Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "OBF" channel.

@ketsuekikumori9145 Yeah, nuclear just isn't a solution...
65
Impressive! It's interesting how he's trying to pronounce the place names with the local dialects of each place. He doesn't quite succeed, but you can clearly hear that he's doing so rather than just using the Oslo dialect. And I for one really appreciate that effort. :-) 3:26 He even got the letter "Ø" right! Where is he from? He has to be nordic. End of the video edit: Ah, he's Danish, that explains things. :-) Still well done. ^^ Most Danes would just go with the Oslo dialect and left it at that. Going that extra mile is definitely appreciated. ^^
9
1:25 The flat areas isn't do much to the south where that green area is as in the east where you marked Oslo and then it goes northwards towards Trondheim for quite some distance as well as eastwards towards Sweden.
6
 @lisaruhm6681 World peace is a high bar. But if you look at casualties of war you'll see that people are less and less likely to die in war.
6
@cupcakke1294 No. Finland and Sweden has the advantage of being on top of a tectonic craton. That helps a lot. But even in the case of Finnland it's debatable if their measures are sufficient for the waste products of fission. Fusion may be a part of the solution if its issues are worked out soon enough. But as is the only real solution is increased infrastructure. There's always sunny, windy or raining *somewhere*, but to use that for a base load you need to build the infrastructure to transport it from there. That means among other things efficient power transfer all the way from north Africa to the northern part of the nordic countries and from Ireland and Scotland (and perhaps as far as Iceland) and as far east as Ukraine, Turkey, and indeed Russia, yes, even with renewables we're still going to need to cooperate with Russia...
4
@abdulahmed738 Actually for the world at large. Even with the post pandemic uptick in conflicts people are still less likely to die in a war now then during the cold war. The number of wars in the world has been trending downwards since the fall of Napoleon, but major wars keep getting more devasting. The fallen of WW2 is a excellent video showcasing this for the post war periode. But honestly even before that wars have been trending downwards for centuries.
4
@LosianOne What does Denmark got to do with this? The video was about a prison in *Norway*. And honestly spending some of the money currently used on the US police on police education as well as social reforms might be a better investment then using tons of money on the police itself. Focusing spending on a welfare state looking after its population and helping us function in society is a part of what prevents crime here. The treatment we citizens get from the welfare system and that criminals get from the prison system is actually very similar except for the lack of freedom.
3
It's a nice country. But make sure that you know exactly what you're getting yourself into first... It's not all a paradise...
3
@berendhol4060 That might work for a century or two... But the waste lasts longer than that. Imagine if that ancient egyptians had used nuclear power... If they had done what you suggested the waste might have ended up in the water of the Nile river causing cancer all over Europe and anywhere else where we eat fish. And the sand might get radiated causing radiation poisoning in south America as well. This is dangerous for thousands of years. Our very language is probably no longer readable while the waste still remains dangerous.
2
Looks like I'm pretty much on top of all the worlds wars then, that's good I guess...
1
Nuclear power can't be ramped up fast enough, can't be ramped down fast enough, has huge up front costs and huge long term costs, is nonrenewable and simply isn't a viable option right now. Turning former nuclear power plants back on just isn't possible. The short term answer is goverment subsidized LNG, long term it's investment in both renewables and infrastrukture like long range power transportation. For instance here in Norway we have a lot of hydropower. Our dams could be turned into power storage facilities, pumping water upwards when renewables are producing a lot, then they can be tapped when energy availability is low. We're also planning and indeed we've already started to produce clean hydrogen that can be used to store and transport power till it's needed in the power grid. And so one and so forth. Power might not be available in one region of Europe. But between northern Norway and northern Africa there's usually renewable power being available *somewhere*.
1
@DeadlySIlence92 Self sufficiency isn't really a good idea, it's really, really inefficient. That said, having some supplies of your own as well as a good strategic storage of certain vital resources can be a good idea. Like having some food production and stored food. Having some energy production and store enough energy. It gives you the time needed to find international solutions when issues crop up, and the option to scrape by if your access ends up being blocked. That's why Norway, the country I live in don't join the EU and keep tarrifs on good imports. We're never going to be self sufficient for food, and we shouldn't try. But ensuring that we have a little food production left surviving despite not being competitive helps. Likewise Germany should ensure that there's some domestic production of energy. But Germany just isn't the right place to produce the majority of the energy needed for Germany. Norway has more wind blowing and rain falling, so hydropower and wind farms is better to build here. Iceland and Italy have more vulcanic heat in the ground for thermal power plants. Northern Africa has more sunlight etc. Doesn't mean that Germany can't produce all of those things locally, you'll just never be as efficient at it as the better suited locations. Germany was well suited for coal power, but that's not a option anymore, so... You get the picture.
1
@90enemies Also, once you've seen that video. (And please do, my comment below won't really make sense otherwise) So, what's actually happening in Germany and Norway respectivly is that in Germany gas plants capable of running on 100% hydrogen is planned and will come online for that role of covering what other sources fail to provide. In Norway hydropower as always is the main solution for that. But sometimes we have negative demand, since the hydropower plants ends up producing energy simply in order to stop them from overflowing and collapsing due to too much rain. And sometimes we have too much energy from things like wind power. So we're building energy sinks that will buy power cheaply or even can take power at times when the energy companies are willing to pay people to take their energy, and converting that to green hydrogen. it's not a ideal solution, but it works for the grids in question. And those power plants that can run on natural gas also gives Germany the option of going fossile if for whatever reason enough green hydrogen isn't available. As for years when Norway is having a dry spell... Well, those German power plants can run just as well on hydrogen produced in Morocco or even across the sea in South America or North America or even Asia. So this option gives Germany the ability to import energy from other continents if needed, increasing the contrys green flexibility.
1
@oddmahttesara773 No, he definitely didn't. His ø might be different from your dialect, but it's actually fairly close to some of our dialects.
1