We could not have had electric cars for 50 years because there were no viable electric cars 50 years ago. The lack of electricity was not the reason.
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap. Modern reactors (those that are actually good and don’t explode and don’t produce eternal poison) are so expensive that no energy company wants to build them (unless they get a shit ton of subsidies).
If we build more reactors 50 years ago we would have a lot of 50 year old reactors that were designed to last less than 50 years. And upgrading or demolishing them is expensive as fuck.
To back up your claim about EV non-viability, I would point to the ~2000 Ford Ranger. While the GM EV-1 gets the spotlight, it was a weird car with a specific purpose. The Ranger, on the other hand, was a very normal vehicle with an EV powertrain shoved in where the gasoline wasn’t. A few hundred were made. It used lead acid batteries, the only viable option at the time. NiMH and NiCd weren’t good for the amperage needed and were expensive by comparison. The Ranger had about a 60 mile range at best and I think 60mph top speed. Great for parks and municipal trucky things, not great for the gen pop. That’s just 25 years ago. Sure, one could argue that the main manufacturers could have done better with actual dedication and less comfort with cheap gasoline, but it doesn’t change that lithium wasn’t commercially viable yet. No other magical source could have appeared either, as even with the current EV push, Li-ion is still the top choice.
Solar only works when there’s sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it’s important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn’t for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.
Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!
most reliable
Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks.
Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.
least harmful
How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?
Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.
About safety: Nuclear reactors don’t really have many problems, there were literally 2 incidents in the last…idk 100 years lol, 1 was because of a tsunami, the other was because some stupid idiot thought “okay let’s put unprepared people to do stuff to the reactor” and also said reactor wasn’t as secure as modern reactors.
Nuclear energy overall do less harm than fossil ever did and some want to switch from uranium to torium which is more safe, solar energy isn’t that great, low efficency, high maintance and take up a lot of space, moreover, the discussion about plants is stupid because it does not mention the amount of electricity used daily by millions of human.
Currently, I would say that hydroelectric power is the most worthwhile renewable energy source, followed by wind power.
In any case, we are talking about using more nuclear energy, not just nuclear energy, so the argument of decentralisation does not hold much water.
(I would add that nuclear power stations are much smaller nowadays, but more are being built, see France).
That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.
I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.
We could not have had electric cars for 50 years because there were no viable electric cars 50 years ago. The lack of electricity was not the reason.
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap. Modern reactors (those that are actually good and don’t explode and don’t produce eternal poison) are so expensive that no energy company wants to build them (unless they get a shit ton of subsidies).
If we build more reactors 50 years ago we would have a lot of 50 year old reactors that were designed to last less than 50 years. And upgrading or demolishing them is expensive as fuck.
So the problem is capitalism here?
To back up your claim about EV non-viability, I would point to the ~2000 Ford Ranger. While the GM EV-1 gets the spotlight, it was a weird car with a specific purpose. The Ranger, on the other hand, was a very normal vehicle with an EV powertrain shoved in where the gasoline wasn’t. A few hundred were made. It used lead acid batteries, the only viable option at the time. NiMH and NiCd weren’t good for the amperage needed and were expensive by comparison. The Ranger had about a 60 mile range at best and I think 60mph top speed. Great for parks and municipal trucky things, not great for the gen pop. That’s just 25 years ago. Sure, one could argue that the main manufacturers could have done better with actual dedication and less comfort with cheap gasoline, but it doesn’t change that lithium wasn’t commercially viable yet. No other magical source could have appeared either, as even with the current EV push, Li-ion is still the top choice.
What other realistic alternatives do you suggest?
Solar only works when there’s sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it’s important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn’t for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.
Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!
Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks. Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.
How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?
Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.
About safety: Nuclear reactors don’t really have many problems, there were literally 2 incidents in the last…idk 100 years lol, 1 was because of a tsunami, the other was because some stupid idiot thought “okay let’s put unprepared people to do stuff to the reactor” and also said reactor wasn’t as secure as modern reactors.
Nuclear energy overall do less harm than fossil ever did and some want to switch from uranium to torium which is more safe, solar energy isn’t that great, low efficency, high maintance and take up a lot of space, moreover, the discussion about plants is stupid because it does not mention the amount of electricity used daily by millions of human. Currently, I would say that hydroelectric power is the most worthwhile renewable energy source, followed by wind power.
In any case, we are talking about using more nuclear energy, not just nuclear energy, so the argument of decentralisation does not hold much water. (I would add that nuclear power stations are much smaller nowadays, but more are being built, see France).
one of us is confused on definitions. i could have sworn fossil fuels were petroleum derivatives, not fuels with harmful byproducts.
That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.
I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.
aww i love it when i’m not the only confused one