Comments on: Turning Nuclear Power into the Hydrogen Economy

By: coreybarcus

coreybarcus — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:18:00 +0000

A new industrial revolution will only be possible with with a dramatic reduction in energy costs. The only currently conceivable way that this could come about is with the development of a new generation of affordable nuclear generation, likely based upon molten salt reactors. This technology was pioneered with great success back in the 60s, but was unfortunately abandoned in favor of fast breeder reactors.

If we are to use hydrogen as an energy carrier, then it will very likely be as ammonia (NH3), as opposed to H2 primarily due to the practical difficulties of its transport and storage. Honda’s fuel cell vehicle prototype, the Clarity FCX, uses a 60 gallon 350-bar tank to go 250 miles. With ammonia, a 20-gal 14-bar tank can probably go about 500 miles (roughly-speaking, an improvement of over 100x).

So, the most efficient (and lowest cost) carbon-free system would consist of maybe hundreds to thousands of future high-temperature molten salt reactors producing ammonia via Solid-state Ammonia Synthesis (~60% more efficient than the Haber Process). This fuel system should easily scale to billions of vehicles with minimal environmental impact.

A far more expensive way to synthesize ammonia would be via concentrated solar power utilizing thousands of square miles (over 10k square miles for 1 terawatt of energy), but it could probably still be done (though the economic and environmental impact will not be pretty).

As energy costs are a fundamental input into economic activity, and our current problem couples economic production to carbon emissions, developing the cheapest possible source of carbon-free energy should be a national priority. But unfortunately, the general public remains largely unaware of the costs, risks, and opportunities associated with these problems and continues to support multiple impractical courses of action.

By: Jean-bernard Brisset

Jean-bernard Brisset — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:44:00 +0000

Hydrogen Economy will be the next industrial revolution. People, including economists, have not yet grasped the importance of this fact. Oil price will have to climb to 300 dollars for the idea to dawn on people’s minds. Until now, we only hear critics of wind power, for instance; People argue that wind electricity is irregular. My views is that it has been so far unproperly used. Instead of being delivered to the grid, wind electricity should be exclusively used for the production of hydrogen. In which case the current needs not to be regular. Jeremy Rifkin was too optimistic in his pronostications in that The Hydrogen Economy is not so close as he thought, but it will come within the next 15 years. For investors, I would recommend such european companies as Air Liquide or Linde. these companies will be the EXON or SHELL of to-morrow if they are not taken over by the later.

By: John Bailo

John Bailo — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:10:00 +0000

The nuclear industry should be applauded for being willing to build into the Hydrogen standard. Hydrogen becomes a method of Energy Exchange, a universal fuel that anyone can create, transport and use with a variety of methods and devices. I look forward to seeing a modern nuclear industry producing hydrogen safely and efficiently.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:56:00 +0000

Many signs point to a dying nuclear industry.

In its death throes a beast flails desperately seeking a way to survive….

By: _ds_

_ds_ — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:36:00 +0000

Any source of electricity can be used for electrolysis. Taking nuclear, the most expensive and dangerous source, and using it for producing hydrogen is beyond moronic. What a ridiculous desperate attempt by the nuclear industry to greenwash itself.

By: RobS

RobS — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:18:00 +0000

This is the most ludicrous idea I’ve heard in a long time. Use nuclear generated base load electricity to electrolyse water to hydrogen, store it which involves moderate losses, then turn it back into electricity in expensive fuel cells. This process has so many losses it just beggars belief that anyone could consider it a serious option, and with the economics of nuclear becoming dimmer all the time adding hydrogen production, storage and fuel cell utilisation to it would blow current costs away.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:15:00 +0000

Do some research.

The fact that someone can make a YouTube video which sings the praise of thorium LFTR does not make it a real thing.

For decades various countries have messed around with thorium reactors and no one has made one that is commercially viable.

That, however, has not stopped people from claiming that thorium LFTR (or small modular nuclear reactors) are the answer to the world’s energy problems.

Fact is, this stuff is an unproven idea. And it’s not unproven simply because no one has spent money trying to make it work.

It’s unproven because attempts to date have not worked.*

—

*worked = commercially viable

By: Tiji

Tiji — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:46:00 +0000

If allowed to move to the next “easy” step in nuclear, then hydrogen from it even other hydrocarbon oil replacements or desalinated water would be cost effective. Current Uranium/Plutonium cycle reactors are not the answer. Thorium cycle LFTR nuclear is a better choice.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:41:00 +0000

Is there any role for next generation breeder reactors to try to reduce the amount of high level waste produced by this albatross?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:43:00 +0000

Here’s the take-home…

” the economics need to be improved”

Damn straight, Spanky. Let’s take the most expensive way to produce power and use it to convert water into an inefficient way to move our vehicles.

Nuclear: a dying industry flailing around to find a reason to exist….

By: Neil Blanchard

Neil Blanchard — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:30:00 +0000

Nuclear power –> hydrogen? Pipe dream.

Neil