Finally an adult is standing up to lead. We should have gone the nuclear route 30 years ago when it was far less expensive to set up. However we can now look at some of the new advances in nuclear generation of energy.
Nuclear power is inescapable since it is the only feasible alternative for meeting Australia's energy needs if coal-fired power stations are to be replaced. Renewables have already cost around a trillion dollars and are unreliable, making them unsuitable for large enterprises that require consistent baseload electricity. Unless there is a two-tier system in which large corporations and wealthy individuals receive uninterrupted power because they can afford the rising prices, while you continue to experience frequent blackouts, constantly repairing your Chinese-made solar panels, and waiting for the wind to blow to power your house on a part-time basis.
It is about time this country brings in nuclear. Australia only has one nuclear reactor and it is solely for medical research! Nuclear energy doesn't require good weather conditions like lots of sun during day time in sunny locations like solar, or constant wind like with wind power, or has to be locked in very specific locations like with hydro. It can operate anywhere, anytime, all day, everyday. Nuclear despite the myths is one of if not the safest form of energy on the planet. Nuclear with additional solar, wind and hydro is simply the best solution for Australia.
Wind and solar just cannot produce enough electricity by themselves for our needs, according to the best experts. Australia will need nuclear as well and we might as well start now.
It is true that nuclear power is more expensive and probably would take longer to build, but wind and solar are, according to the experts, not going to be enough. If we want to try to have enough electricity, nuclear as well is essential!
@@colinmiddleton9444 In 20 years according to CSIRO, renewables at the cost of 120 billion will be 84% of the energy supply, providing energy all during this build phase.. but in 20 years when Nuclear is eventually built, not supplying any power in that time, it will cost between 116 to 600 billion (the 600 is for cost blow outs as seen in the UK) for only 3.6% of the energy supply.. there is a reason private investors wont touch Nuclear (unlike renewables which is seeing heavy private investment), tax payers will have to prop up these white elephants over 50years
gen cost was found to be inaccurate and doesnt gauge all the relevant information....instead of asking some professor of ??..but why dont you speak to ANSTO or the nuclear scientists who who are regarded as world leaders....
That knowledge which is used in Lucas Heights, a very small reactor to produce radioactive isotopes used in medicine is not applicable in the nuclear energy sector. You as those politicians in the liberal party do not have a clue about nuclear plants used in the energy sector. Australian expertise in that sector is 0 "zero". We should rely upon international expertise. | "Australia does not need to join the global nuclear energy renaissance and should focus on its advantages in renewable energy" the head of the International Energy Agency says.
Can Labor please tell the Australian public what Labors renewables is going to cost over the next 60 years! As Nuclear is cheaper by far, and an investment for 60+ years! A
Solar and Wind power on a large scale are a pipe dream and we need something more reliable. And since Australia is one of the bottom contributors to carbon emissions why do we have to be the leaders in reductions. They previously got all home owners to get solar panels, and now have huge Solar farms themselves causing a spike in the power grid during the day. So they charge home owners with solar contributing to the grid. It seems like they are after a new way to charge people more for less.
Look at the reality of so called renewable energy. The average life of a solar panel is 5 years, solar heating panels are useless in 4 years (47 units fitted with solar hot water all changed to instant gas within 5 years.) Wind turbines are breaking regularly with the extremely expensive blades needing regular replacement. The only reason its renewable is because the infrastructure needs renewing every 5 years😂😂😂😂
How did this comment get 5 likes? Solar panels last between 20 and 30 years (industry standard is 25-30 years in Australia). Some well-made newer model panels can last up to 40 years
My solar has been generating plenty of kilowatts every day since 2011 - and they havent been washed once. You are talking bull, something you know nothing about.
@@BurnerAccount3 Yes it does the CSIRO The UN and the world bank have all done the costing nuclear power will double or triple Australians power bills.
@@BurnerAccount3 CSIRO gen cost , CSIRO estimates nuclear power to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than wind and solar power backed by battery... World bank says 9 billion to build one nuclear power plant and cost of Australian power would be up to 3 times higher.
I am not sure if people have noticed what is going on in other countries right now, but many counties are preparing for small scale nuclear conflict in Europe. I asked Chat GTP 4 what would the effect of that on solar power generation and this is what He/She/ Its or other told me. Nuclear Winter: A nuclear war, even on a small scale, would release large amounts of soot and particulate matter into the atmosphere. These particles could block sunlight, leading to a phenomenon known as "nuclear winter." Studies suggest that a regional nuclear conflict could inject 5-15 million tons of soot into the stratosphere, reducing solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface by 10-20% or more. This reduction in sunlight would significantly decrease the effectiveness of solar panels for an extended period, potentially lasting several months to years . Climate Change: The injection of soot and aerosols into the atmosphere would not only block sunlight but also alter weather patterns. This could lead to cooling of the surface temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, further affecting solar power generation by increasing cloud cover and reducing sunlight . Physical and Environmental Damage Infrastructure Damage: Direct impacts of nuclear explosions could damage solar power infrastructure. This includes physical destruction of solar panels, inverters, and grid connections. Radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas, making maintenance and repair of solar installations hazardous and challenging . Long-Term Environmental Impact: Contamination from radioactive fallout could render large regions uninhabitable and unsuitable for the deployment of solar panels for decades. Soil and water contamination could further affect the structural integrity and efficiency of solar panels . Economic and Societal Impacts Supply Chain Disruptions: A nuclear conflict could severely disrupt the global supply chains for solar panel manufacturing, including the mining and processing of raw materials, production of solar cells, and transportation of finished products. Economic instability and potential trade embargoes or sanctions could further hinder the production and deployment of solar technology. Lets consider that if the USA goes to war with it largest adversary, China, which is looking very likely in the future. Australia would have to decide which side we want to be on. I think that the fact we could not defend ourselves from an attack from China, Iran or North Korea all of which have or will have intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles, that a similar fate awaits our solar electricity generation capacity. Even a high altitude EMP would wipe out solar farms leading to wide scale black outs and societal chaos. China is producing 90% of the worlds green tech hardware yet they have 56 nuclear reactors and are building another 25 with more to come. They are perfecting the construction of SMR reactors, because they know where the future lies, and are most likely going to be the suppliers of the worlds energy tech long after solar has reached its peak.
This has got nothing to do with energy generation by nuclear power. Just another puerile attempt to besmirch the very thought of going the logical direction of using nuclear power for energy generation.
Finally an adult is standing up to lead. We should have gone the nuclear route 30 years ago when it was far less expensive to set up. However we can now look at some of the new advances in nuclear generation of energy.
Haven't we looked already ? Doesn't Lucas Heights keep-up with the rest of the world ?
Nuclear power is inescapable since it is the only feasible alternative for meeting Australia's energy needs if coal-fired power stations are to be replaced. Renewables have already cost around a trillion dollars and are unreliable, making them unsuitable for large enterprises that require consistent baseload electricity. Unless there is a two-tier system in which large corporations and wealthy individuals receive uninterrupted power because they can afford the rising prices, while you continue to experience frequent blackouts, constantly repairing your Chinese-made solar panels, and waiting for the wind to blow to power your house on a part-time basis.
It is about time this country brings in nuclear. Australia only has one nuclear reactor and it is solely for medical research! Nuclear energy doesn't require good weather conditions like lots of sun during day time in sunny locations like solar, or constant wind like with wind power, or has to be locked in very specific locations like with hydro. It can operate anywhere, anytime, all day, everyday. Nuclear despite the myths is one of if not the safest form of energy on the planet. Nuclear with additional solar, wind and hydro is simply the best solution for Australia.
Wind and solar just cannot produce enough electricity by themselves for our needs, according to the best experts. Australia will need nuclear as well and we might as well start now.
I can not wait for the adults to get back into leadership in the next election.
No Chalmers the dumbest policy put forward ever will always be "The Voice"
Wasn't policy it was a proposal for a voice to parliament. Shows you don't know the difference
If this gets successful, Peter will be remembered in history pages of Australian Energy
Labor would rather spend a trillion dollars on unreliable renewables.
Nuclear is more expensive and takes much longer to build
It is true that nuclear power is more expensive and probably would take longer to build, but wind and solar are, according to the experts, not going to be enough. If we want to try to have enough electricity, nuclear as well is essential!
@@colinmiddleton9444 In 20 years according to CSIRO, renewables at the cost of 120 billion will be 84% of the energy supply, providing energy all during this build phase.. but in 20 years when Nuclear is eventually built, not supplying any power in that time, it will cost between 116 to 600 billion (the 600 is for cost blow outs as seen in the UK) for only 3.6% of the energy supply.. there is a reason private investors wont touch Nuclear (unlike renewables which is seeing heavy private investment), tax payers will have to prop up these white elephants over 50years
Blackout Bowen is sinking Labor.
gen cost was found to be inaccurate and doesnt gauge all the relevant information....instead of asking some professor of ??..but why dont you speak to ANSTO or the nuclear scientists who who are regarded as world leaders....
That knowledge which is used in Lucas Heights, a very small reactor to produce radioactive isotopes used in medicine is not applicable in the nuclear energy sector. You as those politicians in the liberal party do not have a clue about nuclear plants used in the energy sector. Australian expertise in that sector is 0 "zero". We should rely upon international expertise. | "Australia does not need to join the global nuclear energy renaissance and should focus on its advantages in renewable energy" the head of the International Energy Agency says.
Can Labor please tell the Australian public what Labors renewables is going to cost over the next 60 years! As Nuclear is cheaper by far, and an investment for 60+ years! A
Coaltion's policy is estimated to cost up to $600 Billion and will deliver about 3.8% of our energy needs by 2050. This is horrible value for money.
Over a trillion dollars and it wont be able to provide reliable power. The largest waste of tax dollars in history.
Solar and Wind power on a large scale are a pipe dream and we need something more reliable. And since Australia is one of the bottom contributors to carbon emissions why do we have to be the leaders in reductions. They previously got all home owners to get solar panels, and now have huge Solar farms themselves causing a spike in the power grid during the day. So they charge home owners with solar contributing to the grid. It seems like they are after a new way to charge people more for less.
BRING IT ON!! PETER!! GO AWAY!! TANYA AND CHRIS. 2 LABOUR TAXPAYER BLUDGERS!!
Look at the reality of so called renewable energy. The average life of a solar panel is 5 years, solar heating panels are useless in 4 years (47 units fitted with solar hot water all changed to instant gas within 5 years.) Wind turbines are breaking regularly with the extremely expensive blades needing regular replacement.
The only reason its renewable is because the infrastructure needs renewing every 5 years😂😂😂😂
How did this comment get 5 likes? Solar panels last between 20 and 30 years (industry standard is 25-30 years in Australia). Some well-made newer model panels can last up to 40 years
My solar has been generating plenty of kilowatts every day since 2011 - and they havent been washed once. You are talking bull, something you know nothing about.
We need energy from all sources to keep Australia moving and restart manufacturing
Nuclear fuel cost double or triple s the price of electricity.
@@maxsmart645
No, it doesn't.
@@BurnerAccount3
Yes it does the CSIRO The UN and the world bank have all done the costing nuclear power will double or triple Australians power bills.
@@BurnerAccount3
CSIRO gen cost , CSIRO estimates nuclear power to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than wind and solar power backed by battery...
World bank says 9 billion to build one nuclear power plant and cost of Australian power would be up to 3 times higher.
All have there Heads in the sand
I am not sure if people have noticed what is going on in other countries right now, but many counties are preparing for small scale nuclear conflict in Europe. I asked Chat GTP 4 what would the effect of that on solar power generation and this is what He/She/ Its or other told me.
Nuclear Winter:
A nuclear war, even on a small scale, would release large amounts of soot and particulate matter into the atmosphere. These particles could block sunlight, leading to a phenomenon known as "nuclear winter."
Studies suggest that a regional nuclear conflict could inject 5-15 million tons of soot into the stratosphere, reducing solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface by 10-20% or more. This reduction in sunlight would significantly decrease the effectiveness of solar panels for an extended period, potentially lasting several months to years .
Climate Change:
The injection of soot and aerosols into the atmosphere would not only block sunlight but also alter weather patterns. This could lead to cooling of the surface temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, further affecting solar power generation by increasing cloud cover and reducing sunlight .
Physical and Environmental Damage
Infrastructure Damage:
Direct impacts of nuclear explosions could damage solar power infrastructure. This includes physical destruction of solar panels, inverters, and grid connections.
Radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas, making maintenance and repair of solar installations hazardous and challenging .
Long-Term Environmental Impact:
Contamination from radioactive fallout could render large regions uninhabitable and unsuitable for the deployment of solar panels for decades. Soil and water contamination could further affect the structural integrity and efficiency of solar panels .
Economic and Societal Impacts
Supply Chain Disruptions:
A nuclear conflict could severely disrupt the global supply chains for solar panel manufacturing, including the mining and processing of raw materials, production of solar cells, and transportation of finished products.
Economic instability and potential trade embargoes or sanctions could further hinder the production and deployment of solar technology.
Lets consider that if the USA goes to war with it largest adversary, China, which is looking very likely in the future. Australia would have to decide which side we want to be on. I think that the fact we could not defend ourselves from an attack from China, Iran or North Korea all of which have or will have intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles, that a similar fate awaits our solar electricity generation capacity. Even a high altitude EMP would wipe out solar farms leading to wide scale black outs and societal chaos.
China is producing 90% of the worlds green tech hardware yet they have 56 nuclear reactors and are building another 25 with more to come.
They are perfecting the construction of SMR reactors, because they know where the future lies, and are most likely going to be the suppliers of the worlds energy tech long after solar has reached its peak.
Im sorry but what does a nuclear fallout out from ChatGPT have to do with Nuclear Energy in Aus
This has got nothing to do with energy generation by nuclear power. Just another puerile attempt to besmirch the very thought of going the logical direction of using nuclear power for energy generation.
Nuclear powder 😂😂