Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

jakubmarian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#61

Post by petra »

Kon5ole wrote: post #53
smsm42 wrote: post #33

France electricity is mostly (72%) from nuclear power. Aka the most under-appreciated clean energy that everybody is panicky about and wants to get rid of. Which means, unless you have a luxury of having tons of hydropower or something, nuclear is probably the best way to lower carbon footprint. Of course, this is also the least discussed way.

I am one of the "panicky" ones and I want to explain my point of view. When I was a kid, living in the equivalent of Kentucky, a nuclear accident in the equivalent of the Bahamas made it so we couldn't eat wild berries from the woods anymore. Now a middle aged man over 30 years later, sheep from my home area still measure levels of radioactivity too high for human consumption. That's why I feel most options are bette…

If you look at the seriousness the human race dedicated to creating safe nuclear energy, it looks almost comical:we settled on the first technology we found(pressured water reactors), because it fitted best for the requirents of the Navy at the time, not because it offered the best safety for citizens, far from it.And than, in the name of safety, we created an environment that prevented from new designs to become commercialized.

Why wasn't it safe ? Because that type of reactors creates a lot of high pressure radioactive gassses , and in the case of an accident, those gases spread far.

But we now have reactors types that (a) can't physically blow up , their temperature is limited, and (b) contain very little to no radioactive gasses , so even in the worst case scenario, we'll be just left with an enclosed pool of radioactive material, which is safe.

So please don't judge nuclear by it's past.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#62

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Eupolemos wrote: post #49
valuearb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an incredibly minor problem compared to global warming. I'd solve the more important one first.

It's minor now. But if it turns out that we'll need an active (as in "needs manpower") care-taking of this waste for several thousands of years, we get into the compounded interests area. Also, there's the immediate (last 50 years) issues such as barrels of waste being treated in silly manners; e.g. thrown into the ocean near the coast and shot to pieces by air-planes if they surface... Politicians and corporations w…

> But if it turns out that we'll need an active (as in "needs manpower") care-taking of this waste for several thousands of years

We don't. Dig a shaft half a mile deep in bedrock in a tectonically stable area, and anything you put there will be safe for the next million years.

But that's kind of expensive, so we keep dumping the shit in the ocean or in shallow graves in the backyard.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#63

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Kon5ole wrote: post #53
smsm42 wrote: post #33

France electricity is mostly (72%) from nuclear power. Aka the most under-appreciated clean energy that everybody is panicky about and wants to get rid of. Which means, unless you have a luxury of having tons of hydropower or something, nuclear is probably the best way to lower carbon footprint. Of course, this is also the least discussed way.

I am one of the "panicky" ones and I want to explain my point of view. When I was a kid, living in the equivalent of Kentucky, a nuclear accident in the equivalent of the Bahamas made it so we couldn't eat wild berries from the woods anymore. Now a middle aged man over 30 years later, sheep from my home area still measure levels of radioactivity too high for human consumption. That's why I feel most options are bette…

That's a real problem, but it's still orders of magnitude less harmful than coal.

(Also, as a Kentuckian I'm curious what "the equivalent of Kentucky" is.) :)

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#64

Post by BoorishBears »

stephengillie wrote: post #46
BoorishBears wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>removing pollution from cities They move the pollution from a tailpipe feet away from people to a large smoke stack specially optimized to lower the effect on air quality in the immediate area.

Combustion is just one type of pollution that cars produce. And while relocating pollution is a tempting way to externalize the problem, it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

I don't know why you're stretching so hard to make it seem like moving pollution away from population centers isn't an excellent benefit and likely to reduce in many fewer deaths from direct exposure to pollution.

The comment above was referring to local pollution in cities (which directly kills thousands through diseases related to particulates in that pollution). Relocating that pollution does solve that problem.

(PH)EVs also produce much less particulate pollution from brake dust due to the use of regen to brake (which is why they can go several times the normal replacement interval for brake pads).

The creation of pollution is a separate problem from the location of that pollution. Yes, EVs don't magically prevent the creation of pollution, but they can severely limit the creation of pollution in population centers, where they have the most immediate effect.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#65

Post by dmurray »

CalChris wrote: post #31
Reason077 wrote: post #20

Electric vehicles can be charged overnight and at off-peak times, so it's reasonable to assume they use a higher-than-average share of low-carbon energy. For example, around 50% of the UK's electricity production is from low-carbon sources (renewables and nuclear). But a much higher percentage of off-peak power is low-carbon. After midnight, close to 100% of the grid is low-carbon because the gas turbines spin down w…

This. It isn't clear how these CO2/km numbers were derived. Are they a function of average energy generation source mixes or are they taking into consideration when EVs are charged. Average would be more correct for Bitcoin mining. PGE has an EV rate plan [1] which charges a lot less during off peak (midnight to 6am) than during the day. [1] https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o...

Bitcoin miners would also use electricity at low peak times, unless the cost of hardware dominates the cost of electricity. In practice the mining operations seem to be concentrated near hydro plants in China, where there is an oversupply of carbon neutral electric power.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#67

Post by aoeusnth1 »

stephengillie wrote: post #46
BoorishBears wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>removing pollution from cities They move the pollution from a tailpipe feet away from people to a large smoke stack specially optimized to lower the effect on air quality in the immediate area.

Combustion is just one type of pollution that cars produce. And while relocating pollution is a tempting way to externalize the problem, it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

I thought the underlying issue was people dying from exposure to pollution? Or is that not something that you're concerned about?

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#68

Post by smsm42 »

Eupolemos wrote: post #49
valuearb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an incredibly minor problem compared to global warming. I'd solve the more important one first.

It's minor now. But if it turns out that we'll need an active (as in "needs manpower") care-taking of this waste for several thousands of years, we get into the compounded interests area. Also, there's the immediate (last 50 years) issues such as barrels of waste being treated in silly manners; e.g. thrown into the ocean near the coast and shot to pieces by air-planes if they surface... Politicians and corporations w…

The waste mismanagement is not unique to nuclear. Check out this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Love_Canal_disaster

Out of all wastes to be mismanaged, higher radiation would probably be the easiest to detect - simple detectors are widely available commercially.

Yes, we need ways to store, or recycle - there are ways to do that too - nuclear waste, but that doesn't seem to be an intractable problem, and I don't think this is the main hindrance to the wider spread of the nuclear energetic. Irrational fears of "radiation" and political issues seem to be more prominent there.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#69

Post by smsm42 »

_ph_ wrote: post #58
Kon5ole wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of the "panicky" ones and I want to explain my point of view. When I was a kid, living in the equivalent of Kentucky, a nuclear accident in the equivalent of the Bahamas made it so we couldn't eat wild berries from the woods anymore. Now a middle aged man over 30 years later, sheep from my home area still measure levels of radioactivity too high for human consumption. That's why I feel most options are bette…

Here in Bavaria, every single wild boar shot still has to be checked for radioactivity, quite a few have to be destroyed for too high radiation values. Equally, it is recommended not to eat too many mushrooms from the forest. All of this due to the Chernobyl accident more than 30 years ago.

I have very hard time believing anything harmful can get from Chernobyl to Bavaria and still be dangerous by now. I think it's just overreacting. There are millions of people living between Chernobyl and Bavaria, including cities such as Kyiv (3 mln people, less than 100km from Chernobyl), and there seems to be no sign of mass morbidity and mortality from any of radiation related causes. Makes it kinda hard to believe there is still danger in 1400km away.

Re: Where in Europe is electric car a good idea?

#70

Post by smsm42 »

greglindahl wrote: post #54
smsm42 wrote: post #33

France electricity is mostly (72%) from nuclear power. Aka the most under-appreciated clean energy that everybody is panicky about and wants to get rid of. Which means, unless you have a luxury of having tons of hydropower or something, nuclear is probably the best way to lower carbon footprint. Of course, this is also the least discussed way.

Least discussed? It comes up all of the time on HN! Roughly the same things get said every time, too.

Least discussed in places where it matters?
Post reply on HN