Guest “just a bit outside” by David Middleton
When I saw this headline on RealClearEnergy, I thought it might be an article by Ted Nordhaus or Michael Schellenberger… But it went in a whole other direction…
Nuclear Power Will Replace Oil By 2030
Originally published in May 1967June 22, 2020
“By the year 2030 the electric power requirement will be 10 times the present capacity. Because of the expected decline in fossil-fuel resources, and in the absence of any other large source of energy at reasonable cost, fission power would be counted on to supply about 85 percent of this need.
[…]
—Scientific American, May 1967
More gems from Scientific American’s first 175 years can be found on our anniversary archive page.
Scientific American
Just a bit outside!
“Because of the expected decline in fossil-fuel resources, and in the absence of any other large source of energy at reasonable cost”… Half right. The only large source of energy at reasonable cost, apart from fossil-fuel resources is nuclear power. Regarding the “fossil-fuel resources”…
According to BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy the reserves to production ratios (R/P) for fossil fuels are:
| Reserves | Consumption | R/P Ratio (yrs) | |
| Oil (billion barrels) | 1,734 | 35 | 50 |
| Gas (trillion cubic feet) | 7,019 | 141 | 50 |
| Coal (million tonnes) | 1,069,636 | 8,099 | 132 |
At our current consumption rate, the current reserves of oil, natural gas and coal would last 50, 50 and 132 years respectively. And reserves are just a fraction of the total resources.
“Because of the expected decline in fossil-fuel resources“… Mr. Data is laughing his @$$ off.
I think we can park the “expected decline in fossil-fuel resources” next to the flying car.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UnScientific American and the straight edge projection far into the future
As others have pointed out previously, it has been quite a while since Scientific American has been either scientific or American 🙂
Scientific American made a reasonable [prediction — and it SHOULD have come to pass.
Only anti-nuclear madness prevented it — and continues today with nations and states closing functioning and safe existing nuclear plants.
The nuclear power industry is undaunted — and there are over 40 players in various stages development of the Small Modular Reactor which are the future of electrical production for the world.
“Burning stuff” to boil water to make electricity is just plain primitive.
I agree that SMRs are the future.
But don’t they also drive steam turbines?
Just saying…
And yet when you are freezing your azz off in the woods it is quite satisfactory and comforting!
Primitive is in the eye of the beholder.
Dual phase natural gas plants are pretty sophisticated.
Using whatever is the most economical may not give the tech junkies goosebumps, but it sure does give the economy a boost, which makes us all richer.
re: “Primitive is in the eye of the beholder.
Dual phase natural gas plants are pretty sophisticated.”
“pretty sophisticated”? IC is still IC (internal combustion or ‘burning’ of a fuel) for instance even if (as an example) it now uses:
a) electronic port fuel injection and electronic ignition (BOTH under computer control)
rather than:
b) a down-draft carburetor and a ‘point’ ignition system (with mechanical centrifugal and vacuum advance) .
The next nuclear plant in the USA will be a NuScale small modular reactor. When that happens is anyone’s guess, but it’s unimaginable that any other proposal can get ahead of it.
NRC/gov
Due to NuScale’s design change and proposed schedule for submitting the revised supporting documentation, the Phase 5 milestone of 06/23/20 could not be met. This milestone will be revised upon receipt of the final design change package (Refer to NRC letter to NuScale of May 1, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20112F455)
Chris Colbert, chief strategy officer at NuScale, said the project plans and the regulatory approvals needed to build it are moving forward at a good pace, though the plant isn’t scheduled to be operational until 2026 — even if everything goes according to plan.
“The first one is always the challenging one,” he said. “Once we get that first one done I think there’s going to be a huge demand for it.”
Thank you David M for your clickbait headline as an excuse to beat the drum for the oil industry.
So SA say something stupid about nuclear power. Is that a signal for contest where almost all of the rest comments to say stupid things about nuclear power?
Even David M (If the Alarmists were serious about reducing carbon emissions, they would be all on board with natural gas and nuclear power.)
If you plot carbon emissions you will find nuclear near the zero axis and natural gas up there with coal.
For those who missed it, nuclear power replaced oil for submarines, super aircraft carriers, and making electricity. Nuclear power has a large market share in countries with little coal and a history of being invaded by countries who sell them coal.
Been there done that so do not make teach history.
The energy and raw material to feed refineries can be produced by fission. I am not predicting it will happen for economic reasons.
It is cheaper to grow soybeans.
Let me see if I have this right.
Nuclear power works on ships and submarines, therefore it is the best technology for powering cities?
Nothing to say about the unique requirements of ships and subs?
Nothing to say about the damn the costs attitude among many in the military?
“Nuclear power has a large market share in countries with little coal and a history of being invaded by countries who sell them coal.”
Neither of which apply to the US.
I’m not knocking the military for not putting cost as the first criteria.
When people are shooting at me, I wouldn’t want to rely on equipment that was selected based solely on cost either.
No you did not get it right.
I provided examples of where fission has replaced oil.
For cities the ‘best’ choice is usually a combination of fuel sources depending on location. Many large power companies are also have subdivisions that are in the transportation of coal and natural gas business.
When power companies are making choices to build power plants they consider where the fossil fuel will come from and what it will cost. Not too long ago the NRC had been notifies that applications for 36 new nuke plants were coming.
I was working on 7 for the US and 2 in China. The increase supply of natural gas as a result of fracking put on hold the US plants. My last job before retiring was at the 2 nuke plants in China under construction.
Just down the road was a huge coal plant. China does not like buying coal from the west/
As in https://www.historylink.org/File/5482, the WA state fiasco.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whoops.asp
One plant a completed, probably still in operation in south central WA near the Hanford nuclear research mess, the cooling tower for one west of Olympia WA was put to use to dry long objects, and IIRC the cooling tower of the one visible from I-5 near Longview WA has been destroyed.