Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Both wrong.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

The US imports crude, refines and exports gasoline and other products.
 
Saudi claims they "are interested in nuclear power so they can export more oil".
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/saudi-arabia-s-vision-2030-key-electric-power-decisions-ahead

Sure.

When saudi days they want nuclear for clean energy only this is all I can think of.
https://youtu.be/EZ07HRXfFVo

If we had developed molten thorium reactors we could sell the that tech. Which does not involve enrichment of uranium and any left over plutonium produced by the thorium fuel cycle is useless for nuclear weapons.
 
WetEV said:
Both wrong.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

The US imports crude, refines and exports gasoline and other products.

Sounds like we don't need their oil, but the money is nice.
 
Oilpan4 said:
If we had developed molten thorium reactors we could sell the that tech. Which does not involve enrichment of uranium and any left over plutonium produced by the thorium fuel cycle is useless for nuclear weapons.

While harder, thorium can be used to make an atomic weapon.

The thorium fuel cycle involves breeding uranium-233. A partly U-233 bomb was made and exploded in 1955 and a completely U-233 bomb was exploded in 1998. Thorium can also be used as the blanket of a hydrogen bomb.

MET blast of the Teapot test series. (Actually a mixed PU-U-233 bomb).

220px-Operation_Teapot_-_MET_%28Military_Effects_Test%29.jpg


As has India, with Shakti V, said to be completely U-233.

And has Russia, in their first hydrogen bomb.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Saudi claims they "are interested in nuclear power so they can export more oil".
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/saudi-arabia-s-vision-2030-key-electric-power-decisions-ahead

Sure.

When saudi days they want nuclear for clean energy only this is all I can think of.
https://youtu.be/EZ07HRXfFVo
The comedian gets it; the psychopathic clown in the White House and his minions do not.
 
Be thankful you don’t live in Illinois

https://electrek.co/2019/05/10/illinois-ev-bill-1000/?fbclid=IwAR2G8sNpPZIXZats9EmZOCpA7oE7kbi6L5YDfsOKpmxE9iNwzXdO8wSb1Dc

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2369726589926648&id=1406671632898820&ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_comment_mention
 
rmay635703 said:
Be thankful you don’t live in Illinois

https://electrek.co/2019/05/10/illinois-ev-bill-1000/?fbclid=IwAR2G8sNpPZIXZats9EmZOCpA7oE7kbi6L5YDfsOKpmxE9iNwzXdO8wSb1Dc

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2369726589926648&id=1406671632898820&ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_comment_mention
Is that an arithmetic error by the bill writer ? One extra zero perhaps ?
 
SageBrush said:
rmay635703 said:
Be thankful you don’t live in Illinois

https://electrek.co/2019/05/10/illinois-ev-bill-1000/?fbclid=IwAR2G8sNpPZIXZats9EmZOCpA7oE7kbi6L5YDfsOKpmxE9iNwzXdO8wSb1Dc

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2369726589926648&id=1406671632898820&ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_comment_mention
Is that an arithmetic error by the bill writer ? One extra zero perhaps ?

Nope Michigan is adding $450 a year to their EV registrations

It has nothing to do with roads, many states are attacking EV ownership
 
If they start doing that here I'm selling the leaf and getting the most hybrid I can get with out paying some stupid tax like that.
Hopefully I would be allowed to have a plug in hybrid.
Theft by state to the tune of $450 wipes out a good portion of my EV savings over gasoline.
If I had to pay that it may not even really be worth it to deal with the limitations of a cheap little EV like the leaf.
 
Now thats probably the words biggest plug in hybrid, only has to go about 4km, uses 10.5kv charging, think they said 150kw charging with 3 phase power at its locations.
No reason to run the diesel engine really, except maybe as emergency backup.
Pays for its self in 8 years, should last at least 15 years.

https://youtu.be/rE_M1n-ClOA
 
^^ ~ 6 MW peak charging (10 kV, 600 Amps); 14 minutes charging each r/t.
About 550 kWh each way.

The engineer mentioned Li-X batteries cycled between 40 and 65% SoC to have 5 years of use. Charging and discharging at 1.5 C all day long is tough on the battery. I'm surprised they hold up that well.
 
A glimpse into NMs future.

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/07/18/public-hearing-in-farmington-brings-more-angry-cmp-customers/
 
Another glimpse into new mexicos future.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/london-blackout-occurred-amid-drop-in-wind-and-natural-gas-power

Wind power was riding on the back of fossil fuel power like usual. Then there was a drop in wind output, which always happens so the natural gas power plant went to boost it's output which always happens, but this time the natural gas fired power plant had to shut down. Pumped hydro tried to keep the grid going but London and SE England still lost power.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Then there was a drop in wind output, which always happens
.
As usual you have the facts wrong.
The drop in wind farm generation was due to a transmission problem. This could just as easily have happened if a fossil plant was on the generating side.
 
A battery could be used at a substantial increase in cost. Wind plus battery isn't going to be nearly as cheap as wind riding on the back of fossil fuels.

Going to need some fancy software to deal with the unpredictable nature of renewables.
A wind farm has the ability to go from 0 to full power way faster than a steam driven plant.
But their ramp up can be controlled, the rate down not so much.

I said the wind power output dropped, not that the wind stopped. I conveniently didn't give the reason why the output dropped.

Can't say that wind power is just as likely to have tranamission problems since the main concentrations of consumers don't want wind farms any where near them. So they get forced out into the middle of no where.

Let's take this over the water wind farm in england for example. It uses under sea cables to transmit electricity. Normal power plants aren't built over the water and don't have to deal with undersea cables.
So to say they are the same as far as transmission goes is a lie.
If anything renewables out in the middle of no where or over the water are more likely to have a transmission problem.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I said the wind power output dropped, not that the wind stopped. I conveniently didn't give the reason why the output dropped.
.

You said
Then there was a drop in wind output, which always happens
You are so FOS

Convenient for what ?
FUD ?
BS ?

Here is another inconvenient fact for you: the blackout occurred due to a concurrent problem at the NG plant that was supposed to be a backup. So much for your presumption that fossils are more reliable.
 
I know what I said.
I just got you to assume things and now you are throwing a hissy fit because you went for it like you always do.

If there was no natural gas plant the power would likely go out every day.
 
Back
Top