Electric vehicle information:

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoBo said:
Touchy:) Maybe because there is some self doubt about what's behind your lugholes;) This is not me denying the desirability of having our energy from non pollution emitting sources. BTW, just out of interest, do you have solar PV and a well insulated house?
Click to expand...
For the next time you ask someone about their own emissions etc as proof of credibility ;)

 
1972Ren said:
No, nuclear power plants do not take 10 to 20 years to build. That is anti nuclear disinformation.
South Korea, China and Japan build theirs in average of 5 years. They have been constructed in as little as 3 years. Anything can take as long as you like if you want to make it so.
[/URL]
or here
[/URL]
or here
[/URL]

And let's not forget, things can happen faster if you prioritise them. Like, because you are trying to 'save' humanity and the planet.

No, capacity factor is not irrelevant to the consumer. The consumer is paying for the electricity, and that is proportionate to the cost of building the generator in relation to how much electricity it produces.. As the cost per unit of output isn't much higher with Hinkely Point C, than is estimated for possible future wind power, which of course takes into account future falling wind power costs, it makes no significant difference to the consumer.

Your afactual general statements also overlook an important point: Even if all the extra north sea wind farms are built, there will be times when none of them are producing electricity. As is well understood by everyone, the higher the % of intermittent sources in the mix, the more that is a problem. And it requires energy storage. Lots and lots of it. The cost of that energy storage, which in the case of the UK can only be chemical batteries or hydrogen, will be huge in itself, and I note that is not taken into account in the 'cost of power generation' fake comparisons.

Needless to say, single or few very large generators are very easy to connect to a grid; it involves few HT power lines and synchronisation is not a problem. But connecting thousands of geographically remote wind generators involves vast lengths of cabling, and synchronisation problems. In NSW, there are PV farms in the north west of the state technically operational but not connected to the grid, due to technical problems with synchronisation, I read. That is not to say it isn't possible, but the costs involved need to be added to the cost per unit of output, which tends to favor wind turbines when omitted.
Click to expand...
If you can go through all the legislative and regulatory development processes and build capacity and find a site and get the neighbours on board inside 20 years in Australia go for it... China is a different ball game entirely.

How long did Hinkley Point C take from the decision point to turning it on? Actual construction time is only part of the story...
 
That's right. Exactly what I said. It can take 20 years to build a nuke, if you make it take 20 years.
So the statement 'it takes 10 to 20 years to build a nuclear power station', is a deliberate obfuscatory lie.
It is said like that to imply that is how long if physically takes to build one, and that is not true.
If the objective is to save humanity and the planet by building vast non emitting power generation before the "tipping points", then it can be done in 5. Or less. It just depends on the political will.

Further, if that process had started 25 years ago, when the risks and tipping points were already well accepted, and nuclear power stations were mature technology but wind turbines were not, then humanity and the planet would be much closer to salvation than currently they are.
Bizarrely, the same people who predict with dread that humanity could fall due to climate change, also rejected and continue reject a technology that would have most effectively forestalled that, but on irrelevant ideological grounds.
 
sigh. yeah ok whatever... Naive and contrary. As you were.
 
The nuclear power industry is alive and growing. For starters you can't have a nuclear powered capacity for your navy without a domestic industry and you can't produce nuclear weapons without one. So Britain building a new nuclear reactor fits with their policy of maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet and increasing the number of nuclear missiles they hold to threaten Russia with. Australia couldn't really run nuclear powered subs with our present nuclear industry. The British nuclear reprocessing industry at Sellafield had a bad reputation in the 1970's with childhood cancer clusters identified and low level contamination in the Irish Sea. The military uses of nuclear is the reason the Israelis blow up nuclear power plants in the Mid East in their construction phases. Military use is an unattractive aspect of the industry.
But apart from that the use of small scale nuclear plants is increasing for localised applications such as the floating reactor the Russians have deployed at a frozen Siberian port. Arctic navigation along the Russian coast has been kept open since 1956 by a fleet of large nuclear powered icebreakers that is being expanded to service the new Arctic sea route. Chernobyl left a legacy of mistrust that's hard to overcome. But all NATO countries are ok with nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships in their ports that are not subject to their environmental controls or scrutiny so there are no obvious legal or political impediments to expansion of the nuclear power industry.
 
Russell Hall said:
The nuclear power industry is alive and growing. For starters you can't have a nuclear powered capacity for your navy without a domestic industry and you can't produce nuclear weapons without one. So Britain building a new nuclear reactor fits with their policy of maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet and increasing the number of nuclear missiles they hold to threaten Russia with. Australia couldn't really run nuclear powered subs with our present nuclear industry. The British nuclear reprocessing industry at Sellafield had a bad reputation in the 1970's with childhood cancer clusters identified and low level contamination in the Irish Sea. The military uses of nuclear is the reason the Israelis blow up nuclear power plants in the Mid East in their construction phases. Military use is an unattractive aspect of the industry.
But apart from that the use of small scale nuclear plants is increasing for localised applications such as the floating reactor the Russians have deployed at a frozen Siberian port. Arctic navigation along the Russian coast has been kept open since 1956 by a fleet of large nuclear powered icebreakers that is being expanded to service the new Arctic sea route. Chernobyl left a legacy of mistrust that's hard to overcome. But all NATO countries are ok with nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships in their ports that are not subject to their environmental controls or scrutiny so there are no obvious legal or political impediments to expansion of the nuclear power industry.
Click to expand...
NZ told the nuclear warships to bugger off ;)
 
Sure, but that is a political stunt of no other significance.
Meantime, on real issues which do actually matter.....

www.rnz.co.nz

New Zealand's use of coal for electricity generation surges

New Zealand has significantly increased its use of coal for electricity generation in recent years, despite its status as the worst, most polluting fossil fuel on the planet.
www.rnz.co.nz www.rnz.co.nz
 
Haakon said:
NZ told the nuclear warships to bugger off ;)
Click to expand...
Yes I remember that, they were on the American shit list for years. And the French. Don't know if it's still in place.
My major worry about a nuclear reactor is what if clowns like those from energie who run Yallourn were in control?
David Lange, that's who it was.
 
Last edited:
Russell Hall said:
Yes I remember that, they were on the American shit list for years. And the French. Don't know if it's still in place.
My major worry about a nuclear reactor is what if clowns like those from energie who run Yallourn were in control?
David Lange, that's who it was.
Click to expand...
This is not a little thing - do you really trust Australians to build and safely run a nuke? I don’t…
 
Haakon said:
For the next time you ask someone about their own emissions etc as proof of credibility ;)

Click to expand...
Inquiry;)
While he has a point (video) but i feel that it is more of 'look over there' ... Biggest polluters are Construction/materials, air travel, shipping, car and car transport emissions are also in the mix but don't know the rank.
Anybody can reduce consumption, air travel etc to contribute uless one feels entitled?
It's more about 'are you walking the talk'.
Totally understand that one can be committed to low emission economy (and who wouldn't be since we can't forever rely on finite resources and pollute the planet in the process while we overpopulate) while at the seme time not being able to have PV, BEV etc due to economic circumstances.
 
Haakon said:
This is not a little thing - do you really trust Australians to build and safely run a nuke? I don’t…
Click to expand...
The series of events that led to the coal pit fire were a collection of mismanagement, neglect, incompetence and indifference. The same combination in a nuclear plant would have consequences far beyond Morwell.
 
Have a look at the press today for the rather pointed discussion between Toyota and VW in Australia over the cost of electrical vehicles in Australia and the fuel and and emissions of Toyota hybrids.
Look at the American press where there is discussion of a survey of the 20% of Californian EV owners who return to internal combustion vehicles.
 
Same divisive crew, absolutely no doubt!
Technical topic regarding electrical vehicles totally worthy of good positive input, you bet!
Funny most don't start their own threads just want to spruik/destroy!
 
Last edited:
Yes, Ringer, same crew ... anyway, I have posted this before, but if you missed it, you may find it of interest:
 
I would be interesting anything to do with what is happening in this new world of vehicle propulsion methods &:
Thanks, I have a KIA Sportage 2 litre turbo diesel GT Line 5.2l/100km GC to Syd return.
Has 41000 & never an issue - same as previous Hyundai vehicles since 2007.
This KIA would probably last us out, no issue.
Also as we have over $1500 a year solar refund & decided this input might be used for something that cost us & no one else anything, plus save the planet (sic).
Looked @ current smaller Kia & Hyundia full electrics & both are nothing like the Sportage or Tucson in occupant seat comfort.

Have to wait, as it seems alternatives are on the way & prices are plummeting.

After a good immaculate Sportage @ fair price delivered PM. A trip away would be welcome. JG
 
So the argument between Toyota and VW on the technical parameters of their electrics doesn't fit the thread? Or the discussion in the American press around Californian use patterns? Start a new thread, The Holy Electric Car Thread where it is heresy to question the Divine Technology. Sorry for being interested in practical elements such as where the power for the things will come from, their range and the practical details of their operation. I couldn't care less what people drive but when in some countries these things are being forced on people by governments we have every damn right to question and discuss. The promotion of the electric car is like no other technological change in motoring because it is not demand driven but by government and certain technology companies.
 
History can be seen to suggest the promotion of the ICE over EV ( incl. rapid transit / freight ) was not completely demand driven either.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top