Nuclear power won't fix the energy problem

Click For Summary
The discussion critiques the notion that nuclear power can effectively address the energy crisis, arguing that it is often misrepresented as a viable alternative to oil. It emphasizes that electric vehicles currently lack practicality and infrastructure, making them inadequate substitutes for traditional transportation methods. The conversation highlights that while nuclear energy is cleaner than coal, it cannot resolve transportation issues without advancements in energy storage technology. Concerns about nuclear safety and the potential for terrorism are raised, but the argument suggests that nuclear energy is statistically safer than other industries. Ultimately, the consensus is that without significant improvements in energy storage, neither nuclear nor renewable sources can replace oil for transportation needs.
  • #121
mheslep said:
The battery cost for plugins is still an issue as I mentioned above, though one can't use the Tesla for cost comparisons; it is a 250HP exotic limited production sports car. A realistic price point at the moment for batteries appears to be about $1k/kWhr:

1 KWHr is 3413 BTUs, say at 80% efficiency for charging, and 80% efficiency at the point of use, but we will be generous and say 90% and 90%. So that leaves us with 2765 BTUs of energy storage for $1000.

We get 125,000 BTUs from a gallon of gasoline at about 25% efficiency, or 31,250 BTUs of output energy.

So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
mheslep said:
Well another reason to skip a heat cycle and go straight from solar PVs to batteries and 90% eff. motors. :wink:

We don't have the batteries at anything close to an affordable price. You want to bet everything on a technology that has stumped the experts for decades, and just hope that it comes along, this time?
 
  • #123
Ivan Seeking said:
We don't have the batteries at anything close to an affordable price. You want to bet everything on a technology that has stumped the experts for decades, and just hope that it comes along, this time?
"You want to bet everything"? Not me, nor do I see anyone else seriously 'betting everything' on hybrids; current budgets are moving things along nicely. Please take a look at how battery technology has progressed in the last few years before making pronouncements. You should well no someone could point to the 70's/80's Aquatic Species Report and say the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #124
Ivan Seeking said:
1 KWHr is 3413 BTUs, say at 80% efficiency for charging, and 80% efficiency at the point of use, but we will be generous and say 90% and 90%. So that leaves us with 2765 BTUs of energy storage for $1000.

We get 125,000 BTUs from a gallon of gasoline at about 25% efficiency, or 31,250 BTUs of output energy.

So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.
Charging efficiency is not relevant for sizing the battery, only to the overall energy usage cycle. Even in the $11k / 1 gallon-equivalent scenario you've drawn we have a usable commuter vehicle - that's more than enough in a 50 mpg equivalent plugin hybrid to go to work/school and back. And that's now with just released technology, in low production numbers. Another 40% improvement or so in energy density/$ looks plausible. As we discussed elsewhere converting that 1 gallon of fuel would have a large impact on US fuel usage, displacing it with electric use.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
13K