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

I am an engineer and Michael makes a couple of mistakes in this, but tit doesn't change to overall picture and I will let you know why. His first mistake is at 1:44 when he says "even the small modular ones don't work particularly well" that's just completely wrong as they have been working reliably in military applications like submarines and ships for decades. What he should have said is that the next generation of SMRs for domestic power wont be ready until the mid 2030s which makes them a non-starter for Australia right now. Michael's also wrong when he said gas is as bad on emissions as coal is and that's simply wrong and anyone who does the basic chemistry knows that's wrong. BUT when gas does leak its horrible and when its burnt it still produces CO2. Its not clean but it is cleaner than coal. Australia's problem is that we just don't produce enough for our domestic industries and that is 100% due to the mismanagement of the previous Liberal government. Michael's also wrong on the subject of BASE LOAD POWER. If our population continues to grow to the 40-50 million that some want we will need at some point some large bulk delivery power stations. Nuclear is very good at CONSISTENT large bulk delivery wind and solar are not. Its actually the one thing it is good at. The nuclear problem is the stigma and the fear that comes with that stigma. However, if you simply look at the number of people who have actually died in the nuclear industries versus the goal and gas energy industries you'd take nuclear any day of the week. Gas likes to explode and coal dust in your lungs is terrible. The problem that stigma causes is that its almost impossible for engineers to have any sort of discussion without clowns screaming at everything. There isn't just one type of nuclear technology these days there's several. they all have their pros and cons as does every energy technology. Solar panels have the monster problem of disposal of the cells. one of their main ingredients is Arsenide and we don't yet have a recycling industry. Wind has the simple problem that where the wind is most reliable (out to sea) theirs no power grid to connect to. Nuclear is totally off the table right now in Australia for the simple reason it takes too long to build. In the future it might be BUT NOT RIGHT NOW. Forget every other argument. Currently the plans include the decommissioning of 5 of Australia's biggest power stations in the next few years - Yallourn W, Eraring, Liddell, Gladstone and Torrens Island. There's others to follow not long after those, but that's not the real problem. THE REAL PROBLEM IS THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE TO CONSIDER HOW WE REPLACE ANY ONE OF THOSE POWER STATIONS. This is why these pointless arguments infuriate engineers. Anytime someone tries to propose anything its like kicking a bee hive.
4
@buda3d2007 You've got it. Anyone can look up Hinkley Point C. Its took 7 years to plan, design and approve and will take 10 years to build at an estimated cost of £26 Billion Its very simple NOBODY, can walk into their boardroom and ask for £26 Billion and tell them they will see not a penny for 17 years. You'd get laughed at. that's why there's no private investment. It can't be justified unless governments subsidise it. I have no doubt in the end it will be a smart decision for the British people because unlike Australia they don't have the abundance of renewable that we have. So they must consider alternatives? This is why engineers need the screaming howling clowns from BOTH SIDES of politics to STFU. We need to have rational discussions based on known facts NOT conjecture.
1