Nuclear Soap Box

When I logged in this evening to post a new blog I noticed last week's blog wasn't there. I discovered it was posted into a duplicate account, which happens if you don't log in using your full email address. I re-submitted the post on this blog.

This week I want to talk about why I like nuclear energy. In my opinion, it is the only readily-available technology which can directly offset global warming without sacrificing modern lifestyle. I'm not ruling out any future technologies from being utilitzed, but if the world were prompted to halt CO2 emissions within the next 20 years without causing a global recession, we would need to maintain the enegry supply we are consuming while eliminating emissions. This is the point where people would mention renewable methods of generating energy. If we have a mix of energy sources such as hydro, wind, and solar power, we can reduce our dependence on purely nuclear energy should the world need to quickly halt CO2 emissions. It would be appropriate to keep developing clean electricity sources beyond nuclear power.

Hydrogen fuel will be a critical component in reducing CO2 levels, as it seems the best-suited fuel to replace gasoline and diesel fuel. I mention Hydrogen fuel as an aspect of a broader nuclear energy solution because enough hydrogen can be created from one pellet of nuclear fuel to power 22 cars for a thousand miles. There are several ways to produce hydrogen fuel, such as using electricity or heat from a nuclear reactor. The most promising methods of creating hydrogen from nuclear energy is through the electrolysis or thermochemical splitting of water. The only byproduct of this process would be oxygen. With the potential for global fuel consumption to shift from fossil fuel to hydrogen fuel and nuclear electricity, we could theoretically revert to pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels.

This is where some might mention success stories such as Brazil's use of sugar cane in the production of ethanol fuel, but ethanol is not as environmentally friendly on a large scale. We would be at the mercy of mother nature to consistently produce the fuels we need. The amount of land required to replace fossil fuels with bio fuels would drastically reduce biodiversity and leave our ecosystem vulnerable. Additionally, mass produced bio fuels would cost significantly more than hydrogen fuel created from nuclear energy.

I can understand the fear nuclear energy may create for some people, but we need to take the situation into context and realize there is a real possibility we might be forced to change either our energy consumption or energy production. I'm inclined to say we will choose to change the way we produce our electricity and fuel rather than give up modern civilization.

I found an interesting PDF from the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Labratory which describes the production of Hydrogen fuel from nuclear energy.
http://nuclear.inl.gov/docs/papers-presentations/nuclear_hydrogen_3-3-03.pdf