Nuclear power won't fix the energy problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the viability of nuclear power as a solution to energy problems, particularly in the context of the oil crisis and alternatives to fossil fuels. Participants explore various aspects of nuclear energy, electric vehicles, and other energy sources, including coal, solar, and wind power.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that nuclear power is often misrepresented as a solution to the oil crisis, emphasizing that the viability of electric cars is a separate issue.
  • Others suggest that while nuclear power is cleaner than coal, it does not address transportation needs directly, as electric vehicles are currently not competitive with traditional fuels.
  • There is a viewpoint that nuclear power could replace coal for electricity generation, reducing CO2 emissions and public health risks associated with fossil fuels.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of electric cars and the infrastructure required to support them, while also questioning the effectiveness of solar and wind power without advancements in energy storage.
  • A later reply mentions the potential of biofuels, particularly algae, as a viable alternative to oil, while also acknowledging the limitations of land-based biofuels.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety and failsafe nature of the nuclear industry compared to other energy sectors, with some arguing that nuclear energy has a lower long-term risk profile.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the role of nuclear power in solving energy problems. Some agree on the limitations of electric vehicles and the need for cleaner energy sources, while others challenge the assumptions made about nuclear power and its alternatives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions regarding the feasibility of electric vehicles, the infrastructure for renewable energy, and the safety of nuclear power. There are unresolved questions about the effectiveness of different energy sources in addressing both electricity production and 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

Undergrad Nuclear power plant vs coal power plant efficiency
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
How long will the petroleum industry be profitable?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
High School Could Nuclear Powered Bulldozers Create a Habitable Cavity for a Mars Colony?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
How long can nuclear plants last without power? (CME hit)
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
How Solar Power is Not a Solution to Replacing Nuclear Power
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Dynamos & Power Plants - Question
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Steam engines -- A new idea, maybe....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School How Does an IEC Fusion Reactor Work?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Is Nuclear Power More Efficient Than Coal in Energy Production?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
13K
Is nuclear energy a viable solution for our energy problems?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K