## Saturday, January 21, 2012

### Let’s ban electric cars — for hydrogen

Read it at The Irish Times
Let’s ban electric cars
Neil Briscoe
(h/t Oil Drum)

Laura said...

Battery ~ Fuel cell = electric cars

It is far from certain that hydrogen is the best choice as a removable electrolyte. Boron may be better.

Matt Franko said...

Tom,

I did some calculating a while back.

Just looking at how much energy we use in the approx 300M gals of gasoline we in the US use per day. Gasoline equiv is 33.4 kW-hr/gal.

Power in our gasoline is 10.02B kW-hr (in a day).

Then I compared this to the nuclear power plant in my area; Calvert Cliffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Has about 1700 MW cap. from 2 units. Times 24 hours in a day is 40,800 MW-hrs. = 40,800,000 kW-hr per day.

10.02B / 40,800,000 = 245

So to replace all of the energy in our 300M gals./day, we would need 245 of these nuclear power plants.

That is approx 5 per state.

The utility has been permitted to put in an additional modern unit at the current site which purportedly will DOUBLE the output of the plant. So using current nuclear technology, we should only need half that number or 2.5 plants per state to replace the energy in the gasoline net (and of course it takes external energy input to distill gasoline from petro), etc..

There are of course other things and efficiency involved but a lot of energy (thermal) is lost in the combustion engines off the block and out the pipe.

We could perhaps make hydrogen right at the plant avoiding trans. line losses, etc..

2.5 nuclear plants per state hardly seems insurmountable.

If only "we could afford it" ;)

Resp,

PS someone could check my math...

Tom Hickey said...

Seems to me that the issue is:

1. energy return on \$ invested

2. \$ return on \$ invested

3. energy return on energy invested (EROEI)

4. negative externality involved:

a. \$ cost (cost/benefit wrt quantity)

b. human and ecological impact (cost/benefit wrt quality)