Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. The toxic waste from making the panels, and more so people falling off roofs when installing panels.
    161
  2. +Armchair Pundit There's two problems with that: 1) accidents are infrequent, 2) the areas aren't uninhabitable.
    30
  3. The problems with current reactors have nothing to do with them being uranium fueled but being water cooled. Thorium based reactors actually breed the thorium into an isotope of uranium. What makes a LFTR safer is that they are salt fueled and cooled. In fact the handful of molten salt reactors that have been built have all been uranium fueled.
    23
  4. Humans are actually one of the most peaceful animals in the world.
    19
  5. Yes, let's move to something that is limited to a few areas, causes earthquakes, and releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
    16
  6. Not the informed environmentalists.
    13
  7. Hahaha Haha To be better it first has to work.
    9
  8. Politics and a lack of public knowledge.
    9
  9. +Gökçe KURT  1) Not true, India has build a thorium powered reactor. Although, to get something really worthwhile out of thorium, we need a thorium MSR, which has most the science and engineering done. 2) Uranium, gold, and many other metals are much rarer that thorium and are still worth mining. Thorium is byproduct of many different forms of mining, no the least of which is rare Earth mining that targets monazite ores. 3) Non-issue for a thorium based MSR like LFTRs. Also, while reprocessing solid fuel is long, complex, and expensive, fuel rods can reprocessed, so that's no a argument either.
    7
  10. That comment is stupid in multiple levels.
    6
  11. +chickenman297 No, Australia has nuclear reactors. Those reactors just don't produce electricity. Australia has the OPAL and a couple others for research and medical purposes.
    6
  12. There are a few companies working on a thorium fuel cycle reactor.
    5
  13. +lee brondum The Uk made a deal with China to build the UKs new reactors. You might want to revise your statement.
    5
  14. “New NE is waaaaaaay more expensive than new renewables, even for a resilient 24hr/365 power grid” a complete and total lie. The book Roadmap to Nowhere does an extensive break down of what it would take to power the US with only renewables and only nuclear. The conclusion is that it would take $21 trillion to power the US with renewables and that it would take $6 trillion for nuclear. “NE is used to make nuclear weapons. THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON most governments make reactors” more lies. There are 30 countries with nuclear power plants. There 7 with nuclear weapons, one of which, North Korea, has no nuclear power plants, and all of them developed weapons first. “There are many many MANY more nuclear accidents than you realize” I’m betting you’re including military accidents and things which have no effect on the reactors, like transformers flailing “Its political toxicity (and military secrecy) incentivizes the organizations that manage NE to cover up mishaps. NE is an extremely complicated process rife with potential human error and over-ambition (cough Chernobyl cough cough). In this sense doing for-profit nuclear energy is a CRAZY dangerous conflict of interest” are you stupid? You clearly contradict yourself. You start off talking about government coverups then you conclude that would make private companies super dangerous. “We still haven't solved the nuclear waste issue (and its probably getting worse). In fact, the US military is eagerly blasting 'terrorists' (who happen to be living in cities surrounded with children) with 'depleted' uranium waste. This stuff IS still very much radioactive, especially if dust is inhaled/ingested” 1) depleted uranium isn’t nuclear waste. 2) depleted uranium is less radioactive than uranium in the ground. 3) uranium is far more chemotoxic than radiotoxic Water happens to be a rather good medium for transfer energy Siting the Simpsons? No wonder you’re completely wrong about everything.
    5
  15. +davet11 You say, "but we know that cancer and leukemias caused by Chernobyl total nearly 1 million", but when you look at REPUTABLE sources, they say the number of cases of cancer caused by Chernobyl range between three and four thousand, which is within margin of error.
    4
  16. Erik Hoevenberg Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean it's not real.
    4
  17. No, it isn't. Thorium breeding and molten salt reactors were both proven to work decades ago. Thorium based reactors are just a matter of engineering.
    4
  18. Hahaha Haha Where you live is also using a lot more fossil fuels to make up for when renweables aren't. 
    4
  19. commnter10 No, it hasn't.
    4
  20. CO2 traps heat. We’re pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. We can argue about how much and what effects it has, but it’s clearly happening.
    4
  21. The macaroon has changed his position because of the recent problems the energy sector has been having. Even the think headed can have reality imposes itself on them.
    4
  22. Nuclear is the safest form of power when you count the actual number of deaths per unit of energy. Wind comes in a close second. Geothermal releases more radiation than nuclear power does. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but reactors keep all the radiation inside of them while geothermal releases steam that has bits of radioactive rock it. That not talking about the fact geothermal causes earthquakes.
    3
  23. +Fix it feilix Toxic metals, like arsenic and mercury, don't just go away. Also, most nuclear "waste" is really unused fuel in the form of spent fuel rods, which can either be recycled into new fuel rods for the current reactors or used as is in generation IV reactors.
    3
  24. Sixcookiesncream 1) That's just wrong. Nuclear power kills fewer people per year than any form of power generation. That's including every nuclear accident in history. 2) Again, not true. Coal has put billions of tons of pollutants in to the air and water, changing the temperature of the planet and acidifying the oceans. Nuclear has inadvertently created a wildlife sanctuary. 3) Number of people killed by Chernobyl: 50 or so. People killed by Fukushima: 0. People killed by Three Mile Island: 0.
    3
  25. +Master Rain The police box is a Dr. Who easteregg.
    3
  26. Roman von Licht Krieger Look up traveling wave reactors, integral fast reactors, and molten salt reactors.
    3
  27. Lehtaan Everything you said is true of fission reactors, too, but they're also cheap.
    3
  28. Causing the fewest deaths per unit is definitely not safe.
    3
  29. You mean the giant containment buildings they already built around reactors?
    3
  30. With the lowest number of deaths per unit of energy nuclear is just too dangerous.
    3
  31. The Chernobyl exclution zone has become a de facto wildlife preserve. Also, it's arguable that nuclear is less environmentally damaging than renewables over its life time, and nuclear is just going to get better.
    3
  32. You’re disproving the good stereotypes about Germans and proving one of the bad ones. Chernobyl is too far from Germany to have caused even a remotely dangerous increase in radiation. Your government is paranoid, along with you. Also, in your attempt to replace nuclear, y’all have started burning more brown coal than before.
    3
  33. Fusion has the biggest flaw of them all: it doesn’t work.
    3
  34. That’s idiotic. You clearly have no idea how load fallowing works.
    3
  35. Nuclear is safer than any other form of power, and with improved numbers from Chernobyl, by a large margin.
    3
  36. France has the 7th largest economy and a population a little over 67 million. That’s a ridiculous exaggeration of how long it takes EVs to recharge.
    3
  37. Nuclear power doesn't cause any of that.
    2
  38. +Blackmage Zerefzi Hydro power is not cleaner, greener, or safer. Dams are very destructive to local environments while using as much, if not more, concrete and steel as nuclear reactors. Also, nuclear power is safer than all other forms of power, with the exception of which it's tied with. In China just one dam break killed something like 70,000 people. That's many times the people that have killed by nuclear in its whole history.
    2
  39. And a bad reactor design that only the Soviets used.
    2
  40. +klyxes The Chernobyl exclusion zone has become a de facto nature reserve, and generally the ecosystem around Chernobyl is better than it was before. Don't get me wrong, Chernobyl was bad, but it was much less damaging than many others things. Nuclear reactors are very safe. The US has 99 nuclear reactors that's about 1/4 the worlds reactors and has only had one major reactor failure, Three Mile Island, in which no was killed. Even in the second worst nuclear disaster in history, Fukushima Daiichi, no one was killed no one was killed because of the reactor failure.
    2
  41. +Nicholus Rauseo Current reactors that are used for power are complex, but other designs are much less complex. Traveling wave reactors are basically pits in the ground; I can't think of anything less complex. As for safety, nuclear power is the safest form of power production. Solar has a death rate something. Like six times higher than nuclear, and nuclear is only going to get safer with generation IV reactors.
    2
  42. Richard Nixon and public anti-nuclear hysteria.
    2
  43. There are lots of people talking about fusion.
    2
  44. That is just blatantly untrue. Right now the burning of fossil fuels is recreating the conditions of the largest mass extinction in the history of the Earth, called the Great Dying.
    2
  45. Nuclear reactors aren't nuclear warheads.
    2
  46. +Sol Foo You are mistaking thorium for plutonium.
    2
  47. The harvesting involves heavy equipment, heavy equipment is dangerous.
    2
  48. But nuclear power is extremely safe and generation four reactors are even safer.
    2
  49. Nuclear is the safest form of power we have. the number of deaths per unit of energy casued by nuclear is the lowest of any power source we have.
    2
  50. +Raymond Doetjes q Not all molten salt reactors are thorium based. The two test reactors that were built used uranium. Also, thorium is mined right now as a byproduct of other forms of mining. In fact, not having a plan for what to do with the thorium is what's stopping rare earths being mined in the US. It sound to me like you're just repeating a bunch of points without having done your own research.
    2
  51. +Raymond Doetjes No, you still need do your research, and you're also just plain stupid. By that last part let me explain: a LFTR is a liquid floride thorium reactor, so if a reactor does not use thorium it's not a LFTR by definition. What you're really talking about is molten salt reactors of which LFTRs are a subclass of. You're right mines aren't afraid of thorium. What mines are afraid of is the federal government and its overly strict regulation of thorium. You're right thorium can be found is small amounts in almost every rock, but thorium is found in high concentrations in minerals that are already being mined for other metals. The best example is the actinides that are mined for rare earth element, which contain something like 12% thorium, much higher than many ores, like iron and copper, being mined.  As for burning waste from light water reactors, molten salt reactors require something like high level nuclear waste to start them, and there are a few designs that were specifically designed to burn high level nuclear waste. When it come to economics, go look up a video called Thorium Energy Cheaper than coal. Again, I'll say it: you need to do more research.
    2
  52. These videos are produced by a group of people.
    2
  53. Alex Tarzia Construction fatalities and dams breaking.
    2
  54. You mean fusion that doesn't work and is at best decades away from working? Also, look up molten salt reactors. They're everything fusion promises while working today and cheap enough to actually use.
    2
  55. +Leeroy Jenkins Head meet sand.
    2
  56. Nuclear is the safest form of power. Nuclear is so safe that there could be multiple Chernobyl scale of accidents every year and nuclear would still be hundreds of times safer than coal.
    2
  57. GWR23 Studios This isn't a matter of opinion. This is just simple demonstrable facts.
    2
  58. Ryan Pate Thorium is a byproduct of many different forms of mining, so there's no problem sourcing it. Thorium is mildly hazardous, and has been worked with for well over 100 years. With a molten salt reactors, the laws physics would have to stop working for them to not be safe.
    2
  59. Amelia Hartman Even if you don't count count people killed because of the one extra step, coal still kills more people each year. 
    2
  60. To my knowledge, no reactor has ever been damaged by an earthquake. Even at Fukushima the earthquake didn’t do any damage.
    2
  61. Nuclear.
    2
  62. It’s not about easy. It’s about volume. The shear amount of energy a star puts out dwarfs everything else in solar system.
    2
  63. Because the wind isn't infinite. The wind does stop, and there are other problems. When Harvey hit Houston, the wind turbines were damaged and inoperable. Also, there' vibration from turbines that damaged other equipment down the lines.
    2
  64. Yes, Mars gets a lot less sunlight, but it’s because Mars is further out from the sun. The inverse square law says that for every unit further away from an object another object is the weak the gravity, light, etc is by the inverse of the square, so if something is three times further away it has 1/9 of the light reaching it.
    2
  65. No one died from fallout. Stop lying.
    2
  66. It takes hypersonic flat and level flight. Also, the demand for space access is being met by rockets, so there’s just not a reason to put the money into R&D.
    2
  67.  @hallodidldu  I guarantee that the radiation levels are lower than living at high altitudes. Also, if it’s not dangerous, what’s the issue?
    2
  68. We can talk about it as an energy source when it works. For now it’s just a science experiment.
    2
  69.  @notanidiotasd5134  that’s my point. With more money and time, I’m sure we can get it to work, but now isn’t the that time
    2
  70.  @JorickBronius  when you total up the CO2 from mining, transportation, concrete, etc., nuclear releases less CO2 than even solar and wind.
    2
  71. Trenton Pottruff, Mars is a lot easier in important ways. There are important resources on Mars that the moon doesn’t have, like an atmosphere. On Mars you can convert the CO2 into fuel and make oxygen from the CO2 as well.
    2
  72.  @Yaboibarel  yes, we have been able to smash atoms together for decades. We are a long way from getting more energy than we put in, and even further away from being commercially viable.
    2
  73. Wind and solar poreuce a lot more waste that doesn’t go away with time. The contamination of places like China by things like cadmium isn’t going away in 300 years.
    2
  74. No, you won’t
    2
  75. 1) wrong, the current reactors are inside containment buildings that you can smash jets into and the building won’t even have a scratch. 2) I can name more than 6 companies working on advanced reactors just in the US. 3) South Korea can build a PWR in plant in 4 years. Advanced reactors are going to drop that time to maybe a couple years with licensing.
    2
  76. If waste is your standard, solar is far dirtier than nuclear.
    2
  77. Camarada, snails are a huge group with some doing things like stabbing each other with their penises to see which one is going to be the female in that mating or the conch, which hunts using super deadly venom.
    2
  78. Chber cipher, it’s not ironic. Even when we’re at war, we’re killing each other at lower rates than many animals do in the wild.
    2
  79. They’re talking about getting away from it before it exploded
    2
  80. It’s powered by a star that’s collapsed into a black hole.
    2
  81. No, a lot of extremely thin metal foil.
    2
  82. People want to do it because it’s hard. Some people want to make the desert bloom and want a challenge.
    2
  83. More like a pressure cooker.
    2
  84. First, what you’re talking about id is fission. Second, a war head is based on an uncontrolled chain reaction. A reactor is a controlled chain reaction.
    2
  85. Diego Mendiola No amount of maintenance is going to stop back up generators from being flooded.
    1
  86. The TARDIS is powered by a collapsing star.
    1
  87. +ThatAwesomeGuy133 The reason why they didn't talk about how close fusion is because it's a long way off. It's been 30 years away for the last 50 years.
    1
  88. +Joe Jr. So we can have overpriced unreliable power. Sounds great to me.
    1
  89. Joe Jr. Or better yet how about nuclear and have clean, reliable power that's reasonably priced.
    1
  90. +Alex Thompson Number one isn't strictly true. It possible to make weapons grade material, but it's much harder and more complicated to create, which renders it not worth the time or effort.
    1
  91. Birgilios Marmaroglou Nope. Nuclear is tied or is the safest form of power production (that's including all nuclear disasters) depending on the source. Chernobyl, by far the worst nuclear disaster, only killed about five dozen people, most liquidaters (clean up crews), a few technicians that worked on the reactor the melted down, and one photographer (to my knowledge the only one that photographed the core), and neither Fukushima or Three Mile Island killed anyone.
    1
  92. There's no one answer for that question.
    1
  93. +Ng Chin Chin Look up Doctor Who.
    1
  94. Renewables aren't any cleaner than nuclear power if you use the same standards. In fact, geothermal releases more radiation into the environment than nuclear power. Per unit of energy, nuclear power is the safest of power. Wind comes in a close second, and solar is a distant third being six times less safe. With better reactor technology, like molten salt reactors, that gap is going to grow even further than it is already. Speaking of MSRs, using new reactor technology nuclear could be sustainable for millions of years. Nuclear isn't the lesser of two evils; nuclear is lesser of all evils.
    1
  95. So does coal, natural gas, solar, wind, etc. The question is how many does each kill, and the numbers show that nuclear kills fewer than any mentioned.
    1
  96. Daniele Bonadeo Your English is just fine.
    1
  97. Actually, there is research being done in nuclear reactors; its been slowed down for decades by bad regulation, lack of funding, and anti-nuclear hysteria. There's the molten salt reactor which is close to 200 times most efficient than current light water reactors while producing less waste, but Nixon cut the research funding for it. However, there's been renewed interest in them and several companies are working MSRs
    1
  98. That's the TARADIS from Doctor Who and it's called an Easter egg
    1
  99. +Claudia Hartmeier Well, reality doesn't agree.
    1
  100. +Sean Black No, most of the arguments are refuted by using liquid fueled molten salt reactors and other gen. IV reactors, regardless of whether it's based on thorium or uranium.
    1
  101. +videakias3000 Not future technology but 45 year old technology that was abandoned for political reasons.
    1
  102. Nixen nixed it because there was competing technology that being developed in his home state of California.
    1
  103. A reactor design that was only the Soviets used because it's unsafe with under trained operators, and only five dozen or so people died, while coal killed millions every year.
    1
  104. Charlie Sheard No, it didn't. There wasn't enough material to do that and most of it landed in the exclusion zone.
    1
  105. +Vox Oz was looked at for a spent fuel repository, but their anti-nuclear factions blocked it.
    1
  106. I know you're being sarcastic, but solar kills 6 times as many people per unit of energy than nuclear does.
    1
  107. It's a police box and look up Doctor Who.
    1
  108. Launching spent fuel into the sun is a horrible idea in every way you look at it. Rockets will fail at some point. The lunch costs are beyond ridiculous. Too many more reasons to go into.
    1
  109. A lot of solar panels are on top of roofs and working of top of roofs is dangerous. Wind involves large moving objects hundreds of feet in the air, need I say anymore?
    1
  110. Finland is tiny, but knows how to fight in the cold.
    1
  111. He said that because he did his research, unlike you.
    1
  112. +nasaman23 No, that's not how it works. Nuclear warheads create a huge amounts of energy which heats the air, so what causes the destruction is a combination of heat and shockwave from the expanding air.
    1
  113. Kyle There was research being, but Nixon end much of it.
    1
  114. 4798alexander4798 Renewables are too inconstant to hold base load power, so they will never be the primary power source.
    1
  115. What ever problems the Pacific is having are unrelated to radiation. The amount of radiation that has been added to the ocean is less than the natural background radiation.
    1
  116. Tetrapodum I'm going to presume that photo is of yourself because of your brain rotting away with your. I said the amount of radiation introduced to the environment is less than the natural background radiation levels, not that there was no radiation released.
    1
  117. Could you please write that sentence in a way that's comprehensible?
    1
  118. If you're first post was in in Spanish, you might have a point, but you chose to use English.
    1
  119. Tristan Veerbeek No, light water reactors use water as coolant. Many reactors types are named after their coolants.
    1
  120. +Fix it feilix Is not what? As for weapons proliferation, Gen IV reactors are much more proliferation resistant. However, even with current reactors, making a nuclear weapon is very hard requiring a lot of expensive and specialized equipment and teams of engineers
    1
  121. No, it didn't. The radiation levels in the ocean from the reactors are below the natural background radiation levels.
    1
  122. Take radioactive uranium put it next to thorium so the thorium transmutes into uranium then fission that uranium by some more thorium starting the cycle over.
    1
  123. +Olivia L Lightfoot Yes, the technology that kills fewer people than every other form of power production, it's worst disaster only killed a few dozen people, releases less radiation than coal is going to kill us all.
    1
  124. No need. We already have better reactor designs, but we aren't using them like we should. There are molten salt reactors, integral fast reactors, traveling wave reactors.
    1
  125. Erik Hoevenberg I meant the human cause. So let me say it more clearly, just because you're ignorant doesn't mean that humans are the cause.
    1
  126. I can't tell if you joking or just really stupid.
    1
  127. No, it's talking about light water reactors.
    1
  128. zach kelly I know that, which is part of why I said I think Sol Foo is mistaking thorium for plutonium.
    1
  129. If by best you mean unreliable and more dangerous than nuclear, yes, it's the best.
    1
  130. Stephen Nielsen Why should I? I think you might be trying to make rhetorical comment, but I have no idea what the point you're trying to make is.
    1
  131. +BirdBrainsSellTruth 1) We can't run modern civilization on renweables. 2) Nuclear produces a tiny amount of waste, and generation IV reactors will produce even less waste much of which has uses in medicine, space exploration, etc.. If we go by the standards of what "clean" means then nuclear is just as clean, if not more clean than many renewables.
    1
  132. Hua En No, the grid isn't and the estimated cost to rebuild the grid for renewables is $15 trillion. That's about the US's yearly GDP. "Now more money is being spent on renewables than fossil fuels," sorry to tell you, but that's a really bad thing if it's true, which I highly about. spending more to get less is what I call a bad deal. I fully agree that we should go green but by using nuclear. We're going to run out of uranium, thorium, hydrogen, the Earths core is going to cool, the sun is going to die. All the the sources of energy we use are going to run out some time. The question is how long is it going to last. If we run the right reactors, we have enough uranium and thorium to supply our energy needs for thousands of years.
    1
  133. +Thomas Riley The kinds of reactors used now days require large amount of water, which is why the daiichi plant was built where it was.
    1
  134. +Nathan King You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  135. +ToastedNoodle the only people that have ever died from OK a nuclear reactor meltdown have been either people running the reactor or members of clean up crews. Living next to a reactor is one of the safest things you'll ever do in your life.
    1
  136. Job Koppenol We should abandon nuclear but work on nuclear? Make up you're mind.
    1
  137. +LumpyBumpyAcidFish There's the CanDU which is a heavy water reactor design. Then there's the difference between burner and breeder reactors, which breed one element into another that's then fissioned. There are the molten salt reactors, of which there a many different types from solid fueled, liquid fueled, uranium burns, to thorium breeders. Also, there's sodium cooled reactors. Another kind are pebble-bed reactors that use small pellets of fuel. The last kind I know about is the traveling wave reactors. All of them have pros and cons, but I personally think the molten salt reactors have the fewest cons with the most pros.
    1
  138. Cakeofdestiny Better than geothermal sure, but not molten salt reactors. Also, decades is too long.
    1
  139. +Daniel Hong Just use something that uses more energy than it produces? I don't think that's going to work.
    1
  140. +Daniel Hong There's a huge difference between creating a reaction and producing energy. There are reactors that have been creating fission reactions for decade, but they still haven't produced a net gain of energy.
    1
  141. Logan Bedenis It's too expensive. There's no point in selling power at price people can't buy it at; people will go to something cheaper, like coal, which is what we're trying to replace.
    1
  142. +Krimpo MC They might be talking about Three Mile Island
    1
  143. Aliens showing up an killing everyone is more likely than all the nuclear reactors in the world having meltdowns. Also, no country has ever developed a nuclear power program before developing weapons. Every country that has nuclear weapons developed them first.
    1
  144. Roman von Licht Krieger No, both things are demonstrable facts. There are reactors that can't have meltdowns unless the laws of physics are changed, so even something as ridiculous as an alien invasion is beyond unlikely, it's still far more likely than the physically impossible.
    1
  145. It means they're fans of Doctor Who.
    1
  146. 24h Nilson Batteries can't store enough energy for a number of reasons. Energy is created all the time in nuclear reactions where small amount of matter are turned into energy.
    1
  147. If by works you mean, doesn't last long enough to produce any useable power.
    1
  148. No, Australia has OPAL for research and the like.
    1
  149. Pedro Santos The last I heard about ITER it was a decade away from finished being built and who know how long until it produces more power than it consumes. Furthermore, we have no idea how long it's going to take to build commercial fusion and then deploy it en mass. On the other hand, there's a company that says it can start mass producing molten salt reactors in the same time ITER is being built. Also, MSRs have potential to do things, like creating synthetic fuels, that fusion with never be able to do.
    1
  150. One of the fission byproducts is xenon, a gas, and as that builds up in the fuel rods, it starts damaging the fuel rods from the inside.
    1
  151. ***** Working with large objects being moved by crane and working on tall structures is dangerous.
    1
  152. 1) Rockets aren't perfect and some times have failures. While, the risk of spent fuel is over hyped, it wouldn't be a good thing to have spent fuel exploding high in the atmosphere. 2) Spent fuel is 95% unused fuel, which would be stupid to launch into the sun instead of reprocessing and using.
    1
  153. Toddy Lane No, fuel is one of the least expensive parts of a rocket launch.
    1
  154. Toddy Lane I was wrong to say it was one of the smallest cost, but compared to tens of millions of dollars for the rocket itself, the several hundred thousand dollars for fuel is small.
    1
  155. +Pyro_ Spartan (gaming) I hope that's a joke.
    1
  156. +Just A Random Guy people falling off and getting crushed by equipment.
    1
  157. +Pupe EETR Falling, in solar's case mostly off roof tops.
    1
  158. Cesar Quintana No, the WHO says about 60 people died directly from Chernobyl, but that still a very small number of people compared to other disasters.
    1
  159. +ariel sharpe You're mistaken. It doesn't matter if a reactor is fueled by thorium or uranium; what matters is the type of reactor. A molten salt reactors, like the LFTRs, are more efficient than solid fuel water cold reactors, like the thorium fueled reactor in India.
    1
  160. +ariel sharpe I'm talking to you and the op. The difference between what you said and what I said is that I'm talking about reactors and you're talking about fuels.
    1
  161. xseth1 So do molten salt reactors, and they're cheaper enough to use.
    1
  162. Nuclear causes the fewest deaths per unit of energy. The only thing that comes close to being as safe is wind. Solar comes in third or fourth with six times as many death as nuclear.
    1
  163. +christopher nagy Falling off roofs installing the panels.
    1
  164. +Fabian Hilzinger 1) 96% spent fuel rods, which are high grade waste most people are afraid of, are unspent fuel. Launching perfectly good fuel into space isn't all that smart. 2) Rockets are very exspencive and not 100% reliable.
    1
  165. hamzah ramahi Alpha particles are basically He ions. Beta particles are electrons. Gamma particles are ultra high energy photons. Neutron radiation is just that, neutrons.
    1
  166. XRezZzoN There are already ways to reprocess spent fuel, and there are some generation four reactors that can burn the current stock piles of spent fuel.
    1
  167. Barbora Stehlíková From the very beginning. It's powered by a collapsing star.
    1
  168. In Fukushima the earthquake wasn't what took out the reactors but the tsunami that took out the generators for the water pumps. If one of many things was changed, the reactor meltdown at the daiichi plant would have never happened.
    1
  169. commnter10 You are a prime example of refusing to accept evidence. I bet you think the Earth is flat too.
    1
  170. commnter10 I glow all the time from the light of knowledge.
    1
  171. +Nicholas Villegas No, creating a nuclear explosion is very simple in principle but very difficult in practice. First you have to have weapons material, and then it has to smashed together or crushed in such a way to create critical mass, which is very difficult. Also, a vehicle probably wouldn't carry enough fuel to creat an explosion. All that being said you really don't want to crash a nuclear powered car, which is why the idea was abandoned decades ago.
    1
  172. +Dewitos Alt So solar produces too much in the day and produces nothing at night, not very useful.
    1
  173. Yes, we'll just use something that's at 1/1,000th, and that's being very generous, the scale we need it to be.
    1
  174. You're talking about a different isotope than the video. You're talking about thorium-231; the video is talking about thorium-233
    1
  175. Amelia Hartman No, coal is the deadliest. Millions of people are killed by coal in one way or another each year.
    1
  176. +Anna Wheeler English has a billion unused words, but that's German.
    1
  177. +Quinn Butler We have a word for places that use human power: undeveloped.
    1
  178. Are you planning on dying in the next couple years? We have the technology to build these now.
    1
  179. No, it stalled out because of anti-nuclear hysteria and lack of investment in R&D.
    1
  180. Earthquakes and 100 times the radiation released from nuclear. Sounds great.
    1
  181. Compared to the millions coal kills every year?
    1
  182. There have been a lot more than that, but most were military/experimental reactors.
    1
  183. Being neutrally charged is why they are repelled from the atom.
    1
  184. Because charge has nothing to do with the stability of of nuclei.
    1
  185. What ever you’ nMe is in cyrillic, I meant aren’t.
    1
  186. The Earth is the cradle of man, but we’re growing too big for our cradle alone.
    1
  187. We’ll burn it in gen. 4 reactors.
    1
  188. Sure, but that has problems too. Batteries cost money. You have to build extra wind turbines to charge those batteries. Batteries cause their-own environmental damage. Furthermore, that still doesn't solve the other problems of wind turbines.
    1
  189. They did a few years ago
    1
  190. We don’t need to keep it for millions of years. The longest lived transuranic has a half-life of 10,000 years, and after 10 half-lives it’s all decayed. So if we just dump it into the ground it would be there maybe 100,000 year. However, we’re not just going to leave in the ground. Spent fuel is an extremely valuable source of fuel for advanced reactors, and the waste from those has a 30 year half-life.
    1
  191. " I graduated in the top 5% of my University class in Geophysics. That's math, chemistry, physics and geology as majors along with astronomy, oceanography, and anthropology. After graduation I built my own business and retired when I hit the ripe old age of 29. Maybe you guys are well beyond my 120 IQ" I am Oz, the great and powerful. Who are you?! (big plum of fire) Who are you?!
    1
  192. Unreliable sources like solar and wind are never going to replace reliable ones.
    1
  193.  @Richard_is_cool  No amount of research is going to make the wind blow or the sun shine.
    1
  194. You have a smaller population than New York City, and dairy is the single largest sector of your economy.
    1
  195. Bad management.
    1
  196. You’re thinking in linear terms. Exponential growth gets very large very fast.
    1
  197. Nuclear’s CO2 emissions are lower than solar or wind.
    1
  198. No, we need billions of people using a lot more energy to bring them up to first world standards and into a truly sustainable life styles.
    1
  199. They would use the light pressure to counter the sun’s gravity pulling them in.
    1
  200. Because we have these things called weather and night.
    1
  201. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get into space? Thus far only the rich and powerful countries have been able send a few people in to space. Even if Elon Musk’s plans work, we still won’t be any where near the ability to launch the billions and billions of panels needed. Then, there’s the problem of getting the energy to Earth, and finally doing it at a economically viable cost.
    1
  202. The whole point is what we can us now.
    1
  203. We can build them now. This is actually fairly simple.
    1
  204. They don’t need to at the same speed. The spacecraft needs to be in front of the hook then gets picked up and accelerated by the over taking hook.
    1
  205. Nuclear reactors have super strict regulations
    1
  206. A bunch of technology and who knows what else. Exploration is called that for a reason.
    1
  207. When you live on a houseboat, you don’t find a new place to live when there’s bad weather; you move your boat.
    1
  208. Easteregg.
    1
  209. It says reactors, and Australia has a couple research reactors.
    1
  210. Electric cars and synthetic fuel are both things
    1
  211. Never is how it would take.
    1
  212. You mine stuff then launch it into space.
    1
  213. We don’t know how to do it. We have ideas on how it could be done.
    1
  214. We don’t know what effects 2/5 gravity is going to have. We lot of data on microgravity, but none on low gravity.
    1
  215. Those change depending on the design.
    1
  216. Yeah, let’s build 5x as much capacity as we need to make up for unreliability. That’s the smartest thing ever.
    1
  217.  @bradhaaf4749  we’re never going to get there relying on the weather like our ancestors did.
    1
  218.  @bradhaaf4749  you clearly misunderstand. By 5x I mean the stated capacity, not the actual amount of energy.
    1
  219. If we don’t go there, how are supposed to terraform Mars? Robots are good, but not that good. Also, trying to manage the infinite complexity of Earth’s ecosystems before learning on something simple (relatively) like an artificial biom on Mars is just foolish.
    1
  220. No, it’s saying that sometimes the only way to learn is by doing l.
    1
  221. No, we do what we can to train people, but there’s only so much we can train people for when they’re going to be doing things we've never done before. The reason we celebrate astronauts is because they take risks with their lives for the rest of us.
    1
  222. Lighting a giant bottle of highly combustible chemicals then riding it at hypersonic speeds into space.
    1
  223. No, that's just bullshit you made up.
    1
  224. That’s just water cooled reactors. Also, it’s a pressure cooker, not a regular pot.
    1
  225. Not true are all. Mars only gets about the same amount of radiation as the ISS, which isn’t all that much.
    1
  226. That's not how that works at all.
    1
  227. Things like every element has radioactive isotopes. Thorium is bred into uranium, so saying thorium good, uranium bad is stupid. Uranium based reactors also require moderators.
    1
  228. Pluto doesn’t have the right materials, and removing energy from objects that far out would be very hard.
    1
  229.  @jacobclaassen4709  about the distance of the asteroid belt is when solar starts loosing effectiveness, so you still have the problem of moving the panels into lower energy orbits closer the sun.
    1
  230.  @jacobclaassen4709  if you’re trying to get from else where in the solar system to roughly the orbit of Mercury, it’s easier to do a fly by of Jupiter to slow. If you’re goal is Mercury’s orbit and you’re starting their, it’s a lot easier to just stay there.
    1
  231. Mining rare earth elements for renewables is at least 10x worse. Huge areas a contaminated with heavy metals, like cadmium. Have you ever seen what cadmium poisoning does to people: birth defects and all kinds of other terrible things.
    1
  232. We have a volunteer to be eaten by the zombies!
    1
  233. The inverse square law means that the further out you go less intense the light is, just like with a flashlight.
    1