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

HEY MICHAEL WEST I AM CALLING YOU OUT AS A POLITICAL ACTOR I am an engineer who ahs repeatedly tried to get your attention both here on YouTube and directly via your website. BOTH the ALP 82% Renewable Energy Plan and the LNPs 38% Nuclear plan are seriously flawed. The only difference is that its a lot easier to fix the ALPs 82% Renewable Energy Plan while the LNPs 38% nuclear plan is simply impossible in its current form. On the most basic technical issues. The ALP Plan will fail because and in fact the system is already underperforming: 1) Trying to have that much renewables will destabilise the power grid. This is already starting to happen in other countries trying to do the same thing. Ireland is one example where they have fantastic wind but now have an unstable grid. 2) Because we have installed massive amounts of solar and wind with little regard to how the grid functions the current 54.3GW of installed renewables is underperforming by over 50%. There is a massive amount of POTENTIAL energy NOT being used because there's nowhere for it to be used when there's too much wind & sun. In a well designed system the 54.3GW would deliver around 200TWh (terrawatt hours) and maybe more. In 2023 renewables delivered 96TWh into the gird. The ALP plan is flawed but that unused potential if used effectively could be fantastic going forward. There is a solution available using a combination of off the shelf technologies, but it will take 3-5 years to get done but its better than nuclear. IRRESPECTIVE OF ECONOMICS The LNP Plan is a RECIPE FOR DISASTER. 1) From a project management perspective, it will starve future governments of money for almost everything. We're already committed to funding submarines, Snowy 2.0 and the Brisbane Olympics. The French sub deal at $96 billion was replaced with AUKUS at $268-368 billion. Snowy 2.0 was originally budgeted at $2 billion and is now $20 billion. The Brisbane Olympics will have to be scaled back as well as cutting funding to athletes. Most of all this plan would cut any chance of funding anything else in energy. 2) It will take at least 25 years before nuclear power could have any positive effect on the economy. We don't have any regulations, standards or training programs in place. Even with all that in place it took Britain 7 years to approve Hinkley Point C and that site already had 2 older nuclear plants on it. We would be starting from scratch and by the time we get through it all it will be 2050. 3) Most of the 7 sites are existing on the site of coal fired power stations built on top of coal fields. Nuclear plants (according to best practice) need to be built DIRECTLY on top of bedrock so it has a super solid base that will last 80+ years. Coal fields do not have bedrock under the soil they have coal seams. Summary - Both plans wont work, but 1 can be fixed while the other is only feasible if completely started again with realistic goals. So MICHAEL if you finally want to talk to me then talk to me. I'll copy & paste this into your inbox.
1