Hubbert’s Early Take On Nuclear Energy
Jason Brenno and David Room, Hubbert Tribute
This article is offered in celebration on the 53rd anniversary anniversary of M. King Hubbert’s Seminal speech on March 8th, 1956 that correctly predicted the 1970 peak of U.S. oil production.
The mission of the Hubbert Tribute is to decipher our energy past, present, and future. Hence, we are investigating how U.S. energy policy was architected over the past century. The article reviews how experts thought about energy and nuclear energy in particular in the 1950s and how this led accomplished scientists such as M King Hubbert to promote a nuclear powered future that may not be considered probable or even viable today.
Based on his classic paper Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels – and in particular the graph below – Hubbert appears to have believed in 1956 that nuclear energy would become a long term source of energy at a magnitude far greater than that of fossil fuels. A key question to keep in mind is given that Hubbert had at least partially bought into this concept, what effect did it have on decision makers at the time?
Some clues to Hubbert’s reasoning appear in the M King Hubbert oral history. An interview with M King Hubbert speaking about his 1956 paper Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels is quoted below:
... While it appears at the time he was convinced that atomic energy was a viable source for future world energy needs, Hubbert did ultimately change his mind on the viability of atomic energy later in his life. As he explains below in the M King Hubbert Oral History:
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.
... Although it appears from the oral history that Hubbert was not entirely sold on the idea of powering our world on granite, he was comfortable with the concept of using the large quantities of low grade uranium as a fuel source.
(8 March 2009)
channelinghubbert.com |
