You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Debunking The Elon Musk Meme
Might be that Tesla is currently overvalued but at least Mr. Musk is doing something and his company actually produces the promised products.
He won't save the world but I would rather see him succeed with battery powered cars and solar roofs instead of seeing him make money with nuclear power, oil or weapons like so many others are already doing.
Exactly this kind of belief ( solar better than nuclear) is the core of the problem and why it will all fall apart. Also. Like i explain in the article he is working with the US military
I'm not convinced but time will tell... By the way, IMO solar definitely is much better than nuclear power.
Solar is highly inefficient. Also, the production of solar cells are not as "green" as you think
Let me answer with numbers:
"Older nuclear reactors are about 33% efficient, newer plants are about 36% efficient" (Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-energy-efficiency-of-nuclear-fission-plants)
"Solar panels: 70% and Solar cells 15%" (Source: http://www.fosnes.de/pdf/Degree%20of%20efficiency.pdf)
15 % is not too much? You're right and those numbers are quite old. The current record stands at 40 % for solar cells (Source: http://www.solar-facts.com/panels/panel-efficiency.php)
Efficiency of technology itself is irrelevant. Solar energy covers just 1% of global energy demands while nuclear more than 60%. Also nuclear is in itself the most efficient even if you take the old reactors into consideration.
-1.https://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/12/solar-power-passes-1-global-threshold/
-2. https://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/how-efficient-is-nuclear-energy-really/5723
You neglect the astounding toxicity of nuclear power, and the external costs. You also neglect the simplicity of solar, and the personal freedom that empowers.
Nothing is perfect, but solar is breddy gud.
uhh the actual research shows that the amount of harmful toxins generated building the batteries for those time bombs is considerably worse than anything we are currently doing, and here is a really important quesion that nobody is asking, what in the hell are we gonna do with all of those 600lb batteries when they go bad in 3 to 5 years, you wanna talk about some industrial waste that is also highly caustic and flamable.
Worse than Chernobyl and Fukushima? Where is that "actual research"?
what does nuclear energy have to do with combustion engines ?
Lithium batteries are poster boys for recycling. That's what we're gonna do with them.
Infernal combustion engines are also recyclable, and that's what's done with them, too.
However, it does not make any economic sense to recycle the batteries. Batteries contain only a small fraction of lithium carbonate as a percent of weight and are inexpensive compared to cobalt or nickel. The average lithium cost associated with Li-ion battery production is less than 3% of the production cost.Aug 1, 2011
The Lithium Battery Recycling Challenge - Waste Management World