Reinvestment into agricultural equipment would be very expressive. Also the lack of range on EVs is a problem. In the US and Australia you could have to drive over 200 miles when you do your shopping.
On the Urban side decentralization of agriculture and manufacturing would massively reduce carbon impact. Urban agriculture and on demand manufacturing are possible solutions to that issue. Would also heavily increase the nutritional options for the Urban poor.
I agree if you want to drive across Australia in a EV car you would need a tow truck a lot. It needs a lot of R&D into range from the vehicles.
On a farm ie agricultural equipment etc well yes the machine wound have to park and charge.
They need power to start up. I have seen a single sub brown out an entire Pacific island.
Not talking about fuel. Everything that touches the primary plant is radioactive waste. Neutron and Gama radiation can activate other materials and make them radioactive. Iron, magnesium and cobalt all have that problem.
If you have to repair or replace a valve everything you replaced is radioactive material. Nuts, gaskets lube, packing, containment material, shop wipes the valve itself are all radioactive material.
What does that have to do with anything? You disregarded the cost of my original point.
First China has never been able to build a nuclear vessel without a lot of help from the Russians. Two Russia and Japan have tried commercial nuclear propulsion, it wasn’t economical.
Hydrogen, Electrical, etc… are much better solutions commercial sea travel.
Nuclear propulsion is great for military applications because cost/benefit is much different.
12 years of experience in power generation, automation and Energy conservation sure I will be just fine.
You could be rite. I prefer renewables for power.
And the carriers and subs I was talking about are using weapons grade material that has been enriched though the use of a lot of power to start with. But it makes a great transport vehicle of size.
If we apes on the same planet where not hell bent on killing each other we could have nice things.
not an argument
Not relevant if it done by others.
And I wanted to talk not argue with one eye closed.
Not arguing but informing about nuclear propulsion. There are benefits and problems like any other technology.
It doesn’t lend itself to commercial use for a wide variety of reasons already stated.
The security aspect it one of my primary concerns. Subs and carriers have a fully trained and armed security. On subs everyone is trained in security. I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting Port Authority secure a nuclear vessel. I have seen malls with better security than some civilian ports.
Source: I was on and operated a nuclear powered submarine in the Navy. I have college level training and real world experience with this technology.
The Chinese nuclear programs are an out growth of Russian programs. Russia is still heavily involved. Both countries have abysmal safety records.
All ran at a deficit.
I gave you that one for free. But you are correct it most likely not practical since the US has made the world hate them.
Still EV cars are going to be the next thing… The R&D on batteries or cells will make trillions of dollars for the Country or Corporation that patents it.
Super chargers (current Tesla are at 120kW), their cars use anywhere between 20 and 80kw … What would have been a 4 hour non stop one way drive and 4 hour non stop back turned into 5h and 5h with 1h rest each way.
More efficient electric cars with bigger batteries are also possible using today’s tech, majority of people don’t need them.
Agricultural stuff: it won’t change overnight, it’ll affect the price of food because one needs to pay for manufacturing as well as transport; overtime the price of food will end up going down because electric stuff is more efficient, more reliable and not dependent on oil. On equipment, batteries will need to be swapped or charged in between.