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