Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The problem is that it takes energy to split hydrogen from oxygen and, until we get fusion working, you need to put more energy in than you get out.
|
But unless you have a severe problem with nuclear power, this isn't a problem. Radioactive material, whilst not recycleable nor renewable, is in such plentiful supply, it is more than feasible for long-term use.
Nuclear fission heats water, which powers turbines to generate electricity to electrolyse water, producing pure hydrogen. This requires no net energy use to maintain.
This does cause problems with nuclear safety and disposal of waste. With nuclear safety my feelings are that everything is a gamble. Crossing the road is a gamble, but you do it because the benefits of reaching the otherside outweigh the risk. Likewise, the benefits of nuclear power (far) outweigh the small safety concerns. With nuclear waste, the production of non-disposable waste does render nuclear power ineligible as a permanant solution, but the earth can safely sustain worldwide nuclear power & waste management for at least a good 200 years, until solar or nuclear fusion becames viable enough to take over from nuclear/hydrogen hybrid usage.
The trouble is given the estimates between another 35 years (from biased groups) to a more likely 70-100 years of oil use left, we don't really have much time left to dismiss things like nuclear power because they aren't 100% perfect.
I would like to see nuclear power turned over to an independent worldwide organistation so all countries, especially like Iran & North Korea can benefit from nuclear power, without having to persue it themselves. the IAEA will own and maintain all the reactors funded from selling the electricity back to countries at a not-for-profit rate,.