“A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly heard from reputable sources, sometimes secondhand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.” Wikipedia
Nuclear is NO GO in Australia -A FURPHY!!, At $30-50 billion each and 15 to 20 years to build each plant, Australia would need half dozen. If France and the UK have trouble building EPR plants with nuclear industries dating back 70 years it will be a shit show in Australia. Sorry you need skilled engineers and welders -The top 1% but a army of them and billions of dollars.
The most irresponsible power source in human history. (forget net zero, we're headed for net 1 million) I've been forecasting the Hegelian Dialectic principle applied to the G movement, and here we are folks, no one really listened and here we are. 😄 The true impetus driving the movement.
@@awc900 Did I say that this was the only option? Most who want this technology think that they will get cheaper power but they won't and we will be stuck with those things. Hard no from me and always will be.
Why is it that France with the most nuclear power stations in Europe has the cheapest electricity in Europe. Also WHY is it that Finland earlier this year opened its first nuclear power station and dropped power prices by a whopping 75%. Somebody on Labour speaks with forked tongue as the native American Indians would say (they lie).
@@xpusostomos Funny Ha Ha - Finland doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. Only Britain (I served in both the British and Aussie military) and France have nuclear weapons in Europe other than the USA within NATO. Thus it doesn't explain Finland at all. Nuclear is cheaper and you won't have to change all the power lines across Australia (Labour hasn't added that cost into their budgeting to the public purse).
Finland has 5 nuclear reactors currently operating. The first built came into operation in 1977. They completed their last nuclear reactor in 2023 and cancelled another under construction in 2022. Hydro and wind power provide more power than nuclear. The low cost of power in Finland is due to the high proportion of hydro power. Costs fell over the last year beause costs rose by up to 400% due to cold winters in 2021, 2022 and the impact of the Ukraine war on gas supplies and cost.
What a stupid statement, "a clear direction", you must be kidding me. It's hairy fairer stuff, Peter Dutton and you are in la la land if you think this nuclear rubbish would go ahead.
In the UK we had a debate where one of the leaders said economic development had nothing to do with protecting the environment. Cue a 30 minute rant and over use of the word "defective" from me.
So true. The reason modern industries are far cleaner than they were say, 200 years ago, is because of the technological development funded by industry. But most Greenies are completely disconnected from the realities of what props up their protected life style.
It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical, exporting uranium to produce nuclear power (and weapons) in other countries, whilst banning atomic power at home.
Australian exploration, production, refining, marketing and end use utilization of its mineral wealth is a golden key. Modular and large scale nuclear base load with supplementary electric and electrolytic production would seem to me to resolve the supply of full range energy needs.
Since 2005, the USA has reduced CO2 emissions by 14 tons per person, and Europe by 12 tons per person. during this time, China increased CO2 emissions by 205 tons per person and India by 100 tons per person.
YUP and not one climate activist to be seen when that Chinese Premier visited us...but they are out there stopping traffic and causing mayhem over fricken Gaza. What losers.
Yes, the Western nations are giving up the battle for a better life, while China & India are going full tilt towards prosperity. It's too bad that the "scientists" at the UN & IPCC refuse to tell the truth: that C02 is a beneficial gas that does NOT cause warming, rather the other way around. Wet streets don't cause rain, and C02 increases _follow_ warming, they don't _cause_ it!
If you mean the waste (spent fuel rods) from Pressurised Water reactors there are two components to the waste - Transuranics from neutron absorption plus U238 and unburned U235, the other component is the fission products which decay to background in 300years. The Transuranics and Uranium can be extracted and recycled or the waste fed into a high neutron energy reactor (often Sodium cooled) or converted to chlorides and fed to a molten Sodium Chloride reactor (under develpment). Storage of fission products is said to be safely done in concrete silos.
The anti-nuclear brigade in Australia are one of our biggest disappointments and drag the average down to abysmal levels. That some of them made it into parliament is a truly scathing indictment upon our nation.
"What we really need are Net Zero No Flush toilets. Mega-Cities with Urban Heat Island temps often +20°C over surrounding farmland face catastrophic drought and societal collapse. If all Americans adopt Net Zero No Flush toilets, there will be enough fresh water for all the thirsty 3W cities again!" Wear a pink morning glory if you go Flush Free 🌸
Nuclear is the only way forward What they don’t tell you about windmills is the ongoing costs Especially when they are in the ocean The blades last 7 months at 100 s of thousands of dollars to replace Generators that only last 18 months before they need replacing And in wa they are paying farmers $30 000 a year for each windmill on their land One farmer retired from sheep farming as he has 6 on his property so the WA government is paying him 180 k a year Indefinitely How on earth will the electricity ever be cheaper
Net Zero is economically destructive delusional insanity. The massive misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources into uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects has to be stopped.
WINDMILLS? WINDMILLS? If you don't know the difference between a device from the 18th and 19th century that was used to mill flour and a WIND TURBINE GENERATOR how can anyone take you seriously?
$8.5 Billion a nuke plant (CSIRO costing). or $1.5 TRILLION for the ALPs net zero plan to the end of the decade, a further $8 Trillion out to 2060 (Uni Melb, Uni Qld and Princeton costing). 1.5 Trillion will get you 176 nuke plants, that run 24/7. We need less than 10 nuke plants
The CSIRO costing is nonsense $30-50 billion each and 15 to 20 years to build each plant. If France and the UK have trouble building EPR plants with nuclear industries dating back 70 years it will be a shit show in Australia.
@@ShaunSands😂😂😂 sure buddy. We already have power stations with infrastructure: turbines, cooling towers, switching yards and all the facilities you need. We only need to buy the nuclear island and connect it to the existing turbines with new plumbing. Just size the reactor to suit the existing turbines. Way, way less than 50 billion. It could be had for 10 billion or less. By the way the US DOE plans on doing exactly this to about 238 old coal plants in the US. Slashes costs by 30-50% and creates/preserves the jobs. Much faster too. I love the way you anti nuclear peeps are getting so desperate now you know the writing is on the wall for renewables. Nuclear in Australia is inevitable: because it has to be. There are no valid economic, safety or scientific reasons not to adopt nuclear energy in Australia. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Oh and the median build time is 7.2 years. Japan has than down to 5 now….
France powers nearly 100% of its electrical grid with about 100 nuclear power plants. Never a problem. France has experienced nothing but disaster with its green energy projects, way over budget, too little energy return, enormously expensive maintenance headaches, and environmental damage. The US navy has had thousands of nuclear power plants powering its ships for decades. Never a problem. There is no way any ship of any nation is going to run on wind, solar or battery power. There is no way 80,000 pound trucks, large farm tractors, trains and passenger jets are. Electric is practical only on a limited scale, IE razors, cell phones, hair dryers, golf carts and electric bikes. The world cannot ever run its entire electric grid on green energy and batteries. Nuclear is clean, efficient, runs 24-7 and is better, cheaper and safer than ever. The best constant non CO2 power generator out there.
You need to update your knowledge on the French nuclear power industry. It's bankrupt and half the plants are offline because it is too expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
@@xpusostomos nuclear power was subsidized by nuclear weapons production... Now it wants green energy subsidies. It's just a very expensive way to generate electricity. Go read about the nationalization of the French company EDF. All this info is out there in public. You don't need a TH-camr to frame the story for you.
Aussie is a bizarre Net Zero use case. You have all the space and resources for a industrial power house to replace China but are trying to become completely dependent on them instead?
China made products, lifespan 10 years, signed and sealed! Unsafe, unreliable and an economic disaster - epic fail! Our money (current and future) is being thrown away with glee by morons! 🤤
Nuckear power stateions are all through Japan, much of Asia, Europe and the USA, nobody complains. They are safe, clean and efficient. What objection would YOU have to one in your town?
@@dps615 Some reasonable objections? Please list some of these apparently "obvious" reasons. Nuclear power, used in thouseands of reactors every day, is very safe, if trained satff are used and the location is not on a fault line or facing a tectonic plate convergence, then it is unquestionably safer and cleaner than a coal fired station, and poses less risk than a hydro installation. You rerence vague and undefined "reasons" with zero evidentiary support.
I have been saying that for over 40 years. In Britain we have let our once world leading nuclear power industry slide away. Germany, bless them, accelerated their nuclear decommissioning after Fukushima (no tsunamis in Germany). We have to thank France for having nuclear to reduce demand on gas after the Russians invaded Ukraine. Otherwise we in Europe would have been royally stuffed.
After Russias invasion Germany had to supply France with huge amounts of electricity because halve of the reactors were not running. Germany together with the UK and Spain saved their asses.
Fukushima was the result of a tsunami, Australia will not build directly opposite a plate plunge point, Chernobyl was the reasult of Soviet lack of resources and unskilled workers. Poor arguments.
Yes - and have you heard how many people actually died in both of those events? A generous estimate is less than 500, probably lower. Now compare this to the known fact that coal burning power plants globally cause an estimated 10,000 premature deaths per DAY from their particulate emissions. Collectively all the nuclear power plants NOT built over the past 3 decades has caused the death of tens of millions.
and the land that is contaminated for generations as a result of the accidents? now imagine more of those accident that have huge impact as compared to coal etc!
@@dmdm8018 Here's the thing many people are unaware of. Chernobyl had FOUR reactors, only one of which was destroyed by an idiot supervisor. The other three continued to operate - with plant operators working there quite safely - for at least a decade later. The so-called 'exclusion zone' over time has become a wildlife sanctuary where all manner of creatures are thriving in the relative absence of humans. As for Fukushima - again people continue to work onsite all the time in perfect safety. Yes there is some very mild groundwater contamination with tritiated water - but this is a very low energy radiation which has never been shown to harm anyone. Yes there is intense radiation in the immediate zone of the damaged cores - these are a problem to clean up and no-one wants a repeat of this. But outside the plant boundaries the levels of ionising radiation are much, much lower. Despite the fearmongering the reality is that below about 1mSv per day - any hazard from ionising radiation is virtually indistinguishable from all other background risks.
They are the same thing, nuclear reactors weren't originally designed as power plants they were breeder reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons, then they discovered they had to cool them and could use that steam to make electricity, they actually need power from the grid to cool the reactors, so yeah nuh its a con nuclear energy for nuclear weapons.
@xpusostomos it's still fission making it smaller and modular doesn't solve the radioactive isotope problem and what to do with it, whereas fusion just leaves us with inert helium. Now when we get fusion technology sorted I'll be on board, but can't see it in my lifetime unless we find alien tech.
@xpusostomos what are you smoking strontium 90? There maybe different types of reactors using different isotopes as fuel but they all share the basic physics of fission. You know splitting a heavy element into 2 lighter ones. Please explain what other type of fission exists?
If we continue down the path of shutting down gas and coal generation and rely on wind/solar then we are in for a miserable life with rolling blackouts and industry shutdowns. It is a fact that Nuclear Generators are the only practical alternative. Nuclear Power Stations may be expensive and take years to build but this pales into insignificance compared to the social disruptions caused by permanent lack of sufficient electricity to sustain our standard of living.
The chances for a blackout are higher with big power plants that suddenly stop working. Wind and solar plants are easy to control in a fast and precise way.
@@gerbre1 Industrialised countries such as Germany can never go 100% renewable. Renewables can play a part but must be backed up by reliable 24/7 electricity supply unless the geography allows large scale Hydro then the only practical choice is Fossil Fuels or Nuclear.
@@geoff37s57 Nobody said 100% is possible. There are around 14-21 days of dunkelflaute. Germany will use gas plants, at first with natural gas then green hydrogen.
I love the prospect of safe, modular compact Thorium based nuclear being widely distributed; giving us affordable reliable and plentiful energy ---- almost anywhere. Let's get it done!
All fission reactions leave pollution the only real solution is fusion but we don't have the technology yet to contain the reaction. Maybe in 50 to 100 years.
That's pretty much what the Indonesians working towards. the molten salt reactors they want to use are scheduled to be fuelled on a 50:50 mix of Uranium and Thorium Fluoride. Thorium seems to be doable in Molten Salt reactors but difficult in other types.
How many of these rants are just computer generated programs or maybe Indian or phillipino marketing schemes ? Yeah that sound more like it and definitely something the lib/nats would dream up just like robo-debt morrison and his famed marketing wizardry !! hahhaaa what a joke . Lets wait for the election and see if taxpayers want to fork over more billions to the coalitions corporate buddies from the US and UK seeing they have drained all the workers of their savings over there and now see Australia as a new plaything a bit like a cash machine with no pin required.
There's a 4 reactor plant 20 min from me in Darlington, Ontario, I LOVE it, all my electric garden tools are nuclear powered hahaha! For real, I sleep very well at night, zero worry about anything, CANDU reactors are extremely safe :)
Senator Gerrard Rennick claims that the BOM is making changes to weather records (Acorn 1.x through 2.x). These changes are being slowly but steadily made to create an altered weather record that supports the CC agenda.
This Feb was the warmest on record. Until an expert looked at the figures and realised they had lowered the records all the way back to 1940 by 2 degrees. Somebody is being paid to lie.
Well the minister IS right that far more space in wind/solar is added yearly than nuclear - because it typically takes 8-10 years to build and get permits for a nuclear plant. On the flip side one nuclear plant can outproduce multiple huge wind/solar farms, and do it reliably 24/7/365 even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
So build renewables now, open a heap of jobs and encourage mature age apprentices, use it to move towards net zero all while planning and starting the long term plan of nuclear. I don't get why it has to be completely one or the other. Just team sports at this point.
In photos from space the world is greener today than it was in the first photos. Net zero/climate change is a money/control scheme, and has nothing to do with the environment.
We don't. There is no emergency; it's all a scam. Climate change is real of course - as it always has been. For example, Sahara used to be lush and green, and so was the currently ice-covered Greenland (hence its name). And the last Ice Age ended approx 11,000 years ago. The current hysterical over-reaction is unnecessary, ridiculous, costly and wasteful.
I'm perplexed as to why nobody talks about Thorium reactors. It's got advantages over Uranium, being cleaner with less waste for a start, and we are sitting on some of the biggest deposits on the planet. But there may be an answer to that. The UK apparently looked at it in the 1950's but opted for Uranium so they could harness the plutonium by-product for nuclear weapons. Nothing like getting priorities right.
Thorium doesn't really have those advantages over uranium. That's not to say that thorium isn't worth developing as an energy resource (there's enough thorium to provide humanity with all its energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years at least, and there's plenty more on the moon if we ever run out of it on earth), but it has been rather over hyped.
Thorium sounds like a good idea but it can only be used as an adjunct to Uranium fission. Th232 is not fissile but must absorb neutrons to make (after a number of steps) a Uranium isotope U233 which is fissile. In reactors with fuel rods there are various schemes to reprocess irradiated rods to get the U233. Molten salt reactors can use Thorium with Uranium fuel because the Thorium can be in the salt for years and slow reaction times aren't an issue. There is a real downside to using Thorium - a small % of the Thorium is converted into U232 - this isn't fissile and decays into daughter nuclei which are hard gamma emitters - this adds to the shielding required and human safety issues of Thorium fuelled reactors
We could charge battery banks with them? We have all the raw strategic materials here. Should use the French system ,1 design with many built all over France , all workers build the same thing and can work in any plant.
We are a little short of water. But that is not a problem for coal or gas plants and it won't be a problem for nuclear. Other than that, the geography and geology is perfect. If you brainstormed the absolute best conditions for nuclear you would end up describing Oz.
Not exactly. But we are in the centre of our own tectonic plate, so we are not susceptible to earthquakes or resultant tsunamis caused by these plates' sudden movements. As happens noteably in Japan and California.
It is geologically very stable, however, there is always someone that will complain. We need to remember that we live in a democracy. Democracy is not a matter of how loud a small number of people complain.
We have been building a nuclear power station in Somerset UK it takes a long time!!! Unless you go to China and they throw it up in two weeks.... Keep up the good work MGUY. Jon T UK
As someone who has witnessed the Chinese-designed money pit known as Hinkley Point C in the UK, you may wish to change your mind. Built on a deeply faulted site deemed unsuitable for an advanced gas-cooled reactor with a concrete pressure vessel as its predecessor Hinkley B was they went for the cheaper version. Its budget has doubled, along with time for completion. We have also agreed to pay sky-high amounts for the energy it produces to EDF the French-owned energy supplier. New nuclear should be small and quick to build modular reactors that can supply a city not 30 years in the making of monsters that are out of date before completion using Chinese flawed design and software run by the French. What a combination.
I don't want "Old Fashioned" Light Water Uranium reactors, I want State of the Art Liquid Fluorine THORIUM reactors, More compact 500 % safer than Uranium and you Can't make Plutonium for bombs from them, also No need for Gigalitres of cooling water, so no Issues there either.
That's the history of the industry going back to the 1950s... EDF went bankrupt and was nationalized because nuclear power is too expensive. The french industry flopped but used standardized designs. It's just not even going to happen.
Same design as Chinese reactors some of which had to be shut down with problems. George Osborne and David Cameron I believe. The site was swarming with Chinese workers until the security scare over Hiwawi I believe. Not sure now. Sure it will use Chinese written software so expect a meltdown if they invade Taiwan.
Well, nuclear is synonymous with "price is no object." I always say if price is no object, we could just convert coal plants to clean coal carbon capture plants. Also, isn't Australia kind of a warm dry place? Honestly, with the amount of water nuclear plants use, you could reforest half the outback with trees which would capture more carbon than Australians can even produce. France has to turn its nuclear plants off in the summer when the energy is most needed because it overheats their rivers and coastal areas. They then buy their power from coal plants in surrounding countries. Does Australia have surrounding countries to buy its coal power from in the summer?
Which ones? The ones caused by Soviet budget issues and unskilled communist workers, or the ones caused by tsunamis and earthquakes that are entirely avoidable in Australia? I am not expecting an answer as I don;t think you have any genuine interest in or knowledge of the issue.
As a retired nuclear reactor operator, I'll admit that nuclear also has issues too. However, nuclear is clean power. Nuclear plants provide base load power 24/7 whether or not the sun shines or if the wind doesn't blow. Wind and solar last only 25 years before being placed in a landfill. The all waste from 60 years of a nuclear plant take up less space than all the waste tailing from a coal mine after one year.
Why try to achieve net zero? There is no reason to do so. To make more nuclear power stations is just insane, there is no solution to the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Nuclear is also the most expensive way bar none to generate electricity, despite huge government subsidies, and laws limiting liability to ludicrously small amounts in the event of an accident. In addition, nuclear power stations always cost at least twice the estimated cost, and take several years longer to commission than planned. Nuclear is for people who don't give a damn about the future for their kids and their kids.
Someone who speaks the truth !! Just '' down the road '' from where I live [ I am 60 and have always lived in Norfolk ] is the nuclear plant of Sizewell [ in Suffolk ] where they have A,B,C , i think there are 3 , but then , i don't care if there are 6 , reactors . I believe they are PWR reactors [ pressurised water reactors ] , hence the abbreviation .
They're a good pairing. Too expensive, long track record of failure, and just won't happen... A handful of people will probably get really rich though.
I live near a nuclear power plant in Virginia. There have been no issues from it. The fishing there is really good and actually produces larger fish from the warmer water exiting the plant. There are many species of wildlife around the plant from feed plots that provide plenty of food for the wildlife. I'm All for nuclear power
the "anti-human extremists" are those pushing for Nuclear ,sure from an Engineering viewpont , it seems too good to be TRUE - because it's Anti-Human , Anti- life NO NUCLEAR in Australia
Sellafield's first reactors were designed to make Plutonium for the UK's atomic bomb program. One of them caught fire (it was big block of Graphite) and the clean up has been going on ever since.
But we don't WANT to achieve net zero !!!!! The more carbon dioxide, the better !!! The idea for going nuclear is to provide stable and reliable baseload POWER !! Not to bring the country closer to net zero !!!!
Lets have a talk about energy waste. Nuclear power stations over their 60+ year terms will create about 100 square meters of waste - that is if we do not reuse it in reactors. Solar, Winds and batteries will create 1000's of archers of waste.
@@aussietaipan8700 Yt delete the PV recycling companies. Wind turbines are mainly steel, copper and the rotor blades. The latter can't be recycled yet. Maybe they are shredded and used in road basements.
I have a question for Australians afraid of nuclear. Japan is the only country hit 3 times by nuclear bombs / meltdown, yet, they still have not considered banning nuclear energy. My question is, Oz is scared of nuclear, not japan. Do you think they know something Oz does not?
Fin fact.. if you have a High temperature thermal nuclear reactor (they are quite rare but there are a few of them in the wild). You have a thermal hydrogen production unit. And you combine that with a hydro splitting unit (there are loads of those around the world already). You can take any organic. Roots, twigs, grass, Sewage, dung, waste from slaughtering. Basically anything that is organic, and make basically any fuel from Bitumen (used to make tarmac) up to methane (used in fertilizer production and rockets) In Sweden we got a so to say combine waste product called GROT and the current price of that is about 3€cent/kWh. And thermal Hydrogen would cost about 3€cent/kWh as well. Making the fuel price (from production) to be about 4€cent/KWh or about 40€cent/liter of diesel (Due to 25% system losses and other costs). With a bit of production cost, transports and pump cost this would probobly end up at 60-70€cent/liter at the filling station. Compare to 90 with normal diesel.
Soon enough , the hip pocket will speak . The hip pocket will demand cheaper and reliable electricity and that's what nuclear provides . Nuclear power plants are constructed on a regular basis for aircraft carriers and submarines.
Last I heard, they were still arguing over whether Yucca Mtn was a good waste repository. As I recall, it wasn't the best geology, but not-in-my-back-yard-ism eliminated all the, you know, sensible places to dump the nuclear waste.
They said no to the waste dump in Kimba, rightly so as that's prime agricultural area. They can go dump it up in a shithole nobody cares about, like 200 km west of Coober Pedy, where there's nothing but rocks.
Wind and solar can't provide baseload, you need a Nuke or fossil fuel backup for renewables. Since you are paying for the fossil fuel backup that could handle the load by itself? You are actually paying double or triple for your wind and solar.
@@matsv201Yep and you would need a million square kilometres, or more for a battery storage facility that can put out what a nuclear plant puts out in a day. If the power outage was more than a day, where to then?
@matsv201 For a start the plant covers 4.2 sqkm. That does not include the buffer zones which would make it around 16 sqkm. Good to see it's working so well is shut down. By the way current recommendations are for 4km buffers. Ie 4 km either side if plant. So total area would be 64sqkm
@@stewart5989 No.. 1.5 km2 is the powerplant size, 4km2 is including the buffert. Its shut down for poltiical reason. That is some extreme lefty wanted to shut it down becasue they love importing oil from dictatorships that much
Does it really matter what energy source we use, so long as it doesn't produce essential priceless plant food, the gas of life CO2 , the substance at an all time dangerously low level ? Si ?
at least the cost of nuclear will make sense years in the future and not be a big spend on wind and solar that will end up being another desalination plant project. solar panels and turbine blades are just future land fill waste.
Have always been a bit reticent in relation to nuclear but as an alternative to covering the continent with windfarms and solar farms and a massive grid to get it to population centres and we have shitloads of Uranium I capitulate. Its got to be more economically viable if they put them were existing coal power stations live. Scale of renewables is stupendous and storage for peak demand via batteries isnt going to happen because that solution is stupendous also. Id like to seenuke missles on those nuke subs if we ever get them but then gain thats just me.
Thank god for Mr. Dutton he gets my vote! When it comes to Chris Bowen I shall quote Mark Twain, " Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
I am the total opposite I would never vote for Dunce head dutton as he even got beat at leadership contest by the local used car salesman marketing guru morrison. He is a low ranked policeman who could never advance due to his stupidity but even worse he is a true power monger and is the most dangerous fool the libs have ever put forward as a prospective prime minister of australia. Even more dangerous than morrison. People of Australia be very, very aware of what direction this idiot will take australia if elected as he is a super dangerous ideologue and is a suck-hole to corporate america and UK.
How odd to be for nuclear, but not be able to provide a single data point to justify your "belief." The truth is that the levelized cost of nuclear is simply absurdly too much compared to all other major forms of energy generation, especially renewables. That and nuclear takes WAY too long to build.
It will still take decades to build any power plants, nuclear or otherwise. No matter what, a severe shortage of power is in our near future. That goes for the US, EU, AUS ect.
Yeah well considering that we all expect all the latest technology, toys and things like AI there's no real surprises there imo. We also build rubbish buildings that require heating/cooling for a lot of the year in many places and it seems that most would rather pay for heating in Winter than putting on more clothes.
It doesnt take that long anymore. What takes long is bureaucracy and people like you getting in the way with worthless arguments against it. Nuclear is the Best reliable form of clean energy we have for the foreseeable future. "Renewables" are too unreliable and inefficient to be usable for more then the immediate local area. Hydro can only be used in some places with acess large enough fresh water reserves and the reservoirs needed damage the environment with their size. Solar need a Lot of sun at the correct angle during the day, subject to lowering efficiency in poor weather and take a huge amount of space, ruining the environment. Wind, counter to the idea can only work in places that dont get a lot of high winds and storms, disrupt bird habitats and take a lot of space, ruining the environment. Green is not green.. no power is and they all carry a cost. Until we can make something better we should at the very least use the most reliable tool we have, instead of forcing more waste tech
@@BlueBD Yep heard it all before and it's a hard no from me. I would much rather see individual households running Solar and Battery whilst using less power than going down this path. Another example of the planets biggest pest species trying to engineer out problems they create and then causing more issues. Personally I think your argument/opinion is worthless and I get one vote just like you.
In Sweden the Nuclear power plant O3 was built in 24 month from first shovel in the ground untill power on the lines. That was done in the early 80s. Its worth saying that there was a complete reactor redesign as well The total build time from start of reactor redesign to power on the line was less than 48 month
The hinkley point new reactor in Somerset UK, has so far taken 9 years to build, and wont be finished for another 5 years. What is required are small reactors not massive ones like Hinkley.
The industry tries to build large nuke plants because the economics of the small ones are even worse. The big ones are too expensive to build and maintain--same story in the US as the UK. Same story in France.
Geez. Decisions decisions. Billions for a 24/7 all weather power source that runs for 40-50 years or billions (because we have to build in triplicate) solar farm that only operates 8 hours a day and with a 10-40% drop in generating power in cloudy or wet weather. Bowen : let’s build solar.
So if you agree net zero/exiting fossil fuels is desirable, why not embrace renewables for the short term, given Australia's unique position to do so, while nuclear gets up and running? Why completely disregard all renewables because you prefer nuclear? Rule 1 of reliability is to not put all your eggs in one basket by diversifying. Why does it have to be the extreme 1 or the other? Why not use one as a transitionary solution? So many needless absolutes. Also, implying that Labor, the party made up of landlords who get kick-backs and cushy corporate positions from the private sector in exchange for favours, are aligned with "the commies" is either complete buffoonery or just straight up disingenuous, which isn't going to help your credibility, even if you make factual and informative points.
I’m sorry but you are wrong. Let’s talk cost. If green or nuclear don’t lower the price of energy, dump them. You seem to be an intelligent person, but stuck in an industrial paradigm. If you would just be a champion of us peasants, I would respect you. Does eliminating monopolies lower costs? Give us the path to least cost energy like Tony Seba did.
I know I am a heretic. Yes there is slight increase in temperature, maybe 1.3C but even that varies by reports. How accurate is our temperature comparison before 1850 globally? I suggest it is all about ice core and such. Variation in those circumstances is 1C - + at the minimum. That means our 1.3C is meaningless. What about the effects of this maybe 1.3C??? Almost 100% positive, and I will only list one, hunger has almost disappeared. When have last had UN supported campaign to feed starving people. Apart from camps due to military operations?
I once considered myself an environmentalist, a greeny in fact. However I was never an ignorant idealist. My environmentalism is still going strong and it is embarrassed by those who now call themselves green who are nothing of the sort. What I don’t accept is harm and waste for profit and or ideology that only benefits a few greedy people. I have no problem with building a dam , mine or other infrastructure that will result in massive land clearing that sends endangered species extinct if it is absolutely necessary and no alternative is available and the endangered species will go extinct regardless of the infrastructure project. Often such projects don’t do the harm that’s expected and new habitats open up for the endangered species actually saving them from extinction. Basically I’m pragmatic about the environment and the only problem that I have with nuclear power is that morons will be involved in the planning of construction and the waste management. If the whole thing could be done with the premise of mitigation of the influence of idiots I would be very pro nuclear. But we all know if you build something supposedly idiot proof the universe just builds a bigger idiot! And unfortunately people vote for them or make them cult leaders.
You've also not mentioned that Australia is basically dependent upon manufacturing overseas at this point. We have no direct control over other countries energy policies. So it's not just about replacing the existing electricity usage but could also be about providing the energy for manufacturing into the future. As you've stated, we have the raw materials for nuclear. If we committed to using them, we'd also be creating a basis upon which manufacturing could sustainably be done in Australia itself rather than having to deal with all the emissions involved in overseas manufacturing and importing goods. In this regard it seems like the current government is not actually interested in reducing emissions globally but rather they just want to be seen to be doing what other people want them to do, but ineffectually.
Combined cycle natural gas is a better investment, high efficiency gives more power per heat input and makes huge reductions in CO2 if that's what people want.
Won't happen. The coalition has just dug its grave even further deeper, unfortunately. I am from latrobe Valley one of the sites named for possible nuclear reactor. I would love to see one here as it makes perfect sense but we don't live in a country where making sense makes sense..
The only real alternative to nuclear fission (of uranium or thorium) is to burn coal/gas/oil while waiting 20 or 50+ years for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium or boron.
Having an opinion is fine but belittling people that don't think the same as you shows total arrogance, sorry mate I just unsubscribed from your channel, it's got nothing to do with how I vote because I have lost faith in the whole lot.
So many of you in here are so cynical about government, and yet so many believe they would be capable of building a timely, cost efficient, reliable and safe Nuclear power solution.
Wind and solar not only costs a lot of money but also costs a lot of energy. I'm not even sure a big wind installation returns more energy to the Earth than what is used in the mining, and manufacturing, and transport of the materials, and the upgrades in roads and bridges (to get these huge things into rural areas), and the maintenance, etc. And I hope all the materials are bio friendly as they will eventually need disposed of or recycled.
Peter Dutton wants to build Small Modular Reactors which no country so far has been able to do and spent billions trying and taken many years not to complete, who looks ridiculous now
“A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly heard from reputable sources, sometimes secondhand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.” Wikipedia
Ahh, so MGUY is a furphy. We were wondering what to call you that would pass YT censorship.
I suggest you read the 1954 paper from the Club of Rome called "Limits to Growth". Regards
@@Tom-pt3jf "We" Is there more than one resident clown in your cranium?
Nuclear is NO GO in Australia -A FURPHY!!, At $30-50 billion each and 15 to 20 years to build each plant, Australia would need half dozen.
If France and the UK have trouble building EPR plants with nuclear industries dating back 70 years it will be a shit show in Australia.
Sorry you need skilled engineers and welders -The top 1% but a army of them and billions of dollars.
The most irresponsible
power source in human history.
(forget net zero, we're headed
for net 1 million)
I've been forecasting the Hegelian Dialectic
principle applied to the G movement, and
here we are folks, no one really listened
and here we are. 😄 The true impetus
driving the movement.
Finally a difference between the two parties.
don't get too excited, it's how they play the game.
Yeah I hate Labor but if the Libs. go down this path I will vote for Labor for sure.
@@oldbloke204 Why? Trying to rely on 80-100% renewables is a road to disaster.
@@oldbloke204 Shit path? what are you talking bout?
@@awc900 Did I say that this was the only option?
Most who want this technology think that they will get cheaper power but they won't and we will be stuck with those things.
Hard no from me and always will be.
Thorium reactors are the likely future…
Why is it that France with the most nuclear power stations in Europe has the cheapest electricity in Europe. Also WHY is it that Finland earlier this year opened its first nuclear power station and dropped power prices by a whopping 75%. Somebody on Labour speaks with forked tongue as the native American Indians would say (they lie).
2 possibilities 1) because it's cheaper 2) because their nuclear weapons program subsidised it
@@xpusostomos Funny Ha Ha - Finland doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. Only Britain (I served in both the British and Aussie military) and France have nuclear weapons in Europe other than the USA within NATO. Thus it doesn't explain Finland at all. Nuclear is cheaper and you won't have to change all the power lines across Australia (Labour hasn't added that cost into their budgeting to the public purse).
Finland has 5 nuclear reactors currently operating. The first built came into operation in 1977. They completed their last nuclear reactor in 2023 and cancelled another under construction in 2022. Hydro and wind power provide more power than nuclear. The low cost of power in Finland is due to the high proportion of hydro power. Costs fell over the last year beause costs rose by up to 400% due to cold winters in 2021, 2022 and the impact of the Ukraine war on gas supplies and cost.
France also pumped radio active waste into the ocean, wonder if it still does.
Finnland recently had record high prices.
Finally a clear direction instead of the directionless and non viable 80-100% renewables plan.
The only thing certain about renewables
Is you will have to renew them often
A Clear solution?
No.
A disaster at historic levels.
@@garreysellars5525100% right
What a stupid statement, "a clear direction", you must be kidding me. It's hairy fairer stuff, Peter Dutton and you are in la la land if you think this nuclear rubbish would go ahead.
@@bikersoncall I said a clear direction. Trying to rely on renewables is the impending disaster.
Energy = Prosperity = Environmental Conservation
In the UK we had a debate where one of the leaders said economic development had nothing to do with protecting the environment. Cue a 30 minute rant and over use of the word "defective" from me.
High energy costs have caused a number of Australian start-up ventures to relocate to USA where energy costs are cheaper.
We can't have that now, can we?
So true. The reason modern industries are far cleaner than they were say, 200 years ago, is because of the technological development funded by industry. But most Greenies are completely disconnected from the realities of what props up their protected life style.
@@Philip-hv2kc And they are most welcome to come here and innovate!
Love the Aussies and wish them the best of luck in their sensible ventures.
It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical, exporting uranium to produce nuclear power (and weapons) in other countries, whilst banning atomic power at home.
Australian exploration, production, refining, marketing and end use utilization of its mineral wealth is a golden key. Modular and large scale nuclear base load with supplementary electric and electrolytic production would seem to me to resolve the supply of full range energy needs.
@@richardkammerer2814 I could'nt agree with you more.
Does Australia have enough spare fresh water to operate nuclear plants?
And coal.
Exporting it mustn't expend energy either including all the unseen work.
@@Withnail1969some new reactors can use air cooling now.
Since 2005, the USA has reduced CO2 emissions by 14 tons per person, and Europe by 12 tons per person.
during this time, China increased CO2 emissions by 205 tons per person and India by 100 tons per person.
YUP and not one climate activist to be seen when that Chinese Premier visited us...but they are out there stopping traffic and causing mayhem over fricken Gaza. What losers.
And now their emissions are equal.
China is exempt because it's a "developing nation" that has a space station, mars rover and an ever expanding nuclear weapons program.
Yes, the Western nations are giving up the battle for a better life, while China & India are going full tilt towards prosperity. It's too bad that the "scientists" at the UN & IPCC refuse to tell the truth: that C02 is a beneficial gas that does NOT cause warming, rather the other way around. Wet streets don't cause rain, and C02 increases _follow_ warming, they don't _cause_ it!
So... America and Britain is trying to kill the plants while India and China feed them?
Where are you going to put the nuclear waste?
If you mean the waste (spent fuel rods) from Pressurised Water reactors there are two components to the waste - Transuranics from neutron absorption plus U238 and unburned U235, the other component is the fission products which decay to background in 300years.
The Transuranics and Uranium can be extracted and recycled or the waste fed into a high neutron energy reactor (often Sodium cooled) or converted to chlorides and fed to a molten Sodium Chloride reactor (under develpment). Storage of fission products is said to be safely done in concrete silos.
Underground in the middle of the desert!
In your garage.
Deep into ground.
Woomera/Maralinga would be ideal, it's a ready made place due to testing done there in the 1950's and '60's.
The anti-nuclear brigade in Australia are one of our biggest disappointments and drag the average down to abysmal levels. That some of them made it into parliament is a truly scathing indictment upon our nation.
"What we really need are Net Zero No Flush toilets. Mega-Cities with Urban Heat Island temps often +20°C over surrounding farmland face catastrophic drought and societal collapse. If all Americans adopt Net Zero No Flush toilets, there will be enough fresh water for all the thirsty 3W cities again!" Wear a pink morning glory if you go Flush Free 🌸
It is not just in Oz, It is the same where ever the feckwit Eco lot have got their hooks in... We have the same issues here in the UK....
Many of the anti-nuclear brigade seem to adopt the same deceptive tactics as many of the anti-EV brigade. They are both a menace in my book.
@@terjepetersen Any Anti what ever group does it... Even the Ev cult/Anti-ice/Ev cult mob does the same.
@@terjepetersen ...and you'd be wrong. The anti-EV brigade are largely correct, even Elon Musk is pivoting away from them.
Nuclear is the only way forward
What they don’t tell you about windmills is the ongoing costs
Especially when they are in the ocean
The blades last 7 months at 100 s of thousands of dollars to replace
Generators that only last 18 months before they need replacing
And in wa they are paying farmers $30 000 a year for each windmill on their land
One farmer retired from sheep farming as he has 6 on his property so the WA government is paying him 180 k a year
Indefinitely
How on earth will the electricity ever be cheaper
What are you talking about ? We have plenty of cheap Coal.
It won't, especially if you are Paying people to have turbines on their Property.
Net Zero is economically destructive delusional insanity.
The massive misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources into uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects has to be stopped.
WINDMILLS? WINDMILLS? If you don't know the difference between a device from the 18th and 19th century that was used to mill flour and a WIND TURBINE GENERATOR how can anyone take you seriously?
Ongoing costs??!?!?!!?!! What about the ongoing FAILURE of the recycling of blades??!?!!?!! or rather the stockpiling of used blades.
Thank god nuclear, bowen has no clue on base electricity.
$8.5 Billion a nuke plant (CSIRO costing). or $1.5 TRILLION for the ALPs net zero plan to the end of the decade, a further $8 Trillion out to 2060 (Uni Melb, Uni Qld and Princeton costing).
1.5 Trillion will get you 176 nuke plants, that run 24/7.
We need less than 10 nuke plants
Don't let logic get in the way of a good argument.
Yes, The Numbers don't lie, Just the Idealistic Politicians.
The CSIRO costing is nonsense $30-50 billion each and 15 to 20 years to build each plant.
If France and the UK have trouble building EPR plants with nuclear industries dating back 70 years it will be a shit show in Australia.
@@ShaunSands😂😂😂 sure buddy. We already have power stations with infrastructure: turbines, cooling towers, switching yards and all the facilities you need.
We only need to buy the nuclear island and connect it to the existing turbines with new plumbing. Just size the reactor to suit the existing turbines.
Way, way less than 50 billion. It could be had for 10 billion or less.
By the way the US DOE plans on doing exactly this to about 238 old coal plants in the US.
Slashes costs by 30-50% and creates/preserves the jobs. Much faster too.
I love the way you anti nuclear peeps are getting so desperate now you know the writing is on the wall for renewables.
Nuclear in Australia is inevitable: because it has to be.
There are no valid economic, safety or scientific reasons not to adopt nuclear energy in Australia. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Oh and the median build time is 7.2 years.
Japan has than down to 5 now….
@@ShaunSandsdude you have no idea how big is Australia and how big are the infrastructures 😂
Bowen ? Half a brain? Hardly😂
Abby Normal
You’re being generous
@@TooOldToCare-kl3co I think l was🤔
I'd go 25 %.
@@scottcarr3264perhaps a little less
Mmm, me thinks you are not fond of Mr Bowen! Another good video, thanks Simon.
Bowen is an unflushable turd.
Methinks you are Correct.
Struggle to find anyone that likes arrogant Bowen 🥴
Yes I'm sorry I let my silly voice get the better of me today... sometimes ridicule is the only option...!
We understand
describing bowen as an idiot is an insult to the word, 'idiot'
You have to say why he's an idiot. I ain't seen nothing yet.
It’s an insult to idiots 😂
A refer to him as a corrupt demon with dementia
France powers nearly 100% of its electrical grid with about 100 nuclear power plants. Never a problem. France has experienced nothing but disaster with its green energy projects, way over budget, too little energy return, enormously expensive maintenance headaches, and environmental damage. The US navy has had thousands of nuclear power plants powering its ships for decades. Never a problem. There is no way any ship of any nation is going to run on wind, solar or battery power. There is no way 80,000 pound trucks, large farm tractors, trains and passenger jets are. Electric is practical only on a limited scale, IE razors, cell phones, hair dryers, golf carts and electric bikes. The world cannot ever run its entire electric grid on green energy and batteries. Nuclear is clean, efficient, runs 24-7 and is better, cheaper and safer than ever. The best constant non CO2 power generator out there.
You need to update your knowledge on the French nuclear power industry. It's bankrupt and half the plants are offline because it is too expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
Ok but how much has the nuclear weapons budget thrown in the kittie?
@@xpusostomos nuclear power was subsidized by nuclear weapons production... Now it wants green energy subsidies. It's just a very expensive way to generate electricity. Go read about the nationalization of the French company EDF. All this info is out there in public. You don't need a TH-camr to frame the story for you.
What happens if France keeps being stupid with Ukraine and Russia cuts off their uranium?
70% isn't nearly 100%
Aussie is a bizarre Net Zero use case. You have all the space and resources for a industrial power house to replace China but are trying to become completely dependent on them instead?
Yes, It makes NO sense, does it ?? and they are Communists as well. Our Politicians are Morons, especially the Labour/Greens.
China made products, lifespan 10 years, signed and sealed! Unsafe, unreliable and an economic disaster - epic fail! Our money (current and future) is being thrown away with glee by morons! 🤤
Because China owns Australian politicians
@@Beecher_Dikov That may be the case, we should order a 'genuine' enquiry!
Oz also only make 0.3% of global emissions, it's complete joke. China and India make over 40% maybe start there if we really cared.
everyone wants nuclear as long as its not in their backyard. I wonder how MGUY would feel about it in his backyard?
Got to have big back yard - most reactors have large exclusion zones around them.
Nuckear power stateions are all through Japan, much of Asia, Europe and the USA, nobody complains. They are safe, clean and efficient. What objection would YOU have to one in your town?
@@rowbearly6128 nobody? Really? I don't think I have to list the reasons why they might object, its quite obvious
@charlieclelland5895 it's never big enough though. There's been plenty of nuclear power disasters over the years. History tells us that.
@@dps615 Some reasonable objections? Please list some of these apparently "obvious" reasons. Nuclear power, used in thouseands of reactors every day, is very safe, if trained satff are used and the location is not on a fault line or facing a tectonic plate convergence, then it is unquestionably safer and cleaner than a coal fired station, and poses less risk than a hydro installation. You rerence vague and undefined "reasons" with zero evidentiary support.
True fact, even with Chernobyl incompetence and Fukushima accident included, nuclear power have caused fewer deaths than windpower..
The number of deaths from the Fukushima nuclear accident is zero. Slightly more for Chernobyl.
Fukushima was avoidable human error. The faults were identified for years but never fixed.
I have been saying that for over 40 years. In Britain we have let our once world leading nuclear power industry slide away. Germany, bless them, accelerated their nuclear decommissioning after Fukushima (no tsunamis in Germany). We have to thank France for having nuclear to reduce demand on gas after the Russians invaded Ukraine. Otherwise we in Europe would have been royally stuffed.
After Russias invasion Germany had to supply France with huge amounts of electricity because halve of the reactors were not running. Germany together with the UK and Spain saved their asses.
ever heard of fukushima? chernobyl?
Yes... so your point is?
Fukushima was the result of a tsunami, Australia will not build directly opposite a plate plunge point, Chernobyl was the reasult of Soviet lack of resources and unskilled workers. Poor arguments.
Yes - and have you heard how many people actually died in both of those events? A generous estimate is less than 500, probably lower.
Now compare this to the known fact that coal burning power plants globally cause an estimated 10,000 premature deaths per DAY from their particulate emissions.
Collectively all the nuclear power plants NOT built over the past 3 decades has caused the death of tens of millions.
and the land that is contaminated for generations as a result of the accidents? now imagine more of those accident that have huge impact as compared to coal etc!
@@dmdm8018 Here's the thing many people are unaware of. Chernobyl had FOUR reactors, only one of which was destroyed by an idiot supervisor. The other three continued to operate - with plant operators working there quite safely - for at least a decade later. The so-called 'exclusion zone' over time has become a wildlife sanctuary where all manner of creatures are thriving in the relative absence of humans.
As for Fukushima - again people continue to work onsite all the time in perfect safety. Yes there is some very mild groundwater contamination with tritiated water - but this is a very low energy radiation which has never been shown to harm anyone.
Yes there is intense radiation in the immediate zone of the damaged cores - these are a problem to clean up and no-one wants a repeat of this. But outside the plant boundaries the levels of ionising radiation are much, much lower. Despite the fearmongering the reality is that below about 1mSv per day - any hazard from ionising radiation is virtually indistinguishable from all other background risks.
The only net zero that will happen before 2080 is the majority of people's assets being at Net Zero value.
And our quality of life aside from the very upper class.
Completing grade 3 must have been a harrowing time for Bowen and perhaps his greatest achievement since
😂
It was the hardest four years of his life.
He only got to form 2!😊
OK to have nuclear submarines but not nuclear generators.
They are the same thing, nuclear reactors weren't originally designed as power plants they were breeder reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons, then they discovered they had to cool them and could use that steam to make electricity, they actually need power from the grid to cool the reactors, so yeah nuh its a con nuclear energy for nuclear weapons.
@@raazhardmobile nuclear are a lot simpler and safer than some land nuclear plants
@xpusostomos it's still fission making it smaller and modular doesn't solve the radioactive isotope problem and what to do with it, whereas fusion just leaves us with inert helium. Now when we get fusion technology sorted I'll be on board, but can't see it in my lifetime unless we find alien tech.
@@raazhard not all fission is the same... E.g. the lunar car was nuclear
@xpusostomos what are you smoking strontium 90? There maybe different types of reactors using different isotopes as fuel but they all share the basic physics of fission. You know splitting a heavy element into 2 lighter ones. Please explain what other type of fission exists?
If we continue down the path of shutting down gas and coal generation and rely on wind/solar then we are in for a miserable life with rolling blackouts and industry shutdowns. It is a fact that Nuclear Generators are the only practical alternative. Nuclear Power Stations may be expensive and take years to build but this pales into insignificance compared to the social disruptions caused by permanent lack of sufficient electricity to sustain our standard of living.
The chances for a blackout are higher with big power plants that suddenly stop working. Wind and solar plants are easy to control in a fast and precise way.
@@gerbre1 If the Sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing there is absolutely nothing that can be done to fix this.
@@geoff37s57 Nevertheless Germany had 60% renewables last year and is heading towards 70%. Obviously there is something that can be done.
@@gerbre1 Industrialised countries such as Germany can never go 100% renewable. Renewables can play a part but must be backed up by reliable 24/7 electricity supply unless the geography allows large scale Hydro then the only practical choice is Fossil Fuels or Nuclear.
@@geoff37s57 Nobody said 100% is possible. There are around 14-21 days of dunkelflaute. Germany will use gas plants, at first with natural gas then green hydrogen.
The UK has 15 Nuclear power stations in a land mass that fits into Queensland 7 times. Germany has 17. Wake up people.
The draw back in UK is the twenty years it takes to pass the planning permission.
Germany has shuttered their nuclear plants.
@@RYTHMICRIOTAnd they're probably regretting that now
Since the year 2000 the UK has shutdown 26 nuclear reactors and put 0 new reactors in operation.
@@Emiliocab47 No regret, the electricity prices went down.
I love the prospect of safe, modular compact Thorium based nuclear being widely distributed; giving us affordable reliable and plentiful energy ---- almost anywhere.
Let's get it done!
Thorium is going nowhere, it's harder than it seems
All fission reactions leave pollution the only real solution is fusion but we don't have the technology yet to contain the reaction. Maybe in 50 to 100 years.
That's pretty much what the Indonesians working towards. the molten salt reactors they want to use are scheduled to be fuelled on a 50:50 mix of Uranium and Thorium Fluoride. Thorium seems to be doable in Molten Salt reactors but difficult in other types.
How many of these rants are just computer generated programs or maybe Indian or phillipino marketing schemes ? Yeah that sound more like it and definitely something the lib/nats would dream up just like robo-debt morrison and his famed marketing wizardry !! hahhaaa what a joke . Lets wait for the election and see if taxpayers want to fork over more billions to the coalitions corporate buddies from the US and UK seeing they have drained all the workers of their savings over there and now see Australia as a new plaything a bit like a cash machine with no pin required.
There's a 4 reactor plant 20 min from me in Darlington, Ontario, I LOVE it, all my electric garden tools are nuclear powered hahaha! For real, I sleep very well at night, zero worry about anything, CANDU reactors are extremely safe :)
Senator Gerrard Rennick claims that the BOM is making changes to weather records (Acorn 1.x through 2.x). These changes are being slowly but steadily made to create an altered weather record that supports the CC agenda.
That's Illegal OR Immoral, take your pick.
Ohh really? And I guess he has the evidence too. Or has that been stolen by BOM ninjas? The conspiracy just gets deeper and deeper.....
@@scottcarr3264 Probably both. It needs to be brought to account.
Absolutely .. theyre not comparing apples with apples .. its criminal and charges should be laid
This Feb was the warmest on record. Until an expert looked at the figures and realised they had lowered the records all the way back to 1940 by 2 degrees. Somebody is being paid to lie.
Simon take a look at Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) worth an episode...
but do they need the same amount of staff as a plant one?
Those are even more expensive than the big once.
Only thing I don't like about those, is Gates from hell has his dabs all over them.
Well the minister IS right that far more space in wind/solar is added yearly than nuclear - because it typically takes 8-10 years to build and get permits for a nuclear plant. On the flip side one nuclear plant can outproduce multiple huge wind/solar farms, and do it reliably 24/7/365 even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
And no way are "they" going to build enough wind and sun in 8-10 years either.
So build renewables now, open a heap of jobs and encourage mature age apprentices, use it to move towards net zero all while planning and starting the long term plan of nuclear. I don't get why it has to be completely one or the other. Just team sports at this point.
The question is not how you achieve net zero, it is do we really need to get to net zero.
In photos from space the world is greener today than it was in the first photos. Net zero/climate change is a money/control scheme, and has nothing to do with the environment.
We don't. There is no emergency; it's all a scam. Climate change is real of course - as it always has been. For example, Sahara used to be lush and green, and so was the currently ice-covered Greenland (hence its name). And the last Ice Age ended approx 11,000 years ago. The current hysterical over-reaction is unnecessary, ridiculous, costly and wasteful.
All wind turbines and solar panels will be a big waste of space with nuclear 😂
Always been my view !
I'm perplexed as to why nobody talks about Thorium reactors. It's got advantages over Uranium, being cleaner with less waste for a start, and we are sitting on some of the biggest deposits on the planet. But there may be an answer to that. The UK apparently looked at it in the 1950's but opted for Uranium so they could harness the plutonium by-product for nuclear weapons. Nothing like getting priorities right.
Thorium reactors have their problems, but you are right, we should investigate their use and benefits over U238.
Thorium is going nowhere. It's harder than the sound bite channels make it out to be.
Thorium doesn't really have those advantages over uranium. That's not to say that thorium isn't worth developing as an energy resource (there's enough thorium to provide humanity with all its energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years at least, and there's plenty more on the moon if we ever run out of it on earth), but it has been rather over hyped.
Thorium sounds like a good idea but it can only be used as an adjunct to Uranium fission. Th232 is not fissile but must absorb neutrons to make (after a number of steps) a Uranium isotope U233 which is fissile. In reactors with fuel rods there are various schemes to reprocess irradiated rods to get the U233. Molten salt reactors can use Thorium with Uranium fuel because the Thorium can be in the salt for years and slow reaction times aren't an issue. There is a real downside to using Thorium - a small % of the Thorium is converted into U232 - this isn't fissile and decays into daughter nuclei which are hard gamma emitters - this adds to the shielding required and human safety issues of Thorium fuelled reactors
The price of power is already insane in Oz, Going Nuke will triple bills, 100% Bats
We could charge battery banks with them? We have all the raw strategic materials here. Should use the French system ,1 design with many built all over France , all workers build the same thing and can work in any plant.
Im no aussie, but isnt australia the most suitable country for nuclear?
Its a geologically dead continent, right?
The Abbos might disagree with you on that!
We are a little short of water.
But that is not a problem for coal or gas plants and it won't be a problem for nuclear.
Other than that, the geography and geology is perfect. If you brainstormed the absolute best conditions for nuclear you would end up describing Oz.
Not exactly. But we are in the centre of our own tectonic plate, so we are not susceptible to earthquakes or resultant tsunamis caused by these plates' sudden movements. As happens noteably in Japan and California.
It is geologically very stable, however, there is always someone that will complain.
We need to remember that we live in a democracy.
Democracy is not a matter of how loud a small number of people complain.
Fresh Water is Australia's weakness, good luck cooling all those hot reactors without it.
We have been building a nuclear power station in Somerset UK it takes a long time!!! Unless you go to China and they throw it up in two weeks.... Keep up the good work MGUY. Jon T UK
And costs a lot of money.
Wind and solar together are providing 28% of our needs here in the UK this morning. Its a Joke.
38.4 percent for past year, not bad
... and Nuclear only provides 15% on average.
And how much energy comes from Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands?
@@gerbre117.4 percent
@@gerbre1none from germany
Net Zero is a path to taxation.
World net Zero = world taxes = world government
that's the plan, the real outcome will be anarchy.
As someone who has witnessed the Chinese-designed money pit known as Hinkley Point C in the UK, you may wish to change your mind. Built on a deeply faulted site deemed unsuitable for an advanced gas-cooled reactor with a concrete pressure vessel as its predecessor Hinkley B was they went for the cheaper version. Its budget has doubled, along with time for completion. We have also agreed to pay sky-high amounts for the energy it produces to EDF the French-owned energy supplier.
New nuclear should be small and quick to build modular reactors that can supply a city not 30 years in the making of monsters that are out of date before completion using Chinese flawed design and software run by the French. What a combination.
I don't want "Old Fashioned" Light Water Uranium reactors, I want State of the Art Liquid Fluorine THORIUM reactors, More compact 500 % safer than Uranium and you Can't make Plutonium for bombs from them, also No need for Gigalitres of cooling water, so no Issues there either.
Chinese designed ----- money pit -- what a surprise which genius put that deal together ??
That's the history of the industry going back to the 1950s... EDF went bankrupt and was nationalized because nuclear power is too expensive. The french industry flopped but used standardized designs. It's just not even going to happen.
@@MrOlgrumpy Nobody. The design is French with a little bit of German.
Same design as Chinese reactors some of which had to be shut down with problems. George Osborne and David Cameron I believe. The site was swarming with Chinese workers until the security scare over Hiwawi I believe. Not sure now. Sure it will use Chinese written software so expect a meltdown if they invade Taiwan.
Well, nuclear is synonymous with "price is no object." I always say if price is no object, we could just convert coal plants to clean coal carbon capture plants. Also, isn't Australia kind of a warm dry place? Honestly, with the amount of water nuclear plants use, you could reforest half the outback with trees which would capture more carbon than Australians can even produce. France has to turn its nuclear plants off in the summer when the energy is most needed because it overheats their rivers and coastal areas. They then buy their power from coal plants in surrounding countries. Does Australia have surrounding countries to buy its coal power from in the summer?
Nailed it Simon, 10/10.
HOW SOON WE ALL FORGET ALL THE PAST NUCLEAR DISASTERS
Which ones? The ones caused by Soviet budget issues and unskilled communist workers, or the ones caused by tsunamis and earthquakes that are entirely avoidable in Australia? I am not expecting an answer as I don;t think you have any genuine interest in or knowledge of the issue.
We have supply of uranium should have done this inline with submarines years ago replace decommissioned power stations as they go off-line..
Yep, other than geothermal, nuclear power is the only viable source of consistent energy 24/7.
As a retired nuclear reactor operator, I'll admit that nuclear also has issues too. However, nuclear is clean power. Nuclear plants provide base load power 24/7 whether or not the sun shines or if the wind doesn't blow. Wind and solar last only 25 years before being placed in a landfill. The all waste from 60 years of a nuclear plant take up less space than all the waste tailing from a coal mine after one year.
Why try to achieve net zero? There is no reason to do so. To make more nuclear power stations is just insane, there is no solution to the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Nuclear is also the most expensive way bar none to generate electricity, despite huge government subsidies, and laws limiting liability to ludicrously small amounts in the event of an accident. In addition, nuclear power stations always cost at least twice the estimated cost, and take several years longer to commission than planned. Nuclear is for people who don't give a damn about the future for their kids and their kids.
Someone who speaks the truth !! Just '' down the road '' from where I live [ I am 60 and have always lived in Norfolk ] is the nuclear plant of Sizewell [ in Suffolk ] where they have A,B,C , i think there are 3 , but then , i don't care if there are 6 , reactors . I believe they are PWR reactors [ pressurised water reactors ] , hence the abbreviation .
I’ll vote for nuclear. A great way to power EVs.
next door to you?
No next door to you
Me too, to power my house and the service station where I buy my diesel...
@@kurtk8926 Do you want a coal plant next door instead? I'd be much less concerned about nuclear on a day to day basis.
They're a good pairing. Too expensive, long track record of failure, and just won't happen... A handful of people will probably get really rich though.
I live near a nuclear power plant in Virginia. There have been no issues from it. The fishing there is really good and actually produces larger fish from the warmer water exiting the plant. There are many species of wildlife around the plant from feed plots that provide plenty of food for the wildlife. I'm All for nuclear power
We should start by dropping the NetZero goal.
Just hope one of the reactors can re process the spent fuel more and the government doesn’t cheap out on that.
Sellafield is the first uk nuke power station. Its still costing clean up fees.
the "anti-human extremists" are those pushing for Nuclear ,sure from an Engineering viewpont , it seems too good to be TRUE - because it's Anti-Human , Anti- life NO NUCLEAR in Australia
Sellafield's first reactors were designed to make Plutonium for the UK's atomic bomb program. One of them caught fire (it was big block of Graphite) and the clean up has been going on ever since.
But we don't WANT to achieve net zero !!!!! The more carbon dioxide, the better !!! The idea for going nuclear is to provide stable and reliable baseload POWER !! Not to bring the country closer to net zero !!!!
Lets have a talk about energy waste. Nuclear power stations over their 60+ year terms will create about 100 square meters of waste - that is if we do not reuse it in reactors. Solar, Winds and batteries will create 1000's of archers of waste.
They can be recycled.
@@gerbre1 Where and pls name the companies in Australia hat do it.
@@aussietaipan8700 Envirostream Australia Pty Ltd, Renewable Metals, Lithium Australia. Location left as exercise to you.
@@aussietaipan8700 Reclaim PV Recycling, PV Industries, Lotus Energy
@@aussietaipan8700 Yt delete the PV recycling companies. Wind turbines are mainly steel, copper and the rotor blades. The latter can't be recycled yet. Maybe they are shredded and used in road basements.
I have a question for Australians afraid of nuclear. Japan is the only country hit 3 times by nuclear bombs / meltdown, yet, they still have not considered banning nuclear energy. My question is, Oz is scared of nuclear, not japan. Do you think they know something Oz does not?
Fin fact.. if you have a High temperature thermal nuclear reactor (they are quite rare but there are a few of them in the wild).
You have a thermal hydrogen production unit.
And you combine that with a hydro splitting unit (there are loads of those around the world already).
You can take any organic. Roots, twigs, grass, Sewage, dung, waste from slaughtering. Basically anything that is organic, and make basically any fuel from Bitumen (used to make tarmac) up to methane (used in fertilizer production and rockets)
In Sweden we got a so to say combine waste product called GROT and the current price of that is about 3€cent/kWh. And thermal Hydrogen would cost about 3€cent/kWh as well. Making the fuel price (from production) to be about 4€cent/KWh or about 40€cent/liter of diesel (Due to 25% system losses and other costs). With a bit of production cost, transports and pump cost this would probobly end up at 60-70€cent/liter at the filling station. Compare to 90 with normal diesel.
Soon enough , the hip pocket will speak . The hip pocket will demand cheaper and reliable electricity and that's what nuclear provides . Nuclear power plants are constructed on a regular basis for aircraft carriers and submarines.
Last I heard, they were still arguing over whether Yucca Mtn was a good waste repository. As I recall, it wasn't the best geology, but not-in-my-back-yard-ism eliminated all the, you know, sensible places to dump the nuclear waste.
They said no to the waste dump in Kimba, rightly so as that's prime agricultural area. They can go dump it up in a shithole nobody cares about, like 200 km west of Coober Pedy, where there's nothing but rocks.
Actually, with the modern advent of Thorium reactors, nuclear waste will cease to be an issue.
Thorium is a dead end. @@gbsailing9436
Obama shut down the Yucca Mtn plan.
@@gbsailing9436 The Holy Grail no one has seen so far.
Wind and solar can't provide baseload, you need a Nuke or fossil fuel backup for renewables. Since you are paying for the fossil fuel backup that could handle the load by itself? You are actually paying double or triple for your wind and solar.
Acres and acres of batteries....
All the batteries in Australia would take up less than one nuclear power station. That's again a nonsense statement.
KK nuclear powerplant in Japan is the worlds largest power plant with 7 large reactors. It takes 1.5km2 of space.
Yer, this guys a tool
@@matsv201Yep and you would need a million square kilometres, or more for a battery storage facility that can put out what a nuclear plant puts out in a day. If the power outage was more than a day, where to then?
@matsv201 For a start the plant covers 4.2 sqkm. That does not include the buffer zones which would make it around 16 sqkm.
Good to see it's working so well is shut down.
By the way current recommendations are for 4km buffers. Ie 4 km either side if plant. So total area would be 64sqkm
@@stewart5989 No.. 1.5 km2 is the powerplant size, 4km2 is including the buffert.
Its shut down for poltiical reason. That is some extreme lefty wanted to shut it down becasue they love importing oil from dictatorships that much
Net zero will never happen. And why should it? CO2 is very beneficial for the environment.
This time the answer is YES
Does it really matter what energy source we use, so long as it doesn't produce essential priceless plant food, the gas of life CO2 , the substance at an all time dangerously low level ? Si ?
Just think if we had been investing in this kind of technology for the past 20 something years.
at least the cost of nuclear will make sense years in the future and not be a big spend on wind and solar that will end up being another desalination plant project.
solar panels and turbine blades are just future land fill waste.
Have always been a bit reticent in relation to nuclear but as an alternative to covering the continent with windfarms and solar farms and a massive grid to get it to population centres and we have shitloads of Uranium I capitulate. Its got to be more economically viable if they put them were existing coal power stations live. Scale of renewables is stupendous and storage for peak demand via batteries isnt going to happen because that solution is stupendous also. Id like to seenuke missles on those nuke subs if we ever get them but then gain thats just me.
Nuclear is great until they say they are going to build one near you.
Go Dutton .. a real leader
? what are you smoking mate!
Thank god for Mr. Dutton he gets my vote! When it comes to Chris Bowen I shall quote Mark Twain, " Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
I am the total opposite I would never vote for Dunce head dutton as he even got beat at leadership contest by the local used car salesman marketing guru morrison. He is a low ranked policeman who could never advance due to his stupidity but even worse he is a true power monger and is the most dangerous fool the libs have ever put forward as a prospective prime minister of australia. Even more dangerous than morrison. People of Australia be very, very aware of what direction this idiot will take australia if elected as he is a super dangerous ideologue and is a suck-hole to corporate america and UK.
As I've said before, Simon (Mguy) for PM. I agree with everything this man says.
How odd to be for nuclear, but not be able to provide a single data point to justify your "belief." The truth is that the levelized cost of nuclear is simply absurdly too much compared to all other major forms of energy generation, especially renewables. That and nuclear takes WAY too long to build.
Probably takes too long due to people dragging their feet in the permitting process.
It will still take decades to build any power plants, nuclear or otherwise. No matter what, a severe shortage of power is in our near future. That goes for the US, EU, AUS ect.
Yeah well considering that we all expect all the latest technology, toys and things like AI there's no real surprises there imo.
We also build rubbish buildings that require heating/cooling for a lot of the year in many places and it seems that most would rather pay for heating in Winter than putting on more clothes.
It doesnt take that long anymore. What takes long is bureaucracy and people like you getting in the way with worthless arguments against it.
Nuclear is the Best reliable form of clean energy we have for the foreseeable future.
"Renewables" are too unreliable and inefficient to be usable for more then the immediate local area.
Hydro can only be used in some places with acess large enough fresh water reserves and the reservoirs needed damage the environment with their size.
Solar need a Lot of sun at the correct angle during the day, subject to lowering efficiency in poor weather and take a huge amount of space, ruining the environment.
Wind, counter to the idea can only work in places that dont get a lot of high winds and storms, disrupt bird habitats and take a lot of space, ruining the environment.
Green is not green.. no power is and they all carry a cost. Until we can make something better we should at the very least use the most reliable tool we have, instead of forcing more waste tech
Also Solar and Wind need reliable and safe battery storage for best use.
@@BlueBD Yep heard it all before and it's a hard no from me.
I would much rather see individual households running Solar and Battery whilst using less power than going down this path.
Another example of the planets biggest pest species trying to engineer out problems they create and then causing more issues.
Personally I think your argument/opinion is worthless and I get one vote just like you.
In Sweden the Nuclear power plant O3 was built in 24 month from first shovel in the ground untill power on the lines. That was done in the early 80s. Its worth saying that there was a complete reactor redesign as well The total build time from start of reactor redesign to power on the line was less than 48 month
Nuclear is the only way to go green
Bravo it's Best to have a broad energy policy
So how does Bowen explain to the solar suckers that got grifted that they now have to pay to put into the grid?
The hinkley point new reactor in Somerset UK, has so far taken 9 years to build, and wont be finished for another 5 years. What is required are small reactors not massive ones like Hinkley.
The industry tries to build large nuke plants because the economics of the small ones are even worse. The big ones are too expensive to build and maintain--same story in the US as the UK. Same story in France.
Geez. Decisions decisions. Billions for a 24/7 all weather power source that runs for 40-50 years or billions (because we have to build in triplicate) solar farm that only operates 8 hours a day and with a 10-40% drop in generating power in cloudy or wet weather. Bowen : let’s build solar.
So if you agree net zero/exiting fossil fuels is desirable, why not embrace renewables for the short term, given Australia's unique position to do so, while nuclear gets up and running?
Why completely disregard all renewables because you prefer nuclear? Rule 1 of reliability is to not put all your eggs in one basket by diversifying. Why does it have to be the extreme 1 or the other? Why not use one as a transitionary solution? So many needless absolutes.
Also, implying that Labor, the party made up of landlords who get kick-backs and cushy corporate positions from the private sector in exchange for favours, are aligned with "the commies" is either complete buffoonery or just straight up disingenuous, which isn't going to help your credibility, even if you make factual and informative points.
I’m sorry but you are wrong. Let’s talk cost. If green or nuclear don’t lower the price of energy, dump them. You seem to be an intelligent person, but stuck in an industrial paradigm. If you would just be a champion of us peasants, I would respect you. Does eliminating monopolies lower costs? Give us the path to least cost energy like Tony Seba did.
I know I am a heretic. Yes there is slight increase in temperature, maybe 1.3C but even that varies by reports. How accurate is our temperature comparison before 1850 globally? I suggest it is all about ice core and such. Variation in those circumstances is 1C - + at the minimum. That means our 1.3C is meaningless. What about the effects of this maybe 1.3C??? Almost 100% positive, and I will only list one, hunger has almost disappeared. When have last had UN supported campaign to feed starving people. Apart from camps due to military operations?
I once considered myself an environmentalist, a greeny in fact.
However I was never an ignorant idealist.
My environmentalism is still going strong and it is embarrassed by those who now call themselves green who are nothing of the sort.
What I don’t accept is harm and waste for profit and or ideology that only benefits a few greedy people.
I have no problem with building a dam , mine or other infrastructure that will result in massive land clearing that sends endangered species extinct if it is absolutely necessary and no alternative is available and the endangered species will go extinct regardless of the infrastructure project. Often such projects don’t do the harm that’s expected and new habitats open up for the endangered species actually saving them from extinction.
Basically I’m pragmatic about the environment and the only problem that I have with nuclear power is that morons will be involved in the planning of construction and the waste management.
If the whole thing could be done with the premise of mitigation of the influence of idiots I would be very pro nuclear.
But we all know if you build something supposedly idiot proof the universe just builds a bigger idiot! And unfortunately people vote for them or make them cult leaders.
Solar and Wind is ok as a SUPPLEMENT. It can be used to power basics for a household. Otherwise, it's useless.
You've also not mentioned that Australia is basically dependent upon manufacturing overseas at this point. We have no direct control over other countries energy policies.
So it's not just about replacing the existing electricity usage but could also be about providing the energy for manufacturing into the future.
As you've stated, we have the raw materials for nuclear. If we committed to using them, we'd also be creating a basis upon which manufacturing could sustainably be done in Australia itself rather than having to deal with all the emissions involved in overseas manufacturing and importing goods.
In this regard it seems like the current government is not actually interested in reducing emissions globally but rather they just want to be seen to be doing what other people want them to do, but ineffectually.
Combined cycle natural gas is a better investment, high efficiency gives more power per heat input and makes huge reductions in CO2 if that's what people want.
Won't happen. The coalition has just dug its grave even further deeper, unfortunately. I am from latrobe Valley one of the sites named for possible nuclear reactor. I would love to see one here as it makes perfect sense but we don't live in a country where making sense makes sense..
The only real alternative to nuclear fission (of uranium or thorium) is to burn coal/gas/oil while waiting 20 or 50+ years for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium or boron.
Having an opinion is fine but belittling people that don't think the same as you shows total arrogance, sorry mate I just unsubscribed from your channel, it's got nothing to do with how I vote because I have lost faith in the whole lot.
So many of you in here are so cynical about government, and yet so many believe they would be capable of building a timely, cost efficient, reliable and safe Nuclear power solution.
Wind and solar not only costs a lot of money but also costs a lot of energy.
I'm not even sure a big wind installation returns more energy to the Earth than what is used in the mining, and manufacturing, and transport of the materials, and the upgrades in roads and bridges (to get these huge things into rural areas), and the maintenance, etc.
And I hope all the materials are bio friendly as they will eventually need disposed of or recycled.
i am starting to lose faith in this channel...it is becoming more and more political instead of giving factual advice to consumers ...sad
Peter Dutton wants to build Small Modular Reactors which no country so far has been able to do and spent billions trying and taken many years not to complete, who looks ridiculous now
I did a project on nuclear energy in elementary school. I've known how good nuclear is for 25 years
I still don't see the point of Net Zero. Even if you achieve it, it won't make the slightest difference to the climate.
We are on the same page Mr. MGUY. Now there is more gasoline for our cars!
That's if you believe in the net zero scam
Galen Winsdor said it does not work. So it doesn't