Otto Aviation done with Phase One testing of Celera 500L aircraft

Tantalum said:
TheDrive recently did a good review of this. It's not just coal and where the power comes from, it's the whole mining process of lithium that is often overlooked. For several of these applications the breakeven point is well down the line as far as CO2 emissions goes

https://www.thedrive.com/news/electric-pickup-trucks-are-dirtier-than-you-think

TLDR-sorta-from the article;

"..
These are large, heavy vehicles with massive batteries, and there's still an environmental price to pay even if the costs have been pushed upstream and out of sight. Most electricity generation in the U.S. still produces CO2, though renewables are more in the mix depending on where you are. More important is that manufacturing electric trucks produces far more emissions than their internal-combustion counterparts. The crush of new models this year made us wonder: Where's the break-even point between gas and electric pickups? How far would you need to drive both a 6.2L V8 Ram TRX and a silent Hummer EV before their lifetime emissions catch up and the Hummer becomes the truly greener option?

We crunched the numbers, and found out the answer is farther than you'd think. Will today's electric trucks be better for the planet over time than their fossil-fueled equivalents? Absolutely. Do they cut carbon emissions enough in the short or long term to justify driving one over something smaller, even a gas car? Absolutely not.
.."
Click to expand...
Exactly my point on the mining process. But it's not just carbon emissions that has me thinking lithium batteries are a stop gap. Lithium is mostly found in arid climates where water is scarce. Put the lithium ore into a water slurry and wait. It destroys the soil structure and leads to unsustainable water table reduction. Some of the largest lithium reserves are part of the Salton sea and they're coming up with new technology to mine that... without destroying what little ecosystem is left.

If we took the investments we've made into wind, solar, and lithium and put them to nuclear and hydrogen projects I think the environment as a whole, not just carbon emissions would benefit. But Nuclear is a dirty word to the green new deal folks.
 
Racerx said:
But Nuclear is a dirty word to the green new deal folks.
Click to expand...

Not sure this is true, or even has been true for many decades. Most nuclear obstructionism I see is by NIMBY.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Not sure this is true, or even has been true for many decades. Most nuclear obstructionism I see is by NIMBY.

Tim
Click to expand...

Oh I think they’re out there. Renewables alone won’t meet future needs.

 
Having spent a few years in the nuclear industry, the thing that killed it more than anything else was cheap shale gas. The company went from trying to get in on the hopeful boom in new plants to doing mostly demolition work. Now why spend $18 billion and 15 years for a new plant when you can get a gas plant for $1 billion in two years.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you meant $18 billion, not million. I think it's glaringly obvious those that support renewable energy are vehemently opposed to nuclear power.

Given the abilities of modern materials and manufacturing, digitized process control, and the fact the US Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear submarines and ships with 20 year old enlisted personnel for almost seventy years without an accident, it's clear opposition to placing small modular reactors on the grid is driven by ignorance and ideology.

EDIT: Before someone says "What about Thresher and Scorpion?", those tragedies were caused by critical piping systems failures due to faulty construction. Since the Navy initiated the SUBSAFE program after those incidents more than fifty years ago, there have been no failures or incidents related to shipboard reactors.
 
Last edited:
Yes billion! The technologies on the SMRs have a lot of promise. Will probably take one of the government utilities to take the plunge and buy the first one. The science is there. Now it’s just the politics and the money.
 
3393RP said:
I'm sure you meant $18 billion, not million. I think it's glaringly obvious those that support renewable energy are vehemently opposed to nuclear power.

Given the abilities of modern materials and manufacturing, digitized process control, and the fact the US Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear submarines and ships with 20 year old enlisted personnel for almost seventy years without an accident, it's clear opposition to placing small modular reactors on the grid is driven by ignorance and ideology.

EDIT: Before someone says "What about Thresher and Scorpion?", those tragedies were caused by critical piping systems failures due to faulty construction. Since the Navy initiated the SUBSAFE program after those incidents more than fifty years ago, there have been no failures or incidents related to shipboard reactors.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, we didn't stop flying after the first few accidents. We learn and the technology by now is current is extremely mature. That's a great point about all of our predominant military tech running on nuclear
 
TomF said:
Yes billion! The technologies on the SMRs have a lot of promise. Will probably take one of the government utilities to take the plunge and buy the first one. The science is there. Now it’s just the politics and the money.
Click to expand...

Going on memory, there was a design approved for a SMR. And the factory to build the SMR is supposed to come online late this decade with a government utility as the first customer.

Tim

Edit: found it: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top