Thanks for the good discussion. It is heartening to see a whole post without some political rhetoric.
Our comparison of the energy cycle of electricity (including line-losses) for plug-in hybrids versus gasoline on similar vehicles is that we get about a 20% reduction in overall emissions. The only emission that is higher for the plug-in variety is mercury, because there is no mercury in gasoline but some in coal-electric. Otherwise, there is a signficant reduction in other emissions.
For the electric rates and charging more, individual results may vary. I live in a state that is still regulated. The utilities don’t get to charge more. In fact, in applications like this, the commission will require them to reduce rates (IF - big IF - we can get the systems in place to have smart communication between the charging station or car and the grid.). A lot still needs to be done, but the opportunities are great. Obviously not a cure-all, but one of many steps in the right direction. If you’re in a deregulated state, the rates can vary but a savvy shopper can still pick out the best ones.
For the OP discussion, the group that donated the land provided a quote for the article that said they meant for the land to be undeveloped. I suppose a deal could be reached to set aside a different patch of land if all parties were satisfied. That’s a good idea.
Our utilities are looking at a $4 billion price tag for a 1,000 MW nuclear plant. And, as we’ve seen for decades, that’s probably half the final price. The one near my house has room for 4 reactors but currently only has one built. We’ve been pushing for getting 2 more, but there are some hurdles to overcome. One key hurdle is the lake needed for cooling the reactor. Enlarging the lake would impact two major highways and cost a lot of money for roads and bridges.
Thanks for the good discussion. It is heartening to see a whole post without some political rhetoric.
Our utilities are looking at a $4 billion price tag for a 1,000 MW nuclear plant. And, as we’ve seen for decades, that’s probably half the final price. The one near my house has room for 4 reactors but currently only has one built. We’ve been pushing for getting 2 more, but there are some hurdles to overcome. One key hurdle is the lake needed for cooling the reactor. Enlarging the lake would impact two major highways and cost a lot of money for roads and bridges.
It’s all Obama’s fault since he cancelled all the funding for Yucca Mountain!!!
Which plant do you live near?
Just one last point, Three Mile Island is often cited as the reason that nuclear died in America - it wasn’t. It was the cost overruns coupled with 18% interest rates that made it unprofitable. Nuclear plants might as well be machines that print money, they’re borderline insane in that respect once they’re up and running. Getting them to that point is the hard part. Given the current interest rates, it shouldn’t be a problem. Given the current status of the credit markets…it might be.
I’m in NC near the Shearon Harris plant. Great area for cycling. Although, you have to be careful to avoid the area during shift change. Those guys leave the plant in a hurry. The first time I saw a stream of trucks leaving the nuclear plant at high speeds I thought my days were numbered and I would be glowing soon. This year they are moving the Triangle Tri from one lake that got contaminated by a PCB spill to the nuclear resevoir. I can’t wait to see what the t-shirt design will be.
I don’t think very many people understand any real part about nuclear. There are people who oppose it regardless of anything, and others who think they are cheap and the solution to everything. Oddly enough, like everything else, reality is somewhere in between.
I agree that more energy efficient vehicles won’t solve the problem. Help, but not solve.
I think people just need to get off their asses and commute by bike. I mean, don’t >80% of people who commute by car live within 10 miles of work? The added benefit beyond health gains is that people no longer hermetically sealed in a vehicle might pay more attention to their neighborhoods than they would going by at 30+ mph.
I agree that more energy efficient vehicles won’t solve the problem. Help, but not solve.
I think people just need to get off their asses and commute by bike.
The truth of the matter is that being exposed to the elements and arriving at your destination sweaty and looking like crap, is simply not viable for the great majority of places and people.
On the other hand, if the roads were made safe for ultralight electic vehicles (300lb, 40mph, 40mi range) you could be enclosed and reasonably comfortable still get the equivalent of 300+ mpg. Cheap and simple… no new technology needed. And much safer for people riding bikes as well.
