https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
(https://graphics.reuters.com/ELECTRIC-VEHICLES/EMISSIONS/rlgpdrmjmpo/chart.png)
Dotted green line is the typical line for American EVs, since our grid is a mix of renewables, natural gas, and coal.
Obviously it's a good idea to get cracking on renewable energy sources, wind, sun, waves, etc. Hydro is great, but limited by nature.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 29, 2021, 09:31:44 AM
Dotted red line is the typical line for American EVs, since our grid is a mix of renewables, natural gas, and coal.
The green dashes?
Quote from: FoMoJo on June 29, 2021, 09:37:11 AM
The green dashes?
I was thinking maybe I was color blind. I had to go back and check it. :lol:
Does this take manufacturing emissions into account? I would think that EVs front load their emissions during battery manufacturing.
Quote from: Laconian on June 29, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
Does this take manufacturing emissions into account? I would think that EVs front load their emissions during battery manufacturing.
Yes, you can see on the graph that the EVs start 25-50% higher.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 29, 2021, 11:23:17 AM
Yes, you can see on the graph that the EVs start 25-50% higher.
Derp. Gracias
I would have expected that building a car was a bigger cost versus powering it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on June 29, 2021, 09:35:25 AM
Obviously it's a good idea to get cracking on renewable energy sources, wind, sun, waves, etc. Hydro is great, but limited by nature.
Except that it hasn't panned out as expected (higher operating costs, esp. shorter lifespan of equipment), plus the substantial fossil fuel toll (even outside global warming, if a person believes in such a thing) in building all that equipment to rebuild the US power grid. Hyrdo is the only "renewable" that's in the ballpark but yes, there are major limitations or substantial infrastructure projects to build damns out of small(er) rivers.
If people really believed in global warming they just buy that used Civic, not a new $40-$100k Tesla or whatever.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
Except that it hasn't panned out as expected (higher operating costs, esp. shorter lifespan of equipment), plus the substantial fossil fuel toll (even outside global warming, if a person believes in such a thing) in building all that equipment to rebuild the US power grid. Hyrdo is the only "renewable" that's in the ballpark but yes, there are major limitations or substantial infrastructure projects to build damns out of small(er) rivers.
If people really believed in global warming they just buy that used Civic, not a new $40-$100k Tesla or whatever.
:facepalm:
Did you even look at the graph or read the article?
I used to be a big proponent of nuclear, but at least here in Utah it's actually cheaper to do solar because there is less regulation/safety requirements, cleanup costs, etc. Coal is now more expensive than renewables. But continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.
edit: A used Civic would just bring the red line down to zero to start, but the slope would be the same. EV line still crosses it after 2-3 years.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
Except that it hasn't panned out as expected (higher operating costs, esp. shorter lifespan of equipment), plus the substantial fossil fuel toll (even outside global warming, if a person believes in such a thing) in building all that equipment to rebuild the US power grid. Hyrdo is the only "renewable" that's in the ballpark but yes, there are major limitations or substantial infrastructure projects to build damns out of small(er) rivers.
If people really believed in global warming they just buy that used Civic, not a new $40-$100k Tesla or whatever.
As with most technologies, it must be refined. The first automobile was not perfect, the first computer was not perfect. Renewable energy technologies are at their beginning, barely a step off the mark. Get busy and refine the technologies, invent something better.
We need working fusion power plants before any large scale EV adoption.
Quote from: shp4man on June 29, 2021, 12:16:17 PM
We need working fusion power plants before any large scale EV adoption.
Texas probably couldn't take it (they can't even deal with A/C), but WA has a big surplus of nighttime generation capacity and lots of clean hydro powering it.
EVs are smart; they can make globally optimal decisions about how and when to charge.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 29, 2021, 11:34:09 AM
:facepalm:
Did you even look at the graph or read the article?
I used to be a big proponent of nuclear, but at least here in Utah it's actually cheaper to do solar because there is less regulation/safety requirements, cleanup costs, etc. Coal is now more expensive than renewables. But continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.
edit: A used Civic would just bring the red line down to zero to start, but the slope would be the same. EV line still crosses it after 2-3 years.
Sorta. Conflating "clean" with global warming and "CO2" wigged me out a bit (and not only because I deny global warming) so it's hard to digest for me.
Take all that money saved by buying that used Civic and put it to use elsewhere.
EVs and renewables have been around for 100+ years, and they still can't displace fossil fuels, despite decades of government hegemony trying to make it so. Think there's a trend? Even if it manages to do so it'll doom even a larger portion of the citizenry to poverty.
Quote from: shp4man on June 29, 2021, 12:16:17 PM
We need working fusion power plants before any large scale EV adoption.
Don't know about that. Look at what limitless food, credit, time and access to knowledge has done to WtP.
IMO fusion power will doom humanity.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Don't know about that. Look at what limitless food, credit, time and access to knowledge has done to WtP.
IMO fusion power will doom humanity.
LOL.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Don't know about that. Look at what limitless food, credit, time and access to knowledge has done to WtP.
IMO fusion power will doom humanity.
Sadly I agree! Satisfy one constraint and then we move onto the next bottleneck.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2021, 12:55:43 PM
Sorta. Conflating "clean" with global warming and "CO2" wigged me out a bit (and not only because I deny global warming) so it's hard to digest for me.
Take all that money saved by buying that used Civic and put it to use elsewhere.
EVs and renewables have been around for 100+ years, and they still can't displace fossil fuels, despite decades of government hegemony trying to make it so. Think there's a trend? Even if it manages to do so it'll doom even a larger portion of the citizenry to poverty.
EVs and renewables ARE displacing fossil fuels now... The chemistry & engineering for current battery and renewable tech has not been around for 100 years, that's a flawed argument. 1900s gasoline engines beat out 1900s EVs but they're all dinosaurs compared to current gasoline engines and EVs and are therefore mostly irrelevant. Carbs have been replaced with fuel injection and lead acid batteries with lithium ion and new battery types. It's like saying the Chicago Bulls are gonna win the NBA championship this year because they had a dynasty in the 90s.
The used Civic argument is flawed as well, considering I bought a used Bolt for a great price.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 29, 2021, 11:34:09 AM
:facepalm:
Did you even look at the graph or read the article?
Of course not. Logic doesn't allow considering inconvenient information.
Logic also allows for arbitrarily accepting and denying science when convenient.
Warmism is not my main motivator in wanting an EV. I want one because they scratch just about all my obsessive geek itches.
Quote from: Morris Minor on June 29, 2021, 04:53:10 PM
Warmism is not my main motivator in wanting an EV. I want one because they scratch just about all my obsessive geek itches.
Tesla's appeal to geeks and mind-blowing performance numbers definitely helped EVs enter the mainstream. My wife wanted our Bolt because of its low emissions, and I went along with it because it's basically a hot hatch with a better drivetrain than a Civic or Corolla that we probably would have gotten otherwise
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 29, 2021, 05:51:32 PM
Tesla's appeal to geeks and mind-blowing performance numbers definitely helped EVs enter the mainstream. My wife wanted our Bolt because of its low emissions, and I went along with it because it's basically a hot hatch with a better drivetrain than a Civic or Corolla that we probably would have gotten otherwise
Yup yup.
Quote from: Laconian on June 29, 2021, 12:27:17 PM
Texas probably couldn't take it (they can't even deal with A/C), but WA has a big surplus of nighttime generation capacity and lots of clean hydro powering it.
EVs are smart; they can make globally optimal decisions about how and when to charge.
This. They are computers on skateboards.
Tesla has a recall going on in China. This has caused much pained on-camera handwringing among the chattering classes.
Oh my god, hundreds of thousands of endangered owners must book an appointment with the dealers. Go through service manager hell - "while you're here we need to rape you with a transmission flush an oil change, and all the filters replaced."
No - it's on over-the-air update.
Quote from: Laconian on June 29, 2021, 01:05:14 PM
Sadly I agree! Satisfy one constraint and then we move onto the next bottleneck.
Simplifying our lives and reducing our consumption would probably be better for most people. People buy so much garbage and they'd be healthier and happier if they just slowed down.
Let's just say when comparing EVs and ICE you can do a fair comparison or an unfair comparison. In the fair version, cars of the same size, power, cost and utility are compared, which do the same sort of miles, are manufactured using the same energy sources and grid mix and the pollution including CO2 caused by operating them is fully considered, which means the data for the EV includes the fossil fuel used in the power grid, and the data for the fossil fuel car includes the carbon and pollution generated by the oil industry to get the fuel and lubricants to the car.
When you do this fair comparison, the EV starts off a little worse for the planet and somewhere between 15k- and 40k-miles later is now better for the planet and it continues to pull away leaving the fossil fuel car in the unsustainable dust. The EV produces currently an average of 50% less CO2 over its entire lifecycle than the comparable fossil fuel car and a lot less of the other pollutants, none of which are deposited into the air where people live.
As grids de-carbonize this gets better and better, even for EVs that have already been manufactured. Fossil burners do not get upgrades to be less polluting later down the line unless you mean biofuel which is problematic due to its use of farm land, instead, they get more polluting as they wear out. The tiny incremental improvements in combustion engines which have taken 130 years to arrive have now placed them somewhere around 30% efficiency compared to the EV's 85–90% efficiency, and they have only just gotten started. Electric cars are in the pipeline that are claimed to achieve 10 miles per kWh. That's a startling 10 times less energy per mile than an average fossil fuel car.
Quoteand not only because I deny global warming
Well, there you go Cougs. No wonder you're so wrong about everything else EV related.
EVs are not meant to be an evolution of fossil fuel cars. They are not meant to be a fossil-fuel-car-but-better.
Yes, that's right, that's what I said, they are NOT meant to be better overall in the traditional sense.
They are meant to be almost as convenient while reducing the harm to our planet caused by cars and driving by 50% now and an even greater percentage in the future, as grids de-carbonize and EVs are manufactured with more clean energy. They are meant to allow this activity - driving- which has brought immense freedom and prosperity to many, to continue but without as much of the harm that it causes through local pollution and global pollution including CO2 and climate change.
We cannot continue to demand the same level of luxury and convenience as the generations before us had, it did not work, they were not leaving the planet better for those to come.
This is a big, hard pill to swallow, but it is going to have to be swallowed nonetheless. Which is why my daily driver is now, and will continue to be, an EV. It's a fun car that is overall going to be better in non-traditional ways. And as soon as an EV replacement for the MINI in my sig becomes available, the fun weekend car will also be an EV.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 06, 2021, 06:38:26 AM
Let's just say when comparing EVs and ICE you can do a fair comparison or an unfair comparison. In the fair version, cars of the same size, power, cost and utility are compared, which do the same sort of miles, are manufactured using the same energy sources and grid mix and the pollution including CO2 caused by operating them is fully considered, which means the data for the EV includes the fossil fuel used in the power grid, and the data for the fossil fuel car includes the carbon and pollution generated by the oil industry to get the fuel and lubricants to the car.
When you do this fair comparison, the EV starts off a little worse for the planet and somewhere between 15k- and 40k-miles later is now better for the planet and it continues to pull away leaving the fossil fuel car in the unsustainable dust. The EV produces currently an average of 50% less CO2 over its entire lifecycle than the comparable fossil fuel car and a lot less of the other pollutants, none of which are deposited into the air where people live.
As grids de-carbonize this gets better and better, even for EVs that have already been manufactured. Fossil burners do not get upgrades to be less polluting later down the line unless you mean biofuel which is problematic due to its use of farm land, instead, they get more polluting as they wear out. The tiny incremental improvements in combustion engines which have taken 130 years to arrive have now placed them somewhere around 30% efficiency compared to the EV's 85–90% efficiency, and they have only just gotten started. Electric cars are in the pipeline that are claimed to achieve 10 miles per kWh. That's a startling 10 times less energy per mile than an average fossil fuel car.
Well, there you go Cougs. No wonder you're so wrong about everything else EV related.
EVs are not meant to be an evolution of fossil fuel cars. They are not meant to be a fossil-fuel-car-but-better.
Yes, that's right, that's what I said, they are NOT meant to be better overall in the traditional sense.
They are meant to be almost as convenient while reducing the harm to our planet caused by cars and driving by 50% now and an even greater percentage in the future, as grids de-carbonize and EVs are manufactured with more clean energy. They are meant to allow this activity - driving- which has brought immense freedom and prosperity to many, to continue but without as much of the harm that it causes through local pollution and global pollution including CO2 and climate change.
We cannot continue to demand the same level of luxury and convenience as the generations before us had, it did not work, they were not leaving the planet better for those to come.
This is a big, hard pill to swallow, but it is going to have to be swallowed nonetheless. Which is why my daily driver is now, and will continue to be, an EV. It's a fun car that is overall going to be better in non-traditional ways. And as soon as an EV replacement for the MINI in my sig becomes available, the fun weekend car will also be an EV.
I'm wrong, yet you 100% agree with me that EVs are not nor will ever be equivalent to ICE-powered vehicles, and the REAL environmental solution is on the demand side?
You're falling into the eternal trappings of the state and its propaganda - guilty, self-loathing, and subordination to the occult in effect, all to your detriment.
Once your global warming icons actually believe in global warming, then I feel it's proper to reassess. They're doing exactly the opposite, esp. WRT the US military, trips into space, private cities in New Zealand, and all the rest of their global warming crimes, so you've got some time.
Me, I'll demand and will take whatever luxury and convenience I deem appropriate. I mean, your icons are, why shouldn't I (and you)?
...it's easy to not care about the future I guess when you don't have to worry about the welfare of kids and grandkids...
Something I've noticed since we moved from the countryside into the city, I haven't seen any stars. I've seen the Moon and Mars, but no stars. We're not too far from the airport, so that is likely a contributing factor but still, I'm just a bit surprised that there is still enough pollution to block out the stars.
I think that, especially, transit buses that were EVs, would make a different, taxis, government vehicles, etc. as well, but there should come a time when any city vehicle needs to be an EV. It would certainly help with my wife's sinus condition. Ever since we moved to the city she hasn't stopped sneezing.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 06, 2021, 12:01:36 PM
Something I've noticed since we moved from the countryside into the city, I haven't seen any stars. I've seen the Moon and Mars, but no stars. We're not too far from the airport, so that is likely a contributing factor but still, I'm just a bit surprised that there is still enough pollution to block out the stars.
I think that, especially, transit buses that were EVs, would make a different, taxis, government vehicles, etc. as well, but there should come a time when any city vehicle needs to be an EV. It would certainly help with my wife's sinus condition. Ever since we moved to the city she hasn't stopped sneezing.
If by pollution you mean light pollution you are probably right. Its harder to see things in the night sky mainly because of how many lights are on in the cities. Unless you are in a very smoggy city (LA for example) of course, but Toronto never struck me as particularly polluted.
Quote from: r0tor on July 06, 2021, 11:42:53 AM
...it's easy to not care about the future I guess when you don't have to worry about the welfare of kids and grandkids...
Don't you have kids? Kids are by definition THE chief global warming crime. Other crimes IIRC you've committed are building a home, have more cars than drivers in the household and owning an gas hog SUV.
Again, you don't believe it, so why should I, esp. that your global warming crimes are literally 10x greater than mine?
EVs work great(er) in cities and Europe than the US of A.
My parents in Wyoming drive 70miles to go shopping. There is only one McDonald's in their entire county. Gas cars are where it's out out west!
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 06, 2021, 12:29:38 PM
If by pollution you mean light pollution you are probably right. Its harder to see things in the night sky mainly because of how many lights are on in the cities. Unless you are in a very smoggy city (LA for example) of course, but Toronto never struck me as particularly polluted.
I don't think that it's just light pollution. No doubt that contributes, but even in the daylight there is a haziness. The sky is blue in the daytime, but it's not the clear blue of the countryside.
The visible banks of pollution that I used to see as I drove over the top of the city to work are not as evident, it's more like a mist now. Before, the top of the CN towner was always quite clear but below that, it was a dirty brown haze. Now the top of the tower is still clear, but the city seems out of focus. Not a filthy pollution, but pollution none the less.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 06, 2021, 01:25:54 PM
I don't think that it's just light pollution. No doubt that contributes, but even in the daylight there is a haziness. The sky is blue in the daytime, but it's not the clear blue of the countryside.
The visible banks of pollution that I used to see as I drove over the top of the city to work are not as evident, it's more like a mist now. Before, the top of the CN towner was always quite clear but below that, it was a dirty brown haze. Now the top of the tower is still clear, but the city seems out of focus. Not a filthy pollution, but pollution none the less.
The upward-shining light bounces off the particulates in the air and increases the opacity that obscures the night sky. Obviously some of those particulates come from generating the electricity used for this upward-illumination. Pissing money away.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 06, 2021, 01:06:58 PM
Don't you have kids? Kids are by definition THE chief global warming crime. Other crimes IIRC you've committed are building a home, have more cars than drivers in the household and owning an gas hog SUV.
Again, you don't believe it, so why should I, esp. that your global warming crimes are literally 10x greater than mine?
So bitter
Quote from: Morris Minor on July 07, 2021, 07:22:31 AM
The upward-shining light bounces off the particulates in the air and increases the opacity that obscures the night sky. Obviously some of those particulates come from generating the electricity used for this upward-illumination. Pissing money away.
The majority of our electricity is from nuclear power (2 large plants in the vicinity) and hydro (Niagara). The rest is from wind and solar with a small percentage still from natural gas. No coal anymore. What lingers in the air is largely from vehicle exhaust, including airplanes.
Quote from: r0tor on July 07, 2021, 08:15:27 AM
So bitter
Your tenacity for auguring in is astonishing.
Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.
Quote from: Morris Minor on July 07, 2021, 03:50:10 PM
Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.
My garage is all cars that are best as a second vehicle, then :lol:
EV, sports car, classic muscle car
Quote from: Morris Minor on July 07, 2021, 03:50:10 PM
Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.
This!
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 07, 2021, 06:08:11 PM
My garage is all cars that are best as a second vehicle, then :lol:
EV, sports car, classic muscle car
:lol:
That's very true. There are zero basic utility vehicles in your garage. Admirable, but would drive me nuts to live with I think.
That's kind of where I'm at with EVs too. Great 2nd vehicle...but I'd rather have a sports car as my second car. Maybe when the girlfriend has a CX-5, I would consider an EV. The F150 Lightning, S2000, and a CX-5 is really useful 3 car combination.
Quote from: MrH on July 08, 2021, 06:35:59 AM
:lol:
That's very true. There are zero basic utility vehicles in your garage. Admirable, but would drive me nuts to live with I think.
That's kind of where I'm at with EVs too. Great 2nd vehicle...but I'd rather have a sports car as my second car. Maybe when the girlfriend has a CX-5, I would consider an EV. The F150 Lightning, S2000, and a CX-5 is really useful 3 car combination.
Utility is satisfied with either the Bolt or the El Camino with its truck bed.
Roadtrips are really the only time I'm missing a go-to vehicle. Any of the cars can do a trip, but the best car depends on the circumstances & destination.
You don't really have a large, quiet, person/stuff carrying vehicle. Like a basic sedan or crossover :lol:
F150 Lightning prices are strange. Amazing deal at the low end. But the price climbs disproportionately with the trim levels. It's a huge price increase for relatively small amount of options added. And key things are left out of the lower end specs to try to incentivize you to move up.
Quote from: MrH on July 09, 2021, 09:11:43 AM
You don't really have a large, quiet, person/stuff carrying vehicle. Like a basic sedan or crossover :lol:
The Bolt is plenty big enough for people carrying, basically the same size as my Mazda6 that used to fill that role. That was one of the reasons we bought it instead of a 2nd gen Volt, since the Volt backseat has no headroom. The Bolt will fit 4 people comfortably and has a decent sized trunk area. It fit a 55" tv in the box with the seats down and I've seen someone get a 65" in there. It's a good size for a 2-3 person roadtrip, but would be a bit cramped for 4 people. I would just rent a car for that.
It's also nice and quiet for commuting. The suspension is a bit stiff and you sit close to the front axle, so you feel bumps more than in the Miata. That + the seats being too narrow and uncomfortable are my biggest complaints with the car. If I could get a brand new 1st gen Mazda6 with the Bolt drivetrain, that would be ideal to me. (and bluetooth + aux for the stereo)
Speaking of Bolts and road trips, my wife just made her second stop on her road trip from our house here to her brother's in Greenville, TN. Half hour to go from 20% to 85%. Next stop is at her brother's house. There's actually a DCFC not to far from his house, so she's going to top it off there to drive around with her brother for then next few days before driving home.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 07, 2021, 01:22:05 PM
The majority of our electricity is from nuclear power (2 large plants in the vicinity) and hydro (Niagara). The rest is from wind and solar with a small percentage still from natural gas. No coal anymore. What lingers in the air is largely from vehicle exhaust, including airplanes.
In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this. Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar. Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar. If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/
Quote from: NomisR on July 12, 2021, 11:45:37 AM
In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this. Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar. Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar. If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/
Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.
1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.
Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy. They are largely past that life expectancy.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 12, 2021, 11:47:47 AM
Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.
Such a shame that nuclear energy development stalled so much decades ago. The latest small modular nuclear reactor tech stuff seems interesting and seems like it could be an ideal way to go off fossil fuels, but folks (like r0tor) are so scared of it that it might never even get a chance.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 12, 2021, 11:47:47 AM
Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.
I'm not so sure about the winds simply due to the damage it does to the wild life not to mention the waste generated from the turbines..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
Quote from: r0tor on July 12, 2021, 11:48:17 AM
1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.
Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy. They are largely past that life expectancy.
It's 50 year old nuclear power plant that's built with an even older design that is no longer used and used an older design. And the thing is, it took a 9.0 earthquake, but didn't do anything.. instead, the predictable tsunami ensued that resulted in the damage. And the thing is, all of this would have been preventable...
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361
The simple fact is with nuclear plants is "shit eventually happens". Nobody imagined a 45 foot wave taking out the plant - but it eventually happened. Nobody imagined at TMI a triple redundant system failing all at once - but it did.
They work great 99.99999% of the time. Unrecoverable though when something goes wrong. The longer you operate them and extend the plant life the more likely something goes wrong.
You can't build a nuclear plant today. They are 30-40x more costly than a similar sized natural gas plant and many multiple times more costly than renewables. Overhauling one is no cheaper either.
Take the $8 billion that a new nuclear plant costs, install 400,000 solar roof top systems with battery backup - and poof you have more carbon free energy capacity and it's a microgrid that reduces strain on existing infrastructure.
And better yet, shutdown the nukes asap and avoid an inevitable Fukushima like $80 billion clean up costs and install solar and install 4 million roof top solar systems with energy storage.
Quote from: r0tor on July 12, 2021, 01:06:02 PM
The simple fact is with nuclear plants is "shit eventually happens". Nobody imagined a 45 foot wave taking out the plant - but it eventually happened. Nobody imagined at TMI a triple redundant system failing all at once - but it did.
They work great 99.99999% of the time. Unrecoverable though when something goes wrong. The longer you operate them and extend the plant life the more likely something goes wrong.
You can't build a nuclear plant today. They are 30-40x more costly than a similar sized natural gas plant and many multiple times more costly than renewables. Overhauling one is no cheaper either.
Take the $8 billion that a new nuclear plant costs, install 400,000 solar roof top systems with battery backup - and poof you have more carbon free energy capacity and it's a microgrid that reduces strain on existing infrastructure.
And better yet, shutdown the nukes asap and avoid a Fukushima like $80 billion clean up costs and install solar and install 4 million roof top solar systems with energy storage.
I recommend reading Bill Gates' new book about climate change. I'm about 70% of the way through it and he explains the reality & feasibility of all of this. Might not be a perfect book, but it puts things into perspective pretty well.
Quote from: NomisR on July 12, 2021, 11:45:37 AM
In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this. Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar. Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar. If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/
As long as nuclear plants aren't built on fault lines or areas of flooding, and are properly maintained, they're pretty safe. Fukushima had at least two strikes against it. The design of Candu reactors are considered among the safest designs.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 12, 2021, 01:09:41 PM
As long as nuclear plants aren't built on fault lines or areas of flooding, and are properly maintained, they're pretty safe. Fukushima had at least two strikes against it. The design of Candu reactors are considered among the safest designs.
Thing is, most anywhere on the on planet has multiple strikes - earthquakes, floods, volcanos, hurricanes, tornadoes, war, extreme temps, etc.
I'm gonna go with BFF r0tor here - it all works fine till it doesn't - just two accidents each literally jeopardized the entire planet and laid waste to millions of acres of inhabited land.
Even if global warming was a reality, I can't imagine the calculus that would show it worth the risk.
Is it really that bad? Especially if "Climate Change" is actually as bad as they claim..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/?sh=284459741688
Yes, an inhabitable area with a 12 mile radius for thousands of years is really that bad
Quote from: r0tor on July 12, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
Yes, an inhabitable area with a 12 mile radius for thousands of years is really that bad
You're ignoring the effects of fossil fuels and everything associated with them. How many lives have they taken and what's the environmental impact? Both are much higher than nuclear
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 12, 2021, 07:16:56 PM
You're ignoring the effects of fossil fuels and everything associated with them. How many lives have they taken and what's the environmental impact? Both are much higher than nuclear
What does that have to do with nuclear
Quote from: r0tor on July 12, 2021, 11:48:17 AM
1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.
Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy. They are largely past that life expectancy.
So build new ones. :huh:
Technology has LEAPED FORWARD in the last 50 years.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/next-gen-nuclear-plant-and-jobs-are-coming-wyoming
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 12, 2021, 08:30:35 PM
So build new ones. :huh:
Technology has LEAPED FORWARD in the last 50 years.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/next-gen-nuclear-plant-and-jobs-are-coming-wyoming
$2 BILLION for a small ass 400MW plant?!?!? That's $5 million a MW. That's 5000x the price of a gas or renewable plant
Why the fuck would anyone ever do that
I remember noticing how awful the air quality was in eastern German (Saxony & Saxony-Anhalt) - an orange/yellow haze & a sulphury sort of smell. The government had ordered the permanent shutdown of all nuclear power generation in reaction to Fukushima. So they were back to mining & burning their low-grade bituminous coal.
It was a crazy and very damaging move. Good example of what happens progressives' irrational feelings & prejudices dictate the agenda.
If that were really the case, the US would be screwed
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hatav_Rdnno
Thoughts on this?
Quote from: Submariner on July 13, 2021, 12:16:25 PM
Thoughts on this?
I've seen this before, still holds true today based off of current technology which is why I've been saying Hydrogen Fuel cell is superior and more likely for people to adopt providing the infrastructure is available. Even with Tesla's "new" 4580 battery, the energy density remains exactly the same, the only gain is the result of the tab-less design which removes the bottleneck and increases energy output, I think the guy from the video you posted may have done a video on this too if I remember correctly.
Quote from: r0tor on July 12, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
Yes, an inhabitable area with a 12 mile radius for thousands of years is really that bad
That's what they said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki too. It's not like we're dealing with things like Lake Karachay..
Quote from: NomisR on July 13, 2021, 04:15:44 PM
I've seen this before, still holds true today based off of current technology which is why I've been saying Hydrogen Fuel cell is superior and more likely for people to adopt providing the infrastructure is available. Even with Tesla's "new" 4580 battery, the energy density remains exactly the same, the only gain is the result of the tab-less design which removes the bottleneck and increases energy output, I think the guy from the video you posted may have done a video on this too if I remember correctly.
Probably. He has a lot of great videos. And he has a Tesla, he's not anti-EV. Just a pretty realistic guy.
Quote from: NomisR on July 13, 2021, 04:22:21 PM
That's what they said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki too. It's not like we're dealing with things like Lake Karachay..
WTF
They still have not even located where the fuel rods are at Fukushima. Just pump hundreds of thousands of water on it that then gets contaminated and needs be be stored on a daily basis for the last 10 years and counting.
Quote from: r0tor on July 13, 2021, 06:01:36 AM
$2 BILLION for a small ass 400MW plant?!?!? That's $5 million a MW. That's 5000x the price of a gas or renewable plant
Why the fuck would anyone ever do that
The first CD players were thousands of dollars, price will drop as they make more!
Quote from: NomisR on July 13, 2021, 04:15:44 PM
I've seen this before, still holds true today based off of current technology which is why I've been saying Hydrogen Fuel cell is superior and more likely for people to adopt providing the infrastructure is available. Even with Tesla's "new" 4580 battery, the energy density remains exactly the same, the only gain is the result of the tab-less design which removes the bottleneck and increases energy output, I think the guy from the video you posted may have done a video on this too if I remember correctly.
If that is the case, how do there exist 600+ HP, 300-400mi range electric vehicles?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 13, 2021, 06:44:55 PM
The first CD players were thousands of dollars, price will drop as they make more!
Not quite. Consumer electronics benefit from profound economies of scale - look at PCs and TVs as well. EVs haven't so benefited. The 2012 base Model S had an MSRP of $58k (~$75k in 2021 $). The 2021 base Model S has an MSRP of $70k. Sure the Model S has gotten better and more useful, but price hasn't material improved. In ten years.
Quote from: Submariner on July 13, 2021, 12:16:25 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hatav_Rdnno
Thoughts on this?
Good video. Completely agree. The world's environmental picture will be vastly improved by continuing to improve the ICE (which is happening despite contrary claims of others ITT). He didn't mention diesels, and that is where most of the improvement is to be had, esp. in China, India, Africa, and metro areas in general.
EVs will be little more than a curiosity for ~20 years to come, till some Clarke 3rd law shit comes along for energy generation/storage (i.e., current batteries are DOA).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 13, 2021, 09:17:38 PM
Not quite. Consumer electronics benefit from profound economies of scale - look at PCs and TVs as well. EVs haven't so benefited. The 2012 base Model S had an MSRP of $58k (~$75k in 2021 $). The 2021 base Model S has an MSRP of $70k. Sure the Model S has gotten better and more useful, but price hasn't material improved. In ten years.
I hear ya- but that's one (bad) company vs an entire industry of learning how to build a giant system more efficiently.
The cost of building a complex building today is probably much much less than it was 60 years ago! YES the first of a new generation of nuclear plants may be high- but it should drop off pretty quickly going forward.
Nissan GT-R price rose every year. Model S's price increase is nothing compared to it. I think it shows that MSRP does not always reflect actual costs for luxury, performance, new technology, or otherwise special cars. Pricing decisions are based on a lot of other factors too.
https://jalopnik.com/this-chart-shows-how-the-nissan-gt-rs-price-has-skyrock-5877907
Nuclear plants never get cheaper.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 14, 2021, 06:23:52 PM
Source?
The simple fact they stopped being built as prices to build one escalated out of control?
Google image? https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+plant+cost+history
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2021, 07:37:48 PM
The simple fact they stopped being built as prices to build one escalated out of control?
Google image? https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+plant+cost+history
LOL Second link says that costs rose mostly due to regulation and safety after Three Mile Island incident. Also costs have risen as companies have "forgotten" how to build them, the last in the US was finished in the late 70s. Paper points out that costs have actually decreased more recently in South Korea, and wind, solar, and coal have all undergone periods of 100% price increases in the beginning phases.
TL;DR If the US gets serious and builds more than one, costs could decrease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 15, 2021, 02:35:21 PM
LOL Second link says that costs rose mostly due to regulation and safety after Three Mile Island incident. Also costs have risen as companies have "forgotten" how to build them, the last in the US was finished in the late 70s. Paper points out that costs have actually decreased more recently in South Korea, and wind, solar, and coal have all undergone periods of 100% price increases in the beginning phases.
TL;DR If the US gets serious and builds more than one, costs could decrease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
Yet people are so scared of them that they're not building them or shutting them down.
Quote from: NomisR on July 15, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
Yet people are so scared of them that they're not building them or shutting them down.
It would interesting to compare the cost of fuel used by nuclear as opposed to generating stations that use fossil fuels.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 15, 2021, 02:48:09 PM
It would interesting to compare the cost of fuel used by nuclear as opposed to generating stations that use fossil fuels.
Based on this.. which could be biased
http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/applications/energy
QuoteAs of 2012, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 2.40 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 3.27 cents, for oil 22.48 cents, and for gas 3.40 cents.
(http://nuclearconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/US-Electricity-Production-Costs0011.jpg)
Quote from: NomisR on July 15, 2021, 02:56:00 PM
Based on this.. which could be biased
http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/applications/energy
What the nuclear industry always conveniently leaves out of their costs analysis, is that governments underwrite the insurance,since it would be not affordable to ensure them in the market.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 15, 2021, 02:35:21 PM
LOL Second link says that costs rose mostly due to regulation and safety after Three Mile Island incident. Also costs have risen as companies have "forgotten" how to build them, the last in the US was finished in the late 70s. Paper points out that costs have actually decreased more recently in South Korea, and wind, solar, and coal have all undergone periods of 100% price increases in the beginning phases.
TL;DR If the US gets serious and builds more than one, costs could decrease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
The way power plants work (even non nuclear) for safety and environmental designs in the UD is you need to exceed the design of the last plant that came online. It's very much an expensive race to the top and not a cheap race to the bottom.
Quote from: NomisR on July 15, 2021, 02:56:00 PM
Based on this.. which could be biased
http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/applications/energy
(http://nuclearconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/US-Electricity-Production-Costs0011.jpg)
Largely outdated. Gas plants are easily in the $1.50-$2.50 range post economic collapse. Oil is way more expensive than that
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2021, 06:49:59 AM
Largely outdated. Gas plants are easily in the $1.50-$2.50 range post economic collapse. Oil is way more expensive than that
So gas makes even more sense, but doesn't it mean nuclear still makes sense?
Another thought it with the cheap gas, hydrogen fuel cell home generation may make a lot of sense.. could also help heat water and homes as well.