Electrician Talk banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Somewhat off-topic -

Perhaps I'm overlooking some fundamental issues of physics...

I've always been taught that HP (horsepower) is = power to deliver - "Load" x "Velocity". In other words... it takes "x" amount of horsepower to move any given object and its weight (times gravity) at "s" amount of speed.

So I become confused as to how hybrid cars offer an environmental advantage over traditional gasoline dependent vehicles.

If an "electrical" car (driven by batteries) delivers 100 HP to the consumer on demand, doesn't it require recharging by some coal consuming electrical power plant to rejuvenate the cells at even perhaps more environmental detriment?

Maybe I'm missing the point. After 25 years of electrical service, perhaps it's time to retire.

An alternative electrician's viewpoint is quite welcome. How much energy does this recharging consume and how much horsepower can be delivered from such?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
I don't have an answer for you. But, the hybrid cars are not electric only, but a hybrid of electric and gas burning engines. So the engine you already have recharged the car's batteries not a coal (or nuclear or whatever) power plant. So you're still achieving 50some mpg and putting out less emissions.

My question is how long are all of these batteries going to last and how are they going to be disposed of? I've read a lot of things and many say they might last 5-6 years or so at a cost of thousands to replace, so there would go all of your mpg savings and then a lot more. In 3-5 years we'll see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
...If an "electrical" car (driven by batteries) delivers 100 HP to the consumer on demand, doesn't it require recharging by some coal consuming electrical power plant to rejuvenate the cells at even perhaps more environmental detriment?...
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we get a lot of our power from dams. Also they are installing a lot of wind generators.

In Germany they have a law the 20% of their power must be "green" by a certain date. Farmers are replacing crops with solar electric panels! (This is financed by the government.) Other countries in Europe are jumping on the green bandwagon as well. France has quite a few nukes and I think they are installing more?

Here is a story about T. Boone Pickens and his interests in wind power as well...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-t-boone-pickens-jul10,0,5676645.story
 

·
Super Moderator
Retired
Joined
·
16,822 Posts
IMO nuclear power is where we should be putting our dollars. Think about a Trident submarine. They can go 25 years without refueling. Now that makes very good sense. Cleaner and safe.
I read somewhere that we have over 500 years of coal available in the US. Use it, and limit emissions. If we can send a man to the moon, we can limit emissions from coal plants.
Start drilling NOW. This 50 mile off shore plan is a big scam. 80% of the available oil lies within this 50 mile limit. Thanks congress.

I am all for new energy sources, but we need relief now, not 20 years from now. Why did we not learn our lesson back in the 70's. If we had started building nuclear power plants and finding our own oil, we could be in much better shape today.

And the environmentalist's. Take pictures and identify them when they are demonstrating outside existing and potential nuclear power plant sites, then turn off their power. See how they like having no AC when they get home from a hard day of picketing. Most do not even know that their power is coming from nuclear already.
I say NUKE IT!!!!!!

Ps...sorry about the rant. I just could not resist. Especially after whats happened over the last few days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,301 Posts
Part of it is "Economy of Scale" One large engine (Utility) over many small engines (cars).

What is not taken into consideration is batteries and disposal issues.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
948 Posts
clean power

nuclear energy is clean and its safe , i lived on a aircraft carrier for 4 years , when it was built the core lasted for 35 years before the recore , you dont hear anything but the screws turning its quiet ,and its a lot better than coal or fuel , i think most people think about three mile island and thats just a one time issue , we learn from our mistakes , the navy has had nuclear power way back many years ago and has never had a problem, theres two new nuke plants going to start up in turkey lake florida , progress energy plants .take care best to ya :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,301 Posts
I have often thought with nukes the best bet would be go with the Navy design and size. In lieu of building these massive cost over run nukes. Let our ship yards that are suffering for business build the smaller nukes and operate them in parallel at a reasonable distance to make them some what safer.

These nukes could be modular or barged to the site.

Same design nation wide makes training, repairs and modifications simpler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,985 Posts
Under 35 mph, Hybrids run on battery power only,recharging through regenerative feedback.(coasting down hill,slowing for traffic light,ect.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Nuke is valid, and would be my choice for reliability reasons(if the choice were mine to make). Wind solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal- all in current use tho not fully developed.
But I don't believe energy is ever really free. The full effect/cost of last century's hydroelectric is still being determined/paid in river and coastal depletion. Wouldn't solar power harnessed in signifigant quantity inevitably cool the crust? And I havn't a clue what happens if you slow down the coriolis. Tidal power is moon based, and slowing coastal erosion doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.
I sure would like to hear your opinions- my brain only seems to be big enough to ask, but I'd like to help answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Solar panels won't cool the crust... there is still plenty of energy turned into heat. If you look into the numbers it is truey astounding what amount of energy hits the planet from the sun.

I am all in favor of more wind, solar, geo, tidal,and selective hydro

Nuke is nice that there are no carbon or mercury or sulphur emissions,but what is left... there is the problem. NO ONE wants the stuff.... mining is also a little problematic for uranium, lots of nasty tailings.

Otherwise nice energy source, certainly better than coal with lots and lots of waste spread all over the place.
But I would like to see a real effort at the others as well. See some signs lately, but imagine where we could be with a continuous effort from the start in the 70's. There are lots of really smart people in this country that will figure it out with the right landscape.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top