Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "War in Ukraine could have global consequences" video.

renewables will never replace all the energy needs of a country, nuclear is the only way, France has showed us how to do it.
122
5:29 don't forget France, it has like the third most nukes on the planet I believe and it's also part of the EU so things could get weird quickly if they suddenly got involved.
17
@koragrobot yes it is green but for some goddamn reason most of the Green political parties hate nuclear for some reason, I do hope the Bright Green movement kicks out all those incompetent last gen greens and replace them with sane ones, if be nice to live in a more environmentally friendly society, prevent the 6th mass extinction event (humans right now) and not see the rising sea levels swallow most coasts at the end of the century while also being aware of the global balance of power. no pressure though.
17
well the reason for that is that China has a potential alternative to Swift so the sanctions will hurt for sure but there are potential solutions to deal with the issues from them, what's much more worrying is the potential of China to see this conflict as a ''now or never moment'' since Russia are their only potentially big real allies on the world stage and if they let Russia fall then they fall as well, perhaps wanting to take advantage of the current turmoil to take Taiwan to add to the fire of the current conflict, putting the USA in a position where they have to try and block the interests of one nation or the other or both and while a sane outsider would say ''they have to take on both'' internal pressures, incompetent leadership and the potential of escalation could force them to pick one side or even pick non of the sides and just be more isolated. the Russia-Ukranian conflict is almost insignificant compared to the potential conflict that could come out of it, just as ww1 started because the prince of austra-hungary got shot by a serbian nationalist, the domino's can fall and that's what governments and most people right now are afraid of.
8
@kerrynball2734 god I can imagine some lunatic green party member coming up with something like that, probably more like bio-fuel or something, god I hate these people so much.
4
@ElBandito I dont think they would use them, im just saying if Ukraine joined the EU or EU nations got involved in the conflict more directly that would match the threat of nukes from Russa, the video seemed to argued the USA and Russia are the only nuclear powers in this conflict when in fact France and the UK are also nuclear states and closer to the conflict as well as connected via the EU (France is still in the EU, UK left)
3
@HorbachenkoVlad there is a Chinese banking system which could function for Russia but yes it also has it's own systems for that right now. it's insignificant compared to the potential full scale of a world war, of course the current war in Ukraine is signifcant but understanding the threat of further escalation might explain nations desire to stay out of it or only commit to sanctions and arming the ukranians. I mostly agree with you, just pointing out what it means moving forward.
3
@wiryantirta there was a US experiment that ran on Thorium molten salt I believe but im not sure how effective or what problems would come from using it on a larger scale, I've heard some people say it's just not effective enough or does not deliver on the promises of thorium but regardless, nuclear power is the only way moving forward, even current day gen 3 nuclear power plants are better than anything else on the planet let alone the potential of gen 4 nuclear power plants if they ever become the new standard.
3
yes the Merkel government and the new government under Scholtz have both shamelessly and incompetently sold out to Russia with multiple people both within their government and outside of it warning about it for years, not to mention the even further stupidity of shutting down their nuclear power planets, like making trade deals with Russia is one thing but actively shooting your own energy production in the foot and becoming depending on Russia at the same time is just beyond stupid. not to mention how they neglected their military for decades, their current U-turn on these issues is refreshing though, wished they figured that out before all of this.
2
@Janoip so what your saying is you want to build more nuclear power planets that have longer life expectency, produce more clean energy and be even safer? I fully agree, I'm glad Macron sees it the same way. I am a bit sceptical about those blackouts though, you sure you aren't talking about Germany? Since there about 38.000 people had no heating and had blackouts due to their failing energy grid while France and Poland are providing them with electricity to make sure the hospitals stay on. Btw parts of anything can be replaced, the environment minster saying it can't be done is just nonsense to give an excuse to try and shut down nuclear power plants, politicians do these sorts of honks all the time.
2
@Janoip yes nuclear power plants have lots of delays and high cost investment, why do you think that is? Could it be because of the technical issues? Or could it be because of the government and international regulations regarding nuclear power production? Mmmmm probably the later seeing as the technology is about a century old now and demands regarding safety are paramount with nuclear power, makes sense to a degree but the immense costs are mostly because of that and not anything technical, besides the costs more than make up for it after I believe 4-6 years of being active, in that regard the French nuclear power plants have more than made up the cost for building them and the main issue like always is that the government did not plan in advance for rising costs of power as well as other factors such as the push for electric cars by the EU which puts higher demands on an already pressured electrical grid, made even worse by having to provide power to Germany because of their climate change authoritarianism to power production.
2
@Janoip yeah all the non nuclear power nations will follow into poverty and bad electrical grids, how progressive of them! Hahaha No but you do have one point which is that nuclear power plants need to become more innovated, perhaps a new type of model like thorium powered or liquid salt reactors instead of the water based reactors still used today but that would take even more of an investment which few nations are willing to put into. The technology is the best the leadership that build it are not.
2
@cheetah694 idk in what universe you live where the russians could use chernobyl as a means of blackmail or how Fukushima relates to a warzone danger, all of these cases it has to do with design problems with the powerplants and human error, there are newer and more advanced nuclear power plant systems, ones that have easy, non human interaction safety nets to ensure you don't have a uncontroled nuclear reaction. What's amasing to me is how little accidents have happened despite the low amount of effort to innovate is put into these power plants, how immense their potential is and how little the public seems interested in the technology when in fact it's the key to a more advanced and more wealthy society, all the talks of renewables have only led to more coal power plants being opened, all industies going to China with no environment concerns and everyone being more poor as a result while at the same time not putting in the resources and efforts to upgrade nuclear power, it's like the worst choice the world could have made on all fronts. I be happy to close down older nuclear power plants if they were being replaced by more efficiënt and even safer power plants or could even reuse nuclear waste but that's not being done and that's the major issue here, not nuclear power somehow being unsafe, when in fact it's killed less people than coal has by a factor of like a million.
2
@Uvisir Fusion is a long way off, nuclear power is what works now and probably even after fusion becomes fiable.
2
@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 the numbers don't really matter that much, if you have 50+ nukes with good ICBM's your a threat to anyone and therefor have leverage, why you think North Korea still exists?
1
@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 your making very cryptic arguments, nuclear weapons don't matter when they are 200 but do matter when it's 4000? At the same time North Korea exists because of China but China is a nuclear power with even less nukes than France so again nukes do play a major role even with the minimum amount, same with say Israel and why they work so hard to make sure Iran does not get the nuke, you see what im getting at? The nuclear question is key the other things don't really matter that much, why you think Russia asked Ukraine to give up it's nuclear weapons before invading them now? Or why you think South Africa got rid of their nuclear weapons because they don't want to play this geo-political game. Ironically France is the only NATO country that actually left the NATO block for a while so im pretty confused at your argument, perhaps you mean that the conventional weapons are more important than nukes? Im not sure.
1
how likely is the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU/NATO? probably not by much but looking at the narrative and the way things are going the situation could escalate.
1
@Janoip probably Germany
1
@Janoip so Germany is charging more for their electricity and France is second with nuclear power plants build mostly 40 years ago? Wow that really shows the power of nuclear power.
1
@Janoip kind of weird for Germany to export electricity when they have blackouts themselves and buy it from the French and Polish, mmmmm very strange but perhaps it's dependent on the weather, like during the winter or if the wind does not blow, renewables just aren't very reliable.
1
@AeneasGemini that's how technology should work but right now we are doing the opposite of that, we are limiting ourselfs just to one source and moving backwards as a result, in the ideal world we would have a optimized set up of both nuclear, gas, renewables, geo-therma, hydro and biofuels, instead we are limited to mostly just biofuels, renewables and hydro which is just silly, we have barely even tapped into nuclear innovation so we aren't developing the technology we need and are more dependent on technology we already have. Meanwhile places like China and India understand the value of nuclear energy and will leave the rest of us in the dark ages if we don't try and catch up, only France is really bringing their game to market and even investing in fusion, that's the future not Germany's renewables agenda.
1
@cheetah694 it's actually not very limited, it is in nature but can be produced in enrichment plants, the amount we need for how much is left in the world is more than enough to fuel our energy needs. Nuclear weapons however does require a lot of U235, nuclear powerplants only use like 2-4 enriched uranium where as nuclear weapons need like 90-95% There's a bunch of nuclear power advocates who break down the total amount we have in the world and how much we actually need as fuel to maintain fission matterial, can't remember his name but it shows up pretty quickly if you look for Thorium Molten salt reactors.
1
@cheetah694 you are correct, I am mistaken, I thought you could produce U-235 from exposing other isotopes to neutrons or either decaying higher energy isotopes of Uranium 238 or close to other Uranium isotopes to U-235, so I stand corrected. However there are other fissile materials besides U-235 which (as far as I know) can be produced artifically, how cost effective this is I'm not sure but I don't think we are going to run out of fissile material anytime soon. Fissile nuclides in nuclear fuels include: Uranium-235 which occurs in natural uranium and enriched uranium Plutonium-239 bred from uranium-238 by neutron capture Plutonium-240 bred from plutonium-239 by neutron capture. Plutonium-241 bred from plutonium-240 by neutron capture. Uranium-233 bred from thorium-232 by neutron capture Source : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile_material
1
@RexGalilae the thing is we've seen these sorts of global supply chains before in history, namely in the bronze age which ended with the bronze age collapse of those supply chains. Today we see how dependent and vulerable these supply chains are, nothing is inevitable, what's happened is a system was developed in which trade became key for economic development which only exists in the way it does today due to the US global economic system, that system seems to be on the decline and we see a new multipolar world being created, now nations will still trade for sure and there might even be a sense of global culture due to the internet and what not but I don't think this current wave of globalism is going to continue on forever and in some areas we can already see it becoming more isolated and focusing on being self reliant a less dependent on global supply chains.
1
@RexGalilae but that's actually not true, there are nations like the USA that are mostly self reliant and have enough resources, Russia is a close second, China would like to be the same as would other nations, the world system as created by the USA is made this way on purpose, if nobody is self reliant they are forced to trade for most of their goods and services, while the USA can mostly sustain itself, this goal was actually what the Germans in ww2 and ww1 to a lesser extend wanted. Now you can argue that no nation can always be 100% self reliant all the time as disasters can strike, new resources or technology changes the system, too many people for limited resources, so on so forth but as an economic concept most nations try to be self reliant if they can be, food security is an important factor of this or water security, in the coming decades you can expect more wars over water.
1