Peak Oil founder M. King Hubbert became anti-nuclear and pro-solar

[bananas]

A lot of people are familiar with Hubbert because of his work on peak oil.
You might have seen this chart:


It's from Hubbert's 1956 paper "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels".
Because of that, a lot of people think Hubbert advocated nuclear energy to replace oil.
He did - way back in the 1950's - but he later became very anti-nuclear and pro-solar.

He favored a nuclear phase-out: "the sooner we get rid of it the better off we’re going to be. I would never recommend shutting all the plants down tomorrow, but certainly phasing them out."

He was very pro-solar: "We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now."

http://www.mkinghubbert.com/resources/press/leadingedge

The Seminal Hubbert article: Leading Edge Magazine, February 1983

<snip>

The key to making this cultural alteration is to come up with a limitless supply of cheap energy. Hubbert feels the answer is obvious - solar power - and he does not feel more technological breakthroughs are needed before it can be made universally available. His faith is not that of a kneejerk trendy but that of a doubter who did much studying before his conversion.

"Fifteen years ago I thought solar power was impractical because I thought nuclear power was the answer. But I spent some time on an advisory committee on waste disposal to the Atomic Energy Commission. After that, I began to be very, very skeptical because of the hazards. That's when I began to study solar power. I'm convinced we have the technology to handle it right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now.

"Solar power is limited by astronomic time but not in a human time frame. It's been there for billions of years and it will be going on for billions of years after we're gone. It also has another great advantage over conventional sources - once the system is in place it is permanent. All that's required to keep it going is routine maintenance."

<snip>

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/41892

Published Mar 24 2008 by ASPO-USA, Archived Mar 24 2008
What M. King Hubbert might say today
by Steve Andrews

Twenty years ago this month, I interviewed Marion King Hubbert at his home in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Hubbert was a brilliant and opinionated man. If he were alive, he would no doubt be fascinated by the quadrupling in oil prices and the increasingly vigorous discussion of peak oil. In this column, I’ll take my best shot at summarizing what Hubbert might have to say today about recent developments in the oil industry. His remarks from that old interview are in italics.

<snip>

3. The Solar and Efficiency Pathway:

One of Hubbert’s famous presentations, delivered 52 years ago to an audience of his peers, was called “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.” At the time, he anticipated that nuclear energy would step in to substitute for future declining petroleum production. Later, he saw too many problems with nuclear and started promoting solar energy instead.

‘Were we a rational society, a virtue of which we have rarely been accused, we would do so and so…’ Hubbert suggested. He believed we should husband our dwindling supplies of oil and gas—supplemented by imports as long as they are available—and institute a program comparable to that in the nuclear industry of the 1940s, 50s and 60s, for the conversion to solar energy. He understood that time was a precious and fleeting resource: We still have great flexibility but our maneuverability will diminish with time.”

The biggest source of energy on this earth, now or ever, is solar. I used to think it was so diffuse as to be impractical. But I’ve changed my mind. It’s not impractical…This technology exists right now. So if we just convert the technology and research and facilities of the oil and gas industries, the chemical industry and the electrical power industry—we could do it tomorrow. All we’ve got to do is throw our weight into it.

<snip>

http://mkinghubbert.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/hubberts-early-take-on-nuclear-energy

<snip>

Doel: Has your thinking about the problems of nuclear disposal changed since your first exposure to those issues back in the 1950′s?

Hubbert: Not significantly. The problem is here, and it appears more intractable now than it did then. And the thing that finally influenced my attitude there for 10 years or so was if this problem is manageable, with the technology existing, using low grade sources of uranium, we had not infinite supplies but very large supplies of energy. Further, if we could go to fusion, and could utilize deuterium from the ocean, which could be extracted at small energy cost, as compared with its energy content, why, then you’d be at an almost astronomical level of energy resources. Well, what’s subsequently happened, with regard to fission, and that is the irresponsibility of the AEC, of penny pinching financially, nuclear power without the backup of what would have to be done. That performance is still going on, essentially unaltered, and it drew me to the conclusion that that isn’t the answer to our energy problems, and the sooner we get rid of it the better off we’re going to be. I would never recommend shutting all the plants down tomorrow, but certainly phasing them out. See, we haven’t faced up to the big problem: what are we going to do with these radioactive plants when we have to dismantle them? We haven’t had that yet. So, that was when I took another look at solar energy, and I came to the conclusion it was a change of conclusion. Before, I thought that solar energy, although large, was so diffusive that it was impractical.

I changed my mind on that. With solar cells, existing solar cells but with improvements, and utilizing what I call the chemical route of collecting in solar cells where there’s good solar energy, storing it chemically, utilizing flat planes or tankers, liquids or gases, for delivery. That is entirely practical for producing all the industrial energy that we have any use for, with the very small fraction of available areas for collection.

Doel: I was curious that in the 1971 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article you mentioned a number of solar energy possibilities, and you mentioned an idea that had been proposed by Alan Meinel, the astronomer and his wife. How had you come into contact with people who were working in solar energy at that time?

Hubbert: I think I met him when I was out at the University of Arizona giving a lecture. A friend of mine invited me to his house and had Meinel to the same dinner. And he gave me a considerable lot of information on his work with regard to solar energy. He was using not the solar cells but thermal, collecting solar energy thermally. And he was very enthusiastic about it at the time. At least he convinced me for the first time that it was practical, which I hadn’t previously conceived it to be.

<snip>

(Note: if the first link doesn't work, it should be available on archive.org at http://web.archive.org/web/20080607223126/http://www.mkinghubbert.com/resources/press/leadingedge )

[GliderGuider]

1. The threat of GW wasn't clear at that point.

I wonder what his position would be today. I'm not saying it would change necessarily, but the factors in the calculus of the decision would be quite different with the addition of the carbon threat.

ETA: Hubbert never mentioned CO2, his core concern was energy availability. I find it interesting that Hubbert correctly identifies growth as a problem, but still advocated the creation of a massive amount of replacement and additional energy. Energy is the primary enabler of the growth that he believes would destroy us.

[bananas]

3. His position probably wouldn't change.

[bananas]

18. Hubbert said "We could make the transition in a matter of decades"

That would solve global warming, too.

[joshcryer]

33. At $100 trillion, sure. Are we? Nope.

Got any evidence that we are? No you don't.

[kristopher]

2. Hubbert clearly gives priority to "altruistic" values not "traditional" values.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3 ∗

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity.

Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades?

We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power.

Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power.

Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[kristopher]

4. I hope everyone had a chance to see this.

I thought it was extremely interesting considering the dedication to Hubbert we often see here...

[GliderGuider]

5. Hubbert never mentioned CO2, his core concern was energy availability

With CO2 not yet a recognized concern, the choice between nuclear, renewables and coal was done on a very different basis than it's being done today.

Peak Oil is here just as Hubbert predicted, but we're still adding 1-2 GW of coal capacity a week. That's an additional half a gigatonne of CO2 every year, on top of the 32 gigatonnes we're already generating. Compared to that, the ideological bunfight between nuclear and wind is a schoolyard argument.

[kristopher]

6. No it isn't. It is life or death economics and sustainable energy policy

Of course, "nuclear environmentalists" have as their primary goal the promotion of nuclear energy and the actual facts of nuclear powers performance as part of the solution therefore matters to them not at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261024&mesg_id=261386

[GliderGuider]

7. So you don't see the primary battle as one between coal and life?

[kristopher]

8. Just because cyanide is poison doesn't mean that arsenic is safe.

[GliderGuider]

9. That's a bit of a bum analogy, isn't it?

In your opinion which is more deadly to life on the planet, and by how much -- coal or nuclear power?

[kristopher]

10. It is a perfectly apt analogy for a standard logical fallacy favored by nuclear "environmentalists"

It is perfectly aligned with your claim that the negative externalities of coal negate the negative externalities of nuclear.

They do not. The appropriate comparison to investigate is the one between the noncarbon alternative available to to replace coal. The only other thing you can do besides employ logical fallacies, is to deny the plain and proven facts:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

12. Blam! Kapow! Biff! Jacobson!!

"The appropriate comparison to investigate is the one between the noncarbon alternative available to to replace coal."

Why, that's exactly what I did! Unfortunately, when I investigated it objectively I found renewables to be insufficient on their own, and nuclear power not as poisonous as I'd been told. Faced with that evidence, the choice was clear. Rather than just take one or the other, I'll have both please.

[kristopher]

14. So you IGNORE the scientifically based analysis in favor of pronuclear activism

The Jacobson's analysis is a solid review of the best information that is available, and the results could not be more clear.

If the results had favored nuclear power you'd be trumpeting them with every post, but since the science within Jacobson's work PROVES that your own so called "investigation" is obviously a self-serving product of a pronuclear industry "environmentalist", all you can do is employ the standard tactics of ridicule and belittling that have been perfected by the right wing media in their effort to discredit the legitimate science on any topic they disagree with.

[GliderGuider]

17. I prefer to follow my own ideas rather than cling to those of others

It feels more authentic, somehow.

In any event, Jacobson doesn't address general electrical generation in this particular C&P. It's all about powering vehicles. Which, while nice, isn't the real issue where coal is concerned.

[kristopher]

19. You mean you disregard the facts since they do not support your pronuclear agenda

That particular paper uses transportation as a well defined proxy establishing the parameters of the analysis. It is perfectly designed to capture the relative benefits and costs of the available technologies.

Rejecting that paper is exactly the same type of exercise as those who reject any inconvenient truth engage in.

[GliderGuider]

20. There is no question that wind electricity has a lower carbon footprint than nuclear.

It also has a lower environmental impact due to nuclear power's problems with uranium mining and waste.

All that considered, wind is getting its ass kicked in the marketplace, as shown by the adoption curves of coal and wind. That means that if coal is truly the enemy, we must use every tool at our disposal to provide replacement electricity. That means not taking one of the two the largest low-carbon sources of electricity off the table until wind is through its infancy and is actually making inroads onto the real problem.

Jacobson's article pays lip service to overall CO2 reduction, but the whole analysis is conducted in terms of vehicles. That's nice, but it's not the source of the problem. Oil used in transportation is certainly an issue, but coal used for general electricity is the core problem. It's easy to see how electricity from one source or another could replace oil for much of our transportation, but that's subject to a different set of constraints than replacing coal with wind for all our current electrical use.

Our current combustion of oil, mostly for transportation, generates about 2900 gigatonnes of carbon per year. Our combustion of coal, mostly for general electricity, generates 5200 GT of atmospheric carbon - almost twice as much.

The word "proxy" doesn't appear in the article. That's your own interjection.

[kristopher]

22. Your "curves" prove nothing of the sort.

IT is a blank slate on which you can write any fucking bit of nonsense that tickles your pronuclear fancy.

In this case it is obvious what he is doing with vehicles - it is clear, well defined energy demand that accommodates everything on the table, including the biofuel options.

Wind is not "getting its ass kicked" it is making huge and rapid inroads into the market and all trend lines show it is one of our very best options to push at this moment in time.

[joshcryer]

32. Disprove his coal + wind curves with actual data.

He did the best he could with the data he had available. You won't do it because there's no amount of projecting that give wind some sort of magical upper hand over coal as far as the markets are concerned.

[joshcryer]

31. Jacobson's article is a blueprint, it is not a projection.

Jacobson's energy solutions absolutely require government to act. If we wait around for the market then our fossil fuel depletion will happen without alternatives in place and we'll have fucked up our atmosphere for many many generations to come.

[txlibdem]

11. Arsenic. You mean like the Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic that spew from coal plants every minute

If only the anti-nuclear power religious zealots would understand that every coal power plant releases over 5 tons of uranium each year.

In effect, every nuclear power plant that an activist or "environmentalist" stops or gets closed down will directly cause more coal power plants - and cause tons of Uranium to be released into the environment each and every year.

"Hey look at me! I'm an environmentalist! I wanna save the environment from Uranium." Doh!

[XemaSab]

13. Don't confuse our little friend with facts

n/t

[bananas]

15. Right-wing Republican anti-environmentalist hate rhetoric.

[kristopher]

16. Ok let's test you.

You claim to be interested in establishing the facts on these issues but your claim about uranium is a "partial truth" and therefore a false presentation designed to create an erroneous conclusion. It is another Nuclear Energy Institute misrepresentation of the facts that you are parroting even though I'm sure you understand what is wrong with the situation as you've framed it.

Are you an upright individual in search of the truth or are you intent on distributing propaganda? Let's see if you have the integrity and ability to actually track down the information you've omitted. Once the omitted information is included, the entire picture you just painted changes.

How about it?

[txlibdem]

21. 5 tons of Uranium is a partial truth

Ok. You got me. You are right -- it is a partial truth.

The real amount of Uranium spewing out of each and every coal power plant each year is 5.8 TONS.

[kristopher]

23. I knew you couldn't bring yourself to give an honest answer if...

I knew you couldn't bring yourself to give an honest answer since it is an answer that hurts this Nuclear Energy Institute meme you are pushing.

One last opportunity; come on, 'fess up.

[Nihil]

24. Gosh, Kristopher is defending coal-fired power stations again.

I suppose it makes a change from supporting gas-fired power stations ...

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

25. He's multi-talented. nt

[Nihil]

26. Not the first word that springs to mind ...

... but "multi-talented" is probably down there somewhere ...

[Nihil]

27. Strange how quiet it is ...

... once you start to question his support of coal-fired electricity generation ...

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Shush. He's thinking of a comeback...

Probably some sort of copy-and-paste about nuclear=coal, and an insult.

[Nihil]

35. Kick (n/t)

[kristopher]

36. Nuclear power is NOT better than coal - they both suck.

Trying to whitewash nuclear power with false portrayals of it's danger relative to ANYTHING is an exercise in whitewashing nuclear power with a false portrayal.

Coal is a dirty and dangerous technology we need to abandon now.

Nuclear is just as bad over the long term and moving to nuclear from coal is a path only an idiot would endorse.

Notice how coalCCS and nuclear are rated the same?

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Nihil]

38. SPAM spam spam spam ... (n/t)

[diane in sf]

39. Spam, spam spam, that's no way to talk about yourself.

[joshcryer]

30. So true. I miss it when gas power was the big thing on E&E.

[joshcryer]

29. The world is 14% desert land. We only need a quarter of that to power civilization.

Solar is a no brainer.

[bananas]

34. kick. nt

[Nihil]

37. Gosh! You didn't kick #24 or #26? (n/t)