Skip to main content

Toyota Powering Plug-In Vehicles With French Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain

From the IHT:
Would you feel better about the environment by filling up on electricity generated by a nuclear plant than plain, old gasoline?

That’s one of the questions Toyota may face as part of a partnership with Electricite de France announced Wednesday at a glitzy Toyota showroom on the Champs-Elysees in Paris.

The companies are setting up a “smart network” of plug-in points and household sockets that would charge users for filling up on French electricity, most of which comes from the country’s dozens of nuclear plants. Unlike coal, gas and oil plants, nuclear emits virtually zero carbon dioxide, although it does leave radioactive waste that troubles many citizens and environmentalists.

By charging cars at night, drivers would emit virtually no CO2 because that’s when nuclear plants are providing almost all the country’s base load of electricity, said Pierre Gadonneix, EDF’s chief executive.
I'd be willing to plug my car in at night? How about you?
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
If costs were comparable to gasoline-fueled vehicles, I'd have no problem going with a plug-in. My understanding is that range is limited, so as a family vehicle used for vacations and such, I don't think it's a good choice. But for commuting, it might be viable.
September 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said…
When I worked at Priarie Island I saw that they had several outlets in one of the parking lots for plug-in electric engine block heaters. I never did check to see if they were metered (too cheap to meter?). When I lived in Alaska for a year, my apartment building had similar parking lot outlets that were controlled by a timer switch inside each apartment. Owners of nuclear power plants could aid this wise conversion to electric vehicles by installing metered plug-ins in plant parking lots. Of course, plant vehicles like fork lifts, man lifts and utility carts could also be replaced with electric vehicles as the old vehicles wear out.
September 12, 2007 at 1:19 PM
GRLCowan said…
These plug-in vehicles are gasoline-fueled. They have enough battery for 10 to 20 km -- this takes a battery about as heavy as an extra passenger-- so you can make short trips like that without starting the gasoline engine.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, boron car fan
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
September 12, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said…
The concept could be extended to the parking lots at utility offices or other locations in communities that are close to nuclear plants.

I think it's a good promotional opportunity.

What the utilities could do is to work with small businesses that retrofit hybrid vehicles to plug-in status. As this invalidates the warranty on the vehicle, it's often best to do it with an older hybrid that is out-of-warranty.

This is analogous to something that is happening with CNG. There is a new business in my area run by a fellow who retrofits vehicles to run on CNG. He also owns a station where drivers can buy the CNG.
September 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more