Labor now shifting to 'serious arguments' about nuclear after unsuccessful 'scaremongering'

Centre for Independent Studies Director of Energy Research Aidan Morrison says Labor now has to shift to “serious arguments” regarding nuclear power.
The Labor government has changed its tact on how it opposes nuclear power.
“I think the Labor party has realised now that Australians aren’t very impressed about the old scaremongering and saying this is not safe,” Mr Morrison told Sky News Business Editor Ross Greenwood.
“It’s been proven very very safe around the world.
“So they’re having to shift to those serious arguments - those questions about costs.
“The more that debate plays out, the more it becomes clear that the cost is quite competitive and really we’re only just discovering the true cost of the renewable energy rollout which is not proceeding anywhere like as fast or as cheaply as what has been planned.”

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

The rest of the world are saving money on energy, scaremongering Bowen is wasting ours with a dream.

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

@DisasterDutton-q8b Rubbish !!, but i will admit they have real leaders not a whimp like we have atm with Anthony your hero.

[@tassied12]

The rest of the world is building renewables, not nuclear. IEA data shows that 85% of global energy investment is going to new energy technologies and just 1% is going to nuclear

[@buda3d2007]

@DisasterDutton-q8b I guess France is wrong and Germany is right? oh thats right Germany buys Frances nuclear power becuase they started to detransition from fossil to green and had constant blackouts, the proof is in the pudding, biased paper fact chasing is not proof.

[@bettysteve322716]

I am laughing how, one country blows up Nordstream2 and the greatest release of Methane gas in human history occurred, another country set fire to Yemen's oil reserves, but my gas stove is the cause of the climate crisis, l can't believe a word the guy says, oh, and cow farts. bet nobody gets to see this, it vanishes every other time l post it

[@stephenkirton9921]

​@DisasterDutton-q8bhow so?

[@306champion]

Myself, I am right behind nuclear energy.

[@vernonwhite4660]

When will Labor wake up??😊

[@user-hs8qj2fi9y]

Their light bulb has been broken for decades. Nobody home.

[@coconuciferanuts339]

When they get a kick up their a..esses at the next election.

[@coconuciferanuts339]

When they get a kick up the rear- end at the next fed.election.

[@connorduke4619]

When they are forced to disband altogether due to lack of popularity.

[@harveybirdman74]

They won't, they only care about woke issues and their own investment properties.

[@kurjan1]

Well, this Australian is 100% for nuclear!

[@bloodlove93]

and this nuclear is 100% for Australia

[@IndependentLogos]

"Control the energy / food supply and you control the people" All part of the 🌎EFs agenda. Nuclear has already been made illegal in 1/3 of Europe

[@robot336]

☢☢😃😃👍👍

[@vijayendranvijay457]

@DisasterDutton-q8b Happy to have a solar farm, wind farm, fossil fuel power station and/or used up solar panels, wind turbines, fossil fuel power station waste dumped in your backyard, are you?

[@Richie-ki3rq]

@DisasterDutton-q8b we dump other countries waste in our back yard are you good>?

[@J.e.f.f.r.e.y]

Nuclear is really the only clean option for Australia that will cater for our growing energy demands. We do need to transition from fossil fuels eventually. It’s good that we have tried other low emission options such and wind and solar and suffered for a while with massive energy costs and realised these toys just aren’t up to the task and are in fact dirty. Now everyone should be ready and keen for nuclear.

[@vijayendranvijay457]

@DisasterDutton-q8b Want energy prices so high you cannot even afford chips?

[@KIA-MIA-POW]

​@DisasterDutton-q8b Moronic and so juvenile!

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

@@KIA-MIA-POW 100% correct.!!

[@awc900]

@DisasterDutton-q8b So do you discourage people wishing to travel to countries that use nuclear power? And do you think the Australian government should issue travel warnings to those countries and then suffer the diplomatic consequences of those warnings?

[@polarbear7255]

@DisasterDutton-q8b righto bart…. Back to thr sandpit with you. Grow up and learn some physics.

[@jujumaccas]

The only reason Labor backs ‘renewables’ is because their ‘Union Super Funds’ invest heavily in them, so there would be no $$$s flowing into the union’s coffers. Also check out who the directors are in these funds.

[@simongross3122]

And why can't super funds invest in nuclear? Oh, yes, because it's banned.

[@johngeier8692]

Renewable energy equipment is a malinvestment. Most of the useless wind turbines and solar panels will soon end up in landfill. Superfund managers will skim large sums of money off in management fees and the investors will be left with stranded assets.

[@connorduke4619]

Correct. Pauline Hanson has already uncovered this socialist corruption.

[@stephenfielding7165]

Have a thought of your own dummy, don't just follow the scraps the libs hand out to the dumb red head

[@infidel202]

​@simongross3122 no reason for it to be banned

[@KIA-MIA-POW]

Nuclear power stations should have commenced construction decades ago.

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

@DisasterDutton-q8b Johnny Coward .

[@KIA-MIA-POW]

@Psittacine-pp5yd Totally incorrect, whilst being oh! so juvenile...

[@bettymarshall2702]

@DisasterDutton-q8b We all know that Albanese has been Australia's worst Prime Minster.

[@neilmcfarlane7013]

As usual , Australia leading the world as world leaders in something or other

[@bettymarshall2702]

@@Psittacine-pp5yd John Howard was Australia's best Prime Minister and at that time no one wanted Nuclear Power because we had plenty of cheap coal fired power and we should be going with that again.

[@tilapiadave3234]

They argue we don't have time ,, and then delay DELAY DELAY ,, pathetic

[@TrickyBoy1517.]

​@DisasterDutton-q8byou masters can build an alternative already, then 😊

[@tilapiadave3234]

@DisasterDutton-q8b SIX years ,, wake up to yourself

[@kermitthehermit9588]

@@tilapiadave3234 Pretty sure Dutton said the first plant would be up and running by 2037.

[@tilapiadave3234]

@@kermitthehermit9588 He calculated all the idiot protesters etc holding things up. 6-8 years is standard

[@kermitthehermit9588]

@@tilapiadave3234does state and federal legislation fall under the umbrella of ‘idiot protesters’ Dave? Maybe the current owners of the coal fired plants he proposes to retrofit are also idiot protesters? And those pesky earthquakes the Latrobe Valley for example is prone to, geological idiot protests? Nuclear would have been a good idea 60 years ago, maybe.

[@Prognosis__]

CSIRO aren't as independent as they should. Like the ABC

[@awc900]

Both are as about as credible most of the time.

[@tassied12]

@@awc900 CSIRO's views are backed up by Rio Tinto, one of the largest energy users in the country. In a recent interview, the head of Pacific Repowering in Rio Tinto’s energy and climate division, Vik Selvaraja, had this to say following the signing of one of Australia's largest renewable energy contracts: “As far as we can see … all validated and independent data that exists on costs say that it (nuclear) is a very expensive source of energy. And I think in Australia, certainly, we’ve got low cost wind and solar, and we were going to run with that.”

[@Prognosis__]

​@@tassied12they supported the voice too so I'm not going to take them seriously

[@awc900]

@@tassied12 But there are many who dispute it's views too.

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

@@tassied12 Wind and Solar are insufficient to run Australia 24/7

[@Eric-jo8uh]

The sooner we have an election the better.

[@TrickyBoy1517.]

Nuclear is a success worldwide. Fact. Labor have had more than 2 years. If they don't want people to go for nuclear, they can stop squealing and do something for once 😊

[@tassied12]

From the IAEA database, there was just ONE new reactor construction start outside China last year, and only TWO so far this year. There are 59 reactors in total under construction around the world. of which only 34 are outside of China. Those 34 reactors will deliver a piddling 34 GW of capacity. It is barely keeping up with capacity lost due to plant retirements. Nearly a third of those started construction over a decade ago. Nuclear is going nowhere. Fact

[@Diponty]

@@tassied12 Explains why our energy prices are so high. We don't have nuclear.

[@chriswilliams8607]

Yeah, nuclear is a success in the most expensive energy production. In a serious calculation the cost per kWh is up to 10 times more expensive than power from solar and wind, and even 5 times more expensive than power from solar, wind and battery storage. Only morons would keep investing in Nuclear today.

[@clydesimpson1462]

Finland have commissioned their 5th Nuclear Reactor and power prices have dropped 75%. Fact.

[@tassied12]

@@Diponty Our energy prices are so high because our coal plants keep breaking down. The Australian Energy Regulator sets the benchmarks for consumer power prices. When they released the benchmarks for 2023/24 they gave the main reason as outages at coal plants over the last 2 years forcing expensive gas to be used to fill the gap. In the winter of 2022, up to 14 out of 47 coal generators were offline at once. Callide C still has a unit offline after a catastrophic explosion in May 2021 that caused blackouts in SE Qld and into NSW. It has another unit offline for months due to a cooling tower problem All that is going to cost over $400 million to fix at the latest estimate The AER also said that prices would have been even higher had not increased renewables output filled part of the gap left by failing coal plants

[@jonathoncalabrese2035]

You can’t have it for subs and not use it for land. End of.

[@Objectiveansthensome]

Yes you CAN.. the REACTORS.. are 1000 times smaller ...

[@markboscawen8330]

Totally different operational objectives, totally different cost structures.

[@Objectiveansthensome]

@@markboscawen8330 Yes an totally lower risk for subs

[@ralphhalwes3376]

I'm not for nuclear but I'm sick of all these solar and wind farms destroying our landscape

[@sierantw]

At least you have the weather more suitable for solar than in for example Eastern Europe

[@Diponty]

@@sierantw Too cloudy lately, due to climate change.

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

​​​@@sierantwNot really. It only gets hot during the summer in Australia. 3 months of the year. The rest is cloudy cold and wet. In winter the sun comes up at 730am and it's dark by 5pm. I don't think battries will last for the rest of the 18 hours of the day. It doesn't get very windy in Australia either. I'm in Melbourne's Victoria Australia it's been cold all day 14c Max with dark grey clouds. I doubt the sun touch any solar panels to generate any electricity

[@user-hs8qj2fi9y]

We will have to import fairy dust for you.

[@chriswilliams8607]

That represents a pretty amazing level of stupidity. Wind and solar is by far the cheapest and cleanest energy, you would prefer a thermal powerplant that does a thousend times more damage? Seriously ?

[@andreikondisenko6089]

So , what labour government / Greens are saying , It’s OK to have Nuclear power weapons , missiles , nuclear ☢️ powered vehicles 🚗 Submarines equiped with nuclear ☢️ weapons but not base load power stations to provide power . 240 volt phase 1 , 2 or 3 to our houses 🏡 , Farms , Sheds or Factory 🏭 . And the argument to support this claim is ??? . Andrej Kondisenko Cairns Australia 🇦🇺

[@JohnnyP34]

This is how unintelligent, left wing hypocrites operate. Shamelessly and hopelessly.

[@buda3d2007]

They also said close down coal power but import millions of people and build housing for them, the carbon footprint to build all those houses is off the charts, none of it makes sense.

[@stephenkirton9921]

The submarines we are getting are not nuclear armed only nuclear powered having said that I agree with you we must go nuclear or go backwards as a country

[@user-xo4rx8ov5o]

If Labor doesn't like it that's usually because it's a great plan

[@ohasis8331]

And they didn't think of it.

[@davidshaw9211]

Well if it’s so bad how come other countries have it

[@connorduke4619]

Those other countries are clearly less stupid than us. France's nuclear system functions as the energy reserve for the whole of Western Europe when their woke windmills lie still.

[@jennymills3147]

GO!! PETER DUTTON 👍

[@malcolmmannix6694]

We all voting for Peter Dutton and our word is our bond

[@GeoffMiell]

@@malcolmmannix6694 A vote for the Coalition is a vote for civilisation collapse.

[@ravenbob4293]

😂 to expensive, like they don't keep giving free money away to other countries that give no benefit vs. something that would for the future.

[@asnail6550]

@DisasterDutton-q8bgrow up

[@aussiebornandbred]

Here's an idea !! Let's just stay with the tried and true coal powered energy

[@Lucifer-c4g]

But we have to try and stop the weather being the weather! And only Daddy Labor can do that 😂😂😂

[@grumps8015]

Update our coal fired power stations now

[@bencoad8492]

no coz coal has the highest deaths per power produced while nuclear and wind has the lowest death per power produced!

[@aussiebornandbred]

@@bencoad8492 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣yeah right🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@grumps8015]

@@bencoad8492 what an absolute STUPID statement to make.. back it up with some stats from reputable source, not something you draw up on iPhone notes 🤔😂😂😂🐑🐑🐑

[@Awaroneducation]

If Australia uses nuclear energy, I'm moving there from New Zealand!

[@rogermckinnon5738]

​@DisasterDutton-q8b Good, we will take up a go-fund me for you to move

[@johngeier8692]

New Zealand has plenty of natural nuclear energy right underneath it.

[@batmanlives6456]

Se ya later dude !!!

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

Can Australia dump our lefties morons in NZ and we gain some sensible kiwis to Australia. Sounds good swap deal to me.. come on board mate.

[@user-vr7pl4zt9o]

Excellent interview Ross with someone that knows their stuff…

[@philippusgouws7852]

You have gas and give it away for free

[@amy9091]

can almost guarantee our power bills will only get more expensive regardless of whichever way the coin falls

[@amy9091]

@@HyperVaccinated oh yeah will spend 15K to get 15c rebate from the energy company for feeding the mains but pay them 33c for anything we take out. Once our solar is out, I’m not getting more - will just use less power instead, old school

[@clydesimpson1462]

They will never take my freedom.

[@peterburke8650]

One phone call to Japan and signing a contract a week later will deliver a nuke power station in a few years and every year after that for as long as we want.the contract will stipulate that the Australian government gets the hell out of the way.

[@connorduke4619]

Korea, Finland, France and Canada all have good nuclear plants as well.

[@guymoschella4066]

Nuclear stations should have started 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess now .

[@GreenLeft25REAL]

But Labor blocked it because they're an obstinate rabble of toddlers.

[@bheemasena2383]

If you start out with lies and fearmongeting and have to try to find "serious arguments", it means that you are invested in the outcome whether it is what the people want, or whether it is the not the best for the people. They are starting with the conclusion they want to be the best option and trying to justify it like flat earthers do. What more evidence do you need to show that Labors' renewable push is not about the technology, the environment, or the economics... so what is it about?

[@johngeier8692]

It is delusional insanity. The false and delusional belief that man’s effects on the Earth’s climate are significant and dangerous and the false and delusional belief that transitioning to non fossil fuel energy sources will be cheap and easy.

[@connorduke4619]

It's about rolling out Blackrock's dystopian vision of digital ID, CBDC and ESG of course.

[@clydesimpson1462]

It's always been about a flat earth and tall jockeys.

[@davidcruse6589]

We all know we not getting nuclar under dumb and dumber So until they're out wasting your breathe

[@Lucifer-c4g]

​@DisasterDutton-q8bdid you notice this person you're correcting is anti-nuclear?

[@kermitthehermit9588]

*we’re *nuclear *breath

[@davidcruse6589]

@DisasterDutton-q8b thank you for the correction of fixed it now Cheers

[@Berserker978]

​@DisasterDutton-q8b By the way. You spelt Cars as Cares in a previous post. You Condescending POS. HA HA HA Not so fkn Smart after all.

[@johngeier8692]

The nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights has been in operation for a few decades. We should have a full scale nuclear industry for national security reasons.

[@cameronalldridge831]

Coal fire power stations is the only way forward.

[@clydesimpson1462]

That old Labor chestnut being to expensive is so thin you can see through it Labor has spent $1.5 Trillion on wind and solar so far for 1/6th of total requirement to reach 85% renewables Labor has allowed 1 Million Hectares of flora and fauna to be destroyed Labor has allowed creeks and streams to be destroyed endangering countless platypus Labor endorses land clearing without silt traps or sedimentation controls Labor will not openly give costings Labor have no costings for 28,000 k/ms of new transmission lines required for renewables Labor have not costed the dismantling and removal of end of life solar or wind turbines Labor will not share the recycling process of spent solar panels or wind turbines Labor lied to the Australian public when they said renewables are cheaper. S.A power prices are the highest in Australia, yet they have the largest uptake of renewables and storage Labor have failed in their quest to secure cheap and competitive power prices. Amen.

[@DonaldDeCicco]

Was Kamala Harris in studio? I thought I heard her.

[@riordan39]

Finland currently have around 30 - 40% nuclear mix have 30% lower electricity that I pay in Adelaide

[@tassied12]

Australia is not Finland. Finland has a lot of cheap hydro to complement its nuclear. It is also connected to the wider European grid to fill the gaps when its nuclear plants are offline. Belgium gets as much of its power from nuclear (Belgium 41% vs Finland 42% in 2023) yet has some of the highest power prices in Europe

[@riordan39]

Thanks, you are just making excuses. No factual info on your comment. There are other countries which have similar examples. Do some more research.

[@tassied12]

@@riordan39 Which other countries? As AEMO has pointed out, every country has different circumstances in terms of energy resources, geography and population which influence their particular energy mix. They noted that the Australian grid though globally small in terms of capacity, is unusually long and narrow. A GW scale nuclear plant would present problems to grid management.

[@riordan39]

Let me correct my statement above. Finland electricity is 30% of what I pay. Not 30% less. They pay one third what our power prices are In Adelaide. Not only that, their daily supply charges is less than half.

[@tassied12]

@@riordan39 If nuclear alone was the reason for Finland's low power prices, then Belgium, which gets the same share of its power from nuclear as Finland should also have low power prices, Instead, it has some of the highest power prices in Europe. Norway's wholesale power prices are half those of Belgium yet it is nearly 100% renewables. Correlation does not imply causation. Finland brought a new nuclear reactor online in May 2023. Eurostats data shows that in H2 2023, following the opening, Finlands power power prices for the half year only improved in line with the rest of Europe, so the new nuclear plant made little difference.

[@bradkuz76]

If only discourse like this happened in the USA. Very intelligent interview.

[@asnail6550]

@DisasterDutton-q8byou shouldn’t even use the word

[@gordonwells1626]

Australians are not as dumb and ignorant as the ALP thinks….or would like us to be when it comes to our energy future and the price of electricity.

[@iamasmurf1122]

I disagree what I have seen from this country are a bunch of thickos

[@simongross3122]

The market will not build nuclear just because it's cheaper. It will only build nuclear if it is more profitable for them. At the moment, there are so many rebates given for renewables, that nothing else can compete. Once those rebates are removed, we'll be back to a more level playing field.

[@userjoe4321]

Why didn't Albo remove his worst performing Minister - Bowen?

[@danielbrown4133]

Bring on Nuclear Power!!!

[@hadrian3487]

I want Labor to keep going with the 3 eyed fish, Roos and koalas. It make them dumb and dumber, and the more votes they lose. Also, Teals & Greens don’t stop either.

[@BretLoyd80971]

True. They look like pathetic children as always.

[@clydesimpson1462]

That really shows how childish Labor are.

[@sierantw]

The problem with nuclear vs. wind & solar is not the cost per kWh, but ... the ability to deliver power all the time. The cost to the economy for every kWh not delivered is much higher than the cost of electricity generated even from gas.

[@GreenLeft25REAL]

Cool, since Labor can't actually build anything, we'll stick with gas in that case 😊 Thank you for the copy and pasted, alleged only information.

[@davidcarter4247]

The supporters of renewables always leave out the cost of storage. Nuclear is a bargain next to enough battery storage to run Sydney for a single winter's night.

[@axle.student]

Nuclear too expensive? The higher cost didn't seem to be a problem for any other part of the green dream.

[@Coops777]

Spot on!!! Great arguments in favour of Nuclear. Labor is so inflexible and come across as stupid.

[@paradox7602]

It’s only too expensive and too long to implement, if you do not view it as an investment.

[@Ernst12]

I think that Chris's figures for nuclear seem to factor in the CFMEU which will make the project at least twice as expensive, and time blown -out by whatever it takes to satisfy the IR costs.

[@toppops22]

If our government concentrated on balancing the books we could afford it. How much gas and coal do we sell to other countries? And stop tax dollars being used to supplement householders use of solar panels, renewables need to pay for themselves. Government interference is an impediment to good business decisions.

[@chrismitchell4622]

Nuclear the only green way to go and the only reason it would become expensive is if Labor involves the Public service, Russian or Chinese Nuclear companies!

[@shaneburns4349]

Government needs to invest in big long lasting infrastructure. Except Inland rail, that should have been inland and ocean Port Upgrades.

[@tedbullpit6164]

I want to know if they build one is it going to be built to be able to reuse already used uranium I've had the technology since the 60s to use it up to 5 times to recycle it it brings it's danger time back from thousands of years to only hundreds of years

[@user-hs8qj2fi9y]

?????????

[@jmcham1000]

Next Labor announcement on energy.....Every Australian will be supplied with two sticks to rub together to produce fire energy.

[@clydesimpson1462]

I think you'll find the Aborigines have the copyright on that.

[@rogertull8888]

THE ONLY CHOICE IS NUCLEAR OR GAS AND COAL STOP SUBSIDIZING WIND AND SOLAR, THEN NUCLEAR IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE THEN WIND AND SOLAR

[@SaltySkippy]

Give me a few reactors taking up the footprints of small stadiums over tens of thousands of giant frams covered in solar panels and nature destroying wind farms any day!

[@voltare2amstereo]

Let's GO

[@pantsgaming759]

What labor are not putting in the renewable costing, they need most houses to own a 60k EV so they can use it as back up storage plus alot more with roof top solar. Trillions of dollars labor are not adding to there renewables costing.

[@JohnnyP34]

**Disaster Dutton** 70+ comments on a channel you don't even like with a 4 hour old profile...on a Sunday...because people disagree with you and occasionally misspell? 😉

[@bobjackson4720]

Renewables will never be reliable enough for base load. If renewables are so cheap how come the cost of electricity is rapidly increasing?

[@tassied12]

Our energy prices are so high because our coal plants keep breaking down. The Australian Energy Regulator sets the benchmarks for consumer power prices. When they released the benchmarks for 2023/24 they gave the main reason as outages at coal plants over the last 2 years forcing expensive gas to be used to fill the gap. In the winter of 2022, up to 14 out of 47 coal generators were offline at once. Callide C still has a unit offline after a catastrophic explosion in May 2021 that caused blackouts in SE Qld and into NSW. It had another unit offline for months due to a cooling tower problem All that is going to cost over $400 million to fix at the latest estimate The AER also said that prices would have been even higher had not increased renewables output filled part of the gap

[@marksmart9754]

Chris Bowen I’d using a flawed comparison. Worst case for nuclear and fantasyland for renewables. It’s pathetic. His anti nuclear attitude is ideological. Not economical,

[@GeoffMiell]

Nope. Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies: 𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia); 𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17); 𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand); and 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue). Some examples I see that provide a closer approximation to how long it actually takes to deploy existing nuclear technologies (& project costs) include: • 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝗘𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 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. Project Cost: US$34 billion (circa AU$51 billion); • 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 has demonstrated it took more than 22-years to get its OLKILUOTO-3 unit operational, from a first licence application in Dec 2000, to construction commencing on 12 Aug 2005 to full operations on 1 May 2023. Project cost: €11 billion (over AU$17.5 billion); • 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. Yet to be fully operational VOGTLE-4 will have taken around 18-years. Project Cost: more than US$30 billion (more than UA$44 billion); • 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get its twin demonstration reactors designated SHIDAOBAY-1 (SHIDAOWAN-1) operational, from initial approval in Nov 2005, to construction commencing on 9 Dec 2012 to full operations on 6 Dec 2023. Project Cost: US$6,000 (AU$9,200) per kilowatt; • 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 has demonstrated it took around 20-years to get its floating twin small reactors designated AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 operational, from when the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (Rosatom) chose Severodvinsk in Arkhangelsk Oblast as the construction site in 2000, to construction commencing on 15 Apr 2007 to full operations on 22 May 2020. Project Cost: at least 37 billion roubles as of 2015 (US$₂₀₁₅740 million); • 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 has demonstrated it will take more than 18-years to get FLAMANVILLE-3 operational. Project Cost: around €13.2 billion (AU$21 billion); • 𝗨𝗞 has demonstrated it will take at least 19-years to get the first of the twin reactors operational for the HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2 project. Project Cost: so far at around £31-34 billion (AU$58.3-63.9 billion). Nuclear technologies cannot save us!

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@GeoffMiell Of course, you have presented half-truths, but let's just show the most egregious misleaders. > 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝗘𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 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. Project Cost: US$34 billion (circa AU$51 billion); The UAE's Energy Planning Study in 2006 included solar as part of that study. So, 18 years later, UAE's electricity is 25% nuclear powered. (ps - Barakah-4 is operational). And how much of UAE's electricity is solar ?????? - about 10-12%. (data here only goes to 2023 - but it is illustrative!) ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~ARE Basically, in an equitorial desert country with lots of open land and lots of sun, solar is slower to build than nuclear. Now, you might point out that nuclear totally crushing solar in the construction race is due to UAE governmental priorities, and I would reply "exactly - speed of deployment isn't a function of nuclear technology at all!" > 𝟭. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 (likely mid-2040s at the earliest for any possible operational nuclear reactor(s) in Australia); Opinion. > 𝟮. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 (almost double to six times the cost of ‘firmed’ renewables, per 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24, 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17); I note that Lazard and GenCost disagree about reactor lifetime, c.f. and I believe you have misinterpreted the Lazard report. Of course, LCOE calculations are not total system cost calculations, which is why - despite such 'cheap' VRE, Wind Germany has 2x the electricity rates as nuclear France, and Wind/Solar California has 2x the electricity rates as nuclear Illinois. I also note that the Australian state with the highest % VRE, SA, has the highest electricity costs, by about 50% over and above the other states. > 𝟯. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼-𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 “𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲” (see the Energy Watch Group’s 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, F Or you could read the industry predictions - they aren't trying to boost the industry, they are trying to make accurate predictions for hard-headed finance types. world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium > 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 (an intergenerational issue). Yes, unlike fossil fuel waste, say in 'clean and green' Germany, the civilian nuclear industry accounts for all its waste, captures its waste, stores its waste, monitors its waste. What isn't to love? We know where it is and how much of it there is.

[@GeoffMiell]

@@factnotfiction5915 And who are you exactly? You don't even have the courage to make comments under your own name & hide behind a pseudonym spouting propaganda and mistruths. Are you a troll or a useful dupe? I've just checked the IAEA's PRIS database for BARAKAH-4. It was connected to the grid on 23 Mar 2024, but is still listed as not fully operational. That suggests it is still completing its commissioning processes. And VOGTLE-4 is also listed as connected to the grid, on 6 Mar 2024, but also not fully operational, also apparently completing final commissioning. Clearly you don't understand what LCOE means. “𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵.” - Upton Sinclair. Does that describe you, @factnotfiction5915? Nuclear industry predictions are always hyped. They are always claiming nuclear can be deployed faster and cheaper, but the overwhelming evidence/data indicates the demonstrated reality is entirely different. It seems to me you have swallowed the nuclear Kool Aid. I rely on a number of credible data sources all pointing in the same direction. Nuclear is going backwards. Nuclear is too slow to deploy to rapidly reduce human-induced GHG emissions to avoid civilisation collapse. Nuclear cannot save us! What keeps the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational? I find nuclear proponents never answer this inconvenient question, and either ignore it or deflect/distract with irrelevancies. A machine without energy is a sculpture. A worker without energy (food) is a corpse. No energy, no economy. Steve Keen: "On the Origins of Energy Blindness" | The Great Simplification #108 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqOwiIahr9eAj8k

[@davehad-enough2369]

The desperation of the unions (Labor).

[@RumperTumskin]

States will fall into line you say? Just like how when we voted against the recent referendum, Victoria abandoned all their "treaty" nonsense?

[@Bennie32831]

This guy nailed it 👏✌️

[@dvgsun]

I agree only on one point "it will take too long to implement"

[@MrMeldarionx]

The Labor government subsidises wind and solar, so there would be no argument for non-subsidy investment in public assets. The State governments used to own ALL of the electricity assets.

[@graemekeeley4497]

Australia having a reliable 24/7 nuclear power grid would like China have a cheap manufacturing base creating wealth for Australians

[@olddog-fv2ox]

Labor is nuking itself out of all the important decisions around this newkiller generation. Where they are placed, how big should they be, what designs to be used.......

[@jacobpage3865]

It should !!!

[@Harve955]

What stupidity. The States will fall into line with a Federal mandate? Just like the states did with the voice? You you think labour and the Greens in the states will step back and say "oh well the people voted for this and they know best" yeah that's going to happen. Not.

[@rhondasibley]

But allowing nuclear waste from another country to be buried on Garden island.

[@viviennenoble4035]

I think we could bet that if nuclear energy is privately owned, it probably won't end up cheaper than electricity. the company that owns it will want a large profit. The only way it can be affordable for the population is if it is government owned.

[@desking8065]

Case Study 1: Hinkley Nuclear Power Station, United Kingdom When this project was first being promoted, the CEO of EDF, the majority owner of the Hinkley Power Station, predicted that the nuclear power station could be switched on in 2017. It is currently slated to open in 2031, almost a decade and a half late. Around the same time, the UK Government priced the project at 4 billion UK pounds. It is now expected to cost between £35 and £46 billion pounds. These enormous cost overruns have even created tension between the UK and French governments, with the political leaders in both countries disagreeing over who is responsible for covering billions in additional costs. Duttons coke can of fuel does not quite add up, I think he had some sort of a night mare to come up with such bull sh.t. The worst thing about it is persons are willing to tell deliberate lies to back his disaster up. Dutton and Abbott are two of a kind.

[@nomyafiftyonefifty8081]

Let me guess. Come next election they will try and sell it as their NEW great idea.

[@paulwatson6013]

Being able to set it up where old coal fired stations were sited is going to save on transmission line infrastructure. Then there isn't the issue of trying to run new transmission setup. There is a major issue dealing with property owners in this regard.

[@graemetreacher5642]

Absolutely 100% Nuclear

[@python27au]

I think it should be tax payer funded and tax payer owned, not for profit. If the tax payer just backs a private corporation then we’ll foot most of the construction bill, then pay through the nose to make some executive board rich on top.

[@user-dv9ur7su2v]

You have to look to nuclear as a power source not just for the next 10 to 20 years, but beyond for the next generation.

[@GeoffMiell]

Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators in Australia will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational, Mark Hines? It seems to me pro-nuclear, pro-fossil fuel, anti-renewable ideologues keep ignoring inconvenient questions like this one. Meanwhile, most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology. The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures. And global supplies of fossil methane gas are only going to get more expensive and scarcer. Australia’s eastern and central gas reserves are inadequate to last decades at 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 consumption rates. A quick look at the AEMO’s 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘖𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 - 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 2024: 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢’𝘴 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 document shows in Figure 26 (on page 47): 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮: 2023 actual consumption: _ _ 1,885 PJ 2P developed reserves: _ _ _ 17,640 PJ _ _ 𝗥/𝗣 = 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀; plus 2P undeveloped reserves:_ _16,279 PJ _ _ 𝗥/𝗣 = 𝟴.𝟲 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 2C resources: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 41,938 PJ …as at 31 Dec 2023. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗣 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 reflects statistically that there should be at least a 50% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable reserves. 𝗚𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻, & 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘃𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗮𝘀. When estimating these uncertain resources, the best estimate of contingent resources (2C) is used. Figure 27 shows a large majority of the 2P reserves and 2C resources are concentrated in the north. Northern LNG producers control around 70% of the 2P developed and undeveloped reserves in the ECGM. Australia needs to rapidly reduce its gas-dependency; not try to develop more gas reserves! US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren in the KZbin video titled 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘂𝗿 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗘𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺 - 𝗣𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗢𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲, published 16 Feb 2024, duration 55 minutes. On when the US shale gas decline is likely, Art Berman said (from around the 37 minute mark): "𝘈𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘐’𝘮 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘹 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦." kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKebZn-KgrRrirM It seems we won’t need to wait long to see whether Art Berman’s expectations are correct. Economist Steve Keen said (from time interval 1 hour 22½ minutes): "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘎𝘋𝘗. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘦'𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘰-𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦; 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘩𝘢𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳." kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqOwiIahr9eAj8k

[@stevep2430]

Why isn't thorium reactors in the discussion as well?

[@GeoffMiell]

𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗲: it is impossible to start any fission chain reaction purely on mined thorium, and therefore any nuclear system relying on thorium would be initially dependent on prior generation of fissile matter (extracted 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 uranium or bred 𝘪𝘯 uranium systems). The development of new fuels or new reactor concepts is a time- and resource-consuming process likely to span several decades. Any industrial application of thorium as a nuclear fuel would continue to require the input of fissile material from the existing uranium/plutonium cycle until the required amounts of ²³³U could be produced to ultimately make the thorium cycle self-sustaining. The development of a fully self-sustaining thorium/²³³U cycle would also require the development of industrial-scale reprocessing capabilities to recover ²³³U from spent fuel, along with fuel fabrication facilities to prepare the material for re-use. See the report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, dated 2015, by the Nuclear Energy Agency. Meanwhile, world uranium ore production has not been meeting demand since around 2015. See the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, updated 16 May 2024. And it seems available global high-grade uranium ores are insufficient to sustain a so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the longer-term. See 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. Nuclear fuels are only going to get more expensive and scarcer.

[@iamasmurf1122]

You clearly don’t know enough about thorium to answer that question properly to yourself

[@deanwaring6100]

Labor couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery 😊

[@markboscawen8330]

The reason the capacity factor isn’t 90% is because increasing RE in the system will create the need to reduce nuclear output during periods of high RE output - ie sunny days. Or we will be turning off cheaper renewables to buy more expensive nuclear electricity so it remains commercially viable. Lifting the ban on nuclear won’t change a thing. No organisation will make an investment decision without knowing all the regulatory requirements. While-ever the Libs didn’t have a clear majority in both the houses getting that through the Senate will take at least decade even if they win Govt.

[@factnotfiction5915]

In what other area of your life do you buy an unreliable product, even if it is cheaper? Do you often frequent a lunch counter that shuts down just before your order? Do you watch TV shows that sometimes have a new episode this week and sometimes not? Do you enjoy driving a car/bicycle/ride a bus that just suddenly stops? Maybe you own the lunch counter - who do you appreciate more? a - the guy who shows up on time for every shift, and completes every shift? b - the guy who arrives late, leaves early, and sometimes is a complete no-show? Reliability has a value, and that value should be paid for. Alternatively, if wind/solar + batteries are so cheap - require wind/solar farms to install batteries to sell their power ALL the time - not just when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Make THEM pay for these extra storage options. Make them provide loan guarantees to Snowy Hydro 2.0! OF COURSE! we should not turn off nuclear just because the wind started blowing 250 miles to the southeast. Why is it so 'cheap' to have unreliable power when televisions, power saws, toasters, milling machines, electric trams, water kettles, etc, etc - ALL are designed for, and operate best with, reliable power?

[@edwardbec9844]

Lets see what is the required expenditure on the existing AEMO Government Renewables Only Mantra the Costs of Pumped Hydro Transmission Lines and Storage all from GenCost Reports $301 Billion Dollars .. this excludes the other Items in the Renewables Basket Wind Turbines Solar Panels as well as overbuild capacity to Compensate for Capacity Factors of these components not being up to a standard, then there’s the Economy of Scale Landmass usage per Gigawatt of Power Generation which work out to be in the Ten’s Of Trillions In Taxpayer Dollar terms .. plus the simple facts that these items have a short Shelf Lifespan of 10 - 15 years so the process begins once again so based on the CSIRO’s own GenCost Report stated that a 1 GigaWatt Nuclear Power Station would cost $8.7 Billion Dollars so that’s 34 Giga Watts of Nuclear Power From 34 Stations built across Australia .. Not only supplying continuity of Power Security Supply but ongoing SeaWater Desalination of Drinking Water .. feeding into Australia Water Storage and Irrigation Systems

[@andrewwarwick1305]

I would not be too worried about labour state governments. They won’t be around for much longer.

[@camprogrammer9132]

Comparing the cost of clean tech purchased from china and india to Neculea tech that's built in Australia is disingenuous.

[@tallboy49]

Then only thing about renewables is renewing solar panels and wind farms which is going to be ongoing and will drive up our electricity costs.

[@camb6176]

My vote is "YES".

[@66pheonixpatrick76]

Nuclear power is not just a concept but a urgent necessity for Australian energy security as long as it is 100% Australian owned . We need Australia to get back too Australian owned and run primary / secondary and tertiary industries, we need need Australia too rapidly increase our military capabilities and independent research.

[@Trevor7727]

Energy shortages have been war-gamed…its not pretty

[@BarbaraHambleton]

All this bloody chin wagged. We need to have a better power delivery. It’s not green power

[@Philip-hv2kc]

The renewables will continue to increase in replacement and maintenance costs in future decades. But eventually fossils and nuclear fuels will be e depleted though . We gotta accept that energy will never again be so cheap as the good times .

[@graememcdonald5121]

Bowen was missed by Albo during the pathetic reshuffle of his cabinet, such a disgrace, bring on the election 🗳️

[@Crispymemes]

Thorium reactor technology has been around since 1960. Its safer than uranium, has a much shorter half-life and so far cannot be turned into nuclear weapons. Australia also has the worlds largest reserves of thorium. It is harder to extract and has a higher melting point, so it has a few drawbacks. But the main argument against Australia having nuclear power is that it might put us on the military radar of nuclear weapon superpowers. Thorium power plants wouldn't do this.

[@GeoffMiell]

Thorium reactors don't exist. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗲: it is impossible to start any fission chain reaction purely on mined thorium, and therefore any nuclear system relying on thorium would be initially dependent on prior generation of fissile matter (extracted 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 uranium or bred 𝘪𝘯 uranium systems). The development of new fuels or new reactor concepts is a time- and resource-consuming process likely to span several decades. Any industrial application of thorium as a nuclear fuel would continue to require the input of fissile material from the existing uranium/plutonium cycle until the required amounts of ²³³U could be produced to ultimately make the thorium cycle self-sustaining. The development of a fully self-sustaining thorium/²³³U cycle would also require the development of industrial-scale reprocessing capabilities to recover ²³³U from spent fuel, along with fuel fabrication facilities to prepare the material for re-use. See the report titled 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵- 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, dated 2015, by the Nuclear Energy Agency. Meanwhile, world uranium ore production has not been meeting demand since around 2015. See the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, updated 16 May 2024. And it seems available global high-grade uranium ores are insufficient to sustain a so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the longer-term. See 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. Nuclear fuels are only going to get scarcer and more expensive (energetically & monetarily) to extract.

[@rw-xf4cb]

Ok things have settled down only $3933/MW now few minutes later... All good SA enjoy your over priced power.

[@paulscholes9202]

Free energy. We the people are being in slaved. Creap energy would stop the wars .

[@jasonhopkins7120]

I think levelized cost is dumb way to compare the technologies. You have to compare systems the produce electricity 24/7 and look at return on investment over there lifetime. CSIRO didn't do that.

[@user-kl1lw1lb6b]

Public ownership of Nuclear energy production is a game changer and that on its own should be enough to win this election!

[@GeoffMiell]

Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable and increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators will be closed by 2038. What would keep the 'lights on' in Australia while we wait 20+ years (NOT 10-12 years that the Coalition are promising) for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational, David Stack? Pro-nuclear ideologues never answer this inconvenient question. That's the conversation Australia needs to have. Meanwhile, most states on Australia’s main grid experienced a significant jump in wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter, as record demand driven by cold weather, and a combination of coal outages, and lower wind and hydro output caused a greater reliance on gas, the country’s most expensive power technology. The worst affected state was NSW, which plays host to the biggest grid and the largest fleet of coal fired power generators, which experienced a three fold increase in the number of “baseload” plant failures. Per the IAEA's PRIS data, as at 24 Jul 2024, there are 59 reactors with a combined capacity of 61.637 GWₑ under construction. It's not enough to keep up with projected retirements over the next ten years. Per the 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙-2023, the age of the world's nuclear fleet, as at mid-2023: * Reactor age 0-10 years: _ _ _ 71 units * Reactor age 11-20 years: _ _ 30 units * Reactor age 21-30 years: _ _ 41 units * Reactor age 31-40 years: _ 154 units * Reactor age 41-50 years: _ _ 98 units * Reactor age 51 years & over: 13 units * 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟯𝟭.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿: _ 𝟰𝟬𝟳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘀 There are no reactors designed for an 80-100 year operating lifespan. Until recently nuclear reactors have been designed for an operating life of 40 years. Some reactors in some countries have had their operating lifespans extended out to 50 or 60 years. More recent reactor designs (e.g. AP-1000, EPR) have a 60 year lifespan. The oldest operating reactor is BEZNAU-1 in Switzerland, which was first connected to the grid on 17 Jul 1969 and full commercial operations commencing on 9 Dec 1969. Nuclear is going backwards...

[@user-kl1lw1lb6b]

@@GeoffMiell 20 years???? Are you having a laugh, Korea built a LNR in 6.5 years!

[@GeoffMiell]

@@user-kl1lw1lb6b Um, can you please name which one(s) you are referring to? Per IAEA's PRIS data, some recent reactors completed in Korea: 𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗡-𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗟-𝟭: PWR, APR-1400, 3,983 MWₜₕ, 1,414 MWₑ net Construct Start: 10 Jul 2012, 1st Grid Connect: 09 Jun 2022, Full Ops: 07 Dec 2022; 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗢𝗽𝘀: 𝟭𝟬𝘆 𝟬𝟰𝗺 𝟮𝟭𝗱 𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗡-𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗟-𝟮: PWR, APR-1400, 3,983 MWₜₕ, 1,340 MWₑ net Construct Start: 19 Jun 2013, 1st Grid Connect: 21 Dec 2023, Full Ops: 05 Apr 2024; 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗢𝗽𝘀: 𝟭𝟬𝘆 𝟬𝟵𝗺 𝟭𝟴𝗱 Short construction times are the exceptions. See the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2023, Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022. But the reactor construction process cannot start without the pre-implementation phase (i.e. planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site prep, etc.). ICYMI/FYI, the IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen before the first concrete pour milestone can even happen. The construction times for reactors are usually quoted-they’re easy enough to find; just look at the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data-but it seems to me the prerequisite pre-project implementation time is conveniently ignored by the Coalition, nuclear boosters, and the incurious media/commentators. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟵.𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units. UAE's BARAKAH-1 took more than 15-years to get up-and-running from scratch. Finland's OLKILUOTO-3 took more than 22-years to get up-and-running. USA's VOGTLE-3 took around 17-years and VOGTLE-4 around 18-years. China's SHIDAOBAY-1 (SHIDAOWAN-1) took more than 18-years. Russia's AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 took around 20-years. France's FLAMANVILLE-3 will be more than 18-years. Australia, as an inexperienced nuclear energy country, would very likely take much longer to have any operational generator units - I’d suggest no earlier than the mid-2040s.

[@canuckdownunder9719]

They should have lifted the ban under Kevin 07 and by now we'd be well underway.

[@GeoffMiell]

The federal Coalition were in government from 7 Sep 2013 through to 21 May 2022, and did nothing to lift the ban. Now the Coalition are in Opposition, they are keen all of a sudden to lift the nuclear ban. On 23 Jun 2024, Shadow Climate Change and Energy Minister Ted O’Brien appeared on ABC TV’s 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 program. The discussion on nuclear included: 15:32 David Speers: 𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴; 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱. 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 97 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯 80-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨? 15:49 Ted O’Brien: 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘚𝘐𝘙𝘖 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴? 𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰, 𝘴𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵… 𝘞𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘴. 16:17 David Speers: 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘦? 16:20 Ted O’Brien: 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦. 16:22 David Speers: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨? 16:23 Ted O’Brien: 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘩, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰, 𝘶𝘮, 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦. 16:31 David Speers: 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 24/7. 𝘎𝘢𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘧… 16:33 Ted O’Brien: 𝘈𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵… 16:37 David Speers: 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯. 16:38 Ted O’Brien: 𝘕𝘰, 𝘣𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵? 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢, 𝘶𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺, 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘌𝘊𝘋. 𝘕𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭. 𝘕𝘰𝘸, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳. 17:00 David Speers: 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦? 17:04 Ted O’Brien: 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱. 17:07 David Speers: 𝘚𝘰, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴? 17:10 Ted O’Brien: 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦, 𝘢𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6CvkqyQoq-neLc The Coalition still haven't provided any details in their nuclear proposal on: 1) how many reactors there would be; 2) what generating capacities there would be; 3) how much the proposal would all cost; 4) how much electricity would cost. It seems to me there will be no consultation with the communities hosting the proposed nuclear sites before the next election, and if the Coalition get back in to power then the hosting communities’ views will not be respected if they where to say no to nuclear.

[@knjensen5]

Ai technology is now proving to require and use huge amounts of energy. If we want to remain competitive we must build nuclear energy solutions. It is the only way forward

[@johnwilliams428]

Toyota has made a motor that runs on water why not use that to generate electricity

[@bobmacdonald9883]

Science supports where the finance comes from

[@joycelynbennetts]

The solar panels and wind turbines area massive eye sores.

[@scarborough100]

Nuclear only too expensive if Albos mates at the CFMEU build it.

[@killbotone6210]

This has nothing to do with the US elections. Have some respect,Sky.

[@johngeier8692]

Mr Trump has promised to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accord if he is re-elected. He understands that “climate action “ is an extremely costly and wasteful folly.

[@TrickyBoy1517.]

Once again *Disaster Dutton* gives the shrill and ignorant reaction that turns educated people away from Labor and its endless talk and squealing 😊

[@user-hs8qj2fi9y]

Educated people and Labor only in Victoria we believe. The smart state.

[@johngeier8692]

Muttonhead Dutton was rather quiet when Mr Morrison signed us up for Net Zero in the first place. China, India, Indonesia and several other countries continue to build coal fired power plants for cheap reliable electricity. We should abandon the extremely costly and wasteful folly of “climate action “ and simply use the most economical energy resources available.

[@connorduke4619]

Stop psychologically projecting and go visit a shrink mate.

[@Janet-hs4wl]

My feeling albo and labor may have major investors in the renewable.s who will make money from renewable as will utilities and labor. Nuclear way to go.

[@user-cx4id3wh8f]

Ask Bowen how much the subsidies for renewables has cost so far , and future investments. He goes on about nuclear being too expensive without any proof, but has not announced any costs of govt spending now. Also ask him when this renewable push is supposed to reduce power costs.