Nuclear power plants: are they the solution for carbon-free hydrogen production?

Date: 12/02/04

THE "hydrogen economy" and fuel-cell technology have become quite popular buzz words recently, with governments, scientists and industries investing heavily in developing their potential as a solution to our ever- increasing demands for energy and environmental concerns.

NUCLEAR advocates' hope of saving a failed technology via hydrogen is mistaken.

Indeed, the European Commission recently launched the "European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform" to research the European Union's transition from a fossil fuel-based to a hydrogen-based economy, with an initial budget of some €3 billion from public and private sources.

The use of hydrogen in fuel cells to power engines is clean, with only water as a by-product, which can in turn be captured to produce more hydrogen.

Hydrogen, in end-use applications, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diversify our supply of energy and reduce our dependency on imported energy.

By all means then, let us use hydrogen to power our cars, factories, public transport and homes, if and when it can be proven to be commercially/economically feasible.

But let us not forget one thing: hydrogen, unlike its fellow fuel cell ingredient oxygen, does not come out of thin air. It must be produced, converted rather, from more complex sources - gas, coal, oil, renewables, nuclear.

This transformation uses energy itself and implies an important amount of infrastructure investment, not only for the conversion but also for the distribution and storage of hydrogen. Most importantly, this transformation process can, depending on the primary energy source chosen, create CO2 emissions.

Although a series of logistical and financial problems still remain to be resolved before hydrogen can become a viable option (including its transportation, distribution and storage), the elementary question of how to obtain hydrogen must first be addressed.

The obvious answer to the problem is to avoid the fossil fuels and turn instead to either renewables, or nuclear as sources of CO2-free energy.

But how to choose? Renewables have the added benefit of facilitating the direct storage of energy produced by a solar panel, windmill, etc, in that by converting this energy into hydrogen, the product effectively stores the energy.

The downside is that this hydrogen will need to be transported long distances, from the sunny spot or the off-shore windmill to its point of use - at great expense.

Another consideration is that, in view of the amounts of energy we use, and its steady rise, renewables cannot satisfy our primary energy source needs.

Renewable energy production is sporadic and randomly distributed on the planet. Wind and sun and water cannot be tapped by everyone, everywhere, all the time. There will be meteorological lows and highs in renewable energy production, which will have to be resolved through reserves and/or backup sources.

On the flip side, nuclear energy produces infinitesimal amounts of CO2 emissions and has a steady and large base-load capacity for electricity production.

Using hydrogen converted by utilising nuclear electricity would also mean less transportation and investment, as the plants have highly developed infrastructures, and the possibility of using hydrogen for supplementing local electricity generation, which would in turn free up resources for the use of hydrogen in other areas.

Questions about hydrogen's uses, applications and marketability are being researched across the world in an attempt to wean us from fossil fuels and environmentally unsound and unsustainable energy consumption.

How ironic and self-defeating, therefore, if we were to move to a hydrogen economy based on hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, giving off CO2 emissions.

It seems clear to me that nuclear power, both fission in the foreseeable future and fusion thereafter, is the only realistic producer of bulk energy for hydrogen conversion and negligible CO2 emissions.

• UK MEP Giles Chichester is the EPP-ED energy coordinator and UK Conservative energy spokesman.

Nuclear power has too many inherent economic, environmental, security or proliferation problems associated with it. That is why it is a dying market.

However, public money is - in particular on an EU-level - still being diverted from renewable sources and energy efficiency into a nuclear-fossil-fuel research and development [R&D] programme, which is affecting the take off of a real "renewable economy".

Hydrogen is not an energy source such as oil, coal, wind or the sun. Rather, it is an energy carrier such as electricity. It must first be liberated from compounds such as coal, oil, gas or biomass ("reforming") or by splitting water with electricity from any type of power, including nuclear, solar and wind ("electrolysis").

Today only 4% of global hydrogen is made by electrolysis, because reforming is cheaper.

The real question is whether Europe can afford to run the risk of discrediting hydrogen through the promotion of nuclear-derived hydrogen.

The answer is a very clear "No".

The risk of nuclear accidents, the unsolved problems associated with the disposal of dangerous nuclear waste, and the threats posed by weapons proliferation, as well as the chance of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants, should be enough to encourage a global phase-out of nuclear power.

In addition, the average age of current nuclear reactors is increasing, ie 22 years in the enlarged EU.

Assuming an operational life of 45 years, just to maintain the current installed capacity will require the building of some 80 new reactors between 2010-2025 - that's almost five per year.

This scenario would require a mammoth and unconceivable shift in economic, political and public thinking. I believe it is unrealistic.

Finally, renewables are becoming more and more competitive. Indeed, according to US physicist Armory Lovins, "new nuclear plants would deliver electricity at about two-to-three times the cost of new windpower, five-to-ten times that of new gas-fired cogeneration in industry and buildings, and ten-to-30 times that of efficient use, so they won't be built, with or without a hydrogen transition".

However, public money is currently being misspent. We can not allow public funds to be diverted from developing the renewable energy economy and improving energy efficiency and let it be spent, instead, on promoting a hydrogen economy built on unsustainable foundations.

That is, however, exactly what is happening.

In January 2003, US President George W. Bush expressed his support for hydrogen energy, but the resulting funds were apparently almost exclusively spent on subsidizing research and development involving fossil fuels and nuclear power.

A similarly unwise reallocation was proposed in Bush's 2004 budget, which takes hydrogen funds mainly out of efficiency and renewables.

What we need to do in Europe is boost technological development, especially in the case of renewable fuel cells - a field in which we are severely lagging behind the US and Japan.

Indeed, we are too dependent on components from these countries.

The hydrogen economy is not an end in itself. It should be considered only as part of a safe, secure and renewable-based energy future.

Therefore, without widespread renewable energy production, concrete financial commitments and a serious demand-side energy policy, Europe runs the risk of discrediting hydrogen, preventing its own development and further damaging the environment through the ongoing use of fossil fuels and nuclear derived hydrogen. The European Commission must promote renewable energy first, and hydrogen - from renewables - second. Not the other way around.

• Luxembourg Green MEP Claude Turmes is a member of the industry, external trade, research and energy committee.

Two MEPs discuss what sort of energy the European Union needs, and how best it can produce it.

• Primary Source