In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I can tell you don't ever actually read anyone's comments, because if you ever asked me direct questions on how I came to my conclusions or what sources I base my opinion on you'd find I'd likely agree with you more often than you think. The "green movement" has been tackling that issue for the last several years; the newer pushes to rebuild ecologies and the explosion on walkable cities/bike paths alone are proof that they're trying to make this for everyone.
This is illustrating my point. Walkable cities/bike paths will not make a material difference in actual emissions. Its hailed as some great initiative that will make a difference but in the massive country it wont. Do I think walkable cities are good? Maybe. Do I think they will make a material difference in emissions? No. The govt will put a bunch of barriers and inconveniences on the individual to live in these walkable cities, while the goods are still trucked in via large diesel truck, and the power is still generated by garbage outdated power plants, and everyone will pretends they are saving the world.
I live in Iowa, which is producing 50% of all it's energy by wind daily. If I continue on my plan to snag used solar panels to ad-hoc a small home cell together, I'll lower that even further.
Even if my car was powered by coal 100% of the time I'm still burning less stuff than a gas car, thus better for the environment. Simple as.
It's been repeated in this thread that gas engines are, at best for Mazda Skyactiv, ~40% or a little more. I'd also like to see your source on the efficiency of the power plant, because while I've found enough from the Department of Energy showing gas turbines are about 30% on average that's for turbines that aren't doing anything else but generating power.
Youre right Iowa makes about 50% of its energy from wind. Problem is wind still uses fossil fuels, last I checked its more than 4 times higher than large scale nuclear, all the while we convinced the public its free and clean. Sure its better than coal and nat gas, I might actually like the reduction in emissions that comes with wind, if it was a decent energy source. Whats not talked about is the massive waste problem we have with solar, we pretend its clean and when these incredibly short lived producers need to be replaced we just bury them in the ground. Dont worry though we are about to be able to recycle them. That doesnt account for the couple decades of waste we have to deal with.
Is your EV actually more efficient?
Straight from the Department of Energy
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/transformative-power-systems#:~:text=The%20average%20coal%2Dfired%20power,States%20operates%20near%2033%25%20efficiency.
The average coal-fired power plant in the United States operates near 33% efficiency
With EVs all we do is move the inefficiency upstream and act like we did something. When we look at the energy efficiency of EVs, we look plug to car, and we dont account for the efficiency loss in creating the electricity before the plug. With an ICE we have the energy creation on board, so we do factor in the efficiency loss in turning fossil fuel into kinetic energy. Doesnt matter if you do it in an ICE or large power plant, using fossil fuels to spin things is inefficient. If we had good and plentiful energy production in this country I would admit EVs can help. but currently all they do is move the fossil fuel burning to poor areas, and we can all be smug and smell our on farts.
When EVs are talking about they are framed in the most positive light. Its propaganda and not actual data.
Department of Energy https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml
EVs are 60% to 73% efficient, depending upon drive cycle. However, if the energy recaptured from regenerative braking is counted (i.e., recounted when it is re-used), EVs are 77% to 100% efficient
Apparently weve beat physics and can reach 100% efficiency. WOOOO Look at us.
That's been done repeatedly in this thread. Curtis even posted and takedowns of propaganda about lithium mining 20 pages ago, and many of the same complaints of EV manufacturing apply to gas as well- did my gas come from a nation dependent on slave labor? How much land was disturbed/destroyed for the iron in my engine block? ect.
Department of Labor
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods/supply-chains/lithium-ion-batteries
Our research shows that lithium-ion batteries are produced with an input—cobalt—made by child labor.
If you scroll down you can click on the report "List of Goods Produced by Child and Forced Labor." They mention batteries a couple times, here's the gist. China processes 85% of the cobalt, most cobalt comes from DRC, China owns about 90% of the mines in DRC, and processes the cobalt to sell as battery components. Yes Tesla is working on removing cobalt from their batteries and the slave labor, last I checked they had only been able to do that for about half of their cars and they are still sourcing battery components from China. The answer to your question is likely much less. There is actual competition in oil, and very little in cobalt, because an authoritarian regime controls the vast majority of it.
Yep. Again, if you ever asked people like myself directly and listened, you'd know I'm firm about that- the climate crisis will likely only be solved partially through carbon taxes or cap and trade systems on top of far more efficient transport and energy generation, though current bills are going to finally move the needle.
You keep complaining about sources, so where are your sources? What bills are going to "move the needle." Cap and trade and carbon taxes wont do anything. They are the same ole same ole, anything is legal if you can afford it. Do you know who can afford it, the largest polluters in the country. The government having money because someone polluted (carbon tax) or a low emitter having money because a big one bought there credits (cap and trade) doesnt actually reduce emissions. You may say with cap and trade they can limit actual total emissions, but you know who has enough money to lobby politicians to make sure their business is still lucrative? The largest polluters. I agree better energy generation would be huge, and might make the switch to EVs worth while, but largely the nation conversation is about using E36 M3 energy production to power EVs.
Could build one? We could build thousands if this nation wanted to, and the green community has taken a HARD 180 on nuclear in recent years thanks to realities- and if you want i'll happily post a half dozen different groups and even public reactor designs made by them, all for the purposes to fight it.
You need pollical capital. You're getting the people, you have technologies to reduce the amount of nuclear waste generated to a single percent of original since the 60s- but you're gonna have to accept your power will be government based, because no corporation will do it, as we've seen over the past few decades.
That was the obvious implication. One EV doesnt change anything. One nuke plant changes a ton. Extrapolate that to thousands and are in a much better place. Dont tell me green movement has 180 on nuclear energy. The polling doesnt show that. The green new deal didnt mention Nuclear energy, instead it focused heavily on solar and wind.
Source Gallup
https://news.gallup.com/poll/474650/americans-support-nuclear-energy-highest-decade.aspx
Opinion is largely flat over the last 3 decades. You can frame it as "highest in a decade" but in reality its the same place it was 30 years ago. Last I checked 2 nuke plants are under construction, both in Georgia. So after 30 years of relatively steady support for nuke, we have 2 projects, so dont tell me we've made a 180, because the data doesnt bear that out. Sure some people have seen the light, but it hasnt resulted in a material difference.
You will not convince me that the people that have largely made nuclear power not viable in the US (the government) are the people that should run the industry. That is the most ass backwards thinking Ive ever heard. Even some of the biggest proponents of a government backed nuclear agenda will admit that the regulatory landscape in the US has led to skyrocketing costs of nuclear while other countries have been more steady or even decreased the cost (South Korea).
Nihilism. You've never tried to look for people who are trying to solve this issue, Like OPEN100, Guys like Ian Scott and his Stable Salt Reactor, or the hordes of nuclear labs across this nation alone. You keep coming back to this thread shouting, but you never link to anything new or display a different option- You're here to prove this to yourself, not to anyone else.
I never said no one is doing anything. Im talking about what is actually happening and what the national conversation is centered around, which is largely BS that wont do anything. There are always people, on any topic, that are smart and trying to convince people and put policy makers on a viable path. Unfortunately it rarely results in anything. Its illustrated by the majority of Americans supporting Nuke power, but instead what actually happens, is a banning of gas stoves, a forced switch to EV, and propaganda surrounding Solar and Wind (as in a bunch of horse E36 M3 that wont amount to anything) and 1 state actually building a couple nuke plants, while actual online reactors has been decreasing for 3 decades.
Here is another data point about the "green movement" doing a 180 on nuclear power.
Pew shows 85% of Dems think Climate should be a top concern for Potus and Congress while only 39% of reps think so.
Source https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/
Now when it comes to supporting nuclear energy leans heavy Rep. Reps support expansion of nuke at about 60% and trending up and Dems support it at 38%, and trending down.
Source
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/
So largely in the US the people that are most concerned about the climate also tend to be the people that are less likely to support nuclear power.
