YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[mheslep]

No, that's silly: it makes much more sense to compare like with like (thermal with thermal). For example: (nuclear electricity) EVs need to carry much less energy than petroleum cars, because they store electricity rather than thermal energy. So comparing oil joules with electricity joules would overestimate their electricity requirement by a huge factor. But if you compare oil joules with nuclear reactor heat joules, you get the right numbers - modulo differences in the efficiencies of the heat engines (internal combustion engine vs. steam turbine).

That's a moving the goal post fallacy. Your premised was that world wide primary energy usage is ~15 TW(t) and then calculated the amount of oar required to produce that thermal power, fair enough. You can not then logically reduce that load assuming all of combustion powered travel (ground/air) the space heating and needs become much more efficient and credit the difference to nuclear, as if oil/gas could not also be used to make electricity. You are then actually reassuming the thermal load as something less, maybe 10-12TW(t).

That's negligible compared to the U figures I showed.

Not at all. Obviously that Th reserves figure was for land mined reserves only. For land mining Uranium and Thorium worldwide reserves are the same order of magnitude.

 

[mheslep]

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.

Section 1.3.3, Figure 3 from Kromer and Heywood, 2007
Electric Powertrains: Opportunities andChallenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf

This compares well with the Japanese data I posted over https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2224199&postcount=78".



A related figure to cost is specific energy (Wh/kg), an it turns out the authors say (page 41):

As a general framing principle, it is important to understand that improvements in battery capacity will not proceed along anything like a Moore’s-law trajectory. Rather, progress occurs in incremental steps, improving a few percent each year: over the near- and mid-term these improvements are likely to involve developing host materials with higher lithium uptake and operating cells at higher voltage;...
These constraints would indicate that specific energy can be expected to at most double in the next several decades – an improvement of 3.5% per year.

That's not the quite the same as kWh/$ over time, but they are related.
However, they also say:

For reference, the historical rate of improvement illustrated in Figure 10 corresponds to about 7% per year.

which is a 2x increase in spec. energy every ~6 years, historically.

Below I also attached Figure 11, the economies of scale for Li-Ion which is based on internal Ford studies, showing production cost decreases "nearly 3-fold from 50k to 2M units". Given high volume battery production, the Battery Technology Advisory Panel claims a specific cost of $270/kWh, and Argonne National Labs claims $225/kWh - again that's current technology at high production. (table 11, page 43).

 

[russ_watters]

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.

...with the elephant-sized caveat that it doesn't include the last 7 years!

 

[mheslep]

Significant updates to post #422
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2255903&postcount=422

 

[vanesch]

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used,

Well, there is one I know of
http://eng.lafermeauxcrocodiles.com/

It is heated with the cooling waters of the Tricastin nuclear power plant.

(about 100 km from where I live)

 

[mheslep]

Another interview with the Better Place battery swap people, suggests they would include a switches to different batter sizes:

I'll give you an example: Hypothetically, you could drive in (Las Vegas) on a contract. Vegas is about a 15-mile-radius city, and you have a smaller battery inside. But on the edge of Vegas you might pull out your battery and put in a long-distance battery. In theory, you pay roaming charges as long as you have not returned that battery to the station. So, it would be a convenience thing. You'd go to L.A.; you'd drive a lot more; then you'd come back three days later; you'd drop the battery and take back the 50-mile battery.

http://www.gartner.com/research/fellows/asset_221489_1176.jsp
A 50-mile battery drops the total battery depreciation plus energy cost to $0.06/mile* versus a combustion fuel 30 mpg vehicle cost of twice that, $0.10/mile.

*($400/kWh - 3000 cycle battery, 0.19 kWh/mi tank-to-wheel, $0.09/kWh electricity)

 

[mheslep]

A http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf" study came out today that backs the battery rental/ exchange approach to all electric vehicles.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/UCBerkeley/Electricvehiclestudy/prweb2628184.htm" :

The University of California study shows that the mass adoption of electric cars is a reachable goal. For electric cars to achieve this wide-scale adoption in the United States, these vehicles must be able to compete with the existing gasoline fueling infrastructure in terms of price, range, and reliability. Becker finds separating the purchase of the battery from the car is the most practical and cost-effective means of addressing these concerns.

First, not having to pay for the battery upfront makes the purchase price of an electric car competitive with that of an internal combustion vehicle. Given current battery prices and the federal tax incentives for the purchase of electric cars, switchable battery vehicles are expected to be $7,500 less expensive than a similar gasoline-powered car when introduced to the market in 2012. The total cost of ownership of these vehicles is expected to be between $0.10 and $0.13 lower on a per-mile basis than gasoline-powered cars, depending on the future price of oil.

Second, electric vehicles with switchable batteries can have a driving range comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Just as there is a network of gas stations, the study incorporates the cost of a network of public battery charging spots augmented by battery switching stations into the per-mile service contract price offered by electric car network operators. This business model innovation will ensure that a sufficient density of electric car infrastructure is deployed to extend the range of these vehicles. Through this system, Becker argues that "the overall range of electric cars will eventually rival that of gasoline-powered vehicles."

Lastly, consumers must perceive electric cars to be as reliable as gasoline-powered vehicles. To achieve this, Becker again finds that the best solution lies in separating the ownership of the vehicle from the battery. By placing ownership of the battery in the hands of an electric car network operator, consumer concerns over the lifetime or durability of the battery are eliminated. Switchable batteries also allow the newest innovations in battery technology to reach drivers more quickly.

 

[mheslep]

The Berkeley study, http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf" , predicts the point where half of US light vehicle new sales are EVs will be reached in 10-11 years given acceptance of battery lease and exchange paradigms, and nearly twice that long if it is not. That's in-line with what some companies have been saying. I'll go further here and say that, if battery lease & exchange is accepted, that we'll see the point where EVs are half of all new vehicle sales in at least one [smaller] country in 5-6 years

 

[mheslep]

Nissan announces their EV, which when released in 2012 would make it the first mass market EV in 90 years.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6537775...een-introducing-the-nissan-leaf-ev/index.html
They seemed to have dumped the idea of on-the-fly battery swap stations, or any connection with third party battery lease companies. The quick charge feature is nice, but it is no replacement for a 2-3 minute fill up and go, and that situation will not improve, rather it will get worse with bigger batteries.

Performance
Driving range over: 160km/100miles (US LA4 mode)
Max speed (km/h): over 140km/h (over 87 mph)

Motor
Type: AC motor
Max power (kW): 80kW
Max torque (Nm): 280Nm

Battery
Type: laminated lithium-ion battery
Total capacity (kWh): 24
Power output (kW): over 90
Energy density (Wh/kg): 140
Power density (kW/kg): 2.5
Number of modules: 48
Charging times: quick charger DC 50kW (0 to 80%): less than 30 min; home-use AC200V charger: less than 8 hrs
Battery layout: Under seat & floor

 

[Topher925]

Toyota recently announced they will be delaying the release of any all electric cars and will currently focus on hybrids (series/plug-in hybrids) until at least 2012. Also, they have been showing off their fuel cell vehicles to help promote the technology. It seems that this is the same path that GM is taking as well. A smart move for both companies in my opinion.

Meanwhile, Toyota's new president, Akio Toyoda, has become a big promoter of the company's fuel cells, which he calls the "ultimate" technology. But fuel cell cars, which produce electricity from hydrogen, would take even longer than battery-electric vehicles to commercialize.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107571/toyota-holds-back-in-race-to-go-electric?mod=family-autos

 

[mheslep]

Toyota recently announced they will be delaying the release of any all electric cars and will currently focus on hybrids (series/plug-in hybrids) until at least 2012. Also, they have been showing off their fuel cell vehicles to help promote the technology. It seems that this is the same path that GM is taking as well. A smart move for both companies in my opinion. http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107571/toyota-holds-back-in-race-to-go-electric?mod=family-autos

Delay is not the right word for Toyota regarding EV's; they've never had any EV operations for next year to delay. They are going ahead with a plug in version of the Prius. So for the moment, Nissan is the only company going mass market within next year with a pure EV. Expect Renault to announce similar plans next month (~same company)

...Toyota executives rattle off reasons to be skeptical of electric cars: They do not travel far enough on a charge; their batteries are expensive and not reliable; the electrical infrastructure is not in place to recharge them...

That's a common refrain but I think its mistake to level them all in the same sentence. The batteries could be free, and EV's would still be problematic. Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

 

[OmCheeto]

Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

I've x'd out the name of the city in the following article. It was written by the cities own mayor. Is Reuters allowed to do that? Seems like shameless, self-promoting advertising to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS268106043420090806
Reuters
Thu Aug 6, 2009
...
The state in which X is situated was named as a test market by the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), which announced today it's receiving $99.8 million in federal funds to study electric vehicle usage.
...
eTec, a subsidiary of ECOtality, Inc., is working with Nissan North America to deploy approximately 5,000 electric vehicles and 12,750 charging stations in five U.S. markets

ps. Portland receives loads of hydro and wind generated electricity, so it's fairly CO₂ friendly.

 

[mheslep]

The post office just published a study on the feasibility of making its local delivery fleet of 146,000 vehicles electric. It's a nearly ideal case. First, daily range for the USPS vans is short, averaging only 18 miles per day, 97% of the fleet is less than 40 miles, and they park at night. Second, the stop/go pattern means the current combustion vehicles average ~10mpg in making the rounds allowing a large savings of 28 cents per mile in a replacement EV van, or $1500 per year per USPS van.

Their costs assumptions are shown below, which look reasonable to me, though I believe their battery replacement rate is too high at five years. A nine to ten year life with a daily full discharge/charge cycle is more reasonable for their use case.

Of course the USPS is $7B in the hole/yr so they can't afford new anything.
http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/DA-WP-09-001.pdf

 

[OmCheeto]

The post office just published a study on the feasibility of making its local delivery fleet of 146,000 vehicles electric. It's a nearly ideal case. First, daily range for the USPS vans is short, averaging only 18 miles per day, 97% of the fleet is less than 40 miles, and they park at night. Second, the stop/go pattern means the current combustion vehicles average ~10mpg in making the rounds allowing a large savings of 28 cents per mile in a replacement EV van, or $1500 per year per USPS van.

Their costs assumptions are shown below, which look reasonable to me, though I believe their battery replacement rate is too high at five years. A nine to ten year life with a daily full discharge/charge cycle is more reasonable for their use case.

Of course the USPS is $7B in the hole/yr so they can't afford new anything.
http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/DA-WP-09-001.pdf

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/" didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system.

But it looks like the Feds will be spending more money on it, and other programs:

Trucking Headlines
http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=81411"
9/1/2009

The U.S. Department of Energy last week announced the selection of 25 cost-share projects under the Clean Cities program that will be funded with nearly $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
...

Under the Recovery Act, the Clean Cities program will fund a range of energy-efficient and advanced vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, electric vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, hydraulic hybrids and compressed natural gas vehicles, helping reduce petroleum consumption across the United States.

If this keeps up, I may have to give up all my research, and just sit at the beach.

 

[mheslep]

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/" didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system...

I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

 

[Astronuc]

To make better biofuels, researchers add hydrogen
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10344817-54.html

The biggest technology breakthrough in this design is the high-temperature electrolysis, which originally came from a program to study how nuclear reactors could be used to make hydrogen. But hydrogen-powered vehicles face a number of obstacles, including on-board storage and the infrastructure to cleanly produce and to distribute hydrogen.

By contrast, if the hydrogen was used to make hydrocarbon fuels, they could be distributed through the existing channels and be used with existing autos, including hybrid-electric vehicles.

The jump from hydrogen research to biofuels happened when Hawkes thought to make biomass the heat source for INL's high-temperature electrolysis, rather than the heat from a nuclear reactor. By making that switch, the electrolyzer can operate on biomass and electricity alone, rather than rely on a nuclear reactor.

"We feel each that each one of these technologies is individually proven but nobody has ever taken them and hooked them together to make one process," said Hawkes.

There are some commercially available biomass gasifiers and a few facilities turning synthesis gas into liquid fuel using coal as a feedstock. But coal-to-liquids has a high carbon footprint, even compared with gasoline, said Hawkes. If a renewable or carbon-free source, such as hydro power, can be used through bio-syntrolysis, the resulting fuel would have very low emissions, he said.

Storing hydrogen on plants
So far, INL researchers have done experiments using available commercial products and they have modeled the overall efficiency on computer. To build a high-temperature electrolyzer, they have purchased commercial fuels cells and modified them to work in reverse, so they produce hydrogen and oxygen from electricity.

"There is no need for any great discovery but there is a need for development of materials and electrolyzers and just the will the put all the different sources together," said Steve Herring, a research fellow at Idaho National Labs.

The projected cost of the fuel would be $2.50 a gallon to produce, which is not cheaper than today's gasoline. But the primary advantage is the fuel is domestically sourced, low-carbon, and available at a predictable price, Herring said. One of the rationales for the technology is that biomass to make fuel will become a scarce commodity, making techniques that can squeeze more energy from existing crops more compelling.

More on bio-syntrolysis.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=3076&mode=2

There are other processes for producing fuels from biomass.

It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.

 

[mheslep]

.
It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.

Is that just a guess, or based on some data/analylsis? EIA says differently for their high price case, 20 to 30% increase per year.
2009:$60.89/bbl petroleum
2010:91.08
2011:104.74
2012:118.35
2013:131.38
2014:145.80
2015:157.23
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeohptab_12.xls

My reading of various sources is that world wide oil production is going to stay roughly flat at 85m bbls/day for some time: the numerous new finds are just balancing out the depletion of older fields. However, there is no such cap on the petroleum demand in China and India, and Asia in general is already growing briskly again.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Ar...Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm"

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.

 

[mheslep]

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Ar...Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm"

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

 

[OmCheeto]

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor. But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor.

Yep

But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.

Appears to to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density" , 50kj/l

 

[mheslep]

MIT Tech Review has good presentation/interview with Emanuel Sachs, founder of PV maker 1366. In particular, I was interested in a tangent question he addresses: "Do we need fundamental breakthroughs in solar cells for solar power to compete with conventional sources of electricity?" (at 4:23). Interestingly, he credits most of the drop in the cost of mass market PV electricity production in the last 30 years to advances in the production process (from $5/kWh -1978 to $0.20/kWh now), not to major physics 'breakthroughs'. There have been some big physics advances - multiband PV and thin film - but they're both niche players in the mass market.

I was also interested in where he drew his break even with natural gas (~$0.18/kWh) and coal ($0.05/kWh) electrical prices. The assumption there must be peak load only applications, i.e, no storage required, use it when you make it. This holds apparently only up about 7% of power needs or 70GW in the US. After that there a serious breakthrough is needed in energy storage for further PV growth. Sounds about right.

Starts at 4:33
http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=433

 

[mheslep]

I had begun to doubt the battery switch players were going ahead, but it looks like Renault is coming through as promised with their EV role out in Frankfurt this week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125287239312206713.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"We're making a major industrial bet," said [Renault's CEO]...

It's a risky one, and many other auto companies think Mr. Ghosn is on the wrong track. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. also has announced an electric car for the U.S. market. But Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., among others, say batteries still cost too much, they run down too quickly and recharging them takes too long.
...
But Mr. Ghosn said they will sell for the same amount as their gas-powered equivalents -- and that the overall cost of electricity plus battery use will be less than that of gasoline.

The trick, said Mr. Ghosn, is to have consumers lease, not buy, the batteries, which currently cost nearly €10,000. Renault's electric cars will have removable batteries, which it expects to lease for about €100 a month in Europe. When the electricity runs down in a battery, it can either be recharged, or the leasing company might swap in a fully charged one...

which is about $0.15/mile of battery cost - to the the car owner. That's steep in the US, but w/ $0.20/mile gasoline costs in Europe, Renault must think that battery leasing fee reasonable there.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002040/leased-electric-car-batteries-take-a-big-step-forward/"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jdgoxIRhk6qjSF6C8ry_5lyjqoeQ"

Also Iceland seems to be getting on board with battery switch EVs.
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10002...s-an-electric-car-charging/?tag=shell;content

Renault's EV:
http://cdn.images.autocar.co.uk/612x408FFFFFFF/Car/Renault/Concepts/Renault-Concepts-119991235155461600x1060.jpg

 

[OmCheeto]

Just go shopping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

(thank you PC!)

 

[mheslep]

Just go shopping.

I disagree where the BB rep says there is no existing US business model. The market for low speed EVs is already in the 100k range, with attention from the majors.

Firm figures for the number of NEVs on the road and the rate of sales growth are difficult to pin down. Some people close to the industry say roughly 100,000 such vehicles are in use, while other estimates are higher. Global Electric Motorcars, the Chrysler LLC unit that builds GEM electric vehicles and is the leading manufacturer, says it has sold about 38,000 vehicles in the U.S. GEM says it has recorded double-digit percentage growth in sales for the past five years. Sales grew at an especially high rate last summer as fuel prices reached $4 per gallon. Other popular models include the Think City and Think Neighbor, built by a former unit of Ford Motor Co., and such small manufacturers as Zenn Motor Co. and Wheego Electric Cars Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204348804574402673476299290.html

 

[OmCheeto]

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

It appears the $1.28/kj was a forecast. Shopping for supercaps results in a price of ~$5/kj. Which means the cost goes up to around $1200 for my requirements. The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

http://www.sinautecus.com/products.html#hybrid
Sinautec's forty-one seat Ultracap Buses have been serving the Greater Shanghai area since 2006. The bus is powered entirely by electricity, which is stored in ultracapacitors and batteries onboard. When the bus stops at passenger stops, the overhead charger quickly recharges the ultracapacitor onboard to allow the bus to go to its next destination. The battery serves as a back up power and allows the bus to extend its traveling range. The Ultracap Bus has a top speed of 35 miles per hour and has a maximum range of 45 miles between charges. The bus is ideal for on-campus shuttles and municipal bus lines with short in-between-stop intervals.

When solar panels are placed on top of charging stations and surrounding building, Sinautec's Ultracapacitor Bus can be powered completely by the sun. The bus draws electric power from the charging station solar panels in sunny days, and from the electric grid in cloudy conditions. Ultracap Bus uses less than 10% the fuel cost of a conventional bus. Compared to a diesel engine bus, an Ultracap Bus can achieve a lifetime fuel saving of $200,000. The vehicle is noise free and generates no tailpipe pollution. A Ultracap Bus can prevent over 100 tons of carbon-dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:

http://www.greenbang.com/zero-emission-ultracapacitor-minibus-gets-us-debut_11919.html
Zero-emission ultracapacitor minibus gets US debut ... on October 21st, in Washington DC.

 

[mheslep]

The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:

Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)

Vehicle Life: 8-12 years
Battery Replacement Every 18 Months

Yep, that's lead acid.

 

[OmCheeto]

Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.
The other is a hybrid lead/cap with a range of 45 miles.
Which version shows up in DC will also be interesting.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.

 

[mheslep]

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.

Yes ok I see the top one: 6kWh of ultracaps, 6 miles with no air conditioning. I read 0.02 megajoules / kg elsewhere for ultracaps, so that is still one ton of storage. Lasts the life of the vehicle, and then some I expect.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.

Yep, charging in 5 minutes is supportable by the ultracaps, but would require 120kW service (i.e. 4KV at 30A - don't give me that cable) In the future, if the weight can get down to ~500 lbs the way to go here would be use a mechanical capacitor exchange, IMO.

Also they have the bus at 1.5 kWh per mile? I know its a heavy bus, but that's ~7x worse than an EV sedan going 60mph (0.2kWh per mile) and this bus tops at 30 mph. The starts and stops must take a toll, or that must include the air conditioning load.

 

[mheslep]

I see the NRC sat on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear reactor design this week.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-173.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has informed Westinghouse that the company has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building can withstand design basis loads.
...
The impact on the overall AP1000 certification review schedule will be established after the staff and Westinghouse discuss the company’s plans to address the NRC’s conclusions regarding the shield building design...

Response from Fla official:

"The NRC process is supposed to be new and improved, but I'm not so sure it is," said Nathan Skop, a member of the Florida Public Service Commission.

"The NRC has said it would streamline its processes and bring us off-the-shelf plans they would approve," said PSC Chairman Matthew Carter. "It's time for them to expedite the process. We have ratepayers' dollars on the line."

http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...091016?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11621
Yes I'd also say the NRC review is not 'improved'.

So now the US faces this delay on top of terminating the Yucca mountain waste facility.

Recall that China started construction of its first AP1000 in April.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11217731.htm

 

[mheslep]

US Wind installation continues to explode with another 7.5GW on track to be installed in 2009, a recession year. (See attached figure). Total capacity already exceeds 30GW (nameplate). Since 2004, the rate of installation has been doubling capacity every ~two years. At that rate by 2013, US wind capacity will be 10% of the total US electric capability (nameplate), which is frankly amazing. I doubt base load issues will be much of a problem prior to 15% or so.
http://www.awea.org/publications/reports/3Q09.pdf

I was curious as to why some of the states in the US wind belt have have been so far behind the others to stand up turbines. In particular Nebraska, Montana and the Dakotas have http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp" , and thus some of the best in the world, but next to no installation. Any residents have a reason why that is? Transmission I am sure is part of it, but that can't be the entire reason.


It occurs to me that a wind turbine would be a nice thing to own if one could get one cheap (say in a recession w/ over supply). A single common 1.5 MW turbine should produce about 5000 megawatt-hours per year in the wind belt (38% capacity factor). Wholesale electricity is about $35/MW-h, or $175,000 / year, year after year. I read the typical land lease for a turbine from Joe rancher/farmer is $15,000/year, and I speculate maintenance has a similar cost. However compared to a coal/gas plant, my wind turbine has no fuel price spike or fuel transportation worries, no EPA site impact studies before building the plant, no EPA inspection of my stack emissions. The trick of course is getting the turbine cheap (or getting a big tax credit from the stimulus), as the going price for a turbine 1.5MW turbine is about $2.5M installed, or about $240,000 / year to the bank (5%, 15years).

Another aspect of this analysis is the motivation by interest groups to push for a cap and trade. The price of electricity might well go to $70/MWh under cap and trade, and in that case a wind turbine puts cash in the bank in year after year, no tax credit required.

 

[gmax137]

So, what are you waiting for?

Maybe you answered my question already - if your turbine brings in 175K/yr but you repay the bank 240K/yr, then you're losing 65K/yr for 15 years. Most businesses won't invest if the payback period exceeds just a few years. I will be the first to admit I'm pretty simple minded on business/money/economics, but there it is.

PS - I really like the G W quote at the bottom of your post; I don't recall reading that one before.

 

[mheslep]

So, what are you waiting for?

To get one cheap on ebay! (or with a tax credit/stim. money which I mostly don't support). Recall that T. Boone placed a ~$10B order with GE for turbines that he can't use in the recession, so he might be giving away at a discount just to unload.

Maybe you answered my question already - if your turbine brings in 175K/yr but you repay the bank 240K/yr, then you're losing 65K/yr for 15 years. Most businesses won't invest if the payback period exceeds just a few years. I will be the first to admit I'm pretty simple minded on business/money/economics, but there it is.

The business would be my own, its a bank the holds the note.

 

[Topher925]

To get one cheap on ebay!

To buy an industrial sized wind turbine for a good price might be a little bit difficult as they are really only cost effective with multiple installations (aka. wind farms) unless your in some type of investment program. You could probably start an investment program in your neighborhood for buy shares of a turbine, similar airplane clubs buy planes.

You could also just buy your own personal wind turbine for your house. These CAN and DO save people money on energy costs but this is highly dependent upon the capacity factor around your home and how much you pay for power from the power company. Since power companies started doing energy swapping instead of buying back power, which is a rip off, wind turbines have become much more cost effective for micro generation. I think they are still to expensive to make economic sense for 99% of homeowners out there though.

As a general rule of thumb, if economics are a concern, a turbine owner should have at least a 10 mph average wind speed and be paying at least 10 cents/kWh for electricity.

http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html

 

[mheslep]

To buy an industrial sized wind turbine for a good price might be a little bit difficult as they are really only cost effective with multiple installations (aka. wind farms) unless your in some type of investment program.

I wasn't referring to building an industry, but the appeal of one unit, or a small share of a larger installation, if bought on a discount. I may not want a small coal or gas turbine power plant for which the operator had gone bankrupt, but a turbine is another matter. Little or no O&M, nor administration, but with a long, long term cash stream. That are not many economic investments available like that.