[Tfug] OT: Battery Powered Transportation: Converting Thermal to Electrical Energy

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Marco,

> I didn't understand this topic.
> Did you learn anything from Homer Simpson?
> What I know is:
> If the electricity was going to be produced only with
> nuclear energy, there is enough uranium only for 4 years of
> electricity production.

I think you missed the point.  Charles was (is) arguing that
electric vehicles aren't a panacea.  They (appear to be) a
nice fuzzy solution to a problem that people can't wrap their
heads around.  Focusing on electric vehicles (by policy
makers) trivializes the problem.  Sort of like "Just say NO"
trivialized the drug (abuse) problem.

Nuclear power plants are a convenient metric to use because people
consider them big behemoths (regardless of their actual power
output).  You can't advocate coal-fired or natural gas fired
electric power plants as those just shift the consumption of
(stored) energy to a different physical location.

> After the Chernobyl explosion, a study from the World
> Health Organization shows that the radiation created a
> modification of the human genome for at least 20 generations
> (then the study was censored by the
> International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) )

Yes, we all (?) know the downside of nuclear power.  That's
the subject of another debate.  :>  Charles is just using
nukes as an example.  Had he advocated coal-fired electrical
power plants, we could get into the environmental impact of
strip mining coal, the health consequences, etc.  I *think*
Charles is just trying to focus on the *energy* issue and
try to put it in some perspective that would let people
get a better feel for just how *big* the problem is.

N.B. http://www.kiddofspeed.com is one of the sites I
visit when I need a good sobering reminder of these types of 
things.  Visit it when you have a fair bit of time to
devote to actually *consume* the materials there (15-30 min)
as well as reflect on what it shows.

> After it has started, one nuclear power plant will run at
> 90%  of capacity all the time, and the electricity
> consumption is never at the same level

As I said in an earlier post, nuclear power plants are ideal
for constant loads.  There are some localities that have
created special tarrifs to exploit this and to encourage
consumers to change their consumption patterns to help with
this "load leveling".  Some tarrifs even allow the utility to
control certain sizable loads in your premises just to help
them balance that load (dynamic load shedding, time-of-use
metering, etc.)

Even *ancient* tarrifs have tried to get large users (i.e.
businesses) to cooperate by shifting their loads throughout
the day.  E.g., a business that is open 7A-7P uses a LOT
of electricity during that period; yet very little "after
hours".  So, you see businesses doing *insane* things like
"making ice" (LOTS of ICE!) at night to reduce their needs
for refrigeration (air conditioning) during the daytime
hours.  Obviously an inefficient process but it allows them
to take advantage of "free" electricity at night.

> The waste produced from a nuclear power plant should be
> kept 1000 years away from humans, in Germany they put it in
> a salt cave, the salt corroded the containers already and
> now they have radioactive water.. 
> 
> A nuclear power plant is subjected to small incidents quite
> often, the neighboring population is subjected to radiation
> If you search on the internet about the nuclear power plant
> that is in Arizona, you'll find that it is the biggest
> in the US, subjected to small incidents, and someone even
> tried to put a bomb there. It wasn't al quaida, but
> someone laid off...
> 
> Nuclear energy is only convenient because it is subsidized
> by the government, here as in France etc. the same material
> for the bombs is used to create electricity
> Instead of creating a military application that is then
> converted for civil use (nuclear energy, internet), why
> don't we try to do something directly for civil use?
> 
> why don't we spend resources and money for nuclear
> fusion that is clean and doesn't produce radioactive
> waste?
> 
> My old f