Why Labor don't want a fact-based debate on energy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- Senator Fawcett challenges some of the Albanese Government's rhetoric on nuclear energy.
Read the OECD-NEA report: www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_6939...
Keep up to date with Senator Fawcett's work:
Facebook: / senatorfawcett
Instagram: / senatorfawcett
Website: senatorfawcett.com.au/
*Your feedback is welcome, but please be respectful of others. Profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments will be deleted.
The Labor/Greens policy is driven by ideology and not facts.
Renta activists.🤭
This is the best shell & pea game in Australia, just like selling cigarets to kids, allbullshit & no ethics
And this pathetic senator is paid by GINA and the minerals council
"Follow the Science" - remember being told that?
Follow the money
Facts are always inconvenient when you're bending the truth.
As per batty Al Gore!
Well said Senator, time to power Australia's future
How's Chernobyl going for you curly? And three mile island.
@@MikeJones-mz5ig ok boomer
Yep. That's what happens BOOM.@@danielmaher964
@@MikeJones-mz5igAre you that old blue?Do you have a mobile phone?
@@lloydsingline340 old enough to remember the BOOM in each. And the nuclear destroyed Pacific Islands. Gladstone and the Barrier Reef next.
Thank you for bringing this to light shows how cooked this labour government is
Anything but affordable energy for the lucky doormat country.
Well said
are you a parrot ???
If the reactors are built at the same sites as the coal-fired power stations the switch yards and transmission lines are all there already, we can even have a no-outage switch over coal to nuclear.
Very true, what the solar and wind advocates are NOT saying is 40% of the cost of Wind and solar farms is added rewiring and switching.
You easy mate
Too easy mate
That’s why Labor are paying for a solar manufacturing factory at a coal power station. So it can’t be used.
Thorium fueled, Liquid Salt cooled, Nuclear Reactors are far cheaper to build as they do not need an expensive high pressure ferro concrete containment pressure vessel or several ferro concrete chimneys that vent steam.
This is because thorium reactors operate at normal atmospheric air pressure making them quicker to build, another advantage is they automatically shut themself down if a problem occurs, so are far safer than uranium fueled reactors.
Only 3% of the energy is extracted from uranium rods before they have to be replaced and be stored as high level atomic waste for 100,000 years.
Whereas 97% of the energy can be extracted from Thorium fuel.
The world has sufficient thorium reserves to power nuclear reactors for 100,000 years.
Labor is only interested in spin, not facts.
This video is spin. This bloke is either dumb, telling lies, or both. For $7t you could build the USA interstate highway (47,000 miles) system 15 times over.
Even South Africa have had nuclear energy for 30 odd years with no problem, this country and politicians blows my mind, how dumb are we
Reports should not have any terms of reference. That’s like saying tell us what we want to hear.
They should open, transparent, impartial, meta-study based and balanced.
Trust Lab, Watermelons and Teals.
One word China.
Three letters CCP.
one phrase Efficient effective and reliable build from a country with more engineers than the population of Australia
China has over 3000 nuclear power plants, they want to build another 1000 plus. It is just that their plants are sub-standard.
CHINA WANTS AUSTRALIA 10,000 spies are here already !
@@mikerussell3298 You mean China? The nation, which is in the process of building 130 Nuclear power stations, while planning to move away from "renewables" but happy to keep their factories working for suckers in Australia.
Nuclear is being used all over the world and is a safe option. Nuclear technology has come a long way.
It is also the only logical green energy if we want to electrify *more* and move away from coal. Renewables are never replacing the the largest grid generation - coal fired power. When one looks at installed capacity vs terawatts generated on the NEM, coal power is at a far lower installed capacity for a vastly larger TW generated because it runs 24 hours 7 days a week. The actual generation of coal is also no where near 100% capacity. Any talk of the cost of renewables needs to add storage costs and 20 year replacement costs instead of this childish, dishonest conversation we are having now. Australia need power stations, not a money stream that enriches the politicians and the crony companies that win contracts or are subsidised by tax payer money.
Try telling that to Albosleasy and Bowin
safe????????????????????????? you must be using ice
As Dick Smith said we are destroying the environment to save the environment. Wind and solar an on going cost as they need full replacement every 10 to 15 years. Wake up Australian you’re being lied to.
@@user-fz7zu7no9o second safest form of energy after the humble solar panel. The statistics make that perfectly clear. Assertions without numbers are merely opinions. Deaths per TWh or energy produced. Nuclear is safe than wind and 150x safer than the coal we use now.
Thank you senator, hopefully with some sensible information the voting majority will see the problems this Labor govt is bringing too Australias energy needs, reliability and the economy before it is too late.
With the damage the PM & Labor have inflicted on us in the last two years it would be catastrophic to see them in for two more.
Thank you Senator. They don't want a fact-based debate because science always wins.
Some of their projection charts show battery reserves at less than 10% by 2050. That's either a joke or an alarming concern. Our industry alone would need up to 14 day reserves, if we end up following their projections we'll be in a lot of trouble in a short amount of time. I consider energy security; national security. Like most Australians do.
We need politicians that think 100 years ahead across all sectors. If we're not improving the centuries ahead then we're wasting time.
Renewables have a purpose, but it's not powering cities. Their best use is to produce hydrogen from the ocean for us to power our current combustion engines, which would lower our imports of crude oil & have a positive effect on our economy. We need more people thinking 100 years ahead. Australians deserve it.
Thanks again for the help you've done.
Thinking ahead would have meant keeping base load coal power running and up to date until the renewable debate was settled once and for all. The issue is that both sides of government have been happy to gut our energy systems to create a crisis that the holy grail renewables are going to rush in and fix ... At an unprecedented cost to us Australians which will for the most part end up in the coffers of overseas countries. We have been had again and will continue to be had until people stop being sucked in by BS foreign wealth transfer policy fronted by bodies like the UN.
This is 100% correct. High power, erratic power delivery from wind turbines should be used for green hydrogen production.
@@kriztov265the only reason Morrison followed the pressure from the Greens/ left misdirected ideology etc, now they've all been proved wrong.
@@Ulrich_von_Jungingen it makes sense to store variable surplus energy as hydrogen. No battery required, no transmission lines, and out at sea so nobody has to look at it. If I was doing it I'd repurpose an old oil rig to produce the gas & park it right next to the offshore farm. Turn a machine that's caused so many ecological disasters into a fuel generator that emits oxygen as a waste product.
Labour’s misinformation/disinformation policy working at its best.
Where is E Karen on their misinformation
There's only one Voice worth a damn, and that's the voice of reason. Here is an excellent example of it.
My ACT "100% renewable" electricity bill is going up 12%, even though wholesale electricity prices went down slightly. 9% of the increase was from the mandated investments in more renewables. So given it will take decades of such investments to reach 100% renewables (real 100%, not the BS line they run in the ACT), but renewables technologies require replacement every 20-30 years, we will NEVER not have to pay for additional investments. 100% renewables WILL ALWAYS cost more because of the infrastructure renewal costs. Whereas Nuclear can last 3 if not 4 times as long. As with all things Labor, they ignore the economic reality when it gets in the way of their ideological fantasy.
Why can't Labor understand the science? Because they're just a bunch of left wing ex unionist thugs following their destructive ideology.
Time the Labor party and the Greens party pulled their heads out of the sand and got into the real world and started thinking whats best for our people and our nation as a whole.
Labor do not do things based on facts... only on their wimpy feelings
And fairly dust!!!
Well said
It's an irrational fear of nuclear isotopes 🤪
Most nuclear isotopes are reused back into modern smaller burner style reactors, most anti nuclear people think all nuclear is using Simpsons style 1950's water cooled reactors designed for old submarines.
great presentation, no panic, no scaremongering, no raised voice, just facts.
To truly be human you have to be willing to put your views to debate. To lie and obfuscate like Labor and Greens is so selfish its sickening and sociopathic.
Renewables include all the subsidies and thousand klms lines not included in their costing
Thanks for your commitment to sharing the truth. It’s also very nice to have someone speak eloquently and not shout or name call.
Lyle Lanley's monorail is a better investment than "renewables".
Nuclear is already the cheapest option by far, and the price can and will get even better.
I have tried to put this on X to make Australians aware but obviously somehow mis information is now factual information. This needs to be put on main stream t.v. So everyone is aware of what is actually going on
Sounds like nuclear would also support Australian jobs in the extraction and management of fuel, rather than overseas ones in selling us millions of turbines and solar panels. Maybe even give us a shed load of excess capacity to support domestic industry growth? We can dream
Bravo! You have my vote!
It's simple. The ALP thinks 'party first' rather than 'nation first'
Thank you.
Never heard of you before, but you popped up on my feed. What you say is obvious to anyone who questions MSM because they looked it up.
WELL DESIGNED PRESENTED SPEECH THANK YOU SENATOR FAWCETT
Intelligent concise 100% correct why isnt he leading?
Thank you
Labor should be ashamed of themselves - NEVER have I seen a worse Party !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Labor caught out yet again ................
Liebor wants renewables because most of the technology come from CHINA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Senator. It has been many years since I have listened to such a succinct delivery. However I fear it has fallen on deaf ears as it does not support the prescribed narrative.
about time someone said something about what goes on, so many times i told people statistics are manipulated, so if you want the truth you have to do your own research.
Ah yes, the UAE... where they installed 5600MWh of nuclear for a bit over 36 Billion Aud. Which doesn't include the most recent refinancing. So more like 45 Billion Aud. It took close to 10 years to build the 4 reactors. Oh, and the design contract was signed in 2009. Sounds like the GenCost report was actually a bit light on the construction time and costs if you ask me.
Well said. Factual, to the point and a plan. More than the green ideologists like whats wong Penny can do.
Your LNP government said nuclear energy was too expensive and not an option when they were in power. What changed.
Keep the facts coming
They don't want to upset there ex Union officials and ex Labor ministers that are running our superannuation funds that are investing heavily in to the renewable industries,
Listen Australia and think, will I vote Labour back in? Sadly it concerns me that so many Australian couldn't tell you who their local MP is, or, define the acronyms MP. That's why Labour are their. Sad, sad.
The problem is the power issue we are seeing now. All of this talk about projects that are a decade or more off is in no way addressing the issue we now have of energy shortage and energy cost. Like it or not the dismantling of coal before there was enough public debate and genuine financial consensus on renewables and now nuclear is the problem. This is an inherant issue with our governments on both sides which needs to be stamped out by the public. This country was pushed into a world agenda which was designed to to tie us to systems Not manufactured in this country Not intellectually owned by this country and Not supported by this country. The public have been brainwashed by the belief that these systems are green when in fact they employ more carbon footprint effort than just mining and burning coal a fact that no renewable chanter will openly debate on as they cannot win they just mumble and shuffle off. We as a nation should have seen the writing on the wall when government privatized energy it was never a good move and in fact removed the responsibility from government transferring it to subcontractors a ploy to let government off of the hook when it gets tough. Essential services should always be the property of the people run by the people.
The arguments of
Oh look at what happened at chanoble would be the same as banning all cars because of One crash😮
Not saying I’m anti-nuclear, but that’s not the argument… Inform yourself before you take a stance
Why the Coalition doesn't want to talk about cancer rates in Fukushima.
When you build 5MW of Nuclear you get 5MW of power from day 1 for 24/7 for approx 100 years. 5MW of renewables is a definite maybe, estimated at around 30 to 35% of the time & re placable every 15 to 20 years. The CSIRO debunking Nuclear is a manufactured outcome by Bowen.
Please let us know which green/renewable energy company’s share Albanese invested in. He buy I buy, he sell I sell.
The federal government should invite Kirk Sorensen from FLIBE to give Parliament a talk on Thorium fueled, Liquid Salt cooled, Nuclear Reactors which are far cheaper to build and are far safer than uranium fueled reactors.
Simple ….
Facts based information will bring Labor’s lies out in the open!!!
Unfortunately Labor simply is not willing to do the work. The issue of cheap electricity is falling short and labor remains committed to ignore the obvious and burden the population with higher cost and generational debt. Labor is loosing its base.
Nuclear should be part of the mix. Ridiculous that it isn't even being considered.
Where do you stand on H-FCEV vs BEV David?
It's the people who decide, referendum, not the clown PM.
Ignoring the build costs, the cost to just generate power for a nuclear plant is over $250/mwh compared to our current costs between $50-150, how will nuclear ever be cheaper than renewables? Even the partially built SMR plant being built in Idaho has been cancelled because NuScale Power couldn't find customers to commit because the generation costs are too high.
It's easy to say Labor is manipulating numbers, but thew few numbers provided by the LNP have already been proven wrong or irrelevant. Like using Canada to claim it's so cheap, when their plants are mostly 50+ years old and being looked at for replacement with, you guessed it, renewables.
To the Australian fairdinkum people Say s IAM that Iam Amen and amen
ALP policy is gas peakers, LNP policy is nuclear. Both will work (technically), but the Greens and Teals and many independents will oppose both gas and nuclear, and wave their hand at expensive energy storage which will be unaffordable because of the need for overcapacity (which is too complicated for their followers to understand). It's not climate wars, it's energy ideology wars. Expect blackouts.
The Greens (a Party started by a bunch of Communists) have an anti-nuclear policy. Labor needs the Greens preferences. Thus Labor are anti-nuclear - contra to the nation's needs. Politics before the People!
The French are not pinching themselves, they are building 6 new and planned 8 more nuclear power plants. It should be noted that they currently have 96 reactors - some of them are undergoing modernization and renovation.
Further to that they export their power to places like Germany because they're renewable energy cannot meet the demand.
Last year, many of the French nuclear plants had to half their production because it was too hot, and the water discharged into the rivers would have killed all the fish. How are we planning on keeping Australian reactors cool? We have enough water issues as it is.
@MrSteveroehrs correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that done to protect the fish as the river was naturally hot due to the weather and it had nothing at all to do with the plant. I thought they cut the power to ensure they didn't impact it.
For Transmission lines for renewable s to the Australian fairdinkum people Say s IAM that Iam Amen and amen 🙏
Nuclear power, is definitely the way forward. Clean reliable. And in a thorium liquid salt reactors. Very safe. With renewable energy, you are taking us back to the cave man days.
Nuclear is going to run longer than the sun???....🤣🤣🤣🤣
😉 the sun is a nuclear reactor though lol
@@garryowen2811 great so it's a nuclear reactor and it's over 200,000,000 light years away!! Win-win for solar!!
Wong is wrong again.
So when you do the comparison of report - so what.
Whose telling lies and what - can Aust tax payers expect lower taxes.
Crickets !
It must be so frustrating that the universe of science does not conform to your political belief.
Why not on every subject? If you sont consider Labor and liberal as evil by now, it's because you are too.
Wow nice speech, but just one question senator... Did CSIRO's costings match or are well correlated with other investigations into the current price of Nuclear Power... you know checking it against the REAL WORLD... oh lookie USA Nuclear Power to the consumer costs $0.47 AUD / KW and the average reactor is 42 years old, and in the EU the average cost of Nuclear power is 0.64 AUD/KW with their reactors being 32 years old on average... Why does the age matter because according to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Capital cost return for Nuclear power is about 70% of the cost to the consumer. As Proof of this Nuclear power in the 90's in the USA was about 30% higher when adjusted for inflation in todays dollars... So NEW Australian Reactors will be Much more expensive than the USA and EU numbers... This is why GE etc wont come and Fleece us for 50 years selling us Nuclear power, the Power price will be more than the MARKET CAN BARE ! and trust me folks those multinationals love to fleece a society for everything they can, for as long as they can.
Ps to the Australian fairdinkum people vote the Airbus and each way albo Labor party and Black out Bowen and greens and teal green out for the Australian fairdinkum people and Australian Constitution in Jesus Christ Name Says IAM that Iam Amen and amen
Why don’t you and your party actually provide some facts on your nuclear policy?
WOW .... talk about anything but what matters! Maybe you can explain why most of the developed nations are backing away from Nuclear power. Germany wants to decommission all the ones it has.
5:02 😂do certain polititions have investment this ludicrist renewables follow the money
You are not interested in a fact based discussion. If you were, you would already have published in a peer reviewed publication. You have the audacity, like all politicians, of presenting opinion as fact with ZERO evidence. Please kindly sit down, and let the grown ups speak .
US energy authority had a 2023 report also citing nuclear power is the most expensive energy source by at least double that of Solar/Wind!! And are closing a number of their reactors!! Not to mention the toxic emissions from mining uranium!!
arguments just dont stack up for nuclear energy in Australia
Really, renewables never meant to fully power a country so what’s your alternative
@@Aussie-Nan renewables can be part of the answer and stop our reliance on coal and gas, nuclear will never get the yes vote in OZ and will be an albatross around Duttons neck
Wind turbines need a diesel generator to start them. They take up so much space and the blades are non recyclable. Look around the world and you will find piles of the blades dumped. Maintenance costs are also extremely high. Solar farms depending on their location can take up a lot of valuable farming land.
You’re comparing the cost of some reactors that will provide a fraction of the total gross capacity to the modelled cost to transition the entire economy to net zero. Cmon mate, please just compare apples to apples. It’s embarrassing.
It all needs to be out in the open with honest and non-emotional debate, backed up by scientific and professional evidence. The debate should not be bound by constraint.
No one is your 'mate' stop it with cringe colloquial rhetorical nonsense based on your condescending notion of what you think is right, the debate must happen, the world stops for no man, people or a country regarding energy security.
@@kalidesu if you don’t like ‘mate’ maybe you prefer ‘buddy’ or ‘champ’. The debate must happen in a manner that presents facts in the correct context and without bias, otherwise valid conclusions can not be reached. Would you agree with that, buddy?
Pps 600 trillions of dollars to the Australian fairdinkum people Say s IAM that Iam Amen and amen
We don't want nuclear
You mean YOU don’t want nuclear, that’s different to WE ya boofhead
Maybe wind & solar is so popular because I am led to believe Union run Industry Super funds are heavily invested in them and don’t want to lose the gravy train that Labor are pushing.