Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "" video.

AS AN ENGINEER I FIND IT REPULSIVE THAT YET AGAIN NOBODY IS AKSING AN ENGINEER When the F are people going to stop asking clowns with no background in engineering how to deal with these issues. I'm Australian and EVERY panel discussion is a mix of journalists, activists, economists BUT NEVER an engineer. I have known about how precarious Australia's energy issues are since 2016 and to date WE DO NOTE even have a proposal to talk about because anytime the discussion turns to energy who gets the microphone?????? ENGINEERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WARN PEOPLE FOR YEARS ABOUT THESE SORTS of ISSUES. We can fix these sorts of issues but ANYTIME we try and speak the journalists, activists, economists and every other clown that can be found grabs the microphone and starts crapping on and on.
49
@netzeroscammers That was a good video and he's partly right. A really weird thing happens in Britain all the time. When the TV show Coronation Street ends 1,000s and 1,000s of people go an turn on their kettles to make a cup of tea (very British). To prevent the grid from browning out they charge up a pumped hydro station in Wales (I think) and at about 28minutes past the hour they spin it up and sync it to the grid and as people turn on all those kettles they ramp it up as needed. Where he's wrong is IF (and its a big if) the charging station has a large capacitor bank that can rapidly discharge a heap of energy and then slowly build up before the next car. So in other words if charging stations are built to dump a heap of power into your car it can work. HOWEVER he's dead right that if 5, 10 or 20 cars suddenly pull up together then there's a major issue. He's also dead right that if you suddenly had a bunch of cars trying to rapid charge in a suburb at once there'd be a major issue. The thing is most people's homes DO NOT have that sort of capacity and will never have that capacity. What they could have is again a large capacitor bank that charges up when power is cheap and then dumps it into the the car when needed.
6
@fliprim CAN EVERYONE LIKE YOU JUST STOP AND LISTEN I have been harassed all day by another idiot who has no idea. YOU CANNOT STABILISE A GRID WITH BATTERIES and it does NOT matter what chemistry the batteries use. When you store power as DC it has to go through an INVERTER to switch it back to AC and that's where the stability problem is. A normal generator is basically an electric motor that is being driven by something like a diesel engine or steam turbine. Because its an actual rotating lump of steel & copper it has 2 properties - actual physical inertia and the sine wave output is a smooth sine wave. Inverters are a basically a transistor pack driven by a microprocessor to create a pseudo sine wave. Its NOT smooth its a series of steps. Go look at the Wikipedia page for "Power Inverters" scroll down to the section "Near sine wave PWM" and look at the diagram. The RED LINE with steps is what comes out of an inverter. Despite the label "pure sine wave inverter" they CANNOT ever put out a smooth sine wave like a rotating generator can. Its advertising jargon. I had this argument with a real client just before Christmas and they waved an answer from ChatGPT at me and IT WAS WRONG. I had to spend a couple of hours explaining WHY it was wrong. This is why I am so frustrated with the clown brigade right now. 2 countries just got slammed and instead of people ASKING REAL ENGINEERS WHAT happened every clown and his dog are barking nonsense.
4
@bajabell Your question is EXACTLY WHY journalists, economists, activists, CELEBRITIES and all the other clowns NEED TO SHUT UP AND LET THE ENGINEERS TALK. SORRY if this is going to sound like a lecture, but you asked. My degree is in aerospace but I work in industrial control systems. I have spent most of the last 25 years in mining and over 10 years before that in research and manufacturing. I got a reasonable education in power engineering along the way. Things like spinning reserve are very important on mine sites that have their own onsite power generation. First there's a significant difference between RESERVE and SPINNING RESERVE. Reserve is what's in reserve no matter what's running and what's not. Spinning reserve is what's left of the capacity of the generators that are actually running. FOR EXAMPLE - If we have a power station and it has 1 x 25MW generator and 4 x 10MW generators It has a total of 65MW and I have seen that sort of arrangement on mine sites. If at some point the 25MW is putting out 21MW and 3 of the 10MW are putting out 8MW and the 4th 10MW is OFF but still in a state where it can be turned ON as in its not down for maintenance. Then we have in total 21 + 3 x 8 = 45MW being used out of a total of 65MW. The Reserve is 64 - 45 = 20MW The Spinning reserve is 4 + 3 x 2 = 10MW because its the remaining capacity of what's RUNNING. The reason spinning reserve is so important to power engineers is because if we go to start something with a large inrush like a crusher and its conveyors it can cause problems. Say if the crusher and its feed conveyors need 8MW then it might look like its OK to turn it on. But if the startup power from the inrush is 12MW then we'd need to spin up that 4th generator or cause a brown-out. This is why power engineers sometimes go nuts at everyone else. I encounter this because my work is doing the computers that run stuff including the control room computers with all the fancy graphics screens. Its really important in my work to show the control room people what they can and can't do. Like if they go to start the crusher I have to lock them out in software but also alert them to why on the control room panel as to why they can't start the crusher, BUT ALSO they need to know they can turn of that 4th generator once its all running. If you have seen the film Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks, this is the same sort of problem they had with re-starting the command module. They knew what they could run but had to work out a starting sequence so that it didn't overload the system with a start-up surge. THE PROBLEM WITH POWER GRIDS is NOBODY can tell what the demands might be in the next instant because nobody can tell what people are switching on and off next. Its why all of the power stations have to run with a certain amount of spinning reserve to handle what anyone might do. NOW WE GET TO they synthetic spinning reserve, which is a new term to everyone who's every worked with power but then we have never had these massive batteries before. Unlike generators battery systems can go from nothing to full power almost instantly. So what they mean is they want MORE of these massive battery systems. The problem is these massive batteries have their own issues. They store energy in DC and that means they not only have to convert the AC off the grid to DC but then also have to convert the DC back into AC AND THAT'S WHERE SOME REAL PROBLEMS ARE, but that's an even longer discussion.
3
@stephenbrickwood1602 Oh dude what a great line and it sums up politics so well.
3
DON'T BE SO UTTERLY STUPID I am an engineer - Coal is done and finished as an energy source. Once it was cheap and easy but those days have gone and its only going to become more and more expensive.
3
@lloydsingline340 Why aren't we getting cheaper electricity of renewables BECAUSE of a bunch of reasons depending where you are but they include: - its mixed in with all the other power which is costing MORE and MORE - your bill includes transmission costs which are getting higher and higher - your bill includes the costs of middle men between the generators and you - power companies exist to make as much money as possible NOT to get you cheaper power and those are just some of them. The reason why bills are getting more and more expensive are damn complex.
3
@andrewhotston983 So screeching at people what everyone has known from the start MEANS WHAT. I agree that's WHY I KEEP TELLING PEOPLE WE NEED TO BUFFER THE SYSTEM. AND I DO WANT TO SCREAM THAT AT YOU
2
BULLSHlT AS AN ENGINEER I FIND IT REPULSIVE THAT YET AGAIN NOBODY IS AKSING AN ENGINEER When the F are people going to stop asking clowns with no background in engineering how to deal with these issues. I'm Australian and EVERY panel discussion is a mix of journalists, activists, economists BUT NEVER an engineer. I have known about how precarious Australia's energy issues are since 2016 and to date WE DO NOTE even have a proposal to talk about because anytime the discussion turns to energy who gets the microphone?????? ENGINEERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WARN PEOPLE FOR YEARS ABOUT THESE SORTS of ISSUES. We can fix these sorts of issues but ANYTIME we try and speak the journalists, activists, economists and every other clown that can be found grabs the microphone and starts crapping on and on.
1
I am an engineer who's been forced to look into economists because I found economists ARE THE PROBLEM WTIH ENERGY. Along with everything else they tried to do energy like it was any other commodity and the simplest fact is that energy like water is NOT LIKE A NORMAL COMMODITY. They are not like the normal things you buy at the supermarket or K-Mart or anywhere else. I actually find this like so many other interviews and discussion repulsive. NOBODY EVERY ASKS ENGINEERS. We have been trying to warn people for years there were issues in all our energy grids. I'm Australian and every public discussion panel or media interview is with a journalist, economist, activist or some other clown or even worse a celebrity BUT NEVER AN ENGINEER.
1
@tonyshipton8896 DlCKHEAD I was born bread and raised in Victoria. I grew up in Gippsland and visited the Hazelwood power station on a school excursion. I have a degree in aerospace but work in industrial controls systems and do a lot of motor control which uses the same DC-AC inverter technology that your MegaPack has. YES they are part of the solution but they also cause problems like the one that just blacked out Spain & Portugal. I first heard about these issues in 1997. People LIKE YOU either SHUT UP and LISTEN or Victoria will get the same crap that Spain & Portugal just got.
1
@stephenbrickwood1602 The problem we have in Australia is that as our population has grown massively since we last built some large power stations. The last time we commissioned a power station with a nameplate capacity over 1,000MW (1GW) was in 1993 when we commissioned 3 in one year (Stanwell, Mt Piper and Loy Yang B). The population was 17.6 million and now we are 28million. if you know even the basics of supply-demand economics its pretty easy to see that we were ALWAYS going to be in trouble. This is one of the truly stupid things economists did. Before the neoliberals we built power stations FOR THE FUTURE and made sure that anyone who opened a business got the power they needed. Its how we actually had a manufacturing sector CHEAP ENERGY. The great lie they told was that the private sector would do it better because competition would make for better services at lower prices. Well fark that's not the job of a CEO. their job is to maximise profits and the easiest way to maximise profits is to CREATE A SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY. Production costs remain the same but prices (and profits) rise. So if you just paid a few billion for a power station the LAST THING YOU DO is build a new one. You do whatever it takes to make sure NO NEW power stations are built and you just wait until population growth causes the shortage of supply and then you milk the system for all its worth. SO here in Australia we not only need to replace the old inefficient coal fired power stations (AND THEY ARE OLD AND INEFFICIENT). We also need to build NEW LARGER power stations to cater for the population growth. This is why I am so angry at the pro-nuclear lobby. They WERE NOT pro-nuclear but pro-coal. I can write a sensible nuclear plan and and explain it and Australians would buy it in a heartbeat. But for that to ever happen all of the clowns need to GET OUT OF THE WAY and one of the biggest clown shows is the Australian Nuclear Association.
1
Basically we have to find a way to power the future as our population goes past 40 then 50 then 60 million and that will happen by 2090. Sorry but that can't be done with renewables as the Spanish & Portuguese just proved. You have to have some form of large bulk supply that keeps the system stable. If not nuclear then what? If nuclear then which type and there's a bunch? This is what angers me so much about the fake pro-nuclear lobby. They are the ones NOT allowing a sensible nuclear discussion.
1
@Terry-y2r thanks
1
@fliprim I started with a degree in aerospace but landed in control systems, automation and robotics first in manufacturing, then mining with stints in water treatment, power stations and petrochem. I have formal certifications in functional safety and EEHA. I was first introduced to the issues with harmonics in power systems in 1997. I have 35+ years of working with variable speed drives. So I am damn familiar with inverters and KNOW 100% that they CAN NOT provide STABILISED grid level spinning reserve for 2 simple FACTS. 1) They CANNOT EVER provide a clean pure sinewave. That's fundamental to how they work and WHY they only add to the harmonics issues. 2) They do not have any mechanical inertia behind them and DO NOT pretend that they can mimic or simulate it. This is all well known among the power engineers who have been warning about what just happened in Spain & Portugal so don't preach at me. This stuff about synthetic spinning reserve is just some word play like "pure sine wave inverters"
1
@alexterrell1062 OH FARK - CAN YOU CLOWNS who are clearly NOT ENGINEERS JUST STOP As I keep trying to explain to you idiots the problem is converting the DC back into AC. I KNOW HOW INVERTERS WORK and I REALLY DO WANT TO SCREM AT SOME OF YOU. Fine put in all the batteries you want just answer some basic questions. 1) What chemistry are you going to use because there's NOT enough Lithium on the planet and nothing else has been PROVEN capable to do the job? 2) How are you going to deal with the harmonic issues caused by all the inverters and those are very, very real?
1
@fliprim I have looked at you comment for 2 days not knowing if I should blast you or not. I don't know if its a language issue, but I have very serious doubts that you have any real project experience or you just don't have many years. And by project experience I mean real projects where you have to deal with other people not bits of projects or consulting. You clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the PRACTICAL fundamentals of INVERTERS and how they create AC power because if you did understand them you wouldn't be stupid enough to think that LC circuits or higher switching frequencies fix the fundamental problem that they create harmonics on power systems. You cannot create a clean sine wave from switching transistors no matter what the switching frequency because that switching frequency gets overlaid onto the AC signal. Anyone with REAL experience on motor control understands when and why you need LC circuits at times. SO YOU KNOW in the late 90s and early 2000s there was a revolution in variable speed motor drives because of the digital signal processors that became available. I went to a bunch of seminars and tech days where top engineers discussed this stuff with anyone who'd listen AND YOU NEED TO START LISTENING TO PEOPLE. I did and its how I learned. You clearly DO NOT understand the PRACTICAL ASPECTS of spinning reserve as is clearly evident when you refer to it as "energy." NOBODY ANYWHERE refers to SPINNING RESERVE as energy. The battery people might think about it in terms of energy because batteries are rated in energy storage, but NOT the GRID ENGINEERS or POWER ENNGINEERS. They all describe spinning reserve as POWER. PLEASE DON'T question me on that because I have worked with those people. I've done the power modelling in mineral processing plants to work out what could be done with power factor correction by assessing the effects of PF capacitors of large DOL motors or using VSDs instead of DOL. I meant what I said in my first comment about having to work with power engineers in my work. Control system engineers have to work with with everyone because whatever the process, chemical or mechanical engineers design and build we have to know how its works so we can write the software.
1
I'm an engineer and you are ON THE RIGHT TRACK but missing the target. There's a fundamental difference between storage and buffering that few get outside of engineering and that's causing a lot of grief right now. Buffering is NOT storing. It what's you have in a system to smooth out surges and dips. We do this in all sorts of engineering systems. Lithium for grid level BUFFERING is NOT a good technology because it can't do the level of buffering needed. Its great for peaking and delivering Megawatts for maybe an hour or 2 but not buffering where we need Gigiwatts for chunks of a day. There's also another major issue with Lithium and that is we simply don't have enough of it on the planet and there's no way to dig it up fast enough either. To do the 1.5 billion cars on the planet requires about 300 years of current production. I have been arguing for a while to use Hydrogen and there's been a couple of major technical breakthroughs that almost nobody is discussing so they are not well known. The First is the development of PEM (proton membrane exchange) electrolyser technology which is over 90% efficient compared to the alkaline electrolysers that are at best 80% efficient. This is a massive breakthrough and its improving all the time. Second (and I know about this because my degree is in aerospace) we now have power turbines that can use hydrogen. Back in the 90s when we thought kerosene jet fuels were going to be phased out a lot of work was done on hydrogen. In the past hydrogen in a gas turbine was terrible as it just wrecked engines. All the problems were solved except for 1 and that was how to SAFELY re-fuel a passenger jet with hydrogen (liquid or HP gas). Its just too high of a risk to use at commercial airports. That turbine technology never made it onto an aircraft and never will, but it has now migrated to power turbines where all the risks are manageable. There's 2 main classes dual fuel and aeroderivitive which are modified designs of aerospace engines. The aeroderivitives are smaller and can run 100% H2 but they are only suitable for load following and peaking because of their size. The large gas turbines can;t yet run 100% H2 but can run on mixes of natural gas and H2 - hence the term dual fuel. Turbines like the GE 9HA (500+MW simple cycle and 800+MW combined cycle) can run 50% H2. In Australia, we have an old gas thermal power station called Torrens Island that has a nameplate of 800MW. At the start it should have gotten about 33% thermal efficiency. I don't know what it gets now but doubt its better than 30%. I can replace that with a GE 9HA or Siemens equivalent at over 64% and reduce gas demand and emissions down to ~50%. Adding in hydrogen and that halves and you get ~75% drop in natural gas demand and emissions. Replacing coal with the same tech is even better and you get almost 80% reduction in emissions. As to the power for driving the electrolysers right now we have over 54GW of renewables putting around 96TWH a year. onto the grid. That 54GW system should be cable of at least 150TWH and possibly over 200TWH. So we have between 50 and 100 (at least) TWH of UNUSED capacity in the system. Britain and Spain are in the same situation and have even more unused renewable energy than we do. HOWEVER there's a few clowns running around claiming that Hydrogen sucks because its too inefficient and too hard to store. BUT THOSE clowns are basing their claims on lots of outdated data and costs. They make claims you need at least 90days storage by never explain why. The "why" is they don't like hydrogen for whatever reason. BUT NO MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY we first need all the clowns to SHUT UP and let the engineers speak and be heard.
1
@lloydsingline340 If vessels are colliding with wind turbines then ASK THE FARKING CAPTAINS their in charge.
1
THAT IS A TOTAL LIE that has recently been pumped out by the USUAL LIARS. There is absolutely NO TRUTH TO IT SO STOP REPEATING IT.
1