Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Ryan Grim: DANGEROUS Dead End Nuclear Energy Subsidies Are A WASTE Of Money" video.

  1. "As of April 2020, there are 440 operable power reactors in the world, with a combined electrical capacity of 390 GW. Additionally, there are 55 reactors under construction and 109 reactors planned" Doesn't really fit Ryan's narrative.
    5
  2.  @Thomas-wn7cl  you say "billions of dollars spent" as if it actually is a lot of money :P. "The US Department of Energy has nearly tripled its cost estimate for ITER, the fusion test reactor in France that's being constructed by a seven-party international collaboration, to $65 billion."
    2
  3. that wasn't the problem there though.
    1
  4.  @NewLeftToday  I disagree, the core issue was the design.
    1
  5.  @cyberft  if that is how you look at it, then hydro power is as well.
    1
  6.  @cyberft  "not at all" It really is. We don't make them like that anymore. Gotta eliminate the human factor.
    1
  7.  @cyberft  "Reducing the chance of catastrophe doesn’t reduce the cost if one occurs when dealing with nuclear material." But that is not what we are talking about. "there will always be a human factor." Of course, but you want to minimize it.
    1
  8. "And we can't fit enough windmills and solar panels on the surface of the globe to get there." What made you think that?
    1
  9.  @zuiop9993  you loved it even though there was no nuance at all?
    1
  10.  @paulmobleyscience  "Fukushima has shown us why there shouldn't be any nuclear power stations on the coastline." Sweden says Hello.
    1
  11.  @paragonexperience  if you are not interested enough to try to understand what I mean, I don't see how this could be a fruitful conversation.
    1
  12.  @paragonexperience  what did I make up in your opinion?
    1
  13.  @paragonexperience  if you have no clue what I am saying, how come you make such definite statements about what I am saying?
    1
  14. but they are still planning for another one? At least that is what another Finnish person told me.
    1
  15.  @kei2142  fusion power is makes constant progression, but obviously takes a lot of time because of the challenges.
    1
  16.  @slippyC73  "Thorium has been usable for a long time. Think you confused it with fusion." Which Thorium reactor is the biggest operational one in the world, and what did it cost?
    1
  17.  @DadsCigaretteRun  I heard about them years and years ago, and people say exactly the same thing then as they do today. It is as if the supporters are way over-hyping it :P.
    1
  18.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  the world is bigger than the U.S. People talk about thorium and molten salt reactors as if they are being built on a large scale today, that is over-hyping.
    1
  19.  @mathgod  I mean, we have actually demonstrated fusion power...
    1
  20.  @gearbox5614  will recycling always be expensive?
    1
  21.  @gearbox5614  but the point that it is has no teeth, as there is no point in recycling them yet as there are so few to recycle.
    1
  22.  @gearbox5614  sure, but seems like a poor point as that point only is valid in the current state, but the current state won't last. Currently, there is no problem emitting CO2 either, so why bother at all with these solar panels?
    1
  23.  @gearbox5614  sure, but the emissions today won't change tomorrow. Sure if you do it year after year, but we are not looking into the future here.
    1
  24.  @gearbox5614  exactly, so not sure why you talk about current situation of recycle tech on solar panels :).
    1
  25.  @gearbox5614  "The argument "it will be solved in the future can theoretically be applied to any solution." Sure, but more confidently about some things than others. That is my point.
    1
  26.  @gearbox5614  that was me being sarcastic. Sure, but it is important to not exaggerate that concern.
    1
  27. he said he was for researching that.
    1
  28.  @ohhansel  7:33 is the time stamp for you to listen to see that I am not delusional.
    1
  29. "That technology does not exist." It really does though. The most simple form is pumping water to a high elevation, to use as hydro power when needed.
    1
  30.  @idlereport  how many died in that accident?
    1
  31.  @afridgetoofar1818  but at the same time, no one died, right? At least not from the nuclear part. I don't recall what it cost to make sure of that though, but iirc that figure wasn't that shocking.
    1
  32.  @paulmobleyscience  "Notice just next door Germany made the decision to move completely away from the very dangerous nuclear power?" Not because of what happened in Europe :P.
    1
  33.  @ClownCarCoup  well, he didn't mention subsidies for solar at all.
    1
  34.  @ClownCarCoup  it is inaccurate as you can't talk about what is being built or not without talking subsidies.
    1