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

  1. 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
  2. Well, we all know who failed 8th grade math.
    2
  3. The reactors at Chernobyl had major known flaws, which is why they were banned everywhere but the USSR.
    2
  4. You're nuts. Next you'll be saying we need a star destroyer or the starship Enterprise.
    1
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Well, nuclear power would prevent both by not adding CO2 and burning the fissile material in the warheads.
    1
  10. ***** 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
  11. 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
  12. Oggy Ren Sorry but you're just wrong about everything.
    1
  13. A long ass time, but only as niche power source.
    1
  14. Watney used a mix of Martian regolith and poop as fertilizer.
    1
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. It's about adding more mass to the atmosphere than it is about adding more CO2.
    1
  21. 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
  22. Gold finX We have one in the Republic of China (Taiwan), but none in the People's Republic of China (mainland China).
    1
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Emotion over fact.
    1
  26. Scotty I'll vote even if I have to get there on a meat bicycle
    1
  27. They've been funding anti-nuclear propaganda for decades.
    1
  28. Claire Knight and the US is the awoken titan.
    1
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. It would take a lot of money and time to build all that solar and wind too.
    1
  34. 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
  35. Yes, I do know that, and that's included in my numbers for how long it takes to build a plant.
    1
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Those produce waste too. China has had riots over the improper dumping of the waste from making solar panels.
    1
  40. We could use thorium breeders. Thorium is an extremely common byproduct of mining of many different metals.
    1
  41. 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
  42.  @nytenjin  there’s a lot more to an alliance than just money.
    1
  43. You mean the things that would take more material than we have and are way too expensive?
    1
  44. It must be nice to live in a world were you don’t have to actually do math to solve problems.
    1
  45. Over produce then dump in others so they can deal with your mess rather than fixing it on your side.
    1
  46. Only in Spanish and French do them mean different things.
    1
  47. Only to ignorant doom mongers
    1
  48. Being against nuclear is the most anti-environmental position in the world.
    1
  49. 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
  50. Have you done the math about how time orders of magnitude worth of batteries we would need to make that happen?
    1