A nuclear power plant is no different , if it has melt down or explodes it same effect as nuclear bomb, which why they have issue with. Not like that matter any power source that isnt battery will be turned to a bomb and has been. We need new means of power, before we run out of fossil fuels, but i think only when those fuels run out will we start worrying about what those fuels are doing to the earth.
Uh if he was originally talking about regenerative braking (nice of him to start citing it after being corrected), why is he still arguing?
Wait. What? A nuclear energy plant is the same as a nuclear bomb if it melts down? Guess you need to contact TEPCO about their three reactors that suffered meltdowns and inform them that the cities they were in were obliterated off the face of the planet. Even with Chernobyl's full meltdown, no reactor containment room, and a direct release of energy into the environment the city of Pripyat didn't disappear off the face of the earth. Contrary to the movies a meltdown doesn't result in a big fiery explosion which fries everyone within several miles of the reactor. What does happen is that, in the event of a containment failure, radioactive materials are released into the environment. Things like Strontium with very short half-lives which are very energetic are released. But under no circumstances has any nuclear disaster ever been anywhere close to even approaching the smallest of nuclear weapons. Even a fizzled bomb does more damage and releases more radiological contaminants than a reactor. It's woefully ignorant mindsets like that which have tainted nuclear energy for thirty years now. Hell, I have an uncle who is convinced that a China Syndrome scenario is not only possible but is likely (as in, a deep penetration to the water table), and he's an electrical engineer and thinks that. Both use very different means to produce fission reactions and making a reactor into a bomb is about as easy as making the bomb into a reactor.
Just cut half of the carrier groups, half of the foreign bases and half of external military aid and the US suddenly will have enough money for healthcare, education and infrastructure. I mean who the flip needs 10 carrier groups? theres barely a country which have 2 and their like half the size of the Nimitz class. Taxing gas in the US also makes sense if the increase in tax is alotted to a special fund say research grants into battery tech and infrastructure for charging. To those who say "what about electricity" well you guys are wrong too, electricity costs less buying gas. electricity can be generated in various forms and such technologies will push for a more distributed network of generation. Example some people build CHP units which burn spend cooking oils and charge their car FOR FREE while getting FREE heating for the house.
We already have that.... it's called an alternator. Also, what you are suggesting is something BMW already does in their "Efficient Dynamics" line except they are smart and realize that no matter where you put the generator, it will always result in a loss of power so, instead of keeping it always on, the alternator is connected only when braking or decelerating occurs so that it doesn't "steal" power from the engine. Also, have you considered the costs and reliability of that system?
Why would you do that if electric motors do it already? It just doesn't make sense. Adding a 'generator' to the AC DRIVE will just load the drive further, there is absolutely no point to your 'invention'.
The word would be correcting. And it seems a few others have tried as well making the same point. To me, it seems you just want to argue, pointlessly.
So, how many on this forum actually have degrees in Mechanical Engineering? It's rather funny if you think about it. When the idea of a "personal computer" was first presented, I wonder how many idiots stood around and said "Oh, that'll never work..." I'd expect that the people who said such BS, probably feel the same way now as Bill Gates did after he made his claims about the internet or system memory needs.... The only concept that will never work....is one that nobody ever tries to actually develop. Sorry for the long post, again.... Been fighting with an apparent rootkit for the last few days and only been hitting threads that appeared on the main forum page as I viewed it. The same could be said of your post.... Nuclear meltdowns don't always have the same effect as a nuclear bomb exploding. That is a "worst case scenerio"... Actually, I was not talking about regenerative braking. I simply posted those links for others who might not want to google, but would like to read the information. R&D always has costs Seems to me that most are simply arguing without the necessary educational background. I remember sitting in a tech class watching a video of GM showing off their very first electric car prototype. The engineers at GM were so excited about it and my teacher stood there saying "It's just a concept. Nobody will ever sell an electric vehicle." To my surprise, in 1998, Ford started selling an Electric Ranger pickup truck (Ford Ranger EV)....which was removed from the market in 2002 and was recalled in 2004... I'm sure in 1998 when the Ranger EV hit the market, that my teacher felt rather stupid about his comments....
We can cut out the entire budget for the military every year. We could fully eliminate the military from the US budget, and not balance it. There's no money for what you want. And yeah, tax the gas more, bring it up to European standards, hell, half that and watch the foreclosures, watch the defaults, watch as everyone abandons the suburbs and leaves them as a ghost town to get close to the cities.
If you have one you didn't work for it. The links were about regenerative braking/decelerating... Yes. Indeed. Connect the alternator of a car to the wheels and there you have it, your "invention" is made. It would work very well during the stop-go traffic, especially during the night. Why complicate things when you could just use a clutch between the alternator and the engine ? When the battery has enough power and the car is accelerating/cruising, it would disconnect the alternator. Much better and flexible system then what you suggest.
Last year Electrical engineering, also add that I've taken many modules on AC drives and PWM converters then yes, you do have no idea what your talking about.
