EVcast.com is the home of the EVcast. The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way. Don't forget, you can also subscribe to this podcast via iTunes or your favorite podcatcher.
NEW! Stream the latest episode of the EVcast from your website by including this one simple line of javascript:
<script src="http://www.igroops.com/evcast.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Watch this Blog Notify me by e-mail any time a new post is made to this blog.
The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way.
Become Our Platinum SponsorProduct ID: 00000003Currently In Stock: 0
For the main sponsor, you get the big prize! A 622px wide x 100px tall banner that will appear on just about every page within EVcast.com, including blog posts. On the homepage, in place of the banner you will have a custom ... More »
Price: $2500.00
May 2009 Posts
Archives
Don't just listen to the EVcast -- experience and be a part of it! Join us at 1:00pm Eastern, M-F, in our live video broadcast and chat along with us!
Bo and Ryan,
One thing that Daryl Siry said grabbed my attention. He stated that nuclear power is carbon emissions free. This is not, in fact, the case. When you factor in the CO2 emssions in mining, crushing and processing the uranium ore the CO2 emissions are in fact substantial but not, to my knowledge, as large as for utility plants that use coal fired furnaces to generate steam for the turbines.
One process alone, the enrichment process, uses a significant amount of energy. The enrichment process is called gasseous diffusion. The only gaseous diffusion facility in the country is at Paducah, KY and it uses a substantial amount of electricity generated largely from coal fired generating plants. A large part of the reason for this is that to get the easily fissable uranium u235 you have to enrich it to 5% u235 of the overall fuel source because the raw uranium ore is over 99% uranium 238 which would make it unsuitable for reactor rods. The separation process uses the differences between the volocities of u235 and u238 to extract the u235. Because there is a 0.4 % difference in the volocities of these molecules the enrichment process has to be repeated over and over until the uranium is enriched to around 5%. This would make the uranium reactor grade and suitable for use in a commercial nuclear reactor.
In short it is simply false that nuclear energy is carbon free. It takes energy derived from fossil fuels to make nuclear power work.
Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.
quote comment add new comment
There was a mention of an electiric Saturn Vue in your podcast. I believe I saw that someone has already made an electric Saturn Vue http://www.evalbum.com/1910). Not OEM. But if a DIY'er can do it, why can't Detroit?
Any DYI'er can slap together a single EV with bondo and duck tape. Bringing that car to the mass market at a price the public is willing to pay, and having it pass safety standards and crash tests, is a whole other game.
Other than Daryl's comments on nuclear power, which I have to regard as uninformed, the interview went pretty well.
I particularly liked his comments on range extended EVs and battery EVs. I think there may be a market for both.
On bio-electricity he demonstrated an understanding of the limitations to that particular form of energy generation. However the future for solar generated power is very bright. Solar power generation from concentrated solar thermal power (CSP) is beginning to get legs.
CSP basically uses large arrays of concave mirrors surrounding 180° circumference of the tubes through which a super heated oil flow to generate steam for a turbine and the excess heat is stored in a molten sodium storage tank. The oil can reach temperatures approaching 1000° F so it is plenty hot for generating steam.
Heat storage is also the most efficient to store when compared to how wind turbine electricity is stored using pressurized air stored in subterranean salt mines or as water pumped up into reservoirs to be drawn on when the wind dies down.
A plant is slated for construction in Florida and another in Arizona. The potential for CSP is so great that it may very well surpass the full potential of wind generated power. If Germany is anything to go by with respect to renewables then our future is even brighter because we have something Germany doesn't and that's the Sun Belt. CSP plan stretching from Texas to the Mojave desert could provide a big percentage of our electrical generating capacity.
Here are the advantages of CSP. It is dispatchable. That means it can be drawn on as demand requires. It can provide stable base load power due to storage of the excess heat in heat storage tanks. So even if a cloud covers the sun it can still tap into its molten sodium storage tanks. These tanks can extend electricity generation 6 hours after the sun sets. It uses very little water because most systems sited in the southwest will be air-cooled which impacts efficiency but makes them viable in areas that lack water. They can be built much quicker and cheaper than coal fired generating plants. The fuel source will last for another 4 billion years. As we get better at manufacturing CSP plants and as coal becomes more expensive, as we have to dig deeper and deeper to mine it, CSP will inevitable become cheaper to build and use then coal.
So the future is bright for renewable energy and that means the future for EVs powered by the wind and sun will be brighter too.
That's my take on it.
Oh, one more thing. The fruitatarian concept can be applied to other non-plant sources of food too. Think road kill.
Hi Rick! As always, enjoy your comments- but I would not categorize Darryl's comments on Nuclear Power as 'uniformed-' they use coal-fired plants now to separate and create the uranium grade needed for power plants, but the key is they use electricity to do this, and that electricity does not have to come from a coal-fired plant- so moving nuclear power closer to be a carbon-free source of energy is the same as moving EV's to being carbon-free- replace the coal and gas fired plants with nuclear and renewables!
I agree that CSP is on the verge of really taking off- I am a fan of Ausra, which uses fresnel lenses rather than a cruved mirror- cheaper and easier to build- they built a small plant in California in less than 6 months I think- you can see the Govinator extolling the opening of this plant on the Ausra site: http://www.ausra.com/
And thinking of roadkill for Fruitarians? I can tell you too live in Texas- MMM-MM- I am getting hungry for some Armidillo stew! (Actually, I had some once- not from road kill though- it was....interesting;-)
Oh- forgot to add! Good show, Bo and Ryan- terrific panel/interview with Darryl Siry- you can see his blog at: http://www.darrylsiry.com/
Paul,
I would have left it with the CO2 signature alone that it takes to enrich uranium to commericial grade but Daryl dismissed the waste problem as something trivial when it isn't. The waste is stored onsight at the reactors for a good reason. The material is simply to dangerous to move. The radioactive waste material is stored in cooling tanks where it remains until its not to hot to encase in glass and concrete. They keep the cooling tanks cool by running water through them using electric pumps. When the plants are shutdown for any reason, like our plant in Bayport during Ike, then they are at the mercy of the grid. When the grid fails the standbye diesel generators kick in and they can run for a few days. There's more CO2 at the nuclear plant being generated. So restoring power to these facilities after a hurricane is a top priority as you can imagine.
Then there is the expense. Currently it costs around 10 billion dollars to construct a plant. The costs usuaully inflate wildly after construction begins. Wall Street will not finance these projects because of their tremendous expense. Further, Three Mile Island demonstrated you can turn a several billion dollar asset into a several billion dollar liability within hours. It's simply much cheaper to build wind turbines which is why they are sprouting up here in Texas like wildfire. We have 8000 MW of wind power which puts us in the lead nationally and counting. This is 4 fold more than our next competitor Iowa. (You may have thought it was California but you'd be incorrect. California is number 3) CSP is also cheaper than nuclear and can be built in a much shorter time span than nuclear. CSP is also set to rapidly ratchet up in electrical generating capacity. http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/13/concentrated-solar-thermal-power-csp-with-storage/
Another Achille's Heal of nuclear power is that it needs lots of water because the reactor cores generate far more heat than is usable and this waste heat has to be channeled away from the core if it is to operate. With the water shortages in the US south east two nuclear plants were shutdown because of drought situations. In a world projected to have more droughts in the future nuclear power's fortunes are fading.
Then the time to build is simply too long to address the impending carbon emissions caps to be set in place. This means what's on the shelf is what we use. So if you combine efficiency, CSP, wind turbines, co-generation turning the waste heat of factories into a heat source to generate electricity (a technology you'll be hearing a lot of which is already in use) we will be able to hit our carbon reduction targets. All of these can be implemented today if we choose. There's no additional R&D because its either been built or is just starting to be built. There's really no time to dither on construction of new power because carbon cap and trade legislation is iminent. No one is under any illusions that carbon dioxide reduction targets in a cap and trade system will not be passed and that the caps will not be made stricter into the future.
Checked out Daryl Siry's blog and there's no doubt about it. He really knows the auto industry.
I read his blog from March about how the death of GM could also kill the electric car again because the part suppliers who supply GM also supply the electric car startups. Since they operate on the margins the failure of GM or Ford, (Not sure about Chrysler though) would cause these suppliers to apply for bankruptcy too and that in turn could kill EVs again. This has been my argument for keeping GM alive inspite of itself.
I just wish he had thought out the piftalls of nuclear power more throughly.
Here are some basic facts on fuels per acre: 1) bio-diesel (50-100 gallons per acre) 2) ethanol Brazil (727-870 gallons per acre) 3) ethanol USA (321-424 gallons per acre) 4) cellulosic ethanol (1000 gallons per acre) 5) bioelectricity (1500 gallons per acre) 5) photovoltaics (100,000-300,000 gallons gasoline equivalent per acre) The numbers are so wide and in favor of photovoltaics or solar that using crops for fuel should be abandoned. Another waste of government money that can easily be discerned by using elementary mathematics. Ethanol might be use to control emissions. Furthermore these numbers don't include the fuel to plant the seeds and process the plants. USING CROPS FOR FUEL SHOULD BE ABANDONED! All government monies on biofuels should be eliminated. You should put that in your podcast. billberggren
