Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2005
article: Plug-in Hybrid
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jason - 14 Aug 2005 18:21 GMT Tweaked hybrid gets 80 miles per gallon
By Tim Molloy Associated Press
CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away.
Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80 miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-size batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.
Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.
Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb -- all for about a quarter.
He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.
They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign-policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.
And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.
So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.
"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."
The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.
"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."
Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.
Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.
But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids -- and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.
Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.
Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA Director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.
Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.
"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.
DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available. On the Net:
CalCars Initiative: calcars.org
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
jim beam - 14 Aug 2005 18:28 GMT > Tweaked hybrid gets 80 miles per gallon > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > CalCars Initiative: calcars.org that's one of the dumbest articles i've ever seen. where do these idiots thing the "plug in" energy comes from? just pull out the gas motor & replace entirely with batteries! then it's an infinite mpg vehicle. thanks for the laugh.
Elle - 14 Aug 2005 19:06 GMT > Jason wrote: > > Tweaked hybrid gets 80 miles per gallon [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > motor & replace entirely with batteries! then it's an infinite mpg > vehicle. thanks for the laugh. What's dumb is your failure to consider the actual costs here.
It appears he spends 25 cents to fully charge his car's batteries. Then he gets 20 miles of driving using the battery-gasoline combo, achieving presumably "80 miles per gallon of gasoline." So 20/80 = 1/4 gallon of gasoline was used to drive 20 miles. At $2.40 per gallon, he paid 60 cents for that 1/4 gallon. Overall cost to travel 20 miles with this car: 85 cents.
By contrast, with my 40 mpg conventional Honda Civic, I pay $1.20 . He's paying only 85/120 = ~ 70% of what I pay. Those who drive cars and "trucks" getting only 27.5 MPG (the CAFE standard for passenger cars?) pay $1.75 for the 20 mile trip. Mr. Hybrid Engineer (in the article) pays less than half this.
jim beam - 14 Aug 2005 19:18 GMT <snip>
>>that's one of the dumbest articles i've ever seen. where do these >>idiots thing the "plug in" energy comes from? just pull out the gas [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the 20 mile trip. Mr. Hybrid Engineer (in the article) pays less than half > this. what's dumb is contending you have an 80mpg vehicle when you don't. may as well just go for the big kahuna and eliminate the gas entirely.
Jason - 14 Aug 2005 23:19 GMT > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > what's dumb is contending you have an 80mpg vehicle when you don't. may > as well just go for the big kahuna and eliminate the gas entirely. The problem with electric (only) vehicles was that people and companies worried that the electric vehicles would run out of power and would have to be towed home or to a place were the drivers could plug them in. With a "Plug-in" hybrid car--the people and companies that own them would NEVER have to worry about these issues.
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Elle - 15 Aug 2005 03:38 GMT > what's dumb is contending you have an 80mpg vehicle when you don't. Read the article.
John Horner - 16 Aug 2005 05:23 GMT Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles?
I wonder what a rear end collision into a rear end filled with wet cell lead-acid batteries would do?
Also, where exactly is the electricity for these things supposed to come from? My home electric bill in the summer here in Northern California already is getting close to $500/month when the heat waves hit, and that is with solar energy taking care of all of our domestic hot water.
I really do not want to buy expensive electricity from PG&E for my automobiles as well!
John
Jim Yanik - 16 Aug 2005 15:09 GMT > Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles? > > I wonder what a rear end collision into a rear end filled with wet cell > lead-acid batteries would do? The guy in the article only used LA cells for initial tests;he then switched to NiMH. Others are using Li-ion cells.
> Also, where exactly is the electricity for these things supposed to come > from? Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
> My home electric bill in the summer here in Northern California > already is getting close to $500/month when the heat waves hit, and that > is with solar energy taking care of all of our domestic hot water. > > I really do not want to buy expensive electricity from PG&E for my > automobiles as well! It would be a lot cheaper than buying gasoline.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 16 Aug 2005 17:23 GMT > Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
flobert - 16 Aug 2005 17:52 GMT >> Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. > >Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? Yes, well, waste, yes, problem, not so much. there's Sellafield for one. Someone was also proposing some experiments a year or two ago with a deveice called a 'proton transmutation accelerator' or similar. Couldn't get fnding though to develop it into a working technology.
Jim Yanik - 17 Aug 2005 01:16 GMT >> Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. > > Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted by the anti- nuke idiots.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 17 Aug 2005 06:44 GMT >>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >> >>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? > > Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted > by the anti-nuke idiots. Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
If you answer yes to these then more power to you but you'll be the first person I've met that does.
Doug McCrary - 17 Aug 2005 08:34 GMT > >>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you answer yes to these then more power to you but > you'll be the first person I've met that does. If the stuff is properly immobilized and shielded, why not?
Jason - 17 Aug 2005 18:08 GMT > > >>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If the stuff is properly immobilized and shielded, why not? In the county where I live, there is a nuclear power plant that stores nuclear waste above ground in pools of water. I visited the plant several years ago. I saw what looked like 4 huge swimming pools. Our guide told us the nuclear waste was stored in the bottom of each of those pools of water. They would prefer to store it in other areas but environmentalists won't let them move it due to security and safety concerns. I should note that no people have ever died as a result of the nuclear waste stored in our county. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Jim Yanik - 18 Aug 2005 00:46 GMT >> > >>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > environmentalists won't let them move it due to security and safety > concerns. Those are less than the same concerns for on-site storage. More sites that have better chances of being attacked or burgled.
The "environmentalists" and NIMBY's actually are decreasing the country's security by opposing Yucca Mtn.They also harm the environment more by opposing nuclear power generation,thus using more carbon-based fuels that have far worse effects on the environment.
> I should note that no people have ever died as a result of > the nuclear waste stored in our county. > Jason Yes,environmentalists would rather more people die from mining coal or producing petroleum,along with the negative health effects on citizens in using those products all across the country.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Leonard Caillouet - 17 Aug 2005 10:59 GMT >>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you answer yes to these then more power to you but > you'll be the first person I've met that does. The irony is that there are many nuclear waste dumps across the nation right now because of this attitude. Rather than sensibly storing the waste where it will be less likely to be a problem, we have it distributed all over the country. The fear of nuclear waste baffles me. You can easily detect it and deal with it. The effects are known and understood. Many of the same people who are so afraid of nuclear energy and waste don't realize that they have much more hazardous products nearby that they will never even know about. I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. You can detect radiation easily. Do you know what you are breathing as a result of the nearby plants and even the chemicals in use in your home? The relative environmental impact of nuclear energy compared to even the cleanest of fossil fuel generation or petro-chemical production is so small that I have to wonder about the intelligence of those who are so petrified by it. Geez, even many of the products that are produced and used everyday in the chemical industry are more dangerous and impact more people than nuclear waste.
Leonard
Brian Stell - 17 Aug 2005 17:15 GMT > I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would > trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
Jim Yanik - 18 Aug 2005 00:37 GMT >> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would >> trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. > > Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant? Chemical or other types of plants are MORE dangerous to people than nuclear power plants. More people die from petro or coal production than from nuclear power generation.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Leonard Caillouet - 18 Aug 2005 00:37 GMT >> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a >> nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. > > Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant? Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and waste that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow in toxics of all natures and hardly complain at all. You try to clean up the mess of chemicals in Lousiana, Houston and dozens of other areas that are highly industrialized and let us know how far you get. Also, see if you can build a cheap detector to identify the presence of any of the hundreds of hazardous compounds the plants emit. You don't even know what to look for. With nuclear we know exactly what to look for and how to secure it. I'd rather deal with a known than an unknown.
By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean and safe.
Leonard
Jason - 18 Aug 2005 03:41 GMT > >> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a > >> nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Leonard Leonard, I agree with you. The environionmentalists (sp??) in California are preventing loggers from thinning out the forests by cutting down the largest trees and brush and leaving behind the smaller trees. The end result are forest fires that destroy the entire forest. They won't even allow the forest service workers to build fire roads into the forests. I care about the environment but I agree with the loggers and forest service. It's better to manage the forests instead of waiting for the forests to be destroyed by forest fires. I also agree that nuclear power plants are safer for the environment than power plants that burn fossil fuels. I feel sorry for anyone that lives near one of those power plants. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Jim Yanik - 18 Aug 2005 14:43 GMT >>> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would >>> trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. >> >> Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant? Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals. Remember Bhopal,India? And trains derail and spill LOTs of chemical tanker loads.
> Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and > waste that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean > and safe. The enviros tend to overloook or ignore the deaths and harm done by mining coal and producing oil,it's just a fear of things nuclear.
> Leonard
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 19 Aug 2005 07:23 GMT >>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would >>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals. > Remember Bhopal,India? Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.
My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it be better to put effort into cleaning things up?
Leonard Caillouet - 19 Aug 2005 11:49 GMT >>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would >>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it > be better to put effort into cleaning things up? What do you think needs to be done? Do you have any idea why petro-chem industry releases the toxics that they do? Do you have any idea what it would take to make them clean and safe to the degree that the nuclear industry already is? You make it sound like a weekend "pick up the garbage project" but it is much more complex than this.
Leonard
Michael Pardee - 19 Aug 2005 13:59 GMT >> ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals. >> Remember Bhopal,India? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it > be better to put effort into cleaning things up? What happened at Bhopal was no accident; it was deliberate sabotage by somebody who knew how to do the most damage. And what happened at Chernobyl is not possible at commercial power plants; Chernobyl was an uncontained graphite moderated reactor and the graphite caught fire when an ill-advised experiment went very wrong and fractured the fuel rods. Three Mile Island is a better example of a terrible accident at a fairly modern nuclear power plant - complete meltdown of the core and nobody injured, no contamination outside the containment.
In the electric company I've worked for the past 21 years, there have been a few fatalities from electric accidents, one fatality from steam at a coal plant, and one serious injury from a transformer explosion at another coal plant. In the entire US there has never been an injury from the nuclear side of power production.
Mike
Jim Yanik - 19 Aug 2005 16:28 GMT >>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would >>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it > be better to put effort into cleaning things up? Chernobyl was rare,chem plants OFTEN have toxic spills,with OFTEN disastrous results. Same for oil refineries or storage. Nuclear power has a MUCH better safety record,and MUCH cleaner for the environment.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Jim Yanik - 17 Aug 2005 17:16 GMT >>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Leonard If you noticed,the poster asked simplistic questions to frame the matter so that it SEEMS common-sense to be anti-nuclear. While avoiding common sense completely. How ironic.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Leonard Caillouet - 18 Aug 2005 00:40 GMT >>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > While avoiding common sense completely. > How ironic. Those at either extreme of most issues lack common sense and intelectual honesty.
Leonard
jim beam - 17 Aug 2005 14:23 GMT >>>> Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town? it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it were reprocessed, no problem. if it were properly stored, sure. improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based on misinformation.
> Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump > to your child, nephew, pregant relative? technically, you get more radiation from coal power station fly ash. which is used for cinder block. which builds homes. and from granite. which is used in homes. there are many sources of background ratiation, and many parts of the country, where humans happily live where background is much higher than any emissions from your friendly local storage facility.
> If you answer yes to these then more power to you but > you'll be the first person I've met that does. it's nuts to freak without the full facts. sure, there's a lot of misinformation around, on both sides, but the facts are plain: radiation is part of our existance on this planet. we cannot avoid it. it makes no sense to freak about the local power or storage facility if we're getting higher doses from our basement that is full of radon & from the cosmic rays that soak us every day of our lives. check out a bubble chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by the background radiation that is with us constantly.
flobert - 17 Aug 2005 16:49 GMT >>>>> Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by >the background radiation that is with us constantly. Neutreno's actually. extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything. . one of the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory -which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct. http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/uknf/
Good link to plug the only large-scale distributed computing project out there... (and which is a part of the above project)
Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1
jim beam - 18 Aug 2005 03:29 GMT >>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Neutreno's actually. no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta & gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a neutrino reaction.
> extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown > mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything. which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!
> . one of > the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1 flobert - 18 Aug 2005 03:47 GMT >>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement! Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them passing through us every second. Bubble chambers are heavily shielded, sealed high pressure water chambers. The aim is neutrenos sometimes 'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and 'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum when the water approaches boiling.
>> . one of >> the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1 jim beam - 18 Aug 2005 04:06 GMT >>>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them > passing through us every second. and the proportion of neutrino reactions to alpha, beta & gamma is???
> Bubble chambers are heavily shielded, > sealed high pressure water chambers. some research facilities may be, but not many of us get to press our noses against that kind of glass. normal mortals get to see the science museum bubble chamber of low pressure alcohol, which is not shielded specially so you /can/ see just how many of the other reactions there are.
> The aim is neutrenos sometimes > 'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to > produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and > 'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough > surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum > when the water approaches boiling. flash point????????????
the pressure of the fluid is critically low in comparison to boiling point so any [reacting] passing particle leaves a "vapor trail" of local phase transition. but again, this talk in relation to the number of neutrino reactions you'll ever see is just nuts, because you'll probably never see one!
>>>. one of >>>the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>>Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1 Elle - 17 Aug 2005 17:00 GMT "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote Brian wrote snip
> > Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town? > > it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we > dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it > were reprocessed, no problem. Good lord. High level radioactive waste still results from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from power plants.
High level radioactive waste that is not spent fuel and so cannot be reprocessed is still an outcome of nuclear power plant operations.
Lower level waste simply cannot be reprocessed and is of course still a hazard.
I doubt it's only the U.S. who does not reprocess. Regardless, the reason the U.S. does not reprocess (by federal law) is, for one, because of concerns about plutonium proliferation: If this product of reprocessing gets in the wrong hands, the production of nuclear weapons is facilitated.
Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far cheaper than reprocessing.
You can't beef about how the high purchase cost of hybrid cars makes them unsuitable and then disregard how the high cost of reprocessing makes it unsuitable, all in the same thread. Or you can, but you'll be logically inconsistent.
> if it were properly stored, sure. > improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based > on misinformation. The fear is rationally based on misinformation like that you wrote above.
> > Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump > > to your child, nephew, pregant relative? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > it's nuts to freak without the full facts. The only one freaking here is you: You felt you had to dump an emotional truckload of incorrect information on someone who whose concerts are perfectly valid .
I do not oppose per se further construction and operation of commercial nuclear power plants. I do resent the irrational religious fervor of many of its advocates, resulting in the transmission of highly inaccurate information which hinders, rather than helps, the reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
jim beam - 18 Aug 2005 05:28 GMT > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote > Brian wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Lower level waste simply cannot be reprocessed and is of course still a > hazard. ok, let's keep this simple.
1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing in big blue containers all over the country.
2. reprocessed means non-useful high level material is held inert in a form such as borosilicate glass that bears minimal risk of chemical issues and can be safely stored. this includes irradiated material as well as fission product.
3. low level waste can be processed & concentrated or stored.
> I doubt it's only the U.S. who does not reprocess. Regardless, the reason > the U.S. does not reprocess (by federal law) is, for one, because of > concerns about plutonium proliferation: If this product of reprocessing gets > in the wrong hands, the production of nuclear weapons is facilitated. so we can't be trusted to non-proliferate our own plutonium??? that's a crock. it's simply political fear.
> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far > cheaper than reprocessing. on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.
> You can't beef about how the high purchase cost of hybrid cars makes them > unsuitable and then disregard how the high cost of reprocessing makes it > unsuitable, all in the same thread. Or you can, but you'll be logically > inconsistent. if the overall cost of nuclear, including reprocessing & decommissioning, is still on a par with gross polluters like coal, and it is, i fail to understand the inconsistency. agreed, there's an incredible amount of crackpot fear-mongering misinformation on the web on this subject, but if nuclear power can be just as cheap as fossil, doesn't pollute & can be done safely, i don't get the problem.
>>if it were properly stored, sure. >>improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based >>on misinformation. > > The fear is rationally based on misinformation like that you wrote above. fear that the french have been operating nuclear plants and storing waste without incident since the 70's? they don't have remote desert repositories in france either.
>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump >>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > truckload of incorrect information on someone who whose concerts are > perfectly valid . eh? the fact that we live with background radiation, sometimes at high levels, is not valid grounds on which to throw perspective on the radiation levels in a power station?
> I do not oppose per se further construction and operation of commercial > nuclear power plants. I do resent the irrational religious fervor of many of > its advocates, resulting in the transmission of highly inaccurate > information which hinders, rather than helps, the reduction of U.S. > dependence on foreign oil. who's an advocate of religious fervor??? there's many grounds on which nuclear power makes a lot of sense when analyzed rationally. that's just a fact. there's no fervor or religion involved. now, if you want to get all frothed up about ensuring operation oversight is independant and competent, be my guest, but don't let that cloud the reality of any deployment decision.
Elle - 18 Aug 2005 06:43 GMT > ok, let's keep this simple. > 1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > form such as borosilicate glass that bears minimal risk of chemical > issues and can be safely stored. Not necessarily.
Why read further if you can't accurately reflect even the simple?
You're on a religious mission, not a scientific one.
Doug McCrary - 18 Aug 2005 08:06 GMT > > ok, let's keep this simple. > > 1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You're on a religious mission, not a scientific one. Huh? What are your arguments/postions on what jb said? Sounds like pot calling kettle black, to me.
Brian Stell - 19 Aug 2005 07:32 GMT >> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far >> cheaper than reprocessing. > > on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable. General Electric spent a lot of time and money trying to build a reprocessing plant. At first it was going to make lots of money. Then, well it would make some money. Then, at least we can break even. Then finally they gave up.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=583
"General Electric built a large reprocessing facility in Morris, Ill. The plant, which never operated, now stores used nuclear fuel."
"Nuclear Fuel Services, while a subsidiary of Getty Oil, built and operated a small reprocessing facility in West Valley, N.Y. The high cost of meeting new regulations in the mid-1970s forced the company to close the plant."
"Allied General Nuclear Services, an Allied Chemical and General Atomics joint venture, invested more than $500 million dollars in a new reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. The Carter administration’s reprocessing ban—coupled with costly new regulatory requirements—ensured that it, too, never operated."
"In 1994, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued a study that concluded total life-cycle costs are virtually the same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used fuel."
jim beam - 19 Aug 2005 14:53 GMT >>> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far >>> cheaper than reprocessing. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used > fuel." so how come it's done in all these other places? charity?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
Elle - 19 Aug 2005 14:58 GMT "Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote Jim E
> >> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far > >> cheaper than reprocessing. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used > fuel." Good ones. A more recent citation (this past month) is in the same vein: --- The four witnesses at this [Congressional] hearing [on July 12] were very cautious about the prospects for reprocessing (see http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/energy05/july%2012/index.htm.) Richard K. Lester of MIT testified that reprocessing would work against the expansion of nuclear energy because of the higher cost that it would impose. It would be "extremely unlikely" that within the next few decades reprocessing and mining/enriching costs would be roughly equal. Lester pointed to a MIT study that concluded reprocessing would not be attractive for at least fifty years. Donald W. Jones of RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc. estimated that after the construction of the first few power plants, nuclear energy could be competitive with fossil fuels, particularly if carbon sequestration was required at fossil fuel plants. Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland concluded that it was extremely unlikely that the cost of uranium would be competitive with reprocessing, and commercial operators of utility plants would be unlikely to embrace it. Marvin Fertel of the Nuclear Energy Institute called for an additional five to ten years of R&D, after which another decade would be required to establish a reprocessing facility. Fertel predicted that it would require "a couple of decades to honestly deploy the facilities that you want, assuming that they are economic."
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/118.html ---
Jim Yanik - 17 Aug 2005 17:14 GMT >>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town? Not relevant;one selects the storage site based on sound engineering and environmental principles.
Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
> Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump > to your child, nephew, pregant relative? > > If you answer yes to these then more power to you but > you'll be the first person I've met that does.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 18 Aug 2005 04:48 GMT >>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. "New nuclear plants appear too pricey" http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/yucca/6073891.htm "The last five U.S. nuclear power plants cost 11 times as much to build per kilowatt produced as do current natural-gas plants. Even if new next-generation nuclear plants can be built much more cheaply, their construction costs still are likely to be two to four times higher than natural gas, coal or wind plants, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."
>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >> >>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town? > > Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure. There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who feel differently.
"Yucca Mountain" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.shtml "... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they believe has been shoved down their throats."
"The Impacts of Sabotage and Terrorism on Nuclear Waste Shipments: A Critique of the U. S. Department of Energy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0250D) for the Proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Geological Repository" http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/yucca/ballard01.htm "if one makes a cursory review of NRC’s Safeguards Summary Event List (SSEL) it becomes clear that sabotage is a much more common practice in nuclear related facilities than the public would assume and clearly a known factor transportation planners should address."
"Yucca radiation limits unveiled" http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-10-Wed-2005/news/27026244.html "Never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated such a ridiculous standard," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. "This is junk science at its worst."
"YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'" http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-13-Sat-2005/news/27043079.html "Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear waste are expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some with undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers and the public, according to a report prepared for the government."
"Report says repository to bite county budget" http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-17-Wed-2005/news/27062800.html " The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the planned Yucca Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on local government finances, according to a report accepted by Clark County commissioners Tuesday."
>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump >>to your child, nephew, pregant relative? >> >>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but >>you'll be the first person I've met that does. My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless you personally are willing to have you and those you care about live near it.
So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would be okay".
Jim Yanik - 18 Aug 2005 14:50 GMT >>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > times higher than natural gas, coal or wind plants, according to the > U.S. Energy Information Administration." Costs are high because of the ridiculous opperssive regulations forced upon the nuclear industry by enviro-extremists.
>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who > feel differently. Purely NIMBY.
> "Yucca Mountain" > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.shtml > "... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in > full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists > and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they > believe has been shoved down their throats." The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site. Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.
> "The Impacts of Sabotage and Terrorism on Nuclear Waste Shipments: A > Critique of the U. S. Department of Energy's Draft Environmental [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in nuclear related facilities than the public would assume and clearly > a known factor transportation planners should address." This would be an argument FOR Yucca Mtn. Having the present wastes located allover the country in MUCH less secure sites than Yucca makes NO sense. Transportation is a short-term window of "opportunity" that is difficult to attempt with any chance of success.
> "Yucca radiation limits unveiled" > http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-10-Wed-2005/news/270262 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would > be okay". It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 19 Aug 2005 07:45 GMT >>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Purely NIMBY. So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear waste dump in YOUR town?
>>"Yucca Mountain" >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.shtml [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site. We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.
> Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right. The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty land. They live there.
>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless >>you personally are willing to have you and those you care [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's OK because it's far better than what we have now. Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
If nuclear power is so wonderful let the people who benefit from it live near it's waste. Don't shove it down someone else's throat.
Jim Yanik - 19 Aug 2005 16:34 GMT >>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear > waste dump in YOUR town? So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate the storage facility.
>>>"Yucca Mountain" >>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.shtml [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty > land. They live there. And it's STILL a vast empty land. Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.
>>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless >>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's > backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention? No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
> If nuclear power is so wonderful let the people who > benefit from it live near it's waste. Don't shove it > down someone else's throat. Some time in the future,we ALL will be benefitting from it. It's time to plan for that NOW,so face reality.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 21 Aug 2005 03:58 GMT >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion. The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Jim Yanik - 21 Aug 2005 17:15 GMT >>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's >>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention? >> >> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion. > > The scientists in Nevada disagree. But have they come up with any alternative places? No. (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
> You have explained your postion clearly: > > You want the benefit. > > You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard. Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.? I suspect not.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 22 Aug 2005 17:20 GMT >>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's >>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But have they come up with any alternative places? No. > (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???) They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
> I suspect they too are being NIMBY. You can call it that but they would call it protecting their citizens.
>>You have explained your postion clearly: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wrong,-in the best possible place. I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting the benefit.
You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made that clear.
You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain is a good place to put nuclear waste.
If only science were always objective. For simple things it can be. But there will never be a scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion. Not a fact. For complex problems there will always be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
The scientists working for the federal government really want a place to dump the nuclear waste. They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion* that Yucca Mountain is safe.
The scientists working for the state of Nevada really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in their state. They looked at the facts and drew the conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
The likely difference: who's backyard it is being dumped in.
> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.? > I suspect not. No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's backyard.
And that is the major reason why we need to stop producing it.
flobert - 22 Aug 2005 17:41 GMT >>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's >>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >their state. They looked at the facts and drew the >conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe. ERm no, to my understanding, the objects were made purely on political reasons, no scientific based reasons made at all. I persoanlyl will take a nicely designed, built and manned nuclear storage facility in 'my back yard' any day. The only reasons given for why that facility is not good, is emotionally based, and scientifically unsound.
I worked at a nuclear reprocessing plant for a while. thats like a storage facility squared. lots of material comes in and out, and is processed, its not sealed, locked up and then kept in one place. The CND weirdo's still pickett every now and then, but its nothing very serious. As for whata i was doing at the plant - i was brought in to test potential safety inspection, and emergency shutdown robots. Part of a team that heavily analysed the data from sending vehicles around in hot rooms, seeing how they affected data, if it was possible to add layers and distance between human operators and maintainance people, and anything warm, or hot.
If you want to talk terrorist crap, there are MANY better targets out in the world today for gathering nuclear materials. for instance, in 2002, a lot of easily frightened nuclear and terrorist worriers panicked over a shipment of MOX pellets that went from Japan to sellafield. The ship was slow, and poorly armed. apart from 9mm sidearms for the armed members of the crew (two dozen or so) the ship carried two .50cal guns, one each fore and aft. That was it. A bunch of 'licker'd up rednecks ina boston whaler' could have hijacked the ship, if needed. It wasn't escorted.
As with terrorism, 90% of whats spread as 'dangers' and 'threast' from nuclear materials, is nothing more than plain old FUD.
>The likely difference: who's backyard it is being >dumped in. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And that is the major reason why we need to stop >producing it. Jim Yanik - 23 Aug 2005 00:23 GMT >>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's >>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just > like scientists in *every* other state were saying. Then they were not trying to solve the location problem,they just were NIMBY.No wonder they were ignored.
>> I suspect they too are being NIMBY. > > You can call it that but they would call it > protecting their citizens. They certainly were not acting in the best interests of the Nation. Nor as scientists.
>>>You have explained your postion clearly: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made > that clear. I live in FLORIDA;the geology/hydrology is totally wrong for it here. If it were geologically and hydrologically the best place,I'd WELCOME IT. Heck,I'd try to get a JOB there,and live within reasonable driving distance from it.
> You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain > is a good place to put nuclear waste. The best available in the CONUS.
NOBODY has shown otherwise. (all they say is "not here";NIMBY,=UNACCEPTABLE,it's gotta go somewhere.)
> If only science were always objective. YOU are not "objective",except for your no-nuke philosophy.
> For simple > things it can be. But there will never be a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The scientists working for the federal government > really want a place to dump the nuclear waste. Yes,it's necessary. It's certainly not good to stay with the status quo. It's here,we have to deal with it.
> They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion* > that Yucca Mountain is safe. A pretty good decision.
> The scientists working for the state of Nevada > really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in > their state. They looked at the facts and drew the > conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe. Gee,think they were BIASED? (like you)
> The likely difference: who's backyard it is being > dumped in. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. There is no *good* place. Yes,there is. The place where it's the safest,and least likely to affect anything.
> That is exactly > why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's > backyard. AH,there's the TRUE drift of your objection;it's NUCLEAR,therefore unacceptable anywhere.You feel that having a single national repository would make muclear power more feasible.You are not concerned with the safety of the PRESENT nuclear wastes.You don't want any solution to safe storage of nuclear wastes. I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti- nuke beliefs.
Just as I suspected.Just another anti-nuke enviro-weenie.
> And that is the major reason why we need to stop > producing it. Now you show your true colors.
PLONK.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Brian Stell - 23 Aug 2005 03:18 GMT > I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti- > nuke beliefs. You need to take your meds.
flobert - 19 Aug 2005 18:47 GMT >>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear >waste dump in YOUR town? Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear reprocessing facility...
Jim Yanik - 20 Aug 2005 02:25 GMT >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear reprocessing > facility... Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Jason - 20 Aug 2005 18:45 GMT > >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to > good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn. Hello, Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate money to any greenie group. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Bubba - 20 Aug 2005 19:07 GMT In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor Californians have had to screw around with special "California Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than some states.
During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we know the greenies will never stand for that.
>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem? >> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >any greenie group. >Jason Jason - 20 Aug 2005 19:38 GMT > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For example > look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor Californians have [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > every new generating station and we know the greenies will never stand for > that. Hello, You made some great points. I live in California. Several years ago the greenies worked together to get a law passed that required oil companies to place some sort of new additive in gasoline. Several years later, it was discovered that the additive was causing people to get cancer. In addition, various gas stations had defective tanks and the gasoline leaked into the ground water. People living near those gas stations came down with cancer. The oil companies were sued. I read several news report about those cases and none of the liberal reporters ever mentioned that the greenies were to blame for causing the cancer causing additive to be placed in the gas. I realize the oil companies should not have allowed the gas tanks under the ground to leak. However, the greenies should also have been sued because they were the ones to blame for causing the additive to be in the gasoline. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
jim beam - 20 Aug 2005 20:08 GMT >>In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For example >>look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor Californians have [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > be in the gasoline. > Jason dude, you have that totally ass-over-tip. the additive is mtbe. it was sold to the california state legislature as an "oxygenate" designed to reduce emissions, much like ethanol is being used today. it's since been banned because it contaminates ground water supplies with a taste like turpentine. now, here's the real rub: mtbe was mandated after lobbying by arco, whose refining process just happens to produce a lot of mtbe, much more than they could otherwise use. the hook they used was "oxygenation" being better for emissions - something that's not necessary with a fuel injected vehicle, the vast majority of vehicles on the road. speculation is that the real reason arco wanted mtbe mandated for all gasoline was not only to get rid of their excess mtbe production, but also to reduce mpg, therefore increase gas sales. and they succeeded. but guess whose wife was on the board of arco at the time this mandate found it's was through the state assembly? go on, guess...
Jim Yanik - 21 Aug 2005 00:28 GMT > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>money to any greenie group. >>Jason I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!. (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
Jason - 21 Aug 2005 01:36 GMT > > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For > > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!. > (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.) I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this other Sen. Kennedy story: Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has changed his mind related to off shore drilling." Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
tomb - 16 Aug 2005 17:30 GMT >> Also, where exactly is the electricity for these things supposed to >> come from? > > Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them. And where is the "safe and clean" nuclear waste supposed to go, please? http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/waste.html - "But one has to plan storage and protection for the public on a time-scale of thousands of years."
flobert - 16 Aug 2005 17:50 GMT >> Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The guy in the article only used LA cells for initial tests;he then >switched to NiMH. Others are using Li-ion cells. ok, crash test someone using lithium batteries. I'll personally take hydrogen over that.
>> Also, where exactly is the electricity for these things supposed to come >> from? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >It would be a lot cheaper than buying gasoline. Jim Yanik - 17 Aug 2005 01:18 GMT >>> Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ok, crash test someone using lithium batteries. I'll personally take > hydrogen over that. Why? Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
flobert - 17 Aug 2005 04:01 GMT >>>> Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Why? >Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash. As has been well documented with Rc aircraft and especialy boats...
When puntured, they have a tendency to catch fire, or explode. reason is simple - LITHIUM. Lithium + water --> lithium hydroxide + hydrogen + ENERGY
Admitedly, if you put a piece of lithium in water, it just melts and fizzes, but its also at or below room temp - a battery isn't. Also, unlike potassium, and sometimes sodium, it doesn't get hot enough ina nd of itself to make the hydrogen produced light. HOWEVER batterys do get warm, there's lots of electrical sparts, and metal on metal. At least a hydrogen tank is design to rupture safe, and, being a gas, will dissipate the longer it goes without a spark. no so with lithium - it constantly generates more hydrogen (moisture in the air, donchaknow).
Anyway, thats just what i've read in the dangers of the battery type in crash impacts. YMMV
Steve Bigelow - 17 Aug 2005 11:16 GMT >>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is simple - LITHIUM. > Lithium + water --> lithium hydroxide + hydrogen + ENERGY How does that compare to a thin steel can full of 20 gallons of gasoline?
flobert - 17 Aug 2005 16:58 GMT >>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >How does that compare to a thin steel can full of 20 gallons of gasoline? 1) generally not mounted by amateurs. 2) you have a fixed quantity of fuel, which is a liquid with flamable vapours. drain the liquid, move it away, no problem. a series of batteries is both producing its own combustion fuel as it goes along, PLUS lithium burns itself.
Puncturing a petrol tank does not automatically lead to fire. puncturing a lithium based battery can. I don't have bond energy's to hand, so i'm not sure if it'd be preferable to have it hydrogenate, or combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under controlled conditions.
Jim Yanik - 17 Aug 2005 17:21 GMT >>>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a >>>>crash. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under > controlled conditions. Nonsense;gas,hydrogen,and electric vehicles all have specific hazards,and one is not necessarily worse than the others. And emergency workers are already practicing tactics to handle hybrids,and toxic chemical spills from other sources.
And how often do you thiink these cells are going to be -punctured-?
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
flobert - 17 Aug 2005 21:20 GMT >>>>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a >>>>>crash. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Nonsense;gas,hydrogen,and electric vehicles all have specific hazards,and >one is not necessarily worse than the others. They are quantifyable by risk, likelyhood, ability to contain, size, quantity of fuel, combustion level, etc.
If one type scores significantly worse than the others in these 'ratings' then its clear they're worse. Thats common sense.
>And emergency workers are already practicing tactics to handle hybrids,and >toxic chemical spills from other sources. Yes, emergency workers are practiced at toxic chemical spills - they're called 'hazmat workers'. I got some time in with a unit based in the Bay area a few years back. Their training and equipment is a long way from your common or garden variety firefighter.
I live in a medium-size town in rural Georgia. Theres a US highway or two here, an interstate not far away, the Atlanta Motor Speedway is just up the road, and yet i gave a friend of mine a call about 5 minutes ago over at the fire department - They can deal with nickle and lead based hybrids, but not lithium. That would require equipment from either Atlanta, Macon or Columbus. This is after its discovered of course, and as you well know, water based extinguishants can not, and should not be used.
By contrast, hydrogen fires tend to be very quick, and explosive IF ignited, the quickest, and easiest way to deal with a hydrogen fire is dispursement, dissipating it so that it doesn't ahve the ability to make a sustained combustion (I'm sure you all remmeber about filling test tubes with hydrogen at school, then lighting them for their 'squeaky pop' and also that if you didn't contain it right, it'd not fire as it would have spread)
Besides, going back to the point of the article, someone retrofitted. Since the vehicle is not instantly identifyable, or recognisable as cominaing lithium based batteries(of whatever condition) whats stopping the local responding tender using a water, or water-based extinguishant to dampen down, and attempt to reduce the probability of a conflagration. Hell, if the accident happens in the rain, or with snow around. water + lithium (or any group 1 metal for that matter) = BAD
Let me also regale a little story, of an old chemistry teacher i once had, and how she was fired. It explains this very point.
She was working, preparing an experiment for what would in the US be a first or second year college class. She was making some magnesium oxide for analysis by the class. A piece of the ribbon she was burning fell off her tongs, and near the other pieces she'd prepped (the big jar was locked back up in the storeroom) and in her 'panic' she swiped them, with her gloved hand, into the sink, and started the water. The resulting back destroyed half the bench (benches in those classrooms had sinks every 4 ft). Thaknfully, it was pre-lesson prep, but the classroom was out of action for 3 months. Magnesium is a lot less reactive than lithium is, and that was maybe 2oz of mag strips. She got fired for not only leaving the mag out, but for tossing it in the sink, with the water instead of using a piece of aluminium foil to smother it (Magnesium burns in strips, only because it doesn't have the heat taken away, something like a dinnerplate isn't flamable, as it would never stay hot enough to continue combustion) Think about it.
>And how often do you thiink these cells are going to be -punctured-? about as often as a gas tank does. They can rupture sometimes due to their own heat, or from impact/shock damage. A lot of the model aircraft that have caught fire or exploded had few metal parts, and impacted the flat, penetrative-object free rgound. A car is not shaped like a brick wall, with uniform density.
Jason - 17 Aug 2005 18:00 GMT > >>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash. > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under > controlled conditions. Hello, You may be too young to remember the news stories related to the gas tanks of Pintos exploding. I believe they were made by Ford. When other vehicles crashed into the back of Pintos--the gas tanks would explode. Many people were killed. You should do a google search for Pinto and you may be able to find a some reports about this subject. They quit making Pintos due to the explosions. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
flobert - 17 Aug 2005 20:39 GMT >> >>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >the explosions. >Jason Some people say the same things about Crown vic Interceptors.
Its not that i'm 'too young' its that 'i'm not american'.
howeve, the relevence is valid. rear-based lithium batteries end up with a crash situation similar to that of the pinto. The problem, however, is that the battries are an electrical medium, a spark i likely - a lot moreso that a mechanically generated spark around a gas tank.
Jason - 16 Aug 2005 17:24 GMT > Have any of these hackers crash tested their vehicles? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John John, You do NOT have to ever buy a hybrid vehicle. You did NOT mention how far you drive each day or how much you pay for gas each month. If you live close to where you work, I don't think that anyone would advise you to buy a hybrid vehicle since they cost much more then a non-hybrid vehicle. I don't do much driving so I will never buy a hybrid vehicle due to the cost. However, if I lived 50 miles from where I worked, I would buy a hybrid vehicle and plug it in every night since the price of gas is going higher and higher and higher. Jason
 Signature NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
|
|
|