Speaking of having to heat the cabin of an electric car in cold weather:
I wonder if it would be possible for car makers to fit their EV's with small propane burning devices (kinda like a mini furnace) that would draw propane from a disposable (or refillable) pressurize tank (similar to the tank on small propane torch) ?.
This could extend the range of electric cars driven in countries where winter is brutal (-30, -40 degrees Celsius) like in my country -> Canada.
Seconly, you do not appear to have mentioned ultracapacitors. I believe that the current research on these, including nanotechnology developments has the potential to be the game-changing disruptive technology, not only in electric vehicles themeselves but also in general grid storage and regenerative applications. Their ability to recharge almost instantaneously is a primary advantage. Energy densities are fast approaching conventional battery levels.
@TWOKDOK1 Ultracaps make a great addition to an EV, say for capturing the energy from regen braking but they're not yet ready to entirely replace batteries. Energy density is still too low, self-discharge rate too high, potential for internal shorting is great and requires fairly complex management.
In combination with advanced batteries, they'll make for a terrifice EV but not yet ready for primetime.
Just a couple of points; firstly you seem to use kW and kWh interchangeably when, as I'm sure you know one relates to power (the ability to do a given amount of work in a given time) and the latter to energy (a given amount of work - in kWh equates to the capacity of the battery). kW relates to the power of the motor or how much torque is can produce at any speed.
I own an EV. I pay about $20 to go 1000 miles. Very cheap. Costs about $30 for 1000 miles in cold winter months. I park my EV outdoors in 5-20 degree F temp.
I googled windmill ufo's for you. Will you google disaster book club boing for me? It talks about how complex systems cannot ever be made 100% safe. "We can design better systems, systems that take the way the brain works into account. We can make systems safer, to a point. But we cannot make a safe system. There is no such thing as a plane that will never crash. There is no such thing as a pilot who will always know the right thing to do."
I'll also say that nuclear failures seem impossible and it's easy to argue that they are. Yet it seems that the mean time between failures is in the order of 15-30 000 years per reactor. That's amazingly rare. If there were only one reactor built around the time agriculture was invented then chances are it would still be running without major incident. Still, it could be so expensive when it does fail that the cost of insuring them would be dollars per kWh.
1. Stop slagging off nuclear. If you want to get away from burning fossil fuels we need it. We can't afford to go with just renewables.
2. Don't compare a Nissan hatchback to executive cars, it harms your argument.
3. Rich people without solar are not scum. How do you know they've not invested that money in a more workable but less conspicuous form of green energy?
4. I'd give horses a bit more room when passing. They, and the people on them are mental.
1. Thank you. Admiring me is an admirable quality.
2. Indeed. But it's cheaper than renewables. I don't know why being centralised is a problem. Yes, the fuel will run out, but not for a very, very long time.
3. Does it? How? I like them, they're quite nice for a medium sized hatch back. But if it wasn't electric no one would compare it to a £40k car.
4. Define very rich. To me you are very rich, to most of the world, I am very rich.
@XitUp Nuclear is only cheaper than renewables if the insurance/liablity costs are externalised to the general public (much the way coal is only cheaper if the costs are externalised). If you were to fully insure nuclear against the actual hazard (perhaps having to abandon a major city) and the risk which seems to be once every 15-30000 reactor years, then the cost of nuclear is between 5 and 30 times higher than renewables.
@gasdive Yup, if for some reason you had to insure a nuclear reactor against something stupid that is never going to happen if it's run properly then I'm sure it would be more expensive.
However, if we're going down that route, how much more expensive would wind power be if it needed UFO insurance? ;)
@XitUp I wouldn't call it "something stupid that's never going to happen" because it has happened. Wind would not be any more expensive due to "ufo insurance" because while the risk is similar the hazard is much much less, about one millionth. So the cost of insurance for wind would be about one millionth of the insurance cost for nuclear. As it's impossible to insure nuclear, it goes uninsured so the community pays. That's what externalised cost is. Profit to corporation, cost to us
@XitUp It's hard to run through the figures in 500 characters. If there is a catastrophic failure in a nuclear plant then the area downwind can be uninhabitable for 20+ years. If the plant is near a major city then any insurance would need to be enough to cover compensation for everyone down wind. That may be trillions of dollars in compensation. To carry that risk an insurance company would need billions of dollars every year. It's impossible to raise that from selling electricity.
@XitUp there have been four reactors that have failed badly enough that had there been a city (of any size) down wind that city would have had to be abandoned. It may be possible to insure against that hazard but no-one ever has. If you did, the electricity produced would be too expensive to sell. Hence the risk is externalised. That's my only point, that to exist, it has to externalise costs to the community, just like coal. Otherwise it's is and always will be uneconomic.
@XitUp I didn't say cities have been abandoned (it would have made the news). I said accidents have occured in power plants that could have caused cities to be abandoned if they'd happened to the plants that are near cities. I know what they're insured for because it's a matter of public record. The US plants carry about 2% of the insurance needed to cover the hazard, the rest of the risk is borne by tax payers. I can't post links but google price-anderson.
@gasdive But why do you think that they should be insured to cover something that has never happened? According to Price-Anderson the nuclear industry has to pay for any claims up to $12.6B. Have there been many claims that exceeded this?
@XitUp That's what insurance is, covering something that hasn't happened. I have insurance to cover injuries I inflict on someone else when I drive yet I've never injured anyone. I would like all industries to be held to this standard, but the ones with large lobby budgets don't seem to be held to this standard. There have been no claims beyond $12.6B. What would you estimate the cost of compensation for London? I estimated for Sydney at 8 trillion dollars. (about 1000 times P-A)
@gasdive You might not have injured people or damaged property when driving, but others have, hence there is a precedent set for needing to be covered against that. There is no precedent for having to abandon a city due to nuclear plant failure.
I have no idea what the cost of compensation for London would be. A lot, but the nearest plant is 100 miles away.
I think it's daft to make people take out insurance for something that there is no precedent for.
@XitUp "the nearest plant is 100 miles away" The Chernobyl confiscated/closed zones extend as far as 180 km in the downwind direction. There's a blob about 120 miles in diameter centred about 130 miles downwind that's pretty much all useless now. Take a wild stab at the cost to the UK of abandoning London, completely over a couple of days. Every business based in London would collapse, stock exchange, goverment, everyone walking out, unable to take anything with them. 50 trillion?
@XitUp You still haven't addressed the issue in the UK where liablity is limited to only 140 million pounds (about 1/100 000th of the foreseeable damage)
@gasdive That is very low, but I don't see the point in changing it until there is a need to, that would just be putting money into the pockets of the insurance companies and making a low carbon energy source less desirable.
@XitUp There's certainly a few examples of reactors making an area uninhabitable. It's not a stretch to think that if you site one in a densely populated area (like the whole of the UK) then there's a risk. That can be borne by an insurance company (at a price) or by the general population (for free). If you make the general population do it then there's no doubt that you're making them do something that a company normally gets paid to do. It's like forced labour. Is that what we want?
@XitUp You're certainly right to say that making the reactors pay to cover the risk makes nuclear less desirable. That's why the P-A and the UK gov's policies exist. To make nuclear cost competitive it needs government to unbalance the playing field in favour of nuclear (and coal which also externalises costs). In a *level* playing field renewables would need no gov support because they'd be the cheapest.
@XitUp If you don't see a point in changing it until there is a need to, what mechanism do you propose for that? If one blows up (which they seem to do about every 15000 years or so), what then? Do you mean that's the time to start an insurance policy or realistic size? Do you mean the reactor operator should then come up with the trillions of dollars? How likely is it that they will be able to? Do you mean wait for another country to be bankrupted then we should insure after that?
@gasdive IF that happens then you change the policy. It's very simple, I don't think you should need insurance to cover things that there is no precedent for. If a reactor causes a lot of damage due to negligence then there are already systems in place to get compensation from them.
Not sure what bankrupt countries have to do with the subject. A quick google shows that Greece and Italy don't have reactors though...
@XitUp "very simple"... yes... Like if my house burns down I'll take out fire insurance straight away. Doesn't do much good after the fact. There are *no* systems to get compensation if a reactor causes a lot of damage due to negligence. That's exactly my point.
"Bankrupt countries" was simply that after you have to evacuate London the UK would go bankrupt. It would make the siege of Stalingrad look like a holiday camp.
@XitUp However in the UK the government limits the liablity for each operator to 140 million pounds (virtually nothing). Beyond that the claims go to the government, so the UK tax payer carries the risk for the nuclear plants.
3) I think they are. If they are investing in a more workable and less conspicuous form of energy, I'd have heard about it by now - but currently wind, solar and hydro/tidal are definitely the best alternatives. There is no excuse for a rich person to NOT get solar unless their roof isn't sun-facing.
4) Accompanied horses are less likely to as we tend to judge the horse and its mood, but I won't disagree that horses need care taken.
Now to expand on 1) there are enough 'high-wind-frequent-wind' areas in this country to warrant, if the government had the money to spare, an entirely wind-sustained economy. I am NOT joking whatsoever. Nuclear is NOT a necessity when such an abundance of renewable sources DO exist before our very eyes.
@fullychargedshow No! is that right? You avoided the point about speeding on our roads though! Yes, we all do, but I feel you should at least be modest about it and avoid advertising about your transgression when you're trying to make other, possibly valid points.
Robert, best of success to you... thanks for opening the door a little wider on renewables and electric vehicles. Having gone from significant disposable income to under employed, from an 02 Honda Insight and commitment to destroying the earth less I agree. Even with reduced income I absolutely make a impact in how my country chooses and uses energy and sustainability - economically and personally. The total collective picture of our actions count.
rich people without solar panels are not scum, they just laugh at the people with solar panels. In Belgium the government wants to stop giving grants for installing solar panels since they have almost no return. Come back when they have a min. 75% efficiency in worst time conditions. Solar panels are massive overpriced for what they can actually do. Besides that 40k car has 10x the finish and styling of a Prius. For some a car is just transport for others it's something they enjoy. Luxury costs.
@darupz I have no idea of the situation in Belgium, all I know from actual, concrete experience is that even in this area of northern Europe, the solar panels I have produce an enormous amount of electricity which saves not only a lot of money but also a lot of fossils being burned to run a turbine.
I don't want to 'come back when... whatever' and I want you to buy a very expensive, inefficient fossil burning car with 'high end finish and styling...yawn' and just carry on exactly as you are.
@darupz Yeah, lets all laugh at the people with solar panels because they are doing more for the environment, that what you are saying? Or because the panels look 'silly'? Personally I think they look kind of cool and make a house appear more hi-tech in addition to driving its market value up, but each to their own.
@darupz and they do provide a decent return. Don't pull misinformation from your ass. Most rich people I bump into strike me as people who are very good at what they do for a living; their profession. But when it comes to a care or understanding as to where their luxury comes from or how the world works environmentally and socially outside their own bubble of existence, most of them seem to have the common sense and awareness, let alone care, of a chocolate biscuit.
rich people without solar panels are not scum, they just laugh at the people with solar panels. In Belgium the government wants to stop giving grants for installing solar panels since they have almost no return. Come back when they have a min. 75% efficiency in worst time conditions. Solar panels are massive overpriced for what they can actually do. Besides that 40k car has 10x the finish and styling of a Prius. For some a car is just transport for others it's something they enjoy. Luxery costs.
Why dont you get an arseistant to do filming for you for the shows and you just do a bit of presenting. They could probably cut it for you too... someone who lives close to your neck of the woods. Might be good work experience for someone. Also you could offer a few shows to be hosted by some others because your busy. That way things could carry on. Red Dwarf - tell us more...
Bit misleading of you to say that nuclear power involves burning things, Uranium is required, but 1kg can produce as much energy as by burning 1,500,000kg of coal. Following this, re-processed uranium can be re-used in reactors increasing the output 60 times. Yes there is the problem of disposing of waste (waste from coal burning is simply pumped into the atmosphere) for thousands of years, but with further research, more and more could be recycled.
Thanks, and good luck with Red Dwarf. (British TV productions seem to move at a glacial pace.) I like the new camera rig - wide angle lenses, and the new camera positions (or am I imagining that?). A solar power program would make even more sense here in Canada, with its large distances to transmit power over, and for the most part, sunnier weather. Not much chance of that with our current oil-funded ultra-conservative government.
You can now lease the solar panels for your house with $0 down. What you get is a steady payment non-dependent on consumption and a good percentage of your energy coming from clean sources. I am seriously thinking about doing this and I could not be farther from rich.
I know I would buy an electric car if I could afford one. We're still a long way from all the energy for production of electric cars to come from renewable energy sources (all the way from ore extraction to delivery).
Red Dwarf? I'm such a fan of the show, even though I only know it only since 2004. Watched some episodes on DVD the other day.
Living in Germany may have something to do with discovering this SciFi commedy jem so late. Didn't connect the dots.
So I will stay patient especially because I'm so looking forward to anything new on Red Dwarf. Brilliant show. It also explains why xour humor appears to be compatible with mine since I've always had a blast watching Red Dwarf. OK, enough fan mail.
Prof. Brian Cox said "more money is spent on mobile ring tones than nuclear fusion research". Even though we can create a fusion star on earth, it is possible.
Gotta say I was impressed by the acceleration at 4:55. Obv. the Leaf isn't a Roadster or anything like that, but it's still impressive for the first REAL electric hatchback.
I'm a Leaf driver in the USA, and a fan of Red Dwarf. Great news about the new series. I'm glad you brought up the whole "return" justification. I get tired of people asking me to justify my purchase. Then I look at their car (usually more expensive than my Leaf) and ask them to justify theirs in terms of return on investment. They can't. So I say I bought the Leaf because I LIKE it, I WANTED it, I think it is COOL and that is the only reason I need!
Like many of your subscribers, I am torn as to the news about this show. I am very happy for you on a personal level with filming Red Dwarf and I am very eager to see you back behind the wheel with your wit, charm, intelligence and broad range of cars and information. I hope you keep up with your blog and that someone else in your industry will help you with your work so that you can do more, because your reports have been very helpful in the discussion about our energy future and options.
I only watch top gear because it's funny, and that's it. It's disappointing to know they spread lies about electric cars. If I want to have a laugh, I watch that. And it's really nice that you have a nissan leaf and show everyone the advantages of it etc. . That's why I watch these vids.
hehe I share your frustration Kryten. we'll get them. we just need to keep on trucking.
but one very effective way to defeat them is to get electric cars that are much lighter and more aerodynamic than the Leaf. instead of 1700kg why not the 900kg the Audi A2 weighed. or why not much less. half the battery means much cheaper to buy, even cheaper to run and can be equally faster to charge from chademo. instead of 20 minutes to fill 80% it could be 10.
Superlightweight cars are unfortunately a pipedream .. even though we have the technology for them, people want the bigger, heavier and safer cars. Now that people have gotten used to cars with a million airbags, seatbelt pretensioners, and more crumplezones than youc an shake a stick at, not to mention a whole nother car made out of plastic inside the metal shell - We have to accept that cars are now heavy.
@Jesus45U we most certainly don't have to accept that cars are idiotically heavy. same as we most certainly don't have to accept idiotic combustion engines.think a little o mindless product of status quo.
it is not about safe, it's about cars being made from soft heavy steel by indifferent engineers.
with approval of mindless people like you.
fiber glass for instance weighs 1/3 that of soft steel and has 8 times higher tensile strength. that's 24 times better by weight. no small margin. think
Tensile strength doesn't automatically translate into "safe", there's more going on. Compression strength for example, is important too. Also, by the time you have added all the airbags, ABS, traction control systems, crumple zones, etc, etc, you have already rounded a ton for a small family car.
And lets not forget that people want comfortable cars too.
Willfully wicked, huh ? Evil ? And you call me mindless ?
Think about it for a few moments - If people wanted lightweight fiberglass cars, they would be all over the place. Fibeglass has been around since the second world war, and yet only a few cars are made of it. People want big, luxurious and safe cars, and that is what the car companies give them. Just look at private airplanes, all fiberglass and aluminium.
Like the old Saab's ? Or a Lotus Elan ? Or even a Citroen BX ?
All of those are about half the weight of the current crop of cars, yet none of them was continued either in direct form, or a modernized version.
As for the Prius, it's a big, heavy, safe and fairly comfortable family car. The electric car isn't widespread, and the iPhone is as much a fashion statement as it's an actual phone.
And stop calling me wicked, that's incredible rude.
@DanFrederiksen Safety is a strong concern. But I do agree with you. Even the dumbest manufacturer knows a lighter car is more efficient. This is especially true of course with EVs. What I can say is keep your eyes peeled on this 'Solid State Battery' research. It's going well so far, there are a few more hurdles but if the research pays off, by 2016 we could be driving electric cars that have battery packs a FRACTION of the current weight!
Light cars are indeed more efficient, and yet, cars gets heavier and heavier, because it's easier to build a heavy car that has a 5 star euro ncap rating, than doing the same with a lightweight car. So the manufacturers go for the cheaper solution, because it's easier to sell cheap cars than expensive cars.
As for Solid State Batteries, they are incredibly fascinating ... I am looking forward to see how those come out, along with supercapacitors for better regenerative braking.
@girochin007 Yes, I know. I'm in the UK. Where the speed limit is 60mph on most extra-urban single carriageway roads and people have been 'done' for speeding by posting video of themselves online going over 60 on max 60 roads... The Leaf is Japanese and could be an import..?
Good to hear you bang on about renewable energy, because we do have to get serious about it soon. Especially since the work on the national grid is enourmous, and takes a lot of time, and it has to be done *before* we run out of petrofuels, or it's too late.
On the other hand, your car comparisons ... you compaired a large Range Rover or a large Mercedes SUV, with a nissan leaf ! C'mon, at least compare it to a car of it's own size, like a diesel hatchback - Much more interesting and relevant.
Oh, I wasn't going so much on about the price difference in the cars that he compaired the Nissan Leaf to, more the size and purpose of them
Really, the Leaf is a compact family hatchback ... and that's what it should be compaired to. Like a Toyota Corolla, or a Ford Focus, those would be much more interesting and relevant to the viewers of the show.
Just imagine all the things that would never need servicing in an electric car. No slumping engine mounts. No leaking head gaskets. No costly timing belt service, water pumps and radiator leaks, coolants etc....
we all have to accept that oil is a diminishing resource. The nay sayers and their gas guzzlers are in for a big shock in a few years. New technology must be welcomed, thanks for another informative video
BTW, I saw the news recently which reported that the number petrol stations in the UK has gone down from about 20,000 to about 8,000, It will be interesting to see you will not have range anxiety on a petrol/diesel car once the fuel stations drop to about 4000. That gave another amazing revelation. You will most often find a plug within 2-3 miles of where ever you are, but its will be difficult to find a petrol station every 50 miles, if things go this way.
I hope to see a review from you of the Tesla Model S later this year :)
reevsaj 1 week ago
Could you do a show on Better place???
johnson1095 1 week ago
Review Honda Fit EV 2012 when you get it!
capitalistsamurai 3 weeks ago
Speaking of having to heat the cabin of an electric car in cold weather:
I wonder if it would be possible for car makers to fit their EV's with small propane burning devices (kinda like a mini furnace) that would draw propane from a disposable (or refillable) pressurize tank (similar to the tank on small propane torch) ?.
This could extend the range of electric cars driven in countries where winter is brutal (-30, -40 degrees Celsius) like in my country -> Canada.
OperationCrossroad 1 month ago
Com' on Robert. It's been 2 months! I know your busy but don't you have a friend or family member who knows about electric cars to carry on the show?
toyotaprius79 1 month ago
Seconly, you do not appear to have mentioned ultracapacitors. I believe that the current research on these, including nanotechnology developments has the potential to be the game-changing disruptive technology, not only in electric vehicles themeselves but also in general grid storage and regenerative applications. Their ability to recharge almost instantaneously is a primary advantage. Energy densities are fast approaching conventional battery levels.
TWOKDOK1 1 month ago
@TWOKDOK1 Ultracaps make a great addition to an EV, say for capturing the energy from regen braking but they're not yet ready to entirely replace batteries. Energy density is still too low, self-discharge rate too high, potential for internal shorting is great and requires fairly complex management.
In combination with advanced batteries, they'll make for a terrifice EV but not yet ready for primetime.
bannor99 1 month ago
Well Done Robert,
Great to see someone challenging the Luddites.
Just a couple of points; firstly you seem to use kW and kWh interchangeably when, as I'm sure you know one relates to power (the ability to do a given amount of work in a given time) and the latter to energy (a given amount of work - in kWh equates to the capacity of the battery). kW relates to the power of the motor or how much torque is can produce at any speed.
TWOKDOK1 1 month ago
I own an EV. I pay about $20 to go 1000 miles. Very cheap. Costs about $30 for 1000 miles in cold winter months. I park my EV outdoors in 5-20 degree F temp.
Alvord1430 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I googled windmill ufo's for you. Will you google disaster book club boing for me? It talks about how complex systems cannot ever be made 100% safe. "We can design better systems, systems that take the way the brain works into account. We can make systems safer, to a point. But we cannot make a safe system. There is no such thing as a plane that will never crash. There is no such thing as a pilot who will always know the right thing to do."
gasdive 2 months ago
I'll also say that nuclear failures seem impossible and it's easy to argue that they are. Yet it seems that the mean time between failures is in the order of 15-30 000 years per reactor. That's amazingly rare. If there were only one reactor built around the time agriculture was invented then chances are it would still be running without major incident. Still, it could be so expensive when it does fail that the cost of insuring them would be dollars per kWh.
gasdive 2 months ago
Ooh, that's not nice! I think I'm just an arse to be honest! ;-)
greenpete 3 months ago
A few points:
1. Stop slagging off nuclear. If you want to get away from burning fossil fuels we need it. We can't afford to go with just renewables.
2. Don't compare a Nissan hatchback to executive cars, it harms your argument.
3. Rich people without solar are not scum. How do you know they've not invested that money in a more workable but less conspicuous form of green energy?
4. I'd give horses a bit more room when passing. They, and the people on them are mental.
XitUp 3 months ago
@XitUp A few points indeed.
1. I admire your confident finger wagging, telling me exactly what to think with such certainty.
2. Currently nuclear power has many, long term disadvantages, it's incredibly expensive, centralised and totally reliant on non renewable fuel.
3. The comparison between the Leaf and executive cars stands up very well.
4. Currently any very rich people deserve any and all criticism.
4. I drive past horses all the time, every day, I know what I'm doing, I ride horses
fullychargedshow 3 months ago 12
@fullychargedshow
1. Thank you. Admiring me is an admirable quality.
2. Indeed. But it's cheaper than renewables. I don't know why being centralised is a problem. Yes, the fuel will run out, but not for a very, very long time.
3. Does it? How? I like them, they're quite nice for a medium sized hatch back. But if it wasn't electric no one would compare it to a £40k car.
4. Define very rich. To me you are very rich, to most of the world, I am very rich.
4(again!). Sorry, your lordship ;)
XitUp 3 months ago
@XitUp Nuclear is only cheaper than renewables if the insurance/liablity costs are externalised to the general public (much the way coal is only cheaper if the costs are externalised). If you were to fully insure nuclear against the actual hazard (perhaps having to abandon a major city) and the risk which seems to be once every 15-30000 reactor years, then the cost of nuclear is between 5 and 30 times higher than renewables.
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive Yup, if for some reason you had to insure a nuclear reactor against something stupid that is never going to happen if it's run properly then I'm sure it would be more expensive.
However, if we're going down that route, how much more expensive would wind power be if it needed UFO insurance? ;)
(search for "wind farm UFO" on the BBC site)
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp I wouldn't call it "something stupid that's never going to happen" because it has happened. Wind would not be any more expensive due to "ufo insurance" because while the risk is similar the hazard is much much less, about one millionth. So the cost of insurance for wind would be about one millionth of the insurance cost for nuclear. As it's impossible to insure nuclear, it goes uninsured so the community pays. That's what externalised cost is. Profit to corporation, cost to us
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive Really? When has a major city ever needed to be abandoned? The only town I can think of is Prypiat, and 50k people is not a major city.
Why do you think it's impossible to insure nuclear?
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp It's hard to run through the figures in 500 characters. If there is a catastrophic failure in a nuclear plant then the area downwind can be uninhabitable for 20+ years. If the plant is near a major city then any insurance would need to be enough to cover compensation for everyone down wind. That may be trillions of dollars in compensation. To carry that risk an insurance company would need billions of dollars every year. It's impossible to raise that from selling electricity.
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive So no major city has ever needed to be abandoned due to a nuclear plant? You're admitting you were wrong about that?
And about them not being insurable?
So, next made up problem...
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp there have been four reactors that have failed badly enough that had there been a city (of any size) down wind that city would have had to be abandoned. It may be possible to insure against that hazard but no-one ever has. If you did, the electricity produced would be too expensive to sell. Hence the risk is externalised. That's my only point, that to exist, it has to externalise costs to the community, just like coal. Otherwise it's is and always will be uneconomic.
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive So no cities have had to be abandoned? Despite you saying that they had? Yes?
Do you work in the nuclear power or insurance industry? How do you know what they're insured for?
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp I didn't say cities have been abandoned (it would have made the news). I said accidents have occured in power plants that could have caused cities to be abandoned if they'd happened to the plants that are near cities. I know what they're insured for because it's a matter of public record. The US plants carry about 2% of the insurance needed to cover the hazard, the rest of the risk is borne by tax payers. I can't post links but google price-anderson.
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive But why do you think that they should be insured to cover something that has never happened? According to Price-Anderson the nuclear industry has to pay for any claims up to $12.6B. Have there been many claims that exceeded this?
Do you expect this standard for all industries?
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp That's what insurance is, covering something that hasn't happened. I have insurance to cover injuries I inflict on someone else when I drive yet I've never injured anyone. I would like all industries to be held to this standard, but the ones with large lobby budgets don't seem to be held to this standard. There have been no claims beyond $12.6B. What would you estimate the cost of compensation for London? I estimated for Sydney at 8 trillion dollars. (about 1000 times P-A)
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive You might not have injured people or damaged property when driving, but others have, hence there is a precedent set for needing to be covered against that. There is no precedent for having to abandon a city due to nuclear plant failure.
I have no idea what the cost of compensation for London would be. A lot, but the nearest plant is 100 miles away.
I think it's daft to make people take out insurance for something that there is no precedent for.
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp "the nearest plant is 100 miles away" The Chernobyl confiscated/closed zones extend as far as 180 km in the downwind direction. There's a blob about 120 miles in diameter centred about 130 miles downwind that's pretty much all useless now. Take a wild stab at the cost to the UK of abandoning London, completely over a couple of days. Every business based in London would collapse, stock exchange, goverment, everyone walking out, unable to take anything with them. 50 trillion?
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive should have said "extend as far as 180 MILES in the downwind direction"
gasdive 2 months ago
@XitUp You still haven't addressed the issue in the UK where liablity is limited to only 140 million pounds (about 1/100 000th of the foreseeable damage)
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive That is very low, but I don't see the point in changing it until there is a need to, that would just be putting money into the pockets of the insurance companies and making a low carbon energy source less desirable.
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp There's certainly a few examples of reactors making an area uninhabitable. It's not a stretch to think that if you site one in a densely populated area (like the whole of the UK) then there's a risk. That can be borne by an insurance company (at a price) or by the general population (for free). If you make the general population do it then there's no doubt that you're making them do something that a company normally gets paid to do. It's like forced labour. Is that what we want?
gasdive 2 months ago
@XitUp You're certainly right to say that making the reactors pay to cover the risk makes nuclear less desirable. That's why the P-A and the UK gov's policies exist. To make nuclear cost competitive it needs government to unbalance the playing field in favour of nuclear (and coal which also externalises costs). In a *level* playing field renewables would need no gov support because they'd be the cheapest.
gasdive 2 months ago
@XitUp If you don't see a point in changing it until there is a need to, what mechanism do you propose for that? If one blows up (which they seem to do about every 15000 years or so), what then? Do you mean that's the time to start an insurance policy or realistic size? Do you mean the reactor operator should then come up with the trillions of dollars? How likely is it that they will be able to? Do you mean wait for another country to be bankrupted then we should insure after that?
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive sorry "policy *of* realistic size" I wish I could edit typos....
gasdive 2 months ago
@gasdive IF that happens then you change the policy. It's very simple, I don't think you should need insurance to cover things that there is no precedent for. If a reactor causes a lot of damage due to negligence then there are already systems in place to get compensation from them.
Not sure what bankrupt countries have to do with the subject. A quick google shows that Greece and Italy don't have reactors though...
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp "very simple"... yes... Like if my house burns down I'll take out fire insurance straight away. Doesn't do much good after the fact. There are *no* systems to get compensation if a reactor causes a lot of damage due to negligence. That's exactly my point.
"Bankrupt countries" was simply that after you have to evacuate London the UK would go bankrupt. It would make the siege of Stalingrad look like a holiday camp.
gasdive 1 month ago
@gasdive You've still not said why London would need to be evacuated when the nearest reactor is 100 miles away.
Look at Fukoshima, the WHO said that the town didn't need to be evacuated and those people were a lot closer.
XitUp 1 month ago
@XitUp Chernobyl caused evacuations 180 miles away. Areas that are still unlivable.
gasdive 1 month ago
@gasdive put this in the Youtube search: Thom Hartmann: Nuclear Power - "We Almost Lost Nebraska"
gasdive 1 month ago
@XitUp However in the UK the government limits the liablity for each operator to 140 million pounds (virtually nothing). Beyond that the claims go to the government, so the UK tax payer carries the risk for the nuclear plants.
gasdive 2 months ago
@XitUp
1) Wrong
2) No comment, don't really care
3) I think they are. If they are investing in a more workable and less conspicuous form of energy, I'd have heard about it by now - but currently wind, solar and hydro/tidal are definitely the best alternatives. There is no excuse for a rich person to NOT get solar unless their roof isn't sun-facing.
4) Accompanied horses are less likely to as we tend to judge the horse and its mood, but I won't disagree that horses need care taken.
Hirotoro4692 2 months ago
Now to expand on 1) there are enough 'high-wind-frequent-wind' areas in this country to warrant, if the government had the money to spare, an entirely wind-sustained economy. I am NOT joking whatsoever. Nuclear is NOT a necessity when such an abundance of renewable sources DO exist before our very eyes.
Hirotoro4692 2 months ago
@Hirotoro4692 If the government had the money to spare. I think that's the key point.
How much of your own money have you invested in renewables, if you don't mind me asking?
XitUp 1 month ago
@Hirotoro4692
1. No, u r
2. Thanks for that.
3. How many wells have you built in Africa? There is no excuse for someone rich enough to own horses AND a computer not to build wells in Africa.
4. Nice one.
XitUp 2 months ago
@XitUp perhaps I will invest in a well in Africa, then! Not any time soon but it would be a lovely contribution before I die. Good call.
Hirotoro4692 1 month ago
Was that 67 mph or kph whilst you were yacking to the camera and not concentrating on the country road?
Interesting stuff though, thanks!
greenpete 3 months ago
@greenpete The shot of the speedo was taken at another point when I wasn't talking, it's called editing.
fullychargedshow 3 months ago 5
@fullychargedshow No! is that right? You avoided the point about speeding on our roads though! Yes, we all do, but I feel you should at least be modest about it and avoid advertising about your transgression when you're trying to make other, possibly valid points.
greenpete 3 months ago
@greenpete u must be the YouTube police! :D
fotozeus 3 months ago
@greenpete Talking to a fixed/mounted camera doesn't take many peoples concentration off the road even remotely as much as talking on a phone does.
Hirotoro4692 2 months ago
Just noticed what was scrawled on the back window in the glass dust... ?
TheSecretVault 3 months ago
Robert, best of success to you... thanks for opening the door a little wider on renewables and electric vehicles. Having gone from significant disposable income to under employed, from an 02 Honda Insight and commitment to destroying the earth less I agree. Even with reduced income I absolutely make a impact in how my country chooses and uses energy and sustainability - economically and personally. The total collective picture of our actions count.
You are a star. Thanks.
c33r0k33 3 months ago
rich people without solar panels are not scum, they just laugh at the people with solar panels. In Belgium the government wants to stop giving grants for installing solar panels since they have almost no return. Come back when they have a min. 75% efficiency in worst time conditions. Solar panels are massive overpriced for what they can actually do. Besides that 40k car has 10x the finish and styling of a Prius. For some a car is just transport for others it's something they enjoy. Luxury costs.
darupz 3 months ago
@darupz I have no idea of the situation in Belgium, all I know from actual, concrete experience is that even in this area of northern Europe, the solar panels I have produce an enormous amount of electricity which saves not only a lot of money but also a lot of fossils being burned to run a turbine.
I don't want to 'come back when... whatever' and I want you to buy a very expensive, inefficient fossil burning car with 'high end finish and styling...yawn' and just carry on exactly as you are.
fullychargedshow 3 months ago
@darupz Oh yeah, and now I'm even more convinced, rich people without solar panels are moronic scum.
fullychargedshow 3 months ago 8
@darupz Yeah, lets all laugh at the people with solar panels because they are doing more for the environment, that what you are saying? Or because the panels look 'silly'? Personally I think they look kind of cool and make a house appear more hi-tech in addition to driving its market value up, but each to their own.
Hirotoro4692 2 months ago
@darupz and they do provide a decent return. Don't pull misinformation from your ass. Most rich people I bump into strike me as people who are very good at what they do for a living; their profession. But when it comes to a care or understanding as to where their luxury comes from or how the world works environmentally and socially outside their own bubble of existence, most of them seem to have the common sense and awareness, let alone care, of a chocolate biscuit.
Hirotoro4692 2 months ago
rich people without solar panels are not scum, they just laugh at the people with solar panels. In Belgium the government wants to stop giving grants for installing solar panels since they have almost no return. Come back when they have a min. 75% efficiency in worst time conditions. Solar panels are massive overpriced for what they can actually do. Besides that 40k car has 10x the finish and styling of a Prius. For some a car is just transport for others it's something they enjoy. Luxery costs.
darupz 3 months ago
Why dont you get an arseistant to do filming for you for the shows and you just do a bit of presenting. They could probably cut it for you too... someone who lives close to your neck of the woods. Might be good work experience for someone. Also you could offer a few shows to be hosted by some others because your busy. That way things could carry on. Red Dwarf - tell us more...
truthseekers666 3 months ago
Jeremy Clarkson speaks from his anus on EVs.
paytontech 3 months ago 22
Bit misleading of you to say that nuclear power involves burning things, Uranium is required, but 1kg can produce as much energy as by burning 1,500,000kg of coal. Following this, re-processed uranium can be re-used in reactors increasing the output 60 times. Yes there is the problem of disposing of waste (waste from coal burning is simply pumped into the atmosphere) for thousands of years, but with further research, more and more could be recycled.
xiannic 3 months ago
Thanks, and good luck with Red Dwarf. (British TV productions seem to move at a glacial pace.) I like the new camera rig - wide angle lenses, and the new camera positions (or am I imagining that?). A solar power program would make even more sense here in Canada, with its large distances to transmit power over, and for the most part, sunnier weather. Not much chance of that with our current oil-funded ultra-conservative government.
greyareaRK1 3 months ago 16
@greyareaRK1 Culture fan perhaps?
sqkmarshall 3 months ago
@sqkmarshall Good eye! :-)
greyareaRK1 3 months ago
Thanks Bob - interesting and thought-provoking as always.
ipponken53 3 months ago
You can now lease the solar panels for your house with $0 down. What you get is a steady payment non-dependent on consumption and a good percentage of your energy coming from clean sources. I am seriously thinking about doing this and I could not be farther from rich.
vicbel 3 months ago
I know I would buy an electric car if I could afford one. We're still a long way from all the energy for production of electric cars to come from renewable energy sources (all the way from ore extraction to delivery).
shaurz 3 months ago
Congrats on the return of Red Dwarf! I knew you looked familiar...
Apparently I've got a bit of catching up to do... I guess that's what I'll do until FC returns!
sevinPackage 3 months ago
It's unfortunate that this channel isn't as popular as Red Dwarf. People would rather laugh at fiction than face facts.
benjy545 3 months ago
Red Dwarf? I'm such a fan of the show, even though I only know it only since 2004. Watched some episodes on DVD the other day.
Living in Germany may have something to do with discovering this SciFi commedy jem so late. Didn't connect the dots.
So I will stay patient especially because I'm so looking forward to anything new on Red Dwarf. Brilliant show. It also explains why xour humor appears to be compatible with mine since I've always had a blast watching Red Dwarf. OK, enough fan mail.
bassbacke 3 months ago
Prof. Brian Cox said "more money is spent on mobile ring tones than nuclear fusion research". Even though we can create a fusion star on earth, it is possible.
rainbowsalads 3 months ago
Gotta say I was impressed by the acceleration at 4:55. Obv. the Leaf isn't a Roadster or anything like that, but it's still impressive for the first REAL electric hatchback.
Hirotoro4692 3 months ago
"They're Scum!" Oh Robert you are funny.
ninjabob2456 3 months ago
I'm a Leaf driver in the USA, and a fan of Red Dwarf. Great news about the new series. I'm glad you brought up the whole "return" justification. I get tired of people asking me to justify my purchase. Then I look at their car (usually more expensive than my Leaf) and ask them to justify theirs in terms of return on investment. They can't. So I say I bought the Leaf because I LIKE it, I WANTED it, I think it is COOL and that is the only reason I need!
adric22 3 months ago 3
Like many of your subscribers, I am torn as to the news about this show. I am very happy for you on a personal level with filming Red Dwarf and I am very eager to see you back behind the wheel with your wit, charm, intelligence and broad range of cars and information. I hope you keep up with your blog and that someone else in your industry will help you with your work so that you can do more, because your reports have been very helpful in the discussion about our energy future and options.
msyin9 3 months ago
I only watch top gear because it's funny, and that's it. It's disappointing to know they spread lies about electric cars. If I want to have a laugh, I watch that. And it's really nice that you have a nissan leaf and show everyone the advantages of it etc. . That's why I watch these vids.
Archimedes555453525 3 months ago
"...almost sexual" Hahaha you are hilarious man
kidmecha 3 months ago
hehe I share your frustration Kryten. we'll get them. we just need to keep on trucking.
but one very effective way to defeat them is to get electric cars that are much lighter and more aerodynamic than the Leaf. instead of 1700kg why not the 900kg the Audi A2 weighed. or why not much less. half the battery means much cheaper to buy, even cheaper to run and can be equally faster to charge from chademo. instead of 20 minutes to fill 80% it could be 10.
or say you only need to add 50km in 5 mins
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
Superlightweight cars are unfortunately a pipedream .. even though we have the technology for them, people want the bigger, heavier and safer cars. Now that people have gotten used to cars with a million airbags, seatbelt pretensioners, and more crumplezones than youc an shake a stick at, not to mention a whole nother car made out of plastic inside the metal shell - We have to accept that cars are now heavy.
But I do agree, super light cars would be great.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@Jesus45U we most certainly don't have to accept that cars are idiotically heavy. same as we most certainly don't have to accept idiotic combustion engines.think a little o mindless product of status quo.
it is not about safe, it's about cars being made from soft heavy steel by indifferent engineers.
with approval of mindless people like you.
fiber glass for instance weighs 1/3 that of soft steel and has 8 times higher tensile strength. that's 24 times better by weight. no small margin. think
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
Tensile strength doesn't automatically translate into "safe", there's more going on. Compression strength for example, is important too. Also, by the time you have added all the airbags, ABS, traction control systems, crumple zones, etc, etc, you have already rounded a ton for a small family car.
And lets not forget that people want comfortable cars too.
Big soft seats with electrical adjustment.
Electric windows.
etc. etc.
I'm not saying *idotically* heavy ... just heavy.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@Jesus45U your mindlessness disgusts me. you are willfully wicked. you just let all the excuses well up in you to let evil stay.
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
Willfully wicked, huh ? Evil ? And you call me mindless ?
Think about it for a few moments - If people wanted lightweight fiberglass cars, they would be all over the place. Fibeglass has been around since the second world war, and yet only a few cars are made of it. People want big, luxurious and safe cars, and that is what the car companies give them. Just look at private airplanes, all fiberglass and aluminium.
You can only sell what people want to buy !
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@Jesus45U the same argument could be made against the prius. the electric car. the iphone.
you are all of the above. you refuse to think. you are wicked
people never had a chance to buy a light weight aerodynamic car. I will not answer you again if you stay wicked
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
No lightweight cars, huh ?
Like the old Saab's ? Or a Lotus Elan ? Or even a Citroen BX ?
All of those are about half the weight of the current crop of cars, yet none of them was continued either in direct form, or a modernized version.
As for the Prius, it's a big, heavy, safe and fairly comfortable family car. The electric car isn't widespread, and the iPhone is as much a fashion statement as it's an actual phone.
And stop calling me wicked, that's incredible rude.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen Lotus make fiberglass cars. The Corvette is fiberglass. What car do you drive?
XitUp 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen Safety is a strong concern. But I do agree with you. Even the dumbest manufacturer knows a lighter car is more efficient. This is especially true of course with EVs. What I can say is keep your eyes peeled on this 'Solid State Battery' research. It's going well so far, there are a few more hurdles but if the research pays off, by 2016 we could be driving electric cars that have battery packs a FRACTION of the current weight!
Hirotoro4692 3 months ago
@Hirotoro4692
Light cars are indeed more efficient, and yet, cars gets heavier and heavier, because it's easier to build a heavy car that has a 5 star euro ncap rating, than doing the same with a lightweight car. So the manufacturers go for the cheaper solution, because it's easier to sell cheap cars than expensive cars.
As for Solid State Batteries, they are incredibly fascinating ... I am looking forward to see how those come out, along with supercapacitors for better regenerative braking.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@DanFrederiksen anyhow I'm all for lighter cars as long as safety isn't compromised.
Hirotoro4692 3 months ago
Nooo, but yeees RD! But no! Damn it! I'm torn :'(
fotozeus 3 months ago
i don't think nuclear energy will run out any time soon, the biggest problem with it is it hangs about for thousands of years
ojdavies147 3 months ago
@ojdavies147 check out Nuclear Thorium research. Should cause zero emissions.
Hirotoro4692 3 months ago
I hope that speedo's in KPH, Bob...
Good luck with the new Red Dwarf and thanks for another good episode of FC :)
SimplyPaul 3 months ago
@SimplyPaul UK uses MPH Just like the US... The rest of Europe/Asia use KPH.
girochin007 3 months ago
@girochin007 Yes, I know. I'm in the UK. Where the speed limit is 60mph on most extra-urban single carriageway roads and people have been 'done' for speeding by posting video of themselves online going over 60 on max 60 roads... The Leaf is Japanese and could be an import..?
SimplyPaul 3 months ago
@SimplyPaul I wouldn't know... I'm in the US and all cars here are imports these days including the "American" brands
girochin007 3 months ago
@girochin007 Even the thousands of Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs, etc that are built in America? Or are you just being silly?
XitUp 3 months ago
The panels are cheaper because the Chinese got in that business and what to dominate it.
Vitaminous 3 months ago
Hope to see you back soon on Fully Charged, Robert. Good luck with your new TV show and thanks for what you've done so far.
JRoque250 3 months ago
Who would of thought proving Clarkson wrong could be a sexual fetish?
kinky ;-)
harveybirdman74 3 months ago 2
@harveybirdman74
One must admit, it's a rather specialized fetish !
... maybe he's secretly gay for Clarkson ?
Jesus45U 3 months ago
Solar panels are much more efficient than plants, so screw biofuels :) GO ELECTRIC and SOLAR :D
WillMasterke 3 months ago
Question that has plagued me for a while. What does playing the radio/music do to range? Does Volume also effect range?
schme1440 3 months ago
@schme1440 No. It's a tiny power draw. Crank it up!
JRP3 3 months ago
@schme1440
The average car stereo doesn't draw much power compaired to everything else in a Car.
So unless you have an ENORMOUS stereo in the car, it's not going to be an issue.
And even then, the weight of the stereo would take more energy to lug around than to play it.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
@schme1440 The sound system will not noticeably reduce the range. Perhaps a 0.1% reduction of you had the volume really high.
tesla500 3 months ago
Good to hear you bang on about renewable energy, because we do have to get serious about it soon. Especially since the work on the national grid is enourmous, and takes a lot of time, and it has to be done *before* we run out of petrofuels, or it's too late.
On the other hand, your car comparisons ... you compaired a large Range Rover or a large Mercedes SUV, with a nissan leaf ! C'mon, at least compare it to a car of it's own size, like a diesel hatchback - Much more interesting and relevant.
Jesus45U 3 months ago 2
@Jesus45U Yeah, the Leaf is much closer to a £17k car than a £40k one.
XitUp 3 months ago
@XitUp
Oh, I wasn't going so much on about the price difference in the cars that he compaired the Nissan Leaf to, more the size and purpose of them
Really, the Leaf is a compact family hatchback ... and that's what it should be compaired to. Like a Toyota Corolla, or a Ford Focus, those would be much more interesting and relevant to the viewers of the show.
Jesus45U 3 months ago
gunna miss you Robert have fun filming red dwarf! try and do a couple of videos if you can keep us subscribers happy!
jamiehasnomercy 3 months ago
thanks beeing there, regards from ibiza..
drjkill 3 months ago
Just imagine all the things that would never need servicing in an electric car. No slumping engine mounts. No leaking head gaskets. No costly timing belt service, water pumps and radiator leaks, coolants etc....
DingoBabyEat 3 months ago
@DingoBabyEat On many electric cars the batteries are cooled.
You'd still need mounts for the motor.
All the steering, braking, suspension components would be the same.
XitUp 3 months ago
Have a good time with the Dwarfers, Rob! Look forward to seeing you back here next year!
VideoTimChannel 3 months ago
Simply brilliant! The future is electric!
ivarsrini 3 months ago
Very happy to hear the news. How about a "smeg ups" for Fully Charged?
Aydosh1991 3 months ago
You were speeding in an electric car, JC will be pleased :)
SrlisterYT 3 months ago
Red Dwarf ! That's al we need to know. My generation grew up on Red Dwarf. I can't wait.
Yakumo1975 3 months ago
very funny! Well done - rich people who don't buy solar panels are scum!!!
ab3000x 3 months ago
we all have to accept that oil is a diminishing resource. The nay sayers and their gas guzzlers are in for a big shock in a few years. New technology must be welcomed, thanks for another informative video
maturerobuk 3 months ago
Sort of weird episode.
BTW, I saw the news recently which reported that the number petrol stations in the UK has gone down from about 20,000 to about 8,000, It will be interesting to see you will not have range anxiety on a petrol/diesel car once the fuel stations drop to about 4000. That gave another amazing revelation. You will most often find a plug within 2-3 miles of where ever you are, but its will be difficult to find a petrol station every 50 miles, if things go this way.
arunmur84 3 months ago
It's been a while but it's nice to know about the cause of the delay, I've seen Red dwarf and I like it, so not all lost!
toyotaprius79 3 months ago