Effect of Nuclear Energy on Total System Electricity Costs.

[@philby9601]

Certainly appreciated this presentation of Nuclear Energy. Very informative and well researched. Now it’s time to move in a positive and constructive approach to bring nuclear energy for Australia.

[@andrewsalmon100]

Dullard. That guy is selling a monorail.

[@petermaresse6513]

The first time I've ever seen a presentation on the energy system by someone who understands how to estimate a project.

[@lubanskigornik282]

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

[@aaroncosier735]

Yeah, those amateurs at Areva/EDF and Westinghouse underestimated by a factor of three, but *this* gross underestimation is dependable.

[@ryn4181]

Excellent. Thank you for peeling back the onion. The power cost paradox indeed.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Excellent presentation.

[@scubaaddict]

very interesting and highlights the issues and explains to the layman how the renewable only or majority approach increases the cost. Think there has been too much propaganda and people thing renewables is free energy. Maybe if its off grid, but once you connect it to the grid the cost of it greatly increases. Think more people should watch this.

[@MrVaticanRag]

Don't forget NuScale is a PWR and unlike say Indonesia's first of 8 ThorCon 500MWe TMSRs which can automatically load follow far faster within minutes (and even almost shut down if necessary during a midday unexpected excessive solar surge); as well as being able to "Black-start" and as a high temperature, near ambience pressure, is a "Walk-away Safe" liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium berilium Fluoride salt burner reactor, having an expected pre-profit levelised cost is less than $30 per MegaWatt.hour (

[@harukinzaphod]

NuScale cannot get backers. Nobody can afford NuScale.

[@stl1321]

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

[@alanramsey2761]

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.

[@brunowolf-hx2ud]

THANK YOU STEPHEN.

[@gerrycooper56]

Australia had manufacturing when there was cheap power, labour and raw materials. We know have 1 out of 3. There will be no competing manufacturing of any size in Australia unless at the least we return to cheap power. Even in Tasmania which is 95% hydro the price of power has risen 600% since 1995 while the cost has barely changed.

[@paulsiebert4863]

21:02 So, it's not about generating electricity - apart from enough to stop the horsies from kicking the door down? Sir Prize

[@seaplaneguy1]

Wind/solar PV/battery would need 16 times more than the rated output vs nuclear at the rated output X. Plus battery cost at 3.5x. 25% output x 4 = rated, but the overbuild needs to be 4x more, hence 4x4=16 wind mills vs 1 nuclear generator of the same rated output. Total is 7.5x more than nuclear plus extra grid lines all over the landscape, management and on and on. 5 cent/kwh x 7.5 = 37.5 ...reality is 60 cents/kwh with lines and management vs nuclear at 10 plus 5 for lines and management...~15 cents/kwh. Summary: Wind/solar PV/Battery = 4 times more than nuclear.

[@MrVaticanRag]

Yes ludicrously stupid.

[@michaelwebber4033]

Don't build just one, build a series of them, using the same construction and commissioning staff for each one. That way the cost per unit will drop subtantaially

[@skip181sg]

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

[@pauld3327]

​@@skip181sgSmall Modular Reactors might be the solution

[@skip181sg]

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

[@thefleecer3673]

​@@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

[@skip181sg]

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

[@PhilipWong55]

The government can limit the expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and generating electricity by structuring power purchase agreements (PPAs) with a "pay-as-you-go" model, wherein payments commence only when the plant supplies electricity to the grid. The developer or operator bears the financing burden during construction through private investment or loans. Once operational, the government purchases electricity based on actual generation, mitigating financial risk and incentivizing private sector investment while ensuring taxpayer funds are spent only on delivered services. This approach fosters efficient risk allocation, encourages project completion, and maintains accountability through performance monitoring outlined in the PPA.

[@tobyw9573]

SMRs allow installing small reactors, ostensibly one at a time, and immediately setting it up (plant was set up during reactor build) and proofing the reactor then putting it online. Plant may first go online in a year instead of 5-10 years. Reactor building will iteratively improve. Clunkers can be taken offline and fixed on site or at factory. Revenue starts in a fifth of the time of a built onsite reactor.

[@Carlos-im3hn]

the recent strong UK commitment to 40 total X-Energy using Xe-100 SMR reactors appears significant going forward.

[@matthewgruba8040]

That was excellent.

[@politics102]

30 minutes misrepresenting data. Very Very impressed.

[@matthewgruba8040]

@@politics102 your name gives up your bias.

[@politics102]

Very impressed, a master class in miss representing data.

[@asabriggs6426]

I do wonder where on the Grubb curve SMRs actually are, given the issues NuScale had after the filming of the video. I agree with the premise that trying to replace base-load with renewables is an expensive game to play, so some thing low/no carbon to do so will reduce the overbuild game. Most people in Australia are close to the coast, and Korea are world leaders in nuclear and ship-building. Floating offshore gigawatt scale nuclear just over 12 nautical miles off the coast would be a good bet; reduced siting issues, manufactured by experts in factory conditions at the largest scale possible.

[@stanyeaman4824]

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?

[@aaroncosier735]

Both SMRs and large scale PWRs are still on the upswing. That's without demonstrated costs for Spent Fuel Disposal or any sort of provision for public liability.

[@davidwilkie9551]

In deciding what to do next, it's probably wise to look at what it takes to start with nothing but the orientation to reasoning from First Principle Observation, because the current situation is mostly chaotic distortions of rule of thumb practices typical of a war time confrontation when the motives of the enemy is not understood. "We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us", is just another aspect-version of not doing the math, which is not true but the labelling system is due for an overhaul. I for one don't know what I'm talking about other than what everyone starting a science course at Uni half suspects is possible, but the development is like a new baby, " of what use is a new born baby".., about the same as starting anything from scratch.

[@brunowolf-hx2ud]

JUST A SHAME THAT =AA= HAS NO UNDERSTANDING TO THAT SUBJECT,AS HE HAS NO UNDERSTANDING FOR ANYTHING.

[@iancormie9916]

Do you really think America would let Carbon Zero interfere with the sale of military hardware? Not likely.

[@jorry1992]

Good talk. Could probably be triple the duration or more to fully explore the data presented.

[@carldavid1558]

Agree. A waste of money. There is an obvious alternative. Since we know the seas are boiling, we only need to install turbines on beaches. Once we make the Earth cool again we can switch back to coal and gas. When we make the oceans boil again we switch back to the beach turbines. However I can’t still work out why I could swim this morning without getting third degree burns. I’ll leave that up to the experts.

[@heinzbongwasser2715]

love from germany

[@paulsiebert4863]

18:46 No! Really?! Sir Prize 😂

[@patrickdoolan4553]

We are not being treated as Australians very well by Labour and the Greens. On the cost of nuclear power. Wind and solar is making a lot of money for lobbyists in Canberra. If you want information on nuclear power , you do not go to wind and solar developers for information.

[@embracedmadness]

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.

[@landydave1000]

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

[@zen1647]

So how's that NuScale SMR deployment coming?

[@Nill757]

Brilliant. Powerful marshaling of evidence. Some objections. The argument seems to be, convince the public of the engineering and cost, thus ending the ban and off you go. I don’t think so: 1. Talk Underestimates what some kind of malignant TBD Australia regulator could do to explode costs, derail schedule. All it takes is one Aussie Jackzo, one minion of @simonahac, even 5-10 years after builds begin to destroy it all. 2. Fuel. Aussies produce uranium but can’t enrich it. Even the US is importing 25% of enriched fuel now. Fuel has to be 100% guaranteed, forever, before the first brick is financed.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

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. 😊😊😊😊

[@MrVaticanRag]

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?

[@polarbear7255]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 physics disagrees with your statement

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@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.

[@miker3298]

so what exactly is the base load power required in Australia and where are the strategic load regions. Transmssion os the key and no one is discussing this. Better get the act together folks instead of politisising the private electricity supply in Australia! it does not work - we need a national strategy with State owned systems and transmission/planning.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

24:16 9cents kWh and the original grid but the world needs no fossil fuel clean electricity. Base load is 10% of all electricity, which is 10% of Australia’s total energy used. So, 99% of future energy is nuclear electricity. More BS as more electricity transmission and distribution is needed. The extremely expensive national electrical transmission and distribution grid. Rooftop PV and BVs oversized battery needs no more grid construction this is a $TRILLIONS advantage.

[@paulsiebert4863]

24:47 24:30

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Sat 21 May 2022 Aust federal election ended a decade of LNP Government and energy management including gas supply at world prices. So the population earns an income pays taxes and then pays world gas prices that make no difference to foreign owned operators who will only pay taxes after the construction debt is cleared from the company books. No tax money from a dying fossil fuel future industry. If I talk about extreme construction costs to distribute nuclear electricity to millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of customers in a no fossil fueled future the silence is deafening. Even Robert Parker, nuclear promoter, will tell you electricity transmission and distribution is extremely expensive, $1 to $10million km over 1million km for new capacity construction. The engineering BS is neck high. Deeper than normal BS.

[@skip181sg]

At approx 8:36 mark its stated Australia could get to its first production plant for $5B ….. May I ask in what realm?? The UK building it first plant in 30 years is expected to come in at $59B or more than 10x your fantasy South Korea I agree builds them way more cost effectively but they build fleets of them You’re smoking crack if you think in Australia you can do it at $5 with no industry no experience no workforce Inertia is the biggest issue in Australia for nuclear and doubt you’ll ever overcome that

[@garryowen2811]

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

[@aaroncosier735]

South Korea may "build" reactors cheaply. However, KEPCO is presently 149Billion US$ in debt. So, either construction or operations are running at a loss, probably both. No "pricing" based on these examples is anything but a fiction.

[@skip181sg]

@@aaroncosier735 Your damn right

[@davidanalyst671]

23:40 This guy put a chart on the board, and pointed at it, and said this means that you can pay 10 Trillion dollars for a nuke plant and it will still be cost effective, because of this chart here. The presenter skipped all the content and the modeling and the intellectual aspect of this presentation, and after skipping the logic, he came to the conclusion that nuclear was always worth it even if it costs overrun for 40 years. Thats is patently not true, so clearly his logic is flawed. Now that we have established that this man is a shill for the nuclear industry, watch the video again and you will see it.

[@seaplaneguy1]

I think stand alone off grid nuclear making fuel can make electricity for 2 cents/kwh with fuel costing 3 cents/kwh. That would make grid 20 times more than nuclear. 60 cents/kwh to charge a battery EV vs 3 cents/kwh for fuel. 20:1. This is the future. Ethanol is the fuel. Run houses on Ethanol and NET heat pumps with COP4. Infinite energy at affordable prices.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

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

[@seaplaneguy1]

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

[@seaplaneguy1]

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

[@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.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@seaplaneguy1 I like the seaplane idea,

[@alancotterell9207]

What will be the price for the legacy of radioactive waste ? The biggest destroyer of our environment is lack of acceptance of responsibility for end of life of facilitites and products . Our global system is finite - NOT open ended..

[@aaroncosier735]

Well, they simply have no idea. No Spent Nuclear Fuel has yet been disposed *anywhere*. *no* major nuclear nation has even started a disposal facility, let alone commenced operations. It's obviously not easy, nor cheap.

[@traudilepse4251]

Re carbon credit scam, SCRAP IT !!

[@lozfromozlyons4749]

I am unsure we should be talking about building nuclear power plants when there is a lot of talk about a world war. An explosion at a coal power station is a serious matter, an explosion at a nuclear power plant is wide spread devastation.

[@aaroncosier735]

A direct hit on an operating reactor would be devastating. A typical PWR contains 100 tonnes of fuel assemblies, so about 200 to 300 kilos of fission products, which in the instant of disruption are *stupendously* intensely radioactive, comparable to the few kilos produced directly by the weapon. These would be lofted (to stratosphere if hit by a megaton device) and travel as fallout. In the order of one to five hundred times as much as from a single nuclear weapon. The Spent Fuel Pool is a whole other problem. The average US spent fuel pool holds about 800 tonnes of spent fuel. Now, this fuel has "cooled" compared to that in an active reactor. However, a direct hit would again loft several hundreds of times as much material as is produced by a single weapon. Now, this may seem slightly less an issue: being "cooler" from decay of the most rapidly decaying products. The resultant fallout may be less intensely active. However, it still be no less than devastating, and all the longer lived fission products such as caesium and strontium would be present in greater quantities. A few weeks after such a strike and for centuries thereafter, the remaining radioactivity would be much greater from a spent fuel pool than from the reactor itself. Obviously both would be devastating, at minimum ten or twenty times greater than Chernobyl. The estimated release from Chernobyl was around 5 tonnes, of which a lot may have been irradiated carbon rather than actual nuclear fuel. All of this assumes that the nuclear fuel, either in the reactor or in the pool, is a passive participant, like so much sand being scattered. It is unlikely the reactor contents would be passive. The neutron flux from such a detonation would far exceed the barely-critical flux of the operating reactor, pushing the whole Fissile fraction (5%, so maybe five tonnes of U235) beyond criticality. Just how much this would contribute compared to the few kilos in a typical weapon is unimaginable. Similarly, the spent fuel pool. Unlike the reactor, it is not already balanced just on the cusp of criticality, but the neutron flux from a weapon is enormous. There is no way to estimate the contributions of water shielding vs water moderation. Being spent, there is far less fissionable U235. But, U238 was used as tamper in some of the largest weapons ever tested and contributed about 20% of the final yield (about 10 out of 50megatons). that tamper weighed less than 100kg, whereas a spent fuel pool averages several hundred tonnes. The consequences are simply unimaginable. A single strike might devastate a large fraction of a large nation such as the US, depending on the winds. Any retaliation would have to be carried out while urgently and instantaneously evacuating the majority of their most populous states and farmland. However, you will be reassured to know that there is an international pinky promise to never target such installations, and any nation that did would be regarded as "very naughty".

[@murrays9535]

Interesting how when you confirm people's biases with your own they laud your work as fantastic, informative or well researched. Not one piercingly insightful question or any contestability in the comments, almost as though no-one understood any of it. When you find many system cost experts who are anti nuclear and still agree with your estimates, that might be convincing, rather than touring and asking industry insiders and promoters. You blithely dismissed the CSIRO 2019 Gencost as biased and erroneous without presenting any evidence, almost as though it was accepted dogma in your mind. Yet their total CAPEX estimate for a 720MW suite of reactor modules of A$18B and 5 year construction time seem WILDLY optimistic to anyone familiar with the results of large building or acquisition projects in Australia. In that context, your counter estimates of A$4B CAPEX and 3 years construction in your spreadsheet seem ludicrous, along with the next statement that the CAPEX doesn't really affect the system cost. No wonder Dutton and O'Brien are afraid to spruik your "high certainty" numbers until there's no time left before an election to question them. In any case, their conversion to nuclear power seems to be all about climate change denialism 2.0, keeping fossil fuels going longer for their (and your IPA?) big donors. We'll all burn together.

[@KenDyer-wl4lf]

This must be for the true believers about the nuclear unicorns in Australia. The Sun has won!

[@bluecedar7914]

So get an authoritarian government, a core workforce with 30+ years of accumulated industry experience, use costings from 8 -15 years ago, and lie about the reliability of the South Australian grid region when islanded and the profitability of it's generators. We won't be getting nuclear power in Australia any time soon. Incredible, disingenuous marketing.

[@travcollier]

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?

[@bluecedar7914]

@@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.

[@travcollier]

@@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.

[@landydave1000]

@@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.

[@landydave1000]

​@@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!

[@adalberteinstin5137]

should'nt we think if it it really is good to decarbonize a Planet which has develoled life basen on carbon (organic) chemistry? Would'nt we possibly wipe out life by fault?

[@jeffbenton6183]

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)

[@adalberteinstin5137]

@@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?

[@aaroncosier735]

@@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.

[@tonystanley5337]

Nuclear is totally unsuitable for Australia. You cannot make it payback unless its supplying baseload and Australia doesn't have any baseload because it has so many home renewables. Nuclear always is under costed, it wouldn't get built otherwise. The ONLY reason to build it is if you think renewables can't supply 100% of power. This is the main lie that Nuclear proponents state. Also remember that renewables are not just wind and solar, there are expensive stable renewables too, but these have a much lower risk than Nuclear. Westeners want safety, the middle east and Asia are happy to cut corners, this is why Nuclear is expensive in the west. Nuclear plants do not last for 100 years, unless you ignore leaks and cracks. Noone has made flexible Nuclear plants, they do kill the costs. Nearly every other country has tried Nuclear and it has turned out stupidly expensive. there are no "good" Nuclear stories. Ultimately Nuclear is not sustainable, renewables are, so we may as well just accept it and make renewables work, for which there is no reason it cannot be done.

[@No-thing-ness]

Here a couple of lies. First of all you’re pro nuclear and that’s dangerous to be siding with one argument but at the same time as being a consultant using your university position as some sort of cover for intelligence rather than business and money generation. Secondly how do you account that South Australia in 12 years; as per your slide went from 1115 GWh with population and housing increases to lower energy consumption 983 GWh. And as you know August looks the worst for SA. So propaganda matches you and your slides. SA is actually using less and less overall energy. Why? Because that mix of rentable energy. The highest concentration of solar roof panels. Now that is a massive saving in carbon costs. Here you are not even discussing the carbon used per house holds if you got nuclear through and the higher cost of energy to the household not to mention the carbon costs to build these massive energy unit for something that we already have and are using. Everyone know that the safest security of energy is having a mix of energy generating inputs. You are simply advocating for money making. And trying to disguise it in a new way. Additionally SA also had a royal commission into Nuclear and the outcome of costs was 6-9 billion. I’m sure you plagiarise works without speaking to this report. Get some integrity.

[@tigertoo01]

The corporates are scared because they are losing the monopoly due to renewables. Nuclear was banned for a very good reason and has served Australia well. Don’t make this huge mistake

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Why would you bother with nuclear electricity generation if the world CO2 flooding the atmosphere remains unchanged. 25million Australians, 9,000million world population. Why are nuclear promoters so intelligent and so limited at the same time. They argue that externalities are important with CO2 build up. And then ignore externalities, the world's behaviour in swamping Australian efforts to go to clean nuclear electricity. They also ignore the critical costs of bigger transmission and distribution electricity grids with bigger generation capacity. The existing grid is fragile because it is extremely expensive to over build.

[@salpon]

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

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@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.

[@mjdurack]

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.

[@Nill757]

“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.

[@Nill757]

@@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.

[@paulsiebert4863]

18:46 No! Really?! Sir Prize 😂