From Hybrid Technologies..... It's battery powered, does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, max speed is 175mph, and runs up to 200 miles.

I want one to play with.

link (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4215249.html)

A lot of people won't buy it because it doesn't give you the freedom and the feel of gasoline.

And that I think is true for electric vehicles in general.

Gasoline is now a habit which is going to be really tough to break.

How long the battery will last can vary a great deal, in heavy traffic with the car in low gear, traveling uphills, elec componants like air con running, lights on, etc etc, so it is a bit of an uknown factor, as to how far it will reliably get. :dunno:

Once the battery runs out you are in real trouble? :dunno: How do you get home? Spare can of sparks in the boot? :naughty: :biggrin:

Sorry, but untill these sort of issues have been resolved, I wont be traveling in an elec car..
.

You joking? Come on people, it's electricity, you can get it from anywhere, sometimes it comes out of the sky, it comes out of your finger when you touch metal, it comes out of your walls! Take a freaking cord and plug it in somewhere! Yes, people do that...it's not that hard. One San Franciscan drives his RAV4 EV from SF to LA and back, also to Tahoe and back, regularly using this method.

Hi All:

___BenjiBoy650 is right on! Not only are electrics the way of the future, it is the only means of transport that makes sense. RAV4EV’s although slow to 60 have logged > 150,000 miles on 10 year old NiMH packs. The new Li-Ion’s from JCI-Saft and A123Systems are far more robust, far more powerful, far lighter, far more recyclable, and just as safe. These are not $50.00 Laptop Li-Ion’s in case anyone wanted to know …

___The really big deal about BEV’s is not only can they be ungodly fast, they are downright cheap to fuel. The Tesla Roaster is only good for about 4.2 seconds to 60 yet can travel 50 miles for < $1.50. It costs most Accord pilots about $6.00 to travel that same distance nowadays. The cost of Li-Ion packs are coming down to the point of making a short range (< 150 mile) BEV or std range PHEV economically feasible and once they go OEM in multi-hundreds of thousands, the ICE using gasoline is obsolete overnight. A gasoline based ICE cannot compete on pure acceleration, reliability, cost or environmental performance let alone our dependence on foreign oil supplies disappears almost overnight. Does anyone here know the energy needed to pump, transport, refine, pump, transport and pump in to our tanks takes more energy then just filling our cars with the same amount of electricity to begin with? We need Iraq, Iran, Saudi, UAE, Venezuela and Nigeria like a hole in the head as we have been shooting ourselves in the cranium for far too long … Haven’t we?

___What do you mean we do not import but maybe 12 - 15% of our daily fix from the Middle East? It doesn’t matter where it comes from as Japan and Europe would be happy to take up all of Canada’s and Venezuela’s output if we didn’t. Supply and demand :(

Once the battery runs out you are in real trouble? :dunno: How do you get home? Spare can of sparks in the boot?___James, the Li-Ion packs for PHEV consideration are far more robust at any speed or abuse cycle you can throw at them over and above any ICE known to man other then when it’s - 20 degrees C or below. At that point, it is not degradation of the chemistry (longevity of the pack does not decrease) but the Battery Cap falls off progressively with ever decreasing temperatures.

___As for where you fill up, BenjiBoy already said it. Anywhere! Run your car out of gas and you better be close to a gas station … Run your BEV out of fuel and you can either get it jumped for a 1 to 2 mile distance to a plug or plug it in where she dies. Limp home modes with limited maximum speeds get your attention quick so as to get your car charged or filled when it becomes time vs. just running out like our cars do today :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

The problem I see is that at the moment there just isn't a huge difference between electric, hybrid, and gas powered cars.

Think your electric doesn't cause pollution? Think again. Unless you're charging it up off solar cells there were fossil fuels burned to get that battery full. (Where do you think the electric company gets the electricity from? The Volt Fairy?)

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that gasoline is better. It's just that electricity isn't as much better as people think. A huge portion of our grid's power still comes from coal.

IMO Hybrids are the way to go for the cutting edge stuff. Gets more real road experience for the electrical systems we'll need, but doesn't abandon the tried and true gasoline the infrastructure supplies most prevalently.


But we've got to fix the national power grid's hunger for polluting power sources before a pure electric is much better an option than most anything else. In fact, I think hybrids are cleaner after everything's considered, but I could be wrong.


As for me I'm a big, big fan of the throaty growl a big ICE can put out. It'll be hard to get the same thrill out of the near-silence of electrics. And it'd just be pathetic to have some kind of artificial engine noise... I'd feel more grown up putting baseball cards in the wheel spokes.

Gasoline is now a habit which is going to be really tough to break.

With gas prices moving back up, I'd imagine it's getting easier and easier for many Americans.

Think your electric doesn't cause pollution? Think again. Unless you're charging it up off solar cells there were fossil fuels burned to get that battery full. (Where do you think the electric company gets the electricity from? The Volt Fairy?)
Besides solar, we have nuclear (<-- the future), wind, hydroelectric, regenerative braking, not to mention breakthrough technologies like wave power, or power from a small steam engine that receives its heat from a ICE or other primary engine, short term hydraulic energy storage for a boost from a stop, etc etc. The possibilities are endless, people just are too lazy to give a crap

Nuclear fusion power is going to come into the mainstream as the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, CA comes online with an anticipated ignition date of 2010.

Besides solar, we have nuclear (<-- the future), wind, hydroelectric, regenerative braking, not to mention breakthrough technologies like wave power, or power from a small steam engine that receives its heat from a ICE or other primary engine, short term hydraulic energy storage for a boost from a stop, etc etc. The possibilities are endless, people just are too lazy to give a crap

I wasn't talking about "some day". I was talking about "right now". Right now the bulk of the electricity being produced does not come from clean sources. Nuclear power is very clean, but there's the whole nuclear waste thing to think about.

Sure, there's lots of cool ideas about how to make power without burning fossil fuels. However, at the moment, they do not have the ability to take over the load. It's not just an addiction to gasoline and petroleum products. It's an addiction to power. Before we can eliminate petroleum we've got to reduce our consumption of electricity as well. That, or put a nuclear reactor in a lot more places (and no one wants to live next door to one).

Nuclear fusion power is going to come into the mainstream as the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, CA comes online with an anticipated ignition date of 2010.

Eh? Last I heard fusion power was still theory with no working models. I definitely believe it's possible, but the only thing I've heard of under construction were laboratories - testing facilities to try to crack the puzzle of how to build a working reactor.

Hi Spektyr:

___You should begin your education with any google on “well to wheels” emissions via Coal, let alone Hydro, Solar, wind and Nuclear. Not only is coal based Electricity cleaner propelling a PHEV/BEV then even my Tier II/Bin2 PZEV on gasoline, the power used to create today’s gallon of fuel refined for use in your car is what will go directly into a BEV/PHEV without having to burn a single gallon of the black drug we call oil in the first place. Gasoline is an intermediary just as H2 for an FCV is. The power is already being used but far less efficiently by converting the hole in the ground to gasoline in your tank vs. just using the power to fill a pack in the first place.

___As for the noise, I wonder why today’s Accord’s, Camry’s and anything from Acura and Lexus are so much quieter then an Accord or Camry from 15 years ago? What was the point of reducing noise if everyone was instead interested in a FART can attached to their daily commuter? I think you are by far in the minority on this one … If you want to see the future of racing, you should get to a track where the Audi R10 is going to run. I was fortunate enough to see it clean everyone’s clock at the 12-hours of Sebring just before it did the same at LeMan’s last year. They were so quiet all you heard was a wooosh when they screamed by. The Vette’s and Panoz’ were the loudest on the track but everyone’s attention was on the almost silent R10’s running at speeds no one else could touch ;) That may not go over to well at NASCAR but they will probably be running E100 within 2 years anyway.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

I wasn't talking about "some day". I was talking about "right now". Right now the bulk of the electricity being produced does not come from clean sources. Nuclear power is very clean, but there's the whole nuclear waste thing to think about.

Sure, there's lots of cool ideas about how to make power without burning fossil fuels. However, at the moment, they do not have the ability to take over the load. It's not just an addiction to gasoline and petroleum products. It's an addiction to power. Before we can eliminate petroleum we've got to reduce our consumption of electricity as well. That, or put a nuclear reactor in a lot more places (and no one wants to live next door to one).
This way of thinking is circular and flawed. We can't make electric cars now, stated reason being electricity is very polluting (untrue). But before anybody has incentive to make electricity less polluting, there has to be some more demand for it in our cars and trucks. Then the industry will be seen as a power source for cars, and just lik the oil industry now, they will be required to reduce emissions.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? The way Americans are thinking, we'd all be vegetarians :lmao:

Unless I pay extra for one of the clean energy options, the majority of my power comes from coal from a plant in eastern oregon that PGE pays penalties on because it fails emissions standards.

But before anybody has incentive to make electricity less polluting, there has to be some more demand for it in our cars and trucks.

So we need to wait to fix problems until its larger and harder to fix? There's no lack of demand for electricity (rolling brownouts anyone?).

So we need to wait to fix problems until its larger and harder to fix? There's no lack of demand for electricity (rolling brownouts anyone?).
So then tell me, who has started building nuclear powerplants? NOBODY. Even France itself (which receives 41% of its power from nuclear) has planned to phase out nuclear power, Germany too. Seems like we are having lots of incentive aren't we?

So then tell me, who has started building nuclear powerplants? NOBODY. Even France itself (which receives 41% of its power from nuclear) has planned to phase out nuclear power, Germany too. Seems like we are having lots of incentive aren't we?

There's a lot of investment going on right now in cleaner electricity sources. As far as nuclear goes there's significant political and economic barriers to entry for a company to jump into the nuclear power biz. Its not due to lack of demand for electricity.

There's a lot of investment going on right now in cleaner electricity sources. As far as nuclear goes there's significant political and economic barriers to entry for a company to jump into the nuclear power biz. Its not due to lack of demand for electricity.
France and Germany did not exactly have any barriers...as I said they already supply 41% of their electricity through nuclear and they are planning to reduce that to ZERO.

When I said how do we get on when the battery runs out en route, I meant needing recharging, not totaly kaputt.. :)

Hmm. So one can just plug the elec cars into.. where?? can't stop at the nearest farm and plug-in without the risk of gaining shotgun pellets in your bum! :paranoid: ..

Do you get a warning if the batteries low? how much? Do the owners need a 60 mile long cable in the boot? :lmao: :biggrin: And how long do you have to wait for the thing to recharge itself? hours? :paranoid: That would make for really slow travel? :dunno:

The best way to encourage people to look to greener solutions, is do as the UK Gov did, add a huge amount of tax to fuel!! If the US charged $7.50 a gall (roughly the price in UK and Europe) people would be screaming for more economic ways to travel.. heh heh :biggrin: ..

Gas guzzler vehicle prices are dropping through the floor here, what with the high fuel cost, and the fact that driving one is considered very very anti social, people can't get rid of them fast enough! :naughty:
.

France and Germany did not exactly have any barriers...as I said they already supply 41% of their electricity through nuclear and they are planning to reduce that to ZERO.

Large capitol investments are a barrier to entry. Whats an easier business to enter selling nuclear energy or selling lemonade? Utilities typically have large capitol barriers to entry and nuclear is a great example of this. Besides capitol barriers to entry you have political and regulatory barriers to entry. Nuclear has NIMBY. Ask yourself, if you owned a home or a business, would you want a nuclear power plant in the area? What do you think it would do to your investment? Communities will fight proposals for new ones near them and will fight to close outdated ones. Right or wrong nuclear draws fears of environmental disastors like Chernobyl, or getting into the wrong hands after significant political changes, or where to put the waste. It all adds up to a recipe for one of the most regulated industries out there. If you don't see barriers to entry, go out there and build yourself a plant.

I'm not against nuclear but I don't agree with you that the reason we're not seeing more of it is a lack of demand for electricity.

Large capitol investments are a barrier to entry.
You completely missed the point. France is not ENTERING anything. They ALREADY had major nuclear powerplants that they are planning to make GO AWAY.

This way of thinking is circular and flawed. We can't make electric cars now, stated reason being electricity is very polluting (untrue). But before anybody has incentive to make electricity less polluting, there has to be some more demand for it in our cars and trucks. Then the industry will be seen as a power source for cars, and just lik the oil industry now, they will be required to reduce emissions.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? The way Americans are thinking, we'd all be vegetarians :lmao:

Interesting way to read a great deal more into what I wrote than I actually wrote.


In fact, I specifically mentioned that I was not saying electric cars weren't a better solution than gas powered cars.

The entire point I was making was that they were not - as they're often touted - a zero emissions vehicle. I'm not arguing that they cause more pollution (quite the opposite). I'm simply saying that many, perhaps most people fail to take into account where the electricity comes from.

Electric cars are cleaner. My point is that they are not as much cleaner as people think.


If it's okay with you, I'd prefer to not have arguments attributed to me that are not in fact mine.

You completely missed the point. France is not ENTERING anything. They ALREADY had major nuclear powerplants that they are planning to make GO AWAY.

No need to yell. You asked earlier ...


So then tell me, who has started building nuclear powerplants? NOBODY.


My point is its not all that easy. There are significant barriers to entry. Not all of these barriers go away once you get started either.

I'll put it this way: I was trained by the US Navy to operate and repair the electronics of nuclear power plants. I was a Nuke Field Electronics Technician. My job in the simplest of terms was to run the power plant itself. I know precisely how safe and how dangerous they are.

They're incredibly safe.

At the same time, I would not choose to live next door to one if I had the option. Thus building a nuclear power plant lowers the value of the surrounding property in my eyes. How much more does that value drop in the eyes of someone who is not intimately familiar with the sundry safety measures integrated into a modern plant? I fully understand how obscenely unlikely it is for one of these plants to cause harm. I still wouldn't want to live next to one.

That's the ultimate problem with building fission plants: doing so destroys local property values, so absolutely no one wants one built anywhere near their home. This makes it hard to get public approval to build them.

Let's say you just spent a decade or more paying the lien on a $250,000 house. Would you vote for a power plant to be built that would make that house worth $150,000 overnight?


Just to be clear, I'm not saying nukes are bad. I believe quite the opposite. But nukes are bad for local property values because of the public perception of them. I think we should build more of them (but preferably a different source rather than nuclear power - it still pollutes, just in a different way.) But it's not as simple as just saying that they should build more.

Good point Spektyr. Another question to ask is if you lived near an older plant, would you support measures to phase the plant out if it meant your property values might improve it?

Another fear people have being anywhere near one is the potential terrorist attack on one.

Nuclear has incredible potential but also faces big challenges when it comes to the actual implementation.

Hi All:

___The really big deal about BEV’s is not only can they be ungodly fast, they are downright cheap to fuel. The Tesla Roaster is only good for about 4.2 seconds to 60 yet can travel 50 miles for < $1.50. It costs most Accord pilots about $6.00 to travel that same distance nowadays. The cost of Li-Ion packs are coming down to the point of making a short range (< 150 mile) BEV or std range PHEV economically feasible and once they go OEM in multi-hundreds of thousands, the ICE using gasoline is obsolete overnight.
___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

Always like reading what you have to say on the subject and always have more questions too. First off, I'm not against the idea of electric power in cars. I just have questions about the implementation on a larger scale. Your calculations are based off current electricity prices. If we drastically increased demand for electricity - which we would if electric vehicles replaced gas for the majority of our vehicles -- I don't see how the prices would be the same. Its going to cost some dough to increase capacity. For cleaner electricity what do you favor; cleaner coal, hydro, wind, nuclear???

Hi SCABADA:

___If you take away the gallon of gasoline not produced, you have the energy to fill a BEV or PHEV with no change in electrical usage or demand. The only difference is that the NG used in the Refinery processes would now be used for electrical production. NG electricity production is already very clean by comparison to coal which in and of itself is cleaner then what we spew out of our tail pipes while using gasoline for the same amount of distance traveled by comparison to a PHEV or BEV. PHEV’s and BEV’s are so much more efficient then anything with an ICE and this is the key to the whole thread. As populations increase, you have the std. increase in AC electrical demand just as the US has seen over the past 110 + years.

___I work as a Nuclear plant operator so would push for that myself. If Solar powers costs would come down by a factor of 10, I would be all for that even more. If the EEStor SuperCap’s come to bare anything even close to what some have speculated, we will all be running small wind turbines and storing the energy in one of their ESU’s in our home for a decentralized grid with our own micro-power production system. Still a bit to pie in the sky but holding up the hope that our future will be oil and CO2 emissions free as far as some of our transportation and home use needs are concerned.

___Just for a taste … Dresden, IL. has $750,000 + homes going up and selling before they are built. These homes are sited within 1 mile of the plant itself and reside on the same river that feeds the plants cooling lake. I think there are some here that either don’t understand Nuclear Power and its economics or may not live near enough to one to speak intelligently about the subject at hand?

___Another … About housing values in close proximity to a nuke. When a Nuke plant disappears, tax revenue from it that had supported the local town’s infrastructure disappears. As those tax revenues decline, housing prices in the area decline. I saw this happen in Zion, IL. when that plant closed 7 + years ago and they still have not recovered fully :(

___And about a new Nuke plants siting process. They are located in areas of a minimum population density. If that density increases or encroaches upon the site after the plant is built, there is no loss in economic terms. WRT site placement, they are built in the sticks for more reasons then those discussed here. I originally lived within 7 miles of a nuke and would move even close today if I were to relocate …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

So you're saying that it's easy to get the local populace to sign off on having a nuclear power plant built nearby?

That all the NIMBY stuff is just science fiction?


I'm not saying that nuclear power plants are bad for the economy. I'm saying that they're perceived as being bad for property values and such. It isn't nearly as important what the actual impact is as what people believe the impact will be. Fear is far greater a motivator than most anything else.

Think about it this way: if you were to stop random people on the street and ask them to name a nuclear power plant how many times do you think you'd get "Three Mile Island" or "Chernobyl" as a response? Yes, accidents of that nature are so rare as to be practically non-existent compared to the safety records of virtually every reactor in operation today. But those horrific events stick in the public memory.

You can't get San Franciscans to give the thumbs-up for a nuclear power plant anywhere near their homes, but they don't bat an eyelash during Fleet Week when a dozen or so nukes get parked right off the coast. Why? Because the US Navy has a perfect record and because the citizens don't think about the fact that any aircraft carrier out there could power their city without breaking a sweat.

It's not about the facts. It's about the prejudice.

Hi Spektyr:

___Way OT but I suggest that you start googling early site licensing and/or site permits for new Nuclear plants. There are at least 9 utilities involved in the process with two, Entergy and Exelon that have already received early site permits for the next gen GE or Westinghouse BWR/PWR 600, 1000, 1200 or 1500’s.

___Did you really believe what you think in San Francisco is going to matter what happens in an out of the way area of Mississippi or Illinois? Extremely low CO2 emissions and massive electricity output for an extremely low cost are a Nukes attractive attributes. When the time is right, they will be built just as electricity demand continues onward and upward.

___As discussed previously, Nukes cannot go anywhere near San Francisco, LA, Chicago, New York, Boston or any other densely populated areas of the US given the companies that run them cannot get early site permits for those locations.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

I suppose it's easier to simply claim I'm ignorant than it is to prove you're right.

Hi Spektyr:

___Google is your friend. I suggest you start with NuStart if you want to pursue.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

So you agree with my above statement.

Then I suppose you won't bother answering this question either: why hasn't there been a new nuclear power plant built in the US since the early 70's? Did we build enough nuclear power plants that we didn't need any additional power after then?

Here's another question: What's your solution to storing used fuel cells and control rods? You going to keep them in your basement?


It's not just a matter of whether the reactor is "fine" with the population. They produce waste. That waste must be dealt with. There isn't a good way to do so.


While you're getting all worked up over Google, try typing in "nuclear power NIMBY" and see what you come up with.


Everyone wants electricity but no one wants to live near a nuke.

Hi Spektyr:

___Sorry but I come from the working nuclear side of the fence. I cannot answer your worries but if we were allowed to reprocess our nuclear fuel like most other industrialized nations due with their nuclear fuel, I would be glad to hold the entire worlds nuclear waste in something the size of a small swimming pool. You might want to look up some info on France’s nuclear program as to why they do not have to look for a Yucca mountain repository yet 75% of their country runs on Nuclear power. Unfortunately or not, only until recently has the US begun serious investment into reprocessing nuclear fuel. You can thank Jimmy Carter for that lapse way back in the 70’s :(

___If you care not to use Nuclear power in the US, you can start by telling everyone in the country to reduce their demand by 20%. That will work??? Even then, since the best plants can produce power for < $0.01/kWh all-in, I think you would see quite a few coal and wind turbine sites shut down first …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

You really just don't bother to read anything I write, do you?

That's pretty rude.


I come from the "nuclear side of the fence" too. I also come from the "reality" side of the fence, and therefore can recognize that although nuclear power is a much more preferable option than many of the more commonly used options, it is NOT the best solution. It has faults. It has big faults.

Furthermore I don't insult people by suggesting that it's not worth my time to actually say what I think and tell them that they're insufficiently educated to hold a conversation with me. Are you aware of how condescending it sounds when you say that?


You simply post over and over about what I should read without bothering to actually look anything up yourself (as you suggest others do) and without actually bothering to read what anyone else writes. If you did read other people's posts you'd know that I have operated nuclear power plants. You'd know that I'm not suggesting that nuclear power is bad.

You'd know that the whole, entire point I've been making is that electric cars - while producing less emissions than gasoline cars - are not (as many people think) zero emissions. Their electricity comes from somewhere and in the US more than 50% of the juice is made from coal. Not the worst thing to make electricity out of, but it's certainly not without pollution.

Nuclear power is a better solution, but it's not without pollution as well.

And absolutely none of the facts about nuclear power are anywhere near as important for the purposes of implementation as are the fears of it. Another point you refuse to read and/or address.

Every proposed construction project for a nuclear reactor in the US has been canceled prior to completion since the early 70's. The reason for this is that the American people don't like having nukes built nearby. Low-population or not, someone has to live nearby (since they don't really run by themselves). If the people around a proposed site complain enough it won't be built.


Do you even understand the tack this conversation is taking? Can you respond to anything I'm saying? I don't care about how safe you think nuclear power is. I've sat at the control panel and shimmed rods. I know how safe they are. How safe they are doesn't matter if people are too afraid of them to allow more to be built.

Hi Spektyr:

___Really way OT now …

___I am not the one guessing here as I do work in the industry. I am at the controls more then you care to know. You used to work on navy reactors as a tech? Do you even have a clue as to the difference between a naval reactors enrichment and a public utilities let alone the regulation and their respective reactivity control aspects? If you want to learn about the industry, I gave you enough to get started so you are not speaking ignorantly about it in the future. I do not believe you need to be spoon fed anymore then you have been already as I assume you are a smart guy :(

___If you want to hear about the next reactor going in, expect an announcement within 2 years. If you don’t, close your eyes and ears then go run and hide.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

How safe they are doesn't matter if people are too afraid of them to allow more to be built.

Simply put, the ignorance of large groups of people is very dangerous.

They'll go for it when the time is right. (i.e. when costs of electricity start to skyrocket b/c there isn't enough to go around).

just FYI.....

spirited discussion is more than welcome, but personal attacks will not be tolerated here..... please watch where you step.... :)

- DA moderator

just FYI.....

spirited discussion is more than welcome, but personal attacks will not be tolerated here..... please watch where you step.... :)

- DA moderator

No worries, I'm done with the discussion. I have a limit to the amount of insult I'll tolerate.

xcel I appreciate your insight and I've learned from things you've posted here and there, but holy cow sometimes I wonder if you read what others write on these boards and try to understand what there saying. No ones really bashing nuclear power here from what I've read in this thread. If anything we've talked more about the challenges (right or wrong) it faces and a large part of that has to do with public opinion. Before people embrace it enough that they'll want to live next to one as much as you do, don't you think perceptions have to change?

Hi SCABADA:

___Way Way OT …

___Nukes go up in the most desolate of places outside of large population centers as chosen by the utility but the NRC has the final say on the location or not. This has already been explained but some failed to realize this fact. They do not affect home values as originally posted. One only needs to look at where the first 6 will go (Google NUSTART) and that will tell you that there is little NIMBY for the places already selected. ¾ are going up on existing plant sites in fact. I try not to spread dis-information but the discussion on Nuke plants was full of it and I hope some reason was added to the thread afterwards.

___If you are a rural community and someone wants to place a Nuke in your back yard while adding $4 to $25 million per year to the local tax base + $50 - $65 Million in local salaries, what would you do? Your property values go up, your once under funded schools now contain some of the highest funding per student in your respective state and business spring up as the influx of 2,000 + workers for the build out over 3 - 5 years and upwards of 800 + college educated individuals are employed by the new enterprise for the next 40 - 60 years. This places your once rural and sometimes dying rural community on the map. It is one of the best deals going for a rural community in fact. Call it pay for the votes or whatever you want. It is a boon for those that have asked to have a plant sited in their back yard … Nukes will get built in the places that are already pre-sited for all the right reasons when it is time. The fact the money is so huge only makes it that much more of a success. Locations in Illinois are in or near the towns of Braidod, Byron, LaSalle, Dresden, Clinton and Quad Cities. These are all rural communities with population centers quite some distance from them.

___Ready to discuss BEV’s now? A BEV can be made to be much faster while still being far more efficient then any ICE equipped automobiles. They are far less expensive to fuel, far more reliable and will be less expensive once they begin to be manufactured in economy of scale like quantities.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

I can't wait till we get more robust hybrids that use more battery technology. One of my mom's complaints is she'd love to be able to plug the civic into the wall at night so she can start w/ a full battery everyday.

Once we get bigger batteries, I hope we can make the hybrid engine smaller and the battery pack bigger. The idea would be to run on electric power with just a small engine to make electric power. Its an idea we are working on at the Academy. I am on a capstone design team who is working on an electric vehicle that is equipped with a generator set used to create electricity. Maybe our next generation hybrids will have smaller engines and larger electric motors.

Hi Steve:

___You certainly are working on the right idea :D

GM’s Chevrolet “VOLT” shocks the industry. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4018)

Plug-in-Hybrid-Electric-Vehicle or PHEV’s are yet another possible answer. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196)

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

One step at I time as our battery pack costs 30k each and we need two (its an off road vehicle).

I'm sure the Lithium Ion packs will be much better than the Nickel ones we use now in hybrids. We will just have to wait for them to get out of LRIP....

Hi Steve:

___Yes, this is where the OEM’s have us over a barrel. Do you know the Panasonic EV 1.3 kWh Ni-MH in the Prius II costs less then $800 all-in? The rest of Toyota’s hybrid drivetrain including the Inverter/Converter, HSD w/ the PSD and the HW and SW busses (minuses a std. automatic transmission and alternator) costs just $1,200 OEM. Toyota is talking about a similar capacity Li-Ion for < $500 from Matsushita for the Prius III. The Japanese corporations sure do work together … Think about a 10 kWh Li-Ion at a lifetime rated 70% DoD leading to almost 30 miles of EV in the upcoming Prius III for < $4,000 OEM. HSD-II w/ all but the pack should come in around $600 -$750 all-in. Add it up and it is absolutely scary what both GM and Ford will be up against!

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
http://www.cleanmpg.com/garage/images/11.png (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=11)

That is amazing. It's nice to see the prices are really not as bad as I expected.

At the same time, it think its a shame we can't get any American companies to work together. All in all, I'm not sure if we even manufacture our own batteries in the states anyways. I now the company we are buying our battery pack from uses cells made in Korea.

Well, for our sake as Americans, I sure hope we can get our act together when it comes to fuel economy. We as a country are lagging behind and its not good for our corporations.

Hi SCABADA:

___Way Way OT …

___Nukes go up in the most desolate of places outside of large population centers as chosen by the utility but the NRC has the final say on the location or not. This has already been explained but some failed to realize this fact. They do not affect home values as originally posted. One only needs to look at where the first 6 will go (Google NUSTART) and that will tell you that there is little NIMBY for the places already selected. ¾ are going up on existing plant sites in fact. I try not to spread dis-information but the discussion on Nuke plants was full of it and I hope some reason was added to the thread afterwards.

___If you are a rural community and someone wants to place a Nuke in your back yard while adding $4 to $25 million per year to the local tax base + $50 - $65 Million in local salaries, what would you do? Your property values go up, your once under funded schools now contain some of the highest funding per student in your respective state and business spring up as the influx of 2,000 + workers for the build out over 3 - 5 years and upwards of 800 + college educated individuals are employed by the new enterprise for the next 40 - 60 years. This places your once rural and sometimes dying rural community on the map. It is one of the best deals going for a rural community in fact. Call it pay for the votes or whatever you want. It is a boon for those that have asked to have a plant sited in their back yard … Nukes will get built in the places that are already pre-sited for all the right reasons when it is time. The fact the money is so huge only makes it that much more of a success. Locations in Illinois are in or near the towns of Braidod, Byron, LaSalle, Dresden, Clinton and Quad Cities. These are all rural communities with population centers quite some distance from them.

Please understand I'm not trying to criticize nuclear power. I'm not trying to argue with you when I ask you a question either. In my line of work when people ask me questions (especially difficult ones) in the end its a good thing.

The places I've lived the last twenty years (Clancy MT, Columbia MD, St. Mary's City MD, Missoula MT, Portland, OR) I've seen serious resistance to building all kinds of things even when one of the benefits is tax revenue and jobs for the community. Sometime the resistance results in the project not going through, sometimes it just is a barrier that slows things down and changes the original plan with compromises that opposing sides can live with a bit better. Things that were debated, regulated and sometimes not allowed were things as small and large such as a clothes line (yes not allowed at my house in Columbia MD), a new road, a Wal Mart, a mine, ski hill, expansion of a naval base. I'm not saynig nimby is a good thing, but I've seen it allive and kicking everywhere I've lived and it can be powerful. If you don't think its something nuclear power will face then I'm glad to hear it. I haven't lived in Illonois so maybe we've just had different life experiences.

There hasn't been a lot of new nuclear plants built in the 20 years and I disagreed with what was said earlier that the reason was due to lack of demand for electricity. I figured it had more to do with public fears (right or wrong) and heavy regulation not making it worth the capitol investment to build or making it a slooowww process to do so. You're in the industry though so you'd know better than me.



___Ready to discuss BEV’s now? A BEV can be made to be much faster while still being far more efficient then any ICE equipped automobiles. They are far less expensive to fuel, far more reliable and will be less expensive once they begin to be manufactured in economy of scale like quantities.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes



I never said battery electric vehicles were a bad idea. Overall I think the positives outweight the negatives much more than a car that is strictly internal combustion. I think it would be a big transition to make and sure I've got some questions about how that might work, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to say electric cars are a bad idea.

I'd like the idea better if I was confident we had the capacity to provide enough electricity needed. I asked if you thought it would effect the demand for electricity and if you thought it would have any effect on our cost of electricity. To be honest I didn't completly understand your answer and if my question was accidentally misinterpreted to mean the demand for all energy sources as a whole instead of just the demand for electricity. I also asked about electricity sources because I'd rather it wasn't coming from some of the ones it currently was. I appreciate your input. Sometimes I get the feeling you're talking down to me and others here. If I've misinterpreted your intentions, my bad, I'm sorry. If not thats ok I've got thick skin.

-- edit --
went back and read your explanation a third time let me know if I have this right: battery electric vehicles are so much more efficient than internal combution engines that the amount of electricity needed to power them instead of internal combustion engines is negligeble (even on a large scale?). The production of petroleum itself is energy intensive and wasteful (and perhaps involves electricity consumption itself)? Whats meant by NG in your explanations there natural gas?

With gas prices moving back up, I'd imagine it's getting easier and easier for many Americans.

I don't think so.

During the last price hike a lot of people still bought huge SUV's.

A lot of research still needs to be done to lengthen the battery life for charge but it is not too far away.

The problem still needs to be address on the bettery cars (at this time frame) is how to power the "power steering", brakes and A/C?

The problem still needs to be address on the bettery cars (at this time frame) is how to power the "power steering", brakes and A/C?
This problem was fixed a long time ago? You can use electric units for all of these. Even non-electric cars are using them...Civic Si has used electric power steering, Prius IIRC uses electric A/C, some Mercedes now use electric brakes w/ a traditional hydraulic back up.