Steve wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > More comments below...
> >
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >>"Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>A few comments below...
> >>
> >>>Other that then environmentally clean but paranoia inducing power
> >>>produced by nuclear plants, the remaining bulk of US power production is
> >>>coming from pollutant belching coal fired plants.
> >>
> >>The bulk of pollution coming out of coal plants these days is CO2 which
> >>is of importance to the greenhouse effect. But the pollution controls on
> >>coal plants today are very serious. Much better maintained that what's on
> >>a typical car.
>
> Yes, the biggest single emission from a "clean" coal plant is CO2,
> however even the cleanest coal plant puts out oxides of sulfur and
> particulates in the range of many TONS per year. And a little-known bit
> of trivia is that the average coal plant releases more radioactivity
> directly into the environment each year than a nuke plant (naturally
> occuring radioisotopes are found in coal deposits and aren't normally
> separated, and they get out in the particulates that get through the
> scrubbers, as well as being present in the fly-ash captured by the
> scrubbers, which must be disposed of itself).
>
> I'm worried that we're sneaking up on a quiet power crisis in the US.
> Right now, about 20% of the US power grid is supplied by nuclear plants.
> The last nuclear plant to go on-line did so over 20 years ago. The
> oldest nuke plants are coming up on the age where they simply have to be
> shut down, or else heavily re-invested and the enviro-nuts won't allow
> new construction or heavy re-investment in nuclear power. So even if
> demand were to hold constant (it won't its growing) that means that
> greenhouse gas production will ramp up by order of 20% as the nukes are
> taken offline. Wind power is the only alternative that's made anything
> of a dent, because the same enviro-nuts that would rather breathe coal
> fumes than have a new nuclear plant will not accept new dams for
> hydroelectric power, and in fact want to tear down several of the most
> productive hydroelectric plants in the US as well.

I've heard larger numbers than 20% from nuke currently.

Either way I stand by my point that from a
reality/technology/practicality standpoint we need to replace the
coal/oil/NG plants with current generation nuke plants to buy some time
and then start to replace the old nuke plants with renewable sources as
practical.

By the time the current generation nuke plants are coming to the end of
their useful life hopefully the renewable source technologies will be
advanced and debugged enough to take up the slack.

Also to add something on the original topic, the fundamental problem to
be overcome with electric and hybrid vehicles is that even if brought up
to full production levels they will still cost more for a less capable
vehicle compared to conventional technology.

A second and somewhat related issue is that there needs to be tax and
insurance reform to allow people to have a second high MPG vehicle to
use for general commuting without a cost penalty.

I have a large pickup that I *need* for various hauling tasks, I
certainly don't need to use it for grocery runs or general commuting
however the additional cost in taxes and insurance to have a second high
MPG vehicle for those tasks would vastly exceed any gas cost savings
even if gas prices were to triple.

Pete C.