Elon Musk is running out of rich people...
- Thread starter philipp10
- Start date
- Status
People are not as interested in sedans so seems like natural progression. He has a CUV model anyway and have a feeling that sells quite well.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
The people who think electric cars are "green" are just kidding themselves about the eco-friendliness of electric vehicles. Somewhere north of 70% of all electricity in the US is still "fossil" fuel... with almost 20% nuclear. Renewables make up less than 15% of the total output, and hydro and wind are nearly 70% of that slice. The energy density of hydrocarbons is just too great to ever be completely replaced.
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups; why stick to gasoline engines on the hybrids? If you're going to do it, go all electric drivetrain with the diesel just to run the generator, and design it so the diesel is always run at its most efficient steady-state RPM when needed to charge. Then when you get home for the night, plug it in if you need to top it off. Actually, the best way would be to have an option to have an inductive mat or something on the floor of your garage and it charges when you park over it. Still have to keep a regular plug for those without garages.
NOX emissions. The size and limited run time caused problems with regards to having a SCR that could scrub the NOx. At least this was the reason BMW gave when they released the i8 with a gas 3 cylinder rather than the originally planned 3 cylinder diesel.
The people who think electric cars are "green" are just kidding themselves about the eco-friendliness of electric vehicles. Somewhere north of 70% of all electricity in the US is still "fossil" fuel... with almost 20% nuclear. Renewables make up less than 15% of the total output, and hydro and wind are nearly 70% of that slice. The energy density of hydrocarbons is just too great to ever be completely replaced.
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups; why stick to gasoline engines on the hybrids? If you're going to do it, go all electric drivetrain with the diesel just to run the generator, and design it so the diesel is always run at its most efficient steady-state RPM when needed to charge. Then when you get home for the night, plug it in if you need to top it off. Actually, the best way would be to have an option to have an inductive mat or something on the floor of your garage and it charges when you park over it. Still have to keep a regular plug for those without garages.
NOX emissions. The size and limited run time caused problems with regards to having a SCR that could scrub the NOx. At least this was the reason BMW gave when they released the i8 with a gas 3 cylinder rather than the originally planned 3 cylinder diesel.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Uphill_Both_Ways
It's -21°F here as I post this, (9:45 a.m.) with the low tonight forecast to drop to -26°F - not windchill temperatures.
I still want to know how long a Tesla or any other electric would remain mobile after a full charge in those temperatures, even with the heater and everything else that can be turned off turned off, with the driver and passengers cocooned in hooded parkas, ear muffs, mitts and mukluks. Surprise, surprise: Internet searches turn up nothing but crickets.
Welcome to 1910.
You and I are both in cold weather states......the electric car companies don't care about our market.....we are tiny. Think California, Texas, southern China and any place warm for the time being. They will get to us in about a decade when the batteries improve.
It's -21°F here as I post this, (9:45 a.m.) with the low tonight forecast to drop to -26°F - not windchill temperatures.
I still want to know how long a Tesla or any other electric would remain mobile after a full charge in those temperatures, even with the heater and everything else that can be turned off turned off, with the driver and passengers cocooned in hooded parkas, ear muffs, mitts and mukluks. Surprise, surprise: Internet searches turn up nothing but crickets.
Welcome to 1910.
You and I are both in cold weather states......the electric car companies don't care about our market.....we are tiny. Think California, Texas, southern China and any place warm for the time being. They will get to us in about a decade when the batteries improve.
Originally Posted by Sunnyinhollister
Originally Posted by Cujet
Bottom line: A average American powerplant consumes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil (or equiv in other fuels) to power an average EV 40 miles, for 25MPG in energy consumption! NOTE: US powerplants are significantly more efficient than the worldwide average.
Let's stop the lies about efficiency and concentrate on unnecessary energy use. We won't see any real benefits otherwise.
You are saying that it takes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil to generate 10KWH? I did not know that.
A little tangent here, but this thread is rare these days in that it actually has interested people in it.
Power station efficiency is worked in "heat rate"...how much energy it takes to get a unit of energy out the back end...turbine/generators take about 2.2KJ to get 1KJ out the generator. The boiler takes about 1.1KJ to get 1KJ to the turbine...about 2.42KJ input for 1 KJ Electricity...that's heat rate...it's the inverse of efficiency. 2.42 heat rate is about 40% thermal efficiency. It's easier to think of it in terms of conversion rates.
But we report in in GJ/MWh (MJ/KWh) as we are paid per MWh, and the heat rate gives you the measure of the energy that needs to go in to get that out.
So we usually report in terms of overall heat rate.
Generated - 40% is 9MJ/KWh (8,530 BTU/KWh)
About 5-6% of that is used in house to run the plant, so 9 becomes 9.6, or 9,100 BTU/KWh.
For Ca on a plant by plant basis
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/web_qfer/Heat_Rates.php
And US average historical heat rates...
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
Originally Posted by Cujet
Bottom line: A average American powerplant consumes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil (or equiv in other fuels) to power an average EV 40 miles, for 25MPG in energy consumption! NOTE: US powerplants are significantly more efficient than the worldwide average.
Let's stop the lies about efficiency and concentrate on unnecessary energy use. We won't see any real benefits otherwise.
You are saying that it takes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil to generate 10KWH? I did not know that.
A little tangent here, but this thread is rare these days in that it actually has interested people in it.
Power station efficiency is worked in "heat rate"...how much energy it takes to get a unit of energy out the back end...turbine/generators take about 2.2KJ to get 1KJ out the generator. The boiler takes about 1.1KJ to get 1KJ to the turbine...about 2.42KJ input for 1 KJ Electricity...that's heat rate...it's the inverse of efficiency. 2.42 heat rate is about 40% thermal efficiency. It's easier to think of it in terms of conversion rates.
But we report in in GJ/MWh (MJ/KWh) as we are paid per MWh, and the heat rate gives you the measure of the energy that needs to go in to get that out.
So we usually report in terms of overall heat rate.
Generated - 40% is 9MJ/KWh (8,530 BTU/KWh)
About 5-6% of that is used in house to run the plant, so 9 becomes 9.6, or 9,100 BTU/KWh.
For Ca on a plant by plant basis
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/web_qfer/Heat_Rates.php
And US average historical heat rates...
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
NOX emissions. The size and limited run time caused problems with regards to having a SCR that could scrub the NOx. At least this was the reason BMW gave when they released the i8 with a gas 3 cylinder rather than the originally planned 3 cylinder diesel.
Not to mention cost and complexity, the latter of which BMW is known for - and the car will be a bit porky when you count in the DPF + SCR, urea tank and the associated wiring/piping and control gear.
While SCR is a vast improvement over DPF-only, those systems will need to be ran hot and even hotter during a passive regen cycle. In the heavy-duty market, Daimler was pushing the "one box" solution that packages the DPF and SCR modules into their own unit, while Cummins insists on separate DPF + SCR modules(and they still do for bus applications). Daimler might have a good technical reason for their packaging.
NOX emissions. The size and limited run time caused problems with regards to having a SCR that could scrub the NOx. At least this was the reason BMW gave when they released the i8 with a gas 3 cylinder rather than the originally planned 3 cylinder diesel.
Not to mention cost and complexity, the latter of which BMW is known for - and the car will be a bit porky when you count in the DPF + SCR, urea tank and the associated wiring/piping and control gear.
While SCR is a vast improvement over DPF-only, those systems will need to be ran hot and even hotter during a passive regen cycle. In the heavy-duty market, Daimler was pushing the "one box" solution that packages the DPF and SCR modules into their own unit, while Cummins insists on separate DPF + SCR modules(and they still do for bus applications). Daimler might have a good technical reason for their packaging.
Originally Posted by philipp10
Tesla warns on Q4 profit, cutting jobs to pull down Model 3 price, 7% of workforce being cut. I think he is running out of rich people and people that cannot do simple math....
It's the tax credit going away, nothing more, nothing less, he staffed up temporary workers to sell as much as possible during the credit phaseout period as it ends so do their jobs
not hard to figure out really, GM didn't do anything different Closing plants timed with the tax credit expiration as well.
Tesla warns on Q4 profit, cutting jobs to pull down Model 3 price, 7% of workforce being cut. I think he is running out of rich people and people that cannot do simple math....
It's the tax credit going away, nothing more, nothing less, he staffed up temporary workers to sell as much as possible during the credit phaseout period as it ends so do their jobs
not hard to figure out really, GM didn't do anything different Closing plants timed with the tax credit expiration as well.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Bottom line: A average American powerplant consumes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil (or equiv in other fuels) to power an average EV
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
I'm glad you want to do math Shannon,
See my attached energy use screen and do the math for cost per mile. Gas vrs electric.
On that...
I'm glad the factory I work at pays 3.9 cents a kwhr
Since in the real world an EV is a financial decision, not an environmental one. (Although my local area is nearly 100% hydro)
Bottom line: A average American powerplant consumes 1.6 gallons of fuel oil (or equiv in other fuels) to power an average EV
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
I'm glad you want to do math Shannon,
See my attached energy use screen and do the math for cost per mile. Gas vrs electric.
On that...
I'm glad the factory I work at pays 3.9 cents a kwhr
Since in the real world an EV is a financial decision, not an environmental one. (Although my local area is nearly 100% hydro)
Originally Posted by Shannow
The boiler takes about 1.1KJ to get 1KJ to the turbine...about 2.42KJ input for 1 KJ Electricity...that's heat rate...it's the inverse of efficiency. 2.42 heat rate is about 40% thermal efficiency. It's easier to think of it in terms of conversion rates.
So we usually report in terms of overall heat rate.
Generated - 40% is 9MJ/KWh (8,530 BTU/KWh)
About 5-6% of that is used in house to run the plant, so 9 becomes 9.6, or 9,100 BTU/KWh.
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
Thank you kindly for that conversion information, Shannow!
Electric cars make SENSE when you consider three VERY "difficult" fuel sources:
1) Coal,
2) Nuclear, and
3) Wind/Solar/Hydro
(distant 4th is Natural gas)
Though it certainly isn't impossible, it is just is NOT convenient to use coal for vehicular use.
Same with Doc Brown's Back to the Future DeLorean's "Mr Fusion"..... weren't we supposed to have these by NOW?!?!?!
Now, even natural gas has possibilities for motor vehicle use, but the conversion bits are quite $$$$pendy.
If you want to see electric vehicles become widespread,
you have to make gasoline/petrol and diesel "inconveneient"
and the only way that is going to happen is with large tax increases.
The boiler takes about 1.1KJ to get 1KJ to the turbine...about 2.42KJ input for 1 KJ Electricity...that's heat rate...it's the inverse of efficiency. 2.42 heat rate is about 40% thermal efficiency. It's easier to think of it in terms of conversion rates.
So we usually report in terms of overall heat rate.
Generated - 40% is 9MJ/KWh (8,530 BTU/KWh)
About 5-6% of that is used in house to run the plant, so 9 becomes 9.6, or 9,100 BTU/KWh.
If anyone wants to go further, am happy to put some of the numbers into a spreadsheet and do per gallon comparisons.
Thank you kindly for that conversion information, Shannow!
Electric cars make SENSE when you consider three VERY "difficult" fuel sources:
1) Coal,
2) Nuclear, and
3) Wind/Solar/Hydro
(distant 4th is Natural gas)
Though it certainly isn't impossible, it is just is NOT convenient to use coal for vehicular use.
Same with Doc Brown's Back to the Future DeLorean's "Mr Fusion"..... weren't we supposed to have these by NOW?!?!?!
Now, even natural gas has possibilities for motor vehicle use, but the conversion bits are quite $$$$pendy.
If you want to see electric vehicles become widespread,
you have to make gasoline/petrol and diesel "inconveneient"
and the only way that is going to happen is with large tax increases.
Linctex,
as an engineer in power, I've got certain views on a "rational" energy.
Intractable energy sources should be solely stationary power applications
* Nuclear obviously stationary (although I'd love a nuclear steam car)
* Coal, stationary, near the mine, ash used to rehabilitate the mined area. (I DO love steam trains)
* Solar and wind (obviously stationary), but their resource and land use is pretty massive compared to the compactness and footprint of the two above.
* Natural gas - piped where it needs to go, and solely for heat, not for power gen fuel cell home electricity and hot water excepted.
* Oil - transport, and transport only (light up fuel for coal boilers is the exception, but recycled bunker fuels can make up the majority.
Solar panels and wind, charging batteries to provide power at night-time, to charge EVs...that' the stuff of nightmares to a remotely rational person.
as an engineer in power, I've got certain views on a "rational" energy.
Intractable energy sources should be solely stationary power applications
* Nuclear obviously stationary (although I'd love a nuclear steam car)
* Coal, stationary, near the mine, ash used to rehabilitate the mined area. (I DO love steam trains)
* Solar and wind (obviously stationary), but their resource and land use is pretty massive compared to the compactness and footprint of the two above.
* Natural gas - piped where it needs to go, and solely for heat, not for power gen fuel cell home electricity and hot water excepted.
* Oil - transport, and transport only (light up fuel for coal boilers is the exception, but recycled bunker fuels can make up the majority.
Solar panels and wind, charging batteries to provide power at night-time, to charge EVs...that' the stuff of nightmares to a remotely rational person.
Originally Posted by Danno
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups; why stick to gasoline engines on the hybrids? If you're going to do it, go all electric drivetrain with the diesel just to run the generator, and design it so the diesel is always run at its most efficient steady-state RPM when needed to charge. Then when you get home for the night, plug it in if you need to top it off.
The small turbo diesel would have the following challenges:
Cost - Extended battery package plus a diesel would make it dead in the water before you start
Weight
Packaging
NVH concerns
Tough emissions regs
Different and more complicated maintenance than gas
Misfuelling - yes, that is reality, ask me how I know
Diesel is also significantly more expensive than gas these days. With the insane regulations and cost diesel just doesn't make sense these days for many applications. Ford is supposedly coming out with a new 7.3 gas engine for the F250+ next year.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups; why stick to gasoline engines on the hybrids? If you're going to do it, go all electric drivetrain with the diesel just to run the generator, and design it so the diesel is always run at its most efficient steady-state RPM when needed to charge. Then when you get home for the night, plug it in if you need to top it off.
The small turbo diesel would have the following challenges:
Cost - Extended battery package plus a diesel would make it dead in the water before you start
Weight
Packaging
NVH concerns
Tough emissions regs
Different and more complicated maintenance than gas
Misfuelling - yes, that is reality, ask me how I know
Diesel is also significantly more expensive than gas these days. With the insane regulations and cost diesel just doesn't make sense these days for many applications. Ford is supposedly coming out with a new 7.3 gas engine for the F250+ next year.
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Technology shifts will continue to change and improve the world.
We need to think in 50 year plans instead of being short sighted.
My 1st computer was an IBM XT, with 128K RAM that was the hottest thing at the time.
The original IBM PC boasted 64K and cost $4,000 in the early 1980's.
Good old MS-DOS.
I love my fossil fuel cars, but the Tesla is changing the world.
Will Tesla survive? Perhaps not.
That is the cost of exploration.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Technology shifts will continue to change and improve the world.
We need to think in 50 year plans instead of being short sighted.
My 1st computer was an IBM XT, with 128K RAM that was the hottest thing at the time.
The original IBM PC boasted 64K and cost $4,000 in the early 1980's.
Good old MS-DOS.
I love my fossil fuel cars, but the Tesla is changing the world.
Will Tesla survive? Perhaps not.
That is the cost of exploration.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Hats off to you … it's hard to support HVAC systems in my area with just affordable solar … but as a minimum new homes should have solar/LED lighting systems … not just for green/green but for safety/security …
Radiant barriers ?
On the fires … Well, I think open debates should include all of the fire triangle … and mitigation comes from two sides of the triangle …
Radiant barriers ?
On the fires … Well, I think open debates should include all of the fire triangle … and mitigation comes from two sides of the triangle …
Last edited:
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Interesting post. If you can share...
What is the rated power output for your install?
What will it cost to install?
And what is the rebate per kWh from PG&E?
Job growth from renewable energy has been possible because of government subsidies, is that government intervention sustainable long term?
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Interesting post. If you can share...
What is the rated power output for your install?
What will it cost to install?
And what is the rebate per kWh from PG&E?
Job growth from renewable energy has been possible because of government subsidies, is that government intervention sustainable long term?
Originally Posted by Danno
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Interesting post. If you can share...
What is the rated power output for your install?
What will it cost to install?
And what is the rebate per kWh from PG&E?
Job growth from renewable energy has been possible because of government subsidies, is that government intervention sustainable long term?
My solar project includes:
New roof, about $11K
750K kWh $17K
Total $28K
30% Federal Tax credit $8.4K
My roof is at about half life right now; I chose to roll the new roof into the solar project to take advantage of the tax credit.
Should come in under $20K including the new roof!
PG&E offers a rebate of $800 for the Tesla, but I am not counting on it.
They have a quarterly rebate on energy supplied to the grid but not used.
I asked for an over kill system; I could have had less panels.
20 year guarantee.
Obviously, this is a plan to pay now for long term savings.
Some say solar increases the value of your property, but in Silicon Valley you pay for a zip code.
I do plan on using our AC more this year...
Regarding government subsidies...
Government subsidizes many things, sometimes indirectly.
I believe government should exist for the good of the people.
Renewable energy is certainly worth exploration.
Surely we do not have all the answers now; that is only a reason to continue subsidizing exploration.
My decision to purchase solar and the $62K Tesla Model 3 was partially made in support of exploration.
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
And I will get a quarterly check from PG&E unless they burn down much more of CA.
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Interesting post. If you can share...
What is the rated power output for your install?
What will it cost to install?
And what is the rebate per kWh from PG&E?
Job growth from renewable energy has been possible because of government subsidies, is that government intervention sustainable long term?
My solar project includes:
New roof, about $11K
750K kWh $17K
Total $28K
30% Federal Tax credit $8.4K
My roof is at about half life right now; I chose to roll the new roof into the solar project to take advantage of the tax credit.
Should come in under $20K including the new roof!
PG&E offers a rebate of $800 for the Tesla, but I am not counting on it.
They have a quarterly rebate on energy supplied to the grid but not used.
I asked for an over kill system; I could have had less panels.
20 year guarantee.
Obviously, this is a plan to pay now for long term savings.
Some say solar increases the value of your property, but in Silicon Valley you pay for a zip code.
I do plan on using our AC more this year...
Regarding government subsidies...
Government subsidizes many things, sometimes indirectly.
I believe government should exist for the good of the people.
Renewable energy is certainly worth exploration.
Surely we do not have all the answers now; that is only a reason to continue subsidizing exploration.
My decision to purchase solar and the $62K Tesla Model 3 was partially made in support of exploration.
Last edited:
Yep. His "River Bend" complex close to where I live will be laying off ~90 people.
Like we keep saying. With fuel as relatively cheap as it is, this stuff can't take off.
Like we keep saying. With fuel as relatively cheap as it is, this stuff can't take off.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups..
I hear that.
Or build an E-vehicle with standard 120VAC plug in capability and the ability to store and use a portable generator of your choice on board (externally of course) for top ups, or on the fly as needed.
I still don't understand why there hasn't been more work on very small turbodiesels to drive a generator in the electric cars when it needs additional top-ups..
I hear that.
Or build an E-vehicle with standard 120VAC plug in capability and the ability to store and use a portable generator of your choice on board (externally of course) for top ups, or on the fly as needed.
Originally Posted by JTK
Yep. His "River Bend" complex close to where I live will be laying off ~90 people.
Like we keep saying. With fuel as relatively cheap as it is, this stuff can't take off.
I guess to me that is a point in time assessment.
You are correct that people tend to ignore cost when it is low.
I am not sure this stuff is not taking off.
Solar is one of the fastest growing industries.
Solar use (and as an economic engine) has grown dramatically and is expected to double in the next 5 years.
Solar Growth
Yep. His "River Bend" complex close to where I live will be laying off ~90 people.
Like we keep saying. With fuel as relatively cheap as it is, this stuff can't take off.
I guess to me that is a point in time assessment.
You are correct that people tend to ignore cost when it is low.
I am not sure this stuff is not taking off.
Solar is one of the fastest growing industries.
Solar use (and as an economic engine) has grown dramatically and is expected to double in the next 5 years.
Solar Growth
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
How will the solar panels power your house at night?
Quote
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Jobs are a cost, not a benefit. 'Renewable energy' produces job growth because it's so inefficient.
Oh, and last I heard, Germany was giving its 'renewable' electricity to other countries for free, because it's far too unreliable and was destabilizing their grid. What happens when there's no country left with a stable grid to dump it on?
I am getting solar panels installed. The sun will power the house and the Tesla.
How will the solar panels power your house at night?
Quote
Renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are fueling job growth.
Jobs are a cost, not a benefit. 'Renewable energy' produces job growth because it's so inefficient.
Oh, and last I heard, Germany was giving its 'renewable' electricity to other countries for free, because it's far too unreliable and was destabilizing their grid. What happens when there's no country left with a stable grid to dump it on?
Originally Posted by Shannow
Linctex,
as an engineer in power, I've got certain views on a "rational" energy.
Solar panels and wind, charging batteries to provide power at night-time, to charge EVs...that' the stuff of nightmares to a remotely rational person.
Something I've long wondered, (my area is a net exporter of energy with 1 natural gas plant and 2 coal/biomass fired ones along with about a half dozen hydro plants, we export 90% of our energy.)
On that the power plant is under a mile away from the water treatment plant, various factories, malls and sub divisions .
The plant dumps waste heat in the river, why don't we pipe the hot water to the mall a 1/4 mile away, the factories and sub divisions?
It would be nearly free heat, Europe already ships hot water up to 50 miles but we just dump it.
Linctex,
as an engineer in power, I've got certain views on a "rational" energy.
Solar panels and wind, charging batteries to provide power at night-time, to charge EVs...that' the stuff of nightmares to a remotely rational person.
Something I've long wondered, (my area is a net exporter of energy with 1 natural gas plant and 2 coal/biomass fired ones along with about a half dozen hydro plants, we export 90% of our energy.)
On that the power plant is under a mile away from the water treatment plant, various factories, malls and sub divisions .
The plant dumps waste heat in the river, why don't we pipe the hot water to the mall a 1/4 mile away, the factories and sub divisions?
It would be nearly free heat, Europe already ships hot water up to 50 miles but we just dump it.
- Status
