Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  @Lord_Volkner  ok, so you’re just trying to move the goalposts. Define “green”. If you define green as producing the least amount of pollution, nuclear is easily the greenest energy source we have. If you define it as doing the least damage to the environment, again it’s the greenest. So how do you define “green” that nuclear isn’t “green”? There are more than three uranium mines in the world, and that’s not getting into thorium, which is a common byproduct of many forms of mining.
    1
  2.  @Lord_Volkner  By your definition of green nothing will ever be green. Also, everything is a pollutant in excess. With generation four reactors, we have hundreds of year worth of fuel just with the stockpiles of spent fuel we have. Current reactors are only 5% efficient at burn their fuel. By the time the reactors have burnt 5% of the fuel, the fuel rods are too damaged to keep using. Gen. four reactors are closer to 95% efficient because they don’t use solid fuel or use online reprocessing. That means we can get 18x the energy out of the same amount of fuel. With cheap abundant energy from nuclear, even an energy intensive process like sea water extraction is more than economic. Also, you completely ignored the use of thorium. Literally everything in the universe is limited. The question is how long it will last, nuclear is more than enough for us to develop even longer lasting sources of energy. Renewables can’t even supply us with the energy we need now.
    1
  3.  @Lord_Volkner  ok doomer. You’re wrong about there us being screwed. There are plenty of companies working on SMRs. They’re just not to the point in the process of building them yet.
    1
  4.  @Lord_Volkner  you’re not being realistic. You’re being an extreme pessimist
    1
  5.  @Lord_Volkner  yes, things are going to get bad for a while, but we’re no where near civilization collapse like the Bronze age Collapse the like.
    1
  6. We use more energy than ever before, and we are more efficient than ever. We will as a planet have to double energy output in the next few decades to keep up with demand in the developing countries.
    1
  7.  @clarkkent9080  there’s plenty to be improved, but my point is that the idea that efficiency will replace the need for more energy just doesn’t jive with the facts.
    1
  8. No, weapons manufacturing reactors are very different from civilian power plants
    1
  9. Then we better get them rich, so we can support more people
    1
  10. He’s rather successful for someone who is irrational
    1
  11. Nuclear has lower lifetime carbon emissions than solar and wind. Also, no one is going to leave valuable fuel rotting in a hole for 100,000 years. They’re not even going to leave it there for a century.
    1
  12. More like 90
    1
  13. Wind and solar some of the most expensive energy sources.
    1
  14. Literally everything is radioactive and bas been since the beginning of the universe. Where do you think we go those radioactive materials if not mining it?
    1
  15. The Daiichi plant wasn’t damaged by the tsunami. The problem was the cooling systems didn’t have power.
    1