- Location
- East Yorkshire
I do.I don't like the idea of hydrogen as a concept. It's a PITA to deal with.
I do.I don't like the idea of hydrogen as a concept. It's a PITA to deal with.
Self charging car going to be produced at the old Saab factory in Sweden.
https://sonomotors.com/en/sion/
Can also be charged from the grid or other vehicles and is two way so could run your house.
Well filling airships with hydrogen certainly was a cretinous idea!!
Well filling airships with hydrogen certainly was a cretinous idea!!
I dont have any pics of Chernobyl, or Fukushima, but their effects are somewhat longer lasting.
It doesn’t matter how complex/advanced petrol or Diesel engines get, they are still burning fossil fuels, and are far more complex than electric cars. So They have far more moving parts and produce point of use pollution.I don't want to read the whole of this thread but my son has the similar view to the above and I respect that. With ever increasing technology put into the modern petrol/diesel engine will far outweigh the battery vehicle in every aspect. I was once a big electric fan and perhaps it is the best vehicle in city environments apart from blanket banning of any internal combustion engine within certain city limits, ah, yes there is the argument for transporting goods, but the principal remains and we can overcome this I'm sure. The best thing to look to is less working hours, more public transport and keep your old banger going for 25 years at least then recycle it!
There's probably a graph of 'perfect' running costs on when to buy a second-hand electric vehicle and when to sell it and I'd imagine that window is quite small.
SS
But the repercussions for the planet are not the same. Nuclear catastrophe is potentially in the same league as super-volcanoes and large meteor strikes, such is the potential threat to the habitability of the planet.More people have died in coal mining accidents than any number from either of those.
But the repercussions for the planet are not the same. Nuclear catastrophe is potentially in the same league as super-volcanoes and large meteor strikes, such is the potential threat to the habitability of the planet.
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?
It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?
It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.
Not from generation. Costs and disruption could be very high of course, if the plant were badly designed or run, leading to an accident. Not in the same league as a super-volcano or certainly not like a medium size foreign body striking the Earth, both of which could be extinction events.But the repercussions for the planet are not the same. Nuclear catastrophe is potentially in the same league as super-volcanoes and large meteor strikes, such is the potential threat to the habitability of the planet.
It doesn’t matter how complex/advanced petrol or Diesel engines get, they are still burning fossil fuels, and are far more complex than electric cars. So They have far more moving parts and produce point of use pollution.
Throw in the top three cars world wide for safety standards, are not ICE cars either and are made by one of the youngest car companies, That are mass producing cars.
I can see why the big companies are scared of the new competition, electric will win out not because they are green but because they are just better technology.
10 years will see a big shift in the publics opinion as they see and try these new electric cars and forth and fifth generations cars hit the roads.
With some of the early problems, all new tech have, get ironed out.
It helps when people people are honest what types of mileage they do on a daily basis. And realise the newer electric cars are starting to get 400 mile ranges on a single charge and are designed to do a million miles.
Gone will be the days people will think cars with 200k mileage on them are worn out.
Ok, but what I’m trying to say is we’ve no fix for radiation contamination. If we had a Chernobyl size accident in the UK, and the wind blew radioactive material inland, then a large part of the country could be rendered uninhabitable. Hydrogen, by comparison is a pussycat.Not from generation. Costs and disruption could be very high of course, if the plant were badly designed or run, leading to an accident. Not in the same league as a super-volcano or certainly not like a medium size foreign body striking the Earth, both of which could be extinction events.
I agree, I don’t like it, if we could manage to do with out them I would, but you have to over stack renewables because of their unpredictability to silly extremes without a backstop, and if we want that backstop to be non fossil fuel or zero Co2 then we don’t have any other options.I tend to agree, but that doesn’t mean I like it: just too many people on the planet.
Hydrogen, is a good way to store energy, but that energy has to come from somewhere to make the hydrogen, storage is not the only issue it’s making that energy in the first place without fossil fuels.Ok, but what I’m trying to say is we’ve no fix for radiation contamination. If we had a Chernobyl size accident in the UK, and the wind blew radioactive material inland, then a large part of the country could be rendered uninhabitable. Hydrogen, by comparison is a pussycat.