Robert Zubrin says yes.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
Risks and Future Energy6 hours ago
-
Pandora's Box -Commentary21 hours ago
-
Opportunities in Nuclear2 days ago
-
Ernie Moniz:3 days ago
-
Cold shutdown2 months ago
-
Energy vs. Electricity and why we care3 months ago
-
Energy Policy3 months ago
-
End of the line6 months ago
NNN Blogroll
- 4 Factor Consulting
- AEHI blog
- ANS Nuclear Cafe
- Atom Watch
- Atomic Insights
- atomic power review
- Bionuclear Bunny
- Brave New Climate
- Business of Green (Int'l Herald Tribune)
- Canadian Energy Issues
- Channelling the Strong Force
- Clean Energy America
- Clean Energy Insight
- Communicatom
- David Walters at DailyKos
- Deregulate the Atom
- Energy from Thorium
- Energy Outlook
- Energy Wire (Washington Post)
- Environmental Capital (WSJ)
- Freedom for Fission
- Fuel Cycle Week
- Idaho Samizdat
- Idaho Wonk
- Musing Environment
- N^4
- New Papyrus
- Newswatch: Energy (Houston Chronicle)
- Next Big Future
- NGNP Alliance Blog
- NNadir Diary at DailyKos
- Nuclear Archer
- Nuclear Australia
- Nuclear Dialogues
- Nuclear Fissionary
- Nuclear Green
- Nuclear is our Future
- Nuclear Power? Yes Please
- Nuke Power Talk
- Physcial Insights
- Pop Atomic
- Positive Energy
- Public Utility Law News
- Seeking Alpha
- Talk Nuclear (Canadian Nuclear Association)
- Technology Review (MIT)
- The Capacity Factor
- The Energy Blog
- The Neutron Economy
- This Week in Nuclear
- ThoriumMSR
- Yes Vermont Yankee
- Yucca Facts
Contributors
- Bill Gross
- Thaddeus Swanek
- RSM
- Lynne Neal
- Tara Young
- Dennis Riley
- Victoria Barq
- Jim Slider
- Lisa Stiles
- Mitch Singer
- Steve Kerekes
- Eric McErlain
- Joseph Reed
- Mark Flanagan
- Kevin McCoy
- John Adams
- Everett Redmond
- John Keeley
- John C. Shaw
- Web
- David Bradish
- Chris Charles
- Scott Peterson
- Jennifer Maloney
- Richard Myers
- Rod McCullum
Disclaimer
2 comments:
Bob Zubrin is a clever guy. If we do a crewed Mars mission in our lifetime, it will probably be based on his ideas - which include using a nuclear reactor to synthesize fuel for the return mission out of the Martian atmosphere.
That said, I think he's probably barking up the wrong tree here.
Aside from the dubious economics, there's several technical issues which makes this alternative less likely.
If you're going to make liquid fuels from coal for OPEC-busting, the process of making diesel from coal is not very different to making methanol, and there are already car and truck engines in mass production using the stuff.
As an extra bonus, diesel engines are much more efficient than spark-ignition engines because of the much higher compression ratio.
In any case, this doesn't solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions from combustion, which are highly likely to be the subject of regulation soon.
For what it's worth, my best guess is that plug-in hybrids with increasingly long all-electric ranges, hopefully powered by nuclear electricity, will become increasingly commonplace through the 2010s.
Actually, the flex-fuel cars use E85, which is nominally 15% gasoline (for cold start) and 85% Ethanol. But it does not matter, you can make also Ethanol or Butanol from coal, or CO2 as feedstock.
With dedicated Ethanol/Methanol engines the achievable efficiency is actually HIGHER than the efficiency of diesels.
With a high temperature reactor as process heat source the "mine to wheel" efficiency would be higher than either hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric. And it is doable with the existing liquid fuel infrastructure and without much retooling the existing car fleet.
Also gets away from the rising commodity prices for battery or fuel-cell materials.
- Klaus
Post a Comment