Your opinion on electric vehicles

[Greg Anos]

Give tidal power generation 20 years, and they'll be a strident group trying to tear it out due to disruption of tidal dependent marine animal breeding... (Save the X!)

If you think I'm silly, look at hydro power, in the US. Back in the early 20th century, it was the most benign (and cheapest) power generation going. Look at the last 20 years, and the organized "tear out the dams for the fish" groups demanding "get rid of the dams". Look at solar in the southwest US today. Much of the best desert for power generation is blocked off due to the endangered species act.

And this wasn't because of "big oil". It's because some people think that Civlization is a Bad Thing....

[Ham88]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

4. We have decided that our children and their offspring will take care of the poison leftover for 25000 years. That's more than the age of civilization. A human being is notable for slipups and breaches in concentration.
Go solar!

Now seeing as you've pointed out how long the stuff lasts I feel the need to point out that as a civilization we have the resources to reprocess the spent fuel rods to make more of them, I believe the current figures put it at more than 50% of it is reprocessed and reusable, so that cuts a lot of the waste down. As for the remainder the whole idea of burying it under a mountain in specially designed containers sounds fine to me provided that proper care is provided for them.

Back on topic the idea of electric cars as battery technology as it exists today is a bad one, from an environmental standpoint, because the actual production of batteries has a massive environmental impact compounded by the fact people will need replacement batteries for their cars every few years.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Ham88

Now seeing as you've pointed out how long the stuff lasts I feel the need to point out that as a civilization we have the resources to reprocess the spent fuel rods to make more of them, I believe the current figures put it at more than 50% of it is reprocessed and reusable, so that cuts a lot of the waste down. As for the remainder the whole idea of burying it under a mountain in specially designed containers sounds fine to me provided that proper care is provided for them.

Back on topic the idea of electric cars as battery technology as it exists today is a bad one, from an environmental standpoint, because the actual production of batteries has a massive environmental impact compounded by the fact people will need replacement batteries for their cars every few years.

Just as spent nuclear fuel is recyclable, so are batteries the impact of which is more manageable. Oh, and BTW spent nuclear fuel (not all is recyclable) is so expensive to reprocess that no one does it in America. They estimate it's cheaper to guard it for years and years.

[slayda]

Ask yourself, "Where does polution come from?" Then eliminate the source of the polution. QED problem solved.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by slayda

Ask yourself, "Where does polution come from?" Then eliminate the source of the polution. QED problem solved.

There goes mankind!

[columbus]

Originally Posted by balok;

Any suggestions?

Yes - I'm sorry, I should have offered suggestions.

For me, as I posted earlier, the main question is the battery technology issue. Longevity, Weight, environmental cost of production / recycling etc.

But the thread now seems to have moved on more to the core of the issue - where & how the power originates. As we know energy can neither be created or destroyed - only change form with an efficiency well below 100% never above.

So another vote option could relate to the Fuel cell / battery argument. Though both have similar issues with the power origin, production of hydrogen may be more suited to the inherently intermittent wind / solar / wave electricity generation technology than for battery charging.

I have to say I am with Harry as regards to nuclear power, whilst there is a legacy from the spent fuel, there is more time to solve that problem than the immanent destruction caused by continuing Co2 emissions. Either of which leaves a legacy for our children.

[GeoffC]

I wonder whether nuclear is non-polluting in terms of greenhouse gases. Doesn't the reactor need water for cooling purposes. If so then that includes steam venting into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water in the form of water vapour and it is water vapour that is the MAIN greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide is just an (important) add-on ....

[Xiaopanda]

Self-limiting Viral Batteries on recycled / recylclable material.....
Either that or Cold fission reactors. Both are realistic though a few years off commercial production.

Stop using metals and rare mined (and exhausable) options for "Green" power. Solar powered cars, with the panels built into the roof (once we get over 30 + % effeciancy), maybe, if we can figure out a renewable panel option.

There are a host of totally amazing bio tech / nano tech options about to hit us that will gather energy from things like walking to re-charge phones and Ipods.

Just waiting for that Large partical accelerator to come on line.... gonna change a lot in terms of what we thought we knew about matter and energy....

[Faenad]

Nuclear is the way to go, till the next best option at least.
So far wind farm and solar panel don't have that great a power density.
They will works for some location but not for everybody. Heavy industries, big metropole, etc. will have a hard time being supplied with such sources.

Nuclear plant does generate pollution. Not that much the radioactive waste, as lot of progress as been made in containment, as thermal pollution. In France they have to shut down some plants during very hot summer as the plants are warning the rivers past acceptable temperature for the wildlife. Still it's the best option today in term of pollution.

[Faenad]

As for Tchernobyl, it's mediatised a lot but who have heard about Centralia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

This city was abandoned because of an underground Coal Fire. The fire started supposedly in 1962, and is still burning today. If not extinguished it could burn during 250 years.

[Xiaopanda]

Originally Posted by Faenad

As for Tchernobyl, it's mediatised a lot but who have heard about Centralia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

This city was abandoned because of an underground Coal Fire. The fire started supposedly in 1962, and is still burning today. If not extinguished it could burn during 250 years.

Ohh Ohhhh! Isn't this what "Silent Hill" is based on (very very loosely)?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I wonder whether nuclear is non-polluting in terms of greenhouse gases. Doesn't the reactor need water for cooling purposes. If so then that includes steam venting into the atmosphere.

The most commonly-used reactor design today is the PWR (pressurised water reactor). In that design, the actual coolant that flows through the reactor itself is a sealed system - no venting. Those coolant pipes are in turn cooled by an "outer" coolant system via a heat exchanger, but that is "flowing" water, either from the sea or a river. It's just pumped from the river, passes through the heat exchangers, and discharged back into the river again, a few degrees warmer than when it went in. There's no "steam" involved, and no greenhouse gases.

Local marine life generally flourishes around nuclear power stations; the fact that they warm the water is nice for the fish.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Most of this discussion should have gone into an "alternative energy" thread!

Back over to electric vehicles for just a second:

Even if you have as many electric vehicles as you formerly had gas-powered vehicles, the fact is that an electric engine uses energy more efficiently than a gas engine... so in getting from A to B, you will be saving more energy.

Batteries are recyclable, so they do not necessarily have to add to the waste stream after manufacture. Unfortunately, 30 years of neglecting battery technology development has left battery tech woefully inadequate to take over for gas engines right now, but considerable recent technological improvements, like applying the latest in fullerene technology to internal battery design, put worthwhile batteries just around the corner.

Another thing to consider is this: Presently our automobile usage tends to be inefficient (using full-sized cars to take one person to work or to the market, or driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle across the state, for instance). More sensible design and use of electric vehicles can make them much more effective and efficient than present gas-powered cars.

For instance, a scalable vehicle: The basic small vehicle for short local trips with 1-2 people; and an added trailer to provide extra storage, person capacity or power (for longer trips) could replace the bulk of automobiles on the roads today.

Putting more use into the "on-demand public vehicle" scenario (like the Zipcar) also frees up the need for so many gas-powered inefficient vehicles.

Okay, I'm done. Back to your nuke discussion.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Another thing to consider is this: Presently our automobile usage tends to be inefficient (using full-sized cars to take one person to work or to the market, or driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle across the state, for instance). More sensible design and use of electric vehicles can make them much more effective and efficient than present gas-powered cars.

Even electric vehicles with relatively short range (eg 100 miles) are perfectly adequate for commuting for most people. For longer journeys, public transport is generally much more efficient - all you need to use your car for is to get you to the railway station, airport, or whatever. Of course, that does rather assume good public transport links, but most of western Europe, for example, has excellent railway systems.

[GeoffC]

Electric cars are an obvious way forward, especially if they have in-built noise so pedestrians are alerted to their presence - one drawback of the Prius....
Personally I would favour electric motors powered by hydrogen, but it would have to be priced sensibly.....