Matthew Simmons: Sorry, peak oil is real

Go nukes...

Electricity vs. locomotion. Not the same.

Depends on how far you need to go on a charge. For local commutes and given the possibility of recharging the batteries at work, a useful percentage of trips could be powered electrically.

Yes, after we install the vast network of charging stations all over the US, and after we figure out how to either make batteries rechargeable within a couple minutes or make them easily interchangeable at the charging stations, and after we figure out how to get more than 200 miles or so out of a single charge, and after the cost of electric cars comes down to a level somewhat comparable to IC cars, and after we have built up the electrical grid to handle this huge new nonlinear load -

then, and only then, we'll see a useful percentage of trips powered electrically.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it will never happen. It will happen, and it needs to happen. But there's a huge number of hurdles between here and there, and it's going to take a long time, a huge amount of money, and massive political will to make it happen.

Until then, discussions about nuclear power are completely irrelevant to discussions about oil.

Turmarion, uranium is about as common in the earth's crust as tin. Peak uranium is centuries away, even if we ramp up like we need to.

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Though I repeat: this discussion is currently irrelevant in a thread about peak oil.

Until then, discussions about nuclear power are completely irrelevant to discussions about oil.

Well, not completely - one could use the power output from a nuclear plant to manufacture synthetic oil using coal as a feedstock.

Given our current dependence upon CHEAP oil, there is an energy crisis. The serious problem is that we should have started looking at and funding other energy sources in a serious way 30-40 years ago. We are just starting.

Turmarion, the vast majority of the cost of nuclear-generated electricity is the amortized cost of building the plant. The actual uranium cost of nuclear electricity is about 1/20 of a cent per kw/hr. Yes, that's $0.0005/kwhr in actual fuel cost. If the price of uranium should, say, quadruple, it won't make a meaningful difference in the cost of electricity. It would, however, make a meaningful difference in the amount of uranium that is economically recoverable in the earth.

And then there's thorium, which is also usable to generate nuclear power (at slightly higher cost), and is three times as plentiful as uranium. (The Indians are pursuing this today, since India has lots of thorium but little uranium.)

And then there are breeder reactors, which can use U238 rather than U235, which is two orders of magnitude more plentiful but costs a bit more to use for power generation. (The Russians and the Japanese are doing this.)

Two quick hits. I hope I will come back with a more in-depth comment later:

1. Don't forget natural gas, which can be used to run motor vehicles. We have a whole lot of it. It's a lot cheaper than it was a couple years ago and, if you look at when the price per mcf fell, it's very clear that the drop is much more a function of increased supply than decreased demand.

2. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but some anecdotes are quantitatively material in themselves. Hot on the heels of BP's announcement last week of a "giant" oil find in the Gulf of Mexico comes confirmation of the substantial magnitude of the offshore discovery in Brazil waters that was announced in the summer of 2008: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6827073.ece

Of course oil production has a peak, but the more relevant question is what the down slope looks like. More on the troubled history of the Peakers' predictions to come . . .

Your Name (3:50PM):

1) The price of natural gas has come down because we've begun importing it. From the Saudis.

2) The production from these new oil fields will not compensate for the declines in production at Gwahar, Cantarell, the North Sea, and the North Slope. And both of these new fields are in very deep water, which would have been unreachable even 10 years ago. They're not cheap.

Yeah, it's weird how everything my parents stood for in their real lives was almost diametrically opposed to their political commitments.

Same here. They still don't see it though. Denial is a powerful thing.

...we should have started looking at and funding other energy sources in a serious way 30-40 years ago. We are just starting.

And so, Rod, the reaction of our government minders to the first energy crisis was to get "serious" in 1977 and create the Department of Energy. Now I'm sitting here 30 plus years later and wondering WTF the DOE has been doing all this time. Can you imagine, oh, I don't know, the leadership at Google, or GE or some other well run and managed company when facing a similar challenge being allowed to do essentially nothing for three decades??? They'd be lucky to survive with their jobs for three years before getting the boot. Not hard to find examples, but this is a great one of government ineptness that I think borders on the criminal. What makes it even worse is that we all tolerate it.

Best regards.

Mike & KateA,

"WTF the DOE has been doing all this time."

Of DOE's approximately $20MM annual budget, about 10% is spent on alternative energy and energy efficiency. Most of it is spent on the US's nuclear arsenal and cleaning nuclear sites. Another significant chunk is spent on basic research (high energy physics and the like). A bit is spent on tracking the energy status Therefore, DOE may be the Department of Energy in name but is really the department of weapons, science, and energy. To make it worse, the portion spent on alternative energy and energy efficiency is highly politicized and around 20% of it is spent on earmarks that often go to groups that do little to advance the technology but have the ear of their congressperson or senator.

What has DOE done in the last 30 years with the few remaining funds for alternative energy and energy efficiency?
1) Reduced the price of wind power by almost an order of magnitude and made wind a viable energy source.
2) Reduced the price of solar power by over 80% and developed technologies that are now being installed
3) Developed hybrid vehicle technologies in conjunction with the Detroit 3 automakers. Unfortunately, the Detroit 3 "did not see a business case for hybrid technology" and dropped their plans to commercialize it. DOE does not sell products and cannot (or at the time could not) force companies to make good business decisions.
4) Reduced the cost of second generation biofuels by 80% or more.
5) Developed energy efficiency technologies for building windows and insulation and high efficiency lighting. Those technologies led to today's possibilities for energy efficiency.
6) Developed combined heat and power technology and smart grid technology to reduce the wasted energy.

No DOE is not perfect but I think anyone who actually spends time looking at its record and recognizing that most of DOE is not even involved in alternative energy and energy efficiency would realize that the accomplishments of that portion of DOE are not only not "inept bordering on criminal" but are much greater than the accomplishments of most US businesses.

Please, review the government programs before making claims that make no sense.

Regards