Nuclear energy possible answer to net zero

Nuclear power is often a controversial topic but some believe it could be what Australia needs to meet its net zero by 2050 emissions target.

A former South Australian governor has called for a royal commission into nuclear energy – in an exclusive Sky News documentary.

[joneszeero]

People: Climate Change Blah Blah Blah…
Rockefeller: No! You have to belive it

[thearisen]

100% Australia needs Nuclear energy.
- It's emissions free
- It's 24/7 dispatch-able power. In the US it has a reliability rating of 92.5% while Solar is at 24.9% & Wind 35%. Day or night, wind or no wind, it works.
- It is in fact extremely safe. It's deaths per KW are actually lower than either Wind or Solar
- There have been answers for waste for a long time. It can be recycled, Re-processed or, imo the best option, used in advanced fast reactors which leave no long lived waste and of course provide reliable electricity or thermal energy as required.
- It'll give the navy trained nuclear operators from the new submarines a place to work once they're done with the navy.
- Over 80% of coal jobs are directly transferable to the Nuclear industry
- It's a very compact in it's land requirements with Small Modular & Micro reactors being even smaller. Nuscale's plant design would be about the size of a single windmill with an exclusion zone that only reaches the fence outside the facility.

Now's the time to invest. France succeeded with nuclear while Germany failed with wind.

[dominicpelle]

But Chris... what's all the alarmist thinking all about. **You don't even think there is any reason to be ALARMED about catastrophic climate change.** But now you're a crusader for Nuclear Energy to save the planet from WHAT?

[Scott-lzpp]

As a nuclear engineer with power plant experience (I moved control rods in the core to maximize power and to prevent the fuel from melting), I must say that there is one minor point that is never mentioned. And I like nuclear power, but think that people deserve all the facts. And one fact is that enriching uranium (unless you use a Canadian design called a "CANDU", which is short for uranium-deuterium) is VERY energy intensive. Most or all enrichment sites have their own power plants. CANDU reactors use heavy water, which doesn't "lose" as many neutrons, so the fuel, the uranium, does not need to be enriched. In my opinion, the West, or really the US, purposely built BWRs and PWRs so that they would have an excuse to have enrichment facilities at all! So nuclear power, while great and beautiful, does not get produced without using prodigious amounts of power produced by someone else, probably with coal. But, since "climate change" is all BS anyway, who cares?

[Voitan]

Molten Salt reactors are the safest, are impossible to meltdown catastrophically, and the waste is minimal to the point of being able to be recycled back as fuel again.

[James-gjlo]

After seeing those Norwegian glaciers melting and permafrost thawing at rates population has never seen before is convincing.
-11% decrease last 30yrs

[keepitreal]

If we go nuclear it will be 15 years until we have our first plant in Australia, and the cost of nuclear power is astronomical compared to cheap renewables . As Elon Musk has observed, putting solar panels on the exclusion zone alone for a nuclear plant would generate the same amount of energy. A project this size is realisable in 3 years compared to 15 in Australia. The nuclear argument is dead already.

[assbees]

Newclear is clean and safe but Australia is slow to start build plants. Swedens first plant started buildings 1957 and start delivering power 1963- 65 Mw for heating o power to the grid.

[pushlooop]

we need law and order, infrastructures, good old policy... not absurd fanatical net zero policy

[Psalm-jusy]

Psalms 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Psalms 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

[defaultdamager]

Is it 1980 or something, nuclear isn’t new 😂

[henrybarker]

It is the ONLY way is you believe the co2 bs

[mayuri]

B-b-but, but, bUt MuH cHeRnObYl AnD mUh FuKuShImA!

[mickoz]

No need for nuclear power. Plenty of good coal in the ground.