Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Two Bit da Vinci" channel.

  1. 1) The heavy metal waste from renewables is going to be around for trillions of years. 2) There wasn’t enough material released from Fukushima or TMI to cause any deaths, and Chernobyl is estimated to cause 2,000 early deaths. However, even that number is below a standard deviation, so we can’t even say we’re sure if people died from the radiation or not. That leaves the 50 some people who die from radiation poisoning at Chernobyl 3) Thanks for acknowledging that you’re not driven by reason but fear 4) dirty bombs are a nonissue. They’re whole point is to make radioactive less dangerous by spreading it out, and what little effect it might have will happen decades latter. Terrorists aren’t that patient
    2
  2.  @Southghost5997  the main safety concern for nuclear reactors is keeping the fission reaction controlled. In metal and salt cooled reactors the coolant/fuel expands as it gets hotter, slowing the reaction. This means the reactors have to be kept in an active state, making them walk-away-safe. You can literally do nothing and they will shutoff on their own.
    2
  3. Fuel is power storage.
    2
  4. Because the online reprocessing needed to make them work hasn’t been developed yet.
    1
  5. True, but you need hydrogen for things like reducing iron.
    1
  6.  @gvasilyev84  reducing iron and aluminum are different processes. Direct reduction of iron uses hydrogen to strip oxygen off of iron. I love the Marian and have been meaning to read Artemis.
    1
  7. Who ever came up with that clearly isn’t an engineer. It’s overly complicated and will cost far more than a simpler system.
    1
  8.  @anthonymendoza1327  what is simpler over build (step 1), use excess electricity to make hydrogen (step 2), store the hydrogen (step 3), burn hydrogen for electricity (step 4) or build what you (step 1) and match the demand (step 2).
    1
  9. The spent fuel from naval ships is jut sealed up and put into storage like all other spent fuel. Fast breeder reactors can burn spent fuel, but no one has built one in decades.
    1
  10. Tesla are great at building batteries, but they’re orders of magnitudes off from the volume and cost need for battery backup to be viable.
    1
  11. Then why does Germany (heavily invested in renewables) have the high electricity costs in Europe, while France (3/4 of their electricity from nuclear) have some of the lowest?
    1
  12. Until they can produce at night, it doesn’t really matter.
    1
  13. With all nuclear you would have a clean reliable electrical grid. With renewables and batteries you’re going to have massive brownouts with people dying. The book Roadmap to Nowhere takes an in-depth look at what the US would need to power itself with nuclear and renewables. It would take at least 3.5 times as much money to power the US using renewables than nuclear. I’m sure that would hold true in Oz too.
    1
  14. Renewables don’t pay for a huge amount of real damage they do. Dams don’t pay for the ecological damage they do to river systems. Solar and wind aren’t paying to clean up cadmium in the soil in China from rare earth mining. All of the spent fuel in the world would fit into a football field, and gen. 4 reactors can reduce the volume and longevity of it by burning. Renewables don’t work, and if we want to stop using fossil fuels, the only option is nuclear. Also, renewables have gotten massive political and financial support from governments and other institutions around the world. You can’t run a factory with a few solar panels on the roof, and cities are going to be dependent on vast solar/wind. Germany and California have spent billions on batteries, and the each have about 1 minute of battery storage.
    1
  15.  @kurtappley4550  A small country with 1/4 the population of the NYC metro, and how much heavy industry/mining?
    1
  16. When the laws of physics are stopping it from failing, it’s idiot proof. Although, there are better types of reactors than helium cooled.
    1
  17. Why don’t we just pure crude oil into cars and have a refinery in the car? That’s basically what you want for hydrogen.
    1
  18. Where ever you got that from, stop listening to them because they’re making shit up.
    1
  19. Tell that to South Korea
    1
  20.  @dmcarstensen  nobody likes being shelled, but most people would much prefer having electricity after it’s finished. Solar and wind would be destroyed after just one salvo, while nuclear is shrugging off multi day bombardments
    1
  21. Burn it in fast reactors!
    1
  22. You’re wrong in a number of way. You’re confusing hydrogen combustion with fusion and conflating fission and fusion warheads
    1
  23. Reactor containment buildings are bunkers that will withstand everything but a nuclear warhead. Also, solar and wind are extremely fragile and would be smashed to pieces
    1
  24.  @urieaaron  only one reactor failure has breached a containment building, Fukushima. Also, gen. 4 reactors are can’t melt down.
    1
  25. We could could use supercritical CO2.
    1
  26. Nuclear is the safest form of energy we have.
    1