Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Nuclear power 'helps stabilise a grid more and more dependent on renewables'" video.

You should actually research the history of how the 'ban' came into existence. It wasn't the end result of some constructive and informed debate about the value of nuclear power generation. It was some dumb asses with no foresight agreeing to the insertion of a clause intended to 'ban the bomb' in some legislation so that a uranium mine could get approval, never thinking through the long term effect of this clause or that Australia may actually need to consider nuclear power one day.
3
@hotchihuahua1546 I don't concern myself with 'what's under the bed'. I deal with hard facts. The nuclear power industry has operated for over 60 year in over 30 countries with an impressive safety record. And much of that time with 'old technology'. Current plants are theoretically much safer. The two incidents that everyone will undoubtedly bring up (Chernobyl and Fukushima) were not failures of nuclear power, but rather failures of government, failed states, and corruption. The West has never allowed a reactor type like Chernobyl to be built, the 'test' that went wrong and blew it up should have been undertaken before the plant was even commissioned. Fukushima should have always been built with a MAJOR tsunami in mind. That it was allowed to operate with its glaring and obvious weakness required a highly compliant know your place and keep your mouth society, and rampant corruption. Australia has neither of these problems.
3
@gotthesinglelife The inner city 'indigenous voices' would try and object to the locations you mention, being full of sacred sites. The reality is a waste disposal repository in a suitable remote site would mean productive employment for locals. There would be plenty of routine maintenance and security jobs that wouldn't require a nuclear physics PhD.
2
John Kerry wasn't actually told by "scientists" that 50% of the required cuts to emissions to get to net-zero by 2050 will come from technologies we don't yet have. He read it in the latest International Energy Agency Report which is little more than a climate extremist manifesto. There is hardly a single scientific verifiable FACT in that completely biased climate alarmist report. About the only factual thing in the report is than most countries have no plans or even know how to achieve their promised goals, and even if everyone did miraculously achieve them, it still wouldn't achieve anything like global net-zero emissions. Nuclear doesn't even get a mention on the IEA report, not a single word, that's how credible John Kerry's 'scientists' are.
1
What about earthquakes? A destructive earthquake (magnitude 7) occurs somewhere in Australia roughly about every ........... 100,000 years, give or take a few. P.S. And please research what was the most probably cause of the Newcastle 'earthquake' before anyone goes mentioning it.
1