Swapping Spark Plugs For Nanopulses Could Boost Engine Efficiency By 20 Percent (arstechnica.com) 151
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Transient Plasma Systems has its roots in pulsed power technology developed for the Department of Defense at the University of Southern California, specifically nanosecond-duration pulses of power. Since 2009, it has been working on commercializing the technology for the civilian market in a number of applications, but obviously it's the automotive one that interests me. In a conventional four-stroke internal combustion gasoline engine, which works on the principle of suck-squeeze-bang-blow, the bang is created by a spark plug igniting the fuel-air mixture in the cylinder. That spark typically lasts several milliseconds, and although the control of that spark is now controlled electronically rather than mechanically, the principle is the same today as it was in 1910 when Cadillac added it to its engines.
TPS's system does away with the conventional coil-on-plug approach. Instead, much shorter pulses of plasma -- several nanoseconds -- are used to ignite the fuel-air mix inside the cylinder. These have a much higher peak power than a conventional spark; thanks to their much shorter duration, however, the ignition is actually still rather low-energy (and therefore lower temperature). Consequently, it's possible to achieve better combustion at high compression ratios, more stable lean burning, and lower combustion temperatures within the cylinder. And that means a more efficient engine and one that produces less nitrogen oxide. TPS says that using its system, it can increase the thermal efficiency of an already very efficient internal combustion engine like the one Toyota uses in the current Prius (which is ~41 percent) up to 45 percent -- similar to the turbulent jet ignition systems that have recently seen Formula 1 gasoline engines reach that level. TPS has designed the system to replace existing spark plugs, so companies don't have to redesign their engines to use it, the report says. With that said, you can forget about fitting it to your own car as "TPS's going-to-market strategy is to work with an established tier-one supplier to leverage existing relationships with OEMs as well as existing manufacturing capacity."
TPS's system does away with the conventional coil-on-plug approach. Instead, much shorter pulses of plasma -- several nanoseconds -- are used to ignite the fuel-air mix inside the cylinder. These have a much higher peak power than a conventional spark; thanks to their much shorter duration, however, the ignition is actually still rather low-energy (and therefore lower temperature). Consequently, it's possible to achieve better combustion at high compression ratios, more stable lean burning, and lower combustion temperatures within the cylinder. And that means a more efficient engine and one that produces less nitrogen oxide. TPS says that using its system, it can increase the thermal efficiency of an already very efficient internal combustion engine like the one Toyota uses in the current Prius (which is ~41 percent) up to 45 percent -- similar to the turbulent jet ignition systems that have recently seen Formula 1 gasoline engines reach that level. TPS has designed the system to replace existing spark plugs, so companies don't have to redesign their engines to use it, the report says. With that said, you can forget about fitting it to your own car as "TPS's going-to-market strategy is to work with an established tier-one supplier to leverage existing relationships with OEMs as well as existing manufacturing capacity."
If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:1)
I don't know how much it would cost and I remain skeptical until we see real world results, but 20% seems like it would be worth retrofitting existing vehicles.
Re:If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been working on variations of this idea [justia.com] since the 1970s. A friend of mine worked at a place for several years in the 1980s building prototypes.
Plasma ignition one of those ideas that is a perennial SBIR grant magnet, but after decades of promising demonstrations nobody's found the secret sauce that will make it practical in an engine that's expected to run for over a hundred thousand miles without a major overhaul. That's the really hard part of engineering, the gulf between "possible" and "practical".
Still it wouldn't surprise me if one day some clever person cracked that particular chestnut. It might even be these guys. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if they're just another group that's managed to turn the idea into a promising demonstration.
Re: (Score:1)
Still it wouldn't surprise me if one day some clever person cracked that particular chestnut.
It wouldn't surprise me if the IC engine goes the way of the horse & buggy by the time they perfect this.
Re: If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:1)
I'd venture to say IC engines will be around in one form or another for a long time yet. Alternative energy sources are still a very long way off from being able to compete with hydrocarbons in any meaningful way, especially when it comes to heavy machinery and shipping / long-haul transportation.
Re: If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:1)
Note that your examples almost exclusively use diesel engines, which don't have spark plugs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
By this I assume you are referring to diesel engines. While they rely on auto-ignition, a lot of them supplement that with glow plugs, for which this technology could have some application. Furthermore, this technology could be added to the design of new diesel engines as a way to accelerate or otherwise better control the combustion, with the goal of reducing emissi
Re: (Score:3)
By this I assume you are referring to diesel engines. While they rely on auto-ignition, a lot of them supplement that with glow plugs, for which this technology could have some application.
The job of the plasma ignition system is to keep cylinder temperatures low. The job of the glow plug is to create a hot spot in the cylinder so that autoignition can take place. They are diametrically opposed technologies. You NEED the temperature to come up in a diesel for efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
"weâ(TM)re already there with cars"
Cars exist and are viable. That is a far cry from taking over. I've yet to see a 400 mile range $12k-$14k electric vehicle and there are plenty of them on the IC side. Being competitive on the high end luxury market is a far cry from critical mass. There is a massive amount of markup on those luxuries that you can partially eat to hide how expensive an electric car is and that is before the massive costs of repair and battery replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to turn it around the other way, it's the "cheapest" way to get a luxury car (all factors considered).
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably true or it is at least on par with BMW options but if you can't replace the low end vehicles which work just as well as the high end, are cheaper, and lower cost to maintain you can't replace a critical mass of IC cars. If you haven't already replaced the critical mass of IC cars it is inaccurate to assert that [electric] cars are already there.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness I have yet to see a brand new $12K-$14K ICE in the US domestic market either. Closest you'll get in 2019, is a Chevy Spark (yeh, I gagged too...) @ $15,195. Followed by a Nissan Versa @ $15,890.
The Model 3 however, has a 3-year TCO that's beating out [marketwatch.com] Toyota Camery and Ford Focus. Which is actually the price point of the most popular cars by sales volume. [carfax.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Planes from the 50's are still flying on a regular basis. Get a copy of Trade-a-Plane and see for yourself. Once the storage density increase happens, it will still be a LONG time before the IC goes away.
The big problem is still the limitation of timing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The big problem is still the limitation of timi (Score:5, Interesting)
They're safe to own, because the Po-210 is no longer radioactive
Technically, they're safe to own because the Po-210 is no longer Po-210.
Re:The big problem is still the limitation of timi (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about planned obsolescence...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, and me with no mod points today. Well played.
Re: If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I'll get excited if I can buy these as replacement spark plugs at my corner auto store. Until then meah!
Re:If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:4, Interesting)
but 20% seems like it would be worth retrofitting existing vehicles
Just a quick read of TFS makes it seem that this won't work. The TPS system will enable combustion in regions of mixture and compression that don't work well with conventional sparks. But once an engine has been engineered compatible with the limitations of spark ignition, just screwing in TPS plugs won't change anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they can't sell retrofit kits and that people won't buy them. Armchair engineers buy superior parts to install in all sorts of things that give no advantage or even reduce performance due to other bottlenecks. Just ask all the people who paid more to get network disk with 6gbps SATA III vs 3gbps SATA II and then attach to the network with a 1gbps interface.
Re: (Score:2)
But once an engine has been engineered compatible with the limitations of spark ignition, just screwing in TPS plugs won't change anything else.
That's my assessment as well. This ignition system enables other technologies that get the 20%. I didn't RTFA, but I'm guessing it has to do with the heterogeneous air fuel mixtures in today's "direct injection" spark ignition engines.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of people who modify their cars won't balk at having to recode the PCM. Some of them will even be willing to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving to the combustion regions they promise is already possible, even easy - and doesnt require this.
However, it DOES massively increase emissions of NOx...
TFA declares that this decreases NOx by reducing cylinder temperatures. Are you right, or are the engineers producing the working product right? I'd bet on them over some AC every time.
Re: (Score:2)
"However, it DOES massively increase emissions of NOx... So, this is an unrequired technology"
From TFS:
"And that means a more efficient engine and one that produces less nitrogen oxide."
Re:If it's that good, we should retrofit (Score:4, Funny)
Looking forward to getting 12mpg instead of 10mpg on my Hummer H2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay but... (Score:3, Informative)
You can already build specialized engines with higher efficiency. Heck their is a tech called freevalve from Koenigsegg that does absolutely optimized valve timing cause they control each one with a pneumatic actuator. link [youtube.com]. Efficiency wise you have skyactive which basically figures out how to use gas in a compression engine, though there are a lot of details. There is another where you can switch between gas and diesel or similar to up the efficiency.
I'm just not convinced that just changing the ignition source is going to get you 20% in practice. The freevalve tech seems better to me, or possibly all of the above, but then you have to make an engine you can sell. Having pistons inline with two crankshafts so that pistons meet in the middle and the reaction force always hits something you want to move is another interesting idea.
One bonus of the freevalve tech is apparently making it possible to remove a precatalytic converter. They apparently also don't need direct injection, which saves money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Koenigsegg didn't invent this. Pneumatic valve actuation has been around for 30-ish years, it has been used in virtually all Formula 1 engines used since the 80s. Renault was the first one to implement a practical system.
Re: (Score:3)
Koenigsegg didn't invent this. Pneumatic valve actuation has been around for 30-ish years, it has been used in virtually all Formula 1 engines used since the 80s. Renault was the first one to implement a practical system.
Yup. In my time in an F1 team, I worked on the timing circuits for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Practical for what purpose? Racing? Not interesting. Freevalve is supposedly cost-effective for roadgoing vehicles.
better yet is the cam/follower crank replacement. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can already build specialized engines with higher efficiency. Heck their is a tech called freevalve ...
IMHO a far better improvement is the replacement of the crankshaft and connecting rods with a cam and cam followers.
This lets the pistons' motion through the cycle be arbitrary, avoiding the losses near top-dead-center where you're compressing an already burning mixture or expanding it before combustion is complete. Instead you compress it, hold it at low volume while the combustion goes from start through completion, then fully expand it. You can also expand beyond the volume where you started compressing it, all the way back to atmospheric pressure.
So you're not "cutting the corners off" the swept area (= output energy) of the pressure-temperature curve, and can approach the Carnot cycle ideal. Exhaust temperature can be quite low, too. You also get to pick the motion curve to reduce losses pumping gasses around or trade some of that for reducing (or eliminating!) torque variations vs. shaft angle.
You can get very nice balance, despite the arbitrary motion curve, by using a radial design with an even number of pistons.
Re:better yet is the cam/follower crank replacemen (Score:4, Interesting)
However, you could use two crankshafts with different strokes and vary the proportion dynamically - like on steam raillway locomotive valve gear. It might even be possible to do this with low losses (probably not with the geometry used for steam engines though).
I suggest that it would be better to link the piston to a hydraulic circuit and achieve the same benefits that way rather than mechanically.
I have a perfectly good rotary engine design with continuous combustion which is a far better solution, and relies on known and proven technology, but cannot find anyone interested in the necessary investment - both Ford and GM told me "we don't want any new technology - we have got stuff that works and don't want to mess with it" - ie the bean counters prefer short term profit to long term investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Cam and cam followers would not do this because there are situations where there is negative pressure above the piston - eg over-run.
It works just fine if the "follower" is a bearing, on a pin on the (solidly fxed) rod sticking out of the bottom of the piston, running in a track between an upper and a lower cam race on the plate on the mainshaft.
this isn't my invention. I saw an article on it, maybe a year ago, Included a video of the inventor running it, and flying an ultralight powered by it. it's fully
Re: better yet is the cam/follower crank replaceme (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Publish a paper that demonstrates an advantage and they'll be all over it. They sent you the canned crank-file response for time wasters.
Not my invention. Is nice web page with details, including video, by the inventor. (Saw it a year ago but didn't have enough time to hunt it down again for the posting.)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4336686.pdf
Is this what you're referring to?
A "Constant volume, continuous external combustion rotary engine with piston compressor and expander"
Just a cursory reading, seems like no actual working model. Kind of looks like a Wankle and a traditional IC engine had a bastard stepchild. I suspect that it will have the shortcomings of both designs, but without a working model, that would just be my personal bias against the rotary
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what you're referring to?
Nope.
Wasn't a rotary. Wasn't external combustion.
Think "radial" with an even number of pistons.
But each piston having, instead of a pivoted connecting rod going to a common crank, has a fixed rod sticking out with a bearing mounted on it, said bearings all riding in a track (between an inner and outer curb) on a plate that is mounted crosswise on the mainshaft.
The track has a two-hump symmetric path, so each piston makes two up/down motions per mainshaft rotation. Pistons
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talkin' to me?
No. I had a private conversation with retired engineer for one and a corporate exec in the other (both known to me personally). I re-worded the reply to protect the guilty. Contrary to what you might suspect from my name, I have a lot more experience in the Auto industry than in porn - but using my real name.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO a far better improvement is the replacement of the crankshaft and connecting rods with a cam and cam followers.
Cam and followers would likely be worse than a crank and connecting rod. Cams are great and compressing a piston, not great at extracting energy from it.
However, I think what you are looking for is called a free-piston engine. [wikipedia.org] Those have been researched for decades.
MomPOV (Score:1, Offtopic)
Uh-huh.
I thought the canonical was .... (Score:2)
which works on the principle of suck-squeeze-bang-blow
Uh-huh.
I thought the canonical was "Suck, squeeze, pop, phooey".
(Earliest I can find was by Theodore Sturgeon, in _The Clinic_ and possibly other stories.)
Sweet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to this feature being delivered in terms of higher horse-power.
And lower NOx emissions.
(That's what Americans always choose).
Lower NOx emissions is nothing any American can protest.
Sell this as a smaller, lighter, and just as powerful engine with less pollution produced. Put it in electric hybrids and you'll have a lot of happy customers.
Buzzword Bingo (Score:1)
BINGO! I've got BINGO!
Cost and expected lifetime? (Score:2)
Is this gonna save me any money, or is it just transferring where some fraction of my auto expenses are going?
Re:Cost and expected lifetime? (Score:4, Informative)
It's basically reinventing the spark plug. Instead of a spark igniting the fuel-air mixture that provides the power, it's a ball of plasma. This should allow the combustion process proceed further and more completely, thus being more efficient.
Other techniques playing with how the mixture is combusted is Mazda's SkyActiv technology which uses charge compression, where similar to a diesel engine, the mixture is compressed until it gets hot enough to self-ignite. The only problem is you still need a spark plug because the range of use where CCI works is rather narrow. You can't, for example, idle with CCI as you can with a diesel engine.
Re: (Score:2)
While informative with regard to the tech I don't really see how that answers his question about cost and lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, when I read the reply those were my exact thoughts as well!
Re: (Score:2)
The cost will be higher, because you need higher voltage.
The lifespan will probably be similar, or just a bit better. If combustion temps are lower then spark plugs will last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Is this gonna save me any money"
Doubtful but it'll come with your new car or they'll otherwise market it in a way that makes it seem like it will until it is standard. The net result is almost certainly going to be paying more money, it always is.
Synthetic fuels (Score:1)
What would lower CO2 emissions even more are synthetic fuels. E-Diesel is one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nanopulses would be a great idea, but that's only a 20% solution. Synthetic fuels are a 100% solution.
Note that I'm not advocating for bio-fuel. Using plant matter for fuel is a path to environmental destruction. Save the plants for food, clothing, and shelter. We can't synthesize good alternatives for corn, cotton, and wood just yet. We have known how to synthesize fuel for at least
Re: (Score:3)
Or a zero CO2 energy source, like nuclear....
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is low-CO2 until all of the production infrastructure is electric.
It may even be net-negative measuring all sources and sinks, but even trucking is still petrol today, much lees mining (though smart nuclear has already mined all the necessary fuel for the next few centuries).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I say keep installing the wind and solar landside and use nuclear off-shore in those seawater + co2 to methanol rigs they proposed going solar with. We have no other use for the nuclear fuel and we have shortages on the wind/solar. We need to remove a lot of CO2 fast and nuclear will do that and we've been successful using it at sea for quite some time. Eventually we can phase in current/wave based solutions to power it.
Incremental rather than revolutionary (Score:1)
Here we go (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here we go (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the fluorescent bulb all over again. So much more efficient, great savings, lasts forever, etc. Except it costs $30 instead of $1, lasts 1/10th the time advertised,
That didn't happen. When they cost $30 instead of $1 they lasted forever. But no one wants to pay $30 so there was a race to the bottom and now they cost $4 and surprisingly don't last as long as the $30 ones. Businesses which are capable of doing the maths and realising that the $30 one does eventually save money in terms of electricity and a fair bit more instead of time all switched to fluorescent lamps including CFLs years and years ago. The only time you ever see incandescent bulbs is those artisanal ones in hipster cafes.
This story however sounds like bullshit. A 20% increase in efficiency bump would put petrol engines to within a hair's breadth of the theoretical maximum efficiency as defined by the compression ratio. That makes it sound like it's magicing away all of the friction, exhaust valve effects and so on. I'm guessing it solves the heat injection part of the equation.
I don't believe 20%. Not even slightly.
Re: (Score:1)
The only time you ever see incandescent bulbs is those artisanal ones in hipster cafes.
They're probably LED filament bulbs actually, which are even more efficient than CFLs and last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
They have those too, but the filaments are much thicker. Three are still artisanal filament bulbs around.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only time you ever see incandescent bulbs is those artisanal ones in hipster cafes."
Nobody uses Fluorescents anymore, just led. After all Fluorescent has been shown to actually consume more power rather than less just not the kind of power being metered in residential power. But when you actually need a bright source with power behind it Incandescent works. I have a large room with an oddly sloped ceiling and still use a 150w incandescent in the upper corner to light the whole room.
I've tried the large
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't try very hard if you can't find something brighter than a 150W incandescent bulb. I'm willing to bet you went to your local supermarket, tried both bulbs they sell and called it a day.
Poor effort.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's 20% of it's EXISTING efficiency more efficient, not 20% overall efficiency boost.
ie: a 40% efficient engine goes to 48%, not 60%.
Re: (Score:2)
Since back when they did. Today it is LED instead of fluorescent.
I'm sure Tesla will implement it first (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Tesla doesn't have an engine. How is this a perfect match?
Spark plugs are also good for breaking car windows (Score:1)
Take one and break the porcelain and then throw a tiny piece at a car window. Amazing efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
>ninja rocks have been used in "smash-and-grab" auto burglaries since at least 1995
This is wrong. I can tell you that its predates 1995 usage here by about 7 years or longer.
Not Convinced (Score:1)
The thermal efficiency of a four stroke engine is constrained by the highest and lowest temperature in the cycle. A 20% increase in efficiency implies a large change in temperature which would require a large change in compression ratio. Then you need higher octane fuel to prevent knock. These limitations exist regardless of the ignition system.
Lower temperatures claimed in the summary do in fact reduce NOx... but lower temperatures reduce efficiency. So which is it? Furthermore, lower temperature reduce NO
But why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those countries say that now, for social signaling, but nothing binds them to it and the math says without a substantial investment in safe atomic power they're not going to get it to work.
There's a chance China might bail them out with fast breeder reactors or an AI-designed fusion reactor by 2040 but those are extraordinary hopes on a certain timescale.
They would do better to embrace all forms of efficiency now to enable their best energy profile target for 2040 rather than an aspirational one they're goi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about those countries but Texas, despite massive oil industry, is on track to be 100% renewable next year. You have deregulated (you shop for electric reseller) power here and you used to be able to pick the dirty power for less but the pricing has met in the middle so why wouldn't you go renewable? There are Teslas everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most advanced European countries have already put plans in place to phase out new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030-2040, no point investing into a dead end technology.
Development into that "dead" technology is still paying my bills, and a lot of other people's as well.
10% of all cars sold in California were supposed to be electric by 2003. [wikipedia.org] That didn't happen. We'll see what happens in 2030.
Re: (Score:1)
And those European countries are also subsidizing quietly horse breeding farms. They know something you don't - electric cars, unless running on a contact network like trolleys don't work
Are you drunk? We may discuss the future of Tesla as a company and its management issues. You may discuss whether the cars have a decent build quality or not. But one thing you cannot say is that their cars don't work. Plenty of other companies are following suit (Jaguar, Renault, BMW, etc). Electric cars do work and are here to stay. And if you're going to say "but I can't drive 2000 miles without stopping" or "I can't tow a bridge without losing 90% of the range" the answer for that is different vehicles
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Here in Dallas you can't make a run to the grocery without encountering Tesla's working just fine on the road without any contact network.
Yaahh... (Score:5, Funny)
If you could get those TPS plugs to us next year, that would be greaaaat.....
Re: (Score:2)
Came here for this, and I am not disappointed!
Better, more expensive buggy whips! (Score:2)
Engines? Spark plugs? Igniting fuel-air mix?
None of my cars have any of that stuff. BEV is the future; stop making better buggy whips.
Gettin' hot in here... (Score:2)
which works on the principle of suck-squeeze-bang-blow
Should I be getting this turned on reading a /. summary?
Splitfire Plugs. (Score:2)
Those will give you a 2% increase. 20% in real life? I Doubt it.
forget about fitting it to your own car... (Score:2)
With that said, you can forget about fitting it to your own car as "TPS's going-to-market strategy is to work with an established tier-one supplier to leverage existing relationships with OEMs as well as existing manufacturing capacity."
Super fucking lame... almost save the world a huge portion of carbon emissions, fail at last hurdle due to greed. Classic Humanoids.
RTFA for a laugh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's an idea?
If Trump made a presidential order to
Make 'merica the leaders in
Nuclear energy by 2025
Including thorium and all the other stuff.
Rebuilding the old reactors,
Build new generation reactors
Change All the regulations to make this shit happen soon including thorium.
If he did this , would you give him
Your vote in 2020?
Trump did do some of that already. Here's one such example.
https://www.greentechmedia.com... [greentechmedia.com]
Nuclear power has support by both Democrats and Republicans, at least on a local level. The national parties have something between silence on the subject (mostly Democrats) to a kind of sort of support in that maybe some day we can build a nuclear power plant somewhere that's not in your backyard (mostly Republicans).
Trump has my support so far because he's given vocal support for nuclear power for a long time, an
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No, because nuclear is more expensive than even coal and is close to an order of magnitude more than natural gas.
Why are we comparing nuclear power to coal and natural gas? Shouldn't we compare nuclear power to wind, water, and sun?
It turns out a college professor did just that, and nuclear is looking real cheap.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Another professor compared the CO2 output, human deaths per energy produced, as well as raw material needs.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
If we assume that we cannot use coal or natural gas then what path gets us the lowest cost to zero carbon? It looks to be a combination
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out a college professor did just that, and nuclear is looking real cheap.
You mean "a retired community college professor of electronics and machine control"? Your appeal to authority requires that there is some authority to which to appeal. The experts, of which he is not one, say that it looks real expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no one brings data to contradict the claim. I'll bring a few more experts then.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n... [iea.org]
âoeWithout an important contribution from nuclear power, the global energy transition will be that much harder,â said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEAâ(TM)s Executive Director. âoeAlongside renewables, energy efficiency and other innovative technologies, nuclear can make a significant contribution to achieving sustainable energy goals and enhancing energy security. But unless the barriers it faces are overcome, its role will soon be on a steep decline worldwide, particularly in the United States, Europe and Japan.â
A sharp decline in nuclear power capacity in advanced economies would have major implications. Without additional lifetime extensions and new builds, achieving key sustainable energy goals, including international climate targets, would become more difficult and expensive.
That's Dr. Faith Birol's opinion. Then there's Dr. Ripu Malhotra I linked to in a previous post. Then there is this...
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
The sensible energy and climate change plan for the UK, MacKay said, was for the country to focus on nuclear power and carbon capture storage technology, which traps the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. In that scenario, the amount of wind and solar the UK needed would be almost zero, he said.
That's from Professor Doctor Sir David MacKay. Is that good enough for you?
I believe we should listen to the doctors. Dr. MacKay does emphasize this is country specific and so here in the USA there's probably more room for wind and sol
Re: (Score:2)
The experts saying nuclear power is expensive are everywhere, and nobody gives a shit if someone says it could be clean, safe, and cheap. That's exactly what the nuclear proponents have been saying all along, and all along it has been bullshit. Nuclear can only be sold with lies.
Re: (Score:2)
That old rubbish eh? Destroyed by Cadogan
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, not the water car again...
I hoped that died by now.
Yes, you can run an efficient system on Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. No, you can't make either of them cheaply, especially not in a mystery box attached to a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Intake, Compression, Ignition, Exhaust.
Remove any one and nothing happens.