Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Fossil Fuel Free
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-26-2021, 02:33 AM   #21 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 10,500
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,277 Times in 1,131 Posts
At this stage, I consider hydrogen as "specialized" as LNG.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-26-2021, 12:47 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,493

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touraeg
Thanks: 253
Thanked 1,093 Times in 744 Posts
Nuclear power can make both zero emission grid electricity for power to charge EVs, power for homes, heat for homes, and hydrogen for hydrogen zero emission cars and trucks. It's 1000 times safer than oil drilling, proven 80 year old technology, and could in the matter of a few years supply all the world's needs.

Makes me think it's not really about zero emissions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 01:11 PM   #23 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
alexshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Kyiv, UA
Posts: 93

Auris - '16 Toyota Auris
Team Toyota
90 day: 43.58 mpg (US)

Hyundai - '20 Hyundai i30
90 day: 23.67 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
Nuclear power can make both zero emission grid electricity for power to charge EVs, power for homes, heat for homes, and hydrogen for hydrogen zero emission cars and trucks. It's 1000 times safer than oil drilling, proven 80 year old technology, and could in the matter of a few years supply all the world's needs.

Makes me think it's not really about zero emissions.
1. Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shown that it is not safe.
2. The global plan for zero emission is not purely about emission, but more about recoverable sources and energy independence. Nuclear is not recoverable.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 02:04 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,493

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touraeg
Thanks: 253
Thanked 1,093 Times in 744 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexshock View Post
1. Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shown that it is not safe.
2. The global plan for zero emission is not purely about emission, but more about recoverable sources and energy independence. Nuclear is not recoverable.
Is the harm from the only and worst accidents you can list as bad as the harm from climate change? These were early technology and in the case of Japan stupidly placed, like really, really stupid. It like saying we can't have BEV cars because a few earlyTeslas and Bolts have burned down.

Why wouldn't nuclear be good for energy independence? Or do you mean it's about going back to the stone age where all energy was human or animal powered? Independence from all artificial energy. How are solar or wind any more recoverable than nuclear? Do those panels and mills just grow on trees?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 02:17 PM   #25 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
alexshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Kyiv, UA
Posts: 93

Auris - '16 Toyota Auris
Team Toyota
90 day: 43.58 mpg (US)

Hyundai - '20 Hyundai i30
90 day: 23.67 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
Is the harm from the only and worst accidents you can list as bad as the harm from climate change? These were early technology and in the case of Japan stupidly placed, like really, really stupid. It like saying we can't have BEV cars because a few earlyTeslas and Bolts have burned down.

Why wouldn't nuclear be good for energy independence? Or do you mean it's about going back to the stone age where all energy was human or animal powered? Independence from all artificial energy. How are solar or wind any more recoverable than nuclear? Do those panels and mills just grow on trees?
Panels and mills are not the energy source, more like a tool for transformation.
In order to avoid any arguing, just put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 02:33 PM   #26 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9,739

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 28.24 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.18 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 14.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,348
Thanked 3,686 Times in 2,762 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexshock View Post
1. Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shown that it is not safe.
Is "safe" a binary condition? What things in the world are 100% safe, or 100% unsafe?

Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly show 2 ways in which accidents involving nuclear power generation can occur, and nothing more.

Fukushima is the 2nd worst nuclear disaster in history and it killed... zero people.

What metric do we use to determine if something is "safe"? If people fall of wind turbines and die, do we say they are unsafe? How about the roof of houses while installing solar? Do people that die in construction accidents building dams prove they are unsafe?

A skilled thinker would evaluate safety in terms of deaths per x number of delivered terawatt hours, and that skilled person would find nuclear has about the fewest deaths per delivered energy.

If nuclear is "not safe", then nothing is.

Quote:
2. The global plan for zero emission is not purely about emission, but more about recoverable sources and energy independence. Nuclear is not recoverable.
That's a dumb global plan then, because it should be about delivering energy humans need to flourish.

As an aside, zero things in the universe are recoverable. Entropy will scatter everything.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to redpoint5 For This Useful Post:
Hersbird (10-28-2021)
Old 10-26-2021, 03:52 PM   #27 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,574

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
Thanks: 69
Thanked 651 Times in 412 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Quote:
1. Chernobyl...
You wouldn't even be allowed to build such a dangerous reactor type in the west.
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 05:28 PM   #28 (permalink)
High Altitude Hybrid
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Gunnison, CO
Posts: 922

Avalon - '13 Toyota Avalon HV
90 day: 40.45 mpg (US)

Prius - '06 Toyota Prius
Thanks: 490
Thanked 273 Times in 202 Posts
Any form of energy has a degree of "danger."

Even a AAA alkaline battery can, in the right conditions (stuck in jar with paperclips and hole punches) cause a fire, which could cause a house to burn down or even an entire city.

Sometimes the "most dangerous" forms of energy become the safest because so much more attention goes into safety features that prevent a disaster.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2021, 06:17 PM   #29 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 10,500
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,277 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary View Post
Sometimes the "most dangerous" forms of energy become the safest because so much more attention goes into safety features that prevent a disaster.
That's a good point. Well, sometimes I look at fuels trying to figure out what would be the most "dumbproof" one for instance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2021, 01:10 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,493

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touraeg
Thanks: 253
Thanked 1,093 Times in 744 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexshock View Post
Panels and mills are not the energy source, more like a tool for transformation.
In order to avoid any arguing, just put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
And a nuclear power plant is just the tool to transform it's energy source. Which happens to be 100% zero emissions all by itself.

Trust me, it will be the actual main energy source that is used 100 years from now when fossil fuels are depleted and wind and solar can't maintain the ever growing global demand.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com