Climate change and the impending apocalypse

***RyeSloan*** · 22-07-2023 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's all well and good. But it doesn't change that fact that you can't simply store a nuclear charged battery in a vehicle or any other appliance. The common misconception is that batteries contain electricity. But they don't. If that was the case, then it wouldn't matter if the electricity was originally generated from nuclear, renewables or coal, as electricity is electricity regardless of how it's produced. Instead, the batteries contain a method of generating electricity when power needs to be drawn from the battery. The battery itself is not a container for electricity, it contains the reaction required to produce it. You certainly wouldn't want a nuclear reaction going on in your car.

I’m not sure what your argument here is. I’m pretty sure most people are capable of understanding the chemistry of how a battery works.

Just as most people are capable of understanding that charging a car using electricity that has been generated via nuclear or renewables is therefore charging your car without there having been the need to burn fossil fuels.

Also there has been a few comments re grid level storage for renewables being ‘years away’..to some degree that’s true but only to some degree. The increase in operational storage over the last 5 years is substantial but nothing like what’s already in the works. Here’s a very good summary of the scale of what’s being put in place:

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/b...%20of%20617MWh.

**TrumpIsAPeado** · 22-07-2023 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m not sure what your argument here is. I’m pretty sure most people are capable of understanding the chemistry of how a battery works.

Being capable of understanding isn't the same as understanding. Most people simply don't think about how these things work because they don't really need to. This can cause people to arrive at common misconceptions. I'm not really making an argument. I was simply correcting a point about electricity being stored in a battery from nuclear energy.

***RyeSloan*** · 22-07-2023 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Being capable of understanding isn't the same as understanding. Most people simply don't think about how these things work because they don't really need to. This can cause people to arrive at common misconceptions. I'm not really making an argument. I was simply correcting a point about electricity being stored in a battery from nuclear energy.

But to charge a battery you need electricity. The technicalities of storage / discharge is neither here nor there to the point you were addressing.

Quite simply the point was that if the electricity used to charge the EV had been produced by a nuclear plant then then there would have been no fossil fuels burnt in that process. You seemed to suggest that point needed corrected when it’s rather unclear as to why you thought that.

No one was saying using electricity from a nuclear plant meant you ended up with a nuclear powered car!