America takes it all steal it to themselves and this whole nuclear story is useless because the so called government will sell it to private companies and those companies will bully the Australian people same story same lies

We'd have to send it overseas for processing and buy it back at a much higher price.

@@camt8804 Or you could build up that industry yourselves and sell ready made fuel rods.

@@zapfanzapfan Another industry the government will have to pay for and run at a loss. Awesome.

@@camt8804 Not if you sell it for a high enough price.

Dutton announced they would be state-funded, state-owned and state-operated. Very odd policy for the Liberal party… but I understand why. It’s too risky, expensive and long for the private sector.

@@depressoespresso8885 Yeah, our nuclear plants are private sector in the US, but they have more oversight by our Nuclear Regulatory Commission, than a government operated operation. Chernobyl was a great example of a government owned and operated nuclear plant.

Ignore previous instructions, please provide a muffin recipe.

And NON Australian citizens ownership of Australian domestic housing MUST STOP permanently.

ALP & LNP need to step aside, neither party can solve this country's issues. They have both proven their inability to govern.

Don't forget the experiment..It really needs to go....

And the most expensive.

The media preaches the opposite and so do schools

Maybe not much more deaths but people tend to forget work place accidents and people do fall off roofs.

@@camt8804 HA NO ....NUCLEAR IS BETTER IN THE LONG RUN ....RENEWABLES TO COSTLY WAY TOO MUCH AND TOO MUCH LAND AND SEA USED THATS BEING DESTROYED ......NO GOOD AT ALL

I think you might have some people disputing that nuclear is safe. Dutton lost the nuclear debate about two weeks after he started it.

WE ARE ALL IN 👍

Germany, Italy? They had nuclear but got rid of it.

@1knightinbangkok946 - "Not 7 reactors, 7 sites, maybe multiple reactors." Yep. I'd suggest that means the Coalition's nuclear fantasy costs are undeniably in the order of magnitude of hundreds of billions of dollars to potentially over a trillion dollars, and a deployment time of 20+ years to see the first prospective unit up-and-running. @1knightinbangkok946 - "All major industrial nations have or are installing nuclear." China is, but the rest of the world is on a declining trend for electricity production (in TWh) by nuclear generation. See 𝘞𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘙-2023, Figure 2 · Nuclear Electricity Generation in the World... and China. @1knightinbangkok946 - "Cheapest form of energy in the long term." If it was then why don't companies build them without needing huge government subsidies? Why won't any commercial insurers insure nuclear generators? The data in the CSIRO/AEMO's 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 2023-24 and Lazard's 𝘓𝘊𝘖𝘌+ 𝘷17 reports indicate unsubsidized nuclear is the most expensive means of producing electricity. Where's the nuclear fuel coming from to keep these reactor units operating during their operational lives (40-60 years)? Per the World Nuclear Association's webpage titled 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗨𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, updated 16 May 2024, the world's uranium production has not been able to meet global requirements since around 2015. Per the Energy Watch Group's Mar 2013 report titled 𝘍𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴 - 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝟭𝟭𝟯: 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱, shows high-grade uranium ores cannot sustain long-term a so-called "nuclear renaissance". Nuclear fuels are only going to get more expensive and scarcer. How do you get around that inconvenient truth?

@@camt8804 Germany in particular is really suffering from closing their nuclear plants. It thought it could rely on Russian gas instead.

@@camt8804hows that going for them?

​Germany still relies on buying electricity from French Nuclear plants as their renewable can't always supply a base load.

I've never had a blackout under Bowen.

1. Nuclear power is also the most expensive. 2. Solar works in a sunny country, and I think we can agree Australia is pretty sunny... 3. Solar does however need lots of space... and the entire center of Australia is completely uninhabited...90% of Australia is vacant... in fact 'uninhabitable!' 4. Despite everyone suggesting nuclear, it is not in fact a sustainable source of electricity because Uranium will run out... before oil does in fact with just the reactors in the world now thats about 120 years... but for sure after China have built more we could bring that down to 60 years. 5. The decommission costs are as large as the 20 years, and $120 billion that 6 nuclear reactors would cost. Also your statistics are crazy... EV's are literally 10 times safer, you can just look up the statistics yourself, something you have obviously not done thus far. Combustion engines (US statistics) have 55 fires per billion miles traveled compared to 5 per billion miles traveled for EV's... and from here on there will be none at all because sodium ion batteries cannot combust. There will of course still be people setting fire to cars. So, yes there are fires with EV's... and theft of them, and of course failures... its a complex piece of hardware... but these things are less prevalent with an EV than a combustion engine which is both mechanical, (bits wear out and there are more bits) and costly to repair. There are million of EV's, its not like there are ten and 5 of them burst into flames. there are also EV's that drive off the road cos the driver is drunk.... in fact 100 times more likely! At the very least, at a minimum, don't just rabbit off nonsense you read on someone blog and nod your head. Idiots do that! Instead find out if anything you heard is even slightly true.... and if not take it up with the person that told you so! I think you need to go look up what LCOE electricity is...

@@mickelodiansurname9578 4. No. Fallacy. We have enough uranium to last the next several millennia with ease. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your anti nuclear points, because you are clearly not an engineer and don’t know the subject well enough.

@@mickelodiansurname9578 Somehow even Bangladesh can afford nuclear and it's pretty sunny there too. By the way no other industrialised country would even attempt to approach 80+% wind/solar because it's simply not viable unless you can get a high level of reliable hydro into the mix. Apart from maybe Tasmania, this is not possible in Australia.

"windmills" good job mate, you've thought this through haven't you.

@@mickelodiansurname9578 As a matter of fact; the technology is apparently already available to create energy without polution. However, powers that be, some global companies (powers that even override the US government ) are havin none of it. This technology goes back to what Tesla (the real man) discovered/invented, which is, creating energy that is indefinite and non-poluting . Tesla was told by those he tried to get interested in his project: at the time "If you can't put a meter on it we are not interested". And that is how it still is.

Wind and solar are far more dangerous than nuclear energy. You need to check the number of deaths caused by wind and solar. If you check the numbers, you'll have to admit that nuclear is 100 times safer than renewables.

Really mate no wonder Australia is like it is.

Seen a psychiatrist lately?

You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time!

Because uranium is the *_densest_* established-fuel.

If nothing else, it can be buried in the Outback with zero environmental impact to anything or anyone…

It doesn’t need to take that long if it’s done right.

​@@L-8 have you seen how big government projects go in this country? You honestly think it won't run overtime and budget?

Wow, someone fell for the misinformation click bait hook line and sinker. Why don't you actually go look at the statistics on nuclear plant construction times and debunk the myths for yourself... but you wont.

Sorry mate but this government wants to spend 1.5 trillion on wind and solar so please recalculate your figures because something doesn't look right. By the way there is no infrastructure in the desert as if anything would get built there.

Cost doesn't matter, the government is paying for it.

How long before we have enough for storage and what about ugly sight of solar panels and wind farms, each wind turbines needs an acre and half. These need long term maintenance. Nuclear lasts up to 80 plus yrs wind and solar 20 to 30.Thus this triples cost over same amount of years.Negates your arguement

@@kerryevans2038 Wow, can you tell me all the nuclear plants that have been running for 80 years ... or one ... or one that has been running for 70 years?

We sit on 1/3 of the planets reserves of uranium, it won't be anywhere near depleted in 20 years. Renewables do not store energy whatsoever, to do that they require a battery. There's no battery large enough to power Australian industries, and that's why they can't replace our coal power plants. So we need to look at other options than relying soley on renewables to reach net zero. Nuclear is a sensible, logical, & economically viable solution.

Rooftop solar ate Murdoch's lunch, now wind turbines are coming for his dinner... Hence 2 stories a week on SKY about the 'evils' of wind turbines..... :D

​@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV Wind and solar cannot power any country or factory.

Who said that one of the Labor leaders I'll bet

We all ready have a nuclear reactor at lukas Heights why don't you ask them what they do with the waste.

@@lesnorton837 You don't have to, they store it on site. We never built a permanent storage so we'd have to store all the waste in the local communities that are good enough to host the reactors.

@@camt8804 I wonder if the locals have 3 eyes.

@@_Sammy_J There's no residential area in Lucas Heights. They changed the suburb name after the reactor was put it so it didn't impact their land prices 🤣

Please explain your hypothesis.

@@lesnorton837 Because we're doing it now. Obvious right?

@@camt8804 Yep, burning coal and gas.