First link doesn’t do an apples-to-apples comparison. It is comparing an existing used diesel car, using zero energy to create it (it already exists), with the energy use assumption for a seven year period against new vehicles — which are all charged for energy to produce them. Of course that somewhat efficient diesel does well against monster HEVs (Highlander / Tahoe), with the new construction penalty, it does a little better than a Prius. Without the penalty, Prius blows it away in terms of efficiency. Point is a ‘recycled/reused’ has a huge advantage in terms of EROEI over new built. What a surprise.

And, this is the exact same issue in the second case.

In EROEI terms, for a specific car owner, it can be hard to justify new buy over a reasonably fuel efficient, well-operating old vehicle. But that is not an “apples to apples” comparison.

And, in an interesting twist, there is the issue of the used car market — which is overwhelmed with ‘cheap’, highly fuel inefficient vehicles, which is somewhat the reverse of the case 10-15 years ago.

RE #6 and ice: it depends on the cost implications of peak/off-peak. If there is minimal difference / no benefit from reducing peak load, hard to justify. With a significant difference in peak/off-peak pricing (including the potential not to face power cutoffs in times of power demand spikes), this can be a highly effective approach.

There are very real issues to deal with re nuclear power: cost, waste management, etc …

If we have an ‘honest’ appraisal, with honest understanding of total-ownership costs, we might arrive at better decision-making re energy chocies moving forward.

This essay is really meant as a ‘if we are serious about eliminating coal from the electricity sector, we can do it with a serious, even aggressive ‘all of the above’ solution path’. By the way, I believe that we can (as hinted) do far better with energy efficiency (including aggressive Smart Grid) and with a portfolio of renewables than provided within this outline.

The outline is meant as an outline for discussion, rather than the exact prescription of where and how we should go.

1. My niece in the UK has a Toyota People mover (had it for 5 years) that does 70 miles per gallon (diesel powered)
2. Petrol (or Gas) hybrids are stupid. Diesel Electric is much more efficient.

Diesel engines have a Compression Ratio of about 22:1, gas engines 12:1 at best. Efficiency of a this form of engine is proportional to compression ratio.

3. The safety aspects of Lithium Batteries are bad. Why were the reports of laptop batteries bursting into flames? Becuase Lithium is combustable when wet. Punctured batteries in a hybrid vehicle are potentially catastrophic. aka Toast.

http://agonist.org/synoia/2008…..able_water

1. Please provide your statement about hybrid batteries.

http://whimfield.com/?p=261
http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu…..ablo_cars/

2. & 3. I’m not disagreeing with your goal of eliminating coal. Hybrid cars are just the wrong path. This is an alternative:

http://agonist.org/synoia/2008…..able_water

4. CHP is mainly from industrial processes (smelting, for example) … these occur on summer days.

CHP is Combined Heat & Power. The best thermal power plant is 30-35% efficient in energy use. The balance is heat as 65-70% of the energy consumed is discharged as heat. In a CHP system the heat is typically delivered or released as steam. NYC is a good example of a CHP city.

5. HVDC transmission maybe. But not necessary. The same efficienies can be produced with power factor correction of loads. Most electrical loads are inductive, the current lags the voltage. KW = cos(phi) x KVAR, Transmission loss is proportional to KVAR (current actually), while power delivered is KW.

6. Re air conditioning loads — Tried the Ice approach. The ecomonics just don’t play out with todays electricity tarrifs.

So, if we update our infrastructure and add to it new battery systems to capture any excess daytime electricity made in times where we need it less, so we can use it when we need it most, then I think this blog only touches on the potential to become energy independent, without the need for coal, by 2030. I’d like to see us do it far sooner, even if it means massive investments by this country to make it happen.

That said, I can’t jump aboard the “new nuclear” bandwagon. We can’t even support a modest growth of plants. Why? Not only is it a mess to deal with the waste (we still haven’t found a really good way of doing it), but these plants end up costing us far more to run (and retire) than they ever make in terms of electricity. There was a fantastic documentary that truly didn’t take any blatant sides on nuclear power a while back – I think I saw it on HBO, but I could be wrong – and in it they referenced how Britain’s first nuclear power plant was taken offline a few years ago, retired after a lengthy existence. However, “retired” is very different than you or I would expect: because we don’t know what to do with all this waste, the plant will actually have to be fully staffed for well longer than the years it was allowed to exist, costing taxpayers millions yet producing nothing for decades to come. It was inanity. Furthermore, just like there’s a limit of fossile fuels, there’s a very real limit of nuclear material: if we grow the number of nuclear plants by tangible numbers, we’ll rapidly reach the end of our Earthly supply.

There is a time and a place for nuclear plants. It absolutely makes sense on large military vessels, for example. The plants we’ve already built ought to be used to their fullest potential, to make sure we get the most out of these wastes (literally and figuratively). We should certainly reprocess nuclear material as they do in France, which would give us a far better bang for our buck. However, let’s not go down the long, windy and outrageous path of more nuclear power. We can find much better sources of electricity that won’t contribute to Global Warming. We just need to treat it, as I said above, as the new New Deal.

Total Ownership Cost accounting for nuclear power is quite difficult — long-term waste storage, insurance / risk of proliferation, insurance / risk of leaks/accidents, etc …

And, the straight construction costs for new nuclear power do not look low.

On the other hand, the known costs of coal are very well known: fly ash, mercury and other pollutants, CO2, mountain-top removal, etc … This is not (solely) coal vs nuclear, but if it were …