The discussion centers on the argument that nuclear power is not a viable solution to the energy crisis, particularly in relation to oil dependency. Participants assert that electric vehicles (EVs) are currently impractical for widespread use due to infrastructure limitations and performance issues. They emphasize that while nuclear power is cleaner than coal and can reduce CO2 emissions, it does not address the transportation sector's reliance on oil. The consensus is that alternative fuels, particularly biofuels, may offer a more feasible solution for transportation needs.
PREREQUISITESEnergy policy analysts, environmental scientists, transportation engineers, and anyone interested in the future of energy production and its implications for climate change and public health.
mheslep said:
mheslep said:Well another reason to skip a heat cycle and go straight from solar PVs to batteries and 90% eff. motors.
"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.Ivan Seeking said:
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.Ivan Seeking said: