Skip to main content

GM's Plug-in Plugging Into the Grid

By
VoltObligatory hat tip to NEI Notes reader Scott for pointing us to this Seattle Times story about GM's plans for its plug-in hybrid vehicle, the Chevy Volt.

Scheduled to launch in 2010, the Volt will run up to 40 miles on a single charge. That 40 mile threshold is key, as, according to GM, 78% of U.S. commuters drive 40 miles or less daily.

How would a fleet of electric cars impact the pump and the grid? (Here's where it gets really interesting.)
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a prominent Boston consultancy, estimates that if the entire U.S. vehicle fleet suddenly became electric, gas consumption would drop 70 percent, and electric-power consumption would jump about 17 percent.

"It's not that big a hit for the electric-power industry," said CERA consultant Patricia DiOrio.

What electricity source could respond to that demand? General Motors vice chairman and head of product development, Robert Lutz, has an answer,
The only real option is nuclear energy.
Labels:

Comments

Matthew B said…
There is a very good, albeit lengthy, article in this months The Atlantic about the Volt.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200807/general-motors

There also is an article on Forbes about the possible extra demand:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/forbes/2008/0630/038.html
June 18, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Anonymous said…
Now if only there was a way to reduce the cost of the Volt to something those 78% of people could afford. To its credit, however, it is a start in the right direction.
June 19, 2008 at 1:28 AM
robert merkel said…
Mind you, if the Volt's recharging systems are well designed, and "smart metering" becomes ubiquitous, it could charge when supply outstripped other demand, and thus help the grid cope with a greater proportion of intermittent renewables than might otherwise be the case

Longer term, hybrid vehicles might be usable for energy storage. At the moment the effect on battery life is such that you wouldn't want your expensive battery wasted providing grid backup, but that may change in the future.

But then, the expected pattern - recharging at night - would also nicely dovetail with more baseload nukes in the grid as well.
June 19, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Anonymous said…
Where did the Lutz comment come from? Source?

Thanks!
June 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …
1 comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

By
Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…
Post a Comment
Read more