Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Power Grid Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby cube » Wed 04 Jul 2007, 23:37:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'T')he efficiency of electric car (incl. energy production/distribution) is roughly 30% as opposed to 14% for various ICEs (bio, CTL, gas, CNG), FC, etc.. Certainly not 88% !
...
30% sounds much more reasonable. Not even The_Toecutter would support the 88% statistic and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's the most die-hard supporter of EV cars on this site :-D

The "problem" with trying to compare EV cars with ICE is they are quite often built to entirely different specs. EV cars are usually made to be half the size and much more aerodynamic.

I always laugh whenever anyone claims we can use our national grid to power EV cars....yeah if you don't mind driving in a sardine can on wheels. :roll:


...and that's being optimistic. A good argument can be made that even with super tiny cars the grid STILL could NOT handle the extra load.

my 2 watts
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby PolestaR » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 00:10:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'x')rotaryguy's figure seems reasonable. They stated it was for just the EV itself, not any of the processes used to transfer that electricity to it. Just like only using the mileage of a car and not including the energy lost refining/transporting the oil. Battery->Controller->Hub Motor could likely be at ~88%...


The point is to actually get that car on the road running it uses electricity to CHARGE the storage. Since no charging exists which is 100% efficient, NOT INCLUDING the charge into your "how much more power is needed calculations" is like coming out with 2+2=3 . Tanada or whoever posted those first calculations included the correct amount of power needed and then this guy comes along being ignorant and posting incorrect numbers. You can see xrotaryguy himself using the 88% efficiency calculation in the amount of new power needed just a few posts up.

Only in comparison to efficiencies can you say 88% vs 15% for ICE, but he was working out energy used, using 88%, which is ridiculous.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby yesplease » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 03:21:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'T')he point is to actually get that car on the road running it uses electricity to CHARGE the storage. Since no charging exists which is 100% efficient, NOT INCLUDING the charge into your "how much more power is needed calculations" is like coming out with 2+2=3 . Tanada or whoever posted those first calculations included the correct amount of power needed and then this guy comes along being ignorant and posting incorrect numbers.

It's just taking a selective portion of energy transfer needed to get that EV moving. You could do the same thing for an ICE powered vehicle. And 2+2=3 for sufficiently small values of 2. :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'Y')ou can see xrotaryguy himself using the 88% efficiency calculation in the amount of new power needed just a few posts up.

Yes, but *he didn't state he used just that. For instance, lets say I want to figure how much electricity we'll need if we replace every private vehicle mile in the states. That's something like two trillion miles per year according to an earlier poster, at a likely average of ~300wh/mile. So, we need 300**(1/.88001)(1/.9)(1/.9)=420Wh/mile, or ~840 billion kWh per year. According to the CIA fact book, we already make ~4 trillion kWh per year, and according to xrotaryguy we make ~4.25 trillion kWh per year, so that would be an increase of roughly 20%. And for the sake of argument, lets say you contend that not everyone drives small pickups. In order to have a nice margin of error, lets assume the average vehicle required 1.5 times the energy a small pickup truck does, so reasonably speaking, we're around 30%.

I used the 88% figure, along with others, to come to a reasonable conclusion. He never stated he used only the 88% figure, he just stated that he used it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'O')nly in comparison to efficiencies can you say 88% vs 15% for ICE, but he was working out energy used, using 88%, which is ridiculous.

The energy comparison is reasonable, at least according to the gubberment, take that as you will, because it's comparing only vehicle efficiencies. Sure, the ICE car takes a much bigger eff hit because it does the chemical change on site. But... otoh, someone could just as well say that getting the fuel to the ICE vehicle is much more efficient, at ~90% compared to ~40-50% for the BEV.

*Assuming they're a he, but ya never know on the internetz. ;)
**(EV/charger/transmission) efficiency
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby PolestaR » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 04:06:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')es, but *he didn't state he used just that. For instance, lets say I want to figure how much electricity we'll need if we replace every private vehicle mile in the states. That's something like two trillion miles per year according to an earlier poster, at a likely average of ~300wh/mile. So, we need 300**(1/.88001)(1/.9)(1/.9)=420Wh/mile, or ~840 billion kWh per year. According to the CIA fact book, we already make ~4 trillion kWh per year, and according to xrotaryguy we make ~4.25 trillion kWh per year, so that would be an increase of roughly 20%. And for the sake of argument, lets say you contend that not everyone drives small pickups. In order to have a nice margin of error, lets assume the average vehicle required 1.5 times the energy a small pickup truck does, so reasonably speaking, we're around 30%.


Well I didn't know it was assumed we were only talking about private miles being replaced here, but given that, a 25-30% increase in USA electrical production sounds good to me.

How much of the ~11MB/day oil is the private transport sector compared to commercial though? Changing 200 million cars to EVs and increasing 30% electricity capacity saves what exactly, 4-5MB/day?

Talk about some big changes needed to keep things as they are for just that tiny bit longer... ;)
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby xrotaryguy » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 04:25:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', ' ')you need to include the efficiencies in charging the electrical storage on board the vehicle.

You are correct, I did not take charging efficiency into account. I'll have to do some poking around and see if I can come up with a reasonable figure for that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'I') suggest you (re)learn some basic maths and comparison skills because you've shown a severe lack of them to this point.

This is just rude. It's also untrue. I failed to include charging efficiency which accounts for a small percentage of the energy losses of an electric car. My calculation is not that far off even with out the charging losses taken into account.

However, I have been a big enough jerk on this forum that I probably deserve to take one on the chin right about now. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hey stated it was for just the EV itself, not any of the processes used to transfer that electricity to it. Just like only using the mileage of a car and not including the energy lost refining/transporting the oil.

This is exactly what I was doing. Toward the beginning of the thread several people supported the notion that the electrical grid would have to produce the same amount of energy to run an electric car that an IC powered car needs from gasoline. The problem with this is that electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline powered cars. I am not trying to calculate how much energy it will take to generate this electricity. I am only looking at how much more electricity we will need if the country were to shift to an all-electric fleet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', 'w')hat do we use to power the lights and A/C and everything else that is currently pushing the system to it's breaking point every summer.

We would have to

a) upgrade and expand the grid

You're absolutely right. The question is how to do it. Do we increase our electrical capacity? Do we reduce our demand for electricity by increasing the efficiency of households and businesses. Perhaps we should do both. Indeed, the latter is a good idea regardless of whether or not we convert to an all-electric fleet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')) add how many coal fired plants to meet the excess demand
This is largely answered the same way that part a) was answered.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'c')) charge a lot of money or give a lot of sudsidies to pay for the start-up
Maybe. Or maybe capitalism will work and the rising cost of gasoline will be enough.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'd')) get Detroit to quietly fall of the face of the earth or retool their entire operations
Actually, Detroit is already in big trouble. The big three aren't all American anymore. For the last few years, GM has held the greatest share of domestic as it has for the last 70 years. Ford follows at a distant second. Toyota is third, but it probably won't be for long. In fact, by the end of this year, Toyota will be the world's largest auto manufacturer. Ever hear the phrase, "What's good for GM is good for America?" Economically, it's true. Until recently, GM was the world's 3rd largest corporation. GM directly and indirectly supports 900,000 jobs. If, some day, the nation's fleet does become more electric powered, Detroit might not make that day.

Existing auto manufacturers will almost definitely be the ones to build an electric fleet. The business model of the Japanese auto manufacturers is particularly well suited to a shift like this. Toyota, for example, runs its business with a one million year strategy in mind. This is the mind set that gave us cars like the Prius. Also, Toyota is sitting on a massive cash surplus. When the time comes to retool, Toyota will be one of the companies that is up to the task.

Naturally, smaller electric car companies like Tesla will probably benefit from a shift like this, and it is likely that those companies will grow and prosper as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'e')) make a brand new electric car affordable for every one who needs or wants to drive somewhere
Short range electric cars are fairly reasonably priced right now, especially if you have the skills to build your own. However, if a large scale shift to electric actually happens, it is almost inevitable that the technology will improve, and "cheap" electric cars will have greater range, longer lasting batteries, and will be more livable than electric vehicles in this price range currently are.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'I')f they cost an average of $20,000 apiece, then it will take 1.23 billion barrels of oil to build them.
Aah... you're not trying to say that the price of the car has something to do with how much oil it takes to make one are you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'T')hat will probably be harder to come by than the electricity to power them
This assumes that our oil supply will suddenly go to almost zero. I am probably in the minority on this board, but I do not think that will happen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'I') think, a 100 million horses and a few more trains would be more practical.
You may be right. I'm sure that as personal transportation becomes more expensive, public transportation will expand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '3')0% sounds much more reasonable. Not even The_Toecutter would support the 88% statistic and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's the most die-hard supporter of EV cars on this site
Again, I am not using well to wheel efficiency. I am calculating the electrical demand of a fleet of electric cars. I am not calculating how much natural resources will be needed to produce this electricity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'E')V cars are usually made to be half the size and much more aerodynamic.
Hmmm... does the 88% efficiency assume a smaller car, or does it simply account for the efficiency of the motor, the speed controller, the effect of regenerative braking, frictional losses in the drive train, etc?

If the latter is true.... since my calculation was basically replacing the the energy that our current IC powered fleet uses (not the 78% that it wastes) with the electricity that would be needed to power a fleet of the same mass, I am still correct. I didn't actually mean to do that, but looking back on it, the calculation assumes that we will all be driving Chevy Tahoe, Honda Civic, Toyota Tacoma, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Ford F-150 sized electric cars. I don't think that the electric cars of the future will look like the IC powered cars that we drive today. As you say, they are usually smaller, lighter, and sometimes, more aerodynamic. If this is the case, then you may have unwittingly argued in my favor :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'y')eah if you don't mind driving in a sardine can on wheels.
Well, if none of us is driving full size trucks anymore, then sardine cans become safe. We shall see what happens to trucks as fuel prices continue to rise.

PolestaR, again, the calculation I did was to correct for the efficiency difference that exist between gasoline powered cars and electric cars. I am only calculating how much more electricity is needed, so I only took into account the gasoline powered car's efficiency from the gas tank to the wheels, and the EV's efficiency from the batteries to the wheels. I failed to take charging efficiency into account, and that was a mistake. However, charging efficiency doesn't make a huge difference, so, even with out taking it into account, my calculation for increased electrical demand is fairly close. The first calculations were incorrect because they assumed that electric cars use electricity's energy at the same efficiency rate that IC cars use gasoline.
User avatar
xrotaryguy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon 28 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Tempe, AZ
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby xrotaryguy » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 04:49:37

lol, it took me so long to reply that two more people replied while I was typing.
User avatar
xrotaryguy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon 28 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Tempe, AZ

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby PolestaR » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 05:11:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('xrotaryguy', 'T')his is just rude. It's also untrue. I failed to include charging efficiency which accounts for a small percentage of the energy losses of an electric car. My calculation is not that far off even with out the charging losses taken into account.


Yes it is "rude", hopefully it will make you think more carefully before posting. It's better to at least think carefully and assume you've made a mistake when doing any calculations, it will make you double check things. Either way I found your calculations unnecessary since someone else already gave more details calculations that ARE correct. Yours just cluttered this thread with unneeded bickering due to your errors.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby cube » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 06:20:26

to: xrotaryguy
(If you stick around here long enough you'll end up as a doom sayer just like all the old guard!)

efficiency = useful output energy / input energy --> agreed?

(warning using rough numbers)
An electrical power plant is 33% efficient (includes heat energy loss in transmission cables about 7%)
input == heat generated at the power plant (coal, nuclear, natural gas)
output == the electrical wall outlets in your house :-D

An electric car is 80% efficient
input == plugging a cord into an EV car
output == the wheels turning against the road

The efficiency of an EV car measured from the power plant to the wheels of the car is 33% X 80% == 26%
What's there to get excited about?
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 07:07:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '[')b]to: xrotaryguy
(If you stick around here long enough you'll end up as a doom sayer just like all the old guard!)

efficiency = useful output energy / input energy --> agreed?

(warning using rough numbers)
An electrical power plant is 33% efficient (includes heat energy loss in transmission cables about 7%)
input == heat generated at the power plant (coal, nuclear, natural gas)
output == the electrical wall outlets in your house :-D

An electric car is 80% efficient
input == plugging a cord into an EV car
output == the wheels turning against the road

The efficiency of an EV car measured from the power plant to the wheels of the car is 33% X 80% == 26%
What's there to get excited about?


To play Devil's advocate here an ICE is about converting petroleum into wheel movement. Petroleum through refinery =what 85% energy retained? Portion of that 85% converted to gasoline = 65%? ICE is about 30% efficient converting gasoline into wheel motion? So .85*.65=.5525*.3=.16575% true Well to Wheel efficiency.

I am not attempting to prove anything here, just playing with rough numbers to demonstrate that Well to Wheel is a lot more complicated than your example implies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby cube » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 07:26:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '.')..
I am not attempting to prove anything here, just playing with rough numbers to demonstrate that Well to Wheel is a lot more complicated than your example implies.
I think we're ALL playing with rough numbers here. :-D

But that's okay. I'm just trying to get the point across (I know I'm not the only one) that when viewed in terms of well to wheel efficiency an EV car isn't as impressive as the cheerleaders like to state.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby JRP3 » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 09:50:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
To play Devil's advocate here an ICE is about converting petroleum into wheel movement. Petroleum through refinery =what 85% energy retained? Portion of that 85% converted to gasoline = 65%? ICE is about 30% efficient converting gasoline into wheel motion? So .85*.65=.5525*.3=.16575% true Well to Wheel efficiency.



Don't you need to move a decimal there? .16575 = 16.575%
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby cube » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 18:10:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JRP3', '.')..
Don't you need to move a decimal there? .16575 = 16.575%
It looks like a lot of people are having trouble with decimal point placement in this thread. :lol:
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 18:11:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JRP3', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
To play Devil's advocate here an ICE is about converting petroleum into wheel movement. Petroleum through refinery =what 85% energy retained? Portion of that 85% converted to gasoline = 65%? ICE is about 30% efficient converting gasoline into wheel motion? So .85*.65=.5525*.3=.16575% true Well to Wheel efficiency.



Don't you need to move a decimal there? .16575 = 16.575%


Picky picky picky! Your figure is the correct one, thanx ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby xrotaryguy » Thu 05 Jul 2007, 22:42:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('xrotaryguy', 'T')his is just rude. It's also untrue. I failed to include charging efficiency which accounts for a small percentage of the energy losses of an electric car. My calculation is not that far off even with out the charging losses taken into account.


Yes it is "rude", hopefully it will make you think more carefully before posting. It's better to at least think carefully and assume you've made a mistake when doing any calculations, it will make you double check things. Either way I found your calculations unnecessary since someone else already gave more details calculations that ARE correct. Yours just cluttered this thread with unneeded bickering due to your errors.


You're wrong. I'm only off a few percent.
User avatar
xrotaryguy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon 28 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Tempe, AZ
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 06 Jul 2007, 16:18:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'W')ell I didn't know it was assumed we were only talking about private miles being replaced here, but given that, a 25-30% increase in USA electrical production sounds good to me.

How much of the ~11MB/day oil is the private transport sector compared to commercial though? Changing 200 million cars to EVs and increasing 30% electricity capacity saves what exactly, 4-5MB/day?

It saves something like that. But since gasoline was originally a waste product, and we happened to develop a market for it, the personal automobile, what's the point in saving any of it? ;)
Bidness transport uses relatively little fuel iirc, especially when considering large diesel engines that don't have to adhere to any emissions standards and can use a wide variety of waste products for fuel such as used motor oil, waste vegetable oil, etc... The rest of it goes for heating fuels/asphalt/etc... You can get a good idea of the proportions of finished products from the interwebz.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'T')alk about some big changes needed to keep things as they are for just that tiny bit longer... ;)

If by big changes you mean very small changes in vehicle construction that result in significant decreases in pollution while increasing energy efficiency by leaps and bounds, if applied properly, and significantly reducing gasoline consumption. Then sure. :P

But, why would we want to reduce gasoline consumption. *We've managed to burn through god knows how much gas and finally bump up against the physical extraction constraints. Now is not the time to start introducing alternatives or hyper-efficient vehicles, unless we want to loose out on gobs of cash. Those efficient vehicles will be brought in at a proportional rate compared to the decline curves, so that consumers will continue to pay and not migrate away from gasoline consumption for transport. The great thing as we near peak, is that, combined with environmental concerns, it makes for a great reason not to build more refineries. And any drop in refinery output can serve to gauge how much people will pay so that vehicle efficiency can be adjusted with a fair amount of certainty for the maximum amount of profit.

The best thing I've found, is that there's no reason for using gasoline from the pov of energy. Refineries and wells use electricity and natural gas when extracting and refining oil. On average per gallon of gas, if we used the electricity directly, and burned the natural gas in a power plant, we could get enough electricity at the consumers home to move a EV nearly as far as the amount of gasoline we refine moves an ICE powered vehicle. We are, for all intents and purposes, trading a certain amount of relatively clean useful energy that does ~X amount of work, for more energy that isn't nearly as clean, and still does ~X amount of work because it's used in a relatively inefficient manner.

Oil isn't about energy. It's about money. We have so much energy we don't know what to do with it. If a light bulb were as inefficient, not only in the thermodynamic sense, but in the utilitarian sense, as a car, we'd use 10,000W to light a single room. We're not running out of oil, we're wasting it as quickly as possible. Because if something else comes along and displaces it, all those barrels are worth next to nothing. :twisted:

*And by we I mean the auto makers, oil barons, and financial brokers between them. :-D
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby patrick_b » Sun 08 Jul 2007, 08:57:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Typically a nuclear power plant converts only 36% of its input energy to electricity. The rest of the energy is basically heat and is converted to a huge water vapor cloud that comes out of the cooling towers....

Still, that conversion is not fair to include in the well-to-wheel calculation.
I mean, what's the alternative? Leaving the uranium in the ground, for no us? That's extremely energy inefficient as it gives us no energy at all.
It's different for fossil fuels as they have alternative uses, but uranium hasn't. Hence, if it's not used, it's 100 % wasted instead of only 67 % wasted.


Well, the alternative for uranium is to build nuclear bombs... So yes, I prefer that uranium is burnt in power plants :-)
User avatar
patrick_b
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby Starvid » Sun 08 Jul 2007, 09:10:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('patrick_b', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Typically a nuclear power plant converts only 36% of its input energy to electricity. The rest of the energy is basically heat and is converted to a huge water vapor cloud that comes out of the cooling towers....

Still, that conversion is not fair to include in the well-to-wheel calculation.
I mean, what's the alternative? Leaving the uranium in the ground, for no us? That's extremely energy inefficient as it gives us no energy at all.
It's different for fossil fuels as they have alternative uses, but uranium hasn't. Hence, if it's not used, it's 100 % wasted instead of only 67 % wasted.


Well, the alternative for uranium is to build nuclear bombs... So yes, I prefer that uranium is burnt in power plants :-)

Hehe, yes.

But there is actually one more use for uranium, coloring glass. I have two small bowls made of uranium glass. They are everything I have ever dreamed of as they are green, and when put in a dark room and exposed to UV light, they glow! :-D

I am not kidding you!

Image

Image
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby patrick_b » Sun 08 Jul 2007, 09:45:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', 'S')o if we use the grid to power 100 million cars replacing our own fleet, and we make the changes in driving habits needed to fit into the electric box, what do we use to power the lights and A/C and everything else that is currently pushing the system to it's breaking point every summer.

We would have to
a) upgrade and expand the grid
b) add how many coal fired plants to meet the excess demand
c) charge a lot of money or give a lot of sudsidies to pay for the start-up
d) get Detroit to quietly fall of the face of the earth or retool their entire operations
e) make a brand new electric car affordable for every one who needs or wants to drive somewhere

Cradle to grave it sounds like this is one policy option we won't be implementing on a crash course.


Well I partially agree...

The most important point is that the conversion from fuel to electric cars won't happen over night... This will be progressive. Typically, with rising fuel prices, people will begin to think that they could spare money using electric cars.

Adding power plants is also possible. China builds 1 power plant PER WEEK. With all the resources that the Americans have, it should not be a big deal to upgrade the grid...

Also A/C can be desactivated. For most people this is simply not necessary.

Car charging would happen mostly during the night.

The grid is also extremely streched in recent times due to the privatization of utilities. I'm not against privatization, but in this particular case, it leads to the suppression to any excess capacity... For an energy company, sporadous blackouts cost less than excess capacity.
User avatar
patrick_b
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nation's grid could power almost 185 million electric ca

Unread postby patrick_b » Sun 08 Jul 2007, 10:04:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')Hehe, yes.
But there is actually one more use for uranium, coloring glass. I have two small bowls made of uranium glass. They are everything I have ever dreamed of as they are green, and when put in a dark room and exposed to UV light, they glow! :-D
I am not kidding you!


Well, this is not so new as it appears... It was used in the history by princesses to wear as jewelry...
User avatar
patrick_b
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Can the power grid handle this heat wave ?

Unread postby Armageddon » Thu 09 Aug 2007, 22:18:53

In the central and eastern US ? We are getting 100 friggen degrees here in St. Louis for the next 10 days, atleast. That's as far as my 10 day forecast went.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7450
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron