Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

I'm an Australian engineer (aerospace) who got his degree in America (late 80s). I work in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent most of the last 20 years in mining and resource projects because back in the early 2000s there was a genuine interest in mining the moon for Helium-3 and I went for the experience. What I got was some great experience in multi-billion dollar projects. So we are 100% clear I am 100% in favor of Australia having nuclear powered subs. A number of years ago I worked with an ex-USN nuclear power plant technician/operator. Is was around the time Australia was having its first discussions on what would follow on after Collins. The first thing said publicly was "No nuclear." We were on a mining project and one night at diner it came up and he told all those interested some basic FACTS on naval operations in a global context and the difference between blue water and inshore operations. What I can tell everyone straight up is that AUKUS is the most ridiculous pile of over-hyped nonsense in the history of BOTH Australian engineering and Australian Military procurement and its got NOTHING to do with the subs themselves. You're all quite right a massive part of the expenditure is the construction of infrastructure and that's where every engineer I have discussed this with has ended up shaking their head in disbelief. Sorry of this next part is long winded, but these things need being said. For example we know that there has been assigned $4.3 Billion for a new Dry Dock in Perth. The last major mining project I was involved in was a $4 Billion dollar project that included: - a airport capable of handling small commercial jets and trub-props; AND - an accommodation village for 800 that included its own potable water treatment plant and sewerage treatment plant, mess halls, laundries, car parks, sports facilities, gymnasiums and bar; AND - a substation and high voltage power reticulation system; AND - a mine with a fleet of dump trucks, a new electric shovel and 2 refurbished drag lines; AND - a processing plant with crushers and all sorts of processing equipment; AND - a raw feed stockpile with its own stacker and reclaimer as well as a product stockpile system with 2 stackers and a reclaimer and the train load out system; AND - a 10km rail spur and loop so the trains could just roll in, keep rolling and leave without stopping; AND - a series of damns for handling run off water to limit discharge into nearby water ways. BASICALLY A LOT OF STUFF. The facility in Perth consists of (so far) a concrete lined hole with doors and some pumps. My bet is it also includes some cranes, workshops, water treatment facility, accommodation for visiting crews, accommodation for a permanent/semipermanent maintenance crews, probably a new wharf for subs to dock at, a substation to power it all as well as multiple emergency power systems to prevent any Fukushima type event. When I have raised this with other engineers we always end up asking "What's the other $3 Billion for?" because none of us can see how this should cost $1 Billion let alone $4.3 Billion unless everything is gold plated. When we have looked at the East Coast sub base we end up with similar questions. Our best guess is that "Various People" have filed some extraordinary estimates. Remember every time anyone has asked how much these will cost per sub THERE IS NO ANSWER. This isn't just a military procurement issue either as most of the people I have discussed this with have seen numerous commercial projects like the Gorgon Gas plant which blew out by over $15 Billion or the BHP Revensthorpe Nickel project that tripled in costs, the NBN which has so far blown out by over $30 Billion, Snowy 2.0 which has gone from $4 to over $12 Billion or any of the other numerous infrastructure projects that have blown out. Lets also not forget the Hunter Class Frigates have just jumped from $30 to $45 billion without explanation or how the replacements for the Armidale class patrol boats, the Arafura Class are each at $300 Million more than 10 times the cost of each Armidale ($24-28M). Australia has a massive issue with the management of engineering projects and its doesn't matter if its government, private industry or military. Its not so much the engineers but the people managing them and a lot of us who are tired of it. Sorry for the rant.
17
Engineer here: Yeah I can't see how they can actually do this with out making things worse by consuming more energy. At least they admitted the irony of using diesel generators to run the experiment. Like all of the climate solutions its going to be a matter of how we power it more than anything else. Sadly right now (as an engineer) I don't see any initiatives that come close to being called a solution.
12
@davestagner That only works if the net effects of more ice out weigh the negative effects of energy use. As an ENGINEER this is my main issue with so many of the overly simplistic and/or unrealistic suggestions of dealing with climate change. Too many of the programs are like trying to handle an arterial bleed with a band aid. They don't deal with the actual problems and causes. You can't deal with an arterial bleed unless you also stop the person with the knife who cut you in the first place and then secondly deal with the arterial bleed in a way that you don't die. With respect to climate change we are neither addressing the causes nor dealing with fixes and repairs to the planet.
4
@maiyenish8552 That's Mastercard priceless.
3
It all depends on their ACTUAL versus PUBLICLY STATED goals. If B&R is about helping nations develop and making money from it then they will continue but maybe with better planning. However, if B&R is about political influence which I have always suspected it was (or at least in part) then what the Chinese do next might be very different. What I so rarely hear is how the United Nations General Assembly is like the US Senate except each nation state gets 1 vote instead of 2. What that means is that 1.4 Billion Chinese people get 1 vote just as some of the smaller Pacific or European nations get 1 vote. In fact 447 million people in the 27 states of the European Union get 27 votes. BUT if a bunch of those small Pacific, Asian and African states vote with China because they are subservient to Chinese loans then 1.4 Billion Chinese might control a lot more of the United Nations General Assembly than people realise. That might not mean much now but if China wants to formally absorb the entire South China Sea and all those islands they have constructed and that goes to a UN vote the answer might surprise Europe, America, Japan,... etc.
2
I'm an engineer who does support the use of nuclear energy BUT IT HAS TO BE FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. And for the rest of us (as in everyone on the planet) to pay for these power stations JUST SO BILL GATES and the rest of the AI brigade CAN MAKE EVEN MORE MONEY is NOT the right reason. I'm Australian and we are also having nuclear shoved at us right now and every so often the proponents slip up and in among all the things they claim that will benefit are "data centres." This is one of the things that people don't yet realise. Not only do these people need our data (in staggering amounts) to make the AIs work BUT THEY WANT US TO PAY THEM TO POWER IT. We are being sold one of the biggest lies in human history.
2
I'm an engineer and WHY DON'T YOU consider what happens when it doesn't work or malfunctions. Because as an engineer I'm tired of all the ignorant technically illiterate clowns who think every bit of technology labelled as a "game changer" works exactly as the PR brochure says it does. I have seen enough complete screw ups in engineering to know that when ING0RANT people put blind faith in technology they have no understanding of that it rarely works out well for anyone involved.
1
#2 on that list was Rupert Murdoch. As an Australian I can assure you that he is a vindictive individual. Others have tried and failed.
1
@L98fiero Ooohhh that's aaarrrrrhhhh one to be careful about. That's a skill set not to be messed with. 🤫🤫🤫
1
@jinyingye9733 Well they do get loans from the West and have done so for decades. Its just like the Chinese loans they haven't been for good projects that have actually helped these countries develop. This isn't the first time an African, Asian or South American country has been put into debt with useless projects that will never deliver. If you had any brains or any understanding of history you'd know this. If you want to criticise the West on how they have done a pathetically poor job of helping countries like Kenya develop then fine - I WILL AGREE. But it does NOT excuse what China has been doing.
1
@waynehewett4017 Before you scream too loud about the Chinese putting developing nations into debt traps you might want to ask where they learned how to do it?
1
@geobzweb You could actually say the same to 99% of all social media content producers. If there is one are of education I'd defund its "Media Studies" but unfortunately there's so many of them now I can't see any socially acceptable way to eradicate them from our lives.
1
@geobzweb I don't disagree. There's a great comment in the 2004 Documentary "Outfoxed" about how Rupert Murdoch's relentless approach to profit over everything including standards would eventually drag the entire media landscape down into the gutter. Its one of the saddest predictions to have come true in our lifetime.
1
That's actually a good slant on this shitstorm.
1
SIMPLE FACT: We either learn to MANAGE the World's resources properly or we are going to see modern society collapse. I'm an engineer and this is the same basic issue facing many industries. FOR TOO LONG shirt term profits came before long term viability and that is causing so many problems. In engineering we have a range of techniques we collectively call ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA for short). If you have ever watched an accident investigation documentary where they trace an accident back to its initiating causes then you've seen this. About 6 years ago after a consulting job into Australia's (my country) energy sector I became aware of some very serious issues with our future. When I looked into HOW we had got to where we are (and its even worse now) I found that it started in the 1970s when Chicago School Economics in the guise of Reaganomics and Thatcherism took over as the dominant economic ideology. If you go and listen to REBEL economists like Steve Keen you'll hear that classical and neo-classical economists don't even include ENERGY in their models. As an engineer I find that absurd because we need energy to run everything. Every modern business in the world as at least 1 (usually electricity) and usually 2 (add in gas or oil) energy bills. I would add to Steve Keen's assessment that classical and neo-classical economists ALSO ignore the function of WATER in in the worlds economy. And if you are wondering - YES Australia has both very serious ENERGY and WATER issues and because the majority of our economists have NO UNDERSTANDING of HOW either energy or water make modern societies function.
1
@pliat That's sadly true.
1
@louf7178 YEP - Billy Gates and his AI brigade think that their spending a few billion on data centres means the rest of humanity needs to spend a few HUNDRED BILLION to power them and that we ARE GETTING A GOOD DEAL.
1
@dafunkmonster AND HERE'S ANOTHER POINT. It takes at least 10 years to build nuclear, Just getting it approved takes time and AT best the build time is at least 8 years. If you think you can reduce the average energy bill by $1000 a year (which is feasible) then if you say we'll do it with nuclear then you just said EVERY HOUSE will pay an extra 10,000 over the next decade. AND HERE'S THE CATCH - No matter what we chose to do it all takes time and until we get stuff built people will keep paying high prices.
1