Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "CSIRO price estimates for nuclear power have 'come back down to earth'" video.

  1. John Howard did the gas deal in 2005. Gillard had nothing to do with it.
    4
  2. It has amended its report and included it now.
    4
  3. @johnwoodrow8769  Taxs and subsidies are not the same , hence your reply makes absolutely no sense. I never suggested the fossil fuel industry doesn't pay taxes. So in the last financial year, Santos, two Shell energy entities, Whitehaven Coal, Woodside Petroleum, and Yancoal Australia paid zero company tax. Your comment is factually and demonstratively incorrect.
    3
  4. The CSIRO Gencost report does exactly that. It does exactly what you ask, read the report. Renewables with gas is significantly cheaper than nuclear. It compares apples to apples exactly how you asked.
    3
  5. Nothing's beats pure ignorance than the desire to remain ignorant.
    3
  6.  @johnwoodrow8769  A completely nonsensical reply to your earlier comments that you openly declared your desire to remain ignorant.
    3
  7. As all YouTube comments
    3
  8.  @wt29  Yep, not fully and I’m not an economist so I’m not claiming to be an expert, only that just yesterday the CSIRO released a statement to the media backed up by some interviews were they stated they had amended their report and included the cost of large scale nuclear. Hence why it has been all over the news.
    3
  9. When did they say renewables will cost $1 trillion? Could you provide a reference to that document. Thanks.
    2
  10. Gencost report explicitly includes maintenance costs. It is part of the LCOE formula. Including maintenance costs renewables are still significantly cheaper.
    2
  11. @chrisdepasquale4307  No completely false. The Gencost report explicitly states right at the front of the report it includes all infrastructure costs associated with transmission. Read the report, you are deliberately spreading misinformation.
    2
  12. @ekka6560  Good point. That is one area the Gencost report doesn't address. Nuclear waste and waste from the renewable sector or the pollution from the fossil fuel industry are not costed. What I do know is that almost 100% of a PV cell or a wind turbine is recyclable. Nuclear waste is extremely expensive to dispose of and carbon emissions are effecting the atmosphere. I know which is the lesser of the evils, you are free to choose yours. I have no problem with the reliability, safety, and cleanliness of Nuclear energy, but it will never be cheap and it is at least 15 to 20 years away in Australia at best case.
    2
  13. @chrisdepasquale4307  No, all infrastructure costs are calculated with the additional costs of making variable renewables reliable at shares 60,70, 80, and 90%. These additional costs include additional storage and transmission costs, and renewables still come out at half the cost of nuclear energy.
    2
  14. @johnk-pc2zx  No you are wrong. I have only quoted and referenced the CSIRO gencost report. I have claimed nothing other than the independent data publicly available to everyone. Your comment is nonsensical garbage.
    2
  15. The only assistance renewables get is the RET. The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives approximately $12 billion annually in government subsidies. NSW alone spent $112 million last year on railroads for coal trains.
    2
  16.  @johnwoodrow8769  Where did that figure come from? Somewhere between your upper and lower colon?
    2
  17. @moe2470  So the Paris accord (which is a legally binding agreement) signed by 196 counties including China and India aims to reduce the rise in atmospheric temperatures by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Both India and china are currently transitioning away from fossil fuels. China in particular has significantly increased its renewables energy production, but yes China stills burns a lot of coal as does India. The coal market is doomed in the long term but is still highly profitable due to significant government subsidies.
    2
  18. And take 20 years to build if ever.
    1
  19. The AMEO 2022 report on required upgrading of the transmission network was costed at $12.7 billion. This $1trillion figure has just been plucked out of somebody’s rectum.
    1
  20. Just provide a reference to a document or provide some actual factual data to support your claim that the CSIRO has invested in solar energy. The CSIRO has numerous studies and experiments in progress relating to solar PVs as it has on numerous other energy types. Is that what you mean?
    1
  21. The CSIRO Gencost report does exactly that compares apples to apples. Read the report, renewables are significantly cheaper, unsubsidised.
    1
  22. @ekka6560  Good question, I don't understand why the Fossil fuel industry is so heavily subsidised either. Taxpayers shouldn't be propping up the profits of coal companies.
    1
  23. @daveo3122  Australian governments subsidises to multinational fossil fuel companies having been going overseas since forever. Last year to the tune of $12 billion. What's your point?
    1
  24. @chrisdepasquale4307  Nope you are completely misinformed. The gencost report explicitly states it has included the extra infrastructure costs associated with renewables. Nuclear energy doesn't require these extra costs and is still double the cost. You are totally and utterly misinformed or deliberately spreading disinformation.
    1
  25. @daveo3122  AEMO has no regulatory control over how an energy company provides electricity. It only cares about managing electricity. Everything else to quoted was anecdotal and just nonsensical fallacious comment. Fossil fuel subsidies have been going overseas since forever. The NSW government gave the coal industry $110 million last year to fix its railway infrastructure. Read the CSIRO gencost report, it tells you specifically how much a nuc plant costs.
    1
  26.  @chrisdepasquale4307  I have never claimed or suggested any timeline other than the data or modeling quoted in the CSIRO. Which clearly states the significantly cheaper cost of renewable energies to nuclear and all forms of fossil fuels.
    1
  27. @chrisdepasquale4307  What $trillion? What is the source of your data? Just reference the document that quotes this $trillions figure.
    1
  28.  @chrisdepasquale4307  Right OK so those are your calculations. Thanks that’s all I needed to know.
    1
  29.  @chrisdepasquale4307  Yep as before your calculations. That’s all I needed to know.
    1
  30.  @chrisdepasquale4307  The CSIRO report has the transmission and firming costs to 2030 in the 2023 costings increases the operating cost of variable renewables to about $120 per megawatt hour for grid mixes of 60 per cent to 90 per cent renewables. By 2030, these costs are expected to fall to about $80/MWh. Which is still significantly cheaper than nuclear.
    1
  31.  @HMASJervisBay  Not a single piece of your comment bears any resemblance to reality. What subsidies to renewables? Do you mean the RET? Fossil fuel subsidies from both federal and state governments are to the tune of $12 billion annually, and include fuel tax credits, industry support funds and coal infrastructure grants. Almost 100% of a PV cell and wind turbines are recyclable. All the data shows nuclear energy to be ridiculously expensive. LCOE studies prove this. The sheer idiocy of claiming coal powered energy is clean shows your comment to be comical in nature, so in that regard it did provide a good laugh.
    1
  32.  @HMASJervisBay  1.Fossil fuels receive $12 billion annually in federal and state subsidies, what’s your point? 2.What scientific paper said it would never rain again? Just an idiotic strawman. 3.Australia already has the highest uptake of home solar, your comment is redundant. 4. 98% of a PV cell and a wind turbine are recyclable. 5. Nuclear power is ludicrously expensive 6. No such thing as clean coal, it is a fantasyland to use your words.
    1
  33.  @dfor50  I made no comment about or suggested anything about Queensland and mining royalties. I have no idea what you are talking about?
    1
  34.  @dfor50  So here are some actual facts. In the last Queensland state budget of approximately $90 billion, $5 billion was coal royalties, so to suggest that a loss of about 5.5% would make Queensland unsustainable economically is totally absurd. Fact-check completed.
    1
  35.  @dfor50  Yep no problems you said coal and now you are including gas. So now you are talking about 16.5% of the state budget and yes it would be a hit and again not economically unsustainable. You got your facts wrong in a comment about me not be factual. Hilarious.
    1
  36. @dfor50  Your explicit statement was the Queensland government couldn't survive without coal royalties. That statement is factually incorrect. I acknowledge the Queensland government would need to amend its budget, but your claim was pure hyperbole. No clarification needed.
    1
  37. No nuclear plant has ever achieved 100% generation. What flaws in the report do you refer to. The only factually incorrect data is your statement.
    1
  38. Nuclear never has in its history generated at a 100%.
    1
  39. @legolads1383  That was not my point. The point I was making was the obvious factually incorrect original statement. Most coal plants in China are only running at 40% capacity, the same in France with their nuclear plants as neither can compete with low-cost solar. Just the facts.
    1
  40. @legolads1383  According to the World Nuclear Association the global capacity factor for nuclear power plants in 2023 was 81.5%. So you didn't even get that data correct.
    1
  41. Capitalism and the free market. To encourage investment in gas in Australia the federal government removed the fixed pricing system. This allowed Multinational fossil fuel companies to charge whatever they wanted.
    1
  42. @johnwoodrow8769  And Scotty from marketing's gas led recovery didn't have anything to do with it, and it was John Howard in 2002 that announced the $25 billion deal to sell LPG to China. Gillard had nothing to do with it. No government since either Labor of Liberal has fixed the problem. Just nonsensical partisan rubbish from yourself.
    1
  43. They have. All references are in the report. Nothing hidden whatsoever. That won’t stop conspiracy theorists though.
    1
  44. That’s your argument, your own personal calculations. Nice anecdotal fallacy.
    1
  45. No arguments, you are obviously filthy rich and able to afford the electricity it will produce.
    1
  46. @polarbear7255  All the physicists, engineers, and economists at the CSIRO, LAZARDS, and numerous other agencies all agree renewables are cheaper and that includes all the costs. So it's their opinion against yours. They win every time.
    1
  47. @polarbear7255  Almost universally in virtually every country nuclear energy is used it has shown to be the most expensive form of energy production. It is universally subsidised by governments to make it affordable. It is on the rare occasion that nuclear power has ever been cheaper than almost every other form of energy production. You provided zero evidence of your claims and your argument is just anecdotal. LAZARDS LCOE studies agree with many others. Of course they are all wrong and you are correct. Hilarious.
    1
  48. Yes and the entire world has agreed to stop burning it.
    1
  49. The French government owned EDF which runs the nuclear power plants is in debt to the tune of €70 billion. Electricity is cheap in France because it is heavily subsidised by the French government.
    1
  50. And your evidence for this claim is
    1
  51. WTF and your evidence for this ludicrously stupid claim is?
    1