I fail to grasp how EV are "just like" releasing captured carbon in the atmosphere. Sure, building them has a carbon footprint, but so does an ICE vehicle, and over it's lifecycle an EV release a fraction of the carbon of a traditional car.
In any case the best solution to transport-related carbon release is not to simply replace ICE vehicles by EV, it's to reduce car and plane usage massively, and promote walking, bicycling, public transport, remote working and shared rides.
Wind mills and solar farms are built today much faster and at a cheaper price and carbon emissions than nuclear stations. We are not 50 years ago, we are now. Combined with existing hydroelectric dams, which act as giant batteries, and other forms of utility scale power storage (actual batteries), existing renewable energy grids have proven to be just as dependable as other sources of energy.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear either. Give me a secure design that can be built in less than 10 years, with reasonable costs, that private insurers will accept to cover, with proper waste management and control of nuclear proliferation, total operating transparency, that is actually possible to dismantle at the end of it's lifecycle, and a strong risk mitigation plan in case of external events (earthquake, floods, droughts, bombing), and I'll say sure, bring it on.
In the meantime blaming environmentalism for climate change is a bit far-fetched. Nuclear energy has been effectively torpedoed by itself, due to bad management, the fossil fuel industry and spiraling costs, much more than environmentalists (is there any place in the world where Greens have significant political power?)
The bad solution I was referring to is about building a giant barge loaded with nuclear stations in the middle of the Pacific ocean capturing atmospheric CO2 in order to convert it into fuel that is going to be released in the atmosphere again a few days later. Let's just say there's fundamental inefficiencies in that plan.
In any case the best solution to transport-related carbon release is not to simply replace ICE vehicles by EV, it's to reduce car and plane usage massively, and promote walking, bicycling, public transport, remote working and shared rides.
Wind mills and solar farms are built today much faster and at a cheaper price and carbon emissions than nuclear stations. We are not 50 years ago, we are now. Combined with existing hydroelectric dams, which act as giant batteries, and other forms of utility scale power storage (actual batteries), existing renewable energy grids have proven to be just as dependable as other sources of energy.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear either. Give me a secure design that can be built in less than 10 years, with reasonable costs, that private insurers will accept to cover, with proper waste management and control of nuclear proliferation, total operating transparency, that is actually possible to dismantle at the end of it's lifecycle, and a strong risk mitigation plan in case of external events (earthquake, floods, droughts, bombing), and I'll say sure, bring it on.
In the meantime blaming environmentalism for climate change is a bit far-fetched. Nuclear energy has been effectively torpedoed by itself, due to bad management, the fossil fuel industry and spiraling costs, much more than environmentalists (is there any place in the world where Greens have significant political power?)
The bad solution I was referring to is about building a giant barge loaded with nuclear stations in the middle of the Pacific ocean capturing atmospheric CO2 in order to convert it into fuel that is going to be released in the atmosphere again a few days later. Let's just say there's fundamental inefficiencies in that plan.