@@peterzervospz ,,,there is technology that has been supressed that can neutralize the waste . one was the ripple technology used in a test where the fallout was nearly zero... the was demonstrated on msm years ago using radio isotope and cold fusion,,,,it took minutes ,,
@@peterzervospz most of the water used in a nuclear plant is cycled through to cool the turbines. It is not radioactive. The volume of water inside the reactor is very minimal. It is processed and managed as necessary.
@@peterzervospzclosed loop cooling system with a heat exchanger. You’ll get more radiation exposure from natural uranium in coal ash from a coal power station than radiation from a nuclear power station.
I’m amazed, Dan Repacholi, a bloke without any formal qualifications in nuclear engineering, apparently knows more about the subject than a highly qualified and experienced scientist. And here I was, being led to believe that Labor are against misinformation. It would seem that the only “truth” that is acceptable to them, is the “truth” that suits their agenda, anything else is obviously a lie.
@@anthonynixon6193what? That at least 50% of the time wind are solar don’t produce electricity? What’s your solution to that? Storage, load shedding or coal? You can build as much wind and solar as you want: supply will never match demand. No amount of demand shaping changes that curve. Excess solar when it does produce destabilising prices is not a good thing. Because when it doesn’t produce prices go through the roof. So you have a physics problem. Storage. What’s your plan hotshot? If it’s batteries then you are an amateur.
@rogerjamespaul5528Just do the maths. On the assumption that Australia built 7 modern nuclear power plants that could run for 50 years without replacement, which was s not unreasonable, the comparative all up costs, versus an equivalent intermittent renewables would be: Nuclear System: $234 to $308 billion over 50 years Renewable System: $490 to $910 billion over 50 years In addition to being up to 3 times more costly the renewables system would not be as reliable as the nuclear system because of the renewables reliance on sun and wind.
@@Roy-ho6ii with your hypothetical plan still requires significant investment in other power sources as 7 nuclear reactors would not cover more than 20% of demand. Again who has the most some of the highest power prices in Canada? And who has had to fund the losses of the nuclear? It’s the tax payer of Ontario with the deficit basically entire nuclear program, while there is still no final waste plans.
@@johnlonghurst9265 That boofhead asks a question then says "I only have limited time". He then proceeds to cut the Doctor off when he tries to answer. Then asks a question and suggests that it is a yes or no answer. However, the Doctor wasn't about to be railroaded.
@rogerjamespaul5528 why do you want to demolish at 35 years? Evedence is available to support 80 years of use. And what's wrong with you using the internet? CSIRO has your answer. Ballpark AU$9Bn so go 2Bn per year during the build cycle (you have to allow for our grubby swill troughing pollies have had a feed, a couple of houses each at least!). Running costs should be $200-$250 per megawat hour so budget $300 to feed the crooked union scumbags. And you should have your figure.
The Chairman didn’t want to listen. This was not an exercise in fact finding. It was a politician going through the motions of listening to expert advice with no intention of having a semblance of an open mind.
Dan's literally asking good questions that we should have the answers too. His job is to investigate the subject and the doctors doing a great job of explaining it.
Nothing Labour under Casanova Bowen will not lessen to reason. That Dumb Idiot with Albo have gone all the way with renewables. Let’s see what happens if Trump wins with our nuclear Submarines .
The only mistake he made was not to focus every question on the financials because the issue is not how long it will take to commission or how safe it is or who is going to pay for or manage it but what impact will it have on the retail price of power. So my question to you is to answer the question that should have been put to the Dr Paterson. This is simply a test of your competency.
Nail on head. My concern is that Bowen & his like, will send us so far down the renewables road that we will reach the point of no return. One test might be 'is there sufficient interest in nuclear' that the public would be willing to invest in it. I suspect there is indeed huge interest. Can the same be said of renewables?
@rogerjamespaul5528 nuclear reactors have a life of more than 80yrs not 35yrs.solar panels have only a 25yr life span and I believe wind turbines are about 20 yrs. So I'm not sure where you got your information from about that a nuclear power plant only has a 35 year life span !!!!!!!!
@rogerjamespaul5528 And not Only any nuclear waste Australia makes but with thus Aukus thing we will also have UK and America nuclear waste to contend with
@@mrspeaker6720 no trumpet mouth… it is you who is incompetent and ignorant. Go read some books on the topic. May even start at the bottom with Helen Caldicots book…. You can only go up from there.
@polarbear7255 I must admit, it's the first time in my life I've been called a "trumpet mouth." If only you put your talent for insults into understanding anything to do with energy.
@@mrspeaker6720oh but I have good sir, i have. For the last 20 years… which is why I’m not bothered by your shallow assertions. You have already demonstrated you lack the understanding to make informed comments. Especially when you try to denigrate those who support nuclear by trying undermine their credentials. Unless you are an engineer and have a background in nuclear reactors and energy generation then you should respect what Dr Patterson has stated. You may not agree with it, but it is the truth no less. So go ahead…. I’m ready for you to quote Lazards and LCOE and gencost at me now…😂 As if I haven’t heard and picked holes in all of those before. Nuclear in Australia is inevitable: because there is no other affordable option if you want to replace coal on our grid.
@@polarbear7255 mate, if you don't disagree with a single thing the doctor said about the planning, legal and economic obstacles to nuclear power in Australia, then you can't be taken seriously. You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of an admittedly complex topic.
@buildmotosykletist1987 it's whenever he's moving his mouth. A more specific example is when he insists nuclear is entirely doable in a short space of time. It's not, and saying so shreds his credibility.
@buildmotosykletist1987 I gave you a specific answer. If you can't be bothered, that's on you. Now have a good day, while the adults are working and having important conversations.
When an irresistible force (facts) meets an immovable object (stupid political ideologies), something has to give. Forget politics and just do whatever works. The world changes, and we all need to change with it.
I am sick of Albo, although my local labor politician appears to be OK, but then they have all learned to smile and nod, even when they disagree with you.
What can you do? Dont be tribal! Push for true debate, better pollies. Tell them! Ring them! Email them! And maybe try an independent candidate in the next election. What ever you do, dont give up cos thats when the major parties take it all and leave us with ... rhymes with zit
whilst I've been an advocate for nuclear reactors/energy for decades, Australia's electricity infrastructure (sub-stations, transformers, towers, cables, etc) is old & fragile. Seems pointless to build & run reactors if the existing electricity network can't cope ??
@rogerjamespaul5528One nuclear reactor? Full size? I'd hate to think what it would cost. If it's anything like Olkiluoto 3 it'll be 3x who know 4x the estimated price. 20 billion each? I think that would be very very conservative guesstimate. 30 billion each? Depends on the cost of oil and other variables which fluctuate.
It is ridiculous to have a politician with no expertise in nuclear, probably not in anything, arguing facts with a world-renowned nuclear expert. Dan, you sound as foolish as you look.
@@DJ70404 in fact quire the opposite is true. What woukd happen if tsunami displaces a large nuclear station and radiation starts leaking. Or such similat event. Placing nuclear station on land is VERY stupid. In france the rivers are starting to heat up due to nuclear plants. Such absurd stupidity and cover up of true facts is a DISGRACE
Indeed. I'd like to see a panel of well respected experts for and against, sit together and field questions from the public, so that we can see & hear for ourselves and arrive a better understanding of the Pros & Cons.
@@WilliamBlinky the RIVERS in france are WARMING UP due to nuclear plants. In future they might start BOILING. Sorry but no "quacky so called expert" can predict the outcome of nuclear plant uses. The reason they want nuclear is because the AI technology can not be sustaimed with normal electricity production. Those AI towers use more then the entire country uses for their normal use. That is why these well paid experts come up with bs to convince people that nuclear is good and safe. I would like to see their paypackets. Sorry but I do not trust any nuclear expert. They need to FULLY come up with all possible solutions in case of nuclear catastrophy. Which they cant and wont. Money talks and bs walks
This is what it looks like when a person who's career path specialises in fibbing, ideology, and bossing folk about, attempts to critically question a specialist who's career path has focussed on the subject at hand. Our political system is stuffed. Our elections are designed to select the best liar.
As an Australian who has lived in Europe now for years, I can tell you that the wind generators which litter this once-beautiful countryside lie dormant for much of the time due insufficient wind. Many fail and the blades are feathered, rendering them useless at producing electricity, although the running costs, including rent and maintenance, continue. When they do operate, they kill birds, provide a serious hazard for crop dusters, and further, the installed base only contributes 9% of this country's energy production at full-tilt (which is very rare). They are costly to build and install; the land on which they are constructed must be either purchased or rented. In the case of terrestrial installations, the land is usually either farm or vacant land, and the investment's worth cannot be linked to the land's current utilization of energy production, it will appear as an asset on the balance sheet, but it will prove a poor investment simply due to its nature. Marine installations are even worse, they are extremely expensive to build and maintain due to the harsh environment. That expensive maintenance is also dangerous to maintenance workers, and the whole installation is hazardous to certain marine life. Wind generators have a limited life, and require regular costly and dangerous maintenance including lubricating oil replenishment. The end-of-life processes are not clearly defined, and as with their resource sapping and costly contruction, deconstruction is problematic and expensive. They are clearly not a viable solution even though the magic of "energy for free" is alluring. The politicians in Australia who are championing wind energy as a "magic wand solution" for energy production, are a ridiculously impractical group of under-education and under-informed people, they view this as an "experiment" at the taxpayer's expense and have not undertaken sufficient reseach on viability even though much data is now available. Don't go there!
You forgot one thing the bloody sub harmonic they produce and its effect on humans and animals ,then the visual pollution ,the dead birds BUT the harmonic is the problem
So so true ! I was standing on the beach looking out to sea at an off shore wind turbine just yesterday when a whale ran into it causing it to collapse hitting a flock of seagulls then landing on a cruise ship Tragically no survivors ! 🐳🕊️🚢 😱
Don't worry about red tape bullshit get on and build them, 29 other countries don't go through this bulshit that's the problem with this country too much talk no action.
@mrspeaker6720 Yes I do tell me how long this has been going for as I can remember over twenty years, and things have gotten worse and it not going to get better, just ask the Broken Hill residents that have stupid renewables and it fail to a point of no power for over a week so all business are not going to compensated are they no, so who cares about the Australian people certainly not the Emperor, he hasn't got a backbone at least DUTTON has made a call that will change this country forever, its funny how other countries can get on and achieve these sort of problems and we just fall away the way side.
@@Poorlineforeva costs too much compared to what? An intermittent renewable solution that has never worked anywhere and has been a costly failure overseas?
@@Poorlineforeva he literally told you it takes the same amount of time for wind turbines! This is the dangerous ignorance making Australians suffer we are talking about! You and your ignorant ilk.
@@Poorlineforeva Takes too long (to build I assume) is a stupid argument. It takes f-ing ages to build a PC solar plant capable of 10% of a nuclear plant too. Cost... Well to start with, at best, solar is half the cost per kWh than nuclear. But that's just the panels and inverters. You're going to need an absolute crap tonne of batteries to store up enough to cover overnight periods. And cloudy days. And then you'll need extra solar panels to cover the charging of the batteries so they're not flat when it gets dark the next day or you've had 3 cloudy days in a row. And when you add all that up, at absolute best case, solar is going to be basically the same cost, but take up vast areas of farmland that used to grow your dinner, and be unreliable at times when the sun doesn't shine as much as we'd all like (like during a stormy week in winter, for example).
@rogerjamespaul5528 Modern nuclear powerplants are designed for a 40 to 60 year life. The cost will be less than the cost of building enough battery storage and changing it out every 10 years, extending the grid to renewable power generation sites scattered all over the countryside. continual cleaning of solar panels and replacing them and the wind turbine blades every 20 years. Probably also requires gas turbine power stations to make up for wind droughts and overcast weather conditions.
I work in the electrical industry. Labor is wrong wrong wrong. They have no ideas what they are talking about. Only a bunch of morons would not use the existing grid. Labor’s plan is complete and utter nonsense. It frustrates the shit out of me.
In the electrical industry? As what? An electrician? Are you an engineer that works for AEMO whose job is to look atva whole system plan? No? Well they have looked at it, and it can be done cheaply with renewables and rolled out at speed.
@@keepitreal2902and need replacement of wind and solar farms in 20years, will the Chinese production of them still be cheap considering they will be far ahead of Oz as an industrialised nation powered by a base load system of their own 😮 Oz won’t even be able to power any data centres
@@keepitreal2902 solar farms are an array of solar panels. Solar panels last about 25 years, not 50. Therefore solar farms, whilst the overall facility may be the same, will not be made of 50 year old solar panels. The good Dr made a similar point with regard to battery life expectancy.
@@keepitreal2902 I don't know where you get yours from! But off the top of my head - GARBAGE. OK - You supply evidence to substantiate your claims Reality is: Wind: 20 to 25 years - less if in the marine environment - and which work on average about 28% of a given day Solar: Vastly improved in recent years, but even commercial panels with a 12 to 18 year operational life Batteries: 8 to 10 years Just think - the hundreds of billions of dollars extorted from us so that Straya can "save the planet" we are going to be feeding China every say 15 years. Don't know if you have joined the dots, but that's not only STUPID< but has and is empowering our demonstrated, belligerent, expansionist enemy.
Why is the govt ok with buying 6 nuclear reactors to put in submarines underwater but say nuclear is too dangerous and difficult to build on stable land for power generation?
@@mrspeaker6720 _Nuclear power for propulsion is different from nuclear energy generation._ It's generated in *exactly* the same way, and it also heats water to create steam which drives one or more steam turbines. How can you talk such nonsense? The difference is the scale and that in a submarine they're space and weight constrained. That means they can't implement safety measures that will violate those constraints. Safety measures which are available to a nuclear plant on land. The crew of a nuclear submarine is also much closer to the nuclear plant than is the case on land. It's amazing how much nonsense mediocre intellects will talk if it suits them without doing any research. Subsequently, they're easy to refute. Against stupidity, not even the gods can contend. I forgot who said that.
Well done Adi, that was brilliant. If you plan everything out properly, you'd be amazed what can be achieved. So much for not having a nuclear industry when we absolutely do already. Lift the ban & see the private sector sort itself out.
It doesn’t matter what facts you have , what qualifications you have or what experience you have,or what science you provide,socialists will always know better. Ideology trumps all.
@rogerjamespaul5528 What will be the total cost of building a whole new power grid and buying up most of the prime agricultural land? What will be the cost of replacing and demolishing all the unreliable solar and wind farms after 8 years? What do we do with the tonnes of heavy metals from the dead solar panels and the poisonous concrete/metal broken windmills? If you want to compare know your facts first. The costs are far greater in every category for the Unreliables and you need to buy more poisonous batteries which is more future heavy metal waste. Unrelaibles cost more and the people pay more for its power in subsidies and bills.
What do we with the waste you say? well we simply burn it in liquid fueled reactors that burn up over 90% of the fuel and the left over waste takes about 300 years to get back to background levels of radiation, compared to solid fueled reactors that burn about 1% of the fuel and taking 10,000 years...plus the waste is alot safer since most of the bad stuff has been burned up in the liquid fuel reactor.
Pretty reasonable questions - how long would it take, and how come you think we can do it faster than countries better set up to do it. Unfortunately, the doctor has the ability to sound reasonable while speaking absolute twaddle.
The trouble is, what is the truth? Who do you trust? Well you have to be sure of the vested interests - ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS (CURRENTLY NON-) DEBATE. Wow, govt and corporate secrecy and private interests have shattered all ability to get things done for the right reasons.
That's right,let's just stick to the facts, they're to expensive to build,to expensive to run and it takes ten years just to get one up and running. We want energy now not in ten years and all you're doing is supplying f all of our needs
@@russe19642 short sighted ignorance on display by you. You have no perspective and display a lack of critical thinking ability. All you stated are common misconceptions about nuclear energy that are proven to be false.
Dan Repacholi bit off a bit more than he could chew. He was trying to tell Adi Paterson that he knew more than him. What an intelligent man Adi was answering all questions.
@@mrspeaker6720 you misspelled… oh wait… you haven’t posted anything of substance on this entire comments section. You do know that anti nuclearism is primarily political right? You are a classic example of exactly that. Because you clearly don’t understand the physics and engineering. There are no safety, economic, technical or security reasons not to build nuclear power stations in Australia. What’s your next excuse? ‘Oh but batteries’ …😂
@@polarbear7255 I haven't posted any lies, you've got to give me credit for that. Nuclear is technically possible, sure. But it is not remotely cost effective, and anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
@@mrspeaker6720 Except it is cost effective. The US DOE report this year clearly demonstrates that a mixed grid of renewables with nuclear is at least 30% cheaper per kWh to the consumer. Which is what actually matters. The original promise with nuclear was ‘energy too cheap to meter’ and that still applies… An energy company can keep power prices down and still make a profit. The problem is intermittent power generation has destabilised the grid driving prices negative when solar does produce more than needed. That is a massive problem… for so many reasons. But that is the tip of the iceberg as far as problems with intermittent generation goes…
@polarbear7255 except it's not, when you have to start from zero. Honestly, for someone who claims to be knowledgeable, you're getting the basics completely wrong.
True the Japanese government banned anybody from speaking out about the Fukushima disaster. It's apparently a state secret ! You'll do jail time if you dare to say anything apparently.
wow that professor knows his stuff and the politician is just getting in the way, I don’t know much about nuclear energy but I’m willing to listen and I think most Australians might feel that way too
So the Chair waffled on using time then told the Prof be quick with your answers. What is it with the anti-nuclear brigade? Anyone would think we are talking about Count Dracula. I also note they have now given up on the safety aspect and purely hammering cost and feasibility. Bring on Peter Dutoon please.
Dr Paterson could plan for the construction of nuclear reactors within 11 years, but that bearded muppet would have trouble planning his trip to and from Parliament House. How do these people get elected!
@@matt_kj lifting the ban is never going to happen. Get used to it. We have no nuclear industry whatsoever. They don't grow on trees. It's a fairy tale powered by unicorn poo.
He offered to work with him To educate him about nuclear energy. Let’s see if he accepts. Don’t think so Sleazy Albo and Dumb Casanova Bowen will not Let him. He is just a puppet. Fill sorry for the people that voted for him.
1:57 "Is there something about the southern hemisphere that we don't know?" The south side of the globe is a pathway to many abilities *_some consider to be unnatural._*
Clear rebuttal to a biased chair. Well done, Adi. Dan sounded like he has been listening to the biased ABC news reports against nuclear. What doesn't Labour understand in logical arguments to ensure affordable base load power 24/7/365 with their intermittent solar and wind generators? Dan, is concerned with timing, so how long will it take to deliver Snowy 2.0 and all the transmission lines? Get real Labour!
It'll take more than 11 years just to build all the batteries they'll need to cover overnight periods, particularly in winter. Meanwhile they'd also like you driving electric cars and using electric heating instead of gas, which means even more batteries.
@@king_kiff3969 When the lights go out, either for technical reasons or prohibitive cost to consumers, Labour won't be in power! It won't be long now, and also for any unlearned polys who refuse to think for themselves.
if its the answer why no LNP costings ? why does it have to be public ownership ? why couldnt they get GE or someone to do it privately they would love to have a 50 year contract to sell us power right>?? I will tell you why... because SOLAR IS PROVIDING ELECTRICITY DURING MIDDAY AT ZERO c/KW RETAIL!!! Private Firms are Building battery farms at ZERO TAX PAYER DOLLARS, buying at zero and selling at peak.... This is whole issue is a culture war, not about best prices to tax payers, but about wedge politics at your expense....
Answer: Bother to understand the so called "United" Nations, and in that terrible, bloated monster is your answer. I strongly suggest this introduction: The UN’s DARK Agenda: What You’re Not Being Told About Agenda 2030 ua-cam.com/video/_2K2CbC7ppA/v-deo.html
Australia is also unique in that the power requirements are in centres thousands of kilometers apart which is why your distribution costs would be high. It means that an intergrated system of network and supply sources is better than trying to distribute power for 1000 plus kms. Theres lots of older engineering experts that have already addressed this but instead we have genius kids out of university with no actual experience telling us the wind and the sun run 24/7!...
Pay the workers well, and keep idiot communists, and other corrupt money grubbing idiots out of the unions and all will be well. I was at one time a union member, we worked hard on a productivity bonus system and were well paid, and we hardly ever had union problems, except when the politicians stuffed up the economy.
The workers are the Union. It’s the corruption that’s infiltrated the administration of the Unions that is the issue which is why the BCC was established but there has to be someone looking out for the workers safety and conditions and you can’t rely on the government for that. They would not hesitate in screwing over the workforce.
haha bullshit. It concentrates the ability to supply power into a handful of companies who will proceed to gouge the shit out of everyone. BUT IT'S """GREEN""" AMIRITE?
Wow! If that was a football match between Team Paterson and Team Repacholi, the score would be 10-0 with Team Repacholi having scored several own goals along the way.
Out of curiosity, couldnt you build a new reactor next to a coal plant being closed down? The Steam Turbines are already there, cooling towers/ponds etc, the power grid tie in...
@@HebrewHammerArmsCo that’s pretty much their plan mate. No new wires needed for the grid. Already good supplies of cooling water etc. Common sense plan for constant base load energy supply.
We should have had nuclear power decades ago. Absolutely ridiculous that we do not have it. So much room to put a dozen nuclear plants and more uranium than you can poke a stick at. We need to get the ALP/Greens coalition out asap so we can get our country back and move forward.
Decades ago it would have been nuclear fission, which is like a nuclear bomb in your backyard, but soon it will be nuclear fusion, which is a very different thing.
@@aussieboy408 Oh no whatever will we do until then??? If only we had coal and gas reserves to tide us over to something safer than fission comes along.
@@mrspeaker6720 Has your doctor been giving you the wrong medication. You could call lifeline, Dr Phil or Oprah for some counselling in difficult times like this. Could the problem be substance abuse? It really sounds like ewe need a hug and a box of tissues, maybe some cheese and crackers to go with your whine, Mrs Peaker. We all hope you get better soon. XXX
Well done Adi Paterson, the issue here is that these people just dont want to know, they have their head in the sand…..bring on a Federal Election and lets get it done as the current lot do not have the stomach to say we had it wrong!
I like how the guys on the board ask a complex question and then give the Dr a small amount of minutes to answer, but the Dr made that bearded guy look like a fool. Australia needs nuclear full stop.
@@AviationSports1978 Rapachilearoundit or whatever his name is doesn’t need much help to make him look like a fool. But could you imagine the good Dr in a debate with Bowen. That would be amazing to watch
That’s the difference between an expert and an amateur. Why, and it’s always blown me away does the government be it whatever party always place people with no experience as chairs for these topics. A lot of these pollies that have been voted in by people that are either stupid, naive or believe the lies need to be held accountable for the money they waste.
The legislation for nuclear already exists because we already have a reactor. The workforce required already exists too from the mining industry. There's very little difference between building a mine plant and building a reactor An example of that was Aitons who were one of the major contractors at Olympic Dam who were specialist power station builders. During construction of Olympic Dam they had a workforce of about 3,000 men all up so man power isn't a problem. This workforce specialised in construction and it followed the work where ever it was needed.
Dr. Paterson is highly intelligent & very knowledgeable and he should be listened to . Dan Repacholi is simply an alp politician trying to not wanting to upset the loopy greens incase there is need for preferences in the next election. Personally I worked on Tarong & Gladstone power stations 36+ years ago and the timing is ticking both old plants , renewable have their place but we need guaranteed base load. The wind does blow the sun doesn't blow we sit in the dark.
Repacholi could only try and rush the good doctor so he wouldn't get time to give the details. But the brilliant doctor took down the clueless Repacholi and virtually told him how construction of nuclear power plants could be achieved.
Support our campaign to legalise nuclear power: nuclearforaustralia.com/factsnotpolitics
Why?
I do not consent why don't we have a referendum on it let the general Australian public decide.
@@peterzervospz ,,,there is technology that has been supressed that can neutralize the waste .
one was the ripple technology used in a test where the fallout was nearly zero...
the was demonstrated on msm years ago using radio isotope and cold fusion,,,,it took minutes ,,
@@peterzervospz most of the water used in a nuclear plant is cycled through to cool the turbines. It is not radioactive. The volume of water inside the reactor is very minimal. It is processed and managed as necessary.
@@peterzervospzclosed loop cooling system with a heat exchanger. You’ll get more radiation exposure from natural uranium in coal ash from a coal power station than radiation from a nuclear power station.
I’m amazed, Dan Repacholi, a bloke without any formal qualifications in nuclear engineering, apparently knows more about the subject than a highly qualified and experienced scientist.
And here I was, being led to believe that Labor are against misinformation. It would seem that the only “truth” that is acceptable to them, is the “truth” that suits their agenda, anything else is obviously a lie.
He may be the New Czar for the climate crisis
@@kilburn1313one might argue that anyone could be better than Bowen!
Dan could never be accused of being smart.
@@kilburn1313 Paterson is paid by the Labor Federal Government as a matter of in interest.
typical sadly jobs for the boys....
You can't make any difference to an opinion already formed in ignorance.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, even when he is completely wrong and does not know what he is talking about.
Perhaps the good Dr Should have been called out on his misrepresentation as to the efficacy of Solar and Wind generation.
@@anthonynixon6193what? That at least 50% of the time wind are solar don’t produce electricity?
What’s your solution to that? Storage, load shedding or coal?
You can build as much wind and solar as you want: supply will never match demand. No amount of demand shaping changes that curve. Excess solar when it does produce destabilising prices is not a good thing. Because when it doesn’t produce prices go through the roof.
So you have a physics problem. Storage.
What’s your plan hotshot?
If it’s batteries then you are an amateur.
@rogerjamespaul5528Just do the maths. On the assumption that Australia built 7 modern nuclear power plants that could run for 50 years without replacement, which was s not unreasonable, the comparative all up costs, versus an equivalent intermittent renewables would be:
Nuclear System: $234 to $308 billion over 50 years
Renewable System: $490 to $910 billion over 50 years
In addition to being up to 3 times more costly the renewables system would not be as reliable as the nuclear system because of the renewables reliance on sun and wind.
@@Roy-ho6ii with your hypothetical plan still requires significant investment in other power sources as 7 nuclear reactors would not cover more than 20% of demand.
Again who has the most some of the highest power prices in Canada? And who has had to fund the losses of the nuclear? It’s the tax payer of Ontario with the deficit basically entire nuclear program, while there is still no final waste plans.
The brilliant Doctor running rings around the ignorant and incompetant boofheads.
😂😂😂Absolutely
@@johnlonghurst9265 That boofhead asks a question then says "I only have limited time". He then proceeds to cut the Doctor off when he tries to answer. Then asks a question and suggests that it is a yes or no answer. However, the Doctor wasn't about to be railroaded.
@rogerjamespaul5528 Why are you asking me? I'm not an expert on the subject. I'm just commenting on that boofheads attitude.
@rogerjamespaul5528 why do you want to demolish at 35 years? Evedence is available to support 80 years of use.
And what's wrong with you using the internet? CSIRO has your answer. Ballpark AU$9Bn so go 2Bn per year during the build cycle (you have to allow for our grubby swill troughing pollies have had a feed, a couple of houses each at least!). Running costs should be $200-$250 per megawat hour so budget $300 to feed the crooked union scumbags. And you should have your figure.
Pretty sure they last longer than 35 years. The longer it takes to start the more it will cost. We need a mixture of energy sources.
The prejudice from the chair is palpable.
another word to describe it would be "obvious" ... another would be "moronic" but then again what do you expect
did he used to work for the ABC?
Well the haircut and beard says it all for me , plus trying to talk over the other person
Sadly Dan R represents the Hunter. While I’m from that electorate, he does not represent me at all. He’s a buffoon!
Grab a tissue sport.
The Chairman didn’t want to listen. This was not an exercise in fact finding. It was a politician going through the motions of listening to expert advice with no intention of having a semblance of an open mind.
What it sounded like to me
As per usual.
Dan's literally asking good questions that we should have the answers too. His job is to investigate the subject and the doctors doing a great job of explaining it.
Bravo, Dr Paterson!
You misspelt `Dan'
Gosh a lesson in obfuscation he just got asked the wrong questions by the Minister.
@@anthonynixon6193 he got asked reasonable questions, he just couldn't answer them convincingly
@@mrspeaker6720 you got a big mouth for a troll. Shame it just spews propaganda and nonsense
@polarbear7255 why is it always projection with you?
that Labour senator was competently BLOWN out of the Water....What is he going to tell Casanova BOWEN
Nothing Labour under Casanova Bowen will not
lessen to reason.
That Dumb Idiot with Albo have
gone all the way with renewables.
Let’s see what happens if Trump wins with our nuclear
Submarines .
You don't tell Casanova anything you just leave him in the corner eating crayons
@MarkHardstaff-i3tbot!
@MarkHardstaff-i3tBot or flog!!
The only mistake he made was not to focus every question on the financials because the issue is not how long it will take to commission or how safe it is or who is going to pay for or manage it but what impact will it have on the retail price of power. So my question to you is to answer the question that should have been put to the Dr Paterson. This is simply a test of your competency.
More Australians need to hear this before we waste more billions on Bowen's plan.
Bowen's plan ??
Renewables didn't just pop up in the last 2 years.
Been happening since Howard.
Don't pretend Renewables are a Labor thing
We need your help. Please support Nuclear for Australia today: nuclearforaustralia.com/factsnotpolitics
Nail on head. My concern is that Bowen & his like, will send us so far down the renewables road that we will reach the point of no return.
One test might be 'is there sufficient interest in nuclear' that the public would be willing to invest in it. I suspect there is indeed huge interest. Can the same be said of renewables?
@rogerjamespaul5528 nuclear reactors have a life of more than 80yrs not 35yrs.solar panels have only a 25yr life span and I believe wind turbines are about 20 yrs. So I'm not sure where you got your information from about that a nuclear power plant only has a 35 year life span !!!!!!!!
@rogerjamespaul5528
And not Only any nuclear waste Australia makes but with thus Aukus thing we will also have UK and America nuclear waste to contend with
Dr Patterson did not blink an eye against such negativity (ignorance with religion)
It's a strange scientist who doesn't blink at facts. Incompetent
@@mrspeaker6720 no trumpet mouth… it is you who is incompetent and ignorant.
Go read some books on the topic.
May even start at the bottom with Helen Caldicots book…. You can only go up from there.
@polarbear7255 I must admit, it's the first time in my life I've been called a "trumpet mouth." If only you put your talent for insults into understanding anything to do with energy.
@@mrspeaker6720oh but I have good sir, i have. For the last 20 years… which is why I’m not bothered by your shallow assertions. You have already demonstrated you lack the understanding to make informed comments.
Especially when you try to denigrate those who support nuclear by trying undermine their credentials.
Unless you are an engineer and have a background in nuclear reactors and energy generation then you should respect what Dr Patterson has stated.
You may not agree with it, but it is the truth no less.
So go ahead…. I’m ready for you to quote Lazards and LCOE and gencost at me now…😂
As if I haven’t heard and picked holes in all of those before.
Nuclear in Australia is inevitable: because there is no other affordable option if you want to replace coal on our grid.
@@polarbear7255 mate, if you don't disagree with a single thing the doctor said about the planning, legal and economic obstacles to nuclear power in Australia, then you can't be taken seriously. You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of an admittedly complex topic.
Mr Paterson - one of the very few people who answers questions and knows what he’s talking about. A rarity.
Thank you sir.
He dodges questions and lies to the committee. Fixed it for you.
@mrspeaker6720 : Show us "One" lie he told ! You can't can you.
@buildmotosykletist1987 it's whenever he's moving his mouth. A more specific example is when he insists nuclear is entirely doable in a short space of time. It's not, and saying so shreds his credibility.
@@mrspeaker6720 : Show us "One" lie he told ! You have not because can't can you. Try again, generalisations won't cut the mustard.
@buildmotosykletist1987 I gave you a specific answer. If you can't be bothered, that's on you. Now have a good day, while the adults are working and having important conversations.
So the chair don't want it. Please, for the sake of our Countries survival. Get on with Nuclear.
Not yet but we hope he'll change his mind!
Get in? It'll take ten years before you see one watt of power,it's expensive to build, expensive to run
@@russe19642 but not as expensive as wind or solar
@@russe19642not as expensive as renewables long term. Nowhere near as expensive.
@@infidel202 What rot. For a start Australians don't own any uranium reserves.
When feelings meet facts.
When an irresistible force (facts) meets an immovable object (stupid political ideologies), something has to give. Forget politics and just do whatever works. The world changes, and we all need to change with it.
The good doctor is pretty emotional, isn't he? Good for the MP sticking to the facts
You mean misrepresented responses to the questions.
@@anthonynixon6193 : Show us "One" misrepresentation. You can't can you !
More like blind ignorance meeting reality
Im sick of labor, like greens anyone on these sides I'm against!
Me too.
I am sick of Albo, although my local labor politician appears to be OK, but then they have all learned to smile and nod, even when they disagree with you.
@@DavidLockett-x4b i miss the days politicians looked after its people before their party.
What can you do? Dont be tribal! Push for true debate, better pollies. Tell them! Ring them! Email them! And maybe try an independent candidate in the next election. What ever you do, dont give up cos thats when the major parties take it all and leave us with ... rhymes with zit
whilst I've been an advocate for nuclear reactors/energy for decades, Australia's electricity infrastructure (sub-stations, transformers, towers, cables, etc) is old & fragile. Seems pointless to build & run reactors if the existing electricity network can't cope ??
Thank you Dr Patterson,this rubbish being peddled by ideological depts is stalling Aus prosperity.
@@zig6427 you mean like the CSIRO? You people can't handle the truth.
😂 Prosperity ? A hahahaha ! 🤣🤣🤣
@rogerjamespaul5528One nuclear reactor? Full size? I'd hate to think what it would cost. If it's anything like Olkiluoto 3 it'll be 3x who know 4x the estimated price. 20 billion each? I think that would be very very conservative guesstimate. 30 billion each? Depends on the cost of oil and other variables which fluctuate.
You go Dr Pattison bravo 👏 to you
Dan’s ignorance is stunning. Blind ideology at work. Stop rushing his answers that you don’t want to hear.
It is ridiculous to have a politician with no expertise in nuclear, probably not in anything, arguing facts with a world-renowned nuclear expert. Dan, you sound as foolish as you look.
Politicians tend to agree with whoever it is who is paying them the most.
@@DJ70404 in fact quire the opposite is true.
What woukd happen if tsunami displaces a large nuclear station and radiation starts leaking.
Or such similat event.
Placing nuclear station on land is VERY stupid.
In france the rivers are starting to heat up due to nuclear plants.
Such absurd stupidity and cover up of true facts is a DISGRACE
Indeed. I'd like to see a panel of well respected experts for and against, sit together and field questions from the public, so that we can see & hear for ourselves and arrive a better understanding of the Pros & Cons.
@@WilliamBlinky the RIVERS in france are WARMING UP due to nuclear plants.
In future they might start BOILING.
Sorry but no "quacky so called expert" can predict the outcome of nuclear plant uses.
The reason they want nuclear is because the AI technology can not be sustaimed with normal electricity production.
Those AI towers use more then the entire country uses for their normal use.
That is why these well paid experts come up with bs to convince people that nuclear is good and safe.
I would like to see their paypackets.
Sorry but I do not trust any nuclear expert.
They need to FULLY come up with all possible solutions in case of nuclear catastrophy.
Which they cant and wont.
Money talks and bs walks
I didn't hear an argument, I heard a discussion with some disagreement and then questions that were answered.
This is what it looks like when a person who's career path specialises in fibbing, ideology, and bossing folk about, attempts to critically question a specialist who's career path has focussed on the subject at hand. Our political system is stuffed. Our elections are designed to select the best liar.
As an Australian who has lived in Europe now for years, I can tell you that the wind generators which litter this once-beautiful countryside lie dormant for much of the time due insufficient wind. Many fail and the blades are feathered, rendering them useless at producing electricity, although the running costs, including rent and maintenance, continue. When they do operate, they kill birds, provide a serious hazard for crop dusters, and further, the installed base only contributes 9% of this country's energy production at full-tilt (which is very rare). They are costly to build and install; the land on which they are constructed must be either purchased or rented. In the case of terrestrial installations, the land is usually either farm or vacant land, and the investment's worth cannot be linked to the land's current utilization of energy production, it will appear as an asset on the balance sheet, but it will prove a poor investment simply due to its nature. Marine installations are even worse, they are extremely expensive to build and maintain due to the harsh environment. That expensive maintenance is also dangerous to maintenance workers, and the whole installation is hazardous to certain marine life. Wind generators have a limited life, and require regular costly and dangerous maintenance including lubricating oil replenishment. The end-of-life processes are not clearly defined, and as with their resource sapping and costly contruction, deconstruction is problematic and expensive. They are clearly not a viable solution even though the magic of "energy for free" is alluring. The politicians in Australia who are championing wind energy as a "magic wand solution" for energy production, are a ridiculously impractical group of under-education and under-informed people, they view this as an "experiment" at the taxpayer's expense and have not undertaken sufficient reseach on viability even though much data is now available. Don't go there!
You forgot one thing the bloody sub harmonic they produce and its effect on humans and animals ,then the visual pollution ,the dead birds BUT the harmonic is the problem
@@talleyrand2739sorry I couldn't hear you 🌬️🤣
So so true ! I was standing on the beach looking out to sea at an off shore wind turbine just yesterday when a whale ran into it causing it to collapse hitting a flock of seagulls then landing on a cruise ship Tragically no survivors ! 🐳🕊️🚢 😱
Don't worry about red tape bullshit get on and build them, 29 other countries don't go through this bulshit that's the problem with this country too much talk no action.
Too much democracy, religion, and political arguing. Too many cooks arguing about ingredients spoils the broth.
@DavidLockett-x4b yes. Let's have a dictatorship. That fixes everything doesn't it?
@@darrylandrew627 ah yes, don't worry about laws, lack of workforce and community opposition. You really don't respect Australians, do you?
@mrspeaker6720 Yes I do tell me how long this has been going for as I can remember over twenty years, and things have gotten worse and it not going to get better, just ask the Broken Hill residents that have stupid renewables and it fail to a point of no power for over a week so all business are not going to compensated are they no, so who cares about the Australian people certainly not the Emperor, he hasn't got a backbone at least DUTTON has made a call that will change this country forever, its funny how other countries can get on and achieve these sort of problems and we just fall away the way side.
Dan used to be a coal miner I think. He's certainly undergone a religious transplant. Clearly now a Bowen disciple.
These moron senators don’t like hearing the truth
@@coolbananas810 that O'Brien is indeed a clown
THEY CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH
@@chrisure4327 nuclear advocates really don't like honesty and facts
Good to see a man who knows his stuff, and can provide straight forward answers from knowledge and experience.
Dan does indeed know his stuff
Brilliant…. Clear headed facts without emotion, this is the way.
The doctor did get pretty emotional, didn't he? Good thing the chair had the facts.
Thank you, ADI, unfortunately those that are biased against Nuclear WILL NOT LISTEN to facts, their ignorance damages Australia's very future.
The fact is it costs too much and takes too long.
No country has built a grid dominated by intermittent renewables. (Outside of special cases like small islands with no industry)
@@Poorlineforeva costs too much compared to what? An intermittent renewable solution that has never worked anywhere and has been a costly failure overseas?
@@Poorlineforeva he literally told you it takes the same amount of time for wind turbines!
This is the dangerous ignorance making Australians suffer we are talking about!
You and your ignorant ilk.
@@Poorlineforeva
Takes too long (to build I assume) is a stupid argument. It takes f-ing ages to build a PC solar plant capable of 10% of a nuclear plant too.
Cost... Well to start with, at best, solar is half the cost per kWh than nuclear. But that's just the panels and inverters. You're going to need an absolute crap tonne of batteries to store up enough to cover overnight periods. And cloudy days. And then you'll need extra solar panels to cover the charging of the batteries so they're not flat when it gets dark the next day or you've had 3 cloudy days in a row. And when you add all that up, at absolute best case, solar is going to be basically the same cost, but take up vast areas of farmland that used to grow your dinner, and be unreliable at times when the sun doesn't shine as much as we'd all like (like during a stormy week in winter, for example).
Typical of most politicians ,this one showing his incompetence 😢
It was very interesting listening to Adi Paterson, he truely is an expert.
@rogerjamespaul5528😂 good one troll.
An expert at lying
@rogerjamespaul5528well we’re subsidising solar at a cost of 6-10 billion a year
@rogerjamespaul5528 Modern nuclear powerplants are designed for a 40 to 60 year life. The cost will be less than the cost of building enough battery storage and changing it out every 10 years, extending the grid to renewable power generation sites scattered all over the countryside. continual cleaning of solar panels and replacing them and the wind turbine blades every 20 years. Probably also requires gas turbine power stations to make up for wind droughts and overcast weather conditions.
I work in the electrical industry. Labor is wrong wrong wrong. They have no ideas what they are talking about. Only a bunch of morons would not use the existing grid. Labor’s plan is complete and utter nonsense. It frustrates the shit out of me.
In the electrical industry? As what? An electrician? Are you an engineer that works for AEMO whose job is to look atva whole system plan? No? Well they have looked at it, and it can be done cheaply with renewables and rolled out at speed.
@@keepitreal2902and need replacement of wind and solar farms in 20years, will the Chinese production of them still be cheap considering they will be far ahead of Oz as an industrialised nation powered by a base load system of their own 😮
Oz won’t even be able to power any data centres
@@bazpopham8496 Solar farms last as long as nukes...50 years. Wind 30 years. I don't know where you get your figures from.
@@keepitreal2902 solar farms are an array of solar panels. Solar panels last about 25 years, not 50. Therefore solar farms, whilst the overall facility may be the same, will not be made of 50 year old solar panels. The good Dr made a similar point with regard to battery life expectancy.
@@keepitreal2902 I don't know where you get yours from! But off the top of my head - GARBAGE.
OK - You supply evidence to substantiate your claims
Reality is:
Wind: 20 to 25 years - less if in the marine environment - and which work on average about 28% of a given day
Solar: Vastly improved in recent years, but even commercial panels with a 12 to 18 year operational life
Batteries: 8 to 10 years
Just think - the hundreds of billions of dollars extorted from us so that Straya can "save the planet" we are going to be feeding China every say 15 years. Don't know if you have joined the dots, but that's not only STUPID< but has and is empowering our demonstrated, belligerent, expansionist enemy.
The chair is pathetic.
Really he should have been removed.
Most clear response I've heard given in the Senate
I trust the good Dr over old mate with the beard in need of a trim
😂😂😂😂
I am always wary of men who hide behind a bush, and dare not show their face. Although I guess some can be bare faced liars such as Albo,
Why is the govt ok with buying 6 nuclear reactors to put in submarines underwater but say nuclear is too dangerous and difficult to build on stable land for power generation?
Ask them. They'll have a long, convoluted answer, and, in the end, you still won't know.
@@smith5312 nuclear power for propulsion is different from nuclear for energy generation. Simple
@@grasonicus it's not long or convoluted. Nuclear power for propulsion is different from nuclear energy generation.
@@mrspeaker6720 _Nuclear power for propulsion is different from nuclear energy generation._
It's generated in *exactly* the same way, and it also heats water to create steam which drives one or more steam turbines. How can you talk such nonsense?
The difference is the scale and that in a submarine they're space and weight constrained. That means they can't implement safety measures that will violate those constraints. Safety measures which are available to a nuclear plant on land. The crew of a nuclear submarine is also much closer to the nuclear plant than is the case on land.
It's amazing how much nonsense mediocre intellects will talk if it suits them without doing any research. Subsequently, they're easy to refute.
Against stupidity, not even the gods can contend. I forgot who said that.
@@mrspeaker6720 No, it's not. The _simple_ applies to you, not the facts.
Well done Adi, that was brilliant. If you plan everything out properly, you'd be amazed what can be achieved. So much for not having a nuclear industry when we absolutely do already. Lift the ban & see the private sector sort itself out.
It doesn’t matter what facts you have , what qualifications you have or what experience you have,or what science you provide,socialists will always know better. Ideology trumps all.
Dan was defeated and Dan knows it and still feels it. Well done Adi.
By someone who thinks we can build seven nuclear reactors in a decade? He's been snorting the uranium
@rogerjamespaul5528 What will be the total cost of building a whole new power grid and buying up most of the prime agricultural land? What will be the cost of replacing and demolishing all the unreliable solar and wind farms after 8 years? What do we do with the tonnes of heavy metals from the dead solar panels and the poisonous concrete/metal broken windmills? If you want to compare know your facts first. The costs are far greater in every category for the Unreliables and you need to buy more poisonous batteries which is more future heavy metal waste. Unrelaibles cost more and the people pay more for its power in subsidies and bills.
@rogerjamespaul5528 You don't care about the answers bc you don't want to evaluate all the options.
What do we with the waste you say? well we simply burn it in liquid fueled reactors that burn up over 90% of the fuel and the left over waste takes about 300 years to get back to background levels of radiation, compared to solid fueled reactors that burn about 1% of the fuel and taking 10,000 years...plus the waste is alot safer since most of the bad stuff has been burned up in the liquid fuel reactor.
Bravo Dan ! You’ve grown your beard but not your mind. Stick to what you do best.
And what a beard it is! You could hide the proverbial badger in it!
mind is numb buried under layers of lard
@rogerjamespaul5528 why would you want to decommission an asset with an operational life of ~80 years after only 35?
It looks a bit stained with coffee, perhaps
The ignorance and bullyish questioning from the Labor MP was a bloody disgrace, but the good Doctor ran rings around the ignoramus.
Pretty reasonable questions - how long would it take, and how come you think we can do it faster than countries better set up to do it. Unfortunately, the doctor has the ability to sound reasonable while speaking absolute twaddle.
Absolutely he did!!!!
@@Colours01-c5r exactly. Twaddle masquerading as sense.
They don't like the truth
They sure don’t 👍
The witness lies through his teeth
@@mrspeaker6720 you have provided no counter evidence. Your accusations are empty. Do you want to be held in Contempt?
@@polarbear7255 oh no, I'm being threatened by someone who doesn't understand parliament! Whatever shall I do?
The trouble is, what is the truth? Who do you trust? Well you have to be sure of the vested interests - ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS (CURRENTLY NON-) DEBATE. Wow, govt and corporate secrecy and private interests have shattered all ability to get things done for the right reasons.
👏 time to take the fear factor and self serving policy out and focus on providing reliable energy security for Australia
Time for the coalition to tell us how much it will cost. Hint-they don't have a clue.
@@Poorlineforevagood story 🙄
That's right,let's just stick to the facts, they're to expensive to build,to expensive to run and it takes ten years just to get one up and running. We want energy now not in ten years and all you're doing is supplying f all of our needs
@@Poorlineforeva There are many palms to grease
@@russe19642 short sighted ignorance on display by you. You have no perspective and display a lack of critical thinking ability.
All you stated are common misconceptions about nuclear energy that are proven to be false.
The chair constantly tries to gag him on time, which says a lot. integrated and planning are an anathema to labor.
Dan Repacholi bit off a bit more than he could chew. He was trying to tell Adi Paterson that he knew more than him. What an intelligent man Adi was answering all questions.
@@daryltonks1395 Paterson lied and dodged. Fixed it for you
Adi is a very smart and intelligent man who our pathetic government should listen to.
You misspelt `Dan'
@@mrspeaker6720 you misspelled… oh wait… you haven’t posted anything of substance on this entire comments section.
You do know that anti nuclearism is primarily political right?
You are a classic example of exactly that. Because you clearly don’t understand the physics and engineering.
There are no safety, economic, technical or security reasons not to build nuclear power stations in Australia.
What’s your next excuse?
‘Oh but batteries’ …😂
@@polarbear7255 I haven't posted any lies, you've got to give me credit for that.
Nuclear is technically possible, sure. But it is not remotely cost effective, and anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
@@mrspeaker6720
Except it is cost effective. The US DOE report this year clearly demonstrates that a mixed grid of renewables with nuclear is at least 30% cheaper per kWh to the consumer. Which is what actually matters.
The original promise with nuclear was ‘energy too cheap to meter’ and that still applies…
An energy company can keep power prices down and still make a profit.
The problem is intermittent power generation has destabilised the grid driving prices negative when solar does produce more than needed. That is a massive problem… for so many reasons.
But that is the tip of the iceberg as far as problems with intermittent generation goes…
@polarbear7255 except it's not, when you have to start from zero. Honestly, for someone who claims to be knowledgeable, you're getting the basics completely wrong.
Checkmate!
its like a very fast train from Victoria to NSW and then Queensland. 50 years on and the pollies are still arguing.
And yet somehow nuclear reactors will happen in a decade. The doctor is dreaming
Dan Rapacholi doesn’t like the truth, in fact he can’t handle the truth 😂
😂 a hahahaha
True the Japanese government banned anybody from speaking out about the Fukushima disaster. It's apparently a state secret ! You'll do jail time if you dare to say anything apparently.
typical of leftist activists
This was like taking a feather duster to a sword fight.
wow that professor knows his stuff and the politician is just getting in the way, I don’t know much about nuclear energy but I’m willing to listen and I think most Australians might feel that way too
Great work
GOLD STANDED
🙏🙏🙏
Unlike your spelling 😅
Dan did well, didn't he?
So the Chair waffled on using time then told the Prof be quick with your answers. What is it with the anti-nuclear brigade? Anyone would think we are talking about Count Dracula. I also note they have now given up on the safety aspect and purely hammering cost and feasibility. Bring on
Peter Dutoon please.
Dr Paterson could plan for the construction of nuclear reactors within 11 years, but that bearded muppet would have trouble planning his trip to and from Parliament House. How do these people get elected!
@@matt_kj lifting the ban is never going to happen. Get used to it. We have no nuclear industry whatsoever. They don't grow on trees. It's a fairy tale powered by unicorn poo.
He offered to work with him
To educate him about nuclear energy. Let’s see if he accepts.
Don’t think so Sleazy Albo and
Dumb Casanova Bowen will not
Let him. He is just a puppet.
Fill sorry for the people that voted for him.
It beggars belief. Vote them out, as they are running our country into the ground.
Labour and union
@@matt_kj he couldn’t even come up with his own meme in the labor nuclear scare campaign. He just copied and pasted another labor stooges
Nice to hear an educated person who knows what they talking about
Dan knows his stuff
Meanwhile, we bury a drill rig in the snowy mountains for billions a year....
Keeps the billions rolling between bank accounts
1:57 "Is there something about the southern hemisphere that we don't know?"
The south side of the globe is a pathway to many abilities *_some consider to be unnatural._*
Do you mean like Tasmanians...?
What's interesting is that pro-nuclear folks also believe in a flat earth. So they don't believe in the southern hemisphere.
Clear rebuttal to a biased chair. Well done, Adi. Dan sounded like he has been listening to the biased ABC news reports against nuclear. What doesn't Labour understand in logical arguments to ensure affordable base load power 24/7/365 with their intermittent solar and wind generators? Dan, is concerned with timing, so how long will it take to deliver Snowy 2.0 and all the transmission lines? Get real Labour!
Labor needs poverty and people suffering to stay in power.
It'll take more than 11 years just to build all the batteries they'll need to cover overnight periods, particularly in winter.
Meanwhile they'd also like you driving electric cars and using electric heating instead of gas, which means even more batteries.
@@king_kiff3969 When the lights go out, either for technical reasons or prohibitive cost to consumers, Labour won't be in power! It won't be long now, and also for any unlearned polys who refuse to think for themselves.
Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. And some, such as Albo just screw up big time.
I’m all for nuclear energy and don’t understand why Australia isn’t going this way.
Nuclear Fusion, not Fission.
if its the answer why no LNP costings ? why does it have to be public ownership ? why couldnt they get GE or someone to do it privately they would love to have a 50 year contract to sell us power right>?? I will tell you why... because SOLAR IS PROVIDING ELECTRICITY DURING MIDDAY AT ZERO c/KW RETAIL!!! Private Firms are Building battery farms at ZERO TAX PAYER DOLLARS, buying at zero and selling at peak.... This is whole issue is a culture war, not about best prices to tax payers, but about wedge politics at your expense....
@@passivehouseaustralia4406not sure this is true mate. As Dr Patterson said
Create an enabling environment and see what happens
Answer: Bother to understand the so called "United" Nations, and in that terrible, bloated monster is your answer.
I strongly suggest this introduction:
The UN’s DARK Agenda: What You’re Not Being Told About Agenda 2030
ua-cam.com/video/_2K2CbC7ppA/v-deo.html
The left.
Thank you Dr.Paterson.
Australia is also unique in that the power requirements are in centres thousands of kilometers apart which is why your distribution costs would be high. It means that an intergrated system of network and supply sources is better than trying to distribute power for 1000 plus kms. Theres lots of older engineering experts that have already addressed this but instead we have genius kids out of university with no actual experience telling us the wind and the sun run 24/7!...
Dan, from the ALP= He has no clue.
looks like he spends more time at the hair dressers....
😂
@regjenkins2925 ad homin attacks.
The quickest way to build a nuclear power plant in Australia is to have zero unions involved.
You nailed that, spot on.👍
Pay the workers well, and keep idiot communists, and other corrupt money grubbing idiots out of the unions and all will be well. I was at one time a union member, we worked hard on a productivity bonus system and were well paid, and we hardly ever had union problems, except when the politicians stuffed up the economy.
@rogerjamespaul5528reactors have a lifespan of up to 60 years
@rogerjamespaul5528 probably less than replacing all the wind generators once and all the batteries three times over the same period.
The workers are the Union. It’s the corruption that’s infiltrated the administration of the Unions that is the issue which is why the BCC was established but there has to be someone looking out for the workers safety and conditions and you can’t rely on the government for that. They would not hesitate in screwing over the workforce.
Well done Mr Paterson. YOU are the expert, Repacholi is NOT! 😊😂❤
Our government will do everything it can to prevent Australians for prospering with cheap energy
haha bullshit. It concentrates the ability to supply power into a handful of companies who will proceed to gouge the shit out of everyone. BUT IT'S """GREEN""" AMIRITE?
Ned Kelly loses he knows nothing and lives on BS
Old mate had the best come back for every question.
Wow! If that was a football match between Team Paterson and Team Repacholi, the score would be 10-0 with Team Repacholi having scored several own goals along the way.
Out of curiosity, couldnt you build a new reactor next to a coal plant being closed down? The Steam Turbines are already there, cooling towers/ponds etc, the power grid tie in...
I think that is definitely part of the plan sir 👍
@@HebrewHammerArmsCo that’s pretty much their plan mate. No new wires needed for the grid. Already good supplies of cooling water etc.
Common sense plan for constant base load energy supply.
Hear hear, about time someone stood up and took on the Labor muppets decrying nuclear.
I think the end sentence answered everyones question.
We should have had nuclear power decades ago. Absolutely ridiculous that we do not have it. So much room to put a dozen nuclear plants and more uranium than you can poke a stick at.
We need to get the ALP/Greens coalition out asap so we can get our country back and move forward.
Decades ago it would have been nuclear fission, which is like a nuclear bomb in your backyard, but soon it will be nuclear fusion, which is a very different thing.
@DavidLockett-x4b It's still nuclear fission, fusion is still about 20-40 years away by current estimates.
Either way - nearly all the developed world has been using nuclear power safely for decades and we’re still using old tech. It’s crazy.
@@aussieboy408 Oh no whatever will we do until then??? If only we had coal and gas reserves to tide us over to something safer than fission comes along.
@@Revheadrev I know right? Look at those progressives at three mile island, chernobyl and fukushima. I feel so cheated.
Loved it and grateful they are even having hearings on nuclear.
It was nice to hear someone stating some honest facts about nuclear!
Dan knows his stuff, for sure
@@mrspeaker6720 you must be joking.
@@indigocheetah4172 the only joke here is the dishonest doctor
@@mrspeaker6720 Has your doctor been giving you the wrong medication. You could call lifeline, Dr Phil or Oprah for some counselling in difficult times like this.
Could the problem be substance abuse?
It really sounds like ewe need a hug and a box of tissues, maybe some cheese and crackers to go with your whine, Mrs Peaker.
We all hope you get better soon. XXX
Repacholi is a joke.
And to think he was a coal miner in the hunter valley
@@jasonfishman3964 he is not the sharpest tool in the shed!
@@duncanwalker scary part is he isn’t even qualified to be the bluntest tool in the shed
GREAT PRESENTATION Adi , and yes batteries are NOT an economical proposition.
Well done Adi Paterson, the issue here is that these people just dont want to know, they have their head in the sand…..bring on a Federal Election and lets get it done as the current lot do not have the stomach to say we had it wrong!
I like how the guys on the board ask a complex question and then give the Dr a small amount of minutes to answer, but the Dr made that bearded guy look like a fool. Australia needs nuclear full stop.
@@AviationSports1978 Rapachilearoundit or whatever his name is doesn’t need much help to make him look like a fool. But could you imagine the good Dr in a debate with Bowen. That would be amazing to watch
@@sdspaintshop The Dr would be good to go against the Q&A program that left bullshit wouldnt sit well with the doc.
Great work Dr Paterson! Love your diplomatic push back at this stereotypical labour standover bully….
Very good questions and even better answers, stop with the politics and get on with it. For once do something for Australians.
Good how Paterson did not cave to Repacholi's bullying tactics.
@@Mar--Mar he came with his dishonest agenda, and prosecuted it. I guess give him points for plowing through
THE LABOR CLOWN SHOW GOT OWNED! NICE JOB!
It's always heartwarming and fun when you see someone with intelligence in action against the anti nuclear brigade.
Great stuff, Dr Paterson
Labor is so backwards and ignorant
They were good questions well answered...
Good questions well dodged and badly answered
@@mrspeaker6720 twit
@@talleyrand2739 the doctor is. He should be better, but unfortunately he's made a different choice
That’s the difference between an expert and an amateur. Why, and it’s always blown me away does the government be it whatever party always place people with no experience as chairs for these topics. A lot of these pollies that have been voted in by people that are either stupid, naive or believe the lies need to be held accountable for the money they waste.
He didn't like that last answer, "we could do it."
@@DJ70404 like all the mad left, they can’t handle when adults who know what they’re doing point out their incompetence
The legislation for nuclear already exists because we already have a reactor.
The workforce required already exists too from the mining industry.
There's very little difference between building a mine plant and building a reactor
An example of that was Aitons who were one of the major contractors at Olympic Dam who were specialist power station builders.
During construction of Olympic Dam they had a workforce of about 3,000 men all up so man power isn't a problem.
This workforce specialised in construction and it followed the work where ever it was needed.
As an engineer in both industries, there is a MASSIVE difference between building a mine and a power station. The attitudes are so so much different.
Imagine making our own energy and being energy independent.
Nah, that's going to benefit Australians 🤣 😂 😅
Completely biased board, getting schooled by an expert,intellectually experienced Dr.
When you let the patient's run the asylum.
Edit: Thankyou Dr Paterson I hope you succeed where others haven't with this.
Well said sir. Just need the right government to get it done.
Dr. Paterson is highly intelligent & very knowledgeable and he should be listened to . Dan Repacholi is simply an alp politician trying to not wanting to upset the loopy greens incase there is need for preferences in the next election. Personally I worked on Tarong & Gladstone power stations 36+ years ago and the timing is ticking both old plants , renewable have their place but we need guaranteed base load. The wind does blow the sun doesn't blow we sit in the dark.
Game, set and match to Dr. Paterson. Absolutely flawless rebuttal.
Ok lets start by stating all the reasons why it isn't feasible then ask the expert for a comment. Another politician making a fool of themselves.
Dan Repacholi demonstrating the IQ of a fence post.
However said fence post has real purpose.
@@butchphillips873 Unlike our friend here.
This guy is making more sense than any politician ive heard in the kast 10 years
Our government is an embarrassment
Imagine if we just cut the bullshit 15-20 years ago we’d have these built now. Their only argument is how long they take to build
And safety, cost, reliability, waste, workforce.......
Repacholi could only try and rush the good doctor so he wouldn't get time to give the details. But the brilliant doctor took down the clueless Repacholi and virtually told him how construction of nuclear power plants could be achieved.
Labor MP's need some lessons in composure and open mindedness.
The UK has 15 nuclear power stations and Germany has 17.