Comments by "ElephantInTheRoom " (@elephantintheroom5678) on "Engineering with Rosie" channel.

Hi Rosie! Can you please do a video on how synchronous condensers and grid forming inverters work?
216
@BillMSmith Very true!
5
This was an absolutely fantastic video, Rosie!
2
At this point, the advantages of China's political system for dealing with change and getting things done is really becoming more and more obvious. Perhaps the rise of China is not such a bad thing after all...
1
Same here. @drillerdev4624
1
@jinnantonix4570 Yeah, sure! Have you read the report by the top science agency in Australia, the CSIRO, who just released a report that solar and battery combination is BY FAR the cheapest form of energy to build out in Australia? Get reading! It shows that nuclear energy is FAR MORE EXPENSIVE than solar /battery arrays nowadays. Get reading! The silly claim by Dutton is smashed to pieces.🙂
1
@jinnantonix4570 😂👏Ah! The solitary genius who knows more than a team of actual scientific experts and engineers! You are aware, are you not, that science and business organisations AROUND THE WORLD have come to the same conclusion as the CSIRO? Yet you are cleverer than all of them, because they didn't take into account the fatal flaw you have detected in all their silly studies, aren't you! 😂👏Your kind of hubris amuses me no end!
1
@jinnantonix4570 Don't be so ridiculous! Such studies always take into account the lifetime of the technology, and the cost of MAINTENANCE they incur. Furthermore, CSIRO was not looking at personal home battery uptake. I suggest you go and find out how much the aging nuclear power plants in France cost to maintain. Tip - IT IS A LOT.
1
@jinnantonix4570 So you say. Excuse me if I disregard your claim. Numerous studies around the world have compared the cost of solar and battery arrays and nuclear plants and all now conclude that the LCOE of nuclear plants are way, way more expensive than ALL the other options, with solar and battery winning hands down every time. You and your mates can cry foul all you want, but you're crying into the void.
1
@jinnantonix4570 You are being deceitful. The CSIRO report looked at the levelized cost of energy of solar /wind with firming tech such as batteries in comparison with regular nuclear plants and found that nuclear was twice as expensive per unit of energy OVER ITS LIFETIME than solar with firming tech such as batteries, AND accounting for the high voltage power lines that would need to be built. As for small modular reactors, they were 6 times as expensive over their lifetime. And that is not even accounting for dealing with waste and safety costs. Apart from that, nuclear is ILLEGAL in Australia, and that would take a very long time to overrule, if ever, at which point it would be too late to replace Australia's aging coal fleet.
1
@jinnantonix4570 It quite clearly stated it used the levelised cost of energy, which looks at cost per unit of energy over the lifetime of the said technology. You are wrong.
1
@jinnantonix4570 French nuclear is always having to be shut down for repairs, like cracks at the welds, which is EXTREMELY expensive to do with nuclear plants. During that time, they are repeatedly having to buy electricity from Germany. You don't know what you're talking about. Also, the price of dealing with nuclear waste isn't factored in, ever. And dumping it in Africa, or in the ocean just has to stop. It's immoral.
1
@jinnantonix4570 😂misinformation! The ACTUAL projected cost in 2030 for "variable renewable energy projects" is $99/MWh, NOT $180/MWh in 2050! Talk about not knowing what you are talking about! The average cost of variable renewable energy projects including batteries was already $119/MWh in 2023!
1
@jinnantonix4570 😂You don't have a clue, do you? Do as simple Google search for heaven's sake! There is stored spent fuel in situ leaking toxic waste in numerous countries world wide, including the USA, the richest country on Earth. The stuff is exceedingly toxic (despite the faff you'll come back with) and very little of it is in secure long-term storage. THAT is the cost I'm talking about, as well as the cost and danger of moving the stuff around. More dishonesty.
1
@jinnantonix4570 Once again, there you go, thinking you know more than all the actual experts in the industry and business. Sad, really. Pathetic. Well - whine all you want - business investors won't listen to you, and the public will NEVER consent to nuclear in Australia, nor to paying TWICE to SIX TIMES the price for it. Too bad. By the way, you said you were an expert in the industry: I'll say you are an expert in nuclear energy disinformation, that's for sure.
1
@jinnantonix4570 Sorry, I'm not buying your gambit. There's no way that it would get legally approved, built on time without the usual nuclear plant cost blow outs, and be done in time to replace our old coal plants. Furthermore, there is no way that it would ever be able to overcome the problem of being TWICE to SIX TIMES as expensive as solar and battery arrays. :text-green-game-over:
1
@jinnantonix4570 And I've told YOU that LCOE measures cost of a unit of energy as a factor of the lifetime cost of the project, so your 60 year plant life claim is irrelevant. Also, surely with all your vaunted "experience" in the field you should know that, globally, only nuclear storage suffers from worse cost overruns (at 238%) than the Olympic Games at (at 157%). Then comes Nuclear Power (at 120%), Hydroelectric Dams (at 75%) ... and Solar Power (at 1%). *source: Oxford Global Projects. As an investor, I think I'd go with the 1% cost overrun for solar, compared to the 120% cost overrun for nuclear power. And heaven forbid having to pay for the nuclear storage! But nuclear companies won't pay for that, will they. That is always left up to the poor old taxpayer...😡 who are forced to subsidise these cost overruns. Take your hobby nuclear energy project and ....... I don't want to subsidise it with my taxes! I want cheap solar energy.
1
@jinnantonix4570 You are truly fabricating now. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency most nuclear power plants have operating lifetimes of between 20-40 years. The industry benchmark for solar panel life is 25-30 years.
1
@jinnantonix4570 According to the International Atomic Energy Agency most nuclear power plants have operating lifetimes of between 20-40 years, NOT your claimed 60-80 years. And the industry benchmark for solar panel life is 25-30 years. Furthermore, the CSIRO study took into account the cost of building high voltage power lines for distribution, and solar/battery generated power still came out as less than half the cost of nuclear energy.
1
@jinnantonix4570 You're riding a hobby horse. There are no functioning small modular reactors in the world that are not experimental. Why would anyone bet on an unproven hobby horse, when they have cheap, tried and proven technology like solar instead? It's like your toy sailing boats. Some of us prefer reality.
1
@jinnantonix4570 Such deceit! Everyone knows what average means. It becomes more expensive and dangerous to run a nuclear reactors as they age. Irradiation embrittlement, thermal embrittlement, corrosion, fretting and cracking all begin from the start of the plant's life and worsen as it ages. Also, nuclear energy is expensive and has to run constantly in order to break even, which doesn't make economic sense in a country and a world with an abundance of cheap renewables. Even against the most favourable estimates of nuclear energy generation, renewables with batteries comes out as markedly cheaper for the consumer. The Minerals Council of Australia - and their paid for spox - are going to lose the battle to enrich themselves at the expense of all the rest of us this time.
1
@jinnantonix4570 Why on earth should the Gencost Report include the cost of transmission and distribution that was previously committed to? Minerals Council spox completely ignore the very significant cost of waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants in their costings. Why? Because they assume that will be offloaded onto the poor old taxpayer, along with all the other subsidies they will need just to hide the real exorbitant cost of running nuclear plants. Just like the billions we already have committed to subsidising coal and gas. It's disgraceful to steal from the public in such a sneaky way. You should be ashamed of yourself for participating in the heist.
1
@jinnantonix4570 I know what it means, and I was quoting directly from the International Atomic Agency's own website with that comment. Yo are really going against accepted figures - out on a limb of desperation and deceit. I think most people will take the IAEA assessment over Random Internet Guy's opinion. Or are you a bought and paid for Mineral's Council spox, working for Gina Rinehart....
1
@jinnantonix4570 The cost of solar plus storage AND distribution is cheaper than nuclear power plants. This has been widely established in numerous studies around the world. Your claims are disingenuous at best. No-one with money to invest in electricity generation is going to fall for it. Just give up. Market forces have already won. Your only remaining gambit is to pay off corrupt politicians and get them to stab taxpayers in the back by forcing them to subsidise the Mineral Council's profiteering at Australian's expense. As I said - SHAME ON YOU.
1
@jinnantonix4570 And because they are "extending" the operation the reliability is plummeting and the costs are rising as they have to keep shutting down for emergency repairs😳 as happened in France in 2022, and ongoing.... You really can't win, no matter how hard you try to spread disinformation.
1
@PlumbBob-FGX The build-out of nuclear has paled in comparison to solar and wind power in China in 2024, due to plummeting renewables cost. Furthermore, renewable energy storage almost quadrupled in 2023, due to cost decreasing over 90% in the last few years. The comparative advantages of nuclear have disappeared as result. Chinese leaders are also wary of how nuclear reactors consume BILLIONS of litres of water, annually, and climate-change induced droughts in China have made nuclear plants increasingly unpopular, and this is also a matter of serious concern for a dry continent like Australia. As for your last question; please, don't embarrass yourself.
1