The least expensive and most feasible short-term energy replacement for nuclear power?

Question

A Solar power
B. Wind power
C. Hydrogen fuel cells
D. Biomass.
E. Nuclear fusion

Answer 1

F. None of the above! None of these are currently feasible at the level of energy production comparable to nuclear power.

Answer 2

For starters you don't want a short term energy replacement to nuclear power you want a long term solution.

As for least expensive and most feasible you need to factor in availability of raw materials. Also none are gonna be on the same power capability (ie you'd need alto of wind turbines to equal the same power a nuclear pellet does).

I'd say hydrogen fuel cells are not, as they are not fully developed to a marketable capability yet. Solar power and wind power are about the same they are expensive capital costs but are cheap to maintain and produce"free" power. The only problem is need constant sun or wind to get this power.

Biomass has been used in the past so why not use it now it would be a low grade power source tho.

Nuclear fusion and fission is out of the question as its a hazardous power source.

So right now I'd say the best is a combo of solar and wind power if you have alot of sun and wind near you. Other wise a combination of other alternative power sources will be needed

Answer 3

None - all listed are either not feasable (fusion) or are very expensive. Whoever wrote this question needs to do some more reading. Firewood would be better than any of these.

Answer 4

I would say A) solar

Even though the cost per kw an hour is not totally cost effective yet but will soon be.

Answer 5

None of the above. The correct answers are natural gas and/or coal.