33 ms·

From the linked pdf: "We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significa

From the linked pdf: "We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significant environmental advantages over fossil energy sources, which are not carbon-neutral."

schiffern 11y ago
If that (huge) assumption is allowed for this technology, why not EVs? You can paint a very rosy picture of any transport technology if you assume away fossil fuels.
- aianus 11y ago
  If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV. And the benefits are immediate. Edit: Also, the energy density of hydrocarbons is unmatched. Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that.
  - schiffern 11y ago
    >If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV Actually this is incorrect. 75% of the energy used by a gasoline car is in the fuel it takes to drive it, and only 25% in manufacturing and disposal. It's the same situation with incandescent lights. It's mathematically more efficient to throw out a perfectly good one and replace it with something more efficient. >Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that. http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-designs-electric-jet/ http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-de...
- danielweber 11y ago
  The entire point of the question I asked was: given energy source, what is the comparison between 1) sending out electricity to batteries, or 2) creating liquid carbon-neutral fuels.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Probably because the existing inventory of ICE based rolling stock has something like a half life of 20 years. It'd also be nice to have some time in on good carbon sequester techniques in large scale.

schiffern 11y ago

If that (huge) assumption is allowed for this technology, why not EVs? You can paint a very rosy picture of any transport technology if you assume away fossil fuels.

aianus 11y ago
If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV. And the benefits are immediate. Edit: Also, the energy density of hydrocarbons is unmatched. Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that.
- schiffern 11y ago
  >If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV Actually this is incorrect. 75% of the energy used by a gasoline car is in the fuel it takes to drive it, and only 25% in manufacturing and disposal. It's the same situation with incandescent lights. It's mathematically more efficient to throw out a perfectly good one and replace it with something more efficient. >Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that. http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-designs-electric-jet/ http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-de...
danielweber 11y ago
The entire point of the question I asked was: given energy source, what is the comparison between 1) sending out electricity to batteries, or 2) creating liquid carbon-neutral fuels.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Probably because the existing inventory of ICE based rolling stock has something like a half life of 20 years. It'd also be nice to have some time in on good carbon sequester techniques in large scale.