Author Topic: The future of electric Vehicles.  (Read 16000 times)

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #135 on: April 14, 2018, 03:51:44 AM »
Quote
Firstly and most importantly folks like Mr Buickand Deere and Bruce M are entitled both to express an opinion and to have that opinion listened to or disagreed with without suffering personal attacks.  To coherently attack their arguements would be the work of an intelligent and thoughtful man.  To attack them personally, just because you happen to disagree with them . . .

Maybe you should get yourself up to speed before YOU launch into the attacks you protest.

Firstly I have nothing against what Bruce said and had you paid attention, you would see nothing I said addressed his comments. Bruce may disagree with me but he does not gush with flawed garbage to push his vested interests that insult my intelligence.
 I have the absolute highest respect for Bruce and his position on things I don't agree with because he gives creditable and logical points for his position which have merit .  He's helped me wit a lot with things and he does not talk garbage and is open minded clearly unlike the person I did address.

I have raised issues with B&D's comments before in the way he talks about people living in Nagasaki etc and how he sticks his head in the sand and compare irrelevant examples to his position instead of ever even acknowledging related incidents like Chernoybyl and Fukishima.
To try and shove it down peoples throats that those catastrophes are over blown is ignorance in the extreme by anyone that believes that, be it him, you or anyone else.
I don't just look at headlines or media at all but always try and dig deeper to find what the truth not the garbage the sheeple are fed and lap up like idiots  as the majority do. The fact that has been addressed before but he keeps going on with biased heresay trying to convince people it's true is a personal insult in itself.

How anyone can believe in good conscious that something that produces the most toxic, long lived deadly poison known for which there is no treatment, disposal or recycling of and have the audacity ( or stupidity) to champion the process that creates that evil as " Clean" , is totally and utterly beyond me.....
Except for the phononema we have here were people are extremely biased and have financial interest in doing so.

That makes them either ignorant or Liars. Take your pick.

Quote
Secondly, they have valid points.  Death and damage from nuclear plant accidents make great headlines and receive wide coverage because they are "newsworthy" - that is, lots of folks will read/watch a story about them, so a large pool of readers is delivered to advertisers; which is what media news is all about after all

The fact that these accidents are COVERED Up and spin doctored to be magnitudes less severe than they are and are proven in time to be, shoots that theory down in flames. World changing and damaging events are headline worthy wether you like them or not.

The Japanese gubbermint and TEPCO were found to be lying through their arses as well and independent sources ( when you take the trouble to dig for the truth not the headlines) showed the media were just as guilty of downplaying the real situation with facts they well knew but didn't ( and don't ) ever report. 
If they were blowing it out of proportion, they would have had endless material to work with over several years but now all you are lucky to see is a buried article about another anniversary and what the latest problem is as if it is of little concern.

The media is a political and big business puppet. If you think they report the facts or care about them, one way or the other, you are very deluded.


Quote
However, the slow, steady, daily killers such as air pollution from the dirty old coal plants run in third world countries, the endless deaths in the unregulated mines supplying the coal; or the infant mortality rates in third world countries where unregulated mining poisons the rivers that feed poor communities; or the endless toll of workers killed, mutilated or crippled with industrial diseases in the third-world sweatshops that supply out iPhones, laptops and cheap shoes

That's the best argument you have got?
Comparing situations in 3rd world countries to high end tech of first world nations?  Really?
Is there anything better in the 3rd world than the " rich" countries? Do you know what makes the 3rd world what it is in the first place?
The fact they are shipfights compared to other places.
I could argue about every standard of health, living, food production, safety, quality of life and everything else kills more people than  in the west, asia and other places so comparing 3rd world coal stations to Nuke reactors is the exact sort of crap I am talking about.

If you are offended and take that personally because you are the one also issuing such drivel, that's your problem not mine.

Would you like to talk about the Lithium minining in these poor back arse places that go into the electric vehicles batteries those in the first world champion as being so clean and wonderful and think they are saving the planet driving them?

Lets talk about that shall we and compare first and 3rd world standards and effects. 

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #136 on: April 14, 2018, 04:24:05 AM »
Nuclear materials are not the most toxic or long live poisons . How about the medial isotopes used in medical imaging ?
  How about the half life of nuclear materials ? Nuclear materials particularly the highest dose sources tend to have very short half lives of seconds, minutes or hours . The half life of uranium or thorium naturally laying along the side of the road in many areas of the earth does not incite panic . The half-life is the same as the uranium stored in used fuel flasks .
  Nuclear materials can be detected immediately with a simple low cost frisker. How about all the lead , cadmium, mercury, PCB, Dioxins and nasty hydrocarbons from the petrochemical industry . If anyone want a source of health problems to worry about, there you go. However the general public with no clue regarding chemistry or biology , they have been conditioned by anti war/anti nuc groups and the Simpsons . That any amount of radiation is an instant and gruesome death. Why do people not understand what they are being exposed to while standing outside  in the sunlight . Yet they fret about nuclear marketable behind multiple concert and steel Barriers .
   If anyone wants to do something about the one of the worst menaces to the environment and wildlife . They would be calling for a ban on the plastic rings that hold six packs of beer together .   

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #137 on: April 14, 2018, 05:24:14 AM »

Well I'm glad to hear I was wrong and nuke materials are safe afterall.  Obviously you would have no problem going to Fukishima to help with the cleanup and going into the buildings to pick up pieces of the spent fuel rod.
Likewise,  you'd have no problem putting them in an ordinary metal drum and storing some in your own back yard?  It's been there for years now so seeing it only has a half life of seconds, there couldn't be any problem with it right?

To put my money where my mouth is, I'll take a ordinary drum of coal ash for every drum of spent nuke fuel you do.  That's only fair.  ::)

The stupidity and incredible bias of your arguments is embarrassing.
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with known fact and science and the authorities in the religion you are so blinded by.
Their information says your opinions are ridiculously flawed.

dieselspanner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #138 on: April 14, 2018, 09:28:08 AM »
Well said, Mike

Cheers Stef
Tighten 'til it strips, weld nut to chassis, peen stud, adjust with angle grinder.

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #139 on: April 14, 2018, 03:07:16 PM »

Well I'm glad to hear I was wrong and nuke materials are safe afterall.  Obviously you would have no problem going to Fukishima to help with the cleanup and going into the buildings to pick up pieces of the spent fuel rod.
Likewise,  you'd have no problem putting them in an ordinary metal drum and storing some in your own back yard?  It's been there for years now so seeing it only has a half life of seconds, there couldn't be any problem with it right?

To put my money where my mouth is, I'll take a ordinary drum of coal ash for every drum of spent nuke fuel you do.  That's only fair.  ::)

The stupidity and incredible bias of your arguments is embarrassing.
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with known fact and science and the authorities in the religion you are so blinded by.
Their information says your opinions are ridiculously flawed.

Everything requires a level of precautions . Is welding done without helmet, eye protection, leather apron and leather gloves. Is deep sea diving performed without Scuba Gear? Do glass blowers use blow tubes? Are gloves and respiratory used when applying some paints and solvents ? Is a squeeze gate used when de-horning or trimming cattle hooves . Nuclear is no different , handle the risk with the appropriate level of protection?

AdeV

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #140 on: April 14, 2018, 06:57:25 PM »


  The damage from nuclear accidents is over stated . Look at the other environmental damage from other industry and nuclear is a tiny fraction.
   Is lead , cadmium, arsenic, asbestos,  PCB’s , plastics and dioxins a hazard to health? They just lack nuclear which causes some weaker folk to have an irrational knee jerk reaction and panic.
   How about the millions of people living on ground zero of two atomic warhead blasts . Does  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind ?
   Here is no alternative for economical, clean and safe baseload power except nuclear .


Does Fukushima and Chernobyl Register with you at all?  There is no way to fully state the amount and severity of the damage from any nuke accident let alone over state it. That's already been proven beyond doubt.


Chernobyl, being less than 1000 miles (and only a couple of small seas) away from here, is one that, despite happening some time ago, is still comparatively fresh. It's also brought up by every anti-Nuclear campaigner (or even non-campaigners, people like you who just don't like nuclear)...

Here's the thing about Chernobyl:

It was (until Fukishima), the biggest nuclear accident on the planet, released the most radioactive material over a larger area (most of Europe was, eventually, overpassed by the resulting radioactive clouds (there are stories of glow-in-the-dark sheep in the hills of Wales to this day), and it was news for weeks.  Thousands of Russians (as they were then - Ukrainians these days) were evactuated from Pripyat, the town just outside of which the Chernobyl reactor is located, which is about 150kms north of Kiev.

You know how many people are known to have died as a direct result of this enormous accident of deadly proportions?

I'll tell you.

Twenty nine.

29. Not even 30 people died as a result of the nuclear explosion, fire, or resulting fallout.


Of course.... I'm not saying that's a green light to scatter Chernobyls all over the world, that would just be silly. But it does show that even a dreadful nuclear accident actually isn't as deadly as people think it is.

More people die every single day around the world putting their trousers on than have been killed by Chernobyl.





Anyway. Whatever one's view is on nuclear power, it's a dead-in-the-water industry anyway. The nuclear scaremongers have frightened enough of the global population to make reactor construction and running costs so expensive that burning Amazonian butterflies would probably be cheaper; it's still a "fossil" fuel - Uranium is not a particularly common element, and as there's a finite supply there is therefore a finite amount of energy to be extracted.

IMHO the future is fusion power. There's two major onoging projects - ITER in Europe, and Polywell in the US. I believe the Polywell fusor is doing rather better than ITERs, and is likely to be producing usable power earlier. Fusion power produces virtually no harmful by-products (I believe there is some residual short-lived radioactivity in the materials which form the torus of ITER caused by plasma fusion effects, I don't know about Polywell), is self-extinguishing if anything goes wrong (it's completely impossible for a fusion reactor to explode, at least as a result of the fusion anyway), and - when it works, really DOES have the potential to deliver effectively unlimited energy at a knock-down price. That is, so long as the anti-Nuclear brigade don't get their teeth into it & somehow successfully conflate "Nuclear fusion" with "Nuclear fission".
Cheers!
Ade.
--------------
1x Lister CS Start-o-Matic (complete, runs)
0x Lister JP4 :( - Sold to go in a canal boat.

LowGear

  • Casey
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2022
  • What? My diesel had fries for lunch?
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #141 on: April 14, 2018, 07:53:31 PM »
Quote
Quote
Firstly and most importantly folks like Mr Buickand Deere and Bruce M are entitled both to express an opinion and to have that opinion listened to or disagreed with without suffering personal attacks.  To coherently attack their arguements would be the work of an intelligent and thoughtful man.  To attack them personally, just because you happen to disagree with them . . .
As you may have noticed I have been pretty quiet on this part of this thread.  It's because I'm blindingly ignorant about nuclear.  But I normally play nice with others.  Just like my reading impairment I have a hearing impairment.  Once the school boy crap starts apparently I not only go illiterate but my listening becomes challenged as well.  Another lesson from Donald John Trump.  He has taught me so much.  Especially about myself.

I'm just guessing that there isn't going to be a lot of mind shifting on nuclear on this website.  I do feel it's unfortunate that some of us don't think smoking is bad for our health.  The smoking - health pathology should teach or remind us that death, for most of us, comes in baby steps.  One coal car at a time.  One glass of tainted water at a time.  One hour of stopped in traffic at a time.  But if the gobernment libertard (do you respect me now) inspired health warnings don't convince you that smoking is bad for your health then what possibly could.  For me; I have buried a mother, father and brother all with cardiovascular causes of death that came about after thousands and thousands of puffs or pinches of tobacco.  Tobacco makes heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and all the other chemistry that are fought by most all national governments look like toy guns.  So where is nuclear power in all of this.  A tool we need to actually understand before go forward trying to save the world with it.  And understanding that the stuff we don't see, smell, hear or feel can be far more dangerous than the car wrecks we like to focus upon.  This is my rant for the morning.

Off to "Green Car Reports".

Aloha,
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 01:04:43 AM by LowGear »
NPR Tipper/Dump Truck
Kubota BX 2230
Witte BD Generator
SunnyBoy 6000 + SolarWorld 245

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #142 on: April 14, 2018, 09:31:42 PM »
The economics of the present fission plants has been their downfall, not nuclear "whiners".  I have tried to make this point by referencing an article in Forbes explaining just that; Forbes is one of the most pro-industry right wing mags there is.  I suppose that subtlety was lost to folks here. In our world, the old adage of "follow the money" works pretty reliably.  Of course humans are irrational and emotional but that has not a lot to do with what industry or governments do except when they can exploit it for their own mean$.

As for the Chernobyl butchers bill, the figure of 29 people is an early figure from the Russian government of immediate fatalities. The range of people killed over time looks more like 4000 in the near term, and much, much higher for people made seriously ill.  Increasing radiation is much like other toxic exposures in that specific causality is impossible to prove.  And of course, it is a very good point that the true butcher's/toxic exposure bill of energy production system should be considered, and that relative risks and costs need to be evaluated objectively.

From Wikipedia:
"During mid-1986 the official Soviet death toll rose from 2 to 31, a figure that has often been repeated. Following the disaster itself, the USSR organized an effort to stabilize and shore up the reactor area, still awash in radiation, using the efforts of more than 600,000 “liquidators” recruited from all over the USSR. Some organizations claim that deaths as a result of the immediate aftermath and the cleanup operation may number at least 6,000,[8] but that exceeds the number of workers believed, by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population, to have died from all causes (including, for example, old age and traffic accidents). The UNSCEAR report cites only evidence for thyroid cancers among children and teens (adults are quite resistant to iodine-131 poisoning) and some small amount of leukemia and eye cataracts among the most irradiated of the workers; no evidence for hard cancers has been found, despite waiting beyond the elapse of the usual ten year latency period.[1] For further information on the indirect health implications, see Chernobyl disaster's effects on human health.

The total number of deaths, including future deaths, is highly controversial, and estimates range from "up to" 4,000 (by a team of over 100 scientists[9][2]) to 93,000 or even 200,000 (by Greenpeace[10]). The controversy arises because most of the deaths cannot be measured: any cancer deaths that may be caused by the accident are negligible compared to background rates of cancer. Therefore, estimates must rely instead on controversial models such as LNT.[11]"


I'm all for continued research work on fusion,  but I'd like to see advanced development (refinement) of safer and less waste producing fission such as molten salt thorium as well, since sustained fusion has been elusively "just around the corner" since around 1970.  Since adopting enriched solid fuel fission, virtually no progress on anything else has happened.

We went down the wrong path with enriched solid fuel fission reactors, and we should not ignore the lesson that a system requiring a massive active cooling system to prevent a radioactive pollution disaster is a bad design choice when other proven, safer designs have existed since the early 70s.

Japan got lucky that the radioactive plume from the plant at Fukishima went out over the sea (and US Navy sailors on disaster relief ships) instead of populated areas.  That radiation event was so serious that those ships were subsequently taken out of service for a serious decontamination effort.  That lesson got Japan's attention, and others, as it should.  Calling a near miss a triumph of nuclear safety seems illogical to me.  Despite considerable effort to regulate this industry, the plant at Fukishima (by the sea) had it's backup generators located in a low level room that immediately flooded from tsunami.  This after the public is told that this plant is a safe modern design, well operated, etc.  This was NOT a Homer Simpson OR George Burns type event, where operator error or ignoring safety for profit was done; it was a failure by incredibly bad design that was missed by the plant design engineers, the operator TEPCO, and by the regulatory agencies.   

That error of design was compounded by the inherent design flaw of the present solid fueled fission reactors; a massive active cooling system MUST operate for an extended period during "shut down"; there is no f'ing OFF switch. 










LowGear

  • Casey
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2022
  • What? My diesel had fries for lunch?
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #143 on: April 15, 2018, 01:18:05 AM »
Is it me and my sick sense of humor but when you watch the tsunamis of Fukishima are you kind of wondering when Rodan or Godzilla are going to come around the corner and push all the water back.  Totally amazing to watch even today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ZOmMH4WHA

I'm thinking we still have back up generators below storm sewer level here in the states. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 01:29:25 AM by LowGear »
NPR Tipper/Dump Truck
Kubota BX 2230
Witte BD Generator
SunnyBoy 6000 + SolarWorld 245

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #144 on: April 15, 2018, 02:19:00 AM »
A good technical post mortem on Fukishima:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361

As previously noted in the article on Thorium/Molten Salt reactors, there is not one word in this assessment critical of the inherent safety problem of our present fission designs.  Everyone working in this field has accepted that this danger is inherent to fission power and is acceptable, since the know nothing of the alternatives that were proven viable since the early 1970s.

There is something basic in human wetware that has us accept whatever has been well established, never question it.

ajaffa1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #145 on: April 15, 2018, 01:27:32 PM »
Not quite sure how we got from electric vehicles to nuclear fission but this link suggests that allowing powerful corporations access to nuclear technology may be a mistake. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-tsunami-wall-131403275.html

What a surprise, profits before sustainability and the health of the planet, it`s people and all other species.
Bob

LowGear

  • Casey
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2022
  • What? My diesel had fries for lunch?
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #146 on: April 15, 2018, 01:58:56 PM »
No Bob,

Tell me this is all a whimsical moment of liberal / progressive hatred suggesting that anyone, much less a no one or corporate entity as their sometimes called would put profits above public health.   "No!" I write.  No!

The US spends almost 20% of it's GNP on sickness care (you may know it as health care but they don't want to deal with you when you're healthy).  Gosh.  Let's not rinse this concept of greed over purpose across any part of our economy other than nuclear.    Sweet dreams brothers and sisters.
NPR Tipper/Dump Truck
Kubota BX 2230
Witte BD Generator
SunnyBoy 6000 + SolarWorld 245

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #147 on: April 15, 2018, 04:53:07 PM »
Good link, Bob.  I stand corrected, the "Mr. Burns" (profits first) effect was an significant factor.  I also found that the incidence of earthquakes in Japan is astonishing- around 1000 per year, they live on a fault line.  Per the Carnegie report, safety evaluations of Fukishima  in 2008 showed that the critical cooling pumps were well submerged with estimated worst case tsunami levels...those pumps were not submersible type pumps.  The safety report was ignored for the obviou$ reason.  A failure of both TEPCO and Japans regulatory agencies.

Also astonishing to me is that most of the control and monitoring systems didn't have a secure power source, ala UPS, so that when power failed, and backup power failed, they had no way to even monitor the status of anything or know what was going on. They had no remote monitoring capability, either. 


« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 05:36:20 PM by BruceM »

ajaffa1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #148 on: April 16, 2018, 12:01:29 AM »
Hey Bruce, the Carnegie report make interesting reading. The most astonishing thing to me is that the technical staff remained at their posts and attempted to prevent this disaster. They must have been aware that they were risking their lives by doing so.
To compound the problems these guys were facing, some of them would have lost family and friends to the tsunami. Despite the risks they faced they managed to get some of the control equipment back online by cannibalising their own motor vehicles.
So a big thumbs up for team Homer and a big thumbs down for Mr Burns and the toothless regulators.

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #149 on: April 16, 2018, 01:23:09 AM »

The generation argument may be a moot point when it comes to electrics.
Reading up on grid capacity and expected demand, the prediction is for the rise in EV's by 2040, the demand on the grid will increase 300X.
That is only from electric vehicles and not increasing population and uptake of electric powered devices and conveniences.
The big problem seems to be that some places will take up electrics more than others which makes sense.

City drivers may take up faster than those in the country for instance but another problem comes in suburbia when families try to keep up with the Musk's and EVERY home in the neighborhood has an EV or 3 in the garage. This will cause local overloading and necessitate a strong bolstering of the local distribution network.  No problem technically but VERY expensive. Who do you think will pay for that? Yep, you the consumer.
If anyone is gullible enough to think the price of power would ever come down, think again about that really hard.

Electrics ARE already more expensive to run per km than Liquid fuel vehicles and will only get more expensive as grid demand increases.

It does raise a point and question though.
With gubbermints pushing electrics, why are they not also pushing homes instead of in most parts restricting, the adoption of PV?
Obviously the answer is greed, same as always, but again we are heading down a road of stupidity with this where profit dominates good sense and planning.  Maybe this should be in the stupidity of those in charge thread  as it's a classic example.

That said, it's a limited benifit as well. Not every place has lots of sunshing and every place has periods of a week or more where the sun is hidden.  In those times the grid is going to be really heavily drained as the input from solar and the load it alleviates is going to be nil and all the power demand will fall on it's shoulders.

Articles I read spoke of using the Ev's to smooth out grid demand. I find this to be spin doctoring.  There is a big difference between smoothing and making something run flat out all the time. It also flys in the face of the cheapest renewable now, Solar. They talk about recharging at night with scheduled programing and pricing. I think it will go the other way in fact. If you have solar input through the day and everyone seems to be busting a gut to to that way, then logicaly your input will be max through the day. when EV's become significant, they are already forseeing the grid demand at night equaling that of the day. If you don't have the solar input then effectively the peak time will become night.

There was also talk about charging at home.  If you have even a 50 Kwh battery, You would probably want 15-20 Kwh of panels on your roof to make that happen. Sure, you'll get away with less on a sunny day in summer but on a cloudy day in winter.... Ya!
Of course this overlooks the fact people generally have the car at work during the day or are out shopping or are NOT at home. Your solar could go back to the grid to be used elsewhere but I cannot see shopping centres and business carparks spending fortunes as they would have to in order to allow charging for all the vehicles parked there.  Just think of the costs of doing that both in equipment, materials and labour to do that then you have to put in the infrastructure with transformers and suitable power lines to handle the load.

Not so bad when you have a lot of little inputs from all over but when you have a lot in a small area..... Dynamics change and $$ add up fast!.

I can see gubbermints doing a real slowdown on the EV thing when reality becomes more apparent and the lights start flickering.
They don't want to build coal power plants, they don't want to build nuke, they do like solar and wind but one of those is highly variable and the other is limited availability.

The thirst for power from EV's WILL be around the clock and a huge beast to feed. To update the grid capacity in generation and distribution at a sufficient rate to match the Touted EV growth simply won't happen.  The EV fleet is 1% now. Predictions are that most grids could not handle near 15% of vehicles being EV because they represent at least one households worth of extra power consumption along with the increase in demand from traditional growth which is expected to ramp up disproportionately anyway.

It's s nice distraction and appeasement of the green washed but the reality of EV's is a very different and difficult thing.