Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Toyota E-REV? Not

December 27th, 2008 | Posted in: Competitors, E-REV, Hybrid

Toyota has recently announced its intentions to unveil an all-electric car at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

The only information Toyota has confirmed is that the car will be a new and original subcompact design and a limited range vehicle meant only for “town” driving, unable to handle longer driving needs. Reports say it will be priced under $20,000. There is no confirmation that the car is production intent at this time.

Since the Volt concept was first introduced, Toyota has repeatedly come out against its series-design , arguing that the parallel configuration used in their hybrids is more efficient.

So you might imagine when the Wall Street Journal and Detroit News when covering this new EV also published reports that Toyota was planning a range extended electric vehicle for a 2009 launch it was pretty shocking (no pun intended).

Per the Detroit News, “For more versatility, Toyota is developing a so-called extended range vehicle, an electric car with a small gasoline engine on board to charge its battery when it runs dry to offer longer driving when needed. That vehicle is scheduled to be introduced in late 2009.”

This news prompted me to contact Toyota. Sticking to their guns Toyota spokesperson Jana Hartline advised me, “We will be bringing a fleet of plug-in Priuses, powered by li-ion batteries, to commercial fleet customers in late 2009. We’ve never made an announcement about an extended-range vehicle – especially one for 2009. The EREV report was inaccurate.”

And so the parallel versus series debate goes on.

Posted by: Lyle

97 Responses to “Toyota E-REV? Not”

Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:47 am

Lyle, Thanks for clearing this up. What a great site!

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:52 am

It’s great that Toyota is moving into EV with more enthusiasm. They are one of the big guns, so whatever they do will push all the other companies. It hasn’t seemed to me that Toyota has been especially innovative, but they surely have been effective in pushing down the costs and perfecting the reliability of anything Toyota.

As they are traditionally secretive about new products, I’m not sure an official denial by a PR person means anything more than they simply are not making an announcement at this moment. Tomorrow is another day, and maybe another Toyota announcement.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am

Since EV’s are garnering a great deal of attention, and with the environmental benefits of electric propulsion, it is no surprise to me that Toymota is jumping on the bandwagon.

E-REV is another level of complexity as compared to an “around town” EV.

It takes about 4 to 6 years to design, test, source new parts, and build a manufacturing facility before a new car can make production. GM has head start on much of the competition, because not only did they start sooner, they also had the benefit of the EV1. The Volt is just a modernized EV1 with an onboard generator.

I don’t expect to see a great deal of competition from Toyonda in E-REV until at least 2014.

For those who think Honda has a lead with its fuel cell vehicles (like GXT), you might be interested in this link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=GM%3AUS&sid=aXJuHHWCn1K0

Note that we can count Lyle as one of the drivers of the FC Equinox. Another important aspect of this is that the drive system for the Equinox is electric, and the Volt will most likely have a similar system.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am

It looks like Japan is giving the E-REV lead to GM. And will be back engineering the Volt to produce a cheaper version in 2014. This is a good move by Japan. Toyota continues to sell the Prius to economy minded Americans. And Toyota continues to build their favorable Consumer Reports record. While GM spends a billion on E-REV development and hybrid (stay in the game) models.

GM will need to offer a basic low priced E-REV in 2014 to hold the lead. I think we know what it will be called. What is missing from this equation is the favorable Consumer Reports reviews. The future balances on car quality, pride in ownership, and user friendliness. The question of fuel economy will fade at 50+ mpg.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_prod_back.jpg

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_prod_side.jpg

=D~

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Electric cars and nuclear power will permanently solve the energy problem for the US; and China, Japan, India and any other nation held hostage by the despots of the uneconomic oil cartel.
Even the eco-dogues should appreciate that fact but they cling to their superstitions about nuclear energy.
It is good to see more and more emphasis from manufacturers on electric vehicles. This will help to mature the mindset of the American consumer.
Maybe the greenies should try for legislation in NYC or San Francisco that would require all electric vehicles by 2009.
I might put my ICE trailer behind a Toyota EV yet to get EREV on demand. Then I could smile at all the derisive comments regarding same.

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Will it come with a golf bag rack and a high rolling resistance, wide turf tire option? It would be perfect for driving down to (and onto) the local golf course…

I predict composite body panels that would be resistant to golf ball dings on the ninth hole.

Red HHR (with plenty of room for golf clubs, and a healthy fear of stray golf balls)

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am

It’s better than walking or living in a cave.
I gotta get a life until the Volt comes out.
I just wonder who the manufacturer will be?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am

I really believe GM nailed it with the Volt. 40 miles is perfect, and the EREV (a.k.a. series hybrid) design makes the most sense to me.

But let’s take a good hard look at the competition. Toyota’s plug-in Prius (strong hybrid) gets some amount of range on electric assist. Yes, if you go over 62 MPH, the engine comes on, and if you accelerate hard at any speed, the engine comes on. But even with the engine coming on, it’s a strong hybrid, so most of the power is coming from the electric motor. It’ll probably get around 150 MPG on electric assist, and around 50 MPG after that.

The question in my mind is: What amount of Plug-in Prius electric range would eliminate most trips to the gas station? If you have to plug/unplug every day and make frequent trips to the gas station, then the plug becomes an extra hassle. By contrast, if daily plugging and unplugging replaces most trips to the gas station, then the plug starts becoming a convenience, since waiting in line at the gas station is a hassle. So I believe eliminating most trips to the gas station will be a major convenience issue for all plug-ins.

Using my spread sheet for a typical yearly driving pattern ,
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Plugin_mileage.xls
and assuming that that you fill up the Prius’s 12 gallon gas tank when it gets down to 1/4 (9 gallons of gas per fill-up).
• With no plug-in assist, a Prius would require around 25 fill-ups per year.
• With a 15 mile plug-in assist, you would need around 18 fill-ups per year.
• With a 40 mile plug-in assist, you would need around 11 fill-ups per year.
• The Volt would need around 8 fill-ups per year, and thats with 1/2 the gas tank size of the Prius.

So to eliminate most trips to the gas station (meaning more than half), a Plug-In Prius would need around 40 miles of electric range.

The bottom line is this: I don’t think I would ever buy a plug-in with a 10 or 15 mile range, since this would be more hassle that it’s worth. But if the Volt became unavailable for some reason, and if Toyota came out with a Plug-In Prius with a 40-mile range, I would buy that. Also, if a 40-mile plug-in Prius costs way less than the Volt, I would buy the Prius.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am

The car Toyota is introducing at the show is also being labelled a ‘concept’ anyway, so I don’t see how it matters much what it can or can’t do.

Right now I’ll take just about any choice offered to me.

/can any ‘major auto’ build me anything out there? I’m not fussy…just give me 4 seats and a plug

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am

#5 Shawn Marshall Says: “Electric cars and nuclear power will permanently solve the energy problem for the US; and China, Japan, India and any other nation held hostage by the despots of the uneconomic oil cartel.”
————————————————————————————–
There are 2 problems with this statement.
1) Less than 1/2 of our oil consumption comes from cars.
2) Uranium is mined. It’s a finite resource. It’s not sustainable.

Page 11 of the following report:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E22.pdf
shows how uranium demand will exceed known reserves by around 2040.

Oil consumption in the U.S. breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, etc.)

Roughly 2/3 of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am

“Uranium is mined. It’s a finite resource. It’s not sustainable.”

I believe the quote was “nuclear power”.

If you want to get technical about it, nothing is sustainable.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am

#8 Dave G said,

I really believe GM nailed it with the Volt. 40 miles is perfect, and the EREV (a.k.a. series hybrid) design makes the most sense to me.

But let’s take a good hard look at the competition. Toyota’s plug-in Prius (strong hybrid) gets some amount of range on electric assist. Yes, if you go over 62 MPH, the engine comes on, and if you accelerate hard at any speed, the engine comes on. But even with the engine coming on, it’s a strong hybrid, so most of the power is coming from the electric motor. It’ll probably get around 150 MPG on electric assist, and around 50 MPG after that.

The question in my mind is: What amount of Plug-in Prius electric range would eliminate most trips to the gas station? If you have to plug/unplug every day and make frequent trips to the gas station, then the plug becomes an extra hassle. By contrast, if daily plugging and unplugging replaces most trips to the gas station, then the plug starts becoming a convenience, since waiting in line at the gas station is a hassle. So I believe eliminating most trips to the gas station will be a major convenience issue for all plug-ins.

Using my spread sheet for a typical yearly driving pattern ,
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Plugin_mileage.xls
and assuming that that you fill up the Prius’s 12 gallon gas tank when it gets down to 1/4 (9 gallons of gas per fill-up).
• With no plug-in assist, a Prius would require around 25 fill-ups per year.
• With a 15 mile plug-in assist, you would need around 18 fill-ups per year.
• With a 40 mile plug-in assist, you would need around 11 fill-ups per year.
• The Volt would need around 8 fill-ups per year, and thats with 1/2 the gas tank size of the Prius.

So to eliminate most trips to the gas station (meaning more than half), a Plug-In Prius would need around 40 miles of electric range.

The bottom line is this: I don’t think I would ever buy a plug-in with a 10 or 15 mile range, since this would be more hassle that it’s worth. But if the Volt became unavailable for some reason, and if Toyota came out with a Plug-In Prius with a 40-mile range, I would buy that. Also, if a 40-mile plug-in Prius costs way less than the Volt, I would buy the Prius.
===============================
I like this post Dave G. Allowing for both sides of the coin a little bit, hehe. I will note this about your ‘what the Plug-In Prius’ gets… specifically this part:

“• With no plug-in assist, a Prius would require around 25 fill-ups per year”

If this statement is true, then the Plug-In Prius is a beast…without even plugging it in. Forget the EV range component all together (and its competition with the Volt)…look what you have (using your math):

25 fills/yr @ 9 gallons = 225 gallons x $1.65 (today’s price)= $371/year

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am

Electric cars + Nuclear Power = the Future

#5 Thanks for saving me the trouble.

#10 and #11

Uranium is virtually inexhaustible. Current reserves reflect the fact that we haven’t even begun to look for uranium. Every day in the paper there is another large discovery somewhere. Uranium is where Oil was in 1900 and there is no reason to expect it’s development path to differ from any other mineral resource (iron, copper, aluminum, etc.). Uranium can be extracted from seawater if necessary – adds about 10% to electricity costs. In 50 years we will burn all the spent fuel again in advanced reactors and recover the 90+% of the energy that is still in the fuel.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am

#11 Mike756,

I guess I’m missing your point.

Looking at your link, answer #1 says:
“Nuclear power can come from the fission of uranium, plutonium or thorium or the fusion of hydrogen into helium. Today it is almost all uranium.”

So nuclear power is almost all uranium.

Also, what is unsustainable about solar, wind, and bio-fuels?

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am

Toyota has repeatedly come out against its series-design, arguing that the parallel configuration used in their hybrids is more efficient.
___________________________________

Really?

Prove it. Show me an efficiency argument.

The statements made have been with respect to production. Toyota wants a high-volume affordable design, something they can replace a large chunk of their traditional fleet with before the end of the next decade. That’s millions of vehicles.

GM’s goal is quite different. They are aiming for a time further into the future with E-REV, which is why they still have to focus on BAS and Two-Mode in the meantime. In other words, Volt won’t be a direct competitor with Prius for many, many years still… despite all the hype.

There is no FULL vs. SERIES debate yet when it come to price & volume.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am

#13 SteveK Says: “Uranium is virtually inexhaustible.”
————————————————————————————–
That would be great. I hope you’re right. Abundant nuclear power would solve many of our energy problems, but not all. Long distance travel by air, land, and sea will still require liquid fuels. Plastics and petro-chemicals also use oil. When I look at whole picture, I don’t see any one solution that will eliminate all of our energy problems. It will take a combination of solutions.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am

#12 statik,

Yes, the regular (non-plug-in) Prius is great. I wish more car makers built strong hybrids.

But even if everyone drove strong hybrids like the Prius, we would still be importing a lot of oil. We’ll need a combination of plug-ins and bio-fuels in order to stop importing oil from countries that hate us.

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:31 am

“Safe” nuclear, “clean” coal, and the Easter Bunny.

File under “Things that don’t exist.”

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am

Toyota sees the writing on the wall, they know EREV’s are coming. But they can’t some out and just say that because that delivers the auto industry trailblazer crown to GM and Toyota will loose the halo it got from the Pious.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am

#11 Mike756 says,

If you want to get technical about it, nothing is sustainable.

———-
How true when taken literally. Even the sun will be gone someday.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am

From the article:
The only information Toyota has confirmed is that the car will be a new and original subcompact design and a limited range vehicle meant only for “town” driving, unable to handle longer driving needs. Reports say it will be priced under $20,000.

—————–
This still requires two cars. E-REV is the perfect solution for now.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am

#19 Cautious Fan Says: “Toyota sees the writing on the wall, they know EREV’s are coming. But they can’t come out and just say that, because that delivers the auto industry trailblazer crown to GM, and Toyota will lose the halo it got from the Prius.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Well said.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am

#18 Lurtz says,

“Safe” nuclear, “clean” coal, and the Easter Bunny.

File under “Things that don’t exist.”

———————–
I too am not a fan of nuclear power. But only because I don’t see it as clean. When the scientists have a great solution for the waste, then I will be happy. But the waste seems to be the problem for me.
Were to store it or how to make the waste safe.

(Quote)
jan Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am

This source of electicity may be availabe soon:

http://www.thoriumpower.com/

I believe it is “green” and plentiful.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:42 am

On a side note Eaton, a $13 billion systems supplier, is developing a SERIES hydraulic hybrid, probably applicable to UPS. Now granted it won’t be plugged in, but it’s still cool. Typically I wouldn’t be too excited about a press-release like this, but Eaton is big dog.

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/ProductsServices/Hybrid/SystemsOverview/SeriesHydraulic/index.htm

Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but the main advantage of hydraulic hybrids is cost. They’re lighter & cheaper then electric system.

(Quote)
randy Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am

This is exactly why the EV-1 is dead , very limited range, also even a Volt will not work for me as a car is useless to me, until they makean electric van or pickup truck ill be driving my gas powered ones. All a car is good for is moving people , nothing else.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am

#23 Rashid Amul

We know how to store it, Yucca mountain.

Every technology has a drawback. There is no silver bullet. Nuclear is incredibly cheap & safe and solves global warming. The waste can be stored with high certainty. But it’s not 100%, it only 99.9999% safe. People freak out about the .00001%, but fail to apply similar statistics to other technologies. What if a geothermal well strikes a lave pile and starts a volcano? What if we run off of wind-farms and we have a 1 in a million year and get no wind for a month? What if……

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am

#26 randy Says: “… until they makean electric van or pickup truck i’ll be driving my gas powered ones.”
————————————————————————————–
You might find this interesting…
http://www.hipadrive.com/sema.html

(Quote)
Chevonly Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am

Japan and China the true innovators of the world, wait till someone else spends all of the money on R and D and then copy them as close as possible and make it cheaper, also do your best to avoid copy rite infringement but of course if you do get caught it will take years of court battles for the wronged party to collect. On the plus side Americans are so stupid they don’t know the difference or they don’t care. BONSAI

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Thorium: Naturally occuring at Thorium-232. Half-life of 14.05 billion years to 10 minutes, depending on isotope. Radioactive but not fissile. Absorbs neutron and becomes Uranium-233. Melts at 3300 degrees C.

So, to make nuclear power from Thorium, we concentrate a material with a 14-billion-year halflife, heat it to 2/3rd the temperature of the sun, and end up with uranium anyway?

…This makes nuclear energy safer?

/continuing this discussion requires this diagram:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/cunning%20plan/flyersfreak484/plan.jpg

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

#29 Chevonly,

There are different types of innovation.

Figuring out how to make an existing design more reliable and less expensive requires evolutionary innovation. Japanese car makers have done very well with this.

But radical changes in design, like disconnecting the gas engine from the wheels, that’s revolutionary innovation, and American and European car makers seem to do better here.

In the end, I think car makers need to do better at both. American car makers need to do better at evolutionary innovation (continuation engineering), and Japanese car makers need to do better at revolutionary innovation (advanced engineering).

(Quote)
Van Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Dave G @ 10. Thanks for the informative post. If we define “energy problem” as reliance upon foreign sources that might be curtailed for political reasons, then PHEV’s and nuclear power can “solve” that problem in the short run, i.e. less than 200 years.

In California we have so called “balanced power” homes able to be heated with natural gas or electricity. I do not know why the homes depending on “home heating oil” are not modified with a natural gas supply so they could be heated domestically.

No new nuclear power plants have been built for about 30 years because of the myth they are not “safe.” But are they safer than the alternative of coal, acid rain, diesel particulate, smog, and car exhaust? Cigarettes killed a lot of people before we accepted they posed a risk. I think some day, we will look back a car exhaust pipes with the same question, why did so many people think they were cool?

So bring on the Toyota EV, the plug in Prius and the Volt, and bring on the nuclear power plants to replace much of the fossil fuel generation.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

#5 Shawn Marshall

Derisive is as derisive does.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Lyle, you contacted Toyota to check out the story. How about contacting the story’s writer to determine the story’s credibility?

(Quote)
Stew Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

“Toyota has confirmed is that the car will be a new and original subcompact design”

This tells me that there is zero intent on Toyota’s part to make a BEV. Toyota has so many great compact car platforms already, there is no need to design something from the ground up.

If Toyota was really serious, they could offer a EV version of the Yaris. There you have an already existing platform, no R&D cost, development time, etc, etc.

More disingenuous press releases.

(Quote)
User Name Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

I hope Bob & Rick read this article, especially the part where Toyota spokesperson Jana Hartline says “We will be bringing a fleet of plug-in Priuses, powered by li-ion batteries, to commercial fleet customers in late 2009″.
Might be in GM’s best interest to bump up the Volt’s production schedule, get it to market the same time Toyota does with its plug-in Prius.
At least it would give the consumer a choice to buy American, instead of having a Japanese plug-in hybrid as their only option.

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Van – looking forward to the pictures from your new summer home in safe Pripyat.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

#35 Stew
“Toyota has so many great compact car platforms already, there is no need to design something from the ground up.”

Using that reasoning, there would never be a need to design something from the ground up. Yet, it happens with ICE cars. I can see it happening with BEVs. A new Toyota BEV would have more consumer impact if it where a whole new car. An electric Yaris wouldn’t have the pizzaz of the all-new, electric Toyota “_____.” Also, the electric drive train would give designers different design considerations.

(Quote)
ThomC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

# 30 – Lurtz
Thorium: Naturally occuring at Thorium-232. Half-life of 14.05 billion years to 10 minutes, depending on isotope. Radioactive but not fissile. Absorbs neutron and becomes Uranium-233. Melts at 3300 degrees C.
So, to make nuclear power from Thorium, we concentrate a material with a 14-billion-year halflife, heat it to 2/3rd the temperature of the sun, and end up with uranium anyway?
…This makes nuclear energy safer?
_______________________________________
We’re talking about Thorium Molten Salt Reactors… not pure thorium:
There are numerous links to this type of reactor on the net… just search for some. This link is added for convenience and is not intended to be authoritative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
________________________________________
/continuing this discussion requires this diagram:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/cunning%20plan/flyersfreak484/plan.jpg

A classic cheap shot. Try arguments with more substance.

The point is that there are sources of inexpensive, large-scale electric power available. We need the social and political will to investigate and exploit them.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Lyle says “And so the parallel versus series debate goes on.”

Only if you’re debating entirely different points. On the technical side there is no question that E-REVs are superior. For the same size vehicle they will use less than one half the gasoline and produce one fourth the emissions of a urban capable PHEV, which is what this lithium battery Toyota seems to be.

[FWIW Dave G's spreadsheet results are consistent with the detailed study GM did using actual real driving habits which you can find here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/13/autobloggreen-qanda-peter-savagian-talks-about-studying-driver-be/ ]

Toyota’s argument about why E-REVs don’t make sense has been more about cost and consumer preferences. Larger battery packs and Li-ion battery packs are more expensive, so unless consumers will pay more upfront in order to save later on gas you can’t sell them. In fact, left to their own devices, consumers won’t spend the money unless they can recover the upfront costs in six to twelve months. Now consumer behavior in this regard is an anomaly in that this is not rational, but it has been well documented by both academic and private studies, so you have to concede Toyota the point here.

However, it’s it’s also true that as you make a battery pack for a PHEV larger and with Li-ion batteries you drive the cost up as well. In this sense the urban capable PHEV seems like the worst of all worlds — the expense of a E-REV with far less benefit.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

#16 Dave G
“Long distance travel by air, land, and sea will still require liquid fuels.”

——————-

Aren’t sub’s nuclear powered?

(Quote)
drivin98 Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Toyota should be embarrassed after having made the RAV4-EV, they cannot come to Detroit with something at least equal to Mitsubishi’s iMiEV which is going on sale in Japan and England this year.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

#32 Van says “No new nuclear power plants have been built for about 30 years because of the myth they are not “safe.””

Siting and disposal is part of the problem. A bigger problem is the cost — a nuclear plant eats capital at rates that might make even a supporter of TARP blanch. (Proponents cite France but always neglect to point out that the French accounting is so bad that they have no idea what a plant costs). An even bigger hurdle is water. Nuclear plants need absolutely huge amounts of water, which as a practical matter simply isn’t available in most places. Unfortunately, getting back to the siting problem, the places where it is available are also at or near major population centers.

There is doubtless some opportunity for nuclear plants but not at the scale proposed by some.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

#41 kdawg says: “Aren’t sub’s nuclear powered?”
————

Yes, some are. As are some large Navy ships like carriers. I’m not sure how much sense it makes to power commercial ships with nuclear reactors, however. Large marine diesel engines are always being refined and are surely much less expensive than nuclear propulsion (safety and complexity aside).

That still leaves air and ground travel…I get the sense that nuclear-powered airplanes are a ways off, if they ever materialize at all. Same goes for ground transportation. Nuclear reactors by themselves do not produce mechanical work. They need to be coupled with a steam turbine or the like. The Navy may have use (and enough money) for these systems, which produce abundant power and require only infrequent refueling. But I think it would be a harder sell for most other forms of transport.

(Quote)
Rockyroad Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

For those speaking for wind or solar … you need 100% back up when the wind does not blow or when the sun does not shine. What do you propose that we use then ? The only really unlimited source is geothermal such as is used in Iceland but it is not economically feasable in all parts of the world. None of these energy crises would be happening if the world population was not growing every year.

(Quote)
Frank D Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

It looks like the race is on! I hope GM and the US auto industry will be poised for a new business model.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

#45 Rockyroad says,
For those speaking for wind or solar … you need 100% back up when the wind does not blow or when the sun does not shine. What do you propose that we use then ? The only really unlimited source is geothermal such as is used in Iceland but it is not economically feasable in all parts of the world. None of these energy crises would be happening if the world population was not growing every year.
—————

So, should we just thin the herd?

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

#45 Rockyroad the pessimist: “when the wind does not blow or when the sun does not shine.”

I have yet to experience a day when the sun does not shine. “Cloudy”, maybe — but that doesn’t mean _no_ sun. In fact, solar panels don’t work as well in the high heat of the summer midday blazing sun as they do in indirectly-lit, cool days. (Cloudy, northern-climate Germany being a leader in solar panel installations comes to mind)

And I’ve yet to experience a day where the wind isn’t blowing somewhere. It just might not be blowing _here_.

(Quote)
naurthandareen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

if the “proven” prius is cheaper by $5,000, i’ll buy the Prius…..no matter how good the “unproven” Volt is… for the meantime i’ll drive my $100 gas/month used car…

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

#45 Rockyroad Says: “For those speaking for wind or solar … you need 100% back up when the wind does not blow or when the sun does not shine.”
————————————————————————————–
I look at it from a different angle. If you use solar and wind to augment fossil fuels, it can save tons of coal and natural gas.

A great example is solar thermal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

This is the largest solar electricity power plant in the world, and it doesn’t use any solar cells. Instead, mirrors concentrate sunlight on glass pipes containing synthetic oil. This heats the oil to over 700 degrees. The hot oil pipes are then passed through water to make steam, which drives a steam turbine. The cost per kilowatt is already very competitive with fossil fuel plants.

When it’s not sunny, this plant uses natural gas to help meet demand. 90% of the electricity is produced by the sunlight. Natural gas is only used when the solar power is insufficient to meet the demand. The nice thing about solar is that the most electricity is used on hot sunny summer days…

Again, I think we have to stop thinking about the “one magic solution” to all of energy needs, and start looking at a combination of solutions. Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal, Nuclear, Bio-Fuels, and yes – some fossil fuels will all have their place in our future energy mix. The idea is to find more and more ways to minimize fossil fuels.

(Quote)
naurthandareen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

GM need to compete with Toyota, Toyota got a successfull 6 +years lead in hybrid cars to 2010… GM with Volt hype!!! if they r going to succeed.. its a long shot… with this economy, there is only one way to at least start to compete with Prius is to level Volt’s price with Prius, if that doesn’t happen… Volt will end up like EV1…. GM blew their chance 10 + years ago from now for killing EV1…GM could have been the owner of the largest piece of pie in electric car and hybrid industry…. with so much hype now for Volt, it’s obvious that GM is desperate of attention they could have enjoyed a long time ago…. i hope its not too late for GM to recover… i pray that the Volt system is the future of electric cars at least for another 50 years because i believe in it…but like i said, if its $5000 more than Prius, i’ll buy the Prius….simple as that.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Dave G #50 says,
Again, I think we have to stop thinking about the “one magic solution” to all of energy needs, and start looking at a combination of solutions.

————-
Yup. I said this many many months ago.
At this time, we can not settle on one thing.

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Dave G says…
================================================

So nuclear power is almost all uranium.

Also, what is unsustainable about solar, wind, and bio-fuels?

Duh, nothing lasts forever, the sun will only be around for another 5 to 6 billion years…geesh, don’t you know…lol…. No sun, no wind… the end. hahahahahha just kidding…..take care.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Lurtz,

Although you may not think nuclear power is safe (highly debatable), I’m sure you must not fly in airplanes or drive in automobiles either (much more dangerous than nuclear power).

Regardless, although you don’t like it, you owe your very existance to nuclear energy.

(Quote)
Hunter S. Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

If I were a betting man I would say the odds were tremendously in Toyota’s favor of bring a full EV out before GM.

No offense, but this was a low level spokesman giving a quote to a GM fan blog, not a large media source.

(Quote)
James V Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Regarding nuclear: Safe or not, its just not enough power for our needs. Math does not lie.

We can build 1.6 new nuclear plants every day for the next 50 years and they would produce 8 terrawatts. We will need 30 TW per year by 2050.

The ONLY source of energy abundant and powerful enough for our energy needs is solar – by orders of magnitudes. It also happens to have the side benefit of being clean and renewable.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

#40, Don C: “Now consumer behavior in this regard [6 to 12 month payback preference] is an anomaly in that this is not rational, but it has been well documented by both academic and private studies, so you have to concede Toyota the point here.”

Bit it IS rational… Economists use the terms “liquidity preference” and “risk aversion.” Consumers may have a higher degrees of both but all individuals and organizations have both traits to at least some extent.

Sure, I might get a payback from XYZ vehicle in 3 to 5 years but, in the interim, I might:

Get sick and need the money.
Move and have a shorter commute.
Retire.
Lose my job.
Find a better investment.
Find someone to carpool with (far cheaper solution to high gas prices).
Want the cash for something else.

The likelihood of any particular one of those things (and this is just the start of such a list) occurring is small. But the likelihood of something on the complete list occurring is substantial.

Part of the genius of the Prius is that it IS affordable. You can buy a Prius for about the same price as a Camry and it has almost the room. There’s almost no “loss” if you have a practical bent and are value-driven. Studies that show the Prius doesn’t have a payback invariably compare it to something that’s noticeably smaller INSIDE, where the people and things go.

#35 Stew [quotes article] “Toyota has confirmed is that the car will be a new and original subcompact design”

[and goes on...] “This tells me that there is zero intent on Toyota’s part to make a BEV. Toyota has so many great compact car platforms already, there is no need to design something from the ground up. If Toyota was really serious, they could offer a EV version of the Yaris. There you have an already existing platform, no R&D cost, development time, etc, etc.”

First, if using an existing platform involves zero development time, why is the Volt still two years out?

Second, I think Toyota’s on the right track, anyway, with a different platform. Toyota is all about packaging. I took a ride in a Corolla a few days ago. In the back. I’m 6′4″. I was COMFORTABLE. That’s quite an achievement, in a regular FWD vehicle.

A BEV is quite different from a FWD vehicle. The batteries can be shaped almost arbitrarily, there’s no radiator, no exhaust system, no transmission. You can start with an entirely clean sheet of paper and put things wherever you like. As opposed to the Yaris which must have a 1.5L motor and transmission within easy reach of the front wheels and room for steering gear, cooling system, etc.

Toyota has the resources to support a clean-sheet design and doing that will make a much more appealing vehicle.

One of the things that will happen with a clean-sheet design is that the entire package will be minimized; weight will be saved. This car will have range and performance it could not have if it shared the platform with a FWD gas-engine vehicle. Perhaps just an extra 20% or so… but that’s an edge and edges will count in the BEV market.

#19, Cautious Fan: “Toyota sees the writing on the wall, they know EREV’s are coming. But they can’t some out and just say that because that delivers the auto industry trailblazer crown to GM and Toyota will loose the halo it got from the Pious.”

Yes. I’m sure that the first 10K Volts which are still two years away and will lose money “for years” for GM have Toyota quaking in their boots. Especially since they are basically simplified Priuses.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

“Math does not lie.”

No, but people do.

I’m not sure why you assume the reactors wil produce 274 MW apiece. Or why you think we will need 8 TW of electrical power. Currently the US produces an average of just under 500 GW.
Maybe you are referring to total world energy use, in that case, your number is a bit low.

You’re right; if we had to supply the entire worlds energy use with reactors we would have to build a lot. But we don’t.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

3. BillR,

I was already aware of the GM Fuel Cell Equinox’s when I said that Honda was ahead in this technology. You don’t need to take my word for it, but I suggest you don’t take GM’s PR either.

Your claim that Toyota is behind GM and 5 years away from an E-REV defies all logic. They are a plug and a bigger battery away from an E-REV Prius. In fact, this has already been done by Toyota and before them by many people with smaller budgets. Toyota is well ahead of GM in real-world terms.

The only way you could consider GM ahead is if you made some artificial requirement that GM’s Volt design satisfies and the plug-in Prius does not. But in both cases you have an gas engine generating electricity that may be stored in a battery and a vehicle that will drive on electric power alone. I believe Toyota’s approach is somewhat superior in that it can drive the car on the gas engine if desired.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

The Prius is going to be EVERYWHERE and will be getting all the ‘hype’ in 15 days or less, you are already seeing viral marketing ads for it ahead of Jan 11th (start of the NAIAS).

It is what I am most looking forward to checking out at the show in 2 weeks. Finally, get to see it in person… and more importantly get to hear just exactly what the MPG and MSRP will be.

(Hopefully, they also make some announcements about the specs on Plug-In Option as well for ‘10…but I doubt it, would just be unecessarily stealing thunder from themselves)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ywobr2qXaTI&fmt=18

Side note: still nothing from GMAC on the swap. I think we have to assume that means they didn’t make it and are working on getting the gov’t to bend the rules a bit?

(Quote)
GXT Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

35. Stew:
“If Toyota was really serious, they could offer a EV version of the Yaris. There you have an already existing platform, no R&D cost, development time, etc, etc.

More disingenuous press releases.”
====================================================

By that logic GM isn’t really serious either. On that we agree.

(Quote)
naurthandareen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

i agree with #59, like i said, Prius is 6+ years ahead before Volts production, thats about 2 million units of new and used Priuses sold before Volts first unit out of the dealership… GM is crazy to wait another 2 years… well, it makes sense if they say that GM means “General Morons”… they have the technology, in fairness i really believe in, but they are just tooooooo freaking behind…. Prius is not that good to look at, but it is sellin’ like crazy each year…. i’m on the road each day and not a day that i didn’t see Priuses on the road…. last week i saw Tesla car,…. how about Volt?…

its really frustrating that i have to wait for it for 2 years… i’ll get frustrated more if the price is not as affordable as Prius., they say about $30K… well by that time you can buy 2 priuses…..seems like Toyota’s priority is to make quality and affordable cars….

GM should know that to win the battle, sell Volt cheaper than Prius… i guess thats the only way….. because after 2 years, Priuses are accepted and loved by 3 million Americans that swear to buy another Prius in the future…and GM needs to be bailed out again by the government…for another mistake of delaying the game…

in fairness, i can’t blame GM administration for sandbagging production, because they are still addicted to oil… Volt system shall be sold to oil companies is not a surprise anymore, just like the NiMH technology of GM sold to Chevron the day when EV1 died…. and Prius was born using the same technology and succeeded and changed the world,… take that GENERAL MORONS…. i mean MOTORS!… the car that changed the car industry is not an American Car…what a shame for the big 3….

i’m soo pisssssed of waiting for the Volt!…. i guess i should consider buying a prius next year because it is readily available…. i should not listed my name in the wait list for volt coz i just can’t withstand the word “wait” anymore….

(Quote)
Van Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Lurtz @ 37: As I said the myth is supported by inferring the new plants would be no more safe than Chernobyl.

DonC @ 43: The whole laundry list of so called problems with nuclear power have been addressed repeatedly but they are simply restated over and over. For example water – if the power plant produces its own water from the ocean, it does not significantly reduce our water resource.

It is a valid point to say we need to control the rate of new nuclear plant expansion so we can transfer the expertise without exceeding the supply of experienced nuclear power plant workers. TMI told us what happens when you try to operate one of these plants with folks only experienced with submarine power plants.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

40. DonC wrote:
However, it’s it’s also true that as you make a battery pack for a PHEV larger and with Li-ion batteries you drive the cost up as well. In this sense the urban capable PHEV seems like the worst of all worlds — the expense of a E-REV with far less benefit.
====================================================

That may be what the article wanted you to believe, but like most of what GM PR spews (refer to GM’s misleading Volt electricity usage as compared to household appliances) it isn’t accurate except in misleading circumstances.

From what I read of the article (and admitted I didn’t read it all) the advantage of the E-REV was shown by selecting an aggressive driving cycle (95th percentile) that highlighted the lack of capacity and power of the electric drive of the existing hybrids.

If you increased the capacity and power of the current hybrids then you would erase those advantages. Plus you would still have the ability to drive the vehicle with the gas engine when it made sense.

What is so inherently superior about the Volt’s design? Take the variables out by assuming both have similar batteries electric motors. I’m guessing the advantage goes to whatever system is most efficient at transferring and recovering energy.

To keep down the Prius-envy noise, I would suggest that only those with actual knowledge/experience/facts in this area reply.

(Quote)
naurthandareen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

superior design/efficiency my asss!!! bottomline is, the affordable design/efficiency car wins!…

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

#64 GXT says “What is so inherently superior about the Volt’s design?”

The article lays out why. It’s the difference between an EV on the one hand and an ICE vehicle with a battery assist on the other. You will never get the fuel savings and pollution reduction from the latter that you’ll get from the former.

To some extent if you read the article and still don’t understand why the E-REV is superior nothing that can be said will make it any clearer. But less than one half the fuel consumption and one fourth the emissions seems self-explanatory even if you don’t understand all they whys and wherefores.

In this regard, you are totally incorrect when claiming that “the advantage of the E-REV was shown by selecting an aggressive driving cycle (95th percentile) that highlighted the lack of capacity and power of the electric drive of the existing hybrids.” First they didn’t select the US06 driving cycle, or any other cycle for that matter. Second, they didn’t limit the comparison to the current hybrid. They looked at three PHEVs: an existing PHEV (aka Prius); a plug in conversion PHEV; and an urban capable plug-in PHEV that doesn’t really exist yet. The best of the lot — the urban capable PHEV that doesn’t exist — was less than half as good as an E-REV.

As for the idea of having a large battery pack and motor in a PHEV so that it could function as an EV and then have the ICE invoked after the pack was depleted, all you’re saying is that you want to transform the PHEV into an E-REV. Now this E-REV would have a poor design of course since you would have two separate drive trains as well as two propulsion systems, but you’d still have an E-REV nonetheless.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

To some extent if you read the article and still don’t understand why the E-REV is superior nothing that can be said will make it any clearer.
_______________________________________

Propaganda makes you assume all else is equal.

In reality, the superiority benefit only comes when the big picture is taken into account. Fleets must embrace the technology. Only a small quantity won’t make the difference. How much of the production volume will be E-REV?

Isn’t superior a measure of more than just the technology itself?

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

#59 GXT

Actually, the key to the BEV/E-REV is the BATTERY!! Everything else is fundamental.

Toymota is already on record saying Li-Ion batteries are not ready. Maybe they will try some big lead acid pack with their Prius to match the Volt.

GM has been cycle testing Li-Ion battery packs 24/7 for more than a year now. The EV1 and FC Equinox both have electric drive.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

#56 James V

Maybe math doesn’t lie, but something seems amiss with your assumptions. This link provides a look at the proposed nuclear power plants for the US.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html?featureclicked=2&

The average plant appears to be about 1600 MW in capacity. If I construct 1.6 of these per day for one year I calculate 934 MW or 0.934 TW. In about 31 years these can provide the 30 TW needed globally by 2050.

But let’s face facts. Jet aircraft, heavy vehicles, etc. are not going to operate on electricity anytime soon. So it is silly to think nuclear (or any other single energy source) will supply all of our energy needs. However, nuclear will likely increase its overall global supply of energy from 6.3% in 2005 to something much more significant. Solar should also see large gains.

Again, let’s face reality. We live in a nuclear universe. Solar energy is just energy from the big nuke in the sky.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

“Green renewable” alternatives are not sustainable, despite the propaganda. Solar is a great source of thermal pollution. And that is hundreds of times worse than so-called GHG warming.

Wind power is not anywhere near economic. If it were not for massive subsidy and propaganda no one would use it. The actual life expectancy of 30 year plants are in practice about 9 years. The actual energy added ot the grid from experience about 3% or nominal rated nameplate power.

Neither source is load following, or capable of satisfying base load. Both are intermittent but wind is worse. Both sources create oscillations in energy grids that lead to blackouts,when they get to about 20% of the total grid power sources. The only known way to stabilize grids is to connect wind power to 80% larger stable and conventional power sources.

Why do you think T Boone Pickens is paying for all those adverts? He was stupid and invested in windmills that collapse in the the small isolated grid he has in west Texas. He must tie into larger, stable conventional grids many times larger to prevent his grids from going into hysteresis and instability before blackouts come.

What good does it do to convert to electric cars if the price of electricity were not 75 cents per equivalent gallon, but 6-10 times higher or $6.00 to $7.50 per gallon equivalent? Yet that is the price for “renewable energy” ignoring the need to build lots of conventional power to stabilize what that so-called “green renewable” power, yields.

You didn’t hear any of that from your green eco-wackos did you?. Their propaganda is powerful, but as more so-called green renewable power is built it gets increasingly hard to hide, as the Brits, Danes, Dutch and Texans, will attest.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Using nuclear fission to solve our energy problems is like using Napalm to clear a crowd that is causing a fire code violation.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

#70 stas peterson, What a bunch of crap. Go back to your oil company’s board room and come up with a better reason for us not to transition from using fossil fuels.

Your “facts” are flawed.

(Quote)
mitch Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

On one note Lordstown WILL be building the Cruze..Wagoner announced it today..

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/News/article.aspx?cp-documentid=9639580

And the BEAT may be a go too…

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/News/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8515631

On another..if I hear the EV1 again I will scream…

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

#67 john1701a says “Isn’t superior a measure of more than just the technology itself?”

Not if you’re talking about the technology. Isn’t that the only measure?

(Quote)
ThomC Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

# 63 Van
>> TMI told us what happens when you try to operate one of these plants with folks only experienced with submarine power plants.

You have no idea of what you’re talking about. Naval nuclear reactor operators are the best nuclear operators in the world, bar none. The nuclear Navy has more experience operating more nuclear power reactors than any other organization in the world. Not only do they have more experience with reactors operating at criticality, they have more experience operating reactors in transient conditions and in abnormal (e.g. scrammed reactor) conditions than every other entity in the world combined.

Commercial nuclear power reactors are basically in two modes for 99% of their life: Shutdown or operating at 95-98% of rated power. The time spent in a transient condition is absolutely minimized because that is time the plant is operating at less than optimal power. If a commercial plant is not operating at full rated power the owning utility is losing money.

Naval nuclear plants are constantly operating in a transient condition. I was a reactor operator aboard the USS Mississippi in 198X when we were prosecuting a Soviet submarine operating off US coastal waters. We chased that sub from the Virginia coast clear to Cuba and that Russian sub skipper pulled every trick in the book. Our ship, working with another CGN and anti-submarine helicopter crews kept him pinned down. During the course of 36 hours we had over 500 major power transients as the sub manuevered. That’s more major power transients than a typical commercial plant sees during its entire lifetime.

I know what happend at 3 Mile Island, I’ve read the official NRC transcripts. If the ROs in the Harrisburg control room had been Navy trained, that reactor would still be operating.

# 71 Texas
>> Using nuclear fission to solve our energy problems is like using Napalm to clear a crowd that is causing a fire code violation.

Oh, please. Spare me the hysterics. There have been two incidents with nuclear power reactors that have resulted in loss of life during the entire history of nuclear power production: Chernobyl and an incident with an experimental Army reactor in 1959 in Idaho. Chernobyl was the result of bad design and beurocratic stupidity. The incident with the Army reactor was the result of internal sabotage that was so improbable that it reads like a bad romance novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Enough with the anti-nuclear hystrionics. There are no facts to support your position.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 1:13 am

Thank you #75!!!

Finally someone who thinks rationally about Nuclear power. For those who say it is not possible to use nuclear power for the majority of US power generation and do so safely, please look at other 1st world nations who rely primarily on nuclear reactors for power (ie. France, Japan). It is so idiotic that people who call themselves environmentalists reject the only currently feasible pollutant-free power source we have based on the outdated and irrational fearmongering they’ve been fed. It works! Many nations use it! They haven’t had problems! The issues people keep harping on have been solved! The French think we are imbeciles for not using nuclear power, and unlike most times people get in a “blame America” tizzy, this time they are right! AHHHHH!!

(Quote)
Shaft Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 2:46 am

-I believe that nuclear plants operate safely. The record to date supports my belief. For me, the probability of a devasting accident is acceptably low.
-I believe that nuclear power is an economic alternative, especially compared to solar and wind power. The record to date supports my belief, even with the construction cost overuns and the need to collect decommissioning and log term waste storage costs. The proof is in the cost/kwhr.
-I believe that the scientific evidence supports the notion that radioactive nuclear waste can be stored safely for the time necessary. There is, of course, no record to prove this, but I believe it anyway. (This is not simply a “faith” based belief. Many studies strongly support my belief. It’s a solvable engineering problem.)
-I believe that Uranium (and Thorium) supplies can support a very long nuclear electric era. The data supports this belief.
-I believe that the impact to the environment of a properly running nuclear program is far far better than fossil fuel alternatives. The record and studies support this belief.

But can someone tell me why we shouldn’t worry about sabotage of a nuclear plant, given 9/11? Why wouldn’t a well planned strike on a nuclear plant that destroys the sealed, concrete protection building as well as the nuclear reactor not result in a catastrophe potentially far worse than Chernobyl? This is still the argument against nuclear power for which I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer. As far as I know, no other electric power source provides such a conundrum.

See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DF1031F933A15750C0A9659C8B63 . It seems Osama Bin Laden may have considered targeting a nuclear reactor.

I’m hoping that someone will provide a satisfactory answer, because I do not see a viable alternative to nuclear powered Volts in my lifetime.

The only answer I can see is that we should site nuclear power plants far from populated areas and provide very elaborate security.

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 2:55 am

U.S. nuclear-power incidents. Perfectly safe. Doesn’t even include events that don’t rise to the level of “incident”, like losing track of nuclear weapons from Minot, S.D. or accidentally mailing nuclear detonators to Taiwan.

Research Facilities
The U.S. Department of Energy spends over $4 billion each year for the restoration and management of sites contaminated by nuclear materials. Their 2000 Federal budget noted:

“The Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for addressing the environmental legacy resulting from the production of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons complex generated waste, pollution, and contamination that pose unique problems, including unprecedented volumes of contaminated soil and water, radiological hazards from special nuclear material, and a vast number of contaminated structures. Facotries, laboratories, and thousands of square miles of land were devoted to producing tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Much of this is largely maintained, decommissioned, managed, and remediated by the EM program, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘cleanup program.’ EM’s responsibilities include facilities and sites in 30 states and one territory, and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island and Delaware combined – or about 2.1 million acres.”

26 July 1959
A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (now known as the Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility) in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. Most of the radioactive fission products were trapped, but gasses were vented which resulted in the release of the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine-131 in nuclear history. The incident was largely covered up until a class-action suit was filed by local residents, who successfully sued for $30 million over cancer and thyroid abnormalities contracted due to their proximity to the facility.

2 September 1944
Peter Bragg and Douglas Paul Meigs, two Manhattan Project chemists, were killed when their attempt to unclog a tube in a uranium enrichment device led to an explosion of radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas exploded at the Naval Research Laboratory in Philadelphia, PA. The explosion ruptured nearby steam pipes, leading to a gas and steam combination that bathed the men in a scalding, radioactive, acidic cloud of gas which killed them a short while later.

21 August 1945
Louis Slotin , a physicist, was killed during the final stages of the Manhattan Project undertaken at Los Alamos, New Mexico to develop the first atomic bomb) from a radiation burst released when a critical assembly of fissile material was accidentally brought together by hand. This incident pre-dated remote-control assembly of such components, but the hazards of manual assembly were known at the time (the accident occurred during a procedure known as “tickling the dragon’s tail”). A similar incident occurred nine months later (dramatized in the Hollywood movie Fat Man and Little Boy); this time, eight people were exposed, one of whom died days later. Hand-maniuplations of critical assemblies was abandoned only after another accident on 30 December 1958.

2 July 1956
Nine persons were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of Sylvania Electric Products’ Metallurgy Atomic Research Center in Bayside, Queens, New York.

1957
A radiation release at the the Keleket company resulted in a five-month decontamination at a cost of $250,000. A capsule of radium salt (used for calibrating the radiation-measuring devices produced there) burst, contaminating the building for a full five months.

30 December 1958
A nuclear criticality accident occured from a solution in a plutonium recovery operation at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. The operator died later of acute radiation sickness. The March, 1961 Journal of Occupational Medicine printed a special supplement devoted to the medical analysis of this accident.

1959
A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California.

5 October 1966
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at Detroit Edison’s Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. Radioactive gases leaked into the containment structures, but radiation was reportedly contained.

1974
Whistleblowers at the Isomedix company in New Jersey reported that radioactive water was flushed down toilets and had contaminated pipes leading to sewers. The same year a worker received a dose of radiation considered lethal, but was saved by prompt hospital treatment.

1982
International Nutronics in Dover, New Jersey, which used radiation baths to purify gems, chemicals, food, and medical supplies, experienced an accident that completely contaminated the plant, forcing its closure. A pump malfunctioned, siphoning water from the baths onto the floor; the water eventually was drained into the sewer system of the heavily populated town of Dover. The NRC wasn’t informed of the accident until ten months later — and then by a whistleblower, not the company. In 1986, the company and one of its top executives were convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and fraud. Radiation has been detected in the vicinity of the plant, but the NRC claims the levels “aren’t hazardous.”

1986
The NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) plant in New Jersey for repeated worker safety violations. RTI was cited 32 times for various violations, including throwing radioactive garbage out with the regular trash. The most serious violation was bypassing a safety device to prevent people from entering the irradiation chamber during operation, resulting in a worker receiving a near-lethal dose of radiation.

ca. December 1991
One of four cold fusion cells in a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory exploded while being moved; electrochemist Andrew Riley was killed and three others were injured. The other three cells were buried on site, leading to rumors that a nuclear reaction had taken place. A report concluded that it was a chemical explosion; a mixture of oxygen and deuterium produced by electrolysis ignited when a catalyst was exposed. The Electric Power Research Institute, which spent $2 million on the SRI cold fusion research, suspended support for the work pending the outcome of an investigation.

Power Plants
The nuclear power plant is a particularly nefarious use of nuclear energy. Unlike conventional power plants, nuclear plants have a relatively short life-span — 30 years — before critical reactor components become irreparably radioactive. At that point the plant must be decommissioned (`mothballed’), or its entire reactor core replaced at great expense. To date, there is no solution regarding where to store spent power plant reactor cores. Compounding the storage problem is an accumulation of spent radioactive fuel rods, which have a life-span of only three years.

3 January 1961
A reactor explosion (attributed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission source to sabotage) at the National Reactor Testing Station in Arco, Idaho, killed one navy technician and two army technicians, and released radioactivity “largely confined” (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The three men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a “routine” preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins.

24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.

19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company’s reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.

March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building’s water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 9 December 1986]

28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 “abnormal events” had occurred in 1973 in the nation’s 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity “above permissible levels.”

22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor’s 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that “no one died at Three Mile Island,” a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.

11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.

July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point’s Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.

1982
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.

25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company’s Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.

15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.

25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of “mildly” radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].

1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.

28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.

15 February 2000
New York’s Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.

6 March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.

Bombs and Bombers
13 February 1950
A B-36 en route from Alaska to Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, developed serious mechanical difficulties, complicated by severe icing conditions, leading to the world’s first nuclear accident. The crew headed out over the Pacific Ocean and dropped the nuclear weapons from 8,000 feet off the coast of British Columbia. The weapons’ high-explosive material detonated on impact, but the crew parachuted to safety.

11 April 1950
A B-29 carrying a nuclear weapon crashed into a mountain near Manzano Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, killing all 13 crewmembers aboard.

10 November 1950
A B-50 en route to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, was forced to jettison a nuclear weapon over the St. Lawrence River near St. Alexandre-de-Kamouraska, Canada.

10 March 1956
A B-47 with two nuclear weapons aboard disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea after flying out of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. An exhaustive search failed to locate the aircraft, its weapons, nor its crew.

27 July 1956
A U.S. B-47 practicing a touch-and-go landing at Lakenheath Royal Air Force Station near Cambridge, England went out of control and smashed into a storage igloo housing three Mark 6 nuclear bombs, each of which had about 8,000 pounds of TNT in its trigger mechanism. No crewmen were killed, and fire fighters were able to extinguish the blazing jet fuel before it ignited the TNT.

22 May 1957
A 10 megaton hydrogen bomb was accidentally dropped from a bomber in an uninhabited area near Albuquerque, New Mexico owned by the University of New Mexico. The conventional explosives detonated, creating a 12 foot deep crater 25 feet across in which some radiation was detected.

28 July 1957
A C-124 Globemaster transporting three nuclear weapons and a nuclear capsule from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to Europe experienced loss of power in two engines. The crew jettisoned two of the weapons somewhere east of Rehobeth, Del., and Cape May/Wildwood, New Jersey. A search for the weapons was unsuccessful and it is a fair assumption that they still lie at the bottom of the ocean.

11 October 1957
A B-47 carrying a single nuclear weapon crashed shortly after takeoff. The weapon was partially destroyed in the ensuing fire, but the nuclear core was recovered intact.

31 January 1958
Unbeknownst to Moroccan officials, a B-47 loaded with a fully-armed nuclear weapon collapsed and caught fire on the runway at a U.S. Strategic Air Command base 90 miles northeast of Rabat. The Air Force considered evacuating the base, but instead allowed the bomber to continue to burn for seven hours. During cleanup operations a large number of vehicles and aircraft were contaminated with radiation.

5 February 1958
A B-47 carrying a Mark 15, Mod 0, nuclear bomb on a simulated combat mission from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida collided with an F-86. After three unsuccessful attempts to land at Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia, the B-47 crew jettisoned the nuclear bomb into the Atlantic Ocean off Savannah. The Air Force conducted a nine-week search of a 3-square-mile area in Wassaw Sound where the bomb was dropped, but declared on April 16 that the bomb was irretrievably lost. The bomb was rediscovered in September 2004.

11 March 1958
A B-47 on its way from Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia to an overseas base accidentally dropped an unarmed nuclear weapon into the garden of Walter Gregg and his family in Mars Bluff, South Carolina. The conventional explosives detonated, destroying Gregg’s house and injuring six family members. The blast resulted in the formation of a crater 50-70 feet wide and 25-30 feet deep. Five other houses and a church were also damaged; five months later the Air Force paid the Greggs $54,000 in compensation.

4 November 1958
A B-47 carrying a nuclear weapon caught fire and crashed during takeoff from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, killing one crew member.

26 November 1958
A B-47 caught fire on the ground at Chennault Air Force Base in Lake Charles, Louisiana, destroying a nuclear weapon onboard, resulting in minor radioactive contamination of the immediate vicinity.

15 October 1959
A B-52 with two nuclear bombs collided in mid-air with a KC-135 jet tanker and crashed near Hardinsberg, Kentucky. Both bombs were recovered intact, but eight crewmembers lost their lives.

7 June 1960
A BOMARC-A nuclear missile burst into flames after its fuel tank was ruptured by the explosion of a high pressure helium tank at McGuire Air Force Base in New Egypt, New Jersey. The missile melted, causing plutonium contamination at the facility and in the ground water below.

21 January 1961
A B-52 bomber carrying one or more nuclear weapons disintegrated in midair following an engine fier and explosion approximately 10 miles north of Monticello, Utah, killing all five crewmembers.

24 January 1961
A B-52 bomber suffered structural failure and disintegrated in mid-air 12 miles north of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, NC, releasing two hydrogen bombs. Five crewmen parachuted to safety, while three others died when the aircraft exploded in mid-air. The bombs jettisoned as the plane descended, one parachuting to earth intact, the other plunging deep into waterlogged farmland. To this day, parts of the nuclear bomb remain embedded deep in the muck. The area is off-limits, and is tested regularly for radiation releases. More information can be found at the Broken Arrow: Goldsboro, NC site at http://www.ibiblio.org/bomb/.

14 March 1961
A B-52 with nuclear bombs crashed in California while on a training mission.

13 January 1964
A B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland.

8 December 1964
A B-58 slid off a runway at Bunker Hill (now Grissom) Air Force Base in Peru, Indiana. The resulting fire consumed portions of five onboard nuclear weapons, leading to radioactive contamination of the surrounding area.

5 December 1965
An A-4E aircraft accidentally fell overboard off the USS Toconderoga, with the loss of pilot LTJG D.M. Webster and a nuclear weapon. The incident, which occurred in the Pacific Ocean approximately 200 miles east of Okinawa, was not reported by the Department of Defense until 1981.

17 January 1966
A B-52 collided with an Air Force KC-135 jet tanker while refueling over the coast of Spain, killing eight of the eleven crew members and igniting the KC-135’s 40,000 gallons of jet fuel. Two hydrogen bombs ruptured, scattering radioactive particles over the fields of Palomares; a third landed intact near the village of Palomares; the fourth was lost at sea 12 miles off the coast of Palomares and required a search by thousands of men working for three months to recover it. Approximately 1,500 tons of radioactive soil and tomato plants were removed to the U.S. for burial at a nuclear waste dump in Aiken, S.C. The U.S. eventually settled claims by 522 Palomares residents at a cost of $600,000, and gave the town the gift of a $200,000 desalinizing plant.

22 January 1968
A B-52 crashed 7 miles south of Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, scattering the radioactive fragments of three hydrogen bombs over the terrain and dropping one bomb into the sea after a fire broke out in the navigator’s compartment. Contaminated ice and airplane debris were sent back to the U.S., with the bomb fragments going back to the manufacturer in Amarillo, Texas. The incident outraged the people of Denmark (which owned Greenland at the time, and which prohibits nuclear weapons over its territory) and led to massive anti-U.S. demonstrations. One of the warheads was reportedly recovered by Navy Seals and Seabees in 1979, but a recent (August 2000) report suggests that in fact it may still be lying at the bottom of Baffin Bay.

2 November 1981
A fully-armed Poseidon missile was accidentally dropped 17 feet from a crane in Scotland during a transfer operation between a U.S. submarine and its mother ship.

Submarines and Ships
Some of the following incidents involve the discharge of radioactive coolant water by ships and submarines. While water from the primary coolant system stays radioactive for only a few seconds, it picks up bits of cobalt, chromium and other elements (from rusting pipes and the reactor) which remain radioactive for years. In realization of this fact, the U.S. Navy has curtailed its previously frequent practice of dumping coolant at sea.

1954
An experimental sodium-cooled reactor utilized aboard the USS Seawolf, the U.S.’s second nuclear submarine, was scuttled in 9,000 feet of water off the Delawre/Maryland coast. The reactor was plagued by persistent leaks in its steam system (caused by the corrosive nature of the sodium) and was later replaced with a more conventional model. The reactor is estimated to have contained 33,000 curies of radioactivity and is likely the largest single radioactive object ever dumped deliberately into the ocean. Subsequent attempts to locate the reactor proved to be futile.

October 1959
One man was killed and another three were seriously burned in the explosion and fire of a prototype reactor for the USS Triton at the Navy’s training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, “The explosion…was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems,” but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask which exploded was utilized to operate a critical back-up system in the event of a reactor emergency.

1961
The USS Theodore Roosvelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system, blew back onton the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea. This happened on other occasions as well with other ships (for example, the USS Guardfish in 1975).

10 April 1963
The nuclear submarine Thresher imploded during a test dive east of Boston, killing all 129 men aboard.

5 December 1965
This write-up is drawn from the US Nuclear Weapons Accidents page at http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm.

An A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga and fell into the sea. Because the bomb was lost at a depth of approximately 16,000 feet, Pentagon officials feared that intense water pressure could have caused the B-43 hydrogen bomb to explode. It is still unknown whether an explosion did occur. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost.

The Pentagon claimed that the bomb was lost “500 miles away from land.” However, it was later revealed that the aircraft and nuclear weapon sank only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu. Several factors contributed to the Pentagon’s secretiveness. The USS Ticonderoga was returning from a mission off North Vietnam; confirming that the carrier had nuclear weapons aboard would document their introduction into the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Japan’s anti-nuclear law prohibited the introduction of atomic weapons into its territory, and U.S. military bases in Japan are not exempt from this law. Thus, confirming that the USS Ticonderoga carried nuclear weapons would signify U.S. violation of its military agreements with Japan. The carrier was headed to Yokosuka, Japan, and disclosure of the accident in the mid-1980s caused a strain in U.S.-Japanese relations.

1968
Radioactive coolant water may have been released by the USS Swordfish, which was moored at the time in Sasebo Harbor in Japan. According to one source, the incident was alleged by activists but a nearby Japanese government vessel failed to detect any such radiation leak. The purported incident was protested bitterly by the Japanese, with Premier Eisaku Sate warning that U.S. nuclear ships would no longer be allowed to call at Japanese ports unless their safety could be guaranteed.

21 May 1968
The U.S.S. Scorpion, a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, sank mysteriously on this day. It was eventually photographed lying on the bottom of the ocean, where all ninety-nine of its crew were lost. Details of the accident remained classified until November 1993, when Navy reports revealed that the cause of the sinking was an accidental detonation of the conventional explosives in one of Scorpion’s warheads.

14 January 1969
A series of explosions aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise left 17 dead and 85 injured.

16 May 1969
The U.S.S. Guitarro, a $50 million nuclear submarine undergoing final fitting in San Francisco Bay, sank to the bottom as water poured into a forward compartment. A House Armed Services subcommittee later found the Navy guilty of “inexcusable carelessness” in connection with the event.

12 December 1971
Five hundred gallons of radioactive coolant water spilled into the Thames River near New London, Connecticut as it was being transferred from the submarine Dace to the sub tender Fulton.

October-November 1975
The USS Proteus, a disabled submarine tender, discharged significant amounts of radioactive coolant water into Guam’s Apra Harbor. A geiger counter check of the harbor water near two public beaches measured 100 millirems/hour, fifty times the allowable dose.

22 May 1978
Up to 500 gallons of radioactive water was released when a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the USS Puffer near Puget Sound in Washington.

Nuclear Bomb Tests and Testing Facilities
26 April 1953
Radioactive rain, the result of above-ground nuclear tests, fell on Troy, New York.

5 September 1961
President Kennedy ordered the resumption of nuclear testing, “underground, with no fallout.”

10 December 1961
Clouds of radioactive steam escaped from an underground nuclear test, closing several New Mexico highways.

4 June 1962 The Bluegill nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere, was aborted 10 minutes after launch when the missile tracking system failed prior to nuclear detonation. The nuclear device was lost at sea.

20 June 1962 A failure of the Starfish nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in space, caused radioactive debris to be scattered across Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean.

9 December 1968
Clouds of radioactive steam from a nuclear test in Nevada broke through the ground, releasing fallout and violating the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed 5 years earlier.

18 December 1970
An underground nuclear test in Nevada resulted in a cloud of radioactive steam to be thrust 8,000 feet in the air over Wyoming.

15 July 1999
A spokesperson for President Clinton announced that thousands of contract workers at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, exposed to toxic and radioactive substances during the previous 50 years, could seek federal compensation for related illnesses.

Processing, Storage, Shipping and Disposal
From 1946 to 1970 approximately 90,000 cannisters of radioactive waste were jettisoned in 50 ocean dumps up and down the East and West coasts of the U.S., including prime fishing areas, as part of the early nuclear waste disposal program from the military’s atomic weapons program. The waste also included contaminated tools, chemicals, and laboratory glassware from weapons laboratories, and commercial/medical facilities

December 1962 A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered “serious.”

11 May 1969
A plutonium fire broke out in Building 776 at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Plutonium was released into the atmosphere and tracked out of the building on the boots of firefighters, and several buildings at the factory were so badly contaminated that they had to be dismantled.

1971
After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that “Project Salt Vault” would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later.

1972
The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.

December 1972
A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown.

1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

16 July 1979
A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico.

August 1979
Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant “lost” 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.

January 1980
A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak.

19 September 1980
An Air Force repairman doing routine maintenance in a Titan II ICBM silo in Damascus, Arkansas dropped a wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell to the bottom of the silo. The socket struck the missile, causing a leak from a pressurized fuel tank. The missile complex and surrounding areas were evacuated. Eight and a half hours later, the fuel vapors ignited, causing an explosion which killed an Air Force specialist and injured 21 others. The explosion also blew off the 740-ton reinforced concrete-and-steel silo door and catapulted the warhead 600 feet into the air. The silo has since been filled in with gravel, and operations have been transferred to a similar installation at Rock, Kansas.

21 September 1980
Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey’s Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

1983
The Department of Energy confirmed that 1,200 tons of mercury had been released over the years from the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Components Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the U.S.’s earliest nuclear weapons production plant. In 1987, the DOE also reported that PCBs, heavy metals, and radioactive substances were all present in the groundwater beneath Y-12. Y-12 and the nearby K-25 and X-10 plants were found to have contaminated the atmosphere, soil and streams in the area.

December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.

1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

6 January 1986
A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment. [See also 24 November 1992.]

1986
After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine. [See also May 1997 and July 2000.]

1987
The Idaho Falls Post Register reported that plutonium had been found in sediments hundreds of feet below the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, an experimental reactor testing station and nuclear waste storage site.

1988
The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 “significant unreported incidents” at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level.

6 June 1988
Radiation Sterilizers, Incorporated reported that a leak of Cesium-137 had occurred at their Decatur, Georgia facility. Seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom “had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces” including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

October 1988
The Rocky Flats, Colorado plutonium bomb manufacturing site was partially closed after two employees and a Department of Energy inspector inhaled radioactive particles. Subsequent investigations revealed safety violations (including uncalibrated monitors and insufficient fire-response equipment) and leaching of radioactive contaminants into the local groundwater.

24 November 1992
The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It’s record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. [Also see 6 January 1986 for details of an additional incident.] A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant’s environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information.

31 March 1994
Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

May 1997
A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U.S. Government’s Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. A cover-up ensued, involving the contractors doing clean-up and the Department of Energy, who denied the release of radioactive materials. They also told eight plant workers that tests indicated that they hadn’t been exposed to plutonium even though no such tests actually were conducted (later testing revealed that in fact they had not been exposed). Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., operator of the Hanford Site, was cited for violations of the Department of Energy’s nuclear safety rules and fined $140,625. Violations associated with the explosion included the contractor’s failure to assure that breathing devices operated effectively, failure to make timely notifications of the emergency, and failure to conduct proper radiological surveys of workers. Other violations cited by the DOE included a number of events between November 1996 and June 1997 involving Fluor Daniel Hanford’s failure to assure adherence to PFP “criticality” safety procedures. (”Criticality” features are defined as those features used “to assure safe handling of fissile materials and prevention of…an unplanned and uncontrolled chain reaction that can release large amounts of radiation.”) [See also 1986 and July 2000.]

8 August 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950’s) at the Department of Energy’s Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.

June 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation’s atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, “We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection.” Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers’ radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker’s compensation claims.

July 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive “B/C” waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE’s Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]

(Quote)
Shaft Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 3:15 am

Sorry Lurtz, #78, this long list does not concern me at all. But I can see how such a list can be used to chill the hearts of the ignorant.

Many of these incidents are military related and not applicable to the civilian nuclear power program. Many are industrial type accidents that harm small numbers of people (as happens in many other industries). Many have little real impact (but certainly pack emotional punch for the uninformed).

But my question in #77 stands.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 4:20 am

Seems to me that the Japanese are waiting for GM to show them how to make an E-REV vehicle. I believe they’ve had a very late start into the EV and Li-ion battery.

Its hard to produce a vehicle that’s going to go head to head successfully with the Volt in a short time. Its easier to buy one and try to copy the engineering and to hire spies to work at the LG Chem battery plant. We all know that’s what Japan does best.

GM has taken the risk and got the lead and they won’t give it up easily if the UAW cooperates.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 4:50 am

Porsche EV 911’s from $48,000 or Boxster from $42,000 complete EV including car.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/EV%20Porsche.bmp

=D~

(Quote)
carcus Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 6:10 am

Maybe Toyota is not who GM should be worried about.

BYD’s Electric Car ‘Game Changer’
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1604

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 7:47 am

#79 Shaft

“Sorry Lurtz, #78, this long list does not concern me at all. But I can see how such a list can be used to chill the hearts of the ignorant.”

============================

This says it all! Thanks.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 7:52 am

#67 john1701a Says: “In reality, the superiority benefit only comes when the big picture is taken into account. Fleets must embrace the technology. Only a small quantity won’t make the difference. How much of the production volume will be E-REV?

Isn’t superior a measure of more than just the technology itself?”
————————————————————————————–
This is very true. A small number of vehicles won’t change anything. The U.S. has around 40 million cars on the road. To make a significant dent in foreign oil imports, car makers will need to convert most of the models they sell, not just a few green cars for a niche market.

I have nothing against the Prius. I wish more car makers built strong hybrids. We need more cars like this!

It’s the Plug-In Prius I have a problem with. Plug-ins with only 8-15 miles of electric range won’t eliminate most trips to the gas station. I fear this will be viewed by the mass market as an unacceptable inconvenience, and that will damage the market perception of plug-ins in general.

Another issue is that Toyota doesn’t seem to think the Plug-In Prius will be a big seller. I believe they’ve said as much. So it seems this won’t put a dent in foreign oil imports.

Now if the Plug-In Prius had a 40-mile range, was cheaper than the Volt, and Toyota was willing to ramp up the volume, that would be great. I would buy that car! But I don’t think a 40-mile Plug-In Prius is in Toyota’s plans. Even if it was, I don’t think it would be cheaper than the Volt. Besides, a Li/Ion battery that big changes the design of the car. It has to go somewhere.

As I understand it, Toyota’s current design for the Plug-In Prius just swaps the NiMH battery for a Li/Ion battery of roughly the same physical size, thus doubling the energy storage. So the Plug-In version of the Prius is just an option, meaning that Toyota doesn’t have to do much to support it, which is why they can tolerate meager sales predictions.

As for the Volt, the only issue in going mainstream is the cost of the battery. The mechanics of an EREV (a.k.a. series hybrid) are more simple than a strong hybrid, so the mechanical part of the Volt should be less expensive to build in volume.

Lithium Ion car batteries are expensive today because nobody has built them in high volume. In my experience, it’s only when you start building something in high volume that you know the true cost, and it’s usually much less that people think. As unit volume ramps up, there are thousands of little optimizations in production that add up to dramatic cost savings. So when GM talks about a half a million in Volt sales by 2015, and about using EREV for other models, that gets me very hopeful that batteries will become cheaper, and plug-ins will really go mainstream. To be clear, a half million Volts won’t make a sizable dent in foreign oil imports, but I think it will dramatically lower battery costs, which will set the stage for mass market acceptance of plug-ins in general.

(Quote)
Van Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 7:55 am

ThomC @ 75, most of the licensed operators of nuclear power plants are ex-navy and they are doing a fine job. My point is that large power stations are operated differently than small subs. It takes time to gain sufficient experience, including transient experience from simulator training. The TMI reactor plant did not operate in the same way (once thru SG) as the submarines and so when they lost sub-cooling and the bubble formed over the core and fluid expanded into the pressurizer, no one recognized the fact based on their submarine operating experience.

Lurtz @ 78, this data dump perpetuates the myth that nuclear power plants are not safer all things considered than fossil fuel plants.

(Quote)
joe obrien Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 8:26 am

Wonder why they are so damn stubborn to just admit a serial hybrid is better than a parallel hybrid?

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 8:51 am

I love the Nuclear debate. We have to have this in our country.
Nuclear is very safe now. Incidents at nuclear plants have dropped off significantly over the past decade. The plants are doing a phenomenal job producing 20% of our power.

The industrial type accidents happen at any plant. How many people have died digging for, transporting, and buring coal?

Back to my point…
The point I was going to make is that our 30-40 year old plants are operating very well right now and that the new plants (AP1000, ESBWR, etc.) will be even better.

The key to keeping a nuclear plant safe is to keep the fuel in water. The new plants basically put olympic sized pools of water above the reactor that will drain in automatically after an accident. They also put the huge reactor “boiling pot” within a larger reinforced concrete pot so that even if the reactor leaks, the system can remain under water. These new plants have core damage frequencies that are 1 or more orders or magnitude lower than existing plants (they are down in the 10e-6 range on core damage frequency). They also consider sabatoge in the designs. We are in a post 9/11 world.

We accept much greater risks than nuclear plants every day without a bit of thought. Those categorically opposed to nuclear are irrational in the face of the evidence.

If I were the King, I would dictate massive building of nuclear, solar, and wind along with energy conservation programs in order to nearly eliminate imported oil.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Plug-ins with only 8-15 miles of electric range won’t eliminate most trips to the gas station.
_________________________________________

Purpose has been revealed. Support for higher capacity makes sense. But undermining Volt with this is troubling:

In addition, the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.

By the way, people on this site have been asking about this since the summer of 2007, and the answer has been the same. It won’t work.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Still waiting…

Looks to me that a more affordable Volt with a shorter range would be so popular there’s fear that the 40-mile version won’t get much attention.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

“A battery” is kind of a vague term. Certain battery technologies (present or future) may well be powerful enough to provide 160kW or so to the Volt’s motor (is that the right motor spec?), even from a relatively small pack. It’s just a question of how “happy” the battery is while doing that. It wouldn’t be as efficient as a big pack producing the same amount of power, but it could get the job done if they determined that cycle life was not too adversely affected. As an example, a roughly 10V A123 pack with 2.3 Ah (call it 20 Wh) of capacity can supply 1000W or more to a power-hungry RC car motor for brief periods…the sacrifice is that pack voltage drops by maybe 40% under this load, so current draw goes through the roof. This isn’t great for heating losses and such, but the pack does it. Give batteries a few more years to develop, scale this concept up, and you may have small but very capable packs for the Volt and similar vehicles.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Sorry, I was busy watching this 3.5 hour video that another poster referred me to:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Yes, EREVs (aka series hybrids) require bigger batteries to work, while strong hybrids can get by with a smaller batteries, but the real issue for me is that plug-ins with smaller batteries will not be accepted by the mass market because plugging/unplugging is more hassle than it’s worth, and this could damage the market perception of plug-ins in general.

As you said, we need mass market adoption to be meaningful, and I see plug-ins with limited range as actually being detrimental toward that end.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Yes, EREVs (aka series hybrids) require bigger batteries to work
_______________________________

That is not true!

A prototype series hybrid has already proven that.

Do a search for the FCHV prototype, a series hybrid using a small battery-pack. Then stop with the “it won’t work” claims.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

…the real issue for me is that plug-ins with smaller batteries will not be accepted by the mass market because plugging/unplugging is more hassle than it’s worth, and this could damage the market perception of plug-ins in general.
_______________________________________

FULL hybrids don’t have that penalty. The larger capacity battery-pack with plug is an OPTION that provides an efficiency BOOST.

That makes inventory flexible and gives the consumer choices, including aftermarket.

Are you still going to insist that Volt has a shortcoming by requiring an extremely large (40-mile) minimum capacity?

(Quote)
Brad Horton Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 1:43 am

Thanks for clearing it up Lyle. I thought that you were just going to sling mud there for a minute. Let’s not forget though, that Toyota currently has RAV4 EV’s on the road that get hundreds of miles per charge. Just plain EV, no extended range=EV that only gets 30-40 miles per charge. It’s even a small SUV. No kammback design, or anything special. You could probably fit a generator in it with the sacrifice of -20 miles per charge and still get TONS more out of it. This whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:01 am

#4, Dave K.,

The future balances on car quality, pride in ownership, and user friendliness. The question of fuel economy will fade at 50+ mpg.

======================================================

Besides the fact that you left out aesthetics (assuming that is NOT what ‘pride in ownership’ is referring to), I will 100% agree with you.

In my eyes, if all the competition was at say, 75mpg, and there was a car on the market (lets hope it’s American or European) that looks amazing compared to all others, but that car only had say, 60-65mpg, I would likely pick that car. Especially if it had better performance! I would even lower myself down to 50mpg, as long as the performance difference was significant enough.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am

I would be surprised if Toyota ever told what their future plans would be.

(Quote)
cialis Says:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Hello!
cialis , discount cialis , cheap cialis , buy viagra , viagra ,

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Toyota E-REV? Not

97 Responses to “Toyota E-REV? Not”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts