Are we being forced to go electric?

[Andy in Germany]

What's lots of vehicle movements- what do you mean?

Everything needed for a power station, be it biomass, coal, wind, gas, oil, solar, or a nuclear power station, has to be taken in and out by truck; wind turbine sails are famously large, but less interesting things like concrete have to be brought to the site, mixed and then poured. Nuclear stations are even worse than other systems; they are highly inefficient when you factor everything required because they take decades to build and decades more to decommission at the end of their working life. This is because they're full of dangerous material (which includes much of the concrete hauled in in the first place) which has to be removed, and then stored, some of it for a very long time, often encased in more concrete.

Moving all this heavy and dangerous material around (not to mention the many people employed to organise all this) takes a great deal of transportation, usually by road, and therefore a great deal of energy. Road vehicles are a very inefficient way to move lots of things or people around; we can get away with this while we have lots of oil, because oil gives a lot of energy for the energy invested. Hydrogen and batteries produce less. In other words, we can afford EV's as long as we have another independent power source. The jury is still out on whether we can afford IC vehicles without oil based transport, especially on a 1-1 replacement basis.

It would make more sense to look at this in detail and consider if there are more efficient ways of living in our environment using existing technology (spoiler: yes there are) but the desire not to change is very strong in most people. The industry can easily control the narrative as IC vs EV cars or trucks rather than inefficient road transport against more efficient alternatives because that's what politicians and most people want to hear.

 

[Alex321]

Everything needed for a power station, be it biomass, coal, wind, gas, oil, solar, or a nuclear power station, has to be taken in and out by truck; wind turbine sails are famously large, but less interesting things like concrete have to be brought to the site, mixed and then poured. Nuclear stations are even worse than other systems; they are highly inefficient when you factor everything required because they take decades to build and decades more to decommission at the end of their working life. This is because they're full of dangerous material (which includes much of the concrete hauled in in the first place) which has to be removed, and then stored, some of it for a very long time, often encased in more concrete.

The vast majority of those movements are in the course of construction. And would be required for any type of power generation.

I rather doubt the volume of such movements is wildly different for different types of generation, though there will undoubtedly be some variation.

And of course, once constructed, the movements are lowest for renewables (since no fuel needs to be provided), and next lowest for nuclear, since that uses very little fuel.

Moving all this heavy and dangerous material around (not to mention the many people employed to organise all this) takes a great deal of transportation, usually by road, and therefore a great deal of energy. Road vehicles are a very inefficient way to move lots of things or people around; we can get away with this while we have lots of oil, because oil gives a lot of energy for the energy invested. Hydrogen and batteries produce less. In other words, we can afford EV's as long as we have another independent power source. The jury is still out on whether we can replace IC vehicles with them.

I don't think there is any real doubt that we can replace ICE vehicles with them.

The jury is out on whether we should.

It would make more sense to look at this in detail and consider if there are more efficient ways of living in our environment using existing technology (spoiler: yes there are) but the desire not to change is very strong in most people. The industry can easily control the narrative as IC vs EV cars or trucks rather than inefficient road transport against more efficient alternatives because that's what politicians and most people want to hear.

This is very true.

Most people (even most of us on here) are very reluctant to give up the personal transport we have known all our lives - particularly with the state of public transport (in the UK).

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

For the second time now. The 99.9% was talking about the batman style EV supercar. Not normal EVs.

Correct

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

As much as l’d like to keep my Kodiaq (2.0Tdi/manual ‘box/4x4), due to SWMBO stating we need an automatic
We looked at some last Sunday
They were a couple of the Enyaq vRS models in, with that ‘fugly’ (let’s copy the hideous X6) shape
There is another model of the Enyaq that closely resembles a Kodiaq
When the time comes, maybe in (maybe) 3 months, l might seriously look at one, especially now that SWMBO has located the BWSOW on a site

 

[Andy in Germany]

The vast majority of those movements are in the course of construction. And would be required for any type of power generation.

I rather doubt the volume of such movements is wildly different for different types of generation, though there will undoubtedly be some variation.

And of course, once constructed, the movements are lowest for renewables (since no fuel needs to be provided), and next lowest for nuclear, since that uses very little fuel.

I'm not arguing for Nuclear Vs. "Other", as you say, all require energy for construction.

However, Nuclear isn't a magic bullet any more than EV's are. People underestimate how much time, transport and energy is required to build and decommission a nuclear plant: apart from the fact they are massive, decommissioning is a complex process which takes decades. This requires large amounts of people and materials to be moved large distances. Storage of nuclear material requires energy as well. At the moment we have a 'separate' source for that energy in oil so we don't realise how much energy is being used.

 

[icowden]

As much as l’d like to keep my Kodiaq (2.0Tdi/manual ‘box/4x4), due to SWMBO stating we need an automatic
We looked at some last Sunday
They were a couple of the Enyaq vRS models in, with that ‘fugly’ (let’s copy the hideous X6) shape
There is another model of the Enyaq that closely resembles a Kodiaq
When the time comes, maybe in (maybe) 3 months, l might seriously look at one, especially now that SWMBO has located the BWSOW on a site

Just be aware that Skoda have the old fashioned approach where everything is an "extra" in a pack. The base Skoda Enyak is about £40k - £10k cheaper than an ID4, but by the time you have paid for the air conditioning, seats, things you would expect to be there automatically etc you will be back up at £50k.

 

[FishFright]

There's no accounting for some peoples' taste

At least its not some German borefest in resale grey.

 

[FishFright]

I'm not arguing for Nuclear Vs. "Other", as you say, all require energy for construction.

However, Nuclear isn't a magic bullet any more than EV's are. People underestimate how much time, transport and energy is required to build and decommission a nuclear plant: apart from the fact they are massive, decommissioning is a complex process which takes decades. This requires large amounts of people and materials to be moved large distances. Storage of nuclear material requires energy as well. At the moment we have a 'separate' source for that energy in oil so we don't realise how much energy is being used.

Basically it's a new stone age or nothing? Don't fall into the Greenpeace trap of objecting to everything.

 

[lazybloke]

I'm not arguing for Nuclear Vs. "Other", as you say, all require energy for construction.

However, Nuclear isn't a magic bullet any more than EV's are. People underestimate how much time, transport and energy is required to build and decommission a nuclear plant: apart from the fact they are massive, decommissioning is a complex process which takes decades. This requires large amounts of people and materials to be moved large distances. Storage of nuclear material requires energy as well. At the moment we have a 'separate' source for that energy in oil so we don't realise how much energy is being used.

Its not just during construction and decom.
Nuclear also has significant operational staffing requirements throughout its generating lifetime (even when offline).

Renewables are rather better - their operational requirements are really only a bit of maintenance.

Dont think we can rid of nuclear power any time soon though.

 

[Alex321]

I'm not arguing for Nuclear Vs. "Other", as you say, all require energy for construction.

However, Nuclear isn't a magic bullet any more than EV's are. People underestimate how much time, transport and energy is required to build and decommission a nuclear plant: apart from the fact they are massive, decommissioning is a complex process which takes decades. This requires large amounts of people and materials to be moved large distances. Storage of nuclear material requires energy as well. At the moment we have a 'separate' source for that energy in oil so we don't realise how much energy is being used.

I fully agree that nuclear (fission) is not a magic bullet. But we do probably need to keep on with some in the short term. It is better than fossil-fuel overall, I think, but certainly is not viable as the main source of energy production.

IF nuclear fusion ever becomes viable, it could be a magic bullet. But that is a very big IF.

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Just be aware that Skoda have the old fashioned approach where everything is an "extra" in a pack. The base Skoda Enyak is about £40k - £10k cheaper than an ID4, but by the time you have paid for the air conditioning, seats, things you would expect to be there automatically etc you will be back up at £50k.

True
I notice that every time l ‘window-shop’ on the Skoda GB website, & specify a Superb estate, or a Kodiaq
Eg; a heated windscreen would be nice, but you have to have heated seats (not fussed about those)
Likewise, l’d want to downsize wheels/tyres, l’d sooner have an 18” with a reasonably sensible (‘55’ profile) sidewall, than a fancy 20”, & ‘rubber-band’ (‘45’ profile) tyre

 

[Jameshow]

True
I notice that every time l ‘window-shop’ on the Skoda GB website, & specify a Superb estate, or a Kodiaq
Eg; a heated windscreen would be nice, but you have to have heated seats (not fussed about those)
Likewise, l’d want to downsize wheels/tyres, l’d sooner have an 18” with a reasonably sensible (‘55’ profile) sidewall, than a fancy 20”, & ‘rubber-band’ (‘45’ profile) tyre

Go for 16" and 75 profile?!!🤣🤣🤣

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Go for 16" and 75 profile?!!🤣🤣🤣

Even better!!

 

[Andy in Germany]

Basically it's a new stone age or nothing? Don't fall into the Greenpeace trap of objecting to everything.

I think you may be pushing it a bit there: "Not being able to drive a car everywhere" is a long way from "New stone age", just as "Pointing out potential issues with some technology" isn't really "Objecting to everything."

It may be that the future is a Utopia full of EV's, but I don't see how that can work, given the issues. My concern is that the narratives being presented to the public aren't even addressing them.

 

[Gillstay]

Basically it's a new stone age or nothing? Don't fall into the Greenpeace trap of objecting to everything.

No, I think he is just saying that the energy we don't use is the cheapest. As in insulating homes really well, making any car very frugal, just cutting down on waste. We could all do it and dont. If I can get my car to do 56 mpg when the max it used to do was 48, then what could a motivated manufacturer do ?