Tesla exposed

Nuclear should be used waaay more than it is, but there's a stigma around it, which is not equal to the problems nuclear solves or energy volume it creates, the thing is that stigma is going to be very hard to change.

The main (first) EV using countries will all transfer to renewables or cleaner energy faster than the demand required to power EV vehicles. Take the UK for example, we're on 1% coal now, and that was 25% 5 years ago. The thing is, we're effectively developed, so can and will do that, but we're not the real problem (or we won't be).

The big problem is developing countries, like India and China, that's about 3bn people I think, just with those two, and they won't want the initial outlay of paying extra for renewables (not at the expense of faster growth), so it will be coal all the way for them. But nuclear for them is what could fix that problem, but can you see the rest of the world actively requesting developing nations with massive populations doing anything related to nuclear? I can't. They do get involved with it a bit, but it's meaningless as they're still on 50% coal, it's going to take them 50 years before they ignore the cheap cost of that and their effective free natural resources, or the population develops enough to steer their governments from it.

Same with Africa, South America, Mexico etc, billions more in developing areas, do you think the USA will want them researching/ building anything nuclear-related? How long before they all ditch coal and gas etc.

This is pretty much why I think the EU's green fight is effectively pointless, it's bailing out the sinking boat with a cup, whilst most of the rest of the world is drilling holes in the bottom of it. The developing world just won't do anything green at the cost of growth, just like the USA and EU didn't when they had their major realtive growth.
 
This is pretty much why I think the EU's green fight is effectively pointless, it's bailing out the sinking boat with a cup, whilst most of the rest of the world is drilling holes in the bottom of it. The developing world just won't do anything green at the cost of growth, just like the USA and EU didn't when they had their major realtive growth.
So I think we are all agreed that is the problem, but what is the solution? I can't see any other solution than the rest of the world bailing out these progressing countries by supporting them technically and financially to build nuclear.
 
So I think we are all agreed that is the problem, but what is the solution? I can't see any other solution than the rest of the world bailing out these progressing countries by supporting them technically and financially to build nuclear.
This is only my opinion, but it just seems relatively logical to me, albeit sad:

I just don't see how there is a solution really, a bailout won't happen, it's not even possible, the financial outlay would be absolutely crippling. The far-right population of the developed world would never go for it, and even the majority of the left and centre wouldn't go for it if it meant they ended up much worse off themselves (austerity etc). It will be a case of "every man for themselves" and lot of talk of "at least we tried", "we did our bit" etc.

Effectively what will happen is the developed world will basically have the cash to engineer a solution, or will gradually migrate further inland and the less developed won't be able to engineer it, and their people will simply get forced to move elsewhere last minute as and when the natural disasters take more effect. It will be carnage.

The only thing I can think that would save it is if science basically solved the energy problem, extremely low cost and risk, so that it was even chapter than coal.

Or, the oil producers get invaded and cut supplies/ sanctions on the coal producers and massive machinery etc, but basically, that's world war 3.

There's just zero chance of China, India, South America and Africa using renewables instead of coal/ oil/ gas etc, whilst going through massive growth, it can only come after the growth and by then it's too late. It's hard enough getting the USA to do it and half the time they won't (when republicans are in charge). The only way they will, is if forced but the cost or World War 3 would probably be more than relocating the most at risk from warming etc.

All we're doing is buying a little time I think, but it won't be a lot/ enough.
 
Last edited:
so no solution?

I don't/can't buy that, it will be late in the day, but solutions need to be found or the planet is fubar'ed. Moving inland isn't a solution, it doesn't address the issue of runaway climate change, the idea that you reach a tipping point of no return when you turn the Earth into Venus.
 
so no solution?

I don't/can't buy that, it will be late in the day, but solutions need to be found or the planet is fubar'ed. Moving inland isn't a solution, it doesn't address the issue of runaway climate change, the idea that you reach a tipping point of no return when you turn the Earth into Venus.
Don't get me wrong, I've not thought about the end in detail, or even read about it, I'm just thinking about energy, growth and the reality of how people and nations act, especially rapidly developing ones.

I just think it will be too late to stop it, I've no idea where the world ends up if we get runaway climate change/ positive feedback loop mind, but might read up on that. The world is extremely selfish, look at the vaccine rollout, and that's something we can see day by day. With the climate, we're like the frog in the hot pan of water, and only about 1/3rd of the world even cares that it's on the stove. Even the part that cares will probably not do enough in time, so the other 2/3 has zero chance, I think we're in for a hard time basically.

I do think something will happen though, but it won't be good, and won't be the developing nations willingly switching from fossil fuels to renewables, not fast enough anyway. I think it will be more forceful, sanctions, wars, trouble, disease etc first, and with that a further slowing of the birth rate, slowing population growth and receding earlier than expected.
 
Nuclear should be used waaay more than it is, but there's a stigma around it, which is not equal to the problems nuclear solves or energy volume it creates, the thing is that stigma is going to be very hard to change.

Hard to change but not impossible. All it needs is the right incentive, promotion and public policy.

Look at the changes we have made in the UK with regards to things like smoking, drink-driving etc all within one generation.

With current tech and future improvements nuclear is deffo the way to go.
 
Andy, a daft question you may have a solution to.

With the pending date of stopping the sale of petrol and diesel cars how do we fix the issue of charging cars on streets that are full of terraced housing?
 
Andy, a daft question you may have a solution to.

With the pending date of stopping the sale of petrol and diesel cars how do we fix the issue of charging cars on streets that are full of terraced housing?
One thing has already started in London. Chargers in lampposts. Seems to work
 
How much of a role, if any, are the oil companies playing in restricting the switch to electric vehicles.

Whilst living in Texas, with its year round sunshine, I noticed there was a complete absence of solar power panels or rooftop water tanks common in Europe for decades.

The oil companies' grip being so powerful that development of alternative sources was restricted.
 
How much of a role, if any, are the oil companies playing in restricting the switch to electric vehicles.

Whilst living in Texas, with its year round sunshine, I noticed there was a complete absence of solar power panels or rooftop water tanks common in Europe for decades.

The oil companies' grip being so powerful that development of alternative sources was restricted.
Probably a fair bit, with all the lobbying that goes on, especially when Trump was there.

Bit different with Biden now, he seems very keen on them getting their act into shape, or taking some responsibility at least.

Texas knows oil is done, long term, it's why they're trying to attract tech from Cali etc, Tesla's even moved there hasn't it?
 
Presentation is cringy but the content is valid. Electric cars will do little to save the planet. Only a massive reduction in population will.
Electric cars will mean improved public health, which can only lead to higher population, and more old people at that.
 
With the pending date of stopping the sale of petrol and diesel cars how do we fix the issue of charging cars on streets that are full of terraced housing?
there'll be street charging points, also charging times will massively reduce, it'll be a 5 min 150 mile top up possibly using conductive charging. It's a challange and possibly a lifestyle change in the more frequent but short burst charges, rather than 10 mins at the petrol station every week, but it's not an unsurmountable challenge.
 
there'll be street charging points, also charging times will massively reduce, it'll be a 5 min 150 mile top up possibly using conductive charging. It's a challange and possibly a lifestyle change in the more frequent but short burst charges, rather than 10 mins at the petrol station every week, but it's not an unsurmountable challenge.
I don't think street charging is going to work on those streets where you have cars crammed together though, you know like the old mining town's streets for example. Hopefully the charging becomes quicker like you say to eliminate that problem and the price using a charging station stays the same as using a charging point at home.
 
Back
Top