The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #90532   Message #1723893
Posted By: GUEST,petr
21-Apr-06 - 12:56 PM
Thread Name: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
a recent Scientific American article discussed plug-in hybrids, which are starting to be made, and some companies are converting existing hybrids by adding more batteries etc.
It was touted as a better alternative to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (since there doesnt need to be a new infrastructure of hydrogen stations, and you can recharge at night when there is less power demand
and the utilities would be happy (as well as the expense of the fuel cell - which requires platinum)

yes its true that much of the existing electrical power generation in north america and elsewhere is coal burning plants that are major co2 producers - and much of these are old (and long ago paid for by the utilities) so theyre not keen to change. Carbon sequestering is an idea
but its expensive. So there needs to be political will to tax carbon or have some kind of cap and trade system to encourage alternatives.

Wind power stations are costly to build, but unlike a coal power station you dont have to keep bringing in the coal.
COmbined with electrolyzers to make hydrogen (as they are doing now in Spain) the unused wind power can be stored.