Salute!
Good points , MSB.
My concern is about the military use of the fossil fuels to satisfy the greenies, and although I agree there could be a finite limit to supply, I can see a few hundred years depending on how much the non-military uses. There are some processes for making methane ( GASP! another evil greenhouse gas) if we had the non-C02 nukes online. Space X and Blue Origin are already flying rocket engines powered by the stuff, and they chose it cause they can make it on Mars using the evil C02 and a source of electrical power from? ....nukes or PV panels or even windmills.
Hydrogen for fuel seems the cleanest approach so far, tho it has many distribution and servicing aspects the warmists have not considered. The hydrogen fuel cell approach also seems great for surface applications, and has less safety problems. But, as with pure H2, you still need another form of energy to produce the compound and then develop distribution infrastructure and so forth. The greenies still do not unnerstan that their EV polutes less but still has to get the electricity from someplace, and unless they relent on the nukes, it is being produced by a coal or gas plant 50 miles away. The PV fields we have in the U.S. are huge, but still not reliable in poor weather and do not produce a single volt at night. The greenies/dreamers have still not tackled the air transport or the ships. How are they gonna have their Starbucks? /rant
I had a co-worker that worked on NERVA back in late 60's. The nuke motor worked, but all it did was take away payload and the need for an oxidizer tank and plumbing. My proposal is nukes for the ships like the Navy does. The companies won't do it now because too many nations do not want a nuke-powered thing in their harbor. Oh well.
Hope the RAF can make their goal.
Gums sends...
P.S. breaking news...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/e...ime-propulsion