COP28 & The Inconvenient Truth about Coal

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Energy is ignored and the national electrical grid cost in resources and financing IS IGNORED.

[@jinnantonix4570]

Here in Australia, we are in desperate need to overturn our ban on nuclear and start planning. An excellent plan is to standardise on the GE Hitachi BWRX-300, and deploy 50-80 units at brownfields sites, retiring coal and CCGT plants. Our poliotics remains utterly delusional in their support for intermittent renewables, while there remains zero investment in firming technology.

[@kimmono]

Since you are already planning on standardising, I guess you already know the cost of building the BWRX-300 in Australia?

[@TheLastOilMan]

Who put your moron gov in power ? Any technologists in it ?

[@jinnantonix4570]

@@kimmono I personally do not know, however I know that one of our senior federal ministers, Ted O'Brien, is working on modelling this along with Robert Parker from Nuclear For Climate Australia. I am advised the modelling shows the plan is affordable, though of course is predicated on a policy for achieving net zero, it will be more costly than continuing to use gas. It will underpin a policy platform that the federal opposition party will take to the next election.

[@jinnantonix4570]

@@kimmono google "Teaming with Canada for Australia’s Nuclear Energy Future", and check out Robert Barr and Robert Parker.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@jinnantonix4570 If you prefer boiling water, why not go with a full-size design?

[@Cougar4ik]

50:36 Same in Russia. There is a plan for the construction of new nuclear power plants until 2045. It is planned to build about 25 GW of power. However, 13.5 of them are intended to replace old power plants. And yes, according to this plan, all this additional power will allow us to increase the percentage of nuclear generation from the current 20 to 25% of total electricity generation in Russia. Tripling by 2050 sounds very optimistic.

[@mark_sugar42]

What is the most recent RU nuclear power plant completed, how long did it take and what did it cost?

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

Decouple, plaudits to you for coming out of the COP experience energised

[@NoelyBob]

Look on the bright side ,whatever the decide to do or not do it won't make any difference to the climate

[@wheel-man5319]

Precisely! 💯

[@Domdeone1]

Steam preservation in Britain is questionably viable when British coal, some if not the best quality coal in the world & decades of the stuff still underground, they refuse licences for extraction yet bring in coal pellets from abroad. (How much CO2 does it cost to transport it across the ocean?) logic is lost en route

[@georgemala4046]

For poor countries, international meetings are a great opportunity for earning per diems

[@mhirasuna]

A minor correction @8:30, the Kairos reactor that was granted an NRC construction license is a molten salt cooled reactor, not a gas cooled reactor. It is called the Hermes Demonstration Reactor, it you want to google it. The Hermes reactor is similar to the more well known gas reactor from X-Energy, in that it uses TRISO pebble fuel and achieves high temperatures. By using FLIBE as a coolant, it might be viewed as a step toward the much anticipated LIFTR molten salt fueled reactor.

[@EricMeyer9]

I noticed the same thing. Thanks for pointing it out!

[@jonanthony683]

Exactly - and this makes it a much bigger deal

[@lynndonharnell422]

Consider the fact that slavery (at least in the west) ended around the same time as fossil fuels got started. Perhaps part of the reason for this was that, in addition to the moral consideration, it was no longer economically viable. What happens when this is reversed???

[@aliendroneservices6621]

That's the goal.

[@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953]

Dude, that’s a brilliant insight!

[@Rnankn]

A correlation is not a causation. There is no reason slavery is inevitable. Property is always a political choice.

[@thadiusthudpucker]

There are more people suffering under slavery today than was ever in the USA

[@Rawdiswar]

Candu worker from Canada here, we're fu$#ed, with all due respect. EV mandates from our eco-fascist government, net zero dreams at the same time, an aging and/or dead nuclear workforce and an irrational fear of CO2. By the time I ever get to retire, Canada will be a full on third world country. We get what we deserve.

[@stickynorth]

I'm Canadian and you're talking out our ass. CANDU reactors are still the backbone of Ontario's power grid and will continue to be for decades if not centuries. We all know the Ontario government is going to order your Monark 1000 reactors for Bruce so with all due respect, calm your tits, love!

[@scottmedwid1818]

Robert Bryce, add the Icebreaker wind turbine project Proposed for Lake Erie off Cleveland, Ohio to your list of canceled projects. This just broke yesterday. Looking forward to this Decouple Podcast!

[@rockyrandall332]

Regarding coal generation take a page from the experience we had here in Alberta Canada .We made the serious mistake of electing a socialist government in the province from 2015 to 2019 .In their wisdom they shut down all of our coal generated power in that 4 years .That caused the province to scramble to neighboring province Saskatchewan and the State Montana to buy coal generated power to make up for the loss and supply our increasing demand .As a direct result my electric bill has more than tripled and we have endured several brown out and black out alerts in both summer and winter . To top that off we have a clown act Trudeau who is ramming electric cars down our throats .We cant heat out houses in winter or cool them in summer due to a lack of electricity so I have no clue where the power is going to come from to charge electric cars .

[@chrisjeanneret5091]

I toured the old Britannia copper mine north of Vancouver a few years ago. Fascinating piece of history. The tour guide posed an interesting question: could the mine ever reopen? I thought that, given a high enough copper price, sure. There would be huge resistance from an ecological point of view, but on the other hand, easier to reopen an old mine than create a new one?

[@huna1950]

Yes all true and obviously who knows in relation to that specific mine but what the guys say also about what it takes to get it out the ground and refined etc compared to before is also worthy point

[@michaelsliwowski5076]

1962 winscale UK 1st advanced gas cooled reactor 1st civil used Uk 1976 Today uk still has 4 advanced gas cooled ractors in use .

[@brucemctavish408]

Have a diffult time understanding, we put a man on the moon in 1969 but can't develop technology to burn coal cleanly?

[@ryccoh]

We could hypothetically do it. If you have molten salt reactors you get rid of containment buildings and get rid of that stupid airplane impact rule as well, then mass manufacture the reactors. We'll have to decide how important this is

[@philbiker3]

MSRs at scale are paper reactors. Nothing other than small scale experimental reactors has ever been built. Even if we started today it would take decades to scale to the point that commercial facilities are coming on line.

[@ryccoh]

@@philbiker3 sure, but we need to start, they can be made to work, of course we should build traditional big reactors in the meantime

[@wheel-man5319]

​​@@philbiker3actually these are approximately what has been used to power nuclear submarines.... Not MSR, but what could be slightly retooled into small modular reactors.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Simon Michaux speaks about resources limits.

[@wheel-man5319]

I'm more inclined to listen to Marian Tupey (spelling uncertain) who wrote Superabundance.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@wheel-man5319 Tony Seba predicted abundant cheap electricity.

[@jkelly11785]

Beyond consistent production, it’s the size of the nuclear projects that centrally planned economies can direct money to. That was a point that Jigar Shah made (nuclear to big for US co’s to fund) that seems like it could have been highlighted here?

[@scottmedwid1818]

Mike Conley and Tim Malone go into the renewables commodities choke points/bottlenecks in their new book “Earth is a Nuclear Planet” (out in early 2024)

[@mhirasuna]

Aren't Those are the guys that wrote, "Roadmap to Nowhere"? Sounds like an interesting book; thanks for the tip.

[@syncacct8576]

1600 MW Olkiluoto3 in Finland was brought online in 2023, though it has had problems. Reactor is by Areva (French) and turbines by Siemens

[@subumohapatra]

FYI guys Kairos power is a molten salt cooled low-pressure and high temperature design. Not a gas cooled design.

[@happyhome41]

Oh man, Edward Tufte - love his Presentation of Data series ! So pleased to hear that Mr. Bryce. Absolutely love the sound bite of 1,770 watts to four billion human equivalents the Greens would blithely ‘fire’ supports eight billion people.

[@scottmedwid1818]

I am really looking forward to the video on the Emirates nuclear reactor facility tour video. By the way, that Soviet motorcycle was the M 72 that was originally licensed from the German BMW R-71 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_M-72?wprov=sfti1# a version of which is still being built by several companies, including Ural Motorcycles

[@georgest491]

Spot on!

[@donhansen1175]

defending oil prices by reducing supply? Don Hansen

[@mark_sugar42]

China also wants free electricity so they are building renewables. But they also need energy security so they are building coal plans. They will use what is cheapest.

[@jkelly11785]

How does Bryce’s assertion that we’re continually finding more oil gel with Hagens’ that we will soon start declining in the overall oil available (and quality eg in the US is already an issue)? Confused by these

[@Rnankn]

The reserves that are recoverable can change with change in price, or with new technology. Plus some reserves are in legally protected areas, others in unstable states, or under the control of authoritarians. Some regions like the poles are becoming accessible that were not. And new discoveries can be made. There could be more oil on earth, but it may not be recoverable, and no one can know how much. Nate’s concern is that once global reserves peak, which could be happening now, they start to decline. And the economy will crash if energy does not go up with economic growth.

[@SamsungSamsung-md9xq]

The agenda is to reduce the energy for the west,bring in so many illegal immigrants that reduces our unique cultures,reduce farming,to starve millions of people,for what,virtue signalling,carbon taxes,so why are we doing this,we won't be running industries with the use of unreliables,it's a total scam,what is it we are achieving in the reduction of co2,when the Chinese,Indians,are building coal fired power stations stations hand over fist,and than you rely on those people to manufacture everything,what am I missing here,nobody seems able to tell me how that is working for the west,totally impractical,complete lunacy!@

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Australia has 1million klm of national grid. Bigger national grid capacity, 5 times bigger is an insane demand on copper and aluminium and steel mining and smelting with coal and zinc milling and mining and nuclear is going to send 5 times more electricity to the millions ends of the existing national grid. Minerals only, is the killer cost of centralised electricity and its distribution to the millions of ends of the National Electricity Grid. And then EVs aswell.

[@TheMarathonomahos]

Chicken Little warned us the sky was falling down.

[@chapter4travels]

What would be wrong with high-temperature/low-pressure,

[@iancormie9916]

Just do this or just do that - the classic dialogue of narcissists.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

32:00 That's from Simon Michaux, and he was wrong. It's *_20_* TW.

[@wheel-man5319]

I've listened to him a bit and also to Marian Tupey and Gayle Pooley. I'm more inclined to listen to the later two.

[@mhirasuna]

You seem to be down on the tripling of nuclear by 2050. You are right; that won't happen with conventional nuclear. You need a radical plan. How about bringing back Bret Kuglemass. He seems to be making good progress since the last time you had him on.

[@wheel-man5319]

It's not that they're down on it as that they believe that the goal and timeframe is unrealistic given the current political climate.

[@jacobprasch3807]

I wanted to focally hear about the future of coal, not a review of cop. This waas not well produced in my not so humble view.

[@philbiker3]

not well titled.

[@Pid75]

If you think fossil fuel is an existential threat then all resources and money should go into Fusion research. The obsession with solar, wind etc is just busy work rather than actually doing something useful.

[@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953]

Fusion will never work.

[@wheel-man5319]

Unicorn farts you mean? Don't follow pipedreams. Use what we know, and work for fusion at a pace that isn't forced.

[@mikefallwell1301]

Airborne wind energy may be cheaper than either, especially at 1,000 m

[@graemetunbridge1738]

'cheaper' because the cost of cleaning the exhaust out of the atmosphere is ignored.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

[@wheel-man5319]

Nonsense.

[@jesperFrost]

Im sure all these climate activist didn’t turn on the air con while in Dubai

[@mark_sugar42]

This sounded like an interesting topic but after 20 minutes, only 1 or 2 minutes were useful the rest was just tedious. Sorry guys, this should be a 20 minute podcast to make it more valuable.

[@Pid75]

Watch Energy Transistion Crisis by Eric Townsend

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Even North Korea is going nuclear.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The "F" word, PHONY did you mean?

[@wheel-man5319]

Failure.

[@j.s.c.4355]

How interested are you in liquid thorium nuclear power? Supposedly, it has no radioactive waste and no radioactivity if it fails.

[@Hamstray]

if the problem is human resources, can't you just import engineers from germany?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

100 years of electricity including grid building. Hello anyone home hello 👋 Grow up and face the grid building facts. FFS.

[@bubbajones6907]

I love coal.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

1million klm x $1million per klm is $1TRILLION and decades and decades and decades The grid only, is the problem. If 5times more electricity and no fossil fuels ? Is anyone genuine about thinking ?

[@wheel-man5319]

Only those who are calling this a plan to commit mass murder.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

Hi Decouple, I'm Very pro-nuclear, on environmental and common-sense grounds, and I'm Australian, and I'm a Secondary Science and Physics teacher. Something I'd like to question you about though is whether you advocate, accounting for a worst-case climate-change scenario, with a sea-level rise of 72 metres (approx 220 feet), do you think all future nuclear power-plants, globally, should be situated 72m above SL? Considering our current global warming trajectory, current alarming ice-melt, and current abject political failure, both globally and nationally, to agree and enact upon GHG (green house gas) emissions, I think it would be errant, remiss, not to plan for the maximum possible sea-level rise. Michael Barrett

[@seekerout]

Where did you get that 72 metre sea-level rise from? Given the slow rate at which it's been rising to date, I don't think that's a realistic scenario. Is it based on computer models? They're notoriously inaccurate, so I wouldn't base any important decisions on them.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

@@seekerout The ice on Greenland is between 1-3 km thick, and on Antarctica slightly more, easily perceived via radar. They make up the bulk of the ice. Exactly the same here. Very simple displacement ie volume models tell you that when this volume ice cube melts, it raises the volume in the glass by this much. Melting Greenland entirely raises the sea-level (SLR) by 7m. Melting Greenland and Antarctica entirely gives a SLR of 72m. This is all very easily deduced. It is nothing like trying to forecast weather ie a dynamic system. Melting "entirely" may take over 100 years, but when talking about nuclear infrastructure it is a good idea not to have them sit under water. And , yes, with our current rate of global warming, both poles will melt entirely. Simple maths, not complex scientific modelling. Therefore, all permanent infrastructure should be placed above the 72m level, but in the case of nuclear, it is essential.

[@seekerout]

@@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302 Thanks for the detailed explanation. Your calculations don't include any indications of the likelihood of all 3 ice sheets melting simultaneously , though. I just read an article about an ice core showing that Greenland was ice free 400,000 years ago, but sea levels were only 1.4 metres above present levels, which is a lot less than your calculation of 7m predicts. There is clearly more to this than meets the eye. We'd need to understand much more about ocean currents, underwater volcanoes and such like to get a clearer picture of the long-term stability of the ice sheets. I don't believe atmospheric temperatures are the only factors.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

@@seekerout What was the article? Very interested.

[@gumby2241]

fact: Sea levels have risen 120 meters in the last 18,000 years, or about 6mm per year. This is called an inter glaciation period, so the real problem is when the reverse happens and we head into another ice age.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Steps into the future have to be the right steps. Half thinking and halfway talking is a waste of time.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

I can't stand it any more. The guy hosting this show, video, site is DEAD WRONG ABOUT CONSIDERING THE MOST CONSERVATIVE NUCLEAR PROCESS. This is because the cheapest safest way is so much more important than the super expensive conservative method of high pressure water reactors. I cannot say how much nuclear CAN MOVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL ENERGY PRODUCTION. Molten salt thorium reactors is the only method safe and power dense enough to produce A WORLD CHANGE TO ATOMIC POWER.

[@sokolmihajlovic1391]

Great talk of two guys I really like. To brighten the mood a bit, it was somewhat low, everything around nuclear, and not just nuclear, will become a bright and clear positive vision. How? 1. Get rid of all distractions for now, like new SMR and what not. Take what has worked for decades. 2. Bring the costs down! If you want mass adoption, make it the most financially compelling option. If people can make money out it, actually make a killing, wonders becomes reality. The seamingly impossible becomes doable. 3. Just ignore the anti-nuclear-propaganda boneheads. All their arguments, dont hold water if you double check. Everything complete BS. Point out, that they all are paid and financed by the oil/coal/gas- mafia industry, especially from Ruzzia. (The irony here is that Russia with Rossatom are massively involved in nuclear.) 4. If you cant fight it, embrace it! Oil, gas, coal are going nowhere abytime soon. The consumption will rise, as it has done the past 200 years. But, at least in the stationary industry and power plants we can capture CO2 and water vapor and turn it into methanol. Methanol can be sold for about 50 cents per kg. This is actually profitable for the industry. Make the industry emissionfree (again, lol)! Methanol can replace LNG, biomass burning, natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, diesel and ultimatively coal. Coal seams ireplacable, why? It is solid, reliable and cheap (about 2 cents per kWh). If nuclear can deliver heat for about 2 cents per kWh ( means electricity for about 6 cents/kWh), nuclear is actually cheaper than coal, and basically CO2-free btw. Hybrid coal/nuclear power plants can be ramped up pretty quickly where coal plants already exist. If they are emissionsfree and cheap, everyone will want one (or two or more, lol).

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Cold and warm latitudes have different energy needs. Warming atmosphere has more energy and must be part of future planning. 80%of the world's population live in warm latitudes. If you have a building to live in it has a roof and windows. Rooftop PV is cheaper than windows $/m2. Self consumption UNLOADS the national electrical grid. 75% of grid electricity is to buildings. All of this information comes from nuclear promoters as they promote their own technology. Like carsalesmen for SMRs, fast money in their pockets but expect you to build the extra roads with your government tax money. Follow the money. 😊😊😊😊

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Residential accounts for only 39% of electricity consumption in the United States (EIA).

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@aliendroneservices6621 you can't trust the nuclear promoters can you. They say 74% and making buildings more energy efficient will reduce electricity needs and grid loads.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@stephenbrickwood1602You definitely can't trust the solar and wind promoters.

[@alfaeco15]

Those countries that build more coal power stations are the ones which may suffer more from climate change

[@stickynorth]

The death of coal is one thing I am proud that Rachel Notley was able to do as Premier of Alberta between 2015 and 2019. Despite delays due to COVID-era materials shortages we're on track to tun off the last unit sometime in the next few months despite it once having a 75-80% market share just a few years ago. Sadly we've largely made up the difference with natural gas however nuclear SMR's and possibly full-sized CANDU reactors that were previously planned for the Peace Country to power the Tar Sands projects up there are being revived so I don't think it will be long before even those are replaced by a healthy mix of renewables and nuclear... That is unless the current Premier who is a hard-core puppet of the fossil fuel industry gets her way and our "temporary" pause on new renewables gets extended indefinitely which I greatly fear is the case...

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Where will you get fly-ash for concrete?

[@gumby2241]

One thing to keep in mind is that without fossil fuels you would not exist.

[@renke69]

As much as I want to hear these inconvenient truths it was quite sickening to hear your guest's utterly disrespectful and naive comment about the Just Stop Oil movement. These are you allies that just need to become more informed and better at communicating if you want to comment on these brave people that risk so much to draw attention to our predicament. Just Stop Oil for me should be interpreted as downscale our use asap. On a personal level, as well as for businesses and governments...

[@colinmacdonald5732]

They are idiots. For the reasons he explained.

[@gumby2241]

suicide should not be encouraged, should it?

[@mikefallwell1301]

Oil money is a serious issue

[@colinmacdonald5732]

I really don't know how JSO think they're helping the cause by blocking and generally alienating the people they inconvenience. Apart from anything they are predominantly well off and middle class, the working classes do have the vote (it's not 1830) they outnumber the toffs and aren't going to endorse JSO at the next election if they keep carrying on like this.

[@colinmacdonald5732]

@brianwoodrow6923 Roughly ten times more people die prematurely from cold than heat, so you're right, in the short term AGW will improve our lives. Although it could be argued that spiralling energy prices are a predicament for the poor, heat or eat.