(Preview) Honest Government Ad | Nuclear (Australia)
Added 2025-02-04 10:01:22 +0000 UTCDear Patrons
Thank you for your patience! Here's the audio preview of our next HGA, about the Coalition's nuclear "plan". And as always, you are the first to hear it:
(Preview) Honest Government Ad | Nuclear (Australia)
This is our first HGA of the election season and as you can see, I've decided to focus on the Coalition because, somehow, they are popular again with many voters (facepalm emoji), and one of the things that has gained popularity seems to be their nuclear "plan". It isn't an HGA against nuclear - as I know some of you wil be relioeved to hear - but about the Coalitions' plan for nuclear in Australia, which is utterly cooked. Much like all their previous energy policies, which is why this mob should never be allowed back into government.
I hope you enjoy it and look forward to any feedback you might have for me! (A reminder that some things will only make sense once you can see the visuals!)
(Preview) Honest Government Ad | Nuclear (Australia)
ps. I am sharing this audio preview with all our Patrons, since we didn't manage to get this HGA out before the end of January. This delay, as I mentioned in my last post, is because this HGA required some extra research and fact-checking to ensure it would withstand the solid scrutiny it will no-doubt encounter once we release it into the wild. But I hope the wait is worth it :)
I'll catch you very soon with the final video!
Until then, take care
Giordano
Comments
Again excellent. A delightful and effective enhancement to the audio message. It made me appreciate even more the effectiveness of the rhythm of repetition you use: "Do we know of any? No. Do we know the cost? No." Then: "France--20 years, 4x cost; UK--23 years, 3x cost; US--18 years, $10b overrun." And at the end: "...that we don't need, on land we don't own, in states that don't want them." The repetition sets up a drumbeat that trains the viewer/listener to anticipate that the answer to any reasonable question in the form "Is this good?" will be "No!" The video adds delightfully appealing visual emphasis to that rhythm. Very powerful messaging. You have created an original art form; it is a pleasure to savor the elements that make it so uniquely entertaining and effective. (The still of Musk doing The Salute is stark and arresting--the spinning over here about "No, that's not a Nazi salute" was inevitably reminiscent of "No, that parrot's not dead.")
David Baldwin
2025-02-06 13:59:53 +0000 UTCI'm really happy with this video, you guys did a great job with a difficult topic!
Darren
2025-02-06 05:43:47 +0000 UTCI think this was the right call, but there's one big difference. When a coal plant runs out of water, it stops producing power. When a nuclear plant runs out of water, you get a melt down - even if it's shut down
Darren
2025-02-06 05:35:06 +0000 UTCHaha wow David, as the guy who spends inordinate amounts of hours trying to refine the script and the delivery to be as smooth as possible, I think i might need to frame this comment! Here's the video by the way - just published! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqVVBUdW84&t=1s&ab_channel=thejuicemedia
thejuicemedia
2025-02-06 04:48:44 +0000 UTCExcellent. One of the tightest and smoothest yet. The audio has a wonderful rhythm to it that makes it clear and readily absorbable. We are approaching the appeal of poetry here…
David Baldwin
2025-02-06 03:35:30 +0000 UTCI think that point would help the farmers/primary producers to make their mind up on nuclear, given Littleprouds statement that if elected they would begin construction on day one. I remember a couple of years ago, France had to close a reactor due to the water in the river they use being too warm due to climate heating. Swollen Pickles has a good video on the topic - Nuclear powered Peters "plan".
Bunga
2025-02-05 00:16:22 +0000 UTCI used to be anti nuclear power, found I just didn't understand it. Read up on how the generators work, what the waste is, what happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Eventually realised nuclear power is fine so long as: 1) No idiots in planning 2) No idiots in implementation 3) No idiots in maintenance /running. As in so many areas the problem is idiots.
Fenrir Wolfganger
2025-02-04 23:38:45 +0000 UTCLove it!
Gareth Macri
2025-02-04 23:02:06 +0000 UTCThanks Gareth! We'll release the kraken later today hopefully!
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 23:01:29 +0000 UTCThanks Nemo!
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 23:01:13 +0000 UTCThanks Peter. And yeah I agree, we need to be on the watchout for this kind of thing leading up to the election
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 23:00:58 +0000 UTCHaha thanks John. Couldn't let them off the hook so easily!
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:59:46 +0000 UTClol I mean, we have an acquatic center named after him, so I wouldn't put it past them!
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:59:19 +0000 UTCYeah, i've read some horror stories from the USA - residents in Georgia are paying billions more on their energy bills due to Vogtle's cost overruns; and in South Carolina they are paying billions and receiving zero watts of energy for it given that the VC Summer 2&3 units had to be abandoned entirely! (I really wanted to mention this, but had to cut it!). And yes, then there's the question of the waste management, as you say https://scdailygazette.com/2024/04/05/heres-how-much-sc-power-customers-are-still-paying-for-a-failed-nuclear-project/
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:56:25 +0000 UTC100% Jay you make an excellent point! Dutton et al are doing a great disservice to the nuclear movement in Australia and if anything, as you say, will ensure it never happens
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:53:17 +0000 UTCI don't know that nuclear can be called "renewable", in the sense that nuclear fuel is not renewable and in fact produces dangerous waste, but I think there is a good case for referring it as zero/low emission - at least during the power generating. I know this is sometimes debated, but I think it is fairly well accepted.
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:51:54 +0000 UTCThis is a good question that many are asking. I chose not to focus on this aspect, because from what i've read, nuclear's water use would be similar to what our current coal power plants use. (And if I Australia's dryness and water resources are the concern, we should really be focusing on agriculture, dairy farming in particular)
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:50:29 +0000 UTCThanks for the comment Mary, you are right - the reality is that every source of energy generation known to us today has some sort of negative consequence/impact. Until we have an alternative that is 100% pure, we have to settle for energy sources that do the least damage possible. And even that is proving to be a challenge for humanity
thejuicemedia
2025-02-04 22:41:04 +0000 UTCOh, I'm totally against nuclear, but the evidence as I see it is that "green" capitalism has greenwashed "renewables" big time, the same corporations take fossil fuel subsidies with one hand and "renewable" ones with the other, plus the environmental cost of "renewables" is huge, it still involves stacks of extractive industry AKA mining AKA habitat destruction, there's nothing green about it. Plus, according to Simon Michaux and many others, there is simply not enough "critical minerals" on earth to power your alleged 96% of our current power use with "renewables". Plus it's what we DO with the energy AKA power industrial "civilisation" that is the main problem, less so the source of the energy used to do that. https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/when-renewables-meet-their-limits
Mary Cotter
2025-02-04 22:26:33 +0000 UTCNot so long ago the EU labelled nuclear energy as "renewable". I mean, it kinda is. Just like coal and oil it only takes a gazillion years to renew but hey, who's counting?
Martin Linger
2025-02-04 21:46:40 +0000 UTCAustralia is the driest continent on earth. Where is Dutton going to get the water to cool the reactors??
Bunga
2025-02-04 21:26:51 +0000 UTCGiordano, thanks for differentiating between 'nuclear power per se' and Peter Dutton's half baked nuclear plans for Oz. My understanding is that nuclear power plants generate apx 9% of the world's electricity, making nuclear energy the second-largest source of low-emissions electricity today, after hydropower. As of early 2025, there are approximately 422-440 nuclear reactors operating worldwide across 31-33 countries, with about 61-65 new reactors currently under construction in 13-18 countries. The lasting tragedy of Dutton's mouthing off is that any legitimate conversation on nuclear energy being considered in the mix of Australia's future has become so politically polarized as to be a non-starter.
Jay Wilson
2025-02-04 19:55:46 +0000 UTCOoooh… ugh. Nuclear is an friggin' quagmire. Its proponents are all starry-eyed over its potential, but they never bother to admit that they're kicking the can down the road, i.e., what the fnck do we do with the radioactive waste?
Mark D Larsen
2025-02-04 17:42:34 +0000 UTCCan't wait for this - sounds brilliant!
Sidara
2025-02-04 13:02:27 +0000 UTCLove it. ❤️ You could also include the risk of Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump for America and Britain under AUKUS. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/13/australia-aukus-deal-submarines-critics-nuclear-waste?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Seán Burke
2025-02-04 12:47:52 +0000 UTCIs it true that the first nuke sub (to protect us from our major trading partner) is to be called “Harold Holt” ?
jonesmike53 .
2025-02-04 11:02:08 +0000 UTCLove the sting in the tail of this ad re being a distration to coal and gas expansion
John Englart
2025-02-04 10:57:28 +0000 UTCWelcome back for another year of HGA, bit of a shit show so far Was actually just checking out this Minerals Council of Australia astroturfing site they seem to be pushing, as your message came through https://getclearonnuclear.com.au/ Really have to dig down into the privacy policy notice to find out who is funding it and gets your data if you sign onto the 'movement' Going be a very sneaky election season with much shitfuckery I think Anyway all the best
Peter M
2025-02-04 10:15:24 +0000 UTCAs ever your analysis cuts through every layer of bullshit and gives everyone a chance to see what the game is. Nuclear has never been and never will be competitive on electricity cost because is always subsidised in commission and decommission - giving the operators the opportunity to make profits while the public not only pay their bills, but THE underlying bill for this form of energy being in the grid at all. Add in Chernobyl and Fukushima and the quasi military dotted line to nuclear weapons... Nuclear has always been overly costly for taxpayers as energy and weapons.
Nemo Halperin
2025-02-04 10:14:07 +0000 UTCJuice media NAILS it yet again. Brilliant work. Please release the video!!!
Gareth Macri
2025-02-04 10:11:05 +0000 UTC
