Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Motherboard" channel.

  1. There are far dumber people out there than people like that woman.
    12
  2. Ozzie Jim So we can make the desert bloom. Also, to advance ourselves by becoming a true space fairing civilization.
    5
  3. Your thought process is idiotic. This technology is not very well known, even within nuclear engineering. Reactors can cost billions of dollars, and the first mover costs are likely to never be paid back even if it does work. So, how many investors in the world are there that put up a billion dollars and can afford/willing to risk losing that billion dollars. 
    4
  4. +Unlucky Elf12 Some things about Mars we will have to adapt to, like the gravity only being .38G, but other things, like the atmospheric temperature and composition, can and will be changed in the future.
    2
  5. +ForwardLight Yes, we can destroy a place that will kill a person in 90 seconds.
    2
  6. The smallest they can get (including turbine) is the size of a cargo container
    2
  7. ***** As I explained, it's not that simple, you simpleton. 
    2
  8. Exactly why we should be building molten salt reactors instead.
    1
  9. Nuclear is already the safest form of power we have and MSRs (including LFTRs) will improve even on that. Furthermore, if you do the only fair and honest thing of using the same standards, nuclear power to day is just as clean as wind or solar. LFTRs would again improve on today's reactors by using thorium, which is a byproduct of my many different forms of mining, and could use the heat from the reactor to create synthetic fuels to replace things like jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, etc..
    1
  10. andygasson I see no problem with asking the people who returned to their homes in the Chernobyl exclution zone after the meltdown, and are living longer healthier lives than those left, or the people who worked in the Chernobyl power plant decades after the meltdown about what happened and just how uninhabitable it is. Don't get me wrong there are some serious problems in the exclution zones, but calling them uninhabitable is simply not true. Furthermore, if you actually look at the numbers, instead of using emotional arguments, you would see that nuclear has the lowest deaths per kilowatt hour. Another point I want to bring up, you seem to think solar and wind are some how magically unable to have accidents that kill people, which is, again, simply not true. Most solar panels are mounted on rooftops, and climbing on rooftops is dangerous work. Wind has a similar problem, with lifting very large objects high into the air and just working high in the air.
    1
  11. The reason the exclution zones were evacuated is that governments use the linear-no-threshold model. The linear-no-threshold (LNT) model says any amount of radiation is bad. However, LNT has very little data supporting it. LNT came from one study of mice which were exposed to very high levels of radiation, levels far higher than any threshold would, and then worked backwards assuming the relationship would hold. Other studies of people who had been exposed to radiation and found that people exposed to less than 10% a lethal dose have little to no longe term harm done. Both the Fukushima and Chernobyl exclution zones are below the 10% threshold. Another thing, you contradict yourself by saying the exclution zones are uninhabitable and saying parts of the exclution zones are habitable.
    1
  12. andygasson You say that you were unclear, but then claim that I'm splitting hairs to discount you. Get off your high horse.
    1
  13. It's Chernobyl, three mile island, and Fukushima. If you want people to take anything you say as more than a bad joke learn to at least look how the names are spelled. 
    1
  14. +Fukaikokro If taking sensationalist lies at face value is your idea research, you need some help.
    1
  15. The billion is to build the first reactor, which wil have many costs that the other reactors won't.
    1
  16. Nick Stubbings No, if you pay attention, he says the billion would be for a test reactor. Also, your inability to comprehend how to build reactors less expensively is your failing. There are four big reasons molten salt reactors are going to be cheaper: 1) they need less material, both the reactor and containment building; 2) they'll be smaller, so unit price will be lower; 3) they won't be bespoke built; 4) they'll be built in a factory en mass.
    1
  17. Nick Stubbings Don't be stupid; life isn't that simple. You keep using an erroneous comparison with shopping centers. A better comparison would be a large body jet, most of which cost in the order of $100 million. Also, like planes, MSRs can be built in many different sizes ranging from ones small enough carried by truck to reactors that some of the largest ships in the world would only be able to carry a few of. It wasn't an insult. I was trying to explain to you the logical fallacy you were using called argument from incredulity (maybe not in the nicest way but non the less…). I've done more than just read the wiki and watch a couple videos. I've watch numerous lectures, interviews, and documentaries on MSRs. I've, also, read scholarly, the most important of which is probably the report on the MSRE.
    1
  18. Nick Stubbings You explicitly said cost per unit in your last comment. Congratulations, you have given evidence that the cost of light water reactors have gotten more expensive to build. Do you have something about MSRs? Did you read that carefully? It clearly says Transatomic is sacrificing some of the cost savings in exchange for larger reactors.
    1
  19. Clark Griswold You misheard; he said a billion dollars. Because it's a first mover cost, that money will never be returned. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of an investor that would be willing to lose a billion dollars.
    1
  20. Rexfailed I don't know what kind of life you've lived if you think constant parole of death is boring.
    1
  21. I can built rockets in my garage, but it still takes years and millions for companies to built rockets for s sending things into space.
    1