Comments by "Viceral Man" (@viceralman8450) on "Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?" video.

  1. The failed war on drugs.
    2
  2. And the USA.
    1
  3.  @EverythingBattletech  The US still emits 5.41GT of Co2 meanwhile India emits 2.65GT and on top China we eliminate all you three and the problem is fixed.
    1
  4. Just if the thing worked for more than seconds.
    1
  5.  @stormer9763  A matter of time is what decades, centuries? we need a solution before 2050 of the heating would be more than 2 celsius causing great problems.
    1
  6.  @stormer9763  Curious because fusion is always 30 years away. to be honest doubt we reach it this century.
    1
  7.  @stormer9763  ITER will finish in 2025 but it is only to know if sustained fusion is possible if yes they will construct another bigger one for more testing it that work a experimental one for energy production and if that work the first operational fusion energy producing facility and that would take more than 4 decades.
    1
  8.  @stormer9763  If it works which is not certain.
    1
  9.  @stormer9763  So what it dont works on Earth wheres is needed.
    1
  10. How is going to pay for that?
    1
  11. ​ @patapelo  We both know that if this kind of projects kick in rich, countries would paid for them and, they would need to basically fix the power grids of all other countries so that would be unpopular at best infuriating at worst.
    1
  12. Yes but it is extremely inefficient.
    1
  13. It doesn't work yet so is not a solution.
    1
  14.  @kallekontio2322  ITER is to achieve stable fusion the next project to obtain electricity from that fusion at ITER will begin after 2050, also ITER don't produce any power.
    1
  15. Hydroelectric is the way to go for them for example my country produces more than 50% of its energy from hydroelectric, is not perfect but is better than coal.
    1
  16. 1) it woulta ke enormous extensions of land for that, plus current batteries have some problems they can release the charge instantly, they lose power over time, and the amount of charge is limited . 2) There's uranium for 200 years, plutonium por other 2 or 3 centuries and thorium for even more.
    1
  17. A damage the desert ecosystem why, wasn't the goal of this tech to save the environment, what about the night or cloudy days?
    1
  18. Poor design, lack safety measures, negligent personnel and soviets.
    1
  19. They are other fuels like thorium or the plutonium used for nukes, also the next generation of reactors will be more efficient plus there's reactors that create more fuel than the one they use they are called breeder reactors.
    1
  20. Fusión dont work yet, windmills are unreliable they cannot provide energy 24/7 365 day a year they depend on wind meanwhile demand is constant, they chop birds and bats and they produce less energy than a nuclear power plant using more space which don't benefit nature at all.
    1
  21.  @MartijnMcFly  Yeah like in Texas were they either froze or were shout down to about damage, shere energy would only apply to countries or regions not the entire planet. So because windows kill birds is ok for windmills to do it right.
    1
  22. Enrichment is done using Centrifugal isotope separators no reactors .
    1
  23. Uranium mining isn't clean just as mining of the mineral for renewables also is not clean, nuclear is cheaper than solar thermal, wind offshore photovoltaic, advanced coal with CSS,advanced coal and biomass, also is not possible to make neither weapons grade plutonium or uranium with a power reactor, and current there's no cost effective solution to store great amounts of power with losing power or other problems.
    1
  24. Source?
    1
  25.  @baymax1  Source to back up you claim dude no source for the diamonds.
    1
  26. Thorium reactor are nuclear.
    1
  27. So just 3% of all nuclear waste needs permanent storage because it is high level waste, the best option is to vitrify it and then put in in to a cooper capsule and the to geo storage.
    1
  28. Fusion is possible yes, can be used as a source of energy no yet.
    1
  29. Fusion dont work yet, hydrogen is great but its production is still a problem.
    1
  30.  @maliksalem1207  Is Al Gore a scientist? no so its claims dont matter also he lacks the evidence to support its claims. Not at all.
    1
  31. "This video is bullshit" proceeds to to cry instead of providing counter evidence.
    1
  32.  @AmericanRustWorker3369  Wow the worst nuclear disaster in history wasn't even close to the death toll of fossil per year which is around 7 million and nuclear is the dangerous one.
    1