Without Clean Electricity, Plug-In Vehicles Aren’t So Hot

[Arminius]

The advances in technology and improvements in lifestyle in the future will depend upon an abundance of energy, just as much as the past benefited from an abundance of energy. Nuclear power is one excellent solution to our needs in the near future. I have much confidence that green technologies will be greatly improved in the future, and will be able to replace other types of technology to a great degree. In the meantime, the histrionics concerning nuclear power are unlikely to sway me. Is anyone willing to give up the benefits of past or future advances in technology (e.g. medicine, electronics, food) that came about in a society that was using energy somewhat wastefully or was using technologies that they they didn't like? Few will answer in the affirmative, and even then they won't actually do it.

[Duffman]

I've done a fair bit of my own independent research on the benefits of nuclear and have come to the conclusion that most of the anti-nuke information out there is pure ideological propaganda. The only argument that has any leg to stand on is the waste issue. Apparently none of the waste in the world (the west at least) has been permanently disposed of. How can anyone say that if this is the case that the volumes we are dealing with are significant if the waste has been sitting at the powerplant for 40 years? If you look into some of the current research into new processes like Thorium and breeder reactors, we are going to have better plants in the future with a lot less (maybe none) in the future.

[cfg83]

(Andrew?) hvatum -

Originally Posted by hvatum

No problem

Thanks for being open minded about this, whenever I argue about this I don't mean to ever be making personal attacks, I just want to see the best solution implemented - and fast. Whether it's going to be wind, solar or nuclear we need to really move on it, because the lead time for building the massive over-capacity we'd need to go wind and solar or educating a new nuclear energy workforce would be at least a decade.

...

I think I found your alter ego :

Is nuclear the answer to climate change?
http://environmentdebate.wordpress.c...limate-change/

Andrew Hvatum Says:
March 14, 2008 at 8:59 am

Yup, I completely agree about the Canadian sand-tar oil fields. Unfortunately some of that will be going into oil burning power plants, which is almost grotesque, that could saved and replaced by nuclear.

The waste issue doesn’t bother me too much. The volume of waste which needs to go into permanent storage is minute if it’s re-processed (granted so far only France reprocesses their waste). I personally support the idea of “stocking” the nuclear waste, since in a hundred years it will likely have some useful purpose.

Burying it underground is also possible and technically feasible. People need to remember that burying nuclear waste in the ground doesn’t mean they simply pour it into a cave, it’s stored in glass or ceramic cylinders. Also Yucca mountain isn’t a big tax payer funded pig barrel, since most of funding actually comes from a tax paid by nuclear companies (passed onto consumers). Really the government owes the US nuclear industry some $58 Billion in permanent storage. This might seem like a lot, but remember the US electricity market is over a trillion dollars every year (retail + wholesale), so that storage cost is peanuts.

The real problem with storage is that absolutely no option will satisfy some environmentalists, so by definition that problem can’t be solved in their eyes. Burying it is too risky, there might be a .016% chance that a volcano blows up there in the next million years. It’s too dangerous to transport it, because terrorists could shoot an anti-tank round through the casket after allowing it to burn under super-concentrated jet fuel for six hours. Sure, there’s some risk (not really to our generation), but solar panels have risks too, every single truck transporting solar panels for the next year could crash into a school bus filled with children and kill them all.

I am really curious. Can you tell me what you do for a living?

CarloSW2

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by cfg83

(Andrew?) hvatum -

I think I found your alter ego :

Is nuclear the answer to climate change?
http://environmentdebate.wordpress.c...limate-change/


I am really curious. Can you tell me what you do for a living?

CarloSW2

Good research

I'm about to begin work in Bioinformatics (Biology tied with computer science, roughly).

You can actually see the evolution of my viewpoint on this. A few years ago I was somewhat ambivalent about the issue, but the more research I did the more I came to see that groups like Greenpeace massively over-simplified the ease and cost of wind and solar while bing wildly pessimistic about nuclear and all too often outright wrong or alarmist.

I have a few friends who are going into the industry, it has great job opportunities, but no I have no personal financial interest in it (Beyond liking cheap environmentally friendly power).

If you're interested about potential positions I recommend you check out http://nukeworker.com/, the nuclear industry is one of the safest industries to work in (with respect to on the job accidents). Also many companies pay for training and offer pretty well paying jobs once you complete that training (60k+), no college degree required. They mostly focus on people coming out of high school, but that's just because they think they have the greatest potential recruiting there. They're also willing to train older people since the labor force needs to be expanded so much.

Once you get some experience in the US you can earn some serious cash in China, they are massively expanding their nuclear capacity and need experienced people from the US to help train their labor force (if you might one day be interested in staying in China for a few years whilst earning a bundle).

Originally Posted by Me

Sure, there’s some risk (not really to our generation), but solar panels have risks too, every single truck transporting solar panels for the next year could crash into a school bus filled with children and kill them all.

I should clarify two points, by "not really our generation" I mean the risk is essentially non-existent for any single generation. If you take the lifespan of all isotopes to be undetectable then you're talking about 16,000 generations, but for all those generations in aggregate there is a risk. Like your chances of winning the lottery are basically zilch, but if you play it a million times it might jump to be over 1% (again, still less then Yucca mountain blowing up).

And solar panels falling off trucks, though unlikely, is just mentioned to underlie the fact that everything we do has risk, so the whole "no risk is acceptable" line just doesn't fly. Notably sixty people have been killed during the installation of wind mills in Germany alone, more than have died in the entire history of the US nuclear industry.

http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/ZZUnfalldatei.htm

^^ Sorry, in German. Don't know of another source. I don't think the US compiles data like this, Germans are obsessive about organizing and collecting data like this.

[Blue Bomber Man]

Actually even with 'dirty' energy, plug in vehicles are way more enviromentally friendly than their ICE cousins. The ICE is only 20% efficient or worse, your coal plant is 98% or better, and considerably cleaner. Additionally battery vehicles can be used to stabilize power fluctuations that are inherent to some renewables like solar and wind. It will also stabilize variations in demand between night and day as most vehicles would be charged at night when demand is lowest, which would improve the efficiency of production.

[Big Dave]

Here in Indiana an electric car is a coal-fueled vehicle. This state gets 98% of its power from coal.

I am totally a fan of nuclear. I'm trying to talk sense to my unemployed nephew. Join the Navy. Be a nuke. Get a terrific-paying job when you hitch is up.

Coal-fired Rankine cycle is about 37% efficient. Figure T&D loses another 5%.

[roflwaffle]

I figure coal at high thirties in a lithium PHEV would be about ~29-30% efficient, the best hybrid out right now is only ~21-22% efficient, not to mention it's way easier/cheaper to regulate emissions from one big source than from millions of mobile ones. Some emissions may go up/stay up, but for the most part I think it'd be worthwhile in terms of emissions/energy, although probably not cost the way oil prices are going.

[conradpdx]

more than have died in the entire history of the US nuclear industry.

Um before i say what I got to say. I'm not anti-nuke I think it's a better alternative than clean coal (wtf is that), and the other fossil fuels, though I prefer expanding and researching solar/wind and renewables.

But really man. I can think of a couple cities in Japan that might disagree with this statement.

Now I know full well that this isn't what you meant. But it's an easy jump for some people to make.