November 7, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, greenskeeper said: most likely some type of fossil fuel energy source...EVs move the pollution from the tailpipe to a smokestack while adding an additional load to an already margin electrical grid I'm all for drive whatever you want, but if combating "climate change" is so important, then why aren't we building nuclear plants as fast as we can, since nuclear is the only zero emission and 100% reliable energy source? Ah gothca. You see, my EV is powered by clean, renewable energy from the sun that I generate at home, so it's understandable why that would have gone over my head. I sometimes forget that not everyone is as progressive and ahead of the curve as I.
November 7, 20232 yr So no one told you life was going to be this way Your dad's a joke, he's broke, His whole life's been DOJ'd
November 7, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, greenskeeper said: most likely some type of fossil fuel energy source...EVs move the pollution from the tailpipe to a smokestack while adding an additional load to an already margin electrical grid Moving it from the tailpipe to a smokestack centralizes the emissions which allows for more efficient carbon capture methods. And even then, natural gas emissions contain half of the CO2 that coal does. Coal accounts for less than 20% of our energy generation, NG is 40%, renewables and nuclear account for the remaining 40%. Quote I'm all for drive whatever you want, but if combating "climate change" is so important, then why aren't we building nuclear plants as fast as we can, since nuclear is the only zero emission and 100% reliable energy source? This I agree with. There are few times where complex problems have simple solutions, but this is one of them. We should be all in on nuclear if we want to actually do anything meaningful in this regard. Banning straws does nothing but piss people off, this is something that could actually have a real impact but people are stupid because they think what happened in Chernobyl and Fukashima are foregone conclusions rather than engineering design failures.
November 7, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, greenskeeper said: most likely some type of fossil fuel energy source...EVs move the pollution from the tailpipe to a smokestack while adding an additional load to an already margin electrical grid I'm all for drive whatever you want, but if combating "climate change" is so important, then why aren't we building nuclear plants as fast as we can, since nuclear is the only zero emission and 100% reliable energy source?
November 7, 20232 yr 26 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Moving it from the tailpipe to a smokestack centralizes the emissions which allows for more efficient carbon capture methods. And even then, natural gas emissions contain half of the CO2 that coal does. Coal accounts for less than 20% of our energy generation, NG is 40%, renewables and nuclear account for the remaining 40%. This I agree with. There are few times where complex problems have simple solutions, but this is one of them. We should be all in on nuclear if we want to actually do anything meaningful in this regard. Banning straws does nothing but piss people off, this is something that could actually have a real impact but people are stupid because they think what happened in Chernobyl and Fukashima are foregone conclusions rather than engineering design failures. I have very limited knowledge on this topic but my limited understanding is that the issue with nuclear power is that once the reaction is started it continues until the reactive matter is used up. This means that it cannot be readily adjusted to meet demand needs like other sources (coal, hydro, natural gas, etc.) can. So there is a practical limit on what percentage of our power can come from nuclear.
November 7, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Imp81318 said: I have very limited knowledge on this topic but my limited understanding is that the issue with nuclear power is that once the reaction is started it continues until the reactive matter is used up. This means that it cannot be readily adjusted to meet demand needs like other sources (coal, hydro, natural gas, etc.) can. So there is a practical limit on what percentage of our power can come from nuclear. This is not exactly true. With the control rods inserted, the neutron flux across the fuel elements is minimal. Additionally, the isotopes in the fuel matrix have long half lives and the rate of spontaneous fission is low. During operation, reactor power will follow demand on the system (increased electrical load leads to increased steam demand on turbines, leading to a larger amount of heat energy drawn from the primary coolant at the steam generators leading to colder (more dense/higher neutron mediation coolant) which leads to more fissions and rate of fuel exhaustion. Note: this is the theory for closed loop pressurized water reactors, which applies to many reactors in the US. Similar theory applies to other reactor types, but with different moderators (boiling water reactors, etc). Some commercial plants will cap total power and control fuel exhaustion using the height of the neutron absorbing control rods.
November 7, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Imp81318 said: I have very limited knowledge on this topic but my limited understanding is that the issue with nuclear power is that once the reaction is started it continues until the reactive matter is used up. This means that it cannot be readily adjusted to meet demand needs like other sources (coal, hydro, natural gas, etc.) can. So there is a practical limit on what percentage of our power can come from nuclear. Sort of, you don't have quite as much flexibility as you would with a coal or NG plant, but the reactor designs have improved so much over the last few decades and it's always going to need to be a mix of sources, but that 60% (from fossil fuels) could realistically be reduced down to 20% or even 10%. We don't have the population density to drop fossil fuels entirely, but we can make some serious headway if really wanted to. Gates was trying to pour funding into a company he started called TerraPower because he saw this as such a low hanging fruit that nobody's been willing to touch.
November 7, 20232 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: Sort of, you don't have quite as much flexibility as you would with a coal or NG plant, but the reactor designs have improved so much over the last few decades and it's always going to need to be a mix of sources, but that 60% (from fossil fuels) could realistically be reduced down to 20% or even 10%. We don't have the population density to drop fossil fuels entirely, but we can make some serious headway if really wanted to. Gates was trying to pour funding into a company he started called TerraPower because he saw this as such a low hanging fruit that nobody's been willing to touch. It never ceases to amaze me just how many things you are an expert on. It's truly astounding. A modern day Da Vinci would have nothing on you.
November 7, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: It never ceases to amaze me just how many things you are an expert on. It's truly astounding. A modern day Da Vinci would have nothing on you. Not claiming to be an expert, I just paid attention in my physics classes.
November 7, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Not claiming to be an expert, I just paid attention in my physics classes. I f'n hated physics - but then again my teacher was a tool so that probably had a lot to do with it
November 7, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: I f'n hated physics - but then again my teacher was a tool so that probably had a lot to do with it None of my physics teachers really stood out in a good or bad way, but just something I was always naturally interested in and seem to grasp easily. Until quantum mechanics in college, at least.
November 7, 20232 yr Author 5 hours ago, paco said: Ah gothca. You see, my EV is powered by clean, renewable energy from the sun that I generate at home, so it's understandable why that would have gone over my head. I sometimes forget that not everyone is as progressive and ahead of the curve as I. Gotta hit 80-90k miles on that Mach-E to balance out its environmental impact.
November 7, 20232 yr So, while I did take the layup to do my usual mocking of virtue signalers because they have EVs\Solar, this is a good article about the break even point of when EVs become a net positive on carbon vs traditional ICE vehicles. TL;DR: It depends on source of electricity (duh) and size of vehicle (duh). But overall, they all "produce" less CO2 over time, even if the electricity comes from coal.
Create an account or sign in to comment