Honda Civic Hybrid rant - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2014, 11:16:38 pm
content: I put together a lengthy rant about my experience as a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid owner over at my blog athttp://kuzyatech.com/rantour-2007-honda-civic-hybrid-hchii-troubles-or-how-not-to-treat-customersAs you may have guessed from the link title I am not a happy camper there. It also raises interesting questions about manufacturer's ability to tweak features of the car after the sale, often in the direction that does not benefit the consumer. In my case, to protect the battery it's been effectively eliminated from the use

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 12:09:06 am
content: unf, glad I went with a Prius drivetrain. I hope the new Civic firmware at least keeps new battery packs useful for longer, but saddling existing customers with spent batteries is very lame.Speaking of Honda batteries... my other car is a Honda Fit (regular ICE), also a 2007, it also has battery troubles, and dealerships also give me the run-around. They had a similarly low threshold on replacing them, but after the battery dies once, it won't even hold a charge overnight so it got down to the "even Honda calls it dead" threshold pretty quickly. However, the warranty only covers two replacements.We don't drive it enough is their refrain. It's not like we drove it 2 miles once a week! Other cars have dealt with the usage pattern just fine. One of my coworkers had (now sold) one with the same problem. But at least I can just get a new battery for it $60, unlike your hybrid battery pack. amusing tidbit: trying to track down the cause was my "get into electronics" first project. I'm on battery #5 now, and it's "scheduled" to die in a few months. We'll see if my last round of modifications make it survive or notI'm certainly not inclined to recommend Honda to anyone at this point.

author: ignator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 12:39:55 am
content: I've heard this same complaint from 2 coworkers about Prius. After software updates they complained of MPG loss. These complaints were back a few years.I see no value in owning a hybrid. For much less money I purchased a Nissan Versa manual transmission. It cost $12K, and gets better then 40MPG (36MPG highway advertised). The CVT was too mushy performance to want to drive, and I don't trust they will get 80K miles before failure.The $12K-$20K extra cost of a hybrid will never be recovered unless you drive it ~140K to 235K+ miles more then a conventional non hybrid, in the same size class (based on 47MPG hybrid @$4/gal, $12K=3000gal, $20K=5000gal). It will be shot before that ever occurs. You may have a better figure of merit to compute a value difference between hybrid/nonhybrid. I do try to be as 'green' as possible, but those batteries are not green when original manufacture and disposal are included in the amount of toxic waist created.That and hybrid owners are always passing me, and I'm running the speed limit. No way they are getting their advertised MPG. You may be different.The Versa has 'gitty up and go' with 1.6L engine displacement. With AC as standard. I'm 6'2", and sitting in any of the Versa seats (front seats to full back position, 4 door with big trunk) has extra leg room. Only complaint is ergonomic comfort on long road trips (as driver, mainly pedal distance to leg length issue, plenty of head and shoulder room).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 12:50:45 am
content: That's a long rant, haven't got to the end yet. But when at the beginning I read about sticks of 6 NiMH batteries in series, I said to myself, "uh oh".Basically, that is a huge design failure. You can't design durable, long life systems with sticks of NiMH batteries in series, and then hope the system will last. If you do that, you are screwed.Given a series pack of NiMH cells, one of the cells will be weaker than the others, and at some point during deep discharge it will suffer a polarity reversal. Once that happens it will get weaker and weaker until the whole pack fails to perform.You can mitigate this problem by careful selection and matching of cells before assembly, by avoiding deep discharge, and by period maintenance charges.The maintenance charge involves running a timed C/10 charge for 16 hours to re-balance the pack. This should be done after about every 10 normal discharge cycles.The question is, when is this battery maintenance going to happen while the battery pack is buried in the middle of a vehicle? It basically isn't.So when NiMH batteries are installed in a car, you will experience the normal and expected lifetime of 2-3 years until replacement, and then the battery pack will reach end of life. This is true of NiMH batteries used in other applications, and cars are not special. Probably, cars are a more hostile environment than many others.In short, if you see hybrid vehicles with NiMH battery technology, run away. Run away fast.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 12:53:33 am
content: Well, at the moment with Civic I'd indeed be better off with a regular model. Same fuel economy as my crippled hybrid is getting, better performance and less money. Prius on the other hand is a different beast- I routinely get 60+ mpg without doing anything special, other than trying not to speed too much as the air resistance is a bit of a pain being proportional to V^3There is just a huge difference in powertrain design refinement between the two. As far as cost comparison- you'd have to look at similarly equipped Civic and back in 2007, the price premium was maybe $2k over that since Hybrid gets all the toys as standard equipment.Still there is no reason why a car under warranty should not be properly handled by the manufacturer..

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 12:59:42 am
content: Exactly- it's a 132 cells in series, and they can only look at sticks of 6. No balancing of any kind either.I am pretty sure though you can design a well performing NIMH pack, it just takes a bit more effort. Looking at failure rates posted byhttp://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/02/honda-civic-hybrid-battery-reliability-gets-worse/index.htmPrius seems to be holding pretty stable and there are over 3 millions of them in the fieldQuote from: IanB on July 06, 2014, 12:50:45 am

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:09:14 am
content: Quote from: reagle on July 06, 2014, 12:59:42 amMainly, you need to keep the battery in the 30% to 100% charge range, and regularly charge it beyond 100% to top up the weaker cells. If you have five out of six cells giving you a voltage or temperature full charge signal, and you stopped there, you could leave the sixth cell undercharged. It is necessary to do individual cell monitoring, or to perform deliberate over charging to compensate for this.The best way to kill an NiMH pack is repeated application of heavy loads while the battery is in a low state of charge.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:09:41 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 06, 2014, 12:50:45 amit gets worse yet.read up on how the NiMH cell works during both charge and overcharge. basically, the cell can only marginally accept a c/10 overcharge.worse, there are a few chemical processes which are only 66% efficient. the 33% wasted is recombined in the same chemical process as the overcharge chemical processes.once you understand those chemical processes, you can see that you cannot charge the cell faster than C/3, because 33% of c/3 is about c/10, the overcharge rate.this works out to a marginal 4 hour charge rate, any faster and you're venting oxygen.the cell can safely handle burst charging well beyond c/3, because it takes time for the surplus oxygen to build up in the cell, which then recombines with the nickel plate. (the negative Metal Hydride plates are over sized to prevent the cell from venting hydrogen)

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:15:48 am
content: If the car is a 2007 model, that would make it about 7 years old?I'm not sure anyone expects NiMH batteries in constant use to have a service life greater than that. Normally you would find that after 3-5 years the battery is due for replacement, much like a regular car battery.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:37:56 am
content: I am so glad I went with a diesel Jetta! I get 45 MGP on the highway (I typically drive fresno to LA a lot) and with the low price of the car, and no batteries to worry about, I could not be happier. Once the government gets out of the way (And by government I mean the oil companies) and we can use the same tunings they use in Europe we can have the 100 miles a gallon they have over there in europes new VW's

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:52:09 am
content: Quote from: ignator on July 06, 2014, 12:39:55 amI wouldn't be surprised if the mpg display was buggy, and the actual mileage didn't change at all. I pretty sure mine reads high even now.I purchased a hybrid because I needed a new car and wanted to "vote with my wallet" for continued research in high efficiency vehicles. I only looked at >=40mpg and I purchased based on comfort. (I did test the Jetta, and was surprised that I liked it better than the Audi.) It's not inconceivable that I'll drive it long enough for the mpg savings to "pay off", but that wasn't a factor at all. Going to the gas station less often has been surprisingly awesome--that should get more consideration than people usually give it.I figure the toxicity of the battery pack is a pretty small percentage of all the nastiness generated from raw materials to end of life of the entire car, so long as I use <= 2. (And Prius has that kind of track history.)It definitely has a different pedal feel to the Honda Fit. If you want vroom, you have to literally floor it. (Whereas in the Fit, you just think "I'd like to go fast" and presto, fast!) I can put it into Sport mode, which has a more "normal" pedal feel, (with the expected hit to mileage) but now that I'm used to Eco mode, I really like the fine control of engine power. SWMBO hates it; it's not for everyone.What's really spoiled me are the key fobs, though. I'm never buying another car that makes me take the key out of my pocket. I want my house to recognize the fob, too!(Technically, I have a Lexus, but I'm pretty sure it's a 3rd generation Prius as far as this discussion goes.)

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:13:11 am
content: Quote from: calexanian on July 06, 2014, 01:37:56 amBear in mind standard pump gasoline in the UK has about the same octane rating, 95 RON, 91 (RON+MON)/2, as premium gasoline in the USA. So European cars are always going to have higher performance tuning than US models, unless you are willing to pay for premium fuel.UK pumps also have "Super" fuel of about 98 RON (94 in the USA), but only high end sports cars require it. Nearly all cars in the UK just use the regular "Premium" fuel.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:17:13 am
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on July 06, 2014, 01:52:09 amDo you know the battery chemistry? Is it NiMH or Li-ion?

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:21:22 am
content: If it's a Toyota/Lexus product- it's NiMH. Toyota uses large prismatic cells though, unlike Honda's D sized cilindricals

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:27:11 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 06, 2014, 02:17:13 amNiMH, like all(?) the non-plugin Prii so far. Toyota has somepictures online.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:28:02 am
content: Quote from: reagle on July 06, 2014, 02:21:22 amOK, no such hybrids for me then, unless the battery has a guaranteed replacement after 5 years of service at nominal cost.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:29:07 am
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on July 06, 2014, 02:27:11 amI guess that reinforces my belief that the Tesla is the only game in town...

author: ignator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:29:26 am
content: Quote from: reagle onTodayat 07:53:33 PMI understand that was the main point you were making. And it looks like they are doing everything to save them battery pack replacement.I got pissed with Honda after my wife owned a 1997 Civic. Impossible oil filter location. You had to wait till the engine cooled to change it. And it always flooded the steering linkage with oil when you removed the filter. We test drove a 2005 CRV, and found it to be uncomfortable to sit in. Same with the Toyota RAV4. She ended up with a 2005 Toyota Matrix. Probably the most comfortable long road trip vehicle. Only complaint is side mirrors give extremely poor side situation awareness. It gets 36 MPG@70MPH.Toyota is priced from the market for me. Their Scion initially was in my view (good fuel efficiency), but now they want too much for them. And they kept changing the models as they did not want my age group to buy them (their first year Xa was perfect size, then they miniaturized it). I'll have to see how long the Versa lasts.I know this forum has had electric vehicle threads, the problem is that everyone thinks in terms of using them as a replacement for heat engines (using gasoline or diesel). This is a paradigm, as they really are intended for short run town machines, where the battery can be charged over-night. I don't want to say never, but getting 300 miles and 5 minute recharge is a long way off.I owned a 1987 Chevy Sprint (100% Suzuki), 3 cylinder 1 L, it got 54MPG with a carburetor. It weighed 1400 lbs, zippy.syncro in the first gear failed.The 1998 Chevy Metro replacement (built in Canada with too much Detroit engineering) gets 42MPG. They added 700 lbs to improve crash safety. A dog. Throttle body injection (3 cyl. 1L engine). Still running, but rust is causing structural failure.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:37:38 am
content: Newer Hondas are LiIon, so are pretty much all the EVs since you can't possibly stuff enough NiMH to get reasonable range. It's not like LiIon is without its own issues mind youHere in NY, and a few other CARB states (CA,CT, MD,NY,NJ, MA ,NM, OR, AP,RI, VT, WA, DC) the hybrids were sold with the 10 years/150k warranty on the hybrid bits, at least when I made the purchase. In other states it's 8 years 100k miles

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:38:18 am
content: When I was last visiting the UK, I took a look at the UK model Ford Fiesta 1.0-litre EcoBoost. It's the kind of car that seems to make much more sense than a hybrid, in terms of size, performance and economy.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 03:07:15 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 06, 2014, 02:28:02 amI'll add to what Reagle said: the warranty is full coverage, no pro-rating. I'm sure where Toyota makes the call as to whether the battery has failed, just like Honda.The chart he linked earlier showed that after 10 years, only 5% of Prius owners have had their battery replaced. I think of it like a clutch in a manual transmission. It'll wear out, and it's influenced by where and how I drive, but it'll last me a good long while. At this point, I still have faith that if it wears out early, Toyota will fix it.We don't have 10-year histories on Tesla batteries yet, but I presume their batteries have a limited lifespan, too. And right now, the Tesla battery is 4-5x the cost of a Prius battery. (Of course, it's 50-60x the battery...)The Prius electric motor isn't for adding a boost. It's anemic. It's for cruising. And that lets the car baby the battery without leaving the user at a loss for power when they want it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 03:15:27 am
content: There are quite a few third party battery upgrades for the Prius, intended for a DIY plug in hybrid. Maybe there's something similar for the Civic.If you just want to fix your existing battery, now you have an excuse to get a high voltage bench PSU, some HRC fuses, and a CAT IV rated multimeter.http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/diy-solutions-honda-hybrid-battery-problems-insight-civic-13610.html

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 03:19:49 am
content: In other words, the batteries and hybrid-ness are now as useful as wings on an ostrich? I guess the practice of making products that only last until the warranty is over has become commonplace in the automotive industry too. Meanwhile my vehicle is nearing 4 decades/600k km and still works like it used to, only needed a bit of periodic preventive maintenance.QuoteIf they want to see that light turn on, then that's what you should give them.

author: xygor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 03:21:32 am
content: 2001 Prius here. 192K miles.1200 WH battery is operated over a 600 WH range.Showing some signs of capacity loss.Little or no MPG degradation though.The first gen Prius (Japan only) used D cells.Edit: Mine is the first generation to use prismatic cells.

author: xygor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 03:41:31 am
content: Here's some battery specs for the generations of Prii.. 97 Prius 00 Prius 04 Prius 2010 Prius(Gen I) (Gen II) (Gen III) (Gen IV)Japan OnlyForm Factor Cylindrical Prismatic Prismatic PrismaticCells(Modules) 240(40) 228(38) 168(28) 168(28)Nominal Voltage 288.0 V 273.6 V 201.6 V 201.6 VNominal Capacity 6.0Ah 6.5Ah 6.5Ah 6.5AhSpecific Power 800 W/kg 1000 W/kg 1300 W/kg 1310 W/kgSpecific Energy 40 Wh/kg 46 Wh/kg 46 Wh/kg 44 Wh/kgModule Weight 1090g 1050g 1045g 1040gModule Dimensions 35(oc)x384(L) 19.6x106x275 19.6x106x285 19.6x106x285

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 06:00:57 am
content: Quote from: ignator on July 06, 2014, 02:29:26 amHoly crap Dude! Are we twins???I got my wife an '05 Vibe (same, same, different badges), same MPG, although with the front end wore out, it's not as comfortable as it should be.Same thing with the Sprint (inlcuding the 1st gear synchro breakage), except I still got an '88 Chevy Sprint Metro (the Metro replacement with the fuel injection started in '89). Crazy mileage, ~54MPG summer (~46MPG winter). Not comfortable, not warm in the winter cold, not cold in the summer heat, but for $300 back in '98, I still can't beat it with a stick (and I have:) )

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 07:00:06 am
content: I almost bought one of those but thought they were a bit gutless. I ended up buying a non-hybird Civic in 2008 and I have never had a problem with it.But some Japanese companies still make rubbish. I once owned a Mitsubishi Magna - a lemon that Bitsamissing would not or could not fix. More recently a Toyota Corolla a family member owned was 1 week out of warranty (the mirror had failed in warranty) and it appeared there was a fractured wire in a loom for the passenger side mirror. They quoted $1100 to fix it. Like Mitsubishi, Toyota has lost a customer for life.Honda seems to provide excellent service, despite being a bit pricey. At least I have no worries now. Touch wood.

author: ignator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 01:53:06 pm
content: Quote from: Skimask onTodayat 01:00:57 AM>Quote from: ignator onYesterdayat 09:29:26 PMHoly crap Dude! Are we twins???I got my wife an '05 Vibe (same, same, different badges), same MPG, although with the front end wore out, it's not as comfortable as it should be.Same thing with the Sprint (inlcuding the 1st gear synchro breakage), except I still got an '88 Chevy Sprint Metro (the Metro replacement with the fuel injection started in '89). Crazy mileage, ~54MPG summer (~46MPG winter). Not comfortable, not warm in the winter cold, not cold in the summer heat, but for $300 back in '98, I still can't beat it with a stick (and I have:) )I'm curious how many miles your Vibe lasted?Her Matrix is at 116Kmiles. All paved roads so dust and mud are minimal.Agree the Matrix could be more comfortable, but then you would be in some behemoth SUV that gets 18MPG.Any suggestions on something more comfortable?It was her choice, as she replaced the 97 Honda Civic, wanted the 5 door. It sits up higher, so with her arthritis, it's easy in and out. Sort of like medium pickup truck height. My parents have a Subaru Forester, which you have to do pretzel movements to get in and out of the driver seat.Everything rusts here in Iowa, they don't plow if it snows less then 1", they salt, and salt. Right at the freeze line of snow and rain throughout the winter.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:20:17 pm
content: There are many ways to fix the pack-you can get a used one from a junkyard, condition all cells and swap it in. Or you grid charge/discharge the one in a car using a bunch of isolated power supplies strung together and in series with a current source like an LED driver to keep current low. I can certainly do that but the car is 7 years into 10 year/ 150k warranty, so this should not be my problem. Hence the rantNow, as far as giving them an IMA light, I suppose you have to cause greater imbalance in the strings. One way I can see that happening is to let the car sit for a while, which is a bit of a pain as it is being used all the time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 02:24:42 pm
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on July 06, 2014, 12:09:06 amYour problem is probably the alternator overcharging the battery.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 04:51:33 pm
content: IIRC, with the way the Honda hybrids work, you could use the service switch to disable the battery and still be able to drive the car. The city MPG would basically be that of a non hybrid, but the highway MPG should be almost as good as originally.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2014, 06:26:23 pm
content: Quote from: ignator on July 06, 2014, 01:53:06 pmBought it with 60K miles. ~123K on it now. Due for all new suspension, including front strut bearings. Run Mobil 1, change oil&filter ~7500 miles, air/gas filters every other year, coolant every 3.Watch out when it hits 300,000 miles though. The odometer stops counting up. There's an 93-series eeprom on the instrument panel that holds the odometer setting and won't go past 299,999.9. Have to pull the eeprom and reset it to zero-ish when it gets close to it.More comfortable? I equate comfort with fuel mileage. My Sprint is the most comfortable thing I've got...eg. still sitting on that wad of cash in my wallet that isn't going into the fuel tank.Other than that, I bought an '09 Odyssey LX about year and a half ago for use in my business. Gets ~22MPG with my light foot. If that thing has anything it's a lot of snort. Amazing what kind of power they can pull out of a 3.5L V6. But by far the most comfortable ride I've ever had, even if it isn't the gas sipper that the Vibe is.Past that, have you looked at the Honda Fit? They sit a bit higher than the Civic. The short wheelbase makes it a bit bouncy of some of those roads with perfectly spaced expansion joints, but goes pretty good over washboard gravel. Have a friend that has one, spent some time in it. I kinda like it. Gets about the same mileage as the Civic & Vibe. BUT...you've already got the Matrix, so, can't spend money (on a new car) to save money (on gas).

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2014, 04:32:15 am
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on July 06, 2014, 12:09:06 amHave you considered a simple float charger/battery maintainer? You can buy them but why not just make one using a random plug pack and one of the switch mode boost or buck converters you can find on ebay for a buck or two? You only need around 13.3 v @ 50ma to maintain the charge and offset self discharge and quiescent loads. If you use a switchmode plugpack/wallwart, then you're only looking at a few watts of mains, so it's way cheaper than buying new lead-acid batteries every year or three.I only use my vehicle about once a week and mostly for short trips. I have almost always had a float charger connected (originally just with alligator clips, now I have installed a hardwired weatherproof $2 plug/socket). The original vehicle battery (which was a cheap and nasty built down to a price POS) lasted 7 years.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2014, 11:46:11 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2014, 04:32:15 amYou can float charge a lead acid battery at a fixed voltage, but you wont be helping it as much as youd think you are. A 13.x V float charge wont overcharge the battery, but it wont get it to a 100% SOC either, and it wont help prevent any initial sulfation. If you're going though the hassle of plugging in a charger into a car, get a proper 3 (+) stage charger that will do a cc/cv peak/cv float charge. And as suggested earlier, it could be related to overcharge issued. A voltmeter on the system while the car is on would be telling. 14.5v would be a good peak charge, but cook the battery if its operated for long periods of time (but most arent) 13.8 or less wouldnt even be a good charge unless operated for an extended period of time, and 15+ while good for a balancing a flooded lead acid battery, cooks it if done constantly.Despite all their facepalmworthy news GM actually has their stuff together with their alternators (at least on the modern ecotec engines) a DMM on the electrical system shows it peaking to ~14.6 volts after starting, and then after ~2-3 minutes of being at that, it drops down to 13.8v, giving the battery a proper 3 stage charge. 7 years later on my OEM battery, and still starting just fine even in winter which is admittedly not super harsh in the mideast seaboard of the US . (obviously one anecdote is not of statistical significance though... )

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2014, 01:02:37 am
content: I once had an old Belkin UPS that pulse charged the battery with a clever circuit that used the inverter transformer in reverse. (In comparison, the similar sized APCs just used a linear supply.) The battery ended up lasting 5 years or so (compared to 3 for the various APCs) but the peak currents inside were sufficient that analog audio equipment too close to the UPS would buzz every once in a while.BTW, 13.8V is around the best float charge voltage if you had to keep it constant. Which really means that the optimum is really more of alternating between something like 14.2-14.8V and 12.8-13.5V every few days or so. The high peak voltage inhibits sulfation while the lower "hold" voltage avoids positive plate corrosion.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2014, 02:53:46 am
content: Quote from: ConKbot on July 07, 2014, 11:46:11 amAgreed. And if I NEVER drove the car then I'd certainly want a more sophisticated setup. But all I am doing and recommending is to maintain the battery SOC/condition, ie; cancel out the self discharge and vehicle quiescent loads. A fixed voltage float charge after the car has done a bit of fast charging is fine - ideally slightly adjustable to compensate for ambient temperature variations.Remember, you only need a vehicle 'standby' load of ~41ma to reduce the SOC by 1Ah per day, and vehicular batteries really are NOT designed for deep discharge at all. A car sat idle for a fortnight, then driven less than an hour, then sat idle again etc.. will kill a battery in less than 2 years.Been there, done that.Also, FWIW, I used to set the float at 13.8v but gassing and water loss became an issue, so the lower voltage 13.2v -13.5v (depending on season) minimizes gassing but still prevents a reduction in the SOC.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2014, 12:51:29 pm
content: Quote from: ignator on July 06, 2014, 12:39:55 amThe CVT in my jeep which is the same kind Nissan uses had to be replaced at 50k.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 02:30:29 am
content: (sorry if I've hijacked this thread.)Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2014, 04:32:15 amIt's not parked near an outlet. We did try a solar powered kind, but it didn't seem to help. The driving pattern when it was dying the fastest was weekday commuting, 15 minutes each way (which my previous car had done for years.)Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2014, 02:24:42 pmQuote from: ConKbot on July 07, 2014, 11:46:11 amI do still have the voltage logs from my little Teensy-based logger. (It's only a 10bit ADC, but it can tell 14.7 from 14.6.) I've attached a graph from the current commute, sampled at 60Hz. Before the car was started, the Teensy was showing 12.8V and 81F (it crudely measures its own temp; it's in the cabin.) The battery is about a year old at the time, I think. The dips down below 14V last less than one second; like 40 samples. My guess had been those correspond to the compressor coming on. I can't find the logs I made from when the battery was new.I disconnected some "extra" electronics the last time the battery died, and the commute is pretty long now. So I'm in a "wait and see" phase... If it can survive the next winter, it may be in good shape. If it doesn't, I'll probably be asking for your help on what to do next

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 09:48:47 pm
content: Aside from dishonesty, (which seems to be coming mainly from Honda's part) why not artificially drain the crap out of the batteries till they're really dead? I mean, it can't be that expensive to buy a nice power resistor (and some sort of high voltage clamps) rated for whatever voltage the batteries are. Heck, drain one set of those D batteries and the rest of the sets will probably go very soon.I bet the batteries have some sort of monitoring that Honda could look at, so you'd have to drain it relatively slow, but if you kept it sitting for a week draining slowly, I'm sure they wouldn't assume foul play.In my eyes, the car is pretty much useless to you now, so why not give it a try? If it fails you can always turn off the hybrid bits like someone said above.And for the record, I also think hybrid cars are, for lack of a better word, useless. Clean diesel cars get almost as good of gas mileage using a MUCH more simple system. (But diesel has the stigma of being "dirty".) Plus hybrids are more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts, often for only a few more miles per gallon.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2014, 06:24:33 am
content: After 250,000 miles, Roadster batteries achieve >80% capacity (projected from real world data, not Tesla's data):http://www.pluginamerica.org/surveys/batteries/tesla-roadster/PIA-Roadster-Battery-Study.pdfThat means the Roadster which did 240 miles to the charge will still do about 180 miles after 250k.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2014, 12:14:45 pm
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on July 14, 2014, 02:30:29 amThat looks reasonable enough, and 15 minutes should be about enough to charge the battery back up from starting the car, and 12.8v with the battery at rest is generally a 100% SOC, so parasitic loads aren't drawing it down while the car is offhttp://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_batteryAre you sure on the calibration of the logger? even a 0.1v difference could push the battery from charging a bit on the harsh side, to overcharging.There is only one battery, and it is a flooded lead acid, not an AGM right? If its an AGM then I'd second overcharging killing it.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2014, 04:31:54 am
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 14, 2014, 09:48:47 pmAin't that the facts! ...and the 'green wanna be yuppies' and soccer mom's will never get that thru their thick skulls either.If I were to have a hybrid in my fleet (and I don't see it happening anytime soon), it would be a series hybrid rather than parallel. I guess you might call it a range-extended electric vehicle. A diesel powered ICE, running at around it's most efficient RPM vs load point, driving a generator, which drive the electric motors, with a small battery pack somewhere in the middle. I don't think that battery pack would be exclusively LiPo or NiMH. I think I would want the bulk of the fast charging/discharging to be done by a small handful of Pb-acid batt's "near" the electric motors, mainly because you can comparatively beat the shit out of Pb-acid batteries and when they're done, they're almost 100% recyclable. Then maybe "behind" those Pb-acid batt's, you put another handful of LiPo's or NiMH that charge/discharge a bit more slowly, feeding the Pb-acid batt's, at charge/discharge rate that the LiPo's or NiMH's can handle without degrading over time as fast as if they were the sole source of electric power.But that's me thinking again. Sure it's a complicated setup, but think of how people thought real fuel injection system were complicated when they first started to hit the market really heavy back in the early 80's. I'm sure there will be a massive breakthru in battery and/or motor technology eventually. Probably not in my lifetime, but eventually. I'm not holding my breath. But I am holding onto my $$$ in the meanwhile...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2014, 02:08:39 pm
content: I was on the road last night and saw ( eventually) a BMW 5 series diesel, that had a minor engine issue. At least I was able to see the silver grey vehicle when I went past it, as before it was hidden by the fog of paraffin flavoured smoke it was generating. I think it last saw a service before the current driver got it. Typical here that vehicles are serviced on the " when it carks and wont move at all" method, rather than on the recommended service intervals.Not helped that it was twilight ( actually after sunset) and the driver was merrily driving without lights, though it is possible that none were working on the vehicle in any case.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2014, 04:44:57 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on July 20, 2014, 02:08:39 pmYa, I think that's typical around the world.The moronic masses just aren't that bright...

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2014, 06:29:52 pm
content: Got a Citroen C4 Grand Picasso last year.It's a diesel hybrid "light",that simply use two starter/alternator/ motors and a higher capacity battery.I did not expect much (the test drive was not good) but the C4 has won me over:It's comfy, nippy, easy to parallel park, can seat 7 etc...And is returning 4.6l average (city + highway) so far, that's more than 60mpg driving normally.This how hybrids should be done.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2014, 07:02:54 pm
content: French engineering at it's best? Is this the Nissan design or one of those weird designs that seemingly are designed to be serviced by people with extra joints on the arms. You also get to know all the varieties of "Tool, Special" needed to just change the oil in it.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2014, 08:28:14 pm
content: Nissan is Renault, the "other" manufacturer.I wanted to like the new Renault, but it felt like sitting in Jaques Chirac's frontal lobe. Not nice.Did not even go as far as a test drive. Even the Dacia felt nicer inside (and that's as bare a the walls of a Romanian prison).The similarly specked Opel, Nissan, Toyota and Mercedes were either smaller or/and used 1L per 100Km more for no gain.As this is the wife's company car, and the only thing we pay is fuel, this was important.We were limited to a max of 115gr of Co2, so that also eliminated a lot of models.In the end we choose the C4 because it was the last one standing.But it's not perfect:- I can only put a max of 500Kg in the back before it sags too low, my previous bargain Fiat Doblo would max out at 1200Kg. Or load 600kg and still be driven on the motorway.- When in first gear from a start, you need to wait a milli-instant fro the ICE to catch up to the instant EE before lifting the clutch... Or you stall it. Bad coding.- The Iphone thing works great, but sometimes decides you need to listen to a certain thing, so you need to stop on the side of the road and delete it or it will go back to it grrr.- The motor does not stop if you take the key out.- The tire pressure sensor was probably a grammar troll in a previous life, and will annoy you if the pressures are out of a stupid narrow range. Smaller than the difference of pressure between night and day (I'll take it to the garage for this one).- The wheels are in the corners, that's great for handling and space. HOWEVER, to parallel park, you don't hug the car you're parking behind to reverse into the spot. You need to be 80/100cm away, great. except drivers behind don't get that you are parking and think you are reversing... So you get honked, then a "i'm sorry wave".Yet, overall, it's by far the best car I've ever driven this side of 50 000 Euros (never driven above that, come to think of it).When I first got it, I took to uni to our mechanic class. This professor used to own a garage and did not really want to check under the bonnet of a Citroën...But when I managed to get him to do, he called the head of the lab over (our lab is filled with engines) and pointed.The first thing they had noticed, is that after 40 years of shitty connectors, this C4 FINALLY had proper, modern wiring...The engine is set low and back with space in front, you can actually put touch the carter from the bonnet,so unless you need to change the exhaust manifold, it"s pretty good.It seems they hired someone who actually works on the cars to design some of it... FINALLY.Hybrids for regular Joes should be all like this:Just as good as a "normal" car, but using 20 to 25% less fuel for the exact same driving.Not filled with mistakes/bad compromises that the manufacturer can't fix pissing people off (like the original poster).

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 02:06:10 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 19, 2014, 10:05:57 pmI can't disagree with you there. Hybrid cars (actually, fully electric cars) would be great for most if not all cities. (Screw it, just design cities without roads for cars and make people bike everywhere, that'd actually be a really cool social experiment.) However, I'm not talking about just city driving. Yes, a few MPG will add up over the years, but how long will it take you (using that few MPG) to pay off the extra money you used to buy the hybrid in the first place? If you're going to tell me that you bought the hybrid to help the environment, you're better off donating the extra money to research that aims to help reduce pollution.Some simple, back of the envelope calculations. (All #s taken directly from honda's US site)Honda Civic Hybrid Price: ~$24,500Honda Civic Normal Price: ~$18,500Hybrid Avg MPG: 45.5 (I averaged the highway and city MPG)Normal Avg MPG: 34.5 (I averaged the highway and city MPG)That extra $6000 will buy you 1500 gallons of gas at $4.00 per gallon.Let's assume you drive 20,000 miles per year.Hybrid gallons consumed per year: 439.6Normal gallons consumed per year: 579.7Difference: 140.1 gallons/yearTo pay off that extra $6000, you'd have to drive for ~10 years (200,000 miles), assuming that the hybrid keeps it's high MPG its entire life (which, as we've seen, isn't true.) If you assume that you're JUST driving in the city, the #s aren't much better.Also, 10 years is much longer that most people keep cars now-a-day.Of course, the number above scales inversely with miles/year driven, so if you double that then the number of years will be reduced by half, but even if you drove 40,000 miles per year (which is a lot), it'd still take you 5 years (that's 200,000 miles on the car mind you) to pay it off.If you'd repeat this calculation with a clean diesel, the results would point even more in the direction away from hybrids, especially since diesels CAN last a quarter of a million miles or more, whereas hybrids don't stand a chance.The only way hybrids will ever be effective at reducing pollution is if you force everyone to buy them. I don't think big oil or most people (especially gun-toting, big truck driving, americans) would let that happen. (Since I'm from the US, and work with gun-toting, big truck driving americans I'm allowed to say that. And yes, we do refer to ourselves as "Americans.")

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 02:17:42 pm
content: With regular cars, you pay for high fuel prices over time.with hybrid cars, you pay for high fuel prices up front.in the end, you end up the same place financially.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 04:42:49 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 22, 2014, 02:17:42 pmI don't think you would personally. As per my calculations above, it takes a while to recoup costs from buying a hybrid, even if you increase prices to $4.50 or $5 a gallon, it still takes quite a few years to recoup the costs. Since gas around here hasn't gone up in the past few years (beside yearly winter-summer variations), I don't think $5.00/gallon gas will be around here anytime soon. I can't speak for other parts of the country though.I'm also guessing that service visits would be more expensive for hybrids as well, but I can't be sure. A properly serviced gas/diesel car will last a very long time, whereas hybrids have a set lifetime due to the batteries. You could make the same argument for cars in areas that use salt on the road or near the ocean, but again, "properly serviced" includes looking for rust.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 05:10:50 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 22, 2014, 04:57:21 pmPoint taken. At double the US gas prices ($8.00/gallon) (UK is roughly 2.25x as expensive) a hybrid civic JUST pays for itself in a bit over 5 years at 100,000 miles. That's still longer than MOST people keep cars however. And the UK is almost at the "most expensive" end of the scale, aka worst case scenario. (According tohttp://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/)

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 09:17:26 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 22, 2014, 05:10:50 pmIt depends on a case per case basis. I'm at 51.13 Miles per gallon US (61.4 Uk) driving normally.With the hybrid C4 being give and take a few 100 euros the same price as the non hybrid equivalent... It's money straight into my pocket.I drive 35 000Km per year, in diesel costs (averaged at 1.39):- 2678.75 Euros for the non hybrid (5.5L/100Km).- 2237.9 Euros for the hybrid (4.6 L/100Km)That's 438 Euros to spend on something else.But real life, it's even bigger, because I don't need to go as often to the filling station, get of the motorway to get "normal" priced diesel when on holiday etc.Plus the car qualifies for a lower tax bracket.There was an even more frugal version of the C4, but it only came with a stupid clutch-less gear box that had me wanting to punch somebody in the face.All this for the price of having a "touchy" 1st gear.Overall, the hybrid, in my case, is about 700 euros positive per year.It's a no brainer: money for nothing.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 09:30:26 pm
content: Quote from: gildasd on July 22, 2014, 09:17:26 pmAgreed,for a hybrid that is priced the same the non-hybrid, it makes sense however, that is not the norm. (Well, I checked honda and toyota, couldn't think of any more hybrids, then gave up.)Citroen seems to go against the norm. However, even more off topic, I found a complete price list for all of their cars on one PDF with a bunch of different options. Talk about cool.Also, fueleconomy.gov has a page called "Will a hybrid save me money?" I check it out, and got results in the 2-5 year range for paying you back on gas savings however, I have no idea where they're getting their prices as they don't match the manufacturer's websites.

author: urbis
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 09:35:35 pm
content: In the UK the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (plug in electric hybrid) is getting quite a lot of publicity, it's a large 4x4 SUV but hybrid and reasonably priced...I think it's certainly the future, but hybrids don't seem to be so popular over here, which is surprising considering the fuel costs.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2014, 09:45:11 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 22, 2014, 09:30:26 pmThe Honda Toyota method might make sence for then, but as a consumer, it does not.For the same level of trim as we have, it's 15 000Euros more expensive, uses only 0.4L per 100 less of a MORE expensive fuel.And goes about 150 Km less on a tank...It's a statement that you are green...But if I was going to make a statement by throwing money around , I'd spend a bit more and get a Telsa.I was really disappointed at the Opel Ampera, it looks really neat, but some of trim seems to be made in plastics that were rejected at the yoghourt factory.QuoteThis looked great on paper, but in real life it was 2000Euros over our max budget and the layout not really practical.However I could see this car fitting a lot of lifestyles/needs.QuoteYes, they seem to have hired someone that actually listens to consumers... Shock!We dropped a couple of brands because we could not get a price/full specs on their websites without registering and actually going to the dealers...After about 30 minutes of growing frustration/seller inflicted mental torture, I just go "fuck this" and cross them out."NO PRICE - NO SALE"...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 12:17:10 am
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 22, 2014, 05:10:50 pmThere is some government distortion of the market going on here though. I believe the net (wholesale) price of gasoline in the UK and Europe generally is lower than in the US. Petrol is extremely expensive in the UK mainly because of the punitive tax rate on retail sales, and this tax is there to raise revenues. On the other hand, there are free public charging stations for electric vehicles in the UK at present, mainly because only a tiny fraction of cars on the road are electric and making use of them.However: if the situation were reversed in the future and most vehicles were electric and not running on petrol or diesel, then the tax situation would follow. There would be an equivalent heavy tax on electricity for vehicles in order to make up for the lost revenue from petrol or diesel sales (expect to see laws requiring vehicles only to be charged from licensed charging stations and making it illegal to charge road vehicles from home electricity supplies). Since everyone would be running electric cars there would no longer be any need to provide a financial incentive to own such vehicles and subsidies would disappear.So when making running cost comparisons between different technologies, one should really remove taxes and subsidies from the numbers since these are really an artificial market distortion. The underlying base costs are what give the long term view.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 01:19:14 am
content: Folks here typically drive 10k miles pet year. At 30 miles per gallon, that's 330 gallons of gasoline, which retails at $4 per gallon. Total fuel cost is $1500.assuming hybrid gas mileage of 50 miles per gallon, its fuel cost would be10k / 50 * 4, or 800 USD.for a saving of 700 USD per year, you pay 6000 USD up front for your hybrid. Everything else being equal, it takes you 9 years to break even, longer if you factor in the time value of money.with those numbers, it is hard to make a case for hybrid.buying hybrid is essentially betting on fuel prices to rise.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 03:01:50 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 24, 2014, 01:19:14 amOr the buyer has an atypical usage pattern, or cost wasn't the driving factor in the buying decision.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 04:16:38 am
content: -Or the buyer has an atypical usage pattern, or .. -sure. That's why for any valid analysis, there are countless exceptions which only reinforce the validity of the analysis.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 09:32:17 pm
content: Isn't the oil industry heavily subsidized in the USA?Making a wasteful driver a welfare queen of sorts?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2014, 09:59:55 pm
content: Hybrids aren't good for the environment. They're only less bad, and arguably worse, because they are a poor argument against pure BEV, which is becoming more attractive day by day and has the potential to be zero carbon, eventually. Petrol/diesel can never been carbon free. Biodiesel/petrol no good, unless produced by algae, due to food crop shortage.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 12:13:51 am
content: -Isn't the oil industry heavily subsidized in the USA?-yes, the oil industry is just slightly less subsidies than the green industry.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 02:05:32 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 24, 2014, 12:17:10 amAustralian Government offers huge incentives in the mid to late 2000's for people to convert their cars to LPG fuel, which had little to no excise (tax) on it. After convincing people to make the switch with promised savings (and the rebate) they pull a swifty and push the excise right up. It really happens!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 04:10:48 am
content: That's already happened, diesel vs heating oil by governmental forces, and diesel vs gasoline by mkt forces.

author: casinada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 10:19:32 pm
content: So where is the energy to charge the electric vehicle come from? How far can you go before it needs to get recharged?Hybrid is still a better choice as it generates it's own electricity?The choices of vehicle of these technologies are very limited.I will never buy into those technologiesFuel Cell, maybe as long as is not more expensive than a regular car, has good autonomy and it doesn't cost more to generate Hydrogen than to refine oil.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 11:58:05 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--As IanB's fine post pointed out, wholesale prices in the UK and other European countries are lower than the US. But some folks continue to try to obscure this fact by saying that prices are higher, rather than the truth, that taxes are higher. The tax per gal or liter is disclosed by the govs on the side of the gas pump. US fuel taxes are lower than in Europe but the Corporate Income Tax in the US is 35%, higher than all of them, confiscating the wealth of "mom and pop" shareholders before they even see it as well as nearly anyone who has retirement plan which depends on a diversified portfolio. And then, charge them Capitol Gains taxes as well.--See below a couple of articles which put the subsidy question in perspective. Beware those who attack the source of articles instead of the facts provided.http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432404579051123500813210--So far left out of this discussion, is the cost of production, transmission, and conversion of the electricity used to power EVs, and pollution caused by this. And since EVs use public roads which are paid for by government, an infrastructure cost per mile driven, should be added to the actual cost of the EV sector, as well as an equivalent per mile driven fraction for all of the pollution caused."Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 12:26:26 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 24, 2014, 08:59:26 amThe weight, cost, and complexity of hybrids negates a lot of the "savings" you get from using a little less gasoline. As already mentioned, the material overhead and maintenance (to include charging) isn't consequence-free, either. So moving everyone over to a half-baked gas AND battery consumer and claiming that this is somehow better for the environment is definitely questionable. Not to mention the (personal) environmental suitability of a car in colder climates, where what might otherwise be waste heat is put to good use.All that notwithstanding, by far the worst consequence of driving a hybrid is the affect on one's attitude that it seems to have.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 12:35:16 am
content: Efficiency.Atbesta modern ICE engine is getting 25% across it whole driving range.You would be amazed how prehistoric the "most modern" cars engines are. Lots of fancy electronics but from a general construction point of view, your wiz bang motor is crap compared to a WW2 aero engine or submarine powepack.An optimized tractor at best - even a Nissan GT-R...A Prius is just a tiny bit better (in fact the same as my not grand green claims filled C4).Ship engines, generators and mixed cycle turbines get at least 45% and 56% (piston) and 70% (mixed cycle turbines) efficiency at best...In fact battling the laws of thermodynamics, not pissing energy away.Meaning that even with distribution costs and charging inefficiencies you still about twice what you get in your car.Furthermore, if coal (or another hydrocarbon) it gets delivered by the boat, train or pipeline load, many magnitudes more efficient than being lugged around a puny little fuel truck...So Ok, the source is important, but how you transport and burn the stuff is also relevant.Anyhow, if we talking about saving fuel to lessen our dependance on not so decent supplier and the frankly disastrous way some sources are exploited, cars should be not the focus right now.Much bigger gains could be made on freight trucks...These should be diesel electric with no gearboxes, drive-lines, differentials and above all engines working within a constant speed with a governor.That would bring them to a least end of WW1 sub specs...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 04:08:59 am
content: -As IanB's fine post pointed out, wholesale prices in the UK and other European countries are lower than the US. But some folks continue to try to obscure this fact by saying that prices are higher, rather than the truth, that taxes are higher. -a few suggestions for you.a. unless you buy your fuels or electricity or vehicles wholesale, co.paring wholesale prices makes no senseb. I think the prices paid by a consumer drives his consumption, not the composition of such prices.--See below a couple of articles which put the subsidy question in perspective. .-forget about those articles. What's your position here.- those who attack the source of articles instead of the facts provided-in a discussion, try your best to focus on the other sides positions, not their intensions. It makes the conversations a lot more constructive.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 04:24:58 am
content: -Anyhow, if we talking about saving fuel to lessen our dependance on not so decent supplier and...-too complicated. If you want to reduce fuel consumption, increase its process. I would suggest a fuel tax of 50 euros per litter for you nice folks in Europe, to make many of your dreams (or nightmares depending on who you are) come true.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 10:56:37 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 26, 2014, 04:24:58 amAs always, solutions are complex, in the shades of grey and cannot be solved with a Fox soundbite, political dogmatism or a one size fits all approach.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 11:35:59 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 26, 2014, 09:31:45 amNot for the Australians living with the wonder of Hazelwood power station:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Stationhttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/electric-cars-make-more-emissions-unless-greenpowered-20121203-2ar3x.html

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 03:10:20 pm
content: Hazelwood: it depends on how you define pollution.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 06:05:46 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 26, 2014, 03:10:20 pmA sort of:"If you can still see the Sun at midday on a clear day - it's not pollution."Kind of definition?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 06:44:46 pm
content: By that definition, a broken nuclear power plant, with its invisible radioactive emission, would be the cleanest. And the desert, with its sandstorms, would be the worst polluter..your definition is so funny, in a very sad way.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 07:10:25 pm
content: I think you need to look at the twitter account for the US embassy in Beijing, which reports pollution levels. It can be a problem if an airport has to rely on ILS for all landings, even on a cloud free day.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 08:00:50 pm
content: For particulate pollution, diesel engines have a considerate disadvantage to gas engines.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 11:52:14 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 26, 2014, 06:44:46 pmTo be fair coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants (even after accounting for disasters), but lets not get facts in the way.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 12:20:49 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 26, 2014, 11:52:14 pmi don't think this will remain the case for long.Isotopes matter.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 04:34:19 am
content: Quote from: johansen on July 27, 2014, 12:20:49 amCapturing the fly ash and burying it, sure it'll reduce the public exposure but then we're just burying nuclear waste (which the power plants would love to do).

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 06:37:14 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 26, 2014, 08:00:50 pmIf by gas you are talking about petrol (oh the silliness of calling a liquid "gas"), then you should ask yourself what happens to an Otto engine that is run at high compression with direct injection?It becomes diesel like efficient but it also aqures diesel combustion characteristics.One being particulates in the exhaust...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 03:09:44 pm
content: QuoteThat's why real estate at three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima is so sought after by the faithful,

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 03:56:33 pm
content: You would not like living in a coal dust dump either. the local NCP Alcohols branch will give you free coal ash if you ask for it, you just have to show up during business hours with a 5 ton truck with a cover for the ash and they will fill it for you. You can tell which way the wind is blowing in the area.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:53:18 pm
content: QuoteWould you rather live on the sites of three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:47:33 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 27, 2014, 09:30:19 pmORNL, 1993:http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlAnd there are plenty more recent examples from the nuclear industry but they'll just get dismissed as biased, in which case why isn't the coal industry creating their own biased reports showing how great their technology is?And yes the coal industry is cleaning up their act, by scrubbing their exhaust outputs they will greatly reduce their impact on people. Even with that they'll not reach the low deaths/MWh of renewables and nuclear or the lower lifecycle CO2 emissions.Quote from: dannyf on July 27, 2014, 09:53:18 pmOf those Chernobyl is the only example with ongoing contamination and exposure problems, Fukushima and Three Mile Island would be great places to live with their depressed land values care of scaremongers like you. Doses to the public at Three Mile Island and Fukushima were well controlled and not of any concern, even during the emergencies.Any power solution will have its local impacts, you can look at the coal seam fires that have displaced people and destroyed the land beyond use, coal seam gassification displacing farmers and destroying water resources, oil refinery fires/explosions, etc etc.The long term data continues to confirm that renewables and nuclear are far and away lower impact to the population and environment than any of the combustion based alternatives.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:56:41 pm
content: QuoteI am feeling good today so please allow me to be extra generous in giving your this advice: it is a lot better for you if you don't project bad intentions onto people who disagree with you.Otherwise, you will always be where you are today.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 11:14:15 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 27, 2014, 10:56:41 pmYou group together two locations which are entirely safe to visit and live in with the single worldwide example of a nuclear disaster that had turned the location into an uninhabitable place. Sure sounds like scaremongering.Having an informed opinion/position I'd much prefer living in/on/near a nuclear power station (including Three Mile Island and Fukushima) in preference to living on/near any of the following:coal/uranium/diamond/copper/zinc/gold/anything mine, quarry (and before you say it you have fewer, smaller, uranium mines for the same energy supply)combustion power stationoil refinery or storagepetrol station (check out the health benefits of that)rubbish dumpYou might have some other priorities, but trumpeting your preconceptions about Three Mile Island and Fukushima against the known data is something you'll get called a scaremonger for.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 04:55:21 am
content: I would not have gotten as personal as "Mr Someone" but I entirelly aggree with the science.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 10:24:00 am
content: QuoteWhat "science"?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 11:06:09 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 28, 2014, 08:12:21 amTheir local authorities are taking a rightly cautious approach and only letting people back into the areas where they are certain it is safe, large is relative as the currently closed area is 250 square km which is similar in size to the permanently closed areas around larger coal power plants in Australia.So far the hot-spots have almost all been concentrations of rainwater which around any source of air pollution would be concentrating dangerous material, short lived radiation just happens to be cheap and quick to measure so they're getting found and dealt with quickly. There were no ejections of fission products (unlike the mess at Chernobyl) so the cleanup and decontamination is a slow and safe process, some areas may remain closed for decades but those areas will be small. In many respects the disaster had fortuitous conditions which reduced the area affected and the severity of the effects, with the majority of the contamination being diluted into the ocean.Quote from: mojo-chan on July 28, 2014, 08:12:21 amPeople have already returned to the cities, towns, and properties in the areas deemed to be safe. Some towns in the areas that remain closed will never return/recover but land use changes occur after major disasters, its not something unique to nuclear disasters.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 11:10:18 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 28, 2014, 08:12:21 amFeel free to pick another metric and discuss that but while the public perception of nuclear power is that it is dangerous, discussing the safety in terms of human health or lives is an excellent measure.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 12:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2014, 08:42:56 amYes it ends up in the soil, from rainwater, and will dilute over time or be remediated. The caesium 137 is the remaining threat to health in the contaminated areas and has a half life long enough it cant be simply left to decay unless we want to wait a few hundred years with the area cordoned off (might be an option in larger countries such as Australia and Russia). The effort is underway from the Japanese government and industry to address the contamination and remediate it, they are going to try and reclaim the land and it should end up a good example of how such disasters can be handled.Compare this sort of contamination against persistent organic pollutants or heavy metal pollution which is expensive and slow to measure but just as dangerous, they have similar distribution and remediation methods but dont get picked up as problem sites because there arent people out there looking for them.Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2014, 08:42:56 amI can understand people wanting to move away and/or receive compensation, similar situations occur in Australia after major bushfire disasters. Cities and residences are not static, land use changes through various influences. But my point is that almost the entire land area affected in the Fukushima disaster should be returned to its prior usable condition within a decade or so, the towns may have moved on but its not an uninhabitable waste land left behind.Contrast this to the remediation that bulk mining operations typically employ.All industrial activities have some side effects and risks that come with them, we can cherry pick examples of all sorts of specific incidents or be guided by some generalised metrics that try to reveal like for like comparisons and make decisions from there. I'll continue sharing the well regarded research showing lower burdens to society from renewable and nuclear power and you can believe what you like.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 03:27:43 pm
content: Personally I see nuclear as the transition between hydrocarbon based energy and fully renuables.I tend, as a baseline to disagree we people who insist on having everything now, this just scares away the silent majority that wants a cleaner Earth but who is also very resistant to sudden change.To get what we all want, a green lush Earth, we have to be pragmatic.Yes nuclear as it is done today is not the best, but the hydrocarbon option is far worse.A bit like flying has a few spectacular accidents, but is still, by far, the safest mode of transport.Even in a Honda Civic Hybrid.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 05:32:40 pm
content: QuoteI think it depends critically on what you judge as "bad".Nuclear is the clear and only feasible / sustainable power source in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean that our portfolio of power sources has no room for hydrocarbon sources, even if you consider "carbon emission" to be bad - a highly debatable point in my perspective.That also means that there is room for renewable sources like wind and solar, two highly non-sustainable (from a utilities' and economic point of view) sources.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 07:05:19 pm
content: Possibly a stupid question: Why not build nuclear reactors in the ocean?

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 07:08:03 pm
content: As a ship's engineering watch officer (in training), I get to see first hand how shit hydrocarbons are in the distribution, extraction and refining process.so quite frankly, even if you burn it in an open pit in a national park that's relatively clean.But I really don't want to bore with 500 page demonstration, just read the MARPOL rules, INDG exerts for hydrocarbons and the IMO OILPOL convention.This should take you about two months between reading and basic correlation work.And if you still are interested, enrol, it's a great career.However, this is still only what we are supposed to do, not what the bad apples are doing.So uranium, even if it was 10x more polluting per kilo before being used, is still far cleaner, debating this is not worth my time.As for solar and wind being non economic, it all depends on how good your utilities are and your priorities.In Belgium we have nearly "too much" solar, so much so that on sunny week day, our nuclear power plants have to take cores "offline". This process is essential wasting energy.This means that, until we can store this energy, it costs the state cash if more people install more capacity.Wind on the other hand, is in our case an widely distributed industrial process that is relatively constant over a wide area. What this means is that our utilities "throttle" windmills to produce a certain power within the wind's capacity. It's far removed from just dumping all the power that many roofs set in a near random pattern into the grid.But you need modern high capacity utilities that many third word countries lack.As for climate change, our ships have measured water/air temp by the ton hours over million of nautical miles and looged for the last 100 or so years on giant machines with a minimum of 25 years of near constants. Our engines burn DFO and HFO by the ton hour. Even the CO2 content of water is important because it affect corrosion, especially in our boilers.This is in fact the biggest scientific climate dataloging experiment to date.It makes the biggest scientific projects look like hamster toys.Yet our data closely matches theirs.So for my industry we hit peak oil around 96/98 HARD.We are cleaning our power plants fast because we won't be able to use them soon if we don't.Global warming is happening, it far worse than the 97% are saying and most importantly it's pushing our operating costs up, and that's we we doing something about it (saving polar bears is just a consequence).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 07:15:26 pm
content: QuoteSounds like you should shoulder the burden of global warming, not us shouldering it for you.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 07:26:24 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 29, 2014, 07:15:26 pmOverall maybe. But by ton of CO2 per ton cargo/km, we are by far the best.What'd is really stupid is using cross country trucks and planes for anything but the highest value cargo (like that kit and pcb I'm waiting for).Everything else should be ships, canals and trains.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 08:57:45 pm
content: We had a local politician on the radio this morning, gearing up for an election next month. "The science is inconclusive" ... "we need to consider the cost / benefit analysis" ... "the issue is about government control" Yada yada. IMO, whether science has proven global warming or not is almost irrelevant -- it's more of a distraction than anything else.The fact remains that there are multiple negative consequences to burning fossil fuels, and that should be enough to interest us in cleaner energy production -- whether that be personal transportation, or providing power to a regional electric grid. It seems as simple as "pollution is bad" so we should try to avoid it as much as possible. If that slows down the rate at which the climate changes also, great. If not, well it's still in our best interest anyway, so what do we have to lose?At least in my neck of the woods, there are too many people thatdohave something to lose if we move away from oil, so there's a strong opposing force to what should be a common sense shift in paradigm. So, politically, someone pulls the pin on the "climate change isn't real" grenade, throws it into the discussion, and lets the resulting FUD cloud the real issue. The unfortunate part is, there are enough people willing to fight over that pointless debate that the distraction works regardless of which side you stand on.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 09:06:34 pm
content: QuoteThere are countless worthy things that we do NOT pursue, for a variety of reasons.For example, there is a measurable probability that you can be killed by a 1 million ton rock falling from the space. Does that mean that you should only purchase a vehicle designed to withstand such a scenario? Probably not.Each of us is in the risk-taking business every single day. Sometimes we make the decision to take certain risks, based on our perceived risks / reward (cost benefit analysis). Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't.The only way for you to not take risks is to not live.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 09:15:03 pm
content: No argument with that. However, there's certainly something wrong with putting a dollar figure on how much you should care about your impact on the environment. For now at least, we've only got the one. So when we damage it beyond repair, no amount of fiscal savings is going to make up for that. Likewise with running out of oil. There's an awful high lead-time from the manufacturer.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 09:46:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2014, 01:52:00 pmReactors take 40-50 years to decommission, that is entirely normal, emissions during that period will be below operating conditions.The contaminated land around the area will be returned to a productive and useful state within the decade or so timeframe.Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2014, 01:52:00 pmJust pointing out how so much contamination appears after a nuclear disaster, while other industrial processes leave silent legacies that don't get the media attention. For a few hundred dollars any citizen of a sensible country can buy a very sensitive broadband radiation monitor that is simple to use, but the tools to measure other pollutants cost tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) and require extensive experience, time, and money to operate.Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2014, 01:52:00 pmSure there are better options and a large portion of the world could be powered from renewables, this would be ideal.But combustion power stations keep being built when the nuclear options would have a lower impact on the population. Politicians won't support nuclear development while the public image remains so negative, continuing to tout the dangers of nuclear is important but it has to be contrasted against the alternatives rather than just dismissing it or we end up in the situation now where coal is still seen as the "best" way to power electricity grids. I'll keep arguing that combustion power plants are likely the worst option available, and seem to have only two redeeming features compared to nuclear:They are cheap to decommission.They don't have a negative public image.Not really great selling points against the overwhelming evidence that other forms of power will benefit everyone in the long term.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 09:50:10 pm
content: Quote from: gildasd on July 29, 2014, 03:27:43 pmSimple and to the point. But trying to get through the anti-change, anti-nuclear, anti-wind, anti-solar, arguments leaves the public and politicians (decision makers) sticking with the worst solutions.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 10:13:57 pm
content: QuoteIt doesn't have to be a dollar, or any other financial figure. It can be done with for example a unit of "utility", whatever you want. Dollar has the advantage of being easily understood and directly comparable.The importance is to understand that not all good things are worthy of pursuit at any given point. It is what separates stupid people from smart people.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 11:18:54 pm
content: This thread is very much off topic, might as well throw gas on the fire.Quote from: mojo-chan on July 28, 2014, 02:43:43 pmOh god... Do you believe the moon landing was faked as well?Why would they lie about that website? I'm sure the Gov. has lied to its citizens about many things, but why that? What's to gain?Nuclear power is NOT sustainable. I used to think that we should simply get rid of all carbon based power plants, then I did a bit of research. Nuclear power only accounts for a very small amount (5%) of the world's power production, hence the relatively long figures you see for the "how long will nuclear power last" question. From my quick google search the internet has said about 200 years of nuclear fuel reserves at current consumption rates. (Multiple sites, with slightly differing figures, as well as the government's own calculations) Even if you include the economically accessible uranium in seawater it's not much longer than that. If you assume that all power is produced using nuclear, then that figure drops to a measly 6 years. (Back of the envelope calculations.)Carbon based fuels are here to stay. The infrastructure is already here, alternative energy sucks (in terms of efficiency and cost), and nuclear won't last. What we NEED is more efficient carbon based fuel generators. Most power plants are still only (at max) 35% efficient, many times much less than that.I got called out on the whole "nuclear energy is renewable" thing during my candidacy by a few professors. My ignorance of the subject got the best of me. It will not happen again.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 12:05:32 am
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 29, 2014, 11:18:54 pmThe current fuel use in nuclear plants is not recovering much from the "spent" fuel or moving towards the originally envisaged closed cycle where the burn up of the fuel is much slower. Economic considerations (and historically military considerations for nuclear) have dominated the use of fuels, look back through to the start of the industrial revolution for the changes of power source through wood/coal/coke/oil/petrol/gas/electricity.Back of the envelope for world power could be based on 100-200 years of usable uranium deposits at current rates and 10% of world power delivered from nuclear. So unless you foresee huge increases in power demand the 6 year figure might be a bit low and 10 years might be more realistic if you consider only traditional enriched uranium reactors as the replacements. Not sustainable at all. Changing to other currently available technologies to extend the resource we may only have a few hundred years at best if the majority of power were to come from nuclear plants. More likely with the pressure on to find more uranium it will be found and exploited as we have seen with oil going offshore and now into "unconventional" oil resources, but that only buys another few multiples out to a few hundred more years.The good news being that theoretical nuclear energy availability is orders of magnitude higher again (unlike combustion plants which are already mature and close to their peak with 30-40% of theoretical efficiency). But to make progress on advancing nuclear technology needs investment, commitments, skilled workers, and time. Which may end up too slow to deliver the current demands, nuclear could end up just a blip in power generation history as a whole with solar/wind/hydro having to take the prime time as fossil fuels decline.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 12:07:42 am
content: Quote from: SirNick on July 29, 2014, 07:05:19 pmMostly because there is still no way of building long lasting structures in the ocean, nuclear plants from build to decommissioning span 30-50 years or more.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 01:09:42 am
content: Figured it was something obvious like that. I had no idea if assembling a large concrete structure underwater was remotely possible, but wecanweld, so...Thanks for humoring me.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 03:31:11 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 30, 2014, 12:07:42 amNot to mention we still don't have a good way of transporting energy long distances. Power line losses are huge...

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 03:32:59 am
content: I was thinking coastal regions, but that's a fair point as well.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 10:57:24 am
content: QuoteI wouldn't be too hard on yourself. Even the best professors are known to be wrong: at some time in history, the best scientists were known to push the flat earth theory; and others were pushing for "ether". Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. And if Einstein were right, many of our daily conveniences wouldn't have been possible. and chances are, you are starring at one of those items that proves Einstein wrong - that little LED.If the best of the best professors are so often wrong, what's the chance of some no name professors being wrong? beyond certainty,

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 02:49:03 pm
content: I suspect what is really going on over in Japan is the regulatory agencies are being forced to realize that radiation is good for you.yes, we know that a third of the ocean will die but that's manageable too.as to why we don't build reactors in the ocean..

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 03:16:57 pm
content: Why do you want to build it in the ocean? What do you gain by doing that?Cost/benefit analysis, people.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 03:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: SirNick on July 30, 2014, 03:32:59 amWell, there are ocean going nuclear reactors that are far more advanced and efficient that what is currently installed on land...But I don't think the submariners will let anyone get their toys...Their greatest party trick, is that the contaminated part is basically a self contained "box" that does not need any maintenance for 25 years. and is the only part that needs to be recycled or sent down a mineshaft after use..Makes civilian reactors with their tons of waste per year and their 40/50 year decommissioning of thousands of tons of steel and concrete seem a bit prehistoric...And as a side note, we do have boats that can stay at sea for 25/30 years with no dry-docking or major maintenance. they are used to process gas for example.The construction methods and coatings are far more expensive than normal vessels, but it would be of the right size:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/betting-on-gas-shell-floats-plan-on-high-seas.htmlThe question remains about how to transmit power.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 06:09:34 pm
content: Quote from: corrado33 on July 30, 2014, 03:31:11 amYou sure? Net loss in US grid system ~6%:http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3About the same amount of fuel is consumed transporting petrol than is lost in the US grid system. 40,000 litres per tanker approx. Truck does about 5mpg. If it has to travel from port city to central distribution (it will change over in places of course, but this is an approximation) let's say ~1000mi distance then it will consume 200 gallons fuel or about 1000 litres, which is 2.5%, plus return journey, totalling 5% losses for transportation.

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 06:19:45 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 30, 2014, 10:57:24 amWho? Thales knew that the earth was round before 546 BC, something he figured out watching the ships disappear over the horizon, bottom first and not all at once. Also, sailors have always been able to see the curvature of the earth in clear weather on the open seas.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 06:48:42 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 30, 2014, 03:16:57 pmWell,people(drop the condescension, eh? Isaidit might be a stupid question): High thermal mass, for one. Core meltdown is perhaps the main concern, so having access to a lot of coolant would be a benefit, right? Having to use it might have serious consequences to the marine biology, but so it would on land as well. If it gets to that point, you have bigger fish to fry -- uh... no pun intended.Also, there's significant concern over storage of waste material. You need a geologically stable area that is not likely to exchange owners frequently. The ocean floor has been (politically) pretty neutral for a while...There are, of course, remaining issues. Security, expense (certainly), we understand far less about what goes on under the ocean than on land, etc..

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 07:22:18 pm
content: QuoteWhat could those uneducated redneck sailors know that our well manicured ivy-educated professors don't?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 07:33:25 pm
content: QuoteWhat really matters is the water flow on the condenser side (2ndary loop) to maintain efficiency of the turbines. The meltdowns we usually worry about are in the primary loop and requires high pressure running water. Standing water adds little value.QuoteOnly if that water is actively circulated. Otherwise, the core can boil that water quickly.On the other side, the ocean can spear the radiation all over the ocean, being a good conveyor belt.QuoteYeah. It provides an open access to everyone. If you don't want that to happen, it will cost you an arm and two ships to guard that waste facility.The list of downside goes on and on.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 10:05:21 pm
content: Fine, withdrawn. Question stupidity confirmed. Moving on....

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 04:57:56 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 31, 2014, 10:21:40 amBut you could do a modular design. so if a core fails, just shut down that one and distribute the load.These cores tend to be quite reliable, but the habit of crashing into undersea mountains, combat maneuvering and carrying a bunch load of stuff that goes "blam" does push up the incident rate.In any case, I would like to see this as a transition tech to fully sustainable energy (meaning large scale storage) and/or a far better nuclear tech, based on either U238, Thorium or whatever is better/safer/less polluting than U235...A a side note, on ship engines, we are pushing the limits of thermodynamics, right now the big thing is marginal gains, but one you have pushed temps down to ambient, the rest is not reusable...We manage to separate oil in minute quantities out of waste water to get the last drop into the injectors, but that tech has reached maturity (should be done on land, all that oil in household waste water...).Hybridization is not useful in our constant RPM/load method of use... And you would need to get a hold full of Li-ION to get trans Channel range...We use up to 4 different engines sizes to always have the right one for a task...Most of our engines architectures are 30 to 40 years ahead of what is on the road today.So you could argue that my industry is ready for the next big thing, ready for a tech change.But it wont be windmills (silly) or solar (even if 60% efficient at all temp ranges - including nights).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 05:04:01 pm
content: Quote from: SirNick on July 30, 2014, 06:48:42 pmFukushima? They had so much coolant because of the tsunami that all backup systems were destroyed.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 05:23:43 pm
content: Nuclear reactors could be built inside mountains, when finished with just close the mountain back up again, by the time a mountain has been eroded away there will be virtually no radiation left and quite likely no one around to care anyway.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 06:03:11 pm
content: QuoteOr on the moon, or the sun, ....Really?The turbine side of a nuclear power plant is a thermal machine / heat engine. As such, you need to have a heat sink at the end. That's why nuclear power plants are always built next to a large body of water.How do you find the equivalent heat sink in a mountain?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 07:17:14 pm
content: You could always just build one down a mine. Free water ( you have to pump to keep the miner mostly dry in any case) and if the fertiliser does hit the ventilator you just close the top and leave. As the gold mines here are 2km plus deep you could shove a pretty big reactor down there, to return the radioactives back to the rock they came from.In any case just slapping the stuff 800m down pretty much any mine will work. The mines the uranium was mined from in Gabon are old sandstone deposits with water flowing through the deposits. This was a reactor millennia ago when the Uranium isotope concentration was high enough that you could have a natural reactor form out of the ore. The reaction products are still there, and are dense enough to mine. They did not move far in the interim.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 10:37:25 pm
content: Could you not build it in the contaminated zone of Chenobyl, Fukishima, etc... The areas are not recommended for continuous living, but the radiation levels in many places are safer than e.g. a commercial airline flight or eating a few bananas. If it does go wrong (and with a modern reactor this is unlikely), no one to displace.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2014, 11:05:00 pm
content: QuoteReally? if you listen to some people here, you would think those places are heaven on earth,

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 09:14:11 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 01, 2014, 07:56:59 amCooling system were not damaged, it was out of power. Power station basically had no power to cool itself.Quote

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 06:05:32 pm
content: The earthquake damage basically proved those reactors should have been shutdown 10 years ago, unfortunatly, that's how bad condition they were in, and that's how honest TEPCO is.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 07:17:30 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 01, 2014, 01:53:50 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster-- First section, Overview of the Incident.I looked through the history of changes. There were a few substantial ones (around 1KB) that were removed for, IMHO, valid reasons -- either "factual" claims with no reference at all, or citing what is essentially a blog post. Maybe it would be enough to leave a "citation needed" tag on it, but the tone seems overall neutral as edited, so I'm inclined to accept the changes as reasonable. (I have no strong feelings toward or against nuclear power specifically.)The vast... vast.. majority of changes were small additions, formatting changes, corrections of typos, and one was a concerned citizen adding the missing period to the end of a sentence.Regarding the slant in favor of TEPCO, the previously-quoted paragraph was immediately followed by this:QuoteThat doesn't look particular pro-TEPCO to me. Not specificallyagainst, either -- which is how it should be. Facts only. Let the reader form their own opinions.I do wonder though, if we're supposed to believe the Wikipedia article is biased and factually incorrect, why would we accept a contrary forum post as the absolute truth? No disrespect intended here, but if you have an account of whatreallyhappened, why aren't you citing reliable sources instead, or even updating the Wiki article with the truth? You obviously care enough to write a short novel here. More people would benefit if you used a larger mouthpiece.Either way, I would like to thank you (mojo-chan) for actually maintaining an intelligent debate, as opposed to some of the other snide commentary that does nothing to build community nor understanding.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 07:23:18 pm
content: QuoteDoesn't sound like a good real estate investment for me. But I am sure others would be delighted to live in that environment?QuoteI think we live in a world where we are expected not to value the message but the messenger. In this case, that messenger was the know-it-all type.At least s/he is behaving like one,

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 08:16:34 pm
content: Are we still harping on that? If you have enough time, or are willing to think about your children, or their children, it actually might be a good investment. A long-term fixer-upper of sorts. Japan isn't exactly brimming with spare real-estate. On the other hand, if you're nearing (or in) retirement and/or all you care about is you, well... then probably not.At the risk of being a complete hypocrite... As the person replying to several posts with "... really?", are youreallygoing to accuse someone else of being a know-it-all? If nothing else, he's at least expressing a point of view instead of just snickering at others'. Hard to be criticized if you won't stick your neck out andsaysomething I guess.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 09:59:59 pm
content: QuoteThat statement would be credible if you actually follow up on your own advice.QuoteHarder to know it all.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2014, 10:49:01 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 01, 2014, 10:02:26 pmAdded to the watch list. Thanks for the tip.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 06:39:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 31, 2014, 10:37:25 pmChenobyl had the other two (or three) reactors running shortly after the accident and continued to run long after the town cleared out. Those other reactors closed only recently. By now, the area is less radioactive then many areas such a beaches or high elevation areas such as Colorado. (EDIT: reworded this to clarify) Inside the building is still high, but outside this "mall size", it is no worst than high elevation or some beaches. The mall size area is my estimation from news photos was where measurements were made - the guy looks like he is 100 meter or so from the building.Chenobyl was stupid - it is entirely without containment with poorly designed reactor. As a result, almost 50 people lost their life. 50 people is a lot but less than a typical major train accident. (ie: flip over train-cars, etc.) We certainly lost more people in airline flights this year than 5 Chenobyl put together. (According to UN reports from 8 different UN agencies.) According to the same reports 4000 thousand people "future deaths" (ie:post accident) out of just under 1/4 million (240,000). Accident was 1986, that was 28 years ago, that is 142.9 per 1/4million per year or 572 persons per million per year. Anything from common cold to choking on food would have killed more than that (572 per year per million).We don't need to built reactors inside mountains. We need to switch to breeder reactors. Breeder reactors got a bad wrap because it was (and is) use to refine material suitable for bombs. But it doesn't have to make bombs. It can reuse the fuel and reuse the fuel again and again until its radio-activity is too low. So, we use it, recycle it, until it is far less harmful. We have a lot less waste, and a lot more power.Everything the real environmentalist really wants if/when they know and understand it.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 06:43:00 pm
content: QuoteOr we can simply get smarter and ignore the environmentalists.QuoteAgreed. Out of total stupidity, those guys stirred up the fear for nuclear power - which happen to be the most environmentally friendly and fully sustainable energy source.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 07:48:10 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 02, 2014, 06:43:00 pmEducation, my friend, education.Our education system has not taught students how to think critically. We have a whole bunch of blind followers. Coupled with this text/tweeter culture which is to express everything in 80 character max "sound bites", you have a deadly combination.

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 08:00:47 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on August 02, 2014, 06:39:00 pmBut when a train flips over it doesn't place a 26 year ban on the sale of sheep at locations almost 2500 km from the accident.http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2012/mar/chernobyl#.U909Adfz7JM. Also I can choose to not travel by train or plane but I couldn't choose to avoid that radioactive rain (caesium-137, iodine-131 and strontium-90 ) that fell on me a week after the explosion.http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/29/sheep-farmers-chernobyl-meat-restrictedhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168192389900944.Edit: "km" not "Km" !!!!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 08:43:03 pm
content: They banned the sale of sheep from Cumbria here but you can still buy bananas.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 09:25:53 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on August 02, 2014, 08:43:03 pmWell, education...ahem... or the lack thereof.At Long Island (New York), while folks were protesting the nuclear plant, A film maker handed out bananas. All natural bananas and these protesters gladly accepted them and ate them. When the film maker told them that each and every natural banana carries is naturally more radio active (Potassium 40) than the plant's waste, one of them just blank stare. and another one responded: "yeah, but this is natural..."So, these "environmentalist" succeeded and closed the plant that would have helped save the environment. I think you can take that word in two ways:(1) those who really want to help the environment(2) those who do things that hurts the environment as long as it sounded goodHerd instinct. They just followed blind.

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2014, 10:05:29 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on August 02, 2014, 09:25:53 pmAs I understand it there's quite a difference between potassium-40 (K-40) and caesium-137 (Cs-137). Basically Cs-137 has 8.8e1 Ci/g and K-40 has 7.04e-6 Ci/ghttp://www.iem-inc.com/information/tools/specific-activities. That's what, about 12.5 million times more radioactive? I don't know much about this so maybe one of you can help educate me.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 01:53:45 am
content: Quote from: bwat on August 02, 2014, 10:05:29 pmThey were protesting the leakage of Tritium - that was the trigger of the specific protest that this author (film maker) was filming.But it doesn't matter what is the source of the particle. What matter is (1) how many per unit time and (2) what energy level is the particle. (Most important perhaps is what the particle hits, but that is not part of the "level" equation.)The author's name is Gwyneth Gravens researching for her book "Power to Save the World."

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 09:52:01 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on August 03, 2014, 01:53:45 amYou clearly implied the reason the sheep meat sale was banned but bananas could be sold was down to a lack of education. I'm saying with my limited knowledge in the area I consider this to be absolute nonsense as one is 12.5 million times more radioactive than the other. Could you please explain your position to me?

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 06:37:02 pm
content: Quote from: bwat on August 03, 2014, 09:52:01 amI didn't mean to merely imply. I failed to say it out right: It is our failure to education ourselves. We (at least here in the USA) became a herd following the leader. We failed to arm ourselves with the knowledge or the ability to make proper judgement for ourselves. In fact, we even consider "being judgmental" a bad thing.Breeder Reactor is far less damaging a solution to our environment comparing to Solar or Wind, and Breeders are far more reliable. Yet the lack of understanding of the Physics behind it, or the failure of consideringallthe factors, caused people to abandon the most suitable solution of today.One example of a missing factor fromall the factorsis, we have not considered the deaths caused by cost increase which lowers our living standard. If we all switch to the higher cost Solar/Wind, how many people will die from the cost factor alone?------- I am not sure why this fits, somewhere in my gut said this belongs -------Angela Merkel was trained in Physics and was a strong supporter of extending nuclear power operational license. Is there anyone out there who really believe her 11th hour change of heart is physics and not politics? (I am referring to her pre-election withdrawal of support of Germany's nuclear industry.)------- end of "side track" -------Let say I am wrong and that Breeder Reactor is not the most suitable; it most certainly would qualify as a good one worthy of at least some consideration. When good solutions are merely brushed aside, and short comings of "preferred" solutions brushed aside, one must conclude that the chosen "solution" is ideologically driven. Which also leads to the question if "the problem this solution solves" is ideologically created.I don't brush aside Solar/Wind either. I think they are great solutions given the right circumstances.Rick-------------- Footnote: --------------Likely, you will ask: "on what basis did you decide breeders are..."First, I read about 20 hours per week, all sorts of news articles from business news to technology. I keep myself well informed.Second, I am not a nuclear engineer, but I was trained in Physics. I made some calculations out of curiosity comparing Light Water Reactors vs Coal power. Later in graduate school, a side event reignite the curiosity, I went back and compare Breeder Reactors vs Light Water Reactor. Those assessments I made then served as my baseline when I read news articles or research papers of today - no longer do I remember the number well enough to compare exact percentage, but I can certainly judge "if it is at least consistent" or "if it is at least in the same ball park" - what we call "reasonability" tests.It is with that background knowledge that I judged. Granted, not perfect, but enough to know if someone is "right on!" or someone is "full of it" or "possible...but..."

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 08:15:57 pm
content: QuoteIt is a stunt: just because A gives less radioactive substance of X than B doesn't by itself mean A is less radioactive than B.I do agree with you on the education part: those protesters should have the intelligence to see through that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 08:30:27 pm
content: QuoteRadiation risks are generally overblown, particularly given the numerous empirical examples we have: how long did it take Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be "livable"? Those data are public,Also the numerous test sites? Unfortunately only the governments have data on that.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 10:21:44 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 03, 2014, 08:30:27 pmNot only is data lacking, data is also confusing. While being a graduate student in Physics, I was asked to help clean up an equipment failure with potential radiation risk. We got a safety lecture, and we wore "exposure badge" tracking our exposure every day during the repair.Then (1970's), we were tracking RAD (if memory serve, but could have been REM). These days, I see more measurements in Sievert(s) which in theory is 100 REM and which in theory is % probability of biological damage. REM/Sieverts assumesdamage as a function of energywhich I agree. But the same amount of energy through my head vs my reproductive organs vs my ear would have drastically different probability of cancer and cancer is just one specify type of change in the DNA.I personally would prefer the more direct measurement RAD verses Sieverts.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 11:03:04 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 01, 2014, 07:23:18 pmWell it depends. "heavily radioisotope-contaminated" could be bad but what is the amount? Remember,many isotopes are naturally occurringas well. (Using a scale we are all familiar with here...) If the natural occurring is 1ppm and this contamination adds 0.1ppm while people in say New York and London is living in same isotope but natural occurring at 10ppm, that 0.1ppm additional makes no substantive difference.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 11:31:49 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on August 03, 2014, 10:21:44 pmThe more the likelihood of exposure the more detailed the measurements get, for workers in routine exposure you could have a combination of various energy sensitive thermoluminescent dosimeters and/or various monitoring locations around the body. Each measuring dosimeter is quite expensive to maintain (through administrative costs as much as anything else) so risk is assessed on an individual by individual basis and the measuring system designed to suit their particular working environment/conditions/procedures.The equivalent dose is estimated from the data available from the sensors, you can estimate the dose knowing the spectral sensitivity of the dosimeter and the spectral distribution of the source. The source exposure is estimated and then integrated back against the weighting for the average emission spectra and you get the estimated dose. A generic exposure profile to a well quantified source such as the routine workers around the core may only need a single dosimeter spectral sensitivity, while a worker using a range of differing materials or exposed to a range of working environments would typically have additional dosimeters measuring different spectral profiles so that a more accurate dose could be estimated.Without dosimeters distributed around the body, the dose will be considered to be uniform across the person. Again with the additional information of more dosimeters the received dose can be more accurately allocated, for instance workers handling sources could have dosimeters located on/near their hands and receive much higher doses to their hands than would be permissible as a total body exposure.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2014, 11:44:50 pm
content: Noting that the above is only exposure measurement, contamination is much harder to measure in a person after the event so instead much more stringent steps are taken to avoid contamination occurring. This gets back to the posts Mojo has been bringing up contamination hot spots, while they will typically present very low exposures to radiation the risk of contamination of people (through the food chain etc) is a more serious threat to public health and rightly needs to be dealt with carefully.I'll continue to point out that contamination from other industrial sources dwarves that from the nuclear industry in its health impacts, but is extremely hard to measure so just gets ignored. Almost all industries are improving their impacts on the public (usually through government restrictions/requirements) so lets keep on improving in all areas. Trying to argue that because one specific industry or another has a trajectory of improving health impacts or sustainability against another specific industry is only short term or transitory, with money/compulsion/pressure anything can improve. What is changing is the communities acceptance/value of different things.Quote from: Rick Law on August 03, 2014, 06:37:02 pmSociety changes, what is valued changes, these things are hard to predict.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 12:18:19 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 31, 2014, 11:05:00 pmCertainly a quiet place and I like quiet places. Certainly far fewer arguments between neighbors...To put it into perspective. A couple of years back around 100meter (eyeball from TV screen) from the damaged building was measured at 9 microSieverts (uSv), about that of a trans-atlantic flight. Around 0.1 in Paris and 0.2 in New York (or London, forgot which). That is the low end. At the high end, Guarapari in Brazil is 20+.I don't trust my aging eyes, let extend that to 1km instead of 100meters. So, you can be a half time air-plane crew and get the same amount of radiation, get home the other 1/2 and get the same thing. Or, live in Colorado and get 12uSv, a bit more than Chenobyl, Or live in Guarapari and get 2x that, or worst yet, go to the beach there and get 3x that.(EDIT: reworded below in parenthesis)So, from a radiation perspective, I would not mind - but resale value would be another story...Not sure about radioactive material however (but judging from radiation, that could not be high).Radiation is a firing (in flight) bullet. Radioactive material is a loaded gun (that could and will fire itself at random). Radiation absorbed by the ground is a bullet (that hit and stayed) in a sandbag. I am not sure if this sandbag has a loaded gun in it. In some area, where appropriate material exists, the energy could be absorb and re-emitted later.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 12:40:41 am
content: QuoteNot sure why it matters if something is "naturally occurring" or not. Death is naturally occuring but most people probably don't desire it. Radiation from a nuclear detonation is naturally occurring (then, now or in the future) but sitting under an nuclear explosion is likely not so desirable.Just because something is "naturally" occurring doesn't mean it wouldn't do harm to you.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 01:11:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on August 03, 2014, 11:44:50 pmThis is interesting. Obviously, the measurement techniques changed rather a lot from late 70's. That it was not measuring different parts (of a body) was one reason why I felt it was not a good measurement. Second reason is, uSv has to make certain assumptions about dormant genes and other non-active genes or segments/fragments of genes. Many what we "thought to be useless" are now known to have some use such as control or as modifiers. Thus, I am not sure uSv's assumption is to be trusted -- given how frequently we discover functions performed by what we "believe to be non-active" segments.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 06:37:37 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on August 04, 2014, 01:11:57 amThe standards get updated every 10 years or so, as new data becomes available its incorporated back in. The particular gene is not so much of a concern as they all have relatively identical absorption/interaction across the energy spectra, weightings for body parts have shuffled around quite a bit though!

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 06:13:28 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 04, 2014, 09:03:36 amyour error here is also evident. a cosmic ray from space, makes it through 1/4th inch of aluminum, has a 50% change of hitting another 5mm of aluminum and then gets absorbed in you skin? not so.in any case, the ongoing problem at fukulongtime, is the fact they refuse to acknowledge what happened.the hot particles that were no doubt causing the chronic nosebleeds reported by japan's "alternative media".. (which is also a sign of acute radiation exposure)we don't know how many were affected.I keep hearing doomsday reports of the number of people found with cancerous nodules in various organs, like the thyroid; even if you divide the "reported" numbers by 10 or 100, you still are left with a big, big mess, that is going to be affecting millions of people directly.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 06:30:00 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 04, 2014, 09:03:36 amMr. Chan,I would be impolite if I merely ignore you. I was going to reply to your earlier post but I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, it is just wrong to argue about something "I suspect you mean". If we are to discuss, I rather discuss something you actually said.I didn't reference Fukushima since I don't know the value and trend there. As you read correctly, I was referring to Chenobyl. 9uSv day-in, day-out, 24 hours per day. So what? 640000 live in Denver Colorado, they get 12uSv day-in, day-out, 24 hours per day. There are people who find it worth-while to go to the beach at Guarapari getting 30uSv, and over 100,000 people live in the town getting 20uSv day-in, day-out, 24 hours per day. In either Guarapari or Denver or any high elevation, apparently, people there feel they have other bigger problem to worry about. If radiation is the sole worry, people will be safer moving from Denver to Chenobyl.You said we accumulate radiation, I failed to see how. Yeah, we can store energy in the form of fat. But I don't know howhuman store and accumulate high energy particles. What does the human body use to contain the particles? I suspect you meanthe damage is accumulative. DNA change is more than merely accumulative. It is even inheritable. So what? By itself, DNA doesn't copy perfect. As long as the damage is not beyond that of natural level, (Denver vs Chenobyl, 12uSv vs 9uSv), who cares? There is no point in worrying about one tea-spoon of sugar in your coffee while consuming sugar-cane by the dozen, is there?You said we can store potassium separately and make it "relatively harmless". I can't figure out what potassium you are talking about, how and why? K40 is what I was referring to. I know all the main organs of the human body and I don't know any organ specifically for radioactive material.I suspect you mean liver- that is where we store our junk. But alcohol and "yellow liver" probably kill far more of us than radioactive liver.You worry about radiation absorbed into/by the ground. Why? if it is absorbed, done, gone. The energy is gone - unless it happens to hit something that could store and re-emit the energy later. The contamination that you worry about is some what valid - as long as we don't dig it out and spread it in tiny packages around town/the-world, there is no issue. Even if it does spread, when the original dose is of limited energy, the re-emitted dose of energy cannot exceed that of the absorb energy unless it hits fissile material. (Or the material has energy-ready-to-emit, which could have been emitted by many other means.) So, worst is over and it is on a downward curve defined by the half-life. Another, surprise surprise. You add upallthe nuclear waste created by nuclear power and that would be less than the nuclear waste created by coal. To make that decision, one has to learn that almost anything you dig out of the ground is to some extend radioactive. The earth itself is a giant nuclear reactor.Yes, I really don't get what you are saying. But I understand where you are coming from. There is indeed no need to incur more risk than necessary. My position is:exceptwhen the act of avoiding the risk is causing more damage than the "avoided" risk could have caused. This is where my negative sentiment about our lack of education in how to judge. Comparing one risk verses another, comparing one damage verses another, comparing the cost of avoid one risk (thus reducing resources for other risk) so forth.We have departed far enough from the original topic. [Edit: moved to where it belongs... touch pad moved by cursor by mistake]Besides, it is just wrong to argue about something "I suspect you mean". If we are to discuss, I rather discuss something you actually said.If you start a new thread, I would be happy to join in. It would be impolite to ignore you, it would be impolite to hijack a thread also...Rick

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 06:49:32 pm
content: Whether a material is stored depends on the chemical properties of the material. Calcium is stored preferentially in the body, and any radioactive with a similar chemical action to it will also be stored in the bones. Thus Strontium, Barium and Radium will also be stored in bones, and they definitely do have radioactive isotopes. Iodine is naturally stored in the thyroid, and has radioactive isotopes that will also be stored, and is very important to the body so definitely is stored. Other metals like potassium and sodium are present in all cells, and chemically Rubidium, Cesium and Francium will also take part in the cellular chemistry and in many cases they will be preferred chemically in these reactions, and will stay around and not be excreted but will build up with time.Thus with a build up of these heavy isotopes that have various decay periods you will have a long term exposure, and this will be throughout the body and will unfortunately will be very likely to do damage with time. There is very little that can be done to remove them as well, other than flushing the body with a lot of potassium and sodium, and doing dialysis to remove them after chelating the heavy metal with potassium permanganate ( and going purple in the process for years) and doing a few rounds to reduce levels somewhat. Not something you can do easily on a large scale.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 07:02:06 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 04, 2014, 06:49:32 pmThat is why I asked (in my reply) "what potassium..." I suspect he was not distinguishing K40. There is, to my knowledge, no one ever die of radiation eating bananas. You eat that many, other problem will hit first.That was my whole point - risk balancing. Hack, sitting here typing is a risk. The ceiling fan (which was installed to save energy over air conditioning) could fall and hit my head. I took that risk because I save money. One more trip outside (to make up the extra electrical cost) would probably be more risky than the fan.World is full of risk. Living is a risk... I suspect our drive toward zero risk (increase cost) will reduce standard of living world wide. The reduction in standard of living itself will cause a lot oflifedeaths in the process. It is this zero risk without consideration to cost that I object.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 07:13:46 pm
content: I am all for nuclear power, but it has dangers that are very real, and so does any other source of power. You can however do nuclear and reprocess, and this way you get a lot of power out, and likely Thorium is going to be the way to do so, as it has the potential to have a reactor that will both be reasonably safe if left alone, and which is pretty good at burning up a lot of otherwise unused fuel. You can also burn the DU inside it as well to generate power, though the entire inner core will be very unhealthy for any living thing aside from the radiophiles that have been found living inside reactor cores. But at least it does not run at insane pressures and you can easily separate the helium generated out to either vent or use for industry.Remember there are quite a few submarine nuclear reactors sitting on assorted parts of the deep ocean, and those have not leaked appreciable amounts, though the old USSR has a big issue with the rusting hulks that have sunk at the moorings in various harbours dumping nasty chemicals in the environment. Not much radioactives, but the nasty stuff like dioxin, PCB and lead paint.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2014, 10:13:30 pm
content: -would be impolite if I merely ignore you.-but you would be in good company.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 12:37:33 am
content: Quote from: Someone on August 04, 2014, 06:37:37 amre: standards get updated every 10 years or so...That is reassuring. Some day, (star trek), perhaps we can measure the exact mutations.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 05:37:29 am
content: Oh No! I did eat a banana with lunch!Are we talking about nuclear cars now?back on non topic since it's not a hybrid, my wife want to get an Eliohttp://www.eliomotors.com/84 mpg (not electric but gas, or petrol however you wanna call it) so 672 miles range (1081.48Km for the non US peeps) on an 8 gallons (about 30 1/4 liters) of gas (or petrol) at 6,800 USD, powered by a 0.9 liter 3 cylinder 55 Hp engine (or motor)It's a motorcycle class since it has less than 4 wheels, (great for toll way rates) speeds over 100 mph (160.9Km/h) and 0-60mph (not converting it) in under 10 seconds (seconds for the rest of you :p ).Sits two but more like a fighter plane (front back) and can even hold groceries (or drive alone to fill the back seat as well).Probably not for other places but in Chicago, and probably most of Europe this type of vehicles will work (at half the price of the smart for two)

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 01:54:55 pm
content: Hm.A week ago i was reading this thread and it spoke about hybrid cars.And now there are 7 pages of discussion on nuclear power, out of the blue.So, new kinds of hybrid cars are incoming?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_NucleonOn topic, i don't get it why there is a series hybrid - an IC motor with an electric one on the same shaft.How does that increase MPG?The other type - an IC engine running at it's optimal efficiency point turning a generator to run a traction electric motor - does make sense, but the first one does not seem to add up.

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 02:57:24 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on August 05, 2014, 01:54:55 pmThe electric motor has three functions: starter motor, generator, helper motor.There is no need for a starter motor, the electric motor takes care of that.If the car breaks or goes downhill, energy goes to the battery because the electric motor is now used as a generator. And as a side effect, less wear and tear of the brakes.If the car accelerates or goes uphill, energy goes from the battery to the wheels. The ICE can be less powerful (read lighter in weight) while the entire drive-train is stil capable of delivering the same amount of power.As a result, less fuel is needed without gaining (much) weight or losing performance.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2014, 09:32:50 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 05, 2014, 08:43:43 amMr. Chen,Since the first couple of reading did not afford me an understand of what you attempted to say, further re-read is pointless. To discuss "what I thought you mean" would also be pointless for reasons stated prior.If you were my student, I would have more of an obligation to understand your submission. But we are peers in a forum. I have the luxury of not carrying on pointless discussions. So, let us just leave it at that and get back to topic in this thread.I would not consider it "a lack of manner" if there is no further reply since I am asking for for no further discussion off-topic.Rick

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2014, 05:14:17 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 06, 2014, 09:27:25 amMr. Chen,Please do not misunderstand. I turn formal whenever a discussion gets heated. Behaving formal reduces the chance of getting vicious and forces me to behave in a "gentlemanly" manner. I found it to work well for me.Rick

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2014, 07:03:30 pm
content: Last thing I'll post in this discussion:I am no partisan of nuclear power, but it pisses me of that all kinds of fission based generation gets put in the same "Nukelar=Bad" dustbin.Different forms of power stations and generation are vastly different. It's like comparing a coal kitchen stove with a tea cup on top with a modern two stage gas power plant.Both are fossil fuel, and heat up water but that's were the similarity ends.I am an environmentalist, it affects every life choice I make (even my power supply contract is "NO COAL") yet I am critical and have read a lot about this tech.I think it is "environmentally friendly" to ban the worst technology (ie Fukushima with no gravity cooling in case of total power loss AND shitty efficiency), by promoting the best ones (surgenerateur) as a natural stepping stone to totally clean energy.The current totally "no nuclear at all cost", as seen in Germany; is just pushing extra use of Lignite thus radioactive dust and a crap load of CO2, even if it is done in another country (ie Poland) to look good on paper.I do not consider the end of nuclear as it is done in Germany to be a victory for the enviroment in any shape, way or form.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2014, 03:24:23 am
content: Wow, how did this thread get that far off course? On a positive note, after writing my giant blog post and sending a link to a local dealership, they persuaded Honda to replace the battery under warranty. Only took four years of complaining and still well within the 10yr/150k warranty. Oh well, at least the car now is driving normally!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2014, 04:36:59 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 24, 2014, 08:59:26 am... or they don't share your apocalyptic beliefs.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2014, 08:02:00 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chanITYM IodinePerhaps ironically I-131is, of course, a treatment for thyroid cancer.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2014, 08:33:49 pm
content: Not all that ironic. Cancer treatment is mostly poison meant to kill the cancer, preferably before it kills the patient.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2014, 08:44:20 pm
content: QuoteAll drugs are poisons, it is only a matter of dose.The unique thing about many cancer drugs (and in fact other cancer treatments as well) is that the dose required to kill the patient is actuallylessthan the dose required to kill the cancer.

author: denelec
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2014, 09:06:16 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on August 15, 2014, 08:44:20 pmEverything is a poison. Even water. It is only a matter of dose.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2014, 03:15:47 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chanAh, that's theparathyroid glands you're thinking of.