This is an email I sent to a friend last year on why I don't think nuclear energy will replace oil production.

As to the Hubbert curve, I am firmly convinced that the world is about to see an energy crisis. There are several things which will take over. Maybe deep coal gassification, which will be an environmental nightmare, we can't build nukes fast enough to replace oil. I posted this to the ASA list.

Canada uses the CANDU technology. I once did an economic model trying to calculate whether or not nuclear could replace oil.

I will lay out some math so that if I am making an error, someone can correct me.

6.29 bbl = 10.9 megawatt-hour http://ecen.com/eee13/equive.htm

1 bbl = 1.73 megawatt-hour

700megawatt = 404.6242775 bbl/hour http://www.cameco.com/investor_relations/annual/2001/glossary/index.php

There are 8760 hours per year so a 700 megawatt plant produces:

6,132,000 megawatt-hour = 3,544,508 bbl/yr

We produce around 30 billion barrels of oil per year. So for the world to replace this we need:

8463.796477 700 MW plants

$1,250,000,000 per plant http://members.tripod.com/discover_turkey/Nuclear.htm

$10.5 trillion investment

The US GDP is about $10 trillion. This represents about 1/3 of the global domestic product! Consider """"Healthcare is the world's largest industry with global revenues of $ 2.8 trillion or close to 9 percent of global domestic product (GDP). """" http://www.timesmm.com/title84.html

Given that they take about 4 years to build The investment would mean a 10% tax on everyone and every corporation--and that would mean that the people would pay far more than 10% of their personal income. Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them on to consumers.

And these costs don't include the cost of getting rid of the nuclear waste. This is only for building the things. I don't think you will be able to replace oil with nuclear.

And natural gas in the US is showing signs of great difficulties in maintaining production. This from the USA Today, which I got in Florence, Italy Thursday.

""The best evidence for this is what happened during the winter of 2000-01, when short supplies drove prices up from their long-term average of about $2.25 per Mcf to more than $10 per Mcf at one point in January 2001. Driven by those extraordinary prices, drilling surged: According to oilfield supply company Baker Hughes, the number of rigs drilling for gas nearly tripled from a low of 362 in April 1999 to a peak of 1,068 in July 2001.

'The entire industry knew: I drill gas wells, I get rich,' Says Mark Papa, chairman of EOG Resources, a large independent gas producer. 'A huge effort was put in place to drill gas wells.'

""But despite that effort, gas production barely budged. From 18.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 1999, domestic gas production crept up to 19.4 Tcf in 2001--a 3% increase."" ""Producers turn to exotic wells to keep up with rising demand,"" USA Today, May 30, 2002, p. 71

Back to DMD Publishing Home Page