Why's coal nuclear wind and solar energy used for electricity and oil for transportation? Is this good or bad?

Question

Why's coal nuclear wind and solar energy used for electricity and oil for transportation? Is this good or bad?

Answer 1

Coal: Very good heat source but produces carbon, sulfites and particulate pollution.  If burned at higher temperatures, this pollution is reduced, but not completely.  Waste product is ashes, which do not break down as they are already broken down......finding its way into concrete recently as a bonding agent.

Wind:  Good, as it is renewable and does not produce pollutants while creating electricity.

Solar: Also renewable, but manufacturing of the solar panels cause pollution

Nuclear: Very efficient at creating steam for steam turbines which in turn create electricity........waste product must be stored for thousands of years before it MAY be made safe by the radiation running out....No one knows how long this stuff must be stored and maintained.......final costs are unknown and may never be known

Oil: there is only so much accessible oil in the ground.  It is only a matter of time until this raw supply is used up.  Creates particulate and carbon pollution.

The only sustainable electricity generation is wind and solar.    Is it good, none of it is good, but it is all, unfortunately, necessary to keep our economy running.

Answer 2

Liquid and compressed gas are the most convenient energy sources for transport due to energy density and ease of handling.  These are the drawbacks to other power sources for transport:

Coal- This used to be the primary transport fuel but was abandoned by the railways because of the logistics involved in feeding the burners and removing the ashes.

Nuclear- Size.  I know an engineer at Atomic Energy of Canada who actually did the math one day to see if a nuclear-powered care was viable.  He concluded that it was, but it would require 15 feet of concrete between the reactor and the passenger compartment.

Solar-  Size again.  A solar panel capable of powering even a small car would be too big to fit on the road.

Wind- Size and stability.  A wind turbine big enough to power a car would be blown over, taking the car with it.

Answer 3

Coal, nuclear, wind, and solar are practical for stationary generation. But you need something powerful and safely portable for cars. Coal needs a LOT of post use cleaning for example. Nuclear works for ships and other large power plants, but it's too heavy, complex, and dangerous for turnkey operation needed for cars. Wind works fine for sailboats, but you can't depend on it to drive your car. And solar is too diffuse for efficient transportation. That's why ethanol from cellulose is our best bet for automotive use.

Answer 4

I pretty much agree with Jeffry.

Except with the comments about solar manufacturing producing pollution.  While that is undoubtedly true,  why single out solar?  Pretty much everything we make has some environmental impact.

Wind turbines too. Carbon fiber blades must have some impact in their manufacturing for instance.

Solar thermal  power plants may have less impact in their manufacture than PV.  It's basically glass and steel, with a generator of some type.

(turbine, stirling engine for example)

At any rate, both wind and solar have small impacts over the life of them, providing completely clean energy once they are installed.

They both have advantage of being able to be built in relatively short times, compared with coal or nuclear plants.

Mass production of plug in hybrid cars in the U.S. would save lots of oil.  They are more marketable than pure electrics, because they have no range limitation.  The average American driver would get overall mileage of 100 mpg.  Recharging at night for $1 of electricity.

Plug in Partners -  advocacy group for PHEVs

http://www.pluginpartners.org/

"Charging the battery each night would cost less than $1.00 at current rates. PHEVs outfitted with a battery pack providing a 40-mile electric range could power, using the all-electric mode, more than 60% of the total annual miles traveled by the average American driver.  That means tens of millions of motorists could make their daily commute using little, if any, gasoline.  "

"PHEVs would result in significant fuel savings for most motorists. The initial cost of the plug-in vehicle, however, would be more than a conventional car or one of the existing mass-produced hybrids. However, a 2004 study by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) found that plug-in hybrids can achieve life cycle costs parity with conventional gasoline vehicles – meaning that over the life of the car the cost will be equal or less despite the initial higher cost. The study calculated gasoline price as $1.75/gallon."

So at $4 a gallon which we will see soon, how much would you save?

Using the grid to charge cars at night is already cleaner than burning gasoline.  As we make the grid cleaner, PHEVs and EVs will make more and more sense.

Good ideas here:

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

and here:

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

and here:Green Wombat  several stories about solar thermal power plants in California etc.

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

Answer 5

coal, nuclear & solar or hydroelectric  generating facilities are large & require a large amount of land so they are fixed in one location(except for nuclear powered ships).

oil & gas engines concentrate a lot of energy in a small portable package so it is more sutable for transportation.