A cubic mile of oil per year is about 5.084 Terawatts per year with continuous power generation. making current world energy use around 15 TW.
The world is using about 3.9 cubic miles of oil per year in electricity. The world was using 3.19 cubic miles of oil per year in electricity in 2006. The world also uses oil and energy for industrial and residential heat and electricity.
If 10 billion people used European levels of electricity then the world would need 10 terawatts of 100% capacity electricity. If ten billion people in the world were at US per capita levels then 20 terawatts of 100% capacity electricity would be needed.
The world’s population is currently not projected to peak before 2100. The UN projection is for world population to head to 12-14 billion. If longevity goes beyond current a lot beyond current UN population models the world population could go to 15-20 billion.
If the world goes to electric cars and uses electricity to replace more industrial and residential uses then the electricity demand could go to triple or seven times current electrical usage. It would be double or triple with more ride-sharing.
The World will need about 8 cubic miles of oil per yaer by 2050.
The world should consider plans for 50 to 100 terawatts of electrical power generation. This is 20 to 40 cubic miles of oil per year in 2100.
This would mean adding 1000-1500 gigawatts of nuclear power per year as we near 2100. It would mean three times as much wind because of wind lower capacity factor. It would mean 5 to 6 times as much solar because of solar’s lower capacity factor.
China and South Korea nuclear costs
China and South Korea have the world’s lowest construction cost for nuclear power plants at about $2000 per kilowatt or about $2 billion for a gigawatt plant. China estimates that building two identical 1000 MWe reactors on a site can result in a 15% reduction in the cost per kW compared with that of a single reactor. This can bring the cost down to about $1.7 billion for each gigawatt nuclear plant.
2600 nuclear power plants built in China, South Korea and other places where a lot of power is being added could cost less than $5 trillion. There are new technology molten salt nuclear plants which are targeting $700 to $1000 per kilowatt. This would bring the cost of replacing one cubic mile of oil per year to $2 to 2.6 trillion.
The cost estimates for cubic mile of oil replacement are based upon prices in the USA. However, the USA and Europe are building very little new energy. There is mainly a shift from coal to natural gas plants.
The costs estimates for cubic mile of oil replacement do not consider any costs to alter or build new or replacement power grid or energy storage. The costs also do not typically look at the supply chain costs and other changes for new power.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
No worries, they’ve still got plenty of coal..
‘..the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa, subcontinent, south east Asia)’.. Sounds a bit racist – nuclear is by far the safest energy source in the first world, but it’s too dangerous for brown people? Anyway, the subcontinent is going there already – India, Pakistan, and Bangla Desh are all building reactors, and India is designing its own – including a fourth generation reactor, which Europe and America have no operational examples of.
2 giant BWR shut down permanently in germany new year’s Eve 9 months ago. 33 and 31 year old stations – at least 2.4 GWe.
There ought to be new slogans like the old “save the whales” – “save the oil and go thorium”. The basic issue with all things nuclear (though I am a huge fan of MSR), is that the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa, subcontinent, south east Asia). So better to build out MSR’s in stable countries (OECD land), and shift oil and gas consumption to unstable places, thereby reducing global oil and gas production. For our children’s sake.
Thomas – there is no void or vast caves of empty space. Oil/gas is extracted from rock which is about as porous as cement. As hydrocarbons are extracted, the pores re-fill, usually with water. In the big scheme of things, cubic miles of extraction spread over thousands of wells in thousands of locations isn’t even a drop in the ocean, as it were. The real problem is water table contamination, e.g., via fracking.
Meanwhile in a Europe infiltrated deeply by leftists, nuclear power is dismantled at an increasing rate. Power prices are going up and power generation is replaced with coal for the most part.
One alternative that wasn’t covered above is Geothermal energy. Here in NYC, St. Patrick’s Cathedral recently cut their electricity use by 30%, after drilling down 2,200 ft. This is in an existing building – a landmark and the largest cathedral in the U.S. Here is a link though it may not survive Vuukle’s editor even with the extra spaces (I really hate that! How are we supposed to share our knowledge??): https: // inhabitat.com/nycs-st-patricks-cathedral-goes-green-with-new-geothermal-plant/ This proves geothermal can be retrofitted even in the densest urban areas, past existing utility lines etc. It was part of a $70m renovation. We’ll still need nuclear though. One thing not mentioned is storm risk to the ships, including mooring detachment and gravity-feed safety system collapse; at one point the speaker says, “assuming gravity works.” Gravity may work, but in which direction relative to the design? Small probabilities of failure increase with many iterations of deployment, i.e. more ships = greater chance of failure.
5.084 miles^3…. Precise.
What I have not seen or heard about this extraction of oil and natural gas from Earth is any question or answer about what must naturally flow into the vacated volumes in the planet. Is that extraction compensated for by some decline in the water table level and/or collapsing ground?
No worries they’ve still got plenty of coal..
‘..the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa subcontinent south east Asia)’.. Sounds a bit racist – nuclear is by far the safest energy source in the first world but it’s too dangerous for brown people? Anyway the subcontinent is going there already – India Pakistan and Bangla Desh are all building reactors and India is designing its own – including a fourth generation reactor which Europe and America have no operational examples of.
2 giant BWR shut down permanently in germany new year’s Eve 9 months ago. 33 and 31 year old stations – at least 2.4 GWe.
There ought to be new slogans like the old save the whales”” – “”””save the oil and go thorium””””. The basic issue with all things nuclear (though I am a huge fan of MSR)”” is that the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa subcontinent south east Asia). So better to build out MSR’s in stable countries (OECD land) and shift oil and gas consumption to unstable places”” thereby reducing global oil and gas production. For our children’s sake.”””
Thomas – there is no void or vast caves of empty space. Oil/gas is extracted from rock which is about as porous as cement. As hydrocarbons are extracted the pores re-fill usually with water. In the big scheme of things cubic miles of extraction spread over thousands of wells in thousands of locations isn’t even a drop in the ocean as it were. The real problem is water table contamination e.g. via fracking.
Meanwhile in a Europe infiltrated deeply by leftists nuclear power is dismantled at an increasing rate. Power prices are going up and power generation is replaced with coal for the most part.
One alternative that wasn’t covered above is Geothermal energy. Here in NYC St. Patrick’s Cathedral recently cut their electricity use by 30{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} after drilling down 2200 ft. This is in an existing building – a landmark and the largest cathedral in the U.S.Here is a link though it may not survive Vuukle’s editor even with the extra spaces (I really hate that! How are we supposed to share our knowledge??): https: // inhabitat.com/nycs-st-patricks-cathedral-goes-green-with-new-geothermal-plant/This proves geothermal can be retrofitted even in the densest urban areas past existing utility lines etc. It was part of a $70m renovation.We’ll still need nuclear though. One thing not mentioned is storm risk to the ships including mooring detachment and gravity-feed safety system collapse; at one point the speaker says assuming gravity works.”” Gravity may work”” but in which direction relative to the design? Small probabilities of failure increase with many iterations of deployment”” i.e. more ships = greater chance of failure.”””
5.084 miles^3…. Precise.
What I have not seen or heard about this extraction of oil and natural gas from Earth is any question or answer about what must naturally flow into the vacated volumes in the planet. Is that extraction compensated for by some decline in the water table level and/or collapsing ground?
look up uranium theft in India, as just one example of risks building out nuclear in places that can’t keep the doors locked.
what? it has to do with political instability and proliferation risk.
look up uranium theft in India as just one example of risks building out nuclear in places that can’t keep the doors locked.
what? it has to do with political instability and proliferation risk.
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear, but you say PV is 5X more$? I’m all for using the oil WITHOUT CO2 EMISSIONS!
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear, but you say PV is 5X more$?
If the Germans are smart they will just mothball the reactors. If they actually dismantle them they will be screwed if they loose their other energy supplies (oil, gas & coal). You can call the Germans many things but one thing they are not is dumb.
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear but you say PV is 5X more$?I’m all for using the oil WITHOUT CO2 EMISSIONS!
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear but you say PV is 5X more$?
If the Germans are smart they will just mothball the reactors. If they actually dismantle them they will be screwed if they loose their other energy supplies (oil gas & coal). You can call the Germans many things but one thing they are not is dumb.
Same thing in Sweden. They are to close 2 of the remaining 10 nukes soon. Two are already gone. At the same time the population is increasing at EU record speed due to mass immigration. The cars are to be electrified etc. Full speed ahead into the abyss.
Same thing in Sweden. They are to close 2 of the remaining 10 nukes soon. Two are already gone.At the same time the population is increasing at EU record speed due to mass immigration. The cars are to be electrified etc. Full speed ahead into the abyss.
Indeed, many wells are set up to pump fluid of some sort (water or CO2 or something) into the rock at the same time that the oil and gas is being pumped out. It helps extract more hydrocarbons.
URL did not come through. Try it without the https or the www ?
Germans are clearly people who can be very smart at an individual level. However, historically speaking, Germans as a nation do have a record of doing some spectacularly dumb things.
In 2018, “racist” is a word that means “capable of pattern recognition” so he’s actually agreeing with you.
Could you post your roof top PV calculations?
Indeed many wells are set up to pump fluid of some sort (water or CO2 or something) into the rock at the same time that the oil and gas is being pumped out. It helps extract more hydrocarbons.
URL did not come through.Try it without the https or the www ?
Germans are clearly people who can be very smart at an individual level. However historically speaking Germans as a nation do have a record of doing some spectacularly dumb things.
In 2018 racist”” is a word that means “”””capable of pattern recognition”””” so he’s actually agreeing with you.”””
Could you post your roof top PV calculations?
Germans are discovering that renewable energy is unreliable and moody and fickle, especially in winter; and that while solar PV might be cheaper than grid *when it bothers to work*, it’s backing it up the rest of the time where the expense really bits. Solar, cheaper than grid! If you buy that, let’s talk about me selling you the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 😉
Germans are discovering that renewable energy is unreliable and moody and fickle especially in winter; and that while solar PV might be cheaper than grid *when it bothers to work* it’s backing it up the rest of the time where the expense really bits. Solar cheaper than grid! If you buy that let’s talk about me selling you the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 😉
Dr James Hansen recommends we build just 115 GW of reactors a year to clean up all electricity for a planet of 9 to 10 billion living a first world lifestyle by 2050. http://goo.gl/Xx61xU 115 GW of reactors a year sounds like a lot, but to a global GDP of $75 TRILLION, it’s nothing. Indeed, on a reactor to GDP ratio the French already beat this build out rate in the 70’s when they built 15 reactors a year. In other words, we know we can build 115 GW reactors a year as a fraction of global GDP because history shows we already have (beat that nuclear build to GDP ratio, that is). That’s electricity, done. What about transport? NREL showed that 86% of America’s light vehicles and trucks could be charged off today’s grid if all power plants were turned up full all the time. https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf Just under half would be charged at night. So much for not needing a baseload, reliable grid! (I’m looking at you, Amory Lovins.) MIT estimates a lower figure of about 75%. Whatever the actual number it is encouraging that we don’t have to replace all our oil with nukes as today’s grid can already supply 3/4 or more. As time moves on, our gradually greening and growing grids will increase capacity until all our transport is clean. Trucking and agriculture will either run on new super-batteries, or we can crack e-diesel and jet fuel out of seawater. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/ Not only this, but Dr James Hansen says another contender is burning powdered boron metal which we then recycle. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/boron/ We have plenty of options to replace oil. The main thing is to start the nuclear assembly lines sooner rather than later, and get the ball rolling!
Dr James Hansen recommends we build just 115 GW of reactors a year to clean up all electricity for a planet of 9 to 10 billion living a first world lifestyle by 2050. http://goo.gl/Xx61xU115 GW of reactors a year sounds like a lot but to a global GDP of $75 TRILLION it’s nothing. Indeed on a reactor to GDP ratio the French already beat this build out rate in the 70’s when they built 15 reactors a year. In other words we know we can build 115 GW reactors a year as a fraction of global GDP because history shows we already have (beat that nuclear build to GDP ratio that is). That’s electricity done. What about transport? NREL showed that 86{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of America’s light vehicles and trucks could be charged off today’s grid if all power plants were turned up full all the time. https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf Just under half would be charged at night. So much for not needing a baseload reliable grid! (I’m looking at you Amory Lovins.)MIT estimates a lower figure of about 75{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. Whatever the actual number it is encouraging that we don’t have to replace all our oil with nukes as today’s grid can already supply 3/4 or more. As time moves on our gradually greening and growing grids will increase capacity until all our transport is clean. Trucking and agriculture will either run on new super-batteries or we can crack e-diesel and jet fuel out of seawater. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/Not only this but Dr James Hansen says another contender is burning powdered boron metal which we then recycle. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/boron/We have plenty of options to replace oil. The main thing is to start the nuclear assembly lines sooner rather than later and get the ball rolling!
Germans are discovering that renewable energy is unreliable and moody and fickle, especially in winter; and that while solar PV might be cheaper than grid *when it bothers to work*, it’s backing it up the rest of the time where the expense really bits. Solar, cheaper than grid! If you buy that, let’s talk about me selling you the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 😉
Dr James Hansen recommends we build just 115 GW of reactors a year to clean up all electricity for a planet of 9 to 10 billion living a first world lifestyle by 2050. http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
115 GW of reactors a year sounds like a lot, but to a global GDP of $75 TRILLION, it’s nothing. Indeed, on a reactor to GDP ratio the French already beat this build out rate in the 70’s when they built 15 reactors a year. In other words, we know we can build 115 GW reactors a year as a fraction of global GDP because history shows we already have (beat that nuclear build to GDP ratio, that is). That’s electricity, done. What about transport? NREL showed that 86% of America’s light vehicles and trucks could be charged off today’s grid if all power plants were turned up full all the time. https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf Just under half would be charged at night. So much for not needing a baseload, reliable grid! (I’m looking at you, Amory Lovins.)
MIT estimates a lower figure of about 75%. Whatever the actual number it is encouraging that we don’t have to replace all our oil with nukes as today’s grid can already supply 3/4 or more. As time moves on, our gradually greening and growing grids will increase capacity until all our transport is clean. Trucking and agriculture will either run on new super-batteries, or we can crack e-diesel and jet fuel out of seawater.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/
Not only this, but Dr James Hansen says another contender is burning powdered boron metal which we then recycle. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/boron/
We have plenty of options to replace oil. The main thing is to start the nuclear assembly lines sooner rather than later, and get the ball rolling!
The worst proliferator has been Pakistan, which has only this month had its very first legal transition of government, but since they were needed as allies, Washington said very little about it, compared to all the saber rattling at Iran. Not a peep about Israel either. Personally I think having nuclear weapons forces a government to grow up. India and Pakistan fought three wars before they got nukes, but it was only after that that they installed a hotline between Islamabad and New Delhi. If Saudi and Iran both had nuclear weapons, they could not afford to be so cavalier about starting a war. The Iran/Iraq war, which killed a million people, wouldn’t have started if Saddam faced nuclear annihilation, but he would have been safe from George Bush II as well. The Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa show that nuclear armed regimes can topple when their own citizens are ready for it, without the risks of an invasion that will be costly and expensive for both sides, whether nuclear weapons are used or not.
The worst proliferator has been Pakistan which has only this month had its very first legal transition of government but since they were needed as allies Washington said very little about it compared to all the saber rattling at Iran. Not a peep about Israel either.Personally I think having nuclear weapons forces a government to grow up. India and Pakistan fought three wars before they got nukes but it was only after that that they installed a hotline between Islamabad and New Delhi. If Saudi and Iran both had nuclear weapons they could not afford to be so cavalier about starting a war. The Iran/Iraq war which killed a million people wouldn’t have started if Saddam faced nuclear annihilation but he would have been safe from George Bush II as well. The Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa show that nuclear armed regimes can topple when their own citizens are ready for it without the risks of an invasion that will be costly and expensive for both sides whether nuclear weapons are used or not.
Trying to make a dirty bomb with unenriched uranium is about as dangerous as using lead, except the lead shrapnel will be a little harder to find. The same applies to ~5% enriched uranium (though most Indian reactors use unenriched uranium). Weapons grade is probably nearly as hard to steal as a weapon.
Trying to make a dirty bomb with unenriched uranium is about as dangerous as using lead except the lead shrapnel will be a little harder to find. The same applies to ~5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} enriched uranium (though most Indian reactors use unenriched uranium). Weapons grade is probably nearly as hard to steal as a weapon.
The problem with burning that cubic mile of oil is that you have to find another cubic mile to replace it.
The problem with burning that cubic mile of oil is that you have to find another cubic mile to replace it.
The worst proliferator has been Pakistan, which has only this month had its very first legal transition of government, but since they were needed as allies, Washington said very little about it, compared to all the saber rattling at Iran. Not a peep about Israel either.
Personally I think having nuclear weapons forces a government to grow up. India and Pakistan fought three wars before they got nukes, but it was only after that that they installed a hotline between Islamabad and New Delhi. If Saudi and Iran both had nuclear weapons, they could not afford to be so cavalier about starting a war. The Iran/Iraq war, which killed a million people, wouldn’t have started if Saddam faced nuclear annihilation, but he would have been safe from George Bush II as well. The Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa show that nuclear armed regimes can topple when their own citizens are ready for it, without the risks of an invasion that will be costly and expensive for both sides, whether nuclear weapons are used or not.
Trying to make a dirty bomb with unenriched uranium is about as dangerous as using lead, except the lead shrapnel will be a little harder to find. The same applies to ~5% enriched uranium (though most Indian reactors use unenriched uranium). Weapons grade is probably nearly as hard to steal as a weapon.
The problem with burning that cubic mile of oil is that you have to find another cubic mile to replace it.
Indeed, many wells are set up to pump fluid of some sort (water or CO2 or something) into the rock at the same time that the oil and gas is being pumped out. It helps extract more hydrocarbons.
URL did not come through.
Try it without the https or the www ?
Germans are clearly people who can be very smart at an individual level. However, historically speaking, Germans as a nation do have a record of doing some spectacularly dumb things.
In 2018, “racist” is a word that means “capable of pattern recognition” so he’s actually agreeing with you.
Could you post your roof top PV calculations?
Same thing in Sweden. They are to close 2 of the remaining 10 nukes soon. Two are already gone.
At the same time the population is increasing at EU record speed due to mass immigration. The cars are to be electrified etc. Full speed ahead into the abyss.
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear, but you say PV is 5X more$?
I’m all for using the oil WITHOUT CO2 EMISSIONS!
Strange how my own roof top PV system cost calc is about the same as your nuclear, but you say PV is 5X more$?
If the Germans are smart they will just mothball the reactors. If they actually dismantle them they will be screwed if they loose their other energy supplies (oil, gas & coal). You can call the Germans many things but one thing they are not is dumb.
look up uranium theft in India, as just one example of risks building out nuclear in places that can’t keep the doors locked.
what? it has to do with political instability and proliferation risk.
No worries, they’ve still got plenty of coal..
‘..the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa, subcontinent, south east Asia)’.. Sounds a bit racist – nuclear is by far the safest energy source in the first world, but it’s too dangerous for brown people? Anyway, the subcontinent is going there already – India, Pakistan, and Bangla Desh are all building reactors, and India is designing its own – including a fourth generation reactor, which Europe and America have no operational examples of.
2 giant BWR shut down permanently in germany new year’s Eve 9 months ago. 33 and 31 year old stations – at least 2.4 GWe.
There ought to be new slogans like the old “save the whales” – “save the oil and go thorium”. The basic issue with all things nuclear (though I am a huge fan of MSR), is that the places where power will be needed the most is not where you really want to have anything nuclear (central Africa, subcontinent, south east Asia). So better to build out MSR’s in stable countries (OECD land), and shift oil and gas consumption to unstable places, thereby reducing global oil and gas production. For our children’s sake.
Thomas – there is no void or vast caves of empty space. Oil/gas is extracted from rock which is about as porous as cement. As hydrocarbons are extracted, the pores re-fill, usually with water. In the big scheme of things, cubic miles of extraction spread over thousands of wells in thousands of locations isn’t even a drop in the ocean, as it were. The real problem is water table contamination, e.g., via fracking.
Meanwhile in a Europe infiltrated deeply by leftists, nuclear power is dismantled at an increasing rate. Power prices are going up and power generation is replaced with coal for the most part.
One alternative that wasn’t covered above is Geothermal energy. Here in NYC, St. Patrick’s Cathedral recently cut their electricity use by 30%, after drilling down 2,200 ft. This is in an existing building – a landmark and the largest cathedral in the U.S.
Here is a link though it may not survive Vuukle’s editor even with the extra spaces (I really hate that! How are we supposed to share our knowledge??): https: // inhabitat.com/nycs-st-patricks-cathedral-goes-green-with-new-geothermal-plant/
This proves geothermal can be retrofitted even in the densest urban areas, past existing utility lines etc. It was part of a $70m renovation.
We’ll still need nuclear though. One thing not mentioned is storm risk to the ships, including mooring detachment and gravity-feed safety system collapse; at one point the speaker says, “assuming gravity works.” Gravity may work, but in which direction relative to the design? Small probabilities of failure increase with many iterations of deployment, i.e. more ships = greater chance of failure.
5.084 miles^3…. Precise.
What I have not seen or heard about this extraction of oil and natural gas from Earth is any question or answer about what must naturally flow into the vacated volumes in the planet. Is that extraction compensated for by some decline in the water table level and/or collapsing ground?