Slashdot Mirror

The analyses collectively indicate that the two reactors appear to be able to achieve their design objectives: The RBWR-AC provides an equilibrium-cycle breeding ratio of slightly above 1.0, thus providing for a self-sustaining fuel cycle in which depleted uranium is used for the makeup fuel. The RBWR-TB2 is capable of unlimited continuous recycling of TRU while consuming on the order of 10% of the loaded TRU per recycle (after accounting for the newly generated TRU). Most results confirmed the values estimated by Hitachi. Some differences among the predicted reactivity coefficients need to be evaluated further.

This has the potential to be a game-changer if true, as we could simply use existing reactor designs such as the ABWR (of which there are several operating already) to both burn waste and breed fuel indefinitely from U238 feedstock.

No containment can contain a meltdown, if it wasn't built to do so. The BWR containments, as used in Fukushima Daiichi, just weren't, because it wasn't deemed necessary. Nureg/CR-6042 made it pretty clear that the focus back in the early 1960ies was on definitively preventing "catastrophic deaths". Preventing contamination just wasn't the goal. From the perspective they had, it was sufficient if meltdowns were unlikely. This has changed, but at least in the US and Japan, the power plants weren't changed to accomodate this.

And I'm not cherrypicking my sources. Any of the well known and often discussed reports like Wash-1400 or Nureg-1150 make it very clear that such BWR containments would overpressurize and leak soon after a meltdown due to hydrogen generation (hydrogen can't be condensed, unlike water steam), leading to widespread contamination after a meltdown. That's not merely a chance, but a certainty. (Whether a meltdown can be prevented is a different matter.) All three also clearly state that flooding and tsunamis (in Wash-1400 "tidal waves") are a potential cause for a meltdown, despite the redundancy of safety equipment, because they cause a full station blackout.

All this is quite different in other containments. Pressure water reactors typically have a large dry containment, that is capable of containing a meltdown, at the very least long enough for most contaminants to settle down in the containment and not outside of it. (Without power to run any pumps, it takes some 20 hours for 99% of the Cesium to settle down. With power, you can run containment sprays and do it in a bit more than half an hour. BWR Mark I/II containments generally don't have such sprays.) Newer BWR containments are also much larger and much more capable of containing a meltdown.

Other countries such as Sweden, France and Germany fitted filtered containment vents to their nuclear power plants in 1980(Sweden) and 1988 (Germany/France). Which would have prevented any significant fallout, because the containments wouldn't overpressurize.

You can do this sort of thing with pure water, if you can solve it's tendency to act as a solvent. Electric utilities have done this for years in the form of water cooled windings in utility generators.

Reference EPRI Primer on Maintaining the Integrity of Water-Cooled Generator Stator Windings - Link

http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Primer%20on%20Maintaining%20the%20Integrity%20of%20Water-Cooled%20Generator%20Stator%20Windings

Yeah, I think people understand that they need water.

That's not entirely true, especially anymore. Palo Verde, for example, uses treated sewage water for cooling, and if they'd built the additional two units they were planning - those would have been cooled via dry towers. It just tends to cost a bit more.

Solar thermal consumes more water than nuclear?. Oh, and this source says that coal power consumes nearly as much.

The Green Car Reports article linked in the original post mentions a baseline of 300 million cars in the US. The study summary referenced examines several scenarios of plug-in hybrid market penetration of 20% to 80% of new vehicles by 2050. That's 60 to 240 million vehicles with today's numbers, and presumably a lot more with population growth by 2050.

A 2006 DOE study (summary) found that there is enough off-peak excess capacity in our grid today to switch 70% (about 217 million) of all light-duty vehicles to plug-in hybrids with a 33-mile range (which is enough to cover most people's daily driving) without any need to add power plants. The study makes a number of assumptions, like everyone charges off-peak, but the upshot is clear: our grid already has plenty of capacity for overnight charging.

With the most optimistic view of EV and PHEV production rates for the next five years, there aren't going to be enough to cause any problems with the grid. As market share grows, financial incentives (time-of-use metering) and smart grid infrastructure can be put in place to make sure the majority of EV charging is done off-peak.

Actually one of the electric power industry's research shops has already done some studies on the effects of high plug-in hybrid penetration and power plant emissions. I saw a presentation that touched on some of this a year ago, and I think the conclusion was that air quality would get slightly worse in only a few few places (Cleveland, I think) and better pretty much everywhere else.

Now, I can't remember what the story was when it came to CO2...

Actually one of the electric power industry's research shops has already done some studies on the effects of high plug-in hybrid penetration and power plant emissions. I saw a presentation that touched on some of this a year ago, and I think the conclusion was that air quality would get slightly worse in only a few few places (Cleveland, I think) and better pretty much everywhere else.

Now, I can't remember what the story was when it came to CO2...

The PHEV 20 produces approximately the same GHG emissions as an HEV if powered by electricity from coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2,

Note: PHEV 20 means plug in w/ 20 mile battery range.

The PHEV 20 produces approximately the same GHG emissions as an HEV if powered by electricity from coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2,

Note: PHEV 20 means plug in w/ 20 mile battery range.

Here's the study re: the grid and plug-ins. It came out a year ago.

Executive summary: Plug-ins are good. Even when powered with current coal technology. Anything else (natural gas, wind, etc.) is pure upside.

That's one great thing about electricity. Unlike gasoline, there are lots of ways to make it.

...and here's where your entire rant breaks down. You ignored the deploy time, Einstein. Just how long will it take to outfit California with these thermostats, at what cost?

Let's break it down for you. At the 2006 census, there are 13,174,378 homes in Cali. We'll ignore industry for right now. Now, let's take what might be the average install time for this. Call it 30 minutes per install for getting there, installing and testing it. That's 6,587,189 man-hours of work. That's around 274,466 *days* of work, or around 751 *years*. Now, with PG&E having around 20,000 employees, we might figure about 10% of that will be actual install techs. That's actually par, as they'll only deploy around 2000 of them at a time for any outages/installs. Dividing 274,466 by 2000 gives you an answer of around 137 days, 24/7. Can't do 24/7, of course. 8-hour shifts, lets say, and only half of their day will be installing these; the rest is dealing with whatever emergencies arise. So, you're telling me that in 2.25 years, (figuring $15/hour, at a cost of around $98,807,835), you'll have a solution.

But wait... where's your solution for NOW?

By that time [2 years hence], you could already be WELL on the way for a renewable energy source already being studied in San Fran: the tidal harness. At that time as well, according to PG&E, they'll have a plant ready to service another 950,000 homes.

Note the TOTAL cost of the tidal project. $3,000,000 to $5,000,000. Looks pretty darn reasonable compared to that $98,000,000 for your little quick-fix patch. Also, at 2.7 million per plant {after initial deploy}, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more cost-effective power solution. In addition, it's clean, renewable, and scalable.

Congrats on the spelling error of mine, BTW... It's one of the few I tend to make, and you must feel {in CA parlance} just like, totally special. Still doesn't change the fact that you're too dumb to run the numbers before you run your mouth.

How about the power infrastructure?

Let's not re-invent the wheel here - the GREET model (referenced previously by me, since registered) is the standard for calculating fuel economy for advanced or mixed-fuel vehicles. The problem, which MrZ touched on, is that electricity is tricky to account for and certainly depends on region (though a 'national average' metric exists). The traditional EPA methods MrZ referenced are based on standard US drivecycles that measure the amount of fuel used, and are certainly not relevant for plug-ins or EV's. CARB has been working on this issue, not sure what their current progress is.

In the case of plug-ins, electricity from the grid is the energy *carrier* and not the source. Comparing different carriers (electricity, hydrogen, etc) and different sources (coal, renewable, etc) requires the use of a fuel cycle model, and the GREET model is the popular one right now. Straight conversions on basis of chemical energy or stored on-vehicle electrical capacity don't do the issue justice. If we want to be responsible about our oil dependence and chose fuel efficient vehicles, the 'absolute' model (GREET) should be considered. And it yields some interesting results - primarily that plug-ins are a great solution in the absence of a functioning hydrogen infrastructure.

(To preempt responses from the hydrogen aware, hydrogen is considered a *carrier* and not source by many because, while it does occur naturally, the vast majority of commercial hydrogen currently comes from electrolysis or as byproduct from chemical reactions (refineries, industrial, etc.); we don't mine for it directly. In any case, a fuel cycle model is the best attempt to normalize these different energy pathways for plug-ins.)

For a quick primer on PI-HEVs and the fuel economy issue, take a look at this presentation (slide 9, 10) by Mark Duvall at EPRI which nails the issue on the head. If conflicts between what I said and what this presentation says exist, trust the presentation.

-Bill

Nonsense! There is nothing wrong linking linking as often as Wikipedia does

Wow, where to even begin. Right now there is a net reduction in CO2 emissions using dirty coal + BEV vs ICE. Read some of these reports, and then recheck your numbers: http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pd f http://evworld.com/library/CanadaFuelCycle.pdf http://www.epri.com/event_attachments/2093_(16)Duv allEmissionsGlobal.pdf The benefit is not as large as you would like for current dirty coal, but it does exist now, and reduces our dependance on foreign oil. An existing BEV will actually get cleaner over time as dirty coal is replaced with something cleaner (like clean coal!). How much have we invested in oil wars over the last 20 years? Only roughly half of the power in the US is coal anyway, and of that not all is dirty coal. In california we have very clean power (primarily NG, nuclear, hydro and wind). EVs would make a huge difference in net pollution. There is a large unused off-peak capacity that would be sufficient until about 20-25% of all cars where electric. That would not happen over night, and gives plenty of time to upgrade the grid over 10-20 years as electric cars gain traction. We need to improve our electric grid anyway, so that is a good thing. I would much prefer investing in our electric grid than a whole new infrastructure for something else like hydrogen. BEVs are the ultimate flex-fuel vehicles, because they will run on the electricity produced by anything: Coal, NG, nuclear, solar, wind, bio. Whatever becomes viable in the future, your car could run using it. 100% flexibility. No foreign oil. Today. Current hybrids have it backwards, and at some point will change. The cars should be pure electric and then add a generator for extended range or off-grid use. Check out what Mitsubishi is doing (http://www.gizmag.com/go/4666/). Very cool stuff. If you are wondering whether electric works for semi trucks, just step up and see how a train works. The ultimate hybrid, and they do it the correct way (unlike the Prius), diesel generator powering electric drive.

EPRI released a series of reports on economics of ocean wave energy conversion recently. The lifetime average cost of electriciy using Pelamis devices ranged from 9 - 10 cents/kwh in good US sites (but in Maine, 32 c/kwh since the waves suck). That includes millions of dollars in maintenance, overhauls, full-time ship & crew to service them (so it's a realistic number). Here is the final summary report, where you can read it yourself:

http://www.epri.com/attachments/297213_009_Final_R eport_RB_01-14-05.pdf
[EPRI]

You can read more detailed reports from a listing here, which provides more specific info about each site studied in the US:

http://www.epri.com/targetWhitePaperContent.asp?pr ogram=270686&value=05T084.0&objid=297213

Pelamis has been designed & optimized for years, and works in a wide range of wave climates:

http://www.oceanpd.com/Pelamis/Powermatrixgraph.ht ml [oceanPD]

Available wave energy increases with wave period and the square of height and you can see Pelamis stops extracting more energy above 750 kw. Also Pelamis can not convert more than 50% of wave energy available at its best (did my own study at my university, no online references :-( ) so surfers will still have waves.

Tidal barrage is too costly for initial capital and has an enourmous environmental impact. However, tidal current generators, much like "submerged wind turbines" will have a smaller environmental "footprint" and a more modular design:

http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/energy/tidalener gy/tidalenergy.htm

(I'm a graduate student studying wave energy conversion. I hope these links provide some interesting reading...)

EPRI released a series of reports on economics of ocean wave energy conversion recently. The lifetime average cost of electriciy using Pelamis devices ranged from 9 - 10 cents/kwh in good US sites (but in Maine, 32 c/kwh since the waves suck). That includes millions of dollars in maintenance, overhauls, full-time ship & crew to service them (so it's a realistic number). Here is the final summary report, where you can read it yourself:

http://www.epri.com/attachments/297213_009_Final_R eport_RB_01-14-05.pdf
[EPRI]

You can read more detailed reports from a listing here, which provides more specific info about each site studied in the US:

http://www.epri.com/targetWhitePaperContent.asp?pr ogram=270686&value=05T084.0&objid=297213

Pelamis has been designed & optimized for years, and works in a wide range of wave climates:

http://www.oceanpd.com/Pelamis/Powermatrixgraph.ht ml [oceanPD]

Available wave energy increases with wave period and the square of height and you can see Pelamis stops extracting more energy above 750 kw. Also Pelamis can not convert more than 50% of wave energy available at its best (did my own study at my university, no online references :-( ) so surfers will still have waves.

Tidal barrage is too costly for initial capital and has an enourmous environmental impact. However, tidal current generators, much like "submerged wind turbines" will have a smaller environmental "footprint" and a more modular design:

http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/energy/tidalener gy/tidalenergy.htm

(I'm a graduate student studying wave energy conversion. I hope these links provide some interesting reading...)

40 miles round trip on 101 between SF and Palo Alto

Was that to EPRI? There were a few EV1s in the parking lot at EPRI at the time GM was working on them with EPRI, and I remember the big roll out in 1996 and about a dozen of them in the parking lot.

tgd stated:

It isn't very hard to find references online to that being the specific reason all the big auto manfacturers dropped their electric car programs and switched to hybrid, that combined with the fact that the total envorinmental damage when the depletion of battery packs is taken into account is more than an order of magnitude worse than the worst cars have ever been.

Your original post referred only to the generation of electricity, not disposal of the batteries. Obviously, the batteries matter, but that's not what I disputed.

If finding online references is so easy, could you post a couple? The 1st one I found was from a GM site:

The EV1 helped contribute to a cleaner environment. In California, for instance, there were 97% fewer emissions with the EV1 than a conventional gasoline engine -- this included the electricity-generating emissions from the power plant.


I think this 97% came from a CARB report- haven't found the original, although everyone and their brother seems to cite this 97%.

Also, here's an EPRI study that looks at plug-in hybrids. A quote:


Plug-in HEVs provide additional benefits because, on a gram per vehicle mile basis, emissions from power plants are much lower than that from the same vehicle running on gasoline.


As for your examples: SO2 emissions are quite dependent on the pct. of electricity that comes from coal, and what kind of coal you're burning. So in some cases EVs could be worse. But they win with regard to smog precursors and CO2.

I can't really quarrel with the lead battery argument, except that 1) you didn't specify batteries in your original post and 2) there are non-lead, non-cadmium options these days. But I honestly don't know about the environmental impact of, e.g., NiMH batteries.

Finally, my impression is that automakers weren't interested in EVs was that batteries, flywheels, etc., can't compete with the awesome energy and power density of gasoline- relative cost and performance of EVs just wasn't competitive, and was unlikely to be anytime soon.

OK, your turn.

Isn't that the same as solar cells, given that they require massive amounts of energy to make, output feeble amounts of energy on a per-cell basis (and at most 0.707 of that is harnessable as alternating current), and have a finite lifespan (primarily to cracking caused by heating/cooling cycles)?

What solar cells are those? The ones I'm familiar with pay back their invested energy in 2-4 years, and last 15-25 years at a minimum. They don't crack unless they are abused, such as by overheating with concentrated light.

Their output is also convertible to AC at 90+% efficiency, using modern inverters. Where'd you get this sqrt(.5) nonsense?

Actually, ethanol/methanol is a great step toward solar-powered cars; capture the solar energy with plants, store it as chemical energy, release it as heat energy within an internal combustion engine.

The problem is efficiency. There are many more losses with the conversion to plant matter and back, so you need a lot more capture area. As long as you're effectively getting it for free (as a byproduct of something you're growing anyway) you're fine, but if you have to pay for the acreage with the fuel production alone your costs just went through the roof. Speaking of roofs, the average house's roof can capture more than enough sunlight to power the average household's daily driving even if you're only using solar cells. If you assume 340 WH/mile and 20 miles/vehicle/day, you need 6.8 KWH/vehicle/day. If you get good sunlight for 6 hours/day, you need a bit over 1 KW(peak) of solar panels to supply this. At 10% efficiency this is only about 10-14 square meters of roof. Your typical ranch house has upwards of 100 square meters of roof.

Enthanol/methanol are a far better automotive fuel than electricity, so if this replaces the (misguided) efforts to produce electric cars, that would be excellent.

You're half right.

1. Ethanol and methanol have far higher energy density than the batteries required to use externally-supplied electricity in a vehicle; you can get many more miles of range into a liter of space with alcohol than batteries.
2. Batteries require no heat engine to convert their stored energy to a useful form (electricity can be converted to motion with efficiency well above 80%), and most useful batteries have a pretty high power density (W/kg) as well. Many electric cars are extremely quick.

The optimal solution for current (cheap) batteries is the plug-in hybrid; the batteries store power for short trips and surge acceleration, and the sustainer engine burns fuel for longer trips. The efficiency of such a vehicle can easily be twice that of a non-hybrid. I recall seeing a figure of 17% which works with other calculations I've done, but Chevron has published a figure claiming that the average is closer to 12%. That's probably where your Ram is hovering around.

If either lithium-ion cells or the recent NEC resin-based battery hit an inflection point in their production cost curve and start heading down, it won't be long before we see all-electric cars with 300+ mile ranges and sub-5-second 0-60 performance. This can already be done with laptop Li-ion cells, but the cost is about ten times too high for bulk production. I don't see anything which forces this to remain so.

I have two big worries with electric cars. The biggest being the batteries - by necessity, the greater the energy density of the battery, the nastier the chemicals inside it have to be. Weird things happen to cars - accidents, ditched in lakes, etc. - so it doesn't seem like a good idea to be carrying around hazmats which make gasoline look benign.

Lithium is not exactly a toxic substance; for some people, it's medicine. The electrolyte of NEC's proton polymer bat

One good link deserves another. See this EPRI study which I found linked from this page. I warn you in advance, that EPRI paper can keep you busy for days.

The auto-checkout lanes at QFC and Safeway here in WA state are Linux. :)
Now for those who read that article, here's a reality check.
I worked on one of the Y2K project teams that did high-level analysis for a number of midwestern power plants.
I can tell you that NONE of their control and monitoring systems were in any way connected to the Internet or even, usually, to any other networks internally.
The reason cited in every case was security.
The folks I worked with are called EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and they are widely regarded as the world's leading authority on national and international power generation and distribution systems.
Check out their website, they often have some interesting white-papers available for public perusal.

Why try hard when, the better you do improving your products, leading to more profits, they're taken by a government lead by politicians riding to power blathering nonsense to "the people" about how evil you are?

Because you can still make more money by trying harder. More is more (even if it is less more than CEOs might like).

Some 'Facts': 1. IIRC, the corps paid 'their fair share' (whatever) back in the 1950s. Wasn't that the USofA's Golden Age (economically & hegemonically speaking)? 2. Aren't regulated electric utilities (regulations = profit ceilings) nevertheless healthy & profitable, still better than free market utilities at providing juice, and the more generous funders of the industry's R&D institution (the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI) ?

EC