Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

essentially if it overheats a plug in the bottom melts removing the fuel(thorium mixture (salt)) from the catalyst (plutonium). essentially they cant have a meltdown. its a mess if it screws up, but it only kills and affects a single reactor. 

Not just that but Molten Salt reactors can't actually go critical and meltdown, that isn't just a theory either that was tested back in the 1960s. When the liquid solution gets hot and expands the atomic density goes down and the nuclear reaction slows, heat output drops and remains safe.

 

The emergency drain is more a just in case, or earthquake etc, better to have more safety than less.

 

The other benefit, the main one, is the fuel does not need to be enriched and you can use Neutron Dense "spent fuel" from water cooled reactors and is one of the best options to deal with that waste. Waste output from current reactors is actually extremely small anyway, far far less than it's made out to be. The cooling water is more of an issue than the waste from the reactor itself.

 

The two main reasons we use water cooled reactors today is because the primary funder of the early research was the US Navy who did not like the idea of water reactive salts in Subs (explosion risk), the other factor was political and the Senator who had a major role in the voting of which technology to continue with had a direct interest in the water cooled technology as it was being developed in his State. As is usual everyone standardized on the same technology, that tends to be safer and more economical.

 

What we have today is not the best, safest or cheapest nuclear reactor technology.

[Coaxialgamer]

44 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I love these graphs when they only show exactly what tree huggers want to show. Expand it further and you'll see huge temperature swings when Earth didn't even have any concept of humans, let alone any machinery or fossil fuels...

No one's arguing that there haven't been temperature shifts over the last few million years . Just never so fast.

[mr moose]

I didn't bother reading the thread because it is always the same responses: but power is generated by coal, but electric cars don't go far enough, but they take too long to charge, I can't use an electric vehicle because my head needs the V8 sound etc etc etc.

 

Sure, the power generated by coal still produces CO2, but it's still more CO2 efficient to charge 50 million cars from coal fired power than to refine and burn petrol.  Also the tech has until 2030 to be valid for everyday use.  I can see that easily happening,  and like all laws, if for whatever reason it doesn't it can be repealed. 

 

Basically only if you are blinkered to reality is this a problem.

[Imbellis]

5 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Precisely.  That's actually a huge benefit, despite not seeming like one. Major cities such as paris routinely see pollution peaks during summers or days without much wind. This is dangerous and unhealthy for the people living in such places.

1

Never thought of it that way. That's a pretty good insight.

 

5 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Refer to my response to Vode. Also can you elaborate on places where ev's aren't viable and what makes them not viable? Given there are ev's with similar ranges to gas cars, I'm not sure why the viability would be different based on location

3

My bad, I wasn't meaning to say EVs, but rather just petrol engines overall - namely in situations where energy needs to be retained for later use. The Model 3 battery weighs ~1200 lbs and stores 85 kWH while ~45-72 lbs of gas has 85 kWH of obtainable energy. The only way batteries can have the same range is  Mainly the batteries are the problem. As soon as that is fixed, EVs will be much more viable in 'extreme' conditions.  It also requires quite a bit of power to keep them warm in cool weather, resulting in shorter ranges in cold weather.

6 hours ago, cj09beira said:

you are forgeting a huge thing, on cars the efficiency we get from the engines is a lot lower than what we can get if there are no weight and size restrictions, so even if the electricity came mostly from coal it would still be better than using petrol.

1

Regarding higher efficiencies, the standard coal powerplant has an efficiency of %35 and the motor ~%95, while car engines average around %25.

So the EV's efficiency is ~%33 while the cars' is %25.

Good. However, most electric vehicles weight noticeably more than standard vehicles.

The 2019  Leaf weighs ~3,500 lbs and the Tesla 3 3,800 lbs while diesel cars weigh anywhere from 2500 to 4000. I'll use the Honda Civic at 2,750 lbs.

After this, they basically match up of efficiencies - with electric leading by ~%3.5. Better than nothing, but most people don't see it as being worth the 'premium cost', expensive maintenance, and battery degradation (though the warranties help with the latter problem)

 

And @Drak3, on my mention of CO₂ emissions, thanks for the corrections.

 

Overall, I'm totally for EV, but the technology in the batteries needs to be advanced.

 

 

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Imbellis said:

Never thought of it that way. That's a pretty good insight.

There was also research that came out either early this year or last year that looked at air pollution and brain cognitive function and learning outcomes. Their is an initial link between the two, more research is required, but the going theory is air pollution is making us less intelligent. That along with the known health risks of air pollution should be enough to find ways to make air cleaner where humans are. 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There was also research that came out either early this year or last year that looked at air pollution and brain cognitive function and learning outcomes. Their is an initial link between the two, more research is required, but the going theory is air pollution is making us less intelligent. That along with the known health risks of air pollution should be enough to find ways to make air cleaner where humans are. 

I have anecdotal evidence of this,  I grew up in the country, and when I moved to the city I soon realised that the "simple country folk" line was just an embarrassing coverup for a city dwellers lack of intelligence. 

 

And may we well laugh at those redneck contraptions we see on the internet, I'd like to see city folk try to problem solve like that let alone have the ability to build it too.

[Trik'Stari]

7 hours ago, Vode said:

They scale back on Nuclear power. Burn coal instead. LOL

Thanks to ignorant hippies who start screeching when they hear the word "nuclear", this will likely happen lol

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Just curious, what do you think we're lacking to be ready?

A lot of places in the world haven’t yet had the infrastructure to facilitate long-distance travel in electric vehicles.

 

Tesla Superchargers for instance aren’t in a lot of the world yet

 

Solve that hurdle and I think a lot of the world’s ready 

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

because my head needs the V8 sound etc etc etc.

That’s actually mine.

 

But an in-line 6 instead of a V8

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

That’s actually mine.

 

But an in-line 6 instead of a V8

With a whistlin' turbo.

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

That’s actually mine.

 

But an in-line 6 instead of a V8

 

21 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

With a whistlin' turbo.

As a petrol head I have to admit that nothing compares to a good V8 (or i6), rusty rat rods, classic show ponies, vintage wheels and carby driven pots.  But we must move with times and keep these things as fun stuff for the weekends.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

As a petrol head I have to admit that nothing compares to a good V8 (or i6), rusty rat rods, classic show ponies, vintage wheels and carby driven pots.  But we must move with times and keep these things as fun stuff for the weekends.

I think that’s our plan.

 

Provided regulations doesn’t screw that up

[D13H4RD]

30 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

With a whistlin' turbo.

Turbo? 

 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Turbo

Yeah. The cool guy version of a super.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Yeah. The cool guy version of a super.

Turbo Yoda would be pleased

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Turbo? 

 

OMG, one of my dream cars

 

Too bad a rusted out piece of shit shell will set you back $8000 here

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

OMG, one of my dream cars

 

Too bad a rusted out piece of shit shell will set you back $8000 here

Yeah, the S30Z is a legend and it still looks graceful today. 

 

Too bad I can't get one without blowing a chunk. 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, asus killer said:

i continue to feel like we are not on the same page here. I get that other energies sources cause deaths and btw i'm all for renewable, will never defend coal for example and there is also gas much cleaner. But to the point, there has never been a worst scenario nuclear power plant disaster, up until now they all where controlled in some way. That doesn't mean you could always control it in some future disaster.

Yes people die more from coal, form mine disasters or lung diseases or whatever, but apart from taking global warming too far that you can no longer control it, it's consequences will never be as severe as a uncontrolled nuclear disaster.

 

There are also other considerations, when we say fukushima is controlled, there where contaminated water leaking to the ocean in enormous quantities, nuclear fallout, etc... People in north of Europe surfer till this day the consequences of the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. 

Chernobyl was controlled?

 

What?

 

It was beyond ridiculously bad. Multiple major problems that made the disaster much worse than could happen at a reasonable nuclear power plant. I mean they didn't even bother with a containment vessel, and the roof of the building was flammable... almost as if they deliberately designed it to ensure that as much radioactive material as possible would be carried up into the air with the smoke.

 

As for the consequences of Chernobyl, sure... but there's more nuclear fallout coming from coal power plants. Even if we continue to have Chernobyl-scale accidents regularly, nuclear power would expose the general public to less radiation than coal power does.

[MMKing]

Just more fantasy being scribbled on a pieces of paper in the European bureaucratic mess. These people actually you can increase electric car usage, and cut back on nuclear power. Not to mention the impact battery production has on the environment.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not just that but Molten Salt reactors can't actually go critical and meltdown, that isn't just a theory either that was tested back in the 1960s. When the liquid solution gets hot and expands the atomic density goes down and the nuclear reaction slows, heat output drops and remains safe.

That's common for traditional reactor designs too. RBMK (Chernobyl) is one of the only designs that had it the wrong way around.

 

PS: Technically any operating nuclear reactor is critical. Stuff like control rods and so on is specifically there to keep the reactor critical, by keeping the neutron multiplication factor as close to 1 as possible. That means the nuclear chain reaction continues to generate the same power output over time.

[Master Delta Chief]

I like this move made by the European Parliament their attempt to reduce the CO2 emissions generated by cars. The thing is though, while more electric cars are being produced/created, the demand for energy is still something we should worry about. I posted an article earlier this week about the problems Belgium has in the month of November or for that matter in the winter period. TL;DR:

• Power Plants are taken into maintenance during that period
• Possible power outages in the month of November or just the entire winter
• Electricity imports from Germany and France
• Energy imports not enough to sustain the entirety of the nation
• Power Plants themselves are old and been having many issues in the past few years. 

So, if this had to be true in the winter this time, I would be surprised and yet question myself about whether if green energy at this moment would be able to sustain ourselves in the future. I am pro green-power, but we still need to make sure everyone gets enough electricity at their homes or for that matter in critical areas in general. However, I also think that society in general (including myself) should start to act on our own to minimize the use of electricity (aka becoming a bit more independent of it) or at least turn off things completely when you aren't using it so we can actually use a more proper energy source. But then again, I am energy dependent and so is everyone for that matter. Phasing out nuclear power plants for the moment is not a good idea. If only we could properly re-use that nuclear waste, the issues with it would become less.

 

 In general, the more electric cars, the better. But don't forget about hybrid cars. While they indeed still use fossil fuel (primarily benzine), it is still better then the average diesel/petrol car. 

 

[handymanshandle]

That's a bummer, consider the impact of lithium battery production and how horrible that is for the environment.

For city dwellers I guess EVs make a lot of sense.

[potoooooooo]

8 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

That's a bummer, consider the impact of lithium battery production and how horrible that is for the environment.

For city dwellers I guess EVs make a lot of sense.

You can recycle batteries. You can't recycle CO2 emissions

[handymanshandle]

11 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

You can recycle batteries. You can't recycle CO2 emissions

plants

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

PS: Technically any operating nuclear reactor is critical. Stuff like control rods and so on is specifically there to keep the reactor critical, by keeping the neutron multiplication factor as close to 1 as possible. That means the nuclear chain reaction continues to generate the same power output over time.

Molten Salt reactors don't need Control Rods though, completely different design. Biggest benefit though is not needing enriched fuel though.