Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Alliance for Responsible Citizenship" channel.

  1. Exactly right - NOW can you explain why Ted O'Brien and the LNP did NOTHING for the 9 years they were in power? They did start Snowy 2.0 and I'll agree that EVENTUALLY it will be w worthwhile asset, but the failure to properly cost it and then manage its initial phases has seen the costs blow out form the original $2 Billion to a now estimated $20 Billion. The bets part of their stupidity was NONE of the early estimates included the cost of the power link to the grid which is now expected to cost $8 Billion. YEAH mate that's how smart the LNP was. They bought a power station without a grid connection.
    1
  2. OH YEAH - GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  3. You mean this gutless coward who has been deleting my challenges to publicly debate this garbage he's presented. I'm an engineer. I'm NOT against nuclear but I am fed up with people like Gerrard who is an accountant confusing the crap out of people with nonsense and lies. And don't misunderstand it I have some serious issues with the Left wing idiots who also tell lots of nonsense and lies. Between the clowns on the Left and the idiots on the Right its almost impossible for anyone to have a sensible discussion and no matter what anyone says or wants whatever gets built is an ENGINEERING TASK. So all you clowns and idiots can either listen to the engineers or don't complain when the lights go out.
    1
  4. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  6.  @pw9ei  Thanks and I am working on that. The problem is that for every accurate presentation the Thin Tanks pump out 20 confusion pills.
    1
  7. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8.  @simonansell3241  I have been trying to tell people that for 2 months. But what does anyone expect. He's an accountant NOT an engineer.
    1
  9. If you are so in favor of engineers then why are you taking the word of Gerrard Holland. He's an accountant. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS ALSO COWARD I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  10. I am an engineer here's the answer to your challenge. And so we are clear I have already challenged Gerrard to a public debate and so far he's said nothing but they did delete all my comments from this page. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  11. I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. I can tell you that a Canadian engineer used these same figures at a recent CIS event that was held before Gerrard did this talk. Like many engineers I am getting incredibly fed up with people like Gerrard who pull these numbers out of thin air or very dubious sources and do it to audiences they know will not question anything. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  12.  @stephenblack8804  Its been deleted by the cowards that run this crap fest. FYI - I did my degree in aerospace in the states (U. of Illinois) I have mostly worked in industrial control systems, automation and robotics in the manufacturing and mining industries. In 2016 I had a small project to assess Australia's future energy needs and got the shock of my life. I could barely believe how old our plants were OR that we had no 1 plan to replace anyone of them. Worse, 8 years later we still don't have any actual proposal on the table to discuss. The most amazing thing I found was that almost every other developed nation on the world is in a similar predicament. Places like California, Greece, Britain, France,..... despite all the differences all have a similar issue with power generation. We al have lots of ageing power stations that need to be replaced. Th major problem in Australia are the scumbags like Gerard Holland playing politics and telling staggering lies and confusing lots of people with nonsense.
    1
  13. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  14. @ Great comment. I'm an engineer who has challenged this accountant (cos that what he is) to a public debate. You can maybe see my comments if they haven't been masked or deleted. Its not that I am against nuclear its just the absurdity of the plan they have or the insanely ridiculous claims on the costs. In this video he claims that $420 Billion can do everything Australia needs for the next 60 years. By that stage our population will be approaching 60 million at the current rates. What makes any of these clowns think they can project energy needs that far forward? The LNP claim of $330 Billion delivering 38% is nonsense. I worked out how they calculated that number is its idiotic. FIRST how they calculated 38% is absurd SECOND it does NOT cover for population growth. THIRD it doesn't cater for the ugly fact that because we haven't built any large base load power stations since the late 90s our current base load system is actually built for 20 million people NOT the 27 we have now. That's why our power bills are so high. FOURTH and this is maybe the worst part they are NOT including any of the costs for decommissioning the plants once they are past their useful life AND/OR the long term storage of spent fuel and waste.
    1
  15. Only if you want to teach school children how to lie convincingly in public. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  16. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  17. The British problems are NOT the Greens, its NOT the Torries, its NOT Labor ITS YOUR ECONOMISTS Its the same problem Australia has.
    1
  18.  @steviesupertramp553  There's a complete stupidity to your support for this comment. THERE IS NOTHING that links green energy to the demise of the British or any other economy. The demise of British Steel and British manufacturing in general was going on for decades BEFORE the green energy transition was even a thing. That demise was all due to the greed of INVESTORS and stupidity of ECONOMISTS. THERE IS NOTHING that links the closure of any mine of any type to the collapse of any nations economy. For sure closing a mine like closing any major industry affects the surrounding region BUT IF IT AFFECTS an entire nation that's a different matter to green energy entirely. Again such things are due to the greed of INVESTORS and stupidity of ECONOMISTS. This is just IGN0RANT scapegoating.
    1
  19. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS NOT ONLY A COWARD but his numbers are horrendously WRONG I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  20.  @thedave7760  Buddy I have worked on Rio Tinto sites and one of the last people on the planet ANYONE should ask for any sort of opinion is the CEO of Rio Tinto. Go and look at what they did at Gove. Over $3 Billion wasted upgrading a plant and then they shut it down. Its just one of their screw ups. BHP, Glencore, Anglo and the rest aren't any better either. If share holders actually knew how often those clowns screwed up it would end up like an episode of the Borgias or Sopranos.
    1
  21. SMRs DO NOT USE Thorium. All of the SMRs under proposal use Uranium. How many times do people need to explain these things????????
    1