Liquid fuels from nuclear hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide is "viable"
Given: fossil fuel combustion contributes to global warming.
Given: the U.S. is dependent on foreign oil.
With those two concerns stated at the outset, researchers at MIT this summer published a paper on how nuclear power can affect the U.S. transportation sector. The study's co-authors, B.D. Middleton and M.S. Kazimi, reviewed using nuclear hydrogen with carbon dioxide from fossil fired plants to make liquid fuel and using nuclear energy to get oil from tar sands or shale oil, among other contributions nuclear energy can make.
Middleton and Kazimi proposed two reactor concepts to produce nuclear hydrogen: "the High-Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR), which uses Helium coolant, and a modified version of the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) using supercritical CO2 as the coolant (S-AGR)." The study's upshot is that getting liquid fuels from nuclear hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide is "viable". We shall see.
Related:
[Source: via The Energy Blog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tony Belding 12:21AM (10/04/2006)
Producing hydrogen (and the derivative liquid fuels) can be "viable" if you have the right kind of reactors designed to do that. Yet, one would tend to assume that generating electricity will always be their primary mission. Any reactor that produces electricity can be used to power battery-electric vehicles. So. . . Somebody explain to me again, why the fascination with hydrogen?
Reply
yes_i_am_an_american 11:08PM (10/03/2006)
If you think I want my energy from a Nuclear Power Plant you gotta be crazy. It is one thing to want a clean environment it is another thing to want a safe one!
Reply
Kosa 7:57AM (10/04/2006)
nuclear is the future... bad future...
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 9:53AM (10/04/2006)
"Somebody explain to me again, why the fascination with hydrogen?" -- Tony
Good question! With ethanol, it's pretty easy to follow the money back to ADM. Then it's also pretty easy to see why corn, one of the poorest possible feedstocks available, is the Politically Correct feedstock of choice (Midwest farmers' votes).
I haven't looked at that aspect of hydrogen yet, but generally, whenever there is a big (Politically Correct) push for something as insanely stupid as using hydrogen to power automobiles, there is a BIG pile of money involved -- and it's probably your tax dollars at 'work'.
So, who stands to make a boatload of money if they can ram (insanely stupid) hydrogen use down our throats? Answer that, and you'll also have the answer to your original question.
Reply