Skip to main content

How to Replace One Cubic Mile of Oil

From IEEE Spectrum:
The fact that energy sources and uses are stated in so many different kinds of terms is increasingly seen as not merely an annoyance but as a serious impediment to public understanding of critical choices. In an effort to get matters onto a more intuitive, citizen-friendly basis, a number of experts have hit on the convenient fact that the world at present consumes about 1 cubic mile of oil (CMO) per year. Among these experts are Ed Kinderman and Hewitt Crane at SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., who are preparing a book for Oxford University Press that will be built around the idea of normalizing all energy units to 1 CMO (4.17 cubic kilometers).

One dramatic way of portraying their results is to ask how many alternative energy sources—say coal-fired plants or solar panels— it would take to produce the equivalent of one CMO.
And here's what they came up with:


Thanks to Colby Cosh for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

KenG said…
Interesting, but I think it contains a basic error. The solar panel quantity seems adjusted for capacity factor but the wind turbine number is not. The 32,850 wind turbines is about 54 gigawatts capacity, the same as the coal or nuclear plants but the solar is about 191 GW capacity, indicating about a 25% capacity factor for the solar panels (reasonable). Similarly adjusted, the wind turbine quantity should be about 100,000.
David Bradish said…
Instead of saying power plants, they should be showing how much fuel from each. A nuclear plant only needs about 30-40 tons of uranium that last 18-24 months in the plant. A 1000 MW coal plant needs about 3-4 million tons of coal each year. Multiply that with 100 coal plants at 50 years and we're talking billions of tons of coal versus thousands of tons of uranium. Check out the middle of the page of this link.
Joffan said…
I saw the same error as keng, although I'd put the number of 1.65MW turbines at about 130,000. The other curiosity is that the coal plants have no capacity factor (ie. 100%) but the nukes do (90%). What's the reality on this one?

Also the basic logic of the comparison is odd... how can you replace one year's worth of oil with energy spread over 50 years?

These points aside though, I'm glad someone is trying to make a simple comparison between energy sources.
KenG said…
joffan,

I think the 50 year factor was meant to reflect that if you built the various technology installations, they would operate for 50 years while the "CMO" just lasts one year. However, it does seem to confuse the issue. A wind turbine, PV cell, or dam (if it would last 50 years) would require no additional fuel, whereas the nuclear plant needs a small amount of fuel each year and the coal plant needs huge amounts of fuel. In fact this raises a whole different question: How many cubic miles of coal does it take to equal a cubic mile of oil?

Initially, this looks like a simplification but the more I look at it, the less value it seems to have.
Ira said…
I think the 50 years aspect of this concept is slightly confusing, however I think it is trying to capture the idea that the time to develop the project is limited. According to the CMO article on wiki, we have ~43 proven Cubic miles of oil. If you started working on the replacement you'd have ~50 years to complete it assuming that some of its capacity would come online before 50 years was up. For example, if you wanted to only solve the problem with solar cells you'd have to install 1.8million household rooftop solar installations per year for 50 years to end up with enough power to replace 1 CMO per year at the end of 50 years.

It seems likely to me that you could more easily try and complete parts of each solution. Make some dams, and some solar cells, and some wind, etc. It seems like wind power has the closest cost to oil according to the wiki article.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…