Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:GRA wrote:Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:I'm glad we reached an understanding about our respective positions. As you've pointed out, we disagree on some of it.
As for the other questions ...
Nuclear had its role when it was first discovered. With the alternatives that we have now, I would ban the construction of any new plants, and let the existing ones run until their fuel have been spent, and then shut them down as well. The fuel is radioactive already, so might as well make use of them before burying them for the next 10k years.
Much like your false dichotomy of gasoline versus H2, it's not a choice between coal and nuclear. There are other options.
If you're asking which I'd choose if I HAD to choose between coal and nuclear, then I would choose coal. Nuclear takes a huge investment in time, material, and capital to get started. Coal would be more of a stop-gap measure until a third, more beneficial choice is available.
Based on how you phrased your question, I guess we disagree here as well.
No, judging by the bold I think we agree. My question was which of the two existing generation sources should Germany have chosen to keep running more of the time while they switched to renewables, not which they should build more of. What they chose to do was increase the use of existing coal plants while closing the existing nukes, not build more coal plants, c.f. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/germany-is-burning-too-much-coal
We didn't agree. The nuclear power plants that Germany closed were over 30 years old and were due to be refueled anyway. Germany's doing exactly what I advocated (shut them down after their fuel was spent, despite the fact that the plant itself was still servicable). They just don't have enough wind/solar/hydro to compensate for the drop in output, so they had no choice but to rely on extending their coal plants - a stopgap measure until more renewable power or batteries are deployed.
Okay. Many of Germany's nukes were shut down well before they reached end of life or needed refueling - see the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
To me, even if they needed refueling, the small additional quantity of spent fuel from refueling existing plants is far less of a hazard than the pollution from increased coal emissions, especially when that coal is the dirtiest variety. That was the choice that Germany made, when they knew they would need either nukes or coal to to bridge the gap to renewables, and coal-generated electricity has increased.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:GRA wrote:Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Great, you've just pointed out why the choice should be between ICE, PHEV, and BEV. I've tried to write out the litany of reasons why H2 isn't a contender in any of the scenarios, but I already have an idea of what your response would be. Suffice it to say that all my reasons support my case that the benefits do not justify the risks, and you would disagree, feeling that the benefits are worth the risks. So we'll just have to agree to disagree here as well.
Fair enough, I would just point out that neither ICE or PHEV are ZEV, which is the desired endpoint, but PHEVs are the obvious transition technology. BTW, care to guess which is the only commonly used transportation energy source that doesn't require hazardous placards sometimes (gasoline is Flammable Liquid; liquid or compressed H2 or CH4 is Flammable Gas, and Li-ion batteries are Misc. [Class 9]; see https://www.general-data.com/about/blog/hazard-class-9-hazard-class-labels-explained? Although it's classified as Combustible Liquid, because of its high flashpoint diesel fuel sometimes doesn't require placarding if not transported in bulk (checking, the current limit seems to be under 120 gallons). If I've followed your logic correctly, because it's the safest energy storage from the standpoint of fire or explosion, we should ignore its much larger negative health effects due to air or water pollution and use it in preference to all other transportation energy sources. I doubt that's what you're advocating, but it does follow.
Those placards are only used when transporting them as cargo, not as a primary means of propulsion. So no, you didn't follow my logic correctly. The fuels relative safety during transport has ZERO bearing on the fuels safety during use, so it would never be factored into what I advocate.
If it's safe enough to transport in quantities of less than 120 gallons, then it's certainly safe enough to use in much smaller quantities. After all, that''s why the U.S. military switched from gasoline to diesel after WW2 for ground transport and combat vehicles, and the switch from AvGas to jet fuel similarly reduced the risk of fuel fires and explosions on a/c carriers (which isn't to say they can't happen, but it usually takes some sort of explosion to set them off). Conventional submarines had long since switched from gas to diesel for the same reason (better range is also a factor, but the improved safety was the major motivation).
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Exactly. There's a filling station near where they work, but not where they live, so weekend trips are tedious or out of the question. Additionally, one left her job, so she now has to drive out of her way to the dealership just to refuel. If it weren't for the smooth electric motor and free fuel, they would've turned the cars in already.
Yeah, that's the risk you take when the infrastructure's still nascent. Will any of the under construction or newly awarded stations make a difference, or are the cars going back to Toyota before they could help (I assume they leased rather than bought, given the uncertainties)?