# Chevrolet Volt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2010, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643 "2010-10-19T11:12:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/361 "2010-11-06T15:08:16Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/charge-electric-cars-stores-460310](http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/charge-electric-cars-stores-460310) Major retailers are going to charge electric vehicles ,while you shop, for free. The beat goes on. And [on cue](http://www.meijer.com/content/corporate.jsp?pageName=press_releases#) - > [@](#): > > GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 4, 2010) – Meijer, the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based supercenter chain, has announced plans to install electric vehicle charging stations at several of its Michigan stores, the announcement was made today by Julie Croll, senior vice president of properties and real estate for the retailer. … The first charging station was unveiled today at the Meijer store in Warren, Michigan, and will be followed by stores in Allen Park and Holland, Michigan. Each store will receive two charging stations which can be used by Meijer customers at no cost. > The plug-in charging stations are manufactured by Coulomb Technologies, based in Campbell, CA. Providing 120V and 240V options, these chargers represent the most current vehicle charging technology and meet the SAE J1772 standard adopted by automakers. > Meijer is obtaining the charging stations through Roseville, Mich.-based Shocking Solutions, a leader in plug-in vehicle infrastructure solutions and consulting. Shocking Solutions is the Midwest’s exclusive distribution partner for Coulomb Technologies ChargePoint® Networked Charging Stations. Installation of the units is being handled by Waterford, Mich.-based ChargeNow. > The purchase and installation of these units represents an investment of nearly $100,000 by Meijer. In 2011, Meijer plans to expand this initiative by installing additional charging stations in 10-20 more stores throughout the Midwest. Of course in Michigan they get some particularly good pr from supporting anything that is part of Michigan trying to rebuild an industry for itself. Not just GM, but [others](http://www.brighterenergy.org/16588/news/transport/electric-vehicle-development-center-opens-in-michigan/) [as well](http://www.hybridcars.com/economics/michigan-electric-car-batteries-and-jobs-27735.html). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/362 "2010-11-06T15:59:08Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Yes, if the home high-amp installations go like they should there should be little problem, and if people do smart things around electricity, there should be no accidents. But given my recent experience with so-called “master electricians” who not only don’t follow code, they don’t know it in the first place, I wonder how many of these high-amp electrical installations will be done properly. One researcher equated a PEV fleet of 10,000,000 automobiles with 950 more house fires per year (of varying intensity and impact), and a combined death total from fire and accidental electrocution of 500-1,000 per year. I think the death total is much too high, personally. Not to piss on this; rather I think that there needs to be some upgrades to the NEC which add additional protections for PEV charging stations. I don’t want to sound hardhearted, but 500 to 1000 deaths a year doesn’t sound that bad. Compared to the 34,000 people a year that get killed in automobile accidents and the 64,000 premature deaths from air pollution, it’s a rounding error. There would also be a decrease in deaths from gasoline related fires and explosions and carbon monoxide poisoning. Nissan has plans for a charger that works by magnetic induction rather than a direct electrical connection, so they wouldn’t be any risk of electrocution. The induction charger would be sitting on the floor of the garage and you would just park your EV on top of it. [http://www.igreenspot.com/ev-wireless-charging-system-from-nissan/](http://www.igreenspot.com/ev-wireless-charging-system-from-nissan/) > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I also recently attended a conference where I spoke to some folks from Areva and Westinghouse, where their message was that in the US the only way to support a large EV fleet would be to bring online about 1.5 GW of nuclear power every 3 months, for about 50 years, starting now. But the Westinghouse folks said that in the US the nuclear industry is so decimated that many critical castings and forgings just can’t be made fast enough for that schedule, and the number of trained nuclear equipment-certified welders would need to increase by a factor of 50. The Westinghouse folks worried that US utilities would buy Chinese parts of “questionable” quality at a serious risk (I’m a consultant on a new boiler in…well, SE Asia, let’s say) where the Chinese boiler tubes are showing up on-site in horrible shape. The reason the client is sticking with them is that the tubes are so cheap, even if they reject 1 in 2 and accumulate delays, they still save money. > > The Areva folks on the other hand had no such worries, but then every time I talk to them they always act like they’re the Gallic “cock of the walk” (and the people I know in the company always tease me over coal.) What the Westinghouse people are saying sounds about right, but hardly means we can’t solve it. We we building more than 4 reactors a year during the seventies and so were the French during the eighties. The Chinese are starting a new reactor every month and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get to a reactor a week by 2020. We will have to build a lot of infrastructure and recover a lot of forgotten skills to do mass construction of nuclear power plants, but it isn’t like we don’t need the jobs. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/363 "2010-11-06T16:41:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > It probably should not shock us (sorry for the pun) that nuclear industry folk are claiming that many more nuclear power plants are needed, but did they reference the study cited up thread that showed that the current grid could handle 70% of today’s fleet being EVs _today_, so long as they charged in a trough filling fashion? Did they discuss V2G in any detail, if only to dismiss it on grounds of some sort? I read some of the studies on EVs. The important thing to know is the difference between baseload and peaking power. Baseload power is generated using the most efficient plants that run 7/24. Peaking power is older and less efficient plants that sometimes lack modern pollution controls. These plants are only put on the grid during high demand periods. They may only be run a few hours a day or only the summer with peak AC demand. You can charge up the EVs at night by using peaking plants that are usually offline, but that is the most expensive electricity. If you want to do it in massive quantities, then more baseload power plants is the cheaper solution. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/364 "2010-11-06T16:55:04Z")
The [study](http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf)(pdf) I referenced specifically _excludes using peaking plants_ as part of the calculations. > [@](#): > > To estimate the regional unused generation capability, we determined the difference between the total installed capacity and the hourly generation that is already committed to meeting the current load demand. This level of unused generation is further curtailed by precluding the use of peaking plants for the charging of PHEV batteries. Peaking plants are designed for relatively short run-time operations and would be uneconomical for continuous operation over long periods of time. Figure 2 illustrates the valley-filling approach. … The results of the analysis indicate that significant portions of the U.S. gasoline-operated vehicle fleet could be fueled with the available electric capacity. For the nation as a whole, about 84% of the energy needed to operating cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs (or 73% of the energy of the LDV fleet) could be supported using generating, transmission, and distribution capacity currently available. This would require power providers to use the available electric generation, base-load and intermediate generation, at full capacity for most hours of the day. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/365 "2010-11-06T17:55:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And [on cue](http://www.meijer.com/content/corporate.jsp?pageName=press_releases#) - Of course in Michigan they get some particularly good pr from supporting anything that is part of Michigan trying to rebuild an industry for itself. Not just GM, but [others](http://www.brighterenergy.org/16588/news/transport/electric-vehicle-development-center-opens-in-michigan/) [as well](http://www.hybridcars.com/economics/michigan-electric-car-batteries-and-jobs-27735.html). Well if the vehicles are in Michigan, why would it be a bad idea to have charging stations built there? I suppose when they get them in Nebraska, they will be built in Nebraska . If corporations get control, they will be built in Indonesia or China. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/366 "2010-11-06T18:17:23Z")
Of course not a bad idea. The point was merely that Meijer is not only doing this to get those two customers with EVs in those stores at a time, be they early adopters or not; they want the press of supporting local job growth in an emerging sector. It was merely a recognition that such may not apply as much to, say, Best Buys across the whole country. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/367 "2010-11-06T19:52:06Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I read some of the studies on EVs. The important thing to know is the difference between baseload and peaking power. Baseload power is generated using the most efficient plants that run 7/24. Peaking power is older and less efficient plants that sometimes lack modern pollution controls. These plants are only put on the grid during high demand periods. They may only be run a few hours a day or only the summer with peak AC demand. > > You can charge up the EVs at night by using peaking plants that are usually offline, but that is the most expensive electricity. If you want to do it in massive quantities, then more baseload power plants is the cheaper solution. I don’t know where you’re getting your information but peak use generators in my area are not old power plants, they are modern units (in groups) designed as advertised, for peak use. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/368 "2010-11-06T19:55:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Of course not a bad idea. The point was merely that Meijer is not only doing this to get those two customers with EVs in those stores at a time, be they early adopters or not; they want the press of supporting local job growth in an emerging sector. It was merely a recognition that such may not apply as much to, say, Best Buys across the whole country. looking ahead at the idea they would do well not to put these close to the store. If they create another buffer zone next to the handicapped spaces it will not be received well by the general public. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/369 "2010-11-06T20:12:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > looking ahead at the idea they would do well not to put these close to the store. If they create another buffer zone next to the handicapped spaces it will not be received well by the general public. I have no idea how many spaces they will start out with. It won’t be a big burden for patrons. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/370 "2010-11-06T20:51:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t know where you’re getting your information but peak use generators in my area are not old power plants, they are modern units (in groups) designed as advertised, for peak use. My understanding is that peakers are most often natural gas turbines. They are modern, compared to baseline coal, clean, but not designed for efficiency. They cost more to run per unit power produced and are not designed to run in a prolonged fashion. The utilities would love to see valley-filling. The more their baseline plants are fully utilized, the more profitable they are. The more they can avoid turning on the peakers the better for them as well. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/371 "2010-11-06T21:11:11Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I don’t want to sound hardhearted, but 500 to 1000 deaths a year doesn’t sound that bad. Compared to the 34,000 people a year that get killed in automobile accidents and the 64,000 premature deaths from air pollution, it’s a rounding error. Perhaps…I don’t say these things to poo-poo the electric car, but just to state that I think these folks made a case for making a broad-based analysis of the pluses and minuses, so we could try to mitigate some unintended consequences - such as making a better code for installation of and manufacture of EV charging outlets. And I would further editorialize by saying that it’s a good time to crack down on people who don’t follow the NEC… > [@](#): > > There would also be a decrease in deaths from gasoline related fires and explosions and carbon monoxide poisoning. I concur. > [@](#): > > What the Westinghouse people are saying sounds about right, but hardly means we can’t solve it. We we building more than 4 reactors a year during the seventies and so were the French during the eighties. The Chinese are starting a new reactor every month and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get to a reactor a week by 2020. There’ll be a ramp-up period needed, which will require a firm commitment to build, and build lots of plants. And one thing which Westinghouse is afraid of is that Areva will come into the US market with an established cookie-cutter design and essentially take over the market. It also means, in agreement with you, that we can do it, but we need to start today on getting ready for it. And I for one would really like to see if thorium designs can be made commercial on a large-scale to help with EV adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/372 "2010-11-06T21:16:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t know where you’re getting your information but peak use generators in my area are not old power plants, they are modern units (in groups) designed as advertised, for peak use. I agree; peaking power plants are most often simple-cycle (SC) gas turbines which while cheap to install, have a very high generation cost due to the cost of fuel. They also are not really supposed to operate in a baseload fashion, although that is changing as the technology is evolving. My company has built some baseload SC gas turbine plants, as well as combined-cycle (CC) baseload plants. Now it is true that in some situations a utility will throw every plant which can generate into the pool when power prices are high enough. One example I know of is an old, inefficient oil plant I work with, which produces power at about $50 per MWh. That’s much, much more expensive than the more efficient coal plants in their system are - but when power’s selling for $1,000 per MWh in the summer, well, $950 per MWh of profit is impossible to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/373 "2010-11-06T22:40:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t know where you’re getting your information but peak use generators in my area are not old power plants, they are modern units (in groups) designed as advertised, for peak use. If they are new plants and used for peaking power, then they are probably Natural Gas turbines. The common pattern is to use simple turbines for peaking power and combined cycle plants for base load power. The thermal efficiency of the combined cycle plants is nearly 50% higher than a simple turbine, which means that a CC plant is much more expensive to build, but the electricity is much cheaper. You might be able to check that yourself if you know the name of the plant. Check on [www.eia.doe.gov](http://www.eia.doe.gov). Natural Gas turbines are almost a perfect peaking power source, since they can be spun up quickly in response to changes in demand. If you run a utility company, then the problem with NG is pretty much explained by this price chart. [http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3M.htm](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3M.htm) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/374 "2010-11-06T23:01:59Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I agree; peaking power plants are most often simple-cycle (SC) gas turbines which while cheap to install, have a very high generation cost due to the cost of fuel. They also are not really supposed to operate in a baseload fashion, although that is changing as the technology is evolving. My company has built some baseload SC gas turbine plants, as well as combined-cycle (CC) baseload plants. Now it is true that in some situations a utility will throw every plant which can generate into the pool when power prices are high enough. One example I know of is an old, inefficient oil plant I work with, which produces power at about $50 per MWh. That’s much, much more expensive than the more efficient coal plants in their system are - but when power’s selling for $1,000 per MWh in the summer, well, $950 per MWh of profit is impossible to ignore. Una’s explanation is better than mine and also explains why I see power plants built in the 40s that are still listed as operational. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/375 "2010-11-07T00:00:30Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The [study](http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf)(pdf) I referenced specifically _excludes using peaking plants_ as part of the calculations. This study is for PHEVs with a range of 33 miles on a full charge, not for EVs and they are saying the same thing I did, they just call it intermediate generation instead of peaking power. Also check out the figures they gave for Sulfur Oxides and particulate emissions from running our older coal plants, without modern pollution controls full out. I loved this statement: > [@](#): > > The total SOX emissions are increased at the national level by about 125%, also caused by coal-fired power plants. However, while the particulate and SOX emissions are expected to increase in total, they would be removed from the urban areas to the locations of the power plants, commonly at a considerable distance from the large urban population. All urban emissions are expected to significantly improve (see Table 3). Translation: We will make the city air cleaner by exporting the pollution to the countryside. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/376 "2010-11-07T00:37:00Z")
It totally ignores solar panels on garages and wind generating stations. Translation, it is an obsolete back thinking report. The future of electric cars also includes tomorrows electrical generation. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/377 "2010-11-07T04:43:04Z")
Intermediate generation plants are [NOT](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsc.wi.gov%2Fthelibrary%2Fpublications%2Felectric%2Felectric04.pdf&ei=wyPWTJL-E8HvngeMuozUCQ&usg=AFQjCNEsL7KTeBqGuWLfkdWg7rLXIkv4Rw&sig2=oH073GXd0AEnorEZ31S62A) the same thing as peakers. (pdf) > [@](#): > > Base load plants provide a base level of electricity to the system and are typically large generating units. In Wisconsin, nuclear energy and coal has powered the state’s base load plants. These plants often require a substantial financial investment to build (higher construction cost), but are less expensive to operate over longer periods of time. Base load plants operate almost continuously (approximately 70 to 80 percent of the time), except when down for scheduled maintenance, repairs, or unplanned outages. They take a long time to ramp back up to full capacity and have limited to no ability to vary their output of electricity. > > In contrast, plants that satisfy peak demand (peaker plants) are highly responsive to changes in electrical demand. They can be turned off and on relatively quickly. However, they typically operate less than 10 percent of the time. Peaker plants are most often natural gas combustion turbines and are relatively expensive to operate but cost less to build than base load or intermediate load plants. > > The cost and flexibility of intermediate load plants fall in between those of base and peak load plants. These plants are designed more specifically for cyclic operation, or they can be older coal plants that have become too expensive to run as base load plants. They normally operate during times of elevated load demand, between 30 and 60 percent of the time. Compared to peaker plants, they are generally more efficient or utilize a cheaper fuel source and, therefore, cost less to operate. … CC power is commonly used to run intermediate load plants, operating more hours than a peaking plant. The calculations were for charging enough to cover an “estimated miles per year traveled in daily trips by personal vehicles to be approximately 12,000 miles per year per vehicle or about 33 miles per day per vehicle” That’s a pretty reasonable estimate of the charging needs whether the battery can travel much farther or not. Given that no one expects 73% of the light duty fleet to become grid powered overnight, or by 2020, or maybe ever, I have a hard time reconciling the fact that the current grid could handle 73% of the fleet being EV now (at an average of 33 miles of charging per day) with a statement that “the only way to support a large EV fleet would be to bring online about 1.5 GW of nuclear power every 3 months, for about 50 years, starting now” - without some pretty damn big definition of “large”. Yes new (and cleaner) generating capacity should be added. And as there may be some EV enclaves, cul de sac concentrations of current happy consumers all plugging in at night, some local transformer upgrades may be needed too. But any reasonable definition of “large” requires _smart_ charging more than more capacity. And do keep the SOX finding in context. VOCs, CO, NOX, all down. > [@](#): > > Total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions would improve radically by 93% and 98%, respectively, as a result of eliminating the use of the internal combustion engine. … The total nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions are significantly reduced (31%), primarily because of the avoidance of the internal combustion process in the vehicle as well as eliminating the refining process to produce gasoline. > The total particulate emissions (PM10) are likely to increase nationally by 18%, caused primarily by increased dispatch of coal-fired plants. As can be seen in Table 3, however, in regions with a large contribution to the marginal generation from natural-gas fueled plants, the total particulate emission could improve. The total SOX emissions are increased at the national level by about 125%, also caused by coal-fired power plants. However, while the particulate and SOX emissions are expected to increase in total, they would be removed from the urban areas to the locations of the power plants, commonly at a considerable distance from the large urban population. All urban emissions are expected to significantly improve (see Table 3). > It should be noted that with the emergence of PHEV, the emission sources will shift from millions of individual vehicles to a few hundred central generation facilities. The economics for emission reduction and carbon sequestration technologies may look much more attractive when installed at central power plants rather than in motor vehicles … Translation: the majority of pollutants would _dramatically_ decrease even if there was NO improvement to the current grid by the time 73% of the light duty fleet was EV charging 33 miles per day on average. Particulates and SOX are the exception if, and only if, we continue using the same dirty coal we currently use to the same amount and in the same exact way without any improvements - no retiring of older dirtier coal plants, no new nuclear or renewables, no retrofitted improvements to current coal plants or co-firing biomass with the coal. Yes, I love that statement too! ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/378 "2010-11-07T05:30:43Z")
To look at that claim of needing “1.5 GW of nuclear power every 3 months, for about 50 years” in even more detail - In 2008 [generating capacity](http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html) over peak demand period (summer) was 15.3 GW. At that rate we’d double the current capacity in 2.5 yrs! Meanwhile, per the report, “Providing 73% of the daily energy requirements of the U.S. LDV fleet with electricity would add approximately 910 billion kWh, an increase of about 24% of the total U.S. annual generation in 2002” (At 33 miles of driving per day on average.) In 2008 annual generation was 4,119 billion kWh. Which they conclude is what could be met by fully utilizing our extant base load and intermediate load capacity. Even if there was _no_ valley filling, and all charging occurred at peak demand times and the average driver drove significantly more than 33 miles a day on average, claiming that we’d need a total of 300GW (!) of additional capacity (1.5GW/quarter x 4quarters/yr x 50yrs) is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/379 "2010-11-07T06:20:50Z")
I think the number Una quoted included power plant replacement and not just the additional plants needed to increase the power needed for EV fueling. In my area this is a real concern. I can go down a list of power plants that have been shut down/torn down without replacement. We rely on peak use generators to bridge the gap. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643/380 "2010-11-07T12:25:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The cost and flexibility of intermediate load plants fall in between those of base and peak load plants. These plants are designed more specifically for cyclic operation, **or they can be older coal plants that have become too expensive to run as base load plants**. They normally operate during times of elevated load demand, between 30 and 60 percent of the time. Compared to peaker plants, they are generally more efficient or utilize a cheaper fuel source and, therefore, cost less to operate. … CC power is commonly used to run intermediate load plants, operating more hours than a peaking plant. So what they are saying is that we can supply enough power if we run all the old, dirty and inefficient coal plants full time, which is what I said in the first place. So the only part that you are disagreeing with is the word peaking instead of intermediate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chevrolet-volt/557643.md?page=20)