Accelerate the World's Transition to Sustainable Energy - to fight Anthropogenic Climate Change, page-35498

Wow.

There is so much bs there it is hard to know where to start .

30 years . Most large projects are costed over this period because it is a reasonable period to estimate over . lt applies to just about any industry . A nuclear power station site may last 80 or more years but that doesn't mean the power station will . As we've seen with large baseload coal stations , the components within are constantly replaced or refurbished throughout the life of the site . Steam turbines , generators , boilers , controls systems , pumps etc are constantly repaired or replaced to keep the power station running . Baseload power stations require 24/7/365 operation and maintenance crews other wise they would grind to a halt very quickly . So , the claim that a nuclear power station would " last 80 years " is not accurate at all .
Given the pace of change in technology today, who would bet on a 2024 technology to last 80 years ? The beauty of renewables is that they are flexible and totally upgradeable as technology improves. Their modular nature means that the system can be constantly improved seamlessly and progressively rather than waiting decades for a large lump to become available. This also means that using the nuclear example, we won't be stuck using 2024 nuclear technology in 2080 and beyond.
The video also fails to mention the cleanup cost of a nuclear power station site. The Sellafield site in the Uk is a current example. The cost is horrendous.


The 60 to 90% capacity range is actually generous . The video refers to US nuclear numbers . That is irrelevant for Australia. Baseload coal is struggling to achieve 60% in 2024 in Australia . A number that is trending down as more renewables enter the system . Using that trending data, a nuclear power plant installed today would be down to 5-10% output within a decade .

Price of uranium ? We've seen what happens with energy prices that are manipulated and affected by wars , cartels and large corporates. As we've seen with Australian gas, just because it is produced here , it doesn't mean that local customers will get that price benefit.

Then there's the bs about the amount of spending for renewable infrastructure . She slips in things like the Copperstring project . She forgets to mention that the project will allow some $500 billion of mining resources to reach the market .
The funny thing about questioning and exaggerating about the grid upgrades that are required is that she fails to mention that the Dutton nuclear plan will only produce 10% of the grid's electricity . 90% will come from renewables. So the investment into new infrastructure is still required .

" lnstead of building all these transmission projects and pumped hydro that produce zero electricity ( false ) we could be building 8 GWs of cheap clean and reliable nuclear power "

Errrr..............what about the other 90% of the electricity that we need ? The rest that will be provided by renewable energy .How will that power get to the market if we don't build that infrastructure ?

She then talks about the cost of the new generation medium . What she fails to mention is that the entire Australian generation fleet is at the end of life . lt all needs to be replaced anyway. Money needs to be spent . She uses the cost of solar and batteries today . Conveniently forgetting to mention that those prices continue to fall massively while the cost of nuclear is constantly trending up .

Then there's some banging on about evs and how the grid will force you to charge when it wants you to . Once again forgetting that it will be your choice but also not mentioning that depending on when you charge you will be charging for free as we've seen already happening in the Uk.
Let's not forget that the consumer will own the battery . Not the grid. The consumer will also own the generation via home solar . That puts the consumer in a very powerful position . The complete opposite of today .
She also forgets to mention that for the first time ever, the family car , which is a big investment for many will now provide it's owner with another income thus reducing home costs .

Of course she forgets to mention the many decades that we would have to wait for the " clean " nuclear roll out which means we would have to continue to emit large amounts of co2 for a very long time. That is contrary to her claim of nuclear being a clean solution.

l can't believe the nuclear shills would be silly enough to post such rubbish. But then again, the Dud did go on national television and make a complete goose of himself on the same subject .

Geez. The coal money must be good.