The Nuclear-Hydrogen Economy vs. Coal

[johnkarls]

INTRODUCTORY EDITORIAL NOTE –

“Big Coal” (according to the NY Times book review – I haven’t had time yet to read the book) says the author talks about trying to minimize the horrendous problems of using coal by carbon trading and sequestration of some of the carbon emissions in underground caverns.

Neither is much of a solution.

So far, the technology for sequestration has never succeeded in capturing more than a fraction of the carbon emissions – converting coal from an “unmitigated DISASTER” to a “somewhat-mitigated DISASTER”!!!

Carbon emissions have a disappointing history in the EU where overall carbon emissions have CONTINUED to spiral UPWARD. Apparently the problem is that EU governments have been quick to certify questionable carbon-pollution rights. And now that the price of carbon-pollution rights in the EU has become significant, the EU has decided that carbon-pollution rights from elsewhere in the world are acceptable – so the “Oklahoma land rush” is on to explore for carbon-pollution rights worldwide (and perhaps even governments that are willing to certify fraudulent carbon-pollution rights) RATHER THAN ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS!!!

THE NUCLEAR-HYDROGEN ECONOMY

We can consider, in conjunction with “Big Coal,” the following alternative which is using nuclear energy to fuel the “hydrogen economy” – per one of the possible topics that had been proposed for this month’s meeting (simultaneously, an AP Wire article about using radio waves in lieu of nuclear energy to produce the hydrogen is also being posted) --

Global Warming/Energy Independence/Hydrogen-Nuclear Economy

Editorial Note – This subject is suggested by someone who has done major volunteer fund raising for the United Nations Environment Programme at the request of the Deputy UN Sec’y General for the Environment (in other words, the following is pretty accurate because, in order to fund raise successfully, you have to be knowledgeable about the subject and able to answer accurately questions that potential donors might have).

I do not want to quarrel with the desirability of imposing ASAP (vs. only by 2020) “CAFE” standards that are equal to what already prevails in the European Union and employing other forms of alternate energy (solar, wind, etc.).

However, all of them taken together would not even get the U.S. halfway toward energy independence!!!

The only form of “alternate energy” that the U.S. could employ on a massive scale (other than nuclear) is coal gasification. Coal gasification, however, would be a disaster from a “global warming” viewpoint because so many “greenhouse gases” would be generated in the gasification of the coal – on top of the “greenhouse gases” that would otherwise have been generated anyway as the gas (or whatever it is displacing) is oxidized during the ultimate energy usage.

There has been a lot of talk from politicians during the last decade about “The Hydrogen Economy” – which is a political euphemism for “The Nuclear Economy”!!!

After all, if you ask yourself where the hydrogen would come from, the only place it could possibly come from on the scale required would be from breaking apart water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen molecules (2H2O > 2H2 + O2).

However, massive power is needed to break apart a water molecule (equal to the power that is then released from oxidizing the hydrogen molecule – 2H2 + O2 > 2H2O).

Just like massive power is needed in the photosynthesis that occurs in the leaves of plants to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen – (6CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2). That power is equal to the power released as animals oxidize the sugar contained in the plants that they eat (C6H12O6 + 6O2 > 6CO2 + 6H2O).

However, the massive power required for photosynthesis is solar, whereas the only massive power available to break apart water molecules is nuclear!!!

It should be noted that neither the breaking apart of the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen molecules, nor the oxidation of the hydrogen molecules for which the only by-product is water PRODUCES ANY GREENHOUSE GASES!!!

It is a well-known fact that if the United States were to employ nuclear power to the same extent as France and Japan, the United States would be able to comply with Kyoto with plenty of room to spare!!!

If the group would like to discuss the inter-relationship of these issues, I would be delighted to propose reading materials that would verify all of the foregoing.