YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[vanesch]

Well ultimately, we'll use up the coal

There's still a lot of coal around. Many decades, even a century or so.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed - with oil, we can say 'well, it'll be gone soon, so we won't have to worry about pollution from it anymore', but there is no clear time horizon for coal going away. All of us will certainly be dead long before coal supply becomes an issue. That means that pressure to get off coal needs to be artificial: it needs to be a politically/scientifically driven choice, not an economic necessity driven choice like oil will be shortly.

 

[Topher925]

There's still a lot of coal around. Many decades, even a century or so.

I believe about 160 years. And the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal as well.

That means that pressure to get off coal needs to be artificial: it needs to be a politically/scientifically driven choice, not an economic necessity driven choice like oil will be shortly.

Global Warming?

 

[mheslep]

Higher worldwide demand and a fear of future shortages have driven the price of processed uranium ore from $10 a pound in 2003 to $120 this month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html (Old article, I know)

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities?

I'm not inclined at the moment to run the fuel cost to kwh implications, but I venture the answer for some time yet is that it doesn't matter, that fuel costs are not a large consideration in the overall costs of nuclear power, especially when comparing nuclear fuel cost to fossil fuel costs in conventional plants. The spike we're seeing at the moment is demand driven, and not because the planet is running low on U. The higher costs will spur more production shortly, I venture.

...The waste is really not a problem, there simply has to be a policy that becomes efficient: reprocessing already, which reduces the waste to its essential part (and anyhow necessary to switch to breeders). The best middle term solution to the waste (once it is re-processed) is dry cask temporary storage at the surface, because in any case these things have to cool 50+ years before final geological storage. And become serious with geological storage.
.

It is certainly a political problem (unfortunately) as the US long term storage plan is completely dead in the water with the Obama administration, and US reprocessing is no where in sight.

 

[signerror]

problem: source of power

solution: modify technology so no conventional electricity is necessary. there is no reason that we should be using electrons flowing through wires to power our electronics, it's like selling a product through a middle-man, making the system inefficient and costly. For the source? The sun! not at all as we're using it today, but rather technology that directly uses photons.

This is a no-go. Energy is central to industrialized society - it is everywhere, moving thousand-ton cargo ships, flying airplanes, heating buildings, refining commodity metals like aluminum, powering city lights at night, and on, and on. It's a fundamental commodity of human activity, going back to ancient times. It was farm animals and slaves; now it's electric motors. It was fire; now it's ohmic heating. It was horseback; now it's the horseless carriage.

Electricity is merely one convenient medium; it is not the central issue.

example 2: in designing our technologies on the molecular level we tend to create stable materials. why? let's start creating materials that are strained. initially creating them would require lots of extra energy but I really think that this could prove beneficial. Extreme example: if we designed a car that had a bottom comprising of strained bonds, and roads that were actually chemical "trails," they could interact where the road could, in a way, power the car.

That does nothing. You're just moving the usage of energy from one place - engines - to another - roads. It would be pointless even if it weren't incredibly inefficient and wasteful.

conclusion: we need to stop with our conventional methods of using power.

That's not your conclusion, that's your starting premise! You're begging the question.

 

[signerror]

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ?

He's probably thinking of SL-1 (what else?), although he's mixed up all the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Experimental military reactor, LWR, went prompt-critical in 1961, three deaths. Only reactor-related fatalities in the US (although there were several nuclear-power related deaths in reprocessing - criticality accidents).

Somewhat horrific, actually:

The third man was not discovered for several days because he was pinned to the ceiling above the reactor by a control rod.

 

[signerror]

"Sure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro."

Okay...if you want to split hairs, solar, wind and hydro. Or wind, solar and hydro.

Hydropower is extremely dangerous when badly engineered. A single hydroelectric dam collapse was responsible for a quarter of a million deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

The resulting flood waters caused a large wave, which was 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) wide, 3–7 meters (9.8–23 ft) high in Suiping (遂平), to rush downwards into the plains below at nearly 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), almost wiped out an area 55 kilometers (34 mi) long, 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) wide, and created temporary lakes as large as 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq mi). Seven county seats, namely Suiping, Xiping(西平), Ru'nan (汝南), Pingyu (平舆), Xincai (新蔡), Luohe (漯河), Linquan (临泉), were inundated, as were thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities. Evacuation orders had not been fully delivered because of weather conditions and poor communications. Telegraphs failed, signal flares fired by Unit 34450 were misunderstood, telephones were rare, and some messengers were caught by the flood. While only 827 out of 6,000 people died in the evacuated community of Shahedian just below Banqiao Dam, half of a total of 36,000 people died in the unevacuated Wencheng commune of Suipin County next to Shahedian, and the Daowencheng Commune was wiped from the map, killing all 9,600 citizens[1]. Although a large number of people were reported lost at first, many of them returned home later. Tens of thousands of them were carried by the water to downriver provinces and many others fled from their homes. It has been reported that around 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

It's also pretty invasive, when you consider the huge reservoir created behind a dam.

 

[vanesch]

Global Warming?

Yes (even if one can argue that it is not 100% sure, one cannot deny that the possibility is there, so "better safe than sorry" - if it turns out not to be there, the coal is still around to be used).

But there are other reasons: ocean acidity, and, mostly: toxic exhausts like mercury vapor and other heavy metals, and also tiny particles. This last part might eventually be solved with better technology. In other words, coal, apart from an eventual CO2 problem, is still pretty dirty.

 

[OmCheeto]

Hydropower is extremely dangerous when badly engineered. A single hydroelectric dam collapse was responsible for a quarter of a million deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam


It's also pretty invasive, when you consider the huge reservoir created behind a dam.

Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

http://www.bpa.gov/power/pl/columbia/2-flood.htm
The disastrous flood of 1948 accelerated the demand for multipurpose dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The 20-day flood was the greatest single disaster in the history of Columbia River Basin.

...

During the flood of 1996 we had an example of how the dams could help. As the Willamette River overflowed its banks, BPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked together to control the flow of the Columbia River, allowing the Willamette to runoff, which helped avert flooding in downtown Portland.

I'm sure if the population density were as ridiculous here as in China or elsewhere, the death tolls would have been in the millions also. What was the story I heard the other day? Bus tips over in India and 2000 people are killed?

Personally, I like the dams. Too bad we can't do the same with the mighty Red River. But I've heard it's just a stream running through a big lake bed. Might be a fun and interesting project though. Where's the nearest low point outside of Fargo?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes (even if one can argue that it is not 100% sure, one cannot deny that the possibility is there, so "better safe than sorry" - if it turns out not to be there, the coal is still around to be used).

But there are other reasons: ocean acidity, and, mostly: toxic exhausts like mercury vapor and other heavy metals, and also tiny particles. This last part might eventually be solved with better technology. In other words, coal, apart from an eventual CO2 problem, is still pretty dirty.

This is one point on which Obama and I do not agree. It seems to me that we are a long way from having viable clean coal technology. On the other hand, it is hard to ignore the vast reserves of coal had by the US. It may be that technologies that make fuel from coal will be the best option.

But if Obama likes coal, in his honor, I am all ears.

 

[Topher925]

But if Obama likes coal, in his honor, I am all ears.

I think Obama just wants to rely on coal until other renewable energy resources are established. I don't believe his administration is looking to use coal for any long term energy source.

 

[mheslep]

60 minutes piece on - what should have been called LENR - last night.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml
Inteviews:
-LENR investigator, SRI's McKubre
-'debunker' physicist Richard Garwin
-Rob Duncan, Univ. Missouri researcher hired by CBS to examine recent claims.
-even Fleischmann agreed to an rare interview from France.

CBS claims they have a DARPA memo making positive claims about PdD reactions. Google shows nothing on it. Anyone have a line on this?

 

[Topher925]

I haven't heard anything but that article states that at least 20 independent labs are able to create this nuclear reaction. Could it really be a nuclear reaction though without emitting any atomic particles?

 

[mheslep]

I haven't heard anything but that article states that at least 20 independent labs are able to create this nuclear reaction. Could it really be a nuclear reaction though without emitting any atomic particles?

Well all those labs claim to have created:
-excess heat, the heat is more than can be explained from 1.2eV per molecule chemical reactions, and they can only do this about 70% of the time.
-He

The 'what' behind this is still very much in question.

 

[gmax137]

I don't know anything beyond what the 60 minutes piece reported, but... They quoted the report as saying something like "production of anomalous excess heat." And 60 minutes went on to focus on the "excess". What about the "anomalous"? Does that simply mean "unexplained" or does it also mean something like: intermittent, or not reproducible?

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but if you have a hard time proving something produces heat, it seems to me unlikely that you can design a real power plant around it. Remember the title of this thread - "Fix the energy crisis."

 

[mheslep]

I don't know anything beyond what the 60 minutes piece reported, but... They quoted the report as saying something like "production of anomalous excess heat." And 60 minutes went on to focus on the "excess". What about the "anomalous"? Does that simply mean "unexplained" or does it also mean something like: intermittent, or not reproducible?

In that context, I think it means 'unexpected' based on current scientific understanding.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but if you have a hard time proving something produces heat, it seems to me unlikely that you can design a real power plant around it. Remember the title of this thread - "Fix the energy crisis."

Agreed, because the process, whatever it is, is not understood.

 

[mheslep]

Shai Aggassi has a recent http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SANFRANCISCO-CA/KKGN-AM/Gavin%20Newsom%2005-02-09.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=SANFRANCISCO-CA&NG_FORMAT=progressivetalk&SITE_ID=5257&STATION_ID=KKGN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Green_960&PCAST_CAT=Podcasts&PCAST_TITLE=Gavin_Newsom_Show" explaining his company Better Place's EV car 'enabler' business plan. We've spoken about Agassi in this thread earlier.

Quick recap:
Agassi doesn't propose to make EVs, he's rolling out a) 3kw to 6kw/plug charge stations, b) fast plug and play battery switch out stations, and c) a financial plan where he charges the user per mile traveled, like a cell plan, and instead his company pays for / subsidizes the battery, just like the phone carriers pay for / subsidize the cell phone. An EV can be pretty cheap if it can be separated from the cost of the battery.

Progress:
Agassi/Better Place is rolling out their first demonstration battery change station in Japan this or next month. They signed up Israel a year or two ago, and there they have / will have

1,000 charge spots now
10,000 entire country end of 2009
100,000 end of 2010.
50/100 switch stations planned.​

For an applicable EV, Renaut-Nissan is making this compatible http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/electric-car" pure EV, 100km range, 5 passenger car coming out '10.

All very nice, but it is the cost that caught my attention as announced in the audio clip. Agassi claims he can charge people the same per mile now for batteries and energy combined, as they can get driving around on $50/bbl oil based gasoline. That seems suspicious, and I plan to run it down here in future posts, hopefully with others joining in.

Other questions:
-Is temperature control of vehicle size battery packs practical with plug and play mechanicals?

 

[Topher925]

I found this pretty interesting from that Better Place website.

These Better Place battery exchange stations are even more efficient and convenient than conventional gas stations. Each is roughly the size of your average living room. Like the charging spots, they are fully automated. A driver pulls in, puts the car in the neutral gear, and sits back. The battery exchange station does all the work. The depleted battery is removed, and a fully-charged replacement is installed. In under three minutes, the car is back on the road. It’s just like an automatic car wash, a quick, effortless, drive-through experience.

Automated battery exchange stations? This sounds like its starting to get expensive. How can you be sure that each station has enough batteries charged up to keep up with demand?

EDIT: recharging -> exchange

 

[mheslep]

I found this pretty interesting from that Better Place website.



Automated battery recharging stations?

exchange stations.

This sounds like its starting to get expensive. How can you be sure that each station has enough batteries charged up to keep up with demand?

In the same way one insures refueling gas tanker comes often enough to a gas station to keep up with demand. The driver is cost. There's also the issue of making all EV's compatible with Better Place exchange mechanisms. So far they have only the one Renault-Nissan model. Then I expect there must be some compromises in battery performance to enable the fast swap mechanism vs a permanent installation.

 

[Astronuc]

The next big thing in wind: Slow wind, huge turbines
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10233108-54.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9885177-54.html

http://v112.vestas.com/ - 3 MW Wind turbine

http://v112.vestas.com/Vestas_V_112_web.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Following up on my https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2188288&postcount=332"on the Project Better Place scheme of buy-the-car-not-the-battery: they claim that they can operate at the same cost per mile as petro power cars at $50/bbl.

Again, Better Place stated vehicle range is 100mi (161km) and they propose battery exchange stations that the car owner can use anytime, all paid for on a subscription per mile plan (ala cell phones). Tesla and other EVs use about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_Evolution_of_Tesla_Roadster_Efficiency.PNG" at about $600/kWh of Li-Ion battery capacity that should last 100k miles. Better Place's exchange stations must maintain some battery stock, assume 30% stock beyond the batteries on the road. The battery cost per vehicle is then: 161km x 17kwh/100km x 1.3 x $600/kWh-LiIon = $21.2k/vehicle or $0.21/mile. The electric energy cost at $0.09/kWh is $0.025/mile. Total battery and energy cost: $0.23 / mile.

Fuel cost for petroleum vehicles assuming 25mpg and $2.20/gal is $0.09/mile.

Thus just considering batteries and energy, Better Place EVs have a $0.15/mile higher cost than petro vehicles. This is based on the assumptions on vehicle battery capacity, exchange station stock, battery unit price, and battery lifetime - all of which may substantially change.

Another factor is the drive train cost difference. The planned Rennault-Nissan 5-seat sedan EV drive train may eventually cost, say, $5k-$7k less than a comparable petro vehicle drive train. Given that Better Place is tightly connected to the vehicle 'alliance', this cost savings could be factored into the per-mile plan. For a vehicle road life of 120k miles, that is $0.04 to $0.06 per mile added to the petro vehicle side of the comparison.

Summary:
Even accounting for a less expensive drive train, the Better Place EV still costs at least ~55% more per mile. Break even with petrol. cars then requires a similar reduction in the price of batteries (to ~$300/kWh), or an increase in their lifetimes (to 160k miles), or an increase in the price per gallon of gasoline (to ~$3.5/gal or more if fuel efficiencies increase in mpg), or some combination of these.

Here's a video of a demonstration at an BP exchange station, ~2minute exchange time:
http://www.betterplace.com/company/video-detail/better-place-battery-switch-technology-demonstration/

 

[russ_watters]

Fuel cost for petroleum vehicles assuming 25mpg and $2.20/gal is $0.09/mile.

My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35.

The technological, consumer, and economic landscapes 20 or 30 years from now will be so different from today that I don't think it is useful to try to figure out how/if this business model might work then: it has to be considered in terms of how/if it might work in the next 5-10.

Thus just considering batteries and energy, Better Place EVs have a $0.15/mile higher cost than petro vehicles. This is based on the assumptions on vehicle battery capacity, exchange station stock, battery unit price, and battery lifetime - all of which may substantially change.

For pure electric, otherwise normal passenger cars to have any hope of near-term viability, the batteries must be cheaper. For now, though, achieving that may simply be a matter of rolling them out with nimh batteries and a 50 km range as city-only commuter vehicles.

Summary:
Even accounting for a less expensive drive train, the Better Place EV still costs at least ~55% more per mile. Break even with petrol. cars then requires a similar reduction in the price of batteries (to ~$300/kWh), or an increase in their lifetimes (to 160k miles), or an increase in the price per gallon of gasoline (to ~$3.5/gal or more if fuel efficiencies increase in mpg), or some combination of these.

Well that's what I mean about the landscape changing: 5 years from now, we'll probably be back to $3.50 gas as the world economy goes back into boom mode. But electric costs will rise as well. Electric will probably not rise slowly enough for elecric to become viable by that business model you have outlined above.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the response.

My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35.

That last is a fair point, certainly the early mass buyers would be those that are very cost conscious.

The technological, consumer, and economic landscapes 20 or 30 years from now will be so different from today that I don't think it is useful to try to figure out how/if this business model might work then: it has to be considered in terms of how/if it might work in the next 5-10. For pure electric, otherwise normal passenger cars to have any hope of near-term viability, the batteries must be cheaper.

Or, under this exchange plan, last much longer for the same price.

For now, though, achieving that may simply be a matter of rolling them out with nimh batteries and a 50 km range as city-only commuter vehicles.

Yes Nimh is much less at ~$300/kWh, though the Ni mass hit is large ( Li Ion 117Wh/kg, Nimh 80Wh/kg, 46% heavier). The 50km range is harder to play since it breaks the 'just as good as petro' model offered by battery exchange. The Better Place plan offers something never done before by an EV. Ostensibly, the vehicle can do the same thing as its petro based cousin: take you on long range trips with no long charge times in route. Prior to this no EV has had cause to fully cost compare w/ a petro car of equivalent size. Once you break that 'just as good' model w/ a 50km range, then people would expect to pay much, much less for a vehicle that's niche, thus has a lower production quantity, and the economics fail without a much higher price of fuel.

Well that's what I mean about the landscape changing: 5 years from now, we'll probably be back to $3.50 gas as the world economy goes back into boom mode. But electric costs will rise as well. Electric will probably not rise slowly enough for electric to become viable by that business model you have outlined above.

Mmm I doubt electric costs will rise very fast with a rebound in oil prices, absent Cap and Trade. Given Secretary Chu's no-nuclear blinders Cap and Trade would do it, and regional costs may jump because of legislative changes in utility law (e.g. Pa). But, electric demand growth continues to taper, a great deal of natural gas reserves have been discovered in the US in the last few years, and we will see several more gigawatts of wind power installed in the US that is immune to oil prices.

 

[signerror]

Given Secretary Chu's no-nuclear blinders...

TR: I know you've come out in favor of nuclear power. It's been decades since any new plants have been constructed. What progress has been made so far in getting some new plants built?

SC: We're now going to a two-step licensing. You license the generic plant, and then there's a separate license for the site. And this helps speed along the process. Before, the way we did it is every plant was a new one.

A lot of this depends on some loan guarantee money, which will help.

TR: When might those loan guarantees become available?

SC: Well, sooner rather than later. I'm hoping within a year, but that's just a wild guess. We're pushing ahead. As you know, we've become very aggressive about trying to accelerate the loan process by a considerable amount. A factor of 5 to 10 is about the right amount. When I first came, I was told that the first loans would go out mid-2010. So they've now gone out, and there's going to be another tranche of them that we'll be vetting.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying?

 

[russ_watters]

That last is a fair point, certainly the early mass buyers would be those that are very cost conscious.

I didn't say cost conscious, I said fuel economy conscious. I would bet money that 99% of Prius buyers have not done any calculations like the ones you just did, to determine if the cost of their Prius is worth the extra mpg they get over a Civic.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying?

The interviewer says Chu "has come out in favor of nuclear power". I'd like to see somewhere where he actually has, since joining the administration. That the administration hasn't yet put up barriers to nuclear power* is encouraging (when they first made the Yucca announcement with no explanation at all, I was very worried), but they also have done little of substance to actually promote it. For other forms of power, they have actually invested a huge sum of money into it - why didn't he put together a "blue ribbon panel" to study alternate energy before pouring money into it?

His stance on Yucca is puzzling to say the least: he says he wants a "blue ribbon pannel" to study the issue, yet he is dictating one of the conclusions to the panel. That is illogical. *And violating this obligation the federal government had to nuclear plant operators, at least in the short term, will have a negative impact on the industry. The government promised to take the waste and for now, anyway, they won't. This uncertainty would give a new nuclear plant operator pause.

It is good to see that reprocessing is on the table, though. Also, while he says he wants to streamline the application process, I'm googling looking for action that has been taken and not finding any.

Bottom line is that Chu's talk has at best been neutral (as far as I've seen) while Obama's talk has been negative and the only action they have taken together has been negative and relative to the money thrown out there for other forms of energy, very negative.

[edit] If you google "Chu nuclear", you can find quotes of his from before joining the administration where he has said very positive things about nuclear power. Now, perhaps, he is being handcuffed by the administration - I don't really know that, though, all I do know wrt the current administration is that the one policy change implimented so far was negative.

 

[russ_watters]

An unusually good article from mass media on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html

 

[Topher925]

The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, "We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'no'"

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/08/obama-doe-slash-hydrogen-fuel-cell-funding-in-new-budget/

The Obama administration is really confusing me. First they say that they highly support a hydrogen economy, then they slash its funding and change their policy. I don't necessarily disagree with their reasoning but it would be nice if they would pick a direction and stick with it.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/08/obama-doe-slash-hydrogen-fuel-cell-funding-in-new-budget/

The Obama administration is really confusing me. First they say that they highly support a hydrogen economy, then they slash its funding and change their policy. I don't necessarily disagree with their reasoning but it would be nice if they would pick a direction and stick with it.

Perhaps they read Russ's posted article.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html"
Editor's note: David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from http://www.withouthotair.com/.

Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo.

There may be some virtue in consistency, but when a ship is headed towards a certain grounding, a smart captain will usually change course.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying?

SC: We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue...

He's killed Yucca Mountain with no scientific explanation, just declared it 'off the table'. He's a physicist with years of background on the topic, calling for a 'blue-ribbon panel' to study what's been done successfully elsewhere in the world for decades. This appears to be nothing but a stall.

Before Chu was nominated, he traveled around doing an energy briefing roadshow - covering all the various renewables, AWG, etc. Nuclear power was barely mentioned at all.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't say cost conscious, I said fuel economy conscious. I would bet money that 99% of Prius buyers have not done any calculations like the ones you just did, to determine if the cost of their Prius is worth the extra mpg they get over a Civic.

Well take care before putting your money on the table. Though its a different phrasing of the above, there's wide circulation of 'payback time' information on hybrids such as this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm which compares the hybrid up front costs to a similar gasoline-only powered model, the exact same model w/out hybrid in some cases. Dealers w/ hybrids on the lot had this info up as wall paper when gas/gallon was high.
Edmunds, Consumer Reports do the same.

 

[mheslep]

An unusually good article from mass media on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html

Perhaps they read Russ's posted article.



Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo.
...

Mackay's tome was my source for my post on the eight-dedicated-nuclear-reactors equivalent required to replace the jetfuel at a single air port.

 

[signerror]

Mackay's tome was my source for my post on the eight-dedicated-nuclear-reactors equivalent required to replace the jetfuel at a single air port.

I remember that. Here?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2114857

 

[signerror]

He's killed Yucca Mountain with no scientific explanation, just declared it 'off the table'.

Well that was Obama's decision, not Chu's. He'd already decided early on in the campaign - his reasoning is here @3:11:

I didn't rule out a central location, what I ruled out was Yucca Mountain, because it turns it is built on a fault line. And the way that this was shoved down the throats of Nevada ended up souring the politics in such a way where it's almost impossible to get it done now.

An article from two months before the video discusses the fault line:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/25/nation/na-yucca25

I have no way of evaluating this. Can anyone else?

He's a physicist with years of background on the topic, calling for a 'blue-ribbon panel' to study what's been done successfully elsewhere in the world for decades.

I don't think there any operating repositories which can take unreprocessed spent fuel, like Yucca. I understand what currently exists is only acceptable for intermediate-level waste (repositories which can't handle the heat of HLW), or above-ground storage for HLW (which is only temporary), but nothing is operating which accepts high-level waste for long term storage.

This appears to be nothing but a stall.

Or a strategic shift to a closed fuel cycle. The recent interview strongly suggests that:

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

Before Chu was nominated, he traveled around doing an energy briefing roadshow - covering all the various renewables, AWG, etc. Nuclear power was barely mentioned at all.

AWG?

 

[mheslep]

I remember that. Here?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2114857

Yes that is the post I recalled, but I blundered on the reference - it was Bossel, not Mackay.