Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@markmccann5711 says : Wake up sheepal, albosleezy is allowing the USA and England to dump the depleted uranium here but doesn't want good cheap reliable power for Australia, seems as always its Labors pan to destroy all our industry.>> <<@Eric-jo8uh says : Have a referendum and get this sorted out by AUSTRALIANS not bloody politicians.>> <<@stevenmitchell7830 says : The big difference is Dutton's plan actually works. Albo's plan is missing energy storage that lasts more than a few minutes. AEMO's plan wants two thirds of batteries to be privately owned but controlled by AEMO. You can bet they plan to force the battery purchases with a mix of super high electricity prices and government subsidies.... and you won't get the subsidies unless you hand over control of the batteries to them. They include zero cost in their plans for the batteries that the rest of us have to buy.>> <<@janx666 says : I was a labour supporter but oi I'm with Dutton we need a strong pm to guide and fix Australia we are going downhill with this overpaid clown that is only thinking about filling his own pockets>> <<@dyricrothwell4254 says : Y do all lefties claim to love green energy n the climate but bash nuclear when it’s the cheapest n cleanest energy there is bc china has bought off liberal colleges n every thing green is made in china n china knows the western economy is fueled by naturals so is we get rid of lng our economy tanks our military’s weak n they can over run us>> <<@Ernst12 says : No it is not falling down Jum because Labor has not come up with one factual argument about why nuclear is risky, why it is not suitable for Australia and to make things worse, not on single argument why the renewables as proposed will do the job of providing cheap, reliable power that will meet the demand and industrialisation of the Australian economy. Instead of admonishing the LNP politicians, how about coming up with a argument that has something to do with the substance of the matter?>> <<@polarbear7255 says : Not much to fight about. The science and engineering is on the side of nuclear. There are no technical or safety reasons not to adopt nuclear in this country. Renewables have utterly failed to displace coal on the grid. 32 GW shortage in capacity by 2030 and investment in new renewables has completely stalled. This is entirely the fault of the green/left eco fascists. They will need to be held to account.>> <<@deniseorourke7235 says : A) labour has not released their cost of renewables B) Politicians need to come out and tell the Australian people if they have investments in renewables C) labour must grow up and have a responsible conversation, not a scare campaign>> <<@pczarn says : Time to discard this incompetent government.>> <<@peterforsythe3643 says : Paul: just think “New Clear”>> <<@thinking4902 says : Vote 1 Nuclear>> <<@pandemicoftheunvaccinated5367 says : A step towards nuclear energy is also a step closer to nationalisation.>> <<@SebastianYap-xj9ju says : They have many sheeps 🐑 cannot do job. Jesus christ gives helper spirit of truth is word of God said I only need one sheep 🐑 to compete my job description. They my enemy souls need Many sheeps 🐑 so my enemies spirts failed to do job description I only ask for what I need to complete my job description understand?>> <<@rodsloane706 says : Astounds me that there are still people out there who think the tech' is, "oh we'll have another Chernobyl, we're all gunna die"! I say to those to have listen to experts , and I mean cost AND power gen' experts,... like Adi Patterson & NOT so much to the likes of the left leaning (they won't admit it) CSIRO. Fact is we need reliable 24/7 baseload power. Nuclear can provide that. That just can NOT be be achieved with renewables alone & a bloody big battery.. anywhere in the world. We NEED nuclear as part of emissions free mix. The hysteria & the hypocrisy from Albo Labor was screamingly inevitable. Their belching on the costs is risible juxtaposed to their own refusal to provide costings on their renewables ONLY odyssey. The febrile Labor nonsense needs to be turned aside for a grown up conversation which is something that that side of politics seems incapable, throughout, of having.>> <<@TheRoswellCode says : Does Zero Emissions include banning the Smoking Ceremony?>> <<@frankcoates4609 says : Dutton is completely and irretrievably, criminally ridiculous and politically destructive.>> <<@GeoffMiell says : The Coalition are relying on having enough ill-informed/ignorant voters help them get back into power, at the expense of Australia's energy security, and to stop the further expansion of renewables while keeping coal/gas going for as long as possible. 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 published on 21 Jun 2024 an op-ed by Giles Parkinson headlined 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗸𝗲 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹. It included: """𝙎𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦.""" Peter Dutton cited favourably the large-scale Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor design with 1,117 MWₑ net capacity each, used for the recently operational VOGTLE-3 unit and not yet fully operational VOGTLE-4 unit in Georgia, USA, where a recent cost estimate is AU$23.6 billion/GW. USA has demonstrated it took almost 17-years to get its VOGTLE-3 unit operational, from Southern Nuclear’s formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006, to construction commencing on 2 Mar 2013 to full operations on 31 Jul 2023, and 18-years for VOGTLE-4. For the HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2 project in the UK, for the Framatome/EDF EPR-1750 design with 1,630 MWₑ net capacity, the estimate is AU$27.2 billion/GW. UK looks like it will take at least 19-years to get the first of its twin reactors designated HINKLEY POINT C-1 &-2, from when the site was one of eight announced by the British government in 2010, to construction commencing of HINKLEY POINT C-1 on 11 Dec 2018 to the latest expected start date at least by 2029. The UAE has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit. According to some estimates, the all up cost for the four units (4x 1,337 MWₑ net capacity) with finance was $US34 billion, or more than $AU50 billion. Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years. Unlike the US and the UK, Australia has no regulatory, construction, and/or operational nuclear power experience, so I'd suggest that Australia might see the first prospective operational unit in 20 years at the earliest. On Sunday (Jun 23), on the ABC TV 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 program Ted O'Brien MP indicated there likely would be multiple reactors at each of the nominated sites: Tarong & Callide in Queensland; Liddell & Mt Piper in NSW; Loy Yang in Victoria; Port Augusta in SA; and Muja in WA. So the total implementation costs are certainly looking in the hundreds of billions of dollars to perhaps over a trillion dollars. But the Coalition won't tell us how much it could cost. Meanwhile, all coal-fired power stations in Australia are approaching their respective end-of-operational-life. More than a few coal-fired power stations will close over the next few decades in Australia. The AEMO’s draft 2024 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯, the latest version of its 30-year planning blueprint, suggests coal fired generation will be gone from Queensland and Victoria within a decade – by 2033/34 – and that the last coal unit will close in NSW by 2038. How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy solve Australia’s energy security needs if it’s highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest? How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy keep Australia’s ‘lights on’ and ease the current cost-of-living crisis in the interim? How does it help Australians on fixed-incomes NOW? Answer: It doesn’t, irrespective of how much it would cost! I'd suggest this issue is as serious as it can get. Scarce/unaffordable energy is an existential threat to Australia's national security. No energy, no economy.>> <<@johngeier8692 says : Net Zero is prohibitively costly, impractical and totally unnecessary. It is economically destructive delusional insanity. The result of ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions triumphing over critical thinking and common sense. If is highly irresponsible for our federal and state governments to collude with this destructive nonsense. The possible harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have been grossly exaggerated and confabulated by activists and green carpet baggers whilst the beneficial effects of greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields, reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum have been largely ignored. The detrimental effects of carbon dioxide emissions would have to be extraordinary to justify the horrendous costs of renewables in their current uneconomical and unreliable form. Then there are the ridiculous and blatantly fraudulent operational aspects of the Paris agreement. China and several other countries are given a “free pass”. Additionally, there is now a long history of melodramatic doomsday predictions about the climate being proven wrong by history. We should simply abandon Net Zero and use the most economical energy resources available. Nuclear power plants should be legal in Australia, however, we should continue to build new coal fired power plants if these are much cheaper. Our current government is colluding with ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions and is acting contrary to the national interest. The massive misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources into uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects needs to be stopped.>> <<@bb5147 says : The labor clown show continues.>> <<@PhilipTripcony says : Paul wasn't it Paul Keating who said that we would be 20 foot under water right now>> <<@PeterA-r8x says : Dutton's plan to use nuclear is one real solution to achieve net zero emissions even if one were to believe in the hoax. Renewables will never be able to do so simply because it's never going to produce baseload power, which is essential for our economic survival and our national security. Renewables are intermittent and unreliable, and as such are a total waste of time and money if not augmented by baseload power, such as coal, gas and/or nuclear. Batteries would also be a total waste of time and money simply because we could never afford enough of them to provide a long enough backup to renewables in the event of extensive periods of too little sun and wind for our power needs, now and in the future. We could spend trillions to build enough batteries to try and get some semblance of baseload but it will never be the same as using coal, gas and/or nuclear, which are far cheaper as well as true baseload. In that sense, renewables are a total waste of time and money so why use them? It's a scam of course and it provides huge profits to the power companies. In other countries where profit is not the primary motive, such as China, Russia, India, etc. they chose a different path and that's to build as many new coal and nuclear power stations as possible to provide all the needs for the distant future measured in many decades if not centuries, not just 20 years as is the case for renewables and batteries, which is when they need to be replaced. So, either choose Dutton's plan by voting for him at the next election to help avoid us going over the cliff into the abyss, or vote for Albo's plan and enjoy the ride to hell. Your choice. My choice is clear; vote for Dutton's plan even if he fails to deliver it for whatever reason, even though I do beleive the net zero emissions dream is a hoax. It's our only hope to survive. This is no joke. In fact, the future of our nation is dependent on the result of the next election. That's how serious it is. Sadly, most people don't know it is that serious so we run the risk of continuing down the current path to destruction.>> <<@gw5436 says : Hey SKY>>> Don't let Labor use this as a smokescreen for everything else they're f**cking up before the next election>> <<@alancotterell9207 says : DRIVEL has it's main source in Rupert Murdoch. Do not trust scientists ?>> <<@imeagleeye1 says : Spent nuclear fuel, occasionally called used nuclear fuel, is nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear reactor (usually at a nuclear power plant). It is no longer useful in sustaining a nuclear reaction in an ordinary thermal reactor and, depending on its point along the nuclear fuel cycle, it will have different isotopic constituents than when it started. Spent fuel pool at a nuclear power plant Nuclear fuel rods become progressively more radioactive (and less thermally useful) due to neutron activation as they are fissioned, or "burnt", in the reactor. A fresh rod of low enriched uranium pellets (which can be safely handled with gloved hands) will become a highly lethal gamma emitter after 1–2 years of core irradiation, unsafe to approach unless under many feet of water shielding. This makes their invariable accumulation and safe temporary storage in spent fuel pools a prime source of high level radioactive waste and a major ongoing issue for future permanent disposal. Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years. For example 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly still exceeds 10,000 rem/hour—far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once.>> <<@Nabraska49 says : Everyone who wants nuclear power .. wants it for what reason.. if it’s because of global warming then you want it based on a lie .. if you knew that the global warming was a hoax .. would you still want a nuclear power plant in your backyard.>> <<@Christoph1888 says : Men dont mind nuclear as they are much more likely to have a STEM background. Woman are also more likely to respond to fear campaigns or emotive arguments.>> <<@vincentburrowes9243 says : No Crises - We have had an increase in Natural Disasters in the last 10 Years - the insurance companies are raising their premiums or refusing to insure due to climate disasters. Don't believe in climate crises - Fine - but we are all paying more for something to do with the weather / climate!>> <<@jamesaustralian9829 says : Great so the major parties can push through all sorts of really bad legislation and laws, while using the nuclear debarkle as a smoke screen>> <<@sandrafoxley735 says : do you want electricity or not - if not then stop putting electric cars on people...................>> <<@GilmerJohn says : Why do you feature the cooling towers? Similar towers are used for coal fired and NG fired steam plants. Makes the entire piece look silly.>> <<@stancraigie601 says : Hey Bowen, everybody knows better than the CSIRO.>> <<@1knightinbangkok946 says : The CSIRO hires consultants to do the Gencost. They have no idea about nuclear. Interview Dr Adi Patterson who is a nuclear expert. He worked at Lucas's Heights.>> <<@Didigetitwrong says : This issue should be voted on a plebiscite, it should not cloud the federal election.>> <<@Peter_Thorpe says : Nuclear waste is gonna be a problem ,which electorate is going to say yes to Nuclear Waste which will cause cancer>> <<@ironmaidens6663 says : Peter Dutton will have to fight for nuclear as the climate clowns will try and stop it.>> <<@MickKalkadoon-ze7wz says : I’d be glad to see labour and others go but I have been against nuclear for ever my concern is water usage’s compared to coal stations And radiation waste storage.I live in rural areas this is my concern will this waste turn up in my back yard ???>> <<@ianjones7740 says : Albanese hasn’t even passed PM101 class. And he’s still trying to tell Australians what to think and do !>> <<@emperordalektardis says : What do you expect when Dutton doesn't tell us how much all this is going to cost us?>> <<@martino2794 says : Why won't Weak Albanese release his renewables costings?>> <<@johnkapnoullas2816 says : Thanks Albo you have just confirmed you are a Gas Lighting CLOWN.>> <<@firststep7750 says : "Bill Gates on bipartisan support for nuclear power": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FSVg6heBiE>> <<@MrWhitmen1981 says : Yeah after the bill gates vaccines, these guys want his terra power sodium nuclear reactors on this soil. 😂>> <<@lesleyweber4585 says : The drivel that comes out of labour is a disgrace,the PM always acts like a clown when he has no answers.>> <<@Bud-m1e says : While you are being distracted THEY are slow walking you into a nuclear WAR only way to hide their crime's 😮>> <<@Prognosis__ says : All Australia is moving towards to is what the majority of countries have already done…why is this even a debate? It’s all political, no more, no less…just built the things>> <<@Chad.H. says : PETER DUTTON FOR PRIME MINISTER. MR DUTTON:SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM THIS CORPORATES PUPPET.>> <<@renearango8021 says : Peter Dutton will be rolled out. Nuclear unwinnable election policy>> <<@RogueElementMkII says : Paul's KFC dinner will warm up a lot quicker in an SMR. Joke's aside, I'd prefer coal. Nuclear however, is superior to renewables no matter how you look at it. It's just a fact.>> <<@Verrifier-z6z says : Why do Labor think they have exclusive rights to the CSIRO's opinions let alone the Australian public's opinions?>> <<@Tikka300- says : Got my vote Pete>>