Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "How Debt and Credit Create Financial Crises" video.

HEY STEVE There's also another factor in WHY Australia didn't have as bad of a recession during the 2008 GFC. We were still building new mines to feed the Chinese beast (as I call it). REMENBER I WAS WORKIGN int that sector at that time. Yes many things slowed down. What affected me personally was the part of the sector I was in. I worked for a small company doing peripheral work. All mines are continuously doing projects to either fix things or improve things or BOTH. That's part of the very nature of mining and mineral processing. The GFC slammed into the peripheral work so we got hammered because what they did was put anything unnecessary on hold. Now that did include some major projects because they hadn't started BUT of the major projects that were already underway KEPT GOING. So there were still billions being spent and even though there was a downturn in the amount of things like iron ore exports IT DID NOT STOP. Also when you process iron ore you need to use coking coal and YES I know that's a touchy subject, but its necessary if you want to produce pig iron and steel. Its not understood well that Australia has 2 very different parts to its coal exports. There's the THERMAL COAL which gets burnt for thermal energy in places like power stations and then there's "METALLURGICAL COAL" which gets used in mineral processing. Both cost about the same to dig up, crush, screen, clean and put on a boat. The difference is that metallurgical coal typically sells for between 2 & 3 times as much and can even be higher. Around 1/2 of Australia's coal exports are metallurgical coal and that industry didn't blink much when 2008 hit because the Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese were still making steel. So by fortune Australia was very lucky in that there was still enough demand out of China, South Korea and Japan for our iron ore and metallurgical coal. Projects were put on hold and that sucked but they also got going again not much later. Now with the demands on things like Nickel & Lithium for the energy transition we are poised yet again to get another free ride out of potential crisis. My real concern is what happens if we mismanage any of it, because lets face it Australia is fantastic at mismanaging great opportunities. The problem is as I said on the podcast the systems we have are fragile. Only yesterday I was speaking to my old boss from back in the 90s. We hadn't caught up in many years, but we have both arrived at the same conclusion our energy sector is being horribly mismanaged. He knew stuff that i didn't know and I had stuff he didn't know. Because I what I have been doing my contribution to the discussion was the interference by economists and that's only gotten a whole lot worse in recent months because of the re-ignition of the nuclear debate which is 99% 2 groups of selfish idiots screaming at each other and maybe 1% of someone sensible talking before the other 2 groups collectively scream at them. I mentioned on the podcast the CSIRO report on nuclear. Its even worse than I first thought. The clowns who did that report need to be fired for LYING and I really do mean they lied. Hidden away in the modelling are some really bizarre numbers. If you get a chance go watch the video here on YT titled "Are politicians listening to the science in the energy debate? | Insiders: On Background | ABC News" The person being interviewed is CSIRO CEO Dr Doug Hilton and he's urging politicians not to undermine scientists in the energy debate. BULLSHlT - he's part of the problem. Not only was the team who di the work made up of ECONOMISTS (no engineers involved) but they LIED. they based their modelling on nuclear power stations having a life of 30 years but also they said (and its there in the interview) that these plants would have a utilisation of 53%. Calder Hall the worlds FIRST commercial nuclear power plant and therefore a prototype ran for 47 years at a capacity factor (utilisation) of 79% (see Wikipedia). So the CSIRO report done by ECONOMISTS has claimed that the next generation of reactors (Gen III+ and Gen IV) will not only run 1/3rd less time than the very first reactors but also run 1/3rd less efficiently in the markets. And for the record the current Gen III+ reactors like the European EPR 2 have a design life of 60 years and a capacity factor over 90%. YES STEVE - CSIRO hired a pack of economists who did a model that's a LIE and giant LIE. What is it that you have kept telling everyone about economists and models and especially ENERGY?????????????????????
13
@Master_J2375 That's actually a good point but it was NEVER mentioned here. The price of gold got mentioned as is always does but nothing has been said of its affect on Australia's overall economy because compared to iron ore and coal is nothing. You need to actually be there on the ground and see it to really appreciate how massive Australia's iron ore industry is. I had no real idea until I went and worked in the industry. When I was first told around 2000-2001 they intended to DOUBLE Australia's out output from under 200mta (million tons per annum) to almost 400mta it sounded absurd. The person who told me said that's nothing "there are people claiming it will double again after that!" (~800mta). Australia now produces and exports between 900 and 960mta. Our big mines used to do 20mta now we build nothing less than 50mta. There was a dip in production after the GFC, but since then the flow of iron ore just kept climbing and climbing. Most went to China but also a heap went to South Korea. China at one stage looked doubtful on keeping up its orders until we realised they had depleted their own reserves. Our reserves are insanely large can go at this rate for a couple of centuries.
5
@webfreakz I second that
4
@ProfSteveKeen Thanks, that's a relief from the usual screaming and ranting clowns. At the moment I am getting so tired and fed up and frustrated with people who have no idea what they are talking about try and tell me to go do some research when I have actually worked in these industries.
4
@ProfSteveKeen Here's another example of somthing I just saw. I just saw a BBC "ooh look at this wonder tech" story of direct CO2 capture and storage in Iceland. The title of the story is Inside the hidden carbon plant pulling CO2 from thin air | BBC News in that story the CCO of the company straight out says it will cost $1000 per ton and that through scaling it will get down to $300-400 per ton to capture and store. Currently there's 2.5 Trillion addition tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and by the mid 2030s it will be 3.5 TRILLION tons. At $1000 per ton it will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION to remove the excess carbon in the atmosphere. At $300 per ton (their lower estimate) it will cost $1.05 QUADRILLION to remove the excess carbon in the atmosphere. The BBC promoted that story as a "wonder tech" story. Can you see why I find the media and so many other people so frustrating.
3
@ProfSteveKeen These are the things I really wanted to talk to you and Mike and Daniel about. Part of it is what I now call Energy Economics and the other part is what I now call Planetary Economics. You already have a basic grasp of both from that data you had on GDP & Energy. Quite simply energy is not only going to be the thing that kills AI because of how much it needs, but its happening at a time when there's energy shortage caused by the neoliberal economic policies. AND because of that ideology they wont let anyone else speak. That recent CSIRO report on nuclear energy had nobody but economists on the team. Have you seen the interview. Its here on YouTube "Are politicians listening to the science in the energy debate? | Insiders: On Background | ABC News" NOTE how the title is about listening to the science and there's only economists involved in the report. BUT WAIT IT GETS WORSE. They modelled nuclear power on 30 year life and 50% Utilisation. Calder Hall the very first commercial nuclear plant and regarded as Gen 1. Its therefore not as good as the current Gen 3+ and Gen 4 Reactors, but it did run for 47 years and get 79% Utilisation (also called capacity factor). So not only was that report NOT written by scientists it was written by liars. We really are running straight at the cliffs edge and most of what people are hearing is nonsense and they don't have enough tech literacy to understand it AND the worst part of the nonsense is that it wastes time discussing the things we NEED TO DO.
3
@ProfSteveKeen Here's an example I have to deal with all the time. I just had ANOTHER guy on another YouTube page tell me I had no idea what I was talking about when it came the Jeff Bezos wanting to move heavy industry into orbit because there would be unlimited energy and pollution is irrelevant. The Tom Price iron ore mine where I have WORKED does 20mta (million tone per annum). Its a really convenient mine because anyone can follow the math. Iron ore ranges from about 50% to 95% iron content per ton. YES we really do get some it almost pure and tis called "high grade fines" you can spot the stock piles of because of how black they are. Anyway the rough average is Australia's iron ore is 70% and I use that because it makes the math really easy. At 70% every 20 tons of ore produces 14 tons of iron and that's the same number a Space Shuttle could bring down from orbit. So 20 MILLION tons of ore would make 14 MILLION tons of iron and that would take 1 MILLION Space Shuttle flights to bring down. I had someone once tell me we could do better than the Space Shuttle. So I said even if you had something 100x better than you still have to do 10,000 flights a year just to service that 1 mine. Australia has many iron ore mines and collectively they produce over 900mta EVERY YEAR. Tom Price is convenient for the math but it is only about 1/45th of our current output. THIS IS THS SORT OF STUFF I REALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ON THE PODCAST. That actual reality of some of the things facing us and how large these problems are and why 99.9% of all the commentary is either partly wrong or absolutely wrong.
1