- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,466
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
I agree absolutely, but that is an independent issue to methods of powering motor vehicles and energy grids.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree absolutely, but that is an independent issue to methods of powering motor vehicles and energy grids.well the priorities are causing a whole bunch of suffering ... that is except for governments and market leaders.
The order backlog for EV's demonstrates that there is huge demand. Sure, many people are struggling. Many are not. No one has to buy an EV. And the costs are coming down to near parity with with equivalent ICE vehicles.hmmm .... what's more important ... food and shelter for your family .... or an EV?
that is about where most are at in their lives ... they can't afford both .... some are struggling with food and shelter ... much less anything else
well the priorities are causing a whole bunch of suffering ... that is except for governments and market leaders.
Uranium is not that rare. Australia has plenty. Nuclear power is relatively clean once the power station has been built. Modern nuclear power is much safer than older designs. Even the catastrophic event in Japan, Fukushima, did not cause many casualties. Certainly far more died as a result of the tsunami that caused the meltdown.Uranium power stations are immensely expensive to set up and unfortunately one of the rarest materials on the planet.
Plus when they go wrong, they go reeeealy wrong.
Hydrogen is miserable to work with. It is incredibly easy to ignite by a tiny spark, it has a wide range of dangerous air/fuel mix ratio, it will leak through the crystalline structure of plain steel pipework and is hard to store and transport.View attachment 319466
Hi Carl, I like that meme. I think it represents what's called "greenwashing". The carbon cost in the production and subsequent running of some EV's is high, but it is believed this will lessen over time. There's also the possibility of EV's being able to feed back into the grid.
I think they are a better alternative to fossil fuel vehicles, but only where you don't need to travel great distances.
I can't help but think there may be alternative fuels that are better - such as hydrogen - but that these are not economically viable. In other words they wouldn't be able to make enough profit from them.
Anyway, just for fun, I'll put in this meme that I quite like:
One of my lecturers worked at BOC and was responsble for extinguishing a hydrogen fire at the chemical plant which they had not been aware of until someone walked into the invisible flame and suffered serious burnsHydrogen is miserable to work with. It is incredibly easy to ignite by a tiny spark, it has a wide range of dangerous air/fuel mix ratio, it will leak through the crystalline structure of plain steel pipework and is hard to store and transport.
There is a lot of research into how to produce and store hydrogen economically. Right now, about the only practical use is for heavy transport vehicles. Personally, I would avoid hydrogen refueling stations like the plague. I've had to work in an H2 plant just briefly. No thanks.
Uranium isn't that rare with the amounts we use currently, but if we scaled up to replace coal locally (let alone globally) it could be problem.Uranium is not that rare. Australia has plenty. Nuclear power is relatively clean once the power station has been built. Modern nuclear power is much safer than older designs. Even the catastrophic event in Japan, Fukushima, did not cause many casualties. Certainly far more died as a result of the tsunami that caused the meltdown.
I was involved in industrial sales for many years. There were many incidents in many facilities. It was usually human error, at least in the Western world. Compared to the disasters at oil refineries and drilling platforms, nuclear power is safe.
I agree absolutely, but that is an independent issue to methods of powering motor vehicles and energy grids.
The order backlog for EV's demonstrates that there is huge demand. Sure, many people are struggling. Many are not. No one has to buy an EV. And the costs are coming down to near parity with with equivalent ICE vehicles.
No one has to buy an EV.
Yes, EV's are completely useless in extremes, whether it is extreme heat or or extreme cold. They are fine for California all year round but could not survive an Alaskan Winter or Summer in Death Valley.Other thing ... I live in a cold environment and somewhat remote .... if one gets caught in a snow storm .... how long do batteries last? If they get depleted then is there a "mobile" recharge unit that comes out? How does that work?
You have posted this out of ignorance.Uranium isn't that rare with the amounts we use currently, but if we scaled up to replace coal locally (let alone globally) it could be problem.
I admit that I don't know the details...You have posted this out of ignorance.
1kg of coal produces 8 kWh of heat
1kg of mineral oil produces 12 kWh of heat
1kg of Uranium-235 produces 24,000,000 kWh of heat.
Taking into account the processing and enrichment of Uranium to produce fuel pellets, 1kg of Uranium-235 produces the same energy as 14,000 kg of coal. Its a no brainer.
I included that in the above comparison. If it was simply comparing U235 and coal then 1kg of U235 is equivalent to 3,000,000 kg of coalI admit that I don't know the details...
But what is the comparison of tons of yellow cake versus tons on brown coal?
I feel like the comparison of a purified sample of unstable radioactive Uranium versus the limited processing of coal to be ready for burning is significant.
So you did. My mistake.I included that in the above comparison. If it was simply comparing U235 and coal then 1kg of U235 is equivalent to 3,000,000 kg of coal
Nor would they need to be, given the ratio of energy density. Coal is also very necessary for steel production which are are not running out of demand for any time soon. In Australia we are seeing more and more steel frame house construction over timber frame, which is a huge pain for my electrical trade.The uranium mines in northern Australia don't appear to be anything like the scale of our coal mines.
Unfortunately the brown coal we use for power is less useful for steel.Nor would they need to be, given the ratio of energy density. Coal is also very necessary for steel production which are are not running out of demand for any time soon. In Australia we are seeing more and more steel frame house construction over timber frame, which is a huge pain for my electrical trade.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?