Canadian here, ok here's the deal.... we will give you Nuclear reactors IF you'll take Trudeau as well....any takers?? NO, we'll pay the transportation fee's... awe c'mon man.
Yes, great work Australia,work with our neighbors and us ,you need to start the paperwork for regulations.Copy Canada not the US,Canada's nuclear industry is guided by safety while here in the US are rule based. US Canada working very closely together nowAustyralia doesn't need to do anything they can just buy one from one of th companies we give a license to. But you need to pass laws setting p regulations,cheaper power than coal, and very clean.
Yeah Canada belongs to China, and you will like it and won't have any more choice then you'll learn Chinese soon you'll say China #1. th-cam.com/video/LZs-r7_YvhE/w-d-xo.html
@1488 Dental Update: $970m towards the deployment of SMRs. Not that throwing money everywhere is a good solution but it shows at least some level of commitment. In this area, the Canadian Libs have done fine with a fairly eco-pragmatic approach.
Its the right wingers in Canada that drag Canada down. They screwed up defennce cancelled aircraft development. Canadian advancements have always been under libersls including nuclear. Conservative are a bunch of hack who have never held a job outside politics usually recruited and groomed by right wing interests. . Conservative pushed for the longest time there was no green house effect and hung the economy out based on oil.
Yes the Australian people have been failed by successive governments regarding both energy and water infrastructure for the past sixty years. Disgusting socialist stifling of vision and action that has been a total disregard of the people by elected and paid for wasters.
BAD DATA= BAD POLICY! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN! AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM??? HUMMM
@Diane M its stored in a facility, in Australia we could convert old underground mines to hold waste. The volume of waste material generated from the reactor is really quite small compared to the energy released. All the waste of a reactor over 60 years would filli about half a swimming pool.
Yes,but new designs are better,CANDU are expensive and take long to build ,Canada and US have great new reactors.AEC a sodium cooled fast reactor NuScale .
So are hydro dams, and they can often cause more harm if targeted during war. Just look at the Banqiao Dam collapse, it killed nearly a quarter of a million people. But you don’t see people protesting Snowy 2.0
@@Zan_Jayna well if the Australian government stop's sticking its nose in other people's shit we wouldn't have to worry about war. Anyways you should be more worried about all those isis women and there future terrorist kids living next door to ya than an all out war.
That makes no difference the Carbon from Chinese plants affects us all,it makes no difference what one country does, progress starts with taxing Chinese goods to get to negative growth. Every day Carbon pollution increases, it would take a large scale nuclear exchange to get temperature levels down and less CO2 released each year.
Chinese have a dam that makes 20GW,who cares? The pollution from the coal has caused worldwide droughts and they aren't making 20% of their normal hydro, plus hydro is very dangerous while nuclear has killed no one in the US the Chinese drowned 200K in 1975 when a dam broke, they are so corrupt and money oriented more hydro dams will fail.
BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN! AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
@@paulbedichek2679 both reactors are needed. The conventional reactor, which has waste that has a radioactive life of 10-20 thousand years. Then there are Thorium reactors that can take the waste and squeeze as much of the energy as possible from the uranium reaction. The waste from this is radioactive for 5-6 hundred years, huge difference, plus it is no longer suitable for weapons grade for bombs. Thorium reactors are smaller, can be the size of a large warehouse, and because they are safer by not operating under the extreme atmospheric pressures of the cooling systems. The petrochemical and refining and co-generation facilities already have the land, the security, and safety training. As less petroleum is needed due to the electric vehicles, appliances, they can turn to modular reactors for needed power generation for now and the future. This will help keep jobs steady instead of laying off people as demand for gasoline drops into next 40 years. I imagine it will be easier to get the permits from governments to add capabilities to a existing industrial facility, than for permits and cost of 4,000 acres of land to build 2-4 conventional reactors somewhere.
@@billyhndrsn4542 It isn't there fuel, its the reactor, for waste reduction sodium cooled fast spectrum reactors will fission the troublesome actinides better. Nothing wrong with Th fueled reactors but the general public has misinterpreted the engineering. We can use U in slow or fast spectrum FLiBe cooled molten salt reactors. Then there is TRISO no need to ever open the fuel case for the trillions and trillions of years the universe will exist,in addition, these are hotter. Somewhat conventional NuScale will be making the biggest difference in the next few years. Also HALEU is a big area of interest for fuel in the near term. The Chinese LFTR is 2MW thermal a test that will run for years, testing, they worked 24/7 for the past 10 years to get to this point the Mercury needed to enrich the Li7 is one of the most environmentally destructive, but hats off to them. In the US we'll use Terrestrial Energy molten salt which can use Th but only for part of the fuel mix. Only NuScale has a license. They cost in the billions as you must pay$225/hr to talk to the NRC and they talk for millions of hours.
@@paulbedichek2679 there is room for all the types of nuclear reactors needed for the growing demand for power into the future. Safety of the modular reactors over conventional because they do not have to operate under such atmospheric pressures to keep them cooled from a runaway chain reaction. In conventional reactors, the problems have always been in the cooling under extreme pressures failing. Thorium is used to restart the chain reaction to extract more energy from the uranium, thereby turning it back to U234 or U235 which is more highly radioactive, but for a way shorter duration than U238 or Plutonium, good thing because it is not bomb materials. We both agree that nuclear is the future for power needs well into the future. I only hope that it can be done more safely, cost effective, and with a purpose of making energy independence for all nations and their needs. I am going to do as much study on these reactors as I can to keep up, hopefully. Desalination plants, we better start building them. That is another crises we shall face shortly, clean drinkable water.
@@billyhndrsn4542 You need to educate yourself concerning nuclear energy, interesting schematic on Next big Future,Brian Wang does a pretty good job showing the complexities of the differing types.
@Diane M: The Nuclear waste generated from the Palo Verde nuclear plant about 30 mins away from my house is stored in site. The amount of waste generated after 30 years is stored on site in cylinder shaped concrete containers. The amount of waste is has produced in the 30 years of operation takes up about the size of a football field. Maybe you should do some research?
BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN! AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
Please go back to those Waste containers. In the U.S. we have had safe, other than a couple problems like Three Mile Island, Nuclear power. Until it's time to do away with all the spent fuel. This and dismantling the old plants has been a bit of a problem. Before you go with Nuclear power you may want to think ahead a bit and come up with an answer to the waste disposal problem.
A number of errors in this. The British did move their nuclear bomb program to Canada during the war and it was incorporated into the American bomb program as was the Canadian. But they did not start the nuclear industry in Canada. Canada had already completed a nuclear pile one week after the Americans did under Fermi. Britain never did. At the start of the nuclear bomb program the only urainium refning operation in North America was in Port Hope Ontario and the only heavy water facility was in Trail BC. The British certainly added significantly but they were no were close to starting it..Canada built its first reactor in in 1944 and still provides much of the world with medical nuclear isotopes(note a Canadian program developed the use of radiation treatment for cancer). By 1946 Canada had developed the most advanced system for separating plutonium. At this point it only the US was ahead of Canada in nuclear developmet. It supplied the intial plutonium and some of the tech for the British bomb. One of the leaders for the French program also came out of the Canadian program. Also the newscast failed to mention that the reactors Canada already has are heavy water reactors are completely Canadian design and no one else has this type of reactor unless copying the Canadian design. It has higher initial cost but lower operating cost and does not need enrichment to operate unlike the ones designed by other countries. They have been sold to other countries. Unfortunately the one sold to India was used against agreements to build a nuclear bomb.
Australia is not Germany, for the slow. The Sahara desert latitudes are Australia's latitudes. Europe wants to build in the Sahara Desert but social political instability is the biggest problem.
Keep talking Kenny you are doing a wonderful Job for the ALP The significant shift has given Prime Minister Anthony Albanese a commanding lead over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton of 55 to 17 per cent as preferred prime minister, repeating the stunning gains for new leaders after previous elections.
Why is Canada's spent radioactive waste sitting in temporary storage facilities on the shores of Lake Huron? Finland should be the model. They actually built a permanent storage facility called Onkalo in western Finland.
They’ve been trying to build one for decades and the Finnish design is based on Canadas designs. It has gone through a ton of regulatory hurdles in Canada it seems. They’re picking a location for their deep geologic repository this year.
The CANDU reactors we currently run are 60's era designs. They are all in need of complete refits. There should be a dearth of monies going to scalable molten salt reactors that use thorium as a primary fuel source!
While I'd love to see droves of thorium salt reactors hitting the grid, the technology is far from fleshed out. The CANDU reactors are good for another 60 years, we just need the infrastructure to better support them.
@@shawndejong6699 BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN! AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
Nobody even knows where Canada is. Us australians just need to keep china sweet so our takeaways get delivered on time and also keep those zealanders in line
Australia must adopt a PWR-Design from South-Korea or US then Mass construct it Nuclear reactors to generate at least 50% of its total electricity by Nuclear Energy. At the same time, Australia must provide Citizens to Ukrainian Aerospace engineers to develop Space Launch vehicle technology. This will allow Australia to develop passive Nuclear weapons & Ballistic missile capabilities. In case US loses its supremacy, Australia will still be a force to reckon with in the 21st century. This will also allow Australia to have a talent pool to create Nuclear Submarines & vice-versa.
Without lying like a POS , in Australia we have the Atomic Test Site in the Desert area of South Australia that is still blast affected and would be the perfect place for Nuclear waste disposal.
@@binks7988 they have no viable way to store nuclear waste. They stick it under the oceans and great bodies of water and have no conscience on if it were to leak. Its just a bunch of polluters telling us we're the problem so they don't have to face any consequences
Canada must consider to invest in these technologies:- (1) Nuclear Submarines (SSKs) (2) Space Launch vehicles (3) Nuclear Ice-Breakers (4) Pink-Hydrogen Canada must utilise the crisis in Ukraine to provide refugee & Citizenship to many Ukrainian refugees. This will insure that Canada remains a racially White/European Nation with western values. Canada must also put a curb on Khalistani groups to insure that its soil isn't used for terrorism against any Nation.
no, and we can do better than Gen 2 reactor like Chernobyl and pld reactor like Fukushima with design flaws on its backup generator. US Navy and Royal Navy never had a nuke accident in their ships due to high safety standards, so do France, UK and Canada. Even Sydney has a nuke reactor but many people don't know that.
@@saltymonke3682 Really interesting info but can you guarantee that these "accidents" would never happen again in the newer reactors. Got to say I was very impressed when I recently heard that refueling the US aircraft carriers only needs to occur every 20 years! We ban these boats from our ports here in NZ - too terrified of what could happen if things go terribly wrong.
@@thelastgreatdevolutionary1044 I dare to say that nuclear power plants aren't any more dangerous than coal ones. However, it is impossible to guarantee that accidents won't happen, regardless of the type of infrastructure or process. I tend to compare nuclear power to planes: supossedly the safest mean of transportation, but when involved in an accident, turns out to be very shocking; whereas traffic accidents happen daily and we take them for granted.
@@thelastgreatdevolutionary1044 there will be no refueling in the newest US Navy and RN reactor for submarines throughout their service lifetime (around 25-30 years) with newest reactor. Because the fuel rod is military grade and has higher energy density, requiring no maintenance inside therefore making it cheaper. French subs are using civilian grade fuel rod that is cheaper but requires more maintenance inside the reactor and refueling every 10 years. So 1 to 2 reactor overhaul during its lifetime. well that's because of the 1960s and 1970s POV on nuke. It's a relatively new energy source back then and many nuke tests happened in the pacific. It made the old generation scared about it. Now we're in Gen 4 reactor stage, those Chernobyl and Fukishima were in early Gen 2 and late Gen 2 configuration. Australia is the largest exporter of medical isotopes for cancer treatment just by using Sydney reactor. There's no makor incidents so far. It's safe when it's done right. For every Nuke personnel in RN and US Navy subs for example, the final interview of the recruitment is done by the head of the nuke department of the navy itself, 4 star admiral in USN or 3 star admiral for RN. Unlike other MOS/jobs in the navy. Because only certain kind of people that is able to handle that , not just smart but also need high level of integrity and they're not scared to say something that is wrong to their superior even higher that their superior to the chain of command. There were 2 young officers in USN back then that found a design flaw in the nuke submarine that could sink the boat when if they do a certain maneuver. They aren't scared to report that to the chain of command and beyond their chain of command to the higher up. Their report contains calculations that they've done in spare time just out of curiosity. It was tested by the Navy and there were change and improvement after that even notifying the contractor about that "defect". 1 of that officer went to the financial sector and pretty successful, the other stayed in the Navy. Now he's become the current CNO of USN (highest position in USN). RN Submarine officer course (The Perisher) on the other hand is the toughest in the world. USN is sending 1 officer every year and many of them handle their own boat as a captain after the course. They took Nuke business seriously.
they don´t have SMR reactors or TMR reactors, we and russia are preparing and way ahead, order your tesla now to accelerate growth, with FSD and AI so we see everything and serve you better
The plan of AUKUS ships with energy of nuclear even until now still very controversial around neighbours country regions..as it’s too risk. The world will never forget what had happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima. ✌️💙
Chernobyl is a Gen 2 nuke reactor with poor management because of Soviet culture. Most of its workers are mostly foemer coal miners for example. Fukushima is also an old reactor (but not as old as Chernoby) with design flaws on its backup generator. Current nuke reactor tech is far ahead of those 2 reactors.
AUKUS ships aren’t controversial in Australia, they need them to contain China, it is risky to go unarmed not to sail the seas with the Allie’s. One would be a moron to buy French submarines.
@@saltymonke3682 The Japanese had to work to make Fukushima explode, they have a very backwards society. Nuclear power in Japan was under commerce not the NRC as in the US.
Wind and solar require more carbon per kW/h and denude the massive area they are installed on. And the mining required and associated carbon pollution for the ore required kills more people than nuclear.
Canadian here, ok here's the deal.... we will give you Nuclear reactors IF you'll take Trudeau as well....any takers?? NO, we'll pay the transportation fee's... awe c'mon man.
Pickering nuclear needs some extra power we can cook that one
Yes, great work Australia,work with our neighbors and us ,you need to start the paperwork for regulations.Copy Canada not the US,Canada's nuclear industry is guided by safety while here in the US are rule based. US Canada working very closely together nowAustyralia doesn't need to do anything they can just buy one from one of th companies we give a license to. But you need to pass laws setting p regulations,cheaper power than coal, and very clean.
@@paulbedichek2679 true
Yes, take him, please! Heck, if you take him we’ll give you the reactors for free. It’ll be worth it!
Yeah Canada belongs to China, and you will like it and won't have any more choice then you'll learn Chinese soon you'll say China #1.
th-cam.com/video/LZs-r7_YvhE/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, it's a shame Turdeau drags them down in other areas.
Trudeau's been dragging the country down in every regard since 2015. Why should this be any different?
@1488 Dental Update: $970m towards the deployment of SMRs. Not that throwing money everywhere is a good solution but it shows at least some level of commitment. In this area, the Canadian Libs have done fine with a fairly eco-pragmatic approach.
Its the right wingers in Canada that drag Canada down. They screwed up defennce cancelled aircraft development. Canadian advancements have always been under libersls including nuclear. Conservative are a bunch of hack who have never held a job outside politics usually recruited and groomed by right wing interests. . Conservative pushed for the longest time there was no green house effect and hung the economy out based on oil.
if australia built reactors 30 years ago you now would carbon free and have cheap abundant energy your leaders have failed the australian people
WEF SAID YOU FIRST
Starting from scratch you'll have them in 30 years from now.
Yes the Australian people have been failed by successive governments regarding both energy and water infrastructure for the past sixty years. Disgusting socialist stifling of vision and action that has been a total disregard of the people by elected and paid for wasters.
th-cam.com/video/KnxksKmJa6U/w-d-xo.html
@INevaFreeze if Canada can do so can you
Build reactors! Australia is like an ostrich with it's head in the sand. Reactors are safe and emissions free!
BAD DATA= BAD POLICY! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN!
AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
HUMMM
@Diane M send it into space
@Diane M its stored in a facility, in Australia we could convert old underground mines to hold waste. The volume of waste material generated from the reactor is really quite small compared to the energy released.
All the waste of a reactor over 60 years would filli about half a swimming pool.
@Diane M th-cam.com/video/KnxksKmJa6U/w-d-xo.html
@Diane M we do. burn it into another reactor.
Canada has had the CANDU (Canadian Deuterium - Uranium) reactors have a brilliant design and have worked safely for decades
Yes,but new designs are better,CANDU are expensive and take long to build ,Canada and US have great new reactors.AEC a sodium cooled fast reactor NuScale .
There is no debate. Nuclear energy is the best move forward. It is the cleanest, safest, and most dependable energy we have using current technology.
Yeah, they'll be really handy targets in a hot war
So are hydro dams, and they can often cause more harm if targeted during war. Just look at the Banqiao Dam collapse, it killed nearly a quarter of a million people. But you don’t see people protesting Snowy 2.0
@@Zan_Jayna what an inane statement. Any power plant is a target. Nuclear reactors won't explode if targeted.
@@Zan_Jayna well if the Australian government stop's sticking its nose in other people's shit we wouldn't have to worry about war. Anyways you should be more worried about all those isis women and there future terrorist kids living next door to ya than an all out war.
@@madmick6275 Strewth, I am.
Those persnickety Québécois are blessed with tons of hydropower.
That makes no difference the Carbon from Chinese plants affects us all,it makes no difference what one country does, progress starts with taxing Chinese goods to get to negative growth.
Every day Carbon pollution increases, it would take a large scale nuclear exchange to get temperature levels down and less CO2 released each year.
Chinese have a dam that makes 20GW,who cares? The pollution from the coal has caused worldwide droughts and they aren't making 20% of their normal hydro, plus hydro is very dangerous while nuclear has killed no one in the US the Chinese drowned 200K in 1975 when a dam broke, they are so corrupt and money oriented more hydro dams will fail.
With Bowen in charge of energy, he would rather have the monkee p0x than go nuclear
BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN!
AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
Thorium reactors.
It is the reactor not the fuel. No need for Th,as U is licensed. Th turns into U233.
@@paulbedichek2679 both reactors are needed. The conventional reactor, which has waste that has a radioactive life of 10-20 thousand years. Then there are Thorium reactors that can take the waste and squeeze as much of the energy as possible from the uranium reaction. The waste from this is radioactive for 5-6 hundred years, huge difference, plus it is no longer suitable for weapons grade for bombs. Thorium reactors are smaller, can be the size of a large warehouse, and because they are safer by not operating under the extreme atmospheric pressures of the cooling systems. The petrochemical and refining and co-generation facilities already have the land, the security, and safety training. As less petroleum is needed due to the electric vehicles, appliances, they can turn to modular reactors for needed power generation for now and the future. This will help keep jobs steady instead of laying off people as demand for gasoline drops into next 40 years. I imagine it will be easier to get the permits from governments to add capabilities to a existing industrial facility, than for permits and cost of 4,000 acres of land to build 2-4 conventional reactors somewhere.
@@billyhndrsn4542 It isn't there fuel, its the reactor, for waste reduction sodium cooled fast spectrum reactors will fission the troublesome actinides better.
Nothing wrong with Th fueled reactors but the general public has misinterpreted the engineering.
We can use U in slow or fast spectrum FLiBe cooled molten salt reactors.
Then there is TRISO no need to ever open the fuel case for the trillions and trillions of years the universe will exist,in addition, these are hotter.
Somewhat conventional NuScale will be making the biggest difference in the next few years.
Also HALEU is a big area of interest for fuel in the near term.
The Chinese LFTR is 2MW thermal a test that will run for years, testing, they worked 24/7 for the past 10 years to get to this point the Mercury needed to enrich the Li7 is one of the most environmentally destructive, but hats off to them.
In the US we'll use Terrestrial Energy molten salt which can use Th but only for part of the fuel mix.
Only NuScale has a license. They cost in the billions as you must pay$225/hr to talk to the NRC and they talk for millions of hours.
@@paulbedichek2679 there is room for all the types of nuclear reactors needed for the growing demand for power into the future. Safety of the modular reactors over conventional because they do not have to operate under such atmospheric pressures to keep them cooled from a runaway chain reaction. In conventional reactors, the problems have always been in the cooling under extreme pressures failing. Thorium is used to restart the chain reaction to extract more energy from the uranium, thereby turning it back to U234 or U235 which is more highly radioactive, but for a way shorter duration than U238 or Plutonium, good thing because it is not bomb materials.
We both agree that nuclear is the future for power needs well into the future. I only hope that it can be done more safely, cost effective, and with a purpose of making energy independence for all nations and their needs. I am going to do as much study on these reactors as I can to keep up, hopefully.
Desalination plants, we better start building them. That is another crises we shall face shortly, clean drinkable water.
@@billyhndrsn4542 You need to educate yourself concerning nuclear energy, interesting schematic on Next big Future,Brian Wang does a pretty good job showing the complexities of the differing types.
Nuclear, small modular reactors are the way to go.
They don't work as sold.
CANDU reactors are great.
We need MODERN nuclear tech. Build new systems. Transfer the load. Then update the old ones.
NO THANKS
@@DgurlSunshine: Nuclear is cleaner than solar and wind.
And fill the oceans with barrels of Nuclear waste for our children and grandchildren to live with.
@Diane M: The Nuclear waste generated from the Palo Verde nuclear plant about 30 mins away from my house is stored in site. The amount of waste generated after 30 years is stored on site in cylinder shaped concrete containers. The amount of waste is has produced in the 30 years of operation takes up about the size of a football field. Maybe you should do some research?
@Diane M Blast that shit into the endless depths of space. The cost of launching has come down significantly and will continue to do so.
NUCLEAR POWER is the Logical Solution 👍
BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN!
AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
@Diane M do you have a solution waste solution for solar panel and wind towers........ no..... bury them lolol
@Diane M not radio active, but the material in solar panels is very toxic
@Diane M you serious hahaha
@Diane M SPACE , sent on a collision course to the SUN 🌞👍😜
i am canadian living near reacotr and can attest the safe of reacotr safe te good
@Diane M jesus you are a polluter arent you
@Diane M its prununced "new-cu-ler"
Please go back to those Waste containers. In the U.S. we have had safe, other than a couple problems like Three Mile Island, Nuclear power. Until it's time to do away with all the spent fuel. This and dismantling the old plants has been a bit of a problem. Before you go with Nuclear power you may want to think ahead a bit and come up with an answer to the waste disposal problem.
Or look back to the solutions developed decades ago.
There is no waste disposal problem.
@Diane M What's so funny? What's the problem?
@@wongjock648 of course there is, unless you are a complete ignoramus
They keep pushing nuclear so they can pump the uranium stocks up. It's all about money.
A number of errors in this. The British did move their nuclear bomb program to Canada during the war and it was incorporated into the American bomb program as was the Canadian. But they did not start the nuclear industry in Canada. Canada had already completed a nuclear pile one week after the Americans did under Fermi. Britain never did. At the start of the nuclear bomb program the only urainium refning operation in North America was in Port Hope Ontario and the only heavy water facility was in Trail BC. The British certainly added significantly but they were no were close to starting it..Canada built its first reactor in in 1944 and still provides much of the world with medical nuclear isotopes(note a Canadian program developed the use of radiation treatment for cancer). By 1946 Canada had developed the most advanced system for separating plutonium. At this point it only the US was ahead of Canada in nuclear developmet.
It supplied the intial plutonium and some of the tech for the British bomb. One of the leaders for the French program also came out of the Canadian program.
Also the newscast failed to mention that the reactors Canada already has are heavy water reactors are completely Canadian design and no one else has this type of reactor unless copying the Canadian design. It has higher initial cost but lower operating cost and does not need enrichment to operate unlike the ones designed by other countries. They have been sold to other countries. Unfortunately the one sold to India was used against agreements to build a nuclear bomb.
Great post!
The best energy. But it will cost the big ceos billions. So they don’t want it.
th-cam.com/video/yofGtxEgpI8/w-d-xo.html
Rolls-Royce is already working to construct a manufacturing plant in the UK for their SMR designs.
As reported Canada is building its first of four operation nukes at Pickering and is comp[leting negotiations with Poland to build 6 nukes.
👌👌🇨🇦
You would think a country floating on uranium, would have reactors everywhere?
Australia is not Germany, for the slow.
The Sahara desert latitudes are Australia's latitudes.
Europe wants to build in the Sahara Desert but social political instability is the biggest problem.
WE ALL LIVE DOWNSTREAM
Keep talking Kenny you are doing a wonderful Job for the ALP
The significant shift has given Prime Minister Anthony Albanese a commanding lead over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton of 55 to 17 per cent as preferred prime minister, repeating the stunning gains for new leaders after previous elections.
Why is Canada's spent radioactive waste sitting in temporary storage facilities on the shores of Lake Huron?
Finland should be the model. They actually built a permanent storage facility called Onkalo in western Finland.
Spent fuel isn’t a problem anywhere.
@@paulbedichek2679 then ask Canada to bury it near you instead of the great lakes basic that provides drinking water to 40 million people
@@lilak4361 No one anywhere in the world is harmed by nuclear waste you're a coal shill.
They’ve been trying to build one for decades and the Finnish design is based on Canadas designs. It has gone through a ton of regulatory hurdles in Canada it seems. They’re picking a location for their deep geologic repository this year.
i can hear a congaline of renewable energy rent seekers gulp
Canada wants to sell it's own CANDO.
Ooooo, #the300 world go boom after AI make the world go boom. Then only black bloods survive.
Ahead of the Grain? Do you mean Game? Illiterates.
I'm sure that's what they said at Fukushima too😓
The CANDU reactors we currently run are 60's era designs. They are all in need of complete refits.
There should be a dearth of monies going to scalable molten salt reactors that use thorium as a primary fuel source!
While I'd love to see droves of thorium salt reactors hitting the grid, the technology is far from fleshed out. The CANDU reactors are good for another 60 years, we just need the infrastructure to better support them.
TRASH!
@@shawndejong6699 BAD DATA! IT TAKES MORE ENERGY COOLING THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAN NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PRODUCES! #NUCLEARBAN!
AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE NUCLEAR & STORAGE OF FOREVER WASTE WILL "COST"? #NONUKES WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM???
Would be nice, but there are other designs of molten salt reactor using uranium which might be more useful in the short/mid term.
@@DgurlSunshine Uhhh that's 100% wrong.
Nobody even knows where Canada is. Us australians just need to keep china sweet so our takeaways get delivered on time and also keep those zealanders in line
Canada = America's Hat.
Canada is a country, a monarchy, that’s located next to the USA and that all they need to know but what do you mean by all this?
@@aheat3036 old vincey has never heard of canada
@@aheat3036 Canada north of USA +second Biggest country Russia is biggest
Anyone interested in topics related to nuclear energy should check out Illinois Energy Prof's channel.
Australia must adopt a PWR-Design from South-Korea or US then Mass construct it Nuclear reactors to generate at least 50% of its total electricity by Nuclear Energy.
At the same time, Australia must provide Citizens to Ukrainian Aerospace engineers to develop Space Launch vehicle technology.
This will allow Australia to develop passive Nuclear weapons & Ballistic missile capabilities.
In case US loses its supremacy, Australia will still be a force to reckon with in the 21st century.
This will also allow Australia to have a talent pool to create Nuclear Submarines & vice-versa.
Yeah? Where are they putting the waste? Huh? Anyone going to answer that without lying like a pos? Doubt it.
Without lying like a POS , in Australia we have the Atomic Test Site in the Desert area of South Australia that is still blast affected and would be the perfect place for Nuclear waste disposal.
The amount of waste for a new nuke plant in 30 year is half a footy field. What about solar panel waste? Wind towers ?
@@binks7988 they have no viable way to store nuclear waste. They stick it under the oceans and great bodies of water and have no conscience on if it were to leak. Its just a bunch of polluters telling us we're the problem so they don't have to face any consequences
@@eliflynn7282 send it into space.
There are new reactors that use "waste" as fuel (and actually reactors that don't produce the waste). This is an obsolete argument.
Yes. Do you want to house 🏠 the reactors in your backyard garden? Where do you put the spent fuel? Your neighbors' garden? Well, collective madness.
Canada must consider to invest in these technologies:-
(1) Nuclear Submarines (SSKs)
(2) Space Launch vehicles
(3) Nuclear Ice-Breakers
(4) Pink-Hydrogen
Canada must utilise the crisis in Ukraine to provide refugee & Citizenship to many Ukrainian refugees.
This will insure that Canada remains a racially White/European Nation with western values.
Canada must also put a curb on Khalistani groups to insure that its soil isn't used for terrorism against any Nation.
Hey I’m half asian (China), atleast we inject money to canadian economy, no?
Do you really want more Chernobles and Fukushimas with all the death and disease that goes with nuclear meltdowns?
no, and we can do better than Gen 2 reactor like Chernobyl and pld reactor like Fukushima with design flaws on its backup generator. US Navy and Royal Navy never had a nuke accident in their ships due to high safety standards, so do France, UK and Canada.
Even Sydney has a nuke reactor but many people don't know that.
@@saltymonke3682 Really interesting info but can you guarantee that these "accidents" would never happen again in the newer reactors. Got to say I was very impressed when I recently heard that refueling the US aircraft carriers only needs to occur every 20 years!
We ban these boats from our ports here in NZ - too terrified of what could happen if things go terribly wrong.
@@thelastgreatdevolutionary1044 I dare to say that nuclear power plants aren't any more dangerous than coal ones. However, it is impossible to guarantee that accidents won't happen, regardless of the type of infrastructure or process.
I tend to compare nuclear power to planes: supossedly the safest mean of transportation, but when involved in an accident, turns out to be very shocking; whereas traffic accidents happen daily and we take them for granted.
@@thelastgreatdevolutionary1044 there will be no refueling in the newest US Navy and RN reactor for submarines throughout their service lifetime (around 25-30 years) with newest reactor. Because the fuel rod is military grade and has higher energy density, requiring no maintenance inside therefore making it cheaper. French subs are using civilian grade fuel rod that is cheaper but requires more maintenance inside the reactor and refueling every 10 years. So 1 to 2 reactor overhaul during its lifetime.
well that's because of the 1960s and 1970s POV on nuke. It's a relatively new energy source back then and many nuke tests happened in the pacific. It made the old generation scared about it. Now we're in Gen 4 reactor stage, those Chernobyl and Fukishima were in early Gen 2 and late Gen 2 configuration.
Australia is the largest exporter of medical isotopes for cancer treatment just by using Sydney reactor. There's no makor incidents so far. It's safe when it's done right.
For every Nuke personnel in RN and US Navy subs for example, the final interview of the recruitment is done by the head of the nuke department of the navy itself, 4 star admiral in USN or 3 star admiral for RN. Unlike other MOS/jobs in the navy. Because only certain kind of people that is able to handle that , not just smart but also need high level of integrity and they're not scared to say something that is wrong to their superior even higher that their superior to the chain of command.
There were 2 young officers in USN back then that found a design flaw in the nuke submarine that could sink the boat when if they do a certain maneuver. They aren't scared to report that to the chain of command and beyond their chain of command to the higher up. Their report contains calculations that they've done in spare time just out of curiosity. It was tested by the Navy and there were change and improvement after that even notifying the contractor about that "defect". 1 of that officer went to the financial sector and pretty successful, the other stayed in the Navy. Now he's become the current CNO of USN (highest position in USN).
RN Submarine officer course (The Perisher) on the other hand is the toughest in the world. USN is sending 1 officer every year and many of them handle their own boat as a captain after the course.
They took Nuke business seriously.
Canadas nuclear regulator has a great comparison between their Candu reactors and Chernobyl. They say it was an inherently flawed design
Noice.
they don´t have SMR reactors or TMR reactors, we and russia are preparing and way ahead, order your tesla now to accelerate growth, with FSD and AI so we see everything and serve you better
Thanks for your input here is your 50cents
The plan of AUKUS ships with energy of nuclear even until now still very controversial around neighbours country regions..as it’s too risk. The world will never forget what had happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima. ✌️💙
Chernobyl is a Gen 2 nuke reactor with poor management because of Soviet culture. Most of its workers are mostly foemer coal miners for example. Fukushima is also an old reactor (but not as old as Chernoby) with design flaws on its backup generator. Current nuke reactor tech is far ahead of those 2 reactors.
AUKUS ships aren’t controversial in Australia, they need them to contain China, it is risky to go unarmed not to sail the seas with the Allie’s.
One would be a moron to buy French submarines.
@@saltymonke3682 The Japanese had to work to make Fukushima explode, they have a very backwards society.
Nuclear power in Japan was under commerce not the NRC as in the US.
Wind and solar require more carbon per kW/h and denude the massive area they are installed on. And the mining required and associated carbon pollution for the ore required kills more people than nuclear.
Literally no one equates Russian incompetence at Chernobyl with USUK subs, you’re a commie.
Another great contribution to the world by white men. Your welcome.