The Energy Blog believes that we need more power plants powered by either coal or nuclear, and prefers coal with sequestration.
While he is willing to agree with Secretary Bodman that more nuclear plants should be built despite not knowing what to do with the nuclear waste, Jim Fraser rather would see clean coal technology, “because they can be built faster and the nuclear waste problem is reduced”.
In regards to energy savings he contends that the greatest amount of conservation could occur when electric vehicles get their energy from advanced power plants operating at above 60% efficiency.
This blog disagrees with the Energy Secretary’s endorsement of a double digit number of new nuclear power plants. Furthermore, this blog chastises the Energy Blog for failing to mention that a primary reason for promoting cleaner, more efficient coal power plants is that generation of electricity from coal plants is, after the transportation sector, the greatest source of greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, we agree that the $52.5 Million solicited for basic Hydrogen research, could be better spent. Obviously, Bodman wasn’t listening when Woolsey said, “Forget hydrogen; forget hydrogen; forget hydrogen.”
Other Similar AG Posts Possibly RelatedAutomatically Generated
One Comment
We don’t need hydrogen in 20 years, we need power now. Coal is dirty, sweeping it under the “rug” is a bad solution, at least as bad a deep water sequestration of sewage.
Nuclear power doesn’t have a disposal problem, it has a regulation problem, from Carter era politics. Treaties with entities that no longer exist, that ban the recycling of nuclear materials. If the nuclear “waste” is re-processed the amount of waste amounts to kilos over a cycle of years. The waste it’s self is either short lived (120 years) or fairly inocuous. In either case, it is a waste cycle that is WELL understood, and more failing of NIMBY than anything else.
Hydrogen is a long off technology dream, traction batteries are now, with an existing distribution chanels and rappidly improving technologies (much faster than hydrogen). In either case we still need the power to make the hydrogen. Why not store in in batteries that have, now, an efficiency >80%?