Comments by "Michael Lenczewski" (@kayakMike1000) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1.  @PyroManZII  most of what you're saying only accurate for older uranium light water reactors. Uranium can be created by breeding Thorium which is currently a throwaway waste material from mining rare earth metals. This might kick the can down the road by several tens of thousands of years. Also waste products from newer LFTRs contain much less long lived radioactive products and really takes around 100 years to be less radioactive than uranium fuel itsself. Transuranic Radioactive byproducts can largely be recycled in this reactor design, old fuel that is currently in storage could be used in these designs.
    15
  2.  @PyroManZII  nah, you're a Karen because you gotta have the last word. You can say anything you want. I'm gonna go have a beer and forget I ever had this conversation. Life is short and you are insignificant.
    5
  3.  @PyroManZII  power density. Solar and wind take up too much space. Reactors and the odd rare earth metal mine won't chop up all the birds or displace desert ecosystems.
    4
  4. Vaccine propaganda for tracking nanites!
    4
  5. Yes. The trickiest part is to get everything to fail at roughly the same time.
    3
  6.  @PyroManZII  no amount of renewable research will ever beat nuclear, sorry. Your renewable technology is shite and more damaging to the environment than you realize.
    3
  7.  @PyroManZII  No, I am saying your points are pretty easy to disprove with an internet search. I have better things to do with my time than talk to you or any other Karen. You're a worthless internet troll. Go read more and you might someday have a qualified opinion.
    3
  8. Rapid climate change is NOT happening from anthropogenic CO2. There is no evidence of these claims. All we know for sure is CO2 is increasing and the earth is in an interglacial period. We also know that these so-called climate change scientists are awful at making predictions. Sure once in awhile they get one right, but there were hundreds of other predictions that were wrong. Also... Don't even get me started on RCP 8.5....
    2
  9. Omg... you were my favorite doctor.
    2
  10.  @tjeulink  ok... that "waste" you're so worried about could be used again as fuel it still has lots of fissile material in it. After the previously used fuel is run through a newer reactor the fissile material is much less dangerous for less time. New fissile materials that are created in a breeder reactor use a different nuclear cycle, the spent fuel is again only dangerous for a few centuries rather than 100000 years. The amount of waste is really really really tiny. Being fairly generous on per capita energy usage in the USA, we would have about 100 to 150 olympic sized swimming pools full of the waste after about 80ish years. And thats really generous calculations... not much at all. By the time we get ALOT of waste, we probably would have figured out how to get energy from an aneutronic fusion cycle anyway.
    2
  11.  @PlatinumAltaria  dirty bombs are actually created by purposely putting cobalt in the bomb casing. The cobalt becomes a really nasty radiation source due to neutron activation. It has a half life of about five years, you can't wait the half-lives out in a bunker. Salty bombs are terrible... but you gotta TRY to be evil to make them.
    2
  12. CO2 isn't poisonous .
    2
  13.  @yoboikamil525  well, in concentrations over 10% CO2 is toxic. Then again, H20 is toxic in sufficient quantities, ingested or inhaled. Judging by the number of drowning deaths per year versus the number of CO2 asphixation events per year, I would consider H2O way more dangerous than CO2.
    2
  14.  @yoboikamil525  oh i brought up H2O being a poison because CO2 is a natural normal molecule that only becomes toxic at certain concentrations. CO2 is a good molecule and makes plants grow much better. I generally disagree that CO2 is dangerous at all, though anything can be dangerous given the right circumstances. If we want to feed the world of 10 billion people... farmers might need more CO2 available to help the plants. There are greenhouses that use vertical farming techniques with supplemental CO2 to increase yields by 700%. Some scientists think we are in a CO2 drought, while others suggest that CO2 from humans is tiny compared to CO2 emmitted by oceans fizzing off the gasses from dissolved co2 from volcanic sources. Mainstream thought suggests this is wrong, but mainstream thought also demonized nuclear power.
    2
  15.  @moby1kanob  or not... The only warming that's been found for the last 15 years or so was found by applying retardo math to raw data. Seriously, they purposely report the past as much colder than it really was. The 1930s were the hottest on record. Much hotter than now Check the data yourself. NOAA gets more grants if climate change is an existential threat
    2
  16. The DMT gnomes said its not good for you.
    2
  17. I disagree. Humans are generally nice. Even the ones i disagree with, they are usually pretty civil and polite...
    2
  18. I got my small pox vaccine.
    1
  19. Could this be where oil comes from?
    1
  20. How about... If you really want to be a biological failure, don't have kids. Your genes said.... You had one job...
    1
  21. Hair is not made of cells, it's made of keratin. Sheesh.
    1
  22. It's not good. Good thing though, you can store energy in dirt and sand....
    1
  23. You spent 2000 hours on obvious? Waste of time.
    1
  24. There's nothing to fix guys.
    1
  25. Yes. Tuberculosis. Duh.
    1
  26.  @JusticeGort  nah, I would write a nice letter to your senator or representative indicating support for new generation IV nuclear reactor.
    1
  27.  @JusticeGort  live your life while being 2.2 degrees warmer.
    1
  28. CO2 is not the cause of climate change.
    1
  29. Wait... Mitochondria are smaller...
    1
  30. Doesn't this suggest a slightly different origin for so-called fossil fuels? Perhaps oil deposits are created from some carbon and water from the deep biosphere.
    1
  31.  @cedriceric9730  lysa lycanthropy
    1
  32.  @PyroManZII  i'm not wasting my time internet searching for crap you can just lookup yourself. Read more, Karen.
    1
  33. A proper nuclear reactor makes an equivalent sized solar or wind farm look super tiny. Also, the newest reactor designs could be used as replacement heat sources in metal refining industrial processes
    1
  34.  @Flummizurush  We have largely already mined all the nuclear fuel we need already. We will mine more weather we intend to or not. Nuclear fuel is mined from the same sources as other rare earth metals that are in your cellphone, solar cells, and wind turbines. We are mining nuclear fuel by proxy, the rare earth metal tailings have enough fuel for thousands of years, though I am really hopefull for aneutronic fusion cycle sometime soon.
    1
  35.  @tjeulink  we are using the stuff that works for now. Your lights are on, right? Mostly I think anthropgenic climate change is complete nonsense, if humans are doing anything, we're actuslly making this planet much better, certainly not destroying it. I want the cleanest nuclear energy so the moronic lefties shut their yaps about drowning islands and dying polar bears. (Fact, neither have actually happened)
    1
  36. Agree.
    1
  37.  @zed538  you are capable of using google, right?
    1
  38.  @zed538  there is no real evidence that CO2 actually drives the alleged warming trend. It's more likely the great ball if fusion in the center of the solar system. H2O absorbs the same wavelengths of infrared light, there is so much H2O in the atmosphere, it often precipitates. You semi-intelligent primates call this rain or snow. If there were NO CO2 in the air, the H2O would absorb whatever is there.
    1
  39.  @codebreaker1o119  not compelling enough. There is enough evidence to indicate significant bias for the intention to win grant money and publish papers. I have seen standard statistical analysis of temperature data show little to no warming trends. Models predict warming in areas of the atmosphere where none has been observed.
    1
  40.  @jonahmoran3751  Its a very weak greenhouse gas that absorbs the same infrared wavelengths as H2O. If the CO2 weren't there, the infrared would likely get absorbed by H2O anyway. Furthermore, the climate models that insist on GHG forcing predict increases in temperature throughout the layers of the atmosphere that are NOT observed. The models don't match reality. For your next assignment, child, go read the Dunning Kruger effect from psychology, I think you may be a textbook example.
    1
  41.  @yubrajbhoi1986  how would you know how complex air pollution is from radiation cleanup? You're not that intelligent. You have no idea that your average HOSPITAL emits more radioactive isotopes than a commercial nuclear power plant.
    1
  42.  @Mafiadinosaur  yeah, just like the lay person's understanding of basic scientific process. Some of them are at least trying, but there are just as many Trolls.
    1
  43. Sounds like your oncologist f*#$ed up pretty badly. I would slap him in the face and scream, first do no harm.
    1
  44. You're blind if you think the world isn't the best it's been throughout all history. There are people in this world that you take for granted, you don't know how good you have it.
    1
  45.  @lukebytes5366  nope, it's way better than basic decency. People are living longer than ever, many into their 80s and 90s. Death from infection and ironically weather events are at thier all time historic lows despite what you hear in the news. Check the data. Read the facts. There is no existential threat from climate.
    1
  46. SOOO... Did that trick with the chicken heads work?
    1
  47. I disagree. The world is not horrible. Its a really beautiful place
    1
  48. Sigh... there is nothing to solve for climate change. We HAVE the solution.
    1
  49. It will be just like the last ten years.
    1
  50. 75% of all matter is still hydrogen, dudes. Far far from mostly used up.
    1