When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[f4eru]

Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.

That's perfectly true.
The best, cheapest, and safest way to use nuclear power is to use the big fusion power installed over our heads and to install massive quantities of PV panels, and storage devices.

[nctnico]

Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.

Actually nuclear power is by far the safest way to generate electricity. It is even safer than wind and rooftop solar!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5895a0c6709b

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#15749c6a5467

I also did some calculations on battery storage. Forget about that. For example: take the Tesla powerwall. This is advertised by Tesla for 6400 euro (excluding VAT). Say you can get 1500 cycles from it (which is far more than the Li-ion cells you can buy today). The capacity is 13.5kWh so the total amound of energy you can store is 1500x13.5=20250kWh. The storage cost per kWh is 6400/20250=0,31 euro per kWh. I hope this shows how insane the 'battery storage' idea is. The storage costs alone dwarf the generation costs. It will make much more sense to use the electricity to generate Hydrogen and use that. Hydrogen can be stored in a tank which has a lifespan of many decades. Electricity from a wind turbine costs 2 dollarcents per kWh. If using Hydrogen has an efficiency of 7% (the actual number is more in the 50% ballpark) it is already cheaper compared to battery storage.

With Hydrogen at 50% efficiency it still wins if the batteries last for 20,000 cycles or when the batteries become 8 times cheaper.

[apis]

Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.

That's perfectly true.
The best, cheapest, and safest way to use nuclear power is to use the big fusion power installed over our heads and to install massive quantities of PV panels, and storage devices.

I have nothing against solar, but there are (at least) two problems:

1. The sun doesn't always shine, especially here in the far north. It's a month since winter solstice and the days are getting longer but the sun's highest altitude was still only 14 degrees above the horizon today, and it only stays up for about 8 hours. And I live in southern Scandinavia. Even at the equator it's dark 50% of the day. And then there is things called clouds. Same problem with wind, there is no electricity when the wind isn't blowing. We also need a power source that works when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

2. If we want to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible in order to prevent severe climate change we need to use everything we got available right now. There is a limited production capacity of PV panels (just as there is a limited production capacity of new nuclear power plants). So there is a limit to how quickly we can replace fossil fuels. By using all available alternatives (e.g. both solar and nuclear) we can replace fossil fuels much faster. It's the same with EVs they won't replace ICEs over night, it's a gradual change, and if we use both EVs and biofuels we can replace fossil fuels quicker.

(EDIT: and you wrote storage devices, what storage devices? there is nothing that could work as large scale storage today.)

[fsr]

Ummm, the waste is not depleted.  If it was depleted we would know about it.

Maybe depleted is not the word to describe it. It had lower U235 content than normal. The article mentions it:

In May 1972 at the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment facility in France, routine mass spectrometry comparing UF6 samples from the Oklo Mine, located in Gabon, showed a discrepancy in the amount of the 235 U isotope. Normally the concentration is 0.72% while these samples had only 0.60%, a significant difference.[5] This discrepancy required explanation, as all civilian uranium handling facilities must meticulously account for all fissionable isotopes to ensure that none are diverted for weapons purposes.

[cdev]

The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.

PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.

[apis]

The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.

PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.

Sure, someday in the future when there exist some new amazing storage technology, until then we need alternatives for when the sun doesn't shine.

The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.

Wishful thinking is not helpful, it just makes things worse.

[SiliconWizard]

The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.

I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.

PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.

Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator. In another project of this kind, water is not directly used, but huge concrete blocks instead, underseas. Although this energy storage approach is still not very efficient, it doesn't matter much at this point since it's all about storing energy that would be lost if not stored anyway. In terms of cost, environmental friendliness and safety, it seems to compare favorably to battery-based systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

[NiHaoMike]

More investment in matching demand to supply needs to be done. As well as thermal storage which is very well suited to HVAC and hot water.

As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.

[nctnico]

As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.

Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.

[DougSpindler]

The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.

PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.

No need to worry about nuclear weapons proliferation.  Nuclear fuel used in power plants is very difficult to enrich to make a nuclear bomb.  Then if it’s a plutonium bomb it’s very difficult to detonate.  A uranium bomb is much easier to detonate, but the problem getting enough bomb grande uranium.

Yes PV energy could be and is used to lift and store water in large reservoirs for power generation.  But in reality it doesn’t work out so well.  Here in California as I recall we have 100 such reservoirs.  The reason it doesn’t work so well there are competing interests.  That water is needed as drinking water for people and for farmers to grow crops.  The downstream rivers and streams need that water so fish breed and survive.  And things get worse in the summer when there is no rain and we have water shortages.

How bad is this for us?  Lake Powell in Nevada is one such man made reservoir.  Over the last 20 years the water level has dropped over 200 feet.  What happens to your storage idea when there’s no water?

[DougSpindler]

San Francisco Bay Area had a similar rail system.  The lower deck off the Bay bridge was for rail traffic only.  LA in the 1910s was considered to have the cleanest air in the United States.  By the 1940s it was considered the worst.  It took a while, but scientists finely figured out it was car exhaust that was causing all of the pollution.  It took another 25 years for politicians to take action.

And lets not forget we have GM to thank for adding lead to gasoline.  The engines they were producing in the 1920s would knock and it was found if lead was added to the gas it would prevent knocking.  After 50 years of cars spewing lead out of the exhaust tanks the lead level in the soil in the neighborhoods that boarder the busy freeways and streets are considered toxic.  The lead levels are 10 to 20 times whart’s allowable by law.  Tell me just how stupid this is....  Community activists are telling people to plant con unity gardens in this soil to grow food for low income residents.

It was the car companies who were agaist California’s requirements to have lead removed from gasoline and produce less pollution.  If you appreciate the car you drive today pollutes less, get better gas mileage and isn’t spewing lead out of the tail pipes of cars you have California politicians to thank.

[NiHaoMike]

Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.

I'm going by US standards. Even then, there's a lot of cars that already do at least 30 MPG highway. There's no excuse to not do at least that well.

[apis]

I think weapon proliferation is the biggest problem with nuclear power. But it's not like North Korea, Russia, China, USA, etc, etc are going to care one way or another if peaceful countries like Sweden or Finland shut down their nuclear power plants. Countries that want nuclear weapons don't care about Green Peace protesters. In fact you can use nuclear power plants to burn and get rid of weapons grade material. So I don't think it's a valid argument against civilian nuclear power.

Pumped hydroelectric seems promising, but like hydro it requires suitable locations and lakes you can use which are in limited supply. Would be interesting to see a study on how much pumped hydro capacity that could realistically be constructed. If pumped hydro is enough to serve as storage for solar and wind so we don't need anything else, then that's great (although I'd be surprised if that is the case). But as long as coal, gas and oil power plants exist it's much better to use nuclear.

[DougSpindler]

It’s no simple task to turn nuke power plat waste into nuke bombs.
Here’s what happens when you mess with water.

https://twitter.com/ScienceChannel/status/1087001805131661313?s=20

[ahbushnell]

The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.

I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.

PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.

Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator. In another project of this kind, water is not directly used, but huge concrete blocks instead, underseas. Although this energy storage approach is still not very efficient, it doesn't matter much at this point since it's all about storing energy that would be lost if not stored anyway. In terms of cost, environmental friendliness and safety, it seems to compare favorably to battery-based systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

It is a great way to store energy.  The problem is there are a limited number of locations where this is feasible. 

[jmelson]

Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.

We have a system here in Missouri (US) that pumps water up an 800 foot hill at night, and then it runs down hill at the peak time of the day.  They recently had an accident and the wall of the upper reservoir collapsed, sending 1.5 billion gallons of water crashing into a state park.  They rebuilt the reservoir with better technology, so the electric utility must think it really helps.

Jon

[DougSpindler]

Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.

We have a system here in Missouri (US) that pumps water up an 800 foot hill at night, and then it runs down hill at the peak time of the day.  They recently had an accident and the wall of the upper reservoir collapsed, sending 1.5 billion gallons of water crashing into a state park.  They rebuilt the reservoir with better technology, so the electric utility must think it really helps.

Jon

It helps a lot.  Years ago Los Angles had a similar accident.  The dam burst at midnight and killed over 400.  Bodies were found many days latter floating in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Mexico.  Interestingly the water in the dam would have gone to Lake Owens.  Look back a few posts to see what happened to Lake Owens. 

Posting links for before and after pictures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam#/media/File:The_St._Francis_Dam.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam#/media/File:St._Francis_Dam_after_the_1928_failure.jpg

[f4eru]

The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.

That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense any more today.

Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, nuke replaced by coal is more of a legend.


An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.


Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone, which is scheduled in 2 Years.

[DougSpindler]

That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense.

Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, it's more of a legend.


An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.


Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone.

And what your saying is not correct either.  Germany is decommissioning nuclear power plants, installing more solar and wind and is burning more coal.  They Still rely on nuclear power, but that they are getting from France.

“Germany’s carbon emissions are not declining much, despite renewables increasing to almost 30% of the country’s power mix this year (see figure below), and over 50% of its installed capacity. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30% and, along with power purchases from France and other countries in Europe, is used to load-follow, or buffer, the intermittency of the renewables.”

“Coal is the largest domestically-produced source of power in Germany, despite a tremendous surge in renewables over the last ten years. As a result, the country’s CO2 emissions have not declined much.   AGEB”

“France has the lowest carbon emissions per person because it’s power is majority nuclear. The United States has the most emissions per person since we are still two-thirds fossil fuel. Germany is in-between with 50% fossil fuel.”

Solar is provides 3% of Germany’s power ams wind 12%.

Germany IS funding Next Gen nuclear power as is the EU, China, Russia, India, Japan and other countries. Just do the math to see how much or how little electricity we can get from solar and wind,  And with storage of that electricity more costly than producing it, its not a complete solution.

Hydro is not the solution either as that’s only 3% in Germany.  And we don”t hear of new hydro projects being proposed.  As the world’s needs for electricity continues to increase next gen nuclear is really the only solution with the technology we have at this time.

[f4eru]

. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30%

You seem to be unable to read a graph.
Coal has not increased, it stayed steady, while renewablers increased 10 fold, compensating nuke "only"

Solar is provides 3% of Germany’s power ams wind 12%.

Trolling with old numbers from 20 Years ago.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie_de.htm?year=2018
Renewables is at 40.2%. Will soon break the 50% mark.

[DougSpindler]

Numbers are from a recent report.  Why do you immediately call me and troll and not ask so we can have an intelligent discussion?  If we did maybe I or you would learn something.  Calling someone a troll is no way to educate someone or have a discussion with someone.  Have some respect for people with other points of view.

Do you agree Germany and the EU is supporting next gen nuclear?  Germany recently purchased a super computer to aid in the calculations.

Just out of curiosity what percentage of Germany’s electricity over the past two months was from solar?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.

Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.

Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK

[DougSpindler]

As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.

Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.

Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK

Is that because a kg is no longer a kg anymore with the new IPK?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Just out of curiosity what percentage of Germany’s electricity over the past two months was from solar?

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK

Is that because a kg is no longer a kg anymore with the new IPK?

LOL, no!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Units_of_measure