Nuclear energy is BY FAR the best option we have to produce consistent clean energy on a scale needed for a whole nation. This program just lost my support. I hate Dutton too but nuclear energy is objectively a fantastic idea for this country.
Yes but the Government will sell this resource off as it has done with Gas and most electricity and then we’ll be paying for it “ double “ We in Australia live in a Crony Capitalism not a Democracy…..
Your are absolutely right but also a bit wrong. Nuclear energy is extremely promising and at it's current level of development it's a viable option for some countries. But is it right for Australia NOW. Compared with alternatives, is nuclear for Australia the best in terms of cost, speed of roll-out, and safety\waste management. The levelised cost of energy for Nuclear does not compare favourably with renewables. Speed of roll-out for nuclear does not compare favourably with renewables. Safety and waste management of nuclear does not compare favourably with renewables. That's 3 strikes. I'm not against nuclear by any means, but does it makes sense for Australia, right now?
It's so bizarre how we have clean energy options ready to go, and yet a small number of powerful people hold the rest of hostage to polluting energy sources. Thanks for your hard work and hope we can finally have clean energy soon!
What about the waste and toxic material the from the wind turbines as they don’t break down over time that is bad for our environment hm…? How come no one is talking about that hm…? What about the destruction of farm land and our great forest going on to put up the wind turbines and what about our wildlife which live in those areas look at the suffering there because of the wind turbines going up? What of the ocean life who will also who will suffer from the wind turbines? They are an eye saw on the great land scape? How come no one is talking about that as every life matters? Come on let’s get real here shall we.
@@GoldBawls Look I will spell some of out for you ok. Well wind turbines don’t break down over time that is bad for our environment. wind turbines have toxic material in them, can you read English as that is what I am writing. Now if you are having problems taking this in maybe get someone to read this for you.
That was only a problem because psychopathic executives in the most insane manner imaginable did wind turbines with very short design life. Develop them, sell them to watch them fail, instead of a fifty year design life which is sane, they did 12 years to do it as cheap as possible and dump them on the market.
The first thing that makes me suspicious about the Coalition nuclear plan is the argument that it is better for the environment than renewables. When has the Coalition ever been concerned about the environment. But now suddenly they are? Your other arguments regarding renewables waste are valid but the same arguments apply to nuclear. With the exception that nuclear waste is far more toxic and for a far longer period of time. Farming by it's nature is destructive. How much forest has been cleared for farming, How much erosion and destruction of soil quality and eco-systems has been caused by farming. And you're concerned about adding some wind turbines onto land that has already been cleared? And the whole eyesore argument, really? I'd rather have a view of wind turbines rotating lazily than a nuclear plant, wouldn't you?
Much improved nuclear reactor designs are possible, low energy output, long fuel life, which much lower risk. Sure current designs are bad but better ones are possible, hence nuclear energy research and development should continue but bad reactor design should not be implemented. Sounds like they are betting on a better reactor design, hence the long lead time.
Yes but when there’s a work place disaster at the Nuclear Power, it creates the highest loss of human death - not only in the work place but all the greater community……
