRIPLE the cost of centralised generation, including renewable energy farms, and QUADTUPLE (×5) more electricity is needed with no fossil fuels. The grid cost is the killer feature of centralised concentrated electric power generation and its distribution to the millions of ends of the existing national grids. The facts are there, I have worked on both generation plants and transmission grid construction. The nuclear promoters want government GARRENTEED businesses. The government will have to ban millions of people from using their rooftop and EVs and feeding into the grid. Nuclear power and massive grid expansion will have to be paid for for 100years. Technology development moves faster than nuclear technology. 75years and only now it is the only answer, BS. And the USA military will have to expand as 200 countries get their own nuclear industries ?? FMD. Nuclear promoters see centuries of money guaranteed by Government.

@@seaplaneguy1 I like the seaplane idea,

The rest of the world is behaving much better than Australia when it comes to CO2 emissions. We are one of the worst offenders.

@@salpon the world is swamping Australia with CO2 waste. As previous Australian governments have said why bother to spend a penny on change if Australia is going to burn before all other countries achieve anything that makes a difference. The amount of money must also include changing the national electrical grid. This is a stupendously expensive infrastructure and must be done as more electricity would be needed with no fossil fuels So for every new generation plant we need, and we need 4 times more new, then we need to spend 10 times that amount on new grid. It is like trying to sell a beach towel to the tourist when the tidal wave is coming.

Without Nuclear the world will continue to flood the atmosphere with CO2 because renewables will be unable to supply all the energy the 9 billion people need. Australia will continue to burn coal and gas to support the renewables. Most other countries will use Nuclear and many of them will achieve completely carbon neutral energy production. Australia will end up burning coal and having the highest cost of electricity in the world . Its 25 million people won't make much difference to CO2 levels but they will look stupid and loose their standard of living.

“Externalities” refers to side effects of your plans products builds, not the other guy’s across the world. Everybody has to pull their weight in this, and Aussies produce some of the highest per cap CO2 in the world from all that coal burning and mining emissions.

@@stephenbrickwood1602”swamping” You make more than your share. Things get bad enough with Aust falling behind, and you can get hit w tariffs down the road, which will destroy a big minerals exporter.

By "decarbonise" they only mean not producing any more carbon dioxide than nature already produces itself. There is no intended implication about any other kind of carbon (including naturally occurring carbon dioxide)

@@jeffbenton6183 Sure, you are educated! But how about the old plan of Greanpeace to ban Chlorine? As an Element? Same fault. Decarbonate, Dechlorinr, what else?

@@adalberteinstin5137 The only "same fault" is that you are making the same mistake. *fossil* carbon, (fuel emissions) not pre-existing carbon cycle. *organic* chlorine, (like PCBs) not ionic chlorine as found in nature. In both cases Greenpeace had it right, and industry has it wrong.