sledneck__11
Active VIP Member
Allready seeing some nasty battery fires from ev batterys i think they both have some tweaking to do
Hydrogen
- Thread starter jhurkot
- Start date
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
You can run from a battery fire. You'll be dead before you know what hit you if that pressure vessel grenades.
pano-dude
Active VIP Member
I would think a safety blow off valve or rupture disc is mandatory.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
100%. But what happens in an accident? Which is also when the battery fires often start.
There is always a pressure relief valve of some sort on any pressurized system. From hot water heaters to the biggest vessels used to LNG.
I wouldn't expect the fuel storage tank to be located much differently than current gas tanks which are plastic. You don't see too many crashed gasoline vehicles pouring fuel after a wreck.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
But you can crush a plastic tank and still have it hold fuel. Try that with a rigid carbon fiber tank holding hydrogen.
I don't think it's a huge issue, but it is an issue.
I think the logistics of trying to move large quantities of hydrogen around to fuel stations is going to kill this scheme first. Why setup hydrogen facilities when we have electricity almost everywhere already? Even if we do have to upgrade parts of the grid and distribution network to handle the extra load.
There has been carbon fiber propane cells used in automotive applications in the US for over 10years now. Air tanks for SCBA's have had carbon fiber bottles for 15years now, and pressurized to 4500psi and strapped to your back.
Electric cars are a dream, the current electrical grid isn't even close to able to support large numbers of these things charging. I know it will take far longer to get the electrical grid updated than it will take to build Hydrogen filling stations for mass use. The current system can't generate the required power, so if your good with a Nuclear Power Plant in your back yard then let them build the first one by your house, I'll take hydrogen.
And right now I am sitting running a 30,000hp sour natural gas compressor station, and feel way safer here than next to a Nuke plant that you can't shut down if things go sideways.
mclean
Active VIP Member
Not many. Maybe 12 hours total. But if they want everyone using Evs, can the grid reliably handle the demand? We are already seeing issues in extreme weather...add hundreds of thousands of EVs in there and we will be having rolling brown outs every day at 6pm
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Propane is way lower pressure though.
I'll take the Nuke, no issues there. Coal power plants emit far more radiation from their fly ash than a Nuke does.
What's the concentration of NORMs in that sour plant you're running? I bet you get a higher radiation dose working there every week than you would living next to a Nuke for a year.
We can upgrade the grid, its an achievable task.
pano-dude
Active VIP Member
I don't think the current grid can be upgraded enough to handle the load that will be required. The red tape alone would take 20 years.
It will need much more generation capacity, then all substations upgraded and then distribution.
I do believe that mini nuclear systems set up in every municipality would be achievable.
We test for NORMs regularly and they are very rare. If we do find them they are Alpha and pose no threat unless inhaled or ingested, and if we have to work or inspect the vessels these are found in they are washed, tested and workers wear all required PPE to go in even if there is no Alpha above background levels.. Never have seen BETA here.
After Chernobyl, and the near miss at 3 mile Island the US put a halt on Nuclear Plants. The repercussions of a mistake are huge. And as time passes and the lack of people with enough IQ to run these Nuke plants is a real issue. There was a proposed Nuke plant a number of years ago for Peace River and it was shut down real fast by the public.
We also can't keep putting Hydro dams up, look at Site-C.....way over budget, behind schedule and doesn't provide that much power. With the age of current power production facilities and the viability of upgrades even being a possibility the whole "Electric Everything" needs to take a step back and slow down.
We need alternatives to buy time to get to the electric everything wet dream.
pano-dude
Active VIP Member
The new nuclear
The new nuclear systems are much more friendly than in the past.
That's because you maintain the commpressor lol.
The new nuclear systems are much more friendly than in the past.
Here is the crazy part, BC Hydro wouldn't sign another contract for power made with Natural Gas up here. So a power production facility that was build in the 90's is going to get mothballed when the current contract runs out. That facility supplies enough power for a town of about 15,000 homes.
Put those little nuke plants by major centers, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg etc first.
pano-dude
Active VIP Member
Hopefully the election next fall will have an outcome that will change the ridiculous decisions the NDP has made.
- Thread starter
- #36
jhurkot
Active VIP Member
That’s about the same as me. I have a generator set up but most of our outages have been so short it’s not even worth it for me to start it.
Since the polar vortex I set my charger to delay charging until 11pm. So I plug in when I get home and the charging automagically starts at 11pm when the grid is not as busy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fynnigan
Active VIP Member
Taylor ?
Yup, I am not sure when the contract is done but before 2030.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
You're lucky, I seemed to encounter NORMs with increasing frequency while I was still in the field.
Nuclear Reactors can and are built and operated safely around the world, 413 are currently operable, but of course the general public is only aware of 3. The RBMK Reactor of Chernobyl is rudimentary at best when compared to the modern CANDU Reactors. I remember when Bruce Power proposed building a Nuclear Power Plant at Lac Cardinal. Unfortunately, much of the opposition to the plant was based on false assumptions. I even attended a large presentation at the GPRC by a lady with a PHD claiming she had extensive knowledge about Nuclear Power. She even went so far to claim the entire Peace River would be diverted for the plants cooling tower, a preposterous claim. Turns out she was a medical doctor, and the only real truth she spoke was about the effects of radiation on the body, the rest of the presentation was cobbled together to help the agenda of the anti-nuke group who was paying her to speak.
Site C really was a poor investment, and a poor location. Problem was BC needed the power and there was no other project in the province far enough along in design or planning to be able to deliver that power in time. So on they went with construction. Issue now is that Site C leaves a very poor taste in everyone's mouth when power demand dictates the next dam needs to be built.
zal
Active VIP Member
Putting a Nuke plant by Lac Cardinal and taking water from it was not the brightest idea. It started there until they realized the lake is a slough and pushed it towards the Peace.
Similar threads
