Ban urban vehicles

[Novus America]

Very easy.Traffic accident.

I think that's covered. See how the reactor is partly separate from the car? I think you could pull a lever in the cab, and the reactor would drop on the road. And you coast to safety!

(Everything about the Nucleon is a joke btw)

Micro-nuclear itself is not just a joke. Cars or even trains, should not have reactors. Big ships maybe.

Yeah, at the time people like Edward Teller pointed that out. If you want a nuclear power car or train just make it electric and charge it using a nuclear power electric grid. Way more sensible than tiny reactors on each car.

As much as I adore nuclear it makes no sense to put the reactor on a car over an electric battery.

It has use for ships though. Nuclear powered ships are a proven technology.

[Novus America]

I am not so sure about ITER though, the Tokamak might be a dead end, laser confinement might be the way to go.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Hydrogen energy vehicles are under development.The problem now is that liquid hydrogen is not safe, and a series of metals that store hydrogen are being tested in the laboratory.Its principle is fuel cell.Open fire is too dangerous.
I have to say that I was learning these things in physics and chemistry class in middle school more than ten years ago. Now they're still in the lab.I feel like human beings are now in a technological bottleneck

Hydrogen is not really better than electric anyways. Because you have to produce the pure hydrogen using electricity, if you are using dirty electricity, you still produce pollution.
Sure nuclear and such can make it cleanly but they can make electricity cleanly without the extra step.

Hydrogen just stores electric energy because hydrogen is too volatile and thus is not really available outside if breaking up water using electricity.
Hydrogen is just a low density very explosive battery.

It is hard to see where it is any better than electric with a battery.

Replenish energy as fast as gasoline, high energy density.In addition, electric vehicles are not performing well in the high-speed field, but hydrogen energy vehicles will perform better than gasoline vehicles.
In fact, the battery is not as stable and durable as expected. There have been several burning incidents in Tesla recently.

[Novus America]

Hydrogen is not really better than electric anyways. Because you have to produce the pure hydrogen using electricity, if you are using dirty electricity, you still produce pollution.
Sure nuclear and such can make it cleanly but they can make electricity cleanly without the extra step.

Hydrogen just stores electric energy because hydrogen is too volatile and thus is not really available outside if breaking up water using electricity.
Hydrogen is just a low density very explosive battery.

It is hard to see where it is any better than electric with a battery.

Replenish energy as fast as gasoline, high energy density.In addition, electric vehicles are not performing well in the high-speed field, but hydrogen energy vehicles will perform better than gasoline vehicles.
In fact, the battery is not as stable and durable as expected. There have been several burning incidents in Tesla recently.

Although quick replenishment is a potential benefit, actually transferring it requires very complex equipment because it escapes so easily.
It is the least dense element by volume, it has high energy density by weight but not by volume.
Keeping it compressed enough or liquified is not really viable for cars.

It is used on rockets but it is only stored on board the rocket right before launch and quickly expended. You cannot safely store and produce it at home.

Whereas if you have an electric car you can just charge it in your garage.
I have a a solar power plant, I can use that to directly charge a car, as it produces electricity. Using that electricity to produce hydrogen meanwhile would be very inefficient, expensive and dangerous.

The distribution and production of hydrogen would require a vast and complex infrastructure while we already have an electric distribution infrastructure everywhere.

Sure batteries still have some issues, but they are improving and still easier to work with.

The problems with hydrogen are literally elemental.

[Slavakino]

I am not so sure about ITER though, the Tokamak might be a dead end, laser confinement might be the way to go.

ITER uses the Tokamak design. Most nations are still experimenting with Tokamak or Laser Confinement. Both are great ways to achieve fusion. You could probably strap it on a car with a steam turbine

[Cisairse]

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

Another great prototype killed by Big Oil!

I particularly like how they've left so much space around the reactor. In case something goes a bit wrong.

Nah that's just the car's gutter.

[Cisairse]

Fusion Reactors?Iron man?It's science fiction.But there is Nuclear battery now.It is used in aerospace, pacemaker and some special military applications. It can provide a million times more energy than a chemical cell of the same volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

Fusion reactors aren't really sci-fi anymore. You got experiments that have been running since the 50's also the sun exists. Hopefully in the 2020's ITER works and we can start producing Fusion Reactors. Only problem is lithium and initially starting the reactor. But the pay off is worth it

Yeah sweaty I'm going to need a source that "the sun exists."

[Novus America]

I am not so sure about ITER though, the Tokamak might be a dead end, laser confinement might be the way to go.

ITER uses the Tokamak design. Most nations are still experimenting with Tokamak or Laser Confinement. Both are great ways to achieve fusion. You could probably strap it on a car with a steam turbine

I am aware ITER uses the Tokamak although I can see where my language was unclear. I tend to think laser confinement might be the better way. The Tokamak has a lot of issues with the design. With laser confinement it is really just getting more powerful lasers.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

ITER uses the Tokamak design. Most nations are still experimenting with Tokamak or Laser Confinement. Both are great ways to achieve fusion. You could probably strap it on a car with a steam turbine

I am aware ITER uses the Tokamak although I can see where my language was unclear. I tend to think laser confinement might be the better way. The Tokamak has a lot of issues with the design. With laser confinement it is really just getting more powerful lasers.

The problem with ICF is no smaller than that of Tokamak.The principle of ICF is to compress and heat nuclear fuel with laser.The essence is to use laser instead of atomic bomb to detonate a hydrogen bomb below the critical point.You're not going to get a stronger laser.Now, the problem of mainstream ICF is that when the fuel pellet implodes, it will affect the pressure balance.There's an equilibrium formula, and the NIF can only provide half of the pressure required by the formula
Another problem encountered by Tokamak is that its poloidal magnetic field is supplied by plasma.Current distribution brings instability
In addition, there is another magnetic confinement fusion device in Germany---stellarator.It encountered less instability than Tokamak

[Slavakino]

ITER uses the Tokamak design. Most nations are still experimenting with Tokamak or Laser Confinement. Both are great ways to achieve fusion. You could probably strap it on a car with a steam turbine

I am aware ITER uses the Tokamak although I can see where my language was unclear. I tend to think laser confinement might be the better way. The Tokamak has a lot of issues with the design. With laser confinement it is really just getting more powerful lasers.

All good

[Novus America]

I am aware ITER uses the Tokamak although I can see where my language was unclear. I tend to think laser confinement might be the better way. The Tokamak has a lot of issues with the design. With laser confinement it is really just getting more powerful lasers.

The problem with ICF is no smaller than that of Tokamak.The principle of ICF is to compress and heat nuclear fuel with laser.The essence is to use laser instead of atomic bomb to detonate a hydrogen bomb below the critical point.You're not going to get a stronger laser.Now, the problem of mainstream ICF is that when the fuel pellet implodes, it will affect the pressure balance.There's an equilibrium formula, and the NIF can only provide half of the pressure required by the formula
Another problem encountered by Tokamak is that its poloidal magnetic field is supplied by plasma.Current distribution brings instability

Lasers are rapidly improving so I think that can be overcome.
But sure the design is massive. Micro fission reactors are not coming any time soon.

Putting one on a car is not likely anytime soon, realistically nuclear powered cars will have to actually be using electricity or hydrogen coming from an off site reactor.

The stellarator can potentially overcome some of the magnetic field limitations of the Tokamak which should be looked into as well.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The problem with ICF is no smaller than that of Tokamak.The principle of ICF is to compress and heat nuclear fuel with laser.The essence is to use laser instead of atomic bomb to detonate a hydrogen bomb below the critical point.You're not going to get a stronger laser.Now, the problem of mainstream ICF is that when the fuel pellet implodes, it will affect the pressure balance.There's an equilibrium formula, and the NIF can only provide half of the pressure required by the formula
Another problem encountered by Tokamak is that its poloidal magnetic field is supplied by plasma.Current distribution brings instability

Lasers are rapidly improving so I think that can be overcome.
But sure the design is massive. Micro fission reactors are not coming any time soon.

Putting one on a car is not likely anytime soon, realistically nuclear powered cars will have to actually be using electricity or hydrogen coming from an off site reactor.

The stellarator can potentially overcome some of the magnetic field limitations of the Tokamak which should be looked into as well.

Major countries are doing research on different programs at the same time.These things are only suitable for big guys. But it has to be said that these three kinds of steel crafts are very beautiful.

[Novus America]

Lasers are rapidly improving so I think that can be overcome.
But sure the design is massive. Micro fission reactors are not coming any time soon.

Putting one on a car is not likely anytime soon, realistically nuclear powered cars will have to actually be using electricity or hydrogen coming from an off site reactor.

The stellarator can potentially overcome some of the magnetic field limitations of the Tokamak which should be looked into as well.

Major countries are doing research on different programs at the same time.These things are only suitable for big guys. But it has to be said that these three kinds of steel crafts are very beautiful.

True, we need to look at all angles, we do not know which one is best yet, although it seems the US is the main one doing laser confinement and the Europeans tokamaks.

But yes nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is love, nuclear is life.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Major countries are doing research on different programs at the same time.These things are only suitable for big guys. But it has to be said that these three kinds of steel crafts are very beautiful.

True, we need to look at all angles, we do not know which one is best yet, although it seems the US is the main one doing laser confinement and the Europeans tokamaks.

But yes nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is love, nuclear is life.

Europeans have a habit of procrastinating on major scientific research projects.Europe is 31 months behind schedule in ITER.Now China has began built a CFETR of the same scale.The United States and Russia may soon shift their focus from this project.

[Novus America]

True, we need to look at all angles, we do not know which one is best yet, although it seems the US is the main one doing laser confinement and the Europeans tokamaks.

But yes nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is love, nuclear is life.

Europeans have a habit of procrastinating on major scientific research projects.Europe is 31 months behind schedule in ITER.Now China has began built a CFETR of the same scale.The United States and Russia may soon shift their focus from this project.

The US has been focusing more on laser confinement and stellarators as well.
ITER does seem to have management issues.

[Slavakino]

True, we need to look at all angles, we do not know which one is best yet, although it seems the US is the main one doing laser confinement and the Europeans tokamaks.

But yes nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is love, nuclear is life.

Europeans have a habit of procrastinating on major scientific research projects.Europe is 31 months behind schedule in ITER.Now China has began built a CFETR of the same scale.The United States and Russia may soon shift their focus from this project.

We cannot let the Chinese further in further technology. They are too dangerous

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

As for the original question, I think we’re going to move towards an autonomous smart network of electric vehicles, with more people being driven than driving eventually. But as for the energy source for all these EVs, the problem with nuclear energy is it is expensive, and slow, and expensive. The near to medium future depends on rapidly deployable renewables and the smart use of natural gas, which is the key to U.S. energy independence and phasing out dangerous oil and coal. But we need to be increasing LNG pipeline and drilling methane leak regulations, not rolling them back as the Trump admin. is doing in opposition to the gas industry’s own lobbyists. Also can’t just be recklessly spending fuel, the energy industry needs nationalization.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Hydrogen energy vehicles are under development.The problem now is that liquid hydrogen is not safe, and a series of metals that store hydrogen are being tested in the laboratory.Its principle is fuel cell.Open fire is too dangerous.
I have to say that I was learning these things in physics and chemistry class in middle school more than ten years ago. Now they're still in the lab.I feel like human beings are now in a technological bottleneck

Hydrogen is not really better than electric anyways. Because you have to produce the pure hydrogen using electricity, if you are using dirty electricity, you still produce pollution.
Sure nuclear and such can make it cleanly but they can make electricity cleanly without the extra step.

Hydrogen just stores electric energy because hydrogen is too volatile and thus is not really available outside if breaking up water using electricity.
Hydrogen is just a low density very explosive battery.

It is hard to see where it is any better than electric with a battery.

I think the idea of hydrogen was appealing because electrolysis isn't the only way to get hydrogen.

There's an old process called steam reforming (steam and gas, or steam and coal). This used to be the source of "town gas" because coal was more easily brought to town than gas was, so gas for the town would be generated in a plant on the outskirts and stored in a gas riser. No country I know of does that any more, because we have pipelines (and liquification of gas), also town gas was poisonous. But one component of it, was hydrogen.

So people knew about that source decades ago, but it was the prospect of other sources which really made hydrogen look good. Thermochemical solar. Bacteria that release hydrogen. But mainly what you said: hydrogen would be a transition fuel to an electric future.

Carbon emissions became a more important factor, so no coal or gas. The prospective other sources went no-where, and the drawback that hydrogen had all along (very hard to contain, very flammable, and uh, a gas) really killed the idea.

Plus, (lithium) batteries got dramatically better, thanks to all those early adopters paying high prices for laptops and phones. The idea of using electricity to make hydrogen, then transporting the hydrogen around so you could burn it in air to make heat, is actually rather absurd now.

Not really disagreeing with you overall (just the thing about electrolysis being the only source). I think batteries being less sucky than lead/acid, and batteries being so ubiquitous now, has made us aware that electricity is a fuel. As batteries become even better it will render all other fuels obsolete outside of generating stations.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

True, we need to look at all angles, we do not know which one is best yet, although it seems the US is the main one doing laser confinement and the Europeans tokamaks.

But yes nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is love, nuclear is life.

Europeans have a habit of procrastinating on major scientific research projects.Europe is 31 months behind schedule in ITER.Now China has began built a CFETR of the same scale.The United States and Russia may soon shift their focus from this project.

It's called a Megaproject. They all run behind schedule and over budget. Actually Europeans seem to be better on both schedule and budget, than Americans are. I'm not sure why, but it could be a culture of underquoting in the US: to get approval for a megaproject, the proponents of it have to quote an unrealistically short time and small budget.

Does China have any megaprojects to compare? I'm aware of the Great Wall which set all-time records for taking too long and costing too much

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Europeans have a habit of procrastinating on major scientific research projects.Europe is 31 months behind schedule in ITER.Now China has began built a CFETR of the same scale.The United States and Russia may soon shift their focus from this project.

We cannot let the Chinese further in further technology. They are too dangerous

The "we must stop China" spiel usually relies on the idea that the US is such an important market for the US, that Chinese industry will just collapse if Americans stop buying Made in China.

Sometimes it get a bit closer to reality, eg if America and all it's allies stop buying ...

But let's talk about what we're talking about. China is building several new designs of nuclear reactor. They're not just fooling around trying to make fusion work, because they know just from looking at the history of fusion that they'll need a lot of electricity before that happens. They're building sodium-cooled reactors for instance. Micro-reactors. Spent fuel reactors.

All of these are to provide power to the Chinese market, which is of course huge.

The US meanwhile is building 4 new reactors. They're all pressurized water reactors (tried and true! Good enough for your grandpa good enough for you!).

So what are you going to do to stop China getting further ahead? Just sit on your throne of being the world's largest nuclear generating nation ... until you're not any more? Refuse to buy Chinese and then threaten other nations who want to buy Chinese reactors instead of Westinghouse? You've got to come up with a smarter plan than sanctions, those are not going to work.

[Medwedgrad]

When it comes to the main topic of this discussion, I am personal not in favour of a ban for urban vehicles, but I do think that certain reduction of them would be a good idea. One reason being ecology (and here I am more concerned about direct pollution that cars cause in cities than about some more global issues like climate change) and second reason because I think that cities would be a more pleasant place to live in with less cars. Finally, I think that it could potentially make everyone's life easier by reducing the traffic jams.

However, unlike the most of the people above, I would not search for the sollutions mainly in new technologies, as I don't want to tackle only the problem of different gas emissions, but also all negative consequences of too dense city traffic. Many of those ideas are not original and they are being widely implemented, but I wanted to group them all here:

I. Public transport and infrastructure
1. Bypasses - a city should be encircled with a highway with as many possible entrances and exits from the city to move as much of traffic from the center to the outside of the city.
2. Railway - each bigger city usually has a railway. Except for cargo and movement of passengers between the cities, it should be adapted for city and suburban trains, so that it can serve people to easily move from one part of city to another on train, but also to encourage people from smaller towns and villages around the city to travel to it by train instead of a car.
3. Underground - obvious solution necessary in every bigger city.
4. Trams and buses - a city needs good connections with public transport. It is important that all important spots are well connected, that public transport is clean and comes on time, and that it goes often enough. Trams are to be used more in the center of the city and for smaller distances, while buses are better solution for suburbs, longer distances and uphill parts of the city if there are such.
5. Taxi - good taxi service also helps to reduce amount of private vehicles in use.
6. Alternatives - bicycle paths, renting bicycles, etc. The more the better.

II. Restrictions for private vehicles
1. Banning private vehicles in certain areas - it works well for inner parts of the city like old town etc. Such places could go fully without private cars. More pedestrian areas and places where you can get only by tram or underground.
2. Semi-restricted areas - there can also be parts of the city where private vehicles can enter only during certain hours (for example at night).
3. City vignette - It is a good idea to allow into the city for free only the cars of the people who actually live there (or at least in its metropolitan area). Visitors from other places should be forced to buy a vignette upon their entrance into the city with their private vehicle (alternative solution for them will be explained in the next section). This system in order to work might require to adapt car registration tables system in some countries. From the first letters on the tables, it should be easy to conclude if the person was supposed to by vignette or not.

III. Parking infrastructure
1. Big parkings instead of parking places along the streets - Less parking places means less people choosing a private vehicle as a method to go to the city. I would go for underground garages or bigger parking squares in strategical spots, and ban the custom of parking along the road, between the driveway and pedestrian area. It would also serve the city's aesthetics.
2. Make it expensive - Above mentioned parkings in the city center should also be accordingally expensive, so that everyone thinks twice when he chooses his method of transport. Apart from private parkings attached to private houses or residental buildings, no parking spot in the city should be free of charge (of course, with exceptions for people with disabilities, etc).
3. Huge free parkings on the entrances to the city - While parkings in the city should be expensive, on all the entrances to the city there should be big (or even huge) and monitored free parkings. Everyone who comes to the city could live their car there for free, and immidiately next to the parking would be a bus station (or ideally also underground) from which you can fastly get to the city by bus. It would not only be convenient for visitors, but probably many people who live in the city would choose to keep their cars there. The idea is to encourage people to start treating cars more as a vehicle for longer trips than as a mean of transport inside the city.

IV. Urban planning and architecture
1. No more skyscrapers - Skyscrapers and huge residental complexes accumulate many people in the small area. In consequence, there are also more cars in small areas. I strongly belive that urbanisation went too far and that we should reduce the city population, while in the same time making cities more pleasant places to live. Instead of big skyscrapers and complexes with cheap flats, what should be built are family houses and smaller residental buildings (4-6 households per building).
2. Removing industry from the city - The urbanisation started mostly because of big factories being built in industrial cities. Now is a time to move such industries to the industrial zones outside of the city. With current capabilities when it comes to transport, it is not necessary anymore to live near the factory you work in. Good traffic infrastructure allows us to build non-residental industrial zones near the city, but not in it.

[Thepeopl]

https://youtu.be/Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

Apparently we don't have as much cars crashing into buildings when we ban cars from city centres

[Slavakino]

We cannot let the Chinese further in further technology. They are too dangerous

The "we must stop China" spiel usually relies on the idea that the US is such an important market for the US, that Chinese industry will just collapse if Americans stop buying Made in China.

Sometimes it get a bit closer to reality, eg if America and all it's allies stop buying ...

But let's talk about what we're talking about. China is building several new designs of nuclear reactor. They're not just fooling around trying to make fusion work, because they know just from looking at the history of fusion that they'll need a lot of electricity before that happens. They're building sodium-cooled reactors for instance. Micro-reactors. Spent fuel reactors.

All of these are to provide power to the Chinese market, which is of course huge.

The US meanwhile is building 4 new reactors. They're all pressurized water reactors (tried and true! Good enough for your grandpa good enough for you!).

So what are you going to do to stop China getting further ahead? Just sit on your throne of being the world's largest nuclear generating nation ... until you're not any more? Refuse to buy Chinese and then threaten other nations who want to buy Chinese reactors instead of Westinghouse? You've got to come up with a smarter plan than sanctions, those are not going to work.

I live in Australia. The Chinese are becoming extremely threatening to us

[Novus America]

When it comes to the main topic of this discussion, I am personal not in favour of a ban for urban vehicles, but I do think that certain reduction of them would be a good idea. One reason being ecology (and here I am more concerned about direct pollution that cars cause in cities than about some more global issues like climate change) and second reason because I think that cities would be a more pleasant place to live in with less cars. Finally, I think that it could potentially make everyone's life easier by reducing the traffic jams.

However, unlike the most of the people above, I would not search for the sollutions mainly in new technologies, as I don't want to tackle only the problem of different gas emissions, but also all negative consequences of too dense city traffic. Many of those ideas are not original and they are being widely implemented, but I wanted to group them all here:

I. Public transport and infrastructure
1. Bypasses - a city should be encircled with a highway with as many possible entrances and exits from the city to move as much of traffic from the center to the outside of the city.
2. Railway - each bigger city usually has a railway. Except for cargo and movement of passengers between the cities, it should be adapted for city and suburban trains, so that it can serve people to easily move from one part of city to another on train, but also to encourage people from smaller towns and villages around the city to travel to it by train instead of a car.
3. Underground - obvious solution necessary in every bigger city.
4. Trams and buses - a city needs good connections with public transport. It is important that all important spots are well connected, that public transport is clean and comes on time, and that it goes often enough. Trams are to be used more in the center of the city and for smaller distances, while buses are better solution for suburbs, longer distances and uphill parts of the city if there are such.
5. Taxi - good taxi service also helps to reduce amount of private vehicles in use.
6. Alternatives - bicycle paths, renting bicycles, etc. The more the better.

II. Restrictions for private vehicles
1. Banning private vehicles in certain areas - it works well for inner parts of the city like old town etc. Such places could go fully without private cars. More pedestrian areas and places where you can get only by tram or underground.
2. Semi-restricted areas - there can also be parts of the city where private vehicles can enter only during certain hours (for example at night).
3. City vignette - It is a good idea to allow into the city for free only the cars of the people who actually live there (or at least in its metropolitan area). Visitors from other places should be forced to buy a vignette upon their entrance into the city with their private vehicle (alternative solution for them will be explained in the next section). This system in order to work might require to adapt car registration tables system in some countries. From the first letters on the tables, it should be easy to conclude if the person was supposed to by vignette or not.

III. Parking infrastructure
1. Big parkings instead of parking places along the streets - Less parking places means less people choosing a private vehicle as a method to go to the city. I would go for underground garages or bigger parking squares in strategical spots, and ban the custom of parking along the road, between the driveway and pedestrian area. It would also serve the city's aesthetics.
2. Make it expensive - Above mentioned parkings in the city center should also be accordingally expensive, so that everyone thinks twice when he chooses his method of transport. Apart from private parkings attached to private houses or residental buildings, no parking spot in the city should be free of charge (of course, with exceptions for people with disabilities, etc).
3. Huge free parkings on the entrances to the city - While parkings in the city should be expensive, on all the entrances to the city there should be big (or even huge) and monitored free parkings. Everyone who comes to the city could live their car there for free, and immidiately next to the parking would be a bus station (or ideally also underground) from which you can fastly get to the city by bus. It would not only be convenient for visitors, but probably many people who live in the city would choose to keep their cars there. The idea is to encourage people to start treating cars more as a vehicle for longer trips than as a mean of transport inside the city.

IV. Urban planning and architecture
1. No more skyscrapers - Skyscrapers and huge residental complexes accumulate many people in the small area. In consequence, there are also more cars in small areas. I strongly belive that urbanisation went too far and that we should reduce the city population, while in the same time making cities more pleasant places to live. Instead of big skyscrapers and complexes with cheap flats, what should be built are family houses and smaller residental buildings (4-6 households per building).
2. Removing industry from the city - The urbanisation started mostly because of big factories being built in industrial cities. Now is a time to move such industries to the industrial zones outside of the city. With current capabilities when it comes to transport, it is not necessary anymore to live near the factory you work in. Good traffic infrastructure allows us to build non-residental industrial zones near the city, but not in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_(concept)

[Neanderthaland]

Another great prototype killed by Big Oil!

I particularly like how they've left so much space around the reactor. In case something goes a bit wrong.

Nah that's just the car's gutter.

It's a good thing there's a gutter, because