Re: OT: Electric cars and nuclear power plants

Puppet_Sock wrote:

On Mar 25, 3:11 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

It's technology we already have today, only a bit improved. Doesn't
require a new infrastructure as radical as hydrogen fuel celled cars
would need.


I'm a nuke. If electric cars became popular, I'd be buying a house
PDQ. However, it's not quite as rosy as you paint.

If there were, say, a million electric cars in a large city, that city
would need massively more transmission capability.

I don't know. Don't the transmission lines have some significant built-in extra capacity? My rough calculation indicates that I would be using roughly twice as much electrical energy per month as I normally do if I had an electric car. If I recharged the car at peak load times, that means the power line coming directly into my house (which I'm looking at as I type this) would have to carry twice as much current. Isn't it designed to do that? I'd be more worried about the electrical wiring inside my house.

Interestingly though, that additional electrical energy would cost only about a third of what the equivalent gasoline energy costs at $2.50 a gallon.

"Q: You may not spend as much money at the gas pump, but wouldn’t the electricity bill go through the roof?

A: Your energy bill will be less overall by driving with electricity. EVs are so efficient that the cost, per mile driven, is significantly less. For instance, a 2002 Toyota RAV4 will travel 100 miles on 4 gallons of gasoline. At $2.50/gallon, this is $10.00. A 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV will travel 100 miles on 30 kWh of electricity. At 10 cents per kWh, this is $3.00."

http://www.pluginamerica.com/faq.shtml

Even if most
of those cars were charged at night (low rates yada yada) the
power demand would increase dramatically. Even did we suppose
some kind of cycling of batteries, so there was a battery in the
charger all the time, taking power only at low demand hours.

We'd need lots more power plants and lots more wires to be
able to connect them up.


In the heat of summer when everybody is running air conditioners full blast, isn't the problem that power companies can't supply enough energy rather than the fear that the transmission lines can't handle it?

Not to say that it would be impossible or anything. It would be
just more of the same kind of thing we already have. But it
would be significantly more. Not clear exactly how much
more till we have stats on battery performance. But I should
think it would at least double the grid requirements to go
to mostly electric cars. Possibly it would be much more.

A while ago I estimated that if we could get the energy from
nuclear reactors into some kind of energy storage thing,
battery or alterna-fuel or whatever. And if we could do this
at an efficiency comparable to existing generation and
transmission. And if the vehicles then used this energy
at an efficiency comparable to using the energy in current
petroleum fuels. If we could do all that, then we could supply
the energy using nukes. It would roughly double the cost
per mile for the energy. And we would need to build about
two power plants for each one we have right now. That is,
we'd have to tripple the number of power plants. Multiply this
estimate up or down according to your estimate of the
efficiencies involved.

As I said, let electric cars become popular. Please! I would
be buying a new house PDQ.


Make sure the new house has solar arrays on the roof.

"Q: Could a solar system produce electricity for a plug-in car?

A: Yes, easily. EVs typically can travel 3-4 miles (or more) per kWh. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW PV system to generate that much power using about 150-300 sq. ft. of space on your roof. In fact, many EV drivers recharge their cars from rooftop solar panels today, generating virtually no pollution for their local driving."

http://www.pluginamerica.com/faq.shtml

Nukes tend to like to sit at a constant power. Darlington NGS,
for example, generally sits at a constant power for many months,
24/7. So those rechargers on at night, evening out the grid load,
are also very good for my industry. This could let us burn less
coal as well, as coal is often the supplier of choice to handle
the daily peak demand above baseload.
Socks


Your nukes will also be competing with greatly improved solar cells and wind generators.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stupid "free energy" idea
    ... use up in require additional energy to the truck. ... Actually it is impossible to generate more power than you use. ... as by utilizing vehicle traffic on roadways. ... Energy sources useful for the generation of electricity include wind, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Free electricity is not cheap
    ... He certainly did not know about fusion energy, this was not worked out until ... These "Teslas" are said to be under development by the Tesla company, ... "Free" Electricity ... hidden power of the Universe. ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
  • Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear
    ... when it comes down to it the sun is the only reliable power ... With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into ... dominant source of energy. ... would yield fresh water as well as electricity. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: (Andy Hewitt) Re: BT HomeHub + BBC iPlayer disconnects
    ... However, if the green energy is so much cheaper, then why are we being ... Running an existing power station provides power *NOW*, ... electricity when you need it. ... carbon trading if done as the business world asked for it ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Pragtical approach for Hydro-power development
    ... As you mentioned the option of NUCULAR energy, ... Quebec is the "BATTERY" of the Northeast of the ... construction of Quebec hydro power at James Bay, ... When Quebec began to nationalize its private electricity companies in ...
    (soc.culture.laos)