Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Esoteric EV ramblings.

Very msc. EV topics. Freewheelling, where decorum to "stay on topic" is not so critical.

Where is Russia in the energy potentionals of their country. How much hydro electric potential do they have?

Does anybody know if they have shown any interst in EV vehicle production at all?

Are there currently any big hydro electric projects going on globally? Does anyone think the USA still has a lot of untapped hydro electic potential, if so are we probably looking to expand in this area and how much?

searcher;
LUTW.org has all the info. Check the products page. The panels are small; they only have to provide charge in a 12V battery for 5-10W of LED lighting for the evening hours, etc.

Ah, it seems that we are all late here with the discussions. Tesla Motors already figured out the solution themselves, see here:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=305788&id=18790602800&comments=1

BrianH, This sounds very cool. So did post I read lat night where Mr. Musk said that 30k vehicles could be likely in five years or so.

?? miles, or dollars? ??
;)

Dollars

In rereading some posts last night "misiano" refreshed the idea of when bought new battery would almost be like buying a new car. Think how much would be saved if went through about three or more battery cycles. In other words the more battery cycles went through the more the savings as it looks like these might be extremely high mileage vehicles.

BrianH, I am still laughing at your "moose jokes". I told them to someone yesterday, they cracked up to.

I seem to recall misquoting one slightly; the punchline is "If that's a moose, I dinna want to meet a rat."
;)

BrianH, Yeah thats the line. I used to work with a crazy dude who used to go around saying the "Pink Panther" line "theeres a menkie in this rhuum" all the time time along with a lot of other "Pink Panther" and "Groucho Marx" lines. Crazy dude kept me laughing but was excellent computer operator.

Did you understand the 30k was the price range hopefully in about five years.

Did you understand the concept that msiano brought out about with a long lasting vehicle just two or three battery cycles would save a ton of money over the long haul.

Totally out of esoteric stuff at present but stay tuned.

Did you check out my reply to morrispd concerning his insult to timo. I know timo is a big boy{probably a very big boy} and can take care of himself but just felt inclined to respond to morrispd "gutter talk". Imagine me defending one of my old arch nemisis{sp?}timo. And having having a cordial converstion with another arch nemisis ,you,ha.

Well I guess if you can't beat'em join'em,ha.

Whenever I hear anyone worry about the safety of nuclear reactors
in a general way, I know that their knowledge of same matches the knowledge of most in this country - zero. We have used nuclear reactors for over 60 years in this country, producing over 20% of our power using very small amounts of land and for very low costs - currently less than 5 cents per kilowatthour which is even cheaper than coal. As for safety, I ask those worried about same : "Where are the corpses?" "Where are the invalids?" The answer is, there have been very, very few human casualties as a result of nuclear power - over 60 years, probably fewer than one single day of the Iraq war. Chernobyl was the worst case possible and that resulted in less than 30 dead. The "thousands" quoted by the anti-nuke folks were young children who were inexplicably not warned by the Russian govt to avoid locally produced diary products. They contracted thyroid cancers, but virtually all were cured. Three Mile Island resulted in exactly zero casualties. Exactly what the outcome of the Japanese plant will be is unknown, but it won't be large.
How one can blithely accept a natural disaster killing over 10,000
Japanese and then get concerned because a few dozen plant workers may be adversely affected by a nuclear accident tells you a whole lot about human behavior - things that are readily understood (floods, earthquakes) don't fighten, but things that are mysterious
and not understood have the ability to frighten people out of all
proportion to the actual danger involved. People don't know what a nuclear plant accident can do, but since they connect them with atomic bombs, they assume the worst. The sales of geiger counters even skyrocketted from those ever-ignorant Americans. Can you imagine? We used to detonate atomic bombs in New Mexico!!! Talk about total ignorance!! And people wonder why the US isn't producing scientists anymore? The country's educational system is not producing people who can think at any level.
The biggest casualties suffered as a result of nuclear accidents have been the financial losses incurred by the plant owners. In all cases, they deserved those losses. It's clear that the Tokyo Power company executives ignored US warnings about the obsolete nature of the safety aparatus in their plants, but did nothing. In this case, a simple extra backup power generator would have saved billions of dollars. Talk about penny-wise, pound-foolish. Ditto for Three Mile Island. What's ironic is that the public is going to learn, if anything, the status of nuclear safety precautions and design that existed 30 years ago or more. Modern designs are so unlikely to have problems and so unlikely that any that do occur be very significant, that one can say that safety is the last
issue anyone should worry about with respect to fission plants. Breeder reactors are the next big thing, mostly because they can
make use of all that nuclear waste we are now storing and make it relatively inert. There's still enough energy in that nuclear "waste" to provide all the power this country needs for the next 1000 years, and transform the waste into low level debris easily stored and achieving total inertness in a few hundred years.
It's amusing watching this country fumble with technologies and
make stupid decisions without the slightest knowledge at hand.

why do I have to be an atomic engineer to be frightened about nuclear disasters? Any simple soul understands the consequences of some government forces pulling up in your doorway and summoning "you have 30 minutes to leave your home. Forever." Imagine a densely populated industrial country where an 80mi radius becomes uninhabitable. Lots of homeless people, lots of economic downturn.

I think breeder technology is promising, and energy amplifier (subcritical reactor) is even more promising to eat up all our wasted fuel rods. But obeying to all the required safety procedures to handle a plutonium fuel cycle calls for a military-like organization. So far, communism + capitalism have failed to perform to the level of diligence required to operate nuclear power. What's left? dictatorship?

If you think that Chernobyl only caused 30 deaths, you are either very ignorant or simply know nothing about the subject.

The fact is that hundreds of thousands died way too early and millions of people were affected, and will continue to be affected for thousands of years.

Please do some simple research before spouting off nonsense.

Ramon123, Not getting into the nuclear discussion pro or con but would you please adress the issue: Could your potential enemy use nuclear reactors in the present day mode or set up as a weapon against you. Do you think they maybe be set up in a better way to avoid natural disasters or enemy attacks? What would be some good options very scure underground or what?

qwk;
False, beyond any hope of correction. Those projections are based on layers of flimsy and disproven assumptions.

But fear-mongers have too much to lose to ever admit they're blowing smoke.

Thing with Chernobyl is that uranium that blow up there emits quite low level of radiation, you might have much worse radiation in your home in form on Radon radiation. Unless you are very close to the source you just don't get much radiation from Chernobyl accident. Yes, probably millions are affected, but dose is so small that effect can't be measured in any meaningful way. Way more people get cancer from Sun every year than all of those combined.

Well - Chernobyl... I am kind of a victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131

Brian,

why do you think 1/2 cent/kWh from LPP would solve our energy problems? Back in the 70s nuclear was promoted as "too cheap to meter". Here and today, nuclear plants sell their electricity at 5 Euro-cent per kWh. Brown coal fired plants achieve similar prices. Meter prices are 20-25 Euro-cents per kWh. So if you replace nuclear fission with LPP plant, consumer prices can drop 4.5 cent at most (you still pay a mix of energy sources).

Note to self: go find the guys that stuff their pockets with the delta...

Thing with LPP is that it is very portable. You can have one as house generator in apartment buildings. No need or dependency from the grid. You could even put one in container truck to provide electricity in disaster areas. It's 5MW power plant in very small size.

I'll chime in too. It is the economies of scale, but in reverse.

For nuclear power plants to be profitable (or coal to a lesser extent, and even hydroelectric), they have to produce huge amounts of electricity, be very large, require a lot of resources. Coal plants also need to be close to the coal mines (transport expenses), and hydroelectric - well, must be where the hydro power is. So they are remote from the major consumer centers. Then the electricity needs to be transported to the consumers, thus the power grid. And there is the bulk of the delta. Of course, add the resellers and the local utilities and heir networks...

With LPP's Focus Fusion, a plant of any almost size can be made, close to the final consumer. And it can still be connected to the grid. Heck, the final consumer can own the plant, as Timo pointed. A city can have a number of redundant power plants, connected to the regional, connected to the global grid. Like a parallel supercomputer, built with failover protection. Pennies to make and transport.

One paradox: Edison's DC system needed a power plants at every few blocks, DC cannot be transported far. Tesla's AC system removed that need. Now LPP may bring it back, but in a completely opposite context.

What are the electric power companies saying about the rush to all electric by soo many major players. re they saying they will have enough power on present grid.

Is the old 'supply and demand" thing going to get us here to.

Know I am running the risk of sounding really nutty here but could some kind of hand crank device or pedal assembly be utilized with EV in case of running out of power on road and just produce enough power to get to next charging point. Don't know how much juice could be produced by such devices, if really nutty, have a good laugh anyway.

@Brian H

look up the term "liquidators". Most of them are dead, while the rest live with massive health problems.

If working around a leaking nuk plant is so safe, why don't you volunteer to go to the Fukishima site?

Hope not getting too many different questions going on at one time but I think everyone can kind of sort through it. Seems that the LPP thing with its great stand alone capability and it's size effeciences sounds very promising. I was wondering in days to come could poosibly better overall size effeciinces evolve and everybody knows where I am trying to go here. For those who don't you get three guesses and the first two don't count.

Two tries at "efficiencies", both clean misses.

Yeah, I thoght I could get under the radar with the spelling and not have to pull my dictionary out. Would you believe I used to be a good speller, but kind of atrocious{sp?} lately.

Well what do you think of where I was trying to go. Never doable, or medium to long range doable? Thats the LPP thing.

Was the emrgency crank thing not a doable but a good laughable?

On the LPP thing, who knows. Controlling high temperature plasmas is not an easy thing. In the distant future who knows what improvements can be made. But even their target of a 5 MW unit within 5 years would be a major (although not necessarily impossible) miracle.

The history on controlled fusion development has been that for at least the past forty years they've been predicting that it would be forthcoming within a decade. The theory looks good on the focused fusion, but who knows what practical problems will still occur.

As for human cranking, IIRC someone in good shape can produce 200 W for extended periods. (And that's more likely with using leg power rather than arm power). Keeping your speed between 15 and 30 mph could get you about a mile with that much energy. Overall average speed (counting cranking time) would be less than one mph.

I have a exercise bike with watt display. 200W is a lot. Maybe some professional cyclist could keep that running for some time, but us normal people that would be real pain in less than 15 minutes.

Yes. And I neglected to say (although it was implied), one hour of cranking time is required for the needed for 200 W-hr. !5 min. might get you 1/4 mile.

Thanks for the replies on the laughable one. I just had no idea of how much energy transfer was in discussion here.

On the LPP thing I was thinking onboard system {of course I would be}. What would be the, if any, safety considerations if such a system ever evolved?

It appears you have to go with the TopGear solution: pull out the lads sitting in your car and make them help you push it.

searcher, this will make me pass you as the most disputed poster in this forum, ha.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen