EU attempts to ban conventionally powered cars in all cities by 2050

[coolman]

Originally Posted by LostInMoscow

More people are killed by cars than guns! I'm just sayin'!

Haha! I think you missed my point. Look at the post below your's for what I meant.
I know one thing. In America, people with guns will be playing catch up to that statistic if they take our cars.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Where is all this "eee-leck-trissity" gonna come from? Windmills?

Sure, some of it will. Then there is solar and nuclear as well. And there will probably be also be more efficient types of wind and solar by then, like tethered high altitude windmills, space based solar/microwave, and perhaps even nuclear fusion. And of course, there could other things that we've never even though of yet.

Plus, its very likely that most buildings will have a much smaller energy demand 40 years from now. From simple things greater efficiency to insulation that incorporates microfluidic power generation.

Now, where will the oil come from 40 years from now to fuel a global fleet of a couple billion cars? I suspect thats a bit tougher nut to crack than building more power plants.

[coolman]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Sure, some of it will. Then there is solar and nuclear as well. And there will probably be also be more efficient types of wind and solar by then, like tethered high altitude windmills, space based solar/microwave, and perhaps even nuclear fusion. And of course, there could other things that we've never even though of yet.

Plus, its very likely that most buildings will have a much smaller energy demand 40 years from now. From simple things greater efficiency to insulation that incorporates microfluidic power generation.

Now, where will the oil come from 40 years from now to fuel a global fleet of a couple billion cars? I suspect thats a bit tougher nut to crack than building more power plants.

I know one thing, we could save a lot of energy if people didn't build huge houses any more. I have an HVAC business and I'm amazed at how big the average house keeps growing. We have 4 to 5 thousand square foot homes being built that only house three or four people and all the junk they don't need. Until people learn to live correctly we will not see any real change. Any savings in energy will just be spent on the next excess. I'm involved with many of the latest energy savers you have been talking about ,but if it wasn't for the tax credits, none of them would be worth the pay off in the real world. I do cost comparisons between different types of energy and different types of heating and cooling system ,and I can tell you that it takes a long time to see most paybacks in real terms and by that time your replacing the system because it's worn out. I agree that we need to find new energy. That's why I'm doing my part along with trying to make a buck doing it ,but really we're only guinea pigs for what our grand kids and great grand kids might have that really works, last and has a real savings.

[hot_rod]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Where is all this "eee-leck-trissity" gonna come from? Windmills?

Never fear, Dogbert is working on it ........

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Sure, some of it will. Then there is solar and nuclear as well. And there will probably be also be more efficient types of wind and solar by then, like tethered high altitude windmills, space based solar/microwave, and perhaps even nuclear fusion. And of course, there could other things that we've never even though of yet.

Solar and wind are pipe dreams that will never generate more than a token few percent of what we need. Wind is too inconsistent to be any more than a supplement to conventional sources. Solar will never work, because the energy is too diffuse. On average, less than 200 W/m^2 make it to the ground, so even if we could magically triple the current efficiency of PV cells, we'd need a square meter of them for every light bulb. Space based stuff are like jet packs in the 1950s. They'll work in theory, but burning $100 bills would probably be a cheaper source of heat.

Nuclear fission is a problem, because after Japan, it will be impossible politically to build a new one for years to come. The other problem is that with the type of reactors the US uses, we will run out of uranium before we run out of oil and natural gas.

Nuclear fusion is a wild card. This more than likely will be our source of energy in the far, far, future.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Plus, its very likely that most buildings will have a much smaller energy demand 40 years from now. From simple things greater efficiency to insulation that incorporates microfluidic power generation.

Plus, living in conventional houses can be banned just a easily as cars. Everyone can be required to live in dorms like in college. Minimum 2 people per 80 square feet. No energy wasting televisions or home computers either, though a tele-screen will be required.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by coolman

I will be dead by 2050 and I have no plans to ever go to Europe so more power to them crazy brits. I'm about 100% sure that if they ever tried that here, they better take everyone's guns first.

I'll will either have passed on by 2050 or I'll be so old I have no business driving..(I'd be 98 by then)

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Solar and wind are pipe dreams that will never generate more than a token few percent of what we need. Wind is too inconsistent to be any more than a supplement to conventional sources. Solar will never work, because the energy is too diffuse. On average, less than 200 W/m^2 make it to the ground, so even if we could magically triple the current efficiency of PV cells, we'd need a square meter of them for every light bulb. Space based stuff are like jet packs in the 1950s. They'll work in theory, but burning $100 bills would probably be a cheaper source of heat.

Nuclear fission is a problem, because after Japan, it will be impossible politically to build a new one for years to come. The other problem is that with the type of reactors the US uses, we will run out of uranium before we run out of oil and natural gas.

Nuclear fusion is a wild card. This more than likely will be our source of energy in the far, far, future.



Plus, living in conventional houses can be banned just a easily as cars. Everyone can be required to live in dorms like in college. Minimum 2 people per 80 square feet. No energy wasting televisions or home computers either, though a tele-screen will be required.

True enough, but nobody (except perhaps a few econuts) claim that 100% of electricity needs to be from wind and solar. All anyone reasonably expects is some wind and some solar, and mostly in places where it makes sense to do so. For example, residential solar power will continue to get cheaper and more practical. No, you won't be able to power your entire home with solar electricity any time soon, but 20% wouldn't be that difficult to achieve (while being cost effective) in a decade or two. That is a pretty substantial portion of total electric demand, perhaps they could even equal the demand that arises from EV's (which is sorta where this little discussion came from).

I'd say that the nuclear industry will recover far quicker from Fukushima than TMI or Chernobyl. It was a relatively old plant whose backup systems failed after a one-two punch from a very large earthquake and tsunami. Any new plant will feature a design that is inherently safer, with more reliable backups and hopefully built in a safer location.

Running out of nuclear fuel isn't really going to happen any time soon. So called 'spent' fuel can be reprocessed back into fuel, which also reduces nuclear waste. And nothing says that uranium is the only fuel you can usefor nuclear power. Thorium would also work and is much more abundant.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

True enough, but nobody (except perhaps a few econuts) claim that 100% of electricity needs to be from wind and solar. All anyone reasonably expects is some wind and some solar, and mostly in places where it makes sense to do so. For example, residential solar power will continue to get cheaper and more practical. No, you won't be able to power your entire home with solar electricity any time soon, but 20% wouldn't be that difficult to achieve (while being cost effective) in a decade or two. That is a pretty substantial portion of total electric demand, perhaps they could even equal the demand that arises from EV's (which is sorta where this little discussion came from).

I'd say that the nuclear industry will recover far quicker from Fukushima than TMI or Chernobyl. It was a relatively old plant whose backup systems failed after a one-two punch from a very large earthquake and tsunami. Any new plant will feature a design that is inherently safer, with more reliable backups and hopefully built in a safer location.

Running out of nuclear fuel isn't really going to happen any time soon. So called 'spent' fuel can be reprocessed back into fuel, which also reduces nuclear waste. And nothing says that uranium is the only fuel you can usefor nuclear power. Thorium would also work and is much more abundant.

DG, I always love the discussion back and forth with you when these threads come up. You talk like you have an engineering background, and I always learn a little something from this.

I have heard a little something about reprocessing spent fuel and fissioning the U-238 (or other elements), but that it isn't done (yet) in the US because of proliferation concerns, so it's really more of an issue of the will to do it, not the ability.

I recognize that oil is going to run out eventually (though I don't think it will be nearly as soon as many fear), and that ultimately, we are going to have to go to fission with reprocessed fuel or fusion by necessity.

As for how this relates to cars, I'd like to see nuclear power used to produce synthetic fuel for cars rather than switching everything to EVs. Yes, EVs will have a place, but like wind and solar energy, I think their market share will ultimately be limited. They will always have some range anxiety, and plug in hybrids will always have some cost disadvantage.

I've also always wondered what percentage of total car production can EVs be given the supply of the raw materials needed to produce their motors and batteries? Perhaps you know more about this than me?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

DG, I always love the discussion back and forth with you when these threads come up. You talk like you have an engineering background, and I always learn a little something from this.
I do

I have heard a little something about reprocessing spent fuel and fissioning the U-238 (or other elements), but that it isn't done (yet) in the US because of proliferation concerns, so it's really more of an issue of the will to do it, not the ability.
Yeah I don't really understand that logic but it is what it is.

I recognize that oil is going to run out eventually (though I don't think it will be nearly as soon as many fear), and that ultimately, we are going to have to go to fission with reprocessed fuel or fusion by necessity.

As for how this relates to cars, I'd like to see nuclear power used to produce synthetic fuel for cars rather than switching everything to EVs. Yes, EVs will have a place, but like wind and solar energy, I think their market share will ultimately be limited. They will always have some range anxiety, and plug in hybrids will always have some cost disadvantage.
Speaking of alternative fuels via nuclear ... one very interesting application for next gen nuclear power plants is the facilitation of hydrogen production. Their higher operating temperature could make processes like electrolysis energy efficient and allow for hydrogen to become a much more viable alternative to fossil fuels

I've also always wondered what percentage of total car production can EVs be given the supply of the raw materials needed to produce their motors and batteries? Perhaps you know more about this than me?
I haven't heard of any sort of limits yet, but the demand is miniscule at the moment so its hard to say. However, after China threatened to cut off the global supply of rare-earth metals 2 things happened. First, other nations (such as Australia) announced that they have viable reserves that they can extract if need be (though probably at higher cost than China), and second: automakers set to work on developing electric motors that don't require rare earth metals. I don't know how battery tech is coming along, but I suspect that we will have moved beyond lithium based batteries long before lithium itself becomes scarce. The most logical choice would probably the elimination of batteries themselves in favour of capacitor based storage, but thats still a ways off

.