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

  1. You can't just reject valid answers and then just assert your own. The biological answer has overwhelming evidence, so why won't you accept it?
    27
  2.  @gordonniessen8098  one nuclear plant does a lot less damage to the environment than 2,000 wind turbines. It gets even worse when take into consideration mining, roads, power-lines, etc. Furthermore, nuclear power plants leak tiny amounts of water. Wind turbines leak lobercdting oil, like cars use.
    6
  3. Renewables aren’t cheap when you add in the cost of things like batteries and having to completely replace them 3 times over before the reactors have reached the end of their service life.
    4
  4. Maybe you're just trying to make excuses, like a creationist or flat earther.
    4
  5. Those numbers are assuming we only burn 8% of the fuel then bury it, like we do now. Withe gen. 4 reactors we can get closer to 90%. That’s not accounting for fast reactors that can burn u-238 and thorium reactors.
    3
  6.  @stevelux9854  Japan has a number of other NPP on the coast like Fukushima Daiichi that had no problems whatsoever. There are three solutions that each would have stop the meltdowns: not turning the reactors off so they could power their own cooling systems, making sure the backup generators wouldn’t be flooded if the tsunami wall ever failed, build the tsunami wall taller.
    3
  7.  @C.G.Gaster  the fewest deaths per unit of energy produced isn’t safe to? What is? Millions of people dying every year because of normal operation, like coal?
    3
  8. That show is more fiction than fact.
    2
  9.  @fernandolopez4895  no, literally everything you said is wrong. The Chernobyl meltdown only vaguely happened like the show, and the exclusion zone actually has more wild life now than it did. Fukushima isn’t leaking, and what was released is gone now except for immediately around the plant. You clearly don’t understand how reactors work, because they can’t explode, or that containment buildings are a thing.
    2
  10. No, it’s the place holder name for predicted but yet undiscovered elements.
    2
  11. Doesn't make them wrong about this.
    2
  12. MAGA: Make Atomic-Energy Great Again.
    2
  13. Do you have any idea what getting hit by a turbine blade is like?
    2
  14. Yes, the greens have stupidity blocked nuclear power plants from being finished. That’s not the problem of nuclear, that’s a problem of the idiot greens.
    2
  15. Or we could just use nuclear and have clean power that works.
    2
  16. Where do you nuts find all of these lies?
    2
  17. Do you know the life time span of solar panels or wind turbines?
    1
  18. Battery are to expensive, there simply aren’t enough of them.
    1
  19. If we put all the batteries in the world together, we could maybe power everything that uses electricity for a couple minutes. We need enough to power the planet for hours if not days, so yes, there’s no where near enough batteries. Furthermore, there’s probably not even enough lithium in the world to build the kind of batteries most people are looking at using, so we might not even be able to build the kind of numbers we would need. Right now a battery pack that can power a house for the amount of time required costs thousands of dollars. This is a large investment for people living in developed nations. In developing nations, where energy use is growing rapidly, that is a complete non-starter. How do I know this? My mother is interested in living off grid, and part of that has been looking into home battery packs.
    1
  20. No, you need to adjust what you think of as expensive, particularly for the majority of the planet.
    1
  21. You haven’t given anything to support what you’ve said either. Also, I don’t think you understand what shilling is. I’ve only explained why batteries won’t work, not advocated for anything in this conversation.
    1
  22. I explained how there isn’t enough lithium in the world to make lithium-ion batteries for that and how batteries are to expensive for people to buy. You have been making an impli claim since before I replied. You’re claim is that we can use electricity stored in batteries to cover our power needs when wind, solar, etc aren’t producing. Show me the evidence that there’s enough material in the world to build the numbers of batteries you would need. Show me a price for batteries that would make them economically competitive with other sources of energy. I have no problem showing you sources, but I’m going to go through the effort for a hypocrite like you.
    1
  23. Now, I’m sure you’re just projecting your bs on me. I offered to provide support for what I said, but I won’t be held to standards you won’t hold yourself to.
    1
  24. That those will still be orders of magnitude less effective than we need.
    1
  25. Only for the fossil fuel part.
    1
  26.  @mrsith1402  that’s even more counter factual than saying batter back renewables can power the planet.
    1
  27.  @mrsith1402  yes, it is.
    1
  28. People are working on developing less expensive.
    1
  29. Just use nuclear. It’s cheaper, easier, and less polluting than that mess of a plan.
    1
  30. Dripping in and out while occasionally over producing is exactly what being unreliable is. Also, everyplace that’s not in some remote area has seen their electricity cost go up.
    1
  31. Clever solutions to unnecessary problems are stupid solutions. Rather than coming up with storage solutions with their own costs and inefficiencies, we should actually use a power source that can provide consistent power. Thankfully, we’ve had that power source for decades, nuclear.
    1
  32. Hate binds groups together and binds them to a place.
    1
  33. Nuclear power plants that will burn because it’s not really waste, just unused fuel.
    1
  34. Nuclear is cheaper and safer than renewables without the problems of fossil fuels.
    1
  35. That’s an easy answer: nuclear.
    1
  36.  @Duconi  Spent fuel isn’t waste; it’s an underutilized resource. There are lots of ways to use the 95% of unused fuel. Also, renewables produce waste that’s much more dangerous for far longer in the form of heavy metals released into the environment from mining rare earth elements. Only the Soviets were incompetent enough to cause Chernobyl. Literally no one uses the kind of reactor the Soviets were using, and only they were stupid enough to not have containment build. As for Fukushima, the Japanese government completely over reacted, and they've even said so themselves.
    1
  37.  @Duconi  Are you incapable of reading because I clearly addressed that? Or perhaps you don’t know what country Fukushima is in?
    1
  38.  @brian2440  nuclear with renewables is the margins where an smr is over kill sure.
    1
  39. It doesn’t matter how efficient solar panels are. It doesn’t solve the biggest problem with solar panels: reliability. We have to have a power source that works even at night and during cloudy days. “With access” is the most damning argument against pumped hydro. I don’t care how good any solution that can’t scale is.
    1
  40.  @mcave149  you clearly missed my point: it pointless to squabble over something that doesn’t matter because of other flaws.
    1
  41.  @mcave149  that’s a false dichotomy. We have nuclear. It has the strength of both without the weaknesses if deployed properly.
    1
  42. Nope, those are all the deaths we confirm.
    1
  43. I’ve been imagining a world where fossil fuels have been replaced with cleaner, safer nuclear for years, and its a great thought.
    1
  44.  @justsomeguy934  I will gladly. Next you try drinking the waste from solar cell production.
    1
  45.  @justsomeguy934  capacity factor is what percentage of time the power actually is producing power. If you don’t think how much of the time a power source is working isn’t an important factor, I can’t help you
    1
  46.  @justsomeguy934  we can’t have a civilization at the convenience of the weather. The first and most important quality for a power source is that it works when we need it. Renewables just keep us dependent on fossil fuels because fossil fuels will have fill in for when the renewables aren’t working.
    1
  47.  @justsomeguy934  I was making sure you’re willing to live with consequences of renewables like I’m willing to live with nuclear power’s?
    1
  48.  @justsomeguy934  yeah, because were just going to build power lines across oceans. It’s such a simple an easy solution.
    1
  49.  @justsomeguy934  heavy metals and other toxins contamination until the end of time.
    1
  50.  @justsomeguy934  you’re the one being asinine with your “we’ll just” without any idea of the costs and complexities of what you’re actually advocating.
    1