In this idea, the future is assumed to contain super energy grids that provide huge clean amounts of electricity, and fuel. The energy production systems are to mutually supply a typical complete daily electrical load curve, and providing hydrogen-based fuels for relevant utilization.
An energy production unit consists of a fission/fusion nuclear reactor, and an accompanied water electrolysis system which receive its energy requirements from the reactor. Thermal energy, electrical energy, hydrogen, and hydrogen-based fuels are then available.
Due to their limited capability of handling highly variable loads, the base electrical load energy is supplied from the nuclear steam turbine generators while the mid-range and peak load sectors are supplied from hydrogen-based generators such as fuel cells, and internal combustion engine units. On the other hand, hydrogen fuel distribution systems will be used for supplying loads such as hydrogen fueled cars, and other thermal loads.
From a technological point of view, these systems can be practically realized. The nuclear energy is considered a clean source that can produce a massive amount of thermal energy. The energy conversion process is classically performed using the nuclear fission of the uranium; however, recently, stable nuclear fusion for energy production is practically available. With the recently discovered carbon-based filters for direct desalination of seawater, an unlimited source of freely accessible freshwater is possible.
In my opinion, such systems will secure the energy for the future with least environmental impacts; however, many studies are required for ensuring the success.
Your feedback and discussion(s) will be highly appreciated.
Best regards,
M. EL-Shimy
In recent years the scope of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) program on non-electric applications of nuclear energy has been widened to include other more promising applications such as nuclear hydrogen production and high temperature process heat applications. https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC57/GC57InfDocuments/English/gc57inf-2-att1_en.pdf
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1577_web.pdf
Once the infrastructure for hydrogen-based electricity and hydrogen-based mobilty were present, then there would be no reason why the primary energy should not be generated be renewables alone. The main weakness of renewables is the storing of energy which would be resolved with a functioning hydrogen infrastructure. Hydrogen technology would enable non-central energy storage, a perfect couple with non-central energy production.
The main strength of nuclear is the base load capacity which is the more important the more the storage problem remains unsolved
@Eric, totally agree with you, and I believe that this is would be a perfect energy mix. IMHO, the nuclear energy may be also categorised as a sort of renewable sources. Based on your experience, do you think that the breeding reactors are practically possible?
@Erik, you said that "The main strength of nuclear is the base load capacity which is the more important the more the storage problem remains unsolved", but why did not you consider the hydrogen itself as an energy storage meduim?
The other renewable sources will find critical applications such as supplying off-grid loads, and deferrable loads by electricity. They also can contribute in the hydrogen production.
@Artur. The woderful great reactor (i.e the sun) is mother source of major renewable souces; however, the current renewable energy technologies (wind, and solar) suffer from many issues such as low efficiency values and enegry yields, and huge land use. Their use in the mentioned, and relevant applications is very good. On the other hand, I guess that they will not provide the sufficient worldwide enegry security in an oil less world. Therefore, bulk amounts of hydrogen, and hydrogen fuels may provide the acceptable energy security levels. It is known that the nuclear enegy is restricted, but the hydrogen transactions are not. Therefore, the enegry trade directions may be reversed in the future.
From bulk electic energy production of view, I believe that the originally mentioned systems are the near optimal solutions for the future. I am seeing that super energy grids are more realistic in comparison with microgrids because the microgrids need interconnections between each other for providing the acceptable modern reliability level.
The use of hydrogen for fueling retrofitted conventional generators will also not result in huge loss of investments, while minor GHG emissions will be produced during the electric energy production process.
@Artur. I think power & energy systems need centralised generation such that the overall power balance, security, and frequency control are achieved through centralised bulk power generation. This for keeping an intact grid, and secure operation. On the other hand, as you mentioned, the decentralised generation keeps the T&D investments feasible especially in geographically scattered grid-connected loads, and isolated loads. This mix of generation scales hosted by super grids in a smart way may be a reasonable structure of modern power systems.
@Mohamed:
Breeding reactors might be possible, but even more expensive than conventional nuclear. High investment sums, needed to meet modern safety standards, are a weak point of nuclear, even if favored by politics, see the Hinkley Point C plant in the UK.
Again: the main weakness of the renewables (getting cheaper each day) is that there is not enough storage capacity. Hydrogen could be that storage. It does not matter whether we consider nuclear environmental-friendly or not; once the storage problem is solved, this would/ill be the end of nuclear. Except in countries that favor nuclear due to the possibility of dual use.
Thank you ERIK for your answers. Please define the 'dual use' of nuclear energy. Do you think that the major renewable sources (i.e. wind, and solar) can provide sufficient energy for producing hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in the oil-less expected future? I guess, that the answer may be yes in specific geographical locations, and economies.
Dual use means both civilian and military use.
Yes, I think the major renewable sources have the potential.
Human mind has created new ideas on this earth by making innovations and winning Nobel Prizes.
His ideas and innovations are creating lot of Sound Energy.
Ideally speaking, convert this Sound Energy into a desired form of energy.
@Eriik wrote: "Again: the main weakness of the renewables (getting cheaper each day) is that there is not enough storage capacity."
Wrong.
The main weakness of all renewables is abysmal ERoEI. Apart from nuclear, as apparently it magically became a renewable.
Photovoltaics have ERoEI below 1 in temperate regions, when calculated correctly. Wind turbines ERoEI is not yet calculated correctly, but the marketing surrounding them advertises a rapidly falling number, now at about 5. And most probably that's not a realistically obtained one.
Whoever thinks that storage is the only problem related to renewables is dead wrong. Other problems include harming environment more than benefiting it, need for exotic materials that make the whole concept unsustainable - as there are simply not enough of them, and worst of all - need for converting nature into energy producing wasteland. The fact that the energy thus obtained would not be enough is beside the bulk of other points. Just calculate the area needed to cover with PVs and it will dawn on you.
Hydrogen has poor energy density, but so far is the only thing that makes sense. For exercise calculate the extra dimensions of a jet plane powered with hydrogen to fly, say 3400 miles, just by substituting fuel for fuel.
@Davor Virkes
Your debate is acceptable; however, it is not fair to limit the comparison between fossil fuels, and renewable resources to the Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) prospective (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-03-15/eroei-matters-role-net-energy-survival-civilization/ ). This is because there are some critical issues that should also be considered such as the external costs of energy production, the energy payback time (EPBT), and GHG emissions. You may refer to:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273178841_Photovoltaics_energy_Improved_modeling_and_analysis_of_the_levelized_cost_of_energy_LCOE_and_grid_parity_-_Egypt_case_study
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319653647_Improved_framework_for_techno-economical_optimization_of_wind_energy_production
IMHO, the main problems associated with renewable (wind & PV) sources are their intense variability, and intermittency accompanied with their low dispatchability, and controllability. In addition, there is an extensive land use due to low energy production density. Fortunately, the predictability of these resources is high and getting better. Other problems include the transient stability, voltage stability, and security associated with these systems; they are introducing new dynamic phenomena in power grids. The distributed generation also shows significant impacts on the protection coordination, and voltage regulation in distribution systems. The problems associated with low dispatchability can be effectively solved by techno-economically feasible energy storage. Therefore, I agree with ERIK’s comments in this regard. If the variable electricity production from renewable sources is used in production of hydrogen, then many other problems will be simultaneously solved. On the other hand, there are some problems related to the dynamical properties need intensive R&D.
Regarding your comment about the hydrogen energy density, your statement is not carefully inspected; compressed hydrogen, and hydrogen fuels have relatively higher energy densities. For example, you may read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316789287_Operational_Characteristics_of_Renewable_Sources_Challenges_and_Future_Prospective?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=GASVcdnSeraczxq49h5nO8Yu&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A316789287&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle
The stated nuclear/hydrogen energy production system may be essential in the future for producing bulk amounts of controllable energy for providing effective energy security. In addition, certain nuclear energy technologies such as the breeder reactors change the status nuclear energy from semi-renewable to renewable energy source. You may read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
@Viraj Ranade
What are you talking about?! What is the scale of that ‘energy source’? Are there any relevant publications?
@Mohamed,
" it is not fair to limit the comparison between fossil fuels, and renewable resources to the Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) prospective "
Actually it is the only fair comparison when both champions of the renewables, sun and wind, are running below ERoEI of 1, and most probably also below 1 respectively.
If there was a net gain for solar, and there isn't, you'd be able to call it an energy source. This way it is only an incentives milking scheme, using more fossil fuels than giving back energy. It is an energy sink, and that's why it is a fair comparison.
My computer running 16 hours a day is more energy efficient than a PV solar panel - it effectively spends less energy, but I'd never call it an energy source.
We both seem to agree nuclear is OK.
@Davor Virkes
Thank you for your answer. Please send me some of your recent readings/research about the ERoEI.
The report ( http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-03-15/eroei-matters-role-net-energy-survival-civilization/ ) stated significantly higher values of the ERoEI of renewable sources; 10 for solar-PV, and 20 for wind. To be honest, I did not previously evaluate the ERoEI values, but it seem a reasonable indicator.
Mohamed, here is the paper I believe everyone should read: Article Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic so...
Thanks Davor for recommending the article. I will read it as soon as possible. Based on its abstract, I am not sure whether the costs of extending the power grid to remote off-grid locations were considered or not. In such locations, many studies shows high viability of hybrid renewable systems in comparison with the grid extension. In addition, the grid extensions to such locations may suffer from unacceptable reliability levels of the grid power supply systems. In my opinion, renewable energy based hydrogen standalone systems would be the optimal choice for such situations.
Perhaps.
Natural gas pipelines have shown energy can be shifted on demand to great distances with virtually no losses, except for the initial filling the pipes. Electricity not so much. Hydrogen is a bit tricky because few materials can hold it confined for a long time - it tends to pore out. But in a low pressure system of, say up to 10 bar, it may be viable. There are advances in electrolysis and direct nuclear production, so why not?
Solar, although not meaningful in direct production of electricity, may also work favourably in heating systems.
There are also zeolite heat storages knocking on our doors, and you can't say there are no alternatives. Zeolite, and zeolite-like porous substances produce heat when rehydrated, and in dry form those may conserve summer heat for the winter, cheaply, and with virtually no losses.
I wanted to say earlier, but didn't, that we miss a lot of real development simply because our scientific blade was blunted by a renewable duopoly: solar and wind.
Reality Check Please
We all know about Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Wave, etc. Energy. Why not answer how to make it viable, what are the road block?
By the way, for Zeolite, before getting to exited about it, let calculate the mass and volume required to keep a Canadian house warm for the winter using the heat of the summer or from the winter solar energy available for 1 week of storage. This is great research with great potential but space heating is not the way to get the best ROI unless you are storing massive quantity of waste heat close to the point of use. For hot water, well you only get half the temperature out that you put in so again check out the engineering.
Clean energy is for the Government to spend money on and for University and PHD to have something to developed that is emerging since not much can be done in oil research. (There are some oil research but nothing that will keep 100's of thousands of professors and student busy while the environment is taking a beating and where there is no real money to make a commercial success out of it). No good ROI is possible in clean and renewable energy while the price of oil is less than $100/barrel. Clean and renewable energy project development are government sponsored and once the government stop putting money in them, they are not commercially viable and they end. (Hydrogen buses for the 2010, Calgary Canada, winter Olympic - they are now all converted to diesel). The main reason is that clean energy is view as a romantic adventure where lobbyist convince government, (elected individual with no understanding except to have nice picture for the next election) to make project that do not have any ROI on the short or long term. Further more, the large share of the government investment goes toward the overhead of the lobbyist while the installation is done at a rebate. Leaving these project to University on a small scale, so that the technology is advance to the maximum. That way when proper regulation come into effect, or when a complete collapse of the environment happen, humanity can hit the ground running.
The proof is in the pudding... Globally there is a constant increase of energy demand, there are billion of poor people without any work who are surviving. Clean energy is labor intensive. Simple mathematics, freeze oil supply and meet all future increase with renewable and clean energy and you creates million of jobs, save the environment and redistribute the oil wealth which is the privileged of a few. Over the next 20 years a lot of problem are solve. Which is year 1 of the 20 year solution. Let each country be self sufficient in energy . Transfer technology since it is developed by the developed world but the growth is in the underdeveloped world, so that where the job must be created. Globalization can only work if import and export for each country are match otherwise there poor and rich countries. Look at Greece and Germany or Germany and most of Europe. This may not be efficient but human being are not robots and we all have to eat. Why should every one no matter where they are on this little blue planet not have the same minimum privilege without leveling the western middle class in a race towards the bottom.
In Asia, where the middle class people are making 15$ to 25$ per day, the price of gasoline or diesel is the same has in North America where the Low to high middle class are making between 100$ to 600$ per day. ( So how can they get their house, a car and other luxury like a refrigerator...) In the mean time many are loosing their house and cars in North America.
There are trillions of $ of oil to be pull out of the ground so there is to much easy money for the top 1%. So they like to share the wealth among themselves only. They like to leave their wealth sitting in their bank account so they can compare number. (Who is the rich one this year) This money is never spend or flowing to stimulate the economy or if they do they lend it to those who will pay interest. Why bother with the insignificant people who have no equity to leverage in order to get a loan. (Greed versus Fairness)
Clean energy are labor intensive and therefore would reduce the profit margin to the 1% because the critical job created would give the labor movement to much negotiating power. (It happen in North America and Europe in the 20th century to the point where we have medical system, retirement plan etc.) Why are the western world good paying job of the existing middle class moving to third world countries without all the benefit that the western world had acquired over a century by opposing the corporate greed. Now, the corporate greed is leveling the western middle class towards the bottom under the pretext of raising the third world standard of living. When individual who have good paying job losses them, they eventually settle for less. Everyone has to eat.
Has regulation are increasing, the oil company will bring oil sequestration technology on line to continue the use of an oil based economy justifying the higher cost and profit for cleaning the environment. In 2008, clean energy was kill as part of the whole collapse of the economy because it was gaining momentum. See the history of the drop in price of oil and lost of momentum in clean energy production. In this case they also try to kill fracking and slow down tar sand conversion since it would have made the US more independent. (The cost of fracking and oil sand development is to high for a 50$US/barrel.) Since both of these economy have not yet totally collapse, the price is not going up. Of course the development of fracking and oil sand does not make any sense when clean and renewable technologies are existing. All that is need for clean energy is a clear market. The market is the future growth of energy demand. This will accelerate the wealth of the middle class. Without this, what is North America working people suppose to do, go on welfare while waiting for the next ship to delivery oil from the middle east...
There is no commitment to freeze oil consumption even if it could be done now. A very simple solution is to only sale new car that works on N.G.. N.G. produce less CO2 then gasoline. Reaction of N.G. compare to gasoline (CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O.) compare to (2C8H18 + 25 O2 →16 CO2 + 18 H2O. (N.G - two water for each carbon dioxide while gasoline almost one water for one carbon dioxide). Bonus with N.G., it would not need all the pollution control. N.G. is a good gas to burn or to convert to Hydrogen. (The technology exist, just need the re-tooling) N.G. is the in between step to the hydrogen economy since it is a gas like hydrogen. (Just different storage pressures) Unfortunately, we are not paying a high enough premium for the oil company to let go of the existing easy profit that oil provide. If the hydrogen economies is to be created, it will be when the hydrogen is produce from oil (a complex molecule of H and C about 50/50) This is the only way the oil company and oil producing country will allow it to developed. (California tried to make the hydrogen highway and it failed) The hydrogen infrastructure can only be build by those who have access to funding. Who can get access to Billion of $? When the price of clean energy is high enough and the ROI will be good it will be allowed to happen. Follow the money.
Oil is a beautiful raw material to make plastic which is an excellent carbon sequestration medium. Why are we burning it? The human race is here for a few million years. Lucky for us, technology will allow us to convert sequestrate CO2 back to plastic in the future from the CO2 sequestration mining that is being created. I guess it is all part of a long term planning while the mass is being enslave.
In conclusion,
Oil cost practically nothing to produce, creates very few job and provide large profit to the few. Transfer that same level of energy use to clean energy and the world would be a better place for every one.
With regard to energy storage, if there was a commitment, pipeline of compressed gas could be install where clean and renewable energy could be pump in under a quasi isothermal process and energy extracted in a addiabatic process (i.e. boost the energy and prevent freezing during expansion). The pipeline would serve has a practical storage travelling between clean energy site and user cities. Compressed gas is the 2nd best energy storage for cost, (many chart have been produce) other gases can be use if some imagination is used. It is available today and could be made of recycle reinforced plastic and rubber and would last for a long time. This could be installed anywhere in the world and spill would not be an environment disaster.
If there was a clean and reusable energy commitment there are 1000's of engineers that could bring the cost down and create the infrastructure which is simple, this is not high-teck. If you do the math the energy density is not high compare to NG. Same goes to clean energy density when compare to oil. That why we need to make a switch where energy $ are move away from the oil industry toward clean energy. The possibility are limitless but they are not allowed because there is no imagination if money is taken from the oil rich supplier and producer.
@GILLES BRULE
Thank you for telling us the story of energy from your point of view that clearly describes the most of the worldwide attitude. Yes, there is a sort of hidden political agreement for significantly slowing the real widespread use of renewable energy sources. Actually, this is not only due easy profit of the oil industry, but also there are many challenging technical, and economical constraints to the full reliance on renewable sources, especially the inherently variable sources such as wind, and solar. The majority of these issues is already discussed in the stream of answers to this question.
On the other hand, the subject of this entry is to evaluate a possible source of ‘clean; energy for the future bulk energy production. In that future, it is assumed that the economical availability of oil is very limited or zero. It is also important to note that from electric power networks point of view, we need such sources for controlling specific operational issues in the electric power grid that contain large amount of variable sources. In addition, the mentioned energy production system will not only to produce electricity but also fuels, and heat.
Today, I received an email from the Verde LLC. They are constructing valuable hydrogen, and Nitrogen based equipment, and systems. Therefore, I found that it is worthy to be mentioned here for the relevancy of the products to the subject of the question.
http://www.verdellc.com/Index.asp
I was hoping that my story would be more relevant in the forum.
I am presently building a Waste to energy 30 MW thermal power plant in Asia. I have also design biomass power plant for Canada. I have design energy storage that I have described which would be superior to Elon Musk (Tesla) Australian batteries storage system and system that can produce MW by combining Wave, Wind and Solar on what I called a power Island. I have work in the Fuel Cell related industry has a testing specialist for pre-commercial stationary fuel cell for remote location where NG is reformed to make the Hydrogen. Today I am trying to find commercial ways to implement what is very difficult to implement because we do not have a level playing field. This has also been discuss in other essays.
The technology is moving forward, unfortunately the discussion above provide piece mill information already available when it is google and it is mainly perspective which enhance the discussion for those who do not know to much how solar, wind etc., can be use and it does not stress the fact that these technologies are existent. All of these system are actually old technologies that have been demonstrated time and time again. Yes there are some new little advancement being generated by thousands of researchers all over the world in laboratories and university that are searching for solution. Unfortunately, there are very few searching for way to create the network that would make it implementation happen using existing rule or creating a momentum to change the existing rule.
My concerned about these discussion is that they are only at a very high level and that they do not show details on how to find niche market for the commercialization. With people participating from all over the world, it would be interesting if the individual commenting on a technology would include a paper on how he/she has found a niche market in is own community. This could give the rest of us a bright idea on finding our niche in our community. Has a community, we seem to be the type of people who want to show off our knowledge about state of the art technologies. I believe we should also be able to go into the detail on where we can implement technologies that are ready because there is a commercial case. I believe those who want to talk about environmental technologies they should not limit themselves to the technologies itself but find and document where there are business case possible has part of there opinion. I believe that by providing some road map, someone may find clever way to implement it elsewhere.
The point that I try to stress is that we must not just talk about , not just do demonstration about it, but we must be catalyst for the implementation of it. Those that limit themselves to talk about the environmental virtue of clean energy in this day and age where the environment is collapsing slowly but surely have a very limited foresight and are repeating what is redundant.
I apologize for interfering with your discussion. I see thing repeating themselves and wishes that we would be knowledgeable enough to create a movement that would stop the growth of the use of Hydro-carbon because the technologies are existing. Yet we talk about it like it is a futuristic creation that we are privy to because of our superior intellect. Somehow, we have not yet establish an intellectual community of highly educated researcher, scientist and others human being with all kind of degree smart enough to implement real solution. We seem just to happy to let the government and other to figure it out, while we are just happy to show off our intellect on thing that do not happen in any serious manners.
Again, my apology for interfering in this discussion.
@GILLES BRULE
Thank you for your comments. You really enriched the depth of thinking about many issues in the current as well as future energy sources, and markets.I hope that the points you mentioned in the previous comment be considered by all researchers, industrial firms, and governments.
Recently, I read many technical reports, and outstanding articles analyzing global energy security as well as case studies of some countries. The salient outcomes show (directly, and indirectly) that we (humans) need reliable bulk energy sources for satisfying the future demands with minor impacts on the environment. Therefore, I guess that the future enegy mix will include the mentiond energy sources (nuclear /hydrogen fuels) working in conjunction with renewable sources in a reasonable energy mix hosed in supergrids of mixed enegy types. In addition, micro grids will continue to progress provided that sufficient technical advances in the energy production, and energy storage technologies will be achieved for economical systems. All are tied by strong communication systems that provide overall smart super mixed grids.
Yes I am i agreement that in the far future there will be a mix.
I am reiterating what I point out earlier with regard to this question. Presently the only mix is where government are funding the clean energy initiative and there is no real ROI, It always make me laugh when clean energy advocate claim, like what I heard today in the debate in British Columbia Canada, with regard to a hydro power mega project (pros and cons) versus other clean energy project. The con claim that it should be wind instead of hydro and point to a bunch of 3000 MW of wind turbine farms that were install in some states and that the cost of installation is dropping. (The price are not dropping, the cost of electricity is going up at a higher rate than inflation, which improve the ROI. They are installed by are labour for which the cost is going up at a lower rate than inflation. The equipment itself is being fabricated in third world countries with cheap labor) They make claim yet they do not look at the real ROI and the actual benefits to the country, only the virtue of clean energy at any cost. (In the mean time, the use of hydrocarbon keep increasing). If there was real money to be made with good ROI, investors would do it. (Coal is being remove because it is being replace by N.G., not clean energy.)The condition are just not there. If wind turbines and solar panel were mass produce like car, the price would be low. Presently clean energy is just a political diversion has far I am concerned.
In Ontario, where there was a solar policy that install a lot of solar collector. Entrepreneur and investor figure out to import cheap solar collector from Asia, show that the price of installation was more than 65% of the cost, so the package has a money maker for the owners based on the value and made large profit. This government policy was not intelligent enough to insist on the creation of the manufacturing process in Ontario. There is not a single manufacturing plant build for making solar collector. Now the program with the 0.80$/kwh and 0.40$/kwh is stop because it was not sustainable. It was the best price in all the world for selling solar energy and they have 20 years contract.
Do not take my cynical view has being pro-hydrocarbon. I have work on the developed wind turbines, water turbines, bio-mass, bio-diesel and electrical storage for which I need do find a place to demonstrate the technology. These are the technologies that are part of the so call mix. These are the technologies that will bring real good middle class job to North America since they are site sensitive and labor intense. Unfortunately, it is more for public own utility, co-operation and non profit organization because the profit margin is just not there for investors and oil companies until the cost of electricity get very high. I have opportunities that will come in the future. Unfortunately, these are very small niche market for this reason saying that we will have a mix of energy in the future is false since we already have them here and there where. This is like saying a clear sky is blue. I would like to read about someone smarter than myself that could tell us how to do it so that we can take control of the transfer of hydrocarbon to all clean energy in the next 20 years instead of waiting for hand out by governments and the environment to be a total waste land..
Maybe if the argument presented for the so call mix included a time line, for the claim of mix energy, it would deflate my arguments. Presently these mix idea seems to be an utopia of wishes and hope..If you read the EPA report in 2000 to 2010, it always say the same thing has what was read recently in the technical report. There is no real time line because not a single government has banned hydrocarbon within a fix agenda like they did for Refrigerant like Freon 12 and the likes... go figure, it is not that complicated. When working for the National Research Council of Canada, they ask the researcher to find something that would be relevant in clean energy. After two years, they came up with recommendation that was the equivalent to an EPA report. Probably most of there finding were from researcher who make summary from other papers to have something to write. So many papers are just summary of summary. Only the date change. At the end of the exercise they are all regurgitating the same clean energy information that we have been seeing since the 1980 with technical improvement and demonstration. The basics have never changed. I honestly believe that in this day and age, talking about clean energy has a wow moment for any new technical paper written is misleading. Sorry to be a sour something, I just wish that this forum would reach higher heights. Maybe I should stay away from this one... I am obviously to negative for this conversation.
Thank you again Gilles Brule for your constructive feedback, and valuable info.
An interesting relevant article
https://globaljournals.org/GJRE_Volume16/3-The-Feasibility-of-a-Hydrogen.pdf