Do oil consumers and oil producers really share the same goal?

13 Comments

1. I’d rather deploy 100,000 troops here in the US to secure our nuclear fuel cycle than to the P. Gulf to secure someone else’s oil.

2. I think that the Saudis do understand the risks of
   +$100/bl oil to their long-term plans. They would rather see their reserves depleted before the inevitable change comes.

   At least Al-Waleed bin Talal is being up front about it and not making hypocritical statements about the need to keep the US economy healthy by lowering the price of oil.

3. Dig a little deeper and see how oil producers are investing in new energy (The Emirates and even the Saudis). It is called smart money management in terms of remaining in control of energy in the world.

   See what they are doing with new concept marine power plants in joint ventures with France and Italy. This is being facilitated by Swiss Bankers in an effort to hedge pressure brought upon offshore banking. Even Russia is exploring the economics of new energy concepts in marine power plants and portable nuclear/steam plants.

   Climate change will open new markets for new concept nuclear power as a way of coping with severe demographic changes and relocation of major industries.

   Look deeper into where the money ventures via former Offshore Banks are going. The available capital via former Offshore Banks exceeds the GNP of some major world players.

4. The reason the Saudis want oil stabilized at below $100 that is, $70 to $80 is their credit. Not to “help” us, but because it helps THEM. It is a very good and sound economic forecasting on their part that they understand the effects on their *own* economy if an oil-induced recession/inflationary wave hits their main clients and customers: the Western advanced economies. High priced oil at $100 is simply not good for anyone and, unlike Western transnational oil companies, the Saudi’s understand this.

   Secondly, high prices oil gives customers incentive to use less oil and get off of it completely. Like the French did in the 1970s when they traded in their polluting oil power plants for nuclear ones.

   The Saudis are “right” about this for the reasons they state.

   They are open, I might add, about my second point as well. When 60 minutes a year or two ago did a piece on the Saudi oil industry, they were *explicit* about why they want to keep the price of oil in this price range.

5. Consumers and producers never share common goals, although their goals overlap in part.

   It is time for all of us to recognize that fact and make prudent investments that will allow us to choose reliable, emission free alternatives to continued oil consumption

   I also agree with this. And, in large part because of information provided on Rod Adams’ blog, I now am far more open to nuclear power as a viable alternative.

   And yet, I am dismayed to see Adams and others crapping on wind and solar. Adams may be entirely correct that the oil and gas industries are attempting to co-opt the solar and wind movements. But the proper response is not to crap on other alternative energy sources, in principle.

   People support wind and solar because they are looking for “reliable, emission free alternatives to continued oil consumption”, not because they have a religious devotion to wind and solar power. Most alternative-energy proponents could be convinced to support nuclear power, as I have been, if they can be shown that the power can be produced safely and that the spent fuel can be disposed of safely.

   But if nuclear power is ever going to be widely accepted in the U.S., nuclear proponents are going to have to change their message in three key way:

   (1) Admit that long-term storage of waste is not a viable option and develop a viable spent-fuel recycling program.

   (2) Admit that not every existing nuke plant has a safe design and admit that some plants should be shut down.

   (3) Admit that not every existing nuke plant is safely situated.

   1. While I can’t fault your first point, I would like to see some proof that some plants are unsafe of poorly sited.

      Making statements like these without proof, or examples, only furthers the belief that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, and plays into the hand of our opponents.

   2. @square1 – I believe that my efforts to point out the inherent unreliability of wind and solar energy and the inherent locational inflexibility of geothermal are simply efforts to remove the rose tint from the glasses of people who may be sincere in their search for reliable, emission free alternatives. However, unless something drastically changes in the physical laws that govern our world, the sun will be setting every day and the wind will continue blowing at a rate that is completely out of the control of human operators or automated control systems.

   3. Oh, joy! An ultimatum! It’s not every day that we get one of those.

      (1) Admit that long-term storage of waste is not a viable option and develop a viable spent-fuel recycling program.

      Admit what?

      Well, it depends on what you consider to be “long-term.” Currently, several scientific organizations, including the US government regulators, have concluded that this “waste” is safe to store “as is” (i.e. dry cask storage) for at least a century or so. After that, it can be dealt with in more suitable ways.

      While you will find that many of us support a fuel recycling program (I certainly do), US law still stipulates that used commercial, military, and research-reactor fuel is to be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain site.

      If you don’t like that, then please work to change the law.

      (2) Admit that not every existing nuke plant has a safe design and admit that some plants should be shut down.

      Admit what?

      Shouldn’t that be determined by the regulatory body on a case-by-case basis? That’s how it has been done in the past, when the regulator did shut down reactors that did not comply with modern safety standards. For example, Indian Point-1 was shut down for those reasons. Since then, the US fleet has safely provided decades of generation of electricity.

      It is best if highly qualified professionals make those decisions, rather than random voices on the internet.

      (3) Admit that not every existing nuke plant is safely situated.

      Admit what?

      Once again, this is best left for qualified regulators and technically competent professionals. Blackmail from random, anonymous internet jabber is not a sufficient reason to determine that any plant is unsafely situated. The best safety analyses rely on real data, not on ultimatums.

      1. It isn’t an ultimatum. It is an analysis. Simply put, it is futile to try and convince the public that nuclear power has always been safe. If you want to convince the public that nuclear power can be made safe going forward then you may be successful.

         I believe that Rod Adams previously compared old reactor plants to old cars and argued that the old plants are still safe.

         While the analogy may have been good, the logic wasn’t. The truth is that modern cars are vastly safer than cars build several decades ago.

         See, for example: http://youtu.be/joMK1WZjP7g

         If you are a car salesman and a mother with small children walks onto your lot and says that she wants a car but is terrified of being in an accident with her children, you point her towards the SUV with 10 airbags. What you don’t do is tell her she is crazy and that she would be safe in a ’59 Bel Air.

         Instead of debating “How safe can nuclear plants be?” nuclear proponents are — bizarrely, IMHO — choosing to debate “How safe is every existing plant in the country?”

         US law still stipulates that used commercial, military, and research-reactor fuel is to be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain site.

         Yes, and a major reason for that is because the conventional wisdom is that reprocessing spent fuel presents a heightened security risk. It wasn’t until very recently (thanks to Rod Adams) that I learned that this isn’t the case at all.

         For a lot of people, dumping waste into a mountain is not a solution. It seems obvious to me that nuclear proponents would be wise to spend more time developing a viable reprocessing plan for the U.S. and less time attacking solar and wind.

      2. While the analogy may have been good, the logic wasn’t. The truth is that modern cars are vastly safer than cars build several decades ago.

         Logic, you say? You must be kidding.

         Look, logically, your old car is either safe or it is unsafe, by whatever definition you want to attach to “safe.” It doesn’t suddenly become unsafe just because Volvo released its next-year model.

         Automobiles, by the way, typically kill about 40,000 people each year in the US; in 2010, the number of deaths fell to the “lowest ever” at over 32,000. The number of deaths from radiation produced at nuclear plants … zero.

         Both the logic and the analogy are ridiculously poor.

         Either a nuclear reactor is deemed safe or it is deemed unsafe. It doesn’t suddenly become unsafe because some engineer has plans for a better design on the drawing board.

         Yes, and a major reason for that is because the conventional wisdom is that reprocessing spent fuel presents a heightened security risk.

         Well, yes, that was the excuse that was used. It’s a damn shame that Carter was such a naive wimp.

         Nevertheless, the law that designates Yucca Mountain as a repository is very practical. Sure, it addressed the political problems of the day concerning “reprocessing,” but it also requires that the mountain cannot be closed for about a century after the last fuel is put in, and the “waste” must be fully retrievable. If man can’t think of a way to reuse this material in a century’s time (let me remind you that we just celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the beginnings of the field of nuclear physics), then perhaps man doesn’t deserve to use this material.

         In my opinion, Rod has misled you on this point. I agree that most of the material should be recycled (but not all of it can, for very good technical reasons), but the law stipulating the repository at Yucca Mountain does not preclude an ultimate strategy of recycling.

      3. Internet blackmail? Good lord, could you be more melodramatic?

         You know what? I’m wrong. You’re right. I’m the idiot. You’re very persuasive.

   4. First there are viable reprocessing options available; they don’t need to be discussed. Second there is nothing wrong with existing plants, and saying so, or pretending it is so is counter productive at best and outright wrong at the worst. Again, specific examples please, if you believe otherwise. If you cannot provide these then it puts your motivation for asserting there are unsafe plants in to question.

      We will attack wind and solar because as long as people believe that they can provide a solution, they will be chosen over nuclear – for whatever reason. The claims made by these renewable modes are simply wrong, and we have no intention of letting them continue to tell lies.

      Frankly I am deeply suspicious of posters like you that claim to support nuclear energy, and then suggest tactics that would have us leave wind and solar alone, or suggest that we should debate areas that we have already taken stands on. There has been a rash of “I support nuclear energy but…” posts on a number of pronuclear blogs by commenters never heard from before that smell of Astroturf, and suggest that they are attempting to undermine support for ther nuclear option, rather than encourage it

6. Careful that you reference oil prices against a same value standard that the Saudi’s do.

   The price of oil has dropped over the last 10 years from about 2.6g Au / barrel to 2.1g Au / barrel.

   The increase in USD oil price is largely due to the dilution of value and loss of faith in the USD.

   Not that I disagree with the thrust of the piece; just that there may well be more to the situation than a cursory price check reveals.

Comments are closed.