DADAKOTA Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 With all the push (by some) to eliminate fossil fuels and the accompanying emissions, what is the plan to generate all the electricity needed to replace the fossil fuel? I'd assume coalfired and natural gas fired power plants are a no-no. Non one wants a nuke plant near them let alone dealing with all that waste. Does anyone think they can get enough power through wind, solar, and water? Without government subsidies wind and solar are not cost effective. I'll keep my gasser motors thank you. tho1mas and snagged in outlet 3 1 1
dblades Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 France gets 80% of it's power from nuclear already. I think the waste problem is overblown, using current technology, and there are now several proposed new plants. Really no way to generate the power, plus all the additional that will be required without it. Don't get me started on the real reason WHY I think the current rush is on to end fossil fuel. (It ain't climate) snagged in outlet 3 1
DADAKOTA Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 Nuke power is very efficient. The last nuke plant came on line in June 2016. The one before that was 1996. I'd imagine that we have some nearing the end of their useful life and will be decommissioned. Not sure where all the power will come from for Wrench to run his electric boat and pickemup truck.
Flysmallie Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 Nuclear is the way to go. Unfortunately, misinformation to protect fossil fuel profits stands in the way.
BilletHead Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 19 minutes ago, Flysmallie said: Nuclear is the way to go. Unfortunately, misinformation to protect fossil fuel profits stands in the way. I would be for that if we could avoid a Chernobyl or Fukushima. I realize both fossil and Nuke can have environmental impact, but I would say lives lost with nuclear disaster would be much higher? "We have met the enemy and it is us", Pogo If you compete with your fellow anglers, you become their competitor, If you help them you become their friend" Lefty Kreh " Never display your knowledge, you only share it" Lefty Kreh "Eat more bass and there will be more room for walleye to grow!" BilletHead " One thing in life is for sure. If you are careful you can straddle the barbed wire fence but make one mistake and you will be hurting" BilletHead P.S. "May your fences be short or hope you have long legs" BilletHead
Flysmallie Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 7 minutes ago, BilletHead said: I would be for that if we could avoid a Chernobyl or Fukushima. I realize both fossil and Nuke can have environmental impact, but I would say lives lost with nuclear disaster would be much higher? Chernobyl was due to ego. they knew there was an issue. It had be documented for years. But they refused to fix it and when it started going south during a safety test the person in charge refused to back down. Fukushima? DON'T BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN A KNOWN DISASTER AREA. It would be like the US building one along the Mississippi. Sooner or later it's going to get water in it. Plus there are safer designs of nuclear reactors. Designs that will shut themselves down instead of melt down. But I know it will be tough going up against the impeccable safety record of the coal industry. mixermarkb and top_dollar 2
snagged in outlet 3 Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 I always wonder why they focus on us here in the US to clean up the planet when China and India pump out huge amounts of pollution. Wouldn't we get more bang for our buck cleaning that up first? Gretta Thunberg should go to China and tell them how to save the planet. She can contemplate it while she sits in their work camps....
MrGiggles Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 On 2/16/2022 at 2:41 PM, fishinwrench said: You think it is larger and heavier than a tank of gasoline that will run the same number of hours ? I seriously doubt it. Even when the inefficiency of an engine is factored in, gasoline has way more potential energy per pound than current lithium batteries. And that electric outboard is likely not much lighter than it's gasoline counterpart, so there's no real savings there. Just some rough math, it would take 900lbs of battery to provide the same capacity as a 30 gallon gas tank, which is about what a Tesla battery weighs. Granted, very few people actually use the full capacity of a given boats fuel tank, but still. There is a long ways to go before the two could be considered equal in terms of run time. -Austin
fishinwrench Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 A pound of gasoline won't even weedeat around my mailbox. I'm probably better off throwing the gas on the weeds. 😂
MOPanfisher Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 More hydro dams = more lakes to fish. Of course every one eliminates a perfectly good river. I would think that those EV outboards would have a solar panel either on top of the cowling or built into it. Wouldn't be big enough to do a lot but beats paddling. They would probably work fine for me as I don't run far when I go but unless they are gonna give me one for free I reckon my Ole Yammer will be just fine.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now