Originally Posted by RiverOfIce
Market value for electricity in the area where nuclear is use is between 6 to 9 cents a kilowatt. The real cost in producing nuclear from NEW plants is close to 8 dollars a kilowatt.
There is simply no "one" way to fix our power problems. Nuclear is currently at the bottom of the heap when it comes to cost vs management.
I am going to have to ask for proof now.
Prove the following statements.
"you could have a few plants running 24/7 making fuel out of water for pennies on the dollar most likely."
"When you throw in the newer plant processes that produce less waste...I think it is a bit cheaper than you are thinking. They virtually cannot melt down."
Solar only works during the daytime, which means you are going to not only have a lot of them, but make the world more efficient at using that power.
The original article is simply a way to produce fuel if you are not worrying about the extra cost and extra energy consumption.
Honda currently has solar powered hydrogen charging stations for the Honda FCX that can do 2 kg of hydrogen in 24 hours, which is about 140 miles of driving per day.
You've got to consider the Life Cycle Assessment of the system. Solar panels are quite bad for the environment (rare earth metals being used), energy-intensive in production, and inefficient in both space and energy conversion in operation. Their limited ~30 year life cycle is also a drawback.
Yeah it's a wiki, get the sources from the bottom.
The facts are: there is not enough surface on earth to satisfy energy demand with solar. Nuclear (and fossil fuel in the short term) is the only viable, sufficiently energy-dense energy production method.
Now this news story is not about production, it's about storage.
Electric vehicles cannot store enough energy to travel sufficient distances, and charge times are unacceptable. Fuel cells are better, but liquid hydrogen tanks in cars deplete themselves in a matter of days or weeks, and their high pressure is a hazard. The most energy dense and simultaneously sufficiently safe energy storage media we have are liquid hydrocarbons/alcohols, whether oil-based (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc.) or other (the stuff this news piece mentions, the stuff Joule Unlimited makes, Ethanol/Methanol, etc.).
Additionally, this means not having to retrofit the entire world's infrastructure that's more than 100 years in the making, but allows us to incrementally improve technology, which is much easier and cheaper.
Basically renewable energy sources are only viable on a small scale, locally where they are produced, while large coal, oil, fission, or (in the near future) fusion plants can power cities and countries reliably, safely, and quite efficiently.