| ??? 07/24/06 02:35 Read: times |
#120898 - Nuclear Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Joseph Hebert said:
Craig is right about the price being bound by what the market is able to pay, and what they're willing to pay, but let's not forget about the cost of the alternatives. Maybe petroleum derived energy is too expensive, but unless it becomes more expensive than the alternatives, why would anyone "give up their car?" I'm pretty darned sure that gas is already more expensive than a hydrogen fuel cells generated by nuclear energy if the infrastructure were already in place. I see a future where cars will eventually be powered by hydrogen fuel cells; the hydrogen will be produced with electricity generated by nuclear energy. Likewise, due to economies of scale, I think that same nuclear power will eventually generate close to 100% of our electrical power needs such that we can completely eliminate carbon fuels, including coal. Once we achieve economies of scale, I believe that such an energy economy will be cheaper than the petroleum-based gas we are using now for transortation and the coal-based fuel that we are primarily using for electricity generation. It'll also reduce polution and eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of energy. As for fuel cells, I'm not sure about catalyst consumtion, but at least the normal daily exhaust is plain old potable water. Now there's an idea worth chasing down. Energy use that produces (or at least restores) a commodity instead of consuming one. What are the economic implications of that? Perhaps we can export water to Saudi Arabia rather than importing their petroleum? :) Regards, Craig Steiner |
