Tesla Club Sweden

Morgan skrev:

Med hjälp av 13kw solceller på carport taket!

Solporten under.jpg

Nicklas skrev:

Med både sol- och vindkraft!

IMG_20160704_104121.jpg

lator skrev:

Frän anläggning! Är det egen design?

Nicklas skrev:

lator skrev:

Frän anläggning! Är det egen design?

Tyvärr inte
- Men det var ett häftigt ställe att ladda på

Står (stod? jag hittar den inte längre på uppladdning.nu) nere i hamnen i Malmö.

jonas skrev:

Jag kör en atomdriven bil, via avtal hos Vattenfall 100% kärnkraft, den renaste och säkraste energikällan vi än så länge har per TWh.

According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. "A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms," Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.

bjelkeman skrev:

jonas skrev:

Jag kör en atomdriven bil, via avtal hos Vattenfall 100% kärnkraft, den renaste och säkraste energikällan vi än så länge har per TWh.

Bättre än fossilbränsle i alla fall. Livscykelberäkningar är knepiga rent allmänt ska sägas.

According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. "A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms," Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810 ... 08.99.html

jonas skrev:

Jag kör en atomdriven bil, via avtal hos Vattenfall 100% kärnkraft, den renaste och säkraste energikällan vi än så länge har per TWh.