Hybrid car cost of ownership

Pete C. wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
> >
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > > Technically true although a relatively small factor, also the OP
was
> > > implying that a power plant located far away from a city would
somehow
> > > be less polluting.
> >
> > That wasn't quite what I was getting at. City centers and suburbs
> > are polluted as it is. A remotely located powerplant can relocate
> > the pollution to a place that's less impacted. Of course now with
> > suburban sprawl, there aren't that many places that aren't
reasonably
> > impacted by pollution.
>
> Ok, now I see the point you were trying to make, however it is also
> incorrect since pollution does not remain in one place. Other than
> nuclear plants which produce solid waste, other conventional plants
all
> produce airborne pollution which can and will travel thousands of
miles.

Yeah - but it's going to be spread out over a larger area, and
certainly
much of the area can withstand a little industrial pollution.

Of course one of the problems with the Central Valley of California
is that the prevailing winds tend to bring pollution from the San
Francisco Bay Area. They're also in a valley, so it tends to get
trapped. That used to be a relatively unpolluted area, until
sprawl and additional Bay Area pollution came.

Steve wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >> Technically true although a relatively small factor, also the OP
was
> >> implying that a power plant located far away from a city would
somehow
> >> be less polluting.
> >
> >
> > That wasn't quite what I was getting at. City centers and suburbs
> > are polluted as it is.
>
> Exactly- they're already a lost cause
>
> > A remotely located powerplant can relocate
> > the pollution to a place that's less impacted.
>
> No, it will bring pollution to a remote pristine area that will be
MORE
> impacted than the already-dirty city.
>
> Typical urban NIMBY thinking.

I'm thinking in terms of reducing asthma and other ailments in the
more populated (and already impacted) urban centers.

>From a practical point of view, there virtually no areas that are
truly pristine. There are some areas that can withstand additional
emissions without reaching harmful levels.

Pete C. wrote:
>

>
> Not true at all, anyone who blindly thinks that all nuclear energy
> should be abandoned is a "whacko loony environut" and paranoid.
>

I don't think all nuclear energy should be abandoned. I, and millions
just like me, don't think that it is safe enough at the current level
of technology, and we all think that the waste byproducts are too
dangerous for too long of a time to be reliably stored in the long
term. Between the human mistakes, the deliberate acts of terrorists,
and plain old bad luck, the negative effects of a problem in the
nuclear industry can be far-reaching and destructive on a large scale.
If a regular power plant suffers a catastrophic failure the results
are contained locally, and no matter how bad, can easily be cleaned up
and no long-term problems exist. The losses associated with Chernobyl
alone are in the trillions, and not only that but when the sarcaphagus
collapses it will produce a radiation event that makes the original
disaster look small by comparison.

Three Mile Island was fully contained, you say that like it means
anything, but in fact there is still an unknown amount of uranium fuel,
radioactive debris, and contamination inside the now dead reactor. The
cleanup cost a billion dollars and took years, and in some ways will
never be completed. Pennsylvania electric customers will be paying for
TMI for decades to come.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...anup032889.htm
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/PA_En...tmiEpstein.htm


> Nuclear power may or may not be the "solution to all of humankind's
> problems", but it is clearly the best option we have now or likely will
> have over the next 10 years. To reject it because of paranoia is absurd.
>

It is not clearly the best option we have. It is clearly the only
option that you are willing or able to perceive, and since that's
an obvious sticking point with you there's not much point in continuing
this discussion, is there?

> As noted in another post Chernobyl did *not* leave "a thousand square
> mile patch permanently uninhabitable". In fact outside of the plant area
> itself everything has been decontaminated. Granted that was a lot of
> work, but it was done and the whole accident was due to a reactor design
> several generations behind the ones we are currently running, and those
> are obsolete as well.
>
> It's difficult to disagree with facts. While I have not personally been
> to Chernobyl, I do have several friends who have been there multiple
> times doing relief and rebuilding work and their eyewitness reports
> confirm that the area is quite inhabitable now.
>

Your friends apparently missed a few spots:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

http://www.livingearthgatherings.org/novozybkov.html

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2795e/y2795e08.htm

Anyone can do a search on Chernobyl and get one point five million
hits, all with information that easily contradicts your assertations
here. In fact, your statements are so out of phase with reality I have
to wonder just where you're getting your information? Perhaps you're
a spin doctor for the nuclear power industry? That would make sense.
Deny, deny, deny, don't acknowledge the facts, ignore the truth.

Sigh.

> I'm for the technology that is safe, available and practical *now* that
> does not release any pollution on a daily basis (other than waste heat),
> and what waste is generated is compact and containable.

Safe, available, and practical now, that covers wind right
now. And, unlike almost every part of a nuclear power plant,
wind generators are both cheap and easy to build *and* are
recycleable. No need to bury that worn out windmill inside
a mountain for a few million years before it's safe again.

LOL!

JazzMan

--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Steve wrote:
>
> JazzMan wrote:
> >
> > Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
> > doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
> > and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
> > whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?
>
> No, only the people who say "absolutely no new nukes, build coal plants
> until Solar is viable" are the whacko looney environuts.
>

I wouldn't have any problems with a nuclear power plant
that could be guaranteed never to release any radiation
or radioactive materials no matter how bad the accident,
design or procedural error, or direct terrorist act was.
Also, any radioactive waste products as well as the
irradiated structure and operational consumables would
need to be completely and perfectly proof from any of the
above problems.

Coal is nasty, but it can be made cleaner, especially if
the administration would stop interfering with the state's
efforts to clean it up. I don't advocate building more
coal plants unless the ability to sequester their carbon
is implemented. That's expensive, but not only possible but
proven technology. I would prefer non-fossil fuel-based
power generation, of course, and right now a multiple-layered
approach using wind, solar, geothermal, and conservation
incentives would do just as well as going nukular (sic).

However, I have found that to staunch nuclear proponents
there are no other viable sources of electrical generation
ability, none. There's not much to be done or said to them,
they're just not physically or mentally able to comprehend
anything outside of the nuclear paradigm.

> >
> > At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
> > patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
> > and Kyshtym did.
>
> The US built exactly ONE experimental reactor of the type used at
> Chernobyl, for the very reason that high-temperature gas cooled reactors
> are not as inherently safe as PWR and BWR reactors. Furthermore,
> Chernobyl was triggered by an improper procedure being conducted as an
> "experiment."

There were two graphite core reactors in the states, one is
the N reactor at Hanford and is used primarily to make
weapons-grade plutonium, and the other was a commercial
reactor in Fort St. Vrain, Colorado. The Colorado reactor
was gas cooled, and was shut down in 1989 after years of
being plagued with reliability problems:
http://nukeworker.com/nuke_facilitie...in/index.shtml

Hanford's graphite pile reactor, liquid-cooled like Chernobyl,
was decomissioned in 1986 at a cost of hundred of millions
of dollars. Unfortunately the plant operations left behind
at least 2.6x10^28 Kg of radiologically contaminated soil and
groundwater that will cost trillions to clean up, if it can
be cleaned up at all.

Like I've said before, I'll be more than happy to take
nuclear power as long as it is guaranteed, I mean really
guaranteed, to be ultimately and perfectly safe *and* won't
produce any long-term waste storage issues.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Uh-huh...

JazzMan wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Not true at all, anyone who blindly thinks that all nuclear energy
> > should be abandoned is a "whacko loony environut" and paranoid.
> >
>
> I don't think all nuclear energy should be abandoned. I, and millions
> just like me, don't think that it is safe enough at the current level
> of technology, and we all think that the waste byproducts are too
> dangerous for too long of a time to be reliably stored in the long
> term. Between the human mistakes, the deliberate acts of terrorists,
> and plain old bad luck, the negative effects of a problem in the
> nuclear industry can be far-reaching and destructive on a large scale.
> If a regular power plant suffers a catastrophic failure the results
> are contained locally, and no matter how bad, can easily be cleaned up
> and no long-term problems exist. The losses associated with Chernobyl
> alone are in the trillions, and not only that but when the sarcaphagus
> collapses it will produce a radiation event that makes the original
> disaster look small by comparison.
>
> Three Mile Island was fully contained, you say that like it means
> anything, but in fact there is still an unknown amount of uranium fuel,
> radioactive debris, and contamination inside the now dead reactor. The
> cleanup cost a billion dollars and took years, and in some ways will
> never be completed. Pennsylvania electric customers will be paying for
> TMI for decades to come.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...anup032889.htm
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/PA_En...tmiEpstein.htm
>
> > Nuclear power may or may not be the "solution to all of humankind's
> > problems", but it is clearly the best option we have now or likely will
> > have over the next 10 years. To reject it because of paranoia is absurd.
> >
>
> It is not clearly the best option we have. It is clearly the only
> option that you are willing or able to perceive, and since that's
> an obvious sticking point with you there's not much point in continuing
> this discussion, is there?

If you took the time to read and comprehend my previous posts you
clearly see what my perceptions are and the facts behind them. I clearly
indicated the numerous issues with current renewable technology and why
it is necessary to look elsewhere to bridge the gap until the renewable
technologies become practical on a large scale.

>
> > As noted in another post Chernobyl did *not* leave "a thousand square
> > mile patch permanently uninhabitable". In fact outside of the plant area
> > itself everything has been decontaminated. Granted that was a lot of
> > work, but it was done and the whole accident was due to a reactor design
> > several generations behind the ones we are currently running, and those
> > are obsolete as well.
> >
> > It's difficult to disagree with facts. While I have not personally been
> > to Chernobyl, I do have several friends who have been there multiple
> > times doing relief and rebuilding work and their eyewitness reports
> > confirm that the area is quite inhabitable now.
> >
>
> Your friends apparently missed a few spots:
>
> http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
>
> http://www.livingearthgatherings.org/novozybkov.html
>
> http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2795e/y2795e08.htm
>
> Anyone can do a search on Chernobyl and get one point five million
> hits, all with information that easily contradicts your assertations
> here. In fact, your statements are so out of phase with reality I have
> to wonder just where you're getting your information? Perhaps you're
> a spin doctor for the nuclear power industry? That would make sense.
> Deny, deny, deny, don't acknowledge the facts, ignore the truth.

You believe everything you see online? I'll note that the sites you've
just listed are not exactly "objective" reputable sites. Do you also
believe all the 911 conspiracy sites, or perhaps the moon landing
conspiracy ones?

My friends lived in the vicinity of Chernobyl for a number of months and
on several different trips, I'm far more inclined to believe what I hear
from them than what is posted on a questionable web site.

>
> Sigh.
>
> > I'm for the technology that is safe, available and practical *now* that
> > does not release any pollution on a daily basis (other than waste heat),
> > and what waste is generated is compact and containable.
>
> Safe, available, and practical now, that covers wind right
> now. And, unlike almost every part of a nuclear power plant,
> wind generators are both cheap and easy to build *and* are
> recycleable. No need to bury that worn out windmill inside
> a mountain for a few million years before it's safe again.

How many wind towers would need to be erected for their production (not
peak) to match one average sized conventional plant (nuke/coal/NG/oil)?
Where are you going to locate all of them? How many access roads and
transmission lines are you going to need to build along the wooded
mountain tops? Think they will have less impact than drilling in ANWAR?

What about the storage facilities required if you wanted to completely
eliminate all the nuke and conventional plants? Wind is not continuous
production so you have to be able to generate larger peaks than your
average steady state load and store that energy to use during the dips
in the wind. How are you going to store this energy, acres of battery
banks? Pumped hydro? Compressed air in underground reservoir?

How about solar-thermal? Once again only producing 25% of the time. How
many acres of collector panels and steam generator towers would you need
to match one average conventional plants production? Again how are you
going to store the energy so you can cover the 75% of the time your
collectors are not producing?

Hydro is at least a (mostly) 100% production resource so you avoid the
energy storage issues although pumped hydro is useful for peak shaving.
But you run into all those issues with fish.

Have you actually taken the time to think about these issues? Think
these technologies are really ready for large scale use? Want to buy a
bridge?

As I mentioned earlier the only renewable technology that is close to
ready for "prime time" is solar PV with a distributed generation model.
In this one case the technology *is* to the point that it can be
practically deployed. In fact the technology only reached this point a
couple years ago with an integrated and certified power management and
back metering unit. The trick here is in educating the public since they
need to play an active role in distributed generation.

Still think I'm blindly pro-nuke? Still believe in the tooth fairy?

Pete C.

PS: And no, I've never lost a moments sleep worrying about a nuclear war
either.

>
> LOL!
>
> JazzMan
>
> --
> ************************************************** ********
> Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
> Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
> ************************************************** ********
> "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
> supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
> live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
> ************************************************** ********

"C. E. White" ) writes:

> 2.86 cents per gallon (about 15%) is allocated
> for mass transit purposes and is earmarked to the Mass
> Transit Account within the Highway Trust Fund.

The government of Canada has also started allocating some of the gasoline
tax to public transit (not *mass* transit because here in Canada is't all
run by socialist governments under the control of public sector labour
unions. The head of the local municipal employees' union brags that he
runs the city). The provincial governments are also turning over part of
the sales tax to city governments for transit. Here in Ottawa people pay
less than half price to ride the buses, the other half paid by property
owners. At the same time people pay full cost for other city services like
drinking water, child day care, and electricity distribution.

Ottawa council just approved this year's city budget which includes $36
million for new hybrid city buses. There has been no trial purchase of
hybrids before "jumping on the bandwagon" and starting to replace all the
gas or deisel buses with hybrids. But then Ottawa is committing to spend
$1 billion (currently $750 million and escalating) on putting commuter
trains on abandonded railway lines in the suburban areas.

In my experience environmental pressure groups do a lot of financial harm
with no actual benefit to the environment, however you care to define
"environment". It's like every other madness which sweeps though
society every once in a while. I only object because they're doing it by
confiscating my savings through taxes.

Anybody checked the price of Ballard Power's shares lately, the fuel cell
company which was supposed to rid us of gasoline engines?


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

JazzMan wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
>
>
>>Not true at all, anyone who blindly thinks that all nuclear energy
>>should be abandoned is a "whacko loony environut" and paranoid.
>>
>
>
> I don't think all nuclear energy should be abandoned. I, and millions
> just like me, don't think that it is safe enough at the current level
> of technology,

Hell, man, its been EXTREMELY safe given that all the plants in the US
are (at best) 1970s technology, and many are late 1950s technolgy!


> and we all think that the waste byproducts are too
> dangerous for too long of a time to be reliably stored in the long
> term.

Given the choice between picking some extremely remote area of the
planet and putting a concentrated pile of REAL nasty stuff there, versus
spreading millions of tons of 'just' plain nasty stuff throughout the
whole atmosphere... which makes the most sense?

>Between the human mistakes, the deliberate acts of terrorists,
> and plain old bad luck, the negative effects of a problem in the
> nuclear industry can be far-reaching and destructive on a large scale.

Not all reactors make plutonium- in fact NONE of the ones used for power
generation in the US do.

> If a regular power plant suffers a catastrophic failure the results
> are contained locally,

The same is true, no matter what stupid TV shows and movies say, for BWR
and PWR fission reactors as well.

and no matter how bad, can easily be cleaned up
> and no long-term problems exist. The losses associated with Chernobyl
> alone are in the trillions,

Chernobyl is a type of reactor that has never been and will never be
used for power production in the US. 'Nuff said.

> Three Mile Island was fully contained, you say that like it means
> anything, but in fact there is still an unknown amount of uranium fuel,
> radioactive debris, and contamination inside the now dead reactor.

Actually, the condition of the core is very well known. Its stable, its
safe, its not going anywhere. Thats about as bad as an accident can get
with a PWR reactor, and it didn't do diddly to the environment.

> It is not clearly the best option we have.

Ok. Start naming other options that can realistically pick up the
production of 1/5 of America's CURRENT power demand. I'm not even asking
that you cover the growth in demand that electric cars would produce!

JazzMan wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>>JazzMan wrote:
>>
>>>Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
>>>doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
>>>and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
>>>whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?
>>
>>No, only the people who say "absolutely no new nukes, build coal plants
>>until Solar is viable" are the whacko looney environuts.
>>
>
>
> I wouldn't have any problems with a nuclear power plant
> that could be guaranteed never to release any radiation
> or radioactive materials no matter how bad the accident,
> design or procedural error, or direct terrorist act was.
> Also, any radioactive waste products as well as the
> irradiated structure and operational consumables would
> need to be completely and perfectly proof from any of the
> above problems.
>
> Coal is nasty, but it can be made cleaner, especially if
> the administration would stop interfering with the state's
> efforts to clean it up. I don't advocate building more
> coal plants unless the ability to sequester their carbon
> is implemented. That's expensive, but not only possible but
> proven technology. I would prefer non-fossil fuel-based
> power generation, of course, and right now a multiple-layered
> approach using wind, solar, geothermal, and conservation
> incentives would do just as well as going nukular (sic).
>
> However, I have found that to staunch nuclear proponents
> there are no other viable sources of electrical generation
> ability, none. There's not much to be done or said to them,
> they're just not physically or mentally able to comprehend
> anything outside of the nuclear paradigm.
>
>
>>>At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
>>>patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
>>>and Kyshtym did.
>>
>>The US built exactly ONE experimental reactor of the type used at
>>Chernobyl, for the very reason that high-temperature gas cooled reactors
>>are not as inherently safe as PWR and BWR reactors. Furthermore,
>>Chernobyl was triggered by an improper procedure being conducted as an
>>"experiment."
>
>
> There were two graphite core reactors in the states, one is
> the N reactor at Hanford

Not the same type of machine at all.
> and the other was a commercial
> reactor in Fort St. Vrain, Colorado. The Colorado reactor
> was gas cooled, and was shut down in 1989 after years of
> being plagued with reliability problems:
> http://nukeworker.com/nuke_facilitie...in/index.shtml

Exactly. Ft. St. Vrain was the "experiment" I mentioned. It was tiny-
never intended to do anything but be a proof (or dis-proof) of concept.
We tried it, it didn't work. The USSR stuck with it because it was cheap
to build, but they paid the price in the long run.

> Like I've said before, I'll be more than happy to take
> nuclear power as long as it is guaranteed, I mean really
> guaranteed, to be ultimately and perfectly safe *and* won't
> produce any long-term waste storage issues.

From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is ALREADY safer than
increasing the use of coal, if you believe in greenhouse gasses. Its
track record in the US has already proved that.