Mt. Saint Helens before/after shot:

http://dayswithmydaughter.com/wp-con..._and_after.jpg

I don't know about you, but I feel progress was made here. :happydance:

It is easier to regulate on the plant level, to be fair.

I'm all about moving to more nuclear power, and it's not just because nuclear power plants buy a lot of the same electronics that are used in missile control :icon17:





Honestly, while generation is a concern, the distribution network is definitely more of a weak point. There is a lot of untapped capacity in many plants, especially here (our local nuclear facility is nowhere near capacity, and easy to ramp up). I also believe (just personal opinion) that there is going to be more propagation of nuclear power facilities-- if nothing else (based on sales trends), there are a lot more places doing research to demonstrate safety.

A big worry is distribution. You've heard the BS lines about how people will be charging at night (off peak, etc). Realistically, every is going to plug in their car when they get home around 6-- well within heavy use hours. Even if we try to limit peak charging, people will need to do mid-day charging for a variety of reasons (road trip, lots of errands, trucks/deliveries).

This chart shows pretty clearly how much is being used for transport...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Flow_2009.png

To put it simply, the distribution system simply cannot support the additional strain of EVs, and beefing it up is the real area holding back development. The lead times on some of the transformers needed to do this run in the order of YEARS-- we're talking pressed layers of metal the size of an SUV.

The VRs included on most EVs also represent an active load, which is potentially problematic. In standard operation, there is no issue, but certain failure modes could cause substantial issues for the grid-- you potentially wind up dealing with funky harmoncs and all that jazz, and you* affect your power factor. You'll hear a lot of talk about using parked cars to stabilize the grid, but it is going to be really different to implement properly since the cars can switch into and out of the grid whenever they want. I think the freedom that comes with the "grab it and go" aspect of your own car is something people won't give up, and that makes life really tough for power engineers.

Basically, what needs to happen to make the switch is the government needs to decide the switch is being made, and then subsidize the move for both the energy industry, as well as the automakers (or regulate the crap out of them to force their hand). Given the current economic situation, neither is really likely right now.

To have enough electricity & have it cheap enough for mass EV/hybrid use, we need a nuke reactor outside every big city. For some reason, nuke power does not get much emphesis. This power source is almost endless, can be cheap, plenty of material for fuel out west, never killed a single person in U.S. ever, & by-product is clean steam. Why is it not our dominent source? I don't know.

Longest post ever from an iPhone? It probably doesnt make much sense :icon17:

I'm picking up what you're laying down. :tiphat:

We can thank our current president for the moratorium on offshore drilling. He bent over :icon23: for the "green" special interest groups, who I presume is the huge influence being referenced. The major political shift can certainly happen in the near future, though; especially, after the train wreck currently in power is removed from office. The momentum is already there. It just needs to follow through.

I agree with whoever said this earlier that a political section would be a good idea. I'd be all over that like white on rice.

True

It is heavily regulated, and with good reason.

LIKE WHAT REASON? Thousands die mining for coal & oil & their pollution kill even more. AGAIN, not a single person ever died in the U.S. from a nuke reactor.....

Everyone loves Nuclear power, but when you talk about putting a nuke plant in their backyard they suddenly change their tune.

When Homer Simpson is at the helm, nuclear power seems like an even worse idea.

Tough nuggies..... If it's 30 miles outside the city, you take it or pay 3 times as much for electricity. Give the cities a choice! Facts(safety) are facts!

I feel kind of the opposite in this regard. I would say in theory, it is easier to make transitions like this when times are good and the economy is just rolling along but I would also say that during these times, people do not want change since that change can potientially stop the wheels and therefore in actuality, it is harder to make these fundamental changes when times are good.

I think this because I cannot come up with an instance where our government has ever been foreward thinking with regards to the well being of the citizens. It seems to always be reactionary to what has happened in the immediate past. Industry is a little different. They do definitely look to the future, but oftentimes it is driven by the idea of profits and not necessarily for the greater good of society.

I think the best times to make these fundamental shifts are when times are tough. People seem more willing to make changes and take risks when they down if for no other reason, they have nothing to lose and are desperate to get back on their feet.

Its kind of counter-intuitive I guess, but thats how my brain works sometimes. Hopefully this makes sense. :tiphat:

The reason nuclear power has such a good record is partly because of the regulations. If it didn't, deaths would follow. Most/all forms of energy production have risks, nuclear included.

I think a lot of this has to do with lack of education of the subject.

Actually it makes a lot of sense and I completely agree with you. :tup:

What are you talking about? Homer Simpson has Sector 7G on lockdown :bowrofl:

And it would create a bunch of new job opportunities, but why would we want that? :rolleyes: