Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Just_a_fan]

I think the thing with renewables is that a full and decent mix is required. PV where there is good sun, wind and wave where they are plentiful. Tidal can be done in a huge number of places although tidal ranges vary massively around the world.

I still hold out hope (and believe it is inevitable) that Nuclear will return to favour again.

You and I both!

Me too!

Sadly, nuclear is politically unpopular. Which is shame as it's the safest proper power supply.

[Andres125sx]

I still hold out hope (and believe it is inevitable) that Nuclear will return to favour again.

You and I both!

Me too!

Sadly, nuclear is politically unpopular. Which is shame as it's the safest proper power supply.

Agree, but we can´t ignore the reason it´s unpopular, Chernobyl and Fukushima are two obvious examples about the inherest risks, and the radiactive waste products wich will be radiactive for thousands years can´t be ignored either.

Anycase if we´re not prepared to reduce drastically our energy demands, wich we aren´t, nuclear is the best option, but only while clean energy generation is developed further

[Andres125sx]

Newest solar project. $0,0161 for a kWh.

That makes you go 100km in a Tesla for 30 cents. Seems pretty viable to me.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/03/ ... ign=buffer

But only if you don't have to lay a big long cable from Saudi Arabia to your own country's electricity grid. Presumably the project is for domestic consumption.

...

Well there are different ways to transport electrons. Good news is, there are more sunny countries on earth than just Saudi. But is shows what is possible nowadays

The good thing about renewable energy like PV and wind, is we don´t need a huge plant to make it profitable like nuclear, coal or even hydro. Anyone can install his own PV panels or wind turbines for his own consuption, so there´s no need at all to transport electrons from Arabia or anywhere, we can produce it at home with no transport needed

And even better, big companies/countries with petrol/gas interest can´t stop that either, so IMHO that´s the future.

Obviously not everybody can intall the necessary PV panels for his own use, but a lot of people can, and that will reduce energy demands in the grid drastically, so probably current energy production will be enough even if we get rid of coal and other polluting energies.

[Just_a_fan]

You and I both!

Me too!

Sadly, nuclear is politically unpopular. Which is shame as it's the safest proper power supply.

Agree, but we can´t ignore the reason it´s unpopular, Chernobyl and Fukushima are two obvious examples about the inherest risks, and the radiactive waste products wich will be radiactive for thousands years can´t be ignored either.

Anycase if we´re not prepared to reduce drastically our energy demands, wich we aren´t, nuclear is the best option, but only while clean energy generation is developed further

S'funny, but both of those show how safe nuclear actually is.

In Chernobyl, they deliberately turned stuff off (in order to try to put together a safety response, ironically), and it still didn't kill anyone outside of the plant. Obviously some people in the plant and those who tried to sort the problem/fight the fire died.

Fukushima was subjected to an earthquake greater than it was designed for, and then was hit by a tsunami, and it still didn't cause mass deaths etc.

It's a testament to the level of safety that even poorly run reactors are subjected to, that they haven't been mass killers.

I like the idea of the self contained, compact reactors that have been discussed recently. Effectively a box with a nuclear power plant in it that can be craned in to place and is almost ready to go.

[subcritical71]

S'funny, but both of those show how safe nuclear actually is.

Many more things we need to worry about killing us first before Nuclear becomes a real concern.

[Andres125sx]

Me too!

Sadly, nuclear is politically unpopular. Which is shame as it's the safest proper power supply.

Agree, but we can´t ignore the reason it´s unpopular, Chernobyl and Fukushima are two obvious examples about the inherest risks, and the radiactive waste products wich will be radiactive for thousands years can´t be ignored either.

Anycase if we´re not prepared to reduce drastically our energy demands, wich we aren´t, nuclear is the best option, but only while clean energy generation is developed further

S'funny, but both of those show how safe nuclear actually is.

In Chernobyl, they deliberately turned stuff off (in order to try to put together a safety response, ironically), and it still didn't kill anyone outside of the plant. Obviously some people in the plant and those who tried to sort the problem/fight the fire died.

Fukushima was subjected to an earthquake greater than it was designed for, and then was hit by a tsunami, and it still didn't cause mass deaths etc.

It's a testament to the level of safety that even poorly run reactors are subjected to, that they haven't been mass killers.

I like the idea of the self contained, compact reactors that have been discussed recently. Effectively a box with a nuclear power plant in it that can be craned in to place and is almost ready to go.

According to the UN more than 4000 people died because of the radiation exposure, and that´s only deaths.Affected people is, depending on the source, between 100,000 and 800,000. I´d say that´s a mass killer mate

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2019 ... death-toll

Anycase I was not saying nuclear is specially dangerous (after posting this link now I feel like a cynic tough), only that we can´t ignore if s**t happens, it will ruin the area for centuries, and that´s a big con to take into account.

Apart from the radiactive waste products wich we are digging like if that´s safe enough.... when they will be dangerous for thousands years and none can guarantee the contention will be safe for thousands years

[strad]

the radiactive waste products wich will be radiactive for thousands years can´t be ignored either.

Very true Andres. Look at the sickness and deaths coming from the clean up at places like Hanford Wa.
Early power plants were placed in risky places and that didn't help their reputation. Seriously, right on a fault line??

[Just_a_fan]

Apart from the radiactive waste products wich we are digging like if that´s safe enough.... when they will be dangerous for thousands years and none can guarantee the contention will be safe for thousands years

That's another benefit of the mini-reactors. They're in a box so can just be stored. Much less kit associated with them too so much less secondary waste.

Let's not forget that the early nuclear power plants weren't really power plants. They were factories for making nuclear weapon-grade fissile material. The electrical power was the way of selling these things to the public.

If you don't need to extract plutonium etc to make bombs, you can choose a design that just makes power. Heck, the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

[izzy]

Apart from the radiactive waste products wich we are digging like if that´s safe enough.... when they will be dangerous for thousands years and none can guarantee the contention will be safe for thousands years

That's another benefit of the mini-reactors. They're in a box so can just be stored. Much less kit associated with them too so much less secondary waste.

Let's not forget that the early nuclear power plants weren't really power plants. They were factories for making nuclear weapon-grade fissile material. The electrical power was the way of selling these things to the public.

If you don't need to extract plutonium etc to make bombs, you can choose a design that just makes power. Heck, the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

do you mean stored after the fuel is spent? has this problem been solved?

istr UK trying to get a new reactor built, admittedly a full size one, and nobody wanting to build it!

[Tommy Cookers]

....the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

these (and afaik all nuclear 'power plants') aren't power plants - they're very expensive space heaters
their major product being 'waste' heating of oceans etc - and power being their minor product

CCGT power plants are about twice as efficient (as nuclear)
burning refuse to fuel CHP is about twice as efficient as nuclear

nuclear plants can be run on non-nuclear fuel - Thorium

[Just_a_fan]

Apart from the radiactive waste products wich we are digging like if that´s safe enough.... when they will be dangerous for thousands years and none can guarantee the contention will be safe for thousands years

That's another benefit of the mini-reactors. They're in a box so can just be stored. Much less kit associated with them too so much less secondary waste.

Let's not forget that the early nuclear power plants weren't really power plants. They were factories for making nuclear weapon-grade fissile material. The electrical power was the way of selling these things to the public.

If you don't need to extract plutonium etc to make bombs, you can choose a design that just makes power. Heck, the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

do you mean stored after the fuel is spent? has this problem been solved?

istr UK trying to get a new reactor built, admittedly a full size one, and nobody wanting to build it!

The reactor-in-a-box units are basically sealed units, unlike the traditional nuclear power stations that have removable fuel rods for refuelling. Obviously, removing high radioactive "spent fuel makes everything close by that's involved in the process in to nuclear waste of some form too. If you can leave the reactor in a safe, spent, state then that's a good outcome. Obviously it's still radioactive so needs to be kept safe, but it's going to be easier than decommissioning a traditional plant.

The problem with the new plant is that the UK Government wants it to be built commercially rather than by the state. As nuclear power is expensive to build, that limits the number of companies that want to / can afford to get involved. If the UK Government wanted to build and own the reactor, rather than rely on private finance, it would have been built by now.

[Andres125sx]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

The reply is too easy. Imagine a terrorist with one of those in your town/city

[Just_a_fan]

....the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

these (and afaik all nuclear 'power plants') aren't power plants - they're very expensive space heaters
their major product being 'waste' heating of oceans etc - and power being their minor product

CCGT power plants are about twice as efficient (as nuclear)
burning refuse to fuel CHP is about twice as efficient as nuclear

nuclear plants can be run on non-nuclear fuel - Thorium

If the aim is to have power production that doesn't generate lots of CO2 - and that's the only reason for going away from coal and gas fuelled power plants - then the efficiency of CCGT isn't relevant. Neither is burning waste.

As for nuclear plants being just "space heaters", a compact "nuke in a box" could be used as a CHP device which would improve the overall efficiency quite markedly. If efficiency is an issue.

[Just_a_fan]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

The reply is too easy. Imagine a terrorist with one of those in your town/city

Imagine a large meteor on your town/city. That's about as likely.

[Andres125sx]

....the world has dozens of compact nuclear power plants that are self contained and as safe as any other power source. They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

these (and afaik all nuclear 'power plants') aren't power plants - they're very expensive space heaters
their major product being 'waste' heating of oceans etc - and power being their minor product

CCGT power plants are about twice as efficient (as nuclear)
burning refuse to fuel CHP is about twice as efficient as nuclear

nuclear plants can be run on non-nuclear fuel - Thorium

Really?, I first heard about thorium in a norwegian serie, Occupied, where a politician try to stop polluting energy generation and replace it with thorium plants, but he´s forced by EU and Rusia to stop it and keep using petrol. The series is about those pressures and how he and some extremists groups handle those pressures.

I had no idea that´s a real posibility