Simplistic view. You don’t have to sacrifice everything if you switch to more sustainable options. For example, if every car had an electric engine, we’d save >50% of transportation energy, just because an electric engine turns electricity into movement way more efficiently (>85%) than an ICE with a max efficiency of <40%.
Sure, there are other challenges, but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it.
Irrelevant. Who cares how much energy is being saved by an electric engine when the energy provided by nuclear energy means that relatively minuscule savings like 50% would not be appreciable in any way? The only way that percentages such as those you describe would even matter is when the energy substrate is either in shortage or pollutive, or if the infrastructure isn't scaled. When the energy is beyond plentiful, why quibble over engine efficiency other than from a personal cost standpoint?
> but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it.
Nonsense. You call my argument "simplistic", but all you've done is point out how great you think electric engines are, as if that says anything at all about nuclear energy or the philosophy behind its opponents.
Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have. And nuclear does pollute a lot more. If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up. You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant. Energy efficiency is important, because it helps to reduce both.
> Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have.
Everything has risk. Solar panels can fall and kill you. Wind turbines kill birds.
> And nuclear does pollute a lot more.
Oh really. Tell me more.
> If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up.
What pollution? What about CO2?
> You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant.
That's because it is irrelevant.
What you were doing is applying a benefit of a technology to a situation where it's anything but impressive. In the most logically extreme circumstance, imagine if humanity achieved unlimited power; why would anyone care at that point whether their electric engine was even 200% more efficient than an internal combustion engine? Without something to make the efficiency meaningful, such as energy shortage or personal cost, it wouldn't matter. What you appear to be saying is that electric engines running on wind and solar can replace nuclear as if they can as easily scale and be as affordable, neither of which are true because they can't produce electrical energy 24/7/365 the way nuclear energy can.
Since you brought up pollution, you should be more specific about what that pollution is. Every form of energy has potential for pollution, and the pollution from fossil fuel is entirely different from what might be considered pollution from nuclear. The nuanced view is to weigh the pros and cons of each form of energy and evaluate the acceptable level of risk. The simplistic view is to state that pollution is bad and call it a day. Nowhere did I say that pollution doesn't matter, but apparently you have that perception for some reason.
> What you also seem to ignore is the scale of risk.
This is a description of what you have been saying, not what I've been saying.
> Nuclear has tail event risks (Fukushima, mass pollution)
I challenge you to go look up exactly how many people died or got cancer as a result of Fukushima. The amount of damage to human life from all of the nuclear disasters that have happened combined doesn't come close to the amount of damage caused by fossil fuels.
> Unlimited energy with zero risks and pollution, I would totally agree.
If it takes a completely hypothetical scenario with completely unrealistic expectations, that's incredibly childish. Zero risks? Are you kidding? That's what it takes for you to agree? Incredible.
> More risks: unstable countries using waste to build nuclear weapons.
You could say that since coal power involves emission of quicksilver and nuclear the emission of plutonium, both of which are scarily poisonous and both of which can be filtered out and their emissions kept almost to zero, coal and nuclear are equivalent. But that ignores how different the poisons are. Scarily doesn't equal scarily.
And where you get that energy in the first place ? You still need to produce it and get it into the car.
You're not saving "50% energy" if you're not generating that energy efficiently in the first place. And nuclear is best way to have consistent stream of it without massive storage facilities that renewables would require
Sure, there are other challenges, but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it.