posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:37 PM
Nuclear is not the answer. Yeah, we don't have to pay for it now, but where does all the spent uranium go? We can't go anywhere near the "uranium
burial site" for 10,000 years or else we get cancer, our kids get cancer, their kids, etc. etc. Not to mention that they have deformities, too.
It's extremely inefficient, too. If the reactor core is not covered with water at all times, it will cause a meltdown. Does that say anything about
how much energy is wasted to heat? And uranium is a limited resource, too, just like oil.
Fuel cells are more efficient than lead-acid batteries. You're just not explaining the whole story. Hydrogen is pure when it is created from
electrolysis, so it doesn't have to be purified, and the fuel cell is only inefficient when you use oxygen from the air, which has to be purified
because it contains carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, and other gases.
Why not use the oxygen that is created during electrolysis? It's already pure, and if you don't use it, you're just wasting energy. That's where
the loss occures.
For more info, read you up on "Science and Technology", under the topic "The Ultimate Power Source".
A fuel cell system (including the electrolysis chamber, the fuel cell itself, tubing, etc.) is basically an energy storage system, but a fuel cell
alone is not. This is presently the best energy storage system we have, and nothing can top it.
Besides, who would want a nuclear reactor in their car?
Hydroelectric dams are the way to go! No heat, waste product, dangerous or explosive materials; just right. The only downside to hydroelectric dams
are that they are somewhat ugly looking. But speaking of ugly, nuclear has those gigantic towers...