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:
Federal Electorate (2013):
Local Government Area:
Postcode:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Nuclear Energy
@9ZPK3381yr1Y
No, nuclear power isn’t feasible in Australia, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
@B28STLD1yr1Y
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.
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
@8YVHZZCOne Nation4yrs4Y
Nuclear energy is dangerous and bad
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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)
@9WV5Y6Z2yrs2Y
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
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.
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
@8C7KG8M6yrs6Y
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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)
Yes, specifically low pressure high temperature thorium reactors.
@BD2FTK61wk1W
Yes, once we have fully transitioned to net zero.
@BCZQ8N42wks2W
Yes, and diversify methods of getting energy
@BC6SCRQ1mo1MO
I am fine with it since our current power storage and management of it is inefficient so long as its waste is disposed of in a war that isn't worse than what we already have with coal. That being said I would prefer solar and hydrogen power if our ability to store power improves which would dramatically lower the cost of electricity which sucks.
@BC5TLW32mos2MO
Yes, provided imperative maintenance and safety guideline adherence is mandated, complete with checks and balances
@B56M5721yr1Y
I think we should use this in combination with all the other types of energy and not rely on just one.
We should have started years ago. It's too late to rely on nuclear these days. It takes too long to build
@B54P8PT1yr1Y
Yes but only as part of a long term sustainable strategy that reduces power prices and protects the environment.
No, Nuclear is suited to other more densely countries while unsuited to australia due to population sparseness, abundant renewable potential, and the fact that coal and gas would be used continually during the long and expensive construction of nuclear plants (which may not ever be built)
No, as we have no viable existing infrastructure or trained personnel, the considerable initiation costs do not benefit meeting zero emissions 2050 nor support major grid supply.
Yes, as a long term goal once we have lowered our emissions output with use of renewable energy. Nuclear has the potential to provide abundant clean energy but needs time to implement effectively and shouldn’t be rushed in as an immediate solution to replacing fossil fuels.
Scheming Scamo agreed to take all of France's nuclear waste with the 1st submarine deal. Then AUCUS agreed to all of UK's and USC'S so it makes no difference now and Donald Grump won't give up his nuclear dump site that cheap, so what difference will it make now!!! But NO I didn't want it.
No, the entire energy industry is in consensus we don't need nuclear. This has become a moot point of political debate.
@B4XPQN31yr1Y
Yes, but so long it is nationalized, does not take away from renewables and will not be to the financial detriment of the public.
@B4QDD9P1yr1Y
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
@B4K53N81yr1Y
We should continue investing in cleaner alternatives in the short term and invest more into nuclear fusion technology for the long term
@BBW3GRB2mos2MO
Nuclear energy is not as bad as many make it out to be but it is extremely expensive to set up. Australia has poured so much into solar energy and other renewable sources already so it may just be easier to build on that for the near future. Coal should definitely be significantly reduced.
@BBFCP6R2mos2MO
i think it is a good way but i think it is not sustainable and we should try for more tidle wave alternitive
@BBDKXK42mos2MO
I don't want Australia to experience a nuclear disaster.I don't want Australia to experience a nuclear disaster.
Yes, if it can be shown to be a safe and viable alternative (including consideration of water consumption), and only as part of a broader mix of technologies, and with consultation and public education about where and how it would operate.
@BB2KWTDFamily First3mos3MO
Maybe, but the government needs to encourage sustainability in energy use, especially in the business sector
Well yes I guess I do… the sun is the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system and I’m grateful for its presence!
Yes, as it's clean and safe energy. But we have missed the boat in terms of it being a cost effective new energy source here in Australia. Renewables are cheaper to replace the fossil fuels with. The only case for nuclear power here in Australia in 2025 is as a breeder reactor for to fuel our new nuclear submarines, and we only need one for that, with a side benefit of power generation
yes but heavly tax nuclear waste output to attemted to reduce nuclear waste as compainys will pay millions to reasearch ways to reduce nuclear waste output to input and could make nuclear power way more vialible
@B6NVPFS8mos8MO
Yes, however the investment into power stations is far too large, take far too long to build and will take far too long to pay off.
@B6287HY10mos10MO
No, invest on cheaper, reliable energy such as wind, hydro/dams, thorium, and geothermal. Reduce bills on houses/buildings with solar panels while we also invest on coal, gold and uranium mining, manufacturing, and ammonia to grow the wealth of the country.
@B5WZ3WB10mos10MO
Yes, but only if it is able to be delivered at a quick pace and controllable price in places where power plants will not damage the environment or be blocked by locals.
@B588Q4Y12mos12MO
Not until we have completed and shared findings from a complete analysis, managing risks, costs, solution suitability, repercussions, mitigation etc.
@B584XYC1yr1Y
Yes, if you look into the long term costs and emissions across 'clean' energy it isn't much better environmentally and will cost a lot to fully integrate. Where as if managed properly and safely nuclear is actually the best environmentally and financially long term
@B57NYYH1yr1Y
No, not in Australia; investment should be made into power/energy resources that are renewable, efficient, reliable and cost effective, but above all else, with the safety and security of the future/current environment/climate forefront.
@B57JJWQ1yr1Y
Yes, as a longer term goal with more research into design, cost and viability. Renewables investment now.
Yes, but not until a newer, cheaper and more reliable nuclear option is commercially available. The public should not be footing the bill and pricing should be regulated to ensure its achieving the aim of bring power prices down.
@B3RX48B1yr1Y
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.
@B3KXY7Q1yr1Y
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
@B3GQLSG1yr1Y
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.
@B3DYGC61yr1Y
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.
@B2YPR3C1yr1Y
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
@B4BPF7T1yr1Y
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
@B3TSXM41yr1Y
Yes, but in the long term. With a focus on the faster uptake of renewables for the short to mid term.
@B3T23YD1yr1Y
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.
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
that has nothing to do with nuclear energy other than the word nuclear and the basic physics principles. they are completely different things
@92NTRF3One Nation4yrs4Y
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.
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
"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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
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
@B32BGKC1yr1Y
no it's not, your basis is propaganda that uses 70 year old reactors as it's examples
@B2LX7CZ1yr1Y
Yes, as long as it is nationalised with safeguards, and not used as a porn to stop the clean energy transition
@B2F9LYK1yr1Y
Yes, but as a long term addition to the grid on top of a shorter term vast rollout of renewable energy generation and storage
@B2BLP7N1yr1Y
Yes, As Australia is the leading exporter of Uranium we should utilise our own resources and become a more self-sustaining country.
@9ZR2LN51yr1Y
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.
@9G7PW523yrs3Y
Yes, whilst nuclear energy has its negatives, it is also very useful and when used properly it is beneficial for society.
@9FFQK5S3yrs3Y
yes but as a backup for cleaner alternatives, we should prioritise and transition to clean energy renewables first
@9W5C2Q62yrs2Y
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.
@9RP79JS2yrs2Y
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 Nation2yrs2Y
Use fossil fuels and reserve nuclear for maritime and space affairs, or just the powering of large remote vessels in general
@9K9ZQGL2yrs2Y
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.
@9D4D2B63yrs3Y
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.
@8Z7WQHC4yrs4Y
Depedning on the renewable resources we have available, nuclear should be used as a last resort
@8R9ZW555yrs5Y
thorium is still nuclear energy
Only once technology has been created to reduce waste and improve storage
@8XDTV6N4yrs4Y
I do not have all of the relevant information to have an opinion on this question.
@8X878BC4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it's far away from civilian areas.
@8WZZXBS5yrs5Y
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.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
