The problem is just that , conversion efficiency. The more conversions you make, the more entropy in teh system, the more energy lost.
What are you going to "make" other than electricity? We have internal combustion motors, and we have electical motors. so, if not electricity, then some new burnable fuel? made how? On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rick Monteverde<r...@highsurf.com> wrote: > Couldn't a broad build-out of nuke plants make electricity cheap enough, at > least in dedicated operations, to use the resulting electric power in the > cost-effective manufacture of synthetic transportation fuels? At the extreme > end of the scale where your source energy cost goes very low, all sorts of > manufacturing pathways to various fuels and storage schemes might become > practical. Such schemes wouldn't otherwise be considered now where the > energy efficiency ratio for production is poor. Cars don't have to actually > run on electricity if power is cheap enough. > > - Rick > > ________________________________ > From: Chris Zell [mailto:chrisrz...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:32 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right > > I don't understand the emphasis on energy sources that make electricity, > especially nuclear. Growth in demand is slowing particularly since the > economy has slowed and may only recover weakly. Nuclear and solar can > replace coal but not oil. > > Why worry about charging electric cars? Who will be able to afford them > when Prius sales have dropped 40+%? Can we charge them with surplus > generation at 3 am? Will people buy a 32K Japanese electric car or a 40K GM > Volt? > > We need transportation fuels, not nuclear and not even much solar. >
