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

FURTHER I HAVE READ Tim Buckley's report on his reneweconomy website. As usual for an economist its flawed and its just by chance he's in the ball park. Principally Tim Buckley like other economists knows NOTHING about project management or anything about the engineering side of building anything. Its actually people , but then he's just another "financial analyst" who's done a spread sheet and thought he's smart. I back calculated from the $330 Billion and using the costs of Hinkley Point C worked out the max that money could by was 8 x EPR 2 reactors generating 12.8GW or based on the costs of Vogtle they could have 11 x AP1000s producing 12.1GW. If you back calculate Australia's current energy production into an "equivalent base load supply" then you need about 31GW. 12.1GW is about 39% of that 31GW. So I worked out MONTHS ago that someone had run the numbers on using AP1000 reactors which also makes more sense than EPR 2s because the upgrades to power lines would be less. The giant mistake in that thinking is that 12.1GW is NOT actually 38% of the actual generating capacity because that 31GW is NOT what we actually need because its just a number back calculated from the overall production and why I call it "equivalent base load" and DOES NOT include requirements for load following or peak load demands. So there actually was some math behind the Libs plan. Its just utterly flawed from a TECHNICAL aspect. The bigger flaw however and I also worked this out months ago was that NONE of there modelling accounted for population growth and Tim Buckley has also ignored this (or at least he does not mention it). I have no idea WTF Tim is talking about when he claims the CAPEX for 13.5 GW is $110 billion. That's not even $10billion per GW which means they have used some sort of fudged number based on the Barakah plant in the UAE that was built by the South Korean company Kepco with 4 x APR 1400 reactors. From what I can gather these estimates originate with a consulting engineer named Dr. David Collins who gave a presentation titled "Teaming with Canada for Australia’s Nuclear Energy Future - 1" as part of a conference hosted by the Australian nuclear association in October 2022. Its here on YouTube and was posted November 2022. During that presentation about 5 minutes in he puts up a slide from the AEMO website where AEMO put the renewables CAPEX at $623 Billion. He then points out the maintenance over 60 years and doubles that number to $1.2TRILLION. That $1.2trillion is not far from some of my estimates back in 2016/17. Once you realise how much our population can grow at current rates we'll need a staggering amount of build out in energy, water and infrastructure over the next 60years. If you then watch Dr. David Collins next slide he simply he shows a photo of the Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE and then WITHOUT explaining how he calculated anything simply says that based on Barakah with some modifications (he never explains) Australia could go 100% nuclear for $471 billion. His whole talk is complete garbage, but you need an engineer to dissect it piece by piece. Its also to a 100% pro-nuclear crowd so NOBODY questions anything. Plus because he's a PhD engineer who's been vetted by a professional organisation ITS TAKEN AS GOSPEL by others. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship hosted a liar named Gerrard Holland CEO of the Page Research Center. He spouted of numbers similar to David Collins and its quite possible that Collins was his source. If you consider how many reactors we'd need to do 100% nuclear BUT use the data from Hinckley or Vogtle then the number $471 billion goes to more than $1.5 Trillion BUT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE any grid expansion or population growth. When you add in that it goes past $3 Trillion and then past $4 Trillion quite quickly. WHAT ALL THESE PEOPLE MISS IS THE POPULATION GROWTH.
2
@beatlloydy We've tried a lot of tidal and wave power projects in Australia and so far they have all failed. The concept is good and nobody doubts there's a massive amount energy in the waves and tides, but so far the practical aspects have screwed it up every time.
1
FURTHER I HAVE READ Tim Buckley's report on his reneweconomy website. As usual for an economist its flawed and its just by chance he's in the ball park. Principally Tim Buckley like other economists knows NOTHING about project management or anything about the engineering side of building anything. Its actually people , but then he's just another "financial analyst" who's done a spread sheet and thought he's smart. I back calculated from the $330 Billion and using the costs of Hinkley Point C worked out the max that money could by was 8 x EPR 2 reactors generating 12.8GW or based on the costs of Vogtle they could have 11 x AP1000s producing 12.1GW. If you back calculate Australia's current energy production into an "equivalent base load supply" then you need about 31GW. 12.1GW is about 39% of that 31GW. So I worked out MONTHS ago that someone had run the numbers on using AP1000 reactors which also makes more sense than EPR 2s because the upgrades to power lines would be less. The giant mistake in that thinking is that 12.1GW is NOT actually 38% of the actual generating capacity because that 31GW is NOT what we actually need because its just a number back calculated from the overall production and why I call it "equivalent base load" and DOES NOT include requirements for load following or peak load demands. So there actually was some math behind the Libs plan. Its just utterly flawed from a TECHNICAL aspect. The bigger flaw however and I also worked this out months ago was that NONE of there modelling accounted for population growth and Tim Buckley has also ignored this (or at least he does not mention it). I have no idea WTF Tim is talking about when he claims the CAPEX for 13.5 GW is $110 billion. That's not even $10billion per GW which means they have used some sort of fudged number based on the Barakah plant in the UAE that was built by the South Korean company Kepco with 4 x APR 1400 reactors. From what I can gather these estimates originate with a consulting engineer named Dr. David Collins who gave a presentation titled "Teaming with Canada for Australia’s Nuclear Energy Future - 1" as part of a conference hosted by the Australian nuclear association in October 2022. Its here on YouTube and was posted November 2022. During that presentation about 5 minutes in he puts up a slide from the AEMO website where AEMO put the renewables CAPEX at $623 Billion. He then points out the maintenance over 60 years and doubles that number to $1.2TRILLION. That $1.2trillion is not far from some of my estimates back in 2016/17. Once you realise how much our population can grow at current rates we'll need a staggering amount of build out in energy, water and infrastructure over the next 60years. If you then watch Dr. David Collins next slide he simply he shows a photo of the Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE and then WITHOUT explaining how he calculated anything simply says that based on Barakah with some modifications (he never explains) Australia could go 100% nuclear for $471 billion. His whole talk is complete garbage, but you need an engineer to dissect it piece by piece. Its also to a 100% pro-nuclear crowd so NOBODY questions anything. Plus because he's a PhD engineer who's been vetted by a professional organisation ITS TAKEN AS GOSPEL by others. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship hosted a liar named Gerrard Holland CEO of the Page Research Center. He spouted of numbers similar to David Collins and its quite possible that Collins was his source. If you consider how many reactors we'd need to do 100% nuclear BUT use the data from Hinckley or Vogtle then the number $471 billion goes to more than $1.5 Trillion BUT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE any grid expansion or population growth. When you add in that it goes past $3 Trillion and then past $4 Trillion quite quickly. WHAT ALL THESE PEOPLE MISS IS THE POPULATION GROWTH.
1