Is nuclear energy the answer to a sustainable future? Experts are divided
Nuclear power has been touted as a proven, safe way of producing clean energy, but why isn’t it more widely adopted?
Sean Gallup | Getty Images News | Getty Images
As the world pushes toward its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, nuclear power has been touted as the way to bridge the energy gap — but some, like Greenpeace, have expressed skepticism, warning that it has “no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future.”
Nuclear energy is not only clean. It is reliable and overcomes the intermittent nature of renewables like wind, hydro and solar power.
“How do you provide cheap, reliable and pollution-free energy for a world of 8 billion people? Nuclear energy is really the only scalable version of that, renewables are not reliable,” Michael Shellenberger, founder of environmental organization Environmental Progress, told CNBC.
Governments have started to pour money into the sector after years of “treading water,” according to a report by Schroders on Aug. 8.
According to the report, there are 486 nuclear reactors either planned, proposed or under construction as of July, amounting to 65.9 billion watts of electric capacity – the highest amount of electric capacity under construction the industry has seen since 2015.
Only a few years ago, the International Energy Agency had warned that nuclear power was “at risk of future decline.” The report in 2019 said then that “nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.”
Schroders noted that nuclear power is not only scalable, but much cleaner — emitting just 10-15 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour. That’s competitive with both wind and solar energy and substantially better than coal and natural gas.
Nuclear power is also the second largest source of low carbon energy after hydro power, more than wind and solar combined, Schroders said.
Shellenberger’s view is that renewable energy is reaching the limits of what it can achieve in many countries. For example, hydroelectric power is not viable in all countries, and those that have them are “tapped out,” which means they cannot exploit any more land or water resources for that purpose.
Nuclear power is a great alternative, with “very small amounts of waste, easy to manage, never hurt anybody, very low cost when you build the same kind of plants over and over again,” he added.
That’s the reason why nations are having a second look at nuclear power, Shellenberger said. “It’s because renewables aren’t able to take us where we need to go. And countries want to be free of fossil fuels.”
Nuclear safety
Twelve years after Fukushima, we’re just getting better at operating these plants. They’re more efficient, they’re safer, we have better training.
Michael Shellenberger
Environmental Progress
In an interview with CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” last week, Adam Fleck, director of research, ratings and ESG at Morningstar, said the social concern around nuclear power is “somewhat misunderstood.”
While the tragedies in Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot be forgotten, using nuclear is one of the safest ways to produce energy, even taking into consideration the need to store the nuclear waste.
“Many of those [storage facilities] are highly protected. They’re protected against earthquakes, tornadoes, you name it. But there’s a reason why there hasn’t been a significant tragedy or concern related to storage of nuclear waste.”
Shellenberger said: “Twelve years after Fukushima, we’re just getting better at operating these plants. They’re more efficient, they’re safer, we have better training.”
There have been new designs for nuclear power plants that have also enhanced safety, “but really what’s made nuclear safe has been the kind of the boring stuff, the stuff of the trainings and the routines and the best practices,” he told CNBC.
Too expensive, too slow
So, if nuclear has been a tested, proven and safe way of generating power, why isn’t it more widely adopted?
Fleck said it boils down to one main factor: cost.
The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit carbon dioxide while awaiting substitution.
Greenpeace
“I think the biggest issue of nuclear has actually been cost economics. It’s very costly to build a nuclear plant up front. There’s a lot of overruns, a lot of delays. And I think, for investors looking to put money to work in this space, they need to find players that have a strong track record of being able to build out that capacity.”
But not everyone is convinced.
A report by global campaigning network Greenpeace in March 2022 was of the position that besides the commonly held concern of nuclear safety, nuclear energy is too expensive and too slow to deploy compared to other renewables.
Greenpeace noted that a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years to build, adding “the extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit carbon dioxide while awaiting substitution.”
Furthermore, it points out that uranium extraction, transport and processing are not free of greenhouse gas emissions either.
Greenpeace acknowledged that “all in all, nuclear power stations score comparable with wind and solar energy.” However, wind and solar can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale, making a faster impact on carbon emissions and the clean energy transition.
Nuclear power is a “distraction” from the “answer we need” — such as renewables and energy storage solutions to mitigate the unreliability from renewables, said Dave Sweeney, a nuclear analyst and nuclear-free campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
“That’s the way that we need to go, to keep the lights on and the Geiger counters down,” he told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” on Friday.
Can an EV really help power your home when the power goes out? It’s one of the biggest FAQs people have about electric cars — but the answer can be a bit confusing. It’s either a yes, with a but – or a no, with an unless. To find out which EVs can offer vehicle-to-home (V2H) tech to keep the lights on or even lower your energy bills, keep on reading.
Modern EVs have big, efficient batteries capable of storing enough energy to power home for days. That can mean backup power during a storm or the ability to use stored energy during expensive peak hours and recharge again when kilowatts are cheap.
That’s all true – but only in theory. Because, while your EV might have a big battery, that doesn’t mean it has the special hardware and software that allow electricity to safely flow back out of the car baked in. Car companies call this vehicle-to-home (V2H) or bi-directional charging, and only a handful of models currently support it. That’s that, “yes, with a but” asterisk.
Yes, an EV can power your home, but it has to be one of these.
Ford F-150 Lightning
Ford made early headlines using its F-150 Lightning as a life-saving generator during winter ice storms and hurricanes, so it should come as no surprise that it’s included in this list. The best-selling electric truck in America can send up to 9.6 kW of power from its onboard batteries back to the house. More than enough to keep the lights on and the refrigerator running during an outage.
To make it work, you’ll need to install the Charge Station Pro (formerly called Intelligent Backup Power) home charger, the Home Integration System (HIS), which includes an inverter, a transfer switch, and a small battery to switch the system on, as well Ford’s Charge Station Pro 80A bi-directional charger (which comes free with the Extended Range F-150 Lightning, but costs about $1,300 otherwise).
All-in, you’re looking at about $5,000 in hardware, plus installation, to make it work.
Kia EV9
With up to 300 miles of range and ultra-fast charging, the seven-passenger electric SUV from Kia has been a hot seller. And back in March, the Kia EV9 unlocked yet another new feature: vehicle-to-home charging.
When paired with the Quasar 2 bidirectional charger from Wallbox (and the associated Power Recovery Unit, or PRU), a fully-charged Kia EV9 can power a standard suburban home for three days. Longer, still, if you’re keeping the energy use low. The Wallbox Quasar 2 isn’t cheap, though – pricing starts at $6,440 (again, plus installation). For that price, you the PRU plus a wall-mounted 12 kW L2 charger with 12.8 kW of with discharge power on a split-phase system.
Pretty much all the GM EVs
With the exception of the Chevy Brightdrop, GMC Hummer EV, and the hand-built, ultra-luxe Cadillac CELESTIQ, every Ultium-based GM EV can send battery power back to your home through GM Energy’s Ultium Home System – arguably the most fully integrated EV + battery backup + solar option out there outside of Tesla.
GM Energy says its new 19.2 kW Powershift Charger delivers around 6-7% more juice than a typical 11.5 kW L2 charger, delivering up to 51 miles of range per charge hour. Bi-directional charging requires the Powershift Charger to be paired up with a compatible GM EV and the GM Energy V2H Enablement Kit. The full system retails for $12,699, plus installation, and can be financed through GM Financial.
NOTE: some 2024 models might require a software update to enable V2H functionality, which can be done either at the dealer or through an OTA update.
Tesla Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck owners may have zero taste, but they have two options when it comes to powering their homes with their trucks. If they already have a Tesla Powerwall, they don’t need anything else. If they don’t, they’ll need to install a Universal Wall Connector charger, a Powershare Gateway, and a Tesla Backup Switch.
That second option will run about $3,500, plus installation.
That rounds off the list of vehicles that ship with V2H software baked in, so if you’re wondering whether or not your EV can be used to power your home, now you know the answer is yes, as long as it’s one of the ones listed above.
But you might remember that I answered the initial question by saying it was either a yes, with a but – or a no, with an unless. So if you want to use your car’s battery as a backup, but don’t have one of the EVs liksted above, that doesn’t mean you’re completely out of luck.
No, with an unless
As some of the earliest and most enthusiastic EV adopters, Tesla fans have also been among the loudest advocates for using the energy stored their cars’ batteries to back up their homes — or even the grid itself. Unfortunately for them, the slow-selling Cybertruck is the only Tesla vehicle that officially supports bi-directional charging. If you’re one of the many Model 3 and Y owners frustrated by those delays, there’s good news: those vehicles are now capable of V2H charging thanks to an “impressive” Powerwall competitor, Sigenergy.
The good news doesn’t stop there, however. The Sigenergy V2X also works with both the popular Kia EV6 and Electrek‘s 2024 EV of the Year, the Volvo EX30 over the DIN70121 protocol, and several VW/Audi/Porsche and Mercedes-Benz EVs over the ISO15118-2 protocol.
Our own Editor-in-Chief, Fred Lambert, recently went on a Sigenergy deep dive with Sylvain Juteau, President of Roulez Electrique, and came away deeply impressed with the system. I’ve included the video, above, and you can read more about the system itself at this link.
And, of course, I look forward to learning about any V2H models or more universal battery backup systems from you, the smartest readers in the blogosphere, in the comments.
Original content from Electrek.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has changed the meaning of “Full Self-Driving”, also known as “FSD”, to give up on its original promise of delivering unsupervised autonomy.
Since 2016, Tesla has claimed that all its vehicles in production would be capable of achieving unsupervised self-driving capability.
CEO Elon Musk has claimed that it would happen by the end of every year since 2018.
Tesla has even sold a software package, known as “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD), for up to $15,000 to customers, promising that the advanced driver-assist system would become fully autonomous through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, the promise has yet to be fulfilled, and Tesla has already confirmed that all vehicles produced between 2016 and 2023 don’t have the proper hardware to deliver unsupervised self-driving as promised.
Musk has been discussing the upgrade of the computers in these vehicles to appease owners, but there’s no concrete plan to implement it.
While there’s no doubt that Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving capabilities to FSD buyers between 2016 and 2023, the automaker has since updated its language and now only sells “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to customers:
The fine print mentions that it doesn’t make the vehicle “autonomous” and doesn’t promise it as a feature.
In other words, people buying FSD today are not really buying the capability of unsupervised self-driving as prior buyers did.
Furthermore, Tesla’s board has just submitted a new, unprecedented CEO compensation package for shareholders’ approval, which could give Musk up to $1 trillion in stock options pending the achievement of certain milestones.
One of these milestones is Tesla having “10 Million Active FSD Subscriptions.”
At first glance, this would be hopeful for FSD buyers since part of Musk’s compensation would be dependent on delivering on the FSD promises.
However, Tesla has changed the definition of FSD in the compensation package with an extremely vague one”
“FSD” means an advanced driving system, regardless of the marketing name used, that is capable of performing transportation tasks that provide autonomous or similar functionality under specified driving conditions.
Tesla now considers FSD only an “advanced driving system” that should be “capable of performing transportation tasks that prove autonomous or similar functionality”.
The current version of FSD, which requires constant supervising by the driver, could easily fit that description.
Therefore, FSD now doesn’t come with the inital promise of Tesla owners being able to go to sleep in their vehicles and wake up at their destination – a promise that Musk has used to sell Tesla vehicles for years.
Electrek’s Take
The way Tesla discusses autonomy with customers and investors versus how it presents it in its court filings and legally binding documents is strikingly different.
It should be worrying to anyone with an interest in this.
With this very vague description in the new CEO compensation package, Tesla could literally lower the price of FSD and even remove base Autopilot to push customers toward FSD and give Musk hundreds of billions of dollars in shares in the process.
There’s precedent for Tesla decreasing pricing on FSD. Initially, Musk said that Tesla would gradually increase the price of the FSD package as the features improved and approached unsupervised autonomy.
That was true for a while, but then Tesla started slashing FSD prices, which are now down $7,000 from their high in 2023:
The trend is quite apparent and coincidentally began when Tesla’s sales started to decline.
FSD is now a simple ADAS system without any promise of unsupervised self-driving. This might quite honestly be one of the biggest cases of false advertising or bait-and-switch ever.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The new Chevy Bolt EV is set to enter production later this year, with one fewer shift, following GM’s reduction in production plans at several US plants. Apart from the Bolt, GM promised a new family of affordable EVs. Are those, too, now at risk?
GM says more affordable EVs are coming, but when?
GM remained the number two EV maker in the US after back-to-back record sales months in July and August. However, with the $7,500 federal tax credit set to expire at the end of the month, the company expects a slowdown.
On Thursday, GM sent a note to employees at its Spring Hill plant in Tennessee, outlining plans to reduce output of two Cadillac electric SUVs, the Lyriq and Vistiq.
A source close to the matter confirmed the news to Reuters, saying the production halt will begin in December. GM will significantly reduce output during the first five months of 2026, according to the source.
GM is also delaying the second shift at its Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, where the new Chevy Bolt is slated to enter production later this year. The Bolt will be the first of a new series of affordable EVs that GM intends to build in Kansas.
However, those too, may now be in jeopardy. According to local news outlets, GM Korea Technical Research Center (GMTCK), a spin-off of GM’s Korean subsidiary, was recently cut out of a secret small EV project it was developing.
GMTCK president Brian McMurray reportedly announced internally last month during a trip to the US that the project was cancelled and only 30% to 40% complete.
A GM Korea spokesperson clarified that “the EV project being led by GMTCK was a global undertaking, not undertaken solely by GM Korea. The spokesperson added, “The project itself has not been canceled; the role of the Korean team has simply changed.”
The new electric car, dubbed “Fun Family,” was scheduled to launch under the Chevy and Buick brands, using a single platform. Production was expected to begin in 2027 with deliveries starting in 2028.
GM Korea exports over 90% of the vehicles it makes to the US, but with the new auto tariffs, the subsidiary is expected to play a drastically smaller role, if any at all. The news is fueling the ongoing rumors that GM could withdraw from Korea altogether.
In addition to the tariffs, South Korea’s recently passed “Yellow Envelope Law” could make it even more difficult for GM with new labor laws.
Will this impact the affordable EVs GM is promising to launch in the US? They are scheduled to be built in Kansas, but with the R&D Center, GM’s second largest globally, following the US, claiming to be excluded from a major global EV project, it can’t be a good sign.
In the meantime, GM already has one of the most affordable electric vehicles in the US, the Chevy Equinox EV. Starting at under $35,000, the company calls it “America’s most affordable” EV with over 315 miles of range.
With the $7,500 federal tax credit still available, GM is promoting Chevy Equinox EV leases for under $250 a month. Nowadays, it’s hard to find any vehicle for under that.
Source: Newsworks Korea
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024