I am very surprise to hear you say that. Most people I know, for some reason are incredibly afraid of the word "nuclear". I think it's because they automatically think about the bomb and therefore it's a taboo. (yes i do hang out with strange people but that's besides the point).
But you are correct. I mean corn based ethanol produces more pollution then oil, the process to require the means to produce electric batteries also pollutes the earth (i think it's the acquisition of lithium), and hydrogen technology is way WAY far beyond us. Nuclear energy is basically the most environmental friendly as of right now. (0 emission).
I think why the public opinion of nuclear is so low is because they automatically think of a bomb or Chernobyl.
Your wording eluded that you thought it would shorten a depression. My mistake. Damn the English language and it's multiple meanings.
Yes, we will run out of oil. You obviously didn't understand my post; just because electric cars don't use petroleum-based chemicals for propulsion does not mean that they are the only answer. And, like I said, I quite frankly do not believe they are the answer at all, for the reasons I listed. We are not going to run out of oil before another viable energy source is found. I can guarantee you that. I think hydrogen is currently the most likely fuel to be utilised in the future.
What everyone seems to think, though, is that we will find a fuel which in no way harms the environment. It will NOT happen. Electric cars? Where the hell do you think you're going to get all that electricity from? Power grids in major countries are stressed enough as it is. Hydrogen? While I'm no authority on the subject, most hydrogen I would guess would have to be obtained through an electrolosis process, which depletes our water reserves. Wind? You'd need to cover too much land to make it viable as a mass energy provider; especially if you want electric cars to be the dominant force.
Bottom line, whatever we come up with next is going to harm the environment. People who think otherwise are foolish and naive. How much it harms the environment (relatively to current standards) is a toss up.
OR if you live on Iceland you could simply pump that geothermally produced electric power straight to the batteries of your 130mph, 0-100km/h in under 5 seconds, 200+ mile range Tesla.
I really hope physics and other fundamental sciences get more attention these days and if nuclear fusion power is now up and running safely in commercial use, superconducting power storage becomes commonplace, etc, electric cars would be so superior overall that ICEs will look "dinomobiles". Don't see that happening any soon, unfortunately, for resons so blatantly obvious I will not bother to mention..
Like Geothermal being useless on a commerical scale or for mass electicrity production. Plus, where does the energy come from, and what side effects will us stealing it have?
I also think you (not James) will find I mentioned Nuclear power a few posts previously. We're reducing the unusable waste per kW on a monthly basis, and soon it will be properly sustainable. At the moment it's the toxic waste and the water cooling quality control that stand in it's way, both of which are, I think, solvable.
Anyone who thinks of Chernobyl when talking about Nuclear power should be shot and laughed at for being ignorant.
Superconducting energy storage is a pipe dream on a commercial scale (i.e. able to support our transport needs) for at least 50 years in my opinion. What nasty elements do/will they use in them. Green is only green when disposing of them has no environmental impact, and I don't think anything other than potatoes as batteries (you must have made a clock using a potato as the power source) could be considered as such.
FYI I mentioned Iceland which by sheer fortune happens to have lots of energy form the earth's core energy in the form of heat popping out of it. And I don't see how using the heat that's already coming out of the core is going to cause massive environmental trouble on its own. Of course, Iceland is a special case with a rather small population and of course they are lucky for having this option.
The superconductor power cell is just something I mentioned as a possible method to store a lot of excess power. It's not exactly a pipe dream in the physics sense and the biggest obstacle now is to find higher temperature superconductors, which will happen and is just a matter of time. Superconductors have been incrementally dropping their operating temperatures over the years and of course if people these days were more enthusiastic about science and engineering then worshiping superstars, easy money, etc, then there's more hope.
And let's be absolutely blunt about Chernobyl. The whole tragedy was actually a combination of incompetence both technically and from a managerial point of view. The combination of an unstable design that required power to remain sufficiently on to circulate coolant, the use of trainee technicians instead of veteran engineers and technicians to do a potentially dangerous safety test (ironic, isn't it?), etc. What many people DON'T know is the fact that similar tests that ended up in tragedy in Chernobyl were also carried out in the USA. The only difference was that the Americans passed their auto shutdown tests with flying colors. And of course, few seemed to have noticed significant improvements in efficiency, waste management, etc.
Then again, such good news isn't exactly sensational. Nothing sells like bad news on a Chernobyl scale...
Then there is nuclear FUSION. It's the very process that powers the sun. Quite a few experiments done on it and some have even managed to keep nuclear fusion under control for as long as 15 minutes. Still a long way to go of course and the current social-political climate isn't exactly helpful (with some wishing fossil fuels remain the dominant fuel source forever whereas those crazy greenies on the political scene try to shove oxymoronically and even plain stupid ideas like hybrid cars and wind power down our throats). And of course relative lack of interest in sciences by the current youth will only put another nail in the coffin.
Of course, fusion power and superconductor power cells are still quite a while away if they do eventually come to be, no doubt about that. But in the long run (not just decades but HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of years), they are necessary if humanity as a species is to both live long AND prosper (not meant to be a Vulcan (Star Trek alien race ) pun).
BTW, last time I checked, the manufacture of Toyota Prius batteries caused massive environmental havoc that make petrol and diesel fumes look positively green. Thanks to the massive amounts of nickel processing required for those batteries, the ecosystems around those plants have been absolutely annihilated thanks to excessive levels of Sulphuric Acid from rain, etc. I am also very well aware that disposal is an important but often undermentioned part of ecological sustainability. As for batteries, the unfortunate fact remains there has been too LITTLE progress in battery technology. 10 bloody years and the best they could come up with is just Lithium Polymer. Not too impressive compared to the significant improvements from petrol (FSI/GDI, high pressure injection, variable valve lift and timing, etc) and especially diesel engines (DID, Common Rail high pressure injection, improved durability to mass ratio, Variable vane geometry turbo (recently introduced to top end gasoline cars like the 997 turbo) etc). Doesn't mean that electrical power storage should be further neglected and in fact this only means there is much work that must be done.
) pun).