It's a shame we have to waste time with this debate when instead Australia could be starting the job of building nuclear reactors to generate electricity. I'm for nuclear and have been for several decades.
@@tbonemc2118 The cost of nuclear and the time frame to build it. Renewables are far cheaper and take very little time to build in comparisan. If you have info to the contary lpease share.
@@andrewjoy7044 it may cost more to build initially but the lifetime of 80+ years for Nuclear has to be factored in correctly. We need a long term solution and that is Nuclear. I've got solar on my home, had it for 13 years. Its performance is down 50% now and I've had 3 Inverters. I'm on my second solar hotwater system, first lasted less than 20 years. Wind and solar are short term solutions and if you factor in the unreliability and the maximum 20 year lifespan, the cost is more expensive than Nuclear. We should be maintaining our current power stations until Nuclear is progressively switched on. Once we start having power blackouts, what are all the naysayers going to say? Oh, I didn't think this would happen - exactly, you didn't think at all!
I am scientist, nuclear reactors are dangerous, not cost efficient and over a ten year period renewables end up being cheaper and self sustaining. Australia has a great bloody desert of untapped solar energy ffs!
What’s become of our once great country ? Lunatics have taken over the asylum ! Keep up the great work Will .. I have no doubt that you will succeed in due course ! Take care
This is a great thing that you are doing for Australia and Australians Will. The truth and common sense will, with the excellent work you are doing, prevail.
These coal fired sites have already had their capacity either taken or planned to be taken by renewables. The Port Augusta site is now nearly fully taken with renewables. Othere soites especially the ones owned by AGL have their capacity taken by renewables planned in the future. I guess you want the billions private enterprise like AGL to cancel or close their renewables at these sites so that taxpayer funded nulclear can be put there. Also a lot of the grid from these sites is over fifty years old and desperately needs upgrading before it falls down. That is what Labor plans to do.
@@andrewjoy7044 Renewables last night were providing only 7% of our power in the NEM .. There is plenty of capacity that renewables cannot supply , and if some transmission lines need upgrading that will still be many times cheaper than installing 20,000 km of new lines over pristine forests and pastures , to connect environmentally damaging wind and solar installations across vast areas of our country.
@andrewjoy7044 Do some REAL homework about this. New infrastructure can be applied to nuclear which works 24/7, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines. Try thinking for a change.
In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors.
We contribute 1% of CO2 which is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Going net zero with use makes a huge impact, another BS. We don’t have any influence but we are fully funding china economy every 15yrs like a perpetual motion machine which is breaking our economy.
I agree. The trees are looking so green these days, they definitely enjoy the extra carbon, which actually is lower than 1000s of years ago anyway. All these doomsayers never say a word about the continued destruction of the lungs of the earth - the Amazon Rainforest, now 25% smaller than it was 50 years a go.
@@davidbwn Decarbonisation is impossible. Earthly carbon is a fixed quantity - 1.845043490 million trillion metric tonnes. It can't be increased or decreased.
A lot of moneys being made, but the people pay for them with higher tax's and go broke while these, Politicians, and Contractors Governments get rich, and money leaves Australia.
It is all in the mind set. Most people only know of Nuclear accidents, not of the benefits it can provide. I am 70 & support Nuclear so my kids & theirs will have sufficient power in the future.
We have 50+ plants here in France. They have been running since the 70s. We sell electricity to neighboring countries. There are those who want them ALL closed down. How they expect to make up the 79% shortfall in current demand is anyone's guess. Not to mention the shortfall in the countries we sell to.
Yes, nuclear power stations will take up to 10 to 20 years or longer to build 7 stations, and to become operational...just in time to provide power for an increase in our population as immigration is ramped up..By the turn of the century we could have up to 50 million people living in Australia..it's a long term plan....
Albo said our trades and engineering can’t put a IKEA pack together how are we going to build a Nuclear Reactor. As a engineering trades person working in Power Stations and mining field, I find this an absolute condescending attitude and insult from a Labour leader who is apparently for the working class. His trust in hard working Australians to design and construct mega projects has been lost with stupid comments like this.
We have some good engineers and tradespeople in Australia, and ...... they can do this thing called learning! Bring in some experts from overseas who have worked on Nuclear Power plant construction who can teach our engineers and builders and get our people knowledgeable. No doubt there will be a decent number willing to get new knowledge under their belt. It doesn't take much.
Albo's not interested in the working class. He has utter contempt for the people who do the "hard yards" and make a genuine and worthy contribution to our country.
There is full designed nuclear power stations fully packaged design we can buy off shelf. Engineering and building isn’t the issue it’s the startup of the process is the danger. We have high quality engineers and top quality trades people, we’re aussies, we can build anything. We built other power stations this is just a kettle with generators. Look at the huge mining equipment we build, mines we construct.
In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors.
The evidence is in - the average wind turbine does not last 20 - 30 years - it only last 7 years before it needs a refurbishment... The engineering issues on the actual turbine gearing etc is just more harsh than expected... and these things are not easy to fix "on the go"... the costs are greater than projected and hence the cost of power and the delays...
More facts. The oldest reactor in the world was bullt in 1969 in Switzerland. The Swiss people voted to close all reactors in 2017. Canada is in the process of refurbishing its aging nuclear fleet. At present they are refurbishing 3 reactors at a cost of about $A18 billion that will add another 25 to 30 year to their life. Reactors may very well last along time but as with everything they need ongoing maintenance and every 25 to 30 years a major over haul. SMRs have not been built anywhere in the world.Canada has order 4 x BWRX-300 reactors, the first of wich is supposed to start being built next year. I will wait to see what becomes of this. In the meantime NuScale has cancelled their SMR program as have the French and Rolls Royce have posponed their reactors til sometime next decade. These are facts.
Australia will get left behind. A lot of countries simply don't have good, or any renewable resources, so they only have nuclear power as an option. This will mean in 10, 20, 30 years time, they'll all be sitting pretty, with huge amounts of constant, dispatchable, reliable, energy... Those countries will hoover up all of the worlds industry, manufacturing. Those countries will be clean and prosperous. Australia will get left behind. And when it realises its error, it'll be decades behind. Oh, and let's not forget that there'll be a huge amount of money to be made supplying the world's growing nuclear industry, with fuel... Will Australia could be manufacturing the fuel themselves, instead of just selling a little bit of yellow dirt.... Same with the red dirt! Why not sell steel instead!?! All you need is energy. Lots of energy.
Which nuclear power plants are going to run for 60 or 100 years. From my research smr's gen 4 reactors are not yet a commercial reality. As Bill gates said Australia is in a position to sit back and watch the world to see which technology comes out on top. Bit stupid to throw money at a particular nuclear technology only to find it is outdated or substandard technology in 10 to 15 years time. Why not wait n see what happens with nuclear fusion , its proponents say they are making good progress. No nuclear waste to worry about then.
I can't really understand why we don't just stick with what we've always had, coal and gas. Australia ships our coal to China. Why not just keep on with coal in Australia ?🤷♂️ Do you agree ?
@@letmeexplain1816 Absolutely right. The whole of Asia can use our coal but we cannot ? We are like a sports team keeping all our best players on the bench , and then giving them away to the competition.
Nuclear energy might be like drug addiction. Young people are often not very risk-conscious. WHAT HAS THIS KID EVER REALLY DONE ? Has he ever had a job ?
He is a bright kid and an example of what a good education can do. Lots to learn, certainly, but he is moving in the right direction. I used to work at measuring pollution from coal-fired plants back in the 70s. We didn't expect some rivers to ever recover. Spoil heaps from coalmines that have taken decades to clear and make safe. The issue of dust causing chronic health problems for people living downwind. Since our lab was independent, we would even get sent sample of clothes from clotheslines that had been made dirty from dust and smells. (We had to identify where the dust came from) I now live in France with its 50+ nuclear plants. I confess, at first I felt nervous even driving past those places. But, France got its act together. I'm not seeing the pollution, the three-eyed fish etc. I'm seeing establishments run capably by people with a solid 50-odd years of experience behind them. People working on coal-fired plants are a lot more likely to die of respiratory issues and cancers.
There are days in SA where the installed solar panels on people's households supply 100% of required energy in that state. The electricity will travel a short distance to the house in your street that needs power... so reliance on grid is minimised, there is less electricity travelling long distances on grid which incurs losses, every metre of cable has losses and over the whole power grid this adds up, up to 10% of electricity generated is lost in its distribution. Australians understand this as we have installed about 4 Million solar panels systems on our homes, the highest per capita in the world. What better situation can there be than most or all of us generating and storing our own power for free and selling any surplus if required. We can avoid being price gouged as we are now. If 50-100 billion dollars is spent on Nuclear reactors, whoever spent that biblical amount of money is going to want it back with profit, so there will be a good reason to keep prices high and increase them. If we think prices are going down under this scenario you are living in fantasy land!
Can you imagine the Liberals managing a big project!!! Do we remember the French nuclear submarines! Do we remember the 1 trillion dollars of debt they created with nothing to show for it.
I'm also for nuclear energy which I consider to be green energy. I agree that sensationalism and scare tactics are unhelpful however, both sides of politics engage in such behaviour. Large scale nuclear definitely works in some countries but it's not suitable for Australia. Closed loop SMR's might work, however there are currently no commercial SMR's that we could purchase. A large scale nuclear plant at best would take 15 years to break even.Large scale nuclear plants always, always, go over budget and over time in their construction. A gas plant only takes two years to turn a profit. The better option would be to resolve the domestic gas supply issue in the short term. In the longer term SMR technology may have matured to the point where it is a viable option. If we have learned anything from wind farms, it is that no one wants a wind farm in their backyard. Magnify this tenfold for a large scale nuclear plant.
Some more facts. At the COP 28 summit about 25 countries committed to tripling there nuclear power generation from 400 GW now to 1200 GW by 2050. Sounds godd doesn"t it. However 118 countries committed to tripling their renewable energy generation from 2200 GW to 6600 GW by 2030. Last year 503 GW of renewables was added to world generation capacity compared to 1 GW of nuclear. China, this year, is expected to produce 1100 GW of solar panels at incredibly cheap prices.
Excellent interview. I FKn love this young bloke. What a FKn little legend home grown Aussie.. Good on you for your intelligents and your conviction to this debate as it’s such a big deal for all Australians. Albanese and Bowen, let’s not forget the rest of the dick heads all bringing us down big time , and it’s on purpose that’s the scary part…
Will has more sense and more importantly way more knowledge than all of the labor clowns put together. They are destroying the environment for windmills and solar panels, not to mention the farmland 😮
@@peterfalconer-h3k take a drive to the country and you will see the destruction. No farmers no food. And the windmills have destroyed lots of forests, but wait there’s more, in 15-20 years all need replacing, have they told you how they are going to dispose these monstrosities? Or are they going to leave them where they fall…….INSANITY
The acreage required by solar farms to be viable is enormous,not to mention the disposal of the panels when they reach their use by date, which again could vary due to storm damage and hail etc.
The scare campaign is being run by Dutton and the Murdoch press. Go and look at the facts. Nuclear is just too expensive and will take too long to build. If you have any info to the contrary please let me know.
I like facts, so here are some. Western reactors built/being built over tthe past 20 year are incredibly expensive and take too long to build. Finland a 1.6 GW reactor for $A18 billion in 18 years. France a 1.6 GW reactorrrrrr for $A21 billion over 17 yearss yet to beee cccommissioned. USA 2 reactors of 1.1 GW eachh for $$$A51 billion ver 10 years plus about 8 years of planning and approvals. UK 2 X 1.6 GW reactors over 13 years maybe for $A68 billion but could reach up to $A90 billion when completed sometime next decade.
The Labor embargo is all about protecting the Union superannuation fund's big investment in renewable energy, which Labor is a beneficiary. Paul Keating was the architect of these super schemes to invest in government initiatives.
Showing a great big planet is scary to some people ' but you should be showing the small nuclear reactors ' portable ones are made for the milatary right now!! But the small power plant uses the old fuels 'and at the end of the usage they have a very little half life 'almost no uranium assatopes left!!
CSIRO’s latest GenCost study on the cost of different power generation technologies shows there is no economic case for nuclear power in Australia. Nuclear power would cost at least 50% more than power produced by renewables and firmed with storage.
CSIRO used flawed modelling based upon incorrect assumptions to reach that conclusion..Every other country on Earth has decided against using mostly renewables and storage due to the massive costs and land areas required.
@@Leonardo555ZZZZ where’s your evidence that CSIRO used flawed modelling? That’s right, you have none. As to the second sentence, point out where that is correct. Again, you have none except for numbskulls like Rowan Dean from Sky News saying so.
@@Leonardo555ZZZZ November 11 2023 More than 60 countries have said they back a deal spearheaded by the European Union, United States and United Arab Emirates to triple renewable energy this decade and shift away from coal
@@GordonPavilion ''a separate declaration made last week at COP28 by more than 22 countries to advance the aspirational goal of tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050,''. The main goal was to triple nuclear power generation because it is clean ,safe and affordable . Only Australia's Green/Labor refuse to even consider nuclear , because they are motivated by greed , self interest , money from superannuation funds , and incorrect misinformation about nuclear power that is based upon 50 year old technology. It is time for Australia to leave behind such old ideas , and embrace a clean nuclear future like every other advanced nation on Earth.
A young lad with his head screw on with more intelligence than our PM. Our PM is still in the stone age. It is not just the younger generation wanting nuclear power, the older generation want it as well.
Lets compare Nuclear to Unreliables over the same time frame 80 Years as a benchmark, no subsidies and add in all the clean up costs. I think the results would be convincing in favour of Nuclear
Where is the global evidence that nuclear power plants will be running for 60 to 80 or even 100 years? The facts are that the oldest operational nuclear power station is about 55 years old. The CSIRO in their GenCost report based the estimated life of a nuclear plant on the global evidence. Presumably a nuclear power plant can operate indefinitely if you keep replacing parts, but this is where the economics of doing so cause the plants to be retired. It is one of the reasons people replace their cars, they get old and uneconomical to repair and it is the same with nuclear reactors.
Sounds/looks like a young Peter Dutton with hair. Privatise nuclear power and I’ll accept the business case but unless it’s profitable and cheap then we can’t afford it. I didn’t hear the young fellow say anything persuasive. Just critical of the science
Forget the 'emissions' narrative! It's nonsense. If you're concerned about it, for whatever reason, go and have a chat to the oceans and river systems because that where 405 ppm of the current 420 ppm originate. Australia's contribution as a nation is about 0.1 ppm , REPEAT 0.1 parts per million. HELLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO!
Could you explain what you are saying. Australia does have a larger contribution to greehouse gasses due to its huge export of coal and gas. How do rivers and oceans contribute 405 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Total nonsense about the economic life of nuclear reactors of 60, 80 or even a century. Read and understand the Gencost Report - done by experts in the science and the economics. The oldest plant in the world is 54 years and the vast majority of nuclear plants have been decommissioned at less than 40 years - for two reasons. There is a massive cost (typically billions) in extending the initial license of a nuclear plant and for most - is not worth it when they can't even compete with the coal plants - that are themselves clobbered by renewables. Investors will not consider such a long economic life when there is no certainty that the license extension will even be approved. Then the so called nuclear experts need to understand that the economic viability of a project is influenced very much more by up front costs and benefits rather than 40 or 60 years into the future. That is economics 101.
Why doesn't anyone workout the costs and shut Albo up. How hard is it to pick a similar size reactor that has recently been built and use the cost and time to build of that project. Best practice is found in Japan, South Korea and China who build reactors in 5 years. If we leave it up to the politicians and bureaucracy experts they'll build seven different designs and take 2 to 3 times the time to build at multiple times the cost that it should have been.
Good question - why doesn't Will or Dutton talk about real costs? It's hard to argue against such a vague notion - "let's go nuclear" ... and what's the rest of it? Fancy Dutton coming out and announcing the possible locations but he doesn't have the vaguest notion of the answers to any other questions. Just as an aside, I feel sorry for those people who live near existing coal fired power plants - for decades they've lived in the dust and mess, low property prices, and finally it looks like there's an end to it, and along comes Dutton and says "guess what?"
What is disgusting is using an impressionable child to shill for an industry that doesn’t exist, to prop up the coal and gas sector and drive down investment in renewable energy, this poor kid is going to have this follow him around forever. If it was a viable proposition the costings would be forthcoming, at this point it is an estimated 600bn for four percent of the energy needs of the nation. Nuclear energy would be a great option, if we had developed the industry fifty years ago, like every other player in the game.
STOP PRESS!!! Albo saves Olympians from nuclear fallout by banning them from France &the Olympics (56 nuclear power stations). 😂😂 If he was genuine regarding his nuclear views he would only 'visit' nuclear countries by 'zoom'.!!
What do you know, that those listed below, don’t? List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action: * Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile * Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal * Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana * Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela * Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala * Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico * Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia * Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru * Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal * Académie des Sciences, France * Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada * Academy of Athens * Academy of Science of Mozambique * Academy of Science of South Africa * Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) * Academy of Sciences Malaysia * Academy of Sciences of Moldova * Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic * Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran * Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt * Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand * Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy * Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science * African Academy of Sciences * Albanian Academy of Sciences * Amazon Environmental Research Institute * American Academy of Pediatrics * American Anthropological Association * American Association for the Advancement of Science * American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) * American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians * American Astronomical Society * American Chemical Society * American College of Preventive Medicine * American Fisheries Society * American Geophysical Union * American Institute of Biological Sciences * American Institute of Physics * American Meteorological Society * American Physical Society * American Public Health Association * American Quaternary Association * American Society for Microbiology * American Society of Agronomy * American Society of Civil Engineers * American Society of Plant Biologists * American Statistical Association * Association of Ecosystem Research Centers * Australian Academy of Science * Australian Bureau of Meteorology * Australian Coral Reef Society * Australian Institute of Marine Science * Australian Institute of Physics * Australian Marine Sciences Association * Australian Medical Association * Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society * Bangladesh Academy of Sciences * Botanical Society of America * Brazilian Academy of Sciences * British Antarctic Survey * Bulgarian Academy of Sciences * California Academy of Sciences * Cameroon Academy of Sciences * Canadian Association of Physicists * Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences * Canadian Geophysical Union * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society * Canadian Society of Soil Science * Canadian Society of Zoologists * Caribbean Academy of Sciences views * Center for International Forestry Research * Chinese Academy of Sciences * Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences * Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) * Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research * Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences * Crop Science Society of America * Cuban Academy of Sciences * Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters * Ecological Society of America * Ecological Society of Australia * Environmental Protection Agency * European Academy of Sciences and Arts * European Federation of Geologists * European Geosciences Union * European Physical Society * European Science Foundation * Federation of American Scientists * French Academy of Sciences * Geological Society of America * Geological Society of Australia * Geological Society of London * Georgian Academy of Sciences * German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina * Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences * Indian National Science Academy * Indonesian Academy of Sciences * Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management * Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology * Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand * Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK * InterAcademy Council * International Alliance of Research Universities * International Arctic Science Committee * International Association for Great Lakes Research * International Council for Science * International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences * International Research Institute for Climate and Society * International Union for Quaternary Research * International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics * International Union of Pure and Applied Physics * Islamic World Academy of Sciences * Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities * Kenya National Academy of Sciences * Korean Academy of Science and Technology * Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts * l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal * Latin American Academy of Sciences * Latvian Academy of Sciences * Lithuanian Academy of Sciences * Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences * Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology * Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts * National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina * National Academy of Sciences of Armenia * National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic * National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka * National Academy of Sciences, United States of America * National Aeronautics and Space Administration * National Association of Geoscience Teachers * National Association of State Foresters * National Center for Atmospheric Research * National Council of Engineers Australia * National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration * National Research Council * National Science Foundation * Natural England * Natural Environment Research Council, UK * Natural Science Collections Alliance * Network of African Science Academies * New York Academy of Sciences * Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences * Nigerian Academy of Sciences * Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters * Oklahoma Climatological Survey * Organization of Biological Field Stations * Pakistan Academy of Sciences * Palestine Academy for Science and Technology * Pew Center on Global Climate Change * Polish Academy of Sciences * Romanian Academy * Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium * Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain * Royal Astronomical Society, UK * Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters * Royal Irish Academy * Royal Meteorological Society (UK) * Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences * Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research * Royal Scientific Society of Jordan * Royal Society of Canada * Royal Society of Chemistry, UK * Royal Society of the United Kingdom * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences * Russian Academy of Sciences * Science and Technology, Australia * Science Council of Japan * Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research * Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics * Scripps Institution of Oceanography * Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts * Slovak Academy of Sciences * Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts * Society for Ecological Restoration International * Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics * Society of American Foresters * Society of Biology (UK) * Society of Systematic Biologists * Soil Science Society of America * Sudan Academy of Sciences * Sudanese National Academy of Science * Tanzania Academy of Sciences * The Wildlife Society (international) * Turkish Academy of Sciences * Uganda National Academy of Sciences * Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities * United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change * University Corporation for Atmospheric Research * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * Woods Hole Research Center * World Association of Zoos and Aquariums * World Federation of Public Health Associations * World Forestry Congress * World Health Organization * World Meteorological Organization * Zambia Academy of Sciences * Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Just break the price down to kWh which what we pay for our electricity. France charges it's citizens just $0.35 cents per kWh which mostly nuclear power. In Australia we pay up to $0.45 per kWh depending what state we live in. Nuclear is definitely not expensive. Stop crapping on about the capital costs, it means nothing. Just give us the kWh price which we will pay from our pockets.
I pay AUD$0.352 cents per KwH, plus get a Feed in tariff, which reduces my cost. We have no idea how expensive nuclear will be in Australia, or when it would start producing power, because Will and Dutton have no idea themselves. On the other side, the price of any energy under a nationalised power system would be whatever the government of the day wanted to charge - like in France? It could be free, if the government of the time decided to do so. But there goes capitalism out the window.
Prime Minister Peter Dutton should make William his deputy .William seems to have more brains and a grasp on reality than all the labor politicians and teals put together.
@@brianmcdonald517 Waste is a larger problem with all other fuels (including wind and solar), *_because those other fuels are less dense._* And spent uranium-fuel disposition is not an unsolved problem.
Well done Master William !!
What a brilliant young man. He talks more sense than these useless politicians.
Here here to that. 👍👍Pete NSW.
There's still some hope for the future when you see young people like William.
Who wouldn’t love to see Albo and Bowen try and debate this 17 year old 😂😂😂
He made a fool of Bowen on Q and A.
They wouldn't have the balls
@@colinmeehan791 Not hard to do as he does that quite well to himself but imagine Bowen and Albo together and this kid destroying them.
@@troywallace322
Or the brains.
Gutless they wouldn't dare 😡
Mr Albanese needs to be told that a lot of Australians do not consider their power bills to be a laughing matter.
Love your work William.
It's a shame we have to waste time with this debate when instead Australia could be starting the job of building nuclear reactors to generate electricity. I'm for nuclear and have been for several decades.
I agree with the debate because nuclear has been around for over 70 years so what is there to talk about.
@@tbonemc2118 The cost of nuclear and the time frame to build it. Renewables are far cheaper and take very little time to build in comparisan. If you have info to the contary lpease share.
@@andrewjoy7044 it may cost more to build initially but the lifetime of 80+ years for Nuclear has to be factored in correctly. We need a long term solution and that is Nuclear. I've got solar on my home, had it for 13 years. Its performance is down 50% now and I've had 3 Inverters. I'm on my second solar hotwater system, first lasted less than 20 years. Wind and solar are short term solutions and if you factor in the unreliability and the maximum 20 year lifespan, the cost is more expensive than Nuclear. We should be maintaining our current power stations until Nuclear is progressively switched on. Once we start having power blackouts, what are all the naysayers going to say? Oh, I didn't think this would happen - exactly, you didn't think at all!
I am scientist, nuclear reactors are dangerous, not cost efficient and over a ten year period renewables end up being cheaper and self sustaining. Australia has a great bloody desert of untapped solar energy ffs!
@@jnottinghamborn5949 are all you nuclear people willing to be this bad faith to get your point across?
Australia definitely needs nuclear well said Will
👏👏👏🇦🇺⚛️
Labor, green, teals is disgusting.😡
He’s more grown up then our politicians
Nuclear power is the future. Thanks Will for information on this issue 👍
Nuclear is 20th century technology. Renewables are 21st century technology.
Elbow IS the joke.
Keep going Will!
You've got this!
The young man knows his stuff and delivers the facts with conviction something Albanese is not good at.
What’s become of our once great country ? Lunatics have taken over the asylum ! Keep up the great work Will .. I have no doubt that you will succeed in due course ! Take care
This is a great thing that you are doing for Australia and Australians Will.
The truth and common sense will, with the excellent work you are doing, prevail.
Nuclear is a no brainer to replace coal powered sites, with no need for new infrastructure to transport power to the grid.
These coal fired sites have already had their capacity either taken or planned to be taken by renewables. The Port Augusta site is now nearly fully taken with renewables. Othere soites especially the ones owned by AGL have their capacity taken by renewables planned in the future. I guess you want the billions private enterprise like AGL to cancel or close their renewables at these sites so that taxpayer funded nulclear can be put there.
Also a lot of the grid from these sites is over fifty years old and desperately needs upgrading before it falls down. That is what Labor plans to do.
@@andrewjoy7044 Renewables last night were providing only 7% of our power in the NEM ..
There is plenty of capacity that renewables cannot supply , and if some transmission lines need upgrading that will still be many times cheaper than installing 20,000 km of new lines over pristine forests and pastures , to connect environmentally damaging wind and solar installations across vast areas of our country.
@andrewjoy7044 Do some REAL homework about this. New infrastructure can be applied to nuclear which works 24/7, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines. Try thinking for a change.
Well said young man
William has more common sense than the entire Labor Party combined.
In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors.
That’s not real hard …
No one in the labor party has an IQ above the temperature on a cold day
@@batmanlives6456 😁True
Why hasn’t e Karen corrected Albo?
What an amazing young man his parents will be proud of him for year's to come it's refreshing to listen to a mature attitude towards nuclear energy
Well done william, great to see Bowen was a mumbling fool, he had no answers.
Having been so dismayed at the way the world is heading; then to see this young man. My faith in the future is renewed.
Go young fella, your much smarter than those idiots in Canberra.
2:21 There's no need to "decarbonize". *_CO2 is not a pollutant._* Net Zero is a death sentence.
That is what the wef wants
Yet with nuclear you can decarbonise and create hydrocarbon fuel at the same time.
We contribute 1% of CO2 which is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Going net zero with use makes a huge impact, another BS. We don’t have any influence but we are fully funding china economy every 15yrs like a perpetual motion machine which is breaking our economy.
I agree. The trees are looking so green these days, they definitely enjoy the extra carbon, which actually is lower than 1000s of years ago anyway. All these doomsayers never say a word about the continued destruction of the lungs of the earth - the Amazon Rainforest, now 25% smaller than it was 50 years a go.
@@davidbwn Decarbonisation is impossible. Earthly carbon is a fixed quantity - 1.845043490 million trillion metric tonnes. It can't be increased or decreased.
You go William,dont give in to the ridiculous Government we have running our Country 🇦🇺♥️
Labor's power policy is "energy fascism"!
No one is serious about anything other than getting rich.
Yep watch a colony of bees or ants it's all about survival of the next generation. Humans are all about who can make the most money 😮
And always will be. But what has that got to do with nuclear?
Australia needs nuclear to move into the future instead of plumbington into a dismal point of no return
Plummeting.
A lot of moneys being made, but the people pay for them with higher tax's and go broke while these, Politicians, and Contractors Governments get rich, and money leaves Australia.
Ive been calling Also a teenager, Listening to Will I now realise I am insulting teenagers.
It is all in the mind set. Most people only know of Nuclear accidents, not of the benefits it can provide. I am 70 & support Nuclear so my kids & theirs will have sufficient power in the future.
We have 50+ plants here in France. They have been running since the 70s. We sell electricity to neighboring countries. There are those who want them ALL closed down. How they expect to make up the 79% shortfall in current demand is anyone's guess. Not to mention the shortfall in the countries we sell to.
Follow the money to expose these greedy politicians for what they are.
We should at least take take the restrictions off Nuclear and see if its viable to build one
Of course it is. Do a search and see how many are operating and getting built by forward looking governments around the world.
Yes, nuclear power stations will take up to 10 to 20 years or longer to build 7 stations, and to become operational...just in time to provide power for an increase in our population as immigration is ramped up..By the turn of the century we could have up to 50 million people living in Australia..it's a long term plan....
Albo said our trades and engineering can’t put a IKEA pack together how are we going to build a Nuclear Reactor.
As a engineering trades person working in Power Stations and mining field, I find this an absolute condescending attitude and insult from a Labour leader who is apparently for the working class.
His trust in hard working Australians to design and construct mega projects has been lost with stupid comments like this.
Here here my man as I too worked on Loy Lang A.
We have some good engineers and tradespeople in Australia, and ...... they can do this thing called learning!
Bring in some experts from overseas who have worked on Nuclear Power plant construction who can teach our engineers and builders and get our people knowledgeable.
No doubt there will be a decent number willing to get new knowledge under their belt.
It doesn't take much.
Albo's not interested in the working class. He has utter contempt for the people who do the "hard yards" and make a genuine and worthy contribution to our country.
@@Luum81 I agree!
There is full designed nuclear power stations fully packaged design we can buy off shelf.
Engineering and building isn’t the issue it’s the startup of the process is the danger.
We have high quality engineers and top quality trades people, we’re aussies, we can build anything. We built other power stations this is just a kettle with generators.
Look at the huge mining equipment we build, mines we construct.
In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors.
No matter what the topic Sky News has an ' expert ' just waiting in the studio.
This young man has more brains than the labor party put together 😠
Only one brain is needed to trump the ALP.
The evidence is in - the average wind turbine does not last 20 - 30 years - it only last 7 years before it needs a refurbishment... The engineering issues on the actual turbine gearing etc is just more harsh than expected... and these things are not easy to fix "on the go"... the costs are greater than projected and hence the cost of power and the delays...
why do all of you people act like renewables are at the final stage?
More facts. The oldest reactor in the world was bullt in 1969 in Switzerland. The Swiss people voted to close all reactors in 2017. Canada is in the process of refurbishing its aging nuclear fleet. At present they are refurbishing 3 reactors at a cost of about $A18 billion that will add another 25 to 30 year to their life. Reactors may very well last along time but as with everything they need ongoing maintenance and every 25 to 30 years a major over haul.
SMRs have not been built anywhere in the world.Canada has order 4 x BWRX-300 reactors, the first of wich is supposed to start being built next year. I will wait to see what becomes of this. In the meantime NuScale has cancelled their SMR program as have the French and Rolls Royce have posponed their reactors til sometime next decade. These are facts.
Here is another fact ,, at COP28 , twenty two top countries made a declaration to triple the amount of nuclear generation by 2050.
Wow!!! So we should place all our energy generation on a young boy. He is not even an engineer.
Well you should mention greta thurmberg as well
The world seems to hang off her every word too and she has no credentials either.
Australia will get left behind.
A lot of countries simply don't have good, or any renewable resources, so they only have nuclear power as an option. This will mean in 10, 20, 30 years time, they'll all be sitting pretty, with huge amounts of constant, dispatchable, reliable, energy... Those countries will hoover up all of the worlds industry, manufacturing. Those countries will be clean and prosperous.
Australia will get left behind.
And when it realises its error, it'll be decades behind.
Oh, and let's not forget that there'll be a huge amount of money to be made supplying the world's growing nuclear industry, with fuel... Will Australia could be manufacturing the fuel themselves, instead of just selling a little bit of yellow dirt....
Same with the red dirt! Why not sell steel instead!?! All you need is energy. Lots of energy.
I WISH WE HAD MORE YOUNG MEN LIKE WILL, LOVE THIS EDUCATIONED YOUNG AUSSIE, GO WILL ❤❤
I agree. The nuclear misinformation campaign is disgusting. Just surprised to see one of the main culprits saying it out loud.
Which nuclear power plants are going to run for 60 or 100 years. From my research smr's gen 4 reactors are not yet a commercial reality. As Bill gates said Australia is in a position to sit back and watch the world to see which technology comes out on top. Bit stupid to throw money at a particular nuclear technology only to find it is outdated or substandard technology in 10 to 15 years time. Why not wait n see what happens with nuclear fusion , its proponents say they are making good progress. No nuclear waste to worry about then.
Is that why gates is now building one himself I wouldn't listen to anything gates says after all he believes in depopulation
I can't really understand why we don't just stick with what we've always had, coal and gas.
Australia ships our coal to China. Why not just keep on with coal in Australia ?🤷♂️
Do you agree ?
@@letmeexplain1816 Absolutely right. The whole of Asia can use our coal but we cannot ?
We are like a sports team keeping all our best players on the bench , and then giving them away to the competition.
This kid is Amazing!!
Nuclear energy might be like drug addiction. Young people are often not very risk-conscious. WHAT HAS THIS KID EVER REALLY DONE ? Has he ever had a job ?
He is a bright kid and an example of what a good education can do. Lots to learn, certainly, but he is moving in the right direction.
I used to work at measuring pollution from coal-fired plants back in the 70s. We didn't expect some rivers to ever recover. Spoil heaps from coalmines that have taken decades to clear and make safe. The issue of dust causing chronic health problems for people living downwind. Since our lab was independent, we would even get sent sample of clothes from clotheslines that had been made dirty from dust and smells. (We had to identify where the dust came from)
I now live in France with its 50+ nuclear plants. I confess, at first I felt nervous even driving past those places. But, France got its act together. I'm not seeing the pollution, the three-eyed fish etc. I'm seeing establishments run capably by people with a solid 50-odd years of experience behind them. People working on coal-fired plants are a lot more likely to die of respiratory issues and cancers.
There are days in SA where the installed solar panels on people's households supply 100% of required energy in that state. The electricity will travel a short distance to the house in your street that needs power... so reliance on grid is minimised, there is less electricity travelling long distances on grid which incurs losses, every metre of cable has losses and over the whole power grid this adds up, up to 10% of electricity generated is lost in its distribution. Australians understand this as we have installed about 4 Million solar panels systems on our homes, the highest per capita in the world. What better situation can there be than most or all of us generating and storing our own power for free and selling any surplus if required. We can avoid being price gouged as we are now. If 50-100 billion dollars is spent on Nuclear reactors, whoever spent that biblical amount of money is going to want it back with profit, so there will be a good reason to keep prices high and increase them. If we think prices are going down under this scenario you are living in fantasy land!
Dutton wants them Australian taxpayer to spend that amount of money. I don't think it will be 150 billion but more like 300 to 500 billion.
Can you imagine the Liberals managing a big project!!! Do we remember the French nuclear submarines! Do we remember the 1 trillion dollars of debt they created with nothing to show for it.
I'm also for nuclear energy which I consider to be green energy. I agree that sensationalism and scare tactics are unhelpful however, both sides of politics engage in such behaviour. Large scale nuclear definitely works in some countries but it's not suitable for Australia. Closed loop SMR's might work, however there are currently no commercial SMR's that we could purchase. A large scale nuclear plant at best would take 15 years to break even.Large scale nuclear plants always, always, go over budget and over time in their construction. A gas plant only takes two years to turn a profit. The better option would be to resolve the domestic gas supply issue in the short term. In the longer term SMR technology may have matured to the point where it is a viable option. If we have learned anything from wind farms, it is that no one wants a wind farm in their backyard. Magnify this tenfold for a large scale nuclear plant.
Some more facts. At the COP 28 summit about 25 countries committed to tripling there nuclear power generation from 400 GW now to 1200 GW by 2050. Sounds godd doesn"t it. However 118 countries committed to tripling their renewable energy generation from 2200 GW to 6600 GW by 2030. Last year 503 GW of renewables was added to world generation capacity compared to 1 GW of nuclear. China, this year, is expected to produce 1100 GW of solar panels at incredibly cheap prices.
Chinese and cheap …
Yeah sounds like a long term plan…
Your obviously kidding
Excellent interview.
I FKn love this young bloke. What a FKn little legend home grown Aussie..
Good on you for your intelligents and your conviction to this debate as it’s such a big deal for all Australians. Albanese and Bowen, let’s not forget the rest of the dick heads all bringing us down big time , and it’s on purpose that’s the scary part…
Will has more sense and more importantly way more knowledge than all of the labor clowns put together. They are destroying the environment for windmills and solar panels, not to mention the farmland 😮
How are they destroying famland?
@@peterfalconer-h3k take a drive to the country and you will see the destruction. No farmers no food. And the windmills have destroyed lots of forests, but wait there’s more, in 15-20 years all need replacing, have they told you how they are going to dispose these monstrosities? Or are they going to leave them where they fall…….INSANITY
The acreage required by solar farms to be viable is enormous,not to mention the disposal of the panels when they reach their use by date, which again could vary due to storm damage and hail etc.
@@RogerBlakeway About 0.002 of Australia's farmland.
Ripping up high food producing land for intermittent energy. Would you prefer to go Hungary?@@peterfalconer-h3k
What about a cartoon if a koala sitting in the dark shivering & hungry underneath a wind turbine
Will is a very knowledgeable young man and show maturywellvabove not only his age group but above all those in the Labor government
Labor is just running a scare campaign. I think Australians are too bright to fall for this cheap trick.
The scare campaign is being run by Dutton and the Murdoch press. Go and look at the facts. Nuclear is just too expensive and will take too long to build. If you have any info to the contrary please let me know.
I like facts, so here are some. Western reactors built/being built over tthe past 20 year are incredibly expensive and take too long to build. Finland a 1.6 GW reactor for $A18 billion in 18 years. France a 1.6 GW reactorrrrrr for $A21 billion over 17 yearss yet to beee cccommissioned. USA 2 reactors of 1.1 GW eachh for $$$A51 billion ver 10 years plus about 8 years of planning and approvals. UK 2 X 1.6 GW reactors over 13 years maybe for $A68 billion but could reach up to $A90 billion when completed sometime next decade.
Great to see Will in Gladstone.
The Labor embargo is all about protecting the Union superannuation fund's big investment in renewable energy, which Labor is a beneficiary. Paul Keating was the architect of these super schemes to invest in government initiatives.
Showing a great big planet is scary to some people ' but you should be showing the small nuclear reactors ' portable ones are made for the milatary right now!! But the small power plant uses the old fuels 'and at the end of the usage they have a very little half life 'almost no uranium assatopes left!!
CSIRO’s latest GenCost study on the cost of different power generation technologies shows there is no economic case for nuclear power in Australia. Nuclear power would cost at least 50% more than power produced by renewables and firmed with storage.
CSIRO used flawed modelling based upon incorrect assumptions to reach that conclusion..Every other country on Earth has decided against using mostly renewables and storage due to the massive costs and land areas required.
@@Leonardo555ZZZZ where’s your evidence that CSIRO used flawed modelling?
That’s right, you have none.
As to the second sentence, point out where that is correct.
Again, you have none except for numbskulls like Rowan Dean from Sky News saying so.
@@Leonardo555ZZZZ November 11 2023
More than 60 countries have said they back a deal spearheaded by the European Union, United States and United Arab Emirates to triple renewable energy this decade and shift away from coal
@@Leonardo555ZZZZ In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined, then doubled additional solar in 2023.
@@GordonPavilion ''a separate declaration made last week at COP28 by more than 22 countries to advance the aspirational goal of tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050,''.
The main goal was to triple nuclear power generation because it is clean ,safe and affordable .
Only Australia's Green/Labor refuse to even consider nuclear , because they are motivated by greed , self interest , money from superannuation funds , and incorrect misinformation about nuclear power that is based upon 50 year old technology.
It is time for Australia to leave behind such old ideas , and embrace a clean nuclear future like every other advanced nation on Earth.
OK WILL,WHY DOÈS AMERICA WANT TO DUMP THEIR TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE IN CENTRAL AUSTRALIA IF IT IS SO SAFE?
A young lad with his head screw on with more intelligence than our PM. Our PM is still in the stone age. It is not just the younger generation wanting nuclear power, the older generation want it as well.
Keep up the campaign Will. The naysayers are doing themselves in.
Keep going young man
William smarter than all the labour and greens combined
Lets compare Nuclear to Unreliables over the same time frame 80 Years as a benchmark, no subsidies and add in all the clean up costs. I think the results would be convincing in favour of Nuclear
Where is the global evidence that nuclear power plants will be running for 60 to 80 or even 100 years? The facts are that the oldest operational nuclear power station is about 55 years old. The CSIRO in their GenCost report based the estimated life of a nuclear plant on the global evidence. Presumably a nuclear power plant can operate indefinitely if you keep replacing parts, but this is where the economics of doing so cause the plants to be retired. It is one of the reasons people replace their cars, they get old and uneconomical to repair and it is the same with nuclear reactors.
Would love to have the conversation, but to have a conversation, details are needed. No details? Well, if you don’t know vote no. Sound familiar?
This smart young kid or the career FLOP Cassonova Bowen? Simple choice.
Sounds/looks like a young Peter Dutton with hair. Privatise nuclear power and I’ll accept the business case but unless it’s profitable and cheap then we can’t afford it. I didn’t hear the young fellow say anything persuasive. Just critical of the science
Forget the 'emissions' narrative! It's nonsense. If you're concerned about it, for whatever reason, go and have a chat to the oceans and river systems because that where 405 ppm of the current 420 ppm originate. Australia's contribution as a nation is about 0.1 ppm , REPEAT 0.1 parts per million. HELLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO!
Could you explain what you are saying. Australia does have a larger contribution to greehouse gasses due to its huge export of coal and gas. How do rivers and oceans contribute 405 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Total nonsense about the economic life of nuclear reactors of 60, 80 or even a century. Read and understand the Gencost Report - done by experts in the science and the economics. The oldest plant in the world is 54 years and the vast majority of nuclear plants have been decommissioned at less than 40 years - for two reasons. There is a massive cost (typically billions) in extending the initial license of a nuclear plant and for most - is not worth it when they can't even compete with the coal plants - that are themselves clobbered by renewables. Investors will not consider such a long economic life when there is no certainty that the license extension will even be approved. Then the so called nuclear experts need to understand that the economic viability of a project is influenced very much more by up front costs and benefits rather than 40 or 60 years into the future. That is economics 101.
Word.
Now this knows his stuff, take notes Bowen you learn something, but then is that possible when someone is actually brain dead…
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Is this Guy AI generated, It certainly sounds very scripted
Why doesn't anyone workout the costs and shut Albo up.
How hard is it to pick a similar size reactor that has recently been built and use the cost and time to build of that project.
Best practice is found in Japan, South Korea and China who build reactors in 5 years.
If we leave it up to the politicians and bureaucracy experts they'll build seven different designs and take 2 to 3 times the time to build at multiple times the cost that it should have been.
Good question - why doesn't Will or Dutton talk about real costs? It's hard to argue against such a vague notion - "let's go nuclear" ... and what's the rest of it?
Fancy Dutton coming out and announcing the possible locations but he doesn't have the vaguest notion of the answers to any other questions.
Just as an aside, I feel sorry for those people who live near existing coal fired power plants - for decades they've lived in the dust and mess, low property prices, and finally it looks like there's an end to it, and along comes Dutton and says "guess what?"
What is disgusting is using an impressionable child to shill for an industry that doesn’t exist, to prop up the coal and gas sector and drive down investment in renewable energy, this poor kid is going to have this follow him around forever. If it was a viable proposition the costings would be forthcoming, at this point it is an estimated 600bn for four percent of the energy needs of the nation. Nuclear energy would be a great option, if we had developed the industry fifty years ago, like every other player in the game.
👍👍👍
Is this Greta Thunberg's boyfriend ?
STOP PRESS!!! Albo saves Olympians from nuclear fallout by banning them from France &the Olympics (56 nuclear power stations). 😂😂 If he was genuine regarding his nuclear views he would only 'visit' nuclear countries by 'zoom'.!!
Nuclear is not the answer!
There is no climate crisis
What do you know, that those listed below, don’t?
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
* Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
* Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
* Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
* Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
* Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
* Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
* Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
* Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
* Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
* Académie des Sciences, France
* Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
* Academy of Athens
* Academy of Science of Mozambique
* Academy of Science of South Africa
* Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy of Sciences of Moldova
* Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
* Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
* Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
* Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
* Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
* African Academy of Sciences
* Albanian Academy of Sciences
* Amazon Environmental Research Institute
* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Anthropological Association
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
* American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American College of Preventive Medicine
* American Fisheries Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Biological Sciences
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* American Public Health Association
* American Quaternary Association
* American Society for Microbiology
* American Society of Agronomy
* American Society of Civil Engineers
* American Society of Plant Biologists
* American Statistical Association
* Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
* Australian Academy of Science
* Australian Bureau of Meteorology
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Institute of Marine Science
* Australian Institute of Physics
* Australian Marine Sciences Association
* Australian Medical Association
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
* Botanical Society of America
* Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* British Antarctic Survey
* Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* California Academy of Sciences
* Cameroon Academy of Sciences
* Canadian Association of Physicists
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Geophysical Union
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Canadian Society of Soil Science
* Canadian Society of Zoologists
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
* Center for International Forestry Research
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
* Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
* Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
* Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Crop Science Society of America
* Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
* Ecological Society of America
* Ecological Society of Australia
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* European Science Foundation
* Federation of American Scientists
* French Academy of Sciences
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* Geological Society of London
* Georgian Academy of Sciences
* German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
* Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Indian National Science Academy
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
* Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
* Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
* Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
* InterAcademy Council
* International Alliance of Research Universities
* International Arctic Science Committee
* International Association for Great Lakes Research
* International Council for Science
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* International Research Institute for Climate and Society
* International Union for Quaternary Research
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
* Islamic World Academy of Sciences
* Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
* Kenya National Academy of Sciences
* Korean Academy of Science and Technology
* Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
* l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
* Latin American Academy of Sciences
* Latvian Academy of Sciences
* Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
* Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
* Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
* Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
* National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
* National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
* National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
* National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
* National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration
* National Association of Geoscience Teachers
* National Association of State Foresters
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Council of Engineers Australia
* National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* National Research Council
* National Science Foundation
* Natural England
* Natural Environment Research Council, UK
* Natural Science Collections Alliance
* Network of African Science Academies
* New York Academy of Sciences
* Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
* Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
* Oklahoma Climatological Survey
* Organization of Biological Field Stations
* Pakistan Academy of Sciences
* Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
* Pew Center on Global Climate Change
* Polish Academy of Sciences
* Romanian Academy
* Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
* Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
* Royal Astronomical Society, UK
* Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
* Royal Irish Academy
* Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
* Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
* Royal Society of Canada
* Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Science and Technology, Australia
* Science Council of Japan
* Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
* Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
* Scripps Institution of Oceanography
* Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
* Slovak Academy of Sciences
* Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
* Society for Ecological Restoration International
* Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
* Society of American Foresters
* Society of Biology (UK)
* Society of Systematic Biologists
* Soil Science Society of America
* Sudan Academy of Sciences
* Sudanese National Academy of Science
* Tanzania Academy of Sciences
* The Wildlife Society (international)
* Turkish Academy of Sciences
* Uganda National Academy of Sciences
* Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
* United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
* University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
* Woods Hole Research Center
* World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
* World Federation of Public Health Associations
* World Forestry Congress
* World Health Organization
* World Meteorological Organization
* Zambia Academy of Sciences
* Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Just break the price down to kWh which what we pay for our electricity. France charges it's citizens just $0.35 cents per kWh which mostly nuclear power. In Australia we pay up to $0.45 per kWh depending what state we live in. Nuclear is definitely not expensive. Stop crapping on about the capital costs, it means nothing. Just give us the kWh price which we will pay from our pockets.
I pay AUD$0.352 cents per KwH, plus get a Feed in tariff, which reduces my cost.
We have no idea how expensive nuclear will be in Australia, or when it would start producing power, because Will and Dutton have no idea themselves.
On the other side, the price of any energy under a nationalised power system would be whatever the government of the day wanted to charge - like in France?
It could be free, if the government of the time decided to do so. But there goes capitalism out the window.
Snowy hydro 2.99
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Prime Minister Peter Dutton should make William his deputy .William seems to have more brains and a grasp on reality than all the labor politicians and teals put together.
This kid is smarter than most of out politicians
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
He sounds like a politician son, talks just like them, Australia does not need nuclear, what will you do with the nuclear waste
What, and continue down the path of imploding our economy with expensive & unreliable renewables that will all need replacing in 20 years. Good call..
What is your solution 😅
@@brianmcdonald517 Waste is a larger problem with all other fuels (including wind and solar), *_because those other fuels are less dense._* And spent uranium-fuel disposition is not an unsolved problem.
Get educated on the pro’s and con’s . What are other countries doing about the waste.
Much of the waste can be recycled and reused in modern reactor designs.
Albo and Bowen need to stop playing with their Target Tuck friendly and listen to Will. And by the way you gooses, they go on the other way.