Re: National Geographic Peak Oil

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 06:33:09 EDT

Glenn Morton wrote:

> Before you talk about chicken little you should understand that
> electricity is not the only energy that Al was referring to. While I
> don't presume to speak for him, I think he meant that we would have to
> have all those nukes coming online to replace all the oil we use, not
> just electricity. Here are the energy uses by fuel from the BP
> Statistical Review of World Energy for 2002, just for the U.S. in
> Million tonnes of oil equivalent.
> Oil Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Energy Hydroelectric
> 894.3 600.7 553.8 185.8 58.2
> As you can see, there is 4.8 times more petroleum energy used than
> Nuclear energy used in the US and if one adds natural gas, which is also
> getting into short supply in the North American market with no relief
> from LNG due to NIMBY, you have 8 times more energy in oil and natural
> gas than is derived from nuclear energy. If we do have 100 nukes, then
> the average output is 1.85 million tonnes per year per nuke. That means
> that to replace oil we need 483 average nukes to be built to kick the
> oil habit.
> I ask again of those who think nuclear is the solution, how many nukes
> are currently being planned for christening next decade? I think the
> answer is zero.

That also applies to fission reactors for the next 5 decades.

The number that _could_ be built far exceeds zero. The time to start is now
but some people will probably wait until we the crisis is upon us ==> and
some are just waiting for fission :-)


Walt Hicks <>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Sat May 22 06:34:00 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 22 2004 - 06:34:01 EDT