845 miles on a tank of hydrogen

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

At this stage, I consider hydrogen as "specialized" as LNG.

[Hersbird]

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.

[alexshock]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

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.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by alexshock

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?

[alexshock]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

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

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by alexshock

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.

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.

[jakobnev]

1. Chernobyl...

You wouldn't even be allowed to build such a dangerous reactor type in the west.

[Isaac Zachary]

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.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

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.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by alexshock

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.