Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@XxTheAwokenOnexX says : There's more misinformation about renewable energy, which is a valid option to using fossil fuels>> <<@ianenglish123 says : The big lie is nuclear is cheaper, pff. But of course here on Sky we always question the science and economical facts.>> <<@JosefMengeleNHS says : Yeah fukushima chernobyl and faslane is all we need to know. Our globalist politicians can not be trusted with the enriched uranium.>> <<@DL-zl5tn says : Maybe the word should be disinformation>> <<@FranksHairSalon says : Too right there is, Bucky. It's ALL coming from the extreme right wing.>> <<@ironmaidens6663 says : Renewables are cheap and reliable is the biggest myth.>> <<@GeoffMiell says : There sure is a lot of “misinformation” out there surrounding nuclear energy. Published at 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 on 14 Jun 2024 was a piece by David Leitch headlined 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗙𝗥 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁, 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 “𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗻” 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿. It began with: """It’s great to see that John Kehoe, economics editor at the AFR now wants to write about the CSIRO Gencost report. Kehoe implies or states that the CSIRO report is biased and makes incorrect assumptions. Specifically, he quotes others as saying that coal generation is cheaper than renewable generation and that the CSIRO report underplays the advantages of always on dispatchable power. In my opinion the article gets quite a few things wrong, probably most importantly the assumption that always on-power is somehow “better” than power that is not always on, and that this should be allowed for in the Gencost report. In my opinion this reflects the usual naive biases of someone that hasn’t put much work into the topic. In this note I seek to show that LCOE capacity factor assumptions can be done on a number of bases and that there is no single right or wrong answer.""" Nuclear is too slow to deploy to make any significant difference for humanity’s need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions NOW. The IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the typical prerequisite time required of the order of 5 years, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen before the first concrete pour milestone can even happen. The construction times for reactors are usually quoted—they’re easy enough to find; just look at the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data—but it seems to me the prerequisite pre-project implementation time is conveniently ignored by the Coalition, nuclear boosters, and the incurious media/commentators. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013–2022—of which 39 in China alone—with an average construction time of 9.4 years, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012–2021. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, experienced civil nuclear power countries are demonstrating they are requiring much more than a decade to deploy new civilian nuclear-powered electricity generator units. Some examples I see that provide a closer approximation to how long it actually takes to deploy existing nuclear technologies include: • 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐄𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit; • 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 has demonstrated it took more than 22-years to get its OLKILUOTO-3 unit operational, from a first licence application in Dec 2000, to construction commencing on 12 Aug 2005 to full operations on 1 May 2023; • 𝗨𝗦𝗔 has demonstrated it took almost 17-years to get its VOGTLE-3 unit operational, from Southern Nuclear’s formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006, to construction commencing on 2 Mar 2013 to full operations on 31 Jul 2023, and more than 18-years for VOGTLE-4; • 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get its twin demonstration reactors designated SHIDAOBAY-1 (SHIDAOWAN-1) operational, from initial approval in Nov 2005, to construction commencing on 9 Dec 2012 to full operations on 6 Dec 2023; • 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 has demonstrated it took around 20-years to get its floating twin small reactors designated AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 operational, from when the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (Rosatom) chose Severodvinsk in Arkhangelsk Oblast as the construction site in 2000, to construction commencing on 15 Apr 2007 to full operations on 22 May 2020; • 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 has demonstrated it will take more than 18-years to get its FLAMANVILLE-3 unit operational, from preparatory site works beginning in the summer of 2006, to construction commencing on 3 Dec 2007 and fuel loading now forecast for summer 2024; • 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮 looks like it will take more than 22-years to get the first of its four new SMRs at Darlington operational, from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) submitting an application for a site preparation licence to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in 2006, to an anticipated first SMR unit operational “𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 2028, 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 2029” according to Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith MPP; • 𝗨𝗞 looks like it will take at least 19-years to get the first of its twin reactors designated HINKLEY POINT C-1 &-2, from when the site was one of eight announced by the British government in 2010, to construction commencing of HINKLEY POINT C-1 on 11 Dec 2018 to the latest expected start date at least by 2029. Australia, as an inexperienced civil nuclear energy country, would very likely take much longer to have any operational generator units – I’d suggest no earlier than the mid-2040s. Meanwhile, more than a few coal-fired power stations will close over the next few decades in Australia. The AEMO’s draft 2024 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯, the latest version of its 30-year planning blueprint, suggests coal fired generation will be gone from Queensland and Victoria within a decade – by 2033/34 – and that the last coal unit will close in NSW by 2038. How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy solve Australia’s energy security needs if it’s highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest? How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy keep Australia’s ‘lights on’ and ease the current cost-of-living crisis in the interim? Answer: It doesn’t, irrespective of how much it would cost!>> <<@troig43 says : SOLAR EMPLOYS. NUCLEAR DESTROYS.>> <<@Poorlineforeva says : That's what happens with the coalition They have no policies at all Unfit for government>> <<@wilbur1884 says : BUTT WUTT ABOAT DAVAYE ALUTTA PROUD HE'S STILL ALUTTA PROUD 👋😳>> <<@St.Thomas-er9iu says : 🇦🇺 government Bureaucrats Satanist brainwashing and robbing population anyway they can... St.Thomas>> <<@WilliamCooper-l6f says : Nuclear is a very dangerous technology. Not only is it extremely expensive to build, it is expensive to operate and expensive to deal with the waste. In Germany, they are worried about a nuclear waste dump leaking radioactive material into the earth and poisoning the water. In far eastern Russia, there is a nuclear power plant leaking radioactive material into China 1,600 times greater than the upper threshold limit, that has forced an entire city to be evacuated.>> <<@rattusfinkus says : The World Nuclear Association says that nuclear is not economically feasible in grids with more than 30% renewables. Nuclear will go broke in Australia>> <<@rattusfinkus says : Economics don't change much after 30 years>> <<@rattusfinkus says : What are we going to use until 2045 for power until the nukes get switched on?>> <<@positivepawpaw7564 says : TAKE AWAY TAX PAYER FUNDED SUBSIDIES. LET THE MARKET DECIDE. DO NOT LET CORRUPT SOCIALISTS P!SS YOUR MONEY AWAY ON THEIR IDEOLOGICAL PIPE DREAMS>> <<@ricky6864 says : Csiro, bawawaa... should be defunded along with the abc>> <<@ricky6864 says : Almost all misinformation is from labor, the proven liars>> <<@Peter-p5u8t says : Chris Brown is a net zero zealot spruiking rubbish 😂>> <<@dominicpelle7841 says : ****Luckily the CSIRO invented among many other great achievements Wi-Fi it's paintented, and receives BILLIONS of $$$$$$ making independently funded*** Conservatives HATE the best SCIENCE in the world because it goes against it's ideology>> <<@imeagleeye1 says : Yes the misinformation on how safe when in reality it's probably the most toxic thing as science still cannot dispose safely no treat Highly Radioactive Waste. Be truthful and tell the real story.>> <<@NoWindNoSunNoPower says : Lots of misinformation surrounding renewable energy also.>> <<@positivepawpaw7564 says : albozo & bobo answer to solar panel importer, simon holmes a court .. non-scientist holmes a court recently demanded the censorship of an ACTUAL nuclear scientist who was about to speak at a public event. the snivelling Australia Loses Party folded to holmes a court's demand & the scientist was cancelled. .>> <<@ragereset1829 says : Peter Dutton has again refused to reveal key details on the Coalition’s nuclear power policy. All bluster and bulls*it just like that talking sphincter muscle donald trump>> <<@RaisinBran-ir4iq says : I worked for a twin-reactor nuclear facility back in the 90s. Even back then, they had a 50 year lifespan and only refueled every 18-24 months (depending on the age of the reactor). I can only imagine the improvements they've made on the design since then. The biggest expenditure for the facility was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US). I do believe a regulatory authority should be placed on them, but the government sees them as a cash cow, leveraging $millions in fines even for minor incidents unrelated to safety. They are an excellent source of energy otherwise.>> <<@SeanBotha says : Thorium reactor. No rod no melt down the no radioactive waste! Throum cannot be used as Nike weapons. Truly clean energy unlike wind snd solar>> <<@VK6AB- says : CSIRO are not expert in financial analysis or nuclear power. Long tern Nuclear provides the lowest cost energy production. Moreover, it stimulates engineering innovation and science whilst also providing large scale base load energy delivery. In fact, LTO Nuclear is the lowest cost long term energy producer at 32 USD/MWh, onshore wind comes in at 50 USD/MWh, off-shore wind is a whopping 88 USD/MWh, utility scale solar is 56 USD/MWh and run of river hydro is around 68 USD/MWh (Source: IEA, 2020, median prices). We need to deal with facts not left wing fantasy. Look at a country like Sweden, ~ 30% of its current electricity generation comes from nuclear and in November 2023 the government announced plans to construct two large-scale reactors by 2035 and the equivalent of 10 new reactors, including small modular reactors, by 2045. How about Finland, here nuclear energy plays a key role in Finland’s energy sector. Nuclear amounted to 33% of total electricity generation in 2021, and this figure has risen to more than 40% with the start of commercial operations at the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in May 2023 – the first new nuclear plant in Europe in 15 years. Add to this, Australia has some of the worlds largest uranium resources and is currently the third largest producer of uranium behind Canada and Kazakhstan.>> <<@Want0nS0up says : Bowen’s manifesto. “In my studies of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.”>> <<@AximandTheCursed says : CSIRO has abandoned scientific credibility for political expediency and government funding. They either need to be re-staffed, or abolished altogether as they have ceased to be of value to the nation.>> <<@LuciferBlack-zp8lr says : Lol.. Coming soon to Fox Sport 🎣 for the radio active 3 eye fish.....☢️ 😆😆😆.... always a great belly laugh at sky Australia>> <<@Prognosis__ says : The ban on nuclear is political and ideological… All around the world where there is nuclear, the countries have affordable electricity bills. Bobblehead should stop playing political football with the future of our nation>> <<@1JohnnyUTAH says : Australia must love American idiots feeding them Propaganda>> <<@1JohnnyUTAH says : The American idiot brainwashing Australia>> <<@oldtimers6460 says : Australia does not want upset China and not buy their unreliable wind and solar as well as useless batteries. Let's not forget China has a habit of placing easter eggs in their Electonics that may shut down the appliance or allow spying by that appliance.>> <<@PaulJames-by2rf says : Stop talking, start doing, I'm so sick of what the people want, you didn't ask me, I want cheaper energy, food, rent, just build it or let the people decide>>