Should Australia invest in nuclear energy? | The Daily Aus

[@deleted01]

Citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a reason to ban nuclear power plants is like citing firearms used in battle to ban coal.

[@sibawee-wn8dx]

This channel is underrated!

[@AndrewLambert-wi8et]

THIS SHOULDNT BE A ISSUE. NUCLEAR IS THE SAFEST AND MOST REGULATED PRODUCT IN THE WORLD.

[@petrichor3947]

There is no good reason for a country like Australia to ever have nuclear power. There is only the thinnest tactical reasons for us to have nuclear submarines and it’s really thin reasoning relying on a particular view of defences needs.

[@deleted01]

Nuclear energy is cheaper in the long term and power production is more consistent. The opposition to nuclear energy really stems from guilt and shame over technological advancement and material abundance. A nation's energy policy cannot be dictated by psychological hang-ups

[@jedhawkins373]

​@deleted01 nuclear power always goes over cost by the billions in counties like the UK and France. Also it takes approximately 15 years for them to build one. And they have a nuclear industry. Believe it or not, we don't lol 😂

[@petrichor3947]

@@deleted01 I’ve never heard any one suggest nuclear is cheaper at any stage of its life cycle. While it appears more consistent it’s like any mechanical system it does brake down and require repair and maintenance. That is true of any energy source. But we are not talking about one wind farm or one solar farm but many working as part of an integrated system using batteries and hydro would be closer to the mark.

[@yeahright3348]

@@deleted01citing power production being more consistent is actually one of the limitation of mixing nuclear and renweables. Gas and renewables work better together due to gas being easy to throttle up and down or even stop, nuclear can't do that, it's 50-100% best case, and at 50% it's not very efficent eg it costs more. We also have gas in abundance, we are the number one exporter of gas world wide. Also nuclear energy isn't cheaper, no study says it is.

[@deleted01]

@@petrichor3947 That's because renewable energy is far more expensive than its proponents make it out to be.

[@rossstevenson4103]

I would rather have free energy from the sun

[@tomereckhous1175]

It's about time AU will join the Nuclear club, renewable is good as well but not consistence, we should have both.

[@yeahright3348]

but so does gas and renweables, they actually mix better as gas has a wider capacity factor. where as nuclear has problems under 50% capacity.

[@tomereckhous1175]

​@yeahright3348 problem with gas, you won't meet the 2030 gas emissions goals, with nuclear your emissions is steam, and once every 50 years need to deal with nuclear waste

[@petrichor3947]

@@tomereckhous1175 So only every 50 years you reckon we will need to deal with how many tones of highly radioactive material. Oh and lots of sacrarium associated with the 50 years it’s hard to get that point across. Which reactor has had that life time and don’t forget it’s not just the uranium we need to deal with but all the consumables associated with the reactors use. I actually think reactors are a good power source for some countries but not Australia we have to many other options.

[@tomereckhous1175]

In the end, most advanced countries got nuclear energy, that will help with future zero emissions, we can't run away from technology, getting a few tons per 50 years, not a big problem, we can get remotely storage facilities, my problem is how much it's going to cost, in australia will be triple from what been promised