New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

yeah the plant itself didnt kill the population.

nuclear is probably one of the safest and one of the most deadly plants to have. All it takes is one disaster to happen and things go REAL bad. And unlike other plants you cant just clean it up and fix it, its pretty much containment, then a slow controlled cleanup in order not to kill anyone, assuming you can actually get close enough to get it under control without the radiation killing you.

I think the Fukushima plant was made to withstand huge tsunamis already, but the one that hit it was even bigger than it was designed to withstand. One of those 1 in a thousand situations that no one can really see coming. I mean they could have designed for such a scenario from the start but based on how old the plant is and when it was designed they likely thought the current criteria was already on the high side of things.

It hasn’t been that deadly. Compared to other forms of energy, it is the least deadly or something. Watch the videos above.

Unfortunately the failure at Fukushima was more of a reflection of not meeting the safety standards of a barrier that was in place at other plants. Obviously a nuclear disaster is worse than a coal shaft that collapses or a wind turbine that catches on fire. This is why the smaller type of reactors that can’t melt down are nice.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I think the Fukushima plant was made to withstand huge tsunamis already, but the one that hit it was even bigger than it was designed to withstand. One of those 1 in a thousand situations that no one can really see coming. I mean they could have designed for such a scenario from the start but based on how old the plant is and when it was designed they likely thought the current criteria was already on the high side of things.

The Fukushima plant ("generation 2") required cooling water circulation after reactor shutoff, and the tsunami knocked out the diesel generators powering the pumps. "Generation 3" reactors are supposed to be safer, with passive cooling built in.

Gen 4 MSRs and pebble bed reactors are inherently safer yet, where the fuel is incapable of exceeding some reasonably low temperature by design, and there's no radioactive water coolant.

[bcj]

Production of the pebbles still generates a significant amount of highly ionizing waste materials.

There is currently NO facility in the US capable of accepting these. NIMBY

Yucca Mountain


The business plan for the last 300 years of toxic material manufacturing is to spin off a holding company to lease the property from.
Once the plant wears out or becomes inefficient and dangerous, the holding company goes bankrupt and leaves it behind.

Looking out for the shareholders. Good for business.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by bcj

Production of the pebbles still generates a significant amount of highly ionizing waste materials.

There is currently NO facility in the US capable of accepting these. NIMBY

Yucca Mountain


The business plan for the last 300 years of toxic material manufacturing is to spin off a holding company to lease the property from.
Once the plant wears out or becomes inefficient and dangerous, the holding company goes bankrupt and leaves it behind.

Looking out for the shareholders. Good for business.

That doesn’t sound like a good or necessary business plan.

[soundman98]

Welcome to our legal system. By bankrupting the 'company', it leaves the shareholders off the hook from having to pay for site cleanup expenses to do anything else with the land.

We get nuclear power, they get money, and future generations get the fallout. Literally.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

Welcome to our legal system. By bankrupting the 'company', it leaves the shareholders off the hook from having to pay for site cleanup expenses to do anything else with the land.

We get nuclear power, they get money, and future generations get the fallout. Literally.

Seems unnecessary. The public could own and operate the operation.

[Dirty Harry]

This is interesting, maybe there is hope yet...

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-dev...bustion-engine

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This is interesting, maybe there is hope yet...

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-dev...bustion-engine

This is old chemistry and has been known for a long time. The two key things here are first, using renewable energy (e.g. wind) to power the process, and two, making it cost-effective with fossil fuels.

Hydrogen has been touted as a 'miracle' fuel for a while. One of the (several) problems with it is that it takes more energy to make than you get out of it (pesky laws of thermodynamics). Reacting it with carbon to make liquid methanol solves one of hydrogen's problems (though also takes more energy), that of transport (since most of the world has infrastructure in place to transport and store stable liquid fuel, but not either gaseous hydrogen, or hydrogen compressed and cooled to -253 deg C in liquid form).

The principle is sound, and would theoretically be carbon-neutral - IF the power source for the process was renewable, and IF the final product could be made cost-competitively with fossil fuels. That second point has been a problem for so many alternative liquid fuels, such as hydrocarbon or alcohol based fuels from algae. They're great ideas and work in principle. But if the final product is more expensive than fossil fuels, it doesn't work in the real world.

At least not in a culture like the U.S. where making money is always the highest priority, and often the only priority.

[dpfarr]

I guess that’s neutral in the sense of stoichometry. I couldn’t afford a new Mirai and I’m not holding my breath my financial futures afford me a fuel cell Porsche.

[Lantanafrs2]

Banning ice is just talk for now. They can't even get rid of tiktok

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Banning ice is just talk for now. They can't even get rid of tiktok

California is way better at being Authoritarian compared to the Federal government

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

California is way better at being Authoritarian compared to the Federal government

Is it authoritarian to say I can't take my garbage down to the local lake and dump it there?

The fact that there are laws doesn't inherently make something authoritarian.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

This is old chemistry and has been known for a long time. The two key things here are first, using renewable energy (e.g. wind) to power the process, and two, making it cost-effective with fossil fuels.

Hydrogen has been touted as a 'miracle' fuel for a while. One of the (several) problems with it is that it takes more energy to make than you get out of it (pesky laws of thermodynamics). Reacting it with carbon to make liquid methanol solves one of hydrogen's problems (though also takes more energy), that of transport (since most of the world has infrastructure in place to transport and store stable liquid fuel, but not either gaseous hydrogen, or hydrogen compressed and cooled to -253 deg C in liquid form).

The principle is sound, and would theoretically be carbon-neutral - IF the power source for the process was renewable, and IF the final product could be made cost-competitively with fossil fuels. That second point has been a problem for so many alternative liquid fuels, such as hydrocarbon or alcohol based fuels from algae. They're great ideas and work in principle. But if the final product is more expensive than fossil fuels, it doesn't work in the real world.

At least not in a culture like the U.S. where making money is always the highest priority, and often the only priority.

This is true of all fuel sources technically. Pesky laws of thermodynamics.

This isn't necessary if fossil fuels are taxed to make them more expensive or are made illegal.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This is interesting, maybe there is hope yet...

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-dev...bustion-engine

I might be missing the point of all of this, but aren't we already producing synthetic fuels?

Producing and burning ethanol results in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. However, the combustion of ethanol made from biomass (such as corn and sugarcane) is considered atmospheric carbon neutral because as the biomass grows, it absorbs CO2, which may offset the CO2 produced when the ethanol is burned.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nvironment.php