[seahorse]

I don't know where the $100 trillion comes from, but the 2006 IEA world energy outlook said it would take $20 trillion to develop new energy resources between 2005-2030 to meet increasing demand. So, if it takes $20 trillion to build new infrastructure (ain't going to happen), $100 trillion to replace the existing may not be that unreasonable.

World Energy Outlook

[JPL]

You also have to factor in price inflation due to a shrinking energy base.

Think you can do the math on that one?

Betcha can't...

JP

[thylacine]

If, as Simmons says, "Peak oil is a reality. In 2005 we had peak production..." , then the $50-100 trillion he is proposing be spent rebuilding the oil industry is at best just going to produce a less severe decline. But still a decline. Two steps forward, three steps back.

And how long would the $50-100T investment keep us going for: another 10 or 20 years? He can't be serious, IMHO Simmons is just using another way of highlighting the corner into which we have painted ourselves.

[shortonoil]

Net Exports now represent under 1/20 of GDP growth in China

Which has little to do with the fact that, according to the CIA World Factbook CIA Fact Book
37.5% of their GDP is generated from exports. Which is the highest in the world of any industrialized nation (if not any nation).

There are problems in the US, but Europe and Asia are doing perfectly fine,

If you want to call the collapse of Northern Rock, the $36 billion dollar loss for Credit Sussi, the upcoming bankruptcy of Spain, the 16% unemployment rate in Germany, the 44% increase in food cost in the UK, 5% of China’s power plants shut down for lack of coal, the Asian food crisis, and etc. doing fine, OK.

[copious.abundance]

The oil and gas industry will need to invest $50-100 trillion to rebuild its ageing infrastructure within the next 7 years and stave off a serious drop in oil and gas production, Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co. International, told OGJ May 5 at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston.

Uh, yeah. What else do we expect Matt Simmons to say?

[joewp]

The oil and gas industry will need to invest $50-100 trillion to rebuild its ageing infrastructure within the next 7 years and stave off a serious drop in oil and gas production, Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co. International, told OGJ May 5 at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston.

Uh, yeah. What else do we expect Matt Simmons to say?

Simmons has been right more than you, that's for sure.

[Tyler_JC]

I find it remarkable that people who are so keen to point out the hidden motives of the mainstream media are unable to see the "hidden" motives of Matt Simmons.
Everyone believes that their department/industry/cause deserves more funding than everyone else.
I've met people who passionately believe that we should spend another billion dollars a year protecting tree frogs.

[cube]

I wonder where that $100 trillion number comes from.
Unless he can give us some information about what exactly he's talking about...I'm inclined to call this an exaggeration.

sexed up statistics is what I would expect from an intellectually lazy environmentalist so it's very disappointing when a peak oiler drops down to such a low level.
lets crunch some numbers here folks:
world electricity capacity is about 5,000 GW
1 nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion
5,000 x $2 == $10,000 billion = $10 trillion
It would "only" take $10 T to replace the entire world electricity capacity with nuclear power so how the hell does Matt S comes up with $100 T?
yes I know oil and electricity is like apples and oranges but the statistics smells like bull sh!t

[Tyler_JC]

I wonder where that $100 trillion number comes from.
Unless he can give us some information about what exactly he's talking about...I'm inclined to call this an exaggeration.

sexed up statistics is what I would expect from an intellectually lazy environmentalist so it's very disappointing when a peak oiler drops down to such a low level. ... yes I know oil and electricity is like apples and oranges but the statistics smells like bull sh!t

I'm glad someone is with me on this one.
We shouldn't reject MSM in favor of independent sources if it means blindly following everything that our new leaders are telling us.
Otherwise we are merely trading old emperors for new ones.
Question everything, especially when it comes from someone trying to sell you something.

[Twilight]

That's just the power stations, don't forget transmission and distribution infrastructure. You are looking at the same money again, and that is probably conservative.

In any case, the sums are probably intrinsically impossible to estimate with any accuracy.

[Starvid]

37.5% of their GDP is generated from exports. Which is the highest in the world of any industrialized nation (if not any nation).

The vast majority of these exports are to other emerging markets and to Europe, not to the US.

If you want to call the collapse of Northern Rock, the $36 billion dollar loss for Credit Sussi, the upcoming bankruptcy of Spain, the 16% unemployment rate in Germany, the 44% increase in food cost in the UK, 5% of China’s power plants shut down for lack of coal, the Asian food crisis, and etc. doing fine, OK.

Who cares about some banks? The payment system still works well, and stupid corporations losing money and going out of business is a natural part of the capitalist system. Too bad for the shareholders, but they knew what they were going into and deserve what they get.
Spain is not bankrupted. There has been some overspending on real estate, but considering how bad Spaniards lived before the real estate boom, some excess can well be accepted. The total was a definite gain.
44 % increase in food costs is nothing. So now people pay 6 % instead of 4 % of their income on food in the developed world? Suck it up and stop whining. In the developing world people are either farmers or food is subsidised. And no matter, food costs will go down eventually.
The Chinese coal issues are not about a decrease in coal production but a result of the Chinese power and rail sectors not being able to keep up with the fantastic growth of the Chinese economy. Investing in this infrastructure is one of the strong drivers for domestic Chinese growth.

The high price of food is due to a number of unlikely things happening at the same time. It will be blow over as output rises after some good crops and increased planting. Like for example how the price of wheat recently collapsed after good harvests were predicted.
BBC
The total losses from the entire subprime crisis is/will be about $1 trillion. As we like to compare new oil discoveries in days of global oil consumption, we can do the same with the credit crisis. The total cost is the same as the output of the global economy for 8 days. Boo hoo.
So while the subprime crisis is nasty for the US and their UK poodles and devastating for the entire Angloamerican version of capitalism, the rest of us are doing fine, just fine.
For example here in Sweden we are still in the greatest economic expansion since the golden years of the 50's and 60's.

[Starvid]

1 nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion

Due to cost inflation in the power sector, higher commodity prices, weak dollar etc you'll have to pay $3-3,5 billion for a 1 GW nuke plant nowadays.

[yesplease]

article quotes $50-100 trillion
$50 trillion divided by a global population of 6.5 billion =$7692 for every human alive on the planet.
it aint gonna happen

The oil and gas industry will need to invest $50-100 trillion to rebuild its ageing infrastructure within the next 7 years and stave off a serious drop in oil and gas production

World GDP is something like 65 trillion per year according to g00gl3, so that's ~10-20% of world GDP per year. IMO it's better spent elsewhere, especially since the drop Simmons is talking about by 2013 is what the ASPO projected anyway...

1 nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion

Due to cost inflation in the power sector, higher commodity prices, weak dollar etc you'll have to pay $3-3,5 billion for a 1 GW nuke plant nowadays.

Well... If the dollar wasn't being inflated away to pay for a good old run on the treasury, it'd be less.

[Ferretlover]

lets crunch some numbers here folks:
world electricity capacity is about 5,000 GW
1 nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion
5,000 x $2 == $10,000 billion = $10 trillion
It would "only" take $10 T to replace the entire world electricity capacity with nuclear power so how the hell does Matt S comes up with $100 T?

I won't pretend that I understand all the math, but, does your 10T include the infrastructure? Especially since so much of it apparently is getting old.
And, what about replacing all the millions of cars-they can't run on nuclear power.
It would be nice if Mr. Simmons could post here from where that 100T came.

[Starvid]

Building an entire new power infrastructure, mostly nuclear, for a country like the US with some serious space for demand growth should cost something like 500 GW*3 billion $1,5 trillion. Then add the same amount for transmission and you get $3 trillion. But as the US is not Burma and the stuff which exists only have to be refurbished and improved, maybe we are talking about $1 trillion, spread over maybe 20 years.
About 0,5 % of GDP.
What people don't get is that the energy industry is small, and that the electricity business is even smaller.

[seahorse]

Cube, where did you get $2 billion to build a nuke plant?

lets crunch some numbers here folks:
world electricity capacity is about 5,000 GW
1 nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion
5,000 x $2 == $10,000 billion = $10 trillion

I did a quick internet search and found an article saying the cost to build a new plant in Maryland, the nations first in 30 years, would costs $4 billion.

The first application to build a new U.S. nuclear power plant in three decades has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, bumping a proposed third unit at a Calvert County site to the front of a list of reactors being considered by the nuclear power industry.
Constellation Energy Group of Baltimore has filed a partial application with the NRC, asking the commission to review environmental plans for a 1,600-megawatt reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site in Lusby, Md., that could cost $4 billion.

Washington Post

[cube]

Cube, where did you get $2 billion to build a nuke plant?

This is just for the nuclear plants and nothing else.
I'm talking about the new 3rd generation plants coming out these days and not some of the older models, some went through ridiculous cost overruns. AP1000

In the spring of 2007 China National Nuclear Corp. selected the Westinghouse/Shaw consortium to build four nuclear reactors for an estimated US$8 billion, the largest International nuclear contract in history.

That comes out to $2B each or $2B per 1GW. EPR Flamanville 3

First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant on 6 Dec 2007.[19] This will be the third unit on the site and the second EPR ever constructed. Electrical output will be 1,600 MW and it is projected to cost 3.3 billion Euros.[20] The following is a condensed timeline for the unit:

1.6GW = $3.3B a little over $2B per 1GW
add-on:
In a hypothetical scenario if the world tried to build $10T worth of nuclear plants we'd start to get really good at doing it and the price per unit would drop.....economies of scale.
All I'm saying is Matt S should tell us where the hell he got his numbers from. Like what Tyler_JC said you shouldn't just go ahead and automatically assume someone is giving accurate numbers just because you share the same ideology.

[seahorse]

I agree that people should show the basis of their calculations. Earlier, hopefully everyone realized when I posted the IEA project $20 in energy investment over the next 20 years, I meant $20 trillion. The numbers everyone throws around are all so mind boggling I just don't see it happening. In fact, its not happening. For example, the Saudis recently said they were stopping any further investment bc they were unsure of future demand and bc they were leaving future finds for future generations. All it means is that the $20 trillion the IEA says needs to be invested will not be invested.

[Twilight]

As an aside, the investment that is happening in the UK is buying less now than envisaged when budgets were approved, entirely due to what is happening in the commodities markets. The same nominal sums are being spent, but they buy less, so significant cuts are being made. If the world did spend one, ten or a hundred trillion dollars, the question of what they would buy would a good one, due to the competitive forces unleashed.

[phaeryen]

I wonder where that $100 trillion number comes from.
Unless he can give us some information about what exactly he's talking about...I'm inclined to call this an exaggeration.

Thats how I felt. Like you throw something like $100 trillion around just to provoke attention, and make your message "cut through". You throw out a provocative message to make people listen, then talk down or ignore that angle completely and try to make sense after the fact. Its not a sensible way to go about things.