Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Just_a_fan]

Very interesting post about tidal power btw, upvoted

Thanks.

I really don't understand why the UK Govt is so opposed to tidal. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

UK Govt does seem to be enamoured with off shore wind. The Dogger Bank development will be 4.8GW when finally completed (if it ever is). The first 2 farms in the development will give 2.4GW when complete. That's about 400 turbines
each up to 300m high (I guess that's to the top of the top blade. It's also about the height of the Shard in London), 14 other offshore platforms for collecting together the supply etc. along with the other stuff required.

Assuming the figures given in an earlier post are correct - a 2GW installed capacity gives about 250MW delivered by wind vs 2GW installed giving 1.8GW delivered with underwater turbines, one wonders why not use underwater. Instead of 400 turbines, you'd need fewer than 100.

[Andres125sx]

Can´t see any big advantage, basically instead of producing waste products wich need to be contained, the whole reaktor is self-contained from the begining, but it will produce waste products equally, only that it´s all self-contained, wich means higher volume for same waste product volume. Edit: I´m far from an expert, actually I knew nothing about this before reading your posts, just trying to understand it

If the self-contained reactor can be disposed of without opening it, in other words as a whole unit. The hazard of waste/future contamination goes down quickly. The US nuclear submarines which sank are monitored periodically and their cores are still intact and not releasing nasties to the environment.

Define quickly

You mention nuclear cores not releasing nasties to the oceans like a bonus... How long have they been sunk? And for how long those cores will be dangerous if the cores start releasing nasties at some point?

That´s what I find more dangerous about nuclear. As mentioned on posts above, humans and specially governors only focus on short term. It looks like if they´re safe for next 50 years everthing is ok, but nuclear reaktors or even just their waste products can ruin complete ecosystems for centuries, if not thousands years, and I´m extremelly skeptical about the contention methods used. I´m sure they´re the best we can do today but, are they enough for the unconceivable period of time those radiactive products will be active? How can anyone guarantee those contention methods will be safe for centuries or thousands years? None can, so we´re playing with fire

[Andres125sx]

Very interesting post about tidal power btw, upvoted

Thanks.

I really don't understand why the UK Govt is so opposed to tidal. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

UK Govt does seem to be enamoured with off shore wind. The Dogger Bank development will be 4.8GW when finally completed (if it ever is). The first 2 farms in the development will give 2.4GW when complete. That's about 400 turbines
each up to 300m high (I guess that's to the top of the top blade. It's also about the height of the Shard in London), 14 other offshore platforms for collecting together the supply etc. along with the other stuff required.

Assuming the figures given in an earlier post are correct - a 2GW installed capacity gives about 250MW delivered by wind vs 2GW installed giving 1.8GW delivered with underwater turbines, one wonders why not use underwater. Instead of 400 turbines, you'd need fewer than 100.

Fully agree.

Probably intallation and maintenance costs are several orders of magnitude higher, I guess they need to be at some considerable depth

[strad]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

How much power does one of these put out? Just Asking
They often refer to aircraft carriers as a floating city.. Yeah a city of 4000. Seems we would need an awful lot of them to make a dent in the need. I don't think they could supply my small city let alone a NYC.
Are you talking about using them as a power plant or as a power source for your car? If so they could be a tenth the size of one powering a carrier.

[subcritical71]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

How much power does one of these put out? Just Asking
They often refer to aircraft carriers as a floating city.. Yeah a city of 4000. Seems we would need an awful lot of them to make a dent in the need. I don't think they could supply my small city let alone a NYC.
Are you talking about using them as a power plant or as a power source for your car? If so they could be a tenth the size of one powering a carrier.

Subs are somewhere around 200-250 MW, carriers in the 1 GW range (2x 500 MW).

Some aircraft carriers have multiple reactors (USS Enterprise had 8, the current A4W carriers have 2, subs have only 1).
You can look up core information by its three letter abbreviation... First letter is S or A (for submarine, air craft carrier). Second number is the revision for that manufacturer, Third is the Manufacturer (G for GE, W for Westinghouse, C for Combustion Engineering).

The latest and greatest are S9G, S6W and A4W. But that power output is at the reactor, reduce for ~30% efficiency for available electrical energy.

[Just_a_fan]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

How much power does one of these put out? Just Asking
They often refer to aircraft carriers as a floating city.. Yeah a city of 4000. Seems we would need an awful lot of them to make a dent in the need. I don't think they could supply my small city let alone a NYC.
Are you talking about using them as a power plant or as a power source for your car? If so they could be a tenth the size of one powering a carrier.

USS Gerald R Ford uses two A1B reactors giving about 700MW each. They split the thermal output in to electricity and motive power for the propellers (they use the steam for both). Of course, one could use the steam purely for electricity generation. There is also the possibility to use some of the waste heat for regional heating if close enough. This would be a bonus.

[subcritical71]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

How much power does one of these put out? Just Asking
They often refer to aircraft carriers as a floating city.. Yeah a city of 4000. Seems we would need an awful lot of them to make a dent in the need. I don't think they could supply my small city let alone a NYC.
Are you talking about using them as a power plant or as a power source for your car? If so they could be a tenth the size of one powering a carrier.

USS Gerald R Ford uses two A1B reactors giving about 700MW each. They split the thermal output in to electricity and motive power for the propellers (they use the steam for both). Of course, one could use the steam purely for electricity generation. There is also the possibility to use some of the waste heat for regional heating if close enough. This would be a bonus.

I forgot about that one... The A1B is a beast. And that is the all electric carrier (no steam catapults) to boot, isn't it?

[strad]

The ones on the Ford probably Trip and go down from time to time.
Sorry probably considered a bad joke.

[Just_a_fan]

How much power does one of these put out? Just Asking
They often refer to aircraft carriers as a floating city.. Yeah a city of 4000. Seems we would need an awful lot of them to make a dent in the need. I don't think they could supply my small city let alone a NYC.
Are you talking about using them as a power plant or as a power source for your car? If so they could be a tenth the size of one powering a carrier.

USS Gerald R Ford uses two A1B reactors giving about 700MW each. They split the thermal output in to electricity and motive power for the propellers (they use the steam for both). Of course, one could use the steam purely for electricity generation. There is also the possibility to use some of the waste heat for regional heating if close enough. This would be a bonus.

I forgot about that one... The A1B is a beast. And that is the all electric carrier (no steam catapults) to boot, isn't it?

Yes. EMALS is fitted.

[strad]

That´s what I find more dangerous about nuclear. As mentioned on posts above, humans and specially governors only focus on short term. It looks like if they´re safe for next 50 years everthing is ok, but nuclear reaktors or even just their waste products can ruin complete ecosystems for centuries, if not thousands years, and I´m extremelly skeptical about the contention

..
Right on the money Andres!
Tell you a story.
We had this governor that was on the Atomic Energy Commission. So she was in charge of the state getting rid of nuclear waste. She thought it was a good idea to put it in 55 gallon drums and bury it in the ground. Now some of the waste was liquid in the first place and in the second where they chose to bury them was dry for this part of the country but still exposed to rain and snow.
Do I need to tell you that after a number of years, 20 or 30 maybe the barrels rusted and began to leak.
This woman was I believe the head of the commission and voted into office partly because she was supposed to be sooo smart.
Yeah so smart it didn't occur to her or others on the commission or people in charge at the state level , that metal barrels full of liquid buried in the ground would eventually leak.
You/we can't trust the powers that be to make intelligent decisions, especially about something so deadly and dangerous.

[Greg Locock]

Tidal windmill generators always seem like a no-brainer - predictable flows,reasonably high power flux, yada yada. It even got to the point where all the easy sites have been leased.

But strangely none (?) of these systems make it beyond prototype stage and they collapse when public funding is withdrawn. I've never been closely involved with them, so I don't know the gory details.

[henry]

The U.K. has a working tidal power installation at Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. It dates from 2008 and was supposed to be the first of many. The Lough has the advantage for tidal turbines of a large body of water communicating with the sea through a relatively narrow opening. The tide race is very strong. The ferry across the Lough at times side slips at about 30°.

https://www.power-technology.com/proje ... ord-lough/

[izzy]

The U.K. has a working tidal power installation at Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. It dates from 2008 and was supposed to be the first of many. The Lough has the advantage for tidal turbines of a large body of water communicating with the sea through a relatively narrow opening. The tide race is very strong. The ferry across the Lough at times side slips at about 30°.

https://www.power-technology.com/proje ... ord-lough/

is that the one that switches itself off if a whale or porpoise comes near?

[Tommy Cookers]

tidal stream devices need to use every mechanical and electrical trick in the book (to work the hot spots and look good)
(in-cycle ?) active pitch control plus the electrical equivalents
these are not civil engineering matters
they are not free of cost and risk

the USP of the present tidal stream devices is their actual invisibility
though tidal stream arrays are now suggested for the Severn estuary

[Just_a_fan]

But strangely none (?) of these systems make it beyond prototype stage and they collapse when public funding is withdrawn. I've never been closely involved with them, so I don't know the gory details.

I guess it's because there's easier money to be made elsewhere such as wind turbines. The hard work has been done so the money men are happy to "invest". Note that wind turbines received a lot of public funding at the start with subsidised tariffs etc. Now, of course, that the hard work has been done, the early risks taken, the money men are happy to jump on board.

Real investment is getting involved at the beginning, not at the end. Sadly, there are very few real investors out there.

Lots of advances only happen because public money is used to get them off the ground.

Oh, and all money is "public money".