whats everyones view on this quote ...

BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 17, 2004 Posts: 126

just wanting to scope out everyones 2 cents:

Like Campbell, Laherrere sees a key role for nuclear energy in the
coming transition, but he also envisions a new role for the petrol
pump: "If new nuclear plants with high temperature reactors are widely
used in the long-term future to supply electricity, they can also
provide hydrogen in their off-peak time, which could be carbonised to
supply synthetic oil. It could easily replace declining oil supply for
transport without any change in the distribution" (Laherrere, 2003).
The Big Five could thus survive the end of oil."

from here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=peak+oil&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=c2914k%2413ij%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu&rnum=6

clv101 · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:00 am Post subject:

From an environmental point of view carbonising hydrogen in petrol seems crazy... if we had a surplus of hydrogen surely it could be put of better uses?

2007 · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 23, 2004 Posts: 141

I came across this on G. R. Mortons homepage, why he thinks nuke won't replace oil:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/nuke.htm

2007

duff_beer_dragon · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: alpha-beta-gamma

Doesn't nuclear mean it works like the core of the Sun ???

What kind of reactors are they thinking are of any use in terms of producing some kind of power, to be used as electricity? Fusion or fission?

Aren't radioactive materials buried so far inside the planet because they have yet to undergo various changes that would render them safe on the surface, and that's why even so much as the glow-in-the-dark paint on a clock (if it has such on it) can increase the risk of getting something like cancer - because it is an energy type that breaks down the bonds that hold molecules together - like bonds holding the skin together, and the DNA -

before any liars get all whatever, I saw this proved in physics class at school - glow in the dark clocks emit way more radiation, according to a Geiger-Counter. That is why radiation can cause cancers - it breaks the bonds that hold cells and molecules in the body together.

This may also be why prolonged outer space exposure damages bones - and why, if you've seen those NASA tapes, any lifeforms out there resemble ones in our deepest oceans (cartiligious) - they also happen to incorporate phosphorus 'lights' in their bodies.

( phosphorus is also what makes the psilocybin in mushrooms active )

Optimist · Heavy Crude Joined: Sep 28, 2004 Posts: 220

All electric power plants (excluding hydro plants) have the problem that they cannot ramp power production up and down with demand over the 24 hour cycle. So, during the dead of night a lot of power goes to waste. If this power can be captured and stored for later use, it would help us conserve fuel and the environment. That would be the logic behind Laherrere's idea.

Making hydrogen from electricity is not particularly effective (30 - 35% efficient), but I guess 30% is better than 0%. Other ways to store the unused electricity including pumping water from a low reservoir to a high one during off peak hours and releasing it from the high reservoir to the low one (to generate power) during peak hours. You obviously need the right terrain for this to work and a substantial upfront investment.

Laherrere's other idea, to convert the hydrogen to conventional petrochemicals actually makes a lot of sense, in principle. I am amazed that the US Energy Department is seriously discussing hydrogen as a fuel of the future. In the post 9/11 world, why would you promote a high explosive as your fuel of choice?

If this hydrogen to petrochemicals process would use CO2 as a feedstock, you could be addressing global warming at the same time. If you cannot use CO2, you are back to using a fossil fuel, and what would be the point of that? In practice, however, I doubt there are any existing processes for combining hydrogen and CO2 to yield petrochemicals.

It looks as if one can produce methanol from CO2 and hydrogen, see http://sschi.chtf.stuba.sk/konf2003%5Cabstracts%5C117.pdf, although the process looks like it is still in the lab.

Perhaps a more elegant solution is the direct electric fixation of CO2, see http://www.ikm.org.my/Journal_articles/Vol5_No1/023-029_Jumat%20Salimon.doc. If these guys are to be believed, you can convert CO2 to methane @ 80% efficiency! Now there is a way to store that unused electrical power...

PhilBiker · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 1326

MarkR · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject:

I think that Laherrere's idea is not to generate hydrogen from nuclear electricity, but from nuclear heat.

The problem with electrolysis, is that generation of electricity is inefficient 33-35% for current nuclear steam technology, and that electrolysis is itself inefficient 80-85% for current tech. Not to mention that electrolysis is expensive (about the same price as fuel cells).

The technology mentioned is nuclear thermal hydrogen generation using a high temperature reactor (like the pebble bed reactor). Instead of passing an electric current through the water, it is superheated with 2 special catalysts. The efficiency of this process is probably 2-2.5x (60-70%) higher than generating the hydrogen from electricity.

The idea of using the hydrogen to make hydrocarbons from carbon sources is interesting, as it allows us to retain the immense investment in infrastructure we have invested in oil. How long would it take, and how much would it cost to refit every gas station? How would we distribute the hydrogen? A new fleet ot tankers, or a new network of pipelines?

My concern about it is that it will encourage the persistant use of fossil fuel carbon, and lead to continued emissions of CO2.

lotrfan55345 · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:41 pm Post subject:

We could use compressed air as an energy storage device. Comress sair during night and release it during peak hours.

Optimist · Heavy Crude Joined: Sep 28, 2004 Posts: 220

small_steps · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Optimal use for Electic Power