I understand your argument, but I refute your assertions with the following pieces of evidence that I hope you will consider.
Purified Uranium has 100 000 times the energy density of gasoline. Unless you time travelled from Industrial revolution era, not sure where you got “nothing”:
Not saying nuclear has no downsides, but what is economical vs. what is most energy dense are two separate discussions you are trying to simplify into one. Wind is not energy dense but has been economical which is where my original argument came from. It is a competitor to oil that is being forced out.
Electric vehicles are finding their niche in lighter duty farm, construction, landscaping jobs. The article below says the current technology is suitable for under 100hp. In 20 years it may be possible to improve it to a level that it can compare or exceed performance against traditional motor models.
Just last year, the first commercial training flight on an all-electric plane took off in Canada! It wouldn’t be inconceivable to charge that using solar. And for the same reason you don’t have to jump right to electrifying a 747, having more electric aircraft would be useful in quickly hopping between islands or remote settlements, while reducing emissions and need to transport fossil fuels as much. Newer or different battery tech may come in due time, but if we ignore it just because it can’t fully switch immediately, we hinder the progress we are making today. Before an electric jumbo jet or fighter jet, we’ll get a commuter jet. Before the commuter jet we’ll get a 10 seater twin prop. Before the twin prop we have the two seater single prop.<-- We are here.
I understand your argument, but I refute your assertions with the following pieces of evidence that I hope you will consider.
Purified Uranium has 100 000 times the energy density of gasoline. Unless you time travelled from Industrial revolution era, not sure where you got “nothing”:
https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx
Not saying nuclear has no downsides, but what is economical vs. what is most energy dense are two separate discussions you are trying to simplify into one. Wind is not energy dense but has been economical which is where my original argument came from. It is a competitor to oil that is being forced out.
Electric vehicles are finding their niche in lighter duty farm, construction, landscaping jobs. The article below says the current technology is suitable for under 100hp. In 20 years it may be possible to improve it to a level that it can compare or exceed performance against traditional motor models.
https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-electric-farm-equipment
Just last year, the first commercial training flight on an all-electric plane took off in Canada! It wouldn’t be inconceivable to charge that using solar. And for the same reason you don’t have to jump right to electrifying a 747, having more electric aircraft would be useful in quickly hopping between islands or remote settlements, while reducing emissions and need to transport fossil fuels as much. Newer or different battery tech may come in due time, but if we ignore it just because it can’t fully switch immediately, we hinder the progress we are making today. Before an electric jumbo jet or fighter jet, we’ll get a commuter jet. Before the commuter jet we’ll get a 10 seater twin prop. Before the twin prop we have the two seater single prop.<-- We are here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10567635/canada-first-ever-commercial-electric-flight-bc/