310 Miles from 20-Minute Charge

Pigeonholed...

I'm sure they'll figure something out..

What does a service pickup hanging from a tramway cable systems have to do with charging EVs in an urban location?

I have a piece of wood in my shop and my pickup needs a new starter one of these days. Similar correlation to your picture and the topic at hand?

Really? You can't figure it out? Then you'll never see the correlation between the piece of wood and your starter. I give up.

They'll need a hoist at each 'pump' just to manage the power cable. Does this mean we'll get our service-station attendants back?

The age of the SMR is approaching....

http://us.aving.net/news/view.php?articleId=243450&mn_name=news

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Rolls-Royce-names-partners-for-UK-SMR-09011701.html

So if it's a nuclear reactor that puts out electrical power, why does it need a solar panel on it?

That and I have serious doubts the general public will ever sign on to having what they perceive to be a dangerous nuclear bomb sitting on every other city block where their local gas station resides now.

My guess it is to power the auxiliary safety systems, just not sure what they do at night? Maybe they have a fast charging battery, that takes all the excess power generated and not used in the night . . .

If such small nuclear reactors are available to power the service stations for these electric battery chargers, then perhaps we can utilize this existing technology coupled with electrolysis to generate both H2 and O2 from water and then use these elements as rocket fuel for space flights.

It is still less expensive to get hydrogen from hydrocarbon reforming (methane reforming, primarily), and get oxygen using an air separation plant when needed in pure form. I do not believe fuel cells require pure oxygen.

That's for the phone charger. You might be a while.

The ESS (with the solar panel, first link) is basically just a rechargeable battery. The second link (not shown) is the nuclear thing that all the whackos will wanna hack/bomb.

Not worried about the SMR - that is proven technology, and not a bad idea. Time has come, but will each station have an identical attendant in a white dress and high heels?

Will her hair glow in the dark? I just want to be watching from several blocks away the first time someone mistakenly engaged the recharge while the connector to the car is not 100% secure, and watch the copper vapor show.

You've come a looooonng way baby....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02cUPyx2dcw

Wow, throwback those days, when we were young and christmas trees are small.

All one has to do is convert to dollars and sense, to see this is the future....

200kwh @ $.12 per kwh = $24.00

Tesla Model S will go about 3 miles per kWh...

That's 600 miles per 200kwh or the equivalent of 600 miles on 6.8 gallons of gas or 88 mpg avg....and all domestically produced! ...with an inexhaustible supply...!

I love the "got to go to the gas station" thinking still evident. My house is wired for 240v service already. Came that way. The utility company sees no problem with a Tesla supercharger being installed nor do they see it costing me a ton of money to charge my car. (when it gets delivered) They, Madison Gas and Electric, claim they can provide charging for 80% of the houses in this service district with the existing infrastructure since most charging occurs at night. They have solid numbers to back it up too.

When I get home, I pull into my garage, plug it in, go inside. Come out in the morning, unplug it, drive it. repeat. I never, ever have to stand out in the cold and wind while I fumble around with a pump, or nozzle, or any of the other "joys" of the gassing up process. Not really seeing a down side here.

Madison just got a raise to the .12 per kwh for standard service. If I choose the "time of use" rate system I would charge the car at a much lower rate of between .04 and .06 cents per kwh. Again, not seeing the down side.

What kind of service do you have that would take on an additional 120 KW load and what do you consider a ton of money?

Around here only handful of people have electrical services that could handle a 120 KW load. 200 amp is standard instal at no extra cost but stepping up to a 600 - 800 amp service that a number of high power usage farms that run high continuous loads like grain dryers and crop processing equipment is a $5000+ extra cost on the instal and more for a refit.

I can see existing system handling an additional 1 - 2 Tesla Super chargers on their base load but I have serious doubts they could take on everyone getting one. Especially so if your residential population base is anything like ours at ~20 homes per block.

That's potentially a multi megawatt power addition to every single residential block or a ~20X base load increase which I know for a fact no utility company anywhere ever designed their existing systems to handle.

Especially Wisconsin!

Ok, perhaps using the term "supercharger" was incorrect. Very few if anyone will be installing a "supercharger" at their home. LOL.

This where I and MG&E got their numbers from.

https://www.tesla.com/charge-at-home

I am looking a the 48 amp install as that will work with my current service without alteration according to MG&E.

That seems far more reasonable. 48 amps would be no worse than adding a large residential electric water heater or higher capacity electric stove.

Yes, overnight charging with a well-installed modern load center on domestic service at 220 VAC is clearly within the window of feasibility.

For some critical systems (not commuter traffic), one would require faster charging, and a modular battery system that can be popped out and swapped with pre-charged one in seconds.

As long as you return home for every recharge, it works.

Yes, I would hate to get stuck out in weather with a dead battery in that case, with only a 0.5 ft² solar charger, one could be there a while.

Should I assume you regularly forget to put gas in your car and get stranded often?

Do you forget to plug your phone in often?

Should I assume you have a gas pump at your house?

Granted you probably do not live in a city like Madison.

I will have access to Tesla super charger stations nation wide plus three less than a mile from my house.

https://www.tesla.com/supercharger

PLUS I can use any regular charging station where as other EV's are not able to use the TSC. (yet)

https://www.mge.com/environment/electric-vehicles/charging-stations/

https://cityofmadison.com/parking-utility/garages-lots/electric-vehicle-charging-stations

Personally I have never had a problem keeping my sh** together. LoL

On a different note, Tesla will begin charging for charging.

https://www.tesla.com/blog

I think the topic has been well covered, the only time I object is when economics are brought without real cradle-to-grave comparisons.

The real cost of ownership (and the snobbery of some who insist on owning the latest status symbol) is my personal concern. That is why I no longer purchase (or lease) new.

No, I don't have a gas pump at my house, and I also don't have to have a 50 A 220 VAC 1Ph service in my personal cathouse garage.

I don't live in Madison, but I am sure I would love it, as it is a very nice and modern place. Lubbock is growing, and maybe we will approach the order of magnitude of your grandiosity some day. I am far more concerned with water resources in Lubbock than with how many Tesla charging stations there are, though.

No, I never run out of gas, because I never have driven that far in my sleep. I have managed to run my cell phone down a couple of times, but the phone and I have a "special" relationship - I hate it mostly. It tells when to go to sleep, wakes me up in the morning, and makes all these different sounds all the time when I am mostly trying to do something where I am suited up.

I know that there are people out there that have driver's licenses, and cars, that do not have the sense to pour <sic> rain out of a boot.

I am glad you keep your poop in one location.

I did not mean to set off your recent tirade response. Actually, I really like Tesla cars, and I like Elon Musk's ideas for the most part. It would be most be likely a pleasure to own a Tesla. I need to read up on replacing that expensive battery at the end of its life though.

Take a chill pill dude.

What I'm saying is what works for YOU may not be suitable for others. No, I don't forget to put gas in my car and I've never been stranded due to lack of fuel.

My phlip-fone charge lasts a week or more, so no problem.

And no, I don't have a gas pump at my house.

I live in the metro D.C. area.

I'm happy for you that you have three Tesla charging stations less than a mile from your house.

That's what's great about this country. We still have choices. You can make yours, I'll make mine. You don't have to get all snippy about it. Geeze, you folks have such thin skins.

Some of us need to go the thread on S.A.D. (winter syndrome).

You left out the amortized cost of the Tesla Model S, and the amortized cost of a new battery pack every so many years, which is not inconsequential, by the way.

Also, we were discussing that is takes a high power supply rate, and acceptance rate to afford recharging in a suitable 10-15 min pit stop.

10 min recharge would take 1.2 MW supply and acceptance. At 100 VDC (I have no idea what the real voltage is), this would take 12,000 Ampere!

Works at night, too.

I prefer a more balanced diet....

If the battery capacity corresponds to the Faraday battery (130kWh) and you charge it for 20 minutes, the minimum power requirement for charging is 390kW, assuming 100 percent efficiency.

The question is, "how many electric cars can the rest area service?" The minimum power required is 130kW times the number of cars to be recharged in an hour.

Here are some numbers for a 300 mile stretch of 4 lane interstate highway.

Assume that all cars are electric and that the interstate traffic density is 1000 cars per hour per lane, which is typical.

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html

If the range is 300 miles and speed is 60 mph, each car needs to be recharged every 5 hours. For a 4 lane interstate, that's 4 x 1000 /5 =800 cars that need to be charged per hour. That would work out to be 800 x 130 kW = 104 MW, assuming 100 percent efficiency.

If you have 10 charging stations in the 300 miles of interstate, one every 30 miles, then each would need to service 80 cars per hour and need about 10 MW of power. It would require about 27 charging stations at each if a car could be recharged in 20 minutes, each drawing, continuously, 390 kW.

That's doable....

http://www.powermag.com/supercritical-co2cooled-small-modular-reactor/

What when all the CO2 does not cool? Just asking!

It has a passive heat removal system that can cool the reactor with natural circulation in case of reactor shutdown.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-supercritical-co2-cooled-micro-modular-reactor.html#jCp

It really doesn't appear to have a viable robust heat sink for standard operation, much less sufficient heat sink positioned above the reactor to allow for natural circ.

.

Sure, things can look tidy when you omit the sizable task of getting ride of all that heat. Is it really worth it to make the core/heat source mobile if the heat sink isn't?

It's not mobile....they just are showing that the reactor can be trucked in to a location pre-assembled in modular form for quick and easy installation.....

"

NuScale Submits First Ever Small Modular Reactor Design Certification Application (DCA)

January 12, 2017 09:00 AM Eastern Standard Time

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In a major step toward the deployment of the next generation of advanced nuclear technology, NuScale Power asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 31st, 2016 to approve the company’s small modular reactor (SMR) commercial power plant design. This is the first-ever SMR DCA to be submitted to the NRC and marks a significant milestone for NuScale and the power generation industry. NuScale SMR's will supply affordable, clean, reliable power in scalable plants whose facility output can be incrementally increased depending on demand. Its significant operational flexibility is also complementary to other zero-carbon sources like wind and solar. Once approved, global demand for NuScale plants will create thousands of jobs during manufacturing, construction and operation, and reestablish U.S. global leadership in nuclear technology, paving the way for U.S. NRC approval and subsequent deployment of other advanced nuclear technologies."...

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170112005039/en/NuScale-Submits-Small-Modular-Reactor-Design-Certification

Got any links to what they are charging for one of those things? Several tens of million dollars?

http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/economical/construction-cost

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/

So I can buy one for just over $5000 or it costs me just over $5000 per effective KW of output capacity?

I can't make sense of their terminology or numbers and where they have then as they show them.

Well we have to keep in mind the scale and footprint....for ~$3 bil you would be in business....You get about 5 mw from each reactor module and a NuScale power plant can house up to 12 modules or 660 mw total....

..."Conservative estimates predict approximately 55-75 GW of global electricity will come from SMRs by 2035, equivalent to over 1,000 NuScale Power Modules."...

..."The first commercial 12-module NuScale power plant is planned to be built on the site of the Idaho National Laboratory. It will be owned by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) and run by an experienced nuclear operator, Energy Northwest. UAMPS CEO Doug Hunter stated, “We are delighted that our friends at NuScale have completed this step, which is key to our project licensing and our target commercial operation date of 2026 for the UAMPS Carbon Free Power Project.”"...

per. The costs get a bit lower per with larger projects, you did notice that, right?

No. I couldn't make sense of how they have their price listing laid out nor what it actually relates to hence the asking.

To me a simple two column chart with unit sizing in the first column and cost for each in the second for each size would be readable and easy to follow. What they have however is largely unreadable crap by my views.

Power plants are not like buying automobiles. They are typically large, multi-million dollar investments, and no site is the same as the previous one, so the costs associated are very site specific.

What you seem to not realize is that #1 - SCC Brayton is far more efficient at 550 C than is the former steam Rankine cycle for nuclear power. It does not require a large heat sink. Air cooling fan heat exchangers for the exhaust of the turbine will be sufficient.

If this does not meet with your approval, there are other SMR's that are mounted underground, etc.

You appear to hold some fallacies concerning thermodynamics. The greater efficiency due largely to higher temperature Th is not going to greatly reduce the requirements of the heat sink for the same power.

Sure, you can skew your answer around the term 'large'. But if you are going to produce a large amount of power, you still have to get rid of a large amount of heat, which is going to require a heat sink with large capacity, i.e. a large heat sink.

Guess what? Cooling requirements do not flee at the thought of the reactor moving underground.

Mr. Know it All:

Look at the T-S diagram for the Rankine Cycle, then go look at T-S diagram for SCC Brayton cycle.

1) SCC Brayton does not require losing energy to latency at the bottom temperature. It is a supercritical fluid, it does not condense.

2) The low temperature fluid in SCC Brayton cycle is not a thin gas, it is compressible, but it also has a density that commensurate with some liquids, at 43 lbs/f³ the material is not so much compressed as in a gas turbine as it passes through a compressor that is not much different from a liquid pump. A much smaller compression energy is the result, therefore much more efficient.

Note: No cycle truly approaches the ideal (reversible) Carnot cycle.

Heat rejection for a cycle north of 60% efficiency is far smaller than for the same electric power output with a cycle south of 40% efficiency. So there.

Yes larger scale means more waste heat, but does not mean more fraction as waste heat, necessarily (for the same cycle and type).

I did say that burying the reactor underground eliminates the need to cool off the process fluid, I never did, and I don't know how synthesized that from my response.

A large heat engine still requires a large heat sink.....however you sythesize it.

"...Heat rejection for a cycle north of 60% efficiency is far smaller than for the same electric power output with a cycle south of 40% efficiency. So there...."

Good luck attaining efficiency "north of 60%" with your 550° C T_h Assuming a Tc of 300° C idea carnot efficiency is barely north of 60%. With that ΔT real world efficiency will be very hard pressed to be north of 50% much less 60%. Realistic expectations could be high 40s.

So there.

Where did you get 300 C exhaust temp?

550 - 300 C range, Carnot is 30.3% efficient.

550- 50 C range, Carnot is 60.7% efficient. 62.5% is we lower the exhaust to 35 C

Forget about getting exhaust down to 30 C, just not going to happen most of the time.

Typo of 'C' thinking 'K'.

The argument remains. A Carnot efficiency just above 60% will likely result in a real world efficiency significantly lower....closer to 50% than 60%, quite possibly closer to 50% than 60%.

Yeah, it is seemingly hard to do at all, much less at that temperature. There are simple Brayton cycles (open ones running on air-fuel), that actually come close already.

wow, this is brilliant

This is a strange article.

There is no car nor even a reference to KWhr capacity, yet a charging time for certain ranges is boasted. Of course it is better than Tesla, why would you make an imaginary system second best?

As long as we are talking imaginary systems, I want to re-state my sister's request for a car she only has to drop one pill in the gas tank, or it could be a water tank, I suppose.

I suppose it could really be a problem cramming all that gasoline into a capsule the size of a vitamin tablet, then what would happen if some moron ingested the capsule?

It used to be that the only way to get gasoline breath was by making a bad attempt at siphoning gas out of a tank.

At least their washing machines don't catch fire.

oh, wait.