Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. Dawson Toulouse, panthers just weren’t common. Having a few upgunned Shermans worked with the few big cats that they ran across. Tank destroyers were supposed to be a reactionary force for counter attacking breakthroughs. In reality they were used more as artillery. However, neither role was offensive attacks against tanks. Medium tanks were infantry support tanks.
    1
  2. Lord Lima Bean, I said what was untrue. I’m guessing what you mean what makes it untrue. Well that’s a number of things. The first is what happens when you run out of battery storage? What happens when people are forced out of using electricity when they can’t afford the costs? What’s going to happen to the billions of solar panels and millions wind turbines when they need replacement?
    1
  3. John Turner, turning seawater in synthetic fuel is great idea, but I would be better just to use nuclear power to make it because it just saves the headaches of dealing with solar or wind.
    1
  4. Even if ever car was electric, they we barely make a dent in the amount that needs stored.
    1
  5. The US didn’t have the infrastructure to move heavy tanks by sea at the start of the war, main a lack of cranes with the needed lifting ability, and barely had any railcars, which were scattered all around the country, that could move a heavy tank. It wasn’t easy for the Ge, but they didn’t need a completely overhaul they’re system.
    1
  6. tazepat001, you have to store it to sell it and power vehicles. You can’t just have a hose connected to every car pumping hydrogen into them constantly as it’s being made and used.
    1
  7.  @andreiarama8745  so, you only use water when it rains for cooking, washing, drinking, etc. because it’s free, right?
    1
  8. RTGs have a very low power output. 100 Watts of electricity is fine for a prob, but just isn’t enough for maned missions.
    1
  9. That and the smallest tank unit is 5 tanks.
    1
  10. And creates bigger problems.
    1
  11. Such as the ecological damage done to the rive system, lack of damable rivers.
    1
  12. You’re right there’s always going to be some kind environmental impact, and we should use the least damaging source, which is one of the problems of pumped hydro electricity. Nuclear has a much smaller footprint than any other power source.
    1
  13. One of the least is not the least, and when we have the option to use the least, we should use that over more damaging options. Furthermore, we have thousands of years worth of fuel already dug up if we use the right types of reactors. I wish we had gen. IV reactors, but for the time being, PWRs are the best power source we have. At best solar and others should be supplementary.
    1
  14. We would have to remove more mass from the moon that we have mind in all of human history.
    1
  15. Hydrogen has too many problems.
    1
  16. The people who support nuclear are often engineers and scientists in relevant fields. Renewables are mostly supported by activists and know-nothings. You’re clearly a know-nothing.
    1
  17. Pumped hydro is cheap, but only works some places. Have you ever been to Kansas? I have, and they don’t have many hills, let alone mountains. Even where I live, there are a lot of steep hills, but they’re not large enough for a reservoir. There’s also water availability problems in dry climates. Telling people they’re just going to have to freeze to death isn’t going to go over well.
    1
  18. Germany has gone all in on renewables.
    1
  19. Good thing the new reactor designs don’t require human intervention
    1
  20.  @clarkkent9080  no, molten salt, liquid metal, helium cooled, and gen. 3+ light water reactors, are all passively safe and will not have a loss of coolant or anything else
    1
  21.  @clarkkent9080  when did I argue that nuclear needs passive safety to be safe? Yes, the US regulatory environment has made building nuclear plants hard and expensive. What does that have to do with safety? There other companies like X-energy. They just don’t get a lot of attention because their goal is to build reactors for industrial heat.
    1
  22.  @clarkkent9080  My dad has over 20 years of experience as a commercial building inspector, and so I know about shit people try pulling. However, that doesn’t turn what in South Korea is a 5 year project into a 20 year project. That takes multi year lawsuits and regulations were construction is basically stopped for months to years.
    1
  23. The Soviets had a very different idea of reliability.
    1
  24. Those are kill counts. Fighters still do that.
    1
  25. Soviet and now Russian ammo still likes to explode when the tank is hit.
    1
  26. You need to remember not having enough train cars to move thousands of heavy tanks or the cranes to load them onto ships.
    1
  27. I guess you’re brain has been eaten by the bird in your pic.
    1
  28. If anything, that make the problem worse.
    1
  29. At the time they were called turbo-superchargers.
    1
  30. Planting trees is extremely simplistic. Most trees are CO2 neutral to negative. They also can increase desertification and melting of permafrost
    1
  31.  @spaceman081447  lack of distinction and inability to adapt to the particular site.
    1
  32. RTGs don’t produce a lot of power, but an actual reactor would work.
    1
  33. Yeah, nuclear completely dominates in those.
    1
  34. There are 7 billion human and the population is growing. We can do multiple things at once. Also, the point of going to a dead planet is to bring it to life.
    1
  35.  @merlinthemagician3388  fuck off with that it’s impossible attitude. Those who say things are impossible are often proven wrong shortly after. Also, the point of expanding out is so that the Earth isn’t only place with life.
    1
  36. Sponsons suck, and the main gun is an anti-tank gun.
    1
  37. China thought the same thing, and they fucked themselves over because of it.
    1
  38. Most of the developments in nuclear are happening in the US and Canada.
    1
  39. People have been saying that for a long time, and it doesn’t matter if the cost is too high for people to buy the electricity.
    1
  40. French tanks had more armor, but the crew lay out was total shit.
    1
  41. Turbo-supercharger
    1
  42. Please, don’t. We don’t need more little YouTubes running around.
    1
  43. The terminology back them was different, and even then, the system wasn’t quite what we would understand as a turbocharger today.
    1
  44. You sure you want to be saying that?
    1
  45. 1) only coal and natural gas are cheaper 2) 5-10 years isn’t that long, and renewables have such short lifespans that once you’re “finished” building them out, you have start over. So renewables effectively have an infinite construction time. 3) the shutdown the reactors because there wasn’t enough water to run the turbines. The reactors had plenty of water to cool them. Moreover, not enough water is only a problem for water cooled reactors. There are dozens of different designs that use other coolants. 4) compare all the oil drilling and metal refining for that turbine then multiply by how many are need to equal a NPP. It’s not good. 5,6,&7) 1/10 the waste of solar. 8) solar panels and wind turbines are just dumped in land fills where they leach toxic chemicals in the ground water. 9) in Europe they’re building massive underwater cables between countries so they can share electricity from renewables. 10) the only even remotely effective way of generating electricity from renewables is in large solar and wind farms. Wind turbines are also getting bigger. The German government is subsidizing renewables more than any other.
    1
  46. Republicans tend to support this more than the Democrats. Also, Democrats are the ones who support NAMBLA.
    1
  47. The terminology was different back then. It used to be called a turbosupercharger. It also worked a little differently from the turbochargers you’re thinking of.
    1
  48. Yes, companies in the US, Canada, and Europe, and the Chinese have a government backed program.
    1
  49. @Seb C molten salt is less corrosive than water.
    1
  50. It’s a turbo-supercharger. The nomenclature at the time was a different
    1