Mr Huber states an inadvertent truth (with the addition of some punctuation):

Nonsense(n): Technology and politics--not geology--determine how much we pump and what it costs.
If I'm not mistaken (stranger things have happened), Mr. Huber is either a shill for the nuclear industry or a true believer (I don't the man well enough to judge).  Most of his talks include how nuclear will be good for reclaiming tar sands et cetera.

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?

Carnot's theorem dictates the irreducible minimum heat that has to be given out to the heat sink for a given temperature of the heat source. Nuclear power stations do not reach this limit but their performance is not very different to conventional coal fired power stations.

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. .

jhm,

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.

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.

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."

hilarious!  i love the creativity.