JayHMorrison wrote:Anonymous wrote: So we could replace about 80% of our driving fuels or about 3 billion barrels by doubling our current nuclear from 100gw to 200gw.
You don't even need to do that. Most re-charging of plug-in hybrid vehicles would occur at night. They do not turn off power plants at night. All of that capacity is available and currently is cheaper. If a large % of the population was charging their vehicle at night, that would actually be a much more efficient use of power plants assets.
Anonymous wrote:JayHMorrison wrote:Anonymous wrote: So we could replace about 80% of our driving fuels or about 3 billion barrels by doubling our current nuclear from 100gw to 200gw.
You don't even need to do that. Most re-charging of plug-in hybrid vehicles would occur at night. They do not turn off power plants at night. All of that capacity is available and currently is cheaper. If a large % of the population was charging their vehicle at night, that would actually be a much more efficient use of power plants assets.
and where do we come up with the additional fuel to do so?
JayHMorrison wrote:Nuclear is on all the time as base load. Even at night. Same amount of uranium is used all the time. So charging your plug-in hybrid vehicle at night doesn't use any extra fuel. Most utilities charge less at night because they have so much power that is being wasted during those hours.
JayHMorrison wrote:Wind is even better. It will run all night without any extra fuel costs.
JayHMorrison wrote:Coal is a very cheap base load fuel. $35 to $45 per ton. We can run on that for 200 years.
JayHMorrison wrote:Nuclear and coal are already about 70% of US electric power. Wind will likely fill the gap as natural gas supplies decline. With the way wind is growing it will likely be providing a significant portion of our power well before natural gas peaks. Wind is running well ahead of all projects made in past years.
JayHMorrison wrote:I really see no problem with the PHEV concept and charging at night. Most of the studies done anticipate that a 20 to 60 mile range from pure battery is possible with current battery technology. They just need to alter the ratios of battery to engine (more battery, less engine) and make the battery rechargeable.
small_steps wrote:Except NG, and Wind is at a standstill since the gov let the PTC expire, but wind is currently competitive with the cost of fuel for NG fired plants, and with regard to the near future, will be cheaper than the cost of NG. So wind can and will grow, but the question is:
Can it grow fast enough?
Anonymous wrote:Also, about wind energy. It's great that it's expanding, but the problem with it is that it's intermittent. If wind is concentrated mostly in the Mid-West, where it'd probably be cheapest to build, what do you do in summertime when the wind dies down? You need backup power and that backup power is expensive. Most of the cost of a coal or nuclear plant is not in the fuel, it's in the plant. Gas plants are cheaper capacity wise and more expensive fuel wise...so they'd be a better choice, that is if gas weren't running out.
Anonymous wrote:This is why people often say wind will only be at most 20% of production.
Anonymous wrote:JayHMorrison wrote:Wind is even better. It will run all night without any extra fuel costs.
It's lucky that the wind blows reliably 100% of the time. If it was intermittent we'd really be in trouble.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 234 guests