‘Shame’: ABC under fire over latest anti-nuclear segment
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- The ABC’s latest anti-nuclear segment seemed to be “an attempt to take down parts of the Coalition’s policy” using American voices, says GNE Advisory Helen Cook.
“I thought that was a shame because it didn’t accurately portray what America and Americans think about nuclear energy,” she told Sky News host Chris Kenny.
“The majority of Americans, according to the most recent polling, support nuclear energy.”
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
So far I think the most promising argument for nuclear is the fact malcolm turnbull thinks it's a bad idea.
I have to ask would you be happy to have a three mile Island ten kilometers from your home, be honest if you are ok with that i will believe you......
Walter.
@@jamesmcgrath1669 If your referring to a nuclear power plant, no problem. If your alluding to the 3 mile island nuclear accident, no one died and radiation levels didn't cause any issues to those living around the plant due to the accident.
@jamesmcgrath1669 yep I'm happy with that!
Trumble has million's invested in solar = million's to lose when nuclear energy take's over
There’s doubt about Malcolm Turncoat, has he ever supported anything the Liberals have put forward? Still got a little bit of ‘it’ on his liver I think.
Turnbull, what an oxygen thief. The same clown rolled out by the ABC time and time again.
The ABC is just a bad joke at this point, sell it.
Hear! Hear!
No one in their right mind would buy the rubbish thing mate
That ponce has never ever been in any trench in his life.
So if you've been in a trench, you're not a ponce?
like we need to listen to Turnbull after his disasters with NBN, French subs, Snowy River 20 billion, we can't let this reckless idiot do more harm to Australia
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest rout to go.
Absolutely true. Unfortunately it's cost is extremely high.
Goodcthen you will have no problem if they build one in your suburb, whats that you say nimby not in my backyard, well you are telling us all nuclear power is safe.......
Walter.
@joshuakearns1847 maybe the start up costs! Although we don't truly know how much albosleezy renewables costs are do we??? Plus all the subsidies they have handed out even to billionaires???
@@robynhegwein1 there's a lot of quality research showing the least cost pathways to replace our aging coal plants that have nothing to do with Albo or Labor policy.
Generally renewables, storage, transmission upgrades and critically gas backup is the cheapest option
So the costs aren't unknown at all.
And most of them are expected to be paid by the free market investors
@@joshuakearns1847 Somebody here with a bit of common sense. Well done.
Turnbull is heavily invested in companies who make "renewables" or "unreliables"
Turnbull suffers from relevance deprivation.
Chris...I'm not surprised by what the ABC did to the Nuclear energy debate through its program, I stopped watching ABC Current Affairs programs 20 years ago because of its bias, and it seems nothing has changed..The ABC should be sold off to a pay TV service, so those who want to watch, can pay a subscription ...save the taxpayers millions of $$$$
The ABC story was more balanced than what you see on Sky News.
The truth is that nuclear's share of global power production is half what it was 25 years ago and on a declining trend. Global nuclear capacity went backwards last year with capacity lost due to closures exceeding new capacity coming online.
@@tassied12 : That is simply not true, nuclear power is increasing everywhere.
Nuclear power brings down electricity prices by 75% in Finland.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 You're not telling the whole truth. As usual. Prices are low when there's no demand, not all the time. 75% cheaper at 3:00a.m doesn't help families cooking and staying warm in the evening. They went down temporarily because there was an oversupply. They share a grid with neighbouring countries, meaning fluctuations.
Yet another issue you didn't mention.
They also went up recently, so "75%" is a tad hard to justify. Then there's the tax subsidy, meaning taxpayers are helping pay.
Ever told the full story in a post?Or just selective bits?
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Another selective point- nuclear power is increasing. Yes, it is, as the world grows, it needs more power. That includes nuclear.
But the _share_ of nuclear electricity consumed around the world is _declining,_ as other sources rise in proportion. You made out Tassied is being untruthful, when it's you.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 That 75% fall is referring to SPOT prices not consumer prices. The Finland reactor came online at the time of flooding, so high hydro output was forcing down spot prices anyway.
Here are the average consumer prices in Finland for each of the 6 month periods over the last 2 years (Source Eurostat: Electricity Prices for Household Consumers)
2022 Jan - Jun 0.1335
2022 Jul - Dec 0.1806
2023 Jan - Jun 0.1934
2023 Jul - Dec 0.1712
The new Finland reactor came online in April 2023. Note that there is NO 75% fall. In fact the fall is broadly in line with the fall in power prices across Europe over H2 2023
Why try to scare us about nuclear? What happened to decarbonising?
Why would you wanna decarbonise it is the food of life everything needs it to survive
@foff3379 Laborgreens have been telling us for twenty years that the world will end if we don't. But we can't use nuclear power because... it's expensive?
@@foff3379 so many people forget that part.
Because decarbonising isn't the objective. The objective is the eradication of cheap electricity. Cheap power lifts people out of poverty and provides a high standard of living. And that is bad.
Note how it's only the power generation that can supply loads of constant baseload power that is complained about, Coal, Gas, Nukes and Hydro. Expensive unreliable power from wind and solar guarantee the end of technological society. And that's the final goal for the "masses". "You will own nothing and you will be happy".
Some years ago a "Green" conference was asked what they thought if a clean, non polluting source of cheap electricity was found. They said it would be like giving a baby a machine gun and would have to be fought.
The laws of physics and economics don't care what the ABC says. This drives the ABC nuts!
Who would buy the abc
China
@@guymoschella4066 theyre not dumb. I often think that if we dont use what we have v coal and gas china will just come take it
Iran
Several years ago I was driving home from work. I was listening to a Radio National discussion on nuclear energy. It was December, so I suppose all the engineers calling in where on holidays and so had time to contribute.
They made such great professional points about the benefits. I assume announcer was mortified by these new listener’s comments.
As for the Mr Turnbull, I will keep his remarks as my reply if anyone asks me my opinion of his political career.
Of course Australia only needs nuclear energy if you believe in anthropogenic climate change. But there may be other benefits. So we should, at least discuss it.
Give engineers more holidays so they have time to have input into the debate.
Your experience reminds me of when Philip Adams had a guest on his Late Night Live show. They were 'debating' white privilege. Of course Adams thought it was a real thing and all whites were guilty (except himself of course). But one of his guests phoning in from USA simply asked "What is wrong with being white?" Adams just cut his audio off and apologised to the audience for the dissenting voice and continued their 'debate' where they all agreed with each other.
No Comments at ABC..
no no no .....
It's not called an echo chamber for nothing.
Typical ABC lack of balance.
Turnbull and his son are both fools and are hateful fools.
Chris Bowen is the answer to wind and solar.
He thinks the sun shines out his rear end and he's full of hot air.
Frances power going up from 4.2 cents/kWh to 7 cents/kWh in 2026. Seems cheap.
The miserable ghost returns, one would say he put all his money in renewables - plus the other money men.
why is it always a "us vs them" equation ? Debate the other side together, no use firing shots from behind a fence. Get a panel together and debate ! FFS
Are you really surprised at how biased and unbalanced the ABC can be? It’s definitely not an organisation that provides Australian’s with a breadth of information for each of us to make an informed decision. A few minutes of your own research shows how one sided ABC’s reports are and how manipulative the organisation can be.
The latest distraction from Labor passing through the House, Legislation to set up a committee to examine the Coalition plan to set up Nuclear Power Generation Plants
The government proposal will be a very balanced committee with seven members, four from the government, two from the opposition, and one crossbench member.
Dutton asked for three Labor and three Coalition - but was unsuccessful, the Government using its numbers to ensure it kept a solid majority ensuring the report would be the one Labor wants
The committee must report its findings by the end of April 2025. Conveniently, the election must be held by May 2025.
We look forward to seeing how well-balanced this report is on the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
The world has already chosen. In 2023 about 1 GW of new nuclear was added, 5 GW newly commissioned 4 GW decommissioned, for a total of 490 GW. In 2023 510 GW of renewables was added, nearly all solar and wind, for a total of about 3800 GW. Why? Renewables are far cheaper and much, much faster to build.
@@andrewjoy7044 and don't last as long.
The sad thing is that Australia has the largest uranium reserves. The American viewpoints shown in the video are not following the science and commercial nuclear history in the USA. Were there costly mistakes building Plant Vogtle? Yes. But we should be building 5 at a time in the USA.
Australia is going to be left behind if they don't evolve. SMR technologies should be the way to good. Safe and clean energy.
i got ten minutes in and said hatchet job
If Malcom says no then we go for it! The modern world are building these so should we!
Faster and Cheaper are 2 things that are NOT top of the list for nation building infrastructure. Good things take time and are expensive.
We don't have time unfortunately. Our coal plant fleet is quite old and most will likely need replacing before nuclear can be available.
Someone should produce a program called The Renewables Gamble.
I am all for nuclear energy, but if it is going to be built and owned by big companies we will be in the same state we are in now. They will be wanting more and more profits and still selling our power to the overseas markets. I know it would be a huge cost, but it has to be owned but our government
Yes, building Nuclear Power Plants in Australia will be slow, but that’s not because of technical reasons but Political ones. If the Trade Union Movement gets their grubby hands on the work, then it will take decades to get constructed. On the other hand, if the LNC get the go-ahead to build under Government control, no grubby unions need to get their hands on the work to slow it down. Fingers crossed.
The ABC is a megaphone for the greens 🥬
Love the intelligent protesters in the back ground they know how to count to eight in equal numbers wow.
Why is everyone saying we are doing nothing?. Renewables with big batteries is working well. The nuclear advocates are only trying to shore up their mining mates. It is so obvious. I don't understand how 'opinions' can outvoted respected scientific organisations like the CSIRO. Context is everything and quoting international experts doesn't provide an Australian context.
Do you think that renewables are powering our cities? Not.
Do some research. 1. CSIRO does not have any nuclear experts, it used specialist consultants for GenCost, who were also renewables experts. 2. Renewables are replaced every 10-20 yrs, forever. 3. Renewables and the 10,000km of new transmission lines and the service roads they need are destroying farmland and nat parks. Trans lines bring fire risk.
4. There is no hurry, as renewables are replaced so often, some sites can be retired as Nuclear comes online.
And renewables don't boost mining?
Turnbull has financial interests in renewables.
He has a acompany called Turnbull Renewables complete with its own website.
Funny that the ABC never asks him about that and if his opinions are biased because of his investments.
Follow the money.....
I was just reading an article critical of Dutton and Ted O'Brien in reneweconomy.
Co-author was another former leader of the LNP and economist, John Hewson.
I guess it does not really matter what this crap Channel A B C says or does not say,, because so few people watch the garbage anyway, so its a non issue ,
Turnbull is a renewables stooge…4 Corners is redundant as is Turnbull.
So why is the cost of electricity higher in France which has been getting the majority of its power from nuclear for decades, than in Australia?
France has the cheapest power in Europe and Finland is second.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 The European Commission says the 3 cheapest countries for power are Hungary, Bulgaria and Malta. Are they somehow not in Europe?
Before you get too evasive, perhaps a few criteria should be worked out. A baseline for comparison. I don't care much which one it is, so long as it's consistently applied.
Are you interested or just want to post more propaganda?
@@buildmotosykletist1987 still more expensive than Australia
@@bigearz255 : Nope. Go look. France is cheaper.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 - "France has the cheapest power in Europe and Finland is second."
Nope. You clearly don't have a clue. Per Global Petrol Prices, Electricity prices for households, Mar 2024, US$/kWh:
Iran: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.002 (cheapest worldwide)
Türkiye: _ _ _ _ _ 0.048 (cheapest among OECD members without nuclear power in mix)
Russia: _ _ _ _ _ 0.056 (cheapest with 18.47% nuclear power share in mix)
Mexico: _ _ _ _ _ 0.102 (cheapest among OECD members with 3.49% nuclear power in mix)
Canada: _ _ _ _ _ 0.126 (hydro 57.55% share, gas 14.36%, nuclear 14.00% in 2023)
Finland: _ _ _ _ _ 0.183 (nuclear 42.48% share, hydro 18.93%, wind 18.32% in 2023)
USA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.184 (gas 42.41% share, nuclear 18.25%, coal 15.89% in 2023)
New Zealand: _ _0.212 (hydro 58.49% share, other renewables 17.09% in 2023)
AUSTRALIA: _ _ 0.267 (coal 46.39% share, solar 17.07%, gas 15.56% in 2023)
France: _ _ _ _ _ 0.311 (nuclear 65.27% share, hydro 10.35%, wind 9.56% in 2023)
UK _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.360 (gas 34.25% share, wind 28.10%, nuclear 14.07% in 2023)
Belgium: _ _ _ _ _0.360 (equal most expensive in OECD with 40.56% nuclear power in mix)
Ireland: _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.432
Italy: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.450 (most expensive among OECD members, no nuclear)
Bermuda: _ _ _ _ _0.458 (most expensive worldwide)
Referenced 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘢 for share of electricity production by source, 2023.
What an ignorant person you are, regurgitating misinformation, aye @buildmotosykletist1987?
Yes on nuclear for me
The world energy companies that supply electricity have already decided upon the winner of the nuclear/renewables debate. In 2023 about 5 GW of nuclear was added to worldwide power generation. About 4 GW of nuclear was decommissioned. This gave about a total of 490 GW world wide. In 2023 510 GW of renewables, nearly all wind and solar, was added to worldwide power generation. Very little was decommissioned. This gave about 3850 GW of renewables worldwide. In 2023, 30% of world electricity was generated by renewables and this is set to grow to 50% over the next 5 to 6 years. In 2023, about 10% of world electricity was generated by nuclear and this is set to decline to 7% by the end of the decade.
In 2024 about 650 GW of renewables are set to be added to world generating capacity. In 2024, so far, 4 GW of nuclear has been added and 1.5 GW has been decommissioned.
If nuclear is so good why has the world chosen renewables. I will let you on a little secret - it is because renewables are far cheaper and take a fraction of the time to build compared to nuclear.
You did conveniently forget to mention that the service life of wind is less than 20 years - solar panel 25 years - and Nuclear -60-80 years if not longer - they are even recommissioning old nuclear plants at the moment in the US
Araring Power Station produces 16GW of power and that's just one power station in Australia, not worldwide.
@@viviennenoble4035 Do you mean Eraring?
"Eraring Power Station is a coal-fired power station consisting of four 720 MW Toshiba steam-driven turbo-alternators for a combined capacity of 2,880 MW."
@@footbru Sorry, a misspelling, What I meant was Eraring Power Station.
@@viviennenoble4035 Okay, easy to do. And the 16GW?
😢😅😅😅😅lay