The real number is just 4 ev per carbon atom. (Ref: Glasstone and Sesonske, Nuclear Reactor Engineering Van Nostran Reinhold Company, New York, Cincinnati, Toronto, London, Melbourne, 1967 p. 14) You are off by a factor of nearly 3,000.

Sorry for the dead tree reference, but this one has many dog ears and underlines in my personal library and it falls open almost automatically to certain pages – like the discussion of energy density differences between uranium fission and carbon combustion.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

What makes you think that using nuclear fission will be just a temporary bridge? Based on very reasonable assumptions for the world’s supply of accessible uranium and thorium, humans can provide all of the energy they from fission (with supplements from combustion of growing things, wind and solar) for millennia.

Our current generation of reactors – using essentially the same technology as first developed in the 1950s – only convert about 0.5% of the potential heat energy in uranium into electricity. If we improve on that and we begin using thorium – both of which we already KNOW how to do – we can stretch fission fuels for essentially FOREVER. Considering the fact that fission is reliable, safe, clean and affordable, why would we want to try to reduce our energy consumption to the level that “renewable energy sources” can provide without assistance?

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

Each month the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces authoritative statistics of country and world crude-oil production. Yesterday’s issue of the June 2009 “International Petroleum Monthly” (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41d.xls) shows that conventional crude production has declined from an all-time high of just over 74 million barrels/day in July 2008 to around 72 million barrels/day in April 2009 (the last month for which provisional figures are available).

A straightforward analysis of EIA and historical production since the start of commercial oil exploitation in 1850 indicates that there is indeed an “ultimate” recoverable resource of about 2 trillion barrels, of which about half had already been extracted and consumed (burned) by 2004. After late 2004 global production entered a “plateau stage” around 73.5 million barrels/day, and current production is at levels last seen in December 2003. The ascent of Hubbert’s peak is now history. Who wants to take odds that by July 2010 production will be below 70 million barrels/day and still declining?

A similar historical analysis shows that “peak coal” for South Africa arrives by 2020, and that Eskom’s plans for future energy generation from coal in the Waterberg (Lephalele) are an unrealistic folly. There is probably no escape from an interim nuclear expansion, as a bridging strategy while the economy adjusts to a future based increasingly on renewable energy sources.

We do, of course, need to invest money in the plant construction process. Nuclear energy facilities are manufacturing plants that can produce a valuable product. They require careful design, high quality materials, and good construction techniques. They also will require well trained and dedicated operators to make the best use of their production capabilities.

No energy production system comes for free; all require a varying amount of upfront and continuing investment.

As we build and operate new plants, I fully expect that we will refine the designs, just as we do for internal combustion engines, microprocessors, sailboats, and other manufactured products.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

@Mark: Your man Julian Simon (a psychologist by training) was, quite simply, a blinkers-on utopian! He believed in endless ever-growing benefits from limitless resources and unlimited population growth empowered by technological progress. That we do not need to limit ANYTHING!

Now I don’t know about you, but common sense suggests to me that NEVER is a lo-ong time, and “endless” is a lot. Surely it is much more likely that we DO actually need to be more thoughtful about what we do with our resources?

What I do care about is the 3 billion or so people who are already on the planet today who have no access to reliable electricity, clean running water or interior climate control. Those people who burn a few twigs to heat water for their morning or evening tea cannot “Reduce” their consumption any more.

I also care deeply about the fact that providing the energy we use today requires about 6 BILLION tons of coal, 4 BILLION tons of oil, 120 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas, and 60,000 pounds of uranium (plus a few billion tons of assorted bimass). Cut those numbers down as much as you want; we still need reliable energy to exist comfortably. I like the idea of doubling or tripling the uranium consumption while halving or quartering the fossil fuel consumption.

Oops – almost forgot to mention the word that causes Lovins and his fell travelers to blanch – NUCLEAR Energy is the primary path forward.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights