Nuclear Power Needs To Go

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Electric cars powered by electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources.

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/elect...e-vs-electric/

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

Solar is only really viable where the sun shines a lot and people don't live (i.e., where you have the space for solar panel "farms"). Wind power is only viable where the wind reliably blows and people don't live or don't mind turbines in their yards or beaches. Tidal is only viable along coasts with very high tidal range and geothermal is viable in places like Iceland. Morever, generating solar power in the middle of a remote desert or wind power on a remote mountain top both require lots of new transmission lines (beyond those of the current grid).

I firmly believe in replacing as much non-renewable energy as is practical/possible in an industrialized economy. To think that we'll get to 100% anytime soon is a pipe-dream of Bernie-like proportions.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/elect...e-vs-electric/

I challenge you this assertion. Energy generation in power plants is a heck of a lot more efficient than automobiles since heat generated in automotive engines goes out through the tail pipe and the radiator. Waste heat generated in power plants is sequentially trapped and used elsewhere. They don't simply go up the smoke-stack nor is an internal combustion engine designed to develop heat. So those are two strikes against an internal combustion engine.

So to claim that energy conversion in a electric car vs. internal combustion engines are the same is ludicrous.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I challenge you this assertion. Energy generation in power plants is a heck of a lot more efficient than automobiles since heat generated in automotive engines goes out through the tail pipe and the radiator. Waste heat generated in power plants is sequentially trapped and used elsewhere. They don't simply go up the smoke-stack nor is an internal combustion engine designed to develop heat. So those are two strikes against an internal combustion engine.

So to claim that energy conversion in a electric car vs. internal combustion engines are the same is ludicrous.

I didn't claim it. The cited article did. From original energy source to ultimate kW/mile on the road, it makes sense when one considers the conservation of energy. Different steps along the way will be more or less efficient (or environmentally friendly) for each type of vehicle, but in the end, energy expended is energy expended.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.

CANDU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

CANDU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

No. They simply go by the name of (small) modular reactors. If you're interested, here are a couple of links providing an overview:

http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-rea...clear-reactors
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/N...odular-Reactor

[nailer]

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by nailer

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat.

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two?

Felix Wankel would have something to say about that.