hey guys go 
! So like I said, I favor nuclear power over any other form of electrical power. @Zedicus, @wertigon
1 Like
watch me offend a bunch of people in 1 short point.
the only thing dirty about nuclear power is its reputation, while lithium is living a good life even though it destroys more rain forest annually than you-know-whos emerald mines ever did.
i can tack on that âdirtyâdieselâ actually causes less harm to the environment, when used responsibly, then what âelectrical vehiclesâ and the development of the network to support them could save in a hundred lifetimes.
7 Likes
gotta get to the WHY of it though, launching pellets at the guy aint gonna win him over, just gonna give him welts.
welcome to the internet, where the topics are irrelevant, and the goals may not be âto win someone over.â
1 Like
Your actions have a direct impact on everyoneâs lives.
Like it or not.
like for the planet?
i drive a efficiency modified Scioxn XB. sometimes i ride my bicycle to work. i pick up things other people throw away and repair or make things out of them.
maybe you meant for my community?
i drove a several million dollar grant to bring reliable internet to my community.
maybe you meant âon the internetâ?
i do not sugar coat things, but i do not make stuff up or go out of my way to upset people. speak facts, and do what you say you will.
What mods?
Yeah, you would need an electric truck that can haul long distances, whoever is crazy enough to build that? BYD, Tesla, Scania, Volvo off the top of my head. I am sure other brands exist.
Magic batteries are already a thing with EVs out there reaching a range of 600 miles, but electric highways will be the real game changer here. Drive for 200 miles, charge for 20, drive for another 200, charge 20. Without stopping. Add in a self driving AI and highway shipping will be radically different in 2030.
Tesla Semi is particularly interesting here, since it will not even need those charging highways.
Add to the fact that Agrivoltaics are a thing and can be installed on farm land while giving crops shade and without sacrificing crop farmland, well, you would be crazy not to install solar panels on your crop fields.
No. I expect it to take far less time. By 2030 quite a few, if not most of the people in your neighborhood will have installed solar panels, batteries and a few wind powerplants. That will power pretty much everything on the farm. Tractors will have been rebuilt to be powered electronically if not outright scrapped, since the farmers not going electric will have both more toxic (due to diesel fumes) and more expensive (due to fuel and maintenance costs) produce. All gas driven tools are also removed. You will have something similar to the Ford F150 Lightning to power any power tools not already going on a battery, and it will power a few spare batteries if nothing else.
You may think me a loonie, but no, all the tech listed above is out there, in mass production, and exist today. Some might be a bit expensive at the moment, most really isnât.
Then there is stuff like lab grown meat and which is halving in price every 24 months. If you think that isnât going to brutally decimate the livestock industry, I got a bridge to sell.
Nuclear is safe, reliable, stable⊠And horribly expensive in a world powered by solar, wind and batteries.
Any proponent of Nuclear first need to watch these two videos which explains just why Nuclear, and the entire concept of baseload, is going to be phased out in the next decade.
Still sceptic, look at Australia which is rapidly replacing baseload coal for SWB grids. Look at what is happening in California and China. We can argue until the moon falls down, but 2020-2035 will be remembered as the most transformative period ever.
And the best part of it? It is inevitable this will happen.
share the coolaid man, there is not a single bit of data that even hints at anything other than diesel still being the primary farm fuel in 2030. my opinion? The ICE engine will still be the PRIMARY use engine, however the FUEL used in them will have been altered SIGNIFICANTLY into either synthetic-hybrid, or fully synthetic fuels that burn with near 0 green house emissions.
When I use E85 in my 4x4 5.0L V8 Ford F-150, Iâm using less fossil fuels than a Toyota Prius, and causing less mining damage than a Tesla.
Corn FTW. Itâs got the juice.
1 Like
By 2030 no new ICE vehicles will be sold in any car store, neither will diesel tractors.
Will we be 100% electric then, no. We are at 4-6 % of the fleet being electric now and with a conversion rate of 5% a year. So, by 2030 we will be maybe at 50% BEV / PHEV of the US fleet. Probably more like 40%. Some places will be more and some less.
By 2035 I expect it to be somewhere between 70%-95% though, since people will not want to drive long distances to refuel, by that point petrol and diesel machines are just inconvenient so most will be looking for a way out.
As for synthetic or biofuel⊠If there was economy in it donât you think farmers would already do it in a sufficiently large scale? We donât have the biomass to make it economically feasible.
There is plenty of data, but I fear most of it will be taken as âwoke green propagandaâ, whatever that means.
Believe it or not, this is why it is inevitable; itâs simply cheaper, more efficient and more affordable. And as the petrol and diesel vehicles get more and more expensive to maintain, the better off the electric future will seem like.
At the end of the day, I donât need to do anything but lean back, munch popcorn, and watch this unfold, it really is fascinating, like watching a slow motion demolition. This is why I donât really care either way what you think. It is already inevitable, now. The fuse of the cannon is lit, all that is left is watching how far the ball will fly. But I am happy to help a fellow man prepare for the brand new world, too. 
Why isnât nuclear considered green? In my country the invested cost and upkeep of wind and solar (they produce about 10-15% of demand last time I checked) has far outweighed that of nuclear power plants when theyâve been around much longer and growing up I was thought nuclear has a lot of issues with sourcing the materials and the horrible waste it produces but those are old reactors from like the 80s. None have been built since. Thereâs been advancements in waste management since and thereâs also thorium reactors from what I gather are safer and the materials are much easier to source but were always dismissed. A lot of it goes over my head because my brain is empty and my expertise is mostly minecraft modpacks so I dunno⊠is it really just because itâs technically a fossil fuel?
If green means ârenews within civilisations existenceâ, then it is not.
The arguments against nuclear are:
-
In case of a containment breach, you potentially have a âbeyond human mindâ-time frame issue on your hands
-
High-Tech (= super expensive to build, operate and dispose off)
-
Weaponizable (yes, anything nuclear, including Th-based reactors, can be made into weapons of sorts)
-
Mining process is more difficult than regular heavy-metal mining
-
Priority-Target in case of war or terrorism
Pro Nuclear:
-
The electricity/heat production process does not produce any emissions (except for waste heat)
-
constant (except for refueling, lack of cooling water) power generation
-
Small reactors can in theory be air-cooled (= deployed anywhere)
Keep in mind, these points have very different weights to them.
Also keep in mind most of the âthe final nuclear solution magical doohickeyâ systems have not even reached large scale prototype stage.
The waste problem remains a difficult one. France is experimenting with Pu-based fuel rods, results are not public as far as I know. Germany has an underground medium-hot storage site with a water ingress issue. Finnland has an operational storage for highly radioactive waste in Granite.
My personal take:
The latest reactor in the west to go online has cost 30 billion USD.
At 1.1 GW, to cover the needs of my country, you would have to build 1500 billion (= 1.5 trillion) dollars worth of that type reactors here.
The fact the rivers and cost lines here can not support 50 reactors aside, every other electricity source is cheaper than that.
Until a colorful mixture of electricity sources is found to be satisfying (because there is no magical one-does-everything solution), how about some laws to reduce idiotic energy waste like slapping wireless and a screen into every paper clip?!
2 Likes
You must live on Mars with Elon. Earth is a lot different.
1 Like
To better answer, I would distinguish two categories in energy: green and renewable.
Green energy is an energy that do not emit any GES to produce energy. So nuclear would be green along hydro, solar and wind.
While renewable energy is, as the the names implies, renewable, so there is no finite amount. In that case, nuclear is not renewable.
I think that people often equates renewable to green, hence why nuclear is often not consider green. And because of that misequation, some people thinks also bioenergy by burning wood pellets is green, which is completely ridiculous because it emits GES, the very thing we need to emit less. But often, I think people consider green as like true green, so an energy that is green AND renewable, which nuclear is not. So ya that would explain why nuclear is not consider as green.
Iâm not against nuclear, but I always find it intriguing when people say we need to go all in into nuclear. We do need nuclear to put all the chances on our side to reduce as quickly as possible GES, so we must not close any nuclear plants (unless there is a serious safety issue), but to go in a nuclear building craze is not a great option.
The cost of a Kwh produced by nuclear is crazy expensive. Plus, as shown last summer, nuclear power energy generation is affected by climate change. They had to reduce the power of some plants in France because the river water they were using to cool down the plants was getting too warm with the scorching summer. Any new nuclear power plants should be built next to the ocean if we donât want there power generation to be affected by climate change.
3 Likes
ok this is just the reason I spawned this off into itâs own thread. @cityle I have no idea where youâre getting your info, but youâre dead wrong. There are considerably more radioactive fuels available than uranium oxide that the 1980s LWRs use. And yes, I agree that at the scale they were most currently built in, itâs not cost efficient. Thatâs financially undeniable, there are start ups here in the USA currently experimenting with very small air cooled much more advanced reactors that are modular, and much cheaper. In so far as danger, our own nuclear industry is guilty of attempting to demonize nukes to get that sweet federal money for it in perpetuity.
Are we including molten salt reactors within nuclear? Because in theory molten salt can address these downsides
Fair enough, the fukushima meltdowns were caused by poor maintenance and adherence to schedules. In the worst case for a coal/natural gas or wind/solar, things catch on fire and no one has electricity
Molten salt can recycle waste products
Thereâs a thread for this if you all want another rabbit hole
you can recycle uranium oxide via mechanical and chemical means. We could recycle the fuel we use ALREADY. We donât because âoooh nuclear waste SCARYYYWHOOOâ
2 Likes