Can Chemical Energy Generation Compete with Nuclear Energy's Safety and Economy?

[wunderkind]

Is it possible to generate energy from chemicals in a way that would be economical, and safer compared to nuclear energy, such as the removal of electrons, etc?

 

[ShawnD]

Well there's one way I read about that uses water in some weird way
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020054036.htm

new method of generating electric power by harnessing the natural electrokinetic properties of a liquid, such as ordinary tap water, when it is pumped through tiny microchannels

What do you mean by "removal of electrons"? Do you mean something like a plasma or do you mean ionic compounds?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Well, there's always:

CnH(2n+2) + O2 --> CO2 + H2O

It's more economical then nuclear energy, but arguably less safe.

There's:

H2 + O2 --> H2O

But the safety and economics of it is still in the early development stage.

 

[ShawnD]

H2 + O2 --> H2O

But the safety and economics of it is still in the early development stage.

That won't work. The electrolysis takes more energy than the combustion (or fuel cell) gives off.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

The answer depends on where, when, for what, how you are using the energy. For example, a solar collector would be cheaper in a deserted place than nuclear power 1,000 km far.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

That won't work. The electrolysis takes more energy than the combustion (or fuel cell) gives off.

That's why it's not very economical. Obviously if they tried to make it from water it wouldn't work. Most nowdays comes from oil reserves. They're working on ways to make it biologically. There's also problems with storing it. So we're aways from making it work well.