61 comments on One must expect dissent . . . .
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
61 comments on One must expect dissent . . . .
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Since it seems that PO is a grear argument for having more nuclear power, the fact that Mr. Huber takes pains to dispute it could mean that he believes in PO, but that the world, if convinves that the peak were nigh, would find non nuclear solutions. He needs the peak to hit us unawares, so that nuclear becomes only the only option open.
As an aside, why do nuclear plants release so much 'waste' heat (and what would that do to Alberta?)? Why can't hotter water be user to preheat cooler water, and so on until the 'waste' heat is negligable?
At a steam temperature of 540°C and a cooling water temperature of 27°C the theoretical thermal efficiency is 63% meaning that 0.57MW of heat has to be given out to the environment for every 1MW of electricity generated. In practice coal and nuclear power stations achieve about 33% efficiency at those sorts of temperatures meaning that 2MW of heat is given out to the environment for each 1MW of electricity generated.
High temperature reactors could increase this efficiency and also open the possibility of the direct production of the hydrogen needed for the hydrogenation the tar using the sulfur-iodine process circumventing the further losses in electrolysis. .
Peter Huber has written many kind words about nuclear power in the past but your ad hominem dismissal is disengenuous. Calling him a shill or a true believer is just a way to insult. Stick to the arguments.
That said, I was disappointed with the quotations presented here - it's not up up to Huber's usual quality.
In fact, compressed natural gas can be and is used for transport fuel. Several US gas utilities have actively promoted its use for vehicles by sponsoring and subsidizing public and prive refuel stations.
Note that methane has an octane number of about 120. An engine optimized for burning methane would then use a much higher compression ratio and achieve a higher thermal efficiency and therefore better milage. Few vehicle conversions go to that much trouble and so are sub-optimal. The range is also driven by the on-board gas storage capacity but that is a bigger burden than a gasoline tank so is a negative.
As to nuclear's waste heat, the inefficiencies that result in waste heat are driven by the physical characteristics of the water used to cool the core. We're stuck at about 33% efficiency. The only way to substantially improve that is to go to liquid metal cooling where efficiency would improve to roughly 40% or to helium cooling using nuclear rocket engine technology and gas turbines where 55% efficiency would be possible.
A possible use of the waste heat from current reactor designs would be for desalinization, producing potable water. In Asia, the waste heat is sometimes used for public swimming pools located adjacent to the plants.
Note that methane has an octane number of about 120. An engine optimized for burning methane would then use a much higher compression ratio and achieve a higher thermal efficiency and therefore better milage. Few vehicle conversions go to that much trouble and so are sub-optimal. The range is also driven by the on-board gas storage capacity but that is a bigger burden than a gasoline tank so is a negative.
I think Gloomy summed up my thoughts on this nicely,
"That NG idea almost knocked me out. We will have NG shortage in US for heating this year and this guy suggests that we divert yet another substantial part of it for fuel! So invest more resources for infrastructure, etc. to compete for an ever declining supply of NG? What a brilliance of mind... Fortunately that idea people are not likely to buy."