Lister Engine Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: guest22972 on March 14, 2018, 12:03:44 PM

Title: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: guest22972 on March 14, 2018, 12:03:44 PM

Long rant, make coffee and come back or skip to next post now....

If you are remotely interested in Vehicles, or even if you are not, you can't look at any form of media now without having something glossy and hyped rammed down your throat about electric Vehicles. The most sedate it gets is the never ending " Banning of IC cars by 20xx in whichever" place or that auto makers are working feverishly to bring out 100 new models in teh next 5 years..... Which coincidently, is an actual scale widely flung around.

We know there is now the technology for cars to cover decent distances, to recharge in a -reasonable- time frame and that many of the past objections are gone.  Today our " green" party, the biggest pack of Idiot ratbags Imaginable ( And yes, I must own up to voting for them once about 25 years ago) called for a ban of all IC car sales in OZ by 2030.

And therein lies the root of my face palm and urge to go beat my head on a brick wall.

These same whining morons are already responsible for STATE wide blackouts due to the blowing up of coal fired power stations.
To stop a grid meltdown, the gubbermint went and put in a stack of diesel generators that consume 40,000L of Diesel an HOUR! That is one standard semi tanker load.  per HOUR!
Yeah! that's doing wonders for the environment right?  ::)

The whole EV thing is a complex one but my biggest concern and where I see the real handbrake is feeding all these clean wonderful cars with power.
 I think it's far from the simple thing of generation growing to meet the demand that many Ev proponents make out.  I also think it's a lot more than a localised consideration. There are few countries with abundant power supply and fewer still that have or will go near being renewable.  Most of the western world does not have a lot of power to spare and even in this day and age, it only takes one hot day to have rolling blackouts because the grid can't keep up. Here it's getting much worse thanks to all the save the planet types and their " Renewable" generation that is unstable, un predictable and very undependable.

The demand on the grid worldwide is growing all the time.  The green washed thing of coal is evil and must be stopped now reduces capacity and stability.  On one hand you have the green washed trying to reduce generation at the same time promoting the increase of consumption. Nothing wrong with that hypocricy, much! It takes a LOT of renewable power to equal one fossil fired station and the renewable is far from stable and dependable.

In a decade, the demand on grids around the world will have grown through all the things that are reliant on it now. Population, business, industry, quality of life improvements Like AC, large TV's and so it goes.
I don't know where to find the info of demand Vs generation relationships but it sure would be interesting to see the projections.

I don't know about other parts of the world but from what I'm reading, The take up of PV is no where near like it is here in oz hich is understandable given the weather in a lot of the northern Hemisphere.  I think rather than have the big blattery, the money should have been spent on putting more localised power where it is needed in the form of solar. Unfortunately the green obsessed and Crazy SA gubbermint is so hell bent on being able to make stupid claims, they do it at the cost of sound practices and stability of power for the state.

I really don't think most of the greenwashed / EV proponents have any idea of the amount of energy contained in liquid fuels, the size of any type of battery to store the same amount of energy as in an average fuel tank and I don't think they understand what that energy equates to in electrical generation terms.  Multiply that out be every car however many there are in your street let alone suburb and city, and the numbers become overwhelming.
Compare that to the amount of power a city generates now and one will get some perspective how mammoth a task this switch to electric really is.

Here's a real quick one....
My 4WD has a 100L tank. Yes, large by sedan standards but around here, a significant part of the local transport.
Diesel is about 10.7Kw of energy per litre. Let's call it 10 for ease of my poor mathematics.
100L in my tank x10 Kwh = 1000 KWh.

My 6.5 Kw solar system is averaging with weather about 25KwH a day atm being summer here. 5kwh is the standard for new systems being installed now but a lot larger than most older ones being 1.5-2 Kw.
If I put my 25kwh a day JUST into my vehicle, Thats going to take 40 days on average to give me ONE tankfull of Diesel. And now of course I must dra everything from the grid for household needs.
Lets halve that as a closer to average sort of tank capacity.  500KWH, 20 days at 25KWH per day.

Look at it another way.  Average home here for a family of 4 my power bill says is about 30 KWH a day.  50L of fuel in the average family car, and few families have just one here, 500Kwh / 30 Kwh = 16 days average power use in that vehicle.
Most people I know fill up at least once a week. 2000Kwh month for the car,  30Kwh x 30 days = 900 KWH for the home.
Anyone getting the picture of the energy load we are talking about here?

That average family car electric needs is worth more than 2 average homes electric consumption per month. If they have ONE car. I l oked up the numbers,  2.28 for Oz with 35% of households owning 3 or more.
US, looks exactly the same, canada a bit less, 1,8 cars per family.

So in reality, the average home in these countries would have 4-5 times the demand on the grid for power for their ev's than they are using in their homes now.
At best, the number of houses in your street as far as power consumption goes just tripled. More likely, it just multiplied by a factor of at least 5.
In every street in every suburb in every city and town right across the country......

How many homes do you think will be able to have enough panels to charge their vehicles up in even a week even if they covered the whole block and used the panels as a roof?
When you break it down like this, you start to see the incredible change in the grid infrastructure that is going to be needed to replace  IC vehicles.
Sure it won't happen over night, it can't! If the the take up was too quick ( and ev sales are LESS than 1% overall atm) they would hit a tipping point where all the cars were taking the power and there was non left to run the factories trying to make the things!

How long before you think the grid where you live will be able to handle that 500% ++ increase in demand, and what do you think the price of power might be to pay for the infrastructure to supply it?
More over, is there even space to put the infrastructure in place?  Pretty sure no city is going to have the capacity to distribute 500% mo0re power on existing cabling and the question would then be, is there the space in the ground with everything else to put cables and distribution equipment in place 2with 5x the capacity of what is there now?

How big are the cables going to be on the power poles and how heavy? How expensive will they be with up rated substations, transformers and so it goes.

Of course then there is the thing that comes to mind for me with a personal ( repeated) experience.
My Father lives almost 400 KM away from me. The journey is basicaly up a highway for 2 hours, a 7 km crawl through the bypass of the next major city and then another 1hr, 20 min hop up the other side of the highway to his place. That highway goes another 600KM to the next major city.

In the middle of that 7 Km stretch there is a 2 petrol stations. The one opposite the McDonalds is the busiest and the Maccas can not be got near when its holiday time as it's the only thing on the highway till you get further up to when my father lives.
That service station is VERY busy with people filling up as it's the last fuel for about 2 hours. If you have come from where dad is which is the next major town and you are towing a boat or caravan, You are going to need a long range tank to make it with out a top up.

 EV's on average take an hour to recharge IF they are on a rapid charger. Many take much longer.   How long does it take one to fill their tank with petro fuel? 5, 10 Min?  I'd reckon there are about 20 pumps at that servo opposite Maccas.  that would mean that when the line is out onto the road, each pump should service a minimum of 6 cars per hour. 20 pumps, 120 cars per hour.

Now, if each car even takes 30 min to recharge bearing in mind they would have nearly all just driven 150KM and have another 200 to go to the next place that would have a charging station, those 20 outlets are only going to service 40 Vehicles. in other words, you are going to have to put in at least 3 times the charging stations as fuel pumps. And unless they are all super charger type setups, the far more likley charging time is 2-3 Hours.

Geez, won't that be fun turning your 4 hour trip into a 7 hour one and trying to amuse the kids at maccas for 3 hours. I can see a real possibility of the accident rate going up on that section of road due to fatigue and distraction by the extended journey time.
But wait, there's More....!

As its a big selling point to have " destination Charging" with tesla at least, put a charging station in every parking bay at maccas so people can go in , grab a bite and a coffee and have a break while their car charges up. Tesla luckily it's only an hour.
 I looked up that a tesla can suck down 120Kw at a charging station.  On 240V that's nearly 500A. Yes, the voltage is actually a bit higher but that's irrelevant.  it's the watts that count. A normal house connection here is 80A and it would be extremely rare to find a single place sucking down that much power.
Let say there are 20 Charging stations in the carpark at maccas, that's 2.4 Mw of power just at that site . Across the road in the servo, there is at least another 20 and another 2.4Mw. How many other sites will that segment of the grid be feeding and further back, how many will be in the area supplied buy the local sub and power stations? Those 2 sites are across the road from one another so how big are the cables going to have to be just to feed 2 places?
That sort of power wouldn't be used by factories of that size so to have 2 small sites  pulling that down.... Then of course there are the other food joints about 500M up the road that also fill up at holiday time and would no doubt also have charging in order to get business in the door be the power paid for or not.  Can't see how they could afford to give it away on that scale unless the price of a Burger in the restaurant became 25 bucks.

Another thing that's not mentioned with charging time with teslas is they quote an hour. That's true if the thing isn't completely flat which we'll assume it is not and people leave a small reserve as one normally would with a petrol car.  You go to the supercharger and plug in next to the guy that just pulled up. The charger is current limited and you are only going to get 30Kw being the second car to plug in rather than the 120Kw which is the max charge rate. Because the guy beside was before you but still needs to do a full charge more or less, your recharge could take 2 hours not 1.  And that is if it's getting full power in the first place and the site isn't limited on it's max current draw because of all the other stations and the wiring at the power pole.

To me the whole EV thing is one big distraction and bundle of BS.

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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: broncodriver99 on March 14, 2018, 01:32:44 PM
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.

Add to that the efficiency of the grid with generation and transmission losses and electric cars end up being ~about as efficient as a IC fueled vehicle.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 14, 2018, 10:35:42 PM
That is a hell of a rant! Unfortunately time pressures mean I won't have chance to read it before the weekend, but if I may ask a question?

Why is the interior of Australia (which, as I recall, is pretty bloody big - even by Australian standards - and mostly unpopulated) not being carpeted with PV panels? Surely for a country that gets more sunshine than it can possibly need, solar PV is the obvious answer? Or, even, molten salt thermal solar, which has the advantage that if enough heat energy can be banked during the day, can continue to generate power even in the hours of darkness, addressing the biggest problem solar PV suffers from?

Glort - apologies if you already addressed this... I WILL read all of your post, but not right now...
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 14, 2018, 10:56:52 PM
I wonder how much fossil fuel is used to mine the lithium for these batteries. The ore has to be extracted, refined. shipped to China for manufacture into cells. It`s then shipped to tesla for assembly, from there the finished product is distributed all around the world. The logistics must be horrendous.

What is going to happen to all the outback farmers that are not grid connected. how are they supposed to charge their vehicles? Does anyone make an electric tractor or combined harvester, how long would one of those take to charge?

What are the government going to do without the tax revenues from oil? I guess they`ll have to tax electricity, that should make the greens popular.

I have to conclude that once again there is no joined up thinking by the government, when are they going to start listening to people who know what they are doing, rather than following the dogma of the politically correct incompetent?

Mad as a cut snake,
Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 14, 2018, 11:43:16 PM
A tanker full of diesel an hour? How big is the injector pump on one of these things?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 14, 2018, 11:59:28 PM
Perhaps someone could explain to me why the greens in the government allowed the closure of the Nymboida hydro electric power station. The water that used to feed it was redirected to Coffs Harbour so they can water their bloody gardens. The international slalom course at the canoe centre relied on the hydro outflow as did all the farmers along the creek.
Nice work by the greedy and incompetent.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 15, 2018, 04:30:06 AM
Tell me if I`ve understood this properly. The a South Australian government can`t keep the lights on despite burning 80,000ltrs of diesel an hour and they want us to trade in our IC engine vehicles and use electric ones instead.
The idiot in charge of this doesn`t deserve an award he needs a lobotomy.

Is there some sort of advanced stupidity course that politicians have to take before they can stand for office? I bet this guy aced it, a masters degree in BS and advanced incompetence.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 15, 2018, 05:33:57 AM
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. We are burning it at an ever accelerating pace. You don`t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that at some time, probably in our lifetime, there won`t be any left. can you imagine what that would do to the global economy? Don`t forget that fuel is only a very small percentage of the crude oil we use every day. Lubricants, paints, solvents, plastics and fertilisers are all oil based. With out that oil the world will quite literally grind to a halt.

As you point out all attempts to grow a crop for fuel have been an extravagant waste. I read one report that claimed the entire land mass of the United States would need to be turned over to ethanol production to service the demand for motor vehicle fuel. What are the people going to eat?

I believe that there is some useful research being done into using solar energy to convert CO2 back into hydrocarbons that can then be burned. The process is very energy consuming but doable. Perhaps a new purpose for all your solar panels. I`ll see if I can find the link and post it.
Bob

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 15, 2018, 06:06:39 AM
Here is that research link https://e360.yale.edu/features/using_co2_to_make_fuel_a_long_shot_for_green_energy

I also went out to spend some money today. Sadly my debit card wouldn`t work. Went to the bank and complained. Turns out some f**kwit has been trying to hack my bank account details. The bank decided the safest thing to do was to disable my cards without informing me, they did this at 07:00 hrs on Sunday morning. I will now have to wait a week for replacements.
Very glad I wasn`t on holiday in Bali when this happened. Sh1t creek no paddle and no f`ing canoe.

Grumpy Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on March 15, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
My turn.

Electric cars are neat.

Yup.  That's it.

Cheers,
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 15, 2018, 10:38:44 PM
Thanks for reminding me that all my online services will need to have the CC number edited. What a pain in the ar*e that`s going to be. I  wonder how many passwords I`m going to have forgotten.
Strange thing is that the suspicious activity the bank flagged was someone PAYING me 43 dollars and some change! Doesn`t sound like the actions of a criminal mastermind.

I agree that electric cars are cool and probably an ideal way of reducing air pollution in built up areas. For those of us that live rurally and have to travel long distances they are completely impractical.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 15, 2018, 10:45:07 PM
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.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Coal - sure, definitely. Oil, however... well, the Japanese have proven that there are algae out there which eat CO2 & energy (ideally light, but heat will do) and shit out crude oil. I read, somewhere (can't remember where) that some formerly dry oil wells have, in fact, been found to have some oil in them again.

What is true, is at our present rate of extraction, there will come a day when effectively all of the earth's accessible (or, rather, known AND accessible) oil reserves will be consumed, and even if some are replenished by natural processes, it certainly isn't going to be fast enough. Plant-based alternatives are OK, but simply put we don't have enough space to grow the crops to produce the yields necessary to cover all oil consumption, even if that were possible (which, as glort points out, is highly unlikely at best). Well, maybe we could, but then there's no space left over to grow stuff to eat.

So... where do we go from here? Solar & wind could help reduce oil/gas consumption, but they'll never replace it completely. Nuclear would seem to be the most viable option for the short term - at least to cover the base load currently covered with coal/oil/gas. Unless someone finds a way to store the energy from solar/wind when it's not wanted & can be released back into the grid when it IS needed, then we'll need rapid reacting gas turbine power to keep or grids stable.

Personally, I think they should use surplus wind/solar to generate H2, which can either be pushed through hydrogen fuel cells, or even burnt in a generator (gas turbine or reciprocating, whatever works best); that at least allows solar/wind output to be levelised and made much more predictable (higher than predicted, store any excess; lower than predicted, burn into your store to supplement). H2 has the advantage of producing very little additional pollution when burnt (only waste heat).


It's all moot anyway. The plants are LOVING the extra CO2 that's in the air. So the odd polar bear gets it in the neck, it's all terribly sad, but lets face it - if Antarctica melts, there's a whole new landmass just waiting to be turned into a gigantic farm to feed the world (and the rising sea levels will have killed off anyone careless enough to live by the sea, so there'll be less mouths to feed as well! Perfect for a new low-oil economy...

... so I got in my planet destroying car and went to blow some more cash on light fittings.....

I hope you tweaked the "injector output" knob I'm sure you have under the dash, for that "extra black smoke" effect?  :laugh:

I drive a 4 litre supercharged Jaguar XJR about the place (20mpg *at best*). I'm just trying to feed the plants, that's all, and offset all of those damn Priuses!
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 15, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
You make a good point about solar and wind generation. The problem is that the sun doesn`t shine 24 hours a day so storage for use at night is essential. Battery storage works but is bulky and expensive and has only a short life expectancy. Pumped hydro is a possibility but the costs are astronomical. Nuclear has very nasty long term consequences which we are not technologically advanced enough to overcome. Experiments into the feasibility of fusion reactors are producing good results but a working prototype is probably fifteen years or more away.

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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on March 16, 2018, 02:02:10 AM
...
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


Giant orbital mirrors !
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 16, 2018, 03:18:50 AM
...



Giant orbital mirrors !
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.

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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 16, 2018, 07:44:36 PM

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 not _quite_ as bad as you think... the trick is to use high voltage AC, as most national grids do. The conductors are still quite chunky, but nothing like the sort of chunk you'd need to send big DC voltage around.

The flip side of this, of course, is the losses become significant with long distance. Getting power from Australia to the UK, for example, you'd lose most of it (I hesitate to say 99%, but I bet it'd be around that) in transmission losses - aka heat.

That said, when you look at some of the stuff technology is coming up with these days, I think there are technologies which will knock solar and wind, and possibly even some traditional generation, into a cocked hat. My favourite is the molybdenum disulphide nanopore membrane - partly because it sounds cool, but also because it can generate some pretty spectacular amounts of energy - they reckon around 1 megawatt per square meter of material (!) And all you need (other than this fancy membrane) is a steady supply of salty water, and a steady supply of freshwater. So basically any river delta/estuary then.

Here's a typical article about the stuff: https://futurism.com/new-power-generation-system-membranes-will-only-be-three-atoms-thick/

Biggest problem I've seen mentioned with it, is making the actual nanopores. They can do it; but can they do it on an industrial scale? That remains to be seen... Also, if it's only 3 atoms thick, how big is the smallest fish that will simply swim straight through it...?

Even so. One megawatt per m2 - that means your typical reasonably sized river estuary could potentially provide gigawatts of power, in a relatively compact space/size, continuously day & night. You're not even desalinating the ocean or polluting the river water; you're just mixing them a little more thoroughly a little closer to the delta than would happen naturally.

Of course, some greenist will be along soon to tell us why osmotic power is A Bad Thing For The Environment. They'll probably latch onto "molybdenum", because it sounds a bit funny. Or disulphide (disulfide) because it sounds even more dangerous. Sulphide? Isn't that like Sulphur? Like as in sulphuric acid! Noooo! Run for the hills!
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 16, 2018, 08:20:20 PM
Looks interesting but technical content is absent.  Achieving large pressures across a 3 atom membrane seems a tad challenging on a substantial scale- we are talking literally hydro dam pressures AND FLOW RATE created in membrane units; the sun may be in it's expansion phase before this happens.

 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 16, 2018, 08:25:57 PM
There IS a proper scientific article out there somewhere, I just can't spot it right now.

Actually, cancel that, there's links off this article: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/nanogenerator-helps-turn-the-tide-on-blue-energy/1010066.article
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 16, 2018, 08:56:50 PM
I knew there had to be a snag, apparently river water is too dirty and would block up the Nano pores in the membrane. Filtration of an entire river could prove challenging.
What about using all that lovely clean water melting off the icecaps? Finally a positive use for global warming!
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 16, 2018, 10:40:55 PM
More detail and more interesting.  Thanks AdeV!  The only problem with this sort of gushing journalism on lab results is that most people then think magical technical solutions are nearly here, and thus avoid doing what should be done today.

It reminds me of the technical pitch about methods for nuclear waste disposal present in engineering school in 1975.  They said it was only a political problem, to pick from the many good methods available, and we covered 8 of the top contenders.  Oh boy, did that every turn out to be wildly technically naive.... it's 0/8 after billion$ and43 years later.  The current plan wasn't even in the list- because it is/was so obviously unsafe.  Don't worry, a good solution is right around the corner...and we did in fact count on that, which was dead wrong.

Denial is a  marvelous thing-  I take a big tablespoon every morning as I say to myself that "I'm OK" - when in fact, my health is unstable and declining. 










Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on March 17, 2018, 04:12:42 AM
I`m not convinced by the argument that one would loose most of the electrical energy in transit. In the UK they had a national grid system which transmitted power at 450,000 volts through overhead aluminium cables. At that sort of voltage the current is minimal so the heat generated in the cables is also minimal. They also built an undersea link to Europe and generated power is imported/exported at will.

I guess the problem with any system like this is how do you meter it, imagine the chaos if you had to pay your daytime electric bill to a local service provider but your night time bill to the USA or some African business. The yanks are always banging on about the free market economy but I`m pretty sure they would want to own the whole thing and reap the financial benefits. Building globally sensitive infrastructure in under developed countries also has pitfalls, lack of local skilled workers, the threat of military conflict and terrorism spring to mind.

I believe that the best way forward for electricity generation is small localised production using whatever resources are locally available. Keeps the greedy, corrupt and plain stupid out of the equation.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 23, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
If the power station is idled down during the daytime when the power prices are the highest . How does the power station pay it’s bills and mortgage if it isnMt selling power . Power prices do not pay the  power plant’s bills  at night and on weekends when there is a glut of power .
   For utilities with nuclear base load generation . What are you going to due with the surplus power on weekend days and daytime during the spring and fall when demand is reduced as here are neither AC or heating loads on the utility grid .
   For those that don’t know . Nuclear power plants by their nature operate at 100% power 24/7 for months at a time . You just don’t yank the throttle lever back on a nuclear unit to load follow .
  That said some plants try and have to work around flux tilts in the reactor core . The chance
If unit upset and trip due to xenon-135 poisoning if power is run back to fast and too far . The delay in Xenon-135 production makes reactor power control more complex due to the delay and having to maintain enough positive “K” .
   Other nuclear power plants keep reactor power up but blow steam to the condensers which is wasteful and causes wear condenser wear as most condenser heat exchangers were no designed for prolonged impact of high velocity and high temperature steam.
   If you want backup to wind and power , be ready to foot the bill for a fossil power plant to sit idle . And be ready to foot the bill for the high subsidized price of wind or solar power .
   As for Ontario. The rate payer funds the utility getting rid of excess daytime and weekend power by PAYING New York and Michigan to TAKE the excess power . Google how many billion Ontario has paid to do such over the years .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 23, 2018, 04:05:46 PM
EVs and green energy ? It has pretty well been covered . The voting public that doesn’t know anything technical and who have been convinced by repetition that CO2 is poison. Their guilt is absolved if they vote for EV’s and green energy .
    Professionally and perpetually irritated social justice warriers  have something to scream about .
   The politicians like EV’s and green energy as it obtains votes and kick backs under the table from contractors .
   Contractors and industry like the $$$ made tearing down fossil plants and building green energy .
    The wealthy ruling class is making $$$ with green energy subsidies . And they have bought coal mines knowing that power demands will cause a demand for coal someday . Plus $$$ made as their companies charge for getting rid of fossil , charge to build green and later again charge as they build fossil in the future .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on March 23, 2018, 05:50:49 PM
The big three. 

1)  Poop

2)  Piss

3)  CO2

Goodbye waste.  Ready for the new stuff.

The next step - electric cars.  What could be more rational.

Cheers
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 23, 2018, 05:57:29 PM
Lets all get mad at other people who direct their emotionally driven decisions (the only kind made by humans) towards "saving the planet".   

Oh wait, that might be somewhat based on a global scientific consensus.  Let's just ignore that.

Seriously, my concern about electric cars is the concern for human health from every increasing levels of EMFs.  Home EMF levels have dramatically raised due to cellular/WIFI and general wireless use, plus the insidious increase of poor quality switching power supplies in lighting, appliances and electronics.  This on top of the technical blunder of typical WYE system power grounding practice which puts 25% of the return current in the earth and aquifers and lack of maintenance of power lines with arcing on loose line hardware (from induced voltages near lines). Then lets add home power grid tie inverters with almost no filtration or EMI control to further radiate from the home wiring while the sun shines...while continuing to build homes with unshielded home wiring.  Lets ignore the increasing numbers of scientists and doctors warning that EMFs are a serious health problem. 

It's quite possible that we are ignorant enough to try to solve one serious problem with a solution even more damaging.





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 24, 2018, 06:21:13 AM
Increasing the load in a Wye served neighborhood in countries with split phase Wye single phase power does increase magnetic fields.  During peak load periods, ELF magnetic field levels are typically 4x the off peak.  I'm not sure how that will affect things in Australia as I don't know your power distribution and grounding practice there.  If you are transformer isolated, no worries.  If they are hard grounding on conductor in multiple places and jumping it around the transformers, you're screwed.

ELF magnetic fields penetrate almost anything.  The magnetic flux can be redirected through mild steel to a small degree (50% reduction inside a car, 60-70% in a heavy walled water pressure tank.  Grain oriented silicon steel (GOES) or mu-metals (specially annealed high nickel alloys) are much more effective, but it takes multiple isolated layers, each worth about 50% reduction.
You can't practically shield a home from these, nor can you practically actively cancel it, as that introduces higher frequencies which are even more problematic. 

Electric fields from home wiring are readily shielded by EMT conduit with compression fittings which is sold in every electrical supply store, but is never used in homes.  Foil or conductive paint can be used with far less effectiveness.

A general principal in EMC, the engineering field addressing EMI, shielding, etc. is that solving EMI problems is best and most cheaply done by mitigating it during design and development, at the source.  Trying to bandaid the problem after the fact by add on filtering and shielding is far less effective and far more expensive.  In the home, the worst sources of magnetic fields, and EMI are most commonly ALL YOUR OWN FAULT, controlled entirely by you.  Just looking at one component, radio/microwaves, applying some basic knowledge of all radio wave propagation helps immensely.  All radio waves propagate with signal strength falling off with square of the distance.  So complaining about cell towers within a mile of the home (shown over and over to cause problems with depression, anxiety, insomnia, in part from elevated cortisol levels, a marker of stress shown to be affected by radio waves)  is rather foolish when holding a cell phone or using wireless phones and WIFI in the home, often less than 10 feet away.  Yes, the 1/4 watt transmitter at 10 feet is much worse than the 500 watt transmitter two miles away.

A broadband RF meter such as those sold by Cornet is about $170 US, and will quickly help educate yourself in how you are damaging your health.  They have one which will also measure lower frequency electric and magnetic fields in the same meter.  When we all read the studies that have shown brain wave changes that last for hours, after using a cell phone for 15-20 minutes, and affects quality of sleep in sleep studies, what these independent researchers are saying in plain english is, you are screwing up your brain and your health by using these things, no matter how convenient you may think them.

It's relatively easy to make 10 fold improvements in the typical home EMF situation, and often 100 fold.  That's across the board, ELF magnetic fields, VLF-HF electric fields from home wiring, and radio/microwave levels.  Usually it's a matter of eliminating or moving things, correcting minor wiring errors and grounding issues.  (No, more hard grounding is NOT the solution.)  Shielding is only used rarely and mostly just for bedrooms, as for retrofits, it's quite costly. 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 27, 2018, 03:05:29 PM
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.

Have you priced nuclear per Kwhr vs subsidized wind,subsidized  solar and the subsidized shall generate NG turbines ? Are you aware of how much the rate payer spends to pay the US to take surplus wind and solar power ? Do you not see the greed and  corruption in that?  With cheaper hydraulic and nuclear power being rejected and paying for more expensive wind, solar and gas .
   How would you be qualified to speak to anything regarding nuclear ?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 27, 2018, 03:13:20 PM
Where is this terrible smokestack on EPA approved fossil plants ? With clean soft coal, improved burners , fast reaction CEMs , scrubbers, precipitors and injection systems . The only thing thing going up the stack is moisture, nitrogen and plant food .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 27, 2018, 05:01:39 PM
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. 











Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 28, 2018, 02:31:51 PM
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.

I don’t know what anti nuclear group s have been scaring money out of  the public with . The anti nuclear groups have bills too for wages airfare for trips , hotel rooms , meals out , entertainment etc
   Decommissioning coats and  fuel storage costs  are already in ear marked escrow accounts paid out of the nuclear units operating budget .
   Our units are covered by insurance as they are low risk.
   Then again if nuclear is mentioned and the conversation is not negative . You have chosen not to believe otherwise no matter what evidence is presented .
   Why would you believe some liberal arts paid protestor instead of those who are familiar with nuclear power .
   Do you see any suffering in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Cancer rates there lower than the national average .
    If you want something toxic to worry about . Check out all the poisons in landfills, abandoned industrial sites and active industrial sites . What will get you is lead, mercury, cadmium, PCB’s , dioxins and assorted organic chemicals . Benzene, MEK just to list a couple .   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on March 28, 2018, 02:46:14 PM
Al Gore and friends have made billions on rate payer subsidized solar and wind . Tax breaks and selling the carbon credits . Somebody’s company  gets paid for all the studies, surveys , engineering and legal work that was invented. .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on March 28, 2018, 03:20:52 PM
Which escrow account do you cover the costs of accidents such as Windscale Fukushima and Chernobyl from. Just watched a documentary on resealing the Chernobyl reactor it will last for 100 years but who will look after it until the radiation falls to a safe level which I suspect will take a little longer than that.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 28, 2018, 05:38:11 PM
While nuclear facilities in most countries are required to contribute to 3rd party insurance pools,  liabilities are capped by law and the hosting government assumes liability.  In the US the Price Anderson act does this and the pool insurance limit of $12 billion is clearly grossly inadequate, as Fukishima demonstrates.  Other estimates of $5 trillion for a major accident have been made, others at $500 billion.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197016300415

Saying that nuclear power plants are insured, while in fact they have pushed liability for a serious accident onto taxpayers is the sort of slight of hand the industry is famous for. 

The same slight of hand through manipulation is used to cover up the spent  fuel issue; in the US the spent fuel disposal cost is artificially low (set by government) yet the government has in fact no disposal system; the failed Yucca mountain program is scientifically recognized as a technical farce. 

The power industry has been manipulating governments and legislation and propagandizing the public since their inception.  They are masters at it, far better than the tobacco companies. They continue.  One good book on the topic is "Power Struggle" by Rudolph and Ridley. 

They will continue to do what any large corporation does by charter- maximize shareholder profits by any means possible. Our world needs to incentivize moral and social values for large corporations, somehow.  We have created a monster.

There are plenty of good articles about the grim financial realities of nuclear power; they have failed miserably on the economic level because of huge cost overruns in construction, high operating costs, and short operational life (due to radioactive embrittlement of the critical plumbing in cooling systems), even ignoring the real costs of waste storage.  The problem isn't a liberal conspiracy.

As a former engineer I very much like the look of new fission nuclear designs which don't rely on an active cooling system for shut downs.  This would avoid Fukishima type disasters.  (In retrospect, you have to wonder about why you would press into a service a design that required a huge functioning active cooling system for extended periods on "shut down").  Alas, initial trials of "pebble bed" did not look good from what I've read.  Perhaps someday we will even have fusion power, but for now, it seems that "fusion at a distance" (the sun) is our best bet for nuclear energy.

















Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on March 28, 2018, 06:42:35 PM
If you don't understand that much of the military industrial complex associated with the US endeavors in the middle East aren't a subsidy to oil then you should think about the lack of activity in tragic parts of Africa. 

I'd like you to tell people living near the Hanford project in Central Washington, USA that we've got the nuclear waste problem under control.  How many decades has it been now?

Wake up and smell the solar.

The fake news I listen to at this time reports that both solar and wind power are less expensive to build, maintain and decommission.  My observation is they don't go "Boom-Boom" so real men aren't attracted to them.  Planned, sensible and sustainable are just very tough sales in America.

I test drove an BMW I3.  A very nice ride but quiet and efficient; again, a tough sale.  How about those electrical producers that are now giving $10,000 rebates to I3 buyers in some parts of California.  What's up?

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 28, 2018, 11:45:05 PM
Regarding using Hiroshima as an example of the safety of nuclear power; very little hard radiation is left in the area of a bomb blast.  It is in fact now spread over the entire planet.  This is vastly different from the situation of Fukishima.
A good article and interview with the former Prime Minister of Japan, who was a physicist and former supporter of nuclear power.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-disaster-and-the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-japan-an-interview-with-former-prime-minister-kan-naoto/5547438



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on March 29, 2018, 06:04:29 PM
Hmmmm - The sound of deep thought.  Yeah, I'm scared too.  Aren't atomic bombs designed to exploded high above the particulate matter referred to as earth and allowing half of the radiation to broadcast into space?  This system also might greatly reduce the molecular poisoning that hangs around longer than our time references really grasp.

This could be why so many educated people are so concerned about those stupid ole reactor meltdowns.

Back to basics.  Have you seen the two Honda electrics teased as 2019 and 2020 production cars.  Nice people sized cars going back to what cars are primarily for: Transportation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddD1bOUMWw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddD1bOUMWw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HQO-7btuM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HQO-7btuM)
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 29, 2018, 07:25:53 PM
Next would be adding PV to "shaded" parking in the US southwest, at least.  What isn't being used for cars could feed the stores and/or grid.  Large employers could offer this so that slow solar charging during work hours could be the norm.  Covering the vast acreages of parking lots, now black asphalt, with PV might help lower the night time temperatures here also.   

It's difficult to come up with a carbon scheme that will not be a debacle, but with the right incentives, I think everyone in sunny climes with the capital to do it would be looking at parking lots and other open spaces as clean power revenue.  Shifting power use to daytime needs to be part of it.  Being off grid makes you think that way in a hurry. 



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on March 29, 2018, 11:18:14 PM
Bollocks...........

The answer is Java

http://sourced.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/10/25/this-start-up-is-turning-your-leftover-coffee-grounds-into-clean/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=exchange

Cheers Stef
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 30, 2018, 05:10:33 AM
You forgot to adjust for marketing bullshit in your car charging calculations.  No way are they going to full up charge that thing in 15 minutes;  more likely it's only 50-80% State of Charge.

A PV parking charge at an employee parking lot would only have to do a slow charge (8 hrs) typically.  A single parking spot roof frame could hold the area of about (7) 300W panels so about an average of 1.5KW x 8hrs = 12KWA.
Tesla owners say 305WH/mile so 12KWA is 39 miles.   That might work for many.

For myself,  I hope algae oil progresses so I can keep my old '85 mechanically injected MB300D going all the way to my funeral.  It's got a PV panel on the roof to keep the battery charged instead of an alternator.  I tell people it cuts fuel consumption by almost 50% just for fun. 




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on March 30, 2018, 07:30:26 AM
That's interesting, Bruce.

It makes it sound useful for those who have 20 mile commute, from an RAC report I saw recently the average in the UK is a little over 10 miles, so there must be some promise in it, even allowing for our crappy weather.

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?

Glort, what size charging system would the truck need to top up over an eight hour stop?

Cheers Stef
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on March 30, 2018, 11:13:49 AM
350 Kw chicken feed. Our local IGA store had to fit a 4500 kva transformer supply probably to feed the miles of friges and freezers they have not to mention the acre of air conditioning. 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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 30, 2018, 12:32:03 PM
Quote
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.

Given that's around 50% less than an equivalent petrol/gas station could handle with the same number of "pumps", you either need 50% more charging stations, of 50% more gas stations to accomodate the same number of EVs as you currently handle petrol/diesel.

Something else currently un-discussed: When the Government starts losing big chunks of revenue, because people stop buying petrol/diesel for road use (which, in the UK in particular, is very heavily taxed; the USA less so), they're going to need to raise it some other way. Expect each KW of "road electricity" to cost $$$ more than regular "house" electricity. And your shiny new smart meter (if you've got one...) will be neatly reporting every erg of energy that goes into your road vehicle, so you can be taxed $$$ on it.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on March 30, 2018, 06:36:12 PM
...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?.....

"Full sunlight"   That means not flat on roof , but angled to be perpendicular to sun, on a moving trailer, not feasible

 Might add a couple dozen miles in daytime, >30 miles additional range, doubtful.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on March 30, 2018, 07:00:04 PM
"Java"  That's a neat program.  I wonder how pumped the article is compared to reality?  We put our grounds in the compost but we live in the sticks.  As fuel or new soil or ??? this represents interesting thinking for a waste product that will help clean up the waste bins and landfills. 

So while your thinking of all the reasons that this won't work you might remember that China is getting too rich to sort through our rubbish to eke out a living.  Perhaps their learning that burning our trash is a filthy solution because we throw in petroleum based crap that poisons the air all over again.  We need this kind of small but colossal thinking. 

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1C-fn6nSe21acP0xJIO1T1x0wohqfMYCQyJjbqdk#rows:id=1 (https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1C-fn6nSe21acP0xJIO1T1x0wohqfMYCQyJjbqdk#rows:id=1)  The UK is 44th and the US is 25th.  How about thos scandinavians?  Now there are some heavy Java users.  Elon should start a coffee house chain with Tesla charging stations.  Of course this might be vertical monopoly and require a government study.

One of the interesting things I pick up in reading (Okay, the first couple of paragraphs) these many threads about change is the lack of a systems approach.  When change occurs, and it does all the time, is the failure to understand that real change is the result of many small changes to facilitate the new way of doing things.

The Hondas are small.  The same suit just doesn't fit everyone.  Smaller cars equal bigger roads.

The solar panels might provide enough energy to run HVAC needs of the trailer.  We need to stop looking for the Lone Ranger silver bullet solutions.  Polio vaccines are a once in a lifetime occurrence.   Did you know B. Franklin's son died of small pox motivating Ben to become very active in small pox vaccination programs in the early United states?  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/ben-franklin-lost-a-son-to-smallpox-heres-his-sobering-advice-to-parents-on-immunization/?utm_term=.c0e2f156a142 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/ben-franklin-lost-a-son-to-smallpox-heres-his-sobering-advice-to-parents-on-immunization/?utm_term=.c0e2f156a142)  Pretty interesting huh - How we have to go through the same old stuff so many times to get the message.  Polio still lives in a few countries that are religiously dominated. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on March 31, 2018, 12:00:40 AM
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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on March 31, 2018, 08:59:51 AM
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

Oddly enough, something like that (only without the rechargeable batteries) are being considered here in Blighty. Bi-modal trains, they're called; they can work off the electric catenary where it's present, and switch to diesel power where there's no overhead lines. Of course, the reason we need them here is because a bunch of railway upgrades have just been cancelled - including electrification of an old line - due to cost. £38 billion spent, and no end in sight... so I suppose it's hardly surprising.

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?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on March 31, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
Quite a few US financial media sources suggest that potential US electric car charging (at home) is being viewed as the potential savior of the power companies, so many are getting on the EV bandwagon.  It will be primarily a night time load so disfavors direct PV and favors their existing fossil fuel plants.

The current stats for the US are 29 miles a day, so the current ranges of electric cars are sufficient for many and few would be charging on the road.  Recharging while at work via parking lot PV works today for that, 300 watt hours per mile, 29 miles is 8.7KWH to be replaced daily and 1800W of panels (6-300 watt panels roughly 3x6 foot) could practically do that.   The need for fast charging is for exceptionally longer trips so that a gas vehicle isn't needed for the vacation or occasional weekend trip. It's a matter of statistics to make it work out well-  if the vast majority of charging can be done during direct PV time, this is a real boon in terms of fossil fuel reduction for the SW US.

It will be a battle of vested interests fighting it out.

The electric semi truck would be appropriate for trucked local delivery and transport.  They will have to have battery swapping as their power needs are great and down time for charging isn't OK.  Long haul obviously needs something more energy efficient like a modern fast rail with automated fast transfers of modular containers.

That will also be a battle. 










Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on April 01, 2018, 04:55:26 AM
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? 

No, it's because folks built housing right up to the tracks and then complained about the noisy trains.  So they slow them way down in the city,   and no noisy horns, or crossing bells, disturbs my beauty sleep.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 01, 2018, 04:54:02 PM
Plenty of good books have been written about how America go steered away from rail and into road freight by the usual mean$.  Those aging rails in urban areas are poorly maintained and could hardly carry a modern rail system.  Most Americans don't read,  and have never seen a modern high speed rail system.

Some recent news for US freight rail:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-csx-trade-cuts/trade-groups-call-on-u-s-to-investigate-csx-rail-disruptions-idUSKCN1AV1ZY

Some recent news for US passenger rail:
https://tedium.co/2017/04/25/amtrak-train-delay-history/

The sorry state of US rail doesn't seem to have anything to do with people living near the tracks complaining about noise.





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: 32 coupe on April 01, 2018, 08:21:10 PM

Bruce got it right.

Ford, Firestone, as well as others, and the oil industries killed the
railroads in the states.

Big $$$ always wins.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on April 02, 2018, 06:56:28 AM
Those dangerous trains must be stopped so that we can text
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9srtsC990
   I came across this, not written by me:

This is a video I made in Lakeland Florida on the Kentucky Avenue railroad crossing in the no train horn town of a woman texting and walks right in to a CSX intermodal train. This video shows that Lakeland Florida has dangerous crossings due to the no train horn and no pedestrian gates in place. If there were a pedestrian gate this woman would never have been injured or possibly killed
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 02, 2018, 09:21:37 AM
The texting zombie apocalypse ?  Independent studies show your cell phone alters your brain waves,  opens your blood brain barrier.  The immediate direct effect is stimulatory at least initially, and probably accounts for the addictive behavior that sets in for some heavy users. 



 






Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on April 02, 2018, 10:58:45 AM
Darwin award entrants ?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 03, 2018, 03:08:18 AM
Local rail transportation of goods failed because trucks are faster, cheaper, more flexible and deliver to any business's door.  Rail still exists for long haul of freight from shipping hub to hub.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 03, 2018, 03:31:23 AM
   Used nuclear fuel is loaded into concrete and steel flasks then welded shut . After 250 years the dose rate is less than 5 rem per hour contact.
   Today's used fuel works well in the next generation of molten salt reactors .
   Professional protestors make their livelyhood of scaring donations from the public they are scaring. With a vested interest what are the anti groups going to say. Anti vaccination, anti nuclear, anti wifi, anti meat, anti fluoride in the water, etc groups. They are a rallying point for the tin foil hat types who crave a crisis because they need  " Somebody is out to get them".  To obtain sympathy, political power, status , self worth etc.
   There is no use trying to use facts to change somebody's mind who is already made up. They just want attention and some excitement from a fight.
   If you want a long term health concern. How about toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury etc.  Some nasty organic chemicals such as benzine , MEK or others. Or how about dioxins ? Then again these concerns are not sexy and exciting like nuclear.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 03, 2018, 05:01:32 AM
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.











Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 03, 2018, 07:34:54 AM

Hey Glort

re this:

Your  "In NZ you pay road tax by mileage. Don't matter what fuel you are using, you pay to be on the road. They may choose to do it a variety of ways and I'm sure they will do whatever they thing extracts max $$.
[/quote]"

Actually no.  Here in our Paradise at the bottom of the world you pay Road User Charges ("RUCs") on diesel (and only on diesel) by the kilometre travelled; and the $$ rate per kilometre depends on the size of your vehicle - big trucks pay lots, small cars don't pay much

It is done this way because there's a great deal of diesel used in agriculture & industry (tractors, harvesters, logging gear etc) by machines which don't go on-road and so make no contribution to wear-and-tear on the roads, and so pay no RUCs.  Vehicles that do go on the road, and which do contribute to wear-and-tear, pay by the kilometre and have to buy their RUCs either on an automatic system or in advance

Other fuels (petrol, LPG etc) have a road tax component included in the price-per-litre or whatever.  The thinking is that petrol is used in "light-ish" vehicles which make a modest contribution to roading wear-and-tear etc (cars, utes, SUVs etc) so it's fair to tax them per litre.  The bigger your car, the more gas you use (loosely) and the more tax you pay

What this overlooks of course, is that the government - as governments are wont to do - takes, say, $0.40 per litre in tax, uses maybe  $0.20 of that on roading and diverts the rest into the general "consolidated fund"
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 03, 2018, 03:02:10 PM
You often get what you've paid for whether it's out of pocket cash or liens against your and others future.  There will always be sharks and folks that don't mind living in shit holes (just using my wonderful, brave, imaginative and very intelligent President's language).  If you want better stuff then just reach down into your pockets. 

Worried about an early death in the US.  The top three killers we kind of understand are cardiovascular, cancers and diabetes.  These three tragedies are a function of diet and lifestyle.  That makes premature death for most people a personal choice.  These choices may be state supported but they are still a matter of personal choice.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 03, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
 Used nuclear fuel is loaded into concrete and steel flasks then welded shut . After 250 years the dose rate is less than 5 rem per hour contact.  (http://Used nuclear fuel is loaded into concrete and steel flasks then welded shut . After 250 years the dose rate is less than 5 rem per hour contact.) I thought radiation half lives were measured in thousands of years? 

250 years.  That would mean that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had sealed something up it would now be down to 5 rems.  What is 5 rems?  What does it mean if you drink water that has a 5 rem radiation load?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on April 03, 2018, 03:25:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 03, 2018, 04:32:19 PM
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.

I have no idea where where you developed the idea of mixing fuel
Rods with concrete.
   Read again . Placing used fuel bundles into steel and concrete flasks and welding them shut .
   Why are you talking about thorium?
    All isotopes have a half life and most elements have radioactive isotopes. Don’t blame me, it is the way the AllMighty made things .
  So what if the half life is 10,000 years . What is the half life of the soil around Elliot Lake ?
  Material with long half lives is rather benign and interactive . It is the isotopes with a short half life that emit alpha, beta and gamma of any concern. Short lived isotopes decay down to stable elements in just hours weeks a decades . Any idea how many rem from a fuel bundle just removed from the reactor vs the same bundle in just 250years.
   If you want radiation to worry about, check your own basement for Alpha . Naturally occurring from within the earth. No reactor required .
   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 03, 2018, 04:36:33 PM
The problem is here that the general public knows so little about nuclear power that telling them facts leaves them more confused then prior to the explanation.
  I bought my farm and house within sight of an operating nuclear power plant and I  don’t worry about it. I would not purchase down wind and downstream of a chemical refinery or smelter yet that doesn’t bother the majority of the same population that panic when they hear nuclear .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 03, 2018, 04:42:18 PM
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.

If the isotope has a half life of 24,000 years , don’t worry about it. The decays per second is too low to give any measurable dose .
  Anyone ever research how much does aircraft pilots and passengers receive? Or the locals in areas where Uranium and thorium deposits are on the surface ? http://hps.org/documents/uranium_fact_sheet.pdf
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 03, 2018, 06:37:23 PM
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.













Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 04, 2018, 02:49:05 AM
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.

  Long term storage would be in a DGR. Far below the water table in seismically stable non porous rock.
   The used fuel is too value to "get rid of".  Used PWR fuel works just fine in molten salt reactors.
  The concept of waiting for anything radioactive to decay to "nothing" is just a scare tactic from the anti nuc types. How low do you want this nuclear material to decay down to? You had better start worrying then about all the uranium naturally occurring in the soil. Don't go too near the granite counter top in the wife's kitchen , it is radioactive too. So is Aunt Mildred's false teeth and Coleman lamp angles. So are ordinary tungsten grinding wheels. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 04, 2018, 01:53:12 PM
Amazing how those outside of the nuclear industry know more about it than those who have educated , trained and working in the nuclear industry for decades .
   Have you researched actual deaths caused by radiation ? Have you researched deaths by CO , H2S, lead, mercury etc?
   Explain how the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survive onngeoujs zero of atomic bomb blasts.
   What is so different between industrial radiation and natural background radiation . Do you know how much lung cancer is caused by Alpha particles in homes?
   Then again some people hear “nuclear” and they go into 100% denial mode and won’t even consider facts .
   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: cujet on April 04, 2018, 02:57:33 PM
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/pic-1-charging-his-electric-vehicle-226450.jpg)
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 04, 2018, 06:49:54 PM
I think these last few contributions have been really informative.  I don't know anything more than I did before but I'm sure better informed.   ;D

What I really like are the arguments about solar and wind that use much the same attitude as the arguments about nuclear whether it's for or against.  Again, I warn you about the real dangers we all face.  Meats and meat byproducts (from wild caught fish to grass feed beef), dairy stuff and all sugars.  These seemingly innocent lifestyle choices almost universally have greater impact on your life expectancy than all the nuclear plants in the world.

Why is it that only the blind can clearly see?  Yes, the Tesla is a large car.  No, it's not in my price point.  I can park my 64 Morris Cooper S in just about any garage.  (That's the old hidden brag.)  That is if it were running.  (The truth.)  I've driven the BMW I3 and thought it a really nice car.  Not cheap but a really nice car with sensible proportions.

This is going to be an interesting year for cars with power cords.  We'll be making some big decisions in the next two to five years.  My favorite bumper sticker.  It was on a mature and well used Ford Bronco.  "Get In.  Set Down.  Hold on.  Shut Up.  And Listen."

Musk is an extraordinary person and has changed the course of human endeavor.  You may not care for the altered direction of the canoe nor be comfortable with the current in this new stream but Wow! what a fantastic ride.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 04, 2018, 10:13:52 PM
I loved the photo of the generator-trailer charging the electric car.   Something like one of the Honda quiet inverter-generators combined with a super lightweight mini camper will no doubt be on the road within the next 10 years.  If you could get the engine quiet enough to sleep with, (maybe a detaching roll away muffling box) you could have 8 hrs of charging for that road trip in the back woods where no power hookups were possible, plus a pop-top lightweight trailer to sleep in. 












Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 05, 2018, 12:07:01 AM

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.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose             
       Considering the cost to mankind in illness, injuries and death in all the known energy sector.  Nuclear still has the best safety record of all.
    Why let nuclear bombs be a deterrent to nuclear reactors ?  People fear arson, forest fires or building fires. Yet they don't think twice about the same fire on a cigarette , camp fires, home furnace or inside an engine.   
      Reminds me of my Great Uncle who refused to switch from horses to tractors. Or my Amish neighbours who know that us English are going to h#ll for "being of the world" and using technology. 
     Some paraphrased quotes here. "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not . Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant."
    Still haven't heard back on what your plans are to stop this terrible  nuclear radiation from natural occurring sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 05, 2018, 02:18:15 AM
I'm thinking nuclear is about over.  Unless these much smaller plants catch on there simply won't be much new construction or planning for the big ones that are now filling in where an alternative just wasn't a real consideration a few years ago.  Now that solar and wind are getting cheaper nuclear just isn't in consideration.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 05, 2018, 03:08:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: M61hops on April 05, 2018, 09:43:59 AM
I would like to have an electric car that I could charge from solar panels on my carport roof or from the Listeroid on a cold night.  A Chevy Volt would work for me but I keep hoping that they will make a van or mini-van version and I'd be all in on that one.  I don't have to drive very far or often most of the time so would only run a few hundred gallons of gas per year through a Volt engine.  Almost bought a used Prius a while back and was going to double or triple the battery pack until I saw how many computers run the car so I'm holding off.  The truth is I'm driving the wood burning stove of the automotive world, MB240D and 300D's and they will probably last me the rest of my life.  I'm content to be a Luddite and would be happy to have Amish neighbors!  I doubt that if the entire life cycle cost of any Nuclear Waste making Station is considered the amount of power it made won't cover the costs imposed on present and future generations.  A giant swindle on the human race by the military industrial complex.  And yes, I liked what George Carlin says.  I think somebody might notice when the Pacific Ocean is dead, the background radiation where I live has doubled to 45CPM since Fukushima and I consider myself lucky that it's so low so far.  Can anybody on this site tell me if Oz has noticed any extra radiation?  I've considered moving there to flee Fukushima but I'm not sure it's worth the bother at 63.  If I was younger and wanted to have kids I'd head South for sure.  I need to re-roof the barn and I'm thinking maybe the 35 year shingles are a waste of money!   Leland
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on April 05, 2018, 03:09:21 PM
I think a trip to google to find out the types of radiation emitted and the dangers thereoff would take some of the fire out of the discussion.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 06, 2018, 04:32:27 AM
At present, the solar-molten salt storage approach looks promising and there are quite a few 100 megawatt scale molten salt projects around the world working since 2009.  No new tech for the generation plant, it's still a steam turbine, so water use is still an issue.

www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 06, 2018, 05:52:55 PM
The water use by steam turbine power plants is substantial-  a non-issue for some locations, but sometimes a serious issue in desert areas, where you might like to locate solar heliostat/molten salt plants.  No different than for a coal plant.  There are ways to reduce water use dramatically but it is always an issue for everything except pure PV. 

The 773 Megawatt Coronado coal fired plant near me in St. Johns, AZ (completed in 1980) had quite a debacle when they found the local ground water of such poor quality (highly mineralized, full of radon, and corrosive) they couldn't use it.  They have pumping stations and pipes that extend 30 miles to suck ground water from elsewhere, including 1/2 mile from my home.  It is solely owned by Salt River Project and I can't find water use data- a sore subject as our aquifer is also being used faster than it's replacement.

Palo Verde (3.3 Gigawatts) is the largest nuclear plant in the US.  It operates on treated Phoenix "waste water", which is no small feat.  Every other plant in the world is near a river or large body of water.  It uses 20 billion gallons per year, which accounts for 25% of the "overdraft" on groundwater in the Phoenix area.  The overuse of ground water grossly in excess of it's natural replacement is a very serious issue in the southwest.  It's one of those "screw the grandkids" kind of situations.

The future of the SW US will largely be dependent on water, and the piper will have to be paid.  It makes water use an important consideration in planning for future power generation.  It's a real issue here in the SW, not greenwashed foolishness.




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 06, 2018, 07:24:18 PM
Nice link to the basics about salt based power plants.  So here's an educational moment and one that I've wondered about since I saw my first cooling tower.

If these plants are making steam to turn the turbines WHY do they need to cool the water only to re-heat it again?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 06, 2018, 07:32:12 PM
Water Conservation and the routine of living:

I think we still pound the drum of water conservation even when the reservoirs are full because we have been brainwashed into believing that there just might be another drought in the future.  Another demonstration of how stupid the democratically elected leaders are in the "Free World".  To actually believe that there will be another drought.  WTF?  Do they believe we live in East Africa or something?

As a friends grandmother used to say as we left the house to play; "Habits are a Pleasure To Do!"
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 07, 2018, 12:23:26 AM
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.

  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.
   it is not technical issues stopping the build of new units. It is the lack of political will.
   The glut of  power occurring  spring and fall when heating and cooling loads are minimal . And when wind + solar power combined generation are highest. This depresses the wholesale price of power paid to nuclear producers who used to pay the bills with Mon-Fri daytime peak rates.  Even with the reduction of wholesale electrical rates. The retail price of power has increased due to the subsidies paid to wind, solar and some gas plants.   
   Politicians only think as far ahead as the next election. The average citizen who has no idea where the sources of food, power, water and raw materials. They vote based on the trendy fads they hear as they don't want to be mocked for being unpopular. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 07, 2018, 12:32:49 AM
  It is less trouble to build 500KV AC or a high voltage DC power transmission line than it is to build a power plant away from sufficient cooling water. 
   Cooling towers waste a lot of water from evaporation . Plus the sight of the cooling towers scare the daylights out of the general public . As they consider anything out of a stack as "pollution".
     Always wondered why two power plants on the Saint Clair River between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. The Canadian side withdrew cooling water from the river and returned the water 3-4 degrees warmer. In the over all average temperature of the river , the increase was about nill.
    Yet on the shores of the same river on the US side in Michigan. The power plant used cooling towers. Go figure ???
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 07, 2018, 01:05:54 AM
Casey, not sure if you're serious but the answer is, the exhaust steam is much lower pressure than that needed to spin the turbines.  There are schemes to recapture the energy in the "waste" steam.  Recapturing more of the water is done based on the local water situation. It takes massive condensers and more energy. 

If only we had 100 gigawatt hour batteries for direct PV to battery storage.  For now they are relatively small and viable for peak shaving only.  Thus the molten salt approach becomes appealing since solar conversion to heat is about 80% efficient instead of 17% for PV and storing of molten salt is a relatively low tech way of storing massive energy. 

The 750 MW Springerville, AZ plant has had some big upgrades just a few years ago; again, no river or large body of water.  TEP and SRP power companies will keep it going, they say. 

The Springerville,  Coranado, and Cholla plants were all located in rural areas with rail access to the 4 Corners area coal mines.

We also had a paper mill running entirely on pumped groundwater outside Snowflake AZ, operating for about 55 years-  pumping ground water and pouring their waste in large ponds...and thus polluting the aquifer all the way to Holbrook.  Go figure.

The water rights laws in the western US are bizarre... in Phoenix farmers were/are pumping groundwater from 1000 feet depth, from a 2000 year old aquifer no longer being replaced for flood irrigating low value crops such as cotton. 

 











Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 07, 2018, 09:58:02 AM
I'm still waiting for HELCO to phone to let me know that my 20KW battery system is ready for installation.  That's part of my dream program where the progressive utility corporations start beefing up neighborhood grids.  You know, making the paperwork easier.  Providing design support.  Financing plant and equipment.  They are going to be selling power from my batteries just as surely as they sell power from residential PV systems that are installed today.  100% per day with net due in 30 days as well.  What a sweet deal.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 07, 2018, 05:26:37 PM
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. 




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 07, 2018, 08:49:29 PM
Okay.  I've been over at YouTube-U and see lots of articles on how cooling towers work but none of them explain why the water needs to be cooled down before it's heated back up to super steam.  I just don't get it.  Would someone take a minute and tell me where to go?  That's a place where I might learn the "Why?" of cooling the water.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 08, 2018, 12:13:19 AM
Casey, if you are talking about steam turbine water supply,  the steam needs to be cooled so that water will condense.  Cooling that water futher is counterproductive.  A heat pump can be used to capture  the steam heat energy to be reused to boil the water again.  It's more energy efficient to generate the high pressure steam by boiling water than it is to run an air compressor to compress the old low pressure steam.

Cooling towers are used for chilling (cooling) water and getting rid of waste heat that can't be practically reused.  They would not be used for the boiler water supply as that would be counter productive.

Cooling towers (water falls down, air is sometimes forced upwards) can approach the wet bulb temperature; in dry climates about 20F below ambient air temperature.  I built a 16 foot tall test tower coveted with a tarp for an experiment on water chilling for house cooling via in floor pex.  Alas, when the night time temperatures are at their lowest prior to sunrise, the humidity is at it's highest so performance was disappointing and I couldn't get the 55F- ish water I was hoping for.  If I had been smarter I would have just done wet bulb testing every couple hours through the night. (wet fabric over spinning bulb of thermometer).

Trickling water down barely sloped steel roof panels worked better with less energy due to night sky radiation (10F below ambient), with bonus evaporative cooling with any wind.  The water only has to be lifted a few feet so Lang D5 pump can be used.  Alas, without wind, I need a LOT of roof panel surface area; a minimum of about the square footage of the super insulated house to be cooled (1100 SF). There is no free lunch.







 





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: M61hops on April 08, 2018, 02:03:14 AM
Good question Casey.  The way I understand it is that energy flows downhill such as from hot to cold to start with.  They say that heat is motion so heat is pumped into water until the molecules are moving very fast and pushing hard on the inside of the container it's in like the boiler and pipes.  There are formulas that express the direct relationship between pressure and temperature, all that pesky detail stuff called laws of physics.  A power plant has a mostly closed loop where the high temp and pressure steam pushes on the turbine blades doing work but losing a bit of heat and pressure as it passes through each stage of the turbine.  After many stages of pushing on the blades the water molecules have slowed and cooled down to where the pressure is reduced and the steam is in danger of condensing back into liquid water that would be rough on the blades if it struck them.  A drop of water turned to steam occupies something crazy like 1700 times the volume of space so it's kind of hard to pump steam back uphill so to speak to the boiler especially when it wants to turn back to water as the temperature and pressure is lost.  Plus I think that if you compress steam you can turn it back to water according to the pressures and temps.  Somebody made up these crazy rules for how matter behaves in this dimension but it's very handy that the rules have a consistency to them most of the time so we can get predictable results.  I think that it's just a matter of being able to handle the water molecules in an efficient enough manner as they go around the loop, pumping a little volume of water gets you a large volume of steam after you add heat.  The massive amount of energy involved with changing the state of water from liquid to steam and back again is a kink in this process and I suspect that is why you are asking the question.  If you could skip the phase change steps at each end and just shove the steam right back into the boiler and reheat it I'd think it would be more efficient.  But the main thing that drives the turbine is the pressure difference between inlet and outlet and condensing the steam greatly reduces the pressure on the low pressure side of the loop.  Seems like maybe you could use the steam leaving the turbine to boil Freon or ammonia and run some of the plant machinery off a smaller steam engine system loop rather than dumping the heat from condensation, but maybe not worth it in the overall energy flow.  To me it seems that if you want 1000 Megawatts out of a fission power plant you have to make 3000 Megawatts of heat.  It would be nice to use all the heat to do something useful although heating the night air could be considered useful in some circumstances.  I used to live 30 miles downwind from a Nuke plant and on some cold nights I could feel a warm fog coming from the power plant.  The homes that heated with heat pumps were pretty efficient compared to homes on the upwind side of the valley!  The power company relocated some vent lines from the cooling towers to a purpose built tower so they could point at the cooling towers and truthfully say that no radiation was coming out of those towers.  That was about the time that I was starting to think that Nuke plants were not the best way to make electricity.  The big fusion reactor in the sky seems to be very reliable and somewhat safe... so far.  :-\
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 08, 2018, 06:31:58 PM
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.

There are no technical issues storing waste . The problem is politicians who are afraid of non technical voters who have been frightened by special interest groups . The people in the anti nuc organizations make their income by scaring cash out of middle aged grandmothers who have been frightened about the grand babies future .
  Then there are the consulting firms that make fortunes by only pushing paper.  They don’t want any construction go aheads as them they will be out of work.
   Uranium and thorium came out of the ground in the first place . What is wrong with putting it back.
   Some people are as convinced about nuclear as I am about liver and onions .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 08, 2018, 07:52:17 PM
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.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 09, 2018, 01:45:47 PM
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.

Modern direct injection two strokes meet and exceed emissions regulations . In common use on boats, snowmobiles and ATVs.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 09, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
There is no practical way to exceed approx 50% thermal efficiency . The metal becomes more expensive to purchase and expensive to manufacture for high temperatures . Even exotic alloys erode or corrode . Efficiency comes from a greater delta T of the steam between the primary turbine first row of blades and the last row of blades in the secondary turbine.  prior to the steam entering the condensers .
  There is not way around the thermal loss with change  of state from steam back to water . Well except on Star a trek and it has to be true as we see them do it on TV.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on April 09, 2018, 10:15:55 PM
  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. 

I don't know about Korea, but China can do a lot of things cheaply, because Health & Safety (OSHA, whatever) take a back-seat when it comes to Getting It Done. Human life in China is very much a secondary consideration (if it's considered at all) in industry. I suppose when you've got the thick end of a billion workers, most of who live in abject poverty and would welcome any job, especially one which pays well (by Chinese standards - most of us Westerners wouldn't get out of bed for the sort of salaries the Chinese offer) on account it's risky, then why bother trying to protect them?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 09, 2018, 11:53:44 PM
In this Wikipedia article, under Economics, the heavy water CANDU designs are presented as an economic bust. 
This older design is used where unenriched fuel must be used for security/proliferation issues.  The fuel section covers more about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

The cost of power produced was substantially higher than coal or hydro.
An exerpt from the economic section in the link above:

"Based on Ontario's record, the economic performance of the CANDU system is quite poor. Although much attention has been focussed on the problems with the Darlington plant, every CANDU design in Ontario went over budget by at least 25%, and average over 150% higher than estimated.[67] Darlington was the worst, at 350% over budget"

Back to cars-  electric cars will be very popular as soon as the price comes down a bit, despite Glort's dislike and my concern about raising daily EMF exposure for the public, and I think that will happen in the next 4 years. Both Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf should be popular in the US.  Charging is a non issue for the consumer with home off peak charging with a range of 200 miles and daily average in the US under 40 miles. Charging by coal does nothing for CO2 reduction, obviously, but it's a good base load for nuclear power, today.  The improvement in air quality could save a lot of money for health costs as well.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 10, 2018, 01:45:33 AM
      The price of power from Darlington , Pickering and the Bruce was on par with coal fossil. The exorbitant retail price in Ontario is paying for subsidized wind, solar , gas , native partnered hydraulic and to pay the US to take surplus off peak power.   
     Darlington's cost over run was not 350%. The problem is a OPG capital generation project is not paid from reserve funds or operating fund budgets  during construction.
   All construction money is borrowed,  accumulating compound interest.  Until years later when the generating station is commissioned, THEN the payments are started on principal plus the accumulated compound interest. Remember interest rates in the early 1980's ?
       With the long lead time of months and years to manufacture components such as Heat Transport Pumps, boilers, pressure tubes, calandra parts, pretty much everything. The manufactures are paid on the contract's delivery date, no matter if the plant is ready for the components or not. When construction was frozen for 18 months, the penalties, fees and high interest rates snowballed.   
     A certain liberal Premier froze the Darlington construction while interest rates were over 20%. And when jobs were needed the most. If you want someone to blame.........there you go.
    As for Pickering restart in the late 1990's, Bruce units 1 & 2 and now Darlington.  OPG and Bruce power are doing the work "the American way" with outside contractors. There should be people doing jail time for what went on. btw the same cost overruns occur in hydraulic , fossil and transmission, not just Nuclear. Nuclear just gets the headlines.
   From the early to late 1980's . The Pickering A unit 2  retube was done from scratch, without tooling, spare parts or a plan with full time OPG staff and OPG construction . It took 2-1/2 years to return Unit #2 to service. By the 4th unit's retube, it took 9 months from main breaker open to main breaker close.
   How many years did it take Bruce 1 & 2 retube when they went into it with years of planning with external contractors. 7 years of filling offshore bank accounts in shady deals.   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 10, 2018, 01:56:22 AM
    The Candu design with it's high neutron efficiency and ability to thermally moderate neutrons was chosen for a couple of reasons.
   The previously mentioned ability to use natural fuel without the complications of enriching fuel.
   The ability to run on Thorium, MOX fuel and left over fuel from PWR reactors that a PWR and PBWR couldn't even maintain a chain reaction with . All without complex and expensive enrichment.
   The Candu with it's large and less concentrated core. Along with only a modest amount of positive reactivity vs an enriched PWR. It is like comparing a team of oxen vs a team of race horses. The Candu can't run away very far or very fast.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 10, 2018, 03:12:20 AM
Good points on what happens when financing a huge capital project that runs long over schedule and runs into inflation and high interest rates.  Alas, these Ontario CANDU plants were all  the same design so it's pretty damning, economically.  The fuel flexibility and slower development of critical problems in CANDU are certainly big pluses. 

The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station is very impressive and I see that the major planned refurbishment starting in 2020 should take it to 2060.  I wonder if that's also part of the plus of the CANDU design, as that has not been the case for many US plants where refurbishment cost is deemed to exceed replacement cost.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 11, 2018, 11:42:37 PM
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


 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on April 12, 2018, 01:23:20 PM

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.


Would this be the same 'greenwashed bunch of clowns' you've slagged off in almost every other thread, Glort?

Cheers
Stef

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 13, 2018, 07:55:26 PM
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

What nuclear power plant  was a loss ?
The D2O originally came out of the lake . That little bit of tritium in the D2O compared to an emergency exit sign . Is like comparing a birthday cake to a forrest fire .
   Load following peaking power is still supplied by fossil, natural gas instead of coal.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 13, 2018, 08:12:18 PM

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 ?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 13, 2018, 08:14:44 PM

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 .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 13, 2018, 09:23:14 PM
There's a good article on Thorium reactors on Wikipedia that covers some of the unfortunate design decisions that led to the current reactors with the inherent risk of melt down and explosion ala Fukishima, etc., and the generation of lots of very "hot" waste.  Both were avoidable.

Basically, the US military pressure for nuclear weapons grade plutonium guided the decision away from safer designs with much less and much shorter half life waste.  The thorium fuel designed plant that was built in the 60's was operated for a number of years successfully.  They fired the guy who ran it and openly promoted it's inherent melt-down proof design.  Raising safety issues was not acceptable, we had bombs to build.  He has been vindicated, in my mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

The present designs should never have been built in large numbers, and the continued work on safer (ala thorium or molten salt) designs should not have been abandoned AFTER being successful.  CANDU was a step in the right direction but not nearly far enough.  There is a difference between "safe if we don't hire Homer Simpson or have Mr Burns managing", and safe by inherent design, where at any time and with any number of failures, plant operators could walk away and there will not be melt down, explosion and contamination of the air and water.  There will still be Homer Simpson type incidents, because all you can hire are humans, but sadly, there were well proven design approaches that would have prevented Fukishima.

So linking nuclear bombs to fission plants, while seemly irrational, is in fact what got us into this particular mess.  And it does raise the issue as to the ability of our various regulatory agencies to be able to make good decisions for the public when real threats to public safety are present. Eisenhower tried to warn us about the excessive influence of the military industrial complex and this is a prime example of just that.


A key section from Wikipedia to get your interest up:
After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the government of the United States also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel laureate and discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully developed and tested.

In 1973, however, the US government settled on uranium technology and largely discontinued thorium-related nuclear research. The reasons were that uranium-fueled reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry. As Moir and Teller later wrote, "The competition came down to a liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) on the uranium-plutonium cycle and a thermal reactor on the thorium-233U cycle, the molten salt breeder reactor. The LMFBR had a larger breeding rate ... and won the competition." In their opinion, the decision to stop development of thorium reactors, at least as a backup option, “was an excusable mistake.”[4]

Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[7][8] Weinberg himself recalls this period:

    [Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[9]

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:

    Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10]

Despite the documented history of thorium nuclear power, many of today’s nuclear experts were nonetheless unaware of it. According to Chemical & Engineering News, "most people—including scientists—have hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it...," noting a comment by a conference attendee that "it's possible to have a Ph.D. in nuclear reactor technology and not know about thorium energy."[11] Nuclear physicist Victor J. Stenger, for one, first learned of it in 2012:

    It came as a surprise to me to learn recently that such an alternative has been available to us since World War II, but not pursued because it lacked weapons applications.[12]

Others, including former NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen, agree that "thorium was the alternative path that was not taken … "[13][14]:2 According to Sorensen, during a documentary interview, he states that if the US had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably achieved energy independence by around 2000."[15]




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 13, 2018, 10:31:39 PM

Well, here's the thing Mr Glort

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 . . .

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

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 . . . these slow, relentless, daily killers account for more lives every week than the nuclear industry has over its whole lifetime.  But they aren't "news"

A little bit of balance and a little bit of courtesy might help here

I've got a few days off next week and I'm off up to my off-grid site in the Bay of Plenty where there's an old Dursley 6/1 I bought a while back waiting for me to fit a new pump and injector.  I'm going to do my small bit to add to the pollution, I guess

Just my $0.02
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere 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 .   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on April 14, 2018, 09:28:08 AM
Well said, Mike

Cheers Stef
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere 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?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV 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".
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear 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,
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM 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. 









Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ZOmMH4WHA)

I'm thinking we still have back up generators below storm sewer level here in the states. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM 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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear 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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM 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. 


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on April 16, 2018, 12:15:39 PM
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


 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 16, 2018, 10:48:39 PM
  The Fukishima incident was much compounded by plant managers that did not want to loose face and be embarrassed by having to vent hydrogen gas from the units. If the explosive hydrogen had been gotten rid of.  The Fukishima reactor buildings would have remained intact. With the over heated fuel collecting in the basement.
   As for Chernobyl being "Toxic". Somebody forget to tell the abundant and thriving wildlife in the restricted sector around the facility. No three eyed fish and no more than the average amount of  animals with cancerous lumps.
   Too bad the anti NUC's have no idea or don't want to hear how radioactive that Coleman Lamp mantles are. Or smoke detectors , granite counter tops, home basements or the broad band blast of energy they receive from the sun while on the beach.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 17, 2018, 06:19:00 PM
No three eyed fish - No problems.

How many kilo tons or is it mega tons of concrete have they poured on the reactor or where the reactor used to be and continue to pour?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 17, 2018, 07:37:53 PM
Here's an example of the kind of ignorant, tin hat wearing, nuclear phobic person B&D is referring to:

Admiral Rickover was the developer of the US nuclear navy and renowned engineer. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover

"Given Rickover's single-minded focus on naval nuclear propulsion, design, and operations, it came as a surprise to many[46] in 1982, near the end of his career, when he testified before the U.S. Congress that, were it up to him what to do with nuclear powered ships, he "would sink them all." At a congressional hearing Rickover testified that:

    "I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits — attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available. ... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. ... It is important that we control these forces and try to eliminate them." (Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982))"

Rickover knew by then that there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation; the incidence of illness just increases with accumulated exposure.  The incidence of thyroid disease globally continues to rise, thus more overweight, fatigued people who have difficulty thinking and are depressed.  I've struggled with thyroid disease along with other autoimmune diseases from a toxic exposure myself and it is no party.

The US Navy has one of the best nuclear safety records in the world.  I'd much rather they were operating our present civilian solid fuel fission plants until we can do something much inherently safer.







Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 17, 2018, 08:18:56 PM
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

Extra cost, extra space required and extra weight will make the larger batteries impractical . When and where is there going to be surplus power to re-charge these batteries after driving to work or driving home . Having these batteries provide enough power to carry the utility grid ......then where and when will they be re-charged enough to drive the vehicle to work or home from work.
    How many electric vehicles would it require to supply the utility grid with an extra 1000 Mw for eight hours .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 18, 2018, 03:46:40 AM
By most reporting there is excess grid capacity in the US, especially after the evening peak, though in some locales distribution will have to be upgraded.  As for solar during the day-  if your home PV is feeding the grid, and your car is slow charging at work after the morning peak is over, you have a net zero carbon situation. The power co's will love this as they will no doubt get a nice profit from your home PV power.

I think every region will have to rely on a different mix of renewables and power storage.  It will all shake out after climate change gets severe enough to wake people up...such as when food production is seriously affected.  The power co.s will still own the grid and despite all their whining they are guaranteed to profit no matter how that role evolves.

I disagree with Glort on public opinion against nukes. I think he's way too optimistic about the public. I think that if solid fueled nuclear fission plants were more profitable, a well funded propaganda campaign would easily manipulate the American public to accept them (or almost anything). Even without changing to safer designs, it would be easy to "safety wash" some trivial new safety feature such as calling them "smart nuclear" and sell it to the public. 

 “No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.”  Lily Tomlin

I personally think electric cars will add to the daily EMF exposure burden and along with continued expansion of pulsed microwaves and soon millimeter waves (5G) will cause even more serious chronic illness. At some point chronic illness will cripple society. Humans have tremendous propensity to ignore warnings and discredit or marginalize those who either become ill or are the messengers.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 18, 2018, 05:45:02 AM
   33,000 homes with 20Kw hr of batteries . Given an average of 12hr of daylight, with the first two hours after dawn and the last 2 hours prior to sunset . There is 8 hours of charge time and 16hrs of every 24hrs  reliant on batteries.
  How large are the roofs on these homes to support enough PV panels to power the home during the daylight loads of heating, cooling, cooking, entertainment, fridge, freezer etc plus charge 20Kw hr of batteries.
   Over the 16 hrs of non PV generation per day all those batteries can produce is 41 Mw of power.
    As there are losses in charging, discharging and conversion to AC, count on a loosing 20% or more of that 41Mw per hour over 16 hours. Also consider short winter days with the sun at a lower angle .
  As peak demand on the Australian utility grid is 47,000Mw..............good luck with your battery storage. That is 47 million homes . Actually 59 million as lithium batteries should not be operated from 0% to 100% to 0% .
   PV and batteries all sound well and good with noble goals etc. However the practical combination is nuclear baseload, PV daytime peaking with fossil carrying the morning and evening peaks when PV production is lost.     
   Liquid metal or molten salt fission reactors are the solution for utility grid power.
   btw what was the retail price of power prior to the subsidized solar and wind generation being built vs after ?   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 18, 2018, 06:14:26 PM
Some of us believe and some do not.  Few things are static.  In 20 years when there could be some possibility of most cars being electric with charging required lots of other factors will have matured including our centralized grid program.  We may even pull our nuclear boats and ships into the center of cities to provide the much needed power for our armies of robots - domestic of course. 

Most of the naysayers I've encountered are often standing right smack dab in the middle of where I want to work.

At this time, for me, electric cars have some real advantages.  While I'm getting my 64 Morris back on the road I'll be happy with the dream car of my thirties and forties.  This years dream cars all are electrically powered.  What would I do if someone developed a petroleum based fuel cell motor?  Buy stock in Saudi Arabia of course.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 19, 2018, 05:49:01 PM
Quote
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??

A lot of stuff in this world amaze me.  Like taking jokes literally.  Not seeing the metaphor. 

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 19, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
 plus one on that Casey
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 20, 2018, 12:32:08 AM

 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 .
 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 20, 2018, 12:38:23 AM
There is a lot of oil produced in the Middle East however most is destined for Eastern Asia and Western Europe . The US is supplied mostly from Canada and  Venezuela.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on April 20, 2018, 02:46:01 AM
Quote
......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'd bet the story would be different if 3/4 of the city had no power
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 20, 2018, 12:04:05 PM

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.

  I wonder how those in favour of wind, solar and demand coal fossil to be torn down. How do they accept the cost and pollution from fleets of standby/peaking medium diesel gensets ? Or are they so out of touch with reality that these social justice warriors and public . That they are either unaware of the diesel gensets or they believe anything is cleaner than coal ? 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 20, 2018, 08:19:18 PM
Quote
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.

Right out of the Trump play book.  Neat stuff. 
     First step is to discount the adversary. 
     Second is to cherry pick or redirect their protest.  (These do nothing fat, dumb and happy thrill seekers were anti nuclear explosive devices rather than just nuclear power systems.)
     Third is to discount the adversary.
     Fourth is to redirect their message or point to failures of the proposed agenda.

Freedom of assembly is part of the US Constitution.  Protesting is also an important part of our cultural political heritage.  It's also an important part of governance for all systems of government. 

It's tricky projecting changes that represent the future while holding on to current attitudes and capacities.  As in glorts example of solar panels supplying all of the household needs.  His assertions seem absolutely valid given efficiencies of today's panels, automobiles and use patterns.  The rest of the world will change our attitudes and choices. 

We may start choosing to use vehicles more realistic to our needs.  Smaller vehicles for most trips.  Cars and sustainable power generators will become more efficient.  Car sharing and renting should become more realistic.

Isn't a great time to be alive.  All of these exciting choices coming to the front.  Choosing between a bit more cleaner living vs a lot more cleaner living on this planet.

Hey campers!  Pack it in - Pack it out.  Leave this campsite better than when you arrived.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 20, 2018, 10:05:13 PM
Fairly powerful electric bikes/trikes (3k and 6kw at 30 mph) get about 30-50 watt hr/mile.  Telsa model 3 is it's most efficient car so far, around 237 watt hr/mile.  So there is plenty of room for improvement if we stop thinking of cars as a penis substitute/military tank, and match our needed range to our actual driving needs. (Hauling more batteries adds weight, which means bigger motor, which means more batteries...)

I'm still pissed that the 50+ mpg 3 cylinder compact diesel cars that Europeans have had for 20 years don't exist in the US.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 21, 2018, 02:24:13 AM
Tesla is a large vehicle to have enough internal volume for all the batteries . With wide  enough wheel track and long wheel base to carry all that battery weight with a low enough Center of gravity .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 21, 2018, 03:26:36 AM
Agreed, the images I've seen of the Tesla show the entire floor pan filled with flat modules full of batteries.  The curb weight of the model S is 4400-4500 lbs depending on options.  The model S battery alone is 1200 lbs.

My first Toyota Corolla Sedan, 2 door around 1969 vintage had a curb weight of 1542 lbs. 

This lust for power and range in electrics is simply bad design to appease public insanity. The chassis, suspension, battery, and motor systems are WAY too heavy, with each adding more of the others.  Then tires, brakes, and wheels have be truck sized, and you must have power assisted steering and brakes.



 


 






 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 21, 2018, 07:41:00 AM
After looking at some weight figures for cars, it seems you're right, Glort.  Tesla just made a big heavy car.

The Nissan Leaf is 3500 lbs and it's battery weighs 480 lbs. 
The newly hatched Tesla model three curb weight is 3549 lbs...can't find the battery weight but it's allegedly 30% less than the S model 1200 lbs.

A step in the right direction but still double the weight of my late 60's Corolla .  Curb weights of new Corollas are now up from 1500 (1968) to 2850 (2018) lbs, engine from 50 to 140 hp. 





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 21, 2018, 07:48:52 PM
As a Elon fan I must admit I'm always surprised about how big the S and X unit are.  I too am tired of the "My zero to 60 number is better than yours."  However there is hope.  I like the new(ish) three wheel units that are just coming out.  Bringing into consideration the way cars are actually used VS the dreams of middle aged adolescents is a big step in the right direction.

https://www.arcimoto.com/ (https://www.arcimoto.com/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gei5LgVwV0E&t=5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gei5LgVwV0E&t=5s)

We all know these are niche cars but a refreshing direction for transportation to head.  The arcimoto would really work in Hawaii.  The Mecanica Solo might be more suited for the temporate zones.  And then there's this one that is a bit closer to the big peepee syndrome but would be a great way to commute to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMWveqqMUY0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMWveqqMUY0) 

and the Buck Rogers anwer to Edison 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTvhkRn_R9U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTvhkRn_R9U)

Food for thought.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 21, 2018, 08:32:05 PM
Interesting links Casey, thanks.  By some miracle we're back on topic.

The Edison 2 very light car seems by far and away the most well thought out design.  Good mileage at higher speed is highly dependent on air drag/aerodynamics.  So unless it is to be a city car at low speeds, it must be addressed. The emphasis on light weight helps everywhere else.  Their design team are all well seasoned engineers with serious experience in their respective areas.  Very impressive work. 

edison2.com





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 22, 2018, 12:56:22 AM
The electric bike stuff is getting pretty impressive and affordable. 

I've thought about a way-behind-me electric pusher cart for a recumbent trike for when I'm not able to drive anymore; I can't walk as far as my mailbox which is 1/2 mile away.  No registration, no insurance needed in my state which wouldn't hurt either. 

The 2018 Subaru Impreza has a curb weight of around 3000 lbs- minus engine and tranny for electric conversion, but still, not a lightweight car. Maybe the Australia version is different?

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 22, 2018, 06:26:06 AM
  The best all around compromise to build an EV is the Chevy Bolt.
  The Leaf is a kid's go-kart made street legal, doesn't even have battery thermal regulation.
  As previously stated the Tesla has impressive highway miles at the expense of cost, size and weight. The energy required to accelerate and decelerate all that Tesla mass in stop and go around town driving makes it little better than the Bolt in range.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 22, 2018, 04:17:18 PM
I agree that for me, an electric pusher cart would be a serious technical challenge...but I suppose that would be part of the appeal- can it be done? (Which is a lot more fun when you have staff and budget not out of your own measly pocket.)  My shop at my first home here in the White Mountains was 24x24 feet and had a window mounted evaporative cooler for ventilation on the west wall, with my bench near the east.  The induction motor was a two speeed 1/2 hp.  I could only use it on low, and I put a loose wrap of grain oriented electrical steel (aka GOES) around the motor  to reduce the stray magnetic field by 50%.  Still, it was 4 microgauss at my workbench...the limit where I could work for a some hours and not have a whopping headache and MS flare up later.  So for the pusher cart I was thinking multiple insulated concentric cans of mumetal around the can type (not hub) motor (each a 50% reduction) and I'd have to do my own controller to reduce high frequency EMI.  Plastic optical fiber forward to throttle controls to avoid the antenna effect.  A 10 foot shaft from cart to rear of trike would likely be the minimum.  Motors are a bitch to shield, but the principles were developed in WWII to avoid magnetic sea mines.

I'm still ticked off that Mark Cherry's smartplugs didn't attract any interest besides myself and some DARPA one fuel forward program money.  A smartplug lets you convert any gas or propane engine to a low pressure diesel...  zero EMI from spark system or electronic injection.  I have a tough time with air cooled diesel noise and exhaust and would prefer a propane engine fueled car if I could get rid of the damned magneto-spark.  I did an alcohol fueled conversion of a Honda 2hp 4 cycle outboard to homemade smartplug that worked out OK, but that was possible because the catalytic reaction of methanol fuel and platinum is very strong so I could use a small RC glow plug in the smartplug chamber. Gas or propane fuel requires more platinum wire and more fuel/air flow over it per Mark's later patents.

PS  Glort was right on the mark on the used EV issue.  I read a couple articles and the 3 year depreciation is a horror show.  Interesting the article mentions the old Chevy Volt (not Bolt) as having very long lived batteries... like 300K miles. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109640_lessons-learned-from-early-electric-car-2011-nissan-leaf-at-90000-miles/page-2

In reading about the batteries in the Leaf, Tesla and Volt, as B&D noted, the Leaf has no cooling and the poor cell management we noted in another thread...thus so many used leaf battery modules for sale.  When crowing about how little owners pay for charging (via coal), they conveniently forget the ongoing battery replacement cost.  If your replacement battery (probably $800 in labor to get to it or more) is $40k and you get 80,000 miles from it, that's $0.50 a mile for battery replacement cost plus pennies per mile charging.   Petrol fuel cost at say 30 mpg at $3/gallon, that's $0.10 per mile for fuel.  So with 400K mile batteries at $40K replacement cost, you can just break even with a gas car.



 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 22, 2018, 07:18:51 PM
Quote
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMuubBNW4Tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMuubBNW4Tg)

There is also some work being done on a new classification for light weight vehicles.  I sse mention of them but I can't find any links this morning.  I'm searching for "autocar" or something like that.

As for safety; you're just hanging your sweet ass out there a bit when you jump into one of these light weight units.  Single vehicle crashes might hold some advantages for them but the other irresistible force transportation devices could be really bad for the light weights.  They still look safer than two wheel units. 

Speaking of the two wheel units have you seen the stand alone two wheelers.  Wow.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okf283Ct-NY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okf283Ct-NY)  And electric too.

I apologize for getting us back on topic for a moment.  I'm thinking that we either get our heads out into the bright sunlight on personal transportation or dip the entire planet in concrete or tarmac.  I've always liked the "For Rent" and "For Sale" signs in downtown Seattle that over looked the freeways and also read: "If you lived here you'd already be home."

I still wonder if diesel will every really make a comeback.  Especially here in the states.  I like the power curve but the stuff that's too small to see or smell reports to really take away health outlooks.  The expected life of Americans has gone down for the last two years.  This is a really new wrinkle.  I think it has much more to do with stupid food and lifestyle choices than with dirty power generation but if we were making better food choices we'd probably also make better generation choices as well.  No, I'm not turning my back on Lister or Witte for that matter.  Extraordinary devices will always have a home here whether they were developed in 1920 or 2018.


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 23, 2018, 05:36:49 AM
Read an article on the Chevy Bolt.  Presently $15,700 for a replacement battery, the original is under warranty for 100K or 150K miles depending on state. So presently 16 cents a mile at the 100K mile figure.  If you make it to 200K that's 8 cents/mile.   Add charging power costs and it's still no bargain compared to a gas car's fuel at 10 cents a mile.  If the batteries come down in price dramatically, or last longer then it will catch on.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 23, 2018, 02:18:18 PM
Bikes maybe an option in Australia but here not even snow tires make a bike rideable in blizzards .
 Regarding home builds, conversions and cottage industry EV’s . The percentage of the population that can spin wrenches and use a multimeter is steadily dwindling . Unless the vehicle manufacture is a large brand name with a dealership in every town . Who wants to risk being stuck without service support .
   Extreme mileage diesels in a micro vehicle at steady highway operation is one thing. It is simple enough to build a diesel with excellent efficiency operating at wide open throttle/full fuel rack at peak torque rpms . Fine for generators , irrigation pumps , marine propulsion and ploughing a thousand acres of corn field .   However operation of a light highway vehicle is every else than the conditions described above for high fuel efficiency and operation of tier IV emissions equipment .
   The EV is the environmentalist’s wet dream , charging on solar or wind turbines . Then again there is the real world where the greenie’s solution to all the world’s problems actually makes more trouble than it solves .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 23, 2018, 04:53:49 PM
I already have my last vehicle, and can't afford any new vehicle now but after crunching the numbers for operating cost it does appear they are selling these EVs based on a "green tinted illusion" at present.  Tesla had the right idea with the S and X models- a luxury status tech-toy for the wealthy. The model 3 is a status toy as well because it is in no way economical to own or operate.

The electricity prices here are low (coal - not accounting for the full health care costs and excess deaths and degradation of land from mining and  mercury and heavy metals spread in the downwind areas) compared to some places, about 12 cents a KWH, so for the Chevy Bolt at 3.5 miles/KWH that adds another 3.4 cents per mile to the battery replacement cost of 8 cents/mile (wildly optimistic 200K mile service life) and it is still over present fuel costs at 10 cents a mile. 

The ongoing battery replacement cost and cost/mile to recharge will be the figures to watch in the future.  Weight and aerodynamics will largely determine the car's efficiency for the latter as practical maximum efficiencies in electric motors and controllers have already been achieved. 

A battery weight and cost breakthrough is sorely needed. 















Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 23, 2018, 06:13:52 PM
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,
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 23, 2018, 06:53:02 PM
Nothing wrong with wanting an electric car-  as long as you know going in what the true economics of it are.  It will improve air quality in cities, relocating the pollution to the rural areas with the coal/oil/NG plant, with no net benefit (yet) for the planet. (I'm avoiding nuclear on purpose.) In countries and regions where the grid is mostly renewable power, electric cars will be a net gain for the planet.  Today in the US, where you do your own charging via PV, it's a net gain for the planet, though not yet for your pocketbook.

Carbon tax on fossil fuels, if done well, could shift the power mix in a direction which would benefit future generations but public trust in governments to do things well and fairly isn't at an all time high and next month's mortgage, insurance, car loan, credit card bill is the focus for most.  In the US whatever simplistic media message is repeated the most, wins.

 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 23, 2018, 10:02:31 PM
Okay, you forced it out of me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVter3vZMjA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVter3vZMjA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejSbXb44qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejSbXb44qo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVUASGY9HIc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVUASGY9HIc)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYqJb91MiQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYqJb91MiQ)  Not my best side.  This might be re-titled as "Where's all that smoke coming from?"  The reversing switch later caught on fire.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 23, 2018, 10:32:10 PM
Very nice job on the electric conversion, Casey, and a great utility hauler for your nut farm. 
Are those (3) 12v batteries wet or AGM?  How are you charging?  How many watt motor and what kind?

Give us the full details, please!



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 24, 2018, 02:47:30 AM
Thanks Bruce.  I'm upgrading to a more modern electronic voltage system (Not yet installed).  You don't really understand how much power there is in three old fashioned lead acid 12 volt batteries until you try to put out one of their modest fires. 

The power system is out of a 60s or 70s Cushman golf car(t).  Among purists they are cars.  Here's the data:

Electric Motor
   GE            DC Motor         5BC48JB248
   V36            A53
   Wind Series      GEJ312
Charger:
   Lester Electrical of Nebraska      

So far glort, including the smoke and fire dances, the main solenoid has taken care of everything.  The flashing light is to tell the operator that the thing is still on so he doesn't walk off only to return to a dead machine in the morning.  I tried to find a space ship sound out of old movies but had to go with the red light.

My neighbor that rides his golf car all over his farm has a weight issue and I've gotten my BMI down to 23 but that's too much information.  So maybe it isn't as good as it looks like for health reasons.  We recruit volunteers to work on the farm and a knowledgeable person could easily get transferred from pulling weeds to EV Engineer pretty easy with a simple skills test (soft pitch) .  We're booked through September at this time.  As many of you have realized I've got a touch of dementia so visitors really help me keep my mind.  Like this morning when I couldn't remember bird of paradise three different times.  I've got it now for a day or two so they are doing their job and having a great time here in Hawaii as well (second soft pitch). :)

Yup, that's part of my veg oil program from years gone by.  I just don't use enough diesel stuff to keep it alive.  One of this Summers tasks will be to get it to someone that will utilize it along with all the other bio-diesel crap (once you stop using that really neat stuff it transmigrates to "Crap").  An important thing to keep in mind is that giving away a project or selling a project is just like finishing the project as you get all that room back to put other really neat stuff before it becomes crap.  But I forget, Lister Engine Forum is a safe house for Horders.

Cheers,

Play nice others.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 24, 2018, 09:24:15 AM
Good for you glort.  Admitting that there is a problem is the most common first step in solving it.  Whether you move onward to say "No thank you" or fall back on the ole buying better containers to store the crap in cycle knowing there is a problem is central to cure.

My name is Casey and I have no control on the amount of crap I've got stored and will probably never use.  Tobacco, alcohol or crap.  It's all connected in really subtle ways that are incredibly powerful.  The challenge is to replace the negative behaviors with positive ones like working on diesel engines, getting stuff to grow or having PV panels from one end of the yard to another.  (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

Aloha,
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 24, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
Hey Casey,
Smart move to re-purpose the golf cart motor and controls.  Well done.
Didn't you also have another 36v project... a chainsaw?  Or was that someone else?


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on April 25, 2018, 05:25:01 PM
I discussed putting an inverter on the ATV but 36 Volt inverters are expensive and my incredibly creative switching model was real expensive as well.  Another battery would almost require a trailer because of space. 

The next step is to install the newer electronic power components.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on April 25, 2018, 10:03:01 PM
Quote
  But 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

See attached photos of my "work"shop (or junk pile, as someone uncharitable might refer to it). This does not include the motley collection of vehicles which live out in the rain... (3 cars, 1 van, none roadworthy).
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: Thob on April 25, 2018, 10:23:14 PM
Dang, AdeV, I wish my shop was that neat!  At least light reaches the floor in some areas of your shop.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on April 28, 2018, 08:19:08 PM

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!


The shed's not bad (It has a god-fearing roof: very holy), but yes it's an awesome size: 3800sq/ft of floor space, approx. I occupy about 2800sq/ft of that, including a 400sq/ft office that I built myself. Lurking under the mezzanine floor is a pretty fully equipped workshop. Not everything works, e.g. the CNC lathe needs a serious coat of looking at, and some of it's not accessible right now (the shaper's tucked away, if I tried to use it it'd be like swinging a bull in a very small china shop), but eventually it'll get straightened out. And yes, thinned down somewhat...
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 29, 2018, 12:30:33 AM
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,

Won't be leading due to limited energy capacity and long charge times .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 29, 2018, 04:06:17 AM
I wonder how much of how we feel about the potential for an electric "future" is to do with infrastructure - certainly much of the conversation so far has been around that

Down here at the bottom of the world 85% of our electricity is from the two renewable source of hydro and wind; and, lots of the time our wind turbines are turned off because there is adequate water in the hydro dams and that is a cheaper generation system

We have recently elected a more left/green-leaning government and they are talking about taking two important steps to grow an electric fleet:  having government & local bodies buy electric cars (which will put them into the national pool when they are rolled over) and adding a levy to the importation of new cars to subsidise/promote the importation of EVs (mostly used Leafs ex-Japan ATM I guess)

These are small steps, but, when added to the increasing uptake of grid-tied solar (not a particularly rewarding deal $$-wise, but a beginning), I think they represent the beginnings of a change of viewpoint around energy

Our is a small country, with a great many commuters for whom an EV is potentially a very good option, and - although it has been a failure the first time around - we have considerable experience with electrification of rail networks

I suspect that the "feeling" of the coming generation is that we have lots of green electricity, can easily produce more if we need it, and that the current model of individual ownership of several large fossil-fuel-burning vehicles is a relic of my generation, not theirs

Just to be clear - I personally own several 2-litre size vehicles, drive a Hilux ute something like 50,000 Ks a year, have owned dozens of "play" motorcycles and have just sold my personal "toy" 6-tonne Hino truck.  I'm not talking about my generation - I'm looking forward towards my grandchildren's future

Just my $0.02
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on April 29, 2018, 10:13:42 AM
Hey Guys and Girls, Glort is absolutely right about geo thermal energy being the future for electricity generation. The problem is the drilling depth that is required to harvest it. There are a great many countries around the world that have geo thermal resources close to the surface, the problem is that those countries also have volcanoes and earthquakes. Therefore the investment is too dangerous as any generating plant could be destroyed or disable the day after it opens.

My personal opinion is that public transport is the way forward for city dwellers, be that electric or fossil fuel. I am not advocating for the sort of public transport systems we currently have where you stand on a platform in the rain waiting for a train or bus that never arrives. I think something more along the Uber model would be ideal with fast shuttles regularly available at every corner.

When is the government going to start to encourage people to stop commuting and work from home? If your job entails sitting in front of a computer why do you have to travel across town to do it? The recent advances in robotics suggest that factory work is also going to be a thing of the past so we can get those commuters off the road.

For those of us that live in rural areas electric vehicles are a non starter; cost, reliability and the distance from town make them non viable. However us hillbillies don`t have to heat our homes with fossil fuels, we just burn the timber that naturally falls on our properties.

I suspect that governments are struggling with an insoluble problem; finite resources and a growing population. What they are going to do about it is anybody's guess.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on April 29, 2018, 03:44:07 PM

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 ?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles. , fuel and road tax
Post by: buickanddeere on April 29, 2018, 03:46:31 PM
  Anyone ever wonder what will happen with all these electric vehicles and the government loosing tax revenue on fuel. The EV drivers will have to pay more taxes and fees to recover the loss of ICE revenue.
  The EV will cost more per mile than the ICE .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on April 29, 2018, 03:55:04 PM
Geothermal power is not cheap to maintain. the water picks up lots of minerals and as the steam cools, the minerals settle out on the machinery, and have to be acid washed off.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 29, 2018, 09:03:46 PM



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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on April 29, 2018, 09:56:43 PM



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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on April 30, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Very interesting point Glort makes about Granny getting the bill to fuel all the relatives cars at xmas. I wonder how many employees will get fired for plugging their EV into the power supply at work without permission. I predict a whole new criminal activity with unscrupulous people craftily charging their vehicles from any supply they can find, at the expense of someone else. It is also likely that more people will illegally bypass the meter in their home to avoid the costs. (Not difficult, most cannabis factories do exactly that). I wonder who will have to pay to cover all this energy theft, insurance companies don`t cover it, so I guess it will just be added to the honest consumers energy bill plus the government taxes for using too much energy!

Lock up your power points, the criminals are coming to get you!

Bob

 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on April 30, 2018, 09:58:49 AM
Further to my previous prediction here is another. The government and energy companies will have to force the introduce of  on board metering on all EVs to prevent energy theft. In the name of consumer protection this will come with a built in GPS tracking device which will prove how much energy you have used and invade your privacy. Later that data will become available to the police to track your movements. This will be followed up by a massive data breach giving criminals access to your energy and personal information.

God help us, big brother is beginning to look like a saint.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on April 30, 2018, 04:43:47 PM
I've read an engineer's report on the internals of the AMI brand smart meters.  Primitive in that there was no filtering on the supply side, thus the meter would violate an FCC conducted emissions test except of course the power co is exempt. No protection from EMP, spikes or EMI on the power line either.  It was cheaply made like consumer "disposable" electronics.   Anti-tampering would be through the detection of interruption of power if the meter was pulled; compared to neighboring meters with no interruption of power and you'll get a visit.   

Magnets were effective for the old style meters but other than perhaps saturating the current transformer core (unlikely to be effective), I don't see that being effective here.  Since big brother is watching your meter daily, a reduction in power use might trigger a site inspection. All they have to do is inspect the security seal/wires on the meter side of the box. 

I'm sure they would have no problem spending 1000x more on "security" than is saved by the effort; it all just gets passed on and the "regulators"; here in AZ they are openly bought by paying for their campaigns. 

This business of destabilizing the grid is power co. propaganda.  They are just protecting their vested interests instead of working on solutions.  Nationalizing the grid is one way to solve that problem, but it's possible to attempt to manage private grid operators; though Australia's experience with that, like California's early deregulation experience, has been painful for public pocketbook.  What a shocking surprise, each corporate interest acts to increase it's own profitability.

Denmark has had peaks of well over 50% wind power already...and their power reliability and stability is one of the best in the world.  It seems that tracking weather forecasts and actual vs predicted output does work, at least for a nationalized grid management.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/does-denmark-hold-the-key-to-integrating-large-amounts-of-intermittent-rene#gs.kYHAtAs

"Smart" meters were and are a farce. No savings have been demonstrated, anywhere, and the national security issues are profound since they have been proven to be readily hackable. These concerns were raised publicly by retired seniors of the CIA and NSA but were ignored.




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 01, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Actually the local distribution system can be destabilized by the surges and harmonics from the induction motors used as generators in large wind turbines . The trip parameters have to be widened or the turbines will trip protective relays .
  An cloudy day with intermittent sun can also trip line protective devices .
  Generally speaking , the max generating capacity in a distribution line can not exceed the amount of power used during the lowest demand intervals .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 01, 2018, 04:33:51 AM


Check out the Chinese

you guys have lots of sunny desert in Oz?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2073747/powerful-images-worlds-largest-solar-energy-farms-are-china
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 01, 2018, 08:33:49 AM
All the latest windmill designs are now DC generators with an industrial inverter on the output, so harmonic distortions and destabilizaton are not the same issues as before.  California has also added new specifications for GTIs which will improve stability.  Obviously, that is the place to be doing it...just as Glort's GTI's won't over voltage the line, newer designs can correct power factor and line distortions as well.

I'm disgusted with green washing as well...alas, propaganda works.

I saw a youtube video on Thorium reactors that makes me angry about how all the safety problems of solid fuel reactors were well known and that a much, much safer and dramatically less waste producing system was designed, built, documented and then abandoned. Alvin Weinburg was then fired as head of Oak Ridge by prick Nixon in 1973 because he kept talking publicly about the successful and much safer thorium molten salt reactor breakthrough he had proven.  I was even more impressed with the safety details of this reactor; if anything goes wrong (core gets too hot) or power is cut off from the plant, a  plug of salt melts and  molten salt fuel is held in a vessel below the core.  Without the graphite core moderator, it can't sustain fusion so just cools itself off in that tank.  No high pressure steam, no hydrogen, no explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE

Other information is that thorium is a waste product of mining for rare earths, and so we already have ample supplies. 

It makes me pretty pissed off at the US nuclear power industry and regulatory agencies of the 60s and early 70's.  Most of the current nuclear engineers don't even know that a molten salt thorium reactor was already built and operating back then, and just accept pressurized water- solid fuel systems as all there is or could be.  I was given the same indoctrination as a young engineer. 

















Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 01, 2018, 05:34:06 PM
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.

I note that the Australian government is similar though less blatant; while the public is fed green propaganda, the government is making a bundle licensing massive coal and gas exports to a consortium of the biggest oil/coal companies in the world. Meanwhile the Aussie public is paying grossly inflated prices for their dominantly coal fed power grid and for natural gas for domestic use.  This is an example of the sort of simple manipulation of democracy that is happening everywhere. 

While the US public is fed such baloney as LED light bulbs, electric cars and wireless everything, US fossil fuel production is up, up up. 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34572

Australia has better quality greenwashing but if you look at the first page of the report showing a chart of exports, you will see their gas and coal exports continue to increase...

https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/energy-in-aust/energy-in-australia-fact-card.pdf

It seems that there is a race to profit from mineral resources.

Germany doesn't have much in the way of domestic oil and gas, but I did find some charts that show that their imports of same are increasing.  Their coal production and use is increasing.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/13/germany-is-a-coal-burning-gas-guzzling-climate-change-hypocrite/

It seems the hairless apes are out of control.







Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 01, 2018, 07:35:06 PM
    Denmark for all their green posturing and socialist utopia. Most people are clueless about or willingly blind to Denmark selling gas and oil to fund EV subsidies , “free” healthcare, “free” education and a high minimum wage .
    They are rather tight lipped about the amount of income tax Danes pay or the tariffs paid on an ICE vehicle .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 01, 2018, 09:10:51 PM
Denmark is certainly engaging in "world class" major oil and gas exporting hypocrisy. They are a capitalistic democracy, after all.  No doubt the people get fed the very best quality greenwashed propaganda. That may be the best that democracies can do.

My older brother is in his last few years of serious heart disease, still working himself to death quite literally after 20 years of 80 hr weeks putting his 3 kids through college. (One with 1.5 years left to go and disabled.)  I don't view universal health care or universal education as foolish expenditures, or as things that don't improve the quality of life for most working men with families.  I recently had to forgo homeowner's insurance to pay for a medication 40 years out of patent and with cheap generics everywhere else in the world but not here in the US where Pfizer has a monopoly, so I'm not so impressed with America's "beacon of light" and "freedom", or "health care". My drug insurance co. doesn't cover it as it's not on their formulary and a letter from my doctor got me the usual denial.

Condemnation of another democracy for choosing to support their people with their wealth from oil, gas and coal seems like a strange position to me.  By all independent measures the Danish populace is much happier and satisfied with life than Americans. 

I can hardly imagine a place with good paid public schools through college and no worries about anything but getting well if you get sick or injured.  Parents only need to worry about parenting. I know a Dane who's Dad just died from Parkinson's in Denmark; social services came and reviewed his wishes and situation and he got in home care and help for his elderly wife, appropriate to their needs, all the way to the end where he had in home care round the clock. He NEVER had to worry about bankruptcy, losing his home, or not being able to afford the medications and extensive help he needed. 














Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on May 02, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
I'll say one thing for the Chinese, they don't have the BS and corruption in politics like the west does.

At the "big showcase projects" level, you're probably right; the Chinese have a very JFDI attitude (Just Fucking Do It). Lower down the tree, though, and corruption is endemic. Every Party or government official you meet needs his palm greasing before things will happen... money which is supposed to be used on repairs or local infrastructure gets spent alright, but the roads remain in a godawful condition, water pisses out on the streets where they can't be bothered fixing the pipes, and god help you if you're on the end of the electricity line that got blown down in the storm... unless you're willing to let some official trouser yet more cash, so he can divert some of what was going into his personal account, into the actual job of making a repair.

Chinese society is not one that we need to copy... Chinese industriousness, on the other hand, well, the West could use some of that like a shot in the arm... but preferably without the palm greasing.

They truly are there for the people.

Hmm, again, even less that one. The big projects are there to say "Look how good China's Communist Government is" (much like any big National Showcase project in any country). China is criss-crossing the country with high-speed rail links, which sounds great, unless you live in the way... in which case you Will Be Moved On (No Arguments Will Be Tolerated).  That said, Xi Jinping is doing some good things for some of the very poorest in China (now that's really upsetting the Do Gooders - who've been bitching about China's one-party state for years, but when that party suddenly starts helping the very poorest, it kind of pulls the rug out from their do-gooding, and there's nothing that makes a do-gooder crosser than that!), so it's not all bad.

Those roads, though... I've genuinely driven (well, been driven, in a tax) down a major city street which had holes big enough - and I'm not exaggerating - to swallow an entire small car. It was like being on a roller coaster at times.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 02, 2018, 12:55:09 AM
Marvelous post on China, AdeV.  I also admire some of what they do (population control) and not others (ignoring pollution until people are dying by droves ).  I expect the ratting out of non-conformist neighbors to the party is much like in the old Soviet controlled countries.

Alas, every country is run by nothing but humans. 





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 02, 2018, 05:01:32 AM
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.



Bruce, I often admire your insights . . .

I would add to that that, in China the rulers don't have to answer to anyone but themselves.  Thus they can get things done in a way that we, shackled by the 3,4,or 5-year electoral cycle and by politicians who are short-sighted at best and completely captured by interest groups/industry at worst, are crippled by the need to get re-elected . . .

Of course the Chinese - since they don't have to answer to an electorate - can do whatever they like in terms of human rights abuses, political meddling etc etc

I often think some sort of benign dictatorship - if we could find such a thing - would be a good middle-ground

Cheers
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: oldgoat on May 02, 2018, 11:14:52 AM
At the rate things are going you might get your wish.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 04, 2018, 09:04:18 PM
I found a really well written technical article on molten salt thorium reactors also known as LFTR or liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Fluoride is the salt Alvin Weinberg used in his successful thorium fueled reactor at Oak Ridge in the 60's.

https://eic.rsc.org/feature/is-thorium-the-perfect-fuel/2000092.article

There some good links for more info at the bottom of it.

Be wary of articles about solid fuel thorium (aka fast thorium) which is not at all the same.

The very interesting aspect of this article was that Alvin Weinberg's LFTR reactor work at Oak Ridge was re-found by a NASA engineer looking for a way to have nuclear power on the moon- where water can't be used for the typical solid uranium fuel, pressurized water system. 

This benefit of LFTR (aka molten salt thorium) would be HUGE in the southwestern US or other landlocked desert areas.  CO2 or Helium are heated to drive turbines, instead of steam. That approach has been proven by the pebble bed prototype reactor in Germany and that component did work well, though the pebbles of graphite coated uranium had serious  problems.  Massive water use by all the steam powered (coal and the Palo Verde nuclear) electrical power plants here in AZ are a very serious problem; all our ancient aquifers are shrinking. We are living on borrowed time, water wise, and growth is continuing. Climate prospects for the SW US are hotter and drier. 











Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on May 13, 2018, 05:04:41 PM
Quote
They seem to be heading into deeper red ink and the only people that are denying that are Musk and the Tesla brainwashed Fanboys.

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.

Another amazing thing to me is that oil companies still think of themselves as oil companies and not energy giants.  They're missing the electrical charging station scramble just as the railroads missed the pipeline phenomena.  Railroads are transportation companies but decided the transportation of liquids in tubes was and is outside their service in spite of all those right of ways.  Han't anyone told the oil moguls that much of the electricity they would be selling is made with petroleum and will continue to be produced this way for a couple of decades?

 I'm concerned that Elon hasn't read about Henry Ford and the tragedy of his life story?  Anyway.

Go Elon!  Turn this world on it's ear.  Go Elon!
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 13, 2018, 08:01:29 PM
  While Elon is an excellent salesman. Elon can not change the laws of physics.   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 13, 2018, 11:24:13 PM
Not only can he not change the laws of physics I don`t believe he can change the way people work. The idea of charging an EV from your solar PV system is possibly doable during mid summer in Australia. The problem is that most people use their cars during the day to commute to and from work, so their car will be in a car park. Not at home on charge.

These commuters are going to drive home and want to charge their EVs over night, when there is no solar generation. Imagine the spike in demand at around six o'clock each evening. millions of workers returning home, turning on the air conditioning, TV, boiling the kettle, cooking supper and charging their EVs. Fossil fuel power stations will have to go into overdrive, belching out CO2 and other emissions.

The grid in Australia already struggles to power air conditioners on hot days, grid outages due to this overloading are common.
Elon Musk and co may be visionaries and great salesmen but they clearly  haven`t thought this through.

The government and power companies are going to have to engage in some joined up thinking if they want to ever make this work.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 13, 2018, 11:52:50 PM
Another issue that hasn`t been properly addressed is the longevity of lithium iron batteries. If you are anything like me you probably have a shed full of rechargeable power tools that no longer hold a charge. 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?

Too much hype, too many questions and not enough answers.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 14, 2018, 02:56:16 AM
Hey Glort, great and detailed rant.
The only good thing about banging your head on a brick wall is that it`s nice when you stop. Trouble is that involves admitting defeat. I have no intention of being defeated by the sort of greedy witless wonders that now run the world.

Your predictions of impending insolvency for Tesla are well founded. No doubt Mr Musk will not be personally liable for any of the losses and will walk away a very wealth man. The shareholders will get shafted, suppliers will not get paid and the public purse will have to pay to clean up the mess.

With regards to TOU, the government will do whatever is likely to bring in the most revenue. Expect massive inflation of prices with annual increases dialled in every year for the next decade.
Hope you have become fully self sufficient before then.

I have been researching the old Edison batteries that last an eternity. Trouble is they are expensive and bulky. If I find time I would like to experiment with building my own. Nickel and iron are plentiful and not too pricey. Wonder how much storage one might get out of a cell the size of an IBC tank?

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 14, 2018, 04:57:38 AM
The problem with the NIFE (Edison) batteries is price and performance.   The charge and discharge efficiency is quite poor relative to even wet lead, atrocious compared to AGM lead. If you try to pump too much current into them, all you do is end up lots of water loss.  They have much bigger swings of voltage than lead acid batteries for both charging and discharging.  All that would be livable, even with the very high water use that Mike reports on his 48V set, if only the price wasn't so steep. Iron Edison in the US makes them, but their smallest (100ah) cells for my 120V system would be $9500 plus freight. (vs $1000 for local wet lead with a well proven service life of 4.5 years).

I read about a tech breakthrough for improved NIFE batteries about 5-6 years ago but as usual, nothing has come of it.  According to this article in Forbes,  lithium isn't the big problem, but cobalt might be.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-lithium-battery-future/



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 14, 2018, 08:15:36 AM
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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 14, 2018, 05:52:14 PM
Bob, Your comment hits the nail on the head, and explains why used EVs don't hold value for resale:

Quote
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?

As I noted earlier, with present service life of the lithium batteries, using the optimistic figures provided by Tesla, the ongoing battery replacement cost per mile is greater than present US fuel prices for a gas ignition vehicle, not even including the cost of the charging.  Thus Tesla did the smart thing in selling them as luxury cars.


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 15, 2018, 12:09:56 AM
Hi BruceM, you are right about charging a premium price for a luxury product. The problem is that Tesla are trying to ramp up production to make EVs mainstream. You can`t charge premium prices for a mainstream product. At the same time Ford, GM and others are also trying to get into the EV market. This competition may be good for the consumer but could be catastrophic for Tesla.

If I were Mr Musk I would be trying to corner the market on Lithium, Cobalt and Nickel production but I suspect that the big mining companies are streets ahead of him knowing that Ford, GM and etc. have very deep pockets.

Hi Glort, we come back again to the issue of storage, it`s cost, longevity and reliability. Being a bit of a hillbilly, I live on a hill. I could easily build two mega litre dams with a head of more than 150m between them. I could use solar to pump water up during the day and use hydro generation to recover the energy at night. The cost of such a system is astronomical. The pump would need to be three phase so a three phase invertor is required and so on. Way cheaper to pay the power companies.

I agree that the cheapest is to use a deep cycles forklift battery pack with a Lister/Listeroid back up generator. Especially with the availability and your knowledge of WVO. I don`t know what it would cost to buy a forklift charger but there must be a few floating about, just a case of finding them.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 15, 2018, 04:00:43 AM
Hydrogen would be a handy way of storing excess PV, despite the inefficiency (60% is optimistic) of electrolysis of water.  At modest pressures it can be stored in LOTS of propane tanks without embrittlement problems, but it costs a fortune in tanks since it stays a gas and energy density by volume is pathetic.  That sucks because larger capacity storage is what you'd really like or a battery would be much simpler.  There are hydride storage systems for hydrogen in the development stage but no big bucks behind that.  The hydride storage schemes I've read about would be suited to a vehicle storage (which would also be a nice size for a home); the hydride granules absorb hydrogen at low pressure and when heated, release it. 

Some serious advanced development in hydrogen storage and electrolysis efficiency would be very helpful.  I'd love to store up hydrogen gas for backup home heating, cooking and running my ammonia refrigerator with my excess PV capacity, as well as for a vehicle.  Alas, no big investments here that I can see, only very small scale, long term academic type research.  Until the hydride media or better yet a complete hydride tank with integrated heaters are available at decent prices, it's a bust.









Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 15, 2018, 06:10:48 AM
Alas, it takes a LOT of manure to make a useful amount of methane.  I did the calculations once for household septic system and found it produced a useless amount of gas. 




Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 15, 2018, 02:37:24 PM
Best way to store energy is to add a little carbon to the hydrogen and make natural gas/methane . Or use surplus off peak nuclear steam and natural gas in the presence of a catalyst.  Various easy to store, easy to transport and clean burning light hydro carbon fuels can be manufactured .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on May 15, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
If anyone wants to try a home made digester there's plenty of sheep shite up here in the Pyrenees, at the moment the local farmers are digging out the deep litter barns after the winter.

Cheers Stef
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 15, 2018, 04:49:41 PM
Interesting videos, Glort, thanks.  500KW 24/7 from the first farm and it's recapture of the NG fired generator heat for farm and home use was impressive.  Wish they had more details on the digester and handling of municipal trash.  I wonder how the project was funded; the up front capital costs seem way beyond most north country dairy farms, though the one shown was a pretty big operation.


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 15, 2018, 07:47:19 PM
One of the farms I work on had a system quoted for them:

They milk maybe 800 cows and their effluent pond is the size of a swimming pool

Depending on the season their power bill is maybe $10-25K a month

The system quoted would generate enough power from "digesting" their dairy effluent to run the farm all year round - or so it was claimed

Cost estimate was $NZ 1 million

Those are just rough numbers, but that was the scale of it

Cheers
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 15, 2018, 10:00:41 PM
Very interesting, Mike. At 5% interest that system would be about 6.5 years payback just on the power offset. I guess the company selling the system probably has a financing deal as well. A win all around. 

Where I grew up dairy farmers worked damn hard and many were going under.  A decade or so later most had switched to just raising beef.  Pasteurizing (heating) all that milk would probably account for much of that power bill.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 15, 2018, 11:22:24 PM
Hydrogen production and storage has been done successfully. The trouble is that the catalyst is a precursor to a nuclear bomb and is therefore banned. The guy that built the prototype was a particle physicist and had access to a particle accelerator to make his own isotopes.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 15, 2018, 11:54:37 PM
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. 

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 16, 2018, 01:47:57 AM
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.

    First I have ever heard of that . There is only going to be 1/6000 of the hydrogen gas being Deuterium which isn’t a big deal on it’s own. If deuterium is mixed with Tritium , this stuff goes Ka-Boom. Tritium is made from deuterium bombarded with neutrons in a PHWR reactor core .  Lithium-6-Deuteride is now used as a neutron source in the secondary instead of deuterium/Tritium mix.
   
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 16, 2018, 02:09:44 AM
Plenty of decent DIY electrolysis setups using stainless steel screens; the only bugger is the storage.  It is a pity to not be able to use the oxygen, since as you noted, it's a hell of a fuel booster, but like you, I found Brown's gas something to be be very careful around. It's shockingly explosive.  Isolation of oxygen at the plates seems to be the preferred method, as you noted, Glort.  You need a buck converter to dial down PV voltage or your efficiency will be poor and you'll boil off your electrolyte. If you need more gas production with reasonable efficiency it must be done by adding a lot more cathode and anode area. 

I did some experimenting with hydrogen when I was considering my off grid homestead plans. You can make it quite cheaply if you have access to scrap aluminum, just add lye-water solution but be prepared to deal with the substantial heat generated. It is a fabulous co-generator of heat plus hydrogen with relatively little aluminum consumed.  It can generate gas at moderate pressure without the need for a pump if your vessel can handle it as well as the lye water.

To use it in a conventional gas burner at 10" of water pressure, you must plug up roughly 2/3 of the holes and surround the propane burner element with stainless steel wool to act as a catalyst to lower the burn temperature.  With the stainless steel wool you can see the flame as bluish. You don't want air mixed in so stock gas-air mixers must be sealed well with foil tape and silicone caulk or lighting the burner will be dangerously explosive.  It did work, but for myself I found that the higher burning temperatures caused more oxides from air gasses, and I didn't find open hydrogen burning the odorless healthy panacea I was hoping for. (I did that testing with lab grade hydrogen.)  There will be similar issues to work out with it's use in IC engines, I expect.

I did find that the modifications for burning hydrogen instead of LP or Methane were manageable, though sadly, it could not be a single burner- dual fuel setup.







Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 16, 2018, 03:50:31 PM
The reason for reducing the gas burner holes is that hydrogen burns so much hotter than LP/methane that when adapting a gas cooking burner, you need less holes if operating at the same regulated pressure and with a standard lp/methane jet and metering valve regulating gas flow.  The stainless steel wool promotes mixing and as a catalytic surface helps reduce the flame temperatures and has the advantage of letting you see the flame.  Sufficient air mixing is at the stainless steel wool, premixing just creates an explosive mix so is avoided.  I found the information on the use of stainless steel wool somewhere on the web; I did not develop this myself, only experimented with it as an option for my off grid home.  I thought that variable gas rate generation under modest pressure to avoid pumping and storage was possible by raising/lowering the scrap aluminum into the lye bath or by controlling lye-water pumping rate, spraying the lye over the scrap aluminum. 

Various schemes have been proven for hydrogen generation via aluminum, including a water filled, aluminum wire feed against a rotating aluminum drum with electrical current applied to the wire. The drum speed and wire feed rate control the gas generation rate. One inventor used this successfully for an aluminum-hydrogen driven car.

Aluminum in lye water does NOT generate oxygen, which makes it an appealing hydrogen source.  Just make sure that you let it run to purge any air in your generation tank- the first gas you get will have enough air in it to be explosive.  An be prepared to deal with the rapidly heating lye water/aluminum solution...it will get very hot and will melt plastic unless you provide cooling. (You can imagine how I learned that lesson.)

The hydrogen car fantasy- that only water drips from the tailpipe, is only just that. The NOx problem is still there, when burning air.  If you burned brown's gas (with oxygen, not air) then it would be true.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 17, 2018, 12:03:45 AM
Don`t remember the guys name but he had a solar setup producing hydrogen which he safely stored in tanks filled with Lithium 6 deutoride. The tanks would release the hydrogen on demand when heated with an electric element.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 17, 2018, 03:55:16 PM
Politicans will say anything to obtain votes at the next election . The electorate tends to have  a very short memory.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on May 18, 2018, 05:56:39 AM
just wondering what the end-end efficiency of using refined aluminum wire and lye to generate hydrogen.
 Aluminum smelting is pretty power intensive, maybe it's useful as a "battery" but the cost is going to be pretty high.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 18, 2018, 03:30:37 PM
Both aluminum and other metals made by the Hall-Héroult process or electrolysis have been proposed as a means of energy storage. The efficiency is sub 50%...but storage is long term stable, and energy volumetric density is high. Alas, the aluminum smelting process generates a lot of "perfluorocarbons gases which are strong greenhouse gases with a long lifetime", and the hydrogen fluorides "tend to be very toxic to vegetation around the plants" (wikipedia).  So I doubt we'll see a shift to an aluminum based energy economy.

Synthetic propane (DME- dimethyl ether) is already being used around the world and may be produced via biomass and recently demonstrated biosynthesis via modified bacteria.  I like this possible solution for a renewable home/transport fuel as propane is a well proven fuel with a fairly clean exhaust.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: tiger on May 19, 2018, 03:40:10 AM
Some thing else to consider is the Vanadium flow batteries coming on line. Invented or made somewhat practical in OZ by a college student She developed a battery that stores the energy in the electrolyte and its capacity is determined by the amount of electrolyte one can store. They are practical so far only for stationary applications as large amounts of electrolyte are required. Several versions of electrolyte work including common sulfuric acid types. Many company's working on it, 1 in my neck of the woods, UNI Energy Technologys of Mulkilteo WA. USA.
There are several prototypes over 1 megawatts in operation.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 19, 2018, 05:33:39 PM
Nice experimental setup, Glort. 
I agree with your assessment that the start was slow due to oxides on the aluminum surface.  I used crumpled aluminum foil for my testing in a 5 gallon sealed lid pail as reactor vessal, which got a reaction going well in just a few minutes and had a good gas generation rate.  I used a bulkhead hose barb in the sealed lid and 1/2" outlet hose, and put it in a larger water filled trough for cooling.  I filled 30 gallon plastic trash bags with the gas.  Some became weather balloons.  I lit some off with a torch.

My original intention was for gas on demand, only enough to use directly for cooking. My limited testing showed that was possible with a modest sized generating vessel..perhaps 20 gallons for a gas oven.  The lye solution seemed to last pretty well but I didn't get very far on evaluation since burning lab grade hydrogen in air created NOx which was a project killer for me.

Aluminum plates can be used for electrolysis of water but you'd have to collect the oxygen separately...I think that would be the downside of trying to accelerate the process with an electrical current boost, as you were proposing...I think you will get oxygen in that case.

Thanks, Tiger for reminding us on the flow type battery progress.  The one commercial product for the US home power market went out of business last year...not enough market yet, and quite costly.  I didn't realize there were 1-4 GW grid connected systems like that in operation now around the world, with 1-4 day storage capability.







Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 20, 2018, 04:27:13 PM
Having done the full CS conversion to spark/propane for my neighbor, I can tell you with confidence that for a full conversion what you need is a gas carb like the Impco CA-110. It has a huge diaphram that can cope with the intermittent intake gulping of the CS.  Likewise, the regulator is critical and you must use the Garret/Impco regulator with the very large diaphram for the same reason. 

High speed engines are much cheaper to convert and the IMPCO carbs are much more common and thus cheaper for those. 

I know nothing about specific hydrogen engine conversion issues; I never go that far.

For hydrogen as a supplemental fuel there is a good chance hydrogen can be just jetted directly into the intake manifold of a diesel engine per CarlB's natural gas setup.  A diesel can run 85% NG, but only 20-25% LP.  I'll bet someone has tried adding hydrogen gas to a diesel.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 23, 2018, 07:32:57 AM
Hey Glort, further to your rant about SA running back up generators, I came across this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines--insane-true-eco-scandals.html

Makes the SA government look like amateurs at wasting money.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 23, 2018, 08:08:27 AM
We were talking earlier about the amount of electrical energy it would take to turn a national fleet of internal combustion engined vehicles (or maybe most of that fleet) to zero-emission vehicles (I guess right now that's pedals or electricity)

Nationally, we have a formal goal of Zero Emissions by 2050.  Maybe that's realistic?  Maybe it's half realistic?  Maybe its govt bullshit? - you choose

But what interested me about it was the estimate of how much electrical energy we would need.  Best guess is "twice as much".  So that's one thing to think about it.  As a nation we could do that fairly easily if the political will & consensus was there to build more hydro and more windmills - those are a couple of big "ifs" though.

More interesting, at least IMHO, is contingency planning for events like a "dry year" (most of our generation is hydro, and if the lakes get too low . . .).  The 15% of our national generation that is non-renewable is gas/diesel/coal and they are our back-ups if the lakes are low

So along with issues around simple volume of demand; we have issues around security of supply

I'm an unashamed fan of EVs but I'm not naive or head-in-the-sand about the issues

I think we have interesting times ahead
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 23, 2018, 09:00:50 AM
Interesting times and big challenges. I notice that the Australian government has ordered 20 Hyundai hydrogen fuel cell cars, for experimental purposes. There is presently only one hydrogen fuel pump in Australia so how they plan to fuel these vehicles is a mystery. I believe they have a range of around 800 km, so comparable with many gasoline vehicles. They can be refueled in about ten minutes which is bearable, plug in the fuel line, go get a coffee, pay and drive away.

I suspect that these vehicles will be very popular if people can generate hydrogen from solar and safely store it. I have reservations about home hydrogen storage in Australia due to the constant threat of bush fires. God help our firemen.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 23, 2018, 09:10:54 AM
Hey Glort, no shortage of evidence to suggest we are all being taken down a blind alley at enormous expense to consumers and industry. The problem is that half the world has signed up to carbon emissions targets that are unrealistic. I believe that as oil starts to run out and prices start to rise dramatically, other energy solutions will become economically viable and common place.

As for flying cars, heaven forbid! Most of the idiots that learned to drive on an X Box can`t manage to control a vehicle in two dimensions please don`t introduce a third.

Bob 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 23, 2018, 04:12:16 PM
Carbon taxes are/were an attempt to harness the amazing greed-power of capitalism towards generating solutions to the mess we're handing our great grand children.  Alas, legislation crafted by lawyers often creates windfalls for opportunists which don't solve anything.   

After more reading I think that the mass production of lots of modular 100MW LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium) fission reactors would buy us the 1000 years we need and let us us our stockpiles of thorium waste from rare earth mining while generating very little radioactive waste. The air cooled version would be a huge help for those regions like the SW US which are drying up.  It's about the only thing I've seen that is a proven design, that could actually provide the HUGE amount of cheap power we need to replace fossil fuels.  The data from Germany convinced me; their massive PV program didn't even offset their puny population growth; their total fossil fuel use has increased while electricity costs have doubled.

The only proven renewable (besides hydro) that is well suited to self storage of energy is the solar- molten salt system. Typically that's only storage of a day or two .  I doubt it could compete economically with a Thorium plant, but they probably would make sense for the desert SW US where air conditioning loads dominate and diminish on the rare cloudy days.

We have a fundamental problem in that our elected decision makers are mostly lawyers and don't have the technical background to make good decisions in this highly technical area. For technical decisions they are on the left hand side of the Dunning-Kruger curve; they know nearly nothing but think they do.  So they revert to decisions based on which corporations contribute the most to their campaign and what their polling experts think will get them re-elected.

Interesting times ahead; on that we can all agree.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on May 23, 2018, 09:02:07 PM
Since we're talking about electric vehicles... (I assume?), I rather like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGjOY4JBmy4

Hmm. I've got an old (35 years old) Ford Granada estate (station wagon, for you Yankees :D, not sure about you Aussies, erm, covered Ute maybe?) , like this, only mine is in Jewish Racing Gold:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8236/29097609492_8f32c32496_b.jpg)

(a note on scale: This is about half the size of an equivalent age US "full size" car  :laugh:)

I reckon I could get a stack of batteries in that, a couple of 120bhp motors would give it 75% more power than the asthmatic 2.8 litre V6 it has now (I was going to stick a 400bhp V8 in it... but actually I kind of like the retro-electric idea).
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 24, 2018, 01:25:10 AM
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.





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 24, 2018, 02:12:02 AM
here in Australasia this is an option

https://www.mmnz.co.nz/vehicles/outlander-phev/

My neighbour commutes in one of these every day.  It's a company car.  Her round-trip is 46 Ks.  the Mitsubishi claims 54Ks range and that must be close as she never runs out of charge.  Her commute is 2Ks up and down a winding gravel farm track, 10Ks of country road (3rd gear in my Camry) and the rest highway with a couple of Ks of town at the end

She plugs it in every day at work and never puts any petrol in it - I figure the gas has probably gone stale by now

She has been driving it for maybe three or four years with zero issues.  One of them as a secondhand car might be an OK deal if you had a commute of that size

There are about 45 of them on TradeMe right now $26-35K depending on age/Ks etc
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 24, 2018, 08:39:44 AM
IMHO the tech curve is both climbing & steepening

Remember this?

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/07/flying-around-the-world-in-a-solar-powered-plane/493085/

Sure, slow, expensive and fragile, but powered just by the sunlight on its wings

At the other end of the scale - this fellow just shaved 20 secs off it's own lap record to lap the Nurburgring in 6 and a half minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcepG9Twa_8

Faster than any Porsche, Lamborghini, mad Nissan . . .

I suspect we're just beginning to see the edge of future energy achievements.  Maybe not in my lifetime, but . . .

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 24, 2018, 04:50:21 PM
Free used veggie oil is unbeatable in cost and renewable green star points.   :D
 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: AdeV on May 24, 2018, 08:31:37 PM
Hey Glort, have you heard of "black diesel"? 3/4 used motor oil, 1/4 regular unleaded petrol (gas) if I recall correctly...

Won't get you any green points, but it might make your local mechanics very happy bunnies, if they don't have to pay to dispose of their waste oil any more...
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 25, 2018, 02:44:18 AM
Helga's yellow looks great in that photo! My 1985 300D is still looking pretty good inside and out, and still has the original paint. It's a bit faded but beige fades towards white gracefully.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 29, 2018, 11:56:09 PM
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.

This topic of:   electric cars/the future/ adequate power generation/advancing tech  - we have talked about it lots and there are many different viewpoints . . .

But it continues to interest me

There was a motoring industry chap on the radio this morning talking about the age of our fleet; and his words prompted me to go look at some numbers:

In our small country of NZ we register about 8500 new cars every month on average

If every one of those was an electric car it would still take 25 years to replace the whole national fleet of passenger cars

Our electricity use has been more-or-less static (sometimes declining slightly) over the last decade and we have surplus capacity (a lot of the times out windmills are braked and "turned off" as the hydro lakes are full)

I can't help thinking that with advancing tech and some smart decisions, a big electric fleet over the next, say, thirty years is probably do-able

just my $0.02
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 30, 2018, 12:20:19 AM
Hi Mike, I think that in any country with a surplus of renewable energy electric vehicles make perfect sense. Most people only us their personal transport to commute short distances to work, schools, shops & etc. so range is not a huge factor. Cost however is a big deal, why would anyone in their right mind pay a lot more money for a vehicle that won`t do what its predecessor did and will probably need a new battery pack in five years time?

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on May 30, 2018, 12:44:29 AM
Good solid points, Bob, and I think probably the answers are multi-faceted?

Firstly, I would think a forward-thinking and enlightened government (and, no, I don't know where we're going to find one of those either) would have been buying EVs exclusively for its own fleet and obliging Local Bodies to do the same - starting about five years ago - we would already be enjoying he benefits of the three-year-rollover of vehicles into the national second-hand fleet/pool if that were the case.  I think we are considering these moves now-ish . . . so in another few years . . .

Batteries?  I think the conventional wisdom is about 12 years life (with substantially reduced range for the last couple of these)  BUT we are already seeing market forces at work as aftermarket players begin to supply battery packs for the Nissan Leaf - and I guess others will follow.  Costs might be in the order of $4K landed as opposed to estimates of $7-12K as OE parts

On that basis, with a "fuel" cost around $0.02 a kilometre and "maintenance" around $0.01 a kilometre (depending on who you believe) buying a, say, $20K car as a five or ten-year proposition makes a lot of sense

IMHO it will be interesting to watch as market forces do unexpected things in this area, and as petrol costs and taxes change over time, and as tech advances change the market too

Cheers
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 30, 2018, 12:54:19 AM
I think that finding an enlightened forward thinking government is about as likely as finding fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Much more likely that market forces and advertising will dictate the direction we go in.
Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on May 30, 2018, 06:19:47 PM
Systems people!  Whenever you modify one part of a system don't expect the other segments to remain the same.  The propaganda I see suggests that more and more vehicles just aren't going to have ICE power.  As selection opportunities evolve so will choices.

It's fun to stand on the sidelines and watch all the mistakes the coaches are making but I'm more interested in your resolutions to solve the problems.  Few will suggest throwing the coaches out of the game.  Governments have been around quite a while.

Best wishes,
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 30, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
Hey Glort, I stand corrected. Perhaps I have slightly too much faith in government and business, I will try to be more sceptical in future.
Here is an interesting take on how to roll out electric vehicles https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/zipcar-plans-roll-electric-fleet-144740082.html

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on May 31, 2018, 12:39:41 AM
Very interesting link, Bob, thanks. I like the concept.



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on May 31, 2018, 09:42:20 AM
Hey Glort, for once I disagree with you. I think that for city dwellers EVs are the way forward, your average commuter/house wife does not need a vehicle that will be able to drive from Melbourne to Darwin, nor do city dwellers need to be breathing in the toxic emissions from IC engines. They need a simple small vehicle that will get them to work and back and to the supermarket. Perhaps vehicle hire companies can fill the void by hiring out longer range IC vehicles to people planning a long trip.
I still have very severe reservations about the ability of the grid system to power the city EVs, however the idea that generating capacity could be maintained after midnight to charge EVs might have some merit. Cycling generators up and down to meet demand is very inefficient, so having a heavy night time load may make economic sense.
Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on May 31, 2018, 06:59:48 PM
The temporary car rental (is that redundant?) system is intriguing.  I'm thinking it'll be a lot easier for the less ownership minded folks in our economies than me.  I've watched a couple of articles about the rejection - vandalism the scooter ride share companies are facing in San Francisco.  Cars should be different as they aren't as scary to the sidewalk patrons. 

The two electric cars I driven were a nice ride.  The smaller ones that interest me the most will fully charge over night.  What a nice way to start out the morning.  Full tank of fuel and no toxic waste transfer stations to deal with or should I write gas stations. ;)



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles. Build cost?
Post by: buickanddeere on May 31, 2018, 09:06:23 PM
Has anyone found access to what it costs GM to build a Bolt vs a Sonic ? Or a Volt vs a Cruze ? Then there is “cost “. Wages for the day, materials and amortized wear on the rolling . Or all in considering engineering, legal, advertising , pensions and the actual build price .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on May 31, 2018, 09:09:19 PM
Overnight charging with L1 and L2 chargers should be reasonably well tolerated by the utility grid . Daytime charging while commuters are at work , not a good idea .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 01:04:33 AM
Another issue that has been completely overlooked is the availability of parking in urban areas. When I lived in London only the very wealthy could afford off street parking and a home with a built in garage was exorbitantly expensive. Ordinary mortals, like myself, had to find parking on the street. So how am I going to plug in my EV to charge? Are the government going to dig up every road in London to install charging points? What are the health and safety implications of having every pavement covered in electric cables, who will be liable when someone trips over one of these and injures themselves? Who is going to maintain these cables to prevent the general public being electrocuted?

Too many questions, not enough answers.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 03:24:10 AM
Hey Glort, I recently saw a review of the latest BMW EV, it comes with a wireless charger as an optional extra. You just park your vehicle over the floor mat charger and walk away. I guess BMW owners are too important or too busy to plug in their cars. What sort of exposure the drivers will get to dangerous radiation is any bodies guess. Bruce would have a fit.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on June 01, 2018, 04:56:45 AM
Air coupled transformers are grossly inefficient, besides spewing huge stray magnetic fields.  Another triumph of the wireless marketing over all reason.  Imagine sacrificing 20% or more efficiency in charging a car, as much power as your entire home uses, just so you don't have to use a cord.





Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 05:46:02 AM
You can be bloody sure that If you have one of these thing lying on your driveway some Muppet is going to run over it with the lawn mower, killing themselves and knocking out the power to the whole street.

There is nothing green about an extra 20% loss in efficiency. In the EU they banned high power vacuum cleaners because they were too inefficient and yet they are actively promoting this sort of pointless sh1t.

F*cking speechless!

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on June 01, 2018, 07:48:57 AM
Wireless charging devices of all types have been proposed for many years, yet still "new" product promotions are made in the usual fashion made on a regular basis.  Most of them are lucky to get 60% efficiency. Even using resonant coils at higher frequencies, it's still grossly inefficient.

There is a reason serious engineers have been using stacked or wound silicon steel (aka electrical steel or grain oriented electrical steel) sheets for power transformer cores the last 98 years...

 



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 08:39:34 AM
Hey BruceM, once again you are a fountain of knowledge and FACTS. When are we the dumb sheeple going to hand over control of science, engineering and the environment to people who have at least some modicum of understanding of the challenges facing humanity? I am really worried that those presently in charge are more interested in their personal wealth and social standing than the welfare of the ten billion people they are supposed to represent. I don`t see any of this ending well.

Still F*cking speechless, thank God I can still type.
Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 11:17:14 AM
Hey Guys, I am, I think, beginning to get a handle on how this is going to work: government will slowly outlaw IC engines and coal fired generation, in the name of environmental greenness. Big business and energy producers will slowly but surely build huge solar arrays to harvest the sun`s energy. All good so far, the problem has always been storage for night time/cloudy day use. Guess what, it won`t be the responsibility of the energy supplier, it will be the home owners responsibility to supply and maintain enough energy storage to power there home/EV & etc. This leaves the generation companies free to continue to rort the system without any guarantee of continuous supply. It allows the government to claim green credentials while continuing to tax people for their energy usage.
If you are poor and can`t afford the necessary storage you get to sit in the cold and dark, no doubt there will be some emergency night time power available at a hugely inflated price.
I can see the greedy B*stards rubbing there hands together thinking how clever they are for duping the sheeple again, watch your backs they`re out to get you. Investigate energy storage solutions and hope for a miracle.
Still F*cking speechless
Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: guest23837 on June 01, 2018, 12:53:51 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/electrified-road-sweden-first-ever-charge-cars-trucks-vehicles-stockholm-a8302656.html
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: guest23837 on June 01, 2018, 03:59:54 PM
Apparently they can charge batteries wirelessly too. You'd have coils connected to the grid on main roads probably to reduce the risk of people running out of juice but if it were to happen I'm sure it would be at a cost. I know there's phones you can charg without a wired charger so the technology exists. I was reading somewhere the other day that they (they being car manufacturers) can modify a diesel engine exhaust to such an extent that a 2.0 diesel pollutes less than a 1.0 petrol. Maybe too late for the diesel now? I used to have an Audi A4 diesel but they changed the insurance rules in Ireland so nobody will cover a car over 15 years old in an affordable way. My car was well maintained old change every 6k all repairs done immediately they were needed it was sold for scrap.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on June 01, 2018, 04:32:10 PM
All wireless power transmission of the sort being discussed is based on the horribly inefficient air core transformer...with massive stray magnetic fields.  Technically foolish and biologically harmful.

it's very frustrating to watch the whole world get caught up in wireless and connectivity hype, while watching increasing numbers of people become ill and disabled from wireless.  The new push for 5G is an outrageous disaster in the making.  The 5G "small cells" are NOT low power, and they have manipulated legislation so that they can put 2K watt worth of transmitters on light and power poles right outside your bedroom.  There's that annoying bit of physics that all transmitted power falls off with the square of the distance; which is also why complaining about cell towers while using cell phones and WIFI in the home is irrational.  A broadband RF meter quickly helps you learn what you can't see or immediately feel.

The same falling off with the square of the distance applies to magnetic fields from transformers, power supplies and coils and such; often just relocating them somewhat can make very big differences in your daily (and nightly) exposure levels.  The night time exposures are especially important.

There's some very high quality research showing pulsed microwaves open the blood-brain barrier; given our well documented high levels of xenobiotics in our bloodstream this might help explain a lot of problems and alarming disease trends.

When helping with home mitigation there are two things I find most important. First, I look for low hanging fruit where 10 fold improvements can be made and do those first. Spending a bunch of time and money on small improvements is not productive.  Second, the typical non-placebo response is a slow improvement in health over the following 90 days after the home is fixed.  It is not an on/off switch, the health effects are deeper and more systemic.  Improvement in sleep quality is a very positive sign that someone will be getting better, but often there is just a very slow and steady improvement.

For some reason, it is very hard for most of us (including myself) to want to deal with the EMF situation. It's technical and scary, never a popular combination.  I only got started about 29 years ago when someone visiting me showed me a meter and the readings in various places.  The biggest hurdle is getting started.






Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on June 01, 2018, 06:49:31 PM
Sensible rules the EPA would breath life into the new and old diesels . I do not condone billowing  black smoke from exhaust stack but neither does the air coming out of the engine have to  be cleaner than the air that went in . Tier 1 is fine for under 100HP in light duty intermittent, standby or hobby applications
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 11:27:37 PM
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
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: guest23837 on June 01, 2018, 11:39:59 PM
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

All electrical things are beyond me so the technology for this is way above my head. I like diesel engines the power, the torque and the fuel economy are great. A few years ago there were a couple of biodiesel plants round here one made diesel from waste cooking oil and another from rape seed and algae. Then the crash came and diesel prices dropped by about 40%. These were very clean fuels and probably environmentally good or neutral at worst. Of course the guys making the diesel were on pennies to the liter and couldn't compete with OPEC and then the frackers and sand oil guys got going. Now diesel is going up a couple of cents twice a week but the biodiesel plants are closed. Bugger
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 11:45:11 PM
Hey Glort, very interested in your idea of having the Chinese reverse engineer a superior Listeroid. Trouble is you can be sure the government would ban their import to protect the environment (protect vested interests).
I`ll be very surprised if China don`t already make them. I`m sure a quick look on Alibaba will reveal the truth.

The good news is that I have finally had my income protection insurance claim approved. Only took 18 months! That will give me the money I need to complete my Lister 6/1 rebuild. Rob at old timer engines is going to think it`s his birthday when he gets the parts list. I will start to post pictures of progress once the spares arrive.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 01, 2018, 11:57:00 PM
Hey Johndoh, I`m with you on all things diesel. Much rather try to fix something mechanical than electrical. Used to be OK before they miniaturised everything into silicon chips.

Shame to hear about the loss of biodiesel production, assuming that the raw/recycled materials are still available, you could try making your own. A couple of thousand litres per year wouldn`t be too taxing and should provide you with all you need.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on June 02, 2018, 06:23:51 PM
There is some chance that once the electrified motor cars become more of a reality to the ICE people that they'll start coming up with some real innovations.  You know, all those 100 miles per gallon units that were purchased from independent inventors and then put in the giant warehouse of secrets out in the desert.  OK.  It's small chance but it's what I'm reminded of when I read some of the contributions made to this forum.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: ajaffa1 on June 02, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hey Lowgear, there is no shortage of conspiracy theories suggesting that big manufacturers and other vested interests own the patents on a great many cool inventions. One of the worst culprits is the US military who simply have to claim that an invention could be used as a weapon by a foreign power for it becomes a state secret. I suspect the US government aren`t the only ones using this tactic.

Bob
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 04, 2018, 03:59:02 PM
The only thing that will keep Tesla afloat is the utter irrationality of it's fans; it's clear that automobile production in large volumes is not in their skill set and the losses per model 3 out the door are not sustainable.  The arrogance is entertaining; he should have brought in the best in production expertise from the auto industry. He may have tried and been shunned for the obvious reasons. 

One more stone added to the ever increasing daily load of EMF exposure.  The increase in chronic illness, degenerative neurological diseases in the elderly and autism spectrum in children is already stunning.  Conventional gas and diesel cars are rushing to add more wireless transmitters, digital electronics and switch mode power supplies so that they can keep up with the onslaught.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 04, 2018, 06:19:52 PM
Alas, aluminum foil is utterly transparent to ELF magnetic fields, and only starts to be meaningful in shielding magnetic fields over 1MHz.  Electrical steel (silicon steel) or mu-metals are used for lower frequency magnetic fields and can't be made into fabrics as thickness is required.  A single layer of GOES (grain oriented silicone steel) typically provides only 50% reduction. Multiple insulated layers are used for higher shielding.  Shielding a high power electrical motor to a level needed to allow someone to sit two feet away will be a serious engineering challenge; the cost and weight will be substantial.  Pure DC does not cause problems so the battery issue will have to be addressed by LC filtering of the drawn current down to pure DC. Doable, but again adds weight and cost.

Full blown electrical hypersensitivity will be the far less common outcome.  Disregulation of the endocrine, immune and nervous systems, and toxic injury to the brain from opening the blood-brain barrier have diverse effects that will depend on your genome and epigenetics.  Sitting on top of the battery, right next to a high power electric motor on a VFD is certainly a good stress test for your body.

Toxic injury to the brain is no fun. Every aspect of your quality and joy of life will be greatly diminished. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on July 04, 2018, 07:19:56 PM
The motor industry doesn't have large scale "middle ground market" players who are independent

You have Corollas as cheap cars and Rolls-Royces as expensive cars

In the middle - at Tesla price-point - you have the top half of Audis, you have Lexus, you have the middle of the Mercedes-Benz range, you might have the cheapest third of Porsche . . .

But these are all part of monster manufacturers, none "independent" like Tesla

The closest comparison might be the now Indian-owned Jaguar which is now certainly making better cars than it ever did in British ownership - but Jaguar has badge cred . . .

Tesla will survive if it can manage "scale", or if it gets into bed with a bigger company, or if it has a continuing willingness to absorb losses
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 05, 2018, 01:25:03 AM
"Seems like that could be a good way to Take down EV enthusiasm. Start a Public awareness campaign and let social media do the rest."
Not likely.  The power industry has spent hundreds of millions on cigarette science, and the WHO is loaded with industry insiders.  It's pretty outrageous-  Andrew Marino book covers it fairly well. Other absurd references to various bogus standards based on industry denial.

"I note the Jag Ipace is DC Permanent Magnet motors.  Don't know if they are just DC or 3 phase which would seem likely and there would be a controller throwing out or causing EMF. If they are straight DC, Then they have the Kryptonite to dispatch Tesla."
Nope, there really is no such thing as DC in the operation of a motor; all electric motors depend on either electronic or mechanical commutation or alternation of current.  It is true that with special attention to design, stray magnetic fields could be reduced substantially.  It's just not even a design issue now.  A good example is your home refrigerator -freezer.  The compressor motor is typically NOT a significant stray field producer; it's field will fall off to below 0.008 milligaus (8 microgaus)  in about 4 feet or so.  The small fan for the compressor coils is also not a major source. But the lousy open frame motor used to blow the freezer air down into the refrigerator is a nasty bastard and typically affects a radius of 24 feet to the same 0.008 milligaus. 

The urge to deny any potential problems and remove liability by large corporations is an overwhelming force.  Pity, because it just isn't that hard to reduce home EMF levels a hundredfold or two orders of magnitude.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on July 06, 2018, 06:12:08 PM
One of the two provinces in Canada that gave tax payer’s money to EV users is ending the subsidy. Ontario voters decided they did not want to give $9500-$14,000BEV and hybrid purchasers .
  Just leaves British Columbia iirc to try and make a mass market where none exists . Why purchase a $52,000 Bolt when $23,000 will bring home the same vehicle with the Sonic nameplate .
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on July 07, 2018, 05:17:38 PM
My much cherished green publications report that 2019 is going to be "The Year".  Get ready.

I too; am worried about Elon.  What an extraordinary person.  What a disruptive force to deal with.  What fun to watch a "B" movie in real life.

Casey
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 07, 2018, 05:59:13 PM
What's with "globull warming", Glort?  Do you actually doubt the scientific consensus or are you just reacting out of frustration for green party incompetence in Australia?
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 08, 2018, 03:10:02 AM
The corruption of science by wealthy and corporate interests, and the spinning of propaganda by governments has made many people entirely distrustful of any science.  The oil and gas industries/owners have bought themselves many years of profits by sowing doubts just like yours, and I'm sorry to see them be as successful as they are.

In the case of rising CO2 levels,  among the scientists who work in this field, there is a super-majority beyond which there is no higher level possible with humans involved. I know how difficult this is since I worked in a military research lab with about 30 PhDs . Our larger organization had hundreds of PHD's. Getting a small group of PhDs to agree on anything was virtually impossible.

When you think that you know about a field of science in which people have spent their entire academic lives working in,  this is likely the result of the Dunning-Kruger effect which has been extremely well confirmed as an inherent human trait. You often see it in PhD's ruminating about fields outside there own field.  We are all susceptible.

I don't trust governments or scientists in general, and have a distrust of my own brain damaged intellect. In this case, having looked more closely at the CO2 data and the subsequent ocean temperature and arctic ice loss confirmations by NASA, it's pretty damned obvious the scientific consensus is warranted and we're in serious trouble.  Scientists get ridiculed and attacked within their own ranks for making exaggerated statements- so they intentionally understate and avoid grandstanding.  Some have expressed the situation in terms like "possible extinction event".  They just don't know what will happen to the worlds ecosystem balance as CO2 levels rise above those estimated for our current epoch, and they are very concerned.  They are concerned that by doing nothing, we may bring about our extinction.  While I'm not a huge fan of humans, I don't know of any better sentient beings, and I think we should try to use the best science available to guide us. 









Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mikenash on July 08, 2018, 05:09:32 AM
Bruce M says:

" . . . I don't know of any better sentient beings, and I think we should try to use the best science available to guide us . . ."

And I say  +1
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: mike90045 on July 08, 2018, 06:34:15 AM
So, does burning fossil fuel raise Co2, or chopping down forests and burning them to clear land, increase Co2. 
How about a month long volcanic eruption? (I guess that has some cooling aerosols too)

So many factors, different models that never converge, and raw data needing to be "processed" before it can be used.  And the largest factor, solar variability.

I'm quite skeptical myself, predicted cooling in the 70's , freon eating the ozone layer,  magnetic poles weakening and moving, dire warnings of warming. 
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: dieselspanner on July 08, 2018, 08:00:31 AM
I don't know either, however should we not take the action that may be needed then we'll regret it far more that trying to save a planet that was doing alright on it's own...............

Cheers Stef
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 08, 2018, 04:33:38 PM
All the skepticism Mike90045 raises are specifically from the program of misinformation funded by the Koch brothers and their program of using their inheritance tax avoiding foundation interest money to fund a political agenda for their increased personal and corporate profits.  ''Dark Money'' is a depressing but eye opening book about how they and others have gone about this, with amazing success. 

Freon was phased out worldwide to address the ozone problem, with global cooperation, and the result was that the problem was arrested and is now reversing (the molecules last 20-100 years). This is an example of taking action on the best scientific data, and having it work. Not the other way around.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/ozone-layer-mend-thanks-chemical-ban

None of the theories such as predictions of another ice age were in any way a consensus of the field. They were the musing of a few individuals based on some evidence of a repeating pattern of ice ages.  Using this type of distortion of science to confuse and delay action on CO2 is exactly the mission of the Kochs, and it has been highly effective in the US.


Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: LowGear on July 08, 2018, 05:50:18 PM
My father always questioned the conservation mantra of not too many years ago.  "Only YOU can prevent forest fires!"  He pointed out lightening strikes.  The part of the mantra that he didn't see was that only people can modify their behavior to reduce the number of forest fires.  We do many activities that reduce the consequences of humans being on the planet.  Natural phenomena does not release us from intelligent, responsible or moral behavior.  Back to the camp site.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: 32 coupe on July 08, 2018, 07:28:56 PM
Bruce,
"Freon"  being phased out in my opinion has been a joke.

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 but look on line and you will see the Chinese
are manufacturing TONS of the stuff as well as exporting it every day.
I saw a documentary not to long ago about a man who went to China, saw it being made,
and asked about importing to the US. The response was that China could not directly import
into the US but by shipping through other countries they could eventually get it into the country.

It will eventually go away but I would.be surprised if it were any time soon.

Have you seen the replacement for 134a in cars ? That is scary stuff that is flammable !
Mercedes has been fighting it in court for a number of years. But it is here in a few cars
and widely used in europe. At $800 for a 10 pound jug it's going to be very costly for
consumers.

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.



Gary



Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 08, 2018, 11:04:59 PM
As badly implemented as it was, the improvement in the arctic ozone hole is measurable. I think you've missed the forest for the trees-  vast amounts of R12 was never put in service, with only mild disruption.  Perfection isn't in the available range of choices for any human activity, certainly not for regulations. 

The stumble ahead continues as HFC's that had less impact on ozone have been found to be highly effective as greenhouse gasses. 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/epa-bans-greenhouse-gas-19197

Certainty and constancy are illusions.










Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: broncodriver99 on July 09, 2018, 01:12:54 AM
"Freon" is a trade name copyrighted by Chemours/Dupont. There are many other names used.

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.

R-22 is not officially slated to be phased out in the US until Jan. 1, 2020. It was allowed in new equipment until 2010. In 2020, production of new R-22 ends. Anything already manufactured and in the distribution network will still be available as well as recycled refrigerant. R-22 will be around for the next 20 years. The amount of equipment that uses R-22 is astounding. One can still buy virgin R-12 if there is a need, it is just very expensive.

Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: broncodriver99 on July 09, 2018, 01:13:27 AM
CFC's were the first to be banned and are the ones that have been attributed with causing damage to the ozone layer. It was found that the chlorine atoms were the culprit. They were replaced with HCFC's(R-22 being one) which have a lower ozone depletion potential but still have a high potential as a greenhouse gas. HCFC's have been replaced with HFC's(R-134a, R-404a, R-410A). HFC's have almost zero ozone depletion potential but have a high greenhouse gas potential. Most HFC's have a higher greenhouse gas value than R-22. HFC's also take much longer to break down in the atmosphere than HCFC's so their greenhouse potential sticks around longer. Now there is a big push to replace HFC's with HC (hydrocarbon) refrigerants, R-290 is the most widely used and is what most manufacturers are shifting to as a replacement for R-134a. R-290 is a high grade of propane. It has been in use for a long time in specialty equipment but is now becoming the standard in consumer appliances and small systems with a small refrigerant charge and therefore explosion risk is minimal.

A big problem with HFC's is that many are zeotropic meaning the compounds within the blend have different boiling points(called glide) and different leak rates. If a system using a zeotropic refrigerant suffers a leak and only part of the charge is lost the remaining refrigerant must be recovered and sent off for destruction and virgin refrigerant must be used to recharge the system. If one "tops" off the charge the pressures and temperatures become skewed and the equipment will likely not operate correctly.

Another big problem with HFC's is the oil that is required. They use a very high grade of POE oil that is extremely sensitive to moisture. It also has a tendency to plate out forming a powdery substance that blocks capillary tubes and TXV's when exposed to high condensing temperatures. This usually burns the compressor up causing a piece of equipment to end up in the landfill. R-410a has the added problem of running very high discharge pressure. There are a lot of leak failures in R-410a equipment and all of the major manufacturers have had a hard time with ruptured coils. So, even though R-410a might be marginally better for the atmosphere much more of it is making it's way into the atmosphere due to leaking equipment because of the higher pressures.

I can say that equipment using CFC's and HCFC's seems to last longer with much less repair being required. Some of this may be due in part to the recent onslaught of cheaply built imported equipment but the inherent problems with HFC's definitely cause a lot more service problems than CFC's and HCFC's ever had. The question is, is the environment better off with refrigerants that are marginally better for the atmosphere but have inherent problems that cause a lot of equipment to be land filled prematurely due to failure? If you add in the energy and resources used to manufacture equipment to replace the large numbers that fail prematurely are HFC's really better for the environment?

It will be interesting to see how the HC's do. One advantage to the new HC refrigerants is that manufacturers can return to using mineral oil like CFC and HCFC systems and get away from POE oil and it's issues. I would like to see a lot more large scale systems going back to ammonia chiller systems as they are extremely efficient and ammonia being naturally occurring has near zero effect on the atmosphere.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 09, 2018, 06:26:59 AM
Thanks for the explaination on developments in HC, HCFC's, etc, broncodriver. Much appreciated.  Given the alternatives I agree that HC looks the way to go.  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.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: broncodriver99 on July 09, 2018, 03:45:57 PM
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.

Yes, they are an absorption type system and have been around since the 1950's. Lithium Bromide is an alternative to the Ammonia/Hydrogen absorption process. Absorption systems are Very interesting as they use waste heat or collected heat to generate a cooling process. The RV refrigerator is an example of an absorption system though it uses ammonia, hydrogen, and water. The lithium bromide "brine" that is used in the absorption process is very corrosive and requires a lot of maintenance to maintain proper operation. There is some new development going on with absorption systems but unless one has a lot of waste heat on hand they aren't practical as the compression refrigeration system is much cheaper and more efficient. There used to be a lot of "gas" powered air conditioning systems in the mid-west and on the west coast. They were absorption systems powered by NG/LPG. They were handy where electricity prices were higher than gas prices or electrical service was limited.  The company that made them halted production sometime in the '80's. One reason absorption systems may be slow to catch on in the desert is that most systems over a few tons of capacity are water cooled.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: BruceM on July 09, 2018, 04:29:47 PM
I  recall that the lithium bromide systems could operate on lower temperatures- so that a solar hot water loop with say 85% efficiency panels could be used instead of PV (16%).  The Audobon Debs Park building outside LA uses lithium bromide/solar hot water system for cooling; it uses 200 degree F water to operate.

I have a propane/ammonia  operated refrigerator/freezer. It takes a big burden off my battery bank. I modified it to be sealed combustion.  The complete absence of noise is blissful.  I just wish it was dual heat source so it could be PV heated during the day.  It uses about $15/mo worth of propane.  It's in a separate gas kitchen with good outdoor cross ventilation via windows. The gas kitchen is insulated from the rest of the house, so the waste heat doesn't heat the house in summer.  In the winter it heats that room.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on July 09, 2018, 06:04:21 PM
Looked it up , excellent reading and very enlightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: buickanddeere on July 09, 2018, 06:07:55 PM
CO2 only makes up .1% to .2% of all the combined greenhouse gases . 300, 600 or 900ppm is not going to make a flea phart’s difference  in a wind storm. 
  If worried about iceberg calving off Antiartica . Have a look at the unprecentes volcanic activity occurring under the icesheet.
Title: Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
Post by: broncodriver99 on July 09, 2018, 06:57:28 PM
........