Пікірлер

• 
  @carolynfealy74605 сағат бұрын

  I agree! It is madness not to have nuclear power. The wind farms are not viable considering how many resources are to make them and end of life of these things are not reused. Just left on site.

• 
  @etmax112 сағат бұрын

  A few things not quite right there. 1. Because we have (will) have nuclear subs we need nuclear reactors. No, apart from the reactor in the sub, we don't. The ones we're getting will be fuelled when the subs are built and the reactors will be disposed of back in the US when they're decommissioned. 2. Coal is the cheapest thing we've ever had for electricity (paraphrased). No, Solar closely followed by wind is the cheapest we've ever had. I not saying we will have just wind and solar and not nuclear, but coal was only cheap because the tax payer soaked up the true cost environmentally and health wise. 3. Nuclear power plants last a century. WRONG, currently they are talking about 40-60 years, at which point the some 60% of the power station is nuclear waste that needs to be stored. 4. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. VERY WRONG. The UK and USA have lots of waste stored in containers on site that are corroding and is currently contaminating top soil and in at least one location is affecting a river. This waste has to be stored geologically safe for 60,000 or more years, that is a tall order that we have not yet sorted out. You may all say I'm anti nuclear, but no, it's just that all current nuclear reactors in use and most that are planned are based on light water reactor designs (LWR) that require a very large containment vessel to hold steam, most of which becomes nuclear waste when the plant is decommissioned. We need to seriously look at molten salt reactors that recycle their own waste on site and do not require large containment vessels because they can not suffer from thermal runaway and can be continuously refuelled. Also the waste only needs to be geologically safe stored for perhaps 1000 years. The problem is that this takes research money and time which private enterprise does not want to spend, preferring to pile waste a mile high for future generations or give us Fufushimas and 3 Mile Islands. Nuclear yes, Nuclear short cuts NO. I agree that some level of base load is needed, but we still need to understand how much of the grid can be renewable which could be as high as 60%. I mean we have solar, wind, tidal and hydro as well as pumped hydro as well as batteries. Speaking of batteries, there are some new battery technologies coming on line that are fraction of the price of lithium Ion with life times of 10's of thousands of cycles.

• 
  @stevewilliams43013 сағат бұрын

  Please speak to Kirk Sorenson of FLIB about Thorium MSR reactors

• 
  @gxtoast222115 сағат бұрын

  Unfortunately the ABC is a mouthpiece for the UN-WEF Great Reset and Agenda 2030 absurdity. They are ideologically captured bordering on superstition.

• 
  @jublywubly15 сағат бұрын

  Burying nuclear waste is not a solution! I'm sick of people using that as an excuse. People probably said the same thing about burying household waste, but now we're stuck with all that crap under the ground, polluting he planet. Putting nuclear waste out of site doesn't solve the problem of that nuclear waste. It just makes it yet another problem for future generations making it an environmentally-polluting nightmare!

• 
  @gmarshall102615 сағат бұрын

  Great stuff

• 
  @gmarshall102616 сағат бұрын

  Listen to this young man

• 
  @QLD4164Күн бұрын

  I have listened to this young man a couple of times on the radio and now to watch this video I could only wish that other young people in this country were this smart and willing to get out and push his barrow. Loved the interview and the complete sense made by 1 great Australian and another that will be as great in the not to distant a future

• 
  @iandaniel2153Күн бұрын

  Dick what abt thorium reactors ... Australia has tipped in ~ 250 million into the Chinese thorium reactor now being built surely that is the way forward.

• 
  @zedliciousКүн бұрын

  We need more relational thinking and discussion in Australia. This is a good start and enjoyed this interview.

• 
  @suchdevelopmentsКүн бұрын

  😄Dick, Good day from Lismore, NSW. 👉I support Australia's nuclear power.👈 I became an engineer in 1975. I am promoting the Copenhagen Atomics reactor. Thorium encourages me, and it will be a Game-Changer in Energy.

• 
  @ralphhillier676Күн бұрын

  So why does France use N/ power. One plant in 7 years is possible (without Union labor) The private sector will do it I think. Trouble is greed will then step in, over cost per KWH.

• 
  @paulfordyce3499Күн бұрын

  Are you going to do a reply to Chris Bowen article in The Australian today?

• 
  @TyroneMarchantКүн бұрын

  We should be investing and trialing Fusion not Fission

• 
  @imeagleeye1Күн бұрын

  He is another paid puppet

• 
  @johngoard82722 күн бұрын

  As far as I am concerned there is no comparison between the option for renewables and nuclear power because of the waste that renewables eventually cause and that requires replacement and further pollution and destruction in and to the environment. I might add too that the opposition to nuclear power as the current Labor fools have quoted the CSIRO report about the cost being too much and unviable but that is total hypocrisy when they are going to spend an obscene amount of money on guess what? NUCLEAR SUBMARINES!! and the $17B pales into insignificance when the cost of those submarines is going to cost I am given to believe to be $32M per day per year for the next 40 years how cost-effective is that when they will be obsolete by the time that those submarines go into commission??

• 
  @imeagleeye12 күн бұрын

  Dick show us how the Radioactive waste is dealt with. Future generations will have a toxic environment. You're kidding us who is pushing this expensive highly dangerous product on us Dick.

• 
  @perrybrown49852 күн бұрын

  I went to the effort or reading the ENTIRE GenCost report. It contains some interesting assumptions which are designed skew the results, towards their desired outcome... Firstly, the report significantly reduces the utilisation factor for nuclear, on the basis that, when renewables are producing, their power will be much cheaper than nuclear, resulting in the nuclear plants being removed from service. This greatly increases the apparent cost of nuclear. Ok... there is sort of a point there. But then they say that there is no need for the price of renewables to include the cost of backup storage, because all shortfalls will be taken up by other generation sources on the grid. This feels a little bit like cheating. There are no practical "zero carbon" offerings other than hydro. What they are really proposing is to employ gas turbines to meet this demand (at high cost). Isn't this the very role that nuclear should fill? It feels like, if they want to exclude nuclear because it is "uncompetitive" at times that renewables are available, you should also credit nuclear sources for the times they are able to provide power when renewables can't. Finally, the report declares large nuclear plants to be impractical because they produce TOO MUCH power - and that having so much production concentrated into a single plant makes the grid vulnerable to failure of that source. This is nonsense. With the transition of transportation to electric, this is exactly what Australia needs - abundant, consistent, large scale power sources.

• 
  @geefor19422 күн бұрын

  Dick spoke about fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear fuels. But he didn’t question the potential of a reduced population consuming less energy.

• 
  @bencoad84922 күн бұрын

  If we went with liquid fueled reactors that are built in factories/shipyards we would be looking at 2-3 years from ordering to providing power(baring lawsuits of coarse :/), fuel usage goes from about 1% to over 90% so alot less waste is produce and then it goes from 10k years to just 300 years to background radiation due to the better burn up, so much more manageable, also you can use the heat directly from the reactor since its in liquid form(usually salts) to heat industrial processes

• 
  @australiasindustrialage6892 күн бұрын

  Someone needs to put together an ad campaign showing the advantages. E.G the average perosn in the street would have no Idea about nuclear waste. The think of images like Chernobyl. You need to show people images of 2 shipping contaners equals two football fields of coal waste, which equal ten football fields of renewable waste. People need to see the facts, side by side. Australians are very sceptical about new ideas. The GST failed under John Hewson, because it wasn't explained well enough. It wasn't until John Howard led a rigourous campaign and explained how it impacted individuals and the benefits that he managed to convince Australians that it was a good thing.

• 
  @AquaMarine10002 күн бұрын

  The enrichment of waste fuel can be reused. All other waste is low-level waste.

• 
  @robertpatterson90482 күн бұрын

  Thank you Sophie and Tony Erwin this is the message we need to get through to the population , which at the moment is being stymied by the inner-city Greens and Teals that represent the Climate 200 club who are heavily invested in the Teal Club and renewables. and wish there money stream to continue, to the detriment of Australia.

• 
  @joncarolyn2 күн бұрын

  Australia should have around 4 nuclear power plants with 4 reactors

• 
  @willilaufmann383 күн бұрын

  I wish more people would listen to this and our political experts ha ha 😂 would meet with Tony. Great video

• 
  @gibbonsdp3 күн бұрын

  The host here is getting her numbers muddled, conflating build times with lead times and large reactor costs with those of smaller SMRs. Tony doesn't address WHY CSIRO's nuclear assumptions differ from industry norms, which is because it's impossible to run nuclear 24/7 in competition with renewables, and because the economics say it would have to be built by taxpayers and not the private sector. And anyone familiar with the troubled history of SMRs will take Tony's timescales, cost estimates and general confidence with a very large pinch of salt.

• 
  @billyoungtheblade61203 күн бұрын

  Labor has to go.Don’t vote greens or teals

• 
  @andrewkirtley65653 күн бұрын

  As far as costs go, everybody is forgetting how much money the government can waste

• 
  @andrewkirtley65653 күн бұрын

  As far as costs go, everybody is forgetting how much money the government can waste

• 
  @MAM-qx6tk3 күн бұрын

  I am 71 years and I can understand we need to look at everything for our power. The old saying comes to mind don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

• 
  @mmb8113 күн бұрын

  Thorium Nuclear Power is a MUCH better and MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and MUCH SAFER solution than Uranium Nuclear power. The WORLD should be investing in perfecting Thorium Nuclear Power Stations which is a REAL SOLUTION, not WASTE PRECIOUS TIME & MONEY on BS Wind & solar scam rubbish NON SOLUTIONS!

• 
  @rodkeh3 күн бұрын

  Nuclear is a swindle! Australia already had the safest, most secure, most cost effective and most environmentally friendly coal fired energy in the world. Why would you let those swindlers make slaves of you just so they can get rich at your expense? Don't fall for the nuclear swindle!!!

• 
  @Tennyson23 күн бұрын

  Thanks for pushing this Tony, it makes a lot of sense to have nuclear providing baseload and all the other positive effects of grid stabilisation with spinning reserve while renewables contribute where appropriate. At the moment it seems there is a hold rush on to grab government subsidies on renewables, to the detriment of our natural environment and stability of our grid.

• 
  @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk31203 күн бұрын

  Goes to show how Dumb this Labor government and the greens are!!

• 
  @amdaniels113 күн бұрын

  Great discussion. Fusion is the holy grail, but fission will get us through to Fusion without odious carbon emissions.

• 
  @ohasis83313 күн бұрын

  The country is being held back by spineless and arrogant politicians.

• 
  @Stirling53 күн бұрын

  mainstream is finally talking about it. Australia to go nuclear

• 
  @someone61703 күн бұрын

  Any chance anyone wants to try answer my questions: At 2:24 Tony claims that nuclear should have a capacity factor of 95%, rather than 53% to 89%. This source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country would suggest that in 2022 at least nuclear never obtained a 95% capacity factor anywhere in the world. Why should a capacity factor of 95% be used if it is not being achieved as opposed to the 53% to 89% that is being achieved? At 2:40 Tony claims that use capacity factors of 19% to 32% or solar. These figures have been achieved in Australia on commercial projects. Why does he prefer the global capacity factors as opposed to what is being achieved in Australia, for a report on the cost of energy generation in Australia? At 4:22 Tony claims that an SMR could be done in under 10 years claiming 4 years for site studies etc. He refers to the OPAL reactor taking 9 years. Unless I'm missing something the site of the OPAL reactor didn't require this 4 years since it already had a nuclear reactor on it that OPAL was replacing. That by Tony's estimate potentially saved 4 years, so wouldn't 13 years would be more reasonable for OPAL on a fresh site? Isn't the SMRs proposed considerably bigger and more complex than OPAL? At 9:18 Tony says the operational life of nuclear is 60 years, many extended to 80 years. What is the oldest nuclear plant still in operation? What is the average age of retirement of nuclear reactors?

• 
  @jinnantonix45703 күн бұрын

  My father Doug Ebeling was chief engineer at ANSTO in the 1970s, and he was in charge of the development of a UF6 centrifuge enrichment project, which produced a working system in the early 1980s. We were ahead of the game, and the politicians shut it down. They are still hog tying this country. We should be marching in the streets.

• 
  @JairLaird3 күн бұрын

  Battery Technology is advancing rapidly. Cheaper battery storage, from Iron/Phosphorous and Sodium Ion batteries will solve energy storage limitations, and enable uninterupted power supply, from Renewables. Nuclear Energy has been proven un-safe, despite promises to the contrary, and Nuclear Waste 'Reprocessing' doesn't render it safe, and it will pose a constant risk for 1/4 million years before it decays, given the inherent instability of Human Civilisation, with unrest, anarchy, terrorism, and war.

• 
  @valdisfilks94273 күн бұрын

  Great information Tony. Well done.

• 
  @larrym123 күн бұрын

  Get real they are selling gas for peanuts until 2027 so why not drill drill drill gas gas gas for the next 20 years and then technology will save the day in 20 years time

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  8:30 - Guys, it would be nice to make statements that make sense! Again, I reiterate, that I am in favour of nuclear, I'm not here to slam it, but AGAIN, you are comparing Snowy 2.0 at a cost of $12B and then stating that you could get 6 SMRs for that. Firstly, one SMR will cost MUCH more than $2B. Try double or triple. Remember that Australia will get SCREWED by whoever builds them and EVERYTHING Australia does BLOWS OUT IN COST ENORMOUSLY! SECONDLY, Snowy 2.0 will produce 2,200MW on-demand capacity. An SMR produces 300MW. So you would need 7 SMRs to produce the same as Snowy 2.0 and even if one SMR did cost $2B, seven would cost $14B, so more expensive than Snowy 2.0. However, given that one SMR would probably cost $4B to $6B, seven would likely cost $28B to $42B which is 2.3 to 3.5 times the cost of Snowy 2.0.

• 
  @stewatparkpark29333 күн бұрын

  Snowy 2 doesn't produce any energy . To work out the cost of Snowy 2 you have to include the billions of dollars spent on panels , windmills and new transmission lines .

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  @@stewatparkpark2933 I wonder why it doesn't produce anything? Maybe because it hasn't been finished yet! I'm making the point based on when/if it is ever finished the power is the claimed to produce.

• 
  @stewatparkpark29333 күн бұрын

  @@JimboJones-qn4wd You don't understand how Snowy 2 will work .

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  @@stewatparkpark2933 I Probably don't, but in this video, they claimed Snowy 2.0 would cost $12B. A Google search of Snowy 2.0 states that it is expected to supply 2.2GW (2,200MW) of capacity, which is the same capacity that about 7 SMRs (at 300MW each) would deliver. They stated that the cost of an SMR is about $2B. I say it will be much more than that, probably double or triple that cost per SMR. They make it sound that the cost of an SMR is dirt cheap. They fail to mention that Australia would probably need 100 to 200 of them if we want to get anywhere near net zero CO2.

• 
  @longway13 күн бұрын

  Why all the talk about SMRs and the cost before we start talking about the cost of SMRs they need to be able to be built as a working plant.

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  8:15 - A SMR is a LONG WAY from a FULL SCALE POWER PLANT! If you are looking to replace an existing 2000+MW coal or gas power plant with a 2000+MW nuclear plant, IT WOULD COST ~$17B. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT! Australia's annual electricity needs is in the order of 250,000 to 300,000GWh and 60 to 70% of that comes from coal and gas power plants. So, how many 2000+MW nuclear plants (or 300MW SMRs) do you think we will need to ELIMINATE COAL AND GAS FROM THE GRID? If you look at other countries that have nuclear plants like the USA, China, the UK etc, they have A LOT OF reactors, but they only produce a fraction of their electricity. I think the US has about 100 nuclear reactors and they produce only 20 to 30% of their electricity.

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  4:15 - The OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is 20MW and you say it is a "good example" and took "less than nine years" to build. That is a LONG WAY from a 300MW SMR or a 2000+MW FULL SIZE REACTOR! BTW, I do support nuclear, BUT would still like answers to a lot of questions, including COST and FEASABILITY considering that Australia's CO2 emissions are 1% of global emissions and no matter how many reactors we have we will never achieve 0% emissions. SO, what cost do we put on reducing Australia's CO2 emissions from 1% to say 0.2%? $500B? $1 TRILLION?

• 
  @stewatparkpark29333 күн бұрын

  SMRs will be built overseas and you just order one and it is delivered and gets connected to the existing grid .

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  @@stewatparkpark2933 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣JUST ORDER OFF AMAZON????

• 
  @JimboJones-qn4wd3 күн бұрын

  @@stewatparkpark2933 It will be delivered on an electric boat that will catch fire and the whole ship and reactor will be on the bottom of the ocean!

• 
  @footbru2 күн бұрын

  @@stewatparkpark2933 Fantasy.

• 
  @RobertLewis-el9ub3 күн бұрын

  Political ideology is driving Labour and Greens position on nuclear. Common sense seems to be an uncommon attribute of their logic.

• 
  @peterremkes93763 күн бұрын

  The Libs didn't want to know about it until recently, otherwise they should have started in their years in power.

• 
  @footbru2 күн бұрын

  Just to state the obvious, "Political Ideology" drives everyone in politics. It even motivates people like ourselves to make comments.

• 
  @Scott.V.Grube13 күн бұрын

  ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

• 
  @timlittle12863 күн бұрын

  Batteries need to be renewable too and if lithium ion batteries aren't. Then batteries that are easy to rejuvenate would be a better solution.

• 
  @timlittle12863 күн бұрын

  Batteries need to be renewable too and if lithium ion batteries aren't. Then batteries that are easy to rejuvenate would be a better solution.

• 
  @1knightinbangkok9463 күн бұрын

  Shows how brain dead and narrow minded some politicians are.

• 
  @johngoard82722 күн бұрын

  Yes mate my own opinion too and frankly, the sooner they get they arse's into gear with this problem of power generation the better for all of us.