news

articles submitted

HYDROGEN ECONOMY, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
by: Prof. Vladimir Knapp
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computing
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Croatian Pugwash Group

 Abstract

Global energy prospects based on present trends, such as WETO or WEO study, give little optimism about fulfilling Kyoto commitments in controlling CO₂ emissions and avoiding unwanted climate consequences. Whilst the problem of radioactive waste has a prominence in public, in spite of already adequate technical solutions of safe storage for future hundreds and thousands of years, there is generally much less concern with influence of fossil fuels on global climate. In addition to electricity production, process heat and transportation are approximately equal contributors to CO₂ emission. Fossil fuels in transportation present also a local pollution problem in congested regions. Backed by extensive R and D, hydrogen economy is seen as the solution, however, often without much thought where from the hydrogen in required very large quantities may come. With welcome contributions from alternative sources, nuclear energy is the only source of energy capable of producing hydrogen in very large amounts, without parallel production of CO₂. Future high temperature reactors could do this most efficiently. In view of the fact that nuclear weapon proliferation is not under control, extrapolation from the present level of nuclear power to the future level required by serious attempts to reduce global CO₂ emission is a matter of justified concern. Finding the sites for many hundreds of new reactors would, alone, be a formidable problem in developed regions with high population density. What is generally less well understood and not validated is that the production of nuclear hydrogen allows the required large increases of nuclear power without the accompanied increase of proliferation risks. Unlike electricity, hydrogen can be economically shipped or transported by pipelines to places very far from the place of production. Thus, nuclear production of hydrogen can be located and concentrated at few remote, controllable sites, far from the population centers and consumption regions. At such remote places all other related nuclear facilities could be collocated. Limited number of such sites operated by international consortia under full control of IAEA and located in the far North of Asia, Europe and North America could be the future nuclear development acceptable from the nuclear and environmental safety and proliferation point of view.

Key words: nuclear, hydrogen, proliferation

Paper states two arguments for nuclear hydrogen in hydrogen economy: control of CO₂ emission and control of nuclear proliferation

1. Introduction

 Extrapolations from the present level of nuclear power to the future levels that would be required by serious attempts to reduce CO₂ emission pose a number of problems.  In addition to electricity production and industrial energy use, personal and public transportation is the third, approximately equal, contributor to CO₂ emission. Hydrogen is seen as the solution in transportation, though insufficient thought has been devoted as to where the hydrogen in very large quantities may come from. Present power reactors were developed for production of electricity, not for production of hydrogen. Still, there is no lack of enthusiasm about hydrogen economy on many levels.

US government recently started the so called Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative with the goal to demonstrate by 2015 commercial scale hydrogen production, using heat from nuclear reactors. US also initiated International Partnership on Hydrogen Economy where member countries of International Energy Agency (IEA) formed the Hydrogen Coordination Group (2003).  At the same time, European Commission formed European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Platform in January this year.  However, with all these initiatives it remains to be clearly recognized in official planning, at least in Europe, that nuclear energy is the only source of energy that can produce hydrogen in very large amounts without accompanying CO₂ production.  Future high temperature reactors could do this most efficiently. Apart from considerable technical problems of hydrogen production, storage and distribution, there is one most important advantage of nuclear hydrogen which has not been sufficiently emphasized:  that is, nuclear production of hydrogen allows the required large increases of nuclear power without the parallel increase of real or perceived proliferation risks. Unlike electricity, hydrogen can be shipped or transported by pipelines to places very far from the place of production. Thus, nuclear production of hydrogen could be concentrated at remote controllable locations, far from the population and consumption regions. At such remote places all other related nuclear facilities could be collocated and controlled. Nuclear hydrogen therefore offers not only CO₂ free energy; it offers also nuclear proliferation safety. One of the duties of responsible experts and expert bodies is to inform general public correctly on these issues of general concern.

 2. World and European energy outlook

After the meetings of the world climate convention in Toronto (1988), Rio de Janeiro (1992) and the third world summit in Kyoto (1997), there resulted in a commitment by all industrial countries to reduce their overall emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% from the level of 1990 by the year 2008 and a further 5.2% by the year 2012.  Kyoto protocol is not yet a binding law, although it was ratified by 104 countries (as of 2002).  European Community has ratified it in May 2002 and this Protocol determines its energy policy.  For the countries of European Community overall reduction quota is 8%.  A study prepared for European Commission “ World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook” (WETO), 2003, (1), projects an increase of world energy consumption by 70% between 2000 and 2030, representing an annual increase of 1.8% for a 3% growth in GDP. According to the study, the share of large-scale hydropower and geothermal energy would stabilize at 2% of the total in 2030.  Solar, small- scale hydro-energy and wind would grow by 7% annually from 2000 to 2010 and then by 5%, doubling their share in total energy consumption.  Nevertheless that will only constitute 1% of the total energy consumption in 2030.  The sum of all renewables, i.e. large and small hydro, solar, wind, plus wood and waste (5%), would total only 8% by 2030.  With slow growth of nuclear energy based on present situation (0.9% / year), the nuclear share would be reduced from 6.7% in 2000 to 5% in 2030. The sum of non-fossil energy, i.e. nuclear plus renewables comes to 13%.

 IEA energy study World Energy Outlook 2002 (WEO) covers the same period up to 2030.with essentially the same projections. All renewables are predicted to contribute 7% in 2030; nuclear contribution in 2030 is again only 5%.   So, firstly, it is clearly an evident nonsense to think that we have a choice between renewables and nuclear energy.  Secondly, unless there is a strong effort in speeding up the growth in both of these non-fossil energy directions, there is no possibility to cover the 70% increase in the total energy consumption except by correspondingly large increase in fossil energy use. In the WEO study, fossil fuels are expected to cover 90% of energy increase up to 2030.   Needless to say, in that case there is no possibility to fulfill the Kyoto commitments either. WETO reference case projects a doubling of annual CO₂ emission between 1990 and 2030, from 21 to 45 Gt of CO₂.  Both studies start from present state when Kyoto protocol is not yet binding, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (3) predictions are disputed, and when deregulation and privatization of power industry discourage long term planning.  Some change in European energy thinking may be indicated in a recent opinion poll prepared by European Commission on Economic and Social Committee (2).   What is actually going to happen if in 10 years or so the climate changes become evident to most citizens remains to be seen. Will the means to change the courses charted in WETO and WEO exist?

European energy situation

EU-15 is a developed region of the world, with already significant contribution of nuclear energy to electricity production (35%).  Looking at EU-15, soon to become EU-25, as our region, with commitment to Kyoto, we have to conclude that the way to control and reduce CO₂ emission in the longer run will have to be by significant introduction of nuclear energy into industrial and transportation use.  In EU-15, in the year 2000, emission of Green House Gases (GHG) was equivalent to 4059 metric tons (Mt) of CO₂, with a share from electricity production for public consumption of 836 Mt. With 35% of nuclear electricity in EU-15, saved CO2 emission is estimated to be from 300 to 500 Mt, depending on the reference fossil plant (2). With a maximum nuclear electricity share, by increasing it to 70 - 75%, GHG emissions would not be reduced below about 3500 Mt/year. For larger impact on GHG emissions after 2012 nuclear energy must enter uses other then just electricity production.  Therefore, as industrialized regions with high population density, Europe is in good position to benefit from the use of nuclear energy in industry and transportation.

 3. Hydrogen and nuclear energy

 Burning of hydrogen produces harmless water vapor, which is the main reason for its attractiveness in the future environmentally sustainable economy and society.  Its use can reduce and eventually remove atmospheric pollution locally and globally.  Of course, as hydrogen is not a primary energent, this can happen only if CO₂ is not emitted in production of hydrogen.  Air pollution by fossil fueled transport is a local problem in congested cities, but also a contribution to global pollution.  As a local problem, acting on a shorter time scale, it is more directly felt than the long-term climate effects.  Large majority of relevant experts is now aware of the problems caused by emission of CO₂ into atmosphere, which is on the level of some 24 billion tons/year (2003).  It is not the place here to present extensive arguments for the reality of climate change given by authoritative international bodies, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (3).  As with the effects of cigarette smoking, they will be forever disputed by some (interested) groups.  What is the most important achievement for energy planning is that almost universal scientific consensus on the level of international politics, was reached in Kyoto agreement in 1997 on the need to stop and reduce emission of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.

 Nuclear electricity is only a partial solution

One of the most attractive environmental features of nuclear energy is its ability to produce energy without production of GHG.  However, inspection of some global data will indicate limits of nuclear energy, in its present uses, to reduce emission of CO₂. Nuclear electricity contributed in 2002, with 441 reactors and 359 GW (e) capacity, to ~ 17% of world electricity production.  When expressed as a contribution to total energy requirements, the figure is more modest, ~ 6.6%. Nuclear energy has not contributed in (civilian) transport and in industrial uses of energy. Global distribution of energy use, below, shows that nuclear energy cannot decisively contribute to CO₂ reduction without giving essential contribution in these other sectors as well. This is particularly true for developed regions where substantial share of electricity is nuclear.  Globally, processing of heat, transportation and electricity each make approximately one third of total primary energy use.

Nuclear contribution in transportation and in industrial heat processes

Nuclear contribution in transportation can be achieved in several ways by using hydrogen: to hydrogenate conventional fossil fuels, to produce hydrogen-containing gases or to use hydrogen gas in fuel cells or in internal combustion engines. Many of required developments are in progress. Motivation for hydrogen use may be, in the short run, primarily a reduction of local pollution. The effect on the global pollution will depend on the way hydrogen is produced. When the reduction of global Co₂ emission is a goal, a production of hydrogen using fossil energy would be self-defeating procedure. For maximum effect on global CO₂ emission non-fossil energy should be used to produce hydrogen for transportation and in process heat applications.  Of course, for hydrogen production all non-fossil energy sources are welcome and all should be considered. For example, hydrogen production is an excellent method of storing solar energy.  Several Rand D projects in this direction have been and are in progress in a number of countries.  A detailed survey can be seen in IAEA TECDOC 1085 (4).  The WETO study gives the share of non-nuclear non-fossil as 8% in total of 2030 primary energy.  While the IEA WEO study gives 7%.  The nuclear contribution is further 5%. Both are too small, leaving far too large contribution to be filled by fossil fuels.

There are strong arguments that substantially larger nuclear contribution is feasible, assuming international determination to control CO₂ emission.  With Kyoto protocol becoming binding law we would have this situation.  Nuclear energy is in closest position technically, as well as economically, to contribute in non-electric industrial uses and in transportation. It is fortunate that the required technology has been developed for several decades, though with reduced intensity in recent years, partly due to the regrettable lack of foresight.

Technology for non-electric use of nuclear energy

High temperature gas cooled reactors, such as AVR and THTR-300 in Germany and Fort St.Vrain in US, have operated since late 60s until 1990.  There are current developments in South Africa on a 114 MWe pebble bed reactor, and a joint effort of US, Russian Federation, Japan and France on a 285 MWe GT-MHR reactor. Fuel technology of coated particles has been successfully developed and many years of experience accumulated.  Industrial heat of about

900^OC is available from helium-cooled reactors. Super-critical Water reactors, one of the Generation IV projects, will produce heat at higher temperatures then present water reactors. Thermochemical reactions for hydrogen production at temperatures available from gas cooled reactors have been investigated for many years in a number of countries and production demonstrated, as yet on the small scale. Production costs are still uncertain, though there are some promising reports (5) of considerable less energy expenditure (35%-40%) then in electrolysis.  Of course, nuclear energy in non-electric use must satisfy economic criteria as well, which will be much easier when accounting for external costs becomes obligatory practice. High temperature gas reactor is one from the group of reactors selected for development in the so called Generation IV of nuclear reactors (6), although it is much more advanced then some other proposed concepts.  High temperature gas reactor is also considered by IAEA in its INPRO project (8,9). With their excellent safety properties due to their non-metal ceramic fuel and their attractive characteristics for non-electric nuclear energy use, this reactor concept deserves high priority in any future reactor development effort. One of the main development goals is to reduce investment costs per unit power. Progress in this direction is to be expected, as the reactors of this type built in the past have not been optimized from that point of view. The situation in this respect will be clearer when the development progresses. At this moment it can be stated that this reactor type from the point of view of developing non-electric nuclear energy use is closest to commercial form. By producing industrial heat it can give a contribution to CO₂ reduction in the decade 2020-2030, possibly earlier, while any new concept would need a lead time of at least 20 years and are not likely to contribute before 2030.

 4.  Nuclear hydrogen production

 Hydrogen production is an excellent way for nuclear energy to contribute to reduction of local and global pollution from transportation, where one third of primary energy is consumed. At present hydrogen for various industrial needs is produced primarily by electrolysis and methane reforming, on the scale of about 50 million tons a year. In addition to established methods, new methods adapted for use of nuclear heat are in development. Hydrogen can be, of course, produced in water electrolysis by nuclear electricity, when economy can be achieved using off peak surplus electric power capacities. However, for serious share of hydrogen in transportation, at least double the present world production of about 50 million tons a year would be needed, which can be reached with large increase of production capacities. Extensive industrial experience of hydrogen production exists although by far the largest part is from fossil fuels (97%).  The dominant methods use steam reforming of natural gas and steam-coal gasification. These methods are interesting insofar fossil energy used in the process can be replaced by nuclear. The disadvantage of these methods from the point of view of intended reduction of CO₂ emission is that CO₂ is produced in the process of hydrogen production. Energy for water splitting in these processes is supplied by natural gas from coal. Out of the very large number of known hydrogen production processes (4) focus is on those where nuclear energy can replace fossil or electric energy. 

 According to US Dept of Energy estimates, (9,10), the lowest cost hydrogen is produced by methane reforming, followed by coal gasification.  Coal gasification hydrogen is more costly by a factor 1. 4 to 2. 6.  Hydrogen from electrolysis is more costly by a factor from 5 to 10.  The same cost ratio can be expected from nuclear electricity electrolysis. The cost of the nuclear hydrogen would vary within this range depending on the way nuclear heat is used in hydrogen production. Upper cost limit would be obtained with nuclear electricity for electrolysis.  Other essential cost factors for nuclear hydrogen will be the market size. Should a long- term target be to replace one half of transportation energy consumption with hydrogen energy, as a serious contribution to CO2 control, there would be a large market for hydrogen producers.  Introduction of new methods is likely to follow after a period of initial market penetration by hydrogen from electrolysis with both conventional and nuclear energy. As was seen in the past with coal and oil, new energent creates new uses and provide stimulus for new technologies, which in turn speed up its use. Oil and the internal combustion engine revolutionized were linked in that way.

 5. Nuclear hydrogen in transportation

 The required technical adaptation and development for transportation is an enormous task, but it is a task that has been addressed for air and space use and later by a number of ground vehicle producers. Hydrogen appears attractive as commercial aircraft fuel promising reduced fuel load and other advantages besides elimination of pollution of sensitive high atmosphere layer by kerosene products. Practically every large car company is working on the project of ultra low or zero emission vehicles, although there is at present an absence of required hydrogen infrastructure with priority on some hybrid solution. The speed of introduction of hydrogen, in absence of some legal enforcement following the binding Kyoto protocol, will be determined by the costs and by evaluation of the benefits from elimination of local pollution. So it may be interesting to have a look at some cost figures relevant for transportation use of hydrogen.

 Conventional electrolysis at present requires about 50 kWh, per kg of H₂. Considering the theoretical limit of  33. 6 kWh/kg there is not too much room for more efficient conversion. High temperature electrolysis can reduce the required energy by some 30%, but at the expense of more complicated process. Although methane reforming and coal gasification produce cheaper hydrogen, let us look at the economy of hydrogen produced by electrolysis with nuclear electricity, i.e. by the established method available for hydrogen production without production of CO₂. US nuclear reactors produce electricity at non-capital cost of about 2 cent/kWh (7). Long term projected nuclear electricity costs by IAEA are in the range 2 - 5 USD cent/kWh (12). A cost target for Generation IV, as stated by American Nuclear Society president (6) is around 3 cent/kWh.  So, we should not be far off the mark by taking the future cost of nuclear electricity at 3.5 cent/kWh. Assuming 50 kWh for kg of H₂, the resulting cost of nuclear electrolysis hydrogen would be 1.75 USD. With high conversion efficiency in fuel cell and vehicles with distributed electric drive without mechanical transmission, hydrogen promises to be a very efficient use in transportation. According to Walters and Wade from Argonne National Laboratory and US Department of Energy, hydrogen consumption for fuel cells driven car would be 0.75 kgH₂/100km, that is 1.3 USD/100km.  This agrees with the figure quoted by American Academy of Sciences for modified Fiesta experimental car (13).  If hydrogen is used as fuel in ICE the consumption is greater.   For example for Ford Hydrogen Hybrid Research Vehicle it is given at 1.4/kg100km (14). With European fuel price in the region of 1 USD/kg and conventional vehicle consumption between 5 and 8 kg/100km, hydrogen with fuel cells seems to have clear advantage. Of course, such comparison neglects the fact that the petrol station fuel price is burdened by assortment of state taxes as well as unknown transport and distribution costs which must be added to hydrogen cost.  But at least some of the taxes on conventional fuel are justifiable on account of ecologically, for it partly offsets the pollution damages caused by these fuels. To compare the bare fuel costs would, on the other hand, neglect the environmental advantages of hydrogen and pollution damages of conventional fuel. However, even such comparison is not unfavorable to hydrogen. At a crude cost of 38 USD/ barrel (end of March 2004) and consequently the fuel cost of about 0.3 to 0.4 USD/kg at the refinery gate, we obtain the conventional car transportation costs between 1.5 and 2.0 USD/100km, to be compared with hydrogen fuel cell car transportation cost of 1.3 USD/100km.). 

Of course, the story is not finished with fuel costs comparison. One of the issues of hydrogen use in road transport is the storage, still an open problem and the costly equipment is required. Most effective, in fuel to container weight ratio, is liquid hydrogen storage, however liquefaction uses almost one third of the hydrogen energy. Boil off loss would amount to around 1% a day.  The other issue is fuel cell technology. Alkaline fuel cells, AFC, are cheap and operate at low temperature but do not tolerate CO₂ or CO admixture in hydrogen. A number of other fuel cell types are developed (4). With all this extensive technology development required, and with expected marginal contribution by 2030, according to WEO and WETO, we should not forget alternative solution against transportation pollution by battery driven cars, where nuclear electricity for battery charging reduces CO₂ emission.  By 2030 we cannot rule out technological breakthroughs in this direction.  In this, we should not compare battery driven car with conventional gasoline car, but with the hydrogen car where the weight of the battery is put against the weight of fuel cells and hydrogen storage. There is no guarantee that hydrogen economy as such, without nuclear, or more precisely, without non-fossil hydrogen with the corresponding CO₂ reduction will pass the cost-benefit test. Justification for such a complex development cannot be found in its inherent attractiveness. It is attractive because of the possibility to avoid CO₂ emission, and this possibility is realized only then when the hydrogen in transportation is nuclear hydrogen.

6. Nuclear hydrogen offers nuclear proliferation safety

 Large-scale use of nuclear energy in transportation and industry could be closer then what is generally thought, providing that general public attitude towards it is favorable. In public perception two aspects will be confronted, positive environmental effects of hydrogen economy and negative effect of proliferation of nuclear installations in a world full of unresolved political problems.  It will be argued below that the use of nuclear energy via conversion into hydrogen energy offers also a perspective for proliferation control, removing at first partly, and eventually completely, one important objection to the large-scale use of nuclear energy

The present 440 nuclear power reactors contribute 17% to that third of primary energy, which is converted into electricity. To attain a similar impact in two other sectors of primary energy use, i.e. in heating and industry and in transportation, some 800-900 new reactors would be required.  Finding locations alone would be a staggering problem for industrialized regions of Europe, North America and Far East, with corresponding problems of safeguards and controls. If France, for example, wanted to replace all the transportation fuel with nuclear hydrogen, this would require more then doubling their present number, 59, of power reactors (15). While, at least, this can be considered for France, it is much less possible for opposite examples, Italy or Austria.   For some, perhaps for many, such a number of reactors would be frightening, from the point of view of nuclear weapons proliferation safety. If public acceptance today is a decisive factor for the employment of nuclear energy, as for any other far-reaching decision, technologist should accommodate public concern whenever that is technically possible. Hydrogen economy with nuclear hydrogen offers advantages that have not yet been sufficiently validated. Hydrogen production need not be located close to the centers of consumption, no more then the oil and gas fields of the world. Transport of electricity up to 1000 km is acceptable, to greater distances loses are too large. On the other hand, liquid natural gas shipping over tens of thousand km is a common practice. Gas pipelines transport natural gases over thousands of km. There would be no essential difference in transport of hydrogen though its volumetric energy density lower by factor 3.3 relative to methane gas would increase the transport costs.

Experience with hydrogen pipelines exists on smaller scale. We suggest here that everything required for nuclear hydrogen production could be located in few places in the distant uninhabited regions of Northern hemisphere, North America, Europe and Siberia. With the technologies involved, these hydrogen energy centers would probably be joint ventures of large oil and power companies, with all nuclear facilities collocated in such regions.  It is then possible to apply very stringent security measures to the whole complex.   It will be easier for full control by IAEA, as all material that would need to go out of these energy centers would be hydrogen. Also, all the material that would need to enter would be natural uranium. Construction in remote north would have its disadvantages, but not much more, probably less, then the constructions of off shore drilling platforms in similar conditions.  Serial construction of a large number of identical reactors at few large sites would have its advantages. Reactors could be built industrially and then assembled at the prepared chosen location of hydrogen energy centers. That would certainly have a positive effect on their capital costs.

7. Relevance to present orientations and decisions

 To summarize, hydrogen economy is a way, albeit not the only way, to control the CO₂ emission, providing hydrogen is nuclear hydrogen. In comparison with the alternative nuclear way for reduction of fossil fuels in transportation, by nuclear electricity battery charging, nuclear hydrogen has advantage that nuclear reactors can be very far away. Is there any relevance of such considerations, referring to the future 30 or more years from today, to present decisions? First, we have to understand that a time scale of energy systems is much longer then of more perishable goods, such as cars or household appliances. For example, first hydroelectric power station in Croatia built in the year 1906 is still operating! Nuclear power stations have a lead-time of about 10 years, and operate for 40 years, respectively 60 years, with extensions, which are now not exceptions. With wrong decisions in energy planning we are stuck for decades, or else face large loses. In energy development it is by no means too early to act on what we intend to have in 30 years. Option for hydrogen economy would require complex and expensive transformation of many existing and development of new technologies in industry and in transportation. The need to reduce and control CO₂ emission is undisputable, so whatever the future decides on hydrogen economy, nuclear heat will be required for industrial processes, and, if hydrogen economy develops, then for hydrogen production as well.

Of course, in market economies large companies will do all the major development. However, there is already indication that deregulation of power production has generally shortened planning horizons. This places more responsibility on the scientific and expert community, which deals with and contributes to the long-term developments. The tasks for nuclear engineering can be inferred. Reactors producing industrial heat will be required in any case; reactors suitable for hydrogen production will be required in the hydrogen economy option. The required nuclear technology is the responsibility of nuclear community, of which we also are a part.   From this starting point an adequate response by nuclear engineering community and nuclear industry can be outlined. Hopefully, it will develop in not too many years, in parallel with progress in hydrogen storage and distribution. The relevant question to be focussed here is what should be the contribution of national nuclear societies and of international projects such as INPRO and Generation IV project.

Just for the sake of discussion, some initial recommendations could be attempted: 

 Long-term vision is not necessarily achieved, but at the present it gives stimulus and sense of direction. Clearly, we cannot define it precisely, as it will be modified by the developments that we do yet know. We should, however, try to define it consistently with the knowledge we possess now. Three present main starting points are not likely to change:

• Increased certainty that we must reduce emission of CO2 into atmosphere.

• Inexhaustible potential of nuclear energy to produce energy without emission of GHG gases.

• Impossibility to exploit full potential of nuclear energy without effective proliferation control.

References

1. World energy, technology and climate policy outlook 2030-WETO, EC Directorate General for Energy Research, 2003.

2. Issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation, Opinion of The European   Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 25 February 2004.

3. Third Assessment Report, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), September 2001.

4. Hydrogen as an energy carrier and its production by nuclear power, IAEA, 1999, TECDOC 1085, May 1999.

5. D. Bao, Some Practical Progress on Hydrogen Energy in China, Proc. 7^th Canadian Hydrogen Workshop, Quebec City 1995.

6. The Fourth Generation of Nuclear Power, J. A. Lake, President, American Nuclear Society, Presentation at the Symposium on Latin America Nuclear Energy, Rio de Janeiro, 26-29 June, 2000.

7. Word Nuclear Association, The Economics of Nuclear Power, March 2004.

8.  D. Majumdar, J. Kupitz, H. H. Rogner, T. Shea, F. Niehaus, K. Fukuda, The need for   innovation, IAEA Bulletin, Vol.42, No.2, 2000.

9. P. J. Gowin, J. Kupitz, Supporting innovation, IAEA Bulletin, Vol.43, No.3, 2001.

10. J.E. Funk, Hydrogen production, Tutorial during the10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Cocoa Beach, USA, June 19, 1994.

11. M. Steinberg, H.C. Cheng, Modern and Perspective Technologies for Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels, Int.J.Hydrogen Energy 14, 1989.

12. H-H. Rogner, L. Langlois, Moving targets, IAEA Bulletin, Vol.42, No.2, 2000.

13. American Academy of Science, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle LASERCEL1, American Academy of Science, Independence, 1991.

14. J. Voelcker, Here come the hybrids, IEEE Spectrum, March 2004.

15. Standing Group on Long-term Cooperation, IEA, Moving to Hydrogen Economy: Dreams and Realities, IEA/SLT (2003) 5, January 2003.

back | reload