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

  1. +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
  2. These videos are produced by a group of people.
    2
  3. Alex Tarzia Construction fatalities and dams breaking.
    2
  4. 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
  5. +Leeroy Jenkins Head meet sand.
    2
  6. 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
  7. GWR23 Studios This isn't a matter of opinion. This is just simple demonstrable facts.
    2
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. To my knowledge, no reactor has ever been damaged by an earthquake. Even at Fukushima the earthquake didn’t do any damage.
    2
  11. Nuclear.
    2
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. No one died from fallout. Stop lying.
    2
  16. 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
  17.  @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
  18. We can talk about it as an energy source when it works. For now it’s just a science experiment.
    2
  19.  @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
  20.  @JorickBronius  when you total up the CO2 from mining, transportation, concrete, etc., nuclear releases less CO2 than even solar and wind.
    2
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23. 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
  24. No, you won’t
    2
  25. 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
  26. If waste is your standard, solar is far dirtier than nuclear.
    2
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. They’re talking about getting away from it before it exploded
    2
  30. It’s powered by a star that’s collapsed into a black hole.
    2
  31. No, a lot of extremely thin metal foil.
    2
  32. People want to do it because it’s hard. Some people want to make the desert bloom and want a challenge.
    2
  33. More like a pressure cooker.
    2
  34. 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
  35. Diego Mendiola No amount of maintenance is going to stop back up generators from being flooded.
    1
  36. The TARDIS is powered by a collapsing star.
    1
  37. +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
  38. +Joe Jr. So we can have overpriced unreliable power. Sounds great to me.
    1
  39. Joe Jr. Or better yet how about nuclear and have clean, reliable power that's reasonably priced.
    1
  40. +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
  41. 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
  42. There's no one answer for that question.
    1
  43. +Ng Chin Chin Look up Doctor Who.
    1
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Daniele Bonadeo Your English is just fine.
    1
  47. 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
  48. That's the TARADIS from Doctor Who and it's called an Easter egg
    1
  49. +Claudia Hartmeier Well, reality doesn't agree.
    1
  50. +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