When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[nctnico]

Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

24 ethanol vs 35.8 MJ/litre for diesel/gasoil, so a tank after a fill up would have 33% less range, which is still much more range than any EV and it's easy peasy to make a tank a smidge bigger.

[nctnico]

24 ethanol vs 35.8 MJ/litre for diesel/gasoil, so a tank after a fill up would have 33% less range, which is still much more range than any EV and it's easy peasy to make a tank a smidge bigger.

Ethanol is much less prone to self detonation (knocking) which means you can get much more power from the same engine. Or alternatively run the engine at a better efficiency (and do further down sizing). All in all the difference is much smaller then you'd expect.

[apis]

Interestingly any idea who is exposed to their most ionizing radiation?  It’s not the people living in or around Chernobyl or Fukushima, not riadation workers or astronauts....  It’s smokers.  People who smoke cigarettes are exposed to more ionizing radiation every year than anyone else.

That's a nice video by veritasium but I'm afraid many won't even listen to what he says and think "uh uh that abandoned store/basement and particle filter looks really nasty, and the dosimeter beeped a lot, it must be super dangerous".

[ahbushnell]

In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.

That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.

Interesting.   Do you have a reference?

[apis]

Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.

Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. 
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Of all those killed by ionizing radiation, most are victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only that those deaths were duly hidden by the USA army.

http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html

At no time during the period between 1943 and 1946 were facilities allotted, or time provided, for the Medical Section of the Manhattan Engineer District to prepare a comprehensive history of its activities. Regulations forbade notetaking. Official records were scanty. There were few charts and photographs.

[...]

-Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.

-Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.

-Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.

-During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.

-After a lull without peak mortality from any special causes, deaths began to occur from purpura, which was often associated with epilation, anemia, and a yellowish coloration of the skin. The so-called bone marrow syndrome, manifested by a low white blood cell count and almost complete absence of the platelets necessary to prevent bleeding,w as probably at its maximum beTween the fourth and sixth weeks after the bombs were dropped.

[apis]

In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.

That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.

Interesting.   Do you have a reference?

Yes!
For example, 171'000 died in the worst hydro power dam failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
The UN says that "In 2016, household and outdoor air pollution led to some 7 million deaths worldwide." (!) Please note that that is 7 million every year. Hydro dam and nuclear accidents are very rare one time events.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/
From Chernobyl:
"The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers. Twenty-eight of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest."
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs
"A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/chernobyl-true-scale-accident
But some claim that is an underestimate and come up with numbers closer to 30'000:
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated

[DougSpindler]

In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.

That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.

Interesting.   Do you have a reference?

For number of deaths take a look at Wikipedia.  As for the number of premrute deaths there is no agreeded upon number which is why it’s a range.  There are Russian doctors/Russia government which places the number at .000000001%.  Now we all know we can trust the Russian government.  Ukraininan place the number at over 100,000.  They would not have an agenda, would they? 

It takes a public heath physician who understands statistics to give us good number.  The 3,000-30,000 is the accepted and agreeded upon number by public health experts around the world.  You will find other estimates but yes are using best cases or worst case estimates plus a god dose of margin of error to make their point.

No doubt, both accidents are causing premature deaths but then again so do guns and diesel exhaust fumes.  In the US one is far more likely to die prematurely from just a few grams of lead fired from a gun than ionizing radiation from nuclear power plant accident.  n the US one is 2 to 25 times more likely to die premature from lead poisoning than ionizing radiation.  And what’s crazy here n the US is that one or more people die from high speed lead poinsioning as the result of a young kid every week.  We just had another shooting where 3 were killed.  Serbia which has the second most number of guns per person the risk from premature death from high speed lead is nowhere close to the number in the US.

What’s being calculated are premature deaths.  Ironically we have the tobacco companies to thank for the accuracercy of our calculations.  Had they not been using radioactive polonium as a cheap fertilizer for tobacco crops, millions would not have developed lung cancer and related diseases and died prematurely.

As Derek demonstrated in the video in his trip to Fukushima and Chernobyl someone who smokes is exposed to far more nuclear ionizing radiation every year than at Fukushima ma or Chernobyl.

We are all going to die, question is how and when.  Many people in the US as well as other countries already know the answer to tat question when they take their own life.  That number in the US every year is far greater than the number who will die as the result of all nuclear accidents.

[nctnico]

Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.

Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. 
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?

Corn is just the start. Other plants like Wheat and Soy are next. The reason corn was choosen probably has to do with POET already using corn to produce Ethanol from so they already had a relationship with corn-farmers. That makes it easier to get the feedstock needed. With a running plant and a demonstrateable business model it will be easier to persuade other farmers to also harvest different parts of their crops for bio-fuel production.
There are 922 million acres of land used for agriculture in the US. Using a number of 80 gallons per acre that amounts to a potential of 73 billion gallons of bio-fuel per year. This can easely cover the US fuel consumption for cars if the government bans vehicles with a very poor MPG rating. The current average fuel economy of the cars in the US is appallingly bad and can easely be cut by half.

Bio-fuels are likely to put a nail in the EV's coffin.

The 3rd generation bio-fuels have been kind of a holy grail for a long time but it seems the last hurdles have been overcome by at least two seperate companies. I like the elegance of the process. Take leftovers from the field which aren't useful for anything else (not even feeding cattle) and use a process very similar to brewing beer to make fuel.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."

Ouch

I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.

[DougSpindler]

Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.

Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. 
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?

Corn is just the start. Other plants like Wheat and Soy are next. The reason corn was choosen probably has to do with POET already using corn to produce Ethanol from so they already had a relationship with corn-farmers. That makes it easier to get the feedstock needed. With a running plant and a demonstrateable business model it will be easier to persuade other farmers to also harvest different parts of their crops for bio-fuel production.
There are 922 million acres of land used for agriculture in the US. Using a number of 80 gallons per acre that amounts to a potential of 73 billion gallons of bio-fuel per year. This can easely cover the US fuel consumption for cars if the government bans vehicles with a very poor MPG rating. The current average fuel economy of the cars in the US is appallingly bad and can easely be cut by half.

Bio-fuels are likely to put a nail in the EV's coffin.

The 3rd generation bio-fuels have been kind of a holy grail for a long time but it seems the last hurdles have been overcome by at least two seperate companies. I like the elegance of the process. Take leftovers from the field which aren't useful for anything else (not even feeding cattle) and use a process very similar to brewing beer to make fuel.

Dude you need to do your research.  The reaso corn was selected is because it is energy dense compared to wheat and soy.  I’m surprised you didn’t mention switchgrass.  If this is the Holy Grail as you say why haven’t venture capitalists, governments and large corporations jumped in to make massive profits?

Dude use your head.  In one of your last posts from June of 2018 it gave projected outcomes and if I recall a billion gallon goal for Fall.  Well it’s winter now and Fall has passed.  Did they meet projections and the goal of a billion?  NOPE!

The Holy Grail for bio-fuels is neither holy nor grail.  In your next post please list the recent successes (f there are any) with bio-fuel.  Stop with the marketing projections and estimates.  Give us some real tangible data.

[fsr]

About nuclear waste:

The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.

Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review

source: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary

That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.

[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."

Ouch

I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.

Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
We can do something about the amount of fossil fuels now, and preserve them for other uses instead of burning them. That requires political commitment, however.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.

Great... but, many many many more people can live THANKS to the fossil fuels, so what? It's not perfect, but almost. Are you against vaccines too because a small % die when vaccinated?

Get your priorities right, because fossil fuels do infinitely much more good than bad.

[DougSpindler]

About nuclear waste:

The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.

Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review

That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.

[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."

Ouch

I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.

Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
We can do something about the amount of fossil fuels now, and preserve them for other uses instead of burning them. That requires political commitment, however.

The map you showed is a compilation.  We’ve been talking about nuclear power.  The map you are showing isn’t that showing nuclear material not only from nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, medical nuclear waste, and industrial nuclear waste.

The map is an accurate.  It does not show San Francisco, (Hunters Point) or the Farallon Islands.

So not exactly sure what the map is and is not indicating.

In the US we could reprocess the spent nuclear fuel rods, but politically we don’t want to do it.  Same with storage.  We could store it safely, but again the politics gets in the way.

But let’s be fair about this, we have the same issue with the residue from burned fossil fuels.  Coal slug heaps are radioactive, contain many cancerous compounds and the particulate which gets blown by the wind causing respiratory diseases especially in kids.

Yes coal and fossil fuels provide has provided us with machines to grow, harvest and transport food.  It keeps us warm.  Allows to to cook food without building a fire and many other conviences including transportation.  I would gladly fly to Europe on a plane in half a day than spend 3 months on a ship powered by the wind.

But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.  If you go back 200 years the averag life span was around 35 years.  Up until recently the average life span had doubled no doubt thanks to the use of fossil fuels.  But now our life span is being reduced.  Our children have a shorter life expectancy than we do.  The number one cause of this decline is the burning of fossil fuels.

The world has changed.  Just as onne England’s energy came from the burning of trees they cut them down and had no more forests and an energy crises.  Fossil fuels to the rescue.

But now we are realizing fossil fuels are killing us prematurly.  It’s time for a technology change.  Will we ever completely abandon fossil fuels not anytime soon.  But on the other had are you and your family willing to die 5 years prematurely? 




 

 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.

Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?

(*) I don't believe it.

[DougSpindler]

But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.

Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?

(*) I don't believe it.

I suspect about the same number if we stopped using synthetic/artificial fertilizers and GMOs.  Thank you Fritz Haber and the Haber-Bosch process and creator of gas warefare in World War I.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.

Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?

(*) I don't believe it.

I suspect about the same number if we stopped using synthetic/artificial fertilizers and GMOs.  Thank you Fritz Haber and the Haber-Bosch process and creator of gas warefare in World War I.

Ok, look at the energy chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

And tell me where from are you going to obtain the energy you need to synthesize enough liquid fuel to replace oil+gas+carbon? Because to synthesize a litre of fuel that contains X amount of energy, you need to put in X + a bit more of energy. Do you see the renewables in the chart? Tell me, where from?

[apis]

About nuclear waste:

The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total

{...}

That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.

I don't think anyone should use nuclear for anything military (but good luck convincing the US, Russia or China of that.)

The US waste from all their civilian power reactors is "enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep." That is very little if you consider how much power those nuclear reactors have generated for the people since the 1950s. It is no problem to fit that in a single deep geological repository, like the one they are building in Finland.

The reason it has't been done yet is because anti-nuclear activist keep stalling the process of getting it safety certified. Besides that, the spent fuel can be re-processed for weapons (by large countries spending billions, not terrorists), and for production of radioactive isotopes that are used by doctors (there is apparently a shortage of those). Since the old reactor designs from the 60s are very fuel-inefficient (5%), there is also potential to burn the remaining 95% in more modern types of reactors. So permanently disposing of that "nuclear crap" might actually be considered a waste of valuable resources.

And again, you forget about comparing it to the alternatives:

When coal is burned it leaves behind a grey powder-like substance known as coal ash. Although the exact chemical composition depends on the type of coal burned, all coal ash contains concentrated amounts of toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, and mercury.

More than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year (see a map here). About a third of that waste is reused in some way (often in concrete); the rest is stored in landfills, abandoned mines, and hazardous, highly toxic ponds.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-water-pollution#bf-toc-1

Worrying about nuclear waste is like straining a gnat while swallowing camels.

Recent estimates state that the amount of municipal waste disposed of in US landfills is about 265 million tonnes (261,000,000 long tons; 292,000,000 short tons) as of 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfills_in_the_United_States

[apis]

But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.

Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?

(*) I don't believe it.

A fine example of "fact resistance" or "denial of knowledge". It's a big problem these days.

• 4.2 million deaths every year as a result of exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution
• 3.8 million deaths every year as a result of household exposure to smoke from dirty cookstoves and fuels

https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Premature deaths. But how do you tell apart a normal death from a premature death? I have friends at the WHO and they have told me not to believe everything the WHO says, they have political agendas: bird flu and Tamiflu being a fine example of what I mean. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bird+flu+vaccine+rumsfeld

[apis]

I'm not a MD and I can't explain it, but I trust the scientific process. The WHO isn't the only ones producing similar figures. Everyone has a political agenda. The WHO is a international organisation, part of UN and thus owned by all the words nations together. If they were spreading blatant lies then all of the worlds governments would have to be in on it. Not very likely in my opinion.

[Red Squirrel]

Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.

Great... but, many many many more people can live THANKS to the fossil fuels, so what? It's not perfect, but almost. Are you against vaccines too because a small % die when vaccinated?

Get your priorities right, because fossil fuels do much more good than bad.

By that logic we should never have stopped using asbestos in everything, because it was doing a lot of good too, it has lot of uses.

We should be moving towards replacing fossil fuel with something that is cleaner and still serves the purpose of providing energy.   Ironicly we may need to use fossil fuel in that process (ex: heavy equipment to build solar farms), but eventually the new technology should be self sustainable.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'm not a MD and I can't explain it, but I trust the scientific process. The WHO isn't the only ones producing similar figures. Everyone has a political agenda. The WHO is a international organisation, part of UN and thus owned by all the words nations together. If they were spreading blatant lies then all of the worlds governments would have to be in on it. Not very likely in my opinion.

If you want to fully believe that, good for you. I don't.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

We should be moving towards replacing fossil fuel with something that is cleaner and still serves the purpose of providing energy.   Ironicly we may need to use fossil fuel in that process (ex: heavy equipment to build solar farms), but eventually the new technology should be self sustainable.

We should, yes, best is better than good. But don't demonize fossil fuel because 1) it's been and still is a very good thing and 2) we've got nothing better yet.