Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Wendover Productions" channel.

@Britannic hayyomatt the EU is run by un-elected members who can't be removed from power. Who are you talking about? The national governments? The commision? The parliament? Be specific. They can create any policy they want and as long as there is a majority vote it gets passed. Yes that's democratic What else is democracy? How does this differ from eg the UK? You'll see how badly they treat him and the British. I doubt all british are treated badly, however, Ukip? Probably this has to do with, I don't know, they wanting to see the EU fail? Also don't tell me such behaviour isn't seen in the UK politics, because it certainly is. Even when he's correct in an argument and gets all the other members behind him... Nothing happens because he's normally arguing with Belgium and France... Permanent leaders of the EU. Ehm, no. If a majority of the members are in favour of something, it will probably happen, except if it is on a subject all members have a veto. I don't know where you get this dellusion that majority can't rule due to a few member. Also several times you mention permanent leaders, what do you mean by that? France and Belgium are original founders yes, this might give them some prestige within the EU, but they don't get an extra vote in the council, they don't get more MEP's, they don't get an extra commisioner, so I don't really get your point. The EU exists to make Belgium rich Sure, let's ignore that they also give more than they receive (if we follow brexiteers logic) or that Belgium overall has been a fairly wealthy area since the high middle ages, thanks to its location, demography (cities, good land), geography, trading and industry. Not to mention that Belgian is the 5th largest of the original 6 founders and that the capital first was put in Luxembourg, but moved for several reasons (mostly logistic and politics). But sure, whatever works for you. Like, when the UK (a country which is supposedly worthless to the EU) wanted to leave last year, the European parliament went mental. Do you know why? Because the UK actually gives a lot the EU and if the UK leaves, others (Poland and Spain) will follow. We voted to leave, and they didn't even let us leave. So much wrong here, were to start. 1) No one would say the UK is worthless to the EU (it's the 5th largest world economy and has a strong military), but it was holding the EU back, and in that regards a bit negative to the EU in my eyes. 2) The EP didn't went mental, they were ofcourse sad and upset, but how do you think Scotland or Ireland voting to leave would be received in the UK? 3) Yes the UK brings a large part of the EU budget, which will have to be reworked (and the EU is already planning to execute the changes necessay to make up for the loss). 4) No, others won't follow, this is clearly visible from the way they act now towards brexit. No country has enough reasons to leave vs the negatives. Poland gets 8 billion net from the EU, don't even mention the money that flows into their country from polish people working in EU countries. Spain also has no real reason to leave, I don't know where you get this from. From all southern EU nations, Spain is probably the worst example you could pick. 5) What the hell do you think these negotiations are for. To negotiate the UK leaving. If the period of negotiations isn't extend by both the UK and EU before 29th of march, the UK leaves. I am going to leave it at that, because practically everything you said is wrong.
10
It is also similar with river management in terms of dredging rivers etc. You start at the estuary and then move up inland, because if you start somewhere else, you might just cause floods downriver because those area's weren't ready to receive the increased waterflows. There have been floods specifically because they messed this up. You always need to try to look at the consequence of a certain action when potential chain events come into play.
6
@Bobis32 Your calculation is wrong. An ice car would need to do 60mpg to be equivalent around 150k miles, considering the average car in the US is around 25mpg, an EV with a 100kWh pack (which is huge btw, the average is around 45kWh) would be better after just around 30k miles. If we take the end of life around 150k miles, we get in this situation that the EV is around 58% lower co2 emissions. If we do this for a 45kWh battery EV, we get a break even point of less than 15k miles and a total co2 saving of around 64%. Now, considering EV's are expected to actually last longer than ICE cars due to their lower part count (no engine, no big transmission, no clutch, less use of brakes with regenerative breaking, ....) before being scrapped, this difference would become even more stark. Now, this large difference is mostly due to the US terrible fuel efficiency in the car fleet, in Europe this would already be different with their average 35 mpg, for 45kWh is would be 21k miles and for 100kWh it would be 48k miles.
4
Considering Norway (a country more north than any point in the US and 4th coldest country in the world) has the best EV adoption rate, I doubt the cold really is a problem, maybe a different heating design is used for EV's sold there or such, but it can definitely deal with the cold. And after Norway the best adopter is Sweden, another northern country.
3
@BeautifulPeopleBTFLPPL Like said in that video, their output is too low for large electronics, at best it will be used in niche electronics and that is it, nothing requires a 28 000 years battery, considering nothing it powers would last that long anyway. It will need to be pretty cheap to be actually used instead of other batteries.
2
Reason 1 is completely wrong, as is shown in the video, most of the rail network is owned by private companies.
2
@John Flaherty That electricity production just pollutes somewhere else and is even more polluting due to conversion is complete bullshit. If we look at europe more than a third is already being produced by renewable energy and polluting sources are now less than half of the total (Nuclear does not cause pollution, not really). And the efficiencies at powerplants are very high and require huge cleaning facilities that need to clean the exhaust as much as possible, cars can't do this. Overall the pollution by transportion method is as follows most polluting Plane Ship Big car Small car Motorbike Bus Train least polluting This is however in terms of passenger transport, for cargo transport ships will do better than almost anything due to their high capacity. Also ships (definitely sea faring ones) use much cruder oil, for a part because it is cheaper, but also because the more refined oil is used for cars etc. Crude oil is more polluting, but if they want these ships could also use more refined oil and limit pollution. And as a last thing, large ships also tend to have higher efficiency engines due less size constraint and a more regular running speed. Ships and trains are by far the least polluting transport options (not including cycling, walking, etc.).
1
@John Flaherty I never talked about the viability of train travel for passengers, I was only reacting to your (i think) comment about trains polluting as much as other transportation methods, which is completely wrong. I do understand why train travel in the most of the US is not an option. I do think it might have been an option in the more densely populated area's if there would have been a vision before they let everything be built full, like between DC and new york, a car takes around 4 hours, a flight might around 3-4 (due to checking in, air traffic density, etc), a train might do it 2 hours. Also a train network should always consist together with other public transport systems like trams, metro's, busses, which are meant for local relocation, while trains are meant to be used between city centers (longer distances). And lastly a train is usually meant for people who 1) don't want to drive, 2) don't own a car (especially poorer people or those living in more densely populated area's), 3) are more consious in terms of pollution or 4) want to spend this traveltime in a usefull way (which you can't do in a car for example) (a bit together with point 1 though).
1
@John Flaherty I understand you believe trains pollute less; I've explained how trains, if used to the degree required, pollute quite heavily too. I don't just believe trains pollute less, it is supported by evidence when looked at the full lifetime cycle of everything involved (production, usage (including the energy sources required) and recycling). There are many statistics on this. Are you just denying simple facts because you don't agree with them? Also this research looks at the pollution per passenger (or for cargo per kg or something similar), so saying they will pollute quite heavily to when used to the degree required is a non-point and rather seems to show your ignorance on the topic. I also consider that airplanes and cars don't pollute at all if they're not flown or driven, yet they're not workable (viable) transportation if they merely sit. Again, what? We are talking about pollution caused when transporting the same amount of passengers over the same distance, so your comparison is bullshit. We have higher priorities than worrying about alleged atmospheric pollution. Ah, here we go. It is already a fact that these vehicles cause atmospheric pollution and causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. Even climate change deniers changed their tune to "well, the impact of this pollution isn't going to have such a large effect", instead of denying the pollution altogether like you did now. It is exactly people like you who consider their own time and energy now more important than the lives of future generations that caused many problems who have now or will have in the future. Problems that now can be fixed with billions, but in the future will require trillions to fix (if at all fixable).
1
@kevin9c1 They did change the result of the virus. Lockdowns weren't meant to completely stop the virus (though this was/is the goal in China), but to limit the pressure on the health services. Without the lockdowns the same amount of people might have been infected a few years down, but there would be a much greater deathrate due to health services getting overwhelmed early on. We saw early in countries like Italy and Spain what happened if health services were overpressured even for just a short time. Lockdowns didn't stop the spread of the virus, it spread out the time it took allowing the health services to not buckle under the pressure and giving time for vaccins to be developed, which do not stop the spread of the virus that much (though still helps), but rather diminished the effect the virus had on vaccinated people. Even with the current measure the number of covid deaths is somewhere around 15 million worldwide, without the lockdown it might have been several times that amount, not just due to covid, but also because overwhelmed health services would have had more difficulty dealing with other health issues.
1
@hunterpayne6167 What are you talking about? China's generation capacity is around 2200 GW, so your 90 GW/year would mean you'd need almost 25 years to replace the entirity of this generation capacity. Moreover 90GW/year is a lot, that comes down to around 56 full size reactors build a year. To put this into perspective, that is more than the amount of commercial nuclear reactors China currently is operating, which is already probably the most nuclear reactors in any country. Oh, and in 1 year (2019 to 2020) China added around 200 GW new power capacity to their grid, so far for your single digit GW/year.
1
@hunterpayne6167 Nuclear has a utilization factor of .9 or above meaning on average over a long period of time for every 1 watt of nuclear deployed you get .9 watts delivered. For fossil fuels, that is .6, for renewables it is .1. So that 90GW of nuclear capacity is worth as much as 135 GW of fossil fuels or 810GW of renewables which is China's entire fleet of renewables currently. This is pretty meaningless if you can't store or use the constantly produced nuclear power at all times. The main reason to have such high capacity is to be able to deal with peaks/variability and maintenance downtime. You can't just lower the needed capacity because nuclear overtime can produce more, this is perfect to get brown outs at some time and overproduction at other. Also your utilization factor for renewables is very low, should be more between .2 and .6 depending on which specific renewable we are talking, some even close to nuclear (hydro). You are using capacity numbers which are meaningless unless you are the one financing the plant. The fact you think capacity numbers are meaningless in grid management already says a lot about your knowledge on this topic. Having the right amount of capacity is crucial. Too low and you are going to have black outs/brown outs for certain at times, too high and you are just wasting money. I am measuring delivered power which is what counts. This definitely isn't at all what only counts. That is just a part of it. This is why Germany has 2x as much renewables capacity as peak load This is more to do with renewables being more variable in output than something like a nuclear, gas, coal, ... powerplants. You install higher capacity to deal with that variability. And sure you could take this into consideration in switching to nuclear, but China only has +-530GW variable renewables installed, meaning you still have 1500GW to account for and at least half of the renewables, so more like 1700GW. You also can't just put in place the bare minimum, you always will need redundancy in the system in case one or several reactors fall out. but still have to import power from France most of the time. Germany actually isn't a big electricity importer at all. In 2019 it imported double of France, but in absolute numbers it was low. France imported around 2 TWh (0.5% of demand), Germany 4TWh (1%) and the UK around 20 TWh (7.5%). That Germany is a big electricity importer is more an argument people like to use against renewables. Only 5 other EU countries imported less as % of demand. Overall speaking Germany in 2019 was the 2nd largest net exporter in absolute numbers and 6th in % of demand (France being 5th). on average, only 20% (that's 200% x .1) of German power comes from renewables What year did you get those numbers from? On average 40 to 45% of power in Germany is produced by renewables in the past several years, it has been the largest powergeneration source since 2014, more than double the TWh of the second source (lignite) and nearly triple the third (natural gas) despite the fact that they are more like 70% or 80% of the capacity. More like 61% actually. Nobody cares about capacity. Anyone who doesn't care about capacity shouldn't take part in a discussion on grid management. But fine I looked into it deeper and I found a max demand of around 844GW in june this year. I can't say for sure this was the highest ever, but I'll use this as a benchmark. Considering that you'd rather never have brown-outs or black outs, you better take some reserve and talk about around 1000GW certain capacity availability, this is still +-12-13 years of building nuclear powerplants at the pace you propose, which already was an insane pace considering you'd have to finish the same amount of commercial nuclear powerplants currently already active and this every year! You can be lucky if you even reach 10% of that, nearly a miracle for 20% that amount. Power delivered to the customer is what counts, And you can't deliver the power if the capacity it too low to match the demand. Hope you learned something from this. And next time you try to act like you have the knowledge/understanding the other side doesn't, make sure the other side didn't actually study the topic at university
1
@jonathantan2469 You could always go california->new mexico->texas->louisiana->florida and then up the coast from there. I am sure you could connect it to the major cities. Or if Trump really builds a wall, put a highspeed train line on it :p
1
@TheKlaun9 Ironically the French are expected to lower their nuclear % of the grid, replacing it partially by renewables. This is mostly due to the costs and the time to build new ones.
1
One of the problems with nuclear is that then you also need to get different ways of getting the nuclear materials and these are generally quite more expensive. If the entire worlds electricity supply would change over to nuclear today, we'd be out of the 'easily accessible' nuclear material now used in less than a decade (I believe even more around 6 years). So this means we need to get more efficient reactors and we need to get the costs down of other means of getting the nuclear material (like from seawater I believe). Neither of this is easy, cheap or fast, which is why nuclear isn't really more than a side option currently and is likely not going to make up more than 10-20% of the worlds electricity grid in the next 50+ years (hell, it currently never has been above 20%).
1
@user-op8fg3ny3j You can do that, but if you do that in a place you can't control who shows early (like before they arrive in the area), you'll just shift the problem to the newly created entrance where you are limiting inflow.
1
@jonathanodude6660 That shouldn't really be a problem, you can use your AC during the day when there is too much solar so that your house is cooled by the time you get home/solar is lowering in generation. Keeping a cooled house cooled is much less energy intensive than cooling a hot one down. So your problem is more about bad heat management than it actually being a problem.
1
One of the problems of AC is that you are just putting the heat in the air outside, this will increase overall temperatures, especially in urban area's, worse you are adding the heat of all the AC's having to do work. A solution might be to either use ground heat pumps to transport the heat underground or use some kind of community 'heat-lines' that in the summer takes up the heat from buildings and uses it in production/stores it underground or so somewhere and in winter you can do the opposite, draw heat from those lines. It does take more planning, but it can help fix the issue with AC just moving the heat from inside to outside creating even hotter outside temperatures.
1
@jonathanodude6660 i cant imagine that everyone leaving theirs on all day until they get back from work is good energy management. It isn't unless you have proper insulation (at which point you don't need to keep it on 10 hours a day, just 1-2 hours or 10 hours at a very low use) or if you have energy to spare during the day. What is bad management is not using overproduction and then having problems during the evening/night due to underproduction. Ofcourse if you have an AC that you can't really manage (no timer/app/...), but just on and off switch, that might be somewhat different. Then you need to use it on lowest use setting or indeed at night. Though I can't imagine modern AC units/heat pumps without at least a timer or just having a heat sensor to keep the room/house at a certain temperature.
1
@jonathanodude6660 If there is overproduction from solar during the day, something needs to change elsewhere in the grid. For example replacing coal by gas, more storage solutions (eg subsidizing storage at home), ...
1