[RM7]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

I'm with you, but that's what I mean by using carbon in the power plant and an electric car. If we can get them to charge at night, we'll use our CARBON more efficiently until we get a full group of adaptions to do better. I'd rather burn a gallon of gasoline in a power plant to deliver electricity to a car that gets 50mpge than burn it in a car that gets 20mpg.

But honestly, WTF went wrong when we stepped away from nuclear? Other than Chernobyl and Fukashima things went pretty well. I think we could have stuck to the program and done well.

Shawn

The amount of resources that go into a nuclear plant often result in much less efficiency, there are places where they make more sense, but the infrastructure, regulation and everything associated is huge. I suspect you may not be aware of all the life limited primary circuit parts that must be changed out due to radioactive corrosion/contamination. It’s a hell of a lot more than just spent fuel, but that’s just one small aspect. Security is another. It basically raises the stakes high all around. In many cases, the cost to benefit ratio is poor. Not every case though.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is why a diesel-powered EV hybrid makes more sense (i.e. diesel Volt). Diesel engines are about 60% efficient running at optimal RPM load to generate on-board electricity to power a 90% efficient electric drivetrain. No range anxiety, oh and you get free heat back in the winter...

A potential problem is the % of crude that can be cracked into diesel.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

Gas turbines have bested 65%

At peak load under ideal circumstances with the best newest systems. And even on those, the efficiency falls as load reduces. And how many of those are even deployed and in use?

For "Peaking" generators which are quite common, it's 30-40% at best.

In the UK, the average all together is running an efficiency of ~43%

Honda holds the current guinness record at 100.31 MPG, yet the national average still sits at 25.7 MPG for 2020 and newer light duty vehicles.

[Murf the Surf]

Supercharging rates go through the roof. Are EV's going to no longer be an economic alternatives to ICE?

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/e...of-188884.html

[x3sm]

IMHO, the grid, power lines and that whole set system is an old concept. Beefing it up is a temporary fix and just a band-aide at best. I'm not exactly for the "green new wave," but for innovation to take place, we gotta get out of the comfort zone and get to an almost "oh sh*t" moment for anything to take place. I believe if they didn't set the dates to phase out ICE, we'd get nowhere. For FORD to invest billions of dollars into battery tech to meet the deadline is huge, and they won't be going back. That being said we need to re-think energy distribution completely. Naturally as humans we have to evolve and solve problems otherwise we are just going backwards, and no better place to do this than the USA, where we lead the world. The grid is an old thing.. it makes sense that every house/property in the future will become a private energy station. We have solar panels that are very advanced in space, they are just very expensive, but that will get solved eventually. Imagine in the future, a neighborhood where roofs are solar panels, driveways are solar panels, the mailbox is a solar panel, the little LED lights along the path to the front door have advanced solar panels, the back-up generators are now advanced battery packs, you park your EV in your garage and it will wirelessly charge. Who needs the grid then? Every high rise will have the same, every parking garage, every junkyard with wasted soil become a solar farm...

All this doesn't make sense when you think old... "but what about the grid!!!"

[RM7]

Originally Posted by x3sm

IMHO, the grid, power lines and that whole set system is an old concept. Beefing it up is a temporary fix and just a band-aide at best. I'm not exactly for the "green new wave," but for innovation to take place, we gotta get out of the comfort zone and get to an almost "oh sh*t" moment for anything to take place. I believe if they didn't set the dates to phase out ICE, we'd get nowhere. For FORD to invest billions of dollars into battery tech to meet the deadline is huge, and they won't be going back. That being said we need to re-think energy distribution completely. Naturally as humans we have to evolve and solve problems otherwise we are just going backwards, and no better place to do this than the USA, where we lead the world. The grid is an old thing.. it makes sense that every house/property in the future will become a private energy station. We have solar panels that are very advanced in space, they are just very expensive, but that will get solved eventually. Imagine in the future, a neighborhood where roofs are solar panels, driveways are solar panels, the mailbox is a solar panel, the little LED lights along the path to the front door have advanced solar panels, the back-up generators are now advanced battery packs, you park your EV in your garage and it will wirelessly charge. Who needs the grid then? Every high rise will have the same, every parking garage, every junkyard with wasted soil become a solar farm...

All this doesn't make sense when you think old... "but what about the grid!!!"

And "the grid" is constantly being updated. It's not a static thing. Just being able to supply electricity to run air conditioning in the middle of the day, the grid has to be constantly updated and expanded to do so. Charging EVs when it is under-utilized is beneficial and wastes less. Addressing the above comment, the more load on those generators, the better. Gas turbine engines like to run, run them as fast as they can. They are relatively cheap to install and very scale-able to the demand.

[M5Rick]

The batteries have a shelf life and when done the car is crushed after the batteries are taken out and dumped where?

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

The batteries have a shelf life and when done the car is crushed after the batteries are taken out and dumped where?

They cannot nor will be dumped anywhere.

Set aside the skepticism for a moment and actually listen to what's happening with the batteries.

They are worth..a LOT. Even when no longer usable for automotive applications.

[billnchristy]

People act like hybrids and EVs are only for enviro weenies. I have an EV rate with GA Power and while we pay higher peak hours (while I'm at work so little electricity used) I also only pay about 2c/kwh from 11pm-7am which means my wife's volt can go from empty to 50mi range for about .32c

Day to day commute and errand running rarely uses more than a "tank" of electrons so before we started using her car to drive to blue ridge every 2 weeks she would go 3200mi on 9 gallons of gas plus the .32c a day (but really probably averages about .15-.20 because she rarely needs a full charge) so even with today's prices we're talking:
36 in gas
18 in electricity
$54/3200mi

That's why we have the car.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

And "the grid" is constantly being updated. It's not a static thing. Just being able to supply electricity to run air conditioning in the middle of the day, the grid has to be constantly updated and expanded to do so. Charging EVs when it is under-utilized is beneficial and wastes less. Addressing the above comment, the more load on those generators, the better. Gas turbine engines like to run, run them as fast as they can. They are relatively cheap to install and very scale-able to the demand.

So 2 things,

I work on grid expansion/update, it's part of my job. I am concerned at the pacing, not the long term plans to move to EV. The load is coming faster than the system can adapt = brownouts, declined hookups for new services, and lost service. It's not unlike working for the government - slow. Unfortunately, the government has a lot of say in what we can and cannot do. They don't always get it right, which I'm sure most find shocking

Gas turbines love full load. they are to be used to backfill green sources, so as a whole they will almost never be full load - some possibly never. If I told you I could retrofit a turbine into yor car and it would get 60 MPG at 160 MPH - guaranteed, how often would you actually get 60 MPG? This is why using idealized efficiency numbers is useless. Just like Tesla rates things that are theoretically true, yet impossible to achieve. Lets not deceive ourselves, or decision makers with numbers no one will ever see.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

People act like hybrids and EVs are only for enviro weenies. I have an EV rate with GA Power and while we pay higher peak hours (while I'm at work so little electricity used) I also only pay about 2c/kwh from 11pm-7am which means my wife's volt can go from empty to 50mi range for about .32c

Day to day commute and errand running rarely uses more than a "tank" of electrons so before we started using her car to drive to blue ridge every 2 weeks she would go 3200mi on 9 gallons of gas plus the .32c a day (but really probably averages about .15-.20 because she rarely needs a full charge) so even with today's prices we're talking:
36 in gas
18 in electricity
$54/3200mi

That's why we have the car.

The Volt was such a fantastic automobile. Too bad GM's corporate reputation kept people from seriously considering it. Even in gas mode it gets great fuel economy. Compare the Volt to BMW's Hybrid i3 with the motorcycle engine generator and the Volt was the far superior engineered vehicle.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

So 2 things,

I work on grid expansion/update, it's part of my job. I am concerned at the pacing, not the long term plans to move to EV. The load is coming faster than the system can adapt = brownouts, declined hookups for new services, and lost service. It's not unlike working for the government - slow. Unfortunately, the government has a lot of say in what we can and cannot do. They don't always get it right, which I'm sure most find shocking

Gas turbines love full load. they are to be used to backfill green sources, so as a whole they will almost never be full load - some possibly never. If I told you I could retrofit a turbine into yor car and it would get 60 MPG at 160 MPH - guaranteed, how often would you actually get 60 MPG? This is why using idealized efficiency numbers is useless. Just like Tesla rates things that are theoretically true, yet impossible to achieve. Lets not deceive ourselves, or decision makers with numbers no one will ever see.

What are your thoughts on current utilizations of "EOL" batteries (not really EOL, just EOL for automotive use) being used for grid storage to help buffer demands? Do you think that might be a potential option to help alleviate brownouts?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ga9213

What are your thoughts on current utilizations of "EOL" batteries (not really EOL, just EOL for automotive use) being used for grid storage to help buffer demands? Do you think that might be a potential option to help alleviate brownouts?

Private installations those make for a good secondary use. Diminished capacity will reduce cost savings some, but is well offset when buying used vs new.

Commercially on a wide spread industrial scale my gut tells me it will never happen, even if pressured to try. That gut reaction is fully based on liability/maintenance. We have a lot of battery backup systems to run the grid systems when the actual power is out. Large Battery maintenance is part of the job. Batteries get sick and behave non-uniformly. It creates risk and labor costs. Imagine having 1000 batteries all interconnected, and each with its own "history" and "issues". It would be a nightmare to manage that load, and the risk (overheat/fire, and loss of function). It could certainly be done, but would it be economical? Large utilities don't like risk, and let's be honest, we want it that way. Perhaps private large scale storage banks will be a thing, I just hope the do the math on the labor to run it long term. This kind of labor is paid 100K/yr minimum. Batteries don't create energy, they only capitalize on spot price differences ( working on margin) vs. actually creating value like solar and wind. There is less profit to work with.

[billnchristy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The Volt was such a fantastic automobile. Too bad GM's corporate reputation kept people from seriously considering it. Even in gas mode it gets great fuel economy. Compare the Volt to BMW's Hybrid i3 with the motorcycle engine generator and the Volt was the far superior engineered vehicle.

It really was/is. Other than the janky ass chevy interior, there is nothing I would change about it.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Regulations are just words on paper and politically inspired at worst. The Nuke plant some 50 miles from my home spawned a lake and billions in private real estate investment, which the state benefits greatly from because of the economic tax base. The Green groups chased away nuclear power in the 1970s as a political statement to the military use of the technology. Those same groups now are after carbon fuel and are in a quandary because nuclear power is very "Green" and fits their new anti-carbon mantra, all except they can't now go back on their prior resentment of it; although Greenpeace actually did around 2004/2005 IIRC. So to keep nuclear off the table, such green groups make up the BS argument you provided.

Large scale nuclear adoption and a Government sponsored spent fuel storage site (as was planned for Nevada) would have made nuclear generation very cost-effective.

Like I said, it's a lot more than just spent fuel as far as the "waste", but that kind of tells me you aren't really looking up the associated costs either. Regulations and regulatory responsibility of agencies, such as the department of energy, are not words on paper, they require extensive oversight at each step, from design, to production of parts, to installation, to operation, and so on. Unless of course you want some Chernobyl action...and again, that's just one facet of the costs.

[billnchristy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Granted it does have a janky ass interior, but its not terrible, and its way better than the effing Prius. The Gen 1 exterior was attractive to my eye, it provided the EV-difference theme while staying normal car looking.

I wanted very much to get one in 2013, but it didn't best fit my commute at that time. I now have a commute perfect for a Volt, but the Gen 2 I didn't like the styling. I thought the Gen 1 Voltech drivetrain as ideal, the slight changes to the Gen 2 drivetrain were unnecessary IMO.

I looked this morning at low mileage Gen 1, man are they fetching some good money!

We were in the opposite camp, had no desire for a gen 1 but the gen 2 appealed to us. We came out of a 2010 Prius and really loved it but the current gen is even more hideous and we just couldn't do it. We like the additional range of the gen 2 and the fact you don't have to use premium is nice. Wife has gotten 74mi on a 53mi stated charge but during the last recall Chevy took some battery away and put it back in reserve so 53 is about the best you can get. I don't think the 35 of gen 1 would do it for me.

And yeah, prices are silly, we could sell ours for 24k which was only 5 more than the price we paid in 2016.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've been following these subjects before the internet existed. Finding unbiased information post 2010 on the internet is pretty much not possible. To add, when you pull the Chernobyl card, well I'll just leave it be. I don't have time for an internet thesis paper.

Natrium reactors or something similar is where we will likely end up after people realize solar doesn't work at night, wind doesn't always blow, batteries have limits and are costly, and we can't damn anymore rivers.

The good news is we already have working models dumping supply into the grid, and they are a lot faster and easier to implement than conventional nuc plants for multiple reasons.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Natrium reactors or something similar is where we will likely end up after people realize solar doesn't work at night, wind doesn't always blow, batteries have limits and are costly, and we can't damn anymore rivers.

The good news is we already have working models dumping supply into the grid, and they are a lot faster and easier to implement than conventional nuc plants for multiple reasons.

This is along the lines of more realistic solutions. This is why gas-turbines have been so popular in urban areas, because they are relatively cheap and easy to "add" for changes in demand, they run for a long time and don't require very much support. There are some interesting developments on the horizon, like F3 said you have to read between the lines sometimes and figure out if it's just someone promoting a pie-in-the-sky idea. Right now molten salt sounds good (different than liquid sodium) but there are numerous material issues that they are dealing with and trying to come up with realistic solutions for, outside of test facilities.

[billnchristy]

Here's the problem with nuclear waste. If it was legit just spent fuel and actually contaminated parts it would be very small in number. I was in the nuclear navy for 9.5 years and spent my last 3 years as a repair facility mechanic. We would repack/repair upwards of 20 nuclear valves a year and maybe came across actual detectable contamination once. Every job a 75-85k valve cutter was bagged and tagged, at least 6-8 pairs of gloves, countless wiping rags, cuttings, old packing and any other waste inside the glove bag were yellow bagged, double wrapped and labelled as contaminated. Then you get a big ass bag to dispose of the glovebag in. Basically one job=one drum of "radioactive waste". 1 drum=20k in early 2000s money to dispose of.

We worked on two very small reactor plants, under 100mw and were generating train cars of waste every year.

People bought into fear and made this happen. US nuclear power is safe, overbuilt and robust. Stuff built in the 60s is still viable and usable because it was so over-engineered and had so many redundancies.

Fuel in a navy nuclear vessel is good for 20+ years. If we truly threw away only legit radioactive waste then the storage and disposal would be manageable easily.

And, yes, I would live near one. I lived 300' from one for 5 years and was never worried in the least. Give me a 2 bedroom apartment on top of a containment vessel and I would happily live there today. In America, not some janky foreign plant.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

Here's the problem with nuclear waste. If it was legit just spent fuel and actually contaminated parts it would be very small in number. I was in the nuclear navy for 9.5 years and spent my last 3 years as a repair facility mechanic. We would repack/repair upwards of 20 nuclear valves a year and maybe came across actual detectable contamination once. Every job a 75-85k valve cutter was bagged and tagged, at least 6-8 pairs of gloves, countless wiping rags, cuttings, old packing and any other waste inside the glove bag were yellow bagged, double wrapped and labelled as contaminated. Then you get a big ass bag to dispose of the glovebag in. Basically one job=one drum of "radioactive waste". 1 drum=20k in early 2000s money to dispose of.

We worked on two very small reactor plants, under 100mw and were generating train cars of waste every year.

People bought into fear and made this happen. US nuclear power is safe, overbuilt and robust. Stuff built in the 60s is still viable and usable because it was so over-engineered and had so many redundancies.

Fuel in a navy nuclear vessel is good for 20+ years. If we truly threw away only legit radioactive waste then the storage and disposal would be manageable easily.

And, yes, I would live near one. I lived 300' from one for 5 years and was never worried in the least. Give me a 2 bedroom apartment on top of a containment vessel and I would happily live there today. In America, not some janky foreign plant.

My brother was a nuclear engineer in the Navy as well. He says basically the same thing. There are places that do not have many renewable sources and logistics are much harder, so it becomes the only reasonable alternative in some places. The thing is it takes so much to implement and regulate and the consequences are very severe, like Fukishima, but for every one of those, there are numerous "close calls" that not nearly as many people are aware of. It borders on impossibility to anticipate every possible outcome, the ones that you can't think of in planning and design, but with enough controls it usually mitigates the outcome, except in the most extreme events, like above. But all of that takes immense resources...

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You've now brought up two nuclear disasters to trigger emotions. Both of which were caused by stupidity.
.

We also shouldn't be driving cars because the Yugo, Corvair, and Pinto were crappy and unsafe.

Yes, design and execution is how you manage that risk.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Fukushima was the result of an incredibly stupid location on top of failure to maintain infrastructure to prevent sea inundation of the facility. You've now brought up two nuclear disasters to trigger emotions. Both of which were caused by stupidity.

I'll go on record that recent screwing around with bat shit viruses for gain-of-function research has been multiple times worse the worldwide disaster Fukushima and Chernobyl were. Humans...

Just saying.

Don't forget about 3 Mile Island. Sure there are many redundancies and safeguards designed into nuclear power plants, BUT in the event of a catastrophe, the result could mass death and destruction. 3 Mile Island was likely minutes away from a full meltdown and possible large explosion which could have killed thousands (possibly hundreds thousands over time) and rendered a massive area surrounding the plant uninhabitable, think Chernobyl, but on an even larger scale. It took 15 years and nearly $1B to cleanup Three Mile Island.

We've had three major nuclear disasters in 43 years. That's not a great track record for a system that is supposed to be "safe", full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel. There are countless small accidents and near misses at plants across the country and world, likely many not reported and/or the risk grossly underreported, as was the initial case with Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.

Nuclear power is an amazing technological advancement, but a sane person should question the risk vs reward factor when it comes to larger facilities like nuclear power plants.