New Tesla News

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by lc_09

hey Rob,

these are all good points, but i, like most people remain very skeptical. The nuclear industy and "environmentally friendly" don't have a history of being mentioned in the same breath.

I didn't want to hijack this tesla thread with a discussion of the benefits or dangers of nuclear power. But, i think as you pinted out that most people are not aware of how bad coal power plants really are for the environment.
But, in a discussion i had recently with some people from work. The fear and skeptisism relating to nuclear power can be illustated in this simple equation. (rational or not, this is how most people still feel about this issue)

Coal power plants + earthquakes = regional disaster
Nuclear power plants + earthquakes = global disaster

coal power plants + terrorist attack = regional disaster
Nuclear power plants + terrorist attack = global disaster

coal power plant accident = thousands of lives lost
nuclear power plant accident = millions of lives lost

i know its a major over simplification, but for people old enough to remember Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, the concept of nuclear power as an environment friendly solution is hard to swallow.

I know.. I grew up in the 70's with 'no nukes' and I agree with you that the biggest issue is the pubilc perception. As for the engineering realities its a different story: nucelear power plants are very well designed, with *alot* of oversight, so much so that it has made them very costly to operate. They do withstand earthquakes and are only built in geologically stable places.

Accidents and terrorist attacks again are one of those things that sound really scary but the realities is that they present a much smaller risk to us that all sort of other everyday threats. There is well know research by Bruce Schnier that about how people evaluate risk and perform risk assesment and the underlying theme is that people tend to overestimate risk of sensational events and underestimate risk of everyday events. (e.g. the way people are afraid of flying but not driving even though driving is far more dangerous than flying). The truth is that we all percieve nuclear as disastarous because of two incidents: 3-mile and chernobyl when the truth of the matter is that coal plants have caused for more deaths and inuries than nuclear even when you include the death toll from chernobyl (and thats being generous since chernobyl was a horrible reactor design that was inherintly unstable an built without a containment vessel).

For more info on how nuclear can be run successfully take a look at the french and german nuclear programs. France is 90% nuclear powered with no major accidents since the start of their program.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by Rich H

If only it were true...

Look at the US Energy Information Agency electricity data compilations. In 2006 in the US, for example, it took an average of 9,919 BTUs to produce one kwh from fossil-fueled plants, 10,434 BTU/kwh from nuclear, and 21,017 BTU/kwh from geothermal. And those figures do not include transmission and distribution losses.

Since one kwh delivered to the electric meter provides the heat equivalent of 3,412 BTU to the user, the overall electricity conversion and delivery efficiency equates to something under 30%, which is in the same ballpark as an internal combustion engine powering a car directly. Plus, some losses are incurred inside of the electric vehicle itself.

I respectfully disagree with you: you are skewing the data by not including the overhead and efficiency losses in transporting and refining the oil in the first place. You are pitting the delivery efficiency of grid power against the efficiency of just the IC engine. A proper comparison is the effiency of grid power delivery+the efficiency of electric propulsion vs. the efficiency of distribution of gasoline from well to gas tank+plus the efficiency of IC engine.

Im going to do some searching for the exact figures and post back but I can tell you that the difference is going to work out tht grid powered electric propulsion is about an order of magnitude more efficient than oil powered IC propulsion.

Secondly one area that we havent discussed is the economics of the two proponent systems either which really is going to be a big factor on how the market is driven: For example in the US coal is cheap compared to lots of other places in the world but nuclear is quite expensive and hard to implement here. Other countries have safe but less expensivenuclear programs. In the short term this means we will likely be using our 300 year supply of coal for a while.

Finally there is the emissions issues which also effect each system as well. On a side note did anyone see the slashdot story about how biofuels production and distribution is producing *more* CO2 emmissions than conventional fuels when you actually take into account the true costs of refinement and distribution. Boy are the hippies going to hate that one...

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by Rich H

Look at the US Energy Information Agency electricity data compilations. In 2006 in the US, for example, it took an average of 9,919 BTUs to produce one kwh from fossil-fueled plants, 10,434 BTU/kwh from nuclear, and 21,017 BTU/kwh from geothermal. And those figures do not include transmission and distribution losses.

Those are some interesting numbers.

I'm not sure how they are relevant, though. The nuclear plant and the geothermal plant are both burning no fossil fuel and emitting no pollutants or CO2 into the atmosphere. The heat energy (in BTUs) you put into them varies greatly in cost -- both ecological cost and economic cost.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize here. . . There are two major reasons for making an electric car as efficient as possible: to get its range-per-charge up to an acceptable level, and to reduce the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. But any place where you already have a working nuclear plant or geothermal plant, that second goal has already been won.

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

Secondly one area that we havent discussed is the economics of the two proponent systems either which really is going to be a big factor on how the market is driven: For example in the US coal is cheap compared to lots of other places in the world but nuclear is quite expensive and hard to implement here.

Actually, I've read that operators of US nuclear plants today are making out like bandits. It's highly lucrative. . . But that's because all the plants are 30+ years old and the huge cost of their construction has been amortized long ago. Building a new plant is not so much an economic slam-dunk.

Other countries have safe but less expensivenuclear programs. In the short term this means we will likely be using our 300 year supply of coal for a while.

I thought it was a 200 year supply "at current rates of consumption". If we started running all our cars off the stuff, it could be gone in 50. That's without mentioning the huge increase in CO2 emissions that would result, which I think would probably be considered unacceptable.

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

I respectfully disagree with you: you are skewing the data by not including the overhead and efficiency losses in transporting and refining the oil in the first place. You are pitting the delivery efficiency of grid power against the efficiency of just the IC engine. A proper comparison is the effiency of grid power delivery+the efficiency of electric propulsion vs. the efficiency of distribution of gasoline from well to gas tank+plus the efficiency of IC engine.

Im going to do some searching for the exact figures and post back but I can tell you that the difference is going to work out tht grid powered electric propulsion is about an order of magnitude more efficient than oil powered IC propulsion.

Broadening the analysis, as you suggest, is valid. Just be sure to internalize the fueling costs for both IC engines and power plants in your comparison. Consider, for example, things such as LNG terminals, utility fuel pipelines and pumping stations, coal mines, railroads, nuclear processing, etc. And somewhere in your analysis you might want to account for the right-of-way impacts of electric T&D.

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

Those are some interesting numbers.

I'm not sure how they are relevant, though. The nuclear plant and the geothermal plant are both burning no fossil fuel and emitting no pollutants or CO2 into the atmosphere. The heat energy (in BTUs) you put into them varies greatly in cost -- both ecological cost and economic cost.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize here. . . There are two major reasons for making an electric car as efficient as possible: to get its range-per-charge up to an acceptable level, and to reduce the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. But any place where you already have a working nuclear plant or geothermal plant, that second goal has already been won.

The power plant heat rates are only relevant for evaluating energy efficiency - BTU input vs. work output. Costs and fuel preferences are different issues.

I suggest, however, that there are no freebies for the taking in the US energy system. All fuels are in demand for power plants and other uses, and every single power plant was built based upon an economic analysis balancing costs with anticipated loads. So, aside from possible localized deviations from forecasts, there is no significant "excess", or no-cost, capacity available for charging electric vehicle batteries.

The EPRI/NRDC study illustrates this. If significant battery charging load is added to the grid, new power plants must be added to serve that load. So charging electric vehicles comes down to paying the cost to build new plants, and then paying for the fuel and O&M to operate those plants. And, as you suggest, one question is whether or not that cost/effort is justified by any reduced fossil fuel use.

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by Rich H

The EPRI/NRDC study illustrates this. If significant battery charging load is added to the grid, new power plants must be added to serve that load.

If that's what the study actually says, then it's full of B.S.

That's the same as saying the grid is running at peak capacity all the time, 24/7 -- which is obviously, blatantly incorrect.

I refer you here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...udy_offpe.html

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

If that's what the study actually says, then it's full of B.S.

That's the same as saying the grid is running at peak capacity all the time, 24/7 -- which is obviously, blatantly incorrect.

I refer you here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...udy_offpe.html

The EPRI/NRDC study is more recent than the one you cite, and is a more comprehensive dynamic analysis simulating complete grid operation over time. Its not the same as saying that the grid is running at peak 24/7, rather its saying that adding permanent new loads in a particular daily pattern, i.e., daily, mostly off-peak battery charging, will require the addition of new generation to serve that load reliably over its lifetime.

Some excerpts from the EPRI/NRDC study.

"In the most comprehensive environmental assessment of electric transportation to date, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
are examining the greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEV). The purpose of the program is to evaluate the nationwide environmental
impacts of potentially large numbers of PHEVs over a time period of 2010 to 2050. The year
2010 is assumed to be the first year PHEVs would become available in the U.S. market, while
2050 would allow the technology sufficient time to fully penetrate the U.S. vehicle fleet...

In summary, the addition of PHEVs as a significant transportation option adds approximately 6%
to the total national electricity demand in 2030 compared to the base case with no PHEVs. Due
to the charging profile that results in most of this additional demand occurring during off-peak
hours (late night/early morning) there is an increase in the need for baseload generation. The
addition of coal-fired generation to meet this need for more baseload generation does not result
in any significant differences in annual emissions of SO2, NOx and Hg because of the caps on
those pollutants. Therefore, any reductions in emissions of SO2, NOx or Hg from non-electric
generating sources would result in a net national decline in these emissions. However, it does
result in an appreciable increase in CO2 and PM emissions as this analysis has not assumed any
limits on CO2 or PM emissions."

The study also found, however, that limiting CO2 power plant emissions could reduce overall CO2 emissions using PHEVs.

[J. Salmon]

Originally Posted by lc_09

Dude, you can't be serious.

Would you be willing to live with a nuclear power plant right outside your town?

Yup, I am serious.

And yup, I would.

But I'll say it again: I'd like to be able to ride my bike to work even more. I drive home from work and then spend an hour on a stationary trainer? Talk about a complete waste of time, money, fuel and other resources.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by ChrisB

Interesting, but there was not a single death as a result of the 3 Mile Island accident. Also there was no radiation sickness among the nearby population. The maximum radiation one would have received in the area was about one-third that which you receive with a normal chest X-ray.

Actually, there has been a statistically significant increase in the incidences of cancer in the people that were in the area downwind of the releases after Three Mile Island. So, nobody died as result of the actual accident, but the affects were greater than what you indicate.

Originally Posted by ChrisB

Chernobyl was quite a bit different, but that plant was of a very substandard design that could not have been built in the US.

Again, actually there was an operating reactor in the US similar to the one at Chernobyl. I believe it was shut down not long after Chernobyl "blew". Yes, it had more safety features, but the basic design of the reactor was very similar.

I see reference to storing nuclear waste in "salt mines". Yes, they are very good for storing nuclear waste, with one exception - water. As long as the water table is below the level in the salt mines there is no problem, but consider what created the salt in the first place - that area was once under water/had significant water flowing through it.

Because an area has been stable for a long time is not necessarily in indication that it will be stable for thousands of years into the future.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Actually, there has been a statistically significant increase in the incidences of cancer in the people that were in the area downwind of the releases after Three Mile Island. So, nobody died as result of the actual accident, but the affects were greater than what you indicate.

Thats wierd because the most recent studies I looked at (as of 2002) said exactly the opposite... that there is no statistical increase in cancer rates from TMI..

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/ene/2002/pd110502c.html

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Again, actually there was an operating reactor in the US similar to the one at Chernobyl. I believe it was shut down not long after Chernobyl "blew". Yes, it had more safety features, but the basic design of the reactor was very similar.

Do you know which reactor this was... The chernobyl reactor had a *very* poor design and serious design flaws: Modern reactors become stable as soon as the graphite control rods are dropped full into the reactor. Even if the reactor was running full power there should be enough of a passive reserve of coolant to keep the core temp low enough to prevent meltdown...

The reactor at chernobyl was not built to find inherent stability: Once the rods go full in the cooling pumps must run for up to several hours to keep the core temp under control. But if the reactor is shut down there was not enough energey to keep the coolant pumps running. So If there was a problem that would cause an automatic shutdown the reaction would be stopped but the loss of coolant would still cause meltdown. The russians knew this was a big risk but chose to keep the design because it was cheap and fast to build. Even so there wouldnt have been any leakage had the reactor had a proper containment building which *all* US reactors have.

BTW: how do I know so much about this... I did my physics internship in nuclear physics at argonne... (I cant believe i wanted to be a physicist...)

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

I see reference to storing nuclear waste in "salt mines". Yes, they are very good for storing nuclear waste, with one exception - water. As long as the water table is below the level in the salt mines there is no problem, but consider what created the salt in the first place - that area was once under water/had significant water flowing through it.

Because an area has been stable for a long time is not necessarily in indication that it will be stable for thousands of years into the future.

Its actually not in salt mines. The locations picked are salt deposits in upthrust granite formations. Basically take an ancient seabed, move it over an active volcanic fault or a plate boundary and you get upthrust of the land into mountains... this takes 10-50 million years. Then you wait for the plate to float some more so that the newly formed mountain is no longer near the fault. (another 10-20 million years). What you end up with is a big granite mountain with salt deposits inside but in a geologically stable area... The only thing that will affect the mountain is natural erosion processes and the salt reseals if there is any shifting. The salt is also high above the water table (usually about 1000 feet) so there is going to be no water contamination. The end result is stable storage for *at least* a million years.

Honestly the biggest issue plaguing the designers of these long term storage areas is how to keep people from getting curious and messing around with the waste in a few thousand years far after which they may have no information remaining as to what this place was or even any of our existing language. They are expirimenting with building these giant evil looking spikes to serve as a warning. take a look at the link for more info:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=160

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

Thats wierd because the most recent studies I looked at (as of 2002) said exactly the opposite... that there is no statistical increase in cancer rates from TMI..

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/ene/2002/pd110502c.html

I wonder if it wouldn't be more accurate to say that the researchers appear to mostly all agree that there were significant cancer increases downwind from TMI, but they disagree as to the cause of those increases.

http://www.tmia.com/healthsafety/wing4.html

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by Rich H

I wonder if it wouldn't be more accurate to say that the researchers appear to mostly all agree that there were significant cancer increases downwind from TMI, but they disagree as to the cause of those increases.

http://www.tmia.com/healthsafety/wing4.html

Fair assessment. There was a major class action lawsuit (consolidation of 10 separate lawsuits) where the outcome was a judgement that there was no evidence that the TMI event was a causal factor in any of the reported health issues. The case went through appeals to the Supreme Court and was settled in favor of the defendant.

That doesn't necessarily mean there were none, but it could not be proven in a court. Very unusual outcome in a civil case where it is a big company versus the public (i.e auto crashes, tobacco, etc.). The burden of proof is not extremely high.

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by mgreenbl

there appears to be a tesla showroom being built in west los angeles, near the intersection of santa monica and sepulveda blvds.

mark

Yeah it's there...

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Yeah it's there...

Not a fan of the Tyco Train powertrain.... but I'm really digging the body styling over our beloved Buzzbomb.

By a lot.

[lc_09]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Yeah it's there...

i just drove by there last night. I didn't see it.

I'll have to drive by there during daylight.

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by lc_09

i just drove by there last night. I didn't see it.

I'll have to drive by there during daylight.

...see better!

[Gizmo3000]

Originally Posted by lc_09

i just drove by there last night. I didn't see it.

I'll have to drive by there during daylight.

you still won't see anything.

I happened to drive by there on Saturday night (on my way to a party), and the front of the showroom, where they previously had the big image of the Tesla, is all covered up!
(and appeared to be still under construction)

Let's just hope it's covered up for construction purposes.
-but it sure is taking them long time if so!!