The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
https://electrek.co/2018/08/06/electric-hybrid-car...
Watch this space, or rather that ^^ space.
2018 "sales slump".
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/302...
Watch this space, or rather that ^^ space.
Article said:
The Volkswagen group confirmed that it might have to recall as many as 124,000 electric and hybrid cars from its VW, Audi and Porsche brands due to poisonous cadmium finding its way into a charger component. Following a report from the German magazine Wirtschaftswoche, VW has confirmed that it is currently in discussions with Kraftfahrtbundesamt (KBA), the German road authority, over the potential recall.
Fair to say it could have been worse for the UK - there might have been more sales.2018 "sales slump".
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/302...
Not sure if this is a pearoast. Can't recall it being covered in July but it's possible.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-govt-gives-ahead-frac...
government clears Cuadrilla to frack shale gas site
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-govt-gives-ahead-frac...
government clears Cuadrilla to frack shale gas site
turbobloke said:
https://electrek.co/2018/08/06/electric-hybrid-car...
Watch this space, or rather that ^^ space.
2018 "sales slump".
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/302...
The amount of cadmium is probably tiny in comparison to the amount most households will have in devices with older rechargable batteries. I do wonder how much pollution will be caused by replacing these parts?Watch this space, or rather that ^^ space.
Article said:
The Volkswagen group confirmed that it might have to recall as many as 124,000 electric and hybrid cars from its VW, Audi and Porsche brands due to poisonous cadmium finding its way into a charger component. Following a report from the German magazine Wirtschaftswoche, VW has confirmed that it is currently in discussions with Kraftfahrtbundesamt (KBA), the German road authority, over the potential recall.
Fair to say it could have been worse for the UK - there might have been more sales.2018 "sales slump".
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/302...
rscott said:
LongQ said:
Not missing the point Paddy, just expanding it and widening the scope beyond the subject of repairing blades which is your specific focus.
Some numbers, which may or may not be correct, have appeared in the media, both specialist for the industry and the more general public press. It can't be avoided really but one might query the numbers since they can only be verified once the work is completed and final costs apportioned.
The legal aspect is to be expected - what lawyer would feel they were doing their job without making the costs of the project as high as possible? And finding many hours to bill or that justify their salaries? Mush the same as any industry of course but generally with higher hourly rates to negotiate and more opportunities to stretch a project.
And yes, I am well aware of the potential for different effects in different places, different costs that might be incurred and even, of course, the potential for variable quality of product for a number of reasons. If could get very complex indeed and there is big money to be made or saved depending on where you are positioned in the chain.
The thing is though any of the public companies involved are bound to make statements as to their understanding of the costs they are likely to incur against future performance. So at the macro level there should be some information available but it might not be current. We know how you feel about old information so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss anything based on old offerings when you will just tell us tat there is non-public data the is different and so the number are not worth discussing.
That would indeed be true - but sort of stops any discussion in its tracks every time the tactic is deployed.
Some people would prefer to continue the discussion based on what information is in the public domain and then adjust things as new information becomes available. You don't need to dive in and try to shut the discussion down. You don't have to comment at all if you find the particular sub-thread irksome for some reason.Well, unless you are being paid to intervene and I don't suppose you are based on your professed reason for visiting this thread and indeed these PH threads in general.
Why these matters should be so personally involving for you I'm not sure.
Several years ago I abandoned a number of what I now know to be Global Warming promotional sites on the basis of their rude responses to basic questions and innate self serving and supporting air of superiority as they echoed "responses" backwards and forward to each other in a series of mutual ego massages.
If anything convinced me that there was an Emperor with no clothes being hidden behind a barrier of acolytes back then it was the nature of those so called forums.
Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years. Nothing much in terms of GB Power Generation policy either if one is looking for any sort of balanced solution.
So it's not unreasonable to have speculative discussions.
Has anyone started a "Renewables are the only way forward for Power Generation in Great Britain " thread? It should be a wonderful thread for affirming the benefits of low cost energy for the future of the country and flagging up the successes as they start and continue to deliver what was promised on cost, on budget and reliably for the next 20 to 30 years.
Re the statement in bold, the numbers which appeared in the media reports somehow 'accidentally' changed when posted here from number of blades to number of turbines - making the problem appear 3 times as bad as it actually is. Those sort of 'errors' don't help any discussion on here whatsoever, especially when the person making them refuses to accept their 'mistake'. Some numbers, which may or may not be correct, have appeared in the media, both specialist for the industry and the more general public press. It can't be avoided really but one might query the numbers since they can only be verified once the work is completed and final costs apportioned.
The legal aspect is to be expected - what lawyer would feel they were doing their job without making the costs of the project as high as possible? And finding many hours to bill or that justify their salaries? Mush the same as any industry of course but generally with higher hourly rates to negotiate and more opportunities to stretch a project.
And yes, I am well aware of the potential for different effects in different places, different costs that might be incurred and even, of course, the potential for variable quality of product for a number of reasons. If could get very complex indeed and there is big money to be made or saved depending on where you are positioned in the chain.
The thing is though any of the public companies involved are bound to make statements as to their understanding of the costs they are likely to incur against future performance. So at the macro level there should be some information available but it might not be current. We know how you feel about old information so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss anything based on old offerings when you will just tell us tat there is non-public data the is different and so the number are not worth discussing.
That would indeed be true - but sort of stops any discussion in its tracks every time the tactic is deployed.
Some people would prefer to continue the discussion based on what information is in the public domain and then adjust things as new information becomes available. You don't need to dive in and try to shut the discussion down. You don't have to comment at all if you find the particular sub-thread irksome for some reason.Well, unless you are being paid to intervene and I don't suppose you are based on your professed reason for visiting this thread and indeed these PH threads in general.
Why these matters should be so personally involving for you I'm not sure.
Several years ago I abandoned a number of what I now know to be Global Warming promotional sites on the basis of their rude responses to basic questions and innate self serving and supporting air of superiority as they echoed "responses" backwards and forward to each other in a series of mutual ego massages.
If anything convinced me that there was an Emperor with no clothes being hidden behind a barrier of acolytes back then it was the nature of those so called forums.
Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years. Nothing much in terms of GB Power Generation policy either if one is looking for any sort of balanced solution.
So it's not unreasonable to have speculative discussions.
Has anyone started a "Renewables are the only way forward for Power Generation in Great Britain " thread? It should be a wonderful thread for affirming the benefits of low cost energy for the future of the country and flagging up the successes as they start and continue to deliver what was promised on cost, on budget and reliably for the next 20 to 30 years.
There's no chance of discussion of any sort of balanced power generation policy on here when some refuse to accept that renewables can (and already do) play a part in that.
Personally, I'd prefer new research to focus in two main areas - energy storage and small, standard design, nuclear plants (as suggested by someone else on here) which werer relatively cheap to build, commission and decommission. Much more cost-effective and scalable than the current nuclear plans.
Some interesting suggestions on here about using excess renewable energy to produce ammonia whch can then either be burnt in CCGT power stations or sold commercially.
I think, reading the content of posts here, that everyone recognises that renewables already play a part in the generation mix. There are differences of opinion about how positive or negative that part may be now but more so in the future if political decision follow the grand claims for "going 100% carbon free" (without Nuclear) in ever shorter time scales.
How much do you trust the decision making ability of the ever changing mix of politicians?
Do you think that business leaders would stand up and correct the politicians if they felt the direction was wrong or not deliverable in the expected period but there was a stack of revenue to be extracted in the meantime?
If you do, go right ahead and support these people without question. Best to tend to be positive about those you support rather than only negative about those you don't. That's basic and well proven sales and marketing advice for any situation.
If you have reservations about them it may be wise to question how they are thinking.
If you have concerns but feel that there is no way to change the decision maker's minds ... probably best for sanity for people to switch off and ignore any discussions anywhere. I suspect that is the situation the majority of of power consumers feel they are in.
Edited by LongQ on Friday 10th August 11:54
Toltec said:
The amount of cadmium is probably tiny in comparison to the amount most households will have in devices with older rechargable batteries. I do wonder how much pollution will be caused by replacing these parts?
Indeed. If more Cd is released / more people are exposed, it's not good. If the only reference is to the energy expended and tax gas released, carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant - EPA political silliness doesn't change scientific realty. This is a naturally occurring non-toxic gas which photosynthesising organisms need and which humans can easily tolerate up to a continuous ambient 5000 ppmv (*)... on that basis it's worth it As per my post it's a case of 'watch that space' as the relevant German authority is supposedly about to issue the recall but hasn't done so as yet.
(*)
As an O/T aside:
USA nuclear submarines aim to keep below 8000 ppmv, and he 'oxygen' given to support patients with breathing difficulties is 5% carbon dioxide, 50000 ppmv, close to alveolar gas composition.
turbobloke said:
Toltec said:
The amount of cadmium is probably tiny in comparison to the amount most households will have in devices with older rechargable batteries. I do wonder how much pollution will be caused by replacing these parts?
Indeed. If more Cd is released / more people are exposed, it's not good. If the only reference is to the energy expended and tax gas released, carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant - EPA political silliness doesn't change scientific realty. This is a naturally occurring non-toxic gas which photosynthesising organisms need and which humans can easily tolerate up to a continuous ambient 5000 ppmv (*)... on that basis it's worth it As per my post it's a case of 'watch that space' as the relevant German authority is supposedly about to issue the recall but hasn't done so as yet.
(*)
As an O/T aside:
USA nuclear submarines aim to keep below 8000 ppmv, and he 'oxygen' given to support patients with breathing difficulties is 5% carbon dioxide, 50000 ppmv, close to alveolar gas composition.
Like many things, including 'green' technology, the best path is a compromise between quite different and sometimes opposing goals.
Toltec said:
I was thinking of actual pollution in the manufacturing of the parts with plastics and refined metals, then the disposal of the removed parts. Adding some labelling might be a better compromise. The problem of course is letting a company be seen to get away with breaking an absolute prohibition on the use of a material which would weaken that requirement.
Like many things, including 'green' technology, the best path is a compromise between quite different and sometimes opposing goals.
Quite, though with anything like Cd or its mate Hg there are good reasons to prioritise.Like many things, including 'green' technology, the best path is a compromise between quite different and sometimes opposing goals.
turbobloke said:
Quite, though with anything like Cd or its mate Hg there are good reasons to prioritise.
If there is an immediate danger of release into the environment yes, however there seems no particular hurry to get amalgam fillings removed from the teeth of the UK populace. Not to mention the lead water pipes feeding many UK homes. If a recall is issued I think there will be one or two main reasons, that the restriction must be seen to be rigidly enforced or concern that it will not be possible to put sufficient protection on the end of life disposal process.Similar to our discussions here the answer will depend on what your preset goals are.
Best available technology not involving excessive cost or pollution
Cheapest available technology not involving CO2 production
Toltec said:
The amount of cadmium is probably tiny in comparison to the amount most households will have in devices with older rechargable batteries. I do wonder how much pollution will be caused by replacing these parts?
The cadmium is apparently plating on the contacts of a high voltage DC relay. Total quantity is likely in the single digit milligram range, or possibly hundreds of micrograms, per vehicle. In contrast, an AAA nicd battery would 2-4 grams of cadmium.
The issue is that there is special legislation prohibiting any and all deliberately used cadmium in vehicles or vehicle parts (except for replacement batteries for EVs originally equipped with Nicd batteries). Trace amounts (0.01% of steel mass, or several 10s of grams) is permitted if found as an impurity.
WatchfulEye said:
The cadmium is apparently plating on the contacts of a high voltage DC relay. Total quantity is likely in the single digit milligram range, or possibly hundreds of micrograms, per vehicle.
In contrast, an AAA nicd battery would 2-4 grams of cadmium.
The issue is that there is special legislation prohibiting any and all deliberately used cadmium in vehicles or vehicle parts (except for replacement batteries for EVs originally equipped with Nicd batteries). Trace amounts (0.01% of steel mass, or several 10s of grams) is permitted if found as an impurity.
So health risk as such, it will probably hinge on if it can be shown to be deliberately used or not.In contrast, an AAA nicd battery would 2-4 grams of cadmium.
The issue is that there is special legislation prohibiting any and all deliberately used cadmium in vehicles or vehicle parts (except for replacement batteries for EVs originally equipped with Nicd batteries). Trace amounts (0.01% of steel mass, or several 10s of grams) is permitted if found as an impurity.
Toltec said:
WatchfulEye said:
The cadmium is apparently plating on the contacts of a high voltage DC relay. Total quantity is likely in the single digit milligram range, or possibly hundreds of micrograms, per vehicle.
In contrast, an AAA nicd battery would 2-4 grams of cadmium.
The issue is that there is special legislation prohibiting any and all deliberately used cadmium in vehicles or vehicle parts (except for replacement batteries for EVs originally equipped with Nicd batteries). Trace amounts (0.01% of steel mass, or several 10s of grams) is permitted if found as an impurity.
So health risk as such, it will probably hinge on if it can be shown to be deliberately used or not.In contrast, an AAA nicd battery would 2-4 grams of cadmium.
The issue is that there is special legislation prohibiting any and all deliberately used cadmium in vehicles or vehicle parts (except for replacement batteries for EVs originally equipped with Nicd batteries). Trace amounts (0.01% of steel mass, or several 10s of grams) is permitted if found as an impurity.
turbobloke said:
Low levels...better than high levels other things being equal, but there's always dose accumulation. What the recall if it happens won't note is who's getting exposed the most and how / how often.
If you are being regularly exposed to the contacts of a high voltage DC relay cadmium poisoning is the least of your problems. The more interesting thing is how a part using cadmium ended up in the design at all, it looks like this is the wrong material to use in that application.---
Silver Cadmium Oxide AgCdO
More resistant to welding at high switching current "peaks" so is used for high AC loads. Not recommended for strong DC breaking arcs because of the wear this creates.
Silver Tin Oxide AgSnO2
Material is more resistant to welding at high making current peaks due to the tin oxide. Has a very high burn out resistance when switching high loads. Low degree of material migration under DC loads. Useful where very high inrush currents occur. Silver Tin Oxide is frequently chosen as the replacement relay contact material for Silver Cadmium Oxide which is more harmful.
---
Toltec said:
If you are being regularly exposed to the contacts of a high voltage DC relay cadmium poisoning is the least of your problems. The more interesting thing is how a part using cadmium ended up in the design at all, it looks like this is the wrong material to use in that application.
The precise details of the use may be wrong, it came from translated news articles and other forums. I've seen more than one source for it being a relay, and I don't know of other electronic components which routinely use cadmium. So, it seems reasonable that it's a relay that is the culprit. There are numerous voltages, currents, etc. Present so there could have been poor reporting, Chinese whispers and assumptions on social media and lack of checking, etc. (by myself included).
German articles are suggesting the Cd content to be 0.008g (or 8mg) per vehicle.
WatchfulEye said:
The precise details of the use may be wrong, it came from translated news articles and other forums. I've seen more than one source for it being a relay, and I don't know of other electronic components which routinely use cadmium.
So, it seems reasonable that it's a relay that is the culprit. There are numerous voltages, currents, etc. Present so there could have been poor reporting, Chinese whispers and assumptions on social media and lack of checking, etc. (by myself included).
German articles are suggesting the Cd content to be 0.008g (or 8mg) per vehicle.
Most likely an EoL risk than for the user, hopefully a component that can be changed rather than an entire module. I'm sure my reaction would be different if it were just a little ricin that should never really have a chance to enter the air con system...So, it seems reasonable that it's a relay that is the culprit. There are numerous voltages, currents, etc. Present so there could have been poor reporting, Chinese whispers and assumptions on social media and lack of checking, etc. (by myself included).
German articles are suggesting the Cd content to be 0.008g (or 8mg) per vehicle.
Toltec said:
Most likely an EoL risk than for the user, hopefully a component that can be changed rather than an entire module. I'm sure my reaction would be different if it were just a little ricin that should never really have a chance to enter the air con system...
Unlikely. Assuming it's an HV contactor, then it'll be inside the OBC, which is sealed. No way will Dealers/Service centres be swapping that out. VW might decide to gather up the "faulty" parts and rework them, but i suspect the costs would far outweigh any benefits.Whilst the real health risk is absolutely minimal, and the only mechanism for a release of the cadmium during use would be during a fully developed vehicle fire (rare) or as mentioned at EoL disposal, and balanced against existing levels of cadmium in domestic products (NiCd's etc) it's a drop in the ocean. BUT, the rules are there, and they have been broken, so i expect the recall to go ahead. ( I wonder which Teir1 makes the OBC, cause it's going to cost them ??)
You have to wonder what this "scare" is all about.
https://www.poeton.co.uk/apticote-900-cadmium-plat...
Just one of many examples of use of cadmium across a range of applications that has been widespread for decades and that can be found amongst all of the "news" site on-line articles that have recently appeared with respect to a possible VW group recall of electric or hybrid vehicles.
Who is pushing this stuff to media that seem unable or unwilling to apply any critical thought to their cut and paste process before publication?
Or should we just agree that the entire VW business must be destroyed for playing with rules that were ripe to be played with? And having set that precedent go for the rest of the vehicle creation industry outside China. And possibly India.
No wonder the major manufacturers have been busy creating production sites outside the EU.
https://www.poeton.co.uk/apticote-900-cadmium-plat...
Just one of many examples of use of cadmium across a range of applications that has been widespread for decades and that can be found amongst all of the "news" site on-line articles that have recently appeared with respect to a possible VW group recall of electric or hybrid vehicles.
Who is pushing this stuff to media that seem unable or unwilling to apply any critical thought to their cut and paste process before publication?
Or should we just agree that the entire VW business must be destroyed for playing with rules that were ripe to be played with? And having set that precedent go for the rest of the vehicle creation industry outside China. And possibly India.
No wonder the major manufacturers have been busy creating production sites outside the EU.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
It is no different to the other 'hysteria' we have seen on these pages before.
You're blaming the VW group and the German recall authority for hysteria over toxic components? Sounds more like your hysteria. The presence of Cd elswhere is known, in this case a study of where it is and what the risk is will surely be undertaken prior to a recall (if it happens). This is reasonable not hysterical.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff