Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release energy to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power station. Australia currently has no nuclear facilities generating electricity. Australia's extensive, low-cost coal and natural gas reserves have historically been used as strong arguments for avoiding nuclear power. Proponents argue that nuclear energy is now safe and emits much less carbon emissions than coal plants. Opponents argue that recent nuclear disasters in Japan prove that nuclear power is far from safe.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
Political theme:
Federal Electorate:
Local Government Area:
Postcode:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Nuclear Energy
@9ZPK3385mos5MO
No, nuclear power isn’t feasible in Australia, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
thorium is literally a type of nuclear power, it's so funny to say "no I do NOT support nuclear power, instead we should use... nuclear power" but even uranium reactors are very safe, everyone thinks of chernobyl but that was SEVENTY YEARS AGO that is ludicrous to be using that as your basis, long island was also a 70 year old reactor. it's practically impossible for modern powerplants to meltdown. also they solve the problem of losing jobs when elliminating fossil fuels, a government program to gelp transfer emplyees would be great
fun fact, nuclear energy has the lowest… Read more
@B28STLD4mos4MO
No, the safety concerns if a plant fails are too high risk regardless of the benefits. More needs to be invested in the sustainable and cleaner alternatives including the countries ability to handle the input of these energies.
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
yeah nah mate you're blatantly wrong, high risk? according to what? chernobyl? a meltdown taht happened 70 years ago? or long island which was a 60 year old reactor at the time of melt down
you know fun fact, russia dropped a bomb on a Ukrainian nuclear powerplant, you know what happened? nothing, modern powerplants can not melt down, and if they did, they are contained within the plant, with several redundancies
Before using nuclear power we need an effective and safe way of dealing with nuclear waste. that or further developement in nuclear energy such as effective fusion energy instead of fision to remove the danger of radioactive waste.
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
we DO have an effective way of dealing with the waste, burying it and sealing it in lead. radioactive waste has no been an issue for a long time, it's just propaganda that has been trying to convince everyone it's unsafe
@9WV5Y6Z6mos6MO
Federal government question. We should focus on safe renewable energy sources like hydroelectric, thorium, geothermal, wind, soalr, and water powered energy. Only yes -if it's safe
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
hydroelectric energy is not safe, it is the second highest of all energy sources in employee deaths per kilowatt hour (nuclear is the lowest) and also causes tons of damage to the local environment, bad option. the best are solar, wind and nuclear
also thorium is nuclear, just want to clarify that too
yes and no. Its fast, efficient and helps with environmental and medical and all sorts of studies. But the uranium used in it can effect the health of humans. If we are able to work with it in affordable cost and between our safety measures we should more than happy to be continuing with its work
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
scientists all around the world for the past 70 years have added hundreds of safety measures, you can literally drop a bomb on a powerplant and it won't melt down
I'm being literal here, russia did that to ukraine, and it didn't meltdown, because modern reactors don't. long island reactor was built in the 60's, chernobyl happened in the 60's, we are basing our knowledge on 70 year old technology
@8C7KG8M5yrs5Y
Yes, provided we can dispose of the waste properly.
Hard call heap energy But high risk for disasters As above in another i answered Should be free energy the sun free we get solar and still pay a bill like wtf
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
incredibly misinformed, it is not high risk at all, you will only name reactors that were built in the 60's
fun fact, nuclear is actually statistically safer than solar and wind. crazy right? solar and wind have more deaths per kilowatt hour (takes into account the number of nuclear plants)
@8YVHZZCOne Nation3yrs3Y
Nuclear energy is dangerous and bad
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
wrong, modern nuclear powerplants are so safe you can drop a bomb on them, I'm not exaggerating, it happened in ukraine and it DIDN'T MELT DOWN because nuclear powerplants have innovated on since the 60's (fun fact, all your favourite nuclear disasters were reactors built in the 60's, your information is based on 70 year old technology)
Yes, specifically low pressure high temperature thorium reactors.
@B4QDD9P1wk1W
We don't have infrastructure or funding to support nuclear power. So that means out sourcing or foreign investment. It could also mean we either use tax payers dollars to fund it or we pay much higher power bills to off set the cost.
Yes, but not to the detriment of cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal
@B4K53N82wks2W
We should continue investing in cleaner alternatives in the short term and invest more into nuclear fusion technology for the long term
@B3RX48B2mos2MO
The current time it takes to make a nuclear power plant would be an inefficient use of time, energy, and money.
No, we do not have any existing infrastructure/skilled workers and are better off investing in other renewable alternatives that we already have experience with. I don't disagree with nuclear energy, but i do not trust our government to implement it safely and not cut corners that could lead to worse environmental damage.
@B3KXY7Q2mos2MO
We need to look at insurance if something happens are we insured our houses etc. should not be publicly funded we need to continue to look at other alternstives
@B3GQLSG2mos2MO
No. The CSIRO has shown that it's a bad idea, and it's been a bad idea for a long time, due to the startup costs, we need energy storage.
@B3DYGC62mos2MO
Yes, only if it is investment in nuclear technology that minimises nuclear waste and environmental impact. It should also be a part of the investment mix in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal.
@B2YPR3C2mos2MO
Yes, but only with place based planning and further commitment to other renewable forms of energy- not a 'one size fits all' approach
Yes, but the focus should be on cleaner alternative and it should be used and prepared for in case of electricity shortages
Nuclear energy should be explored if it it allows us to meet our economic and environmental objectives. It should only be subsidised if the use of it uniquely saves the government money elsewhere or aligns with Australia's long-term national interests.
No, There have been too many incidents involving nuclear power
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
name one that involved a reactor built in the 21st century? you can't, I'll make it easier, name an incident involving one built in the 90's
you can't, because all of your examples are reactors that were built 70 years ago. you are basing this on 70 year old technology
@B4BPF7T3wks3W
Yes, but it should be nationalized and only constructed if it is not to the significant detriment of the population.
Yes, It should be part of the mix, however the main focus should be cleaner alternatives that a quicker to bring to line and abundant in Australia
@B3TSXM41mo1MO
Yes, but in the long term. With a focus on the faster uptake of renewables for the short to mid term.
@B3T23YD1mo1MO
This question is a yes if Australia were capable of building Nuclear Plants. However we are not and so wind and solar are perfect for our nation.
@B2F9ZZ7 3mos3MO
Yes, However as we would need to invest a lot of money in building new plants. i would prefer we invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal instead
I believe that we should enforce laws and regulations on nuclear weapons
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
that has nothing to do with nuclear energy other than the word nuclear and the basic physics principles. they are completely different things
@92NTRF3One Nation3yrs3Y
The cheapest form of energy is coal and oil. Continue to use these. All other forms of energy are more expensive to produce and the decommissioning is massive.
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
"you want to save the world? b-but my profits?"
We can but not to much because we don’t want to fully put pollution into the earth
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
nuclear energy generates very little waste, it is an immediate but temporary solution anyway that I fully support to aid in the transition to renewables
Only when waste can be safely and sustainably disposed
No, because it would take too long for us to establish a reliable grid of nuclear energy - if we had nationalised our mining sector and invested the money into nuclear during the howard administration, I would support it. There is no chance now.
No, Nuclear energy is too much of a safety risk
@B32BGKC2mos2MO
no it's not, your basis is propaganda that uses 70 year old reactors as it's examples
@B2LX7CZ3mos3MO
Yes, as long as it is nationalised with safeguards, and not used as a porn to stop the clean energy transition
@B2F9LYK3mos3MO
Yes, but as a long term addition to the grid on top of a shorter term vast rollout of renewable energy generation and storage
@B2BLP7N4mos4MO
Yes, As Australia is the leading exporter of Uranium we should utilise our own resources and become a more self-sustaining country.
@9ZR2LN55mos5MO
Yes and create a governmental ministry or national corporation should be created to manage both nuclear and fossil fuels according to Fascist doctrine
Although I support the use of nuclear energy broadly in the context of Australia solar and other renewable alternatives seem far more applicable compared to other places in the world and carry less danger then nuclear (even if the risks of it are getting increasingly smaller)
Government have no control on solar provider prices. In any circumstances the buy back price should be less than 5 year. Should fine to solar provider those are charging more than the market. Every solar quote must approved by authority. I have never received subsidy as advertised. No any service provider provide any details of subsidy. Government should put the commossion.
@9G7PW522yrs2Y
Yes, whilst nuclear energy has its negatives, it is also very useful and when used properly it is beneficial for society.
@9FFQK5S2yrs2Y
yes but as a backup for cleaner alternatives, we should prioritise and transition to clean energy renewables first
@9W5C2Q66mos6MO
Yes, but not in Australia as so many sustainable natural resources could be used instead. Nuclear power plants are a great for smaller countries that don't have that option.
@9RP79JS9mos9MO
If there's a few disaster such as earthquakes or tsunami or whatever , I agree with it but if there's a lot , I think we should avoid using it .
Yes, but there needs to be more inquiry’s and planning around it besides the weekend it took liberal to think it up
@9LQSG5SOne Nation1yr1Y
Use fossil fuels and reserve nuclear for maritime and space affairs, or just the powering of large remote vessels in general
@9K9ZQGL1yr1Y
Any current nuclear energy powerplants are helpful but renewable energy is the best way to supply energy into the future as nuclear plants take long to get going. Also nationalise the energy sector.
@9D4D2B62yrs2Y
make the submarines and bomb china
Yes and it should be implemented post haste to the fullest extent of its current capability in consultion with relevant scientific communities
i support nuclear energy as long as it is done properly and that workers at the power plants are trained in how to run the generators and systems, Australia overall should have a nuclear with solar on roofs and that all our energy companies should be owned by the federal government.
@8Z7WQHC3yrs3Y
Depedning on the renewable resources we have available, nuclear should be used as a last resort
@8R9ZW554yrs4Y
thorium is still nuclear energy
Only once technology has been created to reduce waste and improve storage
@8XDTV6N3yrs3Y
I do not have all of the relevant information to have an opinion on this question.
@8X878BC3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it's far away from civilian areas.
@8WZZXBS3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it it completely safe and that it isn’t near any major towns so that if an accident happened not too many people will be harmed.
@8WTX64P3yrs3Y
Only in safe designated unpopulated areas
@8WQ4QTV4yrs4Y
Yes, as it is much cleaner than traditional coal-burning methods.
@8WNYMSL4yrs4Y
yes if its done properly and safely.
it is dangerous and is also can destroy us all.
If it is used to benefit mankind then sure, but if it is used for war then NO.
@8WKMK5P4yrs4Y
Yes, but we should focus on alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal.
@8WBZRYW4yrs4Y
Yes, just not in war. Only for generators
@8VZCC4MIndependent4yrs4Y
As I know of now, anything can be a use of power, I saw a headline once that private businesses are our future power sources, so if harnessing nuclear energy brings harm to the environment and other power sources make nuclear energy look like a joke, than it should be banned.
Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives so long as it is a nationalized industry
There should be more research and development.
No, and invest more in oil energy
If used safely and appropiately
Yes. However, we should change the where the source of Uranium. Instead of finding in mined ore, we should find it in seawater.
Is it fusion energy? No? Then no to fission style nuclear energy.
@8TT2WTX4yrs4Y
Don’t know enough about the matter to form an opinion
No, the damage from nuclear accidents (natural disasters affecting nuclear power plants; accidents due to human error or poor quality and design of nuclear power plants) far outweigh the benefits.
@8TS65G94yrs4Y
yes and make them all melt down
No we don’t need nor will we in the future
I don't want our country turning into Chernobyl, and then we need to leave the country.
@8TPYL62Independent4yrs4Y
Yes, with liquid salt reactors when possible.
Yes but I think we should be careful with it don't use radioactive waste as dump. And don't use it to much.
Somewhat I don't really know much about it to make a stance
yes but only to make medical isotopes
@8TL976V4yrs4Y
@8TKGKGD4yrs4Y
Yes, but invest into better nuclear power sources such as Thorium instead of uranium, which is primarily used for its biproduct plutonium which is used for nuclear weapons development.
@8TK8FQQ4yrs4Y
Yes, and the creation of nuclear weaponry
Yes, in certain circumstances with stringent safety and environmental requirements
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
