The Oil Drum

108 comments on Peak Oil Update - February 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SGeier on February 27, 2007 - 5:53pm

Other people have other opinions about Nuclear, but it works now and is likely to be significantly cheaper in the future.

I wonder whether these words were spoken about oil about 120 years ago. If so, they would've been true, of course.

But why should we use the event of the end of a non-renewable source at the basis of the global economy to restructure that economy to be based on another non-renewable resource? Only to be faced with the exact same problem again one or two centuries later? Aren't we smarter than that? Aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes?

_{--

Sven Geier, Ph. D.

Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.}

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TheTransition on February 27, 2007 - 8:10pm

The Nuclear fuel supply is huge and will almost certainly last for many centuries.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132#more

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ANewLand on February 28, 2007 - 2:56am

From the link:

It has an average crustal abundance of about 2.7 Parts Per Million (PPM), which about the same as tin and zinc. There is an estimated 40 trillion tonnes of Uranium in the Earth's crust. To date we have mined less than one ten-millionth of this

there are doubts this diffuse fuel can be constrained and delivered at a cost in energy less than the final product contained. Though this mental externality may be considered mundane (by some), it is a necessary consideration when considering such a primary fuel.

How can we run a complex society on a fuel that does not leak itself out for mom and the kid's shopping Excursion (tm)?

Pete

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SGeier on February 28, 2007 - 2:33pm

The Nuclear fuel supply is huge and will almost certainly last for many centuries.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132#more

That is a nice and informative link there - it doesn't seem to support your claim, though.

According to the material at the other side of that link, using his own most optimistic numbers, the author states "Thus, the provable uranium resources amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves."

Nuclear currently supplies about 16% of the world electricity production, 0% of the worlds non-electric heating and 0% of the world transportation fuels, so if I were to increase the world consumption level of Uranium by, say, a factor of 10 or so to cover for the current use of oil, I get the most optimistic estimate by a proponent of nuclear power reduced to about 50 years of "estimated" reserves (and less than a decade of actually proven supply).

And that's the optimistic reading where I'm simply granting the numbers given by the author, i.e. without even examining the assumptions those were based on.

I can only see one way to read that article and conclude that the worlds nuclear fuel supply will "almost certainly last for many centuries": if I were to assume that current consumption levels will not increase, i.e. that nuclear power will NOT replace oil.

_{--

Sven Geier, Ph. D.

Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.}