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

  1. Coal kills 10,000 a day, more than nuclear has in its whole history.
    249
  2. Many of which are a lot more like to kill you.
    130
  3. You're completely wrong about the risks. Between the three largest nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl, only one, Chernobyl, had or will have any fatalities. Of those fatalities, only about 50 are from direct radiation radiation exposure with another 3,000 estimated to die from cancer, but that's so small we can't a rise in cancer in a population of the size exposed. There's never going to be another Chernobyl. Chernobyl used a reactor design which no one else used because of its safety flaws. Compared to coal that kills several times that number every day. Before you say something about wind or solar, they both have higher death per unit of energy ratios than nuclear. You've fallen for the classic trap of judging a few large events to be more dangerous than many many more small events.
    29
  4. Aiden Green That's not what he was saying. He was saying the story is the key part to good movie, and that the inappropriate use of use of graphics takes away from the story.
    27
  5. aj madcapocean Even if all that is vaccines, it's in there at tiny amounts and for good reasons.
    23
  6. sirjsk Do you understand what an experiment is?
    18
  7. Build trillions of dollars worth of batteries with many orders of magnitude more battery storage than the world can build, simple.
    17
  8. The extremes on both sides act like that, just on different topics.
    9
  9. Yeah, a few batteries are going to get you through a winter storm or power a factory.
    9
  10. Taiwan is part of China but it's not part of the People's Republic of China. It's like North and South Korea and East and West Germany.
    5
  11. Good, we’re tired of carrying the world. We’re looking after our interests instead of everyone else’s.
    5
  12. Errrr, complete fantasy.
    5
  13. Erick TG When hunting animals that twice the size of modern Bison killing the prey as quickly as possible was a huge advantage. 
    4
  14. You don't see the benefit of exploring a planet, which we may be able to expand life and human civilization on to or all the advancements doing such with necessitate?
    4
  15. Molten salt reactors have something like a 96% efficiency at burning the fuel.
    4
  16. No, we’re just going through the annual cleaning and rearranging of our house.
    4
  17. NATO has been dead for years, and Trump killed because it no longer serves American interests.
    3
  18. Nuclear is literally the safest form of power we have, and the only countries in Europe a reactor failure could possibly force people to abandon are the Monaco and Vatican City.
    3
  19. Humans have been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of civilization. This is closest to peace the world has ever seen.
    3
  20. Yeah, because the last time Germany had to fend for itself we got WW2.
    3
  21. So we have 1,200 years of hegemony left to go.
    3
  22. Germany has been the problem. Also, in a break from militaristic tradition, Germany’s military equipment is in bad shape.
    3
  23. A few allies are important to the US, and being in our favor is important to them.
    3
  24. Erick TG You've got your information all mixed up.
    2
  25. Star Light Yes' let's compare apples to oranges.
    2
  26. We don't have to find a planet just like Earth. We'll make them Earth like, and when there's something we can't change, we'll adapt.
    2
  27. Solar flares carry huge amounts of radiation, so they can cause radiation poisoning and death.
    2
  28. MSRs don't just use thorium.
    2
  29. There's, also, no mention of China's aggressive actions in the region. Not everyone is just going to say "Well, Japan is a pacifist nation, so we're thugs let China do what ever it want."
    2
  30. "Fukushima is going to kill us!" The battle cry of the moron with out any idea of what he talking about.
    2
  31. Aiden Green He's not giving his opinion. He's saying the story is the most important part of movies and the misuse of special effects detracts from the story. What of that is opinion?  
    2
  32. You’re information is wrong on all fronts. We can burn the spent from reactors in advanced reactors. In fact, some reactors need something like spent fuel to start them. You can’t make weapons material using a reactor built for generating electricity, and that has nothing to do with why we haven’t invested in liquid fuel reactors.
    2
  33. Considering the reactors specifically designed to burn spent fuel, the number of reactors we need to build to fill the world’s electricity needs, and the tiny amount of spent fuel there is, I would estimate that there’s only a couple decades worth of spent. Also, burning spent fuel in new reactors would leave us with waste that’s more than 96% gone in 150 years.
    2
  34. For your information France has been reprocessing spent fuel for decades. However, that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking is taking the fuel that has already been used in PWRs (mostly gen. 2 reactors) and burning it in some types of gen. 4 reactors with little to no processing. No removal of transuranic elements because those are what is actually needed. Generation 4 reactors are also much more efficient at burning their fuel, and some even use other forms of fuel which are much more abundant than U-235.
    2
  35. That makes exactly no sense.
    2
  36. People are catching on to the “green energy” scam. Deaths per unit of energy include all deaths from mining to decommissioning. Uranium mining is no worse than REE mining for wind and solar, but it’s a fraction of the scale because uranium produces millions of times more energy. As for the spent fuel, it’s not waste. It’s fuel for advanced reactors.
    2
  37.  @caav56  yeah, it’s an unfortunate initialism.
    2
  38. Not really. The big event is governments over reacting. People living around Three Mile Island and Fukushima would weren’t exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, but the government had people evacuated.
    2
  39. Yet, nuclear produces fewer emissions than solar or wind.
    2
  40. The sky is falling; the sky is falling!
    2
  41. It’s 2,000 times safer than coal.
    2
  42. Aaron Lowe, and how long and how much money is that going to take?
    2
  43. There’s a bit different between having to ramp up and down and having to shut off the generators. Also, it doesn’t save fuel. Fossil fuel fueled generator work best by consistently fuel. Just think about a car, nonstop highway driving giving you the best mpg, while stopping and starting in the city has the lowest mpg.
    2
  44. When all you’ve been told is that the future is death and despair, are you going to be enthusiastic?
    2
  45. There’s a tiny amount of it and we can control it.
    2
  46. Turbines just catch fire and explode while not working most of the time.
    2
  47. 1) nuclear “waste” is tiny compared to all other forms of energy. 2) we have reactors in development that can the spent fuel.
    2
  48. American hegemony is alive and well. We just don’t care about keeping order anymore.
    2
  49. 1) Everything produces waste. Nuclear produces by far the least waste, and we actually control it, instead of just dumping it into the environment. 2) What’s the problem? 3) That’s mostly because of people complaining about nuclear. Stop being part of the problem. There’s no difference in the energy density of thorium and uranium. You’re mistaking the reactor types for the fuel. Molten salt reactors are more efficient at burning their fuel regardless of if it’s thorium or uranium.
    2
  50. Neither is mining for rare earth elements used in wind and solar. So we have three options: huge amounts of mining for coal; small amounts of mining for unreliable solar and wind; or a small amount of mining for the most reliable source of energy we have, nuclear. I don't know about you, but I'll take the last one.
    2
  51. August Landmesser, if you’re going to use links, make sure the links actually support what you’re saying. When we last built a reactor have no bearing on how fast we would be able to build reactors. Also, while there are a few reactors built after the 70s, my point is still true enough. Wikipedia isn’t a source, but it still agrees with what I said. Solar and wind only make up a few percent of our energy. Although, I should have made something a little clearer, I meant they produce about 1% each. Reactors already under development is not a big if. How would an industrial power developing technology that can be deployed en mass? I don’t know. Maybe we would sell other countries reactors and license the technology for other countries to build their own, like we’ve done with PWRs.
    2
  52. Well, we all know who failed 8th grade math.
    2
  53. The reactors at Chernobyl had major known flaws, which is why they were banned everywhere but the USSR.
    2
  54. You're nuts. Next you'll be saying we need a star destroyer or the starship Enterprise.
    1
  55. The reactor designs they're talking about are as similar to current reactors as a rocket engine is to a car's engine. The reason fuel rods are replaced after only 4% fuel is used is because the fuel rods start breaking down. With a liquid fuel there are no fuel rods to break down.
    1
  56. They aren't cheaper,and even if they were, that wouldn't solve their other major problems, like reliability. If a power source can't provide the electricity people need when they need it, that source is useless.
    1
  57. Name me one form of energy storage that is cheap, efficient, and scalable. If it doesn't have all three of those, it won't work. Got a super cheap and efficient battery, great, but to make them at a scale we need it would take more than the whole planet's supply of an element; that won't work. Got a cheap and scalable form of storage, great, but it's only 1% efficient meaning we have to produce 100 times power than we needed; well, that's not going to work either. Got a scalable efficient form of energy storage, great, but it costs a lot of money to operate; people aren't going to be using something they can't even afford to buy. At this time, the kind of energy storage needed to make renewables remotely viable is just a pipe dream.
    1
  58. Even if those are cheaper than nuclear, that doesn't make them reliable. Modern civilization needs a constant energy supply, but wind and solar don't produce constant power.
    1
  59. Well, nuclear power would prevent both by not adding CO2 and burning the fissile material in the warheads.
    1
  60. ***** It would take at least 100 thousand years to strip away the atmosphere to where it is now after terraforming Mars. For some context that's 10 times long than human civilization has been around and depending who you ask, that's as long as our species has been around.
    1
  61. Mars' gravity is 38% that of Earth. That's a far cry from the microgravity of LEO. Yes, there might be adverse health effects do to Mars' lower gravity, but comparing Mars' gravity to microgravity is disingenuous.
    1
  62. Oggy Ren Sorry but you're just wrong about everything.
    1
  63. A long ass time, but only as niche power source.
    1
  64. Watney used a mix of Martian regolith and poop as fertilizer.
    1
  65. Water sucks as a heat transfer medium, so to get better performance out of it the reactors have to have pressurized water. It's the same reason you would use a pressure cooker rather than just boiling something.
    1
  66. If there's life on Mars, it hasn't evolved to survive inside the human body. The vast majority of single cell life forms on Earth aren't infectious; alien life from Mars defiantly won't.
    1
  67. apeek7 Saying some people decades ago were worried about something doesn't refute my point. Furthermore, the quarantine was dropped after the third moon mission. Yes, I would risk a astronaut's life on 0% chance of an alien pathogen. Even if it wasn't a 0% chance I would still be by far the least risky thing about the mission. That's completely different but still wrong argument. Manned missions are only 10 times more expensive than robotic missions. However, humans can do more than 10 times the work of a robotic mission, and there are things a human can do that a robot simply can't. Last year a team of people are the Mars Society's desert research station made a major fossil discovery after climbing down into a hole, of which robots can't do.
    1
  68. apeek7 Are you really that stupid? Unless there are people or other vertebrates living on Mars who I don't know, there's no environment on Mars anything like the human body for microbes to evolve to live in. As for my second statement, it's support by the first. If something isn't adapted to living in humans or a similar animal enters the body, it will die.
    1
  69. apeek7 Being related to us, however distantly, has nothing to do with being infectious. Anything living on Mars would be the equivalent of an extremophile, and extremophiles duchess by cause infections because they aren't adapted to the human body. Also, you're wrong many viruses and single cell life forms have evolved specifically to live in side macroscopic organisms and many die shortly after leaving the body.
    1
  70. It's about adding more mass to the atmosphere than it is about adding more CO2.
    1
  71. Wind and solar aren't waste free. Solar produces a lot of toxic waste in making pv panels, and wind requires mining rare earths for the dynamo.
    1
  72. Gold finX We have one in the Republic of China (Taiwan), but none in the People's Republic of China (mainland China).
    1
  73. You must be Canadian because Canada is the only place that really uses heavy water reactors. Also, as implied, there are many different forms of reactor many of which work every differently from the reactors we have now. Furthermore, look up supercritical CO2 turbines.
    1
  74. There's always going to be some amount of waste. However, there certainly are ways we can reduce our spent fuel. The first being simply reprocessing the spent fuel rods. Another, would be to burn the spent fuel in more advanced reactors like MSRs.
    1
  75. Emotion over fact.
    1
  76. Scotty I'll vote even if I have to get there on a meat bicycle
    1
  77. They've been funding anti-nuclear propaganda for decades.
    1
  78. Claire Knight and the US is the awoken titan.
    1
  79. That's just not true. Wind requires mining rare earth metals. Solar produces large amounts of toxic waste from manufacturing solar panels. Dams cause huge amounts of ecological damage rivers and the ecosystems connect to them. Geothermal releases 200 times more radiation into the environment than nuclear; geothermal plants would be shut down for releasing so much radiation if they had to fallow the same rules as nuclear plants.
    1
  80. Zolikeoff, dams can effect the whole of a river system by blocking silt and the movement of fish. However, over all good points, especially the one about uranium in the ocean.
    1
  81. The concrete, fuel used to move materials, etc. do release CO2. However, it's on equal to or less than the amount wind and solar release.
    1
  82. Using thorium doesn't make a reactor safer. The improved safety comes from different reactor designs, which can be used with either uranium or breeding thorium into uranium.
    1
  83. It would take a lot of money and time to build all that solar and wind too.
    1
  84. Where the hell is that math coming from? It takes 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear power plant using the old tech. The AP 1000 is shortening that time some, and generation 4 reactors are going to significantly shorten that.
    1
  85. Yes, I do know that, and that's included in my numbers for how long it takes to build a plant.
    1
  86. Ali, you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of chancing the rabbit, we should use should use the rabbit to cover for where we're low. Anything else is simply idiotic, and bound to cause problems like brownouts.
    1
  87. John Elkhoury The F-35 is the latest entry into the long history of the US trying to make one plane that can do everything, instead of what needs to be done, making planes that do one job very well.
    1
  88. I know making fun of stupid people isn't well looked at, but when people like you say such blatantly stupid things. Wind turbines and solar panels don't just magically appear. As such they require manufacturing, shipping, extraction of resources, etc. Those things produce waste, and solar in particular produces lot of very toxic waste. In fact, one twin in China had riots because of the toxic waste coming from the plant making solar panels. Furthermore, when people talk about nuclear waste they're talking about an amount that can fit into a football field. Compared to vast amounts of waste produced by other forms of power, nuclear waste is a small inconvenience. Nuclear plants do have a large up front cost. However, when you average that cost out by the life of the plant and how much energy it produces every year, nuclear is less expensive than wind or solar.
    1
  89. Those produce waste too. China has had riots over the improper dumping of the waste from making solar panels.
    1
  90. We could use thorium breeders. Thorium is an extremely common byproduct of mining of many different metals.
    1
  91. China hit its high water mark a while ago, and even they hadn’t, the Quad is the alliance that would fight China, not NATO.
    1
  92.  @nytenjin  there’s a lot more to an alliance than just money.
    1
  93. You mean the things that would take more material than we have and are way too expensive?
    1
  94. It must be nice to live in a world were you don’t have to actually do math to solve problems.
    1
  95. Over produce then dump in others so they can deal with your mess rather than fixing it on your side.
    1
  96. Only in Spanish and French do them mean different things.
    1
  97. Only to ignorant doom mongers
    1
  98. Being against nuclear is the most anti-environmental position in the world.
    1
  99. Those countries were our allies so we could contain one country: the Soviet Union, and because they haven’t been a thing for almost 3 decades, they’re expensive allies that no longer serve a point.
    1
  100. Have you done the math about how time orders of magnitude worth of batteries we would need to make that happen?
    1
  101. Simple: they don’t work. Solar also produces hundreds of times more waste much of which never goes away.
    1
  102. You’re opinion is bs. Solar doesn’t just produce CO2 but extremely dangerous heavy metal contamination from mining which lasts forever. Sure to much radiation is dangerous, but it’s well controlled. Also, huge amounts of slightly toxic material is far more dangerous than a tiny amount of moderately toxic material.
    1
  103. This video: Just ignore smashing and burning people's property because there only a couple of them. Also, the reason there were so little violence at the events mentioned is the police were out in force. Other events at Berkeley were the pilfered weren't out in force ended up with buildings being set on fire.
    1
  104. I don’t even know where to begin with that crazy nonsense.
    1
  105. Everyone has know for decades that if you’re willing to destroy the ecosystem of a riger, you can get a lot of power from damming up a river. You’re country hasn’t proven anything other than it’s fine with massive ecological damage for the sake of having renewable power.
    1
  106. Depleted means it's had most of the fissile isotopes removed make it useless for nuclear warheads. However, depleted uranium is used in some US anti-armor tank shells.
    1
  107. When someone comes swerving into your lane, are you at flaunt for hitting them because you weren’t able to react fast enough to their erratic behavior or them for being erratic?
    1
  108. Solar causes 6 times the number of deaths per unit of energy produced as nuclear. Solar and wind actually cheaper either when you take into account things like batteries for storing electricity to use during downtime.
    1
  109. Because you see the world from a European perspective. The US has lost interest in the world outside of a few countries, and we’re retrenching our system around those few countries.
    1
  110. We provided security and allowed our allies to sell their goods in our markets so they could be prosperous, and only asked our allies to do what allies are supposed to do, fight along side us.
    1
  111. Do you think they don't calculate that in?
    1
  112. They aren’t talking about BWRs. They’re talking about reactors like molten salt reactors that don’t need to be pressurized.
    1
  113.  @vaping-cat  no, if it’s blue and wet, the USN controls it, and the US doesn’t get any major resources from other countries. However, the US is the world’s largest food exporter, so a lot of countries are dependent on the US.
    1
  114. Luiz Felipe, I think you’re missing the sarcasm I wrote that with.
    1
  115. Because it’s stupid beyond imagination. How are you going to deal with line lose? Get across oceans? Deal with storms? Even if there was a way of overcoming the technical problems, internal politics is nasty.
    1
  116. That’s some funny alternative history.
    1
  117. We need world peace, something that has never happened and probably never will, so we can use your preferred source of electricity. Sounds very reasonable.
    1
  118. There’s literally not enough batteries in the world, and batteries are environmental nightmares.
    1
  119. What about the millions of other towns in the wolrd?
    1
  120. Yeah, they’re teaming up against China.
    1
  121. No, you can’t just turn power plants on and off. Also, why do stable power sources have to adapt to the unstable one?
    1
  122. The only reason there’s no depository is because of interference from anti-nuclear activists. Also, spent fuel isn’t a problem for all time. If we just let it sit there, it’s going to be decayed in under 100 thousand years. However, it’s too valuable, being mostly made of unused fuel, to just let sit and go to waste.
    1
  123. The reason we don’t have storage site is because of antinuclear activists. Although l, we should be reprocessing the spent fuel rather than just put it in a hole.
    1
  124. You got it exactly backwards. Everyone else was looking at the past when the US would play daddy for everyone. Trump has told them to grow-up and take care of themselves.
    1
  125.  @someguy2135  the Paris agreement is an agreement to do nothing, and the outrageous costs are mostly born by the US.
    1
  126.  @someguy2135  it’s a lot worse no enforcement mechanism. The goals are too low to matter, and the means it pushes are ineffective. How does leaving a useless agreement send the wrong message, particularly when the US has reduced our CO2 more than any other country.
    1
  127.  @someguy2135  oh my god, what will happen if people aren’t part of an agreement to do nothing? Oh yeah! exactly the same thing as not having signed the agreement. We’d actually be in a slightly better position if we hadn’t wasted all the jet fuel sending diplomats to Paris. The rest is a mix of talking points and buzzwords that I’m not going to bother responding to.
    1
  128. The EU has been barely holding together for years, and the idea that the English speaking countries are going to favor the EU over their fellow is hilarious.
    1
  129.  @magnusschlosser5927  they prefer our shared culture and traditions. In Canada there’s a movement for the western provinces to break away and possibly join the US. The EU barely functions.
    1
  130. Two words: pipe dream. It's been 30 years away for 50 years, and even after we have working fusion, the price is going to be too high because of the complexity.
    1
  131. Cool science experiment but not a power source any time soon.
    1
  132. The fewest troops outside of nation in a century is getting ready for an invasion?
    1
  133. bosonicharon1, where are you getting that incredibly wrong number from?
    1
  134. bosonicharon, Goldstein and that article make a lot of mistakes, ignores important things, and is outdated. He ignores the reprocessing of spent. He assumes that we’re going to be using light water reactors, and when he mentions another form of reactor along with sea water extraction, says we actually have 300,000 years of fuel.
    1
  135. No, he asserts without evidence that one of many different types of reactors isn’t economically viable, and that’s with just uranium. There are other fuels too. Thorium is over hyped, but the thorium cycle is still an option. Natural gas is one of the dirtiest fuels. If you include leaks, natural gas is worse than coal for greenhouse emissions. If you don’t include leaks, it’s worse than everything but coal. Also, it’s more efficient to burn natural gas with a combined cycle turbine all the time than to interrupt a regular gas turbine with solar and wind.
    1
  136. The only thing you said that was true was there were protests in the 70s.
    1
  137. john tripucka, you didn’t make statements of opinion. An opinion is something like, my favorite color is blue. You made statements that can be demonstrably proven.
    1
  138. No.
    1
  139. Gas-plasmafication is much more efficient for dealing with waste, but it can’t produce more than a fraction of our energy needs. Solar is a waste of time, money, and resources.
    1
  140. Any other miracles you want to ask for with that?
    1
  141. When did multiple times the emissions become way less?
    1
  142.  @heathross511  mining for materials and manufacturing.
    1
  143.  @heathross511  you completely underestimate how many resources go into a solar or wind farm. There’s all kinds of metals needed, concrete, oil, etc. that renewables need. Also, a relatively small amount of uranium once every year and 1/2 is nothing.
    1
  144.  @heathross511  yes, they do. It’s a demonstrable fact.
    1
  145. The EU has never been an ally of the US. The EU created the euro to replace the USD as the global reserve currency and have done a long list of other things to undermine the US.
    1
  146. People who do that normally just take the metered price at noon.
    1
  147.  @Yardbird7  there’s no one who even in the same league as the Soviets were. The Chinese are dependent on the US keeping order and allowing Chinese companies to trade in the USD. If the US put half the restrictions on China as we had on the Soviets, China’s economy would implode. The EU only exists because of US security overwatch. The US is supplying our own oil, so OPEC can’t do much to us. Russia is shadow of the Soviet Union.
    1
  148. Demise? The report of our death is much exaggerated. In fact, we’re going to be better than ever once this flu is over.
    1
  149. Problem not solved.
    1
  150. You still have one wish left from you magic djin. What will it be?
    1
  151. The first three still had to deal with the Soviets. Rest didn’t. Trump is the only president to get that the Cold War alliances are outdated.
    1
  152. Don’t be one of the long list of people who mistook house cleaning for the US collaping.
    1
  153. They’re only 5% efficient at using their fuel, and they cost a lot to build.
    1
  154. Too unreliable and not enough capacity.
    1
  155. And we will be for any foreseeable future. We’re just done providing free protection for everyone.
    1
  156. It’s really is weird vassalage when the vassals pay nothing and get peace and prosperity for it.
    1
  157.  @RisikoAO  Letting an ally use some of your territory and troops for your benefit isn’t exactly a price. Germany and France love to criticize the US’s foreign policy. Nothing stopping Italy from doing the same.
    1
  158. Because batteries won’t work.
    1
  159. Wind and solar aren’t cheaper, and they have much bigger problems like inconsistency and waste.
    1
  160. Great video on one of the biggest reasons solar sucks.
    1
  161. In English we say America.
    1
  162. We don’t care if other people speak English. The USD being the world’s reserve currency has nothing to do with our allies.
    1
  163. NATO was created to fight the Soviet Union. Russia is a shadow of the Soviets. Also, the Quad has emerged to counter China.
    1
  164. 1) The new generation of reactors will use steam turbines until something better comes along. 2) We could use thorium in current reactors, but we wouldn't get any better results. The important thing is the improved reactor designs. 3) Even if renewables are cheaper right now, new reactors could change that, and it doesn't solve other problems with renewables, like inconsistency. Also, the idea that no one wants nuclear power is a huge lie. Most people are in favor of nuclear power, but it gets so beat on in public that most people won't speak up for it.
    1
  165. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basics of how anything you talked about works.
    1
  166. Nuclear is going to take a lot less time to build out than solar or wind. In about 10 years the US built 100 reactors that still produce 20% of our electricity. How many millions of solar panels and wind turbines have we built that still only produce 1% of our electricity. Also, between the thorium fuel cycle and sea water extraction of uranium, we have more than enough fuel to last hundreds if not thousands of years. That’s plenty of time to develop even better sources of energy. Furthermore, the spent fuel from the reactors should be reprocessed and reused in reactors, and when better reactors that can burn spent fuel strait are fully developed, we can just use them.
    1