Or, if nuclear is so much cheaper why doesn't Dutton come clean wuth his estimate of the costs to build nuclear reactors. And the rest of his plan as well thank you.
America needs 6-8 plants across the country and get rid of electrical bills..its 2024 and humans need to have the basic things free..time to wake tf up
Funny, about 10 years ago women were against nuclear, then power prices climbed and energy reliability declined and then they started to pay attention to facts over feels. There is going to be a fair bit of financial pain before we fix our energy sector, and our cheap power advantage is gone forever - at best we can get power price parity now.
The type of nuclear reactor used in ships/submarines are called "Small Modular Reactors". The reactors the Libs are proposing for our cities are the same as the ones that will be floating in our harbours.
That's a nonsense. The submarine reactors use highly enriched fuels usually very tightly controlled because they also can be used for weapons. The SMRs proposed by the Coalition don't even exist yet.
Richo is clueless on nuclear. He says a small nuclear plant could power a city. Absolute rubbush. Why hasnt Dutton told us when we could expect a first nuckear plant and how much it would cost. He still refuses to say that. Dutton us a sleaze.
There is a place for small nuclear plants but not for big cities. SMR’s could work for smaller outlying towns but we need GW Reactors at least to replace present generators. Dutton did give indications of costs early on when he first proposed nuclear, he said the first would cost about $16 billion dollars & each one thereafter would be about $8 billion dollars, that was a rough ballpark which could change somewhat, but still sounds heaps cheaper and more robust than their renewable fantasy that will break us into energy poverty.
Fission nuclear power stations have the risk of leaking radioactive gases and other materials ether by accident or as a military target requiring large evacuation areas. Along with the nuclear fuel waste these are their major difficulties that no technology can completely eliminate. Modular nuclear reactors that fit on semi trailer and are intended to be swapped out in 24 hours for refueling back at the factory every three years or so likely still have to have an evacuation area around them. They are probably idea for large marine ocean navigation where they could be ejected in deep water if a critical issue develops. SMRs are much more expensive per MWh than traditional full scale nuclear power stations. Their advantage is they can be local eliminating transmission loss that can be over 50%. The large evacuation area around commercial fission nuclear power stations might compensate uses inside the evacuation area with electric rates based on the nuclear plant's cost of electricity plus normal profit. It would be lower than average electric rates. If the plant completely shutdowns for typical one month refueling and maintenance every 18 months to 2 years they'd lose that discount for the month. Most nuclear power stations are multiple unit where they never are completely shutdown. This allows everybody inside the evacuation area to benefit from their nuclear power plant and doesn't cost other rate payers. It's part of the cost of the nuclear power plant.
😂😂😂 over 90% of the waste produced in modern nuclear plants is recycled and reused. On average, they produce less than a table spoon of waste that can not be recycled and reused. They are the cleanest and one of the safest forms of energy production in the world. Stop trying to scare people with data that is blatantly misleading and false
I support nuclear over renewable. Labor renewable costing us $642 billions, and coalition nuclear will cost us around 7 to 17 billion dollars. Also, I lived near the callide areas, and most of the local residents i spoke to want nuclear over renewable. Renewable energy is destroying our beautiful countryside and wildlife habitats. It doesn't guarantee lower power bills, and they are not as reliable as u may think they are. Just recently, a Tesla battery caught on fire and lots of smoke to the local resident.
"coalition nuclear will cost us around 7 to 17 billion dollars" total bullshit - although Dutton refuses to give any details. If we are really lucky , one reactor may cost $20 billion and take 20 years to build
Australian politicians need to realise that nuclear is not for us oldies! Its for the up and coming generations that have to power there country cheaply!!
This oldie is quite happy to have nuclear, if it means I can actually keep my lights on. Instead of this renewable con that constantly sees me in the dark
Nuclear waste is now reprocessed and used again and again and again. Waste is not an issue with the newer nuclear reactors, renewables however, well in 20 or so years we will have an environmental disaster over what to do with millions of solar panels and tens of thousands of turbine blades.
Waste is not an issue, there is very little and it can be reprocessed, also we already have a waste facility installed by ANSTO that has not been used as yet. Most Nuclear Power Stations store most or all of their waste on site.
Dr Brian Moench writes: "So far one million people from around the world have already died from Chernobyl radiation, including over 110,000 of the original 830,000 clean up workers".
These renewables are so good we're all still waiting for "cheepa elekwishhitty" and power bill reduction to " two hundred and seventyfiiiive dollars"💵😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣what a load of croc 🐊🐍😂
There are already more than 54,365 SMR's in QLD alone ATM, and the radiation from their core has lead to the deaths of more QLDers than those being proposed by Dutton & Co.
When your heads buried in the sand, you can't notice when the lights won't turn on.
in 2007 everyone was the same page that gas was the answer for the next 25 years but they are batshit bonkers now in Canberra they want no gas
If renewables are as cheap as claimed, why are we subsidising them?
Or, if nuclear is so much cheaper why doesn't Dutton come clean wuth his estimate of the costs to build nuclear reactors. And the rest of his plan as well thank you.
Same question for fossil fuels, which are well established.
@@CraigHarvey I've been hearing for years that fossil fuels are subsidised, but nobody has ever been able to tell me what the subsidies are. Can you?
I have never been against nuclear power. I`m for it.
This should have been done decades ago, but as usual- the dumbest people in our society had the loudest voices. So we kept on producing carbon🤣
nothing wrong with carbon. pretty essential if you want to keep living.
If the entire world went net zero tomorrow....it would make zero difference to the climate
total bullshit
America needs 6-8 plants across the country and get rid of electrical bills..its 2024 and humans need to have the basic things free..time to wake tf up
Not inside Bowen's thick head, no change there.
Funny, about 10 years ago women were against nuclear, then power prices climbed and energy reliability declined and then they started to pay attention to facts over feels.
There is going to be a fair bit of financial pain before we fix our energy sector, and our cheap power advantage is gone forever - at best we can get power price parity now.
The type of nuclear reactor used in ships/submarines are called "Small Modular Reactors". The reactors the Libs are proposing for our cities are the same as the ones that will be floating in our harbours.
total bullshit
That's a nonsense. The submarine reactors use highly enriched fuels usually very tightly controlled because they also can be used for weapons. The SMRs proposed by the Coalition don't even exist yet.
Richo is clueless on nuclear. He says a small nuclear plant could power a city. Absolute rubbush. Why hasnt Dutton told us when we could expect a first nuckear plant and how much it would cost. He still refuses to say that. Dutton us a sleaze.
Because he knows nuclear can't go ahead whilst the ALP, Greens and teals are 100% against it.
There is a place for small nuclear plants but not for big cities. SMR’s could work for smaller outlying towns but we need GW Reactors at least to replace present generators.
Dutton did give indications of costs early on when he first proposed nuclear, he said the first would cost about $16 billion dollars & each one thereafter would be about $8 billion dollars, that was a rough ballpark which could change somewhat, but still sounds heaps cheaper and more robust than their renewable fantasy that will break us into energy poverty.
Same old STUPID Different Day!!
Fission nuclear power stations have the risk of leaking radioactive gases and other materials ether by accident or as a military target requiring large evacuation areas. Along with the nuclear fuel waste these are their major difficulties that no technology can completely eliminate. Modular nuclear reactors that fit on semi trailer and are intended to be swapped out in 24 hours for refueling back at the factory every three years or so likely still have to have an evacuation area around them. They are probably idea for large marine ocean navigation where they could be ejected in deep water if a critical issue develops. SMRs are much more expensive per MWh than traditional full scale nuclear power stations. Their advantage is they can be local eliminating transmission loss that can be over 50%.
The large evacuation area around commercial fission nuclear power stations might compensate uses inside the evacuation area with electric rates based on the nuclear plant's cost of electricity plus normal profit. It would be lower than average electric rates. If the plant completely shutdowns for typical one month refueling and maintenance every 18 months to 2 years they'd lose that discount for the month. Most nuclear power stations are multiple unit where they never are completely shutdown. This allows everybody inside the evacuation area to benefit from their nuclear power plant and doesn't cost other rate payers. It's part of the cost of the nuclear power plant.
😂😂😂 over 90% of the waste produced in modern nuclear plants is recycled and reused. On average, they produce less than a table spoon of waste that can not be recycled and reused. They are the cleanest and one of the safest forms of energy production in the world. Stop trying to scare people with data that is blatantly misleading and false
I support nuclear over renewable. Labor renewable costing us $642 billions, and coalition nuclear will cost us around 7 to 17 billion dollars. Also, I lived near the callide areas, and most of the local residents i spoke to want nuclear over renewable. Renewable energy is destroying our beautiful countryside and wildlife habitats. It doesn't guarantee lower power bills, and they are not as reliable as u may think they are. Just recently, a Tesla battery caught on fire and lots of smoke to the local resident.
"coalition nuclear will cost us around 7 to 17 billion dollars" total bullshit - although Dutton refuses to give any details. If we are really lucky , one reactor may cost $20 billion and take 20 years to build
Australian politicians need to realise that nuclear is not for us oldies! Its for the up and coming generations that have to power there country cheaply!!
they should be allowed to use the same cheap power that us oldies had the benefit of!!!
This oldie is quite happy to have nuclear, if it means I can actually keep my lights on. Instead of this renewable con that constantly sees me in the dark
They need more transparency on what to do with the waste and its composition over time.
Nuclear waste is now reprocessed and used again and again and again. Waste is not an issue with the newer nuclear reactors, renewables however, well in 20 or so years we will have an environmental disaster over what to do with millions of solar panels and tens of thousands of turbine blades.
Waste is not an issue, there is very little and it can be reprocessed, also we already have a waste facility installed by ANSTO that has not been used as yet.
Most Nuclear Power Stations store most or all of their waste on site.
@@evil17waste is definitely an issue, you need to monitor it for thousands of years.
Dr Brian Moench writes: "So far one million people from around the world have already died from Chernobyl radiation, including over 110,000 of the original 830,000 clean up workers".
These renewables are so good we're all still waiting for "cheepa elekwishhitty" and power bill reduction to " two hundred and seventyfiiiive dollars"💵😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣what a load of croc 🐊🐍😂
There are already more than 54,365 SMR's in QLD alone ATM, and the radiation from their core has lead to the deaths of more QLDers than those being proposed by Dutton & Co.
Nuclear is now a good choice, small Nuclear power is now the eay world wide 🎉
oh really - tell us where they are operating (I assume you reject the Chinese PBR)
of course, you want no coal or gas and for us to depend on solar. You better start building several nuclear plants asap
Are the people recieving nuclear medicin to treat thier cancer ending up with 3 eyes or 3 arms ?????
no - why ask such a ridiculous question?
Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi