Did you know that 'peak oil' M. King Hubbert was anti-nuclear and pro-solar?

[bananas]

If you're not sure who he was, you may have seen this graph he made in 1956:


Because of that graph, a lot of people think Hubbert advocated nuclear energy to replace oil.
He did - way back in the 1950's - but 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>

[bananas]

1. kick. nt