What to do about the energy transition? | Alan Finkel and Aidan Morrison

In other words, the real problem is that Australians are extremely conservative and parochial and can't (or don't want to) comprehend the big picture.

Agree with Alan, The situation is potentially existential. Collapse is already happening in some parts of the world and are very likely to spread. Australia must act in making itself both secure and part of the solution. When it comes to nucleAr technology three or four standardised Canadian developed CANDU power stations, comparable to Canada's Darlington Nuclear Power Station would solve Australia's base load problem, which amounts to about 25% of total power needed. CANDUs are a reliable, mature technology and lend themselves to lower tech manufacturing. They have a very good safety record, are proliferation resistant and can burn a mix of nuclear fuels including low enriched uranium, waste from other reactors, and thorium, a metal Australia has in abundance. Their main downside is the initial added cost of loading them with heavy water.

Aidan Morrison is the probably the best energy analyst in Australia. He knows more about the energy needs of Australia than AEMO and CSIRO combined. Aidan leaves Finkel in the dust when assessing the future of energy.

Aidan’s presentation is spot on. How we’ve not taken account of so many costs in looking at the “Transition”. We MUST look at the present costs vs the alleged benefits way down the line.

So if the last kW sold dictates the electricity price should we bypass the whole VRE vs nuclear debate as reframe the conversation as what is the second cheapest source of electricity to complement VRE's? Then the question should be: is it better to have gas peaking and batteries or nuclear to complement VRE's? (For context Gencost (Apx Table B.10) puts peaking gas LCOE (20% load) at between $138 - $296 /MWh and nuclear LCOE at $136 - $252 /MWh. So with the ISP's plan to have peaking gas run at 5% then the gas supplied electricity is most certainly going to be a lot more expensive than having nuclear in the mix.) gas/batteries vs nuclear: Environmentally: nuclear beats gas and batteries on emissions and mining Flexibility: gas wins Price volatility: nuclear wins as uranium is such a small component of the cost Compatibility with heavy industry*: nuclear is the only player as it trumps gas on emissions (and firmed VRE's on cost predictability) *For me the most important. As Aidan notes cement, steel, and global transport are the most daunting items on the decarb list and if Australia is not able to be price competitive with solutions then we are surrendering these most important decarb challenges to developing countries who may not share the same urgency and/or means as us to to prioritise. So if nuclear ticks most of the boxes then when it's bought online the regulator will have good rational to prioritise nuclear's contribution to the grid to negate the need for peaking gas. VRE's will be curtailed in the interest of long-term electricity prices and for environmental impact reasons. Then with all this stable nuclear electricity the economy (inc. green exports) will thrive and electricity rebates and the cost of living crises will be a distant memory.

Don't try to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

Watch Professor of minerals and metals Simon Michau along with Petroleum geologist Art Berman A very helpful truth regarding Green Energy and how much water is truly needed to power these data banks for this And where will the waste product of these solar wind power go along with the huge production of batteries We must save our Agricultural lands and not give away our gas and food supplies 🧐🕊🌍

In Europe it’s a straight line up and to the right: The more the amount of RE in the economy, the more the cost of electricity. It’s simply wrong to say the Renewables are “cheap”. They’re not. Australia is the same. We’ve gone from cheap-ish electricity to amongst the highest in the world. Let’s go nuclear.

18:54 we build a wind farm and reduce the risk of global warming? isn't Australia 1% of global emissions

Prof. Finkel, why aren’t people considering expanding hydroelectricity in Australia? The answer is simple and I am surprised you don’t seem to know this. It’s because we are an arid climate with intermittent wet periods. Hydroelectricity is designed for 24/7 generation and we certainly could not achieve that anywhere other than where Hydro is currently installed. Regarding Nuclear, we keep talking about building SMNR’s as if they as something of a compromise between doing something and doing nothing. What few observers have stated, including yourself is that Australia uses about 20 gWe of power at any point in time. Of this, 60% is from brown, black coal and gas. This needs to be replaced within a decade which is over 2X the renewables installed base. If we used nuclear instead and used “large” sized reactors that generate circa 1.2 gWe we need at least ten of them to meet current electricity needs along with keeping the renewables already installed running. One factor nobody has included is that out population is doubling between 30 and 50 years and so, by 2075, we will need to have added at least 30 gWe of nuclear power plants. That’s about 28 new nuclear plants @ 1.2 gWe and by the turn of the century in 2100 we will need to add another 50 gWe in nuclear generation just to keep place with population rise. This is sheer madness when the primary driving force of global warming, runaway demand for energy, shrinking supply of food is down to one problem - runaway population growth. Fix that, and everything else will solve itself.

The problem with the nuclear option is the carbon released by old infrastrure in the 20+ years it will take to come online.

00:01 PUBLIC CHANNEL* Educate on Money * Credit * Debt & Politics * Keep it Simple ! Ham Radio Operator VK3GFS is following this great content 73s Frank 1:29:10

Starting any discussion with "the question of climate change is settled and therefore..." is absurd. Certainly NOT an open discussion.

Totally predictable, should have started sooner, it's going to hurt a lot, never believe 'the best', prepare for the worst.

I don't understand how he can say last summer was hotter than ever. We never got past 35c. Normally, our summer temperatures are around 40/45c. The east coast had the most rain and flooding. So sick of the BS.

Solar energy is cheap if you have low cost capital and if you use the electricity to produce green hydrogen, for cooling buildings or charging EVs when the sun shines. There are plenty of applications where solar energy is cheap, but it is much too expensive for base-load electricity.

Wind turbines and solar panels are rebuildable not renewable,require huge amount s of coal for their production. You won't smelt aluminium with rebuildables

Why do I get the impression that Aidan is a gun for hire for big nuclear industrial interests?

Aiden Morrison avoids mentioning the cost of Nuclear Waste. The longer he spoke the more it seems he is supported by legacy power sources.

With nuclear no one ever talks about the stable society required to look after the waste for 100000 years. Is that factored in to EROEI. If the whole world goes to nuclear there is enough reserves of uranium for 80 years and it doesn't address transport freight,only electrickity.