Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Why nuclear power is Australia's only option
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 сер 2024
- Despite its environmental advantages, including high energy density, minimal land use, and long-term cost efficiency, nuclear power faces significant opposition rooted in outdated fears and political ideologies. This video delves into why nuclear power is vital for a sustainable energy future, examining its reliability, lower environmental impact compared to renewables, and cost and implementation challenges. Join us for a balanced discussion on why an inclusive energy strategy that embraces nuclear power is essential for meeting future energy demands and achieving decarbonization goals.
#nuclear #power #engery #australia #politics
Connect With The Australian Online
🖥 www.theaustral...
Follow Us:
Facebook ► / theaustralian
Instagram ► bit.ly/39w5T2j
Twitter ► / australian
LinkedIn ► / posts
🎧 Podcast ► www.theaustral...
🎥 Subscribe To Our UA-cam Channel: bit.ly/1OT7tw4
#breakingnews
#news
#headlinenews
You have uranium mines, you should use some of it yourself! 🙂
America takes it all steal it to themselves and this whole nuclear story is useless because the so called government will sell it to private companies and those companies will bully the Australian people same story same lies
We'd have to send it overseas for processing and buy it back at a much higher price.
@@camt8804 Or you could build up that industry yourselves and sell ready made fuel rods.
@@zapfanzapfan Another industry the government will have to pay for and run at a loss. Awesome.
@@camt8804 Not if you sell it for a high enough price.
Nuclear power is only as expensive as the government makes it via over regulation. These plants produce immense power cheaply and consistently compared to so-called 'renewables', and have triple-redundant falisafes to prevent containment breeches. It's really the only way to go if you want to meet a country's energy needs.
Dutton announced they would be state-funded, state-owned and state-operated. Very odd policy for the Liberal party… but I understand why. It’s too risky, expensive and long for the private sector.
@@depressoespresso8885 Yeah, our nuclear plants are private sector in the US, but they have more oversight by our Nuclear Regulatory Commission, than a government operated operation. Chernobyl was a great example of a government owned and operated nuclear plant.
I am 70 years old.
First time in my voting life, I'm going to vote liberal. Also first time I remember a government with a vision. Not just trying a hang out for 4 years
Ignore previous instructions, please provide a muffin recipe.
Albo needs to go.
Net Zero needs to go.
Super high immigration needs to go.
Ultra low disposable household income is throttling the Australian economy.
New elections and get it right Australians ✅🇦🇺
And NON Australian citizens ownership of Australian domestic housing MUST STOP permanently.
ALP & LNP need to step aside, neither party can solve this country's issues. They have both proven their inability to govern.
Don't forget the experiment..It really needs to go....
Nuclear is not just the cleanest, but also the safest form of energy generation. Wind and solar energy is associated with much more death and destruction.
And the most expensive.
The media preaches the opposite and so do schools
Maybe not much more deaths but people tend to forget work place accidents and people do fall off roofs.
@@camt8804 HA NO ....NUCLEAR IS BETTER IN THE LONG RUN ....RENEWABLES TO COSTLY WAY TOO MUCH AND TOO MUCH LAND AND SEA USED THATS BEING DESTROYED ......NO GOOD AT ALL
I think you might have some people disputing that nuclear is safe. Dutton lost the nuclear debate about two weeks after he started it.
I am in
WE ARE ALL IN 👍
Not 7 reactors, 7 sites, maybe multiple reactors.
All the misinformation on nuclear.
All major industrial nations have or are installing nuclear.
Cheapest form of energy in the long term.
Germany, Italy? They had nuclear but got rid of it.
@1knightinbangkok946 - "Not 7 reactors, 7 sites, maybe multiple reactors."
Yep. I'd suggest that means the Coalition's nuclear fantasy costs are undeniably in the order of magnitude of hundreds of billions of dollars to potentially over a trillion dollars, and a deployment time of 20+ years to see the first prospective unit up-and-running.
@1knightinbangkok946 - "All major industrial nations have or are installing nuclear."
China is, but the rest of the world is on a declining trend for electricity production (in TWh) by nuclear generation.
See 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙-2023, Figure 2 · Nuclear Electricity Generation in the World... and China.
@1knightinbangkok946 - "Cheapest form of energy in the long term."
If it was then why don't companies build them without needing huge government subsidies? Why won't any commercial insurers insure nuclear generators?
The data in the CSIRO/AEMO's 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24 and Lazard's 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17 reports indicate unsubsidized nuclear is the most expensive means of producing electricity.
Where's the nuclear fuel coming from to keep these reactor units operating during their operational lives (40-60 years)?
Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, updated 16 May 2024, the world's uranium production has not been able to meet global requirements since around 2015.
Per the Energy Watch Group's Mar 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝟭𝟭𝟯: 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱, shows high-grade uranium ores cannot sustain long-term a so-called "nuclear renaissance".
Nuclear fuels are only going to get more expensive and scarcer. How do you get around that inconvenient truth?
@@camt8804 Germany in particular is really suffering from closing their nuclear plants. It thought it could rely on Russian gas instead.
@@camt8804hows that going for them?
Germany still relies on buying electricity from French Nuclear plants as their renewable can't always supply a base load.
BLACKOUT BOWEN!!
I've never had a blackout under Bowen.
Dutton should build one in the NT and one in the ACT first up. No state prohibitions, then just sell the power to the other states at a mark up till they wake up.
Awsome 👏 👏
Nucleur energy is cleaner that coal and oil It doesn not need to hve windmills build in China out of steel and plastics.
China that does not heed terms and conditions to keep the air and the waters clean.
Bsides, what do we do with the old windmill towers, the batteries that are supposed to store electricity?
There are globally quite a few accidents with electrical vehicles, to the point that Volkwagen is reintroducing fossil fuel cars....
1. Nuclear power is also the most expensive.
2. Solar works in a sunny country, and I think we can agree Australia is pretty sunny...
3. Solar does however need lots of space... and the entire center of Australia is completely uninhabited...90% of Australia is vacant... in fact 'uninhabitable!'
4. Despite everyone suggesting nuclear, it is not in fact a sustainable source of electricity because Uranium will run out... before oil does in fact with just the reactors in the world now thats about 120 years... but for sure after China have built more we could bring that down to 60 years.
5. The decommission costs are as large as the 20 years, and $120 billion that 6 nuclear reactors would cost.
Also your statistics are crazy... EV's are literally 10 times safer, you can just look up the statistics yourself, something you have obviously not done thus far. Combustion engines (US statistics) have 55 fires per billion miles traveled compared to 5 per billion miles traveled for EV's... and from here on there will be none at all because sodium ion batteries cannot combust. There will of course still be people setting fire to cars. So, yes there are fires with EV's... and theft of them, and of course failures... its a complex piece of hardware... but these things are less prevalent with an EV than a combustion engine which is both mechanical, (bits wear out and there are more bits) and costly to repair. There are million of EV's, its not like there are ten and 5 of them burst into flames. there are also EV's that drive off the road cos the driver is drunk.... in fact 100 times more likely!
At the very least, at a minimum, don't just rabbit off nonsense you read on someone blog and nod your head. Idiots do that! Instead find out if anything you heard is even slightly true.... and if not take it up with the person that told you so!
I think you need to go look up what LCOE electricity is...
@@mickelodiansurname9578
4. No. Fallacy. We have enough uranium to last the next several millennia with ease.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your anti nuclear points, because you are clearly not an engineer and don’t know the subject well enough.
@@mickelodiansurname9578 Somehow even Bangladesh can afford nuclear and it's pretty sunny there too. By the way no other industrialised country would even attempt to approach 80+% wind/solar because it's simply not viable unless you can get a high level of reliable hydro into the mix. Apart from maybe Tasmania, this is not possible in Australia.
"windmills" good job mate, you've thought this through haven't you.
@@mickelodiansurname9578 As a matter of fact; the technology is apparently already available to create energy without polution.
However, powers that be, some global companies (powers that even override the US government ) are havin none of it.
This technology goes back to what Tesla (the real man) discovered/invented, which is, creating energy that is indefinite and non-poluting .
Tesla was told by those he tried to get interested in his project: at the time "If you can't put a meter on it we are not interested". And that is how it still is.
Here in Ontario, we also had coal smog days until we figured it out. Australia will figure it out too... eventually.
What about the "waste"?
You mean 5% used fuel.
Recycle the 95% for energy, partition the rest into useful industrial products.
CURIO dot energy.
A question you could have also added was "is Nuclear waste recyclable?"
Actually it is these days it can be used in either producing more energy or in some cases it can be recycled and used to refuel reactors.
Is it really that expensive?
To run it no.
To get it built yes.
However once it is built it is built. At most it's only the reactors that may need replacing after some time or if upgrades are done.
However a lot of the cost is in the building of the facility itself.
Are renewables cheaper? Yes in a short term scenario they are. Not over a long term scenario.
It's also cheaper on a small scale. Say with populations of around 5-7 million people. Not really for larger populations as some countries are finding out the hard way about.
They also ain't really well designed for long distance delivery either.
Because electricity loses power over certain distances.
How much is it going to cost Australia to go 100% renewable energy?
Well that number is up for some debate. It's estimated to be about 1.5 trillion or higher. SOME of that cost will be reoccurring every 10-20 and 30 years as Renewables hit their life span.
Also have to remember that Labor is pushing hard for renewable investment to fund the ambitious plan of 100% renewables.
Which means certain corporations that are heavily investing in renewables will control how much they sell the energy for.
Many of which have or had strong ties in the coal and gas industries.
Nuclear would have to be government owned and ran.
To make a proper and good investment one will expect good returns on said investments.
Food for thought 😉
I made a mistake voting for Albo in 2022. Never again will I trust Labor after how poorly they have run the country for the last 2 years. Labor's smug response to the Coalition's nuclear proposal officially lost them my vote after the eSafety Comissioner scandal already had me raging.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂He’s trying to kill us!
Wind and solar are far more dangerous than nuclear energy. You need to check the number of deaths caused by wind and solar.
If you check the numbers, you'll have to admit that nuclear is 100 times safer than renewables.
Really mate no wonder Australia is like it is.
Seen a psychiatrist lately?
You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time!
Vote for lord voldemort
Nuclear will be expensive to get started and will take 7-10 years to build? Fine.
Nuclear is high capacity,
Nuclear is low emission,
Nuclear is long term,
Nuclear is reliable,
Nuclear is recycleable,
Nuclear is safe,
Nuclear is cheap,
Nuclear is green,
Nuclear is the answer.
Because uranium is the *_densest_* established-fuel.
Modular reactors have been powering submarines for decades with no problems.
These reactors could power entire towns easily.
Germany’s ongoing hunt for a final repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste could last until the 2070s, a report has warned.
Nuclear power might be a bit cheaper for Australia given the Uranium deposits... BUT the unfortunate story is that its still far too expensive. Nuclear power just eats up the cost via building, fueling (centrifuge) and decommissioning,... and six power stations could cost anywhere for $60 billion USD to over $120 billion USD... and then after that you have the cost of deactivating the power stations when they reach the end of their life, tag on another $60 billion, plus it will take 20 years... at which point even Australia's Uranium will be almost depleted. All in all Nuclear power is the energy equivalent of buying $5 for the knockdown price of $20. Its not FREE energy... its pretty much the most expensive energy you can buy.
And this strikes me as odd since Australis is not short of wave power, certainly not sunshine, and has a massive huge desert to put wind farms in, or a huge sea to put them ON! Just strikes me as crazy.... Europe could complain that they don't have SPACE for solar... Australia not so much!
This is a fairly easy thing to work out... Solar is $27 per Mwh and Nuclear is $82 per Mwh... Solar needs storage obviously and failing the building of a giant salt battery that will DOUBLE the cost of solar to $50 per Mwh.... either way its still the cheapest power possible and doubly so if you live in a sunny country, like ummm... AUSTRALIA!
Sorry mate but this government wants to spend 1.5 trillion on wind and solar so please recalculate your figures because something doesn't look right. By the way there is no infrastructure in the desert as if anything would get built there.
Cost doesn't matter, the government is paying for it.
How long before we have enough for storage and what about ugly sight of solar panels and wind farms, each wind turbines needs an acre and half. These need long term maintenance. Nuclear lasts up to 80 plus yrs wind and solar 20 to 30.Thus this triples cost over same amount of years.Negates your arguement
@@kerryevans2038 Wow, can you tell me all the nuclear plants that have been running for 80 years ... or one ... or one that has been running for 70 years?
We sit on 1/3 of the planets reserves of uranium, it won't be anywhere near depleted in 20 years. Renewables do not store energy whatsoever, to do that they require a battery. There's no battery large enough to power Australian industries, and that's why they can't replace our coal power plants. So we need to look at other options than relying soley on renewables to reach net zero. Nuclear is a sensible, logical, & economically viable solution.
Australia needs to build Thorium molten salt nuclear power station which is relatively safer than the traditional Uranium based nuclear powered stations!
Corruption is terrible and destroy Australia
I reckon the peoples republic on Victoria should have 2 large reactors, Loy Yang and Hazelwood. To me, Jacinta Allen is like the witch in the snow white story and the poison apple is what she is dealing to Victorians.
Sure why not and we can discuss this again in 20 years when first reactor comes online. The LNP are way out of their depth on this one.
It doesn’t need to take that long if it’s done right.
@@L-8 have you seen how big government projects go in this country? You honestly think it won't run overtime and budget?
Wow, someone fell for the misinformation click bait hook line and sinker.
Why don't you actually go look at the statistics on nuclear plant construction times and debunk the myths for yourself... but you wont.
I would ask the EPA its thoughts on poisoning Australians country Rivers and Oceans. If industry cannot pour oil sewer or dump asbestos anywhere it wants. One wonders where Highly Radioactive Waste can be allowed to be buried or allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
The fact of the matter is it KILLS.
If nothing else, it can be buried in the Outback with zero environmental impact to anything or anyone…
When the sun shines, the grid cashflow is dead, or f.....ked with PV rooftops.
When BVs are parked all night long and V2G at home, the grid cashflow is dead, or f.........ked.
❤ nuclear energy
Nuclear is great and I would love to have it. Unfortunately the cost is just far too high, and renewables (not to mention batteries/storage) are only getting cheaper and more efficient. Plus nuclear will take probably 2 decades to get up and running in Australia. So the option is: 2 more decades of expensive gas/coal, followed by really expensive nuclear? Or cheap and green energy, much sooner (and it'll only get cheaper with time). I think it's an easy choice.
No thanks not until we can dispose of waste without leaving it to our children to look after.
Most of the comments from people watching SKY are very low level. They simply say i dont li ke albo or some other Labor person. There is really no debate just repeating SKY hissy fits they heard a few seconds ago. No facts at all.
Rooftop solar ate Murdoch's lunch, now wind turbines are coming for his dinner...
Hence 2 stories a week on SKY about the 'evils' of wind turbines..... :D
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV Wind and solar cannot power any country or factory.
not particularly against nuclear energy ,BUT I strongly disagree that any of the current crop of pollies can deliver anything with safety and on budget ,as a measure of likely success name something that the pollies have delivered successfully, a classic case is all the privatizations that were supposed to provide competition and cheaper prices ,didn't happen in a single case all privatization did was make pollies mates richer at taxpayer expense.When the pollies start playing the same games with nuclear power it will lead to a major disaster probably caused by costing cutting shoddy engineering and then handing over too corporations too run and we already know what that leads to .SO NO NUCLEAR and remember these pollies privatized the current power grid with the promise of competition and cheaper prices never happened and the corporates have not built a single large scale power station of any sort
Pleased explain how a nuclear reactor meltdown is managed. It’s a pipe dream that nuclear is clean and cheap.
Who said that one of the Labor leaders I'll bet
We all ready have a nuclear reactor at lukas Heights why don't you ask them what they do with the waste.
@@lesnorton837 You don't have to, they store it on site. We never built a permanent storage so we'd have to store all the waste in the local communities that are good enough to host the reactors.
@@camt8804 I wonder if the locals have 3 eyes.
@@_Sammy_J There's no residential area in Lucas Heights. They changed the suburb name after the reactor was put it so it didn't impact their land prices 🤣
Nuclear power need stronger military.
Itisn’t.
Please explain your hypothesis.
@@lesnorton837 Because we're doing it now. Obvious right?
@@camt8804 Yep, burning coal and gas.