Andy_W
Well-known member
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.
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.