China, India and US Plan New Nuclear Plants

Electric motors are 4 TIMES THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER as gasoline engines of equal power, because all new electrical-generation plants for many decades have been (and for the foreseeable future will be) fueled by coal (or in a few cases by natural gas, which is also a hydrocarbon producing the same amount of greenhouse gases) -- AND 75% OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF THE COAL OR NATURAL GAS IS EXPENDED IN GENERATING THE ELECTRICITY!!!

The Chevrolet Volt, which General Motors estimates will get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, IS A FRAUD FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL VIEWPOINT!!!

The Volt is a “plug in” electric vehicle with a range of 40 miles. So for the first 40 miles of each trip, the Volt’s mileage on the basis of gasoline consumption is infinite.

However, when the Volt has traveled 40 miles and its batteries are exhausted, it has a gasoline engine that, INSTEAD OF POWERING THE CAR DIRECTLY, kicks in to power a generator which re-charges the batteries to keep the car running!!!

So, for the portion of any trip over 40 miles, the Volt’s mileage as measured by gasoline consumption is going to be 25% of the mileage of a conventional gasoline-powered automobile (assuming that the Volt loses the same 75% in electrical generation as the country’s electric utility industry).

So if you assume virtually all of your driving comprises trips exceeding 40 miles each, your mileage in terms of gasoline is 25% of a conventional gasoline-powered car. And if you assume all of your driving comprises trips of less than 40 miles between re-charging, your mileage in terms of gasoline is infinite.

Obviously, General Motors could have picked any number it wanted!!!

And it arbitrarily chose 230 miles per gallon of gasoline!!!


The two oldest items (in terms of time/date posted) are stories in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, both dated 11 August 2009, that were included by Pat in the original proposal of this topic on 17 August 2009 to demonstrate how the country’s media uncritically bought the fraud perpetrated by General Motors’ announcement of 230 miles per gallon for the Volt.

The next 2 articles (in terms of time/date posted) result from Googling “Chevrolet Volt” on 3 November 2009. More than half of the top 50 “hits” were General Motors web sites and virtually all of the rest were regurgitations of General Motors propaganda. Virtually the only 2 exceptions =

The U.S. News & World Report article of 11 August 2009 which, unlike the gullible NY Times and the gullible Wall Street Journal, actually explained the fraud that General Motors was perpetrating.

The year-old Car and Driver article of October 2008 which, after discussing at length such issues as styling and the tremendous extra costs of the batteries, etc., finally reported uncritically the claims of General Motors regarding the cost of the plug-in electricity on a per-mile basis vs. gasoline costs.

First, General Motors claims regarding the cost of the electricity are suspect, since they almost certainly contain quite a bit of hydroelectric power which costs virtually nothing -- but no new dams have been built in the U.S. for many decades.

Second, even the cost of electricity from a coal-fired electrical plant is not a true measure of the environmental disaster that a coal-fired electrical plant is, because the price of coal is always a mere fraction of the cost of crude oil if they are compared in terms of energy content.

Third, General Motors ignores the 75% environmental disaster from its gasoline engine kicking in after 40 miles between re-charging.

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

China, India and US Plan New Nuclear Plants

Post by Pat »

Reading Liberally Editorial Note =

The CEO of Westinghouse, which manufactures many of the world’s nuclear plants, says among other things:
(1) President Obama has given speeches supporting nuclear power,
(2) the U.S. has announced 25 new nuclear plants (14 by Westinghouse) with the first coming on stream in 2016, and
(3) China and India have each announced as many as 50 new nuclear plants.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that from an environmental viewpoint, the Obama Administration’s EPA and the Obama Administration’s General Motors Subsidiary have no business pushing a “plug in” electric vehicle until 100% of the nation’s supply of electricity is generated from clean sources = hydro and nuclear (and if Saudi Arabia ever permits the world price of oil to climb high enough to jeopardize its long-lived reserves, wind and solar).

Wall Street Journal – November 8, 2009

Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power
Other clean energy sources can't meet the needs of a growing economy.
By ARIS CANDRIS – CEO of Westinghouse

As America climbs out of one of its worst recessions in decades, we must keep in mind that long-term economic growth requires an abundant, affordable supply of electricity.

By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level, according to the U.S. Energy Administration. To meet our needs we have several options.

One is to increase our dependence on fossil energy sources. Unfortunately, this will only add to the environmental burden caused by burning carbon-based fuels. Another option, the Obama administration's goal, is to increase the supply of energy sources that reduce the country's carbon footprint. These sources include solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal energy, as well as new domestic sources of natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal.

Toward that end, the proposed Senate climate-change bill, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.), provides incentives to electric companies to use energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. The bill also expands federal loan guarantees to support the financing of new nuclear plant projects.

These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that's needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country's economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.

To be sure, the U.S needs to embrace all forms of renewable and sustainable energy technologies whenever possible. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that all renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage of our total electricity output. Wind and solar combined, for example, account for less than 5% of the total U.S. electricity supply. It is doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term.

Greater energy efficiency and conservation also make good business and environmental sense. But a 21% growth in demand for electric power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone.

Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions. The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself.

To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse's work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.

Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.

These projections are grounded in reality. To date, 25 new nuclear power plants have been announced for the U.S., 14 of them by Westinghouse. We expect the first of these new plants to come online about 2016.

Meanwhile, China and India have announced major nuclear power construction programs that will bring as many as 50 new plants online in each country over the next two decades. Nuclear power plants have proven to be the low-cost source of baseload electricity (electricity in large volume that is required all the time, and which is generated essentially only by coal and nuclear fuel). And as countries such as China and India increase the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy, American businesses and manufacturing companies will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they are forced to rely on electricity generated by comparatively more expensive energy sources.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his belief that nuclear energy must play an important part in America's energy future, and he supports the Senate climate-change bill. In a town-hall meeting in New Orleans on Oct. 15, the president said: "We need to increase domestic energy production, employ safe nuclear energy like France, but also develop new sources of energy efficiency."

Mr. Obama's reference to France is highly relevant to the controversial issue of how to manage used reactor fuel rods. Until very recently, the U.S. government and nuclear energy utilities had planned to place this material in deep storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, because of political considerations, storage at Yucca Mountain will likely never happen.

Instead, Westinghouse and others in the industry are exploring alternatives such as the recycling of used fuel. This technology, developed in the 1970s, is used in France, which is the world's most nuclear-dependent and energy-independent country. Used fuel rods contain upwards of 85% of their original energy. Tapping this energy through recycling is environmentally sound and consistent with the goal of energy independence.

With huge new finds of domestic natural gas and a commitment to renewables, the U.S. has never been closer to realizing true energy independence. But to seize this opportunity, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources must be developed in harmony to provide the abundant clean energy that the American economy needs to grow.

Post Reply

Return to “Reference Materials – General Motors and the EPA Perpetrating Fraud Re the Chevrolet Volt – Nov 18”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest