<The forecasting record of CERA and other commentators The Oil Drum DrumBeat: December 13, 2006>

29 comments on Some Predictions from the Time when Today Was the Future of Oil

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Freddy Hutter on December 12, 2006 - 9:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
"It does appear that the predictions for nuclear energy were the most optimistic, relative to the actual result."

As mentioned in another thead today, nuclear and hydro-elec power generation was the magic bullet for total energy needs in this era.  IEA & EIA based the 1995 & Y2K Outlooks on that premise.  It is easy to monday morning quarterback that strategy now.  Nobody knew the treehuggers would win that battle but lose the war.  Lose?

Yes, by derailing hydro & nuclear, they by default forced the promotion of status quo coal, oil & gas.  These "environmentalists" promoted fossil fuel use in lieu of GHG-free hydro & nuclear alternatives.  And the rest is history (384ppm co2).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nelsone on December 13, 2006 - 1:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Freddy,
Hydro is not "greenhouse-gas free." Not by a long shot.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on December 13, 2006 - 2:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We all lost. and, are continuing to lose. Maybe too late to win.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on December 13, 2006 - 2:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Darn, I agree with Freddy.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hugo Chavez on December 15, 2006 - 5:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You must be important. Some people agree with other people, some people disagree. You apparently feel it is necessary the rest of us know how you stand.

Al Gore just boiled a frog. They had to pay those people to clap. I know. I have this problem at my elections.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on December 13, 2006 - 2:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, it's the other way around. By building Light Water Reactors (burners) instead of gas cooled fast reactors (breeders), we would now be out of uranium. Light Water Reactors do produce plutonium, but it is impossible to extract  at a reasonable cost with today's technology, let alone the technology they had back then.
If we do manage to invent a profitable way of extracting plutonium from "fissium" for fabrication into Light Water Reactor fuel, we are in good shape. Otherwise, we can still build gas cooled fast reactors with the fuel we didn't burn in the hundreds of Light Water Reactors we didn't build.
But global warming wouldn't be as bad as it is now, that's true.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on December 13, 2006 - 5:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is illustrative to remember the problem isnt closed fuel cycles are so expensive, but uranium is so damned cheap.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on December 15, 2006 - 10:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I worked on the GCFR a little in the late seventies/early eighties, when support for the HTGR ran low.  Did you? at GA?

The latest greatest is liquid metal reactor pushed by argonne that burns light water waste (with cadmium and short lived bits removed), essentially burning all the actinides.  This might be the way to go if/when uranium gets dear.  Meanwhile, hold on to that waste... it will keep our kids out of the dark.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

29 comments on Some Predictions from the Time when Today Was the Future of Oil

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version