They don't ban stuff that is crucial to mobility and a functioning society while it is uncertain whether a replacement will be available.


That's the crux though: governments are not saying "you should use a different technology", they are saying "after date XYZ, you MUST use a different technology, and if the replacement is inferior or too expensive for you, too bad".
Also, by this logic, EVs which are charged with coal/oil/gas power should be banned too, shouldn't they?


I'm not crying about the subsidies - you were citing the growing sales volumes of EVs as proof for their viability, an argument which is doubtful when the product is subsidized so heavily.


Here, you can get a new lower middle class ICE car for €15-25k while a similar EV will typically cost €30-50k. I think the big problem with EVs and lower-income folks is that there is no second-hand market yet. People from the lower middle class and below typically don't buy new cars, they buy used cars which are 3-7 years old. And in this segment, EVs just aren't available, and considering the rapid degradation of the batteries, there might never be a viable second-hand market.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2022 05:01pm

thats old school talk from like 40 years ago, the downside of only being able to use a rather small portion of nuclear fuel and having a big rest as "waste" is basically solved

russia is already operating a reactor system that uses what has been waste so far AND yields fresh fuel for classic reactors, which gives us exponentially more to work with

china, india have massive plans for nuclear, russia will continue to pursue it and many will follow them

we can either match their efforts or have third world generation with windmills and rationed energy

That's all cool, but technology of the future. If these new reactors can made ready for the mass market, great. But we're not there yet and god knows how long it's gonna take until humanity can rely on this technology to satisfy its ever-growing hunger for energy. If there is the corresponding technological breakthrough, this stuff might be a long-term solution.

The bans will be on NEW vehicles. I imagine that the used market for ICE vehicles will be fairly robust until the maintenance costs outweigh the costs of a used EV. Yes, power plants that don't meet emission requirements should be banned. That isn't new and we've been doing that for decades. Again, the bans on new ICE vehicles are several years from now and we've been given ample warning. I don't feel bad for people who don't prepare when they've been told time after time to prepare.

Define "rapid degradation." From what I've read, we're talking about a 5% loss of charge in roughly 100k miles...

More like 20+%. Most manufacturers offer a warranty that the battery will retain 70% of its original capacity after 8 years or 100k miles. Considering the fact that range and recharge times are still a notorious problem for EVs, that would be an issue and significantly diminish the resale value.

Also, read what this article says about the battery lifespan:
https://www.reviewgeek.com/115419/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last/


So heat, cold and fast charging are once again an issue.

Thorium reactors are old technology.

Why aren't they built and used en masse then? Either the technology is inefficient or it isn't ready for the mass market yet.




I wasn't talking about power plants, I was talking about cars. An EV which is charged with coal/oil/gas power doesn't have a better climate balance than ICE cars, so if we ban ICE cars because their greenhouse gas emissions are deemed too high, shouldn't we also ban the charging of EVs with any fossil energy?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2022 05:40pm

Because they are less prone to proliferation than uranium.

Lithium batteries are basically useless within 3 years.

Same as an iphone pretty much.

12 years if you have 4 cars and use the gasoline car (lol) for vacation.

I would prefer a gas tax if you had to do anything. Or a green subsidy.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jul 6 2022 06:00pm

Shouldn't this be a plus for thorium reactors?
Less proliferation = less political risks and easier for the current nuclear powers to retain their advantage over the rest of the world.