Former Experimental Test Pilot Explains CSIRO Modelling On Cost Of Nuclear 

👍

You are right about that and I couldn't have said it better.

They WON'T put it on M S M DOSEN'T fit the CLIMB MATE KuIt AGE ENDER

⁠@@trg9765except it does (though I certainly don’t agree with labelling it the “climate cult agenda”). Nuclear power would not only be the cheapest way to generate electricity, it would also be the most effective way to decarbonise the energy sector. The reason left wing parties tend to disagree here is simply because they genuinely (and mistakenly) believe renewables are the cheaper and faster option so they believe all funding should go to that option. If they can be convinced that nuclear is the best path to decarbonisation (which it is) then support for nuclear energy becomes bipartisan, like it is in the US and several other countries. And the way to do that is through education, intellectual honesty, and proper in depth systems modelling like what was done by the IEA.

CSIRO used Korea which is one of the cheapest cost for nuclear construction, using the global standard for infrastructure modelling analysis and it still came out as the most expensive power

Totally agree, espically the 4:00 mark "the consultant for the CSIRO got their figures from the internet" WTF

By truth you just mean something that you happen to agree with.

What do you know about nuclear reactors and radioactive waste?

⁠@@BrigitteTucker-vn9bf Instead of asking the question, “What do you know about nuclear waste “‘ , how about telling us what you know., if you know!

@@ianbutler6583 outstanding

@user-jt1gm4qh4x OK. Too expensive and too long to develop. Enjoy the 20 year wait. Paying for it in advance every step of the way.

@@BrigitteTucker-vn9bf about as much as you. Which is why we have "experts" rather than vested interests. FYI- nuclear technology has come a very very long way from the scare mongering of chernobyl...

much more than keep the lights on. Power goes down in one of those skyscrpaers and the lifts and aircon goes off you are in serious trouble.

It must be obvious now that we don’t own our resources. Our government sold that off long ago. It won’t be long before we don’t own the land that our homes are on. Ask the residents of Caloundra

decriminalize the use of hydrides outside of nuclear energy storage and you have a physical solid chemical "battery" of energy that can be transported in bulk and deployed for use at the source, weather that be EV or power plant, or isolated area. they can be created from methane at gas plants instead of just burning it off in a 'flare' too. baseload power SHOULD be produced by offshore gas (not fracking) or mined coal, we can produce additional power from renewables, and when renweables are producing too much power, use them to create hydrides out of seawater, im sure it could be done. you also have seafloor airbags for energy storage. the government is controlled by too many corporate interests and doesnt consult with people who have an understanding of modern technology.

Your funny

Labor,since Hawke have been at best dismal. But they still appeal to the simple minded.

Well the answer is that BOTH of our main stream parties have a couple of people who can speak clearly WHILE THE REST OF THEM ARE braindead thugs. I'm also an engineer (aerospace) but I have worked as a control system engineer across a range of industries including manufacturing, mining, water treatment and I have even worked on a power station. I saw the ABC interview with the head of CSIRO that's here on RU-vid and I am disgusted with CSIRO because they are pushing a narrative rather than science. I am also equally disgusted with the Liberals for their nuclear plan because they are also pushing a narrative. Trapped between these 2 packs of brainless thugs are you, me and 26 million other Australians. That interview is titled "Are politicians listening to the science in the energy debate?" and its David Speer interviewing Dr. Doug Hilton. Here's a couple of points: 1) There modelling team was primarily a group of economists NOT engineers. 2) Dr. Doug Hilton is a Microbiologist NOT and engineer and that's why he gets things wrong. 3) There claim of 53% capacity which is the percentage of the theoretical limit is a bold faced lie. Calder Hall the very first commercial reactor that ran from 1956 to 2003 had a capacity factor of 79% (see Wikipedia). So if the first generation could do 79% you'd think the latest could do better. 4) They also modelled the power stations as running for 30 years. Calder hall ran for 47 and it was a first generation power station. So to model them on 30years is also a bold faced lie. Of Note in that discussion: David Speers repeatedly claims that some nuclear power stations have run for 80years. How can that be when the first commercial reactor only started in 1956 which is 68 years ago? How can you have reactors running for 80 years when the industry is only 68 years old? *NOW FOR THE LIBERAL LIE and its a HUGE LIE.* They have repeatedly claimed that there wont be cost blow outs but also don't yet have the costs. Those are incompatible claims. The actual costs are very simple to estimate. In engineering we have to start with an absolute known. You can't use wishful thinking you must start with something that is known. Right now there are 5 options - South Korean, Japanese, American, Canadian and European (French). - The South Koreans were found faking their own safety documentation by the South Korean Government. - The Japanese cut costs and time in the way they built their reactors which was what made Fukushima way worse than it should have been. - The American's have the Westinghouse AP1000 which is what they just built at Vogtle. They were also building 2 more reactors at another plant but due to massive cost blow outs that project has stalled. Go look up "Nukegate scandal" on Wikipedia. - The Canadians have the Advanced CANDU (ACR) design which is their latest iteration of the CANDU series of reactors that run a different fuel cycle than normal reactors. They are generally cheaper and easier to build but it should be noted that NOBODY had bought any ACRs including the Canadians. - The Europeans have the EPR2 which is a French design. 2 have been built (France and Finland) and 2 more are under construction at Hinckley Point in Britain. *So we know these work and we know the price which is AU$35Billion each.* So in light of everything else its what you have to use as a first estimate. The Liberals have said 7 sites and I know those sites. 3 (Loy Yang, Liddell, Eraring) would need 2 reactors each and the other 4 sites 1 each. That's 10 reactors and 10 x 35 is AU$350 Billion. So that's the basic answer AU$350 Billion and the fact the Liberals cannot simply come out and say that only makes them as hopeless that the Labor party. Sorry for the long answer but I am so damn tired of BOTH SIDES doing nothing but lie and lie and lie to the Australian people. We need both sides to stop there political BS and stop misleading us.

​@@charlestym6322what is wrong with nuclear. And please use facts and not emotions. And by the way Labor haven't been a party for the working man in 40 years, I don't think many, if any, have ever done any real work in their life.

​@@pederjohansen2029 You are so right.

The media is too busy calling political parties extreme right wing

funded by govt to support the govt

The CSIRO are just using the same reporting process that they use to push anthropogenic climate change

Please provide cited examples of bias in their working and/or results. As I too have looked it over, used the equations and methods provided with other variables (such as a longer time scale). I found their work to be accurate, objective and consistent with other findings elsewhere. Please provide where and/or how you believe they have not followed an objective & scientific method. Perhaps you're misreading it or made a miscalculation in your own review of the data.

Don't put all of the blame on CSIRO. They and AEMO were subject to directions to follow Minister Mad Dog Chris Bowen's policies. It is all coming unstuck now, just in time for the next Federal election campaigns.

@@soulsurvivor8293 > I found their work to be accurate, objective and consistent with other findings elsewhere. Well, compare the CSIRO GenCost to Lazard's report. Here is one example: * CSIRO inputs: NPPs have 50% c.f. and 30 year lifetime * Lazard inputs: NPPs have 90-95% c.f. and 80 year lifetime Of course, we don't know if Lazard is more or less correct than CSIRO, but you can't call these 2 inputs 'consistent'. Likewise we don't find many other aspects of the 2 reports or the outputs of the 2 consistent. I will say, I find the Lazard report much more professional and easier to understand than CSIRO. Lastly, I can accept CSIRO GenCost report for what it is, but determining capital costs to build a plant isn't the same as determining the retail price - especially as in Australia (per AEMO) generation is only 40% of the retail bill. Clearly your Labor politicians are purposefully conflating those two costs.

I watched that too. Unbelievable

Engineers and Scientists did give the Australian public a report on the real costs of generation. But it didn't agree with Dutton so he said it was 'discredited' (Before he even read it). Knowing full well that most people don't know what it says or what he is talking about. This idea that if someone disagrees with you they are part of a conspiracy it is ridiculous.

Liberals are as bad as labour... remember Morrison you dimwit?...

well thought

No, one nation. Labor Liberal are the same.

You should remember Howard before you change your mind.

@@Yourbrightspot that’s the past. The now is blackout Bowen and the child must be stopped

Love it

Guaranteed, there is nothing between to stop it.

In a vacuum, there is no sound !!!

​@@robertjbrightonA vacuum sucks, so does Boofhead and his bumchum Albo.

He’s too busy parroting the govt’s line as are the rest of his party to hear the most logical discussion I’ve heard.

He should be behind bars 🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳😡😡😡😡😡🌹😡

I do too. My smallish system cost our family over 40k. This realistically will have to be spend on every household and business at least. There is no way 100% renewable energy has been costed to any semblance of reality and why haven't the people been consulted on what is a realistic amount to pay for a system and pay per kWhr. Labor with their pathetic 32% primary vote act like they have a mandate for every dumb, woke garbage idea they dreamt up, no doubt to enrich themselves and their crony corporate supporters.

Absolutely, totally agree from my own experience of running a small off grid solar and battery powered system. You need double the capacity required when the days following a sunny day turn overcast.

@@Geoff-m7j I sat down and worked it all out. I created a complex spreadsheet that took me a week and it includes all the data related to solar energy at my geographic location by hour for every day of the year as one of the input datasets. I worked out I would need solar arrays and batteries so massive that energy prices would need to be around 250% higher than they are even today merely to break even on my investment. And even then, the feed in tarrif would have needed to be at least 14 cents and it has been down at 5 cents for years now.

The same could be said for a nuclear approach. We don’t have an industry or any commercial capability to build and run nuclear power stations. We don’t even refine uranium, we just dig it up and ship it. There’s a lot of countries and companies licking their lips at the opportunity to extort this energy strategy if we go down that road, especially with the knowledge that government owned infrastructure won’t have the same cost constraints as a privately funded venture into nuclear power.

Last I looked my bill comes from a foreign company

Well, $40 BILLION goes to the Abo's. Every year. And growing.

For what? Giving us the truth and all the tools & equations to test their conclusion or even make adjustments to inputs to test for other results? Amusingly, they don't even touch on the international and domestic political hurdles that need to be jumped to even think about setting up a civil nuclear industy. All the CSIRO did was a levelled cost of the comparative power generation methods and published the results & means in which they arrived at those results. It's 100% publicly available information and because they included the equations and methods used we can test the results ourselves & even alter the inputs to see other results based on those alterd variables. It's straight forward science and mathematics, not one bit is anything but hard science & mathematics. It's literally an objective account of what was being compared that anyone can reproduce or input different factual variables as required to check results using relevant data inputs. Sorry that reality doesn't fit your agenda mate.

@@soulsurvivor8293 The Gencost report was written by an economist, the CSIRO report was written by people who have zero knowledge in generating or distributing electricity. That's reality champ. The coalition are listening to people like Dr Adi Paterson former head of ANSTO. So please tell us again who is being objective?

​@@soulsurvivor8293 it has been demonstrated that the assumptions CSIRO used in the that report were not consistent with known facts and actually were distorted to overstate the cost of nuclear and understate the cost of wind and solar generation.

​@@johngreenwood7425 1979-1985 PhD in Materials Engineering, bit dated but sure. 1984 Program for Managment Development at Harvard Business, this foreshadows his entire career path. 1984-2001 at CSIR as a specialist researcher in ceramic materials. Additionally ran Research, the Materials division and served as an Executive from 1994. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is based in South Africa. 2001-2005 at the Department of Science and Technology (South Africa) as the COO/DDG 2006-2008 at PBMR (Pty) Ltd as the General Manager of Bussiness and operations. PBMR (Pty) Ltd is a South African company that developed the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor from 1994-2009 Generally speaking the base Pebble Bed Reactor designs are a serious hazard due to High operational Temperatures of 750⁰C for modern Chinese designs using Helium Cooling to the 940⁰C the older South African PBMR and German AVR designs ran at. It was abandoned by most sane nuclear physicists due to numerous safety issues and various high risk potential radiological contamination vectors. Thus why it's only being pursued by the Chinese to a practical degree. An American company is revisiting it as a GenIV design concept, no major break throughs have been made to my knowledge. It basically a deadend technologically, only Thorium proponents seriously consider it....which tells you everything. 2008/9-2020 (Roughly 11-12 years) as the CEO and a Board Member of ANSTO, essentially just set him up to meet all his future employers really. 2021-2023 at AMCI Aquisition Corp on the Board of Directors in Executive Management. AMCI was folded into LanzaTech as AMCI Aquisitions Corp II (A Blank Check company expressly formed for the Merger) under the AMCI Group which are investment conglomerate of 20+ other companies. LanzaTech are a CCU&S (Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage) with an emphasis on Utilisation. As we know, CCU&S is still an utter pipedream at it's best. The proposed technology on offer from the "Technology Licensing Model" of LanzaTech is mostly just the most rudimentary and fundamentally flawed on the market. Basically it's a 'Greenwashing' company. 2021-present at AdvanCell Isotopes Pty Ltd as a Part-Time Board Member, Radiopharmacetical Company. Obvious divestment choice for the former CEO of ANSTO, nuff said. 2022-present at HB11 Energy as a Part-Time Board Member. Interesting choice of using Lasers to fuse Hydrogen to Boron-11. Sadly there are still no promising results so far for such concepts for Hydrogen Storage, the general premise uses far too much energy in the laser getting the Hydrogen in and out compared to the stored energy of the Hydrogen itself. Ammonia is still the most practical high density to energy consumption medium for Hydrogen storage to date. Its simple and can even be achieved using electrolysis. Interesting but mostly pointless endeavour to fuse Hydrogen to Boron-11 with of all things a Laser. And last but not least The Principal and Founder of Siteva Consulting 2021-present. Dr. Adrian "Adi" Paterson sure is a busy guy with numerous vested interests in seeing a civil nuclear industy established here in Australia. Sadly, conflict of interest is sort of an important factor in judging someone's perspective views on a subject. Old Adi here has several personal, professional and international interests that directly conflict in this case. No wonder the Coalition like him so much that they neglect to disclose his history outside of ANSTO. Spent his formative years in South Africa on an unfinished prototype design only to fall into the CEO position of ANSTO due to it and his Business Managment Education. Conversely, Paul Graham graduated his degree in Economics with Honours in 1995. Then spent literally the next 24 years at the CSIRO (1996-present) predominantly as a researcher and eventual chief economist specifically in the field of national and international energy markets (Everything from electricity to the various fuel resources including Uranium, Coal, Oil and Gas). Given he has never worked outside of our own independant government funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, he has no conflicts of interest by comparison. He was also not the sole contributor to the GenCost report. Dr. Jenny Haward BSc (Honours), Graduate Diploma in Biotechnology and PhD in Chemistry. Post-Doctoral research fellow of Biocomputing Group. Systems Analyst and Stratigic Analyst in the Defence Science and Technology Group in the Department of Defence, Australia. 2008-present Research Scientist to Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO. Literally a lifetime of serving Australia in various Scientific roles. No conflicts of interest for her either. The data is from the CSIRO's own observations & research along with annually updated capital costs estimates sourced through AEMO. AEMO commissioned Aurecon to provide an update of current generation & storage costs and proformance characteristics. Aurecons comprehensive report includes a far wider scope of data than the GenCost report uses. However the full Aurecon Report is publicly accessible on the same page as the GenCost report. The thing is it includes all the data needed to do your own calculations of LCOE over different time periods and worstsenario put in the best and worst case scenario for all energy technologies. So yes, I stand by everything I have said rather confidently.

​@@paythepiper6283 1979-1985 PhD in Materials Engineering, bit dated but sure. 1984 Program for Managment Development at Harvard Business, this foreshadows his entire career path. 1984-2001 at CSIR as a specialist researcher in ceramic materials. Additionally ran Research, the Materials division and served as an Executive from 1994. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is based in South Africa. 2001-2005 at the Department of Science and Technology (South Africa) as the COO/DDG 2006-2008 at PBMR (Pty) Ltd as the General Manager of Bussiness and operations. PBMR (Pty) Ltd is a South African company that developed the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor from 1994-2009 Generally speaking the base Pebble Bed Reactor designs are a serious hazard due to High operational Temperatures of 750⁰C for modern Chinese designs using Helium Cooling to the 940⁰C the older South African PBMR and German AVR designs ran at. It was abandoned by most sane nuclear physicists due to numerous safety issues and various high risk potential radiological contamination vectors. Thus why it's only being pursued by the Chinese to a practical degree. An American company is revisiting it as a GenIV design concept, no major break throughs have been made to my knowledge. It basically a deadend technologically, only Thorium proponents seriously consider it....which tells you everything. 2008/9-2020 (Roughly 11-12 years) as the CEO and a Board Member of ANSTO, essentially just set him up to meet all his future employers really. 2021-2023 at AMCI Aquisition Corp on the Board of Directors in Executive Management. AMCI was folded into LanzaTech as AMCI Aquisitions Corp II (A Blank Check company expressly formed for the Merger) under the AMCI Group which are investment conglomerate of 20+ other companies. LanzaTech are a CCU&S (Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage) with an emphasis on Utilisation. As we know, CCU&S is still an utter pipedream at it's best. The proposed technology on offer from the "Technology Licensing Model" of LanzaTech is mostly just the most rudimentary and fundamentally flawed on the market. Basically it's a 'Greenwashing' company. 2021-present at AdvanCell Isotopes Pty Ltd as a Part-Time Board Member, Radiopharmacetical Company. Obvious divestment choice for the former CEO of ANSTO, nuff said. 2022-present at HB11 Energy as a Part-Time Board Member. Interesting choice of using Lasers to fuse Hydrogen to Boron-11. Sadly there are still no promising results so far for such concepts for Hydrogen Storage, the general premise uses far too much energy in the laser getting the Hydrogen in and out compared to the stored energy of the Hydrogen itself. Ammonia is still the most practical high density to energy consumption medium for Hydrogen storage to date. Its simple and can even be achieved using electrolysis. Interesting but mostly pointless endeavour to fuse Hydrogen to Boron-11 with of all things a Laser. And last but not least The Principal and Founder of Siteva Consulting 2021-present. Dr. Adrian "Adi" Paterson sure is a busy guy with numerous vested interests in seeing a civil nuclear industy established here in Australia. Sadly, conflict of interest is sort of an important factor in judging someone's perspective views on a subject. Old Adi here has several personal, professional and international interests that directly conflict in this case. No wonder the Coalition like him so much that they neglect to disclose his history outside of ANSTO. Spent his formative years in South Africa on an unfinished prototype design only to fall into the CEO position of ANSTO due to it and his Business Managment Education. Conversely, Paul Graham graduated his degree in Economics with Honours in 1995. Then spent literally the next 24 years at the CSIRO (1996-present) predominantly as a researcher and eventual chief economist specifically in the field of national and international energy markets (Everything from electricity to the various fuel resources including Uranium, Coal, Oil and Gas). Given he has never worked outside of our own independant government funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, he has no conflicts of interest by comparison. He was also not the sole contributor to the GenCost report. Dr. Jenny Haward BSc (Honours), Graduate Diploma in Biotechnology and PhD in Chemistry. Post-Doctoral research fellow of Biocomputing Group. Systems Analyst and Stratigic Analyst in the Defence Science and Technology Group in the Department of Defence, Australia. 2008-present Research Scientist to Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO. Literally a lifetime of serving Australia in various Scientific roles. No conflicts of interest for her either. The data is from the CSIRO's own observations & research along with annually updated capital costs estimates sourced through AEMO. AEMO commissioned Aurecon to provide an update of current generation & storage costs and proformance characteristics. Aurecons comprehensive report includes a far wider scope of data than the GenCost report uses. However the full Aurecon Report is publicly accessible on the same page as the GenCost report. The thing is it includes all the data needed to do your own calculations of LCOE over different time periods and worstsenario put in the best and worst case scenario for all energy technologies. So yes, I stand by everything I have said rather confidently.

Some good points there. Nuclear is the way for Australia to power it's way industrially & domestically. Labor politicians are the dunce in the classroom.Poor exam results,!@#$%=fail.Labor = failure to load .

return on investment to whom precisely? the people who subsidise those profits. nope

France had extremely low cost of uranium, due to essentially stealing it from West Africa. That has now changed, and with standard market rates the cost of this input for fission reactors has blown out. The UK, which has never had a source for theft of uranium, has costs per MWh of fission at around seven times that of offshore wind. In Australia, onshore wind and solar are both well under the lowest cost for fossil fuel generation. Building out a fission industry would be insanely expensive and take decades, during which renewable sources will continue to drop in cost and increase in efficiency.

@@boggisthecat "In Australia, onshore wind and solar are both well under the lowest cost for fossil fuel generation" This is the crackpot maths we're used to from the Left. How much does a kWh of solar generation cost at night time or wind when the wind stops blowing? I assume you'd like to use electricity then as well? "during which renewable sources will continue to drop in cost and increase in efficiency." But still not be available at night time or when the wind stops blowing. Put down the bong, it's rotting your brain. The cost of Snowy 2.0. will cost the same as a Nuclear plant and deliver 1/100th the amount of energy. But what is maths when you are sniffing unicorn farts...

@@boggisthecat Another one that doesn’t understand the distinction between generation costs and whole of system cost. Renewables win a battle on generation, but then lose the war horribly on full system costs. That is why every country that has increased their renewables percentage has has increased cost at the meter.

Don’t forget,Dutton is a bit of a war hawk and is all in with AUKUS. Nuclear power generation is a great thing, but has he an alternative agenda regarding the US push for conflict with China. I hope not.

we do do need or want U238 based power, Thorium and molten salt is a solution

Maybe Dutton could start by releasing the detail of the policy.

Actually coal fired plants release more radioactive substances into the environment than nuclear reactors ever do.

What does the sun charge us to produce 1kwh? Why are you paying 40 cents per kWh. Why are you paying for the power generated by your neighbours solar. The cost lie does not fly high.

@@Yourbrightspot Energy from the sun powers life and the weather system of Earth. It is free and essential to us all. Also it can be utilised to our benefit. I’m paying the rate I pay for electricity because it is the rate that those who control our electricity system decided that should be the rate. It would be better if I paid my neighbour for any of their surplus energy that I can use - cut out the middle man. Ask any accountant and they are likely to tell you that “profit is a matter of opinion”. It is a matter of opinion because costs can be measured in different ways. There are many lies told so sometimes it is hard to come to the truth especially since it depends on from where the observations or conclusions are made. I trust that answers your questions.

@@YourbrightspotCost at the meter are not the cost of generation because you need not just the generation, but the whole infrastructure to keep that powers stable, safe, reliable and from the source to you. Renewables, yes their kw/h can be cheap, but they add multiple times to the cost of everything else. That’s without even getting into the fact you need a redundant second generation system of equal output for stable and reliable power.

@@hughkelly9073Power can’t be ‘close enough’, it must be exact correlation between generation and usage every second of the day. Sharing on a grid level even a street level grid, is not as easy as it sounds.

Or the TGA, EPA and many others.

How sad it is that once upon a time CSIRO used to be regarded as a wonderful asset. Like the ABC, really. Dead, but won't lie down.

@alanc6781 all of our institutions are being weaponized just like all western countries what they once where is no more. That's why Argentina has abolished them and hopefully USA of republicans win do the same.

Because it's owned by companies. The nuke will also be owned by companies. They need to profit.

can we trust someone who is taking donations from the companies touting nuclear and coal energy production?