The Truth About EVs: They Will Be Nuclear Powered

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt
the truth about evs they will be nuclear powered

“I want to make nuclear power generation ‘visible’ through electric vehicles,” says Takafumi Anegawa, a former nuclear engineer who works for Tokyo Electric Power Co. He thinks that “electric cars are the best tool to help people understand the importance of nuclear power,” reports The Nikkei [sub].

Anegawa heads up the CHAdeMo Association. With 236 member firms and organizations, the group aims to promote the installation of electric vehicle chargers. The group’s suggestions stand a good chance to make a method of electrical charging developed in Japan the global standard via the ECE.

Anegawa was one of the first promoters of electrical cars – to promote nuclear energy.

“Every time there is a problem at a nuclear power plant, people see nuclear power generation as something bad,” Anegawa said. He thought electric vehicles could change people’s perceptions.

People with green leanings may not want to hear it, but pretty much the only sensible way to produce the power needed to charge masses of electric vehicles would be nuclear. Burning fossil fuels simply moves the exhaust from the car to power plant chimneys. Hydro-electric, solar, or wind powered? Dream on.

In many countries of the world, there had been a moratorium on nuclear power. No new nuclear power plants had been built in the U.S.A. since the 1970s. In February 2010, the two new nuclear power plants had been approved, the first in 30 years. In Germany, building of new nuclear plants had been against the law for years, and Germany wanted to be nuclear-free by 2021. Now, nuclear power looks more and more like it’s here to stay.

Broad acceptance of electric cars, combined with what is happening off the coast of Louisiana, could very well become the impetus for a resurgence of nuclear power.

Join the conversation
4 of 19 comments
  • Healthy skeptic Healthy skeptic on Jun 09, 2010

    Modular nukes (

  • MidLifeCelica MidLifeCelica on Jun 09, 2010

    I've always liked Dr. Jerry Pournelle's solution to the nuclear waste issue (first published 30 years ago in 'A Step Further Out'!) but he's still in general agreement with it today. "First, nuclear waste is a non-problem. The simplest method of dealing with them is to encase the stuff in glass (actually make a glass with the waste as ingredients) then take it to the Mindanao Trench and drop it overboard. It will eventually be carried into the depths of the earth where it came from in the first place. End of problem. What most people do not seem to know is that while "nuclear waste" is in fact radioactive for thousands of years, after about 600 years the only radioactivity remaining is from the actinides, and those are what caused it to be fuel in the first place; after about 600 years the residuals are less active than the original ores mined in the first place. And if we don't like dumping the stuff in the Deep (where we can't retrieve it if we suddenly wish we had it) then again make glass of it, and stack it in the Mojave desert. A square mile of the Fort Irwin maneuver area would do for many years to come. If you really doubt the stability of glass (which is pretty near eternal) build a superdome over it. Put a triple chain link fence topped with razor wire around the site with a notice that anyone crossing the line is fair game for the Army, but you'll probably die before we can kill you. Have a nice day." Although in the original article his sign was more straightforward -> "If you cross this fence you will DIE"

    • See 1 previous
    • The Luigiian The Luigiian on Jun 12, 2010

      @tced: To my knowledge, Yucca Mountain was scrapped in favor of the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in my home state of New Mexico. The difference is geological. Volcanic welded tuff is not a good place to store nuclear waste. WIPP is in basically a salt bed, with no underground acquifers or springs. The salt encases the radiation completely.

  • MaintenanceCosts I'm generally in the "I want them to have all the new safety stuff" camp, but new cars are both too fast and too isolating these days. They mask speed enough that a new driver can get way in over his head without really realizing he's even going that fast. This is especially a concern with my youngest, who wants to do everything he does faster. (He has zero fear tearing down hills at 25 mph on his little 20" wheel bike.) I'm hoping for something that is slow and communicates speed well, although I'm not quite sure there is any such thing in today's market.
  • KOKing I test-drove a used Equus Ultimate (the one with all the back seat doodads) that was a trade-in at a Ford dealer, and although it was VERY nice to be in as a Lexus LS with Ultra Luxury, it was supposedly in a minor fender-bender that probably wasn't repaired correctly (like a pinched bus cable or something?), and random features didn't work at all.I think this car suffered the same problem in the US that the VW Phaeton did, and probably would've done better if it was badged a Genesis from the get-go.
  • Analoggrotto Tesla owners are still smarter than anyone else, regardless.
  • Wolfwagen Didnt these have an iPad for the owners manual?
  • Ollicat Another crazy thing to consider is insurance. I found out a modest NEW car with all the new safety add-ons will cost $1000 a year less to insure than a 10 year old beater, when insuring teenagers.