Comments by "David H" (@DavidHalko) on "VisualEconomik EN" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4.  @williamsmith1741  - ‘“explosive power” for dispersion” If you are ignorant of how to disperse radioactive materials, without significant explosive capabilities, to poison a region — I do not feel it is wise or necessary to educate you & others on the internet. I suspect you are well aware, if you have not been copy-pasting your arguments from other internet documents. ‘ What incentive would… have to “not count the numbers?” ‘ International agencies work through national governments. There is not much value for humanity in Eastern Europe, much of the remains of the old Soviet Systems do not really care about Eastern European peoples [especially those who are not ethnic Russians.] Even during the Soviet times, government officials often lied about numbers reported, from the lowest levels of government, additional lying occurred climbing up the chain, lying again before releasing to other external agencies. Russians, and later Soviets, were renown for human relocations by cattle car, mass graves, and not counting deaths. Even Russians invading Ukraine, sending largely Asian fighters, are not bothering to pick up their dead. Why such a lack of value on human life? Some of the issue is related to racial beliefs. Part of it is cultural, dealing with shame. There are so many reasons. Even outside scientists of prolific peer reviewed articles have been found to falsify radiation studies [for unknown reasons], such as Anders Pape Møller. Having been to Eastern European villages & cities, this is not hard to comprehend. “international conspiracy led by the…” Your previous posts obsessing over conspiracy theories are unnecessary. These are “straw man arguments”, which are logical fallacies, a passive admission to a bankrupt position. Since I see nuclear power as a reasonably positive thing, I don’t understand why you felt necessary to go down this rabbit hole of illogical thought. “Chernobyl cleanup” Not much was cleaned up, much effort was done with containing. Many peoples were not evacuated, until years after the incident. Others refused to leave exclusion zones. Governments allowed many to just remain. What happens to those people [who were in or are in exclusion zones] are not always diligently followed, as per previous reasons cited. Belarus got a huge amount of the nuclear fallout, and they had started resettling people back into various radiation zones. Even some of the less dangerous contaminants only have a 30 year half-life, and it is now 38 years since the disaster. The death of flora & fauna has been immense, genetic defects in both, and measurement of populations in regions demonstrate the danger of such areas to living things [because attempting living things die or can’t replicate without insignificant genetic defect due to radiation.] Later rainstorms & wildfires raise radiation rates for a short period of time, every so often, so it is still an ongoing issue. “radioactive waste largely isn’t an issue” If it was truly not “an issue”, Nuclear Fuel Lifecycle would not be internationally regulated as tightly, regionally regulated so tightly, there would be far less perceived risk, and nuclear electrical energy would cost next to nothing in this day & age. The problem is: people are not honest about the risks & benefits. Disassociating radioactive materials from spent fuel, effectively atomizing it, mixing it with soil, and returning it to the ground it came from, is a cute mental exercise, but a disingenuous way of dealing with the risks, and falls into the realm of dishonesty since such disposal techniques are not actively being seriously considered.
    1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11.  @ignaciofernandezclavel3535  - “technology you mention are subsidiaries of fossil fuels” Nope 👎 Liquid fuel ⛽️ directly from CO2 in the air, by mixing it with salt water, pass electricity through it, and the fuel is separated from the water… only requires electricity ⚡️, which can come from any source… and does not explicitly require fossil fuels. Liquid fuel directly from CO2 in the air using solar powered thin film devices. The photoelectrochemical cells produce hydrocarbons directly from the air… does not explicitly require fossil fuels. Harvesting CO2 directly from the air for 8 years and converting it directly to fuel for 6 years… does not explicitly require fossil fuels. Producing fuel directly from CO2 in the air, using high temperature electrolysis… does not explicitly require fossil fuels. Combining H2 with CO2 from the air & water with a catalyst to produce diesel fuel… does not explicitly require fossil fuels, H2 can come from nuclear or solar electrolysis. Iron catalysts to drip 💧 jet fuel from the CO2 from the air, hydrogen, and water… does not explicitly require fossil fuels, since H2 can come from nuclear or solar electrolysis. Carbon based liquids will be around a long time. “energy return from these processes is less than 1:1” That is the case from every process. There is always loss, that is academic. There is also loss in recycling process, which makes carbon based energy very efficient (in comparison to spent batteries 🪫 )
    1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49.  @antonmorozov5193  - “can’t use fresh water” Actually, you are more correct in that statement than you think. Electrolysis does not require freshwater, but a salt is needed to transfer ions, so salt water is a good place to go, and we have LOTS of salt water. “we are going to need a lot of H2… need desalination” Nuclear requires LOTS of fresh water. H2 production has unlimited salt water to draw from. Off-shore wind cracks salt water allows H2 to pump to shore via water pressure, nearly being a passive system. Recycling used hydrogen is consuming freshwater. Nuclear requires a huge supply chain that is expensive & complex, and creates nuclear waste for everything the radiation touches. “problem of water vapor” There are Solar Panels which produce H2 directly from sunlight using the water vapor in the air, which does not require electrolysis. Nuclear creates an immense amount of water vapor from the cooling towers. “so it seems that the best way is to switch to…” Hydrogen, since it solves all the problems of Nuclear. Also, Hydrogen solves the problem of oil & gas, since there is a never ending supply, recycling easy as oil & gas does. Also, Hydrogen solves the problems of Solar & Wind, where their energy output is erratic in nature, and H2 provides the natural ability to store until needed, and storage can occur at point of use or anywhere along the way, in inexpensive tanks. Solar & Wind require expensive tanks (ie batteries) to hold temporary energy for peak usage.
    1
  50.  @antonmorozov5193  - “electrolysis does not require freshwater… where can I read about this?” hydrogen production by chlorine-free hybrid seawater splitting The secret is low voltage “Nuclear…. Water… returned to the river downstream” Steam from cooling towers “H2 will consume the water” As stated before, off-shore hydrogen production via wind, on-shore solar to hydrogen production without water (using water vapor in air.) “Production of H2 from solar/wind” search: Offshore Hydrogen Also, hydrogen is being produced at hydroelectric dams A sampling of articles & dates 2021-03-02 - Hydroelectric H2 in NY 2021-09-20 - Solar H2 in Fresno, CA 2021-06-10 - Solar H2 in Camden, GA 2022-10-14 - Solar H2 in Kingslsnd GA 2022-10-21 - A new large-scale project was announced in March 2022 by the US startup Green Hydrogen International called the Hydrogen City. 2023-01-09 - 900 megawatt wind & 400 megawatt solar to produce 1.4 gigawatts for Austin, TX for 200,000 kg of H2 produced per day Green H2 production is petty massive right now, plants in GA are already online, plants in California will take years to come online due to their heavy regulatory restrictions Right before the Russian invasion, Ukraine was entering into agreements with Europe to supply hydrogen…. Russia just blew the dam next to the nuclear power plant, that was a great Blue Hydrogen plan. “large scale storage” I have not investigated this topic thoroughly, but I will since you brought it up. Today, Ukraine was the largest storage provider in Europe for natural gas. It was projected to be so for Hydrogen.
    1