This is danm's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following danm's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I commend Hertz for offering this option. However, this vehicle may leave a bad impression of EVs.
"The current generation of electric cars". The most rabid supporter of EV's would not argue that the points made in this article. Everybody knows current EVs are more expensive than most ICE vehicles, and are being subsidized. Duh. It's what's coming in the next ten years that should be compared.
I was without power for a week after an ice-storm, so it's not just hurricanes. Hurricanes: at the very least you could run your refridgerator and not have all the food spoil. Would be an additional selling point (for Prius) along gulf coast and Carolinas.
How quaint this discussion of American vs. Japanese auto product, and U.S. govt spending on American auto industry. Won't everything be built in China in 2 decades?
The Volt is more of an EV than the PIP but PIP wins on price, which will determine who wins in sales.
kit-p, LWR might be "very close to perfect" but when there is a problem, it can be big. And that's what scares people. And dry cask storage is great. however, very little nuclear waste is sitting in dry cask storage. Most is sitting on-site in storage pools. Not a permanent solution. Over-engineering is a good thing. The japanese thought they had over-engineered the sea wall protecting the Fukushima plant. Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-nuke. But nuclear is dead until it can convince people that it is absolutely safe. Irrational? Yes. But that's the situation. The problem with most pro-nuclear folks is that they think they're smarter than the rest of the population. They think the anti-nukers are idiots. Well, the idiots are running the asylum. And until they're convinced nuclear is safe, it's dead. So over-engineering is necessary. Fail-safe is possible, with lots of over-engineering. Even atop a fault-line, or on the shore of northern Japan.
Yeah, but those are 'active' fans, pushing the air. Wind turbines are passive and are pushed 'by' the air.
Interesting dialogue here between Reel and EP. Both sincerely want clean energy, soon. As one who was formerly opposed to nuclear power for the reasons Reel mentions (not cheap, no clean, not safe), i understand those concerns. But as one who has come to accept the cold, hard fact that nukes don't release CO2, and they can be designed to be failsafe, i am more in EP's ballpark. But this demonstrates Nuclear's problem...there's no middle ground: those opposed won't consider the possibility that nukes can become cheap,safe and cleaner than most other power sources. (yeah, i know there's all that old waste hanging around...gotta solve that)
Kit-P, many good points (some i had not considered). But the main point in favor of SMRs might be getting them approved faster. We all know the main obstacle to nukes is political. If an SMR is less intimidating to the public, it might have a better chance of getting built.
Many good pts made. People will accept a limited range EV (say, 60 miles) when the price of the EV drops down below $15k. People would accept a THINK-type small EV if the price was cheap enough. They might still want an ICE for longer trips (until they realize they should just rent one when needed).
Nick, "For various political reasons"... wasn't that because of some near-mishaps and people got scared? - But very unfortunate for humanity because the problems could have benn solved with some more engineering... and, of course, still could be.
Bob_Wallace, at the risk of sounding like i'm anti-PV, I will say that a modular nuke could easily be built before solar + batteries can provide baseload. - At current technology, i'm afaid it is a coal vs. nuke situation. - I wish it weren't so. And, I believe that will change in 10-20 years, but for now...
As Nick_Lyons stated, "wish it were LFTR SMRs". But at least its a step in the right direction. Good objection from Bob Wallace about NIMBY but that could be overcome, if engineering is failsafe. Better than a coal plant in my backyard.
Davemart, I think you're wasting your breath with that argument, even if you're right. Try selling it to the people near Fukushima. And, are the Greenpeace people liars any more than the engineers who built Fukushima, who promised it was safe? - I want to see nuclear power move forward but i don't think it will happen if you tell people "radiation might get released but it's harmless". They have to believe the technology is failsafe (or nearly so).
Henry, Do you think Rossi is a scam artist? - Also, i think you'd be more persuasive if you dropped the "radioactivity is safe" argument. Just sayin'. Better to frame it as LFTRs cannot meltdown and are failsafe (or, could be).
Nobody is going to buy this for its styling. That might be OK if the price were 10K lower.
Henrik, gotta disagree. if there is no peak oil why are we going after shale and deep oil? Answer: because the easy oil is gone, or is going. Peak oil says that extracting oil will continue to get more expensive. And the oil companies don't have to drill to know what's down there (seismic exploration).
The baby (DOE's Loans Program Office) will be thrown out with the bathwater, if they don't get their act together. The TeaParty will see to it.
"As soon as the word gets around" AND the price comes down to something more affordable.
Stan P, YOu completely invalidate your comment with the phrase "return to the caves". You gloss over the gulf spill as "a single accident". A single accident, yes. Imagine what a few more of those could do. (Ask the shrimpers and fishermen). One was enough for most people. Now if GM would take the VOLT technology they've developed and make it less expensive...something I could afford, that would be a big step in the right direction.
Meaningless article. "...meeting these targets utilizing current technology would require significant displacement of current harvest...". - Would never get there using current technology (basically distilling corn).