The ICE in a Prius weights what, a couple hundred pounds. A natural gas fired cogen turbine for peak power generation weights a hundred tons. It isn't a question of restarting seamlessly, it's a question of overcoming momentum. These generators will take minutes to stop and then get back up to operating rpm. When a Pilot hits the ignition on a jetliner, he has to wait for the engines to get up to speed before there is enough thrust to move. It's the same for these peak generators. Base load generators, whether coal, nuclear, or biomass, will take even longer since they use steam. From shut down, they have to wait for steam pressure to build up power they can generate power. In addition to this momentum, steam systems will experience increased breakdown with daily off and on cycles. The expansion and contraction from the heating and cooling will wear parts out. If water collects in a line while the system is cool, it can be picked up and slammed against the pipe walls. It's called a water hammer, and is the cause of banging pipes in out heating systems. In an industrial setting it cane be very bad. This was likely caused by a water hammer. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_York_City_steam_explosion]2007 New York City steam explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] So, asking a base load power plant to start and stop like a car is like asking a freight train to start and stop on a dime. We don't need more reasons, because it will be awhile before renewables can meet the base load need at night. With a smart, flexible grid, wind could do it in areas. But you need to put up enough mills which will take time. Solar simply doesn't work at night. CSPs with energy storage are only viable in certain climates. Some of them still use natural gas in conjunction. Tidal has the consistency, but also has limited areas. With biomass steam it's a question of having the fuel supply. It's usually limited, and will only might part of the base load. A coal plant could probably be switched over to it. Hydro is proven, but is limited by location. If you don't want new coal plants, you will have to accept nuclear to meet demand while the renewables mature enough to meet base load use. Even then it will be needed to cover gaps.
Sad premise for a thread; do we really need to spew venom at something non Toyota Prius? Interesting technical discussions abound and it's fine to point out whatever technical flaws the Volt may have but why must we HATE? Where does that get us? IN what way does that elevate the discussion? I just don't see it.
The O.P. was tongue-in-cheek. Funny that I'm the one pointing this out, since I've been accused here and there of hating it. I don't. I just don't think it's a good design.
It may have started that way, but I don't believed we'd be debating solar versus coal electrons if Zythryn was talking about his Tesla.
Seawolf's argument makes no mention of what kind of car the electricity is going into. I won't speculate on whether he'd have raised the argument towards a pure EV.
Volt triggered the discussion but the topic was fuel, well-to-wheel efficiency and emission that could be applied to any car that use those fuels or combination. We did not discuss diesel but I think it is worse than EV running on pure coal.
Chevy Volt; Punching bag for Politicians & Pundits; unfortunate comment with video from a Presidential Candidate! Mitt Romney: Chevy Volt an "idea whose time has not come"
