Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Nuclear energy's true cost hidden by Australian ban: Will Shackel" video.

  1.  @typetersen8809  If you understood the topic you would know the question was rhetorical. Only two SMRs are in production one in China and one in Russia, both are not operational yet and hopelessly over budget. The potential for SMRs is huge but yet to be realised. You need to do some research.
    4
  2.  @polarbear7255  Nope you are factually wrong because there are also LCOS studies. I’m amazed at how ignorant of the subject you are or how little understanding you have of grid capacity v demand and the technology available to maintain capacity with renewables. Can you read?
    2
  3.  @aaronward6466  They are not SMRs they are PWRs. Not the same technology.
    2
  4.  @raymondzehrung9274  There is some confusion on your part. The AP1000 is a PWR. I’m specifically talking about SMR.
    2
  5.  @raymondzehrung9274  Big difference between the PWRs that power US and British nuclear submarines. That technology is highly secret and not available to commercial enterprises and likely never will be. SMRs use different technology and are not yet in commercial use.
    2
  6.  @jimvinson6046  The issue isn’t safety the issue is cost. For nuclear power to be safe it requires regulation, regulation is expensive. Every LCOE study has wind and solar producing electricity significantly cheaper than Nuclear. I have no problem with nuclear power, but it won’t be cheap.
    2
  7.  @aaronward6466  No it is exactly the point. Confusing highly top secret PWR technology that will never be allowed to be used commercially with SMR and Small scale PWRs is important. Wishing and hoping SMR technology will magically happen is fanciful. As I stated before there are no commercially functioning SMRs in existence. In the future yes most likely, will they be economically viable WTF knows. As to the PWRs AP1000 and 300 that I earlier got confused with SMRs, there is bucklys chance of them ever being approved federally. Dream on.
    2
  8. Could you please point me to a LCOE study that shows nuclear is cheap? Thanks.
    2
  9. Which grid is that SMR producing electricity for?
    1
  10. For the dimwits the question was to the cost not the reliability or capacity. Idiot strawman arguments or comment are a dime a dozen.
    1
  11.  @polarbear7255  That’s hilarious you tell me what comparison I should be using and accuse me of being arrogant. Your chutzpah is astonishing. The LCOE does exactly that, is compares the cost of producing electricity by MWh per hour. You just don’t like it because it doesn’t fit your narrative or preconceived opinion. Of course you know better than any of the thousands of companies making money producing electricity from wind and solar. l’m sure they got it all wrong and you have it right. I never suggested LCOE was the only or best way to measure how anyone decides on what powers their grid, it is just one measure.
    1
  12.  @polarbear7255  I just reread one of my replies to you. Sorry I hurt your feelings. I apologise.
    1
  13.  @polarbear7255  just a long winded anecdotal fallacious comment. I’m not even remotely interested in your personal circumstances only the facts. No government in Australia LNP or Labor is going to move toward Nuclear energy. You just continue your fantasy while the economy transitions away from fossil fuel using renewables. It is already happening and with not the remotest sign of nuclear anywhere.
    1
  14. The cost is not hidden. Tell us Will how are the two commercial SMRs being built going in Russia and China?
    1
  15. So you are perfectly happy with potentially one of the most poisonous substances known to us, being used to power your home only 500 meters away without any public regulation. Have you any idea of the potential for weaponisation.  What does a private trucking company do every time it needs to cuts costs? It cuts its maintenance and safety, and another truck slaughters a family in a car accident. You don’t have much of an idea about how industry works.
    1
  16.  @chrisruss9861  I have no issues with the safety or reliability of nuclear power as long as it is well regulated, and regulation costs. Nuclear energy is safe and reliable if well regulated but will not be cheap.
    1
  17.  @ChuddmasterZero  That’s exactly what SMRs are designed to. This enables their transmission costs to be minimised. If you don’t address the potential weaponisation of SMRs and the regulation required to prevent it (added cost) then you simply are not living in the real world. You keep claiming nuclear is cheap, if this is so why is the US nuclear power industry heavily subsidised to enable it to compete with renewables. You would have to provide evidence of governments deliberately hamstringing nuclear energy with unnecessary regulation for me to take that claim seriously. Public regulation would be essential to ensure the safety and elimination of weapon proliferation. That will cost.
    1
  18.  @sylviam6535  Ever been to Hiroshima?
    1
  19.  @sylviam6535  No it isn’t. It is right on point. U233 can be spun off a SMR. U233 bombs work they have been tested. If you don’t tightly regulate the nuclear industry, weapon proliferation is a real risk. Your point that regulation hamstrings nuclear energy and makes it expensive was without context. The context I provided was without it you risk the WMD proliferation either that or you aren’t interested in the potential deaths of millions from a terrorist using a nuclear weapon.
    1
  20.  @typetersen8809  The transition to renewable energies has already started no solution is required. I have absolutely no issue with the safety and reliability of nuclear energy, but no where in the world is it cheap. It is expensive because it requires regulation to keep it safe and where it manages to compete with renewables (in the US, South, Korea, and France for instance) it is subsidised by state and federal governments. The notion that there is a simple quick solutions to the world’s energy needs and the requirement to stop burning fossil fuels is just childlike naivety. It’s as if you need some sort of religious type assurance that it will be alright. Grow up!
    1
  21.  @ChuddmasterZero  Fair cop, you didn’t say cheap, my apologies. However LCOE studies have shown even subsidised wind and solar to be cheaper than nuclear and I cite LAZARDs 2023 study as evidence of this. So you are factually wrong on that claim. Perhaps you don’t understand how a Thorium SMR works but it is possible to spin U233 of in the process. It not the most efficient or easiest way to get U233 but you can. U233 bombs work, they have been tested. So I understand perfectly what they are capable of. Does this mean not use them? Of course not, but the regulatory costs to prevent this happening will be expensive. Nuclear energy will never be cheaper than wind and solar and other renewables. It is childish and naive to suggest there is a silver bullet to the world’s energy needs. It’s complicated.
    1
  22.  @sylviam6535  Cost is a significant issue unless you are sitting on your super yacht in the Mediterranean. Waste storage is an issue but can be solved safely. Once again if SMRs are to be used all over the world to provide energy the risk of rogue nations gaining nuclear weapons amplifies. To prevent this happening and terrorists gaining access to weapons grade uranium then regulation is a must. That regulation is expensive.
    1
  23. @gregorymalchuk272  SMRs are years away, I never suggested we did. They may become a practical solution in some markets, but will never provide cheap electricity. Other than China, nowhere in the world is nuclear energy expanding. It has only gone backwards in construction and connection in all other markets. It can't compete against renewables and every investor with half a brain knows this. You are correct though in the only hope nuclear energy has is massive public funding and massive government subsidies.
    1
  24. Can you please cite the reference for the $1.3 trillion claim. Thanks.
    1
  25.  @polarbear7255  Which particular document? Thanks.
    1
  26.  @polarbear7255  You need context. Anyone can say the government of Australia regularly spends $600 billion a year, which it does. So what!
    1
  27. My apologies the confusion was on my part. I wrong assumed you were talking about SMRs and you were not. I only realised my mistake in rereading the initial comment. You are talking about small scale PWRs (AP1000 and 300) Again sorry my mistake.
    1
  28.  @polarbear7255  Attached is the CSIRO report on energy production for Australia. The cost of on shore wind infrastructure is less a third of nuclear capital cost. https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf
    1