'Game-changer': Expert weighs in on Coalition's energy plan

[@dominicgalante7501]

Simple gas coal and nuclear but no Bowen in the mix

[@garrymcdougall9481]

Catch up, mate. Coal is finished. The banks won't fund it. The atmosphere does not need it. It'se expensive, polluting and the infrastructure is being closed down. The car replace the horse and buggy, and this is the same tranformation.

[@actualfacts1055]

Or Bowen in the wind 😂

[@MarkHines-p8d]

Bend over Bowen releases 4:53 more methane than cows. He is full of crap.

[@MarkHines-p8d]

Bend over Bowen emits more methane than cows. He is full of crap.

[@kathleencook3060]

Thank you Sir for your expert analysis. Great interview!!. Please get this Gentleman back to give the Public the information imparted by the Experts in their field. Thank you.

[@Bully1973]

This is what adults discussing Australia's future sounds like.

[@troyjohnston7454]

This is what thieves sound like

[@dominictucci6030]

​@troyjohnston7454 No, thieves are what the stupid socialists Jacinta Allen, Tim Pallas and Lily D'Ambrosio are in Victoria taxing the crap out of hard-working Victorians are with their anti Gas woke ideology are!!

[@bensignor1476]

Wow, to me it sounded like propaganda, but who am I to know? All I have is knowledge of the area.

[@Bully1973]

@bensignor1476 The former CEO of Ansto, what would he know.

[@bensignor1476]

@@Bully1973 what he knows is irrelevant. I'm sure there are some intelligent people at Sky, who also happen to hwve no soul.

[@fredsprong3139]

One of the most intelligent reports I've seen and heard. Well done.

[@malcolmhector2641]

Is Bowen listening to this guy , could learn something ,,, hehe but wont cause his is Labor , & is deaf dumb & blind , no wounder they don't want nuclear, just want us to keep paying higher bills

[@foxbatbent]

Yeah, he support the extension of coals now.

[@troyjohnston7454]

Would the people prefer keeping the money with the people and spend money on making all houses self sufficient bringing down power bills if not eliminating them or Build nuclear power plants for foreign provider's to over charge the people over and over again for infrastructure the people paid for all for the benefit of shareholders profits Like the NBN Youre being scammed..

[@troyjohnston7454]

Would the people prefer keeping the money with the people and spend money on making all houses self sufficient bringing down power bills if not eliminating them or Build nuclear power plants for foreign provider's to over charge the people over and over again for infrastructure the people paid for all for the benefit of shareholders profits Like the NBN Youre being scammed..

[@garrymcdougall9481]

Australia has more solar and wind power per person than ANY other country in the world. We will be exporting it to south Asia within a decade. We don't need nuclear, even if it were not so damn expensive, slow and potentially very dangerous.

[@rodsloane706]

Bowen listening to the long term issues here? Seems unlikely.

[@hariseldon3786]

The CSIRO is regretfully politicised and will report what it thinks will appeal to Progressive Ideologues...

[@peterking8564]

The Gencost has been prepared consistently for years, even during the time of the coalition. Hardly politicised. Renewables costs are dropping significantly whereas nuclear cost continue upwards.

[@hariseldon3786]

@@peterking8564 I do not dispute that the "Gencost" has been produced for years - so put that to one side. That does not mean that the results are not politicised. The increases in nuclear costs are primarily 'regulatory driven' whether those are health and safety costs or the costs to overcome numerous regulatory hurdles including getting legislations changed.

[@Batman-lives]

Well paid off muppets

[@VK6AB-]

CSIRO has no real world credibility in this space, they don't know how to build major infrastructure or project manage on a large scale moreover, if they were financially sharp they wouldn't work for CSIRO. CSIRO has been horribly politicised - few want to work there.

[@awc900]

Sadly you're correct. The CSIRO is about as unbiased as the ABC nowadays and that's being kind.

[@chuckmaddison2924]

We had nuclear power before we came to Australia, nothing wrong with it.. Oh that was 1970

[@foxbatbent]

You like this?

[@smellbag]

Medical research nuclear reactor operated in Sydney since 1958, Lucas Hts, still going.

[@chuckmaddison2924]

@foxbatbent Nuclear, love it. Have a look at NS Savannah. Been on that as a kid . Nuclear is also safer than coal.

[@Hntrsfanclub]

Try about 1956 at Lucas Heights in Sydney where residents are more than happy to live within sight of a nuclear reactor!

[@foxbatbent]

@@chuckmaddison2924 Sounds good. Not as scary as people have imagined. Maybe they watch too much Simpson with the 3 eye fish. 🤣

[@MozartificeR]

Keeping all three, renewable, coal, and nuclear I think is smart.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

And gas.

[@williamtyndale1402]

As the Chris Uhlmann report on net zero stated EIGHT HUNDRED years of coal in the ground in Victoria

[@creditelectric]

@@buildmotosykletist1987 Gas is methane.

[@paythepiper6283]

If you have the others you don't need a sometime producer. Solar and wind is ridiculous for an economy.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@creditelectric : Nope. Check again. But how is that relevant ?

[@Chrisplumbgas]

The labor party. The party of road blocks to common sense. Vote 1 lnp for the right path for Australia.,

[@NoRegertsHere]

Nope. Vote minor freedom parties first. All of them above LNP. Preferential voting system

[@clivenichols5300]

No LNP no nuclear

[@garrymcdougall9481]

Ha. Ha. ha. They denied climate change existed for 15 yrs. Now they say it is real, but still find ways to delay, delay and delay. They are the coal industry's working dog, and Gina Rineheart's B---ch.

[@cameronjohnston5748]

and then you have the brainwashing tactics of the biased unions that do nothing to encourage anything or to advance. Wanting more money and more safety hasn't changed anything that much. They need to hammer all the governments for less tax and people need to take on personal responsibility instead of expecting others to do that for them. They are going about it wrong in my opinion. If there was a government that had a backbone Australia would be the power house selling to the world not buying things in, always some one to stop things before they start. NSW gold mine comes to mind and all those jobs.

[@jimmycook872]

Remember folks it's a fine line between governing and dictating. You decide 🇦🇺 Australia.

[@MickReeves-qr3px]

Dictating

[@davefoord1259]

Dictating

[@pomaze1]

Dr Adi is the man 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@alanw8552]

Compare Dr Adrian Paterson to Blackout Bowen. Intelligent vs knucklehead.

[@oldbloke204]

Not like he would be biased towards Nuclear do you think?

[@SueNicholls-95]

​@@oldbloke204he'd be a lot more honest than the crap coming from the government sponsored CSIRO who'd say anything, to please the clown Bowen, to keep their funding!

[@jackfrost2146]

@@oldbloke204 People with vast experience are always biased--unlike Blackout Bowen whose only experience with renewables is based on fantacy and politics.

[@oldbloke204]

@@jackfrost2146 So why don't they bring on people not biased towards Nuclear for a balanced view? I won't be voting for it.

[@mike_au]

@@oldbloke204 And Labor's biases are? I'll give you a hint, we are the only modern economy not doing nuclear

[@aclifford652]

Does the Coalition need to gain control of the Senate in order that the bans be lifted?

[@aclifford652]

@EducationWillSetYouFree Wouldn't be too sure about that. People aren't stupid.

[@fergie8716]

The states will be sure to throw a spanner in the works!

[@Psittacine-pp5yd]

@@aclifford652 👍

[@ronaldmusk4996]

The Boss in Canberra can overrule the States. If Dutton has a majority in the Parliament, I believe he then has control of the Senate.....would like to be proven correct here?

[@NoRegertsHere]

Minor parties. That love freedom and hate solar/wind. Put them first, LNP after all of them above LAB/teals/greens

[@wmichaelshiberrassw8604]

Follow the money the rich are making money out for renewables , otherwise they wouldn’t be living near coast

[@peterking8564]

The private sector is nt queueing up to build nuclear. The mug taxpayer is on the hook for the lot.

[@HelenThomas-h1t]

Totally agree

[@dannygalaga1748]

So no one gets rich peddling nuclear? Interesting...

[@NoRegertsHere]

This guy is amazing. Met him on a plane recently.

[@VK6AB-]

Good interview with someone that is both knowledgeable and has done it.

[@waynepaddison8559]

There you go and CSIRO is not in bed with Albanezy CSIRO is Politized

[@chuckh5999]

where do you think they get their funding from? Never bite the hand that feeds you.

[@garrymcdougall9481]

You poor thing. All you have is paranoia. Renewables are replacing coal the way the car replaced the horse and cart. Nuclear is nothing but an expensive diversion.

[@11Acky]

Labor always forget to include the cost of the new transmission lines which will blow the plan out of the water.

[@Jopie496]

I live overseas, my elecricity comes from a nuclear reactor 30km down the road. Dirt cheap electricity.

[@paulveenings6861]

Most Australians are bed wetters .

[@keepitreal2902]

How old is that reactor? More than 15 years? The capital costs have been paid down, so finally you get cheap power.

[@Tallus-on9xx]

​@@keepitreal2902 So the capitol costs of renewables will have to be paid of in 15 to 20 years. Then replaced again. Meanwhile nuclear had another 60 year working life. Thank you for confirming that Nuclear is the cheapest option.

[@keepitreal2902]

@@Tallus-on9xx There are none who are as blind as those who will not see

[@0Aus]

No doubt individuals said the same about fukushima. It was sold as being safe, was it?

[@richardbrown9603]

i hve listened to this Dr before , very clever , knows his stuff❤ and best of all he made Dan Repacholi look uninformed and ignorant

[@daletroy3348]

Dan is ill-informed and mouth piece for his labor masters , said he was going to be a loud voice for the Hunter 😂 he does what he’s told .

[@bobbypaluga4346]

This man is brilliant Aussies need listen

[@garrymcdougall9481]

Ha Ha Ha.

[@KevinFrampton-h4v]

Labor are flower power people

[@Batman-lives]

Very flaky

[@paulveenings6861]

No, they are unicorn farts and fairy dust people 🙂

[@iworkout6912]

Gerbil power in little cages comes to mind.

[@Hntrsfanclub]

I think pond slime would be a better description!

[@gunillatait4614]

More like elite assholes slickers

[@peterbooker6221]

Bring it on

[@CrackerJoe-v1b]

Did you hear what he just said? $600 BILLION dollars is Labour Party’s costing plan too “initially”, just too set up renewables-*(WITHOUT), the cost too replace it all every 10-20yrs…….Which in turn will be about $300 Billion dollars “more” costs to the consumer every 20yrs in best scenario! LNP costing ,”even if it will initially cost the same as Labour’s renewable crap”, will last 80-100 years without needing replacing! I mean really; *(Do you really even have too think about which one is cheaper, and more sustainable, & cost effective in the long run)! Mmmmmmm……

[@450tank]

Exactly mate. Most people don't even watch and listen to the clip, or they won't accept what someone like Adi is saying

[@AndrewMitchell001]

you didnt factor in the 1 trillion plus for new power lines to get renewables to the grid

[@terryquarton2523]

And they pay for themselves in 12 months how long does it take to pay a nuclear plant? Renewables are 95 % recyclable.

[@terryquarton2523]

​@AndrewMitchell001 all those transmission lines at the old coal fired plant will have to be replaced in 15 20 yrs. Howlong does it take to pay off a nuclear plant. Eroupe had to back off all their plants last summer because their rivers and lakes were too hot for cooling the plants. They are not high lighting these facts.

[@450tank]

@@terryquarton2523 The carbon payback period is around 5-12 months, not the cost of the system being paid for.

[@Satoshi799]

It is a fantasy to believe any Australian government could complete a project on time let alone on budget. Terrifying times.

[@torrespearls381]

Excelent news. Lets get going.

[@peterforsythe3643]

8:30 We most certainly CAN ignore the CSIRO report. It's nonsense.

[@tonytanou]

It took the UK 18 years to get their most recent reactor designed, approved and built. Australia does not have a scaled nuclear team of skills. It will take more than 20 years for Australia to produce plant. I would love to see Australia go nuclear but our bureaucracy is too cumbersome. The environmentalist, the indigenous, the peace activists, the economic rationalists, will smother any nuclear project. I cannot see it happening.

[@davidkelly3779]

Watch all that change as it becomes apparent to the general population, that the power grid is collapsing.

[@jimmycook872]

Anyone notice how solar is powered by a nuclear reaction of the sun. LOL 😂 just saying What's wrong with just gas and Coal very cheap and very reliable.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

We will need coal and gas no matter what the other decisions are.

[@gunillatait4614]

I agree ..would be the BEST! We Must Stop This Nonsense!!!

[@garrymcdougall9481]

NOT cheap. and very polluting. My god, are you one of those? Renewables are replacing coal the way the car replaced the horse and buggy.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@garrymcdougall9481 : The car was cleaner and more reliable, a step forward. Renewables are polluting, unreliable and a step backwards.

[@rayc5674]

Renewables need baseload power backup either gas coal or nuclear. If renewables were the cheapest energy option, india will build heaps of them which they are not. With increasing energy use we need cheaper reliable energy and nuclear coal gas are the only options. CO2 cultists dont have an argument when then earth had 20x more co2 in the past

[@Design_no]

Coal and nuclear are the best for netzero.

[@NikCage-fv6pk]

Net zzzero is a con job a scam and an ilusion Nuclear is the way to go !

[@MrPopo-nn7kp]

Just coal

[@BonitaLizzy]

we are paying the price for coal through natural disasters like floods and bushfires. Is coal really cheap? Insurance prices are rising in Australia every year due to natural disasters. Think about the hidden costs of coal. Burning coal releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than other fossil fuels, which contributes to global warming , climate change and ill health.

[@timmo8909y]

@@BonitaLizzy 100%. I hear you. Just remember the fossil fuelers likely had sad upbringings and the damage is done. They don't even care about the environment for their future family.

[@Berserker978]

​@BonitaLizzy Bahahahaha That's Hilarious. And before there was Coal Fired Stations and Natural Disasters Happened What do you blame for them. 😂

[@paythepiper6283]

Here's hoping Dr Paterson is put in charge of building our 7 reactors or at the very least is heavily involved.

[@bazpopham8496]

Nuclear on its own is fine.👍 Solar and wind needs firming , fine for domestic but not industrial nations.☹️ We will need 5x more energy by 2050 Not enough toxic metals for solar and wind to meet the demand

[@TerenceDuffy]

Refreshing reality!😊

[@susiekopp1806]

Simple, effective and logical solution for future Australia. Why on earth we can’t have this? Labor wants Australia to turn into medieval country. 😂😂😂

[@stevenmitchell7830]

At last some common sense!

[@evdave6693]

There are so many issues with nuclear implementation and one of those is how long it takes and the issues surrounding just that problem. E.g.; 1. Delayed Emission Reductions Nuclear's long timeline delays progress towards net-zero emissions. Faster options like wind, solar, and batteries could replace fossil fuels much sooner. 2. High Opportunity Costs Investing in nuclear ties up resources (money, workforce, time) that could be used to scale cheaper, quicker renewable energy projects. It prevents immediate progress on building cleaner energy capacity. 3. Technology Obsolescence Energy technologies are evolving rapidly. In 15 years, nuclear reactors could become outdated or outperformed by cheaper renewable technologies and advances in energy storage. 4. Capital Lock-Up and Cost Overruns Nuclear projects require massive upfront investment long before they produce any energy. Long timelines increase the risk of cost blowouts due to delays, inflation, or regulatory hurdles. Examples like Hinkley Point C in the UK show nuclear projects frequently run billions over budget. 5. Reliance on Aging Infrastructure During the long nuclear construction period, Australia would need to rely on: Aging coal plants, increasing maintenance costs and emissions. Gas peaking plants, which are expensive and emit carbon. 6. Risk of Energy Shortages Long lead times mean that if energy demand increases faster than expected, the grid could face shortages or blackouts while waiting for nuclear energy to come online. 7. Economic Uncertainty The long delay increases economic risk, as future energy markets could change. By the time nuclear plants are operational, energy demand may be different, or renewables may dominate the market at far lower costs. 8. Public Backlash and Political Delays Nuclear projects face significant public opposition and political hurdles. Over 15 years, changing governments and community concerns can result in policy reversals, delays, or even cancellations. 9. No Immediate Jobs or Benefits While nuclear projects create some jobs in the long term, they do not provide the immediate employment opportunities that quicker renewable projects do. 10. Global Energy Competitiveness Countries rapidly adopting renewables may achieve lower energy costs and competitive economic advantages, leaving Australia behind if nuclear delays progress. 11. Increased Fossil Fuel Usage Long nuclear timelines mean Australia may have to extend the lifespan of fossil fuel plants to maintain grid stability, undermining climate goals. 12. Geopolitical and Supply Chain Risks Long nuclear construction periods increase exposure to global supply chain disruptions, as nuclear requires specialised components (e.g., reactor cores, fuels).

[@chrisphillips6996]

If nuclear is so bad why is it being used for medical reasons? Just asking for a friend.

[@keepitreal2902]

It's not bad, it's just expensive and time consuming to establish. Compared to renewables it's a snail in a race with a cheetah.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@keepitreal2902 : On average a nuclear plant costs $8B. The poles and wires for renewables will cost $1.5 TRILLION ! The average nuclear plant is built in 7 or 8 years. No renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years and none are expected before 2035 and that time frame is doubtful.

[@keepitreal2902]

@buildmotosykletist1987 Your "facts" are fanciful. Lets us first dispense with your assertion that no renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years: 1. Wind Projects: Silverton Wind Farm (NSW): Completed in 2019, with a capacity of 200 MW. Mount Emerald Wind Farm (QLD): Delivered 180 MW in 2019. Willogoleche Wind Farm (SA): Contributed 119 MW in 2019. 2. Solar Farms: Darling Downs Solar Farm (QLD): A 110 MW large-scale solar project completed in 2019. Daydream Solar Farm (QLD): A 150 MW project delivered in the same year. Numurkah Solar Farm (VIC): A 100 MW solar farm that supports both local and industrial needs. Australia has added over 27 utility-scale battery projects as of 2023, with a combined capacity exceeding 5 GW. This includes projects like the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, known for stabilizing the grid and supporting renewable integration. Over 4 million Australian rooftops now feature solar panels, collectively contributing significant capacity and reducing reliance on the grid. As for your claim about nuclear: The typical build time and cost of nuclear reactors in Western countries vary significantly based on factors such as design, regulatory frameworks, and construction practices. Build Time: Construction times for new nuclear reactors in Western countries generally range from 5 to 10 years for standardized projects. However, the total time from project initiation to completion can extend to 10-15 years, considering planning, permitting, and licensing stages. In cases of first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects or where delays occur, such as in the U.S. and Europe, construction has taken 15+ years. For instance, Finland's Olkiluoto-3 reactor took 17 years from start to finish. Costs: The cost of building nuclear plants in Western countries is generally high, ranging from $6,000 to $12,000 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity. For example: The UK’s Hinkley Point C is estimated at $25-30 billion AUD for 3.2 GW capacity. The U.S. Vogtle plant's new reactors are costing approximately $30 billion USD for 2.2 GW capacity. The overnight construction cost (excluding financing) of recent projects is about $7,000-10,000 per kW, but total costs often escalate due to delays and financing issues. In short, you are wrong in every respect.

[@marklawler3633]

"No renewable scheme has been completed in the last 15 years"??? What are you talking about?

[@keepitreal2902]

@@marklawler3633 He's a fact free zone

[@henvan8737]

So Snowy 2.0 was budgeted for $2 billion and now up to $12 billion. So what will the nuclear reactor budgeted for $331 billion stretch to by 2040.

[@RenegadeRanga]

I don't think so. Tunnelling brings a whole different technical level to jobs. The locations are existing coal plants. The grid is also existing.

[@robertburdett3886]

Anything labour proposes is always criticised by Sky it’s predictable What a stupid biased news service These big data companies are controlling the world at what cost

[@mattigower1479]

Thank you Dr Paterson, for giving a clear and precise set of details on why renewables alone cannot work, and why, a strong robust base load supply has to be developed. What a sharp contrast from the buffoons and uninformed wannabe grid designers who insist that we need renewables only. Your contributing dialogue is greatly appreciated. We need a balanced mix of energy supply sources, Dutton has clearly taken his time to research a complex topic that he is not expert on, and he has come up with a clever solution. Now, all we need to is get Albo, Bowen and Chalmers out of that mix.

[@CodexIndia1]

Ahh yes we can buy nuclear energy for the 10-20 million new "Australians" from India that will be living in the country by that time.

[@jonathanpasch6604]

Vote for the "Australia first" candidates.

[@kermitthehermit9588]

Bro, gotta say, your dedication to your dislike of India and Indian people is unparalleled 🥤🍿 Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone turn their hatred towards a specific country into a fcking hobby 😂

[@troywallace322]

​@EducationWillSetYouFreeYes my sons will herd many goats and be free of education

[@CodexIndia1]

@EducationWillSetYouFree If Indians were capable of building or maintaining a "great country" they'd be able to do it in India. It will not be great, it will be miserable.

[@matthewlevesque6801]

If private industry was responsible for building out of nuclear, it would be done in half the time and half the cost.

[@garrymcdougall9481]

And ten times the accident rate. Anyway, nuclear is just a diversion. Renewables are replacing coal the way the car replaced the horse and buggy.

[@lynscott1489]

How many car accidents have we had since..just asking?​@@garrymcdougall9481

[@charlieschultz4446]

Welcome to the 21st. Century, " black- out " B .

[@davehad-enough2369]

REMOVE BOWEN.

[@alexpalmer776]

Next generation AI creates the opportunity to half the federal and state governments employees in the next 10 years. Less government workers means less radical left socialist voters supporting Labor. Less tax and hopefully better analysis of government spending and reporting. Lower inflation.

[@wrenchesinthegears]

where can one find the report/plan?

[@NPC-fl3gq]

With our enormous uranium stocks its unbelievable that we're still having this debate. Instead of burning coal we should be selling it - we have very high quality coal and its worth enough to significantly offset the cost of introducing nuclear. We need nuclear anyway, to build civil nuclear industries, to provide the right manufacturing and education base needed to have nuclear powered subs. Plus it doesn't have the issues with synchronisation and inertia that renewables have, and doesn't need an expensive fragile grid to support it. Plus we can power pumped hydro off-peak, which means we need to burn less gas for ramping purposes.

[@tonitonita9046]

Thank you for explaining something so complex in an easy to understand way. This should be our future make Australia Great Again.

[@kasmstamps1897]

I did something for myself and installed solar (solar company did the installation). When I get a battery next year I'll have energy independence.

[@InvincibleBattleship]

I can't see the 50% renewables being sustainable, it will shift to predominantly baseload over time.

[@tiesword3252]

ADRIAN PATERSON...INDEED, LET THE PEOPLE LEARN THE TRUTH.....THIS IS A COMMON SENSE.....

[@ianenglish123]

So mr Expert, how is the nuclear plan in ten years going to bring the cost of living down next year. Please explain

[@adamregan4921]

Obviously it won’t bring down costs next year. Renewables aren’t bringing down costs next year either. It will get worse the longer we leave it. That’s why we need nuclear like most countries around the world have also realised. Currently 440 nuclear power reactors world wide. Is the smartest and most reliable option.

[@cheflazy]

I would rather sink my Tax money into a future with Nuclear, which has been proven and refined so much rather than an inconsistent Renewables. The renewable energy infrastructure just isnt good enough and technology itself isnt good enough to keep up with everything nowadays

[@kasmstamps1897]

I put $$$ into installing solar. I'm using 5x what I used before, paying half as much and still exporting more than I use (even though the system is export limited). And I paid tax upfront.

[@cheflazy]

@kasmstamps1897 If we add Nuclear to the grid not only would we get such clean and pure energy, it wouldn't matter how much you use because the prices would plummet. I hear you though

[@kasmstamps1897]

@@cheflazy but nuclear wouldn't happen and be online within 30 years. It's just a distraction for fossil fuels imo.

[@joevermeulen6117]

Brilliant - and makes so much sense!

[@MichaelMitropoulos-mz4uk]

Thank you Sir for your honest informative debate.

[@dorrianpainting3155]

Some good point's about the real costing figures Labor has left out. Also the amount of energy needed for future A.I.

[@MarkBayliss-w8p]

I would like to hear more balanced discussions. I want to hear about the area saved as in the sites planned as opposed to the area space taken up by wind and solar

[@jamesorrock8897]

Any cogent response from 'Blackout' Bowen to this energy expert? 😮

[@JamesAnderson-v3p]

At last someone leading discourse with facts,reason and intelligence not emotion irrationality and slander

[@gerrtryks2944]

Why is Bowen the only one that knows about energy?. Excellent presentation Keep pushing.

[@actualfacts1055]

Just replace existing coal with new modern coal, that was the original plan and still the obvious choice.

[@machinewrangler4682]

Cheap and cheerful. Well a bloody lot cheaper than nuclear. Lack of reinvestment over the years, but what would you expect from private sector.

[@actualfacts1055]

​@@machinewrangler4682State Governments got rid of their coal power stations because of the cost of maintaining them.

[@jamesyoung4834]

Mught as well find a bloke who says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer

[@Necjh]

Bravo and spot on

[@josa9902]

Thank you Ross

[@Caspar0809]

Peter Dutton bring this guy on board

[@Scrubbull23]

What is the lifespan of these plants? Can spent rods be reused?

[@LogicLost]

As soon as someone says "100% renewables", they lose all credibility, as they haven't read Labors plan, or they can't read.

[@paulwhelan8567]

Exactly. Apparently Gas firming is now considered renewable. 🙄

[@TheOzStu]

There is another important consideration with the two options. Labors energy plan not only costs 250 billion more, it only produces part time power. Sun has to be shining or wind blowing, or both. The nuclear power will provide 24/7 365 per year regardless of weather of time of day. So even if it cost more then labors plan, it's still the better option.

[@CraigHarvey]

Unless there's a drought and they run out of water, which is increasingly likely thanks to climate change.

[@mike_au]

@@CraigHarvey climate change causes it to rain, haven't you been watching the floods on the telly?, climate change causes the droughts when the left needs it for its narratives.

[@TheOzStu]

@@CraigHarvey If we run out of water it will be because of ramping up the population which labor is also doing, and building no new water infrastructure......or housing for the that matter. You should stop worrying about climate change, it's all BS. The future under lefty woke rule is one of increased homelessness, poverty, frequent blackouts, power restrictions, high prices, and yeah, probably run out of water too.

[@shanecollie5177]

@@CraigHarvey That is a false claim

[@CraigHarvey]

@@shanecollie5177 what's false, that nuclear power plants us millions of litres of water a day or that Australia, the driest inhabited continent experiences droughts?

[@adamsmith-bq8ku]

331 billion to produce half the electricity required according to their own figures.

[@eileenbriffa]

Great interview why can't we get him and bowen on your show to have a debate i think all ausies would love to see it happen this person knows his stuff 😊

[@IslandArcConsulting]

Everyone should watch this

[@PaulAustralianborn]

Its great to listen to some facts from a real energy expert who supports the industrial sector rather then Bowen who doesn’t give a stuff about those that work in industries that consume a lot of energy

[@donkitchin4216]

Since there has to be 100% gas powered back up for the renewables. Why not just cut out the renewables and spend the money on reliable power generation

[@Gotoooooo]

Perhaps Mr Paterson would give us his views on the Japanese, Fukushima nuclear power plant, meltdown.Despite modern technologies 13 years on they are still unable to locate the estimated 880 tons of melted highly radioactive waste.(the Corium)With an estimated 30/40 years to clean up our Pacific ocean remains under threat of becoming a radioactive soup. Have you seen !that! in your newspaper lately.

[@adamsmith-bq8ku]

The LNP in Queensland have already stated that there will never be a nuclear power station in their state. Labor states will also refuse, so that means Dutton's scheme is as dead as a dodo. If he tried to override the states he would be starting a fight that would be disastrous for him.

[@Sendu7]

Australia building 7 nuclear plants under the watchful eye of the CFMEU - no way will the costs blow out!

[@allanclell]

It would be great to crack on with it. Start training engineers in this field.. start construction and for cheap power right now until it’s done use modern coal stations on current sites until we are online. Great to hear him talk about the jagged sine wave.. people do not realise how our grid is balanced. And how difficult it is for operators who currently supply to input this dc generated renewable power that has to be rectified or inverted into the grid and balanced. Its a square sine wave. Its outta phase

[@iworkout6912]

Where I live in the US nuclear will never be built (never say never) because many in the MSM say its dangerous and wind and solar is much safer. But the point is electric demand is growing and the ban on nuclear will be something our politicians will come to regret down the road. Germany is thinking about the end to nuclear in the next few years, not sure if they are really going to do it, even though many plants are in the stages of shutdown.

[@creditelectric]

The scale needed for power generation while a profit is made means it will cost more, the dust needs to settle over the estimated costs, I don't trust Duttons prediction & these enormous complex engineering projects always seem to run over budget with the so called adults in charge.

[@jasonmelbaus9077]

At the next Federal Election we will find out how bumb we Australians have become.

[@LogicLost]

6:17 If this is the case, why does the Nuke plan predict a lower energy need by 2050 than the no nuclear plan? Cherry picking much?

[@tersy9862]

The biggest problem is logic and common sense does not apply to politics

[@mhirasuna]

I hope that this is a sign of a more fact based discussion, as the initial name calling dies down. As we learn more about nuclear, the better it looks. While as we learn more about renewables, the worse it looks. More facts please.

[@peterhatch56]

An Opal research reactor is not seen as a threat to the rest but larger U235 reactor have plutonium as a biproduct that can be used to produce Nuclear weapons. This makes Australia a Nuclear power and an automatic target in any conflict even if is only against any our of or allies.

[@TherealBerserker]

Ignorant but a brave man to go on sky Australia as an expert host when Alan Jones was sky's example of yesterday's expert host

[@deanhays6115]

You cross dressers are ramping up your propaganda Must be an election looming😂😂😂

[@jsmith3908]

CHEAPEST does NOT equal best. Would Australia build the CHEAPEST bridge? The CHEAPEST Opera House? NO, we want the best. Nuclear is the best form of energy, a legacy nation building project for Australia.

[@kasmstamps1897]

I think solar and battery is the best form of energy. Once I get a battery I'll have energy independence. Combine that with an EV I'll have transport independence as well. Living in a regional area will reduce the tryanny of distance.

[@pookeyhutchison7838]

We also need new HELE coal plants as well and also to scrap all intermittent power projects .

[@peterdodd5425]

Yes yes and please yes 👍

[@frankkolmann4801]

The thing with solar power is this. ALREADY too much solar power is generated at peak solar to the extent that people are being CHARGED for the power they put onto the grid. If even more solar panels are installed the distribution system could collapse. I see no one talking about the management and storage of excess solar power.

[@kasmstamps1897]

Dozens of projects in the pipeline for big batteries. They are coming (some are already here). A really big factory is nearly complete in China, Oz expecting deliveries late Q1 2025.

[@frankkolmann4801]

Is very difficult to integrate a lot of big batteries into existing power distribution network Reason is the power distribution is like a tree with the trunk at the power station Even now it is very difficult to send power from the secondary 240V network back to the higher voltage primary network

[@galacticnemesis366]

Yes yes yes! Now we are talking. Bring on cheap reliable low emissions energy and bring back manufacturing.

[@peterkirgan2921]

Australia should build new Coal power plants !!!!

[@cameronrussell7397]

If nuclear is so wonderful and financially viable, allow private enterprise to build them, don’t use public money. I bet if you did this, no private money would come forward to do it.

[@anthonyobrien6832]

I will put my money into nuclear.i live in Hunter Valley .Build it baby😅

[@paulwhelan8567]

Same can be said for industrial solar plants and rooftop solar. Watch all the people squeal when their input credits are taken away.

[@itsgottobesaid4269]

Spread the good news everyone that the market operators can do nuclear much ,much cheaper than renewables which have never worked anywhere and require huge taxpayers subsidies.

[@kasmstamps1897]

I think the good news is that big batteries are getting installed.

[@itsgottobesaid4269]

@@kasmstamps1897 Batteries don't make any energy. They store some energy which is very finite.

[@Birch37]

We won't be getting Meta and Google AI Data Centres anytime soon. Australia only has a tiny population (domestic demand) and submarine ocean cables would all require significant bandwidth upgrades.

[@todd6798]

When you attack another option says a lot.

[@johnd5953]

Adi has forgotten more than Bowen will ever know

[@mitchmccarron8337]

"It's just the vibe" is no longer enough for ordinary folks who can't afford this wind and solar pipe-dream. What's the difference between base-load power like nuclear and wind/solar? 1. We need China for all wind/solar, including battery storage - but we have all capabilities and skills to utilise nuclear technology for base-load power. 2. Base-load power stations can be positioned where the grid can already use them. Solar/Wind means destruction of native forests & wildlife, and no plan for recycling or replacement. Mitch, Australia.

[@davidsimpson3275]

Harvest Electricity from the Atmosphere, Tesla Free Energy ... Simple

[@dannygalaga1748]

What's he banging on about 'smooth electricty'? All electronics are powered by swirch mode power supllies now. A switch mode power supply doesnt care if its getting rectified power from a car battery, or solar or if its from a traditional alternator as used in coal, gas or nuclear power plants.

[@davidtaylor595]

But but but … the Teal MP Nuclear energy expert, Allegra Spender ( apt surname ! ) , disagrees ? After reading and understanding the expert energy report over coffee …

[@louvidify]

Definitely no to nuclear

[@brnatlas9611]

Maybe ask some actual questions? Are the savings based on residential power bills? Are the coalition costs based off using 45% less electricity ( mmmm maybe it’s 44% cheaper if you model using 45% less). Let the market make the decision … if you could build nuclear would the market build it … nuclear electricity is more expensive, that is a fact.