Відео

What about frosty nights out here in western Victoria where they build all these wind farms? Well I think nights account for 50% of the year and nights as well as days with next to no wind are abundant. If it was always windy when would we be able to get our sprayers going on our farms? Oh and when it is windy they turn the turbines off. I’m looking at about 150 of them around my farm and trust me they are off more than on. Oh and I forgot to mention that they built them all at the wrong end of the grid and they can’t transmit the power backwards in the grid so they have to turn them off. Bring on nuclear and let’s have reliable cheap power for the next century.

5:45 Yes. The window of opportunity has pretty much closed, to the extent that it ever really was open. And mostly, I don't cheer it or lament it. It's just reality.

I don't know of many subjects where the voices on both sides say so many ridiculous things. And here's the crazy thing: The most important issues do not require deep expertise in nuclear science and technology. But they're obscured by loads of misinformation and even disinformation.

I can't believe I listened to this biased idiot for 3 minutes.

I think a possible point skipped over here is that solar produces most of its power at around lunch time into early afternoon when it's not really needed. this creates grid issues and need for expensive complex storage. The issue is really more structural. the solar path was probably a mistake from the beginning. if you'd gone nuclear earlier it would be better and then on top of that base find something that's good for peaking.

Why does she have to talk so fast? It may seem clever but it does not allow for anyone to fully absorbe what is otherwise very interesting information.

I was thinking that LCOE for the renewables should include battery storage for a more "fair" comparison, to account for firming requirements.

Remember, the wind and solar power systems make the Woke Kool-Aid that is served at the WEF.

Excellent promotion for on and offshore turbines, but conveniently ignores that however many turbines are erected, when the wind doesn't blow? there was a brief mention of energy storage, however in a world which increasingly needs electricity, totally reliable back up will be required. Therefore we need two power systems, ugly wind turbines with a much smaller number of mostly gas fired power stations. Here in the UK, only last November we had a month of virtually no wind, even in Scotland, so although we have a capacity to generate 40% of our energy from renewable's, in fact we were only achieving about 2% and had to import electricity and gas, when we have lots of our own underground and undersea. Much of our beautiful land and seascapes ruined with turbines and extra distribution pylons. Bring on Nuclear and in the meantime, use our own gas. All the while of course the world is projected to carry on using coal, often to manufacture turbines.

Very USA centric.

Nuclear is too expensive, yet we're all expected to purchase $100,000 electric cars, find expensive/inconvenient charging places if we are poor and live in apartments, all the while paying more for the electricity grid anyway because renewables with all the storage and other grid infrastructure required are expensive too!

Biwase hướng tới Tương lai Xanh - Công nghệ A.I - Tái tạo môi trường trở về với thiên nhiên đã là một phần trong triết lý của Biwase. Đó chính là Công nghiệp hóa - Hiện đại hóa - Tự động hóa dây chuyền sản xuất sử dụng 100% năng lượng tái tạo từ điện lò nhiệt, điện khí Biogas, điện mặt trời, điện gió và động cơ đốt trong chạy bằng khí hydro tách chiết trong quá trình điện phân nước thành khí oxy và khí hydro được Biwase khai thác từ các nguồn năng lượng tự nhiên xanh, nguyên vật liệu tái tạo sạch.. sản xuất điện phục vụ cho mọi hoạt động tại các nhà máy nhằm trung hòa carbon là xu hướng tất yếu cốt lõi của thương hiệu Biwase

Surely the two main drawbacks with VAWTs are: 1. Inability to create large swept areas thus limiting output and economies of scale. 2. Inability to feather blades making them vulnerable to high winds. Especially large turbines. Again limiting size and output. So, agreed, mainly good only for urban and low power markets, eg domestic.. I think a lot of people still believe they should be replacing large 5MW plus machines, but primarily for these two reasons, they cannot.

Nuclear is nothing but an LNP smoke screen ,, the private sector would never touch it

25th of April, we finished our first thermal storage for wind power in Denmark, Esbjerg. It's the first in the world on an MW scale, and as soon as it's tested a bit more, we will build all we need. There are other solutions, but reliability isn't really an issue anymore. It's just a little patience, and we will have these or other huge energy storage everywhere. These thermal storages with salt or sand are easy to construct, and we have plenty of both in the world.

is an explosion waiting or am i just imaging this....

i like your speech and being surprised about your "Dunkelflaute" pronouncement - perfect

The new coverment in the Netherlands want Nuclair energy also. But than 1Mega watt energy is at least 5 times more expensive.

We need to stop thinking of hydrogen as a fuel. It is really an electricity storage medium. A very inefficient storage medium. One could think of gasoline and diesel in the same way - all of them require enormous amounts of energy to produce the stuff we burn. The most efficient use of electricity is to use it directly to heat homes or in industrial applications, or stored in batteries for use in electric vehicles.

For those "believers", that all French engineers are "smarter" than German's, it could be said, such as ww1, 2, covid, 9/11, ukraine, gaza...(and so on), that they admit to "collaborate" in a naive lobbyist narrative. Those narratives, who sends millions to death, without a remorse.

I think the 'resistance' is coming more from that fact that EVs are being mandated. People DO NOT like to be told what to do. They certainly don't want to be told what they can buy and what they cannot ESPECIALLY when it's their money. EVs will indeed become our main transport but why not let the market / people decide. In the meantime- there are definitely legitimate infrastructure concerns with respect to charging units and their availability. Be mindful; Australia has LESS the 10% of the vehicles that The United States has. Huge difference in how the EV transition should be approached.

When you talk about “renewables” you lose Cred. I read about a statistician who drowned in a river only 500mm deep …..on average.

Honestly, as an Australian, I'm for Nuclear, but this was a very informative video and well put together. I've always had an open mind to things, so even if Nuclear isn't a viable option for Australia specifically, I am hoping it becomes a bigger consideration in the coming future for other countries.

Irrational “renewables” will continue to consume $Billions of scarce investment resources and never achieve the energy goal of producing 130%( allowing for unscheduled outages) of Demand 24/7/365 decade after decade. Batteries, pumped hydro, are thought bubbles to explain away the Not Fit For Purpose “renewables”. “renewables” is a good description for this folly. It will be a Painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge scenario. A conveyor belt of windmills, solar panels, batteries continually imported into Australia to replace continual wearing out of “renewable” hardware. Modular Nuclear is the short term clean energy source with fusion providing the ultimate energy solution. The Smart Money is using Australia’s Extraordinary array of energy resources at least for the next 50 years or more. Coal and Gas👌😁👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 BTW Australian (and World) Energy needs will more than double in the next 50 years as the world population will likely double again as it did in the last 50 years.

Yeah much more a concern in Denmark presumably… Tony Seba says essentially this is good in a way solar and wind sort of overbuilt can be used for AI etc 90+% of time🤯

Renewable is a scam these days

First we had a “Doppelgänger” then referred to the “Zeitgeist” and now we meander in the “Dunkelflaute”. Oh them Germans. Danke Rosie

This hasn't aged well. This week has been terrible for wind and solar. Wind especially.

It is pretty green compared to coal and gas, all the waste is easily contained. However I dont like the technology its flawed, even the industries numbers say so. What about thorium India is building 60 thorium reactors fairly quickly, they are safer and produce no products for bombs.

Having lived in eastern Australia off grid with solar and wind for thirty years I can advise it is a big issue. Where I lived (east of Canberra) you needed an effective eight days buffer (with input just 20% rated) at least once per year. This could be achieved a number of ways: Diesel back up generator. Over building the solar input by a large margin. Putting in a giant battery. Connecting to the grid. In the early days additional solar panels, connecting to the grid and a giant battery were too expensive, so diesel backup it was. In more recent years over building the solar became practical. With a solar PV array rated three times the nominal usage and MPPT controllers (in lieu of the original PWM) I was able to kiss the diesel backup good bye.

Dunkelflaute won't be a problem for Australia for a long time - www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/data-charts/australian-energy-production-fuel-type. Ultimately it shouldn't be either - huge country, tiny population, vast interior desert. Australia should be a poster child for renewables.

Certainly in the UK,only exists to milk massive subsidies from the taxpayer.

DUNKELFLAUTE is not even a problem in the country of the guys who invented the term

Australia at least has the advantage of a large sun arc east to west , as well as the variance in wind availability that goes with that. But it would mean Australia getting serious about spreading that infrastrucure right across Oz - still at least done right that should result in overcapacity that could be exported to Indonesia etc.

The focus of solar light on a material is limited by the melting point of the material. The higher the temperature, the higher the efficiency of the heat engine can be. If the light is focused on a plasma, there is no temperature limit. A gas turbine spins the air in a compressor. If there is a high voltage arc going through the spinning compressed air, it would make a disk of plasma. A plasma tends to absorb all manner of radiation. If the concentrated solar is focused onto a plasma disk, it would heat up the plasma. If some of the light goes through the disk, another disk or a number of disks might absorb most of the light.

Not a problem, as long as you have enough wires to transport the electricity countrywide... do you have that?

Wow, your speech starts to match the pace of Hank Green! Congrats! Btw, great video!

Nuclear power is seasonal. Yes hard to believe, but during hot weather the output reduces due the lower differential and more energy is needed for cooling as the water supply is warmer. Then of course you can have the problem like France had recently where one or more nuclear plants had to be shut down as the river suppling the water for cooling didn't have enough water in it. Particularly for Australia, this is a major potential problem due to its frequent droughts. It is also the reason why many nuclear plants are located close to the coast line.

Private utilities that have their own hydro resources do in fact use the facilities as peaking plants. They are encouraged to do so by regulators for all the reasons mentioned in the video. However, it does take some expertise in trading operations to take on the task, as there can be some risk associated with predicting all the market and precipitation variables. A company history that details the evolution of a trading floor is Portland General Electric (PGE). Upon closure of their Nuclear plant in 1993 they embarked on a course to learn how to trade power. This is the competency that interested Enron in their purchase of PGE. And of course, the story soured upon their involvement. Since those days, they have removed several of their dams in an effort to restore wild salmon runs.

The government can limit expenditure until a nuclear power project is operational and generating electricity by structuring power purchase agreements (PPAs) with a "pay-as-you-go" model, wherein payments commence only when the plant supplies electricity to the grid. During construction, the developer or operator bears the financing burden through private investment or loans. Once operational, the government purchases electricity based on actual generation, mitigating financial risk and incentivizing private sector investment while ensuring taxpayer funds are spent only on delivered services. This approach fosters efficient risk allocation, encourages project completion, and maintains accountability through performance monitoring outlined in the PPA.

How about debating professor Stephen Wilson who gave a very interesting presentation recently on the benefits of nuclear energy. Sorry Rosie but I think you have too much skin in the game.

In balancing the Grid, the easiest way to use pumped hydro is to use what Nature has already pumped up. If you have a large reservoir behind a dam, you can draw it down when more power is needed, and block it more when demand is less. Once you set out to pump it up actively, that has to be much more expensive. BTW gravity batteries have some of the same problem: You have to build a large structure to get the storage capacity, whereas a natural reservoir is already provided for you. The upside is that you can put it where you want it, at any scale.

Speaking of dumb.

Rosie, why let you speak your guest?

stopthesethings.com/

Most of the wind energy passes through the swept area of a wind turbine without being captured. This wind energy design might have a long list of advantages. If you had a huge multihull ship that is one kilometer square with the deck one hundred meters over the ocean and the sails extending another 300 meters into the air, it would capture a lot more of the wind energy. Dragging large propellers through the water captures the wind energy with much smaller turbines. Generators can be used in reverse as motors. In 30 mph winds, the amount of wind energy available from a 300 meter by one kilometer area is about 500 million watts. If five propellers on five hulls capture 40% of this, that is 200 million watts. Much or most of the ship could be made out of recycled plastic bottles and aluminum cans floating around by the millions of tons in giant trash islands in the middle of the ocean. Giant pressurized cylinders made out if PET plastic or galvanized aluminum would cut down on corrosion. Soda bottles used to be made out of glass until someone discovered how to make PET plastic that does not stretch under the pressure of carbonated beverages. A pressurized soda bottle is perhaps ten times stronger than steel for its weight. Another interesting possibility is capturing the wind energy in hurricanes. A sealed up soda bottle can easily withstand the wind and waves in a hurricane. The same with a sealed up soda can. PET plastic is flammable but if it was pressurized with CO2 it would be like a giant fire extinguisher. In 120 mph winds, the amount of wind power available would be about 30 billion watts or about 64 times more than in 30 mph winds because wind power increases by the cube of the wind velocity. A hurricane lasting a week would be over a year's worth of wind energy. Three hurricanes in a hurricane season would be about four years of wind energy. Plus the other tropical storms and ordinary winds would be maybe seven years worth of wind energy from the same area. If the ship is steered downwind and slightly towards the center of the hurricane, the hurricane might carry it for thousands of miles. Steering downwind allows the shop to surf down the waves instead of crashing into them with the bow. But such a huge ship might be little affected by even the waves in a hurricane. But how does a moving ship send electricity to shore through a power cable? Another option is using the electricity to synthesize ethanol from the hydrogen and CO2 in sea water. At 50% efficiency in a hurricane with 120 mph winds, 40% of the wind energy times 50% is six billion watts. That is about sixty gallons of ethanol per second or about $200 worth of ethanol per second. That adds up to about $120 million dollars in a hurricane lasting a week. If the deck is covered in solar panels, there are about a million kwh per day of solar energy available with reguilar solar panels. If concentrated solar is used and the heat used to synthesize ethanol, there is maybe four times as much ethanol capacity. Times 365 days is maybe a hundred million dollars worth of ethanol in a year. Added to the wind energy approaches a billion dollars a year in ethanol. Another interesting possibility is reducing the power of a hurricane to a level that is not dangerous and damaging. An average hurricane has about 1.5 trillion watts of wind power. If one ship absorbs ten billion watts,of that wind power, it would take about 150 ships to absorb most of the power. If the ship used large dishes to collect the solar energy, there is another interesting possibility. The ship could be turned into a microwave super weapon. 1000 dishes each firing a ten million Joule pulse is as much fire power as about two tons of TNT. If the air at the focus is raised to a high enough temperature, the air can be turned into a plasma bomb. The Xrays from the plasma might fry the inside of any target. The blast might be like slamming the target into a stone wall. If there were thousands of these ships in the global navies, it would equal total global oil production while preventing hurricanes and having the capacity to shoot down even nuclear missiles. And it would pay for itself and probably make a huge profit selling ethanol. Sailors have been known to like to have a drink once in a while. ua-cam.com/video/SWdi8lGXY7g/v-deo.htmlsi=54qYbYqRPeAQxHOw

And then theres the decomission costs of nuclear power plants, plus the very small risk of something going wrong,which is a worry for some people.

Declare yourself Rosie Barnes

If Australia was allowed to use nuclear power, especially Molten salt reactors, all these polluting wind turbines and Solar panels would not be needed as we would have reliable baseload power 24/7 for around 70 years.

I don’t mind offshore wind. But I think onshore wind should be made illegal. Turbines are arguably ugly, but they are undeniable huge, they are placed in places without any large structures so they stand out and they move so they attract the human eye. So they simply pollute the countryside to power already visually destroyed places like city’s. Oh, and there is a place in the Netherlands where turbines are placed to close to houses and the people there have serious health problems because of low frequency noise.