<trader4 DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b85f6351-eb92-4f1a-aa48-1f2492255706@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 8:34 pm, "Roger Shoaf" <sh... DeleteThis @nospamsyix.com> wrote:
> <trad... DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f8b8e3e6-38d0-437b-b205-30499cd48dfc@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...The only other problem with this is if it's done in any numbers
> significant enough to impact fuel demand, the additional electricity
> has to come from somewhere. And unless it's from more coal, the
> price of the electricity isn't going to be what it is now.
>
> Coal? Why coal? Nuclear power is cleaner safer and cheaper than any
> stinking coal plant.
Take a look at this report put together by professionals for Congress
comparing the estimated costs of energy from new coal vs nuclear
plants. Without subsidies, nuclear costs 5.6 cents per KWH, compared
to 4.6 cents for an advanced coal plant.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf
Plus, keep in mind that regardless of what is used to generate the
electricity, to start using electricity to power cars on any
widespread basis is going to require beefing up a lot of the existing
infrastructure. That isn't going to be cheap and has to be paid
for. Most of what is being used to distribute electricity today was
put in place decades ago, when construction costs, permitting,
environmental studies, remediation, etc were all significantly less.
Ahh, but coal has a price not mentioned in the report you cited. While it
mentions CO2 emissions, it does not mention the tons of radioactive
emissions from the combustion of coal. That right when coal is burned it
releases the uranium and thorium contained in the coal and it ends up in the
smoke and the ash.
See
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for the
details.
Also to be considered is the effect of not making electricity from nuclear
power. First consider that it is a relatively simple matter to convert a
gasoline or diesel truck or automobile to burn natural gas, but it is very
expensive to build and operate an electric car or truck. Also to run an
electric car you have to generate electricity where you suffer an energy
loss from the process of converting the gas or coal into electricity, and
then you have losses in transmission of the electricity, and then you have
losses when you charge the batteries in the electric car. The result is
that you have to burn more fossil fuel to move the car down the road via
electricity rather than by burning it in the engine of the car.
Nuclear also has the possibility of generating cheap off peak electricity to
convert water to hydrogen that could be burned and it would also have other
economic benefits as well. Consider if you will the production of portland
cement. This requires a great deal of energy to run the kilns to produce
the cement needed for use in concrete. Cheap power means cheap concrete for
construction, and that means that the cost of building with concrete goes
down and hence the cost of roads, housing and everything else drops
accordingly. This would also reduce the demand for timber and that would
also reduce costs to the economy.
The downside to nuclear power is the fear. It seems to me that the fear of
catastrophic disaster is not justified by the reality. Education of the
ignorant is the answer here.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.
>> Stay informed about: $5.00 Diesel - time to put her up on blocks! 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
