Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Kyle Hill" channel.

HEY KYLE: Here's another case I have seen of this. Peter Zeihan is a popular geopolitical analyst. I'm subscribed to his channel and watch his daily video most of the time. I also watch the longer talks he's given at conferences that people have on their channels. HOWEVER I have noticed a staggering number of channels with Peters older material being re-cut and re-edited and then presented as NEW MATERIAL. It feels like every day another 1 or 2 NEW channels with clear copyright breaches pop up in my recommendations every day. One of them even used Peter's name in the channel name, when I checked that channel was hosted by someone in Pakistan. Another time a similar channel was hosted in India. I keep hitting the "don't recommend this channel" button and its like whack-a-mole. As fast as I can "don't recommend" a channel 2 more pop-up. Also I get "sponsored" advertisements that are obvious AI generated voice overs. I'm in Australia and other than the Elon Musk versions I get 1-10 a day with Australian mainstream media personalities, which is how I can easily spot they are AI generated.
2
@Napoleonic_S By chance have you ever seen the TED talk that Nick Hanauer gave titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming"? Its here on YT and in part of it he explains what Henry Ford did with wages for his workers. Its something you will NOT here from most of todays business leaders.
2
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: The reason you need a nuclear power plant on the moon has NOTHING to do with energy density. Kirk Sorenson (of Thorium fame) went through this as part of a study into powering a moon base. On the moon there's 3 options, Solar, Chemical and nuclear. Chemical (as in fuel cells or combustion) wont work because you'd need to constantly re-supply it. Solar can't work except at a couple of places near the South Pole. The problem is the moon is tidally locked and all the face that points towards the Earth, which you'd use so you have constant communications gets 14days of light followed by 14 days of darkness. If you tired you'd need double the number of solar panels and a huge battery which becomes a hassle flying it all there. Nuclear becomes the only viable option quite quickly and that means discussing WHAT TYPE - Uranium, Plutonium or Thorium fueled and then PWR, MSR, or straight thermal using something like a Sterling engine or Peltier effect. The problem with both PWR and MSR is getting all the stuff there and then getting it installed and then making it work and then maintaining it. Arguably one of the biggest problems is how far away do you install said reactor. Because the further away you place it from the base then the longer the power cable to connect it and copper IS NOT LIGHT. Also that plastic sheath you have on normal cables doesn't last well in space due to the radiation. THIS IS ALL PART of why we haven't been back to the moon in 50 years. We could have kept going but what would have been the purpose as we'd learned what we could with the technology we had. Then the Space Shuttle which was technically amazing was also tragically super expensive and required a lot more man hours to maintain so it ended up starving many programs like the ones needed to develop tech for a Moon base and so stuff didn't get developed. Then the ISS which is also technically amazing did the same thing AGAIN. The problem isn't knowing what's needed for a Moon base its just that most of it has been so starved of funding and people power is just not developed to the point where its deployable. If you read this far thanks and sorry for the long reply.
1
@Limitless_Doom WTF makes you think this channel is "woke" anything? You know other than BULLSHlT over hyped crap like AI has been one of the things that annoys the crap out of me are clowns who just use BULLSHlT terms like "woke" "fascist" "commie" or "socialist" for anything and everything they don't like. So feel free to f*ck-off to what ever fantasy channel you like.
1
AUSTRALAIN ENGINEER HERE: I like your channel but you have a couple of things in this video that are horrendously wrong and anyone who has spent time in any industry would be able to understand it. My degree is in aerospace but I have worked in industrial control systems and automation for 30+ years across a number of industries. I have worked on project ranging from a few $1,000 to multi-billion dollar projects where at times I have been responsible for several hundred million dollars of plant. After a small consulting job in 2016 that alerted me to Australia's energy crisis (and yes its a crisis) and the complete lack of anything resembling a plan I got interested in energy. More to the point I wanted to know why there's NO plan and 8 years later there still isn't. There's policies but policies ARE NOT plans. FIRST - The problem Australia has is common across the entire developed world. That problem is in 2 parts. One simply not recognising that we were always going to have the energy transition because of the simple fact that power stations wear out and have to be replaced. Two the dominance of economists in decision making including in things they have no understanding of like power stations. Mark Blyth the Political Economist at Brown U. says (paraphrasing) "Its hardwired into economists that they see everyone else as a problem that they have to manage." Dr. Jason Hansen is NOT an ENGINEER he's an economist and therefore part of the problem. I don't care if he's employed by Idaho National Labs or not. Here in Australia The CSIRO has made the same mistake. They hired economists to evaluate nuclear power and got the opposite answer to Jason Hansen. our main science organisation CSIRO just released a report on energy and it too is done by economists and they say the complete opposite to Jason Hansen. Economist are MANIPULATORS of data. If I didn't know better I'd say they have a special class in every Economics Syllabus titled "How to manipulate data and statistics to mean whatever you want!" SECOND - A major problem which you do partly address but not well enough is the issue of grid stability. For anyone interested the YouTube channel Real Engineering explained this in a video titled "The Problem with Wind Energy." The real value that nuclear brings is grid stability by virtue of the size of nuclear plants. Plants based on reactors like the AP1000 and EPR 2 (which are the current generation) with passive safety, are what people need to consider because they have been built and are running. THIRD - And sorry but this is where you made a huge mistake. For someone claiming to be a Science educator you let fly with a ridiculous claim on efficiency. EVERY Thermodynamic process has an efficiency. Something could have an efficiency of 0.00000001% and you can still say its efficient. Claims of efficiency are spurious and misleading unless you compare it to something else and for the record. The EPR 2 has a thermal efficiency of 36% (see Hinckley Point C on Wikipedia) The AP1000 has a thermal efficiency of 33% (see Vogtle on Wikipedia) Gas or Coal thermal plants have historically been around 35-36% but can be as high as 42-43% with high pressure boilers. I know Rio Tinto helped a Japanese plant get over 42% in the mid 2000s. But I also know some of the older coal plants (like Hazelwood) fell away to be around 20% towards the end of their lives. Gas turbines can be as high as 45% (GE claim the 9HA.02 at 44%) Combined Cycle Gas turbines can be almost 65% (GE claim the 9HA.02 in CC at >64%) I personally think that there will be an enormous amount of work done on improving efficiency in coming years especially in the area of waste heat. It does NOT matter which process we have been incredibly wasteful with all these technologies. It wont be easy but we have to be better with energy. If you look at something like an EPR 2. The thermal energy is 4,524 MWt and output is 1,630 MWe. which means there's almost 3 GW of energy going to waste. YES the temperature differential is lower but we have to find a way to tap into that. If the nuclear industry wants a future learn to tap that and the LCOE will go down a significant amount. One of the most interesting claims I have heard was from Mark Blyth the Political Economist at Brown U. who's one of the very few people from the economics area with a functioning brain. He pointed out a study that said if America simply triple glazed its windows the energy saving would help America get most of the way to its Paris requirements. All those glass towers in the big cities are staggeringly poor at thermodynamics. They either let in too much energy when its hot and act like greenhouses which requires energy to cool them OR they leak massive amounts of energy when its cold and need huge amounts to keep them warm. IF YOU WANT TO TALK BOUT THIS STUFF LET ME KNOW
1
@mysticx0 The please explain what people are going to do for electricity where there is no viable wind and solar? I am all for putting in all the wind and solar that we can, but to think it will do everything for everyone is utterly IGN0RANT of basic reality. So you and all the other clowns like you better explain what you are going to do for those places where its impractical.
1
AEROSPACE ENIGNEER HERE: there's a very simple logical thought process to the "Are we alone question?" It comes up with an interesting answer. 1) If you are someone who believes in God or Gods, angles, cherubs, spirits,...etc then you are a person who believes we are not alone because you believe there are these other non-human beings with variations of intelligence that we have had various interactions with. You therefore believe we are NOT ALONE. 2) If you are a person who believes in the accepted scientific explanation of evolution then considering how many planets we now know that life must exist somewhere else. It does not matter if you think the occurrence of life and the development of intelligence is common or rare the fact is you believe we are NOT ALONE. 3) You believe we are a unique accident of the universe and that this planet is the only place to have ever developed life and intelligence anywhere in the universe. To have that belief you NEITHER believe in the religious accounts of billions of people NOR the Scientific explanations of billions more. You are therefore very, very rare. The amazing thing about all 3 of these answers is that NONE of the proponents can prove or disprove their claim or the disprove the claims of the other 2. Most importantly RIGHT NOW it doesn't really matter if you believe in any of the 1000s of religions or in science BECAUSE you can't prove anything. For most of us we believe we are NOT ALONE and its only the very rarest of people who believe we are alone in the universe. The more relevant question people should isn't "Are we alone?" Because most of us for various reason believe we are NOT alone. The relevant question is "Where are they and can they help?" My answer to everyone who can process that logic and get to that question is: "If you were a superior species to humanity, which you'd have to be to build & seed planets or travel across interstellar space, and you looked at us and investigated our history and noted how we treat each other and this planet, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"
1
@richardbell1427 DlCKHEADS like you have excuses for everything. The clown who testified couldn't produce any evidence BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD ANY TO BEGIN WITH. Everything he said was a case of "I heard this" or "I heard that." It was one of the sorriest jokes in recent times.
1
Aerospace Engineer here - This was actually a lot better than I thought it was going to be because of the title. I generally hate people who over-hype expressions like "will change everything" because most times its just hype. BUT what you're talking about here is consequences and that's something very few people ever consider. I have spent most of my 30+ years in industrial control systems and have seen FIRST HAND what happens when you shut down massive slabs of industry without consideration of consequences. I used to work in the supply chains of the Australian automotive industry making production cells for parts that went onto cars. Under the wonderful ideology of neoliberal economics we shut down that entire industry because they claimed "We can get cars made overseas for less money and consumers will be better off!" The question those economists never answered was - What were all those people who had spent years (in many cases decades) making car parts and assembling cars going to do next? Some of those people who lost their jobs weren't even employed in any company that made car parts or cars. they were people like the truck drivers who took raw materials to factories or the parts made in one factory to the next factory in the supply chain. They were people like me who made or serviced production machinery or the technicians, machinists, welders and electricians who made and serviced those machines or the people who supplied all the stuff we made those machines out of. Not only were those questions NOT answered, they were NOT even asked and still to this day has NEVER been answered. Fun fact that all neoliberal economists ignore - unemployed people don't buy much because they don't have the money to buy much. There's been a general decline of the retail sectors across the developed world and yet NOBODY seems to have put the fact that millions of people were laid off from high paying value adding jobs in manufacturing into less productive almost ZERO value adding service sector jobs. NOW many of those very service sector jobs are facing annihilation, because YET AGAIN the psychotically greedy and selfish maniacs we call business leaders don't care about the consequences of their decisions.
1