Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation former CEO Adi Paterson says the nuclear debate is changing in a “positive way”.
“The argument has always been it’s too expensive … but in fact, there’s been a massive change,” Mr Paterson said.
“The cost of nuclear is coming down all around the world, particularly as the … small modular reactors are being built around the world.”
source
About time !
As more and more people learn the truth about nuclear (not the propaganda the leftie loons bleat at every available opportunity), the more they realise how good it really is, and the anger at the "renewable" joke being foisted upon them grows accordingly.
So the I.diotic Labor govt signs off on nuclear subs but won't on anything else. Once you make 1 exception your whole argument falls down. Bowen knows if he agreed to nuclear he would have to stop his renewable push.
These criminals have given their mates a licence to print money with their energy policies. What overseas bank accounts do these pollies have?
SMR's build time is 4 years.
Aust. green and red tape , another 20 years.
It is way past time that Australia tells the "Nanny" to go to blazes and puts its big boy pants on and enters the real world. Of course, nuclear as the way to go.
Exciting to see an actual expert on Sky News, rather than the usual bunch of ignorant hacks and MPs. Coming next: an expert with a contrary view? I'm not holding my breath.
it won't happen in Victoria, too many narrow minded do gooder greenies and Dan's blown all the money anyway.
If I was voted President today. I would start a series of Nuclear power stations intermediately. On top of that I would start a series of dams across the country, with the aim to irrigate as much of the country as possible. To become the food bowl of Asia. Why you say? Because when the world no longer needs as much coal as now(Coal will always be needed. Same as Oil) and we run out of resources to dig up. Our export surplus changes from minerals to Food. It is called looking to the future, to see what needs to be done now. To future proof our economy. Not just have projects that only last one term of government, so they can say look what I did. Plus 1. Jobs Jobs Jobs. 2. Reducing the reliance on our waterways 3. Securing our water needs for the future ( Population growth, Farming, Industry) Australia is the driest country on earth. Capture and move the water we get.
I am sure we will end up with nuclear energy in the not too distant future, but my concern is how much damage, how much debt, and how many deaths, are going to happen before we get there! The Albanese government has got a lot to answer for on many levels, and will go down in history as the most destructive and hated government Australia has ever had to endure.
4 years is not a Long Time ask the Question what is the Timeline for Renewable Energy Industrial Complex Wind Turbines Solar Panels include all infrastructure and Land Mass Environmental Destruction through Clear Felling Clearances then conduct a Cost / Benefit Analysis Nuclear Energy Production Continuity Vs Solar / Wind Un-Reliability
Australia needs to wake up and install Nuclear power asap . Get real & join the 21st Century.
As soon as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, bad designs, and bad behavior are all gone from the earth, which should happen any day now, nuclear power will be safe and affective.
sky is a lobbyest for nuclear
How about a Referendum question added to 'The Voice ' one?
Nuclear Power for Australia? For a Reliable Base load use .
If everyone is interested in the long term can't the world focus on planting trees wait there is no money in that right. Imagine if our government Invested in renewable forests inland irrigation after last year's floods I guess drought isn'ta thing anymore. Then maintain coal and gas in a renewable context emissions are digestive. Not change a thing but increase the flora and fauna to compensate while keeping energy cheap why we are restricted to global models shows us our government is sold out. 2017 the CSRIO had a study stating we consume 5 x the carbon we produce.
The mass of migration needs power that all the migrant workers need power an labor is costing in all the new extra people that need power ,
I think 33.333% renewable is reasonable an not domineering of the one type of power that is controversial to start with, if 90% of people wanted it it wouldn't be a problem what they do an you'd be lucky to find 33.333% of the population that supports it.
Gas I think should be 33.333% of the energy market just because unburnt gas harms the ozone layer, an we have to burn it to prevent that to turn it into carbon dioxide that isn't harmful to all species actually necessary to species survival that is the prerequisite of our own survival because those species make the oxygen we breath from carbon dioxide, still controversial an shouldn't be given license to dominate.
Nuclear power should be 33.333% as not to dominate as a controversial system to generate electricity.
This is the way for future, cheap Nuclear Energy 100% reliable safe and carbon free
When there is a demonstrated majority of the population behind nuclear energy, the Labor Party will change its values and insist they have always been in favour of nuclear energy but the time wasn't right to support it.
Nuclear the only way to go. The transmission lines are there already. So build the plants where the coal/gas plants are. Renewables are available for those remote situations that require same. The fear of nuclear was tied up with the very real fear of nuclear weapons in the 60’s and 70’s; it’s time we old hippies just grew up and faced fact.
Why every time thay show pollution from power stations most of the time it is a Water cooling tower ??? That is water molecules from the cooling tower .
The biggest challenge to nuclear power is people pronouncing it 'nucular'
China 2 weeks to build one lol
Australia needs to have a Nuclear industry of supply storage and leasing of rods around the world. That would make us a World Power Leader not Chinese Solar panels and windmills.
step 1 listen to the nuclear experts
step 2 ignore the dumb protestors
The weather events are said, by environmentalists, to be getting worse so the logic of making our grid subject to the weather is nonsensical!
He glosses over nuclear issues such as cooling saying they can go where 5he coal field's are…where is the water for cooling?….and 4 years to operational is Bull shite
Yep I've been saying that for ever
This guy has his finger on the pulse.
The debate on nuclear is not heating up. SKY is just talking endlessly about it.
Nothing like creating a crisis to get the political outcome you desire
I’ve thought solar and wind was the way for decades, till you add up how much infrastructure and non-renewable materials are used and the fact they still only provide a fraction of society’s needs. It’s better to consolidate the risks, continue to improve safety in nuclear technology and accept the risks as a society that exists with the balance of great benefit electricity provides for all.
Who do we buy much of our solar panels currently? It is China, a hostile country that will likely cut off any other country that criticizes their behaviour.
We should have gone Nuclear 40 years ago. I grew up in Sydney not far from Lucas Heights Reactor that was commissioned in 1958. It's still running. This chap is spot on with what he says about putting SMRs where the old Coal Fired Power Station was as the infrastructure and services are there.
Nuclear is per Kw is most expensive
Remember when the same idiots "sell the grid to make power cheaper " IDIOTS here we go again
"One page" Albo and blackout Bowen are followers of St Greta pseudo-science cult. No amount of "truth telling" can make them understand nuclear science.
Nuclear…
Always on.
Always available.
And it’s working.
Nuclear power is clean cheaper and reliable for base load. 👏
Net Zero is not environmentally friendly as it destroys more of the environment than it saves. Also no one mention the limited life of windmills and solar panels.