"You are being conned" nuclear DOES lower power bills, Dr Adi Paterson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2024
- ✍️ SIGN OUR PETITION TO LIFT THE NUCLEAR BANS IN AUSTRALIA:
www.nuclearforaustralia.com/p...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT NUCLEAR FOR AUSTRALIA:
Nuclear for Australia is Australia's largest campaign for nuclear energy. Our aim is to disseminate information about nuclear energy to help advance and inform the debate.
Nuclear for Australia is a registered charity. The organisation is proudly non partisan and is currently chaired by the former CEO of ANSTO and nuclear science advocate, Dr Adi Paterson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW OUR SOCIALS:
• Instagram: / nuclearforaustr. .
• Facebook: profile.php?...
• Twitter: / nuclearforaus
• UA-cam: / @nuclearforaustralia
• TikTok: / nuclearforaus. . - Наука та технологія
Sign our petition to lift the nuclear ban: nuclearforaustralia.com/petition
Donate: nuclearforaustralia.com/factsnotpolitics
No
You mean the ban signed into law by the Howard LNP in 1996...what a bunch of hypocritcal frauds Dutton fronts.
@@kevinmann4786YES😂
Done. Money well spent unlike when it involves Labor. Excellent to hear Dr Paterson explaining clearly and concisely why the renewable fairytale is failing, again.
@@adrianw7011 I'd say the CSIRO and the IAE know what they are talking about and that is the true cost and viability of nuclear. And of cpurse it is both more expensive and completely an unviable option for Australia.
Respect to the ABC host for not interrupting and letting him have his say. Unfortunately she will probably cop a bit of flak from her ABC colleagues
She would probably have a few job offers the next day.
That must be a first for Aunty on the nuclear power issue.
She did NOT expect or like those answers. The doctor held his ground and wouldn't let her spew her anti-nuclear talking points. It sounds like, at the end, the producers were telling her to stop the interview to prevent more facts/reality from going out via an ABC broadcast.
Great interview Dr Paterson - petition signed and now subscribed
Why? The ABC always presents balanced reports...it is SKY who has a biased political agenda...that why over 75% of Australians trust the ABC.
@@mclarensteve3121 She did not expect to get a sensible fact based costed answer from the LNP frauds and she interrogated him professionally regardless, not allowing him to deflect or smokescreen. Well done Sarah, one again confirming how hair-brained and ill thought the Dutton nuclear fiasco is?
finally, someone who actually knows what he is talking about
Keep in mind a number of “experts” who knew what they were talking about brought you Covid vaccinations and lockdowns as well… Beware the expert you choose to believe…
He will never be invited back on to the ABC.
@@generalinformation4386 Generally they don't let experts near a camera or microphone, this is kryptonite for labor.
Like our submarines, we live on ' Fantasy Island '.
Finally someone, who actually knows what he is talking about, is ALLOWED to have a say.
Nuclear all the way 😊
About time for some experts to call out these traitors of the Australian public for the sake of ideology. Bravo
and what about all the other experts that say that we shouldnt have nuclear? you gonna ignore them?
@@ninjasinpjsfdcfdw2671Renewable energy now has financial self-interest corrupting the dialogue as much as oil. The truth is almost impossible for the lay person to discover. That goes for me and for you.
@@ninjasinpjsfdcfdw2671 Well these UA-camrs are called Nuclear for Australia so I don't think this is the place for a well balanced look at anything. Just sales people for the nuclear industry.
Which 'traitors'? So dramatic mate.
@@ninjasinpjsfdcfdw2671 Most of these Experts as you call them lose their jobs if Nuclear is introduced. They are protecting their funding (totally reliant on Renewables being implemented) so are not biased as they have skin in the Game. The professor has NO skin in the game, is not reliant on the current government for income or employment.
I wish people would understand on a lot of issues the experts the Government relies upon receive all their funding from that same government and will be searching for a new job if the current Governments policy is NOT implemented in full.
Why is common sense so uncommon?
I hope Sarah's ABC colleagues don't shame her for this interview, as I fear they will.
Thankyou Dr Paterson
Common sense is not so common any more, because people have been coming out of school totally dumbed down, deliberately, by the system. This, of course stops people thinking. And, as we can see, it is working. Just look at Elbow and Bowen, for an example.
She'll probably lose her job as she is going against the ABC's and labor's agenda.
@@alanc6781 To be fair, while universities peddle (force feed) doctrines that indoctrinate and radicalise whole generations some of us do in fact think for ourselves and have been resisting the garbage taught from the start but we get severely penalised for challenging the status quo and society judges those with lower grades as if such students must be lesser (in fact, many selective school students, precocious geniuses, etc, suffer in the education system after high school). However, to flip your argument and to paraphrase Einstein, the education system isn't totally dumbed down, redundant, to the point that it's the antithesis of "common sense", or that society should be anti-education, but even the poorest education teaches a person not what they know but what they do not know and have yet to learn, yet to study properly, yet to focus on, etc, so it teaches humility. Similar to how the sports system teaches good sportsmanship to accept failure as the norm. But unfortunately current leaders in society are often immoral spineless grifters with little to no academic integrity or honesty, mere sycophants, social climbers, and opportunists. Such people shouldn't be given the platform to speak let alone lead, maybe that is the problem, but worse than that, 70-90% of Australians have historically been uneducated and don't even know what they do not know. The blind leading the blind.
@@alanc6781you missed out Miles , PHD, piled higher and deeper.
Common sense is a myth invented by people whose brain can’t comprehend the complexity of our world. Sorry.
How refreshing is it to listen to an intelligent person as opposed to the majority of federal, state and local politicians.
Indeed. However, "intelligent" doesn't mean "correct"...
@@SafeTrucking As he stated my friend the information he stated is Publicly available if one bothers to look for it. Most who oppose him and the Oppositions position instead listen to Labor and its infantile scare campaigns. Show proof anything he detailed is NOT correct and you may have a point but unless you do you have no credibility with your statement in this case.
@@saintsone7877 I suggest you go through the comments, mate :).
I listened to this interview and I have to say I was totally impressed with Sarah Morice. She asked very relevant questions, and did no interrupt Mr Paterson and I thought what an excellent interview in which the facts were fleshed out without any aggressive interviewing by Ms Morice. I was left with the firm belief that going Nuclear was a very sound option in which the nuclear mix with renewables was an excellent choice. If only the ABC would travel this path more often, then I'm sure their audience figures would go up significantly.
But it was Dr Paterson. Other that that, I agree with you 100%.
Not much chance of that. "Our" publicly funded ABC is, (as a generalisation with one or two honorable exceptions) utterly INCAPABLE of impartiality. Nor are most of ABC's full time employees, presenters, editors, producers etc., understanding of a crucial, essential need for impartiality.
Nuclear4climate
What’s wrong with the climate? And yes nuclear just makes sense regardless of climate scare mongering.
@@Maxindifference climate change is a real issue
@@ThatJay283 are you talking about natural climate change or the fraudulent climate change due to man? Big difference
@@Maxindifference climate change due to us. it is real. we get alot of our energy from sources that were locked up in the ground (coal, oil, and gas) and that rereleases lots of carbon. because of the scale we do this in, it causes problems for us which is what is known as climate change.
@@ThatJay283when you say Carbon? Meaning Carbon Dioxide? A natural molecule in our atmosphere? Why would carbon dioxide change the climate if it’s plant food? What’s the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Nuclear power will be way better than the wind and solar junk for Australia..
How
Better for the environment definitely.
It doesnt destroy trees and forests to put wind and solar panels in. Its not hard to get your information on nuclear, and it wont make us all blow up or 3 eyed fish. Labour just likes spending money over stuff that the rest of the world has walked away from.@Turd_farmer
My solar junk is free you see the sun up in the sky don't you 😂
@@Philip-hv2kc how the fuck is nuclear "better" for the environment? Just because nuclear power itself is zero emissions, it doesn't mean it's better for the enviroment
WOW!This is the first time I have seen ABC come clean with Australians, through a credible Dr Adi Paterson on nuclear power. ❤❤❤❤
Come clean 😅. You mean ‘agree with my POV’
@@michaelbee8263 There are rumours this has been censored on the ABC. Probably makes too much sense to be posted on their site.
@@grantchalmers3878 there are plenty of other reasons why this would be taken down. You know it and I know it. Paterson is judge jury and executioner here. Let’s not pretend that right and wrong is so simple, we are not children.
@@michaelbee8263you mean how every interview with contrary option to renewables has been howled down by the likes of you because it’s Doesn’t agree with your POV
@@paulf763 I have no idea what you’re on about. I am not pro renewables.
For the last 4 decades I have been asking why no nuclear power for the country. As a teenager my father said the failures around the world caused problems. Then as technology improved and the reactors got improved the capability to generate reliable power was essential for our way of life. Every single country that has gone renewables has been going backwards in terms of power availability. I don't like any current political party, I will support Nuclear only on the grounds that it is owned by the Australian People and no parliament can ever privatise it.
That would mean trusting the Australian Government not 2 sell our Assets . And quite frankly they cant be trusted. EVER . Scomo & Friedenberg B4 they left FedGov sold off Billions of Australian Tax Payer FUNDED Assets. Just check back me with me in a week & l will share the site so u can check up what l have just shared
Premier Bolte in 1969 announced he'd see to the construction of a nuclear power plant in Gippsland if reelected when giving his TV election speech . Another broken promise it turned out, but the wise didn't believe any of it anyway .
I have been saying the same things for a similar period of time.
Because business can't make money from it.
It is a money pit that will need higher taxation (or a higher deficit) to pay for.
@@donnairn3419 Yes, solar is!
Without subsidies, it does not work anywhere in the world.
However, nuclear power DOES work. Look into the overseas experiences in France, Canada and so on,
Trouble is 20years ago we should have gone nuclear, if we had Australia would be a economic powerhouse, so let's finally take the first step for the sake of the environment and Australia people. And save the planet .
The issue, that still is, some idiot decided to ban nuclear back in the 70's I think it was. Until that ban is lifted, we can't see any real progress.
A number of start up Australian ventures moved to USA on account of high energy costs in Australia but much cheaper energy costs in USA . But Australia can still rely on immigration of ½ million a year as an economic boost as engineered by labour , it seems to work except for the high housing costs that result.
Well explained to us who are not nuclear experts. Thank you Dr. Paterson.
This bloke is a legend! Let’s hear more from him!
At last , one of the few TRULY expert voices on this whole debate putting the case in simple truthful and direct terms. He needs to be on every public platform articulating this over and over so that the pure idiocy of our current government does not destroy our country.
Peter Dutton needs to stay the course.
I particularly like the way this intelligent Dr was not sidelined by this journalist regurgitating current MISinformation on nuclear power generation.
FANTASTIC 👍👍👍👍
Maybe we could have a public debate between Dr. Paterson and Minister Bowen to thrash out a few misconceptions?
@@stevehewitt1151 yes that would be very interesting viewing. Great idea 💡
@@stevehewitt1151 Bowen would try to gallop over him.
@@ohasis8331 and fail miserably!
What "this journalist regurgitating current MISinformation" was the journalist "regurgitating"? None as far as I could detect.
Its About our CHILDREN and Grandkids. This will Last 100 years. Not 15 to be replaced every time. JOBS. Highly PAID and High Skilled Industry.
Creating jobs is not a reason to do this. Arguably, the renewable industry will create a lot more jobs over the same timeframe.
You do realise that "replacing every fifteen years means ongoing JOBS, requiring highly PAID and skilled workers? Never mind mate, at least you tried.
Provided it is built correctly and allowed to serve its purpose, a nuclear reactor pays for itself several times over, something no wind farm or solar farm will ever be able to claim.
So wrong.
Yeah nah. His arguments have been tried before. Nuclear is super expensive power but this 'discussion' is really just a delay tactic.
Lookup the Lazard LCOE reports.
Nuclear is a waste of time & money. Solar and Batteries to be the baseload, already way cheaper than nuclear & in future will be the vast majority of power generation & storage.
Who is paying this guy?
@@Tom-dt4ic A "sheeple" speaks.
@@wyattfamily8997 I must be another.
I sure it will make a fortune, for whoever the LNP ends up selling it to.
This must be shared with everyone in Australia !! 🇦🇺
At last, some common sense.
Finally, a professional intellectual and knowledgeable man is able to bring clarity and understanding of nuclear energy and high lights the inefficiency of renewable energy, the cost and destruction of the Australian landscape. Well done.
Tell me mate, what is the "efficiency" of renewable energy?
Finally, someone with brains, he needs to be on mainstream media.
Is the ABC not mainstream media?
This is bloody obvious
France is the perfect example
Beside Germany who went green and totally failed…
One would think Bowen would have noticed this….
Bowen either ignore or discounts this.
You might not have noticed, but there are some substantial geographic and population density differences between Australia and France. If you missed that, you probably also missed that technology has significantly changed since the 60s and 70s when France built its reactors (which were also designed to produce nuclear fuel for their atomic weapons program), and that those technological advances have made renewables a great deal cheaper than nukes.
You probably also failed to notice that Germany has even bigger challenges than France, without even mentioning the huge economic and social problems they've had to manage with reunification, which still continue.
Here in Oz, on the other hand, we have the best solar and wind resources in the world, and plenty of space to install them. Nobody expects you to go against your deeply held principles and install solar on your roof just to get cheap electricity. I'm sure the coal power generation businesses are very grateful for your dedication to supporting their profit margins...
@@ohasis8331 Bowen isn't a fool, obviously...
@@SafeTrucking I beg to differ but let's leave it at that.
@@ohasis8331 If you like, but I'd be interested to know your reasons, since you said it's "obvious".
Almost didn't watch this as I saw the symbol of the much hated ABC then realised it wasn't posted by the ABC! Glad I watched this glad to see some truth at last !!
me too 😗
Stick to sky news 😂
@@Bunyipz whatever flat earther 😘
Good for you mate. I admire your dedication to avoiding polluting your mind with ideas...🤣🤣😇
@@SafeTrucking 😆😆
powerful informed comments.
Finland brought their first nuke generator on line last year and the price of electricity crashed
Sri Lanka, a poor country, recently went nuclear. So they would pay more for power?
Yep, Sri Lanka is nearly as corrupt as Australia.
Yeah, they are currently having rolling blackouts and their economy has collapsed.
Time for Australian's to wake up to the benefits of nuclear power generation. It is the only sustainable power-generation source humanity currently has. Coal, solar and wind just don't cut it.
Nuclear is the most expensive energy source. How is anyone stupid enough to think it will HELP with the cost of living?
Nuke power is the same like solar. It only provides the base power. It will create issues in the distribution network. It's very costly to establish and to run. Thermal and gas-powered generators will still be needed to control the peak power.
@@kenwaugh7 nope look at Germany vs France, Germany went he renewables route and has sky high power and manufacturing is closing down and leaving the country then there is the French went with nuclear and has very cheap power that they export!
@@Yourbrightspot liquid fueled reactors can be used as peaker plants its only the solid fueled reactors that can't so the gas power plants will be replaced
somebody that talks no bullshit
No mate, somebody who wants to make a buck out of turning the Australian power grid into one supplied by nuclear reactors.
I've got solar on my roof, you possibly do too: would you rather have a nuclear reactor in the back shed?
@@SafeTrucking We're talking about baseload power. Try running a blast furnace or an aluminium smelter with rooftop solar.
Yeah this guy is talking his own book and it's easy to see. Why is the ABC platforming this misinformation?
No worries running anything off renewables, just add a few batteries amongst it. Costs of renewables & batteries are down 90+% & 80% respectively in the last decade and those cost declines will continue.
His arguments about the grid costing more are overblown because most of this generation will be distributed, so the generation can be near where the power is used.
@@dfor50 There is no such thing as "Baseload power", mate. Baseload refers to the minimum demand on a grid, which defines the minimum output required from the generation plant. You can't turn coal (or nuclear) generators off and on, so we subsidise large power consumers to operate in otherwise unprofitable hours. We have to keep it running.
Smelters don't care whether their power comes from a central generation station or a thousand solar installations, and they don't consume at the same level all the time, their demand fluctuates according to what part of the cycle is in progress. Stored energy (you know, like the energy stored in fossil fuels at the moment - or batteries, or dams, or hydrogen, etc, etc, etc) supplies the demand when it's greater than the instantaneous generation output.
It's not that hard, brother.
@@SafeTruckingwhat happens to your beloved solar panels when they reach the end of their lifetime. Landfill? If you think renewable power can support any kind of heavy industry, you’re delusional.
Hello…. Tell that to Club Canberra….. They are not listening…..😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫🤡
Club Canberra are serving the WEF.Klaus is their boss.
If only Dr Patterson had a you tube Chanel , this needs to get to more people, the guy knows his stuff people need to listen especially Chris Bowen
Well said Dr
Agree with you the only way that I know is to forward this clip to your friends and hopefully it will snowball to a huge audience
The short lectures by the Illinois University professor are also very informative.
ABC in full on panic mode - Australia could have cheap, reliable, sustainable power and regain its energy independence and comparative economic advantage.
We already do its called the sun 😂
@@Bunyipz as long as you have the battery capacity to get you over the non producing hours and the square metre coverage to capture enough power for use and recharging storage. People have lived with main grid energy for so long they have forgotten why the planet has 1st, 2nd and 3rd world labels in different locations. Put 2 Nuclear plants in QLD, the same in NSW and don't allow their power to go more than 300km from the plant then let the experiment run it's course on which system is better
@@Bunyipzhee hee hee you capture the suns energy with solar panels made with slave labour in China from rare earth elements that are unable to be easily recycled, make toxic landfill, and have to be replaced every 20 years. Its so funny
@@Bunyipz The sun is useful for, on average, 6 hours per day of power generation. Doesn't sound very sustainable or reliable to me.
Wow from the ABC with a real expert not an ideology expert.
ABC should listen.
LOL. The good doctor has a consultancy spruiking nuclear power. He doesn't have an ideology, he's just doing what he's been paid for. Pretty much like any politician you care to mention in either of the major parties.
Dr Adi is a brilliant advocate. Can we please have more of him!!!
Let the opposition provide a true measure of the 'all in' cost of nuclear. We are sick of Labour's lies.
Cost is a furphy. Bear in mind most domestic consumers and many small businesses will be able to minimise power costs with roof top solar.
The real issue is a stable reliable power supply to meet the bulk energy needs of industry. Some of this energy will still come from renewables like wind, but the stability and reliability of supply will come from nuclear.
I find that it is ludicrous that Albanese is trying to bring in a misinformation bill when all the misinformation has been generated by this woke Australian hating prime minister. He should’ve stood aside when he divided the nation with his stupid referendum that totally marginalised the great aboriginal people of this country and then he has just taken them off the agenda to make the idiot labour state premiers slide it all in even though the people voted NO. Now what is best for Australia is nuclear, which is used in nineteen out of twenty of the top nations in the world, he knows this but insists on bankrupting us with this woke alternate energy bs that only puts money into suppliers of wind and solar suppliers overseas. I guess when he retires like so many politicians he will end up on some board of these companies he has sold us out to. We can all kiss goodbye to this country courtesy of, our world touring ‘selfie’ with all the other high rolling Pms, he’s mates with.
You mean include all the costs of disposal of highly radioactive spent fuel, the cost of decommissioning in 50 years, the provisional cost of cleaning up after a leak of radioactive materials, the cost of importing a workforce, the cost of importing all of the materials required to build the thing (except concrete, we do know how to make that here).
Are those the costs you mean?
@@SafeTrucking All energy comes at a cost. Coal requires vast open cut mines, huge amounts of radioactive fly ash disposal, buggered atmosphere etc.
To get renewables to the scale needed to power Australia sustainably, we need about ten large scale pumped hydro systems comparable to Snowy Hydro 2 or alternatively comparable capacity chemical battery storage systems (about one thousand would do the job).
For hydro Australia probably only has three or four more really good sites, but these would have significant impact (flooded valleys etc).
Battery storage in particular presents huge disposal problems because of all the noxious chemicals involved.
All in all it depends what you want to put up with. Nuclear is very safe and reliable and over the life of the plant inexpensive.
The waste I don't think is an issue, we already have a suitable site at Maralinga used to store all the surplus plutonium from the nuclear bomb tests and we are committed to a fully engineered site to dispose of the nuclear sub reactors so all the elements are in place.
Overall though, what I like.most about nuclear is its small footprint and much better potential to support energy intensive industry (steel, aluminium, cement, chemicals, synfuel desalination etc) with all that means for jobs and prosperity.
@@SafeTrucking Yes, of course. "All in costs" so that we can better understand the cost of nuclear vs any and all options. Risks (which you touch upon) must also be factored in; although perhaps more difficult to tie down.
Thank you Adi 👏👏👏
Thank you Sarah
great information
That’s the type of person with the intelligence to stay on point of fact! Cold hard facts don’t have feelings and cannot be twisted by emotional politics and lies.
Well presented. Lets get on with it.
Amen, sing it to the masses brother!❤❤❤
If these are publicly available figures why isn’t the federal coalition using and quoting them.
Giving Labor rope to push out a bunch of lies and fearmongering, it's a stark contrast.
New York state just had one built for $32 billion, roughly similar to Australia.
Snowy Hydro project will chew up that much, and produce no power.
Roughly figures let's say 7 x $10b = $70bn.
Vs over $ trillion for renewables.
Maybe to let Labour Party bury themselves in hysteria of their own pre-historic propaganda
I am surprised Our ABC did nnot cut him off sooner.
Hard to believe there are people out there that still think renewable energy is low cost when each year as more renewables are added to the grid our power prices increase. My power cost from Origin went up 58% this year. I guess it’s not that hard to understand when you understand how many people thought the COVID vaccines were a good idea.
That's due to gas prices, not renewables. A commenter below details how AEMO sets the wholesale price, and it depends on gas, which has gone through the roof in the last couple of years. If you want to blame someone, blame Russia, not renewables. Likewise, and this is not to anything you've written but I want to address it anyway, the good Doctor's assertion that Finland's nuclear plant was the reason for the electricity price falling is overblown. Again, blame Russia for the starting price used in that optimistic story. Finland went from power poverty, because it banned the import of cheap Russian gas, to a glut caused by, yes, the opening of the nuclear plant, but also their hydro plants running at full capacity because of excessive meltwater, plus continued expansion of its wind generating capacity. I understand that the plant, which BTW was finished 14 years behind schedule, was throttled back because it was losing money, and will lose money regardless because it can't be turned off. This of course won't be forever but my point is that Dr Paterson is being, let's say, economical with the context.
1 kg of coal = 6 hours running a washing machine. Available 24/7
1 kg of oil. = 9 hours running a washing machine . Available 24/7
1 kg of wind and solar equivalent = less than 1 hour running a washing machine. Available only when the sun is shinning and the wind is blowing. Nominally 30% of the time.
1 kg of uranium = 2000 years running a washing machine. Available 24/7. WARNING - The washing machine may not last 2000 years.
I wonder which power source is more efficient.
What about 1 litre of gravity....
What about earthquake.Ill stick with coal any day
What does a kilogram of wind look like ? I know what it smells like. Bullshit.
@@moparmadman1134 "stick with coal any day" coal has the highest deaths per power produced while nuclear tied with wind has the lowest deaths per power produced....
This guy should lead the nuclear program
Excellent interview with Professor Adi, Excellent in the fact that he spoke WISDOM!!!!!! The ABC interviewer was not game to try and muddy the waters
Not interested in the Paris agreement, I'm interested in Australia and nuclear is an essential component.
The nuclear submarine cost will build twelve 1.1 GW nuclear reactors. The hundred of billions already wasted on renewables would have them payed for, up and running already.
Dutton needs this guy as a consultant and media spokesperson at EVERY news conference
Nuclear = New Clear NRG 100%.
Absolutely . It actually IS the green energy .
Bring it on.
I will vote yes for Nuclear power in Australia every day of the year.
My power bill is still unaffordable, EVEN WITH 22 solar panels and a 13kw battery.
Us Australians already pay so much for fuel, gas, food, rent , mortgages, insurances, goods, services.
Mandate higher Tax on our Gas exports. Government is losing 100s of billions in tax revenue due to corrupt insider deals.
Unnafordable? Or inconveniently high? There's a difference.
Double the grid means double the copper , sure the transmission uses aluminium for transmission along with the copper, but it's still gonna be double the copper. Then the government has a vision of widespread adoption of EVs , EVs need at least 70 kilorams of copper per vehicle. Where will all the copper come from ? It's clear that nuclear is a better deal and better for the environment.
it also means more induced current from solar flares into our grid which could and will cause it to totally fail, look up the 1859 super flare, we should be minimum our transmission lines and protecting against induced current but are doing the opposite...
Dr Adi Paterson speaks of the International Energy Agency reading from this Dr Fatih Birol, said politicians in Australia should be prioritising the country’s renewable energy sources over investing in new nuclear projects. So what expertise does Dr Adi Paterson have on renewables?
If nuclear makes economic sense why won't the private sector provide this.
If it is not a money pit why does the government need to be involved.
Would a nuclear scientist be biased as well. As soon as the typical installation is discussed he only wants to talk about the best case scenarios.
He is chair id Nuclear For Australia the name of this channel
Should removing any bans be separate from the actual commitment to build anything.
Should democratically made laws be recognised in a democracy?
Does a nuclear scientist have ant expertise in economics and the environment
Hallelujah ! The truth shall set you free! Finally someone that has the facts that we all know to be true. Thank you Dr Adi Paterson.
Thanks Will and Dr Paterson.. Keep fighting the good fight.
If we had a few more BScs than BAs in State Politics, we might have understanding of science and economics. If Jacinta and Lily have their ideological way in Victoria, we will be huddled round a candle and still paying record high bills.
I have a question for Oz. Japan has the worst history for nuclear catastrophes. Yet they still pursue nuclear energy. Do you think Japan knows something that the people in Oz don't? Perhaps they know the true cost and the more than acceptable safety concerns. Oz needs to look to Japan for guidance in my opinion.
I'd like to see the same in New Zealand.
We could power our whole country and have some left over to sell off.
But the Greenies would hate that.🤣
labor and their liars
Nah, just a simple case of "show me the money"...
I wonder who paid him for this spot?
Thank you Dr Peterson and also to the ABC interview.
Well done Sarah. Great questions-totally unbiased.....
So not biased in any way...? The problem is that no experts can be trusted to offer an unbiased bipartisan perspective. I want to see an end-to-end strategic framework of; location, timing, construction costs, maintenance costs over a life-time, waste facilities construction (costs & locations), waste management transfer strategies, risk planning, risk mitigation strategies and what catastrophes these risks are being based on. Answer this question, is 7x reactors truly enough to replace 17x coal plants? Dutton has also said no additional poles or wires are needed, that is just BS. With fewer generating locations it is fundamental logic to recognise additional wires for distribution will be necessary. Also what types of reactors are they, uranium v thorium, and why?
The fact Adi wheels out Will Shackel as part of his "argument" tells you all you need to know about his perspective & positioning..., it's a shame a legitimate & honest discussion is less achievable than touching the edge of the universe.
All we get from Labour is lies. Hold them to the same standards we expect of the opposition.
@@clives4501 who suggested otherwise? But keep in mind Labor are not spruiking an idea that is north of a 150 billion, and that’s just construction…, no maintenance, no waste management, no cost over lifetime…, so I suggest both parties manage & own any/all lies they spew…
Albos is trillions for poles and wires. Solar and wind are not 24/7 like nuclear. But hey! There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to refuse to believe what is true.
"recognize additional wires for distribution will be necessary" depends on how our grid is connected i guess might not be needed if they are actually sited at old coal sites as long as those 7 location are still interconnect with the 17 coal sites,
If LNP goers with liquid fueled reactors built in factories/shipyard they should be very cheap and safe compared to the probable solid fueled and water cooled(f no) built on site, nuclear reactors we will get sigh.
As we all know that the government will eventually sell the nuclear power houses to private business.
The labour party sold the shipping industry and Australia now has to relying on foreign owned shipping.
Can everyone please send this to Casanova Bowen and ask him too reply to each explanation from Dr Aldi
Great interview, knowledgable. The thing I admired is that the host actually listened and didnt continually interrupted Dr Paterson. Thank you, Sarah!
Finally. I've advocated this for years.
Yawn. ‘I told you so’ js the worst character trait in any argument.
@@michaelbee8263 Told you so and advocate are different in my view. Clearly you are a told you so person!!
And what's with the js..too lazy to spell?
@@garyhanley3477 grammar police, second worst trait
If you own a company that makes and services "renewables', then of course you would ban nuclear. Something stinks here. Renewable has money laundering written all over it.
Dr Adi Paterson is brilliant and has answered many of my questions, nuclear energy is the way to go in our country for our economy to thrive and affordable, reliable energy that reduces our cost of living.
Also surprised and happy to see the ABC presenting this.
Because investors in renewables are making a lot of money, they don't want low cost energy, they want to sell panels, turbines and batteries, why because they regenerate income in 10-15yrs when they need replacement. It's got nothing to with being green.
There has to be something in it for everyone. That’s how business and economies work. Unless you want to be a communist.
Bring on the Glow!! stuff the greenie wind and solar that ruins the landscape.
A nuclear malfunction would do more damage and radiation sickness is not a nice way to go. I want Steam emitting coal fired power any day
Nuclear fusion would be nice only leaves helium.. unlike the current dirty nuclear fission, which no matter how much lipstick this dipstick paints on it, will solve the radioactive isotope problem.
That's the ABC for you... didn't like what he was saying so then cutting away from the interview??
you know they have had him and will shackle on multiple times now, and they are the only people not regurgitating the rubbish from politicians, and the only people talking to actual experts. and they cut away because they have other stories, it's not the talk about nuclear energy all-day show.
I believe you. Got to be better than all the stupid wind towers and solar panels.
Whether Nuclear generated electricity is cheaper or more expensive is largely irrelevant if we wish to maintain our standard of living. If we wish to stop burning Fossil Fuels then Nuclear is the only option
i'm really happy this was on the abc! this definitely felt like a much more challenging interview than the others i've seen posted here, but you went really well :)
People do not realise just how important having reliable and affordable power is for the whole country , not just for the mums and dads and families, also for industry .
For a country’s economy just like your household economy , there are always fixed costs, electricity is one of those key costs , that if it is expensive, every single thing that happens in the country the cost goes up .
Running machines that process food , clothes, building materials, engineering shops , it is a snow ball effect , if electricity is expensive everything else becomes expensive.
And our politicians over decades have let the price of electricity skyrocket.
Nuclear makes absolute sense, we need reliable power and that is not windmills and solar panels.
These idiots in the labor forget to mention, those windmills are very expensive and they wear out !
Not to mention, one big storm can take a heap of them out and if things went pear shaped and wind mills went down , it could take months to repair or replace them.
Well done to the ABC for being impartial. For once. Nuclear is the way forward and needs intelligent debate
Brilliant!
Well, my respect for the ABC just went up a touch. Never thought I’d say it. Finally a conversation with facts.
Contaminated water clean up
"Radioactive Water" is actually somewhat vague, and it could mean a couple of different things. It could mean there is radioactive stuff in the water, which we can filter out via mechanical filters and ion exchangers, leaving clean water behind. This is pretty simple, and nuclear plants do this continuously, periodically changing the filters and ion exchangers to filter out more contaminants and trap radioactive particles suspended in the water.
Disposal of contaminated water
On the other hand, it could be what is called tritiated water, which is water that has become radioactive itself. Tritium is the isotope of concern there, and one that plants monitor very closely. Tritium has a relatively short half-life of about 12 years, so it isn't as if this water is permanently radioactive. It is still a radioactive material and deserves respect, but it is also probably the most benign form of radioactive material, given the low energy beta radiation it produces. Regardless, there is no really impactful change in the water between titrated and non-titrated water, so most plans use the water as is, and implement controls to segregate water which is titrated from water that isn't.
And coal emits steam
The Fukushima tritiated water releases are at 1500bq per L. Every other radionuclide has been filtered out. But as Tritium is just a heavy isotope of hydrogen and chemically identical…. You can’t filter hydrogen out of water.
So it is diluted to 1500 bq per L and released underwater, 1km out into the pacific. And even further diluted by the ocean.
1500 bq per L sounds like a lot…
Until you realise the ionising smoke detector on your ceiling has an activity of 430Kbq… (alpha particle i know, but)
So 1.5Kbq per L…. Go and google what the allowable limits are for Tritium in Australian tapwater…
All the scare mongering that occurred about this release… baseless.
get it out there....its a no brainer!
These are the guys who built or are still building Snowy 2.0 at five times the original cost and counting. Also way behind schedule but the nuclear lobby say they can build one on time and on budget? They also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Hinkley point C in the UK will cost just on $100 billion and will take 20 years to complete. And this is in a country with an established nuclear industry with all of the requisite skills and knowledge base, something that here in Australia is non existent. Sellafield in the UK will take up to 100 years and over $100 billion to remediate the site completely. Then there is the question of what to do with the waste and where are you going to build it. Once a site is declared the NIMBY"s will come out of the woodwork and tie it up in the courts for years. The whole idea was dreamed up on the back of a napkin by the fossil fuel industry to put a stick in the spokes of renewables knowing full well that they will never be built but give the climate deniers the excuse for defunding renewables. Tell them they're dreamin!
We should never stop coal - trees need carbon to grow and breathe. That is science, MSM
And how much would we save if we went to new clean coal powered energy, instead of going down the nuclear path. Takes longer to build costs much more to build and leaves a toxic waste that we will be leaving for future generations. Forget nuclear and get on with clean coal generation.
100%, let's get nuclear power plants up and running to reduce these ridiculous electricity prices
LOL, our "Environmental Heritage" - land clearing, cane toads, feral animals - our Environmental Heritage us nothing to criw about.
I think he's referring to what remains after it was decimated.
Renewables are not the answer, nuclear is the answer for reliable baseload power that modern Australia needs. Pity we didn't start having a nuclear future 20 years ago.
Well the CSIRO figures tie in with the Lazards and are accepted by others. So if he wants to argue they are wrong then he needs to publish his alternative figures for scrutiny else he's making it up.
There is a reason that so few Nuclear plants are being built around the world (approx 60 currently and it should be 600+) is COST and TIME to build. Nuclear is a great solution for fixing CO2. The world is not stupid and would be building these by the hundreds if they stacked up economically but they don't and the good Dr knows this.
That interview was a first in regards to ABC interviewers. She was fair in her questions and allowed the expert to have his say. A refreshing change other ABC mouth pieces for Labor should take note of.
Brilliant to hear an expert talk through the bull.
Using underground small scale nuclear facilities to support renewable energy would be very smart. Sites built 80 metres underground is a wise practical measure as insurance. With concrete lined and heavily reinforced reactors that are sealed units replaced every 25 years, installed through a central shaft . Howard put the bans in to avoid election hassles from unions. This interview is excellent with substance based business integrity.
They can actually just stick them in the coal plant and just change the process. Bit cheaper.
One of the main benefits of nuclear is large generation in one spot. Decentralising it only weakens the case.
A big problem with government's renewables only policy is there is a $50-80bn hole in the investment required for energy storage and distribution.
By my calculation we will need about 2,000GWhrs storage at the 14GW rate that is not yet brought to account. It appears rhe government is planning to plug this gap with gas generation, however, this doesnt solve the greenhouse gas problem.
The nuclear option would solve this problem.
I had friends who worked at Fukushima Nuclear plant. They gave their lives trying to close it down after the nuclear accident in 2011. All ground water around the site, and any rain that falls on the site is now contaminated. The internet states nobody died as a result of the accident. This is untrue. Five people I knew personally died from radiation poisoning. The last one died in 2019.
Fukushima was not a failing of the nuclear plant, it was hit by a tsunami!
Do you think no one would die in a coal fired power plant if hit by a tsunami?
Yep coal any day
Claiming inside personal knowledge without being able to independently source and verify it, simply does not pass the smell test on the internet. Especially when you use a handle that is anonymous.
@@philipwilkie3239 Naming personal friends isn't 'inside knowledge', it's personal and private knowledge. For information on Fukushima, go to any library. Even the internet has limited information that will enlighten you.
You build next too the ocean and get flooded by a wave is a silly issue of location.
Dr. Adi Paterson is not a politician, he's a honest person, thanks God.
Apart from the fact he is partial to nuclear because it's his field...
Fantastic response. I’m surprised the ABC would let this one air
One for Dr Paterson. Can he explain why France, with 70% of their electricity provided by nuclear, doesn't have much cheaper prices than Australia?
Are there other costs included in the French figures which are not applied to Australian pricing? Is it because they have too many plants not running at peak efficiency?
France does have much cheaper electricity than Australia. Australian electricity is around the 4th most expensive in the world and likely to climb further up the chart!
Do you think the French people would tolerate expensive electricity?
They would be rioting in the streets.
ABC host did such a good job being friendly, sticking to the facts, and being friendly in contrast, Dr Adi Paterson was a bit cranky at times and dismissive. Like North America and Europe recent experience with Nuclear experience with high costs doesn't matter/not relevant. If large percentage of the worlds Nuclear is in Europe and north America, than maybe their experience with Nuclear is relevant. Also he doesn't discuss how renewable energy and nuclear would work together,
and the big problem with nuclear power is its not flexible, can't easily reduce nuclear when solar is going strong. Dr Adi Paterson discusses some fair criticism of wind power in Queensland having to cut trees down to make space. But what about offshore wind power? Also renewable energy will be matched with storage such as batteries and pumped hydro to help with intimacy, not renewable energy by itself like he mentions. Also like Most discussions about energy Dr Adi Paterson doesn't mention other options such as Solar thermal with storage, which would have broad support and be a form of renewable energy and nuclear power in a way because it uses energy from the sun. Also 10-12 years is too long time frame. Would majority of people support Nuclear power, if it would lead to more expensive power bills?
> Like North America and Europe recent experience with Nuclear experience with high costs doesn't matter/not relevant.
You're right! Let's check out the American costs - California with 40%+ intermittent wind/solar and Georgia with a recently build, but SUPER-expensive NPP, and Illinois with 50% nuclear.
eia.gov data (US cents/kWh) average retail prices, average residential prices; site is easy to use and you can check my numbers:
and for March 2024
12.73 - US retail
16.68 - US residential
(super expensive nuclear; with massive cost overruns from plant Vogtle)
10.65 - GA retail
13.57 - GA residential
(super expensive nuclear; with 50% nuclear)
11.53 - IL retail
16.10 - IL residential
(super cheap wind/solar; can really feel that low, low, low LCOE)
25.81 - CA retail
32.47 - CA residential
So, not only is the nuclear GA rate lower than the solar/wind CA rate, it is lower than the US overall!
OK! American experience with nuclear costs relevant! And totally pro-nuclear!
> Also he doesn't discuss how renewable energy and nuclear would work together,
Ahhh! You believe the goal is to have lots of RE? The goal is to:
* (primarily) meet the demand load
* have lower retail costs
* reduce emissions
'playing nice together' isn't a goal - and if wind/solar can't do that, then why are we considering them?
> and the big problem with nuclear power is its not flexible, can't easily reduce nuclear when solar is going strong.
> Also renewable energy will be matched with storage such as batteries and pumped hydro to help with [intermittency]
You believe that storage only works with RE electricity? Let me just point out that nuclear-generated electricity is just as good for charging storage as other types of electricity. WITH THE ADVANTAGE, that due to the predictability of nuclear and the demand load, you can schedule charging very efficiently - versus inefficiently creating extra storage assets because you're unsure of charging times, thus either over- or under-building those storage assets.
> Also like Most discussions about energy Dr Adi Paterson doesn't mention other options such as Solar thermal with storage
Yes, in America the Ivanpah Solar Thermal plant was quite efficient in removing desert tortoise habitat! Fantastic technology for reducing biodiversity!
> Also 10-12 years is too long time frame.
Agreed!
In the late 1970s-1980s, France took 15 years to build out their 70% grid penetration nuclear, leading to low costs and low (near the bottom of European nations) per-capita/per-GDP emissions for decades. Waaaay too freakin' long.
In 2011 to the present, 13 years, Germany has attempted to build out wind/solar; they have reached over 40% penetration, leading to some of the highest electricity costs in Europe and WELL OVER THE AVERAGE of European per-capita/per-GDP emissions. Wait, that is ALSO Waaaay too freakin' long - and not nearly enough progress. Well, let's give them the extra 2 years to make it up and show us how badly the French have failed.
> Would majority of people support Nuclear power, if it would lead to more expensive power bills?
See above! Nuclear doesn't lead to expensive electricity.
brilliant
I am a greens voter, nuclear supporter.
Find a new environmental party to support. The Australian Greens are just far left radicals hiding under a green blanket
Yes I was in much the same camp myself for a period - until the contradictions became too much for me. Still it is possible - the Finnish Green Party came out a few years back to formally support nuclear IIRC.
Thank god for this man's voice and knowledge...and about time an ABC journo let someone talk that didn't agree with ABC's typical agenda
Thank goodness media is finally talking to experts
Like our submarines, we are living on Fantasy Island.