Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ronwagn

When Can Electric Cars Compete on Cost with ICE

Recommended Posts

Electric cars and renewables have depended on good feelings and subsidies for most of their growth. ICE vehicles are still much less costly over their lifespan including fuel. They also are much larger than electric vehicles. Subsidies are shrinking, and vanishing. The same thing is somewhat true for solar and wind installations. Natural gas is the main generator for electricity in advanced nations, but still relies on coal also. Asia is mainly burning coal to produce the electricity that fuels electric cars.  Natural gas can also fuel any size vehicle and is a mature technology with no real negatives aside from the changeover. Existing vehicles can be easily converted to natural gas or bifuel and trifuel vehicles. 

It can be argued that natural gas is cleaner overall than wind or solar when you consider the waste and expense in disposing of lithium batteries and used fiberglass wind turbines or solar panels.  CO2 is not a real air pollutant compared to what is produced by burning coal. In fact it is beneficial to the growth of the plant life on earth, including in the oceans. That plant life requires CO2 just as mammals, including humans, depend on the Oxygen produced by plants. 

The global warming alarmists are creating worldwide visual blight with solar panels and wind turbines. It makes them feel good about themselves but everyone has to pay for the subsidies and look at these eyesores. It is time for governments to let the best energy sources and technologies compete without subsidies. Subsidies are being reduced slowly, and that is a very good thing IMHO.

https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-014945dbe939405f97533f414bc81c2d-us-2019-nissan-leaf-plus

2019 Nissan LEAF PLUS Pricing

  • LEAF S PLUS starting price is $36,5501 (base price) with up to 226 miles of range
  • The Nissan LEAF, with the 40kWh battery and up to 150 miles of range3, is available at a starting price of under $30,000
  • Nissan continues to offer 8-year/100,000 mile warranty on lithium-ion battery pack which also includes battery capacity loss protection for the customer4 

https://www.mitsubishicars.com/mirage/2019?gclsrc=3p.ds&gclid=c5fc515595b81bbf4de90c92d932c948&KWID=43700040140835513&cid=paid_search_brand_mirage_bing&cid=paid_search_national_brand_mirage_bing&#accolades-section

Starting at $13,795         

36/43 MPG

5 Seats

Powertrain limited warranty

10 years, 100,000 miles

https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/

 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Worlds-Biggest-EV-Market-Braces-For-Another-Crippling-Blow.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/30/what-happens-to-californias-solar-and-wind-energy-with-pge-bankruptcy/

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4140006-u-s-solar-industry-dead-years-tariffs

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/sunpower-to-sell-more-assets-to-avoid-bankruptcy-in-2019

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree that "subsidies" are the inherently bad thing you indicate.  Subsidies create the possibility (I shudder to say the "environment") for new innovations to be adopted.  I am  also of the opinion that subsidies, in whatever form, would work fine to re-introduce nuclear power for base electricity generation.  Nuke is being overlooked due to the systemic campaign to drive it to oblivion.  I remind readers that nuke power is inherently benign - as long as you keep the crazies out of the planning process and out of the regulatory process.  That does not seem to have worked ou; the crazies have infiltrated at least the regulatory process and have forced nuke builders to adopt all manner of hugely expensive changes, add-ons, and support structure such as in-house police and fire departments staffed 24/7, all to assuage the fears and the ideas of the anti-nuke crowd.  It is all totally ridiculous, from a technical standpoint, of course. 

the reality is that the world's power needs can not be met, and can never be met, without a large roll-out of nuke power.  If you don't want to do that, then you condemn societies back to living with the daylight hour cycles, and basically being rice peasants for their lives. And that is OK as long as both the rice peasants are good with it, and the planet is good with it.  I remain unconvinced, of both. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

the reality is that the world's power needs can not be met, and can never be met, without a large roll-out of nuke power. 

That may be your reality, but it defies physics that it is "reality," given that many different combinations of renewables can generate more power than necessary for global energy consumption and, with flow battery costs declining at around 15% compound annual rates, baseload supply issues should be well addressed within the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would disagree that "subsidies" are the inherently bad thing you indicate.  Subsidies create the possibility (I shudder to say the "environment") for new innovations to be adopted.  I am  also of the opinion that subsidies, in whatever form, would work fine to re-introduce nuclear power for base electricity generation.  Nuke is being overlooked due to the systemic campaign to drive it to oblivion.  I remind readers that nuke power is inherently benign - as long as you keep the crazies out of the planning process and out of the regulatory process.  That does not seem to have worked ou; the crazies have infiltrated at least the regulatory process and have forced nuke builders to adopt all manner of hugely expensive changes, add-ons, and support structure such as in-house police and fire departments staffed 24/7, all to assuage the fears and the ideas of the anti-nuke crowd.  It is all totally ridiculous, from a technical standpoint, of course. 

the reality is that the world's power needs can not be met, and can never be met, without a large roll-out of nuke power.  If you don't want to do that, then you condemn societies back to living with the daylight hour cycles, and basically being rice peasants for their lives. And that is OK as long as both the rice peasants are good with it, and the planet is good with it.  I remain unconvinced, of both. 

Nuclear is a last resort option to me. I really think that the combination of oil, natural gas, renewables, hydro, and biofuels can do the job. I am not satisfied with the safety and true cost analysis including guarding and using nuclear plants and radioactive materials safely. It is already being subsidized by consumers to keep old nuclear plants alive. Decommissioned nuclear plants just sit there and are never gotten rid of. San Onofre in California is an example. The whole Hanford, Washington story is pertinent too. Many bad stories. Nothing reassuring to me. Let the Russians and Chinese build them. If they turn out safe over time, we can start using them worldwide. 

Here is my nuclear topic  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xhPQIIW9xpOwn92z5hCGshSF7e6TP3R9sFBAAg-eQe4/edit

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, remake it said:

That may be your reality, but it defies physics that it is "reality," given that many different combinations of renewables can generate more power than necessary for global energy consumption and, with flow battery costs declining at around 15% compound annual rates, baseload supply issues should be well addressed within the next decade.

I would say maybe fifty years with great progress in technology and much higher energy costs at least until then and probably beyond. Natural gas can actually save money and is possibly cleaner in the long run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ron. Natural gas is the way (to my knowledge of how life works). The reasons why is 1) because you cannot create energy only change its form 2) the planet has mechanisms that self regulate 3) there is an equal and opposite reaction to everything. So with nuclear a 50kg price of uranium powers a city of 10k people for a year then the equal and opposite reaction is radiation for 10,000 years over 5km (I know I'm far from exact but it's an example). Natural gas can form very quickly and be changed to heat instantly and be changed back from plant friendly to people friendly very quickly again. I'm ok with renewables in Canada we have alot of hydro electricity its reaction is redirected water flow and water metering being required.  I'm a mechanic so I know all about cars . Ice can be way more efficient than they are already. And hybrid is key ONLY because every car needs a battery starter and alternator already. So being able to have regenerative braking stop light engine off and torque from a stop with the engine off are the biggest gains you can get. But I can tell you that only 50% of brake systems arnt dragging a bit as many people dont service brakes only replace them. And also people ride their brakes and drive completely wrong all the time. My 14' suv gets 8L/100km average (2L  fwd NA  GDI engine) also I'm on the original brakes at 70% pad remaining at 80,000km on the vehicle. But I drive like a computer and over service my vehicle as it's almost free.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points gentlemen, but you have failed to address the perception that the general public has towards electric or natural gas powered PERSONAL vehicles.

At this point in time many people, myself included, do not have a great deal of faith in electric or natural gas vehicles being able to meet my personal requirements concerning power, torque, cost, convenience or fun factor.

You can flog the technical advances or preach ‘carbon footprint’ until you are blue in the face, but until you can actually get people to WANT to buy these vehicles, you are fighting a losing battle UNLESS you feel that another unfunded government mandate is the way to go.

Do not under estimate the ‘fun factor’. People buy vehicles to address their transportation needs and cost, but they also look at how ‘cool’ the vehicle is and it’s performance.

I expect some backlash from the climate crowd as well as the technological crowd. But until you offer a vehicle that people actually want to buy, you’re only option is to force it on them.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

All good points gentlemen, but you have failed to address the perception that the general public has towards electric or natural gas powered PERSONAL vehicles.

At this point in time many people, myself included, do not have a great deal of faith in electric or natural gas vehicles being able to meet my personal requirements concerning power, torque, cost, convenience or fun factor.

You can flog the technical advances or preach ‘carbon footprint’ until you are blue in the face, but until you can actually get people to WANT to buy these vehicles, you are fighting a losing battle UNLESS you feel that another unfunded government mandate is the way to go.

Do not under estimate the ‘fun factor’. People buy vehicles to address their transportation needs and cost, but they also look at how ‘cool’ the vehicle is and it’s performance.

I expect some backlash from the climate crowd as well as the technological crowd. But until you offer a vehicle that people actually want to buy, you’re only option is to force it on them.

Tesla seems to have done rather well in that aspect. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Electric cars and renewables have depended on good feelings and subsidies for most of their growth. ICE vehicles are still much less costly over their lifespan including fuel. They also are much larger than electric vehicles. Subsidies are shrinking, and vanishing. The same thing is somewhat true for solar and wind installations. Natural gas is the main generator for electricity in advanced nations, but still relies on coal also. Asia is mainly burning coal to produce the electricity that fuels electric cars.  Natural gas can also fuel any size vehicle and is a mature technology with no real negatives aside from the changeover. Existing vehicles can be easily converted to natural gas or bifuel and trifuel vehicles. 

It can be argued that natural gas is cleaner overall than wind or solar when you consider the waste and expense in disposing of lithium batteries and used fiberglass wind turbines or solar panels.  CO2 is not a real air pollutant compared to what is produced by burning coal. In fact it is beneficial to the growth of the plant life on earth, including in the oceans. That plant life requires CO2 just as mammals, including humans, depend on the Oxygen produced by plants. 

The global warming alarmists are creating worldwide visual blight with solar panels and wind turbines. It makes them feel good about themselves but everyone has to pay for the subsidies and look at these eyesores. It is time for governments to let the best energy sources and technologies compete without subsidies. Subsidies are being reduced slowly, and that is a very good thing IMHO.

https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-014945dbe939405f97533f414bc81c2d-us-2019-nissan-leaf-plus

2019 Nissan LEAF PLUS Pricing

  • LEAF S PLUS starting price is $36,5501 (base price) with up to 226 miles of range
  • The Nissan LEAF, with the 40kWh battery and up to 150 miles of range3, is available at a starting price of under $30,000
  • Nissan continues to offer 8-year/100,000 mile warranty on lithium-ion battery pack which also includes battery capacity loss protection for the customer4 

https://www.mitsubishicars.com/mirage/2019?gclsrc=3p.ds&gclid=c5fc515595b81bbf4de90c92d932c948&KWID=43700040140835513&cid=paid_search_brand_mirage_bing&cid=paid_search_national_brand_mirage_bing&#accolades-section

Starting at $13,795         

36/43 MPG

5 Seats

Powertrain limited warranty

10 years, 100,000 miles

https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/

 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Worlds-Biggest-EV-Market-Braces-For-Another-Crippling-Blow.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/30/what-happens-to-californias-solar-and-wind-energy-with-pge-bankruptcy/

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4140006-u-s-solar-industry-dead-years-tariffs

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/sunpower-to-sell-more-assets-to-avoid-bankruptcy-in-2019

 

Not an entirely fair comparison and only based on initial outlay. 

The Leaf is a bigger vehicle

The performance of the Leaf is miles ahead

The Leaf has much higher score on crash ratings than the Mirage

------------------

Servicing costs of the Leaf will be much lower

As will fuel costs (partly dependent on fuel duty / oil prices)

Range is the main potential draw back but the 40kwh battery will cover 90% of peoples day to day & week to week  needs

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

So with nuclear a 50kg price of uranium powers a city of 10k people for a year then the equal and opposite reaction is radiation for 10,000 years over 5km (I know I'm far from exact but it's an example).

I am sorry to say, Rob, that this is seriously inaccurate.  Nuclear energy is energy stored in the bonds of the atomic particles - inside that atom.  When you "break" the bonds you release the energy,which is in heat form, and is used to create steam, in turn which turns a turbine, and that drives the generator. As to the nuclear material, you have created another atom with a lesser amount of internal energy - that's all you do. 

The argument is that the new atom is "radioactive," in that it emits wavelengths of energy, such as X-rays, that are harmful and, some of them, deadly.  That part is true enough.  However, the reactor can continue to react the material and continue to alter the forms of the isotopes until the material itself is exhausted.  In the alternative, that residual material, which is a fuel, can be "re-processed" into yet another form of nuclear fuel.  Remember that conventional light-water reactors of the type that have been around since 1960 only use a tiny sliver of the energy potential in each chunk of uranium material.  The rest is left, and today goes out for re-processing.  But newer reactor designs can take that old material and continue to "burn" it, extracting much more continuous heat. The ultimate output of that type of reactor is, in layman's terms, a salt or type of sludge.  That material is pretty much harmless, and easily dealt with. 

A nuke reactor is a benign machine, generating vast amounts of benign energy.  They have a fabulous track record.  Don't let the witch doctors in society scare you away from the great gift of nuclear power.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If they turn out safe over time, we can start using them worldwide. 

Come on, Ron!  US nuclear reactors have been operating for 70 years!

The big ships of the US Navy are are nuke powered, with "dangerous" light-water reactors, if you believe the hysteria crowd.  A carrier has four reactors on board; a sub has at least two.  Those are high-stress combat vessels.  They don't have problems.  The reactors on the Enterprise ran for 50 years continuous service, totally flawless.  Don't let the spooks and the crazies push your thinking away from nuke power.  Those people are both nuts and illiterate. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, NickW said:

Tesla seems to have done rather well in that aspect. 

 

From January 2018 to December 2018, Tesla’s share of the US automotive market ROSE to two percent.

Not really setting the US automotive market on fire, in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

From January 2018 to December 2018, Tesla’s share of the US automotive market ROSE to two percent.

Not really setting the US automotive market on fire, in my humble opinion.

Same then as BMW and Mercedes (which are in the price range they compete in) 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249375/us-market-share-of-selected-automobile-manufacturers/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Same then as BMW and Mercedes (which are in the price range they compete in) 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249375/us-market-share-of-selected-automobile-manufacturers/

I thought that the original topic was the ‘attractiveness’ of electric or natural gas powered vehicles to the American car buyer. I did mention cost as one of the criteria.

You then brought up Tesla, which is at 2% of the American market, and now want to compare only to luxury brands. This is not an actual comparison when we are discussing overall acceptance of the American car buying public, most of whom are not in the market for a luxury car or have the income to spend on them.

If Tesla wants to compete in the luxury car market, this does nothing for the acceptance of such vehicles by the ‘rank & file’ American car buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I thought that the original topic was the ‘attractiveness’ of electric or natural gas powered vehicles to the American car buyer. I did mention cost as one of the criteria.

You then brought up Tesla, which is at 2% of the American market, and now want to compare only to luxury brands. This is not an actual comparison when we are discussing overall acceptance of the American car buying public, most of whom are not in the market for a luxury car or have the income to spend on them.

If Tesla wants to compete in the luxury car market, this does nothing for the acceptance of such vehicles by the ‘rank & file’ American car buyer.

Tesla has a product that certainly fills the style and performance criteria but its priced in the Beamer / Merc range so isn't in the typical households budget. However bear in mind they now have the same market size as two manufacturers that have taken over a century to build. 

Tesla only form about 20% of the EV market in the USA (slightly dated) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Top_selling_PEV_manufacturers_US_2008_2016.png

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I thought that the original topic was the ‘attractiveness’ of electric or natural gas powered vehicles to the American car buyer. I did mention cost as one of the criteria.

You then brought up Tesla, which is at 2% of the American market, and now want to compare only to luxury brands. This is not an actual comparison when we are discussing overall acceptance of the American car buying public, most of whom are not in the market for a luxury car or have the income to spend on them.

If Tesla wants to compete in the luxury car market, this does nothing for the acceptance of such vehicles by the ‘rank & file’ American car buyer.

EVs are necessarily more expensive than ICE due to battery costs so Tesla cleverly produced a car for a niche market which now wins over buyers on so many metrics, however, Teslas are probably best viewed by analogy whereby they are likened to why once you have used an Apple iPhone (ie a cutting edge "smart phone") you do not look back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Come on, Ron!  US nuclear reactors have been operating for 70 years!

The big ships of the US Navy are are nuke powered, with "dangerous" light-water reactors, if you believe the hysteria crowd.  A carrier has four reactors on board; a sub has at least two.  Those are high-stress combat vessels.  They don't have problems.  The reactors on the Enterprise ran for 50 years continuous service, totally flawless.  Don't let the spooks and the crazies push your thinking away from nuke power.  Those people are both nuts and illiterate. 

Jan, we don't need it, it costs more than natural gas. IMHO it is a really bad idea to go the nuclear route. That is just looking at the long term financial considerations. Natural gas is the way to go IMHO, sorry. We can always go with nuclear later. I am not an alarmist, I am mainly looking at the economics of nuclear versus natural gas. Everyone who likes nuclear refuses to look at the long term from mining uranium to tearing up the nuclear plants and cleaning up the site. My other big concern is guarding numerous stockpiles of radioactive material for thousands of years. Who knows what societal protections will be like then. Consumers here in Illinois are bearing the price of paying extra money to keep aging nuclear sites running. The people have already ruled out new ones anyway. 

Edited by ronwagn
addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Not an entirely fair comparison and only based on initial outlay. 

The Leaf is a bigger vehicle

The performance of the Leaf is miles ahead

The Leaf has much higher score on crash ratings than the Mirage

------------------

Servicing costs of the Leaf will be much lower

As will fuel costs (partly dependent on fuel duty / oil prices)

Range is the main potential draw back but the 40kwh battery will cover 90% of peoples day to day & week to week  needs

 

The consumer will decide, but only multivehicle families will want one because of the inconvenience during long distance travel. I am asking when they will start grabbing real market share? I have seen a lot of crazy projections and how ICE vehicles will be hurting for sales. Price is a big factor for most people. I like the Prius and the Leaf, but they are not selling well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Tesla seems to have done rather well in that aspect. 

 

Still niche for monied folks IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The consumer will decide, but only multivehicle families will want one because of the inconvenience during long distance travel. I am asking when they will start grabbing real market share? I have seen a lot of crazy projections and how ICE vehicles will be hurting for sales. Price is a big factor for most people. I like the Prius and the Leaf, but they are not selling well. 

Consumers are certainly snapping up Teslas, and the issue of range anxiety while largely dispelled on actual real world evidence, remains fertile in the minds of those without experience, but those who do the math realize that an EV is a bit like rooftop solar... more expensive upfront but outweighed by the longer-term benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan - I know very little about nuke power. It's amazing the energy density and with proper tech and regulation I'm sure it is fine. As you've said it is in use so clearly it works ... I think toronto has a nuke plant (called the Bruce power plant?). I may be partial to NG because I understand it more. 

To Douglas - I completely agree I have altered many a vehicle for that fun factor. My last fun car was a 99 miata funny that it was seen as a sport car in its day meanwhile it came with 140hp ...grand caravans are coming out at 260hp now lol ... get blown away by a van haha. But around a corner nothing could touch it. Now I'm into watersports as theres no speed limits or emission systems lol my jet ski is 160hp stock and 1/3rd the weight ...gas is the only fuel for fun power. Now I need something that can tow and fit a family not a miata that the seat couldn't go back far enough to fit me due to a roll cage lol.

Ron - I dont see natural gas vehicles winning popularity. I think EV will win after hybrid. I've seen lots of propane service vehicles . Mostly taxi, delivery vehicle and some police vehicles . I dont see any car manufacturer pushing natural gas. And 2.5L/100km from a setup like the volt :gas engine running a generator for an electric motor is acceptable. Tho diesel or Natural gas would be better. So for NG i see house and ev energy. Sad it got side stepped for transportation even tho we solved the problems it had a long while ago (low power and poor running in winter). I wouldn't mind driving a NG or propane vehicle but try finding one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron has a point that as long as natural gas can provide the necessary performance and the required infrastructure is in place, natural gas should be considered for fleet vehicles (government, taxis, etc...), as well as rail transportation and trucking (as long as there is a mechanism to assist independent truckers to make the switch).

Why not try this first before the knee-jerk reaction of an unfunded mandate on personal vehicles?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Jan, we don't need it, it costs more than natural gas. IMHO it is a really bad idea to go the nuclear route. That is just looking at the long term financial considerations. Natural gas is the way to go IMHO, sorry. We can always go with nuclear later. I am not an alarmist, I am mainly looking at the economics of nuclear versus natural gas. Everyone who likes nuclear refuses to look at the long term from mining uranium to tearing up the nuclear plants and cleaning up the site. My other big concern is guarding numerous stockpiles of radioactive material for thousands of years. Who knows what societal protections will be like then. Consumers here in Illinois are bearing the price of paying extra money to keep aging nuclear sites running. The people have already ruled out new ones anyway. 

I find it hilarious that people whom I have a high respect for and whom can generally do math, have no problem with someone drilling a ~4 mile hole(2 vertical and 2 horizontal) in the ground for $4Million and approx $6million for MULTIPLE laterals(or $6Million for a much larger bore diameter)..., going through VERY toxic crap in the ground yet cannot figure out how to "get rid of" a minuscule amount of nuclear waste down the same said hole.... 

Currently our totally horrible, no good, toxic, die if you breathe it nuclear waste(which mostly is perfectly good nuclear fuel for Breeder reactors and all we have to do is build one and eat the majority of goop) is about a football fields worth buried ~20meters deep.  So roughly 20m x 100m x 20m.  = 4E5 m^3.

One lateral hole in the ground is ~3km(not counting the stand pipe as we want this stuff buried deep).

Average hole diameter is ~10cm at the smallest and usually 30cm at the largest depending on the hole in question.  Lets be ULTRA conservative and use 10cm(ridiculous but lets stack it heavily against my position)  Volume per linear meter is ~0.005^2*PI = 0.075m^3/meter(its higher but be conservative)

1 standard lateral borehole(unfracked) holds approximately 3000*0.075m^3 = 225m^3

So, assuming no multiple lateral wells(yea right, but lets be conservative), 225m^3 cost ~$4Million to dispose of.

Total cost: 4E5m^3/225m^3 = 1776 holes which cost $4Million each or a total "disposal cost" of ~$7Billion.

$7Billion to get rid of all of the breeder reactor nuclear fuel and a whole bunch of low grade garbage which we really cannot use. 

This is not a technical problem.  This is a political NIMBY Lawyer problem.  It always has been.  Just as the cost of building a nuclear reactor has nothing to do with the cost of building a nuclear reactor.  It is ALL tied up in NIMBY lawyer politics territory. 

Sorry, Ron, nuclear "waste"(fuel for breeder reactors) is not a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, remake it said:

Consumers are certainly snapping up Teslas, and the issue of range anxiety while largely dispelled on actual real world evidence, remains fertile in the minds of those without experience, but those who do the math realize that an EV is a bit like rooftop solar... more expensive upfront but outweighed by the longer-term benefits.

When you pay twice as much as you would on a comparable ICE vehicle you also pay twice as much on interest payments, insurance, etc. You also lose money that you could have invested rather than putting into your vehicle. If you keep it fifteen to twenty years you may come out even, depending on how much you drive. If you drive a lot you will have to replace the battery which is a major part of the car price. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I find it hilarious that people whom I have a high respect for and whom can generally do math, have no problem with someone drilling a ~4 mile hole(2 vertical and 2 horizontal) in the ground for $4Million and approx $6million for MULTIPLE laterals(or $6Million for a much larger bore diameter)..., going through VERY toxic crap in the ground yet cannot figure out how to "get rid of" a minuscule amount of nuclear waste down the same said hole.... 

Currently our totally horrible, no good, toxic, die if you breathe it nuclear waste(which mostly is perfectly good nuclear fuel for Breeder reactors and all we have to do is build one and eat the majority of goop) is about a football fields worth buried ~20meters deep.  So roughly 20m x 100m x 20m.  = 4E5 m^3.

One lateral hole in the ground is ~3km(not counting the stand pipe as we want this stuff buried deep).

Average hole diameter is ~10cm at the smallest and usually 30cm at the largest depending on the hole in question.  Lets be ULTRA conservative and use 10cm(ridiculous but lets stack it heavily against my position)  Volume per linear meter is ~0.005^2*PI = 0.075m^3/meter(its higher but be conservative)

1 standard lateral borehole(unfracked) holds approximately 3000*0.075m^3 = 225m^3

So, assuming no multiple lateral wells(yea right, but lets be conservative), 225m^3 cost ~$4Million to dispose of.

Total cost: 4E5m^3/225m^3 = 1776 holes which cost $4Million each or a total "disposal cost" of ~$7Billion.

$7Billion to get rid of all of the breeder reactor nuclear fuel and a whole bunch of low grade garbage which we really cannot use. 

This is not a technical problem.  This is a political NIMBY Lawyer problem.  It always has been.  Just as the cost of building a nuclear reactor has nothing to do with the cost of building a nuclear reactor.  It is ALL tied up in NIMBY lawyer politics territory. 

Sorry, Ron, nuclear "waste"(fuel for breeder reactors) is not a problem. 

Politics is a REAL problem. Nuclear advocates choose to ignore it except when it comes to buying off state politicians who permit aging nuclear plants to be subsidized by the end consumer of the electricity. This is a well known issue in Illinois and other states. One of my major gripes and issues is that Harry Reid refused to allow the Yucca Flats repository to be used. So now we have nuclear waste stored, at very high expense, all over the country. There is no end to that expense unless politicians change their mind. That is an inescapable fact. Nuclear fans refuse to face that fact. Or the fact that the bill for nuclear storage has no end in sight. San Onofre and other plants will also sit idle far into the future because the companies will not tear them down and reclaim the sites. 

If you can use the waste in breeder reactors, that is great, just do it. Same with the legendary thorium reactors etc. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nuclear-waste-fiasco-100450

 

Edited by ronwagn
reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0