Why doesn't Australia use nuclear power? They have so much uranium, but don't use it for anything

But it's true. More deaths are created by coal pollution, than by nuclear disaster. This is even before factoring in the deaths that could result from the climate change, that coal creates.
The only thing that nuclear power plants make are:
>Electricity
>Steam
>Warm water (in some cases)
>Radioactive waste, that admittedly will remain dangerous for millions of years, but can be easily managed with proper facilities

That is what I expected, sadly. It would be really nice to see Australia upgrade to canadian made reactors. Would benefit both countries

Don't forget exclusion zones that are uninhabitable for years. And damaged plants that continually leak radioactive material

It's not difficult to search the title, you on the other hand don't take your chance to educate us on how it's "naive" or anything else.
You are like a retarded... Handing you information isn't doing anything in the right direction.

We have enough fucking sunlight to power the entire country but politicians would rather pocket kick backs from their mates in the coal industry.
Nuclear power is entirely unnecessary in Australia. We should already be running entirely on renewable resources made up of solar, wind and hydro.

Faggot no one's buying your CANDU shit lol

Some granny dies from cancer but she lived 5 miles from a coal plant
>Dude coal killed her! No doubt in my mind

But it's cheaper, and much better for nuclear non-proliferation

Nuclear power is (and has always been) a meme. The amount of money that we would have to spend converting to an all-nuclear grid would be much better invested in improving renewables.

>Radioactive waste, that admittedly will remain dangerous for millions of years, but can be easily managed with proper facilities
That's false, solid fuel waste needs tousands of years safe storage while the waste from a LFTR (liquid flouride thorium reactor) only needs to be stored for 300 years and gives valuable material for cancer treatment:
youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

Attached: 8476824.png (630x435, 232K)

>renewables
lol

t. different leaf

>would be much better invested in improving renewables.
This statement sounds universally applicable to large scale electricity generation, desu. I think one of the largest problems thus far is there hasn't been the easily exploitable business model which has favoured non-renewable fuel sources. That is changing but a lot of the damage has already been done.
If only we all weren't addicted to cheap petroleum based products, maybe some of those hundreds of billions dollars sitting in the board rooms of multinational energy corporations would have been thrust towards renewable energy research and development decades ago.

>thorium
Piss off with the pop-science garbage.

Sunlight power is actually shit. It produce the quantity of electricity as it requires to create. So it more like battery's, and that's why it is useless

You're a fucking idiot, mate.

>HOLY SZECHUAN SAUCE ARE YOU BOILING THAT WATER WITH ROCKS I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE DUMB HIPPIES NOTHING WILL GO WRONG (PROBABLY)

Attached: peak-soylent.jpg (270x428, 25K)

Yes, I am. I also consider that climate change doesn't exist. Cause it's cold outside, in summer, in my region

>pop-science garbage.
It was proved to work without problems in the 1960's!

youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

But was discontinued for political reasons:
youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI

Attached: 20120301111934!MSRE_Diagram.png (1010x923, 1.33M)

The more you spam TEDx garbage, the less value your posts have.

Can't you provide ANY counter-argument?
It's just single-sentences from you.

Sounds like a Chang trying to suffocate the truth to sell his thousands of wind turbines and solar panels...
Begin work on your salt reactors instead!

Attached: Perovosolarstation.jpg (1000x469, 467K)

>DUDE lets clear retarded amounts of land and destroy countless ecosystems so that we can cover it with unreliable, inefficient solar panels that need to be replaced every few decades and are made out of non-recyclable material LMAO
epic

Attached: 1561698133391.png (594x582, 41K)

lel

It mining accidents, fires etc coal is horrible. Wind turbines needs repair work on dangerous heights. Nuclear is stable, hardly any moving parts/watt. It's the future up until fusion, and also to burn the nuclear waste piles around the world.

>mining accidents
Literally a different industry. Why do you have to be that intellectually dishonest? Do iron ore mining accidents count as car-related casualties?

>Wind turbines needs repair work on dangerous heights.
Oh no!!!!!!! Until someone invents a safety harness it should be banned

>Nuclear is stable, hardly any moving parts/watt.
Nigger it's literally the most complex way to generate electricity and nothing else comes close

>Why doesn't Australia use nuclear power?
This woman...
youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ

>Literally a different industry. Why do you have to be that intellectually dishonest?
Coal mining is significantly more hazardous than other resources. Partly due to gas hazards, which are a better resource than coal desu
Coal seam gas>>>coal itself

>Coal mining is significantly more hazardous than other resources.
Boo hoo

>Literally a different industry.
Coal is MUCH more dangerous to mine than uranium. It's soft, brittle and dusty which cause cave-ins, fires and respiratory diseases.

youtube.com/watch?v=sw97_9fKMiY

>Why do you have to be that intellectually dishonest?
I'm brutally honest.
>Do iron ore mining accidents count as car-related casualties?
No. The stats tell the truth: coal is cancer, nuclear is well-educated personel from the mine to the waste storage.

probably some coal lobby. there's no good reason not to.

>Coal is MUCH more dangerous to mine than uranium.
Mining isn't energy production

>I'm brutally honest.
Only faggots say that

>"Do iron ore mining accidents count as car-related casualties?"
>"No."
Thanks. Then incidents from coal mines can be ignored too

Okay Captain America...
>Mining isn't energy production
The stats tell casualties per watt, coal and uranium mining is part of the numbers.
Car accidents is something totally different.

>Car accidents is something totally different.
Exactly--mining is a completely different industry from energy generation.

What else is the coal and uranium used for?

Irrelevant

>Irrelevant
Mining is fundamental to the energy production. If you didn't pollute so much with coal power a lot of families would still have their fathers and husbands.

It's not the same industry and is intellectually dishonest to include mining casualties as part of electrical generation statistics. You said so yourself

Trying to disregard the lives lost in the energy production isn't very christian or intellectual honest... Good night!

I win again

Attached: maoist.jpg (335x595, 51K)