Seriously thoughtful Electric Cars : BYD

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

No definitive advances are possible for great ships, airplanes and mining equipment. They will always depend on petroleum as long as we use them.

Is there any reason why large cargo ships could not be nuclear powered? Most goods are shipped around the world in extremely large container ships these days.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there any reason why large cargo ships could not be nuclear powered? Most goods are shipped around the world in extremely large container ships these days.

There are many reasons but first I must say that I agree with you. It probably is the best direction to use.

Reason #1: Security threats. Any country could be then admitted to nuclear status. Limiting shipping to nuclear countries is virtually impossible. The biggest shipping lines are not nuclear responsible.

#2: Another security issue. Two thirds of cargo ships around the world are nearing a derelict state. Replacing them costs 10 times more that they did. Repair is also expensive, owners don't care and continue their use until they sink.

#3: Decommissionning a nuclear ship would also be prohibitive.

#4: Any ship sinking would absolutely have to be retrieved. Wherever it sinks. Think of a situation 4km down... Nautical accidents are more frequent than we wish to think.

#5: Public fear.

There probably are more reasons but I believe that if it nuclear shipping has not been done before it shouldn't be done now.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I rather like this one:



That extra wheel puts it in the car driver's license category, instead of the motor cycle driver's license category, over here...

In the U.S., it would still be considered a motorcycle. I like scooters and vehicles like this, but I wouldn't mind something with a little coverage (weather-wise) and light cargo capacity, to make it a bit more practical for daily use. It doesn't have to be much larger than this, though.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

There are many reasons but first I must say that I agree with you. It probably is the best direction to use.

Reason #1: Security threats. Any country could be then admitted to nuclear status. Limiting shipping to nuclear countries is virtually impossible. The biggest shipping lines are not nuclear responsible.

Fuel from a nuclear reactor cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. This is a popular misconception. Nuclear fuel is only mildly enriched; weapons-grade material requires a very high level of enrichment.

#3: Decommissionning a nuclear ship would also be prohibitive.

The type of nuclear powerplant used in ships and submarines is a completely self-contained unit (primarily built by Westinghouse in the USA). There are no decommissioning costs - when it needs refueling, or the vessel is scrapped, you literally unbolt the thing, hoist it out of the ship, and take it back to the factory.

#4: Any ship sinking would absolutely have to be retrieved. Wherever it sinks. Think of a situation 4km down... Nautical accidents are more frequent than we wish to think.

Again, these powerplants are built with that eventuality in mind. They are enormously strong and will survive any conceivable accident in one piece, remaining intact on the ocean floor pretty much indefinitely.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I don't think that PVs on an EV is achievable for some time unless there's a scientific break. The best alternative is to cover parking grounds with PV covered roofs. PV covered parking spaces have other benefits. They shade the cars from the sun so it is not as hot when you get in to it then less power to cool it down. Less sunshine on a car will also lengthen the life of plastic and composite parts. We all know a car in a garage lasts longer. Roofs will also help with snow and freezing rain management. Extra power can be harnassed for other use.

Agreed. I proposed the same thing in Chasing the Light (plug, plug!), and there are examples of PV-shaded parking lots out there right now.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

If I go back to the price of EVs... There goes my paranoia again...
There are cheaper alternatives than the BYD and the Nissan Leaf...

Absolutely... and your paranoia is mostly justified--although the existence of an oil-based infrastructure, and a lack of comparable electric car infrastructure, explains a great deal of the price mismatches. If we were building and selling electrics, and just started to build the oil refineries and systems needed for gas-powered cars, the shoe would be on the other foot.

Still, govt subsidies and lobbying to keep the EPA at bay are also a big factor in the price differential... remove those, and the value of electrics would be clear to all.

And as I've driven small cars in the past (Chevy Sprint in the U.S., Kia Picanto in Aruba), I don't have a problem with cars like the Think City. Basically, if it's got decent range and does highway speeds, it's all good.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there any reason why large cargo ships could not be nuclear powered? Most goods are shipped around the world in extremely large container ships these days.

In fact, the shipping industry is one of the most fuel-efficient and least polluting of all our transportation systems... we need to fix others before we fix that. If we have to go nuclear, it should be in modern plants, providing electricity to a grid that feeds other forms of transportation (cars, trucks, buses, trains). Safer and better controlled.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fuel from a nuclear reactor cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. This is a popular misconception. Nuclear fuel is only mildly enriched; weapons-grade material requires a very high level of enrichment.

According to a Scientific American article from a few years back, fuel from older reactors (like many in Russia and the U.S.) is capable of being reprocessed into low-grade weapons material (dirty bombs and such). Newer fourth-generation reactor designs recycle the fuel until the remainder is no good for even dirty weapons... but there are very few reactors of that type in existence today (or none... most reactors around the world are generation 2 or 3 right now, I'm not sure a 4th gen has been built yet).

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fuel from a nuclear reactor cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. This is a popular misconception. Nuclear fuel is only mildly enriched; weapons-grade material requires a very high level of enrichment.

Obviously. But nuclear fuel in the wrong hands still provides material for dirty bombs. We don't want that in anybody's hands.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The type of nuclear powerplant used in ships and submarines is a completely self-contained unit (primarily built by Westinghouse in the USA). There are no decommissioning costs - when it needs refueling, or the vessel is scrapped, you literally unbolt the thing, hoist it out of the ship, and take it back to the factory.

I disagree. All the handling and transport has to be done by highly trained personnel and security approved entities. In some countries, nuclear waste is not recycled and has to be sequestered at high cost, financially and at some risks. And that's on top of the price of the ship's decommission.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Again, these powerplants are built with that eventuality in mind. They are enormously strong and will survive any conceivable accident in one piece, remaining intact on the ocean floor pretty much indefinitely.

You must define indefinitely. No metal can resist the rigors of salt water. A nuclear fuel cell must be retrieved.
But on the other hand, they used to dump nuclear waste in the high seas without a second thought, didn't they?


What happens to a stranded vessel? What happens to a vessel seized by piracy? Some ships today, worth several billions with included cargo, sail unaccompanied and unarmed...

Nuclear powered mobility is only safe under strict military control. There are too many selfish idiots on the loose...

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Agreed. I proposed the same thing in Chasing the Light (plug, plug!), and there are examples of PV-shaded parking lots out there right now.

I would like to reemphasize(if it's an english word) that an EV MUST be sold with its power supply; PV carport or other.



BTW Did you notice the little EV Ford in the latest Bond movie "Quantum of Solace"? It's the scene taking place in the Carribeans where Bond gets out of a hotel with a metal briefcase. A car stops next to him an the heroine beckons him in. Just listen to the sound of that car during the following chases. Sweeeet little ride!!!

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In the U.S., it would still be considered a motorcycle. I like scooters and vehicles like this, but I wouldn't mind something with a little coverage (weather-wise) and light cargo capacity, to make it a bit more practical for daily use. It doesn't have to be much larger than this, though.

They increased the wheelbase (and insert a footbrake) so it would be classed a car in Europe (by 45mm!). I'm not sure what the definition for a car would be in the US though...

[yvanleterrible]

A US car has to have 4 wheels. Anything on 3 wheels including the fabulous Aptera, is considered a motorcycle. Some States even ban them! And it is also in contention from a US funding refusal.



BTW The Aptera is only available in California. Of course!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

They increased the wheelbase (and insert a footbrake) so it would be classed a car in Europe (by 45mm!). I'm not sure what the definition for a car would be in the US though...

I believe in the U.S. the classification has mainly to do with crash protection and exposure on the vehicle. In practice, it usually seems to come down to one simple thing: 4 wheels go-o-od, fewer wheels ba-a-ad.

Hopefully as transportation realities change, this stipulation will, too.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there any reason why large cargo ships could not be nuclear powered? Most goods are shipped around the world in extremely large container ships these days.

The spent fuel of an old nuclear powered vessel, because of its very high specific radioactivity could easily poison and entire city, can you imagine a terrorist organization driving a nuc tanker or freighter into a harbor and blowing it up?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fuel from a nuclear reactor cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. This is a popular misconception. Nuclear fuel is only mildly enriched; weapons-grade material requires a very high level of enrichment.

By the nature of light water reactors, some amount of PU239 is produced, albeit not very efficiently. Plutonium being chemically different than uranium, the separation process is much easier, and weapons grade plutonium can be produced from spent fuel much more easily than weapons grade uranium.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The type of nuclear powerplant used in ships and submarines is a completely self-contained unit (primarily built by Westinghouse in the USA). There are no decommissioning costs - when it needs refueling, or the vessel is scrapped, you literally unbolt the thing, hoist it out of the ship, and take it back to the factory.

Have you ever been involved in "literally unbolt(ing) the thing"? Having been there and done that, I can assure it's not quite that simple.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

You must define indefinitely. No metal can resist the rigors of salt water. A nuclear fuel cell must be retrieved.

There are currently at least two US nuclear submarines, and a half a dozen Soviet ones laying in unsalvagable waters.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

But on the other hand, they used to dump nuclear waste in the high seas without a second thought, didn't they?

Yes. Actually I (among others) did that, but I don't know of any spent fuel having been dumped like that.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wodin

There are currently at least two US nuclear submarines, and a half a dozen Soviet ones laying in unsalvagable waters.

Well, that's encouraging. Of course, what's unsalvageable today...