Comments by "Diana Pennepacker" (@dianapennepacker6854) on "Two Bit da Vinci" channel.

The problem with nuclear is the upfront cost.
1
@ccibinel China does a lot of things cheap, and there are websites solely dedicated to the consequences of that. I wouldn't use them as an example for much. Those regulations are in place for a reason. Nuclear should never have short cuts. The issue is we have to privatize everything, and profit for the stake holders is the priority. One promising company is making it so we can convert old fossil fuel plants to nuclear. That sounds like a good plan to me. That is until decent battery storage outside of lithium becomes acceptable, because wind and solar are cheap. They are becoming cheaper by the day, and battery tech is exploding.
1
Don't understand why we don't use giant sails for huge ships. Think like a parasail. One company has one and says it will save up to 20% in savings. If true and it works it should be mandatory. Then you have those tube ones as well.
1
Yeah. The second I read that the writers of the decade old paper didn't ya know... Stick to the freaken research? You knew it was a bust. That cure for like 70 types of cancer looks promising! Can't wait to be dissapointed by it or see how much it will cost.
1
Yeah man laws and regulations are what is responsible. Loopholes and contracts. There is enough money in urban cities to build skyscrapers. I don't know what he is talking about. It is BS too as building taller would solve some of the housing crisis.
1
Sure, but the fact more and more companies are doing it, and more research is being invested says something. I was told one issue with photonics QC are that they can't be programmed really. The hardware makes the program. I wonder if that is true, and if there are ways around it. Think I got that from the salty, but down to earth German scientist named Sabine... Hamburger. Heinz ketch up. Something with an H. The one with the channel.
1
Guess what crop uses the most fresh water!? Grass! Useless, fucking grass that does basically nothing good for anything outside of looking pretty How the hell are we using more fresh water for a crop that we cannot eat or really use to feed animals. It js so mind boggling stupid that when I heard that I wanted to slap myself with my own dick I cut off with a nuclear powered chain saw.
1
@anthonycarbone3826 Well the nice things about humans is we aren't really that specialized like an animal. It isn't like we are born to do a few things, and rely on a single diet. Or a single climate just to breed. If you think about it. Humans are super generalized, and adaptable. General intelligence allows us to change with our conditions or change those conditions entirely. Specialization won't be our downfall. Our downfall will be our greed.
1
I don't understand won't the train still make contact causing friction ? Are you talking about using magnets to slow down and recouping some of the energy. I'm just not following how this will help if what I assume friction is the issue to begin with.
1
Why do people insist on judging it by KG. Yeah one KG is like 24 liters of volume at 700 BAR! Liquid hydrogen isn't happening. It just makes sense that people think that is the future of consumer cars. One thing that is crazy to me is that a liter of water holds more hydrogen then liquid hydrogen! The fuck! Too bad we didn't have a cheap process to be able to separate hydrogen with a fuel cell from water, and then use it using some crazy technology!
1
I'm all for nuclear. I don't think it would work economically. It would be more expensive, somehow, because of over regulations, and corruption. So I agree with ya, but just think peoples stupidity would stop it from being economically viable. I always wondered why we don't use 45 degree solar vacuum tubes with fresnel lenses to concentrate the light. I guess the biggest issue would be dealing with the brine, and cleaning them. Yet that is why they'd be nearly vertical. Let the brine go to the bottom. (By the way the water isn't in the vacuum. Vacuum is for the outer pipe insulate the inner pipe. Just Google solar vacuum tubes. They are already used to heat water, and I guess can actually give electricity. Never heard of them till recently.)
1
@davidhuttner275 Fun fact. A 1,000 megawatt nuclear station produces just 3 meters of cubic waste a year. Over the lifetime of the entire plant that equates to about ONE cargo container. That is for a million people. Plants can be bigger, and more efficent. We also can reuse that fuel for many things, which also turns it into forms that are only radiated for like five decades or a few centuries. Can't remember, but it wasn't long on the society time scale. When I learned all that I was flabbergasted. Been gas lighted my whole life on how big an issue nuclear waste is. That isn't the high quality nuclear fuel the Navy guy is talking about. No idea if it is even better as far as waste goes.
1
Yeah. Residental Wind doesn't seem viable. Just read a report from a study saying solar plus batteries are cheaper than fossil fuels. Pervvsokite solar is being produced. Not quite pure pervoskite, but a silicone hybrid pervoskite made by Oxford Solar that has a superb effiency. More will come along with cheaper batteries. I just don't see wind being viable with the cost per KW.
1
 @DeeP_BosE Yeah that is why so many of them have failed? It has a long way to go for large scale agriculture.
1
@volkerengels5298 I think they'll be making their own energy. At least the big companies. Probably a lot cheaper getting solar, wind, batteries, and hopefully that new geothermal technology. Than paying some other crap greedy power company. Most likely cheaper too.
1
I disagree with some of his statements. We are in a cold war with the CCP. We need to have our own lithium plants, and our own technology. Rare earth metals aren't rare. Just a pain, and toxic to mine. We are moving away from China, because if we didn't? They'd have incredible leverage against us. Companies wouldn't have incentives to move away, because we can't compete. We need to view the wider picture. Also China doesn't play fair, and started the trade war. Outside of that I agree with him.
1
@HansSchulze Watch the videos about Sandy talking about some choices politicians have made that hurt the automotive industry, but are good geopolitically, and for our security. We are in a cold and trade war. Sandy isn't thinking long term. Cobalt? I didn't bring up cobalt. You did. I said rare earths. Like lithium, neodynium, germanium, etc. China does have leverage on cobalt through deals struck with the Congo government. Also germanium with Myanmar. Yet as you said Cobalt is being substituted out.
1
What makes you think axial flux will be anymore of an issue as far as lifespan goes? I'm not sure how efficent they are. Or how much more complex they are in manufacturing. Yet for some reason I foresee these used in higher end or performance cars. Then regular old electric motors for us. Helix UK says they have a motor that weighs 52 pounds and gives 800bhp. Imagine four of those in a car with a battery and capacitor pack with a transmission for higher speeds! Actually i get conflicting reasons on why EVs have lower top speeds. Some say it is a transmission or gearing issue. Others say no. Anyway I don't care for EVs because they are green. I care due to the performance they offer. I'm all for their domination of real life performance even with their disadvantages.
1