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 itโs 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 militaryโs 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 โNew Clearโ
@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 ๐ cannot do job.
Jesus christ gives helper spirit of truth is word of God said I only need one sheep ๐ to compete my job description.
They my enemy souls need Many sheeps ๐ 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.
๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ธ๐๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐บ published on 21 Jun 2024 an op-ed by Giles Parkinson headlined ๐๐๐๐๐ผ๐ปโ๐ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ผ ๐ป๐๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐ฎโ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ด๐ ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ณ๐๐น๐น. It included:
"""๐๐ค ๐ฌ๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ก ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ ๐๐๐ง๐?
๐๐ตโ๐ด ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐จ๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ธ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ญ ๐ง๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐บ, ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฉ๐บ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ธ๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด. ๐๐ต ๐ธ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ด, ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐ด๐ฒ๐ถ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฆ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ณ๐ช๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ."""
Peter Dutton cited favourably the large-scale Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor design with 1,117 MWโ 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 Nuclearโs 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 MWโ 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 MWโ 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 ๐๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด 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 AEMOโs draft 2024 ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ, the latest version of its 30-year planning blueprint, suggests coal fired generation will be gone from Queensland and Victoria within a decade โ by 2033/34 โ and that the last coal unit will close in NSW by 2038.
How does the Coalitionโs nuclear policy solve Australiaโs energy security needs if itโs highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest? How does the Coalitionโs nuclear policy keep Australiaโs โlights onโ and ease the current cost-of-living crisis in the interim? How does it help Australians on fixed-incomes NOW? Answer: It doesnโt, 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 โfree passโ. 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 1โ2 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/hourโfar 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 itโs 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:
Iโd be glad to see labour and others go but I have been against nuclear for ever my concern is water usageโs 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 hasnโt even passed
PM101 class.
And heโs 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. ๐
@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 ๐ฎ
@Prognosis__ Says:
All Australia is moving towards to is what the majority of countries have already doneโฆwhy is this even a debate? Itโs all political, no more, no lessโฆjust 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?
LATEST COMMENTS