Anti-EV idiocy

[Crissa]

It is a serious matter. The numbers involved filter a significant impact.

People have pride in what they do, what they know.

Wasn't good in school, can't stand math's, has a limited vocabulary. But is a decent type who loves fixing cars... or driving trucks. This is everything. Defines them.

They are lost. Will be.

So many cases where preferring ICE is hanging onto their lives.

They can still fix EVs. It's not like brakes and tires have changed. There's less to go wrong.

-Crissa

 

[BillyGee]

I welcome the day when people do a fair apples to apples comparison without having to be told or shamed.

Yeah, everyone loves leaving out how much goes into solar and how ultimately you come close to breaking even with panels if you're lucky. Nuclear is pretty much the only source that produces more than needed to get it going and it's carbon neutral once in operation.

But boomers gonna boomer...

 

[Crissa]

Yeah, everyone loves leaving out how much goes into solar and how ultimately you come close to breaking even with panels if you're lucky. Nuclear is pretty much the only source that produces more than needed to get it going and it's carbon neutral once in operation.

But boomers gonna boomer...

What?

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

-Crissa

 

[BillyGee]

What?

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

-Crissa

Those are both about carbon emissions, it's why I specifically stated energy generation compared to energy invested. Nuclear is the greenest there is in terms of efficiency and carbon generation per kW.

Even in the doc you just posted nuclear produces 13 carbon units per lifecycle operation and solar produces 43. Whoever made that clearly has a chip on their shoulder because they put it under "non-renewables" when there's a recovery process for spent cores and a repletion rate of they're stored correctly.

The cold war ended and reactors have improved dramatically. We won't solve the need problem of everyone connecting their car to the grid without nuclear being considered.

 

[Crissa]

Yes, nuclear is non-renewable because you cannot create more uranium.

You can only concentrate bits left behind.

-Crissa

 

[BillyGee]

Yes, nuclear is non-renewable because you cannot create more uranium.

You can only concentrate bits left behind.

-Crissa

https://www.ans.org/news/article-18...ble-with-extraction-of-uranium-from-seawater/

The tech is evolving, and that is on top of creating more energy per unit invested and producing less carbon. Solar is a great bridge and wonderful for small scale (like on my roof and in my garage), but you'll never provide stable grid energy to a city with an intermittent source, no matter how much storage you have.

It really is the solution needed for the volumes of energy needed to help move everyone to EVs.

 

[Bill906]

The cold war ended and reactors have improved dramatically.

The Cold War may have ended, but the real wars to follow are what I’m worried about.

https://world-nuclear.org/informati...-z/ukraine-russia-war-and-nuclear-energy.aspx

 

[SwampNut]

First time I’ve heard someone classify nuke as non renewable. Solar is also non renewable since the sun is just a fission plant and will run out too.

 

[BillyGee]

First time I’ve heard someone classify nuke as non renewable. Solar is also non renewable since the sun is just a fission plant and will run out too.

People also selectively forget that cadmium and lithium need to come from somewhere. The return for materials mined is absurd on uranium.

 

[SwampNut]

I don’t know why people seem so unconcerned with bleeding the sun dry of all its energy.

 

[charliemagpie]

Sun shades should be mandatory to preserve the Sun.


Go California.. You can do IT !

 

[SwampNut]

I just realized I typed "fission" instead of fusion. Now I feel dumb.

But, not as dumb as the person who asked me this today: "What are you going to when Trump gets re-elected and gas becomes $1.50 again?"

Whoooooooboy, I wish I'd had some extra time for live 3D trolling, but was running late.

 

[Crissa]

https://www.ans.org/news/article-18...ble-with-extraction-of-uranium-from-seawater/

The tech is evolving, and that is on top of creating more energy per unit invested and producing less carbon. Solar is a great bridge and wonderful for small scale (like on my roof and in my garage), but you'll never provide stable grid energy to a city with an intermittent source, no matter how much storage you have.

It really is the solution needed for the volumes of energy needed to help move everyone to EVs.

That's still non-renewable. There's only so much available.

But, not as dumb as the person who asked me this today: "What are you going to when Trump gets re-elected and gas becomes $1.50 again?"

Whoooooooboy, I wish I'd had some extra time for live 3D trolling, but was running late.

I ask if they remember what he did to the economy to make that happen.

-Crissa

 

[SwampNut]

Yeah, I really really wanted to explore this, but had to be somewhere.

 

[BillyGee]

That's still non-renewable. There's only so much available.

You can say the exact same thing about the lithium in batteries, cadmium in solar panels, copper in power lines, even the iron in wind turbines. It all has to be mined and eventually all of these systems need repair and/or replacement.

The best part is that you don't get anywhere near the same return on your energy invested with any of these as you do with nuclear, it's not even close.

I have a degree in physics and all the naysaying from older people who were taught to fear nuclear outright and all the young people who were raised by them drives me insane. It's the best solution we've ever made for true energy independence with no oil needed, but noooooOoOooo... Instead we just get stuck with half measures.