Would there be an energy crisis if we replaced all powersources with nuclear power plants?
And then started using electric cars?<p>And then put all energy-research into solarpower to replace nuclear power when there is a major breakthrough?<p>I'm hardly an expert but it seems most other alternatives are either not viable or they are just a trade-off.
It has to do with market forces and politics.<p><i>Disclaimer: These are not necessarily my views, but views I believe others hold.</i><p>A: Nuclear energy is dangerous and a terrorism threat (political)<p>B: Electric vehicles are not practical (market) and there is a ton of money in oil (market) and our relationship to the oil providers is frail (political)<p>C: Wind energy is not very profitable (market) or practical (market) because the technology isn't there to harness it efficiently<p>I agree with most of my market reasons, but the political ones I think are unfounded.<p>I also think that there is a great reward awaiting those who find a way to make electric vehicles and wind power practical and profitable (and a great deal of headache awaiting those who attempt to change the political aspect of energy).
The cheapest energy source right now is coal, even if carbon-offset costs are factored in. So it would be cheaper to do the electric car thing right now with the existing power sources than with the nuclear option -- but we haven't done that, because electric car designs aren't quite ready yet, and because the demand for raw materials for all those new lithium-ion batteries would push the cost through the roof. (That actually happened this year with laptop batteries, somewhat.)<p>But yes, nuclear power stands a better chance of being able to fully replace fossil fuels than most of the other options in the next few decades.
with nuclear, you still have a centralized source ... resulting loss in cables and converters<p>with solar, it's decentralized ... loss should be minimal ... maybe no need for AC converters ... can u directly use DC ?