Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Why I'm embarrassed to be German" video.

  1. I'm an aerospace engineer (by degree) who read all of Asimov's works on Foundation way back when I was an undergraduate. The story I remember from (i think) Second Foundation was when a person form the Foundation ventured back into the Empire and found planet after planet had fallen into pre-industrial chaos. When they finally found a planet that still retained technology they found a snag. As the empire had fallen so had education. The traveller found that the chief engineer of the power plant had no idea how it worked. Their title "Chief Engineer" had become hereditary as had many other positions. What maintenance that was being done was being done as a ritual rather than a required engineering exercise. During the 1990s when my parents (both high school teachers) retired they were often lamenting how the education system was slowly being converted from a education system into a factory system and that one day we would pay dearly for it. In the 35 years I have worked in industrial control systems over a number of industries, no matter I have worked there has been a steady decline in the standard of both graduate engineers and skilled tradesmen (electricians, welders, machinists). The problem is NOT a lack of intelligence on the part of the students but the education system has become more concerned with pumping out graduates with certificates than producing graduates with skills who can do a job. Time and time again I am reminded that Isaac Asimov was one of the great visionaries of the 20th Century and sadly underestimated by mainstream thinkers. He understood the world so much better than many of the people we consider visionaries. I cannot say for certain but I think he would be very disappointed with where humanity is right now.
    15
  2. Aerospace Engineer here: I work in industrial control systems which has enabled me to work across several industries giving me in experience of many of the things needed to do things like build a lunar base. So I have been involved in manufacturing, mining, water treatment, power reticulation and even done a power station project. I also have certifications in both Functional Safety and Hazardous Areas (Explosive gas & dust). So I am more qualified than Sabine to talk about Hydrogen and have commented previously on her remarks regarding Hydrogen. SHE IS WRONG it is the way forward because there is nothing else that can do the job Hydrogen can do. There is no battery system that can be large enough because there isn't enough Lithium. Simon Michaux (who I don't always agree with) is 100% right on this point. In fact there isn't enough lithium to make 1/3rd of the batteries needed for all the cars in the world let alone the trucks, buses, laptops, mobile phones and especially not the mega batteries Elon Musk and others sell. Using Hydrogen as a buffer between renewables and the power gird makes sense. The Electrolysers are getting more efficient with some experimental ones reaching 94% efficiency. There's a new generation of gas turbines coming out. Both Siemens and GE have been selling mixed fuel Gas Turbines for a few years now. These can run AS THEY ARE WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS up to 50% Hydrogen. There are numerous power stations around the world that can be replaced by these. For example: In Australia we have 2 older gas thermal power stations (Torrens Island & Newport). Torrens (built in the 1970s) puts out 800MW which is the same as the largest Siemens & GE turbines. At best Torrens was about 35% thermal efficiency when new and likely less than 30% now considering the state of other old power stations we have (and had). At better than 64% Thermal efficiency one of these turbines would use less than 1/2 the natural gas for the same power. If it also then used Hydrogen that was produced from excess energy on days when the wind blows hard and the sun shines bright then we'd have an even bigger saving on natural gas and with it even lower emissions. The problem I have with Sabine talking this way is that she is NOT a project engineer and does NOT understand that project engineers have to be very pragmatic with their decisions. As a theoretical physicist she can ponder about things. As engineers we can't. Engineers have to solve the problem that exists in front of them and that gets damn hard when other voices who DO NOT know what they are saying wont STOP SPEAKING. SHE IS RIGHT that Hydrogen is difficult to handle, but scaremongering about the Fukushima explosion is exactly the sort of nonsense nobody needs. I am qualified to talk about the safety requirements needed around hydrogen because I have been trained for it and had to deal with it in projects. The moment its known to be of noticeable quantities in a process everything changes. Hydrogen has a very low ignition energy and that included thermal ignition where simply being hot enough causes ignition. Go and ask any engineer who works in the selection of electrical equipment for use in Hazardous Areas and they will tell you hydrogen is a hassle. For those reasons: I DO NOT want to see hydrogen used in cars and busses. If there is an accident its going to be horrendous. Sabine is right hydrogen explosions are nasty because of how much energy can be released and because of how easily they ignite. HOWEVER as a buffer to the worlds energy systems Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if we are going to have a future dominated by renewables (Wind & Solar).
    6
  3. Aerospace Engineer here: I might be Australian but I absolutely understand that sort of logic as I have seen it done. I actually work in industrial control systems which has enabled me to work across several industries giving me in experience of many of the things needed to do things like build a lunar base. So I have been involved in manufacturing, mining, water treatment, power reticulation and even done a power station project. I also have certifications in both Functional Safety and Hazardous Areas (Explosive gas & dust). So I am more qualified than Sabine to talk about Hydrogen and have commented previously on her remarks regarding Hydrogen. SHE IS WRONG it is the way forward because there is nothing else that can do the job Hydrogen can do. There is no battery system that can be large enough because there isn't enough Lithium. Simon Michaux (who I don't always agree with) is 100% right on this point. In fact there isn't enough lithium to make 1/3rd of the batteries needed for all the cars in the world let alone the trucks, buses, laptops, mobile phones and especially not the mega batteries Elon Musk and others sell. Using Hydrogen as a buffer between renewables and the power gird makes sense. The Electrolysers are getting more efficient with some experimental ones reaching 94% efficiency. There's a new generation of gas turbines coming out. Both Siemens and GE have been selling mixed fuel Gas Turbines for a few years now. These can run AS THEY ARE WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS up to 50% Hydrogen. There are numerous power stations around the world that can be replaced by these. For example: In Australia we have 2 older gas thermal power stations (Torrens Island & Newport). Torrens (built in the 1970s) puts out 800MW which is the same as the largest Siemens & GE turbines. At best Torrens was about 35% thermal efficiency when new and likely less than 30% now considering the state of other old power stations we have (and had). At better than 64% Thermal efficiency one of these turbines would use less than 1/2 the natural gas for the same power. If it also then used Hydrogen that was produced from excess energy on days when the wind blows hard and the sun shines bright then we'd have an even bigger saving on natural gas and with it even lower emissions. The problem I have with Sabine talking this way is that she is NOT a project engineer and does NOT understand that project engineers have to be very pragmatic with their decisions. As a theoretical physicist she can ponder about things. As engineers we can't. Engineers have to solve the problem that exists in front of them and that gets damn hard when other voices who DO NOT know what they are saying wont STOP SPEAKING. SHE IS RIGHT that Hydrogen is difficult to handle, but scaremongering about the Fukushima explosion is exactly the sort of nonsense nobody needs. I am qualified to talk about the safety requirements needed around hydrogen because I have been trained for it and had to deal with it in projects. The moment its known to be of noticeable quantities in a process everything changes. Hydrogen has a very low ignition energy and that included thermal ignition where simply being hot enough causes ignition. Go and ask any engineer who works in the selection of electrical equipment for use in Hazardous Areas and they will tell you hydrogen is a hassle. For those reasons: I DO NOT want to see hydrogen used in cars and busses. If there is an accident its going to be horrendous. Sabine is right hydrogen explosions are nasty because of how much energy can be released and because of how easily they ignite. HOWEVER as a buffer to the worlds energy systems Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if we are going to have a future dominated by renewables (Wind & Solar).
    2
  4. ​ @insaneshepherd8678  Thanks - its good to hear someone else who knows what's what. Go watch the channel Real Engineering and watch the recent video about the issue with wind farms. He does a great explanation of the issue with grid stability and that's where many people who have no idea of what it takes to make a power grid work go wrong. I never did grid level power but did interact with the power engineers on mine sites which have there own power grid. Yes a lot smaller but the principles are the same. It sounds incredibly simple what power engineers do but they have to do it with absolute assurity of grid stability. They are a sort of club that don't like talking to other much because all the rest of us do is cause them headaches. In particular all power grids have to be able to handle disturbances. I once saw a short doco on the British power grid and one of their biggest hassles happens each week night when their most popular TV program ends. Millions of Brits turn on the kettle to make a cup of tea. Normally a kettle should not affect the power grid that supports 60 million people but when you turn on a couple of million all at once it hits the grid like a sledge hammer. Modern societies have similar things every day when people wake up and start turning lots of things on and when they go home and cook diner. It causes huge surges that have to be handled and for that you need a system deigned to handle that. Wind and Solar by themselves CAN NOT DO THAT. They need a system that can. A couple of large nuclear plants would act like a giant shock absorber, but also adding in a couple of those massive gas turbine units adds massive surge capacity. Coal and nuclear plants take 1 to 2 days to het up to full power but these turbines are at full power from cold in about 23 minutes. The first 500MW from the turbine is a few minutes to spin up and a few more to sync but the 300MW from the cogen unit takes longer because it has to build up the steam.
    1
  5.  @mjouwbuis  Sorry but methane might not be as dangerous as hydrogen but its still damn dangerous. Ethylene (C2H4) is also incredibly dangerous. So you need to be clear on what you mean by adding a few carbon atoms.
    1
  6.  @mjouwbuis  On your copper remark - in what way does copper become an alternative to battery and hydrogen applications. Batteries store energy but in a limited way. Hydrogen can be used as a energy storage or it can simply be produced as a fuel. In what way does copper act as a storage medium or as a fuel?
    1
  7. I'm an Australian engineer and having worked with companies like Siemens, Kuka, Lenze, Sick, Pilz,...... YES when they get things right they get it very right, but OMG when they F*CK up they do it spectacularly.
    1