Quote:
| Wouldn't it be more efficient to use electrolysis?... |
not if its more efficent to use chemicals.
hard to tell without looking at the actual engineering information. since the nuke plant is making electricty and all that heat anyway, might be better to just save your power and use chemicals, or it might not. its not really that important, as nuke plants get sued by green groups as soon as they hit the drawing board anyway.
Quote:
| Agreed that fossil sources for hydrogen are a faulty solution to the problem of supply. I note that you didn't mention solar as a source for clean electrons. |
solar is less common these days due to a lot of equipment issues. its very rare in my neck of the woods so I didn't think about it. Wind is much better due to the simplicity involved. And hyrdo has the advantage of more "control" over your power source, you can save up water, but not wind.
Quote:
| If the middle east deserts were utilized for H2 production, producing countries shift from being suppliers of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons to a different energy regime could be eased. Their silica and abundant solar radiation could boom their economies even more than oil has. |
that sounds like it would be a massive undertaking and extremly problematic equipment wise. Those new air movment plants down in would probably be a better use of area than solar plants. I don't know a lot about weather, but I would imagine that any instalation in the middle east would have extreme difficulty from wind blown sand and grit, much more so than in other regions.
the best thing about H2 production is that pretty much anyone can do it. all it takes is electricity and water.