You are currently browsing the forum as a guest which gives you limited access. To make use of all forum features such as posting to topics, reply to other postings, starting polls and using the Private Messaging System (PM) you are invited to register. Registration is free and simple. All you need is an e-mail address and a password and you are ready to go! Sign up and join the Green Car Network today!
Should you have problems with the registration process, please contact us.
Efficiency of the Tesla Roadster...or where is clean energy coming from?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Written on: 14 January 2010 [23:33]
|
|
|
lwalth
 registered since: 09.01.2010
Posts: 16
|
I agree with you on Nukes being a middle ground, a temp. fix. But they are the best Middle ground for now, They do not add to our Problems of global heating, dirty air, They are good source to replace the Dirty Coal Plants, that need to be taken Off line NOW!!. Then when we get the resources to replace the Nukes We can and have helped our problems. But we need to do something as soon as we can. China is bringing Coal plants on line at a rate that should scare the world. The U.S.A. can cut the Co2 and other gases and it will not matter if China is off setting it with their plants. So if the U.S.A. can build Nukes to replace Dirty Coal, Until we have a better plan we should use this. Also I agree with you that Nukes are not great or evil, they are just the best answer until we have better ones. Another thing is building plants, Nuke, or Natural gas , Pump Storage, is a good thing at this time.. It will put people to work , lot of people, and that helps us too. And adding Plants to our weak Grid is another good thing, our grid is running on the edge, very little room for problems. If we were to build Plants, then when one of our plants now had a problem it would not stress the grid so much, building many plants will help a lot. It will keep us from getting to the point where one solar flare or a couple of plants tripping off will take a whole grid off line. The grid is not in good shape, if it were a man it would be old, weak, In need of a few transplants. maybe a hip, and both knees. It is not doing well at all. Most companies have not wanted to spend money to up-grade lines they have needed to go from 161 K.V. to 500 K.V., they needed to up grade the 250 K.V. all to 500 K.V. or at least 345 K.V. and they needed to add more lines so when one needed to be worked on it could with out again risking the whole grid. The only way you can make the grid stronger is to build plants in places that will support the grid not make the people happy, Build plants to support voltage and current on lines, and build to help stop loop flow. These things needed to be started 15 years ago. Now we need to really get to work. With out some action very soon there will be a grid failure that will put people in the dark for months and maybe even years. I am not trying to be a doom crier, I worked 35 years in the Energy field, I was at the top for a very long time. But I opened my mouth once too often and was laid off. Companies do not want to hear this Stuff, Just keep the lights on for today, and all is well with the world. lwalth http://electricdemise.blogspot.com/ Lee A Walth
http://electricdemise.blogspot.com |
|
Written on: 15 January 2010 [02:52]
|
|
|
childress
Administrator
registered since: 14.08.2007
Posts: 140
|
We've strayed far from the original topic (any way to split/rename?) but every nuclear power plant and breeder reactor is a potential target for a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack, and is therefore a national security disaster waiting to happen. Most power plants, like most buildings (think 9-11) are built to withstand NON man-made disasters. Given my country's propensity to get itself mired into a war (or two!) every generation it is highly likely terrorist attacks will grow. I have complete confidence in the creativity of my species, especially when it comes to finding new and unique ways of destroying itself (or each other): A creative human, using existing technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster) could turn most reactors into a dirty bomb rendering the area useless for hundreds if not thousands of years (there's a tombstone/epitath for ya!). You need not hit the power plant itself -- anywhere in the supply/development chain would suffice -- the enrichment plants, or find out what the schedule is for fuel rod shipment/replacement. If you start thinking like a terrorist, then you realize how vulnerable you are and how important it is to be nice to people! Misplace a coal car? Hmm... where'd it go? Better get on that sometime. Misplace a suitcase size of nuclear fuel or hand-carrieable pre-cursor yellowcake? Again, national security emergency. Coal mining is *very* distructive to the environment (mountain topping, leaching into the groundwater), however Uranium has similar problems. Ever looked into where we (the US) will get our Uranium from? We don't currently (and don't have enough quality ore in the ground) to power our own nuclear plants (in 2001 the US mined only 5% of the Uranium it used, and we have the most nuclear plants of any country). I see no difference between foreign oil and foreign uranium (well, we could always finally formally invade & annex Canda if they get too uppity and we want their Uranium mines bad enough  . The folks that tout Nuclear as Clean/Renewable/Non-emission fall into the same camp as those that espouse Clean Coal (and for that matter EV drivers that claim they 'fill up' for pennies, yet convienently neglect to mention the high cost of their battery replacement, a consumeable) -- they're guilty of telling half-truths. What half are they leaving out? The mining: Wikipedia wrote: Uranium mining and milling has left a legacy of environmental problems. Out of 50 present and former uranium milling sites in 12 states, 24 have been abandoned, and are the responsibility of the US Department of Energy.[52] Accidental releases from uranium mills include the Sequoyah Corporation Fuels Release in Oklahoma and the Church Rock Uranium Mill Spill in New Mexico.[51] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States Give me a solar/wind with a hydro pump storage any day. You're just not going to see any new Nuclear Reactors soon in the US... too much political action against. Commute suck? Twike it; You'll like it!
http://www.uiuc.edu/goto/twike |
|
Written on: 15 January 2010 [08:18]
|
|
|
lwalth
registered since: 09.01.2010
Posts: 16
|
As it turns out I do know where the U.S. gets its Uranium. Almost all of it comes from Canada. Its not enough we are messing up their country with a huge mining Project for Oil Sands. But there is a small village in the Northern Canada, where we get our Uranium, But to make it a bit better, the people were never told that the stuff they were mining was killing them. They used to carry the ore with out any protection. After a few years the people were getting sick, in great numbers. To this day the Canada Government has not been up front about the whole mess, just letting them die in huge numbers. They have opened a new mine and never yet told the people about the first mine and all the people it has killed. Again I have never said that it is the best answer, but it needs to be one of the answers. Solar, and Wind can not do the job, Solar has a weak spot, it is called "night". Wind only Blows 27% of the time with enough speed or at the right time to help. The rest of the time it is not blowing or Is blowing again at night. I know I did this for 35 years. So we are back to what more Coal? More Natural gas? The government and people will not let Hydro Projects any more, and there are not enough of anything else to make up the huge supply need except (lets hear it) Nukes. I do not like the answer, truth be told I hate it. I want solar, and wind to be the answer, but they are not and will not be for a very long time. Texas was trying to have a huge amount of wind, but it put them in the black. The wind was blowing hard, all 1100 Megga-watts were running full bore, then the wind picked up more, due to safety guide lines on the wind turbines it caused them to cut,out. The loss of 1100 Megga-watts threw them in a mess but then the wind backed off all the turbines came on again, by the second time it happened, it took Ercot (Texas)and put them in the black. This is but one problem with Wind, first it is by far the most costly of all of the resorces, for every Megga-watt of wind you have to have a Megga-Watt of another generation, so when the wind stops blowing something had to replace it. So when you build Wind you have to build something else, and it has to be able to come up to full load in less than 15 minutes. That only leaves Hydro, and Gas. Then Solar is good but it is very costly, and again this big problem (night). So again for every Megga-Watt of solar again you have to build one of something else, when the sun is not shining. Ok we are now down to Coal or Natural Gas. these are not good for a lot of reasons. I lived in a town where there were five Coal mines. There were so many sick people, and the stink, and that is just a few of the problems. This brings us back to the ugly thing Nukes. I do not like this, but it is an answer and not the worst of them. And not the best of them, just an answer. Lee A Walth
http://electricdemise.blogspot.com |
|
Written on: 17 January 2010 [16:58]
|
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
Topic creator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 583
|
I will throw in some arguments from my side as well if you don't mind Nuclear power is, like iamian said, in the best case just a temporary fix in my opinion. Another huge and unresolved problem in my opinion is nuclear waste. To me it is highly questionable how we can safely store the waste. And the weakest point here is not the underground where we store the stuff but human failure to safeguard it. The costs to keep it safe are tremendous. The ultimate solution are renewables and while it is true that the sun is not shining 24hrs and the wind doesn't blow continuously, the technology is here to store energy produced by e.g. solar power. I agree that there must be a backup for renewable energy, but the amount of (backup)energy needed will diminish over time. I still see a huge potential in efficiency and saving energy which would render new plants in many areas not necessary. Not building new nukes has also a positive side effect, which is to build up pressure to find alternatives and to conserve energy. In my opinion there is still way to much energy wasted. An example: Cutting off the power of four telephones (IP phones) in my office, consuming on standby 44W together, during night and the weekend, saves as much energy as I need to drive around with my Twike for an entire year (approx. 9000miles). While it is normal to buy these days only energy efficient fridges and freezers, we are far off by doing the same in regard to our mobility needs. The difference lies in the fact that the fridge is hidden at home, but the car is seen on the road... Twike 890
 |
|
Written on: 17 January 2010 [18:38]
|
|
|
OwningElectricCar
registered since: 16.01.2010
Posts: 31
|
Wow, this thread really has strayed away from the original point! Moving back briefly to the economy figures, I'm not entirely sure that working out 'MPG' figures for electric cars is particularly relevent or accurate. A more useful figure would be a measurement of the distance that can be travelled on a single kilowatt-hour of electricity. Some manufacturers already publish figures based on energy from the batteries to the motor, which is not particularly relevent, as it does not measure the efficiency of the battery charging system. What would be better would be a figure showing the distance travelled on a single kilowatt-hour of electricity, based on a complete 'full to empty' charge. On a separate thread, talking about the environmental impact of an electric car, I've put up a link to a new web page that I have written that shows you the carbon impact of the UK national grid in real time, along with how the power is generated. Author of the book 'Owning an Electric Car' - http://www.OwningElectricCar.com
|
|
Written on: 17 January 2010 [21:54]
|
|
|
lwalth
registered since: 09.01.2010
Posts: 16
|
I like your argument, I feel it is the way to go. That we should force them to do the right thing. The only problem is now we are talking about the government. They Do not think like you and I, they think with Money, and pressure from lobbiest. That is the problem, that is why we do not have electric cars now, why the grid is in the shape it is. They have the big money and it does what it wants not what is right. I feel given a honest chance most people will do the right thing and we could fix most of the problems. Again the problem lies with special instrest groups, lobbiest, and the government. See we should be able to find a way to store power, even if we do not have one now. We should be able to make solar and wind work together. Did you know that there was an idea submitted to the big electric companies about a way to store power using old deep, hard rock mines? By pumping water or air into the mines during times of off peak or high wind or solar then the air or water stored could be used to generate power during high use times. The Idea was test and approved, until the permit was needed, then it was all over. so we could have put to use old mines, and there are a lot, and stored air or water to be used at a later time. This is but one of many that the government would not let happen. Lee A Walth
http://electricdemise.blogspot.com |
|
Written on: 17 January 2010 [23:44]
|
|
|
iamian
 
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 110
|
Closer to the original topic ... I think while it can be useful in some ways to try and get a larger picture of the whole instead of just the pump to the wheels... there is a major problem with doing so. The general public thinks in terms of pump to wheels ... they put ___ gallons in to go ___ Miles ... they do not include any of the up stream costs of that ___ gallon ... or the ___ Miles ... they don't care how many gallons are spent extracting , transporting , refining , etc... the ___ Gallons they put into the tank. If you do an analysis showing a larger picture of the Tesla getting ~49MPG... the average person will compare that to ~49 MPG pump to wheels of the car they drive now. So as far as the general public goes ... keep it simple ... pump to wheels... because that is how they already do it. ------------ Additionally once you go past the pump to wheels for one how far do you go for the other ... depending on how far you go for one and how far you don't go on another you can distort the picture either way ... we saw this when that group did it in favor of the H2 and against the Prius. ------------- Lastly I do agree looking past the pump is useful ... and good to do ... but it is not the kind of thing for everyone ... just like opening a 1,000 page electrochemical book on Recent Battery technology is for the vast majority of people... it is a good thing ... but the general public has no interest in it and will take everything you tell them and try to force it into the point of view they already have of the world. RE & Efficiency enthusiast
|
|
Written on: 18 January 2010 [00:00]
|
|
|
lwalth
registered since: 09.01.2010
Posts: 16
|
I could not agree with you more, people are very short sighted. That with the problem with our government is what is really wrong with this world right now. Thanks for your time.. Lee A Walth
http://electricdemise.blogspot.com |
|
Written on: 03 June 2011 [11:10]
|
|
|
sarkarinaukris
registered since: 03.06.2011
Posts: 1
|
Transmission---not a change for the Roadster---but for the "S". The transmission on the power/speed/usage curves seem to be telling that it can't get out of its own way at high speeds. The gear ratio is meant to blast the Roadster out of the gate to hit 60mph, without blowing the transmission up---(2 gear old tranny). One reason the old 2 speed blew up was the bone crushing force that was hitting all parts of the transmission from the electric motor while "speed shifting". Hey---remember all the "slop" you have with a "normal" car's shifts---depress the clutch, drop rpms, clutch---throwout bearing--flywheel---shift the gear--let out the clutch--all this is "easy" on a transmission. Now, if you do it hard---popping the clutch, etc all the time, well your clutch will probably be the 1st to die---but the tranny isn't far behind. So for the model S---play with the gear ratio and talk to some tranny peeps who are experts with Overdrives. One other solution is to have a multi speed tranny but not allow shifting....crazy?....no you select the gear before you start and you are "locked in" untill you come to a stop and put it in park. Think of the new tranny as multi power vs multi speed. Power 1--High Power ... lower range for blasting down the road or getting out of a dangerous area. Power 2--Med Power ... everyday cruising at 55-80 mph give you good range and still high speed. Power 3--Extended Range...Sunday Driving---30-60 mph smooth terrain. And the most scary idea of all---an automatic tranny w/overdrive... CVT? Visit Sarkari Naukri Search For Government Bank Jobs and Daily Employment News
|
Portal information:
At the moment there are 12 users online, thereof 1 registered user and 11 guests.
Today 1 registered user and 11 guests were already online.
Now online
User: laceindian
ecocarforum.com has 706 registered user, 606 topics and 1205 answers. On the average 1.09 posts are written per day.
Today 1 registered user and 11 guests were already online.
Now online
User: laceindian
ecocarforum.com has 706 registered user, 606 topics and 1205 answers. On the average 1.09 posts are written per day.