In that context, I think it means 'unexpected' based on current scientific understanding.gmax137 said:
Agreed, because the process, whatever it is, is not understood.
exchange stations.Topher925 said:
In the same way one insures refueling gas tanker comes often enough to a gas station to keep up with demand. The driver is cost. There's also the issue of making all EV's compatible with Better Place exchange mechanisms. So far they have only the one Renault-Nissan model. Then I expect there must be some compromises in battery performance to enable the fast swap mechanism vs a permanent installation.
My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35.mheslep said:
For pure electric, otherwise normal passenger cars to have any hope of near-term viability, the batteries must be cheaper. For now, though, achieving that may simply be a matter of rolling them out with nimh batteries and a 50 km range as city-only commuter vehicles.
Well that's what I mean about the landscape changing: 5 years from now, we'll probably be back to $3.50 gas as the world economy goes back into boom mode. But electric costs will rise as well. Electric will probably not rise slowly enough for elecric to become viable by that business model you have outlined above.
That last is a fair point, certainly the early mass buyers would be those that are very cost conscious.russ_watters said:
Or, under this exchange plan, last much longer for the same price.
Yes Nimh is much less at ~$300/kWh, though the Ni mass hit is large ( Li Ion 117Wh/kg, Nimh 80Wh/kg, 46% heavier). The 50km range is harder to play since it breaks the 'just as good as petro' model offered by battery exchange. The Better Place plan offers something never done before by an EV. Ostensibly, the vehicle can do the same thing as its petro based cousin: take you on long range trips with no long charge times in route. Prior to this no EV has had cause to fully cost compare w/ a petro car of equivalent size. Once you break that 'just as good' model w/ a 50km range, then people would expect to pay much, much less for a vehicle that's niche, thus has a lower production quantity, and the economics fail without a much higher price of fuel.
Mmm I doubt electric costs will rise very fast with a rebound in oil prices, absent Cap and Trade. Given Secretary Chu's no-nuclear blinders Cap and Trade would do it, and regional costs may jump because of legislative changes in utility law (e.g. Pa). But, electric demand growth continues to taper, a great deal of natural gas reserves have been discovered in the US in the last few years, and we will see several more gigawatts of wind power installed in the US that is immune to oil prices.
mheslep said:
I didn't say cost conscious, I said fuel economy conscious. I would bet money that 99% of Prius buyers have not done any calculations like the ones you just did, to determine if the cost of their Prius is worth the extra mpg they get over a Civic.mheslep said:
The interviewer says Chu "has come out in favor of nuclear power". I'd like to see somewhere where he actually has, since joining the administration. That the administration hasn't yet put up barriers to nuclear power* is encouraging (when they first made the Yucca announcement with no explanation at all, I was very worried), but they also have done little of substance to actually promote it. For other forms of power, they have actually invested a huge sum of money into it - why didn't he put together a "blue ribbon panel" to study alternate energy before pouring money into it?signerror said:
Topher925 said:
signerror said:
He's killed Yucca Mountain with no scientific explanation, just declared it 'off the table'. He's a physicist with years of background on the topic, calling for a 'blue-ribbon panel' to study what's been done successfully elsewhere in the world for decades. This appears to be nothing but a stall.TR said:
Well take care before putting your money on the table. Though its a different phrasing of the above, there's wide circulation of 'payback time' information on hybrids such as this:russ_watters said:
russ_watters said:
Mackay's tome was my source for my post on the eight-dedicated-nuclear-reactors equivalent required to replace the jetfuel at a single air port.OmCheeto said:
Well that was Obama's decision, not Chu's. He'd already decided early on in the campaign - his reasoning is here @3:11:mheslep said:
An article from two months before the video discusses the fault line:Obama said:
I don't think there any operating repositories which can take unreprocessed spent fuel, like Yucca. I understand what currently exists is only acceptable for intermediate-level waste (repositories which can't handle the heat of HLW), or above-ground storage for HLW (which is only temporary), but nothing is operating which accepts high-level waste for long term storage.
Or a strategic shift to a closed fuel cycle. The recent interview strongly suggests that:
AWG?
Yes that is the post I recalled, but I blundered on the reference - it was Bossel, not Mackay.signerror said:
er AGW. Chu spend some time in his road show briefing on global warming.signerror said:
signerror said:
There lies my complaint. Obama has made a great deal of noise that only the science would rule the day in his administration. So far, based on comments like the above and Chu's http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-mccain-and-steven-chu-on-yucca.html" , it is fair to say that the only-the-science claims are stuff and nonsense.Obama said:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/top-gear-reviews-the-tesla-roadster/4052367588
I guess at this point it is tough to separate the two, as Chu is now necessarily a mouthpiece for Obama. Is that better or worse than if this was Chu's true view?signerror said:
Perhaps the fault is a legitimate reason, perhaps it isn't - as far as I know, there have been no official reports on the subject, so it doesn't seem responsible to make what looks like a snap decision.
Doesn't sound like this in intended to have anything much to do with energy efficiency, except in that car reference. It must be about increasing surface albedo to counter AGW. I doubt you count on absorbing much heat through your home's roof on those cold winter days.Astronuc said:US wants to paint the world white to save energy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu
Except for the light scattered at angles. And why not direct the light into buildings and use visible sunlight to illuminate interiors rather than electric lights?
Also, on a cold winter's day, I like having a house that absorbs sunlight. So maybe we can cover all buildings with giant venetian blinds that are white on one side and dark/black on the other.
Might be, but you'd have to calculate the cost-benefit ratio. Having it white would be a lot cheaper.Astronuc said:
Well Obama said white, but the silver is really the more common - same idea.
AKA "air conditioning"... A "heat pump" is what it does in the heating mode. In air condiitoning mode, it is just a normal air conditioner (though perhaps it uses water for heat rejection...?).
AKA, "economizer mode". It is now essentially required that HVAC systems take advantage of it being cold outside to use that cold instead of mechanical cooling. But you'd still save on mechanical cooling in the summer and fan energy in the rest of the year if the roof were reflective.