Comments by "justgivemethetruth" (@justgivemethetruth) on "Are Renewables Actually the Cheaper Option?" video.

  1. Nuclear waste is no big deal in reality. And relatively there is so little of it. it just needs to get done.
    8
  2.  @Sean_neaS  The problems you and many mention are due to nuclear not really getting a chance to grow and mature into an economy of scale and develop best practices. A cold objective consideration puts nuclear at the top when you balance all the needs of the whole planet and all people. The criticisms of nuclear are calculated to pile and in order to prevent anyone from actually weighing them. Cut to the chase ... it's either nuclear, climate and habitat destruction, or massive energy shortages and a F-you to the developing world. Since the environment and limited resources are the constraint, recycling conomic growth and development must turn to massive cheap energy to desalinate water and pump it around the world to green dying brown areas, recycling metals to avoid having to tear up the planet, and information technology which runs on energy to provide new kinds of jobs. I don't call anyone names, or demand their ideas are nonsense, or attack other methods of electricity generation, but nuclear solves all the problem - except the stupidity of humans ... and I never claimed that was a minor annoyance.
    3
  3. This is BS. First, the 500 MW is a bad target, nuclear gets cheaper and cheaper as the size of the plant goes up. Then there is lifespan - nuclear plants can operater for 50 years. Then inputs output and mainthenance, then duty cycle - is it on all the time reliably. Just another video that makes solar sound like the perfect solution with the targets for solar are not considered. What is there is a nuclear war, or an asteroid hits the planet, or a volcano and dust obscures the sun for a significant number of people - or what if global warming causes cloud cover to massively cover the Earth, or what about solar at high lattitudes. And what about massive capacity that we will need not to just reach a low reduced target goal for humanity - what about all the 3rd world people who want more energy, or the energy we need to desalinate and pump water all over the world because of drought or to remediate global warming. or to recycle all the metals and garbage we produce. The other thing not taken into account is that nuclear has never been allowed to get the stage where it benefits from the economy of scale, and the design is cookie cutter. it is so taken for granted that everyone hates and is terrified of nuclear, but you look at the facts and nuclear is the safest.
    2
  4. Decommissioning ... also not a big deal because these plants lifespans are around 50 years. You can't just throw out some accusation and think you are making an argument against nuclear power.
    2
  5.  @EngineeringwithRosie  When it comes to nuclear there are so many extraneous factors like the public fear of nuclear provoked and exaggerated over the years by the oil companies and Hollywood, as well as the few but large scale accidents that have happend, but that when you look at them were so completely avoidable and not really to do with the technology per se. I just perceive the purpose of this video to be to slam nuclear, that is what you set out to do or whoever calculated the numbers, and that is what you did - with a kind of false objectivity. Not to mention that there is really nothing that can provide the amount of energy needed for all the things we would need to do to save this planet and nature, like desalination of water and transporting it to where it is needed, or incinerative trash or recycling materials to end the mining of the Earth for raw materials and the wars over them. > It's a cost "per 500MW". Not a cost to make a single 500MW generator. So for e.g. a 2GW generator, multiply by 4. So, take the cost for solar and multiply it by ... what? to get to what ... the world demand currently is around 14,000 TW. I don't think it is valid to just try to scale all these things linearly. Currently solar produces I think it is about 3% of the US energy ... how does that double 5 times and what about storage and batteries. What about mining metals, and the costs of that and competition between nations. By the way, I am not in the least trying to bash solar, solar is fantastic, it is just not to panacea people make it out to be.
    1
  6. Yeah, I want to charge my EV during off hours at night with solar ... in the frozen north. sheesh!
    1
  7.  @C_R_O_M________  Just a troll .... is that why you have the 666 in your name, to tip everyone off?
    1
  8.  @Misophist  It used to be more, ditship.
    1
  9.  @Misophist  Nuclear did not falter ... what a dumb thing to say. Nuclear did not have the chance, and the money to refine and perfect the technology that solar and wind have had because of a few accidents that do not measure up to carbon based deaths and disasters in any way. Not to mention you are so dishonest because wind and solar will always need backup courses. And again what about disasters like the Canadian fires that smoked up the skies. Talk to anyone who had nuclear in NY state during that?
    1
  10. Look at the world's nuclear energy generating capacity - not just a false 500 MW fake imaginary contest.
    1