Given the western world still pulls the majority of it's power from fossil fuel going electric is really only moving the emissions from one place of generation to another anyhow.
The problem is that whatever fuel you are burning there is only a finite amount available once you have burned it it`s gone for good.
... so I got in my planet destroying car and went to blow some more cash on light fittings.....
...
Has anyone considered the idea of a world power grid that would transmit solar generated power from the sunny side of the planet to those on the dark side? Nice idea but probably too expensive and would require global cooperation. Bob
...Great idea, until you realise that some stupid SOB would weaponize them and use them to fry countries which didn`t share the same point of view.
Giant orbital mirrors !
There has also been talk of solar shades being shot into orbit to reduce global warming. Great if you live near the equator and want to drop the summer temperature a bit. Totally rubbish idea if your an eskimo.
Can you imagine the size of the cables going to feed an entire country not to mention the distribution network required to get it into the grid when it got there?
I know how thick the cables need to be just to feed my puny solar setup back to the house mains. Multiply that by a million or so...... Hooee!
You'd be lucky to load 10km worth onto a ship before the weight sank the thing!
It's quite possible that we are ignorant enough to try to solve one serious problem with a solution even more damaging.
Possible??
It's clearly demonstrable! Over and over and over again! Endlessly!
I'll give the example I just mentioned, Nuclear Power generation and leave it at that.
You, as usual, raise excellent and not often if ever thought of points.
I know beans about EMF but I can tell you, when we were looking at new homes last year, the ones anywhere near HV power lines we drove straight past. Also passed one up that would have been perfect bar the fact it was right next to a water resivour tank that had a huge Mobile phone tower also in the reserve. Water tank didn't worry in the slightest but the phone tower was a complete deal breaker.
I probably expose myself to more than my fair share of EMF in my ignorance about it but I'm not so stupid to ignore the glaringingly obvious.
People refute the existence of EMF but I have seen people standing under towers with Fluro light tubes that glow and that tells me there is something there and it's significant.
As for your comment on shielded wiring, could you link to something that one could use to sheild wiring in the home?
I can't ever remember seeing it listed for sale at any eelectrical place and don't have any idea what it would actually look like. I remember as a kid the wiring in my grandparents place was all cloth covered in steel conduit. An obvious hazzard in one way but perhaps with positive outcomes in another. Of course back then you could count the electrical appliances on one hand in the entire home that were permanent fixtures as against an electric frypan or drill that was used when required then put away.
Also with shielding, in a basic form, If one were to enclose everything in a steel box as fasr as say GTI',s breakers etc or appliance like computers, does a steel box essential ( apart from power cords) stop EMF? When my daughter was younger I made a " bed" fpr her phone to go in out of an old metal Biscuit tin with a lid. Stopped the bastard going off all the time when the other kids sent some world stopping message about who said what to who at school today. Worked for a while till she worked out when she pulled the thing out of a morning there were no notifications and then the thing went nuts with messages sent hours ago.
I can well imagine that EMF shielding on electric cars would not be given a thought other than to dismiss it. I can also imagine being in that faraday cage
mobile steel box with the EMF would be essentially like being in a microwave with lots of the radiation bouncing around. Put a metal film tint on the windows and you could help keep it all in and concentrated even more!
Combining your concerns with electrics and my own, I wonder how much the elvesl of EMF would increase with the amount of power required to increase in the grid and in power lines running through the streets etc to power the vehicle fleet if it were all or majorly running of electricity?
My guess would be that increasing the power supply by 4 to 5 Times what it is now would not increase the EMF at the same rate but rather quite exponentially.
Pretending nuclear isn't subsidized, and that coal is appropriate for new development is foolish but is right out the power industry propaganda. The real cost of nuclear is being pushed onto your grandkids and great grandkids; there is no viable plan for the radioactive waste and the real downstream cost of decommissioning of old plants is still unknown. Nor will any insurance company in the world insure a nuclear power plant. No plant was ever built without gigantic overruns on cost and schedule. The rate and taxpayers foot the bill. Right now we need our existing nuclear to keep us afloat but we ought to be pursuing solar with thermal storage and other renewables.
As for coal- it is the perfect, stable, sequestered form of CO2. What is the cost of relocating hundreds of millions of people from coastlines, and disruption of farming from climate change? Most of the experts in the field around the world think it's way beyond serious, and military planners are assuming chaos will ensue as a result of disruption of food and water resources. "Clean coal" is a propaganda campaign just like the ones in the 60's for nuclear power- "too cheap to meter".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/02/clean-coal-america-kemper-power-plant
But hey, let's believe power company propaganda instead. Just because all of their previous predictions where utterly wrong, costing rate payers a fortune, doesn't mean we can't cling to their fantasy.
You could line up a dozen EV's at the same time and put 48 through in an hour and have traffic lights to co-ordinate them.
...I'm sure I could work this out, well probably, but how far will the Tesla 40 ton truck travel if the roof of the trailer was covered in solar panels and it was in full sunlight?.....
Here's an idea.
Rechargeable on the fly, electric trains.
Put high voltage overhead lines in urban areas, (where here in USA, trains creep along at 10mph) and charge up battery banks, that then take over when out of the city. Maybe leave a diesel/electric loco in the train for the long x-country hauls or hills
Isn't the problem with US urban rail, the fact that the rails tend to be wobbly as hell due to to years of heat cycling, and if the train tried t go any faster it'd basically fall off?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/
B&D you are making some very unusual claims. What nuclear power plant facility is disposing of it's spent fuel rods by mixing with concrete and welding in steel drums?
To the best of my knowledge this was proven ineffective over 35 years ago. The concrete and steel decompose, as did the glass composite attempt. Dilution and containment of particles is an was an ideal approach in concept in that water seepage would not carry particles and contamination to aquifer(s). Not one of many materials promoted and tried for this worked.
Spent fuel rods with thorium have a 10,000 year half life.
To suggest that storage of radioactive waste is a simple issue belies the work of a lot of serious scientists and people that certainly aren't wearing tin hats, and have serious concerns. These include people with serious educations and no financial interests.
If you have some good sources to back up your claims, I'd love to read them. and so would the DOE, NRA and many more.
Depends on which element or isotope you want to pick som e have very short half lives and some take 24000 years to decay to half life.
The presently used on-site dry cask storage is a temporary measure only, since no permanent storage system exists. No one considers this a permanent solution, not even the industry.
Concrete and/or glass composite encapsulation methods were attempts at creating a stable watertight mass that could be safely buried for thousands of years. The mix was to dilute the material and add mass such that heat levels were reasonable. They were some of the many failed approaches funded by the DOE, after I was taught about them in engineering school in 1975.
Dismissing long term hard radiation sources as a non issue is certainly a novel and original perspective.
I agree that barring a catastrophic failure, you are safer near a presently operating nuclear plant than downwind of a chemical plant, and that most toxic sources of chronic health problems are foolishly ignored. Not so in hundreds or 1000 years when the water supply is contaminated... that's the whole point of long term storage.
I don't have to taste shit to know it tastes bad and I can smell it when someone is shoveling like you are.
Typical Nike industry Vested industry Spin doctoring. Just because you have Drunk the cool aide and been brain washed, does not mean everyone else has.
I agree Casey, no matter what the enthusiasts say, the nuclear power industry has shot itself in both legs with cost (and time) of construction and service life. Not one nuclear plant has ever built built on time and projected costs have always been fantasy figures. Westinghouse was the last big US nuclear plant builder and they just went bankrupt.
The good point B&D made is that the true health risks and other costs of other power plants aren't great either...but that's why the rest of the world has been shifting to wind and solar ASAP.
I do like nuclear molten salts- but I prefer "fusion at a distance" (solar) as the way to do that at least here in the SW.
Much more the kind of thing I would trust the better than average Joe to build and operate. We all get cavalier about things we work with daily for a long time, it's just the way our wetware works.
China has the first large modern design fission molten salt system scheduled to be on line around 2024. We'll see how that works out for them, though it will be difficult to get real cost and operation data from China. Using spent fuel rods would be great but every single promise of such a thing in the last 50 years has so far proven to be vaporware; and the NRC has not approved a single fuel reprocessing plant in the US.
Continuing operation of our existing nuclear plants to the end of their safe service life seems both likely and wise at this point.
I just hope safety oversight won't get lax. Our Palo Verde plant upwind of me in AZ has had a long history of bad marks on NRC safety inspections and long delays in making corrections. There were some questions raised from retired NRC experts in the last year over a failed backup generator (blew up on testing) where they continued operations anyway and eventually got an NRC "exemption" despite clear rules that 2 regularly tested, backup generators to run the cooling pumps are required or the plant must start shut down procedures.
We'll be waiting a long time for power companies to begin acting in the best interests of the public instead of their own profits.
I thought B&D's comment about "lack of political will" was a hoot. I heard the same power co. propaganda as a naive young lad in engineering school, relative to the lack of radioactive waste disposal/storage. In 1975 and 18 years old, I believed it.
This article helps clarify that and the reality of nuclear power economics:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/02/20/why-the-economics-dont-favor-nuclear-power-in-america/#4576a4ee470b
Meanwhile, we do have a sustained fusion reactor with a long history of reliability; look up at noon.
Thanks for the help with Why we need cooling towers and lots of reserve water to run steam plants.
So how about the future of electric vehicles?
I spent two hours chasing down a really neat three wheel roadster Friday only to discover it was powered by a two stroke. From super clean to the dirtiest in one utterance of "Huh".
Have you seen the Edison 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMWveqqMUY0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMWveqqMUY0) Cleaver way of getting around the safety stuff "real" cars face.
The Chinese and Korean Candu 600 plants were build on budget and on time. In the west politicians/lawyers milk the system to fill their pockets.
Hopefully the green movement will achieve something VERY worth while in seeing no more nukes are ever built.
Wishful thinking but something worth hoping for.
I did a bit of reading and see that Ontario province has weaned itself off of coal entirely since 2014. Impressive.
Nuclear isn't going to be optional for Canada, I suspect, as their climate warrants a very high energy use per capita, ala Norway.
I did some reading on the newest nuclear molten salt designs and was impressed at the much greater inherent safety of the proposed designs; there is no Fukishima event possible even with total loss of power and pumping capability. The design also generates a fraction of the high level waste.
A Canadian company, Terrestrial Energy, has a molten salt design that I hope will prove to be highly successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR
I've worked with a Canadian engineering firm on a military related project and my impression was that Canadian engineers are very capable and honest. They did their part of the R&D project very well, on time and budget, and were a pleasure to work with. Management is also more honest than in the US. Canada's safety record has been quite good, comparatively. So far only one ''Homer Simpson'' type operator error dumping tritium in Lake Ontario and a couple fuel rod failures...one with a total loss of the plant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-closer-look-at-canada-s-nuclear-plants-1.1194756
Yes, it would be exactly them!
I detect an implication of hypocrisy in your comment. I would refer to the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
In this case, I consider Nukes to be a far greater enemy than any one or thing on this earth for the simple reason it has such immense potential to take us all out so quick and so easily. I reckon some of the greenwashed ( and honestly concerned) might even welcome me into their ranks for the very same reasons. We have a combined enemy and a united position on this issue.
I have no problem backing anyone if they do something worthwhile and productive. That's my major issue with the green cause, it's more about money than doing things that are beneficial for the planet. The world has to tolerate all this over the top green washed rubbish and all problems it causes so if for once they can do something worthwhile, I will back them all the way.
I will admit, I am sometimes torn between deciding who is the cause of the issues I have with the green movement. There is a lot of gubbermint and big business influence that don't give a shit about the cause they feign support for, they are only interested in the $$ and thats clearly demonstrated and Inarguable. There are the vocal and idiotic private elements who are ignorant and one track minded and just think that everything should be what they see as green tomorrow and will rant and rave in complete ignorance.
Then I suspect there are those that are rational, supportive and honest in their intentions and beliefs.
I have a good and old friend like that. He does what he can, puts his money where his mouth is to support his beliefs but looks at the big and true picture and has no hesitation to call BS when he sees it because he's concerned with doing the right thing for the environment not just doing the " green " thing.
There is a big difference between the 2 if one is honest and truly believes in their position on this.
My friend does not just go out and spend money because something is labeled green. He looks into it and makes informed and honest choices. He recently renovated his house and was telling me about all the products pushed as supposedly being green which he found when looking into their production and composition were far more detrimental to run of the mill things that never made any environmental claims at all. He drives a regular diesel vehicle and can bury you in facts and figures about how for his needs, this is the least damaging choice and why he'd never own a current hybrid/ electric and the environmental drawbacks they have in production, disposal and in between.
He's anything but greenwashed, he's honest to himself and makes real effort to make sure his actions are the best he can do to support the cause he believes in. My admiration for him and his honesty is Immense and if they put him or somone like him in charge of the green movement and looking after the earth, then real and beneficial change would occur.
I doubt your see him screaming about closing coal fired power stations but nukes would be wound down as soon as there was any sort of viable alternative. You would see him trying to get solar on every roof possibly lessen demand on the grid the same as he has. He wouldn't be spending Millions building BS batteries in the middle of the dessert for companies to profit from but he would be subsidizing home batteries to again create a real and significant reductions in emissions from non nuke sources where it would count.
I'm sure he would put an end to many industrial practices and waste and put tangible benefits over profit. We have discussed all this at length and many times.
He would change the world for the better be his actions be deemed green or not. The environment and the planet would become cleaner and more sustainable.
I am not in any way against saving the environment/ planet etc, what shits me to tears is the endless bullshit people/ entity's go on with PRETENDING they are doing something when 9 times out of 10 their ideas, proposals and actions actually cause more harm than the ways and methods they are so against.... or are based on profit not benefit at all.
It's about damn time this green religion did something of real and tangible benefit and stopping any more nukes being built would be a huge step forward for the entire world
I'll back it all the way even if Jack the Ripper is behind it.
Yes, it would be exactly them!
I detect an implication of hypocrisy in your comment. I would refer to the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
In this case, I consider Nukes to be a far greater enemy than any one or thing on this earth for the simple reason it has such immense potential to take us all out so quick and so easily. I reckon some of the greenwashed ( and honestly concerned) might even welcome me into their ranks for the very same reasons. We have a combined enemy and a united position on this issue.
I have no problem backing anyone if they do something worthwhile and productive. That's my major issue with the green cause, it's more about money than doing things that are beneficial for the planet. The world has to tolerate all this over the top green washed rubbish and all problems it causes so if for once they can do something worthwhile, I will back them all the way.
I will admit, I am sometimes torn between deciding who is the cause of the issues I have with the green movement. There is a lot of gubbermint and big business influence that don't give a shit about the cause they feign support for, they are only interested in the $$ and thats clearly demonstrated and Inarguable. There are the vocal and idiotic private elements who are ignorant and one track minded and just think that everything should be what they see as green tomorrow and will rant and rave in complete ignorance.
Then I suspect there are those that are rational, supportive and honest in their intentions and beliefs.
I have a good and old friend like that. He does what he can, puts his money where his mouth is to support his beliefs but looks at the big and true picture and has no hesitation to call BS when he sees it because he's concerned with doing the right thing for the environment not just doing the " green " thing.
There is a big difference between the 2 if one is honest and truly believes in their position on this.
My friend does not just go out and spend money because something is labeled green. He looks into it and makes informed and honest choices. He recently renovated his house and was telling me about all the products pushed as supposedly being green which he found when looking into their production and composition were far more detrimental to run of the mill things that never made any environmental claims at all. He drives a regular diesel vehicle and can bury you in facts and figures about how for his needs, this is the least damaging choice and why he'd never own a current hybrid/ electric and the environmental drawbacks they have in production, disposal and in between.
He's anything but greenwashed, he's honest to himself and makes real effort to make sure his actions are the best he can do to support the cause he believes in. My admiration for him and his honesty is Immense and if they put him or somone like him in charge of the green movement and looking after the earth, then real and beneficial change would occur.
I doubt your see him screaming about closing coal fired power stations but nukes would be wound down as soon as there was any sort of viable alternative. You would see him trying to get solar on every roof possibly lessen demand on the grid the same as he has. He wouldn't be spending Millions building BS batteries in the middle of the dessert for companies to profit from but he would be subsidizing home batteries to again create a real and significant reductions in emissions from non nuke sources where it would count.
I'm sure he would put an end to many industrial practices and waste and put tangible benefits over profit. We have discussed all this at length and many times.
He would change the world for the better be his actions be deemed green or not. The environment and the planet would become cleaner and more sustainable.
I am not in any way against saving the environment/ planet etc, what shits me to tears is the endless bullshit people/ entity's go on with PRETENDING they are doing something when 9 times out of 10 their ideas, proposals and actions actually cause more harm than the ways and methods they are so against.... or are based on profit not benefit at all.
It's about damn time this green religion did something of real and tangible benefit and stopping any more nukes being built would be a huge step forward for the entire world
I'll back it all the way even if Jack the Ripper is behind it.
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 .
It is not possible to built enough lithium battery backup capacity to supply power with wind and solar generation .
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.
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.
QuoteAs 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.
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 . . .
Glort is absolutely right in his assessment that the electricity grid is completely unable to provide the megawatts required to charge the Australian fleet of vehicles. At present our grid is incapable of supplying sufficient energy to cover air conditioning on hot days. The idea that my ability to travel to work or to go to the shops (100 km round trip) should be determined by an already over stretched distribution/generation system frightens the life out of me.
So what can we do about this? I believe that Glort has comprehensively proved that PV systems can produce more electricity than he knows what to do with, at a very low capital expenditure. The problem as always is storage/distribution of this energy and the gubermints dependence on the revenue from fossil fuels.
Perhaps what is needed is a complete change in the way we tackle this issue, imagine a motor vehicle with multiple fuel capabilities. It could recharge and store power from solar PV systems when you are at home but also act as a generator when the grid goes out or possibly provide an off grid supply. I don`t know how to build such a vehicle but I suspect that someone on this forum probably does and I look forward to their input.
Bob
Buy stock in Saudi Arabia of course.
I never cease to be amazed at why Americans think all ( or the majority) of their oil comes from the Middle east??
Buy stock in Saudi Arabia of course.
I never cease to be amazed at why Americans think all ( or the majority) of their oil comes from the Middle east??
As I have tried to point out, at length, electric cars are not the issue. Finding the power to run them is.
I have a LOT of clear roof space and certainly more than the average home owner which I'm filling with panels . I couldn't put enough panels up to keep an electric car charged for my wife's daily Commute let alone charge my Daughters and my car.
Just like oil, when the demand for power goes up, so will the price. Nuke is not the solution there because completely opposite to the touted " cheap" power, it is in fact the most expensive.
The few times Nuke powered ships have come into our harbors, there have been huge protests and outcrys. Trying to dock one permanently to supply power would be a completely impractical idea and get which ever gubbermint who tried it thrown out on their arses overnight pretty much.
[/quote
Most of the protestors are bored people, that are not cold, sick or hungry with time on their hands . Hey are looking for drama , attention and meaning to their existence.
These same malcontents need to spend A few months in nations where food, housing, healthcare , education, heating, cooling, transportation , communication , safety and security are luxuries .
......The few times Nuke powered ships have come into our harbors, there have been huge protests and outcrys. Trying to dock one permanently to supply power would be a completely impractical idea and get which ever gubbermint who tried it thrown out on their arses overnight pretty much.
I'm not sure it would.
What I do think would happen is there would be a huge outcry for more renewable investment and Subsidies for home batteries etc.
Some people especially in the business sector would accept a ship as a very temporary measure but I don't think that would change the overall protests and outcry.
The only thing nuke we have here is a reactor that makes Medical Isotopes and that isn't popular either.
The trained mentality is already overwhelming renewable's and the gubberments here have been pushing that down our throats as well. Much was made of having to sign the paris agreement which is totally and utterly useless to us but was hugely supported. Whoever let things go to the point a nuke ship ( not that we have any) would have to be parked in the harbour to provide Power would only be heard of again when they went missing or their bodies washed up on the beach.
There was brief talk of putting a reactor out in the dessert a few years ago, a US company from memory wanted to do it but the population lit up about that so much even the nuke industry spin doctors ran away from it.
No power so we parked a nuke battleship in the harbour to provide it would still not go down well at all.
The only thing that would be accepted here is Solar, wind and you may get some Hydro past approval but that would be a job as well.
The few times Nuke powered ships have come into our harbors, there have been huge protests and outcrys. Trying to dock one permanently to supply power would be a completely impractical idea and get which ever gubbermint who tried it thrown out on their arses overnight pretty much.
Most of them don't look like they would pass our ADR's, Australian Design Rules which cover vehicle design, standards and safety to permit vehicles to be road legal here.The three wheel crowd are currently getting around this here in the states by getting them classified as motorcycles.
QuoteBut I forget, Lister Engine Forum is a safe house for Horders.
Yeah, not this little black Duck any more. I have the ute loaded ATM with junk ready to put in the Dumpsters.
Learned my lesson, not going back to that insanity again. Still lots to shift but at least I now recognise the problem. :0)
Don't worry, I'm still here, and I'm a confirmed hoarder :D
PfffT!
You are just trying to show off and make the rest of us Envious.... and it's working! :-[
Look at that place! The size, The machinery, The Treasure!!
Ok I'm sure some of it could do with a little organising and perhaps a bit of thinning out but Damn!, That is one magnificent shed!
Happiness is a state of mind.
I guess we all are just a mass of stupids being lead around by one fake news story after another. The move to electric everything is on the march. I'm tagging along.
Cheers,
Fuel in NZ is very exy compared to here. Is there a lot of tax on it? More of the price of a litre of fuel here is tax than it is for the product.
People bitch about oil co's and the arabs but ones really doing the rorting are the gubbermint that make more money than anyone else and do nothing but collect the taxes ( on taxes as it is here) .
If Fuel is the huge cash cow for the gubbermint there as it is here, They will be out to make sure they maintain their revenue stream.
They will phase something in to do that or keep the EV's as lip service only.
A realistic observation on the potenial of EV's would be generation capacity. There is a big difference between having the base product ( water in this case) and being able to put it to work ( Hydro plants) . If the infrastructure is there to turn up the wick and make more power to feed the EV's, you are on a winner. If there would need to be more/ larger dams and plants..... That's a whole different story as is the distribution capacity of the grid even if there is the facilities in place which will just allow opening another valve and making more power.
Maybe if demand for power for EV's exceeds the current Hydro capacity, The gubbermint could make more use of the thermal you have there.
Seems an under utilised power source if ever there were one.
What is this very expensive shift to Electric and it's drawbacks supposed to achieve ?
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Firstly, for government it is revenue-neutral and tax-neutral
Secondly, for users, there is a saving to be made if you adopt an EV at some point in the future. There is no cost at all if you continue to drive your current vehicle. There may be extra cost if you buy a new vehicle
For those New Zealanders who voted for the Labour/Green government I would guess that it reduces New Zealand's contribution to the greenhouse gas burden of the planet - but does so in a way that does not make us, as a country, less competitive than we were previously with those of our trading partners who do not adopt such measures - as we might become if we did other unilateral things like adding carbon taxes etc
That's just a layman's understanding, though
(and, of course you are right Mr B&D lol)
Cheers, Mike
What is this very expensive shift to Electric and it's drawbacks supposed to achieve ?
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Firstly, for government it is revenue-neutral and tax-neutral
Secondly, for users, there is a saving to be made if you adopt an EV at some point in the future. There is no cost at all if you continue to drive your current vehicle. There may be extra cost if you buy a new vehicle
For those New Zealanders who voted for the Labour/Green government I would guess that it reduces New Zealand's contribution to the greenhouse gas burden of the planet - but does so in a way that does not make us, as a country, less competitive than we were previously with those of our trading partners who do not adopt such measures - as we might become if we did other unilateral things like adding carbon taxes etc
That's just a layman's understanding, though
(and, of course you are right Mr B&D lol)
Cheers, Mike
And, yes, we have geothermal. Cheaper than wind but more expensive than hydro - but probably coming down in price over time as the tech matures
I'll say one thing for the Chinese, they don't have the BS and corruption in politics like the west does.
They truly are there for the people.
Democracy at it's best is reactive in nature, which makes long term planning a serious problem. Then when you add in mega-corporate manipulation of democracy it gets severely warped. It may be the best system of government we can come up with, but it may also lead to extinction. As world population is at 7.6 billion and increasing by 1.13% per year US population is still being fed messages of how we must have growth of our economy.
They seem to be heading into deeper red ink and the only people that are denying that are Musk and the Tesla brainwashed Fanboys.
Quote
I prefer to think of myself as a Elon Fanboy. What an amazing person. What an amazing life - so far. I stopped by a Tesla showroom in a large shopping center East of Seattle. Even the Model 3 is way big for me and the prices are closer to the land deals I still dream about. There are more vehicles coming down the marketing road that make much more sense to me but they would not be here this or probably next decade without the Elon.
Kodak might be an illuminating lesson:
Remember when those little yellow boxes of film were everywhere and their logo was as recognisable as Coca-Cola?
But they missed the boat when digital came along. I used to make a chunk of my living back then selling words to magazines - and words weren't worth much without pictures. That Kodak 400 was a mainstay. I owned a couple of Kodak's early digital efforts; but they were always a few months too late, always trying to play catchup . . .
And now they're gone. Their billions and their grasp on the industry couldn't save them from becoming dinosaurs and ending up extinct
It would be a wonderful irony if the oil companies went the same way
And, I too applaud Mr Musk, Casey. All visionaries are so focussed as to be flawed at best and self-imploding at worst. It doesn't matter how he, personally, ends up; his legacy is already established IMHO
How many fast/slow charging cycles will the battery in a Telsa be able to handle? What will be the cost for replacements and what will this do to the resale value? Do they come with a meter so that someone buying a used Tesla can tell how long the batteries will last before they need replacement?
What is the name of the physicist who came up with more efficient electrolysis, Bob? I'd like to find out more about his work. I know hydride storage has been very well lab-proven, just not yet developed commercially.
All you need is a Chevy Volt, Glort. That's right, the Volt. You get the 40 mile (64 KM) 100% EV range you really need, and the unlimited petrol range after that. Charge the battery on your home PV most of the time and use nothing but battery for 90% of your driving. Because of your great work on your bargain PV system, you'll likely be one of the few who really does save money via EV.
Thanks Johndoh for the link. I have to assume that the system is not running at grid voltage so probably something like 48 Volt DC, going to burn out a lot of brushes and produce horrendous radio interference.
They only have a bit over one mile of this track, A vehicle traveling at sixty miles per hour is only going to get just over a minute of charge. I predict huge traffic jams caused by people slowing down to get a longer charge.
I wonder if this sort of stupidity is being funded by industry or is the tax payer picking up the bill?
In the article it states that road side detectors energise the track only when a vehicle is detected, the vehicle owner is then billed for the charging they receive. What sort of relays are they using to energise the track and how robust and hacker free will the wifi detectors be?
Hundreds of thousands of miles of roads in Europe, how much is this going to cost? I think I`ll take the train and walk.
Bob
R22 was supposed to be out 20 years ago. But it is still available. Can be purchased at
any AC supply house. You can't buy R22 equipment any more but the gas is still out there.
R22 is not supposed to be manufactured now
It will eventually go away but I would.be surprised if it were any time soon.
R410 was supposed to be the "end all" for R22 but it has come under attack as of
late and I can see another battle brewing over that.
No matter what happens it will only be more expense for the consumer.
Are you familiar with lithium bromide refrigeration systems? They have been used for solar (non-PV) driven refrigeration on commercial scale but not residential. I read an article mentioning some technical challenges with corrosion and materials compatibility. It seemed like a good solution for building cooling for the lower deserts of AZ...but has not caught on, and I wondered why.