Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia" video.

NO HE'S NOT HE'S A VERY CLEVER LIAR Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
6
BECAUSE ITS FULL OF LIES Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
5
NO IT SHOULD NOT Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
4
NO - I am an engineer and know for a fact they are a compilation of facts mixed with some staggering LIES. Congrats you're just the 4th comment on this page that's sensible. The major problem are the clowns on BOTH the Left and Right like Gerard who have no place in the discussion. ENERGY IS AN ENGINEERING TASK. I have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I genuinely believe we need to have nuclear sensibly discussed as part of our energy future but we FIRST have to get the clowns like Gerard to STFU and let the engineers speak. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
4
NO ITS NOT - ITS FULL OF LIES Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
3
THAT NUMBER IS GARBAGE and if people like Gerard get their way it will be much larger Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
3
NO ITS NOT Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
2
THAT'S BECAUSE BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT LIE. Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
2
@stephenbrickwood1602 I went and checked his background and he's an accountant. As an engineer I am tired of his type spewing out garbage on energy. I don't care if they are pro-wind, pro-solar, pro-nuclear or anything else. ITS AN ENINGEEIRN TASK and if they are NOT and engineer then they can STFU.
2
NO ITS NOT Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
2
@stephenbrickwood1602 GREAT POINT and yes I agree we need to make use of the existing grid but we MUST accept that our grid was built for about 20million people and we are now 26 and headed for 40. The same goes for water and roads and rail, schools and health care.
2
VERSUS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE NUCLEAR WHIC HIS DO BELIEVE WE NEED Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I genuinely believe we need to have nuclear sensibly discussed as part of our energy future but we FIRST have to get the clowns like Gerard to STFU and let the engineers speak. AND its not just the Political Right but also the Political Left who need to STFU. They have BOTH screwed up Australia so bad its going to take a massive effort to fix. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
2
NO IT SHOULD NOT Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
2
Until idiots like you realise that it will end up costing staggering amounts to fix what burning Gigatons for a century will cost to clean up. I recently saw a BBC news story on a system in Iceland for direct carbon capture at $1000 per ton. They hope to get that to $300 per ton. Even at the lower price it will cost over $1 QUADRILLION to draw down all the excess carbon in the atmosphere and that's NOT including all the stuff we keep adding. Also thanks to scaling Wind & Solar are NOW cheaper than Coal.
2
this is only the second comment on this page I have found that is sensible there's a 3rd below this one. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I'm 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
@stephenbrickwood1602 What do you think you'd get for $40Billion? An AP1000 (based on Vogtle) is $28.3 Billion for 1,100MW (1.1GW) An EPR2 (based on Hinckley Pt. C) is $41-47 Billion for 1,600MW (1.6GW) So just to replace Hazelwood (1.6GW) & Liddell (2.1GW) the 2 big coal plants we have already shut down with equivalent nuclear would be 2 x AP1000s at Liddell and an EPR2 at Hazelwood, for a cost of $97-103 Billion. That just replaces what we had. it doesn't take care of the other 22+ GW of coal we still have and it doesn't take care of the fact we need MORE power for our expanding population. And those coal plants are going no matter what anyone say because like all machines they wear out. You have to remember as engineers we can't just make up numbers. We have to present numbers we can say with some level of certainty. Do you notice how this clown and all the others like him NEVER PUT UP a list of details of where their numbers came from????? Remember Snowy 2.0 started at a cost of $2.0Billion. It went to $4 Billion during design and $5 Billion before they even put the ceremonial shovel in the ground. Its now estimated the dam, tunnels and power station will cost $12 Billion. BUT WAIT the geniuses behind that clown show never included the cost of the power line to connect it. That's now estimated at $8 Billion. SO HOW TF did that project go from $2 to $20 Billion???? What makes anyone think we can build nuclear and keep it within budget???? The Summers plant in North Carolina was budgeted at US$9B for 2 x AP1000s and they stopped when it blew out to $25B. Vogtle with 2 x AP1000s ended up costing $36.8B. Hinckley Pt C was expected to be £31–35 billion in 2015 prices and is now £41.6–47.9 billion in 2024 prices (see Wikipedia). These people are idiots.
1
@stephenblack8804 I'm an Australian engineer who did his degree in America and I don't think you are very well informed. One of the main design points of the Westinghouse AP1000 like the 2 at Vogtle in Georgia and the 2 unfinished ones in South Carolina and the 4 in China was that it was a consistent design to be replicated with minimal changes from site to site. Its almost impossible to exactly replicate any major processing plant of any type because they are basically handmade, but you can get a lot of replication. One of the other features of the AP 1000 design was that large chunks it if could be made offsite at a common construction plant and taken to site on barges. That couldn't be done for Vogtle which caused some problems. But the overall idea of the AP1000 and French EPR 2 was to keep building the same design in place after place to reduce those design costs. I'm not against nuclear power as like any decent engineer knows we need to replace our older power stations across the entire planet with newer ones. That's simply a matter of the fact that things wear out. So no matter what everyone is now trying to work out what they do for their next generation of power stations. That depends on a bunch of factors including geography. One of the few things anyone can say with certainty is that we are all moving on from fossil fuels and in particular coal. As an engineer I don't have to care about what people want me to build. I don't care if its wind, solar hydro, nuclear or any of the other low emissions systems. WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT is the public discussion STOPS BEING A POLITICAL and/or IDEOLOGICIAL DISCUSSION where people are deliberately presenting misleading information. For that to happen the slimy pieces of garbage like Gerrard Holland who is nothing more than an accountant have to SHUT THE F--K UP
1
@stephenbrickwood1602 You've summed it up quite well. The real problem are ECONOMISTS. When I started it simply got to WHY? Why aren't nations and states building new power stations and it doesn't matter what politics are present. There's just a complete failure of maintaining the existing energy infrastructure and upgrading it as needed. The answer came back - ECONOMISTS. FIRST - there's a pervasive view among economists that everyone else is a problem they have to manage. That's why we see economists interfering in education, health care, infrastructure,... etc. There's a PBS Frontline documentary on the 2008 GFC and in it Lanny Breuer the Assistant Attorney General at the time charged with prosecuting the wrong doers was asked why NOT 1 CEO was charged. His answer was "We had to consider the economic effects!" So in their minds we are all incompetent idiots who they have to manage. SECOND - Economics education is incredibly and narrowly focused on the Milton Freidman Chicago school free market model where "Greed is good" and CEOs have no responsibility other than profit. All the text books are written by professors at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,... All the text books are printed by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... All the economic departments across the World are run by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,... THIRD - Government decisions are dominated by economists. Every elected official either studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge economics or has an advisor who studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge economics. Then there are the consultancies who advise governments like McKinsey, Boston Group, KPMG, EY, PwC, Deloitte,.... who are full of economists who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge. Then there are the Think Tanks like the one support Gerrard Holland who mouth off endlessly and they studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge.... economics. No matter what the subject is, if it involves government policy there's an army of economists telling the government WHAT TO DO or WHAT NOT TO DO. Its the main reason why people across the world are so frustrated with governments. No matter who anyone votes for there's an army of economists making sure NOTHING CHANGES. If your interested in finding out more about the issues with economists. There are some "Rebel Economists" who have been fighting against mainstream economists for a while and in some cases decades. One of the best is Steve Keen who like me is Australian. There's a podcast here on YouTube. Another is Mark Blyth who's Scottish and based at Brown U. in America. He not only predicted the 2008 GFC but also that Trump would win in 2016 and that Europe was headed for a crisis. Another is Gary Stevenson who's young but also incredibly smart. He worked for Citibank and was their top trader by his mid 20s. He then realised that his success came from betting against the British economy.
1
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
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
@sambelfield541 Go and look through the comments and you should find the challenge I issued unless they have YET AGAIN deleted or hidden it. Basically this clown is an accountant NOT and engineer. He quotes figures and costs that he cannot explain because he simply got them from a discredited engineer who pulled numbers out of thin air and presented them at a conference in 2022. I tracked down the information and can explain to anyone willing to listen WHY they are wrong. That's why I have labelled Gerrard Holland a coward. People like him will never debate someone like me because they know its an ass kicking.
1
SORRY but a tesla Supercharger is just an outlet IT DOES NOT PRODUCE POWER.
1
@stephenbrickwood1602 Thanks. I appreciate it might seem like I am spamming but it annoys the hell out of me that all the oxygen is being sucked out of the discussion by people who ARE NOT engineers and its engineers who need to be heard. AND ITS BOTH SIDES of politics I am angry at. They have both failed us with endless circular arguments.
1
@stephenbrickwood1602 On the governments need to change I watch America a lot because I went to university there. The reason Harris lost and Trump won was change. When first put forward Harris represented change. When she put Tim Walz as her VP she said we really are going to make changes. THEN When asked Harris said she could not think of anything she'd do differently. In that one moment she blew it and all Trump had to do was stand their and dance for an hour. A real question for Australia's parties is who learns form that? This is what faces both the LibNats and Labor next year. Which wants to make change, which wants to keep things as they are. There's the Teals who really do represent change BUT can they convince enough people of that. The Greens are now irrelevant because their hearts are in the right place but they have no idea how to do anything.
1
@stephenbrickwood1602 Great comment - What angers me is that the entire energy debate is now a purely political-economic-emotional discussion. No matter what's chosen its going to be engineers, technicians and laborers who build whatever we choose AND RIGHT NOW we are totally locked out of the discussion. The worst part is we were always going to need new power stations for the simple reason stuff wears out and needs replacing. PLUS our population has gone from 19 to 26 million since 2000. Forget climate, we were always going to need a SENSIBLE discussion on what to build next and that hasn't happened. There is actually a couple of points about nuclear that do make sense but the pro-nuclear clowns are just as stupid as the pro-wind/solar clowns. Once you start having lots of wind/solar you get into some really serious grid stability issues and its NOT just the base load it has to do with frequency stability. They have a major issue in Ireland right now. In previous eras what was taken for granted was the rotating mass of the large turbines which had a lot of mechanical inertia which holds the frequency stable and it doesn't matter if they are steam, gas or hydro. In Ireland they are considering a giant flywheel to spin up and hold the frequency stable. This is what annoys me. The pro-wind/solar people refuse to admit there's a problem and the pro-nuclear people are too stupid to say here's a solution. That doesn't mean we'd use it and there are other options, but its not even in the discussion because these people ARE NOT ENGINEERS and they wont shut up. This is all just politics at a time when we need to build power stations and we can't even get started because we can't even have the right conversation. Sorry for the rant but I think you get it.
1
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
Yeah we do and here's my reply to Gerrards pile of garbage and the LNPs garbage. Don't get me wrong Labor aren't much better and there's a serious flaw in their plan to. 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
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
@Tamatu You're saying you can't find my rebuttal but you replied to it?????
1
@Tamatu YEAH but then when people get things wrong they try and fix it. That's right I forgot geniuses like you don't fix things you get others to fix them for you.
1
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
BECAUSE ITS GARBAGE and 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
I am an engineer and that's only the third comment on this page that's sensible. The major problem are the clowns on BOTH the Left and Right like Gerard who have no place in the discussion. ENERGY IS AN ENGINEERING TASK. I have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I genuinely believe we need to have nuclear sensibly discussed as part of our energy future but we FIRST have to get the clowns like Gerard to STFU and let the engineers speak. Also his $90 Million was a mistake that he has recognised. Its actually $90K. The LIE he's telling by omission is that that at an average of $1000K per year over the next 80 years you'll pay $80K because it will take 20 years to build out the nuclear then it will run for 60. So over generations each dwelling will pay at least $80K no matter what we do. EXCEPT many households have power bills of $1500 a year and many with power bills OVER $2,000 a year. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
1
The why are you listening to an accountant who is doing nothing but pushing an ideology instead of engineers who lay out the facts. I am and engineer and have previously challenged Gerrard to a public debate. The response I got was they deleted every reply and comment I made on this page. Sorry if this comment is long but here's some actual facts. 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
I'm an engineer and that's one of the few things that would actually make a monstrous change to the entire energy spectrum. A little known fact is that it takes more energy to make a car than the car will consume in 20 years of average use. People forget or don't realise that it takes huge amounts of energy just to dig the raw materials out of the ground and process them into the raw stock just to make the car out of. It takes a lot to get the raw steel and raw aluminium ready just to start making parts. I have actually worked in the automotive sector and the molding of all the plastic parts is incredibly energy intensive. All the robots you see on videos they use a lot of power not because robots a super energy users its just when you have hundreds of them goin flat out it adds up.
1
YES and its something economists, accountants, lawyers and all sorts of other clowns like Gerard only mention when they need to. I am an engineer and that's only the third comment on this page that's sensible. The major problem are the clowns on BOTH the Left and Right like Gerard who have no place in the discussion. ENERGY IS AN ENGINEERING TASK. I have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I genuinely believe we need to have nuclear sensibly discussed as part of our energy future but we FIRST have to get the clowns like Gerard to STFU and let the engineers speak. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
1
Sorry but if you believe in the basics of engineering then why are you taking engineering advice from 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
Well then you have utterly no idea how to do research.
1
SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS NOT ONLY WRONG but is also a COWARD I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. NOTHING he presented is based on engineering, physics or economics and his logic is flawed. 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
SORRY MATE 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
AND ITS EVEN EASIER TO DEBINK THE NONSENSE PRESENT HERE Unlike Gerard Holland who's background is in accounting I am an engineer and have know about Australia's energy situation since doing a project on Australia's future energy needs in 2016. I am utterly disgusted with how public discussion has been dominated by UNCHALLENEGED claims from BOTH SIDES of the energy debate. BOTH SIDES LIE just as Gerard has done here. And so you know you can read my formal challenge to him on this page.
1
Buddy his analysis isn't simply WRONG its wrong by almost $1 Trillion dollars. 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
YES I KNOW Bowen needs to wake up 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
I'm an engineer look for my refute of Gerrard on this page.
1
Because we have a 3phase 415V alternating current based system. And when you use a single phase of that system linked back via a star transformer you get 240V. That's why all out appliances also run on 240V The Yanks start with 220 3 phase and that's why they get 110V out of their sockets. if you want to use lower voltage light bulbs then use another transformer or AC-DC power supply to power your light bulbs.
1
And most of the clowns who think Gerrard knows what he's talking about aren't any better. Gerrard is an accountant NOT an engineer. I am an engineer and I have already challenged Gerrard once to a public debate and all he did was delete everything.
1
If you Brits want to be even more stupid than you have already been in recent years and think an accountant (because that's what Gerrard is) knows more than your engineers then your welcome to him.
1
That's an interesting comment and I may have previously replied to it but then Gerrard and his friends deleted every comment I made on this page. Have you seen the video by Real Engineering on the issues with Wind in Ireland? If you have then you are on the right path. As an engineer I am utterly frustrated by people like Gerrard who's an accountant NOT and engineer. Its problem across the entire World regarding the energy crisis. People prefer to clowns like Gerrard who's just repeating stuff he's heard without any real understanding.
1
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
Engineer here - can you and everyone else who keeps making this claim just WAKE TF UP. Its utterly NOT TRUE. If it were true then ONLY 1 device could ever run at any one time on any energy grid. For sake of argument - If a solar panel, wind turbine or anything else produces 2kw and the only thing on the system uses 1kw what TF do you think happens to the other 1kw? Yes you can use it to do other things including battery chargers. If someone has 500W of solar on their roof and the fridge and other stuff that just runs uses 200W then there's 300 W left to whatever you want. If you have the capability sell it onto the grid. If you have a battery system then charge your batteries. I am so tired of this sort of nonsense.
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
@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
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
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
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
@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
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
@ 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
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
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
The British problems are NOT the Greens, its NOT the Torries, its NOT Labor ITS YOUR ECONOMISTS Its the same problem Australia has.
1
@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
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
@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
SMRs DO NOT USE Thorium. All of the SMRs under proposal use Uranium. How many times do people need to explain these things????????
1