Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NNadir
(35,902 posts)They're not, but the myth is widely believed, much to the detriment of the environment.
A paper addressing the idea that electric cars are "green."
Any celebration of the car CULTure is a celebration of the destruction of the planetary atmosphere.
MadameButterfly
(3,008 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2025, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)
to get past the anger and get to any real information. I gather that you like nuclear. I know something about that, and it is a longer discussion. i think your gist is we don't consider all the externalities to creating and running an electric car.
While you may have some good points, I differ that people are lying to themselves or being irresponsible. We are all trying our best to do what is right for the planet.
Try a different attitude and I'll click on the remaining links and would be happy to engage in a healthy debate and exchange of information.
NNadir
(35,902 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2025, 11:49 AM - Edit history (3)
...scientific literature on environmental issues to respond to a request that I change my "attitude" in order to have, unfortunate as you may find it, a "debate" with someone who says, "I know something about {nuclear energy}."
To my mind there is nothing to "debate" with anyone on this topic. It's always the same superficial - excuse my language - bullshit, "nuclear waste" and "Fukushima" and "Chernobyl" as if these events on the scale of the destruction of the planetary atmosphere matter a whit.
I'm not amused. I am, frankly, disgusted.
I've been at DU now for more than 22 years, beginning in November 2002. In that period the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, has risen, as of this morning, by 57.67 ppm (exactly).
Over the years, I've probably written close to 50 posts in the series represented by this recent post:
New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 430.86 ppm
I'm not here singing "kumbaya" about electric cars. I'm paying attention.
Out of 2,574 weekly average readings comparing the level of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide, the 3.91 ppm increase over week 20 of 2024, is the 43rd highest ever observed, this, for me, after having to listen to blah, blah, blah reactionary bullshit about making energy supplies dependent on the weather precisely when we have destabilized the weather. We have squandered trillions of dollars on solar and wind energy only to make things get worse faster.
As I often point out, in this space, by appeal to the scientific journal Lancet, about 19,000 people die every damned day from dangerous fossil fuel waste (not including deaths from extreme global heating), aka "air pollution" and I have to listen bull about so called "nuclear waste," from people who want to "debate."
Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
I often ask people who want to "debate" to show that in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear power to show - only direct appeal to the primary scientific literature - that nuclear power operations have killed as many people as will die in the next eight hours from air pollution.
Fear and ignorance about nuclear energy has killed far more people than radiation from nuclear plants has.
For amusement, I once responded to one of many in a series of fairly ignorant "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes here who want to "challenge" me here, one who now happily resides on my ignore list, about how much damage to the environment was done because a tunnel collapsed at the Hanford nuclear weapons plant. The damage was not not from radiation, but from fear of radiation, since no lives were at risk from radiation, but thousands of diesel truck loads of fossil fuel generated cement was trucked in because of fear, risking lives from diesel exhaust, not to mention the probability of a trucking accident.
828 Underground Nuclear Tests, Plutonium Migration in Nevada, Dunning, Kruger, Strawmen, and Tunnels
It probably contains 25 to 30 references to the primary scientific literature. I certainly didn't write the exercise to convince an "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke of anything; these people are in a dogmatic cult of ignorance. I wrote it because in writing it, I learned even more. I'm an old man, and I'm still in the process of learning, because I give a shit about the future far more than I care about bullshit about electric cars.
You may find this as arrogant as I find a request that I change my "attitude" in order to "debate" a random person who says they know "something" about nuclear energy. There's nothing to "debate." I don't know "something;" I know a vast amount, having worked at to understand the topic, on my own time, with no professional interest other than encouraging my son as he works on a Ph.D in nuclear engineering, on this topic, for roughly 40 years, ever since the Chernobyl reactor blew up. Again, you may find it arrogant, but I have never, not once, found anyone at DU, who knows as much as I do about nuclear energy.
Again, there's nothing to "debate." Nuclear energy saves lives.
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
It follows that questioning nuclear power kills people, again, about 19,000 people per day.
It does not need to be free of risk to be vastly superior to all other forms of primary energy. It only needs to be vastly superior to all other forms of primary energy, which it is.
This is Memorial Day Weekend. I will not only think on the military dead, in my memorials. I will reflect on the roughly 160,000,000 million people who died from air pollution just in the period I've been writing here, because people who think they know something about nuclear energy and want to "debate" it, while not giving a rat's ass about deaths from fossil fuels, think that the value of nuclear energy is debatable. Selective attention, frankly, disgusts me.
I respectfully or disrespectfully decline to "debate." Facts are not debatable, and my "attitude" is not subject to change for the benefit of anyone here or elsewhere.
Have a pleasant Memorial Day weekend.
MadameButterfly
(3,008 posts)My father was a nuclear engineer. He received one of the earliest graduate degrees in Nuclear Energy from MIT. I was raised learning about the issue, in detail, from someone who knew his stuff and was a leader in the field. I do not come into this issue with a prejudice against it, and any concerns I have were come by with careful research.
We are here on DU in part to debate issues. I enjoy debate, including with people who disagree with me. When I do I use one of the basic rules of logic: it is not an argument to say "I know more than you do about it, so I'm right." I understand that I must use my knowledge to make my case. I consider superior knowledge on an issue an advantage, not an argument. I also treat the people I am debating, or discussing, with respect. I certainly don't get mad at them over some completely different person I conversed with at some point in the past.
You don't have to change your attitude, but if your goal is to interact or influence, I wonder if you'll get the results you want this way.
NNadir
(35,902 posts)Last edited Mon May 26, 2025, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)
Every once in a while I hear from someone here, "my dad was a nuclear this or that."
My dad dropped out of school in the eighth grade to shine shoes so his family had food to eat during the depression. He never went back to school. I don't, actually, know how to shine shoes very well.
I'm sure every morning at the breakfast table you discussed the limitations of software to generate numerical solutions to the Bateman equation, MCNP vs Origen, the computation time implications of one group vs multigroup calculations, or the implications of the number of delayed neutrons in the fast fission of 241Am with 1 MeV neutrons in reactivity control. Maybe every evening the conversation at the dinner table involved the risks of accumulation of the fission product 79Se over the next 50 centuries. Perhaps this makes you some kind of expert. I don't see a shred of evidence of that, but perhaps I'm wrong.
It doesn't mean very much to me, though.
This excellent "my dad told me" education seems not to have involved an ethical education, for instance considering whether a potential death from exposure to radiation anywhere at any time on this planet is far more important that the deaths of 19,000 people per day from air pollution and, of course, the ongoing collapse of the planetary atmosphere.
I find that ethical consideration relevant to the issue of energy and the environment, and I will not excuse a failure to acknowledge it.
To me, that ethical question is the most important.
The commercial nuclear industry is now 70 years old. In that 70 years, the loss of human life from commercial nuclear operations for the entire period does not match the death toll from a single day of deaths related to the normal use of fossil fuels. I think I made that point, only to hear about your Dad and MIT.
I couldn't care less.
I have more important things to do than to "debate" someone because their father went to MIT for nuclear engineering. I have worked with high level scientists my entire adult life. Some are better than others. There are some who make one wonder how the hell they got their degrees, and in fact, how they ever learned to tie their shoes. Others, of course, are awesomely brilliant. However, this has no bearing on their parenting skills.
That is not the issue however.
There is, again, nothing to debate considering the moral issue.
As for whether my "attitude" convinces anyone of anything, over the years, I have received nice notes from people who told me I changed their minds, and also people who say they won't consider what I say because I'm rude to them.
Over the years, I've used this analogy whenever the complaint comes up: A person is sitting on the railroad tracks when a train is approaching. Someone screams at them, "Hey asshole! Get off the tracks there's a fucking train coming." The person sitting on the railroad tracks says, "Ask me nicely and I'll consider it."
On this planet, we're sitting on the railroad tracks and a train is coming. It's called - or I call it - "extreme global heating."
I'm angry, and I have no use for this kind of thing.
OK? Do I make myself clear?
MadameButterfly
(3,008 posts)You accused me of knowing nothing about nuclear power and being biased against it. Neither is true. Mainly because of my Dad who was dedicated to nuclear power his whole life. That is the only reason he is relevant in this thread. I do take offense at your implication that he might be a poor scientist and his degree and his career mean nothing, and in addition he was a bad father.
Why should I be impressed with your "expertise" about nuclear power or your conclusions about anything given how you make assumptions based on no knowledge whatsoever?
hunter
(39,520 posts)And I like my 25 year old pickup truck, the second truck I've owned, even though it's not a strict necessity and I haven't done any major construction for twenty years. I like being able to carry a sheet of plywood home from the lumber yard. I like being that friend or family member who has a truck.
At a deeper level, most of the construction work my brother does isn't a necessity. He derives most of his income servicing the vanities of very affluent people, remodeling their kitchens and bathrooms and such, which seems a shame when so many people are homeless or living in dilapidated and dangerous buildings. In a better world he'd be doing more Habitat for Humanity sorts of work.
Owning an electric truck might impress some of the affluent people who hire my brother.
The excesses of our affluent "consumer" economy have a huge environmental footprint. These electric trucks will mostly be part of those excesses, purchased by people like me who don't really need a truck for work. I just like having a truck.
I'm probably never going to buy a new vehicle again. I did that once when I was young and foolish just because I thought that's what people like me were supposed to do, monthly payments and all. When my wife started graduates school and we were no longer a two income family those monthly car payments were painful.
Since then the cars I've bought are salvage. I'm a pretty good mechanic and own most of the tools I need to keep them running. My wife has bought four cars since we've been married. She looks for vehicles with about 50,000 miles on them and she's very keen to minimize her environmental footprint. Her last two cars have been hybrids which, according to the chart in your link, have the lowest overall environmental footprint.
byronius
(7,748 posts)Green or not, it’s better than a Chevy Belchmobile. Price is right too.
MadameButterfly
(3,008 posts)I'll be looking into it. i have solar panels on my roof, I think it will be green enough for me. Yes, we can't rely on slave labor from Chinese run lithium mines in Africa. Wish the US had been on top of that and of course Trump won't address it. Battery tech is evolving, would evolve better with some government incentives.
OilemFirchen
(7,246 posts)If the finished product is essentially the same as the prototype, it's literally the perfect truck for me - no crew cab, a healthy bed and a dearth of gimmicks.
Finishline42
(1,139 posts)Benn driving since Dec 2015 - 9.5 years. I have been driving a Tesla Y Long Range since Dec 2023. It is the most efficient vehicle that I have used - which includes a 2009 Toyota Prius.
My average daily use of electricity last month was $4.28 (I charge mainly at home). Mild weather but mostly charging for 5,000 miles. No gas car can compete. Plus no oil changes, no anti-freeze because there's no radiator. No transmission fluid because there's no transmission.... First service is scheduled in 3 weeks. Almost 80k miles since getting the Y.
An as the OP has shown, EV's will continue to get better and cheaper mainly because battery technology will continue to improve (battery cost is something like 1/3 of the cost of an EV).
The automotive industry had gotten down to the few companies that could afford the billions to build the mfg plants and the R&D to improve engines and transmissions. With EV's, it opens the competitive landscape to many more companies.
On a side note - I have driven many people that could use a cheaper, more reliable car. Something that doesn't cost them $500 every time they go in for an oil change. Something they could plug into a wall outlet. Might keep a roof over their heads...