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

  1. +videakias3000 Not future technology but 45 year old technology that was abandoned for political reasons.
    1
  2. Nixen nixed it because there was competing technology that being developed in his home state of California.
    1
  3. 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
  4. Charlie Sheard No, it didn't. There wasn't enough material to do that and most of it landed in the exclusion zone.
    1
  5. +Vox Oz was looked at for a spent fuel repository, but their anti-nuclear factions blocked it.
    1
  6. I know you're being sarcastic, but solar kills 6 times as many people per unit of energy than nuclear does.
    1
  7. It's a police box and look up Doctor Who.
    1
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Finland is tiny, but knows how to fight in the cold.
    1
  11. He said that because he did his research, unlike you.
    1
  12. +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
  13. Kyle There was research being, but Nixon end much of it.
    1
  14. 4798alexander4798 Renewables are too inconstant to hold base load power, so they will never be the primary power source.
    1
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Could you please write that sentence in a way that's comprehensible?
    1
  18. If you're first post was in in Spanish, you might have a point, but you chose to use English.
    1
  19. Tristan Veerbeek No, light water reactors use water as coolant. Many reactors types are named after their coolants.
    1
  20. +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
  21. No, it didn't. The radiation levels in the ocean from the reactors are below the natural background radiation levels.
    1
  22. 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
  23. +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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. I can't tell if you joking or just really stupid.
    1
  27. No, it's talking about light water reactors.
    1
  28. zach kelly I know that, which is part of why I said I think Sol Foo is mistaking thorium for plutonium.
    1
  29. If by best you mean unreliable and more dangerous than nuclear, yes, it's the best.
    1
  30. 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
  31. +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
  32. 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
  33. +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
  34. +Nathan King You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  35. +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
  36. Job Koppenol We should abandon nuclear but work on nuclear? Make up you're mind.
    1
  37. +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
  38. Cakeofdestiny Better than geothermal sure, but not molten salt reactors. Also, decades is too long.
    1
  39. +Daniel Hong Just use something that uses more energy than it produces? I don't think that's going to work.
    1
  40. +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
  41. 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
  42. +Krimpo MC They might be talking about Three Mile Island
    1
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. It means they're fans of Doctor Who.
    1
  46. 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
  47. If by works you mean, doesn't last long enough to produce any useable power.
    1
  48. No, Australia has OPAL for research and the like.
    1
  49. 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
  50. 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