Nuclear power to be a ‘major fight’ until election: Paul Murray
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 06. 2024
- Sky News host Paul Murray says the issue of nuclear power will be a “major fight” between now and the next federal election.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s nuclear policy last week, including the seven proposed sites for the nuclear reactors.
Paul Murray discusses the “blow-up and scare campaigns” about nuclear energy from the Albanese government.
Got my vote Pete
Giving the blokes who spent 860 billion on nothing a blank cheque is a pretty risky move mate. Might wanna rethink that one.
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
Might want to rethink your next comment JARS 😂
NOTHING BUT DRIVEL COMES OUT OF YOU 😂
You awake yet princess?
Albanese hasn’t even passed
PM101 class.
And he’s still trying to tell Australians what to think and do !
Hey Bowen, everybody knows better than the CSIRO.
The drivel that comes out of labour is a disgrace,the PM always acts like a clown when he has no answers.
Drivel and braindead, irrelevant, whining sky "news" turd murray 👍👍.
Ted O’Brien, says the plants can operate for between 80 and 100 years.
Of the active 416 nuclear reactors, the mean age is about 32 years. Among the 29 reactors that have shut over the past five years, the average age was less than 43 years, says Mycle Schneider, an independent analyst who coordinates the annual world nuclear industry status report.
All Australia is moving towards to is what the majority of countries have already done…why is this even a debate? It’s all political, no more, no less…just built the things
You and debating 😂😂😂
The majority of countries, try 32 but don’t let facts get in the way of your argument
@@coldandugly9251prognosis and facts have an adverse relationship 😂
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
Hey JARS, what’s your science qualifications buddy?
Did you ever run a nuclear reactor?
Study nuclear physics?
No? I thought not. That’s zero credibility from you.
Why do Labor think they have exclusive rights to the CSIRO's opinions let alone the Australian public's opinions?
The CSIRO themselves stated that nuclear wasn't viable in Australia? Had nothing to do with Labor lol
Because Australia has been taken over by technocrats.
It’s just a way of gaining superiority and letting you know who the boss is, if they listed to you then you would be the boss.
@@RogueElementMkIIto sub or not to sub.....
The answer you can not give
@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr of course it does. You need political clout and public opinion on your side to achieve a goal. The CSIRO have a net zero agenda, Labor are the conduit but also invested in China.
Why won't Weak Albanese release his renewables costings?
Net Zero is prohibitively costly, impractical and totally unnecessary.
We are currently suffering the consequences of having our energy policy based upon the same 3 ridiculous popular delusions as the Germans.
Wind has a low energy density and is intermittent. Wind power is centuries out of date. Wind farms only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including coal, oil and copper) in addition to being a blight on the landscape.
They will soon end up in landfill.
Solar panels are only economical as a supplement in sunny areas between the 35th parallels. Even in favourable areas there is a major mismatch between peak supply and peak demand. Inclement weather can render them useless for prolonged periods.
We should simply use the most economical energy resources available. We should not allow ourselves to be forced into destructive policies by such agencies as the United Nations.
Why won't dutton do the same with nuclear power?
@@pandemicoftheunvaccinated5367 Peter Dutton
@roostercogburn1984 grammar? Is that all ya got?
Seven nuclear plants at $15 billion each is $105 billion. For that, taxpayers could pay for 7 million home solar panel or battery installations at $15,000 per installation.
@@pandemicoftheunvaccinated5367
And then have to change them out every ten years! 😂
Solar or batteries? 😂 you need both to make it work! Double the cost!
Then change it out every 10 years still!
Tell me leftard, is it hard to be that dumb?
Why do you feature the cooling towers? Similar towers are used for coal fired and NG fired steam plants. Makes the entire piece look silly.
A) labour has not released their cost of renewables
B) Politicians need to come out and tell the Australian people if they have investments in renewables
C) labour must grow up and have a responsible conversation, not a scare campaign
PETER DUTTON FOR PRIME MINISTER. MR DUTTON:SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM THIS CORPORATES PUPPET.
Dutton spent 850 billion dollars on nothing and his portfolio was an absolute mess by the time he left it... And you want him to be pm? 😂
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xrwhat ever dunny boy Labor bot
Dutton wants the nuclear power plants to be a government entity. Socialism?
@@kellyduncan4810says the person who can't form a sentence? When are you going to realise you are a complete and utter idiot? Wake up to yourself..stop pretending. It's pathetic.
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr You get the sentiment.... so we just continue with this clusterf**k of labor morons? Vote One Nation to force the Coalition back to where they should be.
This issue should be voted on a plebiscite, it should not cloud the federal election.
100%
do you want electricity or not - if not then stop putting electric cars on people...................
Paul wasn't it Paul Keating who said that we would be 20 foot under water right now
Rapid sea level rise doomsday predictions became popular in the late 1980s. They have already been proven wrong by history.
There are 2 mass psychoses in operation in association with a massive fraud (misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources into uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects) in much of the Western world.
Germany, Australia and a few other countries are also hampered by the Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion..
We need to reject the economically destructive delusional insanity of Bet Zero and use the most economical energy resources available.
Philip Tripcony (@user-kx4bm5rj2y) - "Paul wasn't it Paul Keating who said that we would be 20 foot under water right now"
Did he? When? What did he actually say? Can you quote him accurately or are you delusional?
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆:
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published their report titled 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 2023 on 19 Mar 2024, where in Fig 6 (on page 6) indicated that the sea level rise (SLR) rate of an average of 4.77 mm/year was observed over the period Jan 2014 through Dec 2023, with an acceleration at 0.12 ± 0.05 mm/y². 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗟𝗥 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟱 𝗺𝗺/𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰. The SLR doubling rate since satellite altimetry data began in Jan 1993 has been around 18 years. So an SLR rate of 5 mm/y now, in less than 2 decades then accelerates to 10 mm/y, and then 20 mm/y, etc., assuming an exponential progression.
wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-climate-2023
In the scientific journal 𝘈𝘵𝘮𝘰𝘴. 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘗𝘩𝘺𝘴., 16, 3761-3812, 2016, included a paper by James Hansen 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭., titled 𝗜𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘁, 𝘀𝗲𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀: 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗼𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮, 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝟮°𝗖 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀, included (on page 3766):
"""𝘈 𝘴𝘦𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 5𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘰-𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 (𝘍𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴, 1989; 𝘋𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘴 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭., 2012), 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘥 21𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨."""
acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
It seems around 5 m of SLR has previously occurred within a timescale of a century according to the paleo-record, and the current climate forcing is more rapidly growing than at any time in the paleo-record, so I’d suggest it’s not unreasonable to expect a similar accelerating multi-metre SLR within this century.
See also Table 3.2 in NOAA’s Feb 2022 report on SLR titled 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘢 𝘓𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘚𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴: 𝘜𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘓𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘈𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘜.𝘚. 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴. NOAA projects by year-2050, the SLR is likely in the range 0.15 m (low GHG emissions scenario) to 0.43 m (high scenario) relative to year-2000 baseline, and by 2100, SLR is likely in the range 0.3 m (low scenario) to 2.0 m (high scenario).
oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
On 22 August 2022, at the Cryosphere 2022 Symposium at the Harpa Conference Centre Reykjavik, Iceland, glaciologist Professor Jason Box said from around the 15½ minute mark:
“𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙊₂, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙭𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙚’𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 20 𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙚𝙖 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙚. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙤𝙗𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙡-𝙤𝙛-𝙖-𝙡𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙊₂ 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝, 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙚’𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 35 𝙜𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧.”
czcams.com/video/iE6QIDJIcUQ/video.html
That raises critical questions about whether it would be worthwhile to continue defending coastal infrastructure/property, or instead, abandon them and retreat. How do you defend against an apparently relentless and accelerating SLR?
I was a labour supporter but oi I'm with Dutton we need a strong pm to guide and fix Australia we are going downhill with this overpaid clown that is only thinking about filling his own pockets
Does Zero Emissions include banning the Smoking Ceremony?
The labor clown show continues.
Time to discard this incompetent government.
Vote 1 Nuclear
Men dont mind nuclear as they are much more likely to have a STEM background. Woman are also more likely to respond to fear campaigns or emotive arguments.
You clearly don't have a stem background! 😂 Using adi as your source was fking hilarious! 🤣
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
Hey JARS… thought you could run and hide didn’t you.
You can’t question others qualifications when you have none yourself.
You lack any technical knowledge of nuclear energy to even have a discussion about it.
Just expletives and personal attacks from you.
Checks out from a eco fascist.
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
Dr Patterson has directed ANSTO. What have you done? Other than shill? 😂
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
Hey JARS… plenty of other nuclear energy professionals supporting nuclear in Australia now. Dr Ziggy Switkowski is now on board.
The swing against the renewables madness continues… it’s only a matter of time.
Opposition to nuclear energy is primarily political. That’s the extent of your skillset.😂
The big difference is Dutton's plan actually works. Albo's plan is missing energy storage that lasts more than a few minutes. AEMO's plan wants two thirds of batteries to be privately owned but controlled by AEMO. You can bet they plan to force the battery purchases with a mix of super high electricity prices and government subsidies.... and you won't get the subsidies unless you hand over control of the batteries to them. They include zero cost in their plans for the batteries that the rest of us have to buy.
Not much to fight about. The science and engineering is on the side of nuclear. There are no technical or safety reasons not to adopt nuclear in this country.
Renewables have utterly failed to displace coal on the grid. 32 GW shortage in capacity by 2030 and investment in new renewables has completely stalled.
This is entirely the fault of the green/left eco fascists. They will need to be held to account.
No it is not falling down Jum because Labor has not come up with one factual argument about why nuclear is risky, why it is not suitable for Australia and to make things worse, not on single argument why the renewables as proposed will do the job of providing cheap, reliable power that will meet the demand and industrialisation of the Australian economy.
Instead of admonishing the LNP politicians, how about coming up with a argument that has something to do with the substance of the matter?
Astounds me that there are still people out there who think the tech' is, "oh we'll have another Chernobyl, we're all gunna die"! I say to those to have listen to experts , and I mean cost AND power gen' experts,... like Adi Patterson & NOT so much to the likes of the left leaning (they won't admit it) CSIRO. Fact is we need reliable 24/7 baseload power. Nuclear can provide that. That just can NOT be be achieved with renewables alone & a bloody big battery.. anywhere in the world. We NEED nuclear as part of emissions free mix. The hysteria & the hypocrisy from Albo Labor was screamingly inevitable. Their belching on the costs is risible juxtaposed to their own refusal to provide costings on their renewables ONLY odyssey. The febrile Labor nonsense needs to be turned aside for a grown up conversation which is something that that side of politics seems incapable, throughout, of having.
A step towards nuclear energy is also a step closer to nationalisation.
Paul: just think “New Clear”
great name actually, " its new , its clear, its NUCLEAR! " how's that for a slogan?
Rubbish
Now all we need is a safe way to store the waste
Gay. Slogans are for stupid people who are persuaded by such things
Spent nuclear fuel, occasionally called used nuclear fuel, is nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear reactor (usually at a nuclear power plant). It is no longer useful in sustaining a nuclear reaction in an ordinary thermal reactor and, depending on its point along the nuclear fuel cycle, it will have different isotopic constituents than when it started.
Spent fuel pool at a nuclear power plant
Nuclear fuel rods become progressively more radioactive (and less thermally useful) due to neutron activation as they are fissioned, or "burnt", in the reactor. A fresh rod of low enriched uranium pellets (which can be safely handled with gloved hands) will become a highly lethal gamma emitter after 1-2 years of core irradiation, unsafe to approach unless under many feet of water shielding. This makes their invariable accumulation and safe temporary storage in spent fuel pools a prime source of high level radioactive waste and a major ongoing issue for future permanent disposal.
Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years. For example 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly still exceeds 10,000 rem/hour-far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once.
So no mention of what elements have what half lives?
No mention of SR90 or CS137?
What about LLFP? What are those half lives and how radioactive are they? What do they emit?
What happens when the spent fuel is removed from the pool after it has cooled down?
I think you are only telling a fraction of the story that needs to be told here.
Are you trying to point out all the dangers of spent fuel as a reason Australia shouldn’t go nuclear?
Radiophobia is still quite common in our society.
High doses of radiation are used to treat cancer and to prepare people for bone marrow transplants for leukaemia.
Nuclear waste contains Plutonium 239 which has a long half life of 24000 years. This radioisotope is good reactor fuel and good for making nuclear weapons of the implosion type.
@@johngeier8692 Ask the residents of Chernobyl that lived or Fukisima sorry the evidence is overwhelming for its dangerous Radioactive nature.
95 to 99 percent of used nuclear fuel is unconsumed uranium. The amount is tiny. But in the future the used fuel can be remanufactured into new fuel for fast neutron breeder reactors running a similar program as envisioned by Integral Fast Reactor programme in the eighties. This would shrink the used fuel by over a hundred fold and reduce the time the waste takes to reduce in radioactivity to below that if natural uranium to around five hundred years.
@@michaelfasher I call you out as a Bullshiter. Prove it.
Paul's KFC dinner will warm up a lot quicker in an SMR.
Joke's aside, I'd prefer coal.
Nuclear however, is superior to renewables no matter how you look at it.
It's just a fact.
You have zero education in physics or economics? Why should we take your word for it? Maybe tell us why it's better?
Microwaving fried chicken is a travesty 😂
To sub or not to sub?
The answer you can't give
@@Prognosis__I'm just messing around progs.👍
@@JamesJonahJameson-cp6xr
😂 that’s funny 3J! If you knew anything about physics you’d know that all the physics backs nuclear.
Sorry buddy the science of nuclear works and it does consistently all over the world. Safer, cheaper, less environmental damage than intermittent renewables. Dispatchable baseload that will deliver cheaper electricity to consumers.
If you don’t know that, then you don’t understand the topic enough to make informed comment.
Checks out.
Just another renewable shill. 😂
They have many sheeps 🐑 cannot do job.
Jesus christ gives helper spirit of truth is word of God said I only need one sheep 🐑 to compete my job description.
They my enemy souls need Many sheeps 🐑 so my enemies spirts failed to do job description
I only ask for what I need to complete my job description understand?
I’d be glad to see labour and others go but I have been against nuclear for ever my concern is water usage’s compared to coal stations And radiation waste storage.I live in rural areas this is my concern will this waste turn up in my back yard ???
No because it is solid waste most of it gets recycled. The waste won’t end up in any water tables as is buried below that in the basalt. Water use depends on the size of the turbine to drive the generator. The newer reactors. The system is closed loop and doesn’t require additional water.
Educate yourself. Waste is just spent fuel rods. They are stored on site for the life of the plant then in underground facilities. Coal uses water as well.
@@Christoph1888 A bit rough and aggressive. I get your point. There are quite a few videos and publications on the matter. The most frustrating thing I find about sharing links to these videos and publications is the the backlash from those who are stuck in one mindset and refuse to accept the information and label you as a shrill working for the industry. One such video is called “Nuclear Scare Scam”, “Nuclear Renaissance” and I think another is called “Thorium remix”.
The natural nuclear energy from the sun and from fission of radionuclides inside the earth has killed many times as many people as all nuclear power plant accidents combined.
More people have died from accidents related to the installation and maintenance of solar panels than from nuclear power plants accidents.
Many more people have died from coal mining accidents than from nuclear power plant accidents.
We live in a demon haunted world where ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions are allowed to triumph over critical thinking and common sense.
Net Zero is economically destructive delusional insanity.
If is prohibitively costly,impractical and totally unnecessary.
We should simply use the most economical energy resources available and stop squandering national treasure on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects.
What do you expect when Dutton doesn't tell us how much all this is going to cost us?
Give it time
Until nuclear power plants are legalised in this country we can only do a rough estimate based upon overseas experience.
It is definitely less than 10% of the cost of a public energy system which is heavily reliant upon uneconomical and unreliable wind and solar energy. It is also much more durable and has much lower maintenance and land use impacts.
Dutton is completely and irretrievably, criminally ridiculous and politically destructive.