3 ms·

Surely a nice car. But I wonder where all this electrical power for all those electrical cars in the future will come from? Probably from nuclear power plants w

by mikkael 10y ago

Surely a nice car. But I wonder where all this electrical power for all those electrical cars in the future will come from? Probably from nuclear power plants with their still unresolved nuclear waste problematics - not even speaking about nuclear accidents. From this point of view I have some doubts that mass adoption of affordable electrical cars will be beneficial for the environment...

garbot 10y ago
Not entirely sure if these stats are up to date, but the US is still using fossil fuels for the majority of its energy. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_...
- mikkael 10y ago
  Thanks. And yes, currently we can still burn fossil fuels to satisfy our hunger for energy but I was projecting into the future. My thinking goes like this: Let's define the amount of current electrical power used for non-automotive purposes as E0(2016). Currently there is only a negligible amount of electrical cars, so the amount of energy used for automotive purposes Ea(2016) will be comparatively close to 0. I think in a (maybe not so) distant future time point t where electrical cars have mass adoption (just think of a scenario where all cars on the street are electrical) we will in addition to non-automotive energy E0(t) need electrical power for automotive purposes Ea(t) for every car on the street. And Ea(t) >> Ea(2016) will be huge. Where will such a huge amount of electrical power come from if not from nuclear power plants with all their problems? Other points to consider: 1. At some point in the future fossil fuels will run out - so no fossil fuel cars and no fossil fuel power plants any more. So E0(t) will also not come from fossil fuels anymore. As a sidenote on today's situation: I don't see a big difference for the environment whether a car burns the fossil fuel or a electrical car uses energy created by power plants that burn fossil fuels... 2. We have a growing earth population which will even increase the amount of energy consumed for non-automotive purposes in the future, so E0(t) > E0(2016). 3. Increased demand for electrical energy together with decreased amount of energy providers (fossil fuel power plants will be no more) will increase energy prices in the future.
boredpudding 10y ago
It's better for the environment than the current fuels. It's the best option we have.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Also, you reduce the space that needs converting from {All the cars on Earth} to {All fossil fuel powerplants}. There are ~1 billion cars. I can't find good numbers for coal and gas plants, but it can't be more than a 200k or so. That's a gigantic improvement in our ability to rapidly reduce CO2 from transportation.
  - mikkael 10y ago
    Well, yes and no. My thinking is that for the climate it does not matter if you burn the fossile fuel in a car or in a power plant. At one point all the fossile fuel will have been burnt one way or the other and the same amount of CO2 will have been blown in the atmosphere. I am sure humanity will not stop consuming fossile fuels before they are exhausted unless it becomes economically unattractive to do so...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      It makes a difference because power plants are more efficient, and once electrical charging infrastructure is in place, changes to the input power source is easier.
      - mikkael 10y ago
        According to my knowledge current car motor efficiency is about the same than power plants: gasoline car motor 40%, diesel car motor 43%, coal burning power plants 30-45%, gas burning power plants around 30% efficiency. All numbers are from Wikipedia. But even if power plants would be more efficient (meaning producing more energy for the same fuel input) it still would make no difference from a CO2 emissions point of view after all fuel has been burnt...
pmarreck 10y ago
1) You're not up-to-date on recent nuclear power safety data. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-... http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... 2) Wind and solar could accomplish a lot. It already does in Germany, at least.
- mikkael 10y ago
  Regarding 2): Well, in Germany around 29% of the electrical power is currently from renewable energy sources (12% wind, 6% sun, 6% bio mass, 3% water, ...). Not (yet) enough for today and not enough for all future electric cars... https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Erneuerbare-Energien/erneuerbare-energien-auf-einen-blick.html https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Erneuerbare-Energien/e...
jsight 10y ago
When discussing battery powered vehicles, solar and other intermittent power sources are the obvious answer. The economics are better than gasoline and they pair nicely with energy storage systems.
mikeash 10y ago
Nuclear waste isn't a big deal, from a technical perspective. Find a good, geologically stable location, encapsulate the waste in strong containers, and put it there. The quantities are so small that it's not a big undertaking. The real problem is dealing with people's overblown fears, like how you have to do crazy things because the waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Never mind that lots of more commonplace industrial waste remains dangerous forever and we don't take anything like the same sorts of precautions. But solar and wind are really starting to take hold, so I don't think you have to worry a whole lot either way. They have some big advantages over nuclear even if you ignore unfounded fears, such as being able to install them in small quantities rather than requiring billions of dollars and years of construction. And the cost is dropping rapidly, so that it'll be cheaper than nuclear soon if it isn't already.

by mikkael 10y ago

garbot 10y ago

Not entirely sure if these stats are up to date, but the US is still using fossil fuels for the majority of its energy. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_...

mikkael 10y ago
Thanks. And yes, currently we can still burn fossil fuels to satisfy our hunger for energy but I was projecting into the future. My thinking goes like this: Let's define the amount of current electrical power used for non-automotive purposes as E0(2016). Currently there is only a negligible amount of electrical cars, so the amount of energy used for automotive purposes Ea(2016) will be comparatively close to 0. I think in a (maybe not so) distant future time point t where electrical cars have mass adoption (just think of a scenario where all cars on the street are electrical) we will in addition to non-automotive energy E0(t) need electrical power for automotive purposes Ea(t) for every car on the street. And Ea(t) >> Ea(2016) will be huge. Where will such a huge amount of electrical power come from if not from nuclear power plants with all their problems? Other points to consider: 1. At some point in the future fossil fuels will run out - so no fossil fuel cars and no fossil fuel power plants any more. So E0(t) will also not come from fossil fuels anymore. As a sidenote on today's situation: I don't see a big difference for the environment whether a car burns the fossil fuel or a electrical car uses energy created by power plants that burn fossil fuels... 2. We have a growing earth population which will even increase the amount of energy consumed for non-automotive purposes in the future, so E0(t) > E0(2016). 3. Increased demand for electrical energy together with decreased amount of energy providers (fossil fuel power plants will be no more) will increase energy prices in the future.

boredpudding 10y ago

It's better for the environment than the current fuels. It's the best option we have.

JBReefer 10y ago
Also, you reduce the space that needs converting from {All the cars on Earth} to {All fossil fuel powerplants}. There are ~1 billion cars. I can't find good numbers for coal and gas plants, but it can't be more than a 200k or so. That's a gigantic improvement in our ability to rapidly reduce CO2 from transportation.
- mikkael 10y ago
  Well, yes and no. My thinking is that for the climate it does not matter if you burn the fossile fuel in a car or in a power plant. At one point all the fossile fuel will have been burnt one way or the other and the same amount of CO2 will have been blown in the atmosphere. I am sure humanity will not stop consuming fossile fuels before they are exhausted unless it becomes economically unattractive to do so...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    It makes a difference because power plants are more efficient, and once electrical charging infrastructure is in place, changes to the input power source is easier.
    - mikkael 10y ago
      According to my knowledge current car motor efficiency is about the same than power plants: gasoline car motor 40%, diesel car motor 43%, coal burning power plants 30-45%, gas burning power plants around 30% efficiency. All numbers are from Wikipedia. But even if power plants would be more efficient (meaning producing more energy for the same fuel input) it still would make no difference from a CO2 emissions point of view after all fuel has been burnt...

pmarreck 10y ago

1) You're not up-to-date on recent nuclear power safety data. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-... http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... 2) Wind and solar could accomplish a lot. It already does in Germany, at least.

mikkael 10y ago
Regarding 2): Well, in Germany around 29% of the electrical power is currently from renewable energy sources (12% wind, 6% sun, 6% bio mass, 3% water, ...). Not (yet) enough for today and not enough for all future electric cars... https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Erneuerbare-Energien/erneuerbare-energien-auf-einen-blick.html https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Erneuerbare-Energien/e...

jsight 10y ago

When discussing battery powered vehicles, solar and other intermittent power sources are the obvious answer. The economics are better than gasoline and they pair nicely with energy storage systems.

mikeash 10y ago

Nuclear waste isn't a big deal, from a technical perspective. Find a good, geologically stable location, encapsulate the waste in strong containers, and put it there. The quantities are so small that it's not a big undertaking. The real problem is dealing with people's overblown fears, like how you have to do crazy things because the waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Never mind that lots of more commonplace industrial waste remains dangerous forever and we don't take anything like the same sorts of precautions. But solar and wind are really starting to take hold, so I don't think you have to worry a whole lot either way. They have some big advantages over nuclear even if you ignore unfounded fears, such as being able to install them in small quantities rather than requiring billions of dollars and years of construction. And the cost is dropping rapidly, so that it'll be cheaper than nuclear soon if it isn't already.